Anti- Anti-Trump, also Anti- Anti-Christian, yet also Anti-PC

Neo posts about Norman Podhoretz

when Podhoretz uses the phrase “my soon to be new set of ex-friends,” he’s harking back to a book he wrote in 2001 entitled Ex-Friends: Falling Out With Allen Ginsberg, Lionel and Diana Trilling, Lillian Hannah Arendt, and Norman Mailer.

Norman talks about becoming anti- anti-Trump; his son John remains a NeverTrumper.  Tho not as extreme as Bill Kristol.  Gets many parts of an interview from Ace.

In the comments is a reference to this great essay (I just copied).

My take on the great interview and essay:
Trump is a walking, talking rejection of multiculturalism and the post-modern ideas that support it. Trump believes there are such things as truth and history and his belief in these things is much more important than whether he always tells the truth himself or knows his history—which admittedly is sometimes doubtful.

I liked Norman’s being uncomfortable with the anti-Trump folk, and becoming anti-anti-Trump. I’m very much on board with being anti- anti-Christian; anti- anti-pro-life, and anti- anti-Rep. So I’m in the anti-PC group, and was, and remain, NeverHillary. Still hoping that they will Lock Her Up. (even think that Trump made a mistake not to push for a real investigation early – tho it’s not too late. And revenge; hm, isn’t that a dish best served cold?)

Trump fights against PC bull manure, and is fighting FOR America:
The core idea of each of these anti-P.C. blasts, when taken in aggregate, represent a commitment to America’s bourgeois culture, which is culturally “Judeo-Christian,” insists on having but one language and one set of laws, and values: among other things, loyalty, practical experience, self-reliance, and hard work. Trump was affirming the goodness of our culture. Odd as it may sound, he was telling us how to live a worthy life.

Wow, really a great essay. Tho he doesn’t mention another great essay, the Flight 93 election, Thomas K makes reference to how, without Trump, it might have gotten so bad it could never get back. My second thought, after 93, was it probably will never get back — but it might.

He finally points out what I’ve concluded, the primary source of the rot is at our colleges, especially our elite colleges.
the purpose of higher education, in particular elite higher education, is to train future citizens on behalf of the common good. If the elite universities are promoting multiculturalism, and if multiculturalism is undermining America, then the universities are violating their obligation to the common good no less than were they giving comfort to the enemy in time of war.

We need to end Fed research to colleges which discriminate against hiring Reps as professors; end tax-exempt status for them, and punish them as much as the law against discrimination allows.

Plus support Rep students filing suits against “hostile environments” by the colleges. We should plans on what to do drawn up, so Reps can propose those plans in 2020, get elected, and fulfill the plans. Gov’t supported ed requires hiring Reps as well as Dems.




Our House Divided: Multiculturalism vs. America

  American Mind (complete copy)

Following Trump’s lead—and Lincoln’s.

Many conservatives did not see that Trump had framed the 2016 election as a choice between two mutually exclusive regimes: multiculturalism and America. What I call “multiculturalism” includes “identity politics” and “political correctness.” If multiculturalism continues to worm its way into the public mind, it will ultimately destroy America. Consequently, the election should have been seen as a contest between a woman who, perhaps without quite intending it, was leading a movement to destroy America and a man who wanted to save America. The same contest is being played out in the midterm elections.

I realize the term “multiculturalism” is somewhat dated, but I mean to freshen it up by using it in its most comprehensive sense—as a political philosophy. Multiculturalism conceives of society as a collection of cultural identity groups, each with its own worldview, all oppressed by white males, collectively existing within permeable national boundaries. Multiculturalism replaces American citizens with so-called “global citizens.” It carves “tribes” out of a society whose most extraordinary success has been their assimilation into one people. It makes education a political exercise in the liberation of an increasing number of “others,” and makes American history a collection of stories of white oppression, thereby dismantling our unifying, self-affirming narrative—without which no nation can long survive.

During the 2016 campaign, Trump exposed multiculturalism as the revolutionary movement it is. He showed us that multiculturalism, like slavery in the 1850’s, is an existential threat. Trump exposed this threat by standing up to it and its enforcement arm, political correctness. Indeed, he made it his business to kick political correctness in the groin on a regular basis. In countless variations of crassness, he said over and over exactly what political correctness prohibits one from saying: “America does not want cultural diversity; we have our culture, it’s exceptional, and we want to keep it that way.” He also said, implicitly but distinctly: the plight of various “oppressed groups” is not the fault of white males. This too violates a sacred tenet of multiculturalism. Trump said these things at a time when they were the most needful things to say, and he said them as only he could, with enough New York “attitude” to jolt the entire country. Then, to add spicy mustard to the pretzel, he identified the media as not just anti-truth, but anti-American.

Trump is a walking, talking rejection of multiculturalism and the post-modern ideas that support it. Trump believes there are such things as truth and history and his belief in these things is much more important than whether he always tells the truth himself or knows his history—which admittedly is sometimes doubtful.

His pungent assertion that there are “shithole” countries was an example of Trump asserting that there is truth. He was saying that some countries are better than others and America is one of the better ones, perhaps even the best. Multiculturalism says it is wrong to say this (as it was “wrong” for Reagan to call the Soviet Union “evil”). Trump is the only national political figure who does not care what multiculturalism thinks is wrong. He, and he alone, categorically and brazenly rejects the morality of multiculturalism. He is virtually the only one on our national political stage defending America’s understanding of right and wrong, and thus nearly alone in truly defending America. This why he is so valuable—so much depends on him.

His shortcomings are many and some matter, but under present circumstances what matters more is that Trump understands we are at war and he is willing to fight. In conventional times, Trump might have been one of the worst presidents we ever had; but in these most unconventional times, he may be the best president we could have had.

2016 and the Meaning of America

“If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.”

Most conservatives did not see Trump in 2016 as a man defending America. This was in large part because they did not see that America was in need of defending. What conservatives did see was Trump’s policies (which didn’t line up with conservative ones) and his character (which didn’t line up, period), and they concluded the country was nowhere near in bad enough shape, and Hillary Clinton not enough of a danger, to justify enthusiasm for a man so manifestly unfit for the role.

In what might be a case of everybody’s-out-of-step-but-me, many conservatives have concluded that if the electorate voted into office a man so obviously unfit to be president, there must be something wrong with the electorate.

I think the explanation for Trump’s victory is actually quite straightforward and literal: Americans, plenty of whom still have common sense and are patriotic, voted for Trump for the very reason he said they should vote for him, to put America first or, as his campaign slogan had it, “to make America great again”—where “America” was not, as many conservatives imagine, code for “white people.” In other words, the impulse for electing Trump was patriotic, the defense of one’s own culture, rather than racist.

In a thoughtful essay in the Spring of 2017 on the future of the conservative movement, Yuval Levin expressed the view, common among conservatives, that the country was in decent shape. He was puzzled therefore why a number of thinkers associated with the Claremont school held “that things almost could not be worse” and that it was therefore necessary “to mount a total revolution.”

Levin and like-minded conservatives have matters backwards. Multiculturalism, not Trumpism, is the revolution. Trump’s campaign, and its defense by his intellectual supporters, was not a call for a revolution but a call to stop a revolution. Trump’s intellectual supporters did not say things could not get worse; they said without a sharp change in course there was a good chance we shall never get back home again.

Trump’s entire campaign was a defense of America. The election was fought not so much over policies, character, email servers, or James Comey, as it was over the meaning of America. Trump’s wall was not so much about keeping foreigners out as it was a commitment to a distinctive country; immigration, free trade, and foreign policy were about protecting our own. In all these policies, Trump was raising the question, “Who are we as a nation?” He answered by being Trump, a man made in America, unmistakably and unapologetically American, and like most of his fellow citizens, one who does not give a hoot what Europeans or intellectuals think.

Clinton, in the other corner, was the great disdainer, a citizen not of America but of the world: a postmodern, entitled elitist who was just more of Obama, the man who contemptuously dismissed America’s claim to being exceptional. What she called the “deplorables” were the “anti-multiculturalists.” She was saying, in effect, that she did not recognize the “deplorables” as fellow citizens, and they were, as far as she was concerned, not part of the regime she proposed to lead.

Perhaps Trump’s most effective answer to Clinton’s and the Democrats’ multiculturalism was his attacks on political correctness, both before and after the election. Trump scolded Jeb Bush for speaking Spanish on the campaign trail. He pointed out that on 9/11 some Muslims cheered the collapse of the twin towers. He said Mexico was sending us its dregs, suggested a boycott of Starbucks after employees were told to stop saying “Merry Xmas,” told NFL owners they should fire players who did not respect the flag, expressed the view that people from what he called “shitholes” (Haiti and African countries being his examples) should not be allowed to immigrate, exposed the danger of selecting judges based on ethnicity, and said Black Lives Matter should stop blaming others.

The core idea of each of these anti-P.C. blasts, when taken in aggregate, represent a commitment to America’s bourgeois culture, which is culturally “Judeo-Christian,” insists on having but one language and one set of laws, and values: among other things, loyalty, practical experience, self-reliance, and hard work. Trump was affirming the goodness of our culture. Odd as it may sound, he was telling us how to live a worthy life. Trump is hardly the ideal preacher, but in a society where people are thirsting for public confirmation of the values they hold dear, they do not require pure spring water. Even Trump’s crass statements objectifying women did not seem to rattle Trump women voters, perhaps because it did not come as news to them that men objectify women. In other words, Trump was being a man, albeit not the model man, but what mattered was that he was not the multicultural sexless man. A similar rejection of androgyny may have been at work in the Kavanaugh hearings.

It was only a generation or so ago that our elite, liberals as well as conservatives, were willing to defend America’s bourgeois culture, American exceptionalism, and full assimilation for immigrants. Arthur Schlesinger expressed his view of assimilation this way: the “Anglo-Saxon Protestant tradition … provides the standard to which other immigrant nationalities are expected to conform, the matrix into which they are to be assimilated.” That meant giving up one’s home culture, not necessarily every feature and not right away, but ultimately giving up its essential features in favor of American culture. In other words, there are no hyphenated Americans.

Trump understands that “diversity is our greatest strength,” which is multiculturalism boiled down to an aphorism, is exactly backwards. America’s greatest strength is having transcended race, and the one major exception was very nearly our undoing. In light of this history, the history of the world (one “tribal” war after another), and the multicultural car wreck that is Europe today, to manufacture cultural diversity is nothing less than self-immolating idiocy. Trump might not put it in these words, but he gets it. The average American gets it too, because it is not very difficult to get: it is common sense.

Conservatives and Republicans are Complicit

Trump’s strengths are his courage, his common sense, and his rhetoric. He gets to the essential thing, the thing that no one else will say for fear of being called a “racist” or “fascist” or one of the other slurs that incite the virtue-signaling lynch mob.

His “shithole” remark was one example. Another occurred in 2015 when Trump, after a terrorist attack, proposed a ban on all Muslims until “we figure out what the hell is going on.” Virtually everyone, the Right included, screamed “racism” and “Islamophobia.” Of course, to have defended Trump would have violated the multicultural diktat that Islam be spoken of as a religion of peace. But like Trump, the average American does not care whether Islam is or is not a religion of peace; he can see with his own eyes that it is being used as an instrument of war. When Muslim terrorists say they are doing the will of Allah, Americans take them at their word. This is nothing but common sense.

Trump’s attempt to remove District Judge Gonzalo Curiel from a lawsuit in which Trump University was the defendant, in part because of the judge’s Mexican ancestry, was another instance where cries of “racism,” from the Right every bit as loud as from the Left, substituted for common sense. It was thought absurd for Trump to claim the judge was biased because of his ethnicity, yet it was the elite’s very insistence in making ethnicity a factor in the appointment of judges that invited Trump to respond in kind. We make ethnicity an essential consideration and then claim ethnicity should not matter. That is not common sense.

Getting to the essential, commonsensical heart of the matter is the most important element of Trump’s rhetoric, but even his often cringeworthy choice of words sometimes advances the conservative cause. This is a sad reflection of the times, but these are the times we live in, and we must judge political things accordingly. When, for example, Trump mocked Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser, he was doing something else that only he can: taking multiculturalism, and its “believe all women” narrative, head on. We should continue to cringe at Trump’s puerility, but we should appreciate when it has value.

In each of these instances, when conservatives joined liberals in excoriating Trump, conservatives were beating up our most important truth teller. Conservatives and Republicans should be using these instances to explain America and what is required for its perpetuation. In the examples listed above, they should have explained the importance of having one set of laws, full assimilation, and color blindness; the incompatibility of theocracy with the American way of life; that under certain circumstances we might rightly exclude some foreign immigrants, not because of their skin color but because they come from countries unfamiliar with republican government. Instead conservatives are doing the work of the multiculturalists for them: insinuating multiculturalism further into the public mind. Conservatives have, without quite realizing it, agreed to play by the multiculturalist’s rules and in so doing they have disarmed themselves; they have laid down on the ground their most powerful weapon: arguments that defend America.

The Kavanaugh Hearings: Multiculturalism at Work

In exposing the dangers of multiculturalism, Trump exposed its source: radical liberal intellectuals, most of whom hang about the humanities departments (and their modern day equivalents) at our best colleges and universities, where they teach the multicultural arts and set multicultural rules. And from the academy these ideas and rules are drained into the mostly liberal, mostly unthinking opinion-forming elite who then push for open borders, diversity requirements, racism (which somehow they get us to call its opposite), and other aspects of multiculturalism.

Multicultural rules were in full force in the Kavanaugh hearings. Armed with the chapter of the multicultural creed that covers “male oppression of women,” Democrats could attack Kavanaugh with accusations conjured out of nothing. At the same time, multicultural rules required Republicans to fight with one hand behind their backs: they were forced to allow a case with no basis to go forward, could not attack the accuser, and had to use a woman to question her. Republicans reflexively accepted their assigned role as misogynists (and would have been accepting the role of racists had the accuser been black). True, Republicans had no choice; still when one is being played one needs to notice.

Had Trump tweeted, “I don’t give a rat’s ass about the sex or color of the questioner,” I suspect the majority of Americans would have applauded. After all, that is the American view of the matter. It’s not the average American who requires a woman questioner or a black one. We know that because Trumpsters have told us. It’s not typically the parents in our inner-city schools who demand teachers and administrators with skin color that matches that of their children. It’s not ordinary Mexican immigrants who are agitating to preserve their native culture. It’s the multiculturalists.

Multicultural rules flow from multiculturalism’s understanding of justice, which is based not on the equality of individuals (the American understanding) but on the equality of identity groups oppressed by white males. In the Kavanaugh hearings, the multiculturalists did not see a contest between two individuals but rather between all women who are all oppressed and all white men who are all oppressors. Americans claimed the multiculturalists violated due process and conventional rules of evidence, but from the multiculturalists’ perspective what Americans saw as violations were actually multiculturalism’s understanding of due process and rules of evidence. Americans were seeing a revolution in action.

We now find ourselves in a situation not unlike that which existed before the Civil War, where one side had an understanding of justice that rested on the principle of human equality, while the other side rested on the principle that all men are equal except black men. One side implied a contraction and ultimate extinction of slavery; the other, its expansion. It was a case of a ship being asked to go in two directions at once. Or to use Lincoln’s Biblical metaphor, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” Lincoln did not mean that the country could not stand part free and part slave. It could, as long as there was agreement that slavery was bad and on the road to extinction. But once half the country thought slavery a good thing and the other thought it a bad thing the country could no longer stand. It was the different understandings of justice that were decisive because when there are two understandings of justice, as in the Civil War and now, law-abidingness breaks down. In the Civil War, this resulted in secession. Today, this results in sanctuary cities and the “resistance.” To get a sense of how close we are to a complete breakdown, imagine that the 2016 election, like the Bush-Gore election, had been decided by the Supreme Court. One shudders to think.

What to do, and How to do it.”

Conservatives have been dazed by Trumpism. Even those conservatives who now acknowledge that Trump has accomplished some good things are not certain what is to be learned from Trumpism that might inform the future of the conservative movement.

The lesson is this: get right with Lincoln. He made opposition to slavery the non-negotiable center of the Republican party, and he was prepared to compromise on all else. Conservatives should do likewise with multiculturalism. We should make our opposition to it the center of our movement. Multiculturalism should guide our rhetorical strategy, provide a conceptual frame for interpreting events, and tie together the domestic dangers we face. We must understand all these dangers as part of one overarching thing.

This approach, however, will not work unless conservatives begin to think about politics like Lincoln did. That they do not may explain why so many of them missed the meaning of the 2016 election. This topic is complex but I think it comes down to this: As compared to Lincoln’s thinking about politics, conservative thinking tends to be too narrow (i.e., excludes too much) and too rigid.

What for Lincoln was the single most important political thing—the public’s understanding of justice—many of today’s conservatives think not important at all. It should not then be surprising why they missed, or underappreciated, the political dangers of multiculturalism with its assault on the American understanding of justice. Having missed or underappreciated multiculturalism, conservatives could not see that those attributes of Trump that in conventional times would have been disqualifying were in these times just the ones needed to take on multiculturalism. Trump was not a conventional conservative, yet his entire campaign was about saving America. This is where conservatism begins.

Education is another area that conservatives believe is less politically important than Lincoln did. Conservatives must relearn what Lincoln knew, and what, until the mid-twentieth century, our universities and colleges also knew: the purpose of higher education, in particular elite higher education, is to train future citizens on behalf of the common good. If the elite universities are promoting multiculturalism, and if multiculturalism is undermining America, then the universities are violating their obligation to the common good no less than were they giving comfort to the enemy in time of war. In such a case, the government, the federal government if need be, can rightfully impose any remedy as long as it is commensurate with the risk posed to the country and is the least intrusive option available.

Reorienting the conservative movement is a formidable undertaking, but we have a few big things in our favor: for starters, most of the country, including many who are not Trumpsters, appear to object to multiculturalism and its accompanying speech codes. In addition, multiculturalism, as with abolition, has the potential to energize the conservative movement. Conservatives, who are in the business of conserving things, come to life when there is something important to conserve because this allows them to stake out a very distinctive and morally powerful position with enough room to accommodate a broad coalition. In this case, that really important “something” is our country.

This essay may be reposted in full with, at top, proper attribution to The American Mind, a publication of the Claremont Institute, and a direct link to this page.
Thomas D. Klingenstein is a principal in the investment firm of Cohen, Klingenstein, LLC and the chairman of the Board of Directors of the Claremont Institute.

Notre Dame on Fire — Christianity is burning, will it burn down?

Copying (the sincerest form of flattery) from Ann Althouse links.  North Rose window:

The fire, before the spire falls.

It’s a horrific loss.

Fine 7 min history.

Live France 24


France’s civil security agency says “all means” except for water-dropping aircraft were deployed to tackle the blaze. The defense agency said those were unsuitable for fires like the one at Notre Dame because dumping water on the building could cause the whole structure to collapse….

Earlier Trump had tweeted, “Perhaps flying water tankers could be used to put it out,” so that answers that.

A Notre Dame spokesman said earlier that the church’s entire wooden interior was in flames….

On Thursday, 16 religious statues were removed from the peak for the first time in over a century to be taken for cleaning and therefore escaped the blaze.

Also seen early on Neo:

There is really no news on the cause of the fire, although you can easily speculate that the two leaders are accident and terrorism. Whichever it is, however, the symbolism of the decline of a great culture and a great religion springs obviously to mind.

Speculation only as to the cause.

My guess is that it was a “smart arson” attack that used careless reconstruction stuff to look like an accident, and to make it unlikely to find any evidence that it was arson (no empty gas cans just out of range).
Without strong evidence of arson, it will be called an accident.  Were it a cigarette, it could have been a real accident, terrible

This is certainly an omen of the decline of Christian based civilization. It is hugely (or just slightly?) based on the acceptance of homosexual priests and then acceptance of adult homosexual sex. Which is not illegal, unlike the pedophilia which law enforcement is being used to punish various pedophile priests, most of whom are homosexual. The Church does NOT seem to be getting rid of gay priests, but it needs to do so.

See how many priests died of AIDs.

The failure of the Church to integrate healthy marriage sexuality has created a Church culture of far too much hypocrisy.

This combines with the feminist capitalism unofficial de facto motto:
“Better a high paid wage-slave than a low paid mother”.

The West is suffering from a population neutron bomb — the buildings are left, but not the people. In Italy, where are the children? Or in France?
Oh, right — only the Muslims living in or near the “no-go” areas are having kids, lots of kids.
They are the future of France, and possibly of ex-Christian civ.

When young, I liked Ayn Rand. She, like many Libertarians (tho she was Rep), didn’t have children, nor even a faithful marriage.
Christian Capitalist civilization needs a rebirth of faithful marriages with more kids.
Christian European civ is definitely getting smaller, now. It might expand again.

Notre Dame. So beautiful and awesome, both. I only visited it once, in 1989, 200 years after the storming of the Bastille.
Maybe it really was just an accident, a careless cigarette.
Maybe a deliberate cigarette.
We’ll probably never know for sure.



Revolt against the elite – of the Masses; of the Public. We want our “American Dream”

Arnold Kling has long been following and promoting Martin Gurri’s book: The Revolt of the Public.

A similar 1930 Spanish book by Jose Gasset has been translated, The Revolt of the Masses, reviewed in GoodReads:

Ortega’s mass-man was supremely self-centered, threatened by greater intellect or knowledge, refinement, superior skill, etc. Rather than respecting people with such attributes, the mass feels compelled to ridicule them and tear them down. One can hear echoes of this attitude in the phrase, ‘Sure he’s smart, but it’s all from books. He has no common sense.’

This seems similar much that Gurri talks about in

Other quotes (from Amazon):

“All over the world, elite institutions from governments to media to academia are losing their authority and monopoly control of information to dynamic amateurs and the broader public. This book, until now only in samizdat (and Kindle) form, has been my #1 handout for the last several years to anyone seeking to understand this unfolding shift in power from hierarchies to networks in the age of the Internet.” —Marc Andreessen, co-founder, Netscape and Andreessen Horowitz

“We are in an open war between publics with passionate and untutored interests and elites who believe they have the right to guide those publics. Gurri asks the essential question: can liberal representative democracy survive the rise of the publics?” –Roger Berkowitz

What we are really upset about is the loss of our American Dream: a spouse, buying a home in a reasonable neighborhood, a good job (good enough?), some kids who can have their own dreams.  A big part of the Dream is to live better than our parents, to aspire to a “better life”.  We are losing that, as Joel Kotkin says in  The End of Aspiration.

Since the end of the Second World War,  middle- and working-class people across the Western world have sought out—and, more often than not, achieved—their aspirations. These usually included a stable income, a home, a family, and the prospect of a comfortable retirement. However, from Sydney to San Francisco, this aspiration is rapidly fading as a result of a changing economy, soaring land costs, and a regulatory regime, all of which combine to make it increasingly difficult for the new generation to achieve a lifestyle like that enjoyed by their parents. This generational gap between aspiration and disappointment could define our demographic, political, and social future.

This is also related to ever increasing income inequality, and especially wealth inequality.  Various proposals, some more silly than others, are being proposed.  My own current thoughts are both a low but progressive wealth tax and various more progressive income taxes that are revenue neutral, with the money mostly going back to married people with kids.  We also need better measures, like the top 1% income, top 10% income, median 50% income.  Here’s poverty report.

The money income Gini index was 0.482 in 2017, not statistically different from 2016. Changes in money income inequality between 2016 and 2017 were not statistically significant as measured by the other indicators: the Theil index, the MLD, or the Atkinson measure.

So, more work to find out these other measures.  I’m not thinking of my own 1-median and 10-median ratios:
(income at top 1%) / median = 1-median ratio.
(income at top 10%) / median = 10-median ratio.
(income at top 20%) / median = 20-median ratio.
(income at top 20%) / (income at bottom 20%) = 20 top/bottom ratio.  (80/20 percentiles).



China Rising! – or not?

Spengler has long been far more worried about China than Russia.  So he’s written a spy novel about China.

The Chinese are taking on the Muslims – brutally.  Probably effectively.


The Three-Body Problem is a hard science fiction novel by the Chinese writer Liu Cixin  << The Chinese have a different way of thinking than most Americans, and their Sci-Fi has a different flavor.

I suspect they will follow the Japanese into a fast catch-up trajectory, but then a pause.  Whether the masses understand the brutality and the human rights violations of the Chinese gov’t, or not, will be one of the key questions.  Most of the top Commie Party are multi-millionaires, many are billionaires.  When China’s econ growth slows, a lot, there will be unhappiness.  None know what will happen.

The beginning of Spengler’s book indicates far more control and power by the Chinese leaders.  Maybe their kind of National Communist Worker’s Party fascism will last and include successful foreign intervention and conquering territory.  They pretty much have Tibet.  Their West border Muslims will be suppressed, oppressed, and likely neutralized, with low level anti-gov’t violence.

They have 60 million or so young men who cannot have monogamous wives – too few women to go around (thanks to sex-selected abortions 40-10 years ago, plus a one-child policy).  I’m sure many will be willing to fight, to the death but also with lots of killing of other men, in order to get more women, er, territory.  Like Taiwan.

After Jews, but far far more numerous, the Han Chinese are the highest avg IQ group in the world.  If they get successful benign dictatorship gov’t, they will continue to grow.  In some ways they will surpass the USA.  They are now, and likely for the rest of our lives, the biggest threat to World Peace, as well as the biggest rival to USA “mostly peaceful” world hegemony.

One of the big unknowns is the huge gender imbalance, 30-40-60 million too many men.  What will happen?  What will the unmarried, and unmarriageable young men do? We should fear it for many reason.  I’m now reading that it’s about 80 million total combining both China and India.  Not sure where to get better stats, but it’s clearly an issue.

China needs women! …



Some Morality Links: Ben Carlson, Cardinal Sarah, Orban, Flanagan – college scandal

If it’s not a human being, then why are you harvesting organs from it?

A great Dr. Ben Carson quote; Ben works for the Trump administration.

Black Cardinal Sarah of Guinnea:

The spiritual crisis involves the entire world. But its source is in Europe. People in the West are guilty of rejecting God. They have not only rejected God. Friedrich Nietzsche, who may be considered the spokesman of the West, has claimed: “God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him…” We have murdered God. In view of God’s death among men, Nietzsche would replace him with a prophetic “Superman.”

The spiritual collapse thus has a very Western character. In particular, I would like to emphasize the rejection of fatherhood. Our contemporaries are convinced that, in order to be free, one must not depend on anybody. There is a tragic error in this. Western people are convinced that receiving is contrary to the dignity of human persons. But civilized man is fundamentally an heir, he receives a history, a culture, a language, a name, a family. This is what distinguishes him from the barbarian. To refuse to be inscribed within a network of dependence, heritage, and filiation condemns us to go back naked into the jungle of a competitive economy left to its own devices. Because he refuses to acknowledge himself as an heir, man is condemned to the hell of liberal globalization in which individual interests confront one another without any law to govern them besides profit at any price.


Orbán vows to stop migration, slams EU leaders << the BIG problem with EU elites right now.

Caitlin Flanagan, on how They Had It Coming – those cheating rich admin scandal “stars”.  (HT Rod Dreher)

All she wanted was an even playing field for her rich, white daughter! All she wanted was a few hundred SAT points so the girl didn’t get lost in the madness that has made college admissions so stressful, so insane, so broken, so unfair.

Morality is needed for capitalism to work; and Christian morality is, so far, the optimal cultural morality known.

We need to be able to physically connect, touch, often hug other people.

Tucker offers a good apology to Joe Biden.  I do think Biden was creepy semi-sexual, on the broad gray line between harassment and normal hugging.  But we need hugs.

Tucker does NOT want to live in a world where everybody treats others like they have a cold, all the time.  He rightfully calls that a SICK society.  PC Hell.  Like Dante’s final level down, icy isolation.

The scandal of Biden pushing Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who is investigating corruption — that’s a scandal that should kill Biden’s campaign.


Dinosaurs and Climate Change

Neo reminds us of some climate changes in the past, including the Little Ice Age.  But also the huge meteorite whose crash killed the dinosaurs.  Thru good articles in The New Yorker (which usually is too Dem for me).

How the Little Ice Age Changed History – a review of “Nature’s Mutiny” by Phillip Blom:

there is a complex relationship between the social, economic, and intellectual disruption caused by the changed climate and the emerging era of markets, exploration, and intellectual freedom which constituted the beginning of the Enlightenment. …

The most consequential effect of the frigid weather, Blom argues convincingly, was to disrupt the harvest, especially the grain harvest. It led to a fundamental shift in the social order across Europe, and beyond. The Little Ice Age amounted to “a long-term, continent-wide agricultural crisis,” as Blom writes. …

It is a book about a new economic system and the philosophical and cultural trends that accompanied it; climate is central to the story that it tells, but the connections don’t aim for the solidity of algebraic logic.

There is a similar book by Brian Fagan,  The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850

It seems more likely that we will get a fast, little ice age, than suffer much from global warming.  Lots of volcanos, for one thing – including the Yellowstone “super volcano”.

“Climate Change” covers both colder and hotter, but man-made warming has been for a couple of decades the chief fear of eco-Alarmists.

Valentina Zharkova predicts a little ice age coming, due to no sunspots, no magnetic flux protection from cosmic rays. (As Sergey says). Tho whether there will be more clouds or less is not so clear; I thought less clouds. And less clouds means more heat leaves the Earth, so it gets cooler.
But more clouds might also mean more heat is reflected even before it gets to Earth, so it gets cooler. Reversing these gives two inverse reasons for it to get hotter.

I believe in the “no sunspots” / no magnetic flux solar science prediction.
Zharkova says her climatologist contacts say this will mean global cooling. Starting soon – like in 2020.

My key takeaway — climate change damage is mostly floods and droughts. We should be spending more money to stop droughts and stop floods. The CA droughts and fires were more due to a failure to use tech and procedures we know about, than to “climate change”.
Similarly, the floods along the Missouri River are a failure to minimize floods — maybe because other eco aims took priority in water management actions.

The changes to agriculture should result in more money going to low-profit farms doing alternative crops (different from current stable temp “optimal”). So that, if the farming climate changes, it will be easier to adapt and still grow enough food.

For a bigger catastrophe, one that human civilization will NOT survive, see The Day the Dinosaurs Died.

If, on a certain evening about sixty-­six million years ago, you had stood somewhere in North America and looked up at the sky, you would have soon made out what appeared to be a star. If you watched for an hour or two, the star would have seemed to grow in brightness, although it barely moved. That’s because it was not a star but an asteroid, and it was headed directly for Earth at about forty-five thousand miles an hour. Sixty hours later, the asteroid hit. The air in front was compressed and violently heated, and it blasted a hole through the atmosphere, generating a supersonic shock wave. The asteroid struck a shallow sea where the Yucatán peninsula is today. In that moment, the Cretaceous period ended and the Paleogene period began.

We pray to have a stronger civilization before this happens again.

Conservative problem – econ success spoils the family, required for econ success

There have always been “spoiled rich kids”.  They are whiney, unhappy, ungrateful, demanding, lazy — and lots of other bad behaviors.  A real problem with successful Free Market Capitalism, is that the economic success often goes with families where some or all the kids are spoiled.

The bribery scandals for college is one form of the spoiled rich kids getting unfair help from their parents.  Unfair?  Is it ever unfair to help your kids?  Well, yes — bribing admissions officers to admit your kid is unfair, and illegal.

Free Beacon writes about William F. Buckley Jr. the father of “modern conservatism”,

Buckley wrote: “I like, roughly, in the order described: 1) God, 2) my family 3) my country, 4) J.S. Bach, 5) peanut butter, and 6) good English prose. Should these biases be identified when I write about, say, Satan, divorce, Czechoslovakia, Chopin, marmalade, and New York Times editorials?”

That expansive list of Buckley’s loves tells us something about the capaciousness of his heart and mind. The size of his personality and impact is why there is not a single Buckley legacy but several. …

The fusion of social conservatism and economic laissez-faire may present an intellectual problem, a potential inconsistency or conflict with which analysts have wrestled for more than half a century. It may also be true, as early neoconservatives pointed out, that the very success of market economics undermines the non-voluntary associations of family, church, community, and nation that are the foundations of social order.

I’m finding out that it’s not social conservatism that is undermined by the Free Market succes, but how so many kids of the free market successful turn out to be spoiled.

All too often, economic success allows the parents to spoil their kids, and the spoiled kids do NOT usually get better.  Only a few do.  Avoiding the spoilage of the kids is a huge deal, and for that we need all of family, church, and school.  For kids, school community is key.  That Reps & conservatives have stopped teaching at schools , and are now almost excluded from them, is bad for society.

A necessary change is to get colleges to hire more Reps.

The 60s, today; memories. Any path towards healing?

Arnold Kling takes a break from fine econ thoughts to remember the 60s.

How does the political and cultural polarization today compare to that in the 1960s?

1. The most bitterly polarizing issue was the Vietnam War.
2. When Richard Nixon became President and continued the war, with expanded bombing, the issue became more clearly partisan
3. Culturally, the hippies were a big phenomenon in the late 1960s.
4. Today, I would say that there is nothing as politically divisive as the Vietnam War. There is no enduring political issue per se.
5. What we see now is plenty of political rage, the actual issues that attract attention are relatively minor incidents that get magnified in the media
6. Today, the cultural divide is much starker. Social classes have much less interaction with one another, and this reinforces the tendency to demonize others.

On net, I believe that this is a more dangerous time than the 1960s.  But the path that led to healing of the divides of the 1960s is not available today. We will have to find a different path. [read it all]

Sex … and Drugs … and Rock’n Roll.

#4 – Building the Wall, today, is more divisive than the Vietnam War was.
I, too, recall being in Jr. High & HS, eating TV dinners and watching the body count reports. US -4 died, Viet Cong – 54 died. Every single day. For years. Most Americans wanted to: win and leave. Many guys were in college to avoid the draft (like Clinton); these folk were tired of LBJ’s lies about how victory was so close.

I lived next to Watts (in South Central LA; South Gate), where there were race riots. The racist white Democrats had lost the moral war to Martin Luther King, and were losing political power. Ex-Dem George Wallace ran for President in 1968, along with Humphrey (LBJ’s Dem VP), and Nixon. Racist Wallace actually won a couple of states EC votes (last non-Dem / non-Rep to win a state?) — that’s how Nixon got elected at first. He became popular by ending the draft, pushing Vietnamization, and preparing to win and leave.

Nixon had been hated by the commies and socialists even as Ike’s VP in the 50s, when he was a strong anti-communist. After the 1970 Kent State killings (4 dead in Ohio – Neil Young), it became cool to hate him. Such Dems offered radical McGovern as the Peace surrender Now candidate, since Peace was cool, but working folk were anti-radical; thus more square Nixon.

The 60s: sexual liberation was big, and got BIGGER — with The Pill. And more careers. Roe v Wade was in ’72 but was, like some Doors’ hits, an “extended 60s” issue. Abortion remains an issue.
Civil Rights for Blacks was big. Integration remained an issue — and is still an issue.
TV & Movies – being Cool was better than being Virtuous. (Lots of sex with hot chicks is always cool…)
Sex … and Drugs … and Rock’n Roll (x2)

It seemed gov’t programs were making progress on sexual equality and racial equality. But somehow, today, there is even more rage against such inequality, in outcomes, than there had been before.

#5 “minor issues” — No. Abortion, and being pro-life or pro-choice (? pro-abortion) is NOT a minor issue. Perhaps even more divisive than the Vietnam War, or the Wall, because whichever side is politically dominant, like the pro-abortion folk are now, means the pro-life folk lose. Yet keep fighting. And the fighting can get more bitter over time.

In the 60s and 70s, even 80s, there were Dems who favored abortion, and those who were more Christian and more pro-life. This was changing under Reagan and by Clinton 92, almost no pro-life Dems. Similarly, there were pro-choice Reps, even like CA gov. Schwarzenegger, a pro-choice Rep. There might even be a couple left, but there might now be no pro-abortion Republicans in Congress (tho Trump seems more a casual, lip service pro-life guy).

There were also Reps getting hired by colleges, so that students could get a real education. Because of the successful “open secret” discrimination against Reps over the decades, the subtle discrimination has become overt, and even more into demonization.

As long as the USA accepts colleges discriminating against Republicans, the polarization will be increasing. More Reps as professors may not be sufficient, but it is certainly a necessary condition for healing. (So that’s one thing I’m working towards now)

In the book Unmasking the Administrative State, John Marini notes:

How did it come to pass that the “draining of the swamp” would become a core aim of the Trump administration, impacting everything from judicial appointments to the federal budget and regulatory policy? Marini’s unmasking of the administrative state goes beyond bureaucracy or legalism to its core in an intellectual elite whose consensus transcends whatever disagreements flare up. The universities, the media, and think-tanks that denounce Trump are its heart.

The colleges feed the media.  The colleges feed the think-tanks.  The colleges feed the managers and later leaders of the big companies.  The colleges feed Big Tech.  Discrimination and demonization, against Reps, are endemic in the colleges.  That must be stopped.