“Lookism” is a term deployed mostly by the feminist left designed to impose social control.  Like the notion we can’t raise religious arguments in matters of public policy, it is supposed to render some aspects of the total person that people care about as illegitimate and irrational, while elevating others as legitimate and reasonable.  Of course, “looks aren’t everything,” and, to me at least, hardly matter in making a political choice.  On the other hand, we have a deeply rooted evolutionary based set of prejudices about looks.  Some people look honest, like leaders, and others creepy, shifty, etc.  And people to some extent grow into their looks; if you spend a lifetime engaged in deceit, you end up looking like Hillary Clinton.  And if you look like Ted Cruz, you may have a cloying personality like Ted Cruz.  Finally, didn’t Mitt Romney just look like he should be president!

Further, good looking people are often more secure, confident, and various genetic goods–smarts, health, looks–tend to run together.

Finally, the anti-lookism stuff is part of a broader degradation of standards.  Not only are we not to make judgments based on looks, we’re supposed to pretend everyone is equally good looking, which is ridiculous.  This is what the anti-body-shaming stuff is all about; we’re supposed to feel badly and second-guess or lie about about about our hard-wired notions of attractive and unattractive.  And we’re supposed to pretend all the health harms of obesity do not exist, even as we know science makes them pretty plain.

So, I don’t care much about looks in politicians, but I do care about the idea we will all be shamed into not caring about looks and how some people will make a big show of how we’re not supposed to care.  It’s part of a war on standards in all areas of life.  And in this case an expression of the resentment at the heart of the left, a thin-skinned, envious resentment that aims to discredit and take down all forms of success.

Milwaukee is in flames.  The cops shot an armed robbery suspect and, naturally, local blacks given to a tribal view of things decided to burn down gas stations, steal from stores, and target white people.

One might think Obama has moments of disquietude, reflecting on how this kind of throwback rioting-not seen on a large scale since LA in 1992–is a source of shame and failure for the first black President.  But that would be incorrect.  Barack was marketed by David Axelrod and others as a healer, a debonair mixed race intellectual who could heal the countries rifts because of his familiarity and sympathy with the concerns of both black and white Americans.

But he was no such thing.

He was, instead, a standard issue leftist from the black power school of thought, whose community organizing followed Saul Alinksy’s model of riling up poor minorities to demand more from the government and the “haves.”  Further, Obama’s racial identity and allegiances all were in the black camp; he married a black woman, wrote a book about his African father, and, though technically mixed race, was abandoned by his mother and always harbored insecurity about being accused of “selling out” due to his sinecure gig in Hyde Park, his educational accomplishments, and his overall success.

Rioting is not a bug but a feature of leftist community organizing.  Riots, like letter writing campaigns and other methods of community organizing, are designed to produce certain results. They demand attention.   Race riots in particular fit into a broader narrative, and that narrative is one of black despair of white racism and the need for more programs to placate the rioters.  Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton routinely threaten a “long hot summer” if their preferred job programs and giveaways do not materialize. After the 1992 LA Riots we heard ad nauseum about how it was the product of “12 years of neglect.”  And Obama, as a law professor and Illinois State Senator, spoke of the need for wealth redistribution and rewriting the traditional American balance of state and citizen.  After Ferguson, Baltimore, and Jena, all he could do was tell white people they need to do a better job of listening.

The whole tone of the Obama presidency is an ironic one.  We have endured the unlikely prospect of an anti-American radical hostile to the nation’s traditional values being in charge of our nation’s executive branch.  Thus we see ourselves weakened abroad, our government’s reach expanding at home in unprecedented ways, and, in the “dialectic” mode so common to the left, we receive little credit for all of the progress that has already occurred by the left’s own standards, whether it is the end of slavery and Jim Crow, the numerous black successes in entertainment, sports, and business, or the fact that a majority-white nation elected a black president.  Not only does that progress, such as it is, not count for very much, but the old sources of national pride–our conquest of a continent, lack of strong class consciousness, our “can do” spirit, our mastery of science and technology, our prowess on the battlefield,  our strong collective sense of fair play and justice–count for very little.

Obama, judging by his remarks, only feels generally that it is his place to put “white America” in its place, asking for national conversations on race that end up being monologues, harping on the very small number of police crimes while changing the story regarding black crime to one of technology, i.e., “gun violence.”

Far from feeling failure, Obama no doubt feels triumphant.  Where whites see pointless, nihilistic disorder in these riots, Obama sees an intefadah–the Arab word for the Palestinian uprising translated as “throwing off”–directed to the legacy of racist cops, an unfair economic system, and a nonviolent, consensus-oriented civil rights movement of yesteryear that appealed to traditional American notions of fair play.

Obama’s presidency is a remarkable success on its own terms.  But like other leftist successes, it may be creating a backlash, symbolized in part by the Trump movement, which is the most racially self-conscious and anti-leftist political movement seen since the Wallace campaign at the height of the civil rights era.

So we’re all supposed to be upset Trump played hardball with the parents of one of 14 Muslim soldiers who have died in the service of the United States in the War on Terror.  Well, it was probably not good politics, even if Khan abusively suggested Trump never read the Constitution or had a “black heart” and all the rest.  Parents of dead kids are often pissed off and irrational.  It would be better to say I am sorry for their loss and respect their sacrifice, but they’re the exception.

The reality is this guy’s dead kid doesn’t give him a right to win a political debate on Islam.  Muslim soldiers–let alone Muslims like Orlando shooter Omar Mateen or San Bernardino shooter Sayed Farouk–have killed more of their fellow soldiers than Muslim soldiers have been killed.  Nidal Hasan killed at least 13 by himself.  Furthermore, these Muslim soldiers have mostly been killed by fellow Muslims, just as Muslims regularly kill each other in Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq, and elsewhre.  Whether the terorrists are “real Muslims” or not is somewhat irrelevant.  They self-identify as such, and far more than a small percentage of Muslims are sympathetic with their violent, anti-American, and anti-Western activities.

Islam is a dangerous and unnecessary foreign import to the Western World; the fact that there are some that are not dangerous doesn’t change this important fact.  And only Trump has had the moral courage to call for the most sensible policy imaginable, a total ban on the import of additional Muslims.  I would take it further and say our long-term policy should be to repatriate those already living here.  They’re simply too dangerous as a group, and sometimes we must generalize about groups.  This is called common sense, and this is the kind of common sense that is disallowed by political correctness.

Either Hillary or Trump will be the next president.  I knew when not voting for the war-mongering McCain in 2008, Obama would be president.  I still think Obama was preferable to McCain, even in hindsight, because a nuclear war because of McCain’s stupidity was a real risk and a bigger problem to the country than Obamacare or other foreseeably bad Obama policies.  Further, the party needed a nationalist realignment, which it now has.  I admittedly thought Obama would be out in four.  I happily supported Romney in 2012, despite certain significant reservations about his foreign and immigration policy and conservative bona fides.  I thought his biggest qualifications were his instincts as a businessman and his patriotism, both qualities he shares with Trump.

Hillary will be a massive disaster and no one denies it.  Nothing will restrain her.  And she’s not a patriotic friend of the American people.  She hates this country and its people and wants to transform them through legal interventions, importing a new people, and brow-beating of their traditional values, much like Obama did.

More important, let’s not forget, our “limited government” that Trump’s nascent fascism supposedly threatens, is now in large part undertaken at the pleasure of an anti-American and unrepresentative cabal in the Third Branch.  That branch must be restrained from its excesses.  It–not the American people–must be stripped of respect and legitimacy and rebuilt.  Trump’s shown an understanding and willingness to do so.  That alone should matter to purist limited government conservatives, since no matter what else we achieve politically at any level of government is frequently undone, reversed, or foiled by hateful, unpatriotic, meddlesome people like Ginsburg and Sotomayor.

We live in the age of the Mass Man. The Middle Class has been destroyed by globalism, debt, a stagnant economy, taxes, inflation, and wage competition from imported foreigners.  We can’t expect an old style politics without an old style people, i.e., European majority, property-owning, entrepreneurial, proud, educated to revere our ancestors and traditions.

We must adapt to this new, ugly reality.  Trump represents the proletarianized, patriotic, forgotten, mostly white, former middle class.  Hillary represents the mostly nonwhite, nonworking parasite class.  The elites share little in common with either of these large groups.  And the elite leans for various social and aesthetic reasons left.  But the elite is not where the action or the votes are.  They (we) don’t have the numbers.  And we don’t have the problems and challenges, frankly, of these two groups.

Trump has shown he cares about the patriotic working half of the proletariat.  Hillary, the non-working half.  Trump has some credibility here because he is not of this group, but has long had affection for them.  And has strength and experience and will to fight for them.  In those circumstances, I’ll take Trump and his people any day of the week. When Trump says “Make America Great Again” at least part of that message is restoring the wealth, honor, and status of this forgotten group who have been pushed downward by a pincer movement of a hateful elite and a grasping and greedy underclass.  If you don’t like Trump’s style, tone, and message, you have to change the underlying conditions.  And Trump’s nationalist policies are the only way to do that.


Earlier this week there was a mass murder of over 80 people perpetrated by a native-born Muslim in Nice, France.  Then we saw the murders of three police in Baton Rouge, which closely follows a murder of five policemen in Dallas.  Finally, we saw the failure of a coup in Turkey, which will strengthen Erdogan and his Islamist oriented regime.

These events are different facets of the same phenomenon.

In both Europe and America we are witnessing the decline of the democratic capitalist consensus.  It appeared a stable system.  As argued by Francis Fukuyma, it heralded the End of History, and emerged as the dominant system worldwide since World War II. Characterized by the rule of law, a capitalist economic system, a robust economic safety net, equality of citizens, free trade, open borders, and the rule of law, it not only appeared unassailable, but it was the source of America’s massive industrial and economic edge during the Cold War, the wellspring of its status as the sole superpower after the end of the Cold War, and the source of massive internal wealth, peace, and stability among the Western powers.  This strength attracted economic migrants from the semi-socialist, authoritarian systems of the Third World. Not founded on the romantic and authoritarian nationalism of the interwar years, modern democratic capitalist systems retained legitimacy and popularity, appearing to offer a solution to the previously contested status of ethnic and religious minorities and appeared to allow unlimited immigration of newcomers by treating all as equal citizens and by expanding wealth steadily.

Now these regimes have stumbled and found themselves under attack in a very dramatic fashion, finding enemies and critics from every cohort.  Their ability to deliver the practical goods of government–basic items like order, peace, and prosperity–is more and more in disrepute.  The modern democratic capitalist regime is now subject to corrosion within and assault from without by different species of tribalism.  These attacks are not isolated events so much as a multipronged assault on the very legitimacy of the democratic capitalist order.

The Internal Threat

Internally, tribalism has persisted into the alleged age of the “Last Man.”  Racial, ethnic, linguistic, and regional distinctions have been a growing source of identity, as well as friction and mutual recrimination, in both Europe and the United States.  The superficially distinct claims of Black Lives Matter and the message of Donald Trump have something in common:  each rejects the ethnically neutral democratic capitalist consensus.  The former does so by the assertion of minority rights through a critique of the majority’s right to govern under neutral laws, and Trump represents the expression of an implicitly tribal claim to rule by the once dominant white majority of the United States.

We have seen similar conflicts centered on the mode of regime legitimacy (i.e., who can rule and why) in Ukraine, Yugoslavia, the former Soviet Union, as well as the American South during the Civil Rights Era.  In each, subnational and transnational allegiances of ethnicity and religion functioned as an alternative to the secular, ethnically-neutral state.  The ubiquity of these conflicts suggest the democratic capitalist regime is more fragile than its dominance may make it appear.

As in other movements of “national liberation,” political violence delegitimizes the state and creates a feedback loop whereby other sources of safety, security, and legitimacy gain currency.  In areas of weak state control like Africa or the 1990s Russian Federation, mafia and private security predominanate. The American state remains strong, for now, but its ability to deliver is increasingly in jeopardy.  And its control is uneven, with large arenas of lawlessness, including with regard to control of the border, but also in the persistence of anarchic American ghettos. Indeed, the Black Lives Matter movement may unwittingly strengthen the very modest tribalism of American whites as a pure matter of self defense.  And while Trump’s arguable majority tribalism may appear identical to the majority rule elections of democratic capitalism, it is distinct insofar as the claim to legitimacy is not a broad-based, ethnically neutral collection that also amounts to a majority, but rather it is a nostalgic claim to the right of a certain tribe for reasons of history and superiority of culture without regard to whether it is a numerical majority or minority.

Mass immigration has also weakened the ethnic solidarity of the nation-state and increased the tribalism of the legacy majority.  The liberal democratic regimes of postwar Europe took their ethnic homogeneity for granted; indeed, one of the brutal, but eventually salutary historical events after World War II was the mass movement of national groups into their respective nation-states.  Abuse of national minorities–Germans in the Sudetenland, French in the Saarland, or Poles in the Volhynia–was one of the major pretexts of European wars and internal conflict for the preceding 150 years.  After this mass movement of peoples, the near perfect coincidence of national and political boundaries reduced this potential cassus belli.

This happy circumstance has been undone by mass immigration.  Europe and the United States now find themselves as states with defined boundaries, but these boundaries include again multiple “nations” living in a single place, particularly in the case of Europe, which has recklessly introduced many millions of Muslims and other migrants from the neighboring and very different Middle East.  The United States also finds its once more-assimilated black minority living within self-segregated communities devoid of law and order, complete with different anti-social cultural standards, such as “no snitching,” and hostility to “white” justice and “white” law enforcement.  Our black President is not an advocate for the legitimacy of the democratic capitalist system–which many hoped in vain that he would be–but instead an agitator of the worst kind, encouraging continued alienation of the poor and ethnic minorities from the values majority.

The External Threat

Externally, the nation-state is threatened by a combination of things.  The power of international business makes the state conform to the old Marxist propaganda trope as a tool of capital devoted to their institutional interests, even when contrary to the national interest.  Never was this seen more clearly than in the supine response of national authorities to the economic crisis of 2008, culminating in the various bailouts.  But religion is the most salient transnational force of all, uniting multiple races, language groups, and people across class and other lines on the basis of a grand unifying idea.  And nowhere is this unity translated in a more profound way than through Islam.

Islam is a unique and uniquely political religion.  It combines the universality of Christianity with the complete life program of Orthodox Judaism and, unlike Judaism, demands the imposition of this program on believer and unbeliever alike.  Indeed, for Islam, legislation is a divine province. Anything short of the enactment of Sharia is the intrusion of human conceit upon what is believed to be a perfect and divinely ordered system.  So in the Middle East and now to Europe and America, visitors, native-born, and immigrants alike are more loyal to Islam than to their respective nation states.  They conceive of themselves as members of a transnational Islamic community, the Ummah, which unlike the “God and Country” loyalty of Christianity does not allow rendering unto Ceasar–that is to say any particular, democratic capitalist government–anything other than grudging and prudential respect. When numbers change, Islam becomes more aggressive.  Sharia is not a fringe component of Islam; it’s a key feature of its universal program.  And thus democratic capitalism with its supposedly universal principles of the rule of law, equal rights for women, religious freedom, and respect for the rights of artists and writers and philosophers, finds that these foundational principles are all up for grabs among its Islamic newcomers.

The Turkish coup pitted an Islamist opponent of democratic capitalism, who happened to be elected, with the Turkish military’s nationalist secular authoritarian claim of legitimacy, which also happens to be a rejection of democratic capitalism.  More important, in France, Belgium, Orlando, and everywhere else Islamic terrorism occurs, the Islamic alternative justifies itself as the restoration of honor to and the practical promotion of a divinely ordered alternative to democratic capitalism. The use of democracy, terrorism, or something else is immaterial.  It is diametrically opposed to the old order in the two most relevant ways:  its claim of legitimacy is divorced from the historical claims of the nation-state, democratic capitalist or otherwise, and its substantive goals are more concrete and illiberal than the consensus items of democratic capitalism..

Far from being a random string of grim occurrences, the events of the last few days evidence a fractured, contested, and increasingly ineffective legacy regime; namely, the post-national states organized under the principles of democratic capitalism.  They are beset by attractive alternatives based on very different grounds of  legitimacy and different sources of trust, some of which come from levels lower than the nation-state but that also cross state boundaries, such as race and religion.

Ideology Over Experience

The early success of democratic capitalism appears to have created a certain amount of confusion.  It has in fact been very successful, but the genius of Western democratic capitalist regimes was abstracted from their more granular reality.  What appeared accidental–culture, ethnicity, religious heritage–may have proved decisive.  While these systems were formally indifferent to these aspects of national life and defined in part by that indifference–through equality before the law of all national groups or official indifference to religion–these differences may have only been irrelevant insofar as they were statistically modest.

Judging by recent events, as well as the United States’ 100 plus years of racial conflict, these types of differences can stress a system that presupposes, in spite of its universal form, the particular and local substance of a western, Christian, rule-of-law-oriented culture.   If the 20th Century was the time when the democratic capitalist regime rose to prominence, we may find that the older loyalties and forms of tribe, race, and religion will replace it. The failure of the modern, neutral, democratic capitalist nation state to contain and supplant these kinds of loyalties suggests the rise of this regime was a happy accident of pre-political conditions of unity that no longer prevail, because they were deemed superfluous in a “universal” democratic capitalist system.  Far from being universal, that system may be simply an expression of the fragile, historical, and increasingly weak ideals and customs of Northern European peoples, including the legacy North Americans.

A rather brilliant comment from “Edmund” over at Porter’s blog.  I thought I’d share in full:

The insanity of the left reminds me strongly of their communist brethren. In each case, the crazed Marxists decide that some ineluctable part of human nature is the root of all evil, and declare their intention to destroy it forever in order to make the world into Utopia. The communists targeted the human acquisitive instinct — a survival trait — and tried to destroy it. The demographic traitors of today target the human tribal instinct — an even more important survival trait — and try to destroy it.

Yet in each case, the fanatics remain the puppets of the very instincts they attempt to destroy. And thus, instead of destroying them, they come to embody them in a grotesque, schizophrenic fashion. The communist states, dedicated to eliminating capitalism, turned into huge tyrannical monopolistic corporations, their assorted politboros functioning as murderous boards of directors.

The supposed anti-tribalists of today become utterly fixated on tribe — displaying frenzied, bellicose loyalty to other tribes and hatred of their own. Each group of utopian fanatics becomes the exemplar of the very instinct it purports to hate, and embodies it in a horrifyingly exaggerated form. Thinking themselves above the instinct, they make no effort to control it in themselves, allowing it to shape their every thought and action, transforming them into tyrants.

Thus, the response of these creatures to an alien tribe’s attack on their own tribe, as in the case of Dallas, is neither to exhibit healthy, normal tribalism, nor to somehow rise above the tribal instinct. Instead, they dive even deeper into their worship of the Other and extend sympathy and understanding to people who want them, their children, their race, and their culture dead.

Perversion is the only word that even starts to sum up this mental state. Communism is a deviant, aberrant form of the economic instinct. Multiculturalism is a degenerate, depraved, sick form of the tribal instinct.

They think they’re heroes and they’re really just destructive freaks; multiculturalism is literally an abnormal, deviant behavior.

While there has always been racial tension and division in America, I have never seen it burn at such a fever pitch.  A kind of race war is going on. The causes are many, but the most important is that the two main groups evaluate and experience the world differently.

For middle class whites, cops are the good guys.  They protect them, their children, and their property.  They might have a rude traffic cop encounter, but their basic respect for the role and sense of obedience due to law enforcement is widespread.

For blacks, even middle class blacks, police are seen as a potentially dangerous group.  Some of this stems from the ways black criminality creates burdens on law abiding blacks.  They are, as a group, more likely to be stopped and frisked, more likely to have relatives “in the system,” and more likely to have been in the system themselves. They can never know how much these interactions have something to do with their race.  Even not-strictly-racial situations of mistaken identity are likely cold comfort to the law abiding.  Unlike whites, an anti-authority attitude is instilled into many from a young age through a variety of stories and myths about police, the past, and the racist nature of the system.  In short, there is more lawbreaking, followed by more (and more aggressive) law enforcement attention, culminating in a great deal of resentment by the entire group.

Added to this situation are two important stressors. One, we have elected a black president, but he has largely not stood up to defend the government he is entrusted to manage.  While whites thought they were buying peace and that his background would provide him enhanced moral authority, he views his role not as a uniter, but as a gadfly, who can question the hagiographic history of our youth, our myths, and our self confidence. We were invited to a “national dialog” on race that turned out to be a hectoring monologue. Far from encouraging better behavior and a greater sense of responsibility and satisfaction among the most marginal blacks, Obama mostly devotes his rhetoric to cajoling whites and attacking the “system,” which he views as having deep structural flaws.  In the end, he has made whites and blacks less trusting of public institutions, less connected by a sense of shared nationhood, and more mutually suspicious than they were when he began office.

Second, we have a media apparatus that elevates the unusual, unrepresentative, and provocative into prominence.  Their motives stem from the same liberalism as Obama:  hostility to any concept of whites having moral authority over the nation of which they are the majority.  And these stories, fueled by video, explode into national consciousness before important facts are known.  In Minnesota, for example, we have the girlfriend’s peculiar and calm narration of events right after a shooting where her boyfriend-victim allegedly had a concealed carry permit and lay dying next to her.  Who knows?  Maybe.  Before we can catch our breath, the stories are out there. It’s a kind of of lie by partial omission; the completely rare dozen or so bad police shootings a year overshadow the millions of nonviolent arrests, the thousands of black on black shootings and, for that matter, the smallish number of wrongful police shootings of whites.

This focus on the unusual as if it were common and on the rise creates an extremely negative feedback loop.  Police can use less force when there are higher levels of trust and respect.  And crime goes down when the police are both feared and respected.  Instead, we have open season on cops perpetrated by the most marginal sympathizers with Black Lives Matter, and then we have those killers cheered on as if they were avenging angels, rather than demented psychopaths.  This would all be of lesser moment if it were all fringe; but it’s not.  One of the two leading presidential candidates has made common cause with the basic Black Lives Matter narrative, which encourages violence and chaos.

The person best positioned to question the self-serving (and self-destructive) myths of black moral exquisiteness and mass victimization by white racism is Barack Obama.  Here, he has failed spectacularly; instead, in true Alinsky fashion, he has unleashed the unrighteous anger of a fragile community that needs, more than anything else, a moral renewal, self-control, and a sense of responsibility for its own role in perpetuating a cycle of violence both within itself, towards whites, and towards the police.  If this does not occur, even more suppression, whether from government or otherwise, is inevitable.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers