A very important piece by Queen Ann on why the entire establishment is somewhat at fault in Parkland due to an Obama-era initative to stop the “school to prison” pipeline by simply ignoring the crimes of young criminals.

As you can imagine, this brilliant ploy has (a) made life unpleasant for those unfavored groups who must go to school with these criminals and (b) required authorities to ignore the numerous warning signs and real crimes by someone like Nicholas Cruz in favor of falsely presenting him to society as a decent human being so that he can get a job (as if the underlying behavior itself may not be a problem for he and others similarly situated).  Cruz was a nut who had committed numerous disqualifying crimes prior to going on a shooting spree, but we wouldn’t want this kind of record to stop him from becoming an astronaut some day.

This kind of statistical legerdemain makes me skeptical of the entire nationwide drop in crime in recent years.  How much is driven by the desire to paper over the real cost of diversity not only in schools but everywhere?  After all, if cops are under great pressure from the powers that be not to “turn a good boy bad” by giving him a felony, they can engage in the equivalent of “catch and release,” the crime never gets counted, and thus we can say things are great when they are not.

Added to this are emerging technologies like Netflix, Amazon, and the like.  Even in a time of great diversity, the middle classes have simply avoided malls, theaters, and the other places they may encounter diversity, even when living in increasingly diverse locales.  The e-commerce economy functions, in part, to permit all of the benefits of a highly advanced society without ever having to leave the house.

Finally, homicides are hard to hide, but they are definitely down.  We must remember, however, that medical care is very good and always getting better.  What would have been homicides years ago may now be mere maimings, and no one cares much about those.  

So between gaming the stats, self-help, and expert medical care, the nationwide crime drop may be concealing an increasingly friction-filled world, particularly in places like South Florida, where everyone is from somewhere else and little holds these communities together.


All normal people are horrified by mass shootings, particularly when the victims are young people, just as we all are horrified by large plane crashes and other tragedies.  But for some of these shootings, such as the recent one in Parkland, Florida, the talk of “act now” has become more prominent.

The “we have to act now and STFU” rhetoric from the left is disturbing.  Doesn’t it matter if a law is going to do any good?  Doesn’t it matter if such a law may lead to massive civil disobedience?  Doesn’t it matter that so few such shooting sprees and crimes with rifles generally ever take place?  And finally doesn’t it matter that everywhere from Egypt to the Soviet Union to Cuba and the Jim Crow South, we have seen instances of oppressive government that were limited, in part, by the right of lawful gun ownership?

Facts have no place in this debate.  It’s a culture wars thing.  The whole point of these calls for gun control is to set up lines of demarcation between the evil and the elect.  Standing up for gun control shows one’s good faith by separating oneself from the uncouth, potentially violent, backwards, and otherwise disagreeable gun-owning class.  Other cultural issues, from violence-saturated movies and video games to divorce and the decline of trust and the widespread use of antidepressants are all totally off the table.

This failure to even attempt to offer reasoned arguments and counter the arguments of opponents is perhaps he biggest reason certain cost-effective compromises–perhaps raising age to buy AR-15s to 21–is not possible.  The goal to ban and confiscate guns is evident, and it is also evident that this arises from a more general desire to oppress, control, and hate the group that owns guns, that is the conservative, mostly white, flyover voters that brought about Trump.

The Memo

I don’t have much unique to add to the already roaring voices of discontent.  I believe the memo exposes the use of a shady, Clinton-campaign funded opposition research memo to authorize FBI resources to spy on the Trump Campaign.  Further, this was done multiple times, and the provenance of the memo was concealed by the DOJ and FBI from the Court to whom it should have been revealed.  Comey, McCabe, and Rosenstein are all over this.  This is a  complete and total abuse of law enforcement powers for low, partisan purposes.  Shameful.

Byron York has a good write up, as does Chris Bursick and the Wall Street Journal.  

Just a few thoughts.  #MemoGate shows that the only Russian collusion was between Hillary campaign and Russia, through Fusion GPS and its spy, Christopher Steele, who paid, bribed, and listened to various Russians who defamed Trump for various reasons, including, perhaps, undermining his presidency should he win.  Imagine if George W Bush used lies to get FISA warrants against Kerry or Obama based on shady oppo research?  This is an incredible abuse of power by a politicized FBI under Obama.

Second, the FBI’s halo needs to be brought down.  There is no “independent” FBI, and, like the CIA, NSA, the military, and all the rest that is part of the executive branch, it is answerable to the elected President and Congress.  We should remember the FISA Court itself is a product of the Church Commission, which investigated FBI abuses during the 60s and 70s.  Why assume that rogue ethos has completely disappeared?

Truthfully, other than those at the top, I expect there are few died-in-the-wool libs among the rank-and-file agents, but, nonetheless, they should be generally speaking held accountable. And the memo shows that their claimed need for secrecy is as much about avoiding embarrassment as it has anything to do with national security.  The memo has been treated as both a “nothing burger” and the destroyer of worlds.  Both can’t be true.

Finally, is there no common ground anymore?   Nancy Pelosi moved heaven and earth to expose the CIA’s use of potentially illegal torture to root out al Qaeda.  Right or wrong, at least then she stood on the side of transparency and exposure of information to the public, which mostly shrugged upon learning of this act taken in extremis.  Is there anything that could be exposed done by the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Obama administration more generally that would raise more than a shrug? Is there any common principle–other than mere partisanship–that extends from administration to administration?

Nixon lost the Republicans with his cover up.  But, as Clinton showed with his sheer force of will during his scandals, simply pressing forward seems to have some value politically speaking.  People are forgetful. And many of the top Democrats, I would say, are quite simply more partisan and more lawless than Republicans, particularly as they are as incensed about Trump as Republicans were about Obama.

And that’s not a good thing, as both parties should and do, to some extent, keep an eye on the other when it is in power.  Both should have some common respect for the broad ideal of the rule of law.   But the Swamp, sadly, seems to look at the people and their oversight as a whole as the problem.  For them, the rules are merely for show, for the little people, and as tools to get their opponents, rather than being internalized as limits on their own conduct.  It’s really sad that more people aren’t troubled by these apparent excesses and abuses.  Because there are worse things than a Trump or an Obama getting elected, depending on your point of view; it is more troubling if elections no longer matter and are policed by a very unqualified group, a group with extensive authority, whose chief interest is their own power and privilege.  We are entering Soviet territory these days, and, like the late Soviet Union, may find the gap of privilege and wealth from the nomenklatura and the rest of us is simply too much for ordinary people to bear.

During the campaign, Trump spoke of cleaning the swamp, and it’s hard to believe that a rough-talking and sometimes crude Queens businessman would be the person to do that.  But the Swamp is a metaphor, and it’s more like a reeducation camp, a loony bin, or a decadent Versailles of a new age.  Trump is exactly the person to straighten it out, because the straight jacket of our age comes wrapped in soothing platitudes and new standards of politeness:  sensitivity, being inclusive, celebrating diversity, and all the rest.  And, in the process, we are giving away our country, our native born sons are in decline, and our collective flourishing is being undermined by violence, disunity, and parasitic newcomers.

Trump is asking the right questions on immigration that have been relegated to the sidelines or worse by the bipartisan consensus:  Who should come here? How many? And what qualities should these people have? And how do they contribute to our common good, if at all, once they are here?

Andrew Klavan, with whom I was not previously familiar, had this excellent analogy to the role Trump is playing and the nature of the pieties he is upsetting:

I frequently compare Trump to Randle Patrick McMurphy, the loudmouthed, ill-mannered roustabout from Ken Kesey’s brilliant novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. McMurphy comes into an insane asylum controlled by a pleasant, smiling nightmare of a head nurse named Ratched. Nurse Ratched, while pretending to be the soul of motherly care, is actually a castrating, silencing tyrant. Her rules of good manners, supposedly fashioned for the benefit of all, are really a system of mental slavery. All of McMurphy’s salient character flaws suddenly become heroic in the context of her oppression. Only his belligerent ignorance of what constitutes good behavior can overturn the velvet strangulation of her rule.

If one can’t call Haiti a shithole without this being controversial, something is seriously wrong with our culture and its leaders.  This fact is obvious, and how much any failed nation’s traits are contagious through mass immigration of it nationals is an issue worth taking very seriously or we may find ourselves with a Toussant Louverture in our midst.  I’d rather have a leader that speaks the truth, the real truth that matters, rather than someone who politely supervises our collective destruction.

Haiti Struggles With Death And Destruction After Catastrophic Earthquake

How dare anyone fail to see the charms of Haiti?

Watching media freak out over Trump’s “shithole” comment reminds me why he won. He said something everyone knows is true. You can’t deny these countries (Haiti, Honduras) are not very nice.  They’re poor, dirty, poorly governed, chaotic, corrupt, and generally the opposite of the United States of yore.  One or two photos make it clear.  Nor if you are logical can you deny that a decent amount  of their people aren’t very nice or talented either.  It’s not the physical environement, but the demographic and cultural one that made these countries the way they are.  And, indeed, there are degrees of bad, as the sharp line of demarcation between unforested Haiti and forested Dominican Republic makes clear if you ever happen to fly over them.

These people want to come here for a reason.  Obviously, many are good and motivated people, dissatisfied with the countries they’re born into.  But they risk turning our country more like they countries they came from if too many come. Everyone knows this. This is normal dinner table talk. And the media is losing it and the Democrats are about to fall into a trap by showing their enthusiasm for low-skill, poor, third-world immigration and denying the obvious about the countries they come from.  After all, if these countries aren’t shitholes, what’s so bad about deporting people to them?

Half of Trumps appeal is destroying taboos of political correctness. What we think and what we “are allowed to say” is more divergent than in the late Soviet Union. And people know it and are sick of it.

It’s starting to unravel, and the naked partisanship behind the story is becoming more and more clear.

Andrew McCarthy as usual has done yeoman’s work here and here.  In short, the basis of the spying on the Trump Campaign was the totally unreliable Steele Dossier created by Fusion GPS for the Hillary Campaign.

Another rundown here.  Long Twitter string, but overall a good point that the chief assumption of the n’er do wells was that Trump would never win regardless.

Finally, an analysis of the recent blatant lying on the subject by Susan Rice, Obama’s NSA advisor.

Perhaps the most ridiculous aspect of the Russian Collusion thing is it being totally out of tune with Trump, his ethos, his stated passions, his demonstrated policies, and his manifest nationalism for his own country, the United States.  It seems more like a combination of defamation and alibi for Hillary losing the election.

A little narrative change from the New York Times.

The past is always changing, as they say.

Also, I wasn’t surprised this horrible, trumped up hate campaign–like the Goetz incident in the mid-80s–led to this gentleman’s radicalization.  When the full weight of the media, the DOJ, and the prospect of a life sentence was attempted on this guy for defending himself, and when felonious Trayvon was at the same time made out to be a saint, it was pretty obvious that anti-white hatred was becoming far too explicit and normal during the Obama years.

Here we are.  A year before we were blessed with the first GPS Fusion President.

Let’s consider the big picture.  Trump has won some and lost some, faced massive resistance from both parties, and emphasized some parts of his agenda to the exclusion of others.  He has hired people largely not in sync with his agenda and is also dodging a special counsel investigation of dubious provenance.

Nonetheless, much positive is happening, and the elites of both parties ignore these things at their peril:

One, his pro business instincts and the prospect of tax reform have ushered in a massive economic growth cycle, complete with a huge rally in the stock market, but also the expansion of jobs, wages, and industry in the neglected “flyover states” who vouchsafed Trump’s victory.  We went from dogged opposition to the Keystone Pipeline to expanding plants and foreign investment in areas of the country that really need it.

ISIS, whose satanic atrocities and massive expansion on Obama’s watch worried people in America, Europe, and the Middle East, is very much on the run, crushed by aggressive action, loosened rules of engagement, and moral clarity at the top.  While the Mideast is a cesspool with little hope of reform, we were told it would take years what has taken only months under Trump’s leadership.

Illegal immigration is down.  Enforcement and deportations are up.  The wall isn’t built, and this is worrisome, but, as with ISIS, the moral clarity of the president’s leadership has let would-be illegals and those “living in the shadows” realize it’s time to go home.  This is a rare instance where the rank-and-file government workers in organizations like ICE and the Border Patrol were previously held back and frustrated by the uncertain trumpet and diffident leadership of Trump’s predecessors.  They simply needed to be let loose.

And Trump has taken a leading role in the culture wars.  He’s the mirror image of Obama in this respect.  When Obama would wring his hands over his virtual “son” Trayvon and the grievances of cop killers in Dallas, Trump has none of it.  He speaks out against political violence on all sides, against the America-hating primma donnas of the NFL, against the intolerance of Islamic fanatics and its terroristic votaries, against the trashing of our past and our history, against the dishonest media, and for the rights of all Americans to prosper and live in safety in a country recognizable as the same one they were born into.  In this sense, he has been the most effective, and it’s hard not to see him victorious on many fronts if only by giving symbolic strength to the basic views of the millions of people who gladly voted for him.

So we’ll see.  He faces an uphill battle.  He is opposed by judges, professional bureaucrats, Republican legislators, the elites of both coasts, special prosecutors, and some of his closet advisers.  But he won under these circumstances, and his policies, translated into reality, appear to be working to enhance our collective safety, prosperity, and overall flourishing.

Law as Magic

In the wake of the horrible mass shooting in Texas, few will stop to consider how two quick-thinking and armed citizens put a stop to it.  Instead, we’re told prayers are not enough, but instead we need more laws.  More laws to restrict otherwise law-abiding people.  More laws against the evil gun totems that somehow load, carry, and shoot themselves into unarmed crowds.  More laws to make firearms less available and more expensive.

Setting aside the merits and demerits of these proposals, what is little discussed is how laws become translated into reality.  In between every brilliant law and those whom it aims to control are several layers of bureaucracy–surly obese women looking forward to retirement, aged computers, people making plans for Flag Day.

Here a perfectly sensible law that required the Air Force to report people convicted of serious domestic violence, which the shooter did do and ultimately led to a bad conduct discharge from the Air Force.  But, for unknown reasons, the Air Force never sent this information in the nationwide background check system.  So the shooter proceeded to buy a gun he was prohibited from owning because of his criminal background.

Laws, good or bad, cannot enforce themselves, but new ones on such wide ranging areas as health care and assault weapons are promoted as if they will, by their very passage, change reality overnight.   When bad things happen, the existence of a large body of relevant and under-enforced laws is ignored.  Laws don’t do anything by themselves.  They’re limited by resources, money, information, meddling judges, and, ultimately, by the quality and commitment of the people charged with following them.

Government service is filled with people with little acquaintance with the Darwinian effects of things like merit based demotion and discharge, bonuses, the profit motive, and competition.  The old trade for government service was job security for wages.  Now the wages of government workers are higher, even though a great many are populated by low talent and low motivation people, affirmative action cases, and other mediocrities.  And, when it all goes to hell, as it has here, you end up with 26 people who would not have been able to be killed but for the failure to enforce an existing, sensible law.

One law that would be worth something is a law that “drains the swamp.”  And this law would end public service unions, affirmative action, restore IQ-based civil service exams, cut salaries and numbers, and allow the summary shit-canning of people who mess up so royally that 26 preventable murders take place due to their lackadaisical approach to keeping guns out of the hands of convicted, violent criminals.

Trump Gets It

What people don’t get about Trump and the reason he keeps winning is that he cares about all of the people that the Ruling Class do not care about.  He’s cared about them since the 80s, has spoken up for them.  He understands their anxieties, passions, prejudices, and problems.  Yes, he’s a super rich guy.  But he has human sympathy and connection with ordinary people, and this is evident from many things, not least his untutored, authentic manner of speaking and his expressions of sympathy and solidarity for cops, blue collar workers, and soldiers.

While the Left has lately pretended to have patriotism, let’s not forget they’re the ones “taking a knee” and doing other things that are anathema to ordinary people.  And for those of us who are a little older, the shameful, hateful, and fanatical anti-military and anti-American rhetoric against the Vietnam War still echoes today.

Trump’s dust up with this Rodeo Clown looking Congresswoman, Frederica Wilson, will, like so many other things, prove the fundamentally anti-fragile nature of his appeal:  attacks make him stronger and frequently backfire.

The Vegas Massacre–whose horror is manifest–got me thinking about the appropriate limits on the Second Amendment.

To me one useful lens is “checks and balances.”

Machine guns, magazines larger than 30 rounds, belt fed guns, nuclear weapons, tanks, artillery, armor piercing ammo, etc. probably tip the scales very much against large unarmed crowds and law enforcement and only marginally improve the main purpose of the Second Amendment:  allowing the people collectively to resist an oppressive government and to protect themselves from one another.

We need something like an arms control principal among ordinary people vis a vis the government and vice versa.  We should aim for parity.  A single person with a machine gun can do a hell of a lot of damage.  More so with bombs.  A single person with an AR-15 can do some damage, but a cop or civilian with a handgun or their own AR-15 can stop them reasonably quickly.  Without semi-automatics, the people would be hobbled in any attempt to resist the government.  It is powerful, but not too powerful, to do the job, and it does the job best when wedded to a unified group of people within our broader nation.

Rights of all kinds–speech, guns, protections of the criminally accused–break down in disunified, diverse communities.  Without some prepolitical common understanding and sense of community and mutual loyalty, the costs of these rights–and they all have costs–will begin to increase compared to the benefits.  The scope in which they’ll be exercised begins to run aground.  Freedom of religion among the founders meant various stains of Christianity and Judaism.  Not politicized Islam.  Free speech meant pamphlets, books, plays, not internet porn.  Firearms meant ordinary weapons of the infantry, which were somewhat useless when not employed by a group, not the ability of a single person to kill hundreds en masse on an industrial scale.  Gun rights also meant a reciprocal obligation to serve in the militia, uniting the people with law enforcement and military.  Like the jury system, this give a sense of the ordinary people to law enforcement through the posse commitatus system.

So that’s something of a theoretical approach that I think provides some guidance on limits.  I personally think the current law (minus perhaps “bump stocks”) is appropriate.  Higher burdens for machine guns, which already exists, make some sense.  If they were as available as ordinary arms, I expect the spree shooters would have a much higher body count.  I have no problem with background checks, as dangerous criminals and severely mentally ill people should not have guns.  And, while everyone on the right ragged on Hillary for her silencer comments, I think she has a point.  This and similar shootings would be harder to stop if the person had silencers.  I’m not sure their widespread availability is a net positive.

I do think the left’s dismissing out of hand the ability of armed people to resist the government is incredibly ignorant.  Our military has been unable to control Afghanistan because so many people there with basic AK-47s have resisted our sophisticated military.  If enough people were so united against the government at home, it would grind to a halt.  Law enforcement is used to and only really equipped for operating in a 99% permissive environment at present.  As we saw in the Chris Dorner episode in California, when it’s actively resisted it can accomplish little.  In such a case, firearms have an additional important purpose of preserving personal safety in times of disorder.

Gun control proposals strike me as profoundly unserious on the whole, ignoring ordinary violence, the likely continued availability of guns to criminals in the time of a ban, and the prospect of not-so-civil disobedience if they’re confiscated.  Banning guns, confiscating guns, and employing gun control upon the 99% of law biding gun owners would create massive resistance, violence, resentment, and problems.

Outlier events like Vegas and Sandy Hook are horrible, only partly preventable, and obviously very damaging for our sense of safety amid our historical freedoms, including gun rights.  And while there’s no doubt sufficiently motivated people could do much the same with homemade bombs and cars, guns present an undeniable independent risk too.  We should consider the balance of harms based on the two basic purposes of the Second Amendment, which are relevant today.  There’s something silly about saying cops are racists and oppressing blacks and others and, by the way, only they should have guns.  I don’t buy the former point, but among right and left, a certain amount of fear of the government, or what it may become tomorrow, makes sense. A Constitution is, above all, a limitation on government action, even though such limits are sometimes costly.

Ordinary semi-automatics, so-called assault weapons, seem to keep things in balance. Widespread availability of more powerful weapons like machine guns seems to enable crazies to do far more damage than usual, and seem unnecessary relative to the needs of the organized community to resist the government.  So a higher hurdle for such weapons–which is the case under existing law–makes a lot of sense.  They simply throw the scales so far out of whack, and their corresponding benefits, even for the Second Amendment’s purposes, are minimal.  This is the old NRA and GOP position–enforce the laws we have–and it makes sense and it’s defensible politically.

Take a Knee

While the Steelers criticized Army Veteran Villaneuva for standing during the anthem as an offense to team unity, do these players not understand when they disrespect flag and anthem for their particular grievances that a lot of people consider it disrespectful of unity of the team that is our country?

The left is such a transparent joke. One minute they say that confederates are all traitors to our amazing USA and that their monuments should be defaced. Then it’s the USA is racist and its symbols deserves no respect.

Minorities need to decide if they want to be loyal to the country or not. Increasingly it looks like “or not” with the Malcom X/Marxist view ascendant. Obama of course with his leftist racial agitation had much to do with this.  Don’t forget Trayvon and Officer Crowley and his mealy mouthed speech after the Dallas police massacre.  Trump is a reaction to that among all of the people who simply are sick of it.

I think there is an elephant in the room, easily visible in the media, movies, and music of our black neighbors:  a lot of blacks are angry, alienated, and don’t particularly like white people or America, which they see as a white country.  Sports fans pretend they have something in common with these mostly black  guys on the field, who do have a lot of athletic skill, but really have nothing in common with their fans.  When these protests happen, it exposes the huge gulf in values and outlook between fans and player. And as the fans get wise to how much contempt they and their value system are held by the players, some will just decide not to support or watch the game as much.  After all, you need food, clothing, and shelter.  You don’t need to spend hours on end watching pro football. The players, whose precarious position depends on the fans’ support, may find this entire exercise very costly for their enterprise and individual fortunes.  No one wants to pay money to have someone spit in his face.

These protests are useful for making clear what was always pretty obvious to me, but which our media, sports figures, Hollywood movies, TV, and the simulated “racial healer” version of Obama presented to the country in 2008, are all designed to obscure.

Loyal Americans of any race should be treated well and with respect.  But disloyal Americans of any race should be ostracized and made to feel the contempt, pressure, and standards of the majority.  In this sense, as “divisive” as Trump’s remarks regarding the NFL may be, they are the most useful and necessary type of division:  he is dividing the loyal from the disloyal, real Americans from those who simply live here.

Web Round Up

Looks like the globalists are winning the White House war on foreign policy. Some good observations here and here.

Hurricane Harvey has devastated Houston, a city I lived in briefly about 10 years ago.  While the evacuation decision appears to have been a mistake–at least for people in flood plains–it’s not as simple as it looks.  My observations on that day and my attempted evacuation are here.

Steve Sailer notes that immigration has been a huge part of the paving over of Houston, which makes it more vulnerable to floods and impossible to evacuate.

The Kakistocracy Blog has a good point on why Republicans foolishly fail to distinguish ordinary businesses and monopolistic leftist behemoths, who aim to hurt conservatives and everything they hold dear.  It’s increasingly obvious why European Conservatives had a dimmer view of capitalism than Americans.  It’s also obvious that the libertarian bent of Silicon Valley is now coming to a close, replaced by ordinary leftism and its campaign against all things labeled “hate,” whether hateful or not.

Jim Kalb has a useful article on the defects of our education system, namely its implicit assumptions about what is and isn’t important, how life ought to be lived, and what values should prevail.


As long as you adopt a liberal standard of the good–commitment to equality as being the most important moral value–then you will always lose the bidding war with the left.  You’ll say stop at confederate monuments, and then they’ll say you’re defending slaveowners by defending Washington and Jefferson.  We’ve seen this constant moving of the goal posts in many other contexts.

Liberalism is a crucible and it reduces everything in it to a single moral value to the exclusion of all other concerns, including honoring talent, bravery, courage, loyalty, and one’s ancestors.  The narrative on the confederacy has changed from a tragic war of brother against brother and a post-war-consensus where we honored the bravery of the southern soldier as part of national reconciliation, to one where racism=bad=confederates=Nazis=off-to-the-gulag.

Real conservatism must begin by rejecting the liberal equality principle as the principle scale of values.  It’s a false, ideological notion of the good, and it has always and everywhere led to greater extremes.  As a factual matter, men are not equal, these inequalities grow organically, and a healthy society recognizes and channels our different talents, stations, and roles in a healthy direction that supports the common good.

So I really don’t care who was or wasn’t racist back when racism was the basic assumption of most people.  Most people everywhere believe something like everyone else around them.  It’s perfectly normal.  And most people everywhere, then and now, prefer their own kind and want their group to succeed.  I also refuse to care because the left uses it as the camel’s nose under the tent.  We have to reject the excessive concern with this au courant sin. It’s not the most important thing in life.  We live in a country with over a million abortions a year and gay marriage.  Is that somehow better than the generation that fought World War II and also didn’t want school bussing?  I don’t think so.

Political violence is an extreme measure for extreme times.  It is not always to be condemned–we wouldn’t condemn the Boston Tea Party I hope–but in a society with legal means of redress and free speech, it is unnecessary.  Indeed, it is a heckler’s veto often enough, and obviously the costs of open political warfare can be enormous.  The guy in the Dodge Charger appeared to be doing something far more sinister than protecting himself, at least from what I could tell on the widely circulated videos.  I see no reason to defend him.  Let the legal system take its course.

But when people are not allowed to speak and are actively oppressed and harassed, sometimes that’s the only language that is left to them.  The media has painted the Alt Right gathering as a bunch of neo-Nazis. It has a sliver of truth to it, but it is not a description done in the service of truth.  It is a description designed to dehumanize them and to legitimize violence against all of them, Nazis or not.  Remember the whole “punch a Nazi” thing after Richard Spencer, one of the organizers of this march, was punched during the time of the Inauguration.  This is why Trump’s original and legitimate condemnation of both sides led to  media conniption fits.  The critics believe the Antifa violence is somehow morally superior to the counter-violence of its right wing opponents.  But why?  Can’t Americans engage in free speech, even “racist” free speech?  After all, a deliberately provocative decision to take down the statute of the heroic Robert E. Lee, a man who did much to heal a divided nation, unlike so many of those now calling to destroy the memory of him.

Leftist extremists, until now, faced little counter-violence.  They terrorized World Trade Organization meetings, small academic conferences, Charles Murray’s speeches, and many Trump rallies, one of which they shut down in Chicago.

This dominance of public spaces, in which the Black Lives Matter movement also took a role, freaked out the embattled middle class.  The bullying was profoundly un-American.  And anxiety about status, about violence, about open hostility to them and their future had a lot to do with Trump’s rise. Many on the right, including me, are immune to the frequent invocations of the terms “racist” and “Nazi.”  These words mean, for many of us, simply a hate term thrown around against someone you disagree with.

But that does not mean one should actually become a real Nazi and embrace their rather alien symbolism.  The populist or nationalist right has a large, normal constituency.  It wants normal things like to live in a sane, safe country, where their children are not sacrificed on the alter of multiculturalism.  The movement and its leaders should not indulge in deliberate efforts to live up to the caricature that exists in the minds of the far left.

As we saw in Charlottesville, the left still calls the shots, by and large, and that’s why the police stand down when leftist violence occurs.   But, more important, a great many people in the middle find the nationalist message appealing.  They don’t won’t forever wars in the Middle East, jobs outsourced to China, and elites promoting increasingly decadent nonsense to their children.  There are other more effective ways to get the message out to this group–podcasts, small gatherings, subversive humor, the internet–that do not involve deliberately offensive symbolism and people and goals.   In other words, we are better off with more Pepe the Frog, and less Daily Stormer Nazi Larping.

The “Alt Right” started as a nationalist criticism of the “Chamber of Commerce” identity-free version of the GOP which was peddled by the Jebs and Rubios of the world. As an old school Pat Buchanan paleoconservative, it mostly sounded all right to me.  But if it becomes a synonym for neo-Nazis, not just in the minds of critics, but in actuality, complete with torch lit parades, it will run off its natural supporters.  This is why I find Richard Spencer’s whole schtick both weird and counter-productive.  The Alt Right’s natural supporters are legion:  they are the nationalist, embattled middle class.  These are people whose fathers and grandfathers fought actual Nazis.  These are the people that voted for Trump.  But they won’t ever go for a movement that fails to recognize that nationalism in the service of global domination and mass murder, that is Nazism, loses its legitimacy.

Identity politics are now a fact of life, and it is to be expected certain whites have gotten in the game, but politics are not naturally so.  Identity politics flow from a multicultural society, which in our case is an artificial creation of the 1965 immigration laws.  Most nationalists, including me, favor monocultural societies, where political and national borders are coextensive.  The way to eliminate identity politics and to have a politics of ideas is to have a less diverse and more unified society.  There is minimal identity politics in Japan, China, and Iceland for this reason.  There used to be very minimal identity politics in the US until the 1960s immigration reforms coupled with the rise of Marxist multicultural theory.

The one exception to this unity was the black white racial divide.  But blacks were truly a minority, but 10% of the population as recently as 1960.  There was an appeal to the broad American sense of fair play by the black civil rights movement, and its work was largely completely by the early 1970s.  Voting discrimination ended, formal discrimination was outlawed, and everyone was supposed to be treated the same.  When the reality that no amount of “equality of opportunity” could undo other forms of inborn inequality, as well as extensive social problems, the advocates of fair play split into those who said a fair system of procedures was enough (most Republicans) and those who thought equality of results should have happened automatically and that the failure for that to happen was proof of systemic, hidden racism (most Democrats).

So identity politics, such as we see every day and in high relief in Charlottesville, are regrettable, but to be expected.  It is unreasonable to expect whites to engage in unilateral disarmament when everyone else is tribal and out to hurt our group, sometimes quite explicitly so. If nothing else, calling certain features of the dominant national discourse “anti-white,” when they are objectively so, is a perfectly good thing.  But there is no reason to get weird about it.  We mostly want to be left alone, allowed to flourish, to have things stay roughly the same, and not to have ourselves turned into strangers in the country our ancestors bequeathed to us.