The Smallest Minority

THERE’S a neologism that ought to stick. From @CliftonDuncan on X:

The Bluegeoisie can never come back to the center.

Everyone is now fully aware of how contemptuous, how bereft of common sense, how dishonest and incompetent they are. It won’t work.

They can never build “their own Joe Rogan.” The notion is ridiculous–not just because it evinces their tendency toward top-down control, but because their cult renders intellectual, political and philosophical exploration outside of narrow ideological parameters impossible.

These people have psychotic meltdowns, blacklist peers, and cut off relatives over politics. They’re incapable of empathizing with anyone outside their congregation.

For all their fetishizing of credentials, their masturbatory exaltation of their educations, they’re violently allergic to intellectual curiosity–how on earth COULD they “build” their own Rogan, or a Lex Fridman, whose curiosity and openness are part of their brand?

How COULD they lower themselves to understand why they’re so despised?

Look at these people now, a month out from the election. They’re losers who are still lost, liars who keep lying. They’re throwing tantrums. Pointing fingers. Doubling and tripling down. The lack of reflection is astonishing.

They haven’t learned anything because they can’t learn anything. Learning would threaten their careers, reputations and relationships. Learning would require them to abandon the hubris that defines them.

They’ll never do that.

And even if they did, who would believe them, or be willing to listen, after they spent decades calling everyone racists and sexists, fascists and Nazis? Who’s going to forget such long-term abuse and slander?

We know power corrupts. The pendulum has now swung forcefully in a different direction. We need strong, sensible, rational opposition to check the excesses of those now assuming power.

Where the hell is it going to come from?

Excellent observation, and good question.

Joe Rogan recently had tech billionaire Marc Andreessen on his podcast. I strongly recommend you listen to the entire episode. Andreessen discusses at length what the government is doing to us by manipulating business and industry. Here’s a transcript of a short excerpt starting at 2:49:40.

Marc Andreessen: “There used to be this thing I called ‘The Deal’ – with a capital ‘D,’ and The Deal was, you could be – and this is what I was – you could be a tech founder, or you could start a private company, or you could create a tech product. Everybody loved you, it was great, glowing press coverage, the whole thing. You take the company public, it employs a lot of people, it creates a lot of jobs, you make a lot of money. At some point you cash out and you donate all the money to charity and everybody thinks you’re a hero. Right? And it’s just great.”

Joe Rogan: (Laughing) “Right!”

MA: “This is how it ran for a very long time. And this was The Deal and Clinton and Gore, 100% support of that, and they were 100% pro-Capitalism in this way and 100% pro-Tech. And they actually did a lot to foster this kind of enviroment. And basically what happened is the last fifteen years or so of Democrats, culminating in this administration broke every part of that deal for people in my world. Every single part of that was shattered, right? Where just like technology became presumptively evil, and if you were a business person you were presumptively a bad person, and technology had presumptively bad effects, and dot dot dot. And then they were going to regulate you and kill you and quash you, and then the kicker was, philanthropy became evil.

“And this is a real culture change in the last five years that I hope will reverse now, which is philanthropy now is a dirty word on the Left because it’s the private person choosing to give away the money as opposed to the government choosing the way to give the money.”

JR: “Oooh.”

MA: “So I’ll give you the ultimate case. Here’s where I radicalized on this topic. So you’ll recall some years back Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla, they have a ton of money in Facebook stock, they created a non-profit entity called the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative which the original mission was to literally cure all disease. And this could be like $200 billion to cure all disease, right? Big deal. They committed to donate 99% of their assets to this new foundation.

“They got brutally attacked from the Left, and the attack was ‘They’re only doing it to save on taxes.’

“Now, basic mathematics (laughing) you don’t give away 99% of your money…”

JR and MA: “…to save money on taxes.”

MA: “Right? But it was a vicious attack. A very, very aggressive attack. And the fundamental reason for the attack was, ‘How dare they treat that money like its their own? How dare they decide where it goes?’ Instead tax rates for billionaires should go to 90-something percent, the government should take the money, the government should allocate it, and that would be the morally proper and correct thing to do.”

JR: “What do you think is the root of that kind of thinking?”

MA: “Utopian… This is utopian collectivism. You know, it’s…”

JR: “Socialism that works.”

MA: “Socialism, yeah. The core idea is socialism. The core idea is this sort of radical egalitarianism. ‘Everybody should be exactly the same, all outcomes should be exactly the same, everything should be completely fair at all times.'”

JR: “At some root of it has to be in envy.”

MA: “Yeah, of course. Envy, resentment. Neitzche had this great term he called ‘ressentiment.’ It’s like turbocharged resentment, and so the way he described it was ressentiment is envy, resentment and bitterness that is so intense that it causes an inversion of values.”

JR: “Ooooh.”

MA: “And the things that used to be good become bad, and the things that used to be bad become good.”

JR: “Philanthropy becomes bad.”

MA: “Philanthropy becomes bad because it should be the State operating on behalf of the people as a whole who are handing out the money, not the individual.”

JR: “I was not aware of that blowback. I would have loved to read some of those comments. (Laughing) I would like to go to their page and see what else the commented on.”

MA: “I’ll give you another example. Here’s another radicalizing moment. So my friend Sheryl Sandberg who I worked with very closely for a long time at Facebook, and by the way, Democrat, Liberal, by the way endorsed Kamala, like very much not on the same page as me on these things – she actually worked in the Clinton administration, dyed in the wool Democrat – she wrote this book called ‘Lean In’ about twelve years ago. It’s this sort of Feminist Manifesto. And the thesis of ‘Lean In’ was that women in their lives and careers could ‘lean in’ – she said that what she observed in a lot of meetings was that men were leaning in to the table and sitting at the front while women were like leaning back and waiting to be called on. She said that women should lean in. It became a metaphor for her for women should like lean in on their careers, they should aggressively advocate for themselves to get raises and promotions…”

JR: “Like men do.”

MA: “Like men do. They should basically, women should basically become more aggressive in the workplace and then, therefore, perform better. It was a manifesto to women saying ‘Be more confident, be more assertive, be more aggressive, be more successful.’

“I read the draft of the book when she was writing it and I said ‘You realize you’ve written a right-wing manifesto?’ She looks at me like I’ve lost my mind, because she’s a life-long Lefty, and she says ‘What do you mean?’ I’m like, you, this book is a statement that women have agency. This book is a statement that the things that women choose to do will lead to better results. But that’s what people believe on the Right. On the Left the people believe that women are only, always and ever victims, and if a woman doesn’t succeed in a career it’s because she’s being discriminated against. So I predicted that when this book comes out Right-wingers are going to think it’s great, and you’re going to get a t-, like the Left is going to come at you, ’cause you’re violating the fundamental principle of the Left which is ‘Anybody who does less well is a victim.’

“In that case that’s exactly what happened. By the way, the reviews were all by women, and they tore into her. In every major publication they completely ripped her. They were like ‘How dare this rich, entitled woman be telling us, telling women that they’re not victims and that they have all this agency. This is denial of sexism, denial of oppression.”

Watch the whole interview.

As predicted by Alexis deToqueville:

You take a conventional man of action, and he’s satisfied if you obey, eh? But not the intellectual. He doesn’t want you just to obey. He wants you to get down on your knees and praise the one who makes you love what you hate and hate what you love. In other words, whenever the intellectuals are in power, there’s soul-raping going on. – Eric Hoffer

This is one of the most horrific things I think I’ve ever read, but more people need to read it, all the way to the end. To Shatter Men’s Souls – John Carter’s Substack

I wrote this one six years ago – “What are the origins of gun control/the anti-gun movement? How, and why, did it start?”

Historically? Settle in, this will take a few minutes.

Despite the brilliant and inspiring words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, prior to the establishment of the American form of Constitutional Republicanism governments were not instituted among men to secure their unalienable rights. Instead, governments were established to protect and expand the power and privilege of the powerful and privileged – and for no other reason.

As Mao observed in the early 20th Century, “all political power grows from the barrel of a gun,” but prior to the invention of firearms political power still sprouted from coercive force and the tools of that coercive force. In order to maintain and expand the power and privilege of the powerful and privileged the concept of a monopoly of the legitimate use of force was conceived, though it wasn’t codified until the late 16th or early 17th Century. The book World History of Warfare notes:

One frequently quoted letter from the second invasion (of Korea by Japan) comes from Asano Yukinaga, who wrote to his father in Japan in 1598 after surviving a bitter siege by Chinese and Koreans in Uru-san: “When troops come [to Korea] from the province of Kai, have them bring as many guns as possible, for no other equipment is needed. Give strict orders that all men, even the samurai, carry guns.” Despite these progressive sentiments, the forth stage of Japanese warfare emerged when, starting with Hideyoshi and carrying on through the rule of Tokugawa Ieyasu (1542-1616), who was proclaimed shogun in 1603, firearms were forcibly withdrawn from general use. In fact, in a series of stages, Japan was disarmed in order to create a strong central government without fear of rebellions and at the same time preserving a sharper distinction between samurai and farmer. Hideyoshi originally issued the order for a “sword hunt” in August 1588 with the overt intention of building a vast Great Buddha but actually intending to disarm the country: “The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements [of war] makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings….”

So “gun control” has a long and storied history, as does its implementation by deceit. Not long after the establishment of the United States, one of the foremost legal minds of that day wrote a review of American Constitutional Law, giving homage to a similar work done in England by Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England published in 1765. St. George Tucker published his American expansion on Blackstone’s Commentaries in 1803. It became the go-to text for American law schools. In Tucker’s Blackstone he wrote about our right to arms:

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

“Gun control” is now sold as a public safety issue, though we know from history what a world without guns is really like – it’s run by large men with other weapons, and is not particularly safe, free, or equal. If guns are restricted only to government, well, that makes the collection of taxes much easier, and the powerful and privileged get to keep (and expand) their power and privilege without concern for the feelings of the peasants.

As the meme goes, “I saw a movie once where only the government had guns. It was called ‘Schindler’s List’.”

“Gun control” isn’t about guns. It isn’t about “safety.” It’s about control.

Someone once said words to the effect that you can pass any law you like, but understand that it can be enforced by your worst enemy.

This is perhaps the most vile thing I’ve seen bragged about by an elected official.

This is what a Kamala Harris presidency would be.

My answer to” “Why do many people still believe in communism even though it has been proven throughout history that it does not work?”

Because the idea is beautiful. Everyone equal. No one wants for anything. “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” Who can’t get behind that?

I see in several of the previous answers the standard objection of “That wasn’t REAL Communism!!” Except Marx himself explained the process: violent revolution by the workers who seize the “means of production,” followed by Socialism – “dictatorship of the Proletariat” – as necessary intermediate steps towards eventual Utopia.

It’s that “dictatorship of the Proletariat” where everything – always – goes to hell. It’s the Underpant Gnomes theory of politics. What Marx neglected to recognize was human nature – when you put that much power into the hands of a very few people, the people who wield that power tend to be the ones you’d rather not. To achieve that power they have to be most probably sociopaths. And to maintain that power, they will be more than willing to kill anyone who threatens that power.

It became apparent by the 1960’s that there was a major problem with Marx’s theory. Philosopher Stephen Hicks in a lecture on Postmodernism explained:

(A)ll Postmodernists, to a man and woman, are Socialists, and fairly far Left Socialist. And that’s a problem because if you would start from Subjectivism, you would expect people to be making commitments all over the map. Instead what we find is that the commitments are narrowly directed to one part of the political spectrum, and so there’s got to be another factor here to explain this.

Now, another part of the problem (is) that Socialism has traditionally been defended on Modernist grounds. The claim was that Socialism was provable by the evidence, by logic. So what you have then is a shift, a major shift in strategy from Modernist epistemological groundings for Socialism, to Socialism being part of this highly relativistic Postmodern strategy. The question is, why is this the case?

Since Socialism was put forth on Modernist grounds, this meant that it made, in effect, a number of core assertions, or key propositions that it thought would be provable by evidence and logic. If you asks Socialists to defend Socialism they will typically offer two strands of argument. One is a more moral strand. They will argue a pair of theses, one that Capitalism is deeply immoral, and then there are a number of reasons why it is immoral: It is exploitative, the rich get rich off the backs of the poor – they enslave them, it’s warlike as part of its imperialistic mission and so forth. Socialism by contrast is humane, it’s peaceful, everybody gets a share, everyone shares, it’s cooperative, as opposed to the brutal competition that’s characteristic of Capitalism. That’s the first two.
The Economic wing of argument is that Capitalism ultimately is unproductive. It’s doing pretty good so far, but because of its internal contradictions and problems it will ultimately collapse. It will sow the seeds of its own destruction. Socialist economies by contrast will be more productive, and they will usher in a new era of prosperity.

Now this then means that Socialism has made some definite theses that can then be tested against the evidence, and be given logical scrutiny. The problem then is that every single one of these claims has been extensively refuted both in theory and in practice. We’ve had over a hundred years of Socialist argumentation, several Socialist experiments, and in each case they reached dismal failure. And it’s brutal, at least from our perspective, how thoroughly Socialism has been discredited. In theory, if you focus on the free-market economists, people like Mises, Hayek and Friedman, have made the case. They’ve shown how markets are more efficient, and they’ve shown conversely how Socialist Command economies are bound to fail, necessarily. They have to. Distinguished Socialists such as Robert Heilbroner have conceded, in print, that that debate is over, and that Mises and Hayek won.

In theory the political debate is a little bit more up for grabs, but the leading thesis, I think at least in my reading, is that some form of liberalism is the leading contender. That if you’re going to protect human rights in some broad form, you’ve got to have some form of liberalism, whether it’s a more conservative version or a more communitarian version or a more libertarian version, that’s where the debate is. It’s all shifted to there. The empirical evidence has been much harder on Socialism than the theoretical debate. Economically in practice every single Socialistic country has failed, and failed dismally, and in practice every country that is by and large Capitalist has become prosperous, and increasingly prosperous, and there’s no end in sight here.

Politically, in practice, every single Capitalistic country has a good record on human rights issues, in respecting rights and freedoms, by and large making it possible for people to put together meaningful, fruitful lives. Socialism has, time and time again, proved to be more brutal than the worst dictatorships in history. Every Socialist regime has collapsed into dictatorship, and starts killing people on an unprecedented scale. Every single one produces dissident writers like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and Nien Cheng who document from a first-hand perspective what exactly goes on.

—

(W)hat kind of a psychological impact the sum total of this, the refutation in theory, in practice, in politics and economics must have had on a Socialist, a True Believer Socialist? By the 1960’s there had been over a hundred years of argumentation in economics and in politics, and the Socialists could sense that they were losing. By the 1960’s it was clear that the great Socialist experiments were failing nastily. So put yourself in the shoes of a smart, more or less open-to-the-evidence Socialist, and you’re confronted with all of this data. How do you react? You’ve got a deep commitment to Socialism, you feel that it’s true, you WANT it to be true. You’ve pinned all of your dreams of a peaceful and a prosperous society on Socialism, and all of your hopes for curing any ills that you see in current society.

Now this is a moment of truth for anyone who has experienced the agony of a deeply cherished hypothesis run aground on the rocks of reality. What do you do? Do you abandon your theory and go with the facts, or do you try to find a way to maintain your theory and your belief in it?

I think in the 1960’s the academic Left was facing the same dilemma that religious thinkers were facing in the late 1700’s. In both cases the evidence was overwhelmingly against them. During the Enlightenment, religion’s natural theology arguments were widely seen as being full of holes, and science was rapidly filling the gap. It was giving naturalistic and opposite explanations for the kinds of things that religion had traditionally explained. Religion was in danger of being laughed out of intellectual debate. By the 1960’s the Left’s arguments for the fruitfulness and decency of Socialism were failing in theory and practice, and Capitalism was rapidly increasing everyone’s standard of living and showing itself respectful of human freedoms.

By the late 1700’s religious thinkers had a choice – accept evidence and logic as the ultimate court of appeals, and thereby reject their deeply held religious ideals, or – and here’s the strategy – you can reject the idea that logic and evidence are the ultimate court of appeal.

“I had to deny knowledge” wrote Kant in The Critique, “in order to make room for faith.” “Faith,” writes Kierkegaard in Fear and Trembling, “requires the crucifixion of reason.” And so they proceeded to do that, and glorify the irrational.

The Left thinkers of the 1960’s faced the same choice. Confronted by the continuing flourishing of Capitalism and the continued poverty and brutality (of Socialism), they decided, like Kant, to limit reason, to try to crucify it. And so Heidigger coming along and exalting feeling over reason is a godsend. Kuhn‘s theory-laden paradigms, Quine‘s pragmatic and internalist account of language and logic do the same thing.

So the idea here is that the dominance in the Academy of skeptical and irrationalist epistemologies provides the academic Left with a new strategy. Confronted by ruthless logic, harsh evidence, they have a solution: “That’s only logic and evidence. Logic and evidence are subjective. You can’t really PROVE anything. FEELINGS are deeper than logic, and my feelings say Socialism.”

That’s my second hypothesis about the origins of Postmodernism. I call it the Kierkegaardian hypothesis, that Postmodernism is the crisis of faith of the academic Left. Its epistemology justifies taking a personal leap of faith in continuing to believe your Socialist ideals.

Communism is no longer an economic theory. It has failed utterly at that. It’s now a religion. And it’s proselytized in our education systems.