I’m continuing to post selected notes from earlier this year. I want to get this done before I start the 2026-27 schoolyear.
There’s a pressing question which can be earnestly asked when we observe events in Britain and Canada and Germany and Australia: is the power structure trying to provoke outrage and resistance?
Before we ask this question, we should be clear on why it might do such a thing. If this was a normal policymaking situation, of course, it wouldn’t. But this is an issue on which elected leaders and their political parties have proven stubbornly unwilling to execute the will of the people - to control the national borders and to deport people who cross them illegally, especially if those people are criminals - even though the thing that voters are asking for has been the policy default for decades and still is the policy in virtually every other country on Earth.
The results of this intractability are clear: thousands of surplus murders, social service systems straining under the weight of millions of new dependents, widespread social friction sometimes erupting into mass violence, the physical and sexual safety of women (and children) being harmed to a degree that has never been experienced due to a single new variable in any of these countries, and a kind of cultural deprioritization such that native speakers and citizens are now given less focus and emphasis and celebration than newcomers.
The fact is that the policymakers who have presided over these changes (even when they didn’t exactly implement them themselves) cannot defend them. Every new knife attack or bombing or vehicle-based slaughter (and they occur regularly at this point) increases the public’s cynical desperation, and contributes to a sneaking suspicion that something else is afoot. This is simply not how democratic government is supposed to work.
Western governments have all moved in similar directions on this issue, and they’ve used the same credentialed managerial professionals to implement their secretive program. Though we cannot be sure what their true motivations are (not having been given any plausible reason) we can speculate about bureaucratic expansion and dilution of native populations and the injection of pliant, dependent voting blocs as buttresses for PMC political power (which is waning across the West due to institutional failure and birthrates). It is this curiously coordinated appearance of the decisions of over a dozen culturally and politically distinct and sovereign countries (on this issue and several others) that has given rise to the label GloboHomo, and which has stoked suspicions of Jewish / financial / cultural Marxist conspiracies. To forestall the questions and deflect the criticisms, it is possible that there are certain factions within Western governments which have decided to try to incite the more impetuous and proactive parts of the new right coalition to acts of violence, hoping that such moves would justify a crackdown and the seizure of more state power.
I will stop short of claiming that such a situation is the case. But I can confidently state that it answers outstanding questions about political messaging and criminal justice policies and police responses which are otherwise totally mysterious. Governments certainly seem that they’re trying to enrage their citizens. If they’re not, then this is at least an indication that the old calculus of republican democracy - in which leaders try to sell their people a healthy and forward-thinking vision, based on concrete policy goals - has expired. The professional managerial class no longer needs your consent to execute their political program. The program will continue to be implemented regardless of who is in office.
This is the disincentive for productivity and achievement that progressives will claim doesn’t exist (or isn’t consequential… or that you’re racist for bringing it up).
I don’t think that leftist prerogative was ever legitimate, but I do think leftists believe they are entitled to leftist prerogative and that their political views give them moral authority which entitles them to act as though they have the prerogative to enforce their moral views wherever they go using whatever tactics they see fit. So now we are stuck with an entire generation of leftists who think that enforcing their social views on everyone is their cultural and political birthright to which they are entitled by virtue of being leftists. However, as they are about to find out, it is no longer 2020, and people are refusing to be subject to the moral authority of resentful woke scolds and downwardly mobile political activists with an axe to grind. Leftists who continue to act like they have the prerogative to enforce their views on everyone using whatever means they feel like, are about to find out that they really do not have the social standing, moral authority, or cultural power to act as though they run the place.
In the 1960’s, during the civil rights era, there were black people and protestors who were beaten and shot when they tried to challenge the power of the state. Then, once integration laws were passed, the military was deployed to schools to force people to integrate. Does this sound like a government that has a problem using its hard power to enforce its goals?
Contrast this with today. Our government cannot do basic deportations of humans who are being used as slaves by corporations living off the register who entered the country without permission, health checks, or basic background checks. This is completely insane. This is anarchy.
When we all vote and support deporting all these people, all of a sudden, the foot soldiers of the slave masters come out and fight against the government’s agents. This is patently insane. Could you imagine during the reconstruction period in the American South, southern Confederate guerrillas standing up to Union federal soldiers and blocking their paths and confronting them while they conducted their orders?
In education (a world I know better than most) the Longhouse is so powerful and ubiquitous that it’s essentially invisible to most of the (generally female) participants. It doesn’t seem biased or ideological to them. To them, the beliefs of the Longhouse are self-evidently true and (more importantly) nice.
For a lot of professional women, ‘nice’ is more important than ‘true.’
Perhaps the most useful diagram I’ve ever seen on Substack:
…people who cycled through the system years ago - arrest, trial, conviction, prison - are still hanging around. Some did terrible things. Owing to the comparatively lax policies of previous presidential administrations, they flew under the radar, despite being inarguably in the country without legal status. And in some cases, being inarguably evil. Rapists, armed robbers, meth pushers, dickie-wavers, kiddie-fiddlers - these are not just friendly Minnesotan neighbors being targeted here.
Sanctuary policies are not without cost, is the point. They may succeed in doing what Democrats want them to do, but there are unintended consequences. There are also some rules attendant to them that are quite nakedly political.
ICE are not permitted to use any municipal property in the Twin Cities - parking lots, ramps, empty lots, etc. - as staging areas for their operations. That’s hard to justify, in my view. Local jails cannot contact ICE or hold people for them, even very bad people. Do fans of sanctuary cities really want that?
“Your universe has no meaning to them. They will not try to understand. They will be tired, they will be cold, they will make a fire with your beautiful oak door.”
For white supremacy to be a major issue of concern, significant numbers of our managerial class would have to harbor anti-black sentiments. These are the same people who actively discriminate against white candidates and buy Robin DeAngelo’s books.
“The whole modern world is at war with the nature of man, and it calls this war ‘progress.’ It breaks the tools of the soul and then wonders why the soul no longer works.”
Please subscribe. My schoolyear is beginning soon and I will be posting interesting essays concerning K-12 education and how to pertains to the broader social trends we can all recognize (but rarely discuss), plus book and film reviews and analysis of acute political events worldwide.
You're so close to getting it with that definition of Baizhou. That contemporary Chinese people are capable of having a negative conceptualization of the Red Guards in the Cultural Revolution so clearly defined they can mock the West over it should be a pretty strong clue that the China narrative in English doesn't have any internal consistency and hasn't for quite some time at this point.
You're so close to getting it with that definition of Baizhou. That contemporary Chinese people are capable of having a negative conceptualization of the Red Guards in the Cultural Revolution so clearly defined they can mock the West over it should be a pretty strong clue that the China narrative in English doesn't have any internal consistency and hasn't for quite some time at this point.
Oh, gods, this is *so* not helping my blackpilldom...