Tribe and Trap


Tribalism seems to be the default setting of the human race.

Maybe it’s because we’re built on the frame of Great (or at least pretty good) Apes. Band seems to be the default unit of a Great Ape.

The people who do those cute and vapid studies on how your toddler is racist — by which they mean he prefers people who look like mommy and daddy, or their surrogates in his life —  don’t seem to understand that.  They don’t seem to understand that for most of human existence, (prehistory is much longer than history) for a toddler to stray outside his tribe meant at best he was raised as a slave, and at worst he became lunch.

I wonder if it’s this uncritical, sort of history-and-genetics free view of the world that causes the left to think that tribes are awesome.

Might just be their usual — and honestly, isn’t it tiresome by now? — view of the world which thinks everything “natural” by which they mean pre-civilized is better. This leads to nostalgie de la boue and therefore elevates primitive/non civilized cultures over western culture.

Or perhaps it is simply the fact that Marxism was “rescued” by Gramsci.  Marxism was bad enough in its inability to see individuals, and ascribing everyone to economic tribes.

I remember when we were studying Marxism in four courses in 9th grade a left leaning friend (she wanted to believe) trying to fit Marx’s view of working class and capitalists into our own peculiar (village) situation. She was bound and determined to make my parents part of the capitalist class, and her own family part of the working class, because only this — in her mind — made sense of the fact I kept poking holes in St. Marx’s theories, and mocking them after class.

The problem was, of course, that her family was considerably better off than mine, both our fathers worked in factories in a supervisory capacity, and generally, really, there was not much difference between one or the other of us by Marxist “class” markers.  (Except my mom had started life as a manual worker, which I don’t think her mom had. OTOH my mom owned her means of production which consisted of a pair of scissors, needles and pins.)  She tried to pin it on my parents being more educated.  But no.  It was more or less the same.

And then in a flash of brilliance that would anticipate things my kids ran into in school when they pointed out to someone their “privilege” consisted of dressing from thrift stores and making everything from scratch because it’s cheaper: she told me my parents were part of the “oppressor class” because they read, studied and learned things all the time and our house was crammed with books.  It’s that famous book-privilege.

This explained to her satisfaction why I kept poking holes in Marxism, and, look you, she wasn’t necessarily wrong.  Growing up with a father who was an ancient history geek; being aware of the exploits of Catalina, and reading deeply into history myself did shape my mocking disdain for the theories of the little angry man who lived at the expense of friends and hatched one of the most murderous theories of history.

This didn’t change the fact that Marxism at best sits crosswise on the real world and misses any contact.  Or that its predictive capacities are as good as those of our climate-predicting computers.

He knew in his heart of hearts that the workers would rise up and kill everyone else and take the means of production, and after a suitable underpants gnome break, paradise would ensue.

Only, of course, as anyone who understood the developments already taking place in his time could have told, the workers — except where manipulated by intellectuals attached to his crazy theories, and even then it was mostly intellectuals and psychopaths, not workers — became wealthier, lived better, and generally didn’t want anything to do with Marx’s revenge fantasies on people who did better than him.

Enter Antonio Gramsci who rescued Marxism from its self made ash heap by claiming by “workers” really Marx meant the dispossessed races of the world.  (And by race, you should understand what Europeans do:each country a race.)

The revolution would surely come, only from the third world.

Part of this is what fuels our intellectual idiots’ “suicide by open borders.” They don’t believe they have the right to stand in the way of the dispossessed masses claiming “their own” (why it’s their own, only the gods know, but remember these are people who believe wealth can’t be created, only passed along like some game of hide the badger. So if we live better than the third world, self-evidently we’re holding their wealth. Which btw, is one of the worst forms of colonialism. Teaching this Marxist twaddle to people in backward economies just assures they continue backward, desperately poor, and resentful of the man who is hiding the stash.); they think that the dispossessed always win in the end, because that’s their comic-book understanding of Marx; they are craven cowards and wish to tell the nice dog they’re helpful and wish to be eaten last.

Anyway, back to our point: one of the great advances of humanity, possibly as momentous as the discovery of fire, was the overcoming of tribalism.

Forging tribe-like bonds based on “we share this land” and in fact, being able to tell ourselves stories about how “everyone in this land is one people” gave rise to the city state, the country, and eventually the “community of civilized men.”

Of course, yes, Christianity had a lot to do with this, but there was some of that going on already in the Roman Empire, where Persian and Greek could both declare (after the appropriate formalities and acculturation) “Civis Romanum sum.”

As bad as the super-states of the twentieth century got — because there’s nothing as a large nation with a good dose of crazy-making philosophical theory — it allowed commerce and industry, which are miles and miles better at creating and keeping wealth than hunting-gathering.

The problem is that the left, led by Gramsci, has re-invented tribalism.  And no, I don’t just mean tribalism of place of origin or color — though they include that — I mean tribalism of EVERYTHING.

Being unable to see individuals (has anyone done studies of their brain? Maybe there’s something missing) they instead keep sorting people into increasingly smaller groups based on things that have bloody nothing to do with what the person IS capable of, or thinks or believes: Color, who people sleep with, what people have between their legs, who people like to sleep with, what people call their deity, etc. etc. ad very definitely nauseum.

Then they itemize these groups according to oppression — because Marx says that workers are oppressed, and Gramsci says people who tan are oppressed and — waves hands — everyone who has ever been looked at sideways is oppressed! — and call it intersectionalism.  Which I suppose is better than “bloody mentally deficient recreation of tribalism by the pampered children of western civilization.”

The problem is this is that we’re fast re-discovering the evils of tribalism.

Sure, tribablism gives you a warm fuzzy.  It cues in to very deep instincts that make you feel safe, when you identify a group as being “just like me.”  It’s that whole toddlers aren’t racist, but leftists are stupid studies thing.

But the warm fuzzy it gives you is like the feeling of sitting by a warm fire in your living room, while a storm hammers at the room.  “You’re safe and warm HERE.”  “You’re safe and warm inside.” “You’re safe and warm as long as you don’t leave.”

The end result is not just the proliferation of “safe rooms” but people panicking and feeling unsafe when they read things that question their beliefs.  Such as their beliefs that, say half-Chinese-half-Japanese left handers are uniquely oppressed and should have everything made nice and easy for them.  It is an actual and real feeling of panic.  I’ve seen people experience this and it isn’t pretty.

Heck, even the larger of tribe of intersectionalist leftists experiences this when their beliefs are disputed.

It’s irrational, it’s back brain, and it’s genuine and insane panic. People suffer from this.  (Which is why they think our speech is violence.) Because at some level they know that if they listen to us, understand us, question their fundamental beliefs, they’ll stop being part of the ideological tribe. Which means being ejected from “one eyed feminists with a lisp” land. It means being alone and defenseless, which is a very old fear of humanity and of humans, individually, too.

This explains why people feel so threatened by the — handy, but not earth shattering — ideas of Jordan Peterson, say, to the point of breaking into an auditorium where he’s speaking carrying a noose.  (This is because most of these misguided and pampered children think in cartoons.  I suspect she expected him to not only have no defenders, but stay very still while she throttled him.  It’s insane. When you let your back brain do the driving, you’re not going to come across as very smart.)

The other side effect of this is that everyone who isn’t a member of the tribe is potentially the enemy.  This is what leads to the internecine fights within the left, and why if they should win (forbid) we’ll be stuck in civil war after civil war forever. Adapting the Arab proverb: Me and my Marxist classmates against the world; Me and my black Marxist classmates against our white Marxist classmates; Me and my black Marxist female classmates against our black Marxist male classmates; Me and my black lesbian Marxist female classmates against our black straight Marxist female classmates… and so on ad infinitum, until the tribe of one is at war with everyone else, and worse stuck in a pit of anger and resentment because he/she isn’t given all the recognition and compensation he/she should have from the rest of the world at large.

At the same time anyone outside it is viewed as less than human.  This is why they think they can tell everyone to shut up because “white privilege” or “male privilege” or whatever, and they honestly think there will be no resistance and no back lash.

Which is why Trump’s victory surprised and scared them so much. I mean arguably it should scare them. They continue with their policies of suppression and deplatforming and they’ll get FAR WORSE than Trump (who is not bad, particularly in terms of the economy.)

They are thinking in tribal terms, you know?  “We win, the other tribe disappears.”

The back brain knows very well how the other tribe disappears. History is littered with the gnawed bones of defeated enemies.

But the neo-barbs have no clue. Not a one. They think we just “shut up” and, as someone who is — delightfully — only five years younger than I told our side in the SF/F wars (and keep in mind I’m one of the oldest of that group. I’m old enough to have babysat my friends, if we’d all been in the same neighborhood) that we were old and “should just die.”

Because the future is Marxist and tribal and whatever the hell these perpetual babies have been told.

Only it’s not. It can’t be. Because tribalism isn’t the future. It’s the deep past.  The past of caves and eternal war, and famines, and pestilence, and piles and piles of dead babies.

We can’t let it win.  We must go into the culture and rescue it from this trap.  We must pluck the neo-barbs from their panicky-irrational-self-defense.

We must, once more, rebuild civilization where men and women of good will can communicate, trade, marry and be given in marriage as members of humanity which we all are.

In the end we win, they lose, because we are the future and they’re the deep past and a dead end. One that can’t go forward and is killing the human race.

Here’s your torch. Go into the deep dark and bring our brothers and sisters forth. Eventually they’ll get used to the light and stop clenching their eyes shut.

Be not afraid.

265 thoughts on “Tribe and Trap

  1. It’s that famous book-privilege.

    One wishes it were not so, but some egg-heads in England seriously suggested that parents should think twice before reading to their children, thereby giving them an unfair advantage in this world, as many of the children they would be going to school would not be so fortunate.

      1. I don’t know, her classmate claiming the reason she was an oppressor is because she used knowledge and thought to dismantle Marx without any sense of irony is right up there.

        1. Herb, nowhere did I say it was the only idea so stupid and nonsensical that only intellectuals could possibly believe it. 😀

          1. If we’re going to start a list of ideas “so stupid and nonsensical that only intellectuals could possibly believe” them, we’re gonna need a bigger blog.

            1. Perhaps this universe was constructed as a storage facility for ideas “so stupid and nonsensical that only intellectuals could possibly believe”.

              It would explain a great deal.

      2. I suspect that it’s one of those ideas where it is wrong for you, bien-peasant, but okay for them.
        Like most stuff they want to ban.

      3. Grad School opened my eyes to just how dangerously stupid many “intellectuals” are. So-called Post Modernism has pretty much destroyed the study of history.

    1. It’s that famous book-privilege.

      I prefer the privilege gained from books that are infamous.

      1. Major stupidity … wow … speechless … kind of …

        Hasn’t anyone heard of Little Orphan Annie or Oliver Twist? **

        Orphanages, or group homes, in general, even today, don’t generally impart warm & fuzzy “oh, that’s a good idea for my child” … or any child … thoughts.

        ** oops sorry bad examples, after all they ended up in the “privilege” classes.

        1. Although it turns out the children reared in orphanages tend to turn out better than those shuffled from foster home to foster home. The foster care system in most of this country is broken.

          1. Yes. Bouncing from one foster home to another, to another, no matter how good the foster homes are, is destabilizing; the odds that all are good foster homes in that situation are not good. At least with orphanages, kids would typically stay put, unless adopted. Good ones would be more of a boarding school environment. OTOH what we know of current day orphanages are those from overseas … in State Care. Not seen many “good” stories there. Orphanages ran by charities, religious based or not, tend to have better public perceptions, despite perceived poverty levels.

            1. Can’t recall the situation or the link – but a while ago there was a memoir-essay by a late-middle-age resident of a church-run (IIRC) orphanage posted on … Insty, perhaps? He thought that he had been done very well by, in the orphanage: stable, established, well-cared for, encouraged to establish themselves as adults, in whatever trade they were interested in or fit for. It was secure – which is what children crave, in the main. Better than bouncing from foster family, to foster-family, to another foster-family, before being kicked out of the system at 18.

    2. Isn’t it funny that almost every town in America has a public library, available to all Americans (heck available to visitors too, just can’t withdraw the books), crammed with books to read, study, and learn things; yet we are still called privileged? Yeah, I’m privileged, I have discretionary income to buy the books so I don’t have to take them back to the library after reading. Big whoop.

      The Leftist goal of tribalism is to render every person with a belief that every man’s hand is raised against them, except for the Progressive elite who will be their Mommy and Daddy and care for them as long as they turn over all decision making to them.

      And I just finished “A State of Disobedience” by Tom Kratman. (Thanks for the suggestion.) A real cautionary tale, scary as heck.

      1. What isn’t funny is the way so many of those public libraries have been turned into homeless shelters and free-range hunting preserves for pedophiles.

        Case in point:
        Houston Library Features Convicted Child Molester Reading Trans Books To Children
        State records say the 200-pound, 5-foot-11 man was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and is at a ‘moderate’ risk for reoffending. His YouTube channel shows him becoming transgender.


        1. I enjoy occasionally going into the Peterborough, N.H. public library. It was established in 1833, first tax-supported public library in the nation. Never saw any child molesters hanging around inside or outside it. Probably because even as progressive as Peterborough and NH are, we’d still tie some rocks around the perps’ ankles and toss him in the river that’s right beside the library.

      2. I remember reading something from either Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams about how he had a Jewish tutor whom he met with at the public library. Going to the library was an eye-opening experience for him, because kids in his neighborhood didn’t do that. It wasn’t that the library was segregated and would have turned them away, it wasn’t that the library was too far or too hard to get to (it was actually slightly closer to his house than the Jewish kid’s house), it was that culturally, people just didn’t go to the library.

        So yeah, there’s privilege involved. It’s just that the privilege isn’t wealth or even access to books, it’s the values to understand that reading is worthwhile and that it’s worth taking a tiny bit of time to go get some books.

        1. Think it was Larry Elder who pointed out that the real achievement difference was that after school hours, the public library was full of Asian kids, while the street corners were full of black kids.

          1. There are some places I would not let a child go into a public library without an approved adult accompaniment.  Some years ago the courts in Philadelphia found that staff could not ask the homeless camping out in the library to leave, even when they accosted the patrons.  

            1. Yep, if you insist on making something open to everyone regardless of their behavior, as opposed to open on condition of good behavior, you soon find only those who behave badly use it.

        2. That’s not privilege, that’s just plain common sense (well, unfortunately common sense is in very short supply in the U.S. lately.)

        3. When we moved back to the Chicago area in 19mumble, Dad picked the perfect location. Grade school, junior high school and the town library were all 1 long block away (and within a short block of each other).

        4. “culturally, people just didn’t go to the library.”
          I posted some extensive excerpts yesterday about “Dagger John” Hughes, the Catholic prelate who pretty much single-handedly pushed the Irish immigrants of the 19th century into becoming a respectable and productive citizenry.
          He could do that because he had two advantages:
          (1) the desperately poor Irish resorted to crime and violence to live, but their religious roots spoke counter to that, and Father Hughes built on those;
          (2) the surrounding American culture rewarded education and moral virtue, so people following Hughes got something better than what they gave up.

          The Left is adamant about negating both those advantages for their victim groups aka tribes.

      3. If you *really* want a cautionary tale about that idea actually being implemented “Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader”, about North Korea, is absolutely, frighteningly creepy. I can’t really recommend it as such, but I do think it should be read by more people.

    3. Though as I recall, aforementioned egg-heads didn’t actually say that you SHOULDN’T read to your kids, just that you ought to feel guilty about doing so. That strikes me as the epitome of modern Leftism.

      “Oh, woe, woe, woe, it’s SO UNFAIR that I get to go to an Ivy League school when all those poor black kids are stuck at state schools. It’s unjust, someone ought to do something about it…oh, sheesh, look at the time, Mom, I’ve got to get to my SAT prep class now!”

      1. A loaf of bread,’ the Walrus said,
        Is what we chiefly need:
        Pepper and vinegar besides
        Are very good indeed —
        Now if you’re ready, Oysters dear,
        We can begin to feed.’

        But not on us!’ the Oysters cried,
        Turning a little blue.
        After such kindness, that would be
        A dismal thing to do!’
        The night is fine,’ the Walrus said.
        Do you admire the view?

        It was so kind of you to come!
        And you are very nice!’
        The Carpenter said nothing but
        Cut us another slice:
        I wish you were not quite so deaf —
        I’ve had to ask you twice!’

        It seems a shame,’ the Walrus said,
        To play them such a trick,
        After we’ve brought them out so far,
        And made them trot so quick!’
        The Carpenter said nothing but
        The butter’s spread too thick!’

        I weep for you,’ the Walrus said:
        I deeply sympathize.’
        With sobs and tears he sorted out
        Those of the largest size,
        Holding his pocket-handkerchief
        Before his streaming eyes.

        O Oysters,’ said the Carpenter,
        You’ve had a pleasant run!
        Shall we be trotting home again?’
        But answer came there none —
        And this was scarcely odd, because
        They’d eaten every one.”

      2. Though as I recall, aforementioned egg-heads didn’t actually say that you SHOULDN’T read to your kids, just that you ought to feel guilty about doing so.

        Some actually did, but you are right, so often it becomes one more reason to feel guilty, one more privilege for which to apologize, and one more tool used by politicians to get you to agree to having your and your neighbor’s pockets picked in order to pay for programs which will not deliver.

        1. ..and they end up bribing other people to get their kids, whom they didn’t read to, into elite-ish schools.

      1. Yep, and their elitist government is doing its best to thwart the will of the people to Brexit.

    4. I remember reading about that too – against considerable competition, it was about the stuuuuupidest suggestion from a credentialed academic with regard to child-rearing that I had ever heard of.

    5. Beat me to it. But there were serious articles (for varying levels of serious) where people were saying that it was white privilege and racist for someone to have a stable family, got raised and taught to read and behave correctly, etc.

      Y’know, not be a tiny little selfish jerkass when they went to nursery or kindy.

      All I could think of was how horribly racist it was to expect that all not-white kids all be tiny monsters.

  2. Isabel Paterson’s The God of the Machine (Paterson was one of the “three furies of libertarianism,” along with Ayn Rand and Rose Wilder Lane) makes a big point of Saint Paul’s saying “I am a Roman citizen . . . I was born free.” Here, she says, is this itinerant street preacher without a lot of money, but when he says, “I’m a person with rights under the law,” the authorities back off and get cautious in how they treat him, because they could get in trouble if they wrong a “Roman.”

  3. Forward planning must reflect that the future is unavoidable mass murder, and that we are only playing a game of optimizing tradeoffs to protect ours most effectively. 😛

    Even if serious unpleasantness is definitely coming, the better outcomes involve some sort of winning coalition. Mental flexibility is going to be needed for the open mind about allies that will help make that coalition.

      1. Very fitting, given that came from the Albigensian Crusade. The Cathars’ outlook on life, sin, having children or eating meat, have an awful lot in common with today’s progressives. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.

          1. From accounts we can read of the times, not. Granted those accounts have a degree of bias, being written by the survivors, but… there was a book I ran across, can’t remember the title, that placed the Cathars, other world-will-end-movements, and fascism in all its flavors (socialism, communism, etc.) as “this is a repeated set of ideas that keep showing up – that the material world is Evil, that humans are Perfectible, etc. – and the rest of us have to keep stomping for our own survival.”

            1. I think SuburbanBanshee mentioned it a while back– some tried to live up to it, some went “oh, we don’t have a chance, so share the corruption of the flesh with me!”

  4. It used to be well known — and is being re-discovered — that a life devoid of difficulties, lacking all challenge, begets snowflakes. Thus a little oppression is good for you. It builds character, it engenders resilience, it toughens and inures you to the various inevitable setbacks and reversals that are characteristic of life as lived by human beings.

    Thus it follows that the highly privileged, by their lack of access to challenges that prod individual growth, are the truly oppressed. They are denied the types of minor frustrations which promote character development. Thus they tend to explode over trivialities.

    Obviously, those who go off over the least obstruction to their will are displaying the absence of real challenges in their lives and exposing themselves as members of the oppressor class. Far better to suck it up and soldier on.

  5. And by race, you should understand what Europeans do: each country a race.

    Eh, more or less.  Some get even more selective in their identities. 

    Germany as consolidated under Bismark was made up of various Germanic kingdoms, Grand Duchies, Duchies, Principalities, three Free and Hanseatic cities and one Imperial Territory (Alsace-Lorraine).  The Bavarians and Prussians, for example, would have taken great affront if you were to confuse them with each other.  

    1. “The Bavarians and Prussians, for example, would have taken great affront if you were to confuse them with each other. ”
      In my studies of WW1, I encountered a little anecdote along those lines (and was pleased to see it tangentially alluded to in Peter Jackson’s film “They Shall Not Grow Old”).
      At one point along the facing trenches, out of the immediate ken of the officers, the Germans one day threw a bottle over to the British with a message inside: “We are Saxons, and you are Anglo-Saxons. Let’s be friends.” So a sort of clandestine truce was arranged, and life along that sector was more peaceful than others.
      Then one day another bottle hurtled across no-man’s-land into the British trench.
      “The Prussians are relieving us. Give them hell.”
      Which they did.

  6. No, sorry, I’m not buying this. Humans “do” Tribal. It’s how we evolved, and it’s something our genes insist we do. The single thing that most makes us “humans” instead of just another animal species is the way we cooperate to achieve more than any individual can. To facilitate that cooperation, we have a huge number of specialized behaviors, and even a huge number of physical adaptations.

    Tribalism was, and is, a large part of the picture that made that work. You need to cooperate with people who will in turn cooperate with you, not waste your cooperation on those who will not help you. That leads to the formation of “tribes”, loosely. A tribe could almost be defined as: “those who are Us, who will help each other”. All others are not in the tribe, and we have entirely different behaviors for them.

    This is not something we ever have, or ever will, “outgrow”, or learn to do without. Any more than we’re going to “learn” to be Vegans. I think we would be best served by recognizing it, acknowledging it, and keeping it under control and in its proper place.

    1. It’s not being kept in it’s proper place, though. Particularly when it seems so popular (mandatory even) to separate us all out and assign individuals traits and virtues according to their group membership.

      And other than some weird theoretical cosmopolitanism, groups that are actually diverse and large, such as national membership, are made villains if people care about them. Or even fandoms, right? Hey, lets look at what we share and love and find a connection and something in common to come together over and… well… since when has that been granular enough for people who want us sorted?

      Granted, I agree that it’s a paradox. People need relatively small networks of supportive friends and family. All the stupid in school about how no one was supposed to form a clique, right? As if we weren’t actually supposed to have a friend *group*? As if humans can form actual relationships with unlimited numbers of other students? When what the problem was is that sometimes the dynamic of the friend group is about control and punishment and dominance, not that it existed.

      But hey, it’s not “unpersoning” or “othering” when those bad people over there aren’t actually people. Right?

    2. But US nationalism is a fairly large tribe, and leftism is a large tribe that naturally fragments into many teeny tiny tribes. Many small tribes is a recipe for endemic warfare.

      1. Thus in the end the left always wind up eating their own.
        The problem is that periodically we USAians feel compelled to pause our daily lives, rear up, and smash the left’s hopes and dreams flat. That in a nutshell is how we got Trump.
        And like any spoiled child is wont to do, when deprived of their fondest desire they pitch a fit and resort to tantrums. And in their righteous anger they do not give a fig for who they hurt or what gets broken.
        So we are at that stage when impossible pipe dreams are touted as necessary policy, and any simple expression of an idea counter to their wishes is violently attacked.
        Cannot help but feel that as I watch good honest people be savaged in the streets, in businesses, and even in their homes by vicious entitled sanctimonious cretins just perhaps there will come a time when it’s necessary to kill them all and let Marx sort them out.

        1. It would save the sane among us if they would start by eating their own, rather than eating all of us first and only then falling into internecine genocide.

          “Just start at the other end of your buffet, dears, and eat each other first.”

    3. Of course humans “do” tribal–it’s how we’re wired. But what you’re missing is that we can and do extend the “tribe” notionally to include strangers who share various characteristics with us. Which characteristics those are depend on which “tribe” we’re currently considering ourselves as. I can be part of the Russian Orthodox Christian tribe, part of the indie SF tribe, part of the interstellar exploration community tribe, part of the east Tennessee redneck tribe, and switch back and forth with little effort needed. Our notions of “tribe” are plastic and expandable. It’s part of how national identities are formed. Traditional Americans know what it means to be an American, without having to know a secret handshake.

      But what the left is doing with its “intersectionalism” is a reductio ad absurdem, trying to divide groups into finer and finer subsections, all of which want to be superior to the other subsections and none of which grant the others legitimacy. They’ve lost (if they ever had) the plasticity that would allow the disparate “tribes” they create to work together. Have you noticed that some fairly radical feminists have started to realize that they’re received and treated more equably by conservative and libertarian venues than by their erstwhile “intersectional” compatriots? Look for more of that, as the leftist autophagy continues…

      1. Once upon a time, Americans were defined by their common Judeo-Christian heritage; which also allowed them to tolerate other non-JC religions, while adhering to a fairly common moral center. The attack on religion, which seems to have gone hand in hand with the rise of Marxist socialism and communism, destroyed both the moral center, and the tolerance of peaceful differences.

        1. I don’t totally agree. The tolerance of peaceful differences is still a strong trope among traditional Americans. It’s just that the leftist religion (for that’s what it is, a particularly fundamentalist religion) totally abjures peaceful coexistence.

          1. This is true. I’ve been prog’splained to that tolerance of anyone in error is simply wrong. That intolerance of those with bad ideas is a moral mandate. It’s not even optional. If you tolerate people with bad ideas, then YOU are bad, too.

            Actual “live and let live” is reserved for those who agree and celebrate the ideas and people they are supposed to agree and celebrate.

            1. “Live and let live”? I like to invert such aphorisms to find the underlying truths: “Make us notice you and we will crush you like the noisome bug you are.”

              1. Ian Fleming’s Live and Let Die comes to mind. IIRC, it also had the line “He disagreed with something that ate him.” Hmm.

              1. Well, of course. As “bad thought” is ever more refined, there is ever more which must not be tolerated. And if you’re not actively trying to root out the bad, then you are bad, too.

                The only reason for free speech is to excuse hate you know. (hack, spit)

          2. And what are the numbers of our “traditional Americans” today? If I remember correctly, total percent of population is much lower than it was; and in absolute numbers it’s still lower than it was. Either way, it’s still tyranny of the traditional minority by the “woke” majority.

            1. You’ve got it backwards. The “woke” have never been a majority, just the loudest. Remember, all the figures you’re seeing are coming from the folks who want to convince us that we’re losing, to demoralize us. They aren’t true.

              1. The edges are loud. (We’re doing polls and political communication in class at Day Job, and about how those who get the attention of politicians tend to be the vehement, not necessarily the majority.)

              2. This past election they sure look like a majority, of voters. House turned back into Democrat, err, Socialist country.

                1. Nope, not the “woke.” They’re still a loud minority. It’s just that those folks who aren’t paying attention to politics usually were swayed by the relentless media promotion of ‘left good, everyone else bad’ and voted accordingly. Oh, and incredibly rampant vote fraud in many leftist enclaves. They’re not even trying to pretend they’re not doing it, anymore. If we had an actual count of eligible voters, the numbers would be much different than what we’re fed by the MSM.

                  1. “Nope, not the “woke.” They’re still a loud minority. It’s just that those folks who aren’t paying attention to politics usually were swayed by the relentless media promotion of ‘left good, everyone else bad’ and voted accordingly. ”
                    David French today at National Review:
                    “Certainly the Democratic mainstream has become more liberal, and its left-most cohorts are white, female, college-educated, and young. In other words, I just described many of the key demographics of American Twitter — the platform that exercises a wildly disproportionate influence on politicians, journalists, and political activists. The dominant feedback loop in the early primary isn’t just from the motivated base (which would be entirely normal), but a motivated base amplified by a specific social-media platform.”

                    1. a motivated base amplified by a specific social-media platform.

                      Sounds like a reprise of what Howard Dean tried back in 2004, when he found that using the internet enabled* him to turn out 80% of his base in an area instead of the usual 10% … but the MSM still multiplied the turnout by a factor of eight and assumed a groundswell that was not there.

                      *numbers made up fr purpose of illustration of the technique. Actual turnout ratios may have been (and probably were) somewhat different.

                    2. When reading David French, it is well to remember that his prime motivator is to convince himself that Trump was a fluke, and if he can just indulge in sufficient moral preening, all us Deplorables will come crawling back begging for forgiveness. One symptom of that is his relentless dismissal of any communications platform that Trump is using effectively.

                  2. Notably, there was an attempt to try Occupy (insert street here) in Adelaide and apparently only two people showed up, one of them a woman who’s notorious for pushing the most leftmost American ideas (and a few that were just plain out there).

                2. Mike, to achieve that there was more fraud than in any election ever. And it was rife before. Look up the shenenigans in Arizona, etc.
                  Also look up “Vote harvesting”
                  They are putting the pinch on the elections. It doesn’t make them a majority. It makes them crooked.

                  1. Not going to disagree with you on that. Even New Hampshire experienced enough reportable fraud to get people to speak up, and then the scuzzbuckets buried it. I’d like to take a baseball bat to every person in this state who opposes voter ID, and I’d settle for slapping the crap out of those who want to give state residency away to the transient college crowd from out of state. If we could get that in place, then we’d at least have a chance to do a physical ballot check to verify the electronic tallies.

                3. Ah, but recall they were supposed to get possible veto-proof majorities in both houses (overly optimistic polls but it was out there), or gain a bit more than the average in seats a sitting President often loses in mid-terms, and take majorities to control both the houses, and instead they managed to get a lower than expected gain in seats, and only got the House, not the Senate.

            2. The majority isn’t woke. If it were, the woke wouldn’t need EPIC ELECTORAL FRAUD which they continuously try to institutionalize. Nor would they need to replace the people.
              The majority is simply “don’t give a damn.”
              Until forced to notice. Which the left is successfully managing to do. Stuff like “We get to mutilate your child if we decide he’s trans” don’t play well on main street.
              That’s how they got Trump.

              1. And of course, we have a Democrat presidential candidate (Warren) now actively campaigning on ending the electoral college.

                Makes fraud easier if you don’t have to do it in all 50 states you know.

                1. There are two: Beta O’Rourke thinks “There’s a Lot of Wisdom In” abolishing Electoral College.

                  I’m not saying all the Dems running to replace Trump will echo that call, but I will be sore surprised if eighteen out of twenty do not. Frankly, it is a freebie for them, something they see as no cost, all benefit; why wouldn’t a Dem argue for that? Hell, they’re already trying to side-step the EC by getting states to mandate their electors follow the national popular vote rather than the state vote.

                  It isn’t as if they think adherence to the Constitution or historical norms is important for them (but damn the Republican who imagines violating those.)

                  Of course, if Trump would suggest it we would undoubtedly hear multiple reasons why the EC is the bulwark of American politics, an essential speed bump limiting majoritarian abuses.

                  Me, I’m hoping Trump proposes adding five new Supreme Court Justices in 2019.

                  1. The Democrats heads would explode. I mean he’d be proposing something they say THEY WANT. OTOH, the minute he proposes it, is exactly the moment they go against it. Plus he’d get to pick them … Popcorn anyone?

                    1. This is why – a couple of days ago – someone (Insty linked it) suggested that Trump should announce that he was going to pack the Supreme Court.

        2. See Diana West’s interview this last weekend, on Secure Freedom’s youtube channel. She speaks of this very thing, that the infiltration of religion by socialism was actually planned as a method of breaking its social cohesion.

          I look around me, observe current trends in Christian institutions, and conclude that she is insufficiently paranoid.

          1. In mainstream Christian (protestant) denominations, yes. But in more evangelical churches, along with the Orthodox churches and some Catholic, it’s working entirely the opposite, the members are cohering much more in the face of the attempted social oppression.

            1. Even in the Mainstream Protestant denominations, you’re seeing it. The more progressive churches are hemorrhaging members while more traditionally focused churches grow. Previously ‘just going along’ members are starting to take NOTICE of what their leaders are doing. (I’ve watched it happen twice in the past 20 years, first hand, and heard of many more battles at various levels.)

              1. Yeah, I saw that the United Methodist church rejected same-sex marriage and ordination of homosexuals. The leftist elites were gobsmacked, and seem to be now considering leaving the denomination entirely. It didn’t really surprise me, as I was raised in the Evangelical United Brethren church which merged with the Methodists in 1967 to create the United Methodist church. EUB and rural Methodist churches were probably closer socially to Baptist than to their urban counterparts, and the African Methodist churches are equally biblically traditional.

                1. And I was Presbyterian when they had THEIR rounds with that decision. And watched as the liberal churches panicked as the growing prosperous (and therefore money-making) churches bailed on PCUSA in job lots for another General Assembly (Evangelical Presbyterian in the case of my home church.)

                  1. The same thing happened, IIRC with the Anglican/Episcopal denomination. (Yes, my Lutheran ancestors should forgive me for flirting with that denomination. Yes, I adored the literary language of the Book of Common Prayer.) I THINK the same thing has happened with the ECLA/Missouri Synod. Missouri Synod is conservative (the last that I checked in) ECLA has gone all SJW.

                    1. And then there’s Wisconsin Synod… (I was told to watch out for Missouri Synod Lutherans, “because they’re fast.” I thanked the gent for the warning and did not laugh.)

                    2. The ALC (one half of the ELCA) was leaning SJW in the ’60s. We bailed when the pastor was too wrapped up in the civil rights movement to notice that the congregation’s treasurer (my dad) had a serious heart attack.

                      LCA was a bit more conservative in the late ’60s, but the seed was sown.

                      OTOH, the last church we went to was affiliated with the Friends. The Northwest Yearly Meeting just imploded over gay marriage/gay ministers. NWYM had been one of the less liberal Yearly Meetings (think synod, sort of), but it’s now a huge mess.

                      And I’m fresh out of give-a-damns.

              2. Definitely in the mainstream Protestant denominations, and it has been going on for quite some time. There have been schisms in the Lutheran church, breaks in the Presbyterian church and fractures in the Episcopal church.

                I don’t know about the Lutherans, but in some cases the more orthodox Presbyterian and Episcopal congregations that have broken with the denomination have gone to court in an attempt to retain long held congregational properties.

                1. Yup. My church in Tulsa was one of the ones that went to court over it. First pres split right down the middle on the issue. Our church lost… five members (out of 1500 attending). And those weren’t because they agreed with PCUSA, but because they disagreed that PCUSA couldn’t be salvaged. I still say PCUSA was the most prophetically named US protestant group ever.

    4. Tribalism, like clannishness, is a lower state and should be superceded. Tribalism is what makes us state, “The hell with how it harms society, I want my group privileges.”

      Heinlein had a brief essay on this, in which defined the ascension of sensibility:

      The Pragmatics of Patriotism
      We are now ready to observe the hierarchy of moral behavior from its lowest level to its highest. The simplest form of moral behavior occurs when a man or other animal fights for his own survival. Do not belittle such behavior as being merely selfish. Of course it is selfish… but selfishness is the bedrock on which all moral behavior starts and it can be immoral only when it conflicts with a higher moral imperative. An animal so poor in spirit that he won’t even fight on his own behalf is already an evolutionary dead end; the best he can do for his breed is to crawl off and die, and not pass on his defective genes.

      The next higher level is to work, fight, and sometimes die for your own immediate family. This is the level at which six pounds of mother cat can be so fierce that she’ll drive off a police dog. It is the level at which a father takes a moonlighting job to keep his kids in college – and the level at which a mother or father dives into a flood to save a drowning child… and it is still moral behavior even when it fails.

      The next higher level is to work, fight, and sometimes die for a group larger than the unit family – an extended family, a herd, a tribe – and take another look at that baboon on watch; he’s at that moral level. I don’t think baboon language is complex enough to permit them to discuss such abstract notions as ‘morality’ or ‘duty’ or ‘loyalty’ – but it is evident that baboons DO operate morally and DO exhibit the traits of duty and loyalty; we see them in action. Call it ‘instinct’ if you like – but remember that assigning a name to a phenomenon does not explain it.

      But that baboon behavior can be explained in evolutionary terms. Evolution is a process that never stops. Baboons who fail to exhibit moral behavior do not survive; they wind up as meat for leopards. Every baboon generation has to pass this examination in moral behavior; those who bilge it don’t have progeny. Perhaps the old bull of the tribe gives lessons… but the leopard decides who graduates – and there is no appeal from his decision. We don’t have to understand the details to observe the outcome; baboons behave morally – for baboons.

      The next level in moral behavior higher than that exhibited by the baboon is that in which duty and loyalty are shown toward a group of your kind too large for an individual to know all of them. We have a name for that. It is called ‘patriotism.’

      Behaving on a still higher moral level were the astronauts who went to the Moon, for their actions tend toward the survival of the entire race of mankind. The door they opened leads to hope that h. sapiens will survive indefinitely long, even longer than this solid planet on which we stand tonight. As a direct result of what they did, it is now possible that the human race will NEVER die. Many short-sighted fools think that going to the Moon was just a stunt. But those astronauts knew the meaning of what they were doing, as is shown by Neil Armstrong’s first words in stepping down onto the soil of Luna: ‘One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.’

      1. Well, yes and no. Problem as I see it is, we have tribalism or we have a single global new world order. Frankly, I’d rather stick to the various tribes because that drives competition and improvement. A global government would lead to stagnation and possible death of our species long before our time. Save your global government for when we have at least a dozen different planets supporting humanity.

          1. Uhm, yeah. See Heinlein, elsewhere this page. If after reading him you still cannot distinguish, ask questions. Do not be the baboon.

      2. Heinlein’s essay has appended to his speech these lines from “The Fallen” by Laurence Binyon.

        ‘”They shall not grow old as we that are left grow old;
        age shall not wither them nor the years condemn;
        At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we shall remember them.”

        The phrase that has become the title to the recent excellent WWI documentary is followed by this line, which the film eerily refutes, if only on the screen.
        “They mingle not with their laughing comrades again”

    5. Yet, for a great while the United States was a melting pot culture, bound together not by family, but by an idea.  

      My Scotch ancestors who had twice fled the English, first to Ireland and then the U.S., would probably have been horrified to think that there is now English blood in the family.  The FFV ancestor who first arrived here could not possibly have imagined that one of their descendants some 200 years later would be married to a New York Jew who traced his family back to the Russian Pale and before that to Spain.  There are other examples in my family — all of whom would have considered themselves of different tribes with little in common before they came the the U.S..

      I am glad that my family choose to expand their definition of tribe, abandoning old prejudices.  Now, I fear that we, as a society, are busy finding ways to exacerbate our differences, and that is not to anyone’s benefit. 

    6. The fact that Humans “do” something is hardly commendation for the practice. Humans “do” poop in the streets, Humans “do” schtupp anything that will hold still and many things that won’t. Humans “do” alcoholism, drug abuse, rampant theft and genocide.

      None of these are things humans should order societies to promote.

      1. Humans get up to all sort so things. ALL sorts. Some work out. Some… are horrifying. But in a crowd of panicked humans, there will be enough variation that, sometimes, even the “impossible to survive” is survived – you can’t *design* a society based upon that variance, but it’s one of those things that means there IS a society, however messed up it might be, continuing. Copy it? How do you copy reserve insanity?

      2. *applause*

        Leave it to a wallaby to understand that what makes us human isn’t what’s in our genes but our willingness to rise above that.

      3. Humans also do slavery … but if we were to list everything that humans do (or have done) that is generally no longer considered right and proper we would need a bigger internet.

        1. “Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above.”
          Best line in the movie!

      4. Humans breathe. I recommend continuing the practice. Except perhaps for the progressive pols and activists. They can cease.

    7. I would say what we’re seeing is not a ‘return’ to tribalism (I agree with you on its function) but rather a breakdown of proper tribes, so now we have all these kids who have no tribe of their own, so they try to invent one, and since what they achieve is not a real tribe (which is to say, a coalition to look out for one another), it rapidly degrades into the savagery of every man for himself.

      1. Good point about the “artificial” nature of the Left’s tribes. Real tribes developed organically, from family to clan to tribe to (sometimes) group-of-tribes (think Native American Nations). After that came States and Empires.
        Real tribes have “racial affinity” because all the members of the extended family were of the same race (duh). But they also included male & female & the infinitesimally small group of sorta-something-else (which cultures handled differently).
        Separate male and female tribes have no stability or practicality in nature.
        Conformity of behavior and ideology followed family-clan-tribe, as a natural consequence of “do and believe what keeps most of the tribe alive longest or bestest.”
        Trying to create “tribes” downstream of ideology, life styles, and even “race,” is inherently artificial.
        So – after beating around the barn until I figured it out – what Reziac said.

  7. Well, I mean, you were privileged. Your parents actually made sure you got an education, rather than just credentialed.
    Of course you were going to be poking holes in Marx.

        1. Rousseau bah, I am saving mine for one more personal
          Jane Fonda. Even got a nice bottle of wine, to be used while I stand in a very very long line.

            1. yes, I agree with your statement. However Fonda is more personal. To RES above, I agree with the your statement, but the wine is for me, and the celebration of she that is now no more ( plus the soon lighten of the load calls for something more special) celebrating her life or life work, ripple plus piss on her. Celebrating her no more is worth ( to me ) a better grade filling up. and now that I think of it, sharing a better grade would be worth to those of us standing in line.

              you talked me into it … kegger

  8. I’m a Dragon, we don’t do “Tribes” (but try to not annoy other dragons).

    Which is why those puny humans can sometimes win against a Dragon.

    The Dragon isn’t facing ONE human, he’s facing a tribe (or greater) of humans. 😉

  9. They keep passing it off as globalist though. We’re all one people. There should be just one government to rule earth. No borders.

    They forget that not everyone has the same ideas on how things should be done. They scream that they want diversity, but their actions indicate the opposite.

    A belief in marxism should be more grounds for a clinical mental health deficiency than homosexuality was ever considered.

    1. Pay no attention to their asserted motives and claimed goals.There was room for some honest, if misguided, altruism in the Progressive Left at the beginning of the 19th Century. There is no such room now. They’ve had a Century, and left a wake of destruction, death, and misery behind them. These mammy-jammers want people to do what Their Betters tell them. That’s all. It’s will to power. To that end they will say anything, do anything. If they thought it was a route to the control they want so much they would eat a live baby on national television.

      Oh, I’ll grab there are some of the followers who are actually ignorant of the real motives…but they are ignorant through carefully ignoring the evidence.

      1. The difference between Hillary’s supporters and Trump’s supporters?
        Hillary could have murdered a pregnant girl scout on national TV and they wouldn’t convict her. Had Trump done so, his supporters would have lynched him before he got off the speaking platform..

      2. As JP likes to point out, no one dares argue, “Hitler was 70 plus years ago. Why are you still claiming the Third Reich and the Holocaust as a reason not to embrace Fascism. That wasn’t real Fascism.”

        But with the Killing Fields of Cambodia, The Great Leap Forward, The Cultural Revolution, and many more events more recent, and spread over more attempts, people have no issue saying that about Communism.

        The contrast alone tells me all I need to know.

        1. Was Hitler a fascist? He didn’t call himself one; he called himself a socialist. Now Mussolini called himself a fascist, and he was a classic nasty authoritarian, but he didn’t inflict megadeaths on his own people. Nor did Franco, or Salazar, or Peron, or Vargas, or any other fascist regime I’m aware of. Hitler was the anomaly; in fact he was more like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot than like any of the fascists.

          How long will the name of true fascism be bloodied by association with this murderous socialist?

  10. …intersectionalism.

    Which I suppose is better than “bloody mentally deficient recreation of tribalism by the pampered children of western civilization.”

    Well, it’s shorter though FAR less descriptive.

  11. Of course, yes, Christianity had a lot to do with this, but there was some of that going on already in the Roman Empire, where Persian and Greek could both declare (after the appropriate formalities and acculturation) “Civis Romanum sum.”

    As luck would have it, I’ve been listening to an Audible of “The greatest speeches in history”. Yesterday’s included one of Kennedy’s speeches where he said that two thousand years before the proudest boast was that one was a citizen of Rome (with appropriate Latin) but that today, the proudest boast is that one is a jelly doughnut. 😉

    1. A well made jelly doughnut is a marvelous concoction, sweet and savory and a delight to the palate.

    2. Fancy speeches aside…

      I think that it’s incredibly important that we have citizenship as something uniquely powerful. That definition of “belonging” should be significant. It doesn’t probably even matter the most what country you’re a citizen of (or, since this is sci-fi territory, if it’s even geological) only that you have a legal identity that comes with legal benefits and obligations and that it follows you around. So the citizen of Rome took those benefits and obligations, those legal protections, with them when they traveled. So do we, or anyone else.

      There are an unusually large number of naturalized citizens that hang around here, including Sarah of course, and that citizenship ought to and should mean something, because what is it worth if it *doesn’t* mean anything? Dave Freer’s Australian citizenship ought to *mean something*. (Even if we all look at him sideways about his choices, though who could scorn those beaches, hum?) Someone who’s British or German or Nigerian or… whatever… their citizenship ought to mean something.

      1. “you have a legal identity that comes with legal benefits and obligations and that it follows you around.”
        Diluting the definition of American citizenship, and blurring the identification of citizens, is a goal of the Left for precisely that reason: it has values that run counter to their agenda.

    3. I have think that the call to tear down that wall was a whole lot more appropriate to the situation than publicly self-identifying as a deep fried treat.

  12. I think it won’t get better until after there’s a great deal of real violence. I think the Left isn’t expecting physical resistance when they begin to enforce their policies, but it’s inevitably. They haven’t examined their own beliefs to see if they match reality, and any evidence that their ideas don’t work is dismissed without investigation. This pattern will lead to violence, and I’m afraid they have to be on the receiving end of it before they change their behavior. I just hope it doesn’t come to a full scale war like it has before.

    1. I’m not looking forward to it. But that does remind me that I need to pick up a couple more boxes of 00 buck.

      1. 2000 for the rifles, 10000 for the handguns. Plus everything to reload.

        I also need to start putting in more range time. And cleaning up/fully equipping the work shop.

          1. That’s not much ammo.

            My real plan is being able to reload and manufacture whiskey. Being a source of those two items should gain me a lot of people willing to trade, including defense.

    2. The Left seems to have read the Hitchhikers Guide one too many times and are convinced if they make sure they can’t see people who disagree those people won’t exist.

      Hence the forcing the non-Leftists out of everything and forcing them to build alternate financial and internet structures. As Tim Pool likes to point out, that is the stupidist thing you can do because it cuts the biggest reason they have not to burn your things down, the fact that right now they need them too.

      Heaven help the Left if they succeed in making the right build a complete parallel set of institutions.

      1. To be fair they have taught us a lesson we were ignoring: centralization of technology leads inevitably to centralization of power. It was our fault all along for having a single banking system.

        (no I don’t know how much I’m joking)

        1. TINS – was watching an ad for OnStar and it showed someone slowing and stopping a stolen car by remote control in order to keep it from running over a kid on a bike. Now, I don’t know if that’s what the commercial was actually for (had it muted), but my response was to throw a pillow at the screen and swear never, ever to get anything with OnStar in it.

          1. Subaru has something like that, called StarLink. On the 2016 Forester, there were a range of options. We didn’t get the auto-off service (just emergency satellite link, in case I had trouble outside of cell service), but with the hardware in place, if TPTB decide the car is going to be disabled, it’s going to be disabled.

            Honda has a similar system, but it counts on a third party cell phone link. I don’t own a phone that is linked to the vehicle, so it might (maybe) be immune to a remote turnoff in its current configuration.

            Some of the tinfoil hat brigade are wondering if the 737 Max 8s have an automatic switch to remotely force a rapid descent. Me, I think it’s an engineering SNAFU, but I’m keeping Heinlein’s corollary to Hanlon’s Razor in mind.

            1. Hyundai has BlueLink. Don’t remember what Mazda has.

              At minimum both OnStar and BlueLink (Chevy Pickup, Hyundai Sonata, are what we have) have 3 levels.

              1) Safety (emergency call, then they call 911) and they will send vehicle service status. Also allows them to send emergency or road assistance, depending on the severity. Unlock vehicle remotely. Since it requires cell service. My cell can do the same thing to either my insurance or 911. Been tracking our service stuff forever … don’t need help.

              2) Remote access. For you through your cell phone (start/stop car if key fob isn’t in the car, etc). For them through cell towers. Including what you saw on the OnStar commercial.

              3) Maps & location services. Which most of us have on our phones. FYI. What you loose is auto updates & google location of services. Mapping works just fine. You can do manual updates onto the card yourself.

              When I cancelled all 3 services on both vehicles, I was told that dropping the services would prevent them (either service) from assisting the police should our vehicle be stolen. BUT interestingly enough, all we have to do is sign up again and “magic” our vehicle is now available for them being able to assist the police should it be stolen. Conclusion. Not a matter of “can’t”, matter of “won’t”. Unless of coarse YOU are the target of the law …

  13. Trouble is, we have no guarantee that the future isn’t going to be tribal. If the Left can keep smashing the foundations of civilization, that may be all that’s left.

    1. The thing is, if they destroy civilization, those of us not on their side will have no reason not to destroy them. And then perhaps we can restart civilization on rational terms.

  14. Two disjointed thoughts:

    The Evil Party is about power and control. The Stupid Party is about power and wealth. The control that follows is incidental.

    As stated in the article, there is a concerted effort to separate the American people into warring factions. The left is full of people who think they are the rightful inheritors of history. Sadly, only the elites would be the winners. The rest are useful idiots.

    1. No, there would be no winners at all. The elites only think they would be the winners. In reality, they’d probably be among the first to be eliminated.

    2. “The left is full of people who think they are the rightful inheritors of history”
      And also believe that violence is wrong and that Firearms are BAD.

      They may be the “rightful inheritors” but they will NOT be the “inheritors”.
      That will be some Biker with a sawed off or other person who has no problem with violence or firearms.

      1. Actually, it will be the guy able to gather and effectively lead a bunch of organized guys with weapons to success.
        Though it’s very likely that you’ll have more of a warring states kind of thing, should it come to that.

        1. That is why a gentleman of means and property, which at the current time I define as owning their own home free and clear from a mortgage, should own sufficient semi-automatic rifles that use his local military’s cartridge to man a rifle squad of similar size to his local military and sufficient ammo for one load out. So, for the US, AR-15s with a minimum of 250 rounds (with stripper clips) for eight rifle men in two fire teams and a squad leader. There is also a medic, but I would say have a handgun for them, plus a good medical kit.

          He then needs to get to know his neighbors and determine which ones he wants in his squad if the need develops. Part of this should be inviting them to regular range time and other group bonding activities.

  15. We can’t let it win. We must go into the culture and rescue it from this trap. We must pluck the neo-barbs from their panicky-irrational-self-defense.

    The great success of leftism is destroying enough of our culture that a critical mass, particularly of men who know they have no chance of family and home between feminist standards, destroyed changes at decent work, and competing with the providing power of big daddy government, that given a chance between fixing the culture and settling scores while helping it all burn the latter is more appealing.

    The socialists think they will then get to build their perfect society. They don’t understand that those destroyers:

    1. Want to settle scores most especially with those leftists (even if that isn’t the marker they are using to identify targets).
    2. Are nihilist enough to only care about burning things, including that new socialist utopia.

  16. “He knew in his heart of hearts that the workers would rise up and kill everyone else and take the means of production, and after a suitable underpants gnome break, paradise would ensue.” Once the bosses are killed, and then their supervisors are killed, and all the administrators are killed, who’s left that might know how to make the factory work as it used to.? Well, let’s burn the place down and start from scratch! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm; no how do we do that?

    1. That’s the basis of condemning “The Patriarchy” and everything that actually *works* in our society is “The Patriarchy.” It all needs to be torn down. It needs to go! And once “The Patriarchy” and the Civilization built on that oppressive model is gone? Well, once that happens, with a suitable underpants gnome break, the original and uncorrupted structures of society will flourish as if by magic. Different ways of thinking, building, and creating will spontaneously… bloom.

      We may all die of dysentery, and “but muh roads” won’t be an issue anymore, but it will all be worth it.

      And cow farts.

      On a somewhat serious note… if there was some other model of civilization that worked… wouldn’t it have out-competed “The Patriarchy?” Wouldn’t we have some other example somewhere on the planet that resulted in greater prosperity and freedom and scientific advancement?

      1. Oh, yeah! It’s called Paradise Island, where women run around competing against each other and…wait…
        you mean that’s comic-book fiction?
        Okay, then how about all those other matriarchal prehistorical European societies that professors Gimbutas and Zimmer Bradley postulate?
        They were clearly full of greater prosperity and freedom and sciency stuff until those eeevil white males came in and wiped them out! So there!

          1. Hell, I’m willing to stipulate they did exist.

            The fact that they failed and were replaced permanently with patriarchy proves patriarchy is superior.

            I find arguing that much more satisfying, if only for the resulting facial expressions, than the truth. 🙂

            1. Except it’s not even really patriarchy. That part of what I posted was tongue-in-cheek and suitably “quotation” delineated.

              It’s just not HARD to look at cultures and governments and *systems* without being able to see which ones work and which ones work less-well or don’t work at all. What works are market systems. Even Europe seems to have slogged along in the muck until trade and markets created a middle-class and then industrialization and capitalism provided equality to women.

              In fact, it’s so very *not hard to see*, that people who argue otherwise require lifetimes of study and PhDs in order to do so.

            2. There’s definitely a lot of handwaving going on in their arguments when we get to the part about why, if these prehistoric matriarchial societies were so perfect, everyone was so eager to overthrow them the first time the partriarchy showed up.

          2. Because Except for of the fact that they didn’t exist, those prehistoric societies were great…


            No inconvenient truths around to taint the grand delusion dream.

  17. “The Patriarchy”, noun: The system through which women harnessed the power of men’s libidos to engineer a world with indoor plumbing, central heat, and children who live to adulthood.

    1. Which women are now pissed off either:

      1. That they got it.
      2. That it isn’t giving them the right kind of warmth.

  18. Poe’s Law News, Richmond

    In a stunning display of bipartisan consensus, the US Senate has today voted unanimously to confirm Judge Simon McMontfort to replace the late Justice Ginsberg on the Supreme Court.

    Born James McLaury in 1901, McMontfort served in the British Army during WWI, and later in the Royal Irish Constabulary Special Reserve. Fleeing arrest, in 1927 he took the name McMontfort and began serving the state of Georgia as a judge. In 1935, he was appointed to the Federal Ninth Circuit. In 1958, McMontfort was removed from office and sentenced to twenty years for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’.

    Following the death of Ginsburg, President Trump commuted the remaining 563 years of McMontfort’s sentences to time served, and nominated him for the position.

    Senators Warren, Gillibrand, and Klobucher withdrew their objections after he explained his understanding of the implications of Original Sin.

    A spokesman of the Presbyterian Church (USA) issued the following statement. “McMontfort is very thoroughly educated theologically, and a meticulous thinker. We have been in correspondence with him, and believe he is in error on several points of the Westminster Confession. We do not and cannot endorse his teaching.”

    The Supreme Court is expected to hear the United Kingdom’s request for McMontfort’s extradition in August.

  19. For a couple of decades now I’ve been telling my friends that in the West we’ve had centuries of growing our groups, bringing others in; yet the left now wants to shrink groups, and make others ‘the other’.

  20. The really stupid thing about American Marxist is this- who do you expect is going to fight for you?
    -The various minorities groups you patronize and treat as pets? Many just want to just assimilate, others want a paycheck, and still others want to instill a Caliphate.
    -The very small number of your members who own guns? You don’t have enough of them, and you’re doing everything possible to keep them from ownership in the first place,
    -Law enforcement & the military? Those people you call babykillers, racist, ignorant, and everything but a child of God? Ha, no.

    Should it come down to armed fighting, the spoiled and privileged Left will very quickly be cast aside, buried, and forgotten. They may light the fuse and pile the kindling, but they won’t be around after it goes off.

    1. Honestly, that might be the best outcome. If the balloon goes up, the best outcome would be if the military, law enforcement, and the unorganized militia (the trained and gun-owning male populace between 16 and 45, and females serving in the national guard) said, “Oh HELL no!” and did a surgical decapitation of the leftist elite, removing them from any possibility of influencing the country again. It might be chancy, but there’d at least be a chance that they’d stand down after that and return the country to actual constitutional governance.

      1. Don’t forget the retired unorganized militia…just because I’m 52 doesn’t mean I’ll sit it out. I don’t want to be answering for saying, “I was too old” to Samuel Whittemore for the rest of eternity.

    2. Never, ever be okay with going to war because you know the other side cannot fight as well as you.

      Nearly every losing nation in history thought that.

      Yes, the spoiled and the privileged Left might be mostly cast aside, although some fraction will find their red badge of courage and wear it proudly, but a lot of people who do know how to fight will glom onto their side with hopes of power and rapine. They know the other side won’t allow it nor are they capable of taking it over.

      They know they are capable of liquidating most of the privileged leftists before the fight and will out number the losers after. As an aside, the saddest thing that Leftists haven’t learned is not that Marxism doesn’t work, but that true Marxists don’t survive the rise of a Stalin or Mao.

      1. The thing is, we’re not the ones wanting to go to war or start a revolution.
        All we want is to just be left alone.
        If anything, your advice applies more to them.

          1. The question is just how many are truly wanting a real war, and how many are just LARPing yammerheads?
            Yammerheads tend to make an infinite amount of noise, but an infinitesimal amount of actual action.

            1. We have to speak against the yammerheads, because there are people who could be persuaded by us and by the yammerheads. Anyone we can talk down is good.

              Elements on the left are pushing on tension, because it serves their ends. Any one on the right who can be convinced to hold off, and maybe get saner in the mean time, is an incident that can’t exploited. Anyone on the left who can be convinced to hold off also helps us chase the possibility of avoiding civil war. There are crazies we can’t do anything about. It is worth saying, again and again, that the real world is not as simple as media makes it sound.

              1. One of the great things about freedom of speech is that it allows the yammerheads to keep talking, and talk themselves right out of a deal.
                Occasional-Cortex, for instance, is rapidly talking & tweeting herself from Leftwing media darling into seriously disliked laughingstock per Gallup.

                1. Her words. Only someone else said them to Chelsea Clinton, and the right has been defending Chelsea (kind of). Only kind of because the commenters are disgusted about the attack, but also disgusted that she didn’t have the guts to say “What the hell? What recreational cocktail have you been taking?”, and apologized for contributing to the problem.

                  Yes. Occasional-Cortex’s stock has been dropping rapidly.

                  Thank god. Hopefully, she’ll be a bump in the road memory long before she is old enough to run for the presidency. OTOH she is the gift for republicans and President Trump that just keeps on giving … Every time she does something I think … “hmm, popcorn or Junior Mints?”

                  1. Earlier, I did think the Democrats were about to chop her down and throw her out (and they still may yet, via ethics investigations and so on).
                    Now, they may keep her around to make themselves look sane in comparison to the normies, yet still have someone to appeal to the kook fringe types.

                    1. I’m pretty sure someone stateside is ordering them in bulk and marking the price up.

              2. Because waiting to be attacked by people who have made it clear they want you dead has always worked out so well historically…..

        1. There is definitely a strain of feeling on the nominal right, angrier than even I am, and not even having my level of ignorance of the costs, that looks at the media picture, figures it an easy fight, and is eager for it.

          1) The other side has a significant component that is also American. Whatever they may think in theory, they are American, and can’t be trusted to remain meek and helpless if danger gets their blood up. They have a blind spot where certain dangers are concerned, they imagine others, but that does not mean that they are completely blind to reality. 2) There are a significant fraction of neutrals with dangerous skills and potential ability, that could be alienated. We don’t want to alienate those people. Let the opposition kick things off. As long as Hillary is around, there is a good chance that she will force a start before it can succeed. And the danger may not survive her. 3) Anyone who starts a civil war sure that they will win is wrong. If your side is strong enough to win for sure with a fight, it is strong enough to win for sure without a fight.

          1. I’ve been reading a fair bit of political writing c. the late 60’s/early 70’s, and we’re no where near the level of heated political nastiness of that tempestuous era.

            1. To be fair, nobody has set off a few hundred bombs in NYC the past few years, either.

          2. 4) If we ever get to an open shooting civil war, don’t expect the rest of the world to just sit on their hands. There will be plenty out there willing to take advantage of one side or the other in order to further their own ends.

              1. The following is my impression and could be erroneous based on information I do not have:

                Not as much as they could have. The US wasn’t really a big player on the world stage. By that point in our history, we’d negotiated our way out of the “quasi-war” with France, lost the war of 1812 with England (for so they saw it), won against Mexico but they weren’t a world power either. There wasn’t the incentive, nor the animus against us, to draw in as much as could have been done.

                For instance, had England held its nose on the slavery issue and thrown its weight in with the South, they might well have ended the North’s blockade of the South and countered the North’s industrial advantage. I don’t know that it would have been enough to allow the South to remain independent, but the war would have dragged on a lot longer, leaving the United States exhausted and depleted and ripe pickings for anyone who wanted it.

                We just weren’t important enough to the rest of the world for anyone to make a serious effort at it.

                Today, however, we are that important and enough people hate us to take advantage of civil unrest not for their benefit, but for our detriment. Hurting us would be the goal in itself.

                1. Your impression is erroneous. Study it from primary sources from the other side.
                  They didn’t want to claim the US as a country so our role in the world didn’t matter. They wanted to claim the TERRITORY as colonies.

                  1. What we have now, however, is a large part of the world simply wants to hurt us. Them acquiring our lands or assets would run a distant second to that primary purpose.

                    1. I’m not sure there is anybody with sufficient force projection capability for an invasion of the US mainland. Hell, China would be hard pressed to occupy Taiwan, much less California. I doubt an occupying force would find even a warring with itself US amenable to their governance — there’s one advantage to decentralization.

                      OTOH, if the desire is simply to hurt us, there is mischief aplenty to be perpetrated by aiding one or both of the American combatants.

                      Or, you know, simply deploy a few EMP devices, although they can do that already.

            1. In the memorable phrase of J. Wellington Wimpy, “Let’s you and him fight.”

              There will be volunteers aplenty to hold our coats (and rifle our pockets.)

      2. “Never, ever be okay with going to war because you know the other side cannot fight as well as you.”
        The Left may not fight as well as the Right, but they will fight meaner, nastier, more viciously, and without any moral compassion or compunction.
        It takes a great toll on good people to fight against evil.
        One clue about which side is which: who feels bad when the people on the “other” side get hurt?
        See: Solomon and the Disputed Infant.
        Or the sentiment apocryphally attributed to Golda Meir: “When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons.”

      1. Yes, well, when the only Hispanics you know clean your house or deliver your pizza…

      2. Part that, part ignorance of how and why military organizations work, and the assumption that criminality is equivalent.

        Yeah, apparently a WWI infantry veteran applied the experience to inventing an excellent form of bank robbery, and a lot of Central and South American criminal organizations recruit heavily from military forces, but they are not essentially the same.

      3. Let’s face it, the typical white leftist is the social and philosophical to the Klan. The difference is instead of intimidation by violence they are trying bribery to assuage their fears.

        You see their fear every time they use the “but what if black start buying guns” to gun rights supporters.

        1. The old white racist saw minorities as dangerous wild animals; the modern white racist see them as wild animals to be conservated and protected.
          Neither really sees them as humans.

  21. If y’all haven’t ever read Bill Whittle’s excellent essay about “Tribes,” go read it now at It was originally published by Whittle in 2005. It is still an excellent read. But there is a “trigger warning” about “harsh language” in that essay! 🙂 Of course, none of Sarah’s regular readers will have a problem with that, but of course the SJWs will have the vapors merely about how Whittle treats the subject. 🙂


    1. Whittle’s sermon should be read yearly by every sheepdog and aspiring sheepdog-enabler.

  22. My line is that in the modern era we have replaced the genuine tribalism of the kindred with “fake tribalism:” the nation state, the corporation, the sports team, the political party. The left has invented fake tribes like the class, the gender, the poor, the rich, the capitalists, the fascists, the deplorables.
    I don’t think we are ever going to grow out of tribalism; but maybe we can soften its edges.

    1. you wish it was those tribes. And the nation state is probably our bulwark against the left. At least in the case of the US, and hell why not Europe.
      Look, the problem of Nazis was NOT nationalism. It was their “utopian version.”
      We’ve seen worse from internationalism.
      Corporations? Bah. free association, mostly created by stupid laws that punish individuals.
      BUT these splinter tribes? these ‘No one but us is human?” That unmakes civilization.

      1. I might quibble that the problem with the Nazis was not the German nationalism, it was the Aryan nationalism. The German nation was an actual real, existing thing; the Aryan nation was a figment of some fairly fevered imaginations.

        Of course, racial and ethnic purity is a thing the Progressives would never indulge. Demanding that people refrain from adopting manners, fashions, customs of other racial groups would never cross their collective mind.

        1. The Nazis were pretty internationalist, and the Soviets were very nationalist during WWII.

          1. And Orwell explained why the Great Patriotic War was the right name prior to Hitler invading Russia in “My Country Right or Left”.

    2. One flaw in our modern tribalism is that the Tribe presumes to dictate how you must believe, what you must (and must not) say, how you may think and you get little say in the matter. It’s all vicious queen bees and drones, and Heaven help you if you are not the queen.

      1. In this world, you must make your own bed
        And no one will show you the trick
        So lie down and get kicked if you want to
        As for me, I would rather stand and kick

        From: Aufstieg und Fall der Stadt Mahagonny (The Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny) libretto by Bertolt Brecht

        Denn wie man sich bettet (As You Make Your Bed)

    3. This very phenomenon points to the real answer.
      The Progressives (post-Puritans with “ISO standard Inner Light” dogma, which creates variations of “everyone is an American in a funny hat” idiocy) try to eliminate something that is an intrinsic psychophysiological trait of H.S.Sapiens. But most of them are themselves H.S.Sapiens and carry firmware that produces it.
      In an environment where mostly-natural forms of some instinctive behaviour are discouraged, more or less perverted forms inevitably arise as substitutes. Much like with those supposedly chaste Catholic priests. Looks like it’s the case.
      Now that we figured out that it’s biological, it’s possible to study the effect on historical data. Or find at least two very good reasons why this trait is an adaptation following sapience itself closely, if not strictly necessarily.
      Or just read “Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere” and “Psychopath Code”, if you are not in a mood for solving puzzles.

      1. Issue with that priest theory: even if all the homosexual accusations are true (even the physically impossible) then the rate is still lower than abuse by scout masters and teachers, both of which are not chaste.

        Predators go where there is prey.

  23. I don’t think I have language that can express my contempt for these socialist/Marxists/social “justice” people. It might take German to pull it off.

    But, how absolutely amazingly good at being bad at what they promise they are trying to do!

    They promise to bring us unity, and they tear us apart.
    They promise to fix the problems of the world, and they make us all beggars to their cause.
    They promise to raise us up, and they throw us into the mud.

    I can’t think of a single thing that they’ve been a part of that they haven’t torn apart and destroyed. Music, movies, fandom, the NFL, comic books…

    These people are making us find allies that we would never touch with a ten foot pole. Because they are willing to fight. And, I hate it, I despite it, and I want nothing more than to see it end. Because I’m tired of watching them set the world on fire just to see it burn.

  24. “until the tribe of one is at war with everyone else, and worse stuck in a pit of anger and resentment because he/she isn’t given all the recognition and compensation he/she should have from the rest of the world at large.”
    Sounds kind of like Milton’s Satan.

    1. Except Satan was a lot more eloquent and civilized – for certain values of civilized, and when he needed to be.

  25. Rusty | March 19, 2019 at 6:14 pm | Reply
    If y’all haven’t ever read Bill Whittle’s excellent essay about “Tribes,” go read it now at
    * * *
    You have to read the whole thing, really, but it occurs to me that Whittle’s “Tribe” as he descibes it, and the Pink and Grey Tribes of his parable, are just as artificial as the tribes / victim groups of the Left.
    All organic family-clan-tribes contain Pink and Grey, or good and evil (the axes are orthogonal); each tribe deals with their own reprobates, nonconformists, traitors or what you will.
    What happens to create Civilization and Great Nations, is that the Grey people in Tribe A realize they can work with the Grey people in Tribe B and get more things done better.
    The Pink people of both Tribes also find common cause in good things.
    And the good people in both tribes unite to beat back the bad people of either tribe.
    Wolf A and Wolf B might fight over turf, but both are enemies of Sheepdog A and Sheepdog B, who (if they are smart) form an alliance against the wolves to protect the Sheep of both tribes.
    The Sheep of A and B don’t have to get along with each other at all, just so long as they stay out of the way of the Sheepdogs, and don’t enable the Wolves.
    Civilization fails when the Sheep can no longer distinguish Sheepdogs from Wolves, or wilfully choose not to.

    That’s about as big a load as a mixed-up parable can handle, especially at this late hour.

    1. Nah. The tribes as Bill describes them (btw, I love his writing) is a tribe of behavior.
      The left’s “tribes” are of birth, circumstance and victimhood.

      1. As Lincoln said about the dog, calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one; and calling a particular group of humans a tribe doesn’t make it one either.
        Whittle knew he was speaking metaphorically; the Left assumes that most people (including their own) won’t notice that they are too.

        Yes, Whittle’s “tribes” are explicitly ones of behavior.
        But so, implicitly, are the Left’s; because, although their “tribal” members come from within certain broad classes of race (birth) and/or economic status (circumstances) [what can possible be the root of a GAY “tribe”?], they are self-selected (or, more commonly, simply claimed) primarily because of ideology.

        Asserting that “ALL people who have skin of a certain degree of melanin AND had a particular (mostly distant) common ancestral origin” are a SINGLE “tribe” would be news indeed to the true tribes of continental Africa.

        Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, and now Candace Owens and others, are not even considered to be part of the “Tribe of African-Americans” despite their “qualifications” of birth and (sometimes) economic circumstances, because they won’t play along with being victims for the benefit of Democrat Wolves.

  26. This puts me in mind of something I saw over the past few days.

    In the process of researching various things I tripped over an on-line forum that caters to a multitude of topics. After I found the information I wanted, I did what usually gets me into trouble, I started looking around. I found groups for this and groups for that. One group claimed to be “inclusive” for people of a certain sub-set – but don’t bring “red pill” theories in. (So, hard right-wingers are not welcome? So much for being inclusive.) Another group was for females of that same sub-set. One group’s rules said no insulting people and yet I saw members openly refer to “normal” people as NT (Took me several minutes of looking around to figure out that it meant NeuroTypical ) and a couple of comments could have been seen as insulting to “normal” people. The group for females I could sort of understand, but why were they asking for advice on how to tell other (normal) people how to stop doing things that upset them? I started to notice a pattern of separating one group out and then setting up a US vs THEM mentality in almost every group I looked at. I don’t think the members of these groups see that wall. Or maybe they do see the wall, labels, and are celebrating them.

    Long story short, I found most of the “groups” to be tribal in nature, installing labels on anyone and everyone, and not what I find worth my time. Maybe I could have gotten something from the groups, maybe not, but I found that I didn’t want to deal with the, imo, toxicity. Ironically one of the most open, welcoming, groups I found (not counting here or the Diner) was one for law enforcement officers to talk to civilians. I saw very little “us vs them” or tribalism there, but it could be that I’m bias in that area. 😉

      1. I have my suspicions where I fall, but after looking around, seeing the behavior in these groups, I ended up deciding that it really doesn’t matter at this stage of the game. Putting on a label won’t change who and what I am. As far as I can see, all it would accomplish is make other people see the label, instead of me.

        The precious few friends that I have put up with me. That’s all that matters. The rest of the world, the part that wants to put labels on me and everyone else, so they know how to treat us, can go hang for all I care.

              1. Not gay, but certainly witty and (judging by your pictures) pretty.

                ((opens anti-carp umbrella))

          1. Note, the below is if I have to answer this when someone asked as an attempt to virtue signal

            A: If you are using sexual contact as a proxy for bonding, you’d probably but me as ‘bi’, but given it isn’t about sex but about love, I’m straight.

            I mean, most ‘gay’ people are bi given we’re using the ‘one time’ rule to demand people not admit they are straight.

            And why does ‘gay marriage’ matter if all that defines gay vs. bi vs. straight is if you have two tabs, two slots, or one each when I’m told gay marriage is about love.

            Why is someone is really into sport sex and those very open about bodies lumped in with people who form romantic attachments across domains.

            Do you need to check you sexual attract and romantic attract harmony privilege?

        1. Ithink it matters, but like knowing if a wrench is metric or imperial. Useful for helping my kids deal.

          That said, “LARP as a responsible adult” is more help, it works for odd and just shy.

Comments are closed.