The Squid And Its Ink


I’m no longer surprised when someone takes offense when I say something like “communism has been driving the culture for a hundred years.”

I have been called insane and worse for saying that, and incidentally for saying that the Earth is not overpopulated, we have no way of telling the real population count worldwide, because even in the US counting is a bureaucratic mess, and that it is my opinion — though hard to substantiate — that the population is in fact already falling. I’ve been saying both of those for 20 years.

All I can say is that I’m getting less push back on both now. People actually in touch with the culture have started suspecting the same thing and being vocal about it 5 years ago or so.  I’m not the only thinker on the right (the thinkers on the left are something else and quite approve of what they see happening) to think that Western Culture is dying of a fatal wound inflicted around WWI.  I’m even less the only one looking at what is actually happening in the world, from economics to the relations between nations and smelling a rat on population.  Most of the people already ringing the bell on population though have more than my gut feeling/sense of the culture as representative of how many people, understanding of how the rest of the world does censuses. A lot of them are scientists, in command of things like “water consumption in Africa” or “the actual population density in x or y.”  I see them, occasionally, pop their heads above the maelstrom of the culture, only to be shouted down by those who are teaching our kids that humans are a plague upon the Earth.

No, I don’t have the links. As I said, I see them pop up, here and there. But they’re still very countercultural, and get shouted down. I just note “I’m no longer the lone voice in the desert” and carry on.  I also note that these outbreaks are getting more frequent and that if you get scientists who are not invested leftist ideologues in private, all of them snort at the UN population ideas.

I’m particularly not surprised when it comes from a commenter who 9 times out of ten comes here to misunderstand what I wrote or otherwise try to cause dissension.

I don’t mind trouble makers. As some of you know, all I do is step in and go “stop fighting each other.”  I do mind people who willfully or otherwise misunderstand, and always misunderstand to rebuke and reproach from a position of their assumed superiority.  Which is part of my issue with “our betters” in the culture, btw.

I’ll note in passing that Heinlein, then a convinced democrat and honestly a socialist, thought that the democrats had become fully dominated by communists by WWII.  You don’t need to have his insider view of the Democrats to understand the same, if you look at the gyrations of the American left before and after Hitler and Stalin broke their pact.

Now, were most democrats communists? Please. Most of them were rather traditional people in traditional communities who would spit on a communist faster than listen to him.  On the other hand they were listening to communists without knowing, swallowing communism in bite size without realizing it, being led down the garden path.

I didn’t say the communists were openly ruling the country. I said that for a hundred years, secretly, they were in full control of our cultural institutions. (And not just ours. Europe–  Never mind.)

“But Sarah, World War 2 is not 100 years ago.”  Of course it’s not. It’s 75. But the ideas of Marx were driving the culture long before that.

I know this because I don’t read what people say about how they feel about communism. I read their output in fiction, in news, in thought instead.

And because I grew up in another country which was in many ways in the past, I read American cultural output at least 30 and sometimes more years older than I.  British too.

Hell, some of my favorite writers from childhood had their heads full of rats. MORE full of rats than Heinlein when he was a socialist.  Heinlein at least always had a firm grasp on the nature of humans, so even while he approved (at least I think so, I haven’t correlated the publication date) of socialism and Unions, his depiction in Starman Jones is exactly the kind of bureaucratic hell one would expect.

Most writers weren’t as grounded as Heinlein, and Heinlein had the distinct of advantage of, while working in an intellectual field, having grown up poor and done a lot of things to “root, hog or die” along the way.  It’s almost inevitable that the biggest crop of nonsense comes from authors who were more intellectual/intellectually minded from the beginning.

To begin with, let’s establish our terms: Communism — this is me, buster, and the first squawk about how means of production and their different handling makes a big difference gets a baseball bat — is a more severe form of socialism, and the socialist’s ultimate goal and dream.  Yeah yeah “but socialists let you retain ownership of the means of production”: define means, define production, define ownership.  When you still have the field but the feds tell you it’s a wet land and you can’t farm it or build on it, is it still yours? When you still have the cows but you have to shoot them on the government command to prevent flatulence, are they still yours?  I’m not in the mood for the semantics they taught you in school, buster, and I have a baseball bat.

Both philosophies come from Marxism, a crazy and flawed prophecy based vaguely on economics and history but infused with the vision of a grifter who never did anything useful with his life, despite holding himself very high in intellect, and who died in 18… 83 I think.  Around there somewhere.

Marxism maintains a lot of crazy crap, starting with the idea that if you regulate everything suddenly, automagically, the state will wither and there will be paradise while soup rains from the sky.

It has got all sorts of refinements added to it over the last hundred years.  You see, it is typical of the squid to let out a cloud of ink when you’re about to catch it. In the same way, when Marxism fails, its followers immediately come up with another just-so story as to why it would have been proven right “if only.”  (It absolutely follows When Prophecy Fails by Leon Festinger, by the way.)  The last major patch applied to the crumbling software was the Gramscian one, which explains why workers in the West haven’t arisen to seize the means of production.  You see, it’s all race and whatever based.  No, it doesn’t make a wit of sense, but good Lord, neither did Marxism.  What it is is a way of placing the left’s hopes for workers uprising on our “little brown brothers.”  No, that’s not what they say. It’s all blah blah colonialism and oppression.  But what it boils down to is “other races are naturally socialist/communist” and we must now count on them to lead us to the great progressive future.

This is part of the reason they’re denying Venezuela is a disaster of socialism and screaming US interference even harder than usual.  It’s also the root of all the crazy “check your privilege.” the intersectionalism insanity and sundry other bits of ways to avoid thinking on the left. And it’s been driving way longer than people who are not in their circles realize.  In the early two thousands or late nineties, someone attempted to pillory me in the letter columns of Analog for having a story in which if history had been different the Chinese would be Capitalist.  I didn’t understand how any human being could believe culture is genetic and race-tied. Even I didn’t believe any thinking human being would swallow Gramsci whole and make it part of their worldview without realizing this made their worldview a racist swamp.

So, I’m not going to take communism apart in detail, because in detail there is a lot of squid ink and ways they obscure when they’re about to be caught. Also, I have real work to write, stuff I get paid for.

I’m going to stick to the generalities: Marxists, in general believe that government is best held by “enlightened” or “progressive” (they might have been in the 30s) people who can lead us to that paradise where government will automagically wither away.  They discount the ability of individual people to choose their fate and how they spend their money. They might or might not wish for international control — that was almost exclusively a Soviet thing, disguising its expansionism under a cloak of “one world government” — and they might or might not openly call for the abolition of money.  They do absolutely think that pretty much any economic (or often otherwise) activity should be regulated/legislated/controlled by the government. And by “government” you’re to understand a government of like minded Marxists. Most of them believe they’re “caring” or “kinder” or just filled with revolutionary zeal for “the poor downtrodden masses.”  None of them I’ve ever met even knows what poor downtrodden masses are, and almost all feel that in a just world their own intellect would be worshiped and they’d be in charge.

This I oppose to “right wing” which is only, really, the right wing in the US. In Europe it tends to be a disagreement on who “the best people” are with the right holding on to hereditary and religious markers of the best people as opposed to ideological (which has made them very easy to infiltrate by the Marxists, so now most of them are Marxists, but without atheism and with a head nod to “all the best families.”)  In fact both systems, Marxism and the European right can be and often are startlingly similar.  But at least the European right doesn’t wish to deliver their own people bound to their foes, and sometimes one supports/votes on very small differences indeed. The choice often isn’t between cake and death but between slow poison or fast one. Always vote for the slow one.

For a while the right in the US went the way of the right in Europe. When the left controlled all the cultural apparatus and moved the Overton window so that anything non-socialist or Marxist, or which had different assumptions about history and the future was unspeakable without being ridiculed or causing its speaker to be destroyed in public, a consensus emerged that communism would — of course — ultimately win. It was the future and so much more efficient than sloppy capitalism. Therefore we can slow it/make it less totalitarian and brutal, but that’s all.  A lot of the older Republicans, possibly including Romney is still stuck there. McCain LIVED there: “You’re going to eat us, but I say eat us slower.”

In many ways I’ve spoken in defense of these people, not because they’re not despicable, but because they grew up in this ethos and find it difficult to adjust. Humans need a vision of what comes after their time. And their vision is of the Marxist future. They thought communism would win in the end, while still being opposed to the brutal tactics, etc. to achieve it.  (Note that they don’t dispute a communist future, if non-brutal would be a good thing. They sort of assume it. Which is bizarre and wrong, but it’s what they grew up with.)  In a way standing between your people and the system you think will inevitably win is a position of great courage. These people were and are the fighters at Ragnarok fighting the battle they already believe lost.  The fact they don’t take well to having the narrative they’ve held onto punctured merely makes them human.

Note I don’t say I want them in power. Only that their issues are understandable. I feel sorry for them and think great evil results when they’re in control, and they should be kept away from any power real or imagined. But they do have courage. And I understand how they got where they are. So I don’t hate them. I just don’t want them in control of anything.

So, what does all this have to do with 100 years of cultural dominance?

This post is already incredibly long.  However, I have a plan to re-read again my formative science fiction. Most of which is from the thirties and on. (90 years. Science fiction. How hard are you going to quibble?)

From reading early twentieth century books my understanding is that Marx’s system of thought had penetrated the intelligentsia thoroughly before even WWI.  WWI smashed the hierarchies of belief in the entrenched systems of power in Europe, and allowed Marxism to fill the gaps more and more.  I remember reading (while pursuing a rabbit hole — yes, my name used to be Alice) about the publishing industry in GB and how it became increasingly “progressive” after WWI. Note this was said with approval. That they were actively searching out books that supported progressive ideals.

I have been having a weird drug interaction that acted like ADHD and dementia combined, so this reading has been delayed.  However I’d started at some time with The Green Man of Socialism (Obviously Occasio Cortez’s mate in the wild) which is mostly a national kind of socialism, probably prevalent from WWI to WWII (note that Marx himself was largely a national socialist, and the nationalism he believed in was British.) which changed it to international socialism.  Which in practical fact was Soviet nationalism projected abroad. (And is now largely Russian nationalism projected abroad.)

I can tell you that books from WWI on are full of the idea that money is inherently unjust as a means of trade, that somehow capitalism brings about war and death, that “there should be a more equitable system” etc. Periodicals of the time are more explicit on the idea of “world peace” through some kind of unity; the idea that the bright young things who believe in redistribution and “easing the burden of the little man” or whatever they call it, are right, etc.

You find it even in such relatively innocuous writers are Agatha Christie (whose horse sense, like Heinlein often save her from the grosser errors.)

Rex Stout? Avowedly anti-communist, while advocating for one-world-government, education as a way of convincing the young of the progressive future (redistribution via high taxes, etc.), believing every single canard the leftist press brought up against more right leaning politicians (many of which we now know to be wholly invented) etc.  Was he a communist? One assumes he wasn’t. His detective is a creature of excess and very human. But the principles he was advocating and his throw away lines contributed to the increase of leftist fog in the culture. (Partly why the gatekeepers allowed him to flourish. Not saying he was untalented. Note despite his politics giving me a sour stomach, he’s still one of my favorite writers. But the establishment in publishing, while unable to MAKE you could bury you.  As I and others know.)

We’ll leave aside Heinlein’s early folly.  It’s hard to underestimate how much WWII convinced people that force could remake culture for good.  I’ll just note he gave up that insanity after his tour of the world. And he riled the left up often enough even before that one can only trust “a storyteller’s true instincts.” They still hate him as one hates an apostate.

Let’s instead go with Clifford Simak.  A middle-class journalist from the heartland.  So involved in the culture on two fronts.

I don’t revile Mr. Simak who was one of my favorite writers before Heinlein became one.  In fact my brother was surprised second son wasn’t named Clifford. (He would be but husband put foot down hard.)

Recently I had the opportunity to send 4 of his books to a friend who hadn’t read them, and I envied him a little reading them for the first time.  At the same time I felt forced to explain that I didn’t think Simak was a communist — and I had Jerry Pournelle’s words he wasn’t — but reading him my friend would encounter many of the ideas that make the left today insane: one world government; government as only and always a force for good; the need to defeat religion and other “remnants” of the past; the advisability of abolishing money.  Even, past that, the ideas that always follow (because inherent in that world vision) that humans are naturally evil and need to be controlled, etc. (But government somehow escapes this.)

Despite these ideas — which Jerry assured me were just middle brow when these books were being written — Simak has touches of humanity and of love for individuals.  Like Rex Stout he’s worth reading.

But as decent people who consciously would tell you they were anti-communists, they were still “another brick in the wall.”

Was there a conspiracy to move the world left?  I don’t know. Arguably Russians have only ever been good at ONE thing: propaganda and corruption of other cultures.  From time immemorial.  And there are records of the Soviet Union paying off/subsidizing A LOT of leftist groups/causes, many of which would be shocked to know they were being manipulated.

But how much of it was that, and how much merely people who had been disillusioned with tradition and whose world had exploded in the industrial revolution and its echoes seizing a new prophecy and a new vision, particularly one designed to appeal to intellectuals with little experience of the everyday working world, and an unwarranted good opinion of themselves?

That society had gone to mass-production of everything including news, art and entertainment would only facilitate that kind of group-think.

Just as our current distributed forms of communication undermine it.

Has the culture been in the hands of increasingly more communist Marxists for almost a 100 years (some sectors more)?  A-yup.

What does it matter now?  Well, the squid is still letting out ink, but it’s in a little tank and the rest of us can see what it’s doing and see it very clearly.  This is where the worm turns.  Let’s hope its turning belies history and doesn’t leave blood as well as ink in the water.  But changing so many infected minds quickly enough to avoid that is going to be… tricky.

And a man who argues that people said they were anti-communist, in defiance of these people’s cultural period just might be hagridden. And wearing an overcoat of self-righteousness.

Let’s end the masquerade, so everyone knows where they stand.





349 thoughts on “The Squid And Its Ink

  1. Related.

    I remember hearing people claim that the News Media can not be Liberal because its controlled by Corporations. [Sarcastic Grin]

      1. Agree, the idiots apparently think “corporations are bad and thus can’t be Liberal (ie Good)”.

          1. “The NRA is promoting gun rights”, oh the horror!!1! The Boogeyman is coming!

            And here I’m just wondering about how nice it would be if they would do it here in the U.S. occasionally.

            They are of course another example of surrendering to the Arrow Of Glorious Comunistic History.

            1. They DO have a tendency to play pure defense.

              I think that’s part of the problem with much of the Right. They think purely in defensive terms, forgetting that this merely delays defeat. You have to take the offensive and gain ground.

              1. There’s a reason for it. Conservatives are, in general, fundamentally non-offensive, myob types. It takes a lot to push us into offensive mode. But when we do, we tend to go with shock and awe and overwhelming force.

                1. Mike, that’s why the Deep State uses things like Pearl harbor, Lusitania, Gulf of Tonkin to predictable move people into a die or fight catch 22 strategic death scenario. When you are not resisting, then you are playing into the enemy’s strategy. But when you do go with shock and awe, you will also fall into the trap.

                  It is quite clever and has worked for a long time, even before Jekyll Island Federal Reserve private meeting.

                  1. Is it a trap though? Catch-22 implies you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If there were a 3rd option (or more), it wouldn’t be a Catch-22. Of course if you tailor the narrative so nobody even thinks another alternative is possible, then sure.

                    1. You have a civil war 2 against the Leftist alliance. Win or lose, your nation will be too weakened to stop Islamic Jihad or the Deep State. What alternative do you see?

                    2. If win, it depends what the confidence and vengefulness level is. Neither of those groups poses a serious physical threat. If anything, something like 90% of the Muslim population could be destroyed in a matter of days, even without walking nukes down the Nile valley.

                      And the Deep State is mostly officeworkers, not an army. Its power is entirely soft.

                    3. Category error on your part. The two you named are part and parcel of the Lefty Alliance.

                    4. And the Deep State is mostly officeworkers, not an army. Its power is entirely soft.

                      Have you looked at the origins of the Federal Reserve and Judy Wood’s presentation of new energy sources?

                      The Deep State is definitely far more powerful than Islamic Jihad and the Leftist alliance combined. By several orders of magnitude.

                      IJ, though, is probably not as dangerous as Bush II thought.

                    5. yes, but you were telling us all how dangerous the deep state would be in the event of CW2, which i don’t think their administrative hell is going to matter much at that point

                2. Admiral Yamamoto had it right after Pearl Harbor. America is a sleeping giant terrible in it’s wrath when awakened.

            2. I suppose that the NRA could change its name to the INTERNATIONAL Rifle Association. But the acronym for that is already taken…

              1. IntRA works.
                However, I’m not that interested in my NRA dues going to other countries; that just fattens their pork barrels instead of ours.

            3. Uncle Chang was onto something.
              I mean, the reported facts are on the level of “some Catholics are preaching Catholicism in Africa! Calvinists are not happy with this”. See also: our regular reports concerning bears, woods and organic fertilizer.
              But AP’s tone resembles an antisemite discovering that some foreign celebrity is a (GASP!) Jew, and did we mention there are rumors about their nefarious plans?

      2. Apparently Google, Facebook, Alphabet, Amazon, Bezos, aren’t liberal progressives…

        Apparently humans that own or don’t own stock, think they understand something useful.

        1. Of course they are liberal progressives. May I know what you THINK you’re saying?
          It’s the nature of the tech, not who controls it that’s going away from mass.
          That means that there will always be workarounds. And why the woke end up going broke.

  2. Huh. I wonder if the trend to dystopian that swamped SF/F & YA recently is indicative of the left losing its faith in the utopian end of their vision? Every leftist breadbasket has become a leftist hellhole, or a wasteland of armed gangs. Even if they’re faithfully indoctrinated in the way the world “should be”, and “should work”, the fall of the soviet union’s “inevitable future” has to have left a mark they might not admit to themselves.

    How many no longer believe in worker’s paradise, deep down in their souls – but they believe in the arrow of history, and now they’re fighting to be the special ones on top when it all falls to ruin, or in the glorious metropolis of the leaders surrounded by the grim wastelands of peasants?

      1. Of course, most people down here in flyover country, and the entire teenage generation stuck in high school & college hell (they don’t have to imagine oppressive, uncaring bureaucracies and insane systems; they live it) don’t appreciate a steady diet of “It’s all going to wrack and ruin”, and thereby, a gigantic market opportunity for the rest of us. Peddlers of hope and humanity, subversive storytellers of a bright and glorious future…

        As Andrew Breitbart noted, politics is downstream from culture. What dreams are you going to feed the culture next?

        1. That’s why I’ve targeted my own YA books towards teens and tweeners, and strongly emphasize community, optimism, doing the right thing, et cetera. God knows, the poor kids could use a break from dystopia.

        2. If politics is downstream from culture, then 33%+ of 18 year olds or younger believing in the Flat Earth theory or beginning to challenge the scientific orthodoxy of the globe, should have some fun and interesting effects soon.

              1. 4-chan-ing. Not 4-Chan survey.

                It means that a lot of people are very openly screwing with the polling companies.

                Talking to the flat earthers, it gets really obvious that they’re trolling.

                1. Flat earthers can be broken down into the following categories:
                  @49% are trolling, and laughing at the idiots who believe such drivel.
                  @49% is egging the first group on, and laughing at the idiots posting such drivel
                  @2% aren’t in on the joke.

                2. FoxFier, I never got the impression from Mark Sargent, FE Core’s conferences, or Patricia Steere that they were trolling on this topic.

                  This ABC article is pretty old.

                  This one from Australia Today is a lot more recent and better.

                  Youtube/Google/Alphabet ended up borking their search algorithms just to ensure that certain topics and videos would not go viral or be easily found.

                  Are there trolls everywhere? In Alt Right, certainly yes. A popular trend usually gathers a lot of people, but the leaders are usually sane.

                  1. Are there trolls everywhere? In Alt Right, certainly yes.

                    *snort* Try about a third of every high school class’ boys, and that’s when they’re not pissed off.

                    “Give the most creatively horrible answers you can come up with, and demand they be treated with respect” was a running game 20-30 years ago, it’s a pissing match on college campuses now, and as shown in 1984 it’s an established way of asserting dominance when physically crushing isn’t suited to your purpose.

                    Or do you seriously think that a sizable chunk of the US population really thinks that being a boy or a girl is all in your head?

                    1. It was a game 40 years ago IN PORTUGAL. Some idiot psychologist did a survey in my high school to find out the date and how we’d lost our virginity.
                      The results caused a furore. Apparently only 2% of us were virgins, most of us had been deflowered by 12, with all sorts of interesting household objects.
                      Most of us were not only virgins. Most of us had no contact with boys whatsoever. A couple had boyfriends and MIGHT NOT be virgins. And one was a serial aborter and worked for what I can only call an escort service.
                      That everyone knew about her AND the two girls who were caught in tribadism in the bushes tells you how rare it was (my class was 2k. There were seven classes in the school. EVERYONE knew of these cases because of how rare they were.)
                      I don’t remember what I wrote, but you know… I made up stuff. We thought it was hilarious.

                    2. How does someone claiming to be a Flat Earther establish dominance and crush people?

                      Your anecdote about virginity is one thing, as boys might raise the social status of people with sexual relations with teachers and what not, but Flat Earthers? That sounds like a good way to lower your social clique and get ostracized. When 30% of any population does this, or even any 10% of a population, that’s not exactly consistent with the explanation that it is social pranking.
                      As for gender, the parents, teachers, and leaders support trans gender fluidity. Thus boys and girls may claim that or be claimed by it, for different reasons. Who amongst the social classes, up or above, supports Flat Earth society?

                      Human Obola, when he said that we don’t have time for the Flat Earth Society? You know, there are few things red or blue, left or right, agrees on.

                    3. Not necessarily “dominate and crush” others but the ego-boo of “being the ones that Know The Truth”.

                      Just as lots of people laugh at conspiracy-thinkers but you still get conspiracy-thinkers.

                      Of course, there’s also the “ego-boo” of “that idiot believed the nonsense that I told him” when the person talks up Flat-Earth nonsense but doesn’t really believe it.

                    4. How does someone claiming to be a Flat Earther establish dominance and crush people?

                      As I said, because they force people to pretend it’s serious.

                      2+2=5. Or 3. They’re at absolute least as good as 4.

                      If you can force someone to pretend an obviously false thing is true, then you devalue the actual truth– you make them face that whatever they actually believe is no better than a lie.

                    5. It is very consistent with systematic social media spread pranking, and they DIDNT survey 100% of the population, they probably surveyed a thousand people. I’m sorry you so fervently believe that that many people honestly believe in a flat earth….

                    6. You’re giving them what you want, not what they want. Also, there is the element of pure cruelty.

                    7. *slow nod* Maybe that is why it annoys me so much… folks going out of their way to screw up other people’s things.

                  2. they dug up a handful of people, big deal. doesn’t by any means , mean they came up with 33% of all people 18 or *younger* (your words, did you mean older?

                    Just like the phone surveys asking if you have guns in the house and how many that the MSM constantly uses to gauge gun ownership.

                    1. YouGov, that extremely well known and accurate polling system that has absolutely never been pranked before! Certainly not by any of us!


                      This is also why people have recently found Alphabet and Youtube’s search algorithms to be off. They have been modified to suppress certain hits. This had the unintended consequence of affecting other things of course, as well as the removal of filters on the search results.

                      When corporations and mainstream media respond to this, it is no longer a “handful of people” pranking.

                    3. Never EVER said it was a handful of people. As certain YouTube personalities are wont to say, witness the power of weaponized autism. Also, don’t be entirely sure it wasn’t one guy from 4Chan using a script to generate automated responses until his desired effect was achieved…

    1. I dunno. I think it’s them trying to scare the younger generation into becoming leftists.

      1. Well they don’t think it is working. A few years ago there was an article whining that movies like the Hunger Games were conditioning young people to accept Capitalism.

          1. The politics of an author aren’t always the politics of the book. The truth tends to slip through, even when the author thinks he’s writing the exact opposite. (See also, Harry Potter).

    2. Think of it as an opportunity. Remember that Ronald Reagan’s strongest supporters were not the old, but the young. My generation. Because he spoke to us of hope. We had not had hope in a long, long time.

      Hope sells.

      1. An observation regarding American presidential politics- you don’t win by running against someone, but by running for something.
        While a good many of us may have held our noses to vote against Hillary by voting for Trump (myself included), there was a large number of people who were full on for his message. That’s one of the big reasons he won.

  3. I’m no longer surprised when someone takes offense when I say something like “communism has been driving the culture for a hundred years.”

    Are you surprised when someone facepalms from this?

          1. Naah, Beholder has made his/her own set of dull lifeless senseless statements all by his/her self before.

          1. That’s common. But usually it takes much simpler forms (raid the next country because they raided or cheated us before). And/or doesn’t live long (either so aggressive it burns itself, or those in possession of said stuff object too actively).
            When a process neither explodes in positive feedback, nor obviously limits itself (in this case, by provoking everyone around to squash it), nor starts from a fluctuation and fades out, we have to ask what causes it to exist at all and on this level.

            1. Except it does explode, and isn’t stable. It just takes longer than the other forms of free stuff, and avoids the counters we’ve developed to avoid those explosions.

              You may as well ask “why do kids keep having sex with people they don’t want to make a baby with, when we have literally all of recorded history pointing out that sex is baby-making?”

              1. Why do people rape, rob, and murder, if they do not want to be sent to the gallows? 🙂

                The communists must secretly want to be put down, for the common good of mankind. XD

    1. O, Beholder, you are an effin’ moron.

      In these days of a culture influenced by New Age ideas of mysticism, you would have to lack one of four things to miss such an insight. If someone is intelligent, has extensively read historical documents, has extensively read modern fantasies, and has a detail oriented, careful, analytical mind, it is as obvious as a nose on a face.

      The stories people tell convey information about the forms of mysticism that they find plausible. With UFO mysticism, and all that other crap, any intelligent observer of our society can see that there are mystical expressions present that do not have a basis in Christianity. With our modern wealth of information, any intelligent searcher can learn a lot about magical thinking in general, and use that to look for specific examples.

      The early twentieth century shows very clear signs of a technocratic flavor of mysticism. This wasn’t obvious to the Birchers because they were largely pre New Age in perspective. What is your excuse, unmitigated stupidity? The socialists, the communists, the Nazis, the Fascists, and the Progressives were all obviously flavors of technocratic mysticism, unmoored from an actual understanding of how and why the industrial revolution was able to cause the things it caused.

      I am treating you as ignorant, or incurably stupid, because it is more charitable than supposing that you are a liar.

    2. I predict that this troll will do two things:
      1) Mock Sarah for believing that people promote Communism
      2) Promote Communism
      That they will inevitably prove point #1 will not ever register in their pointy little head.

  4. Who are these people who are saying that socialism does not mean state ownership of the means of production? Never mind the Soviet Union or China; the Labour Party brought about the nationalization of many British industries, and it took Thatcher, who is hated by the left, to undo some of it. And when a “less developed country” starts calling itself socialist, one of the predictable consequences is nationalization of some major business enterprise. Even here in the United States we have Sanders calling for provision of health care with government funding and abolition of private medical insurance. I may have missed some ideological arguments, but what I’ve seen looks as if socialism means expropriation.

    1. National Socialism didn’t, IIRC. Industry could be private, as long as the owners don’t hesitate to bark whenever the bell rings.
      Of course it’s just a matter of time. An unchecked bureaucracy (aka real socialism) is going to bloat indefinitely and consume everything it can, including itself.

      1. I don’t think any of the people who claim to be socialists nowadays regard Nazism as socialist or as having even the vaguest relationship to socialism. If you want to talk about a usage of the term far back in history, and one that was not without controversy even when it was current, fine, but I’m more interested in how the word is currently used.

        1. Bernie called himself a national socialist, also said that he went into politics because of Hitler, and apparently is a staunch defender of Rep. Omar.


        2. That’s not unusual. For one, the people who claim to be socialists nowadays claim things to the effect of “real socialism has never been tried” often enough it became a niche for dank memes.
          Also, it’s generic, not limited to socialists. A Catholic could say the Calvinists aren’t “true Christians”, but then a Calvinists could say the same about the Mormons, and they would in return be called hypocritical poseurs. Every group has its own Overton Window.

            1. I’m glad we have an universally accepted, ultimately trustworthy authority on what’s right and what’s wrong.
              Terrible things could happen were any of these conditions not met. =)

          1. Nowadays? They’ve been saying it about every new venture since the first days of the USSR.

        3. That would be because they are liars.

          ““We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions” Adolf Hitler 1927

      2. When businesses only operate when the government says “jump”, then you don’t have private ownership of the company, regardless of who’s name is on the letterhead.

          1. Or when your town won’t let you do anything with your property because the hold right of refusal for everything. That one really torques my jaws.

        1. And the King perhaps expects a forest fief to remain a forest. That’s a continuum.
          Of course, we can see that in socialism the movement is one-way. Power is going to be used, expanded and not discarded. But back then, and seeing how the other strong team were plain Marxists, this worked even on those who weren’t happy about either, as “lesser evil” posturing.

          Why therefore did he seek to strengthen his a movement that wrote upon its boldest banner his own extinction as financier and Jew? […] He explained that he was supporting his avowed despisers because they were “friendly to capital.” He would, he said, assist the very devil, could the latter be persuaded to lead a fight on that most ruinous influence in the contemporary world, “Marxism.”

      3. A false flag of private ownership to disguise actual state control. In other words, American businesses since 1965.

    2. Our “healthcare” industry is so tied up with the FDA, insurance companies (so import all the insurance regulations), drug freakouts, etc. that if it weren’t for the lack-of-bodycount it would be hard to tell the difference.

    3. My shorthand for the various flavors of socialism:
      Communism – the government owns *everything*, including the people.

      Socialism – the government owns the means of production, but allows private ownership of smaller businesses.

      Fascism (National Socialism) – private ownership of the means of production is allowed, but only under government control. The businesses will produce what the government wants, not what the market demands.

        1. Yes. All three are socialist entities, and as somebody said, communism is the idealized end state of socialism. I guess one way to look at it is that the three terms give a handy way of looking at how deeply into socialism a society has descended, with the ranking going (from least socialist to most) fascism –> socialism –> communism (which can also be called International Socialism as opposed to the National Socialism of the fascists).

      1. Fascism is absolutely a form of socialism; note Mussolini’s “All within the state, nothing outside the state”; Fascist Italy had nominally private businesses, but they were effectively instrumentalities of the state. The socialists choose to place form over substance with Fascism is because they have found it a useful label to slander their non-socialist political opponents with. It also allows them to build Fascist socialist entities, like the EU, while claiming that they are democratic.

        1. Which is one of the reasons I describe China as fascist. And what’s worse is there is a strong ethnic nationalist slant to it, as well. It’s worrisome, especially with their demographic issues.

    4. As long as there is a privately owned lemonade stand it cannot be socialist/communist in the mind of the true believers. Even if pretty much every industry is at beck and call of government masters or such.

      At least that idea of “pure communism” is honest. As long as it’s this string pulling the designated whipping boy of corps and capitalism are still around.

      1. Funny how the more strictly official commerce is controlled under a Communist regime the more the underground black market tends to flourish.

        1. “Funny how the more strictly official commerce is controlled under a Communist regime the more the underground black market tends to flourish.”
          And often with the unofficial endorsement of the officials. Your factories need to meet the production quotas somehow.

  5. I’m not the only thinker on the right (the thinkers on the left are something else and quite approve of what they see happening) to think that Western Culture is dying of a fatal wound inflicted around WWI.

    Which “Western Culture”?
    The sleepy kingdoms of Southern Europe? Scandinavia? They’d live. But unfortunately for them, stabbing does not stop.

    1. They won’t live. And all of Western culture. They won’t live because there are no children. Which is the side effect of being invaded by Marxist ideology, btw. Always. everywhere.

      1. Spain is the only kingdom left in Southern Europe, IIRC – although there are also the principalities of Monaco and Andorra.

        1. Eh, he’s in my mental category for “occasionally says interesting things, but frequently seems to be rather at odds to what can be observed.”

  6. People really need to understand economics better. I was going to write that it needs to be taught in school, but I think that would make things worse. I don’t know a solution. It’s frustrating to see so many people not understand what is basically common sense.

    1. The problem is that there are more than a few theories on economics, and all of them seem to have their ardent proponents. So, who gets to decide which ones to teach? When I took economics in college, I sat down the first day and a beautiful woman walked in and introduced herself in the most boner-inducing French accent, and started handing out the syllabus.. I rolled my eyes and prepared to “say whatever she wants” just to pass the class.

      I soon learned not to judge a book by it’s cover, as she turned out to be wonderfully capitalist, and very much anti the usual Left-beloved economic theories. Often openly mocking young impressionable Marxist-indoctrinated students for their progressive folly.

      The point is, it could have easily, VERY EASILY, been the exact opposite. She could very well have been a devout socialist, or communist, proscribing to all the latest progressive economic theories, and * I * would have been the one being laughed at.

      It also doesn’t help that the language of economics, no really go read an economic text, sounds freakin crazy-pants. Even Sowell’s Basic Economics. I listened to it as an audio book… C R A Z Y – P A N T S. Not the theories, they were all sound (as far as I know). But the language of talking about them sounds like that.

      1. My economics book was the best-written, easiest to understand textbook I have ever seen.

        And yeah, I know it all depends on how it’s taught, and since it’s a social science it’s nearly guaranteed to be mistaught. That’s the frustrating thing I mentioned.

      2. Heh. I am taking my midterm for my “political economy” class right now. It’s just defining and explaining some pairs of terms, but one of the terms I have to define is “Marxist International economic theory” and I swear, it is impossible for people of a Marxist bent to write anything close to coherently or plainly. It’s a lot of words to say not much of anything at all. Certainly nothing with sense.

        1. “Marxist International economic theory”

          It make sense… if you don’t think about it.

          On the other hand, Sowell’s “Basic Economics” just made sense. But man was it repetitive I was tempted to count how many times I heard the phrase “scarce resources which have alternative uses”. Maybe make a drinking game out of it, except I listened to it on audio, in my car during my commute back and forth to work, so maybe a drinking game wouldn’t have been such a good idea.

          1. “Brevity is the soul of wit.” Judging by that standard, Marx was clearly witless.

      1. As I recall that fine example of our educational system AOC graduated cum laude from Boston University with a major in economics. Given that she cannot understand the difference between hard cash and tax incentives I can only call into question the quality of econ instruction in the US educational system.

        1. TECH POST:

          For those who have been getting blank “responses” from the blog, this post showed up in mine with only this text visible in the body:
          commented on The Squid And Its Ink.
          in response to accordingtohoyt:
          It is taught in school. Badly.

          but I could see Uncle Lar’s nym in the message list.

          No idea what it means, but that’s data.

        2. International studies, or the like.

          From a for pay university. Not that those programs necessarily mean anything at research universities either.

        3. Not to release Boston University from responsibility but Occasional Cortex does NOT have a degree in economics. She has a degree in Foreign relations with a focus in economics. Someone looked it up there are 3 required economics courses for the focus, if memory serves an introductory economics ( micro and macro for dummies) and two international relations economics courses in the foreign relations area that are almost certainly dominated by Very liberal (if not down right Marxist) professors. At least on the economics front AOC is a self made idiot.

        4. BU used to be able to teach fairly decent courses on computer programming and database administration. But sure sounds like their liberal arts side of the house is merely a con job and diploma mill designed to generate money for them, without having to actually educate anyone.

    2. Decades later I realized that our little dip into economics in high school that had confused me so much because it was nonsensical was… Keynesian.

      Because perpetual motion didn’t make sense when I was 16 and it still doesn’t make sense.

      “Borrowing money creates wealth…”

      Right… and paying out $1 in unemployment benefits creates $1.50…

      1. (Nods) I’m still confused by why the Keynesian multiplier works with government spending but doesn’t work the other way when it comes to taxes.

      2. I recently looked at one of Keynes things recently. There was something really wrong there. He was responsible for one of the worst parts of the Versailles treaty, the reparations clause. Yet he left the Treaty committee, (or was kicked out, I’m leaning toward kicked out) and wrote a book condemning the reparations as “Carthegenic”.

      3. “Borrowing money creates wealth…”
        If that was a mathematical proof, they’d have failed because they didn’t show the steps in between. Also shows a fundamental ignorance of investing. I ALLOW people to borrow my money via the stock market in the HOPE that they will create wealth with it, and return me interest on the money I RISKED. There is ZERO guarantee that any wealth will ever be created. Just ask the former stockholder employees of ENRON how well their borrowed money created wealth.

        1. I remember the economics in high school that had me going ‘huh?’:

          A man stops at a town, and puts a 20 on the desk while he checks the room to see if he wants to stay.

          The hotel guy takes it to the maid, who he owes 20.
          She takes it to the grocery store, where she owes 20.
          Grocer takes it to the delivery guy, who he owes 20.
          Delivery guy takes it to the hotel owner, who he owes 20.

          The guy decides not to stay, takes his 20 back and leaves, but everyone now has more money!


          Because, like, nobody would think about the basic story in fairy tales and just trade off debt, and there is literally no other cash in the entire town.

          1. That is why money was invented in the first place: they can only trade off debt if they realize that round-robin works.

            Money is a medium of exchange, and a Roman emperor once produced an economic boom by minting a lot of small coins to brag of his victory. It made it so much easier to make change.

            1. Sadly, 14 year old me* was not that versed in how money works. Although now I realize that schoolhouse rock had an episode about that…..


  7. Was watching this WW1 documentary (only got through the first one so far)

    And lo and behold… regardless of the precipitating factors, the incendiary was thrown by — can you guess? Socialists. (File under: stuff we never learned in school, even when History was still a Thing.)

    Explained much.

      1. Well, the goal of their paymasters was more territory for Serbia, which is what Austro-Hungarian Imperial Intelligence and the diplomatic corps knew right away, one reason why the ultimatum went out so fast.

        The goal of the bomb throwers and pistol-shooters was the normal stuff – kill the evil fill-in-the-blanks – i.e. the normal useful idiots.

        The main reason those useful idiots succeeded was the Crown Prince’s protection detail was also full of idiots.

        1. And just plain unlucky. They thought they had caught everyone earlier, and missed the guy having a sandwich- where the driver happened to make a wrong turn.
          There’s also Franz’s insistence that the traditional “lining the streets with soldiers” be skipped, as he wanted to appear a bit more approachable.

          1. I submit that “We know there are people trying to kill my protectee because of the failed grenade-throwing attempt on the ride into town earlier today, so I think I’ll bundle him and his wife into an open vehicle, run him down the exact same street that the prior attempt happened on, and then after we change the route without telling all the drivers, we’ll communicate that fact by shouting at the protectees driver, who will stall the car less than a block away from where the prior attempt was made, and what few of the Archduke’s protection detail is riding the running boards of his open top car won’t jump off and face out to watch the crowd while the driver gets things figured out to get moving again” is not exactly rocket-science-level protective detail work.

            Just driving him down the same street as the grenade was thrown on is astonishing.

            Sure, stalling the car in front of the cafe where the kid was waiting with his Black-Hand supplied pistol was the last link in eth chain, but there’s a lot of links before that one.

            And given the politics of the time it would have probably been something else to kick it all off if not for that dead Archduke, but the clown show in Sarajevo was not anyone’s shining hour.

  8. The elimination of money is one of those sadly amusing ideas. While an economy of sorts can work sans money (barter) it cannot thrive as it large internal resistance. Money is the ‘exchange particle’ of value. And fiat currency might not be ‘real’ but .. hey, so it’s virtual particles popping in and out of existence at the exchanges. It provides the feedback to show what relative value is. It’s when something distorts the feedback mechanism (whether it’s banks, government, market speculator, or market manipulators) that real trouble starts. When the feedback system is thoroughly trashed… hey, look, Venezuela.

    1. The elimination of money is, after talking to leftists, not at all about the practical aspects of eliminating money. It’s about “I get everything I want, and don’t have to pay for it, and don’t have to go to work to get money to get what I want.”

      The fact that the people who make what they want wouldn’t make if and give it in a money-free environment… now, that’s a bridge too far, and how dare we harsh their mellow by pointing that out?

      1. Yeah, but even with replicators and “free everything” it didn’t seem to work very well in the TNG universe…

          1. I think James Blish’s Cities in Flight tetralogy should be required reading regarding economics with regards to monetary systems, the value of contracts (both in honoring and enforcement), etc.

          2. Exactly – something else will be scarce. Whether dilithium or gold-pressed-latinum or even intellectual property, something will be worth more than what the magic replicator box can churn out.

      2. Ah, well that explains it… but it still makes no sense, of course. What’s the term? “Positional good” will somehow be the New Rare Thing… even if otherwise worthless. Sneetches, stars, something…

  9. I felt forced to explain that I didn’t think Simak was a communist — and I had Jerry Pournelle’s words he wasn’t — but reading him my friend would encounter many of the ideas that make the left today insane: one world government; government as only and always a force for good;

    There are two Simak stories that I have vivid memories of. The first was “The Call from Beyond” (which I got in the anthology “The Space Magicians”). The other is “The Big Front Yard” (Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Volume 2B). The first very much speaks against government as being “good” (main character is running away from government due to his having been outed as a “mutant”). The second centers very much on the main character as an individual.

    1. One of the things I get from Simak’s stories is that (a) people are all basically good, but (b) they can be corrupted by being in large groups, which means that (c) once everyone dies out, it may not be paradise, but it’ll be the next best thing. There was a thread through old science fiction that the best forms of government would arrive once everyone else died out because then the right people could take over and there would be an abundance of food and power left over from our stinking overpopulated past that allows complete leisure. It’s mostly annoying, but I am very charmed at the way Simak handles it. I love his very friendly treatment of that subgenre.

      He rarely has any real villains, at least in the stories I’ve read, just people with different, sometimes incomprehensibly alien, goals.

  10. I’d say the “ideas of communism” go back much further than a hundred years; having recently started reading about Lincoln, Douglass (with two s’s), and Booker T. Washington, and seeing in researching what they were complaining about, what some Democrats occasionally said out loud. When Douglas (with one s) argued that people need expert administrators to direct their lives, he sounds very modern.

    And when George Fitzhugh argued that we need slavery for all, he argues in terms we’re familiar with today. “A state of dependence is the only condition in which reciprocal affection can exist among human beings—the only situation in which the war of competition ceases, and peace, amity and good will arise…” He employs the same reversal of the meaning of words that the ideas of communism require: “…the unrestricted exploitation of so-called free society is more oppressive to the laborer than domestic slavery.”

    And when Lincoln argued against it, his arguments would be very familiar to modern conservatives: “They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of kingcraft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people—not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument and this argument of the judge is the same old serpent that says, ‘You work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it.’”

    The more history I read, the more it seems that the ideas of communism are the oldest ideas that fail in every age and race.

    1. Communism and its ideas are a virus of the human mind. Consider perhaps reading about the Catalina rebellion in ancient Rome.
      But having them all packaged in Marxism weaponized them.

      1. I’m calling this entire realm of weapon an “information attack” where simply telling the target about the idea hurts them. Its how AIs hack each other in situations where they’re too far away for a real weapon to get there. Communication as weapon of mass destruction.

        Marxism definitely qualifies.

    2. Communist ideas are considerably older than that. In acts the early churches often held everything in common. This leads to the first fatalities to virtue signalling (Ananias and Sephira, the Author is NOT amused when you try to lie to Him). It also leads to Paul/Saul in one of the letters stating that if someone wouldn’t work then they didn’t eat nasty tentmaking businessman that he was.

      I’ve always felt that if the saints of the church couldn’t make communism work ain’t NOBODY going to make it work…

      1. My view is that the early Church had to live commonly not as an example of how they thought they would be doing things, but as a necessity when you have just made tens of thousands of converts of the mass of Jewish pilgrims from all over the world, and know you have a very limited opportunity to teach them the Messiah’s words before persecution breaks out and scatters them.
        Most of these people were not from Jerusalem, and had traveled there as pilgrims for the Feast of Pentecost. So most of them did not have local jobs, bank accounts, or other means to support themselves. They definitely weren’t expecting to be staying as long as they did.
        It was a temporary measure to keep those people alive until they could learn all they could- and when persecution broke out under Saul, most returned to their homes in the Greek diaspora, and were able to teach there.

        1. Bingo. The start of Acts 2 explains that there were people in Jerusalem from every nation in the known world. They had come for Passover, and were staying until Pentecost, then (the text doesn’t say but it’s safe to assume) they were planning to go home. So they had brought enough money, travel food, etc. for their planned stay. But then at Pentecost, God gave the miracle of tongues, Peter preached that sermon, and thousands of people were converted. And suddenly here are all these people who are running out of the money & food that they brought, but who want to stay in Jerusalem a few more weeks or months so they can learn all they can. They have plenty of money back home or they wouldn’t have been able to afford to travel to Jerusalem, but there’s no banking system, no Wells Fargo that they can go to for a wire transfer. So the local church in Jerusalem takes care of them. And then later on, when Paul is going around to the Gentile churches collecting money to take care of the Jerusalem church during the upcoming famine that’s been prophesied, he says things like “Remember, you owe them.” Because these were some of the same Christians who had been helped by the Jerusalem church years before.

  11. “I see them, occasionally, pop their heads above the maelstrom of the culture, only to be shouted down by those who are teaching our kids that humans are a plague upon the Earth.”

    Oh, you went and pushed one of my buttons.

    This was the cry of Ebeneezer Scrooge in “A Christmas Carol” if I recall. “If they belike to die they’d better do it then, and decrease the surplus population.”

    Dickens published that in 1843, so the “surplus population of losers” meme has been around 176 years just going by that. Dickens wouldn’t have mentioned it if it hadn’t already been a big deal in his social circle, so add 40 years anyway. It predates Karl Marx for sure, although he became the instrument of its realization in the wide world.

    This pernicious LIE has become the central theme of modern literature, as far as I can tell from reviews. Bookstores and awards are certainly filled with it. I refuse to read those works anymore, I had my fill of it many long years ago.

    The job now, for me anyway, is to swim against the cultural currents and do something that no one else is doing. The more REEEEE!!!! I get along the way, the better a signal that I’m going the right direction. Just find the place where the shitstorm is the thickest and drive on.

    Tell you something else, Sarah. Hilariously, the direction the shit is the thickest is exactly that Golden Thread that winds through the great religions of history. That spark of holiness that connects us all together, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, Taoist, etc. that’s where the fucking squids are putting all the ink.

    We should have “NO SQUIDS!” t-shirts and shoulder patches made up. That’s a conversation starter, for sure.

    1. Milton Friedman, on the claims of “overpopulation” being a cause of endemic poverty asked the rhetorical question, “can you name any society on the planet which was better off economically when its population was half what it is today?

      While there may be ultimate limits (this probably being a finite universe, after all), that doesn’t mean we are approaching them today.

      1. “While there may be ultimate limits (this probably being a finite universe, after all), that doesn’t mean we are approaching them today.”

        “Ultimate Limit” is a moving target, lately. All modern starvation is political, not natural. We burn food as fuel, for f sakes. Let the USA stop driving up the price of corn and palm oil by burning it as fuel, watch the world’s poor start doing a lot better.

        But no, we can’t do that because Beloved Gaia is dying of overpopulation. The Plague of Humanity, you know.

        The major problem I have is we don’t know where the limit is, because the politics of the question is more important than ANSWERING the bloody question. As Sarah said, anytime some nerd looks at African water consumption or tracks population some new and innovative way, two things happen. The first is they don’t find immense overpopulation. The second thing is they lose their grant and nobody will publish their future work.

        Because f-ing Lefties.

            1. Just think of the modern “green” leftists as Agent Smith from The Matrix, who speaks of humanity as a “virus” , a disease like cancer, to be eradicated.

            1. /sigh
              I haven’t been able to donate blood since the mid-1980’s because I was stationed in the UK and Belgium and I (and about another million service members) are considered to be a risk for carrying Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis (AKA Mad Cow disease.) Never mind that the longest known incubation period was less than a year, and anyone who had it was dead six months later; and it’s 40 years since then.

              1. I grew up in Portugal. Same issue. Despite the fact that Portuguese didn’t import beef, we mostly ate fish, and mostly the beef we ate were old, work-broken cows.

              2. Same here – stationed in Europe at that time. Can’t give blood, and I was a regular and generous donor before that ban went into effect.
                The funny part is – that I simply could not afford to buy beef on the local economy. All the beef that we ate during that time was sourced from the Commissary. IIRC – those cuts were US-sourced.
                (I was tasked with being on the Commissary advisory board, for a good few years; our congressional overlords were pretty pissy about the Commissaries overseas offering anything but US-sourced commodities …)

                1. From some of the stuff I’ve heard about other country’s habits with meat…they had good reason. There are a few countries I’d trust, now, and I don’t know how bad it was in the 80s.

                  Serious disease vector.

    2. Oooo. Consider this though. What if our “surplus population of losers” are that 10% of our population who refuse to work, and think the government exists to take care of them at everyone else’s expense? I’d really like to go back and ask Mr. Dickens to define his terms. I realize there’s a distinct difference between overpopulation by 10%, and 10% of the population being willfully parasitic.

  12. “In the early two thousands or late nineties, someone attempted to pillory me in the letter columns of Analog for having a story in which if history had been different the Chinese would be Capitalist.”

    I wonder if it’s anyone we know?

    1. And the funny thing is, the Chinese *are* capitalist, in Hong Kong anyway. “One Country, Two Systems.” And they seem to have a pretty good grasp of how capitalism works; at least, they’ve made the previous several administrations dance like marionettes.

      Of course, some of that could be that those administrations sucked at capitalism…

      1. One of my published stories has a free market Chinese culture in the far future, called the Shang.

        1. We could be seeing something like this in the next five years. CCP is starting to act tough, got a President For Life and everything, that means they’re shitting bricks. Their whole domestic situation is probably sliding out of control, and the only reason we don’t all know about it is that they lie 24/7/365. They lie so much that THEY probably don’t know what’s actually happening.

          Personally I think anybody that has money in China right now is crazy.

          1. > lie so much

            Albert Speer was, among other things, economic czar of the Third Reich. In his memoir, he mentioned that the Reich news services were almost completely useless; he relied on propaganda broadcasts from the British to find out what was going on in his own ministry…

            1. Had to do that myself when I was stationed overseas. Local and country news media gave wildly different reports than what was carried by the Stars and Stripes newspaper or Armed Forces Radio.

            2. One of the things about dictatorships is the tendency to shoot the messenger when bad news is brought in. For instance, Hitler tended to fire subordinates who told him unpleasant realities about how the war was actually going.
              So, pretty much nobody gets any realistic feedback about how things are going, and everything looks fine, right up until the Red Army is knocking on the gates of Berlin. With a few thousand Katyushas.

          2. The “President for Life” thing is just the usual evolution. Communist leaders are just the modern-day tsars and emperors that ruled over those countries up until about a century ago. So Winnie the Pooh’s power grab in and of itself doesn’t meant that anything’s wrong in the People’s Republic of China.

            Everything else we hear about it, however, suggests that you’re spot on.

          1. I’m suspicious that the California wing of the Democratic Party could have been compromised by such forces.

      2. Don’t forget the Republic of China. I don’t know the details of their economics. But I suspect it’s safe to say that Taiwan has a fairly free economic system.

        1. China is slowly but surely rolling back what Cowperthwaite did. Yes, the government in Beijing really will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. It’ll be the death of a thousand cuts, each almost inconsequential in and of itself, but ultimately adding up to a catastrophic end.

          1. I Think that the Cowperthwaite economy scares the hell out of the boys in Beijing. If I had to guess, a lot of the leadership went to the right schools, said the right things during the cultural revolution and are scares silly that the growing number of people with money will want political power too.

            1. You don’t need to guess – one does not rise to power in the party in China without adhering to the party line.

              The only thing Mrs. Mao did wrong was survive her husband and try to change the succession of power – she kept spouting party line to the end.

              And the Deng Xiaoping “Let some people get rich first” that allowed national socialist communism-in-the-distant-future-but-build-iPhones-now current system of state-controlled private profit, i.e. basically Mussolini-ism, is nothing more than “Mao almost killed The Party off with that Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution crap. Doctrine clearly says it will take many generations to get to Communism, and the Cultural Revolution was just trying to cheat and get there faster, so of course it failed. So we won’t do it that way. But whatever we do, we won’t make the mistakes of those idiots in Moscow: The Party will stay in power.”

      3. They’re capitalist in the PRC as well. Alibaba, for instance. Wish. Think about trying to buy clothes on Amazon, and how everything must be ordered four or five sizes up because of “Asian sizing”. Ever since Deng Xiaoping opened it up, China has been capitalist with fascist/state sponsored capitalism overtones.

      1. Wait, could it be author Christopher L. Bennett? Because I know that guy from the various forums he posts on. And he’s just the type to say something like that too.

          1. I’ll be it’s him. The guy is knowledgeable, but blinkered and very pedantic. He also has a tendency to try to tell people what their opinions are.

  13. A traditional American attitude towards foreign problems is that we just need to kill enough of them to make them quit, and that we can of course do so cheaply enough once we decide it is worth the effort.

    The Ragnarok, twilight of the gods, mindset was both a reaction to the information warfare of the left, and to the prospects of a bilateral nuclear war.

    I think we need to reclaim the view that we can and will win, and that the cost need not be every drop of blood, in both domestic politics and in foreign policy.

      1. Yes this. The conceptual aversion to actually “winning” a war while avoiding the empire thing, is what we need to get back.

        1. Wait, that came out wrong – there is an aversion to actually winning embedded in places like the US State Department. We need to get back the concept of “Victory” while avoiding forever-occupation and Empire.

          1. We need a troll in chief who will require State officials, as a condition of their employment, to say that State’s support for the Paris Accord is recognition that State is obsolete, except for organizing and sequencing the wars of extermination needed to address AWG. 🙂

          2. I realize I’m a tad late, but…..

            The ONLY way you will avoid “forever occupation and Empire” is to train up a population sufficiently case-hardened (and probably non-Christian; more “eye for an eye” Judaic / Islamic) enough to look at live shots of Dresden / Tokyo and say “Meh, they had it coming, so no we won’t help”. Not sure we want that, either.

    1. Apparently related to work being done on it.

      IE Not deliberately set.

        1. Yes, it’s terrible but it would have worse if some asshole had started the fire.

          Oh, it dates to the 12th century.

      1. Who can trust anything from official French sources?

        I know a medium who contacted Jack Chick, who in turn channeled someone who Jack says is Cotton Mather. The verdict is God’s judgement on the Catholic Church, relating to some matter involving the Yellow Jackets, the second French republic, the Hundred Years war, and an unspecified volume of Calvin’s Institutes of Christianity. That medium’s records of contacting people are very confused when it comes to any really interesting matter, so it isn’t unusual for the explanation of why to be incomprehensible.

        But seriously, if it was Muslims, or workers had discovered Dan Brown’s research library, or the French government were starting an Anti-Catholic reign of terror, wouldn’t we expect an early official verdict of not deliberately set?

        1. The fact that your first instinct (and mine) is to question the official story tells us a lot about how things are going these days.

          Squid ink only works if you can’t still see the frigging squid swimming around. We all assume anything they say in the first 48 hours is bullshit and wait for the real story to come out later.

          1. No worries, not a comment on your veracity, good sir. Just the French government’s.

            I note that while no group is claiming responsibility today, there’s no shortage of gloating among the Mooselimbs.

            Be a shame if Something Happened to that black meteorite, eh?

        2. A bit before we left escaped Silicon Valley, a very large business/apartment complex went up in smoke in mid construction. $SPOUSE was familiar with the responsible (in the sense of tort, not competence) contractor, and figured it was going to be completely their fault. Early witness statements showed that somebody started a fire, and first the people tried to put it out. Didn’t call 911 until it was way too late.

          Forward a bit, and there was an all-out push to get relevant witnesses out of state before the proper questions could be asked. Didn’t help that TPTB in the city refused help from investigators who could have pinned things down. No idea what favors were traded, but it was a gigantic cluster-fark.

          And, at that time, there were no overtly political implications of the fire. The good news is that huge contractor is no longer working in the USA. The bad news is that city is considerably worse now.

          So yeah, if Hamid was sloppy or malicious and started the the fire, no way we’ll learn that, because shut up peasant. Unless Jean Valjean started it, or can be blamed for it.

      2. In like 90% of the church fires I know of its some idiot fixing plumbing or something else that involves soldering or welding that invariably starts a little fire that balloons. In old New England churches there’s invariably no firestops in the walls and the fire quickly spreads inside the walls. I imagine with Notre-Dame being 4-500 years older that design feature is missing too and being sheathed in stone and lead getting anything in to extinguish the fire is well nigh impossible.
        I guess I better get my backside in gear if I want to see Chartres and other European cathedrals. My big fear is this might give certain offended groups ideas.

        1. From what I could see on the videos, once the fire got into the crossing spire, it acted like a chimney. Embers and sparks began spreading between the roof proper and the stone arches, quite likely, where water has a hard time reaching. When the spire fell in, that probably kicked hot air and embers a lot farther than can be seen from outside the church.

          The good thing about oak beams is that they char for a long time before they really ignite and collapse. The bad news is that 1. not all of the structure is oak, and 2. the way Gothic buildings are built, once a large chunk is compromised, then the stresses begin spreading. Especially given the weakened condition of the structure (pollution, age, traffic vibrations. There was a major TV documentary about the restoration last year.)

          Once the fire is out, they will have to do a very, very careful inspection of every stone. Depending on the kind of stone, once they get hot, then chill, they become brittle and can shatter.

        2. I saw a twitter stream of reactions by the offendable parties. Religion of peace, my ass. It’s going to take a while to get my blood pressure back down, I fear.

          I thought there wouldn’t be much wood in the exterior walls at a cathedral of that age. Inside, yeah, lots of wood, and the roof framing & sheathing would be wood.

          One small local church burned completely a few years ago. They had set a heat lamp under the kitchen’s sink to keep the pipes from freezing, and somebody closed the cabinet doors. Protip: heat tape is safer.

          1. I’m *really* hoping that it wasn’t a “peaceful” type who did this. Once the French truly get going, they make people like Curtis Lemay go “wow, you guys really went overboard”

          2. We used to use a heater, until I realized a fan would work just as well without the potential fire hazard.

      3. Posted a few hours earlier:

        My coincidence meter is clanging…. my guess is she was part of a group, just happened to be the one who got caught, and made up a wild cover story. But the mission? Success.

        Also, saw somewhere that Macron had required half the workers be migrants.

        ~40 French churches have been arsoned in the past year, including another major cathedral. All a big mystery to TPTB.

        Yeah, I’m all out of benefit of the doubt.

      1. LOL. You and me. When son texted Notre Dame was burning I also thought the college and first thought was “did they evacuate the students, because if so, meh”

        1. Given the scandals and stupid of late, I figured it was a metaphorical burning and I just hadn’t heard what it was about.

    2. Fire has always been the worst enemy of medieval church buildings. The root is supported by wooden beams, between the stone of the ceiling and the lead or slate or other roof.

      I’m on my phone, computer internet and land line are out, so I can’t easily go into more detail. Sorry.

      1. It isn’t great for 19th century churches, either. I was in the vicinity the night the twin spires of the big old brick church adjacent to the University of Cincinnati caught fire. They were engulfed in minutes, and thanks to the wind it was raining embers and burning debris hundreds of feet downwind.

      1. On the good news front, a French billionaire has already pledged $113M to the rebuilding effort.

          1. It is up to over a half a billion now with what some of the other big money types have tossed in. Hopefully they install fire protection with the rebuild, even if not historically accurate.

    3. The updated photos seem to show that the fire gutted the roof, but most of the interior vaulting seems to be intact, thus far. I’m a little worried by the fire still burning, and the danger of the vaulting having gotten brittle and cracked from the heat-quench stress.

      The pipe-organ world is reeling, and there are real fears that about 500 years of sheet music, plus the organ itself, may be lost or severely damaged.

  14. “Was there a conspiracy to move the world left?”

    I think the answer is, “Yes”. However, this conspiracy was not constructed in a form easily recognized. The actuality was this conspiracy was constructed in cell-form. Each cell working to convert a single small peice of Western Culture. And the best conspiracies are those in which the conspirators are self motivated and don’t even know they were aimed and triggered.

    This is from the Free Republic site. I’m sure many, if not most, of you have seen it in some form or another.

    Current Communist Goals
    Thursday, January 10, 1963
    (…an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen:)

    1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
    2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
    3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength. (Obama was “merely” the latest Idiot in Chief.)
    4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
    5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
    6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
    7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N. (Done.)
    8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N. (Reagan foiled this one.)
    9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
    10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
    11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
    12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party. (Consequence of enforcing the 1st Amendment.)
    13. Do away with all loyalty oaths. (Didn’t need to do that. Just make the act of taking an oath meaningless.)
    14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
    15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States. (As we can see, they’ve succeeded in doing so with the Democrat Party. They’ve half-way succeeded with the GOP.)
    16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
    17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
    18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
    19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
    20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
    21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
    22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
    23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
    24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
    25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. (Welcome to the sexual revolution. I wonder if they realized that doing so would result in less sex and dropping population too?)
    26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.” (Well, they’ve succeeded in that goal.)
    27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
    28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.” (Heaven help the poor kid who folds his hands in silent prayer during recess.)
    29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis. (Like the 4 progressive Justices on the Supreme Court?)
    30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.” (That’s what they are doing today with their anti-slavery tirade and destruction of Revolutionary War, Civil War, and founders monuments.)
    31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over. (America = evil western culture!)
    32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc. (This IS the Democrat Party agenda; and it doesn’t matter if it’s promulgated by Nancy Pelosi or AOC.)
    33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
    34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
    35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI. (In progress. Organization has been infiltrated and they’re working both inside and outside to destroy it and prevent any overhaul or replavement.)
    36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
    37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
    38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat]. (15 states have Red Flag gun seizure laws on the books already – and they don’t even require a pysch order to take them.)
    39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
    40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. (Well, they’ve succeeded with this one.)
    41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents. (Like treating parents who give their misbehaving toddlers a swat on the butt like violent criminals? Or that we have to raise them in genderless-environments?)
    42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems. (And we see this today with the Anti-MAGA crowd.)
    43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
    44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
    45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

    Each one of these items can be considered the goal of a single cell, although in many cases, several can be considered multiple goals of a single cell, or multiple cells can be working toward the same goal.

      1. Sounds a lot like what I’ve been saying about “Headless conspiracies” Where there is no actual leader organizing a conspiracy, but lots of people acting on what they THINK the conspiracy’s goals are, in the hopes that they will be noticed and rewarded with a greater role in the conspiracy.

        1. but lots of people acting on what they THINK the conspiracy’s goals are, in the hopes that they will be noticed and rewarded

          I’d wonder why they all happen to think along the same lines… if it wasn’t more than obvious.

    1. Let’s go back to 1942:

      ‣ Ultimately, “a world government of delegated powers.”
      ‣ Complete abandonment of U.S. isolationism.
      ‣ Strong immediate limitations on national sovereignty.
      ‣ International control of all armies & navies.
      ‣ “A universal system of money … so planned as to prevent inflation and deflation.”
      ‣ Worldwide freedom of immigration.
      ‣ Progressive elimination of all tariff and quota restrictions on world trade.
      ‣ “Autonomy for all subject and colonial peoples” (with much better treatment for Negroes…

      It’s not some secret protocols, it was printed in Time.

  15. In fact my brother was surprised second son wasn’t named Clifford.

    Probably a very good thing that your husband prevailed. I’m afraid that whenever I hear the name “Clifford,” I start looking around for a 20-foot-tall red dog.

    1. One of my great uncles was named Clifford. Being the tallest in the family, he naturally went by the nickname “Shorty”.

      1. My (richest) cousin is named Clifford, after my paternal Grandpa.
        Went by Skipper/Skip, though as a former CEO/CFO he uses Cliff mostly.

  16. It’s a truism that if you control a man’s property, you control the man.
    Which is why they preach up the supposed fairness and theoretical benevolence of the State, with all the free crap that can be yours. Just don’t read the fine print.

  17. I refuse to think that the West was fatally wounded by the First World War, but it was gravely injured. And the Communists were a large part of it. The Allies SHOULD have sued for peace no later than the end of 1916, maybe earlier. But they couldn’t…not with the Communists circling like sharks.

    1. I’ve long been of the opinion that Britain (and later the US) intervened on the wrong side of WW1.

      1. There’s a good case to be made that the UK and the US should have both stayed out of the Great War. Especially the UK. They handed France a blank check…and the French cashed it in for more than the British figured on.

        1. The more of what little I learn of WWI the more I tend to agree that it was truly a Royal fustercluck and the Zimmerman note did significant damage, just not the damage intended by the originating party.

      2. I would disagree. Germany was into Lebensraum when Hitler was still in diapers.
        Kaiser Willy was a buffoon who would have found some way or another to trigger WWI.

        1. Except if Britain (and the empire, by extension) and the US hadn’t gotten involved, it wouldn’t have been a world war, just Franco-Prussian War II.

          Germany might have taken a slice of Russia, or maybe not. In any case, nobody aside from the French, Belgians, Germans, Austrians, and Russians would care.

          1. The whole “Let’s Attack the French as the First Step in Fighting the Russians!” strategy was all Germany’s.
            Had they, let’s say, offered to return Alsace-Lorraine in exchange for French neutrality, they might have possibly kept things on a bit of a lower keel. But, the plan said To Fight Russia, Attack France Through Belgium, and follow it they did.

            1. Well, yeah. The whole “there is no way to fight Russia quickly, and if both Russia and France hit us, we’re toast, so take out France first”

              1. The Schliffen plan ran pretty much counter to everything Bismark believed in- stay friends with Russia, keep England at a cautious neutrality, and don’t do something stupid like attack through the Netherlands or Belgium.

      3. The Kaiser had been talking up his navy. This was a problem for Great Britain, which couldn’t allow any of the continental powers to pose a serious threat to Britain’s naval dominance. So Great Britain saw the war as a chance to check Germany’s growing naval ambitions.

        Of course then World War 2 happened, and the US firmly demonstrated that NO ONE was going to have a navy as big as that of the US.

        But I agree the US had no real business being in that war.

        1. Perhaps. But it was apparently good for business. Don’t know if we were supplying to both sides or not though. And if we had been running supplies to Germany via anywhere, would we have been told about it? I just keep thinking about the Yellow Journalism of the Spanish American war; which seems just as deceptive as the current MSM.

          1. At the outbreak in 1914, the US was officially neutral and selling goods hand-over-fist to both parties. By the time 1915 dawned, though, the Royal Navy (and fear of it) had largely swept the German merchant fleet from the seas, and Anglophile American bankers had made huge war loans to Britain to allow them to continue buying American goods. Of course, by that time the Germans were busy violating American neutrality, as well, running sabotage operations in the US and through the US into Canada, coordinating with and running guns to Irish, Indian, and Pakistani rebels, etc. The massive blast at Black Tom, prior to the US entry into the war, was one example of the German sabotage operations, and it killed several, wounded hundreds, and damaged the Statue of Liberty.

          2. Then there was the unsurprising foolishness of the Zimmerman telegram to Mexico- unsurprising if you know anything about the idiot nature of a good part of the German Imperial government.
            The really fun thing is that Zimmerman acknowledged that he did send it.

        2. Recall that the actual proximate cause of the UK entering the war was their prior guarantee of Belgium neutrality dating from the 1839 Treaty of London, which itself extended from the French-speaking Catholic southern provinces of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands breaking away from the Protestant northern provinces and King William I’s mismanagement in 1830. When the Germans demanded the right to go through Belgium (asking for “Friendly Neutrality”) to attack France and the Belgians refused, the British felt they had to honor their treaty guarantee.

          And the United Kingdom of the Netherlands is entirely Napoleon’s fault for losing at Waterloo: in 1815 the winning side piled several prior separate polities previously under French control together and gave it to the House of Orange.

          Note that Germany (well, the German Confederation, the predecessor to Imperial Germany) also signed the same Treaty of London in 1839, yet the Kaiser had no qualms about marching through Belgium to get at France for his remake of the Franco-Prussian War.

          For the British to not honor their guarantee of Belgian neutrality (added to the treaty at British insistence) would have meant they were abandoning their entire foreign policy for the past century. Even though there was significant animus towards the French and sympathy for the Germans, I just can’t see the Asquith government doing that.

          Now if the Germans had just stuck to the plan and pushed into Paris and won the damn thing in 1914, the British would have been left with several million more youngsters by the 1920s, and the world would be a different place indeed.

        3. Everybody had a reason to fight in 1914…but nobody had a reason for a major war. But it got out of hand. The Germans were ahead on points, but could not force a win – and the Allies knew they were Communist shark-fodder if they conceded defeat.

          1. Wilhelm’s staff figured they’d bitch-slap France around a bit, get them to pay tribute like they did in 1871, and they’d march home victorious. “Germany” was still a cobbled-up bunch of not-always-friendly polities welded together; a nice war would help establish national instead of local identity, and those gold francs would be a nice bonus.

            What the staff didn’t account for was that France was still holding a grudge over 1871, and that “France” was a hell of a lot bigger than it was back then. France had resources in French North Africa and French Indochina that the Germans either didn’t account for or didn’t value highly; the materials and manpower from the colonies gave France sufficient breathing space to negotiate for help from Britain, and later the USA.

            von Moltke and his staff planned to be back home by October… when that didn’t happen, it was pretty much all over. Germany didn’t have the resources to fight a long war. France, on the other hand, did… particularly after they got help beyond that of their own colonial empire.

      4. Yeah…about that…
        Long story short, Britain’s foreign policy regarding Europe since around 1500 or so was “prevent any one power from holding the southern coasts of the English Channel and the North Sea simultaneously.” In 1914, Germany threatened that, particularly with its decision to invade Belgium.

        1. There was also the pre-war doctrine that the Royal Navy could not let themselves be overmatched by any sea power (or alliance of), otherwise they would be subject themselves to blockade, starvation, and invasion- thus the Two Power Standard.
          However, the development of the Dreadnought meant that pretty much everyone was now starting from the same place in the naval arms race.
          England could not keep to the standard, so she had to drop Splendid Isolation. She first reached out to Germany, but Kaiser Bill over-clevered himself, and blew that. So, they wound up dropping 1000 years of animosity and allaying with France.
          People need to give Wilhem II far more credit for diplomacy. He was able to get three traditional enemies (England, Russia, France) to come together as allies.

  18. Maura Forrest of the National Post squirts some ink:

    Article outlines a vapid Millennial’s mock-attempt to follow Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life. Following this, she’s willing to allow that Peterson may not be “dangerous.”

    The Canadian elite really, really hates that Jordan Peterson is Canada’s most famous academic right now.

    Full disclosure, I am not a Follower of JP, nor have I read his book. But from his speeches and the parts of the book I’ve seen reviewed, there’s absolutely nothing controversial about what he’s been saying. It is all well accepted common sense, albeit better supported than usual.

    1. Soooo – I just read Forrest’s “take” on Peterson.
      “It occurred to me that I may not be taking this seriously enough.” So she said.

      I would say that was clear from the beginning of the piece.

      “Peterson’s rise to prominence on the wings of what seemed like a willful misinterpretation of a law, ” — and she is either totally oblivious that she is making a willful misinterpretation of the Rules, and of Peterson, or else doing it deliberately.
      Or/and, she just doesn’t want to admit where he is correct (he isn’t always, but her examples to the contrary are either deliberately engineered, or else she is convincingly dull-witted).

  19. Marxism, at the end of the day, is what happens when you let a self-loathing denationalized Jew that found a perfect moment-when the Catholic and Christian institutions of the West were extremely weak and suffering-to develop the right way to talk the panties off of women for extramarital affairs that he couldn’t afford to pay for in any way with money. At some point, it mutated into a religion-probably because it allowed Marx and Engels to get more money and strip off more panties. Communism and Socialism and National Socialism are merely schismatic faiths within the Marxist Creed that have specific efforts to remove certain kinds of underwear for the high priest’s sexual satisfaction and and money making efforts.


    I’ve learned way, way, way too much about Marxists over the years. And, I don’t think there are people that are as fiscally and sexually frustrated in so many ways than Marxists. And, like way too many people of their ilk…they make their problems our problems.

    Let’s not even talk about their hang-ups, or their hypocrisies, or even how they try to make their deviance “normal.”

    1. to develop the right way to talk the panties off of women for extramarital affairs

      This doesn’t tell us why.
      And the reason is simple: it’s a next step (or at most, small jump) in further development of Whiggery and Harvard theology — things already fashionable in Protestant circles.

        1. Possibly a reference to, IIRC, Mencius Moldbug, who is of the opinion that the modern form of the Christian heresy of socialism traces its ancestry through Protestantism.

          Which was something I was for a time very dubious of, and still am to a degree.

          But the alter call came out of the revivalist movement, which was strongly influenced by New England Calvinism. And we can see traces of the alter call in modern socialist practice. So, North American Protestantism almost certainly influenced socialism. On the other hand, it is not clear that it was the only influence on socialism. North American flavors of Protestantism were the major religious practice in the US, during a time when the US had non-zero influence on the world. Socialism today also shows traces of influence by established churches, churches with leadership appointed by the government, spending government tax monies on church projects. Established churches are less and less part of the American Protestant tradition after the start of revivalism.

          1. There’s always been a very utopian/apocalyptic tradition in Protestantism (found about this learning of some of the historical sites in San Francisco), and I suspect a lot of the socialist ideas and dogma came with German immigrants around the same time as Marx was starting his efforts to try and save the world.

          2. Socialist ideas have been with humanity for a long time. The Jews had it in the Torah as well. It didn’t necessarily work out well. One of the reasons Solomon lost his empire was because the tribes didn’t like his taxes after the temple was built. They were still paying the temple tax after the temple was done.

            1. Here we run into imprecise terms.
              “Socialism” as mostly unbridled rule of bureaucratic class? China for a long while.
              “Socialism” as “equality” movement exploiting envy and jealousy? Mazdakites — but they were buried heads down, the end. The Yellow Tiger and his followers — but they have gone full Pol Pot, then were decisively exterminated in Chinese style. Those ended up dead very fast.
              “Socialism” as a distinct clade of statist and/or “equality” movements that became a serious problem in XIX century? That’s traceable, these movement have relatives and clearly didn’t appear out of nowhere. Which is how they got any traction and recruitment pool. That were necessary to persist, since on its own socialism fails very quickly, leaving only cautionary tales behind — see the history of Thanksgiving for the best-case scenario.

          3. He traces “secular” Progressivism and New World Order of UN to the Progressive (“blue-state”) Puritan sects, retaining the entire theology except professed “secularism” and for some, atheism. Which is obviously so (and still so — to the point where even Obama had to pick a preacher… and had no problem finding one indistinguishable from fellow Alynskyites).
            And points out that it’s de facto breach of “separation of Church of the State” principle, leading to… well, exact same things that made said separation into laws. And that “Political Correctness” is a test of creed. Which is also fairly obvious.
            Socialism is but one of the lifeforms traceable to Progressive movement. Social Justice is its very close relative.

  20. “… which changed it to international socialism. Which in practical fact was Soviet nationalism projected abroad. (And is now largely Russian nationalism projected abroad”

    I’m going to make one little modified note about this. While it’s true that the influencers in Europe and the US were largely Soviet controlled, what happened in China showed that the nationalism involved wouldn’t remain Soviet (or Russian). China’s communists started out as Soviet supporters. But it wasn’t long before they went their own way.

    If the Soviets had somehow won the Cold War and managed to transform the US into a Communist state, it likely would have only been a decade or two before the now-Communist US went right back to being an international rival of the USSR, much as historically was the case with China.

    1. Yeah, well, ask the Mongols how imposing their foreign ideology on the Han worked out in the end.

      China has been chewing up foreign ideas and spitting back out Traditional China for thousands of years.

    1. Okay, so how do we start convincing women with above average IQ that their humanitarian or social duty (since familial, religious and national duties are evil patriarchy) is to have or raise 3 to 4 children each?

      1. Except a lot of us simply can’t. I don’t know why. But high IQ seems to come with other mutations and they’re not always (or often) helpful. I wanted 11, to ah… even the odds.

        1. Sorry, didn’t mean to lump the lord and ladies who’d like to, but can’t. Heck, ladies with breast reductions or alterations usually can’t breast feed and take a lot of flak simply because they have to bottle feed. 8-/

      2. Honestly, all you need to do is stop brow-beating us about how anything home related is a betrayal of our sex and it’ll sort itself out.

        I ignored that junk because I’m pig-headed, and their feral peer-pressure socialization backfired. A lot of intelligent girls want to be liked by the peer/authorities.

      3. The interesting thing to me is how the driven, bright ladies, who sacrifice everything to dive into cube-land to get that career going, basically get that clock-ticking sound in their ears when it’s just almost too late. I know about lots of money spent on in-vitro to get around the fact that they chemically prevented themselves from getting preggers back when a loud sneeze could have done it, but by the time they decide it’s time they have to pay the lab to help get them knocked up.

        I continue to wonder whether the reports about falling T levels in western males are connected to the multi-generation widespread use of birth control to shift pregnancy later – both the older-Mom thing and the prior-artificial-hormone-use thing would seem likely places to start looking for causes to me.

      4. Mike, that’s pretty easy. Just look at how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints do it or Amish or Islam or the Catholics.

          1. I wouldn’t be so sure about the religious system failing. And the Latter Day Saints have been on the brink of destruction many times. They somehow pull through one way or another.

            I wish the church of rome that persecuted the saints of the Almighty, the Most High, would go away or be diminished in power, but I realize that the power of 1 billion people, and another billion Muslims, isn’t so easily neutralized right now.

      5. I’d be happy to bear some children with such characteristics. You got a good man in hiding somewhere who is looking for a non-crazy (well, only crazy in good, fun ways) woman? My family is pretty known for late marriages and births, and I do like keeping traditions.

    2. IQ is complicated. Depends how well the survivors feed and other stuff. Sure, it’s right, kind of.
      But a) low IQ is only reproducing a lot in the west because we pay them to. When that stops a lot of them will die out. b) a lot of low IQ has reasons like nutrition and maternal drug use, which are controllable.

      1. The late Jerry Pournelle, in one of his “Survival with style” essays in A Step Farther Out noted that poor nutrition in early childhood (I think it was lack of complete protein, but it’s been a while since I read it so I could be misremembering) caused conditions leading to a permanent drop of adult IQ of about 20 points (more than a standard deviation with standard normalization of IQ scores).

      2. I didn’t link to that for discussion on IQ, which is a another topic, but on how the entire West is in a state of population decline, primarily because of the influence of the toxic philosophies. The problem is that as the west has become wealthier, the toxic philosophies have been able to mainstream as fewer people live hand to mouth. Thus the popularity of things like LGBTQ, virtue signaling, and race politics, all of which come from socialist and eugenics, but I don’t suppose that we should say that. The toxic philosophies have always been favored by those with no skin in the game. they have also always lied. I found this recently:
        What is interesting here is that the caption added later as the book that the picture is in is probably a collection of pictures from “Puck” is slandering Charles S. Mellon for his “crimes,” even though in 1913, the New Haven was doing just fine. In any case, this is the Progressives, driving a narrative.

      3. IQ is a swindle (mostly).
        If you want details, Taleb explains why it’s not a valid measure.
        But practically, IQ:
        1. Gives a single value. Which is a red flag when measuring something as complex as human mental performance.
        2. Is presented as constant or slowly changing (like height) value. Which is nonsense, as should be self-evident to anyone who knows someone in need of morning caffeine.
        3. A test not used in studies actually concerned with effects of anything on mental performance. Even those that don’t get into much details.

        For comparison: correction tests are used for stimulant research. They have output of more than one number (time and quality ). Which e.g. immediately shows difference between more arcane metabolic stimulants of Eleuterococus group and nasty synthetic stuff of which the best that can be said is “not quite as bad as meth”.

        1. I took psychology in the seventies. I know all the arguments AGAINST IQ and why it’s not longer used for hiring.
          It’s like all the arguments against defining what mental health is precisely that led to the emptying of mad houses.
          Yeah. Every human measure and every measure of anything as fluid as intellect is fluid, be it for sanity or ability to use your brains.
          There’s only one answer to all of that: Eppur si Muove.

          1. The military’s ASVAB is still used in the IQ testing business. Although the civilian sector will need a lot more flexibility and the IQ tests are usually dominated by Mensa/Prometheus societies.

        2. If you used IQ only as a measure of the probability of a student to successfully complete college (in the western world), then it’s useful and not a swindle.

          Any other uses and the correlation between IQ and the other things becomes less and less.

          1. because of correlation between college and college-demanding jobs (legitimate, not the whole “your victimhood IQ will allow us to hire you) it works for that too.

  21. I had heard from “politics don’t matter” conspiracy land that the statistical population had been erroneously calculated, along with the rest of human history and the birthdate of Yeshua.

    Humans can be wrong? Oh no, we can’t have that. We need our Authorities to tell us what to think and how to think!

    All I can say is that I’m getting less push back on both now.

    You should have seen how people reacted to me years ago when I brought up the Gaystapo issue and the traitors in DC issue. They couldn’t believe it for it challenged their world view and identities. Weak humans.

    Kind of got addicted to telling people the Truth especially when they are resistant to waking up due to cultural traditions, political economic beliefs, and or religious dogma.

    Most of this stuff are things people knew about but they don’t want to think about as it causes cognitive dissonance. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s “Authority” should help, but those reliant on that authority are themselves crippled.

    Btw, for those paying attention to the mainstream media and Netflix, Behind the Curve sparked an interesting incident.

  22. For a *very* good, and revealing, overview of the history of Socialism, who thought it up, who did what to who, what were people *thinking*, read: “Heaven On Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism”, by Muravchik.

    It really shows the progression of socialist thought, and is highly entertaining to boot. You probably don’t know just what losers all the great movers and shakers in socialism were. You know how you look back at the top Nazis and go “how could anyone ever follow these ridiculous losers?” Well, same thing for socialism, it’s just that you haven’t heard the stories about the socialist leader, unlike the Nazis. The Nazis lost their war, but the socialists won their’s, and got to write the history. Read, and learn.

  23. 90 years. Science fiction. How hard are you going to quibble?

    H.G. Wells published The Time Machine in 1895.

    Q.E.D. Nearly 125 years.

    I can beat this theme like a gong with multiple Wiki quotes, but that would not enhance the proof. Along with Verne, Wells created the genre now known as SF. Wells was not only a socialist (friend of Maxim Gorky, admirer of Lenin) he was advocating Socialism from his first published novel.

    Okay, one quote which demonstrates how little the genre has advanced: G. K. Chesterton quipped: “Mr Wells is a born storyteller who has sold his birthright for a pot of message”.

Comments are closed.