The Age of Entitlement – A Book Review

Christopher Caldwell’s book, “The Age of Entitlement – America Since the Sixties” is a hard book to read.  As I described in several places it took me much too long to finish because many times I had to stop after about fifteen minutes of reading and put it down.  It was too painful to hear the seemingly endless litany of defeats, betrayals and acts of cowardice by our elected officials and their bureaucratic, academic, legal and corporate co-conspirators.  And yet I think this book should be read by anyone who doesn’t know the full history of how we have been stripped of our constitutional rights based solely on our European ancestry and normal male identity.  It is so infuriating to read, that it serves as the perfect eye-opener for anyone who still thinks that affirmative action and political correctness are harmless and just.

Caldwell walks us through the years, starting with the Civil Rights struggle against segregation in the South and shows the gradual but continual evolution of that movement from a crusade to end discrimination against blacks to a concerted program to discriminate against whites.  He shows how the logic went from successfully ending the unconstitutional denial of equal rights for blacks into implementing the unconstitutional practices of affirmative action, with its abrogation of free speech, freedom of association and property rights based on not equality of opportunity, but rather equality of outcome.  And since these decisions were made by unelected judges who were basically answerable to no one, no recourse was possible.  For every white man the burden of guilt never had to be proved.  It was always assumed.

After this Caldwell walks us through the expansion of the civil rights movement to embrace other “victims.” Next was women with the adoption by the left of abortion on demand and equal rights for women in the work place and the delegitimization of traditional marriage.  After this we get homosexual rights, immigrant rights and on to the explosion of immigration.  Finally, we come to the present day where demonization of European identity and culture is all pervasive.  We reach a point where open contempt for the native-born Americans is open and threatening.  We see these people marginalized and starved out of their homes by industry and government leaders who openly connive to replace them with immigrants legal and illegal.  They end up on welfare and waiting for death under the soporific influence of  cheap and plentiful opioids that have purposefully been allowed to flooded our streets and countryside.

Throughout Caldwell points out how the leaders of the conservative cause are always woefully unprepared or even unwilling to challenge incredibly unpopular programs and laws.  Time after time a leader will run for office on a platform to defend or revive some part of life that the progressives are undermining and again and again, we witness either a defeated attempt or no attempt at all to prevent the destruction of our way of life.

And at the heart of most of these campaigns are the progressive lawyers and judges working hand in glove with the progressives in the bureaucracies and in the non-profit foundations.  These foundations were set up by the elites that use them to push for the programs that they support but do not affect them personally.  Their schools and homes and families are above the level of being disadvantaged or impinged upon by these forces, unlike the common people that they demonize whose lives are thrown into chaos by these anti-social measures.

Equally distressing is seeing how the leaders of industry sided with the progressives in order to gain access to cheap labor by both exporting jobs to the third world and importing these third world workers right here in the United States as either legal or illegal immigrants.  And once the Tech Revolution was in full swing, we are walked through how the American men who dominated this industry adopted the progressive cause and used their new found tools to obliterate the brick and mortar retail landscape of the entire United States.  And with the diminution of newspapers, radio and television as advertising channels, communication companies like Google and Facebook now get to decide who is allowed to do business and who is not.  And they decide it based on whether they like your politics.

So, we reach the present day where any dissent from the official narrative that demonizes white men is not just shouted down but answered with de-platforming, unemployment, physical assault and sometimes criminal prosecution.  And as the book signifies on its last page.  That is what gave us the Trump presidency.

Personally, this book reinforced in my mind the necessity of challenging affirmative action in front of a conservative Supreme Court.  The fig leaf that affirmative action employs to shield its unconstitutional nature is the importance of “diversity.”  But since diversity doesn’t appear in the Constitution, a brave and honest court should strike down all the quota driven fairness devices and strip the Federal and State bureaucracies of their discriminatory mechanisms.  All that needs to be asserted is that equality under the law doesn’t need to provide equal outcomes for every individual.  Some people are smarter or stronger or more hard working or crueler or more beautiful or taller or shorter or luckier.  I can live with those things and believe me there are enough things that I wish I could do that I can’t.  But facing that is called sanity.  And it’s far from a bad thing.

I highly recommend this book.  It’s about time that someone published something as honest and informative on the subject of America’s descent into the maelstrom of social justice insanity.  It’s time that we throw our support behind whichever men are brave enough to lead the fight back to sanity.  And I know it won’t be easy.  As Steve Bannon said “If you think they are going to give you your country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken.”  He’s right.  They will fight at every step.  If the Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action, the big cities will riot and burn.  Well, that’s nothing new.  But it’s the only way back to a world where fairness and freedom even have their original meanings.

Good work Christopher Caldwell.  You wrote a horrible, urgently important, good book.  Bravo.

Claremont Review of Books – The Law That Ate the Constitution by Helen Andrews

Here’s someone else who is mining the important but horrific story in Christopher Caldwell’s book, “The Age of Entitlement.”  I’m glad to see Caldwell getting coverage all over the Right.  His story is an eye opener and should wake up many normies who are confused by how we got where we are now.  In the parlance of the kids it will red-pill many and black-pill more than a few.  But it will also show how the judiciary was weaponized and that will indicate how a conservative court could reverse huge swaths of the unconstitutional overreach by admitting that anti-white discrimination is still discrimination and is a crime.

Diversity is Our Weakness – Bakke Revisited

For someone as old as I am, one of the more horrific side effects of reading Christopher Caldwell’s book “The Age of Entitlement” is reliving all of the political debacles that he chronicles.  Each one comes back and delivers the same pain you felt originally plus the additional grief you get from reflecting on how that defeat reverberated through the years.

To select a specific example, Caldwell details the 1978 court case in which a white male applicant to the UC Davis medical school, Allan Bakke, was rejected in favor of a minority student.  Allan Bakke had board scores in the 96th, 94th, 97th and 72nd percentile while the minority candidate had scores in the 34th, 30th, 37th and 18th percentile.  Back then the California court rightfully ruled that Bakke had been discriminated against and also ruled that the California program that made this preference was racially discriminatory and must be eliminated.  But the University of California appealed to the Supreme Court and by a five to four vote the Court decided that although discrimination was being practiced, diversity was so important that quotas were acceptable as long as they were masked by calling them diversity “plus factors.”  Previous to this, no one had ever heard of diversity as a constitutional requirement.  So what we had was the very same anti-discrimination laws that the civil rights movement championed ten years before would now be purposefully broken by their government allies to disadvantage a population of people on the basis of race and gender.  How ironic.

This was the decision that sealed the fate of white male students across the country.  Women and various minorities would be put at the front of the line and regardless of how low their scores were they would get the seats ensured by the hidden quotas that all the universities employed.  And eventually the same system would be used by all the major corporations that were monitored by the Federal government which is essentially every one that had more than a handful of employees.

And that is where we are today.  The only difference is that additional “protected groups” like homosexuals and illegal aliens have been added over time to the rolls of the favored.  And now we have reached a place where every organization, whether a college, corporation or non-profit social group justifies this by employing a mantra that they drum into their employees, namely, “diversity is our strength.”

Diversity is our strength.  What does that even mean?  In what sense is it a strength?  I have personally witnessed diversity hires who have proven so incompetent that they effectively destroyed the functionality of a whole department.

I can remember a technical director standing up at a company meeting and during the “diversity and inclusion” sermon stating that he knew diversity was our strength because a company culture survey had confirmed that it was.  I tried not to smile, but failed because I remembered the last time a supposedly “anonymous” culture survey had provided results that contradicted the official narrative.  But anonymity was only maintained at the individual level.  All survey respondents were identified to the level of the supervisor above.  The low-level supervisors of the anonymous dissenters were told that their poor managerial skills were responsible for the “uninformed” nature of the contradictory responses of their direct reports and if the trend continued it would be handled by demoting the supervisors.  Naturally, the supervisors then begged their reports to toe the line if they didn’t want to see them fired.  So essentially the proof of diversity being a strength is that the company told the employees that it is.

Let’s look at it rationally.  If you wanted to hire mechanics what would you be looking for?  Several things; mechanical aptitude, strength, conscientiousness, experience and resourcefulness.  Now several of these general qualities we could hope to find in applicants of any race or either gender.  But if you are looking for strength and mechanical aptitude you would not be surprised to find that the great majority of the best applicants were men.  So, hiring an equal number of men and women as mechanics, while obviously producing more diversity than with an all-male staff is going to provide you with a weaker crew both in terms of strength and skill.

If you wanted to choose good medical school students what would you look for?  Until 1964 you would be looking for emotional composure, honesty but most importantly for very high analytical intelligence.  That is why science and math are the most important prerequisites for medical school.  But if after the civil rights era you would accept candidates solely based on their sex or race regardless of how low their testing scores for analytical intelligence were then you would get a weaker class of medical students.

This same exercise can be employed for any job that requires anything more than rudimentary skills.  In each case choosing candidates by a quota, regardless of fitness for the position does not give you a stronger employee, it gives a weaker one.  From this analysis I conclude that “diversity is our strength” is not just untrue but that the opposite statement is shown to be true.  If choosing applicants according to core job competency is subordinated to checking off gender and race boxes then you have purposefully picked less talented individuals as part of your selection process.  That is stupid.  And worse than stupid, it is dishonest.  And since the victims of this dishonesty, namely the co-workers, have to pretend they don’t see what’s happening it is also highly demoralizing for them.

There it is.  A dishonest process to defend an illogical goal.

There are many things that a conservative Supreme Court needs to do.  Reverse the homosexuality agenda, re-establish the right of free association and protect the First and Second Amendment Rights of all Americans.  But if I were to rank the priorities, I would say that ruling affirmative action unconstitutional is the first priority of a conservative agenda.  American society as a whole would benefit from the elimination of the dishonesty, incompetence and resentment that this insane practice foists on all of us.

Will the Supreme Court take up something like this?  Under John Roberts and with the current conservative/liberal 5/4 split it will not.  But with the 6/3 split that might soon exist it is possible.  And that is why I especially hope that President Trump ends up with a strong majority in the Senate after this year’s election.  I know he will be making an additional nomination within the next five years.  I want it to be a bold conservative judge who will make a bold step like eliminating affirmative action.

Bridging the Chasm Between the Dissident Right and the Civic Nationalists

A week or so ago I critiqued an on-line article about finding common ground with leftists who were upset about being attacked by their even crazier neighbors in the “woke” community.  In my analysis I rejected the value of accepting them as allies and as an alternative proposed a dialog with the Dissident Right.  I said:

“So, in answer to the title of Mr. Klavan’s article, yes conservatism can be conserved but not by accepting non-conservative ideas and the people who live by them.  Let the progressives, the liberals, the moral relativists, the feminists and the alphabet people battle with their even crazier “woke” brethren (or whatever gender bent category they prefer) on their own.  We have nothing in common with them and nothing to gain by engaging with them.  I would much prefer to engage with the fringe groups to the right of us and see if we can find some common ground with them.  Their ideas are more extreme than ours but they at least do not reject the values that we embrace.  In many cases I think they have let pessimism radicalize their thinking and pushed them to conclude that only radical solutions to our problems exist.  I think the last few years have shown that progress can be made if the right people get involved.  If actual conservatives have a part in running the country better outcomes are possible.”

Recently I have read several articles by the Dissident Right that seem to echo the idea that there is room for constructive engagement between the so-called “Civic Nationalists” and the so-called “Dissident Right” (wow, that a lot scare quotes!).  Of course, from their point of view this merely means they are interested in proselytizing us over to their cause.  And, fair to say, I’m interested in changing their minds about some of the darkest pessimism they have concerning America’s future.

To be perfectly candid, the biggest difference between realistic civic nationalists and the dissidents is their conclusions about racial identity.  They are convinced that a minority majority America cannot maintain the essential characteristics that the country had when 85% of the population was of European descent.  Now this is a very sensitive subject and even acknowledging that it could be an issue has been enough to get all kinds of people banished to the gulag of the de-platformed.  Racial and ethnic topics are taboo for all but the anti-white cheerleaders of the left and their only object is to vilify everyone from Christopher Columbus to Kate Smith for not having read the playbook of the 21st Century Witch Hunters.  But considerations of race and identity are important and should be able to be discussed rationally and constructively.

The descendants of the English who founded this country have a right to be proud of what their forefathers created.  The United States is one of the most remarkable human inventions that can be pointed to.  Along with the British, Roman and Athenian systems it evolved from, it has blossomed into a model that has impacted to a greater or lesser extent, the whole of the human world.  Without a doubt, there was something about the people and the circumstances that surrounded the founding of this country that should be revered by its descendants and anyone who chooses to live in it.

The charges of guilt against America for conquering the country from the Native Americans and for slavery before the Civil War are absurdly hypocritical.  War and slavery have been a part of every human culture including the Native Americans and Sub-Saharan Africans from the very beginning and to the extent that the United States and Britain have worked to eliminate slavery and embrace the idea of all humans being a family, they should be recognized as having made a quantum leap beyond the long depressing history of nations and empires murdering and enslaving each other to stay alive.

And this hypocrisy about America’s supposed guilt is, I believe, a big part of why the Dissident Right believes that a non-European majority in the Unites States will destroy the things that have made it unique.  All of the hooting and hollering about Jefferson and Washington being slave owners and whatever the latest atrocities the Antifa idiots commit compounds the sense of unfairness that people feel when they are confronted with the ongoing discrimination that affirmative action represents.  Anyone who has seen what corporate management has become knows that choosing a woman or a minority or an LGBTQ candidate is the only way to avoid being subject to the dreaded “diversity and inclusion” police.  Your judgement will be questioned and your “unconscious bias” will be referenced by your upper management and the advocacy groups that have sprung up like poison mushrooms in every school, college, corporation and non-profit organization.

So, I’m cognizant of the outrages being perpetrated on the legacy population of the United States by, mostly, their fellow European Americans ostensibly for the benefit of these various minorities but I disagree with the dissidents on the conclusion that this has to inescapably change the country into something unrecognizable to those who loved it.  And as a rationale I am reminded of the southern European immigrants of the 1890s and early 20th century.  These people were equally considered unacceptably alien and a threat to the American nation.  And indeed, when they flooded the country in their millions, they did create chaos and an explosion of crime.  But by their desire to emulate the prosperity of their neighbors they instilled in their children the desire to be Americans in every sense and they did become Americans and they probably loved this country as much (if not more) than those Mayflower descendants who currently bad-mouth the United States for all the supposed sins that their woke brethren enumerate.  This former wave of immigrants leads me to believe that we can absorb some reasonable amount of immigration.  Obviously unlimited and illegal immigration is a danger to our system and needs to be stopped in order to allow the already large number of legal immigrants to assimilate.

But the current climate of “blame America” is the real danger I see.  Whatever numbers of immigrants are deemed harmless to the country, they still must be inculcated with a sense of gratitude for their membership in it and toward the people and culture that built it.  And to accomplish that our government must not be put in the hands of America-haters like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or any of the other Democrats who want to divide and conquer us.

As far as the dissidents’ opinions on HBD, I can’t confirm or deny whether there are such large differences between populations of humans as they claim.  But if they do exist, I still do not see the relevance.  There is plenty of variance in intelligence and other characteristics within populations and these ranges of variance act in hierarchical fashion to steer individuals to occupations and groupings that suit them more or less.  The important thing is that people feel that everyone is at least given the same chance to try to succeed.  A ditch digger who earns his money honestly doing the task he is qualified to perform is more honorable than the Ivy League legacy student who gets his spot in school and industry while more qualified candidates are rejected because their families didn’t vacation on Martha’s Vineyard.

My hope is that if honest reformers like Donald Trump can begin to roll back the harmful policies that the social justice programs of the 1960s and 1970s then maybe the dissidents will come around to our way of thinking and support reasonable reform of an admittedly dysfunctional system.  But for now, I think it’s reasonable to begin a dialog with the Dissident Right.  They were among the first who diagnosed the conscious malpractice of the Establishment Republicans and their clandestine collusion with the Left in marching this country over a cliff.  They are just as legitimate a part of the nation as some of the radical groups that the Left has welcomed into its camp.  Ostracizing them just to prove our purity is stupid and self-defeating.

So that’s what I think.  That was long because it is difficult to talk about these things without being very clear about what I mean.  But I thought it was worth saying.  Leave your opinions, if you’d like, in the comments.

A Champion of the Common Man for what Ails the American Republic

Last Tuesday I wrote a post about awakened Christians and what practical steps they could take to finally fight back.  The inimitable War Pig commented back, “In other words, they need a modern-day Martin Luther.”  And that really got me thinking.  The Right has been wandering in the desert for thirty years and only saw any success when Donald Trump appeared.  Are we just waiting for the right man to come along to start a modern-day cultural reformation?

America has known several religious revivals in her history but it seems this will have to be something different.  It’s not a religious revival it’s more like a societal purge.  Instead of just Martin Luther we need another Andrew Jackson thrown in for good measure.  What is needed is a Normal Man’s Revolt.  The societal authorities have led us down a rabbit hole and we’ve come out in Wonderland.  A Wonderland where everything is backward, upside down and inside out.

But we know the things that are wrong and we can push back on those things.  We want our freedom back again.  Our positive and negative freedoms both.  We don’t want the government telling us who we must and mustn’t hire, promote, fire, play golf with or bake cakes for.  What we can or can’t say.  We don’t want them telling us how to raise our kids or where they have to go to school.  We don’t want them spying on us.  We don’t want them giving away our money to foreigners or people who don’t want to work.  We don’t want the government to reward companies for exporting jobs to China.

And we certainly don’t want them telling us that a man in a dress is a woman.  Or that an eighty-pound four-foot eleven-inch woman is a Navy Seal.  And we don’t want them to force our churches to recognize practices that contradict the teachings of their faith.  We need a modern-day Moses to lead us back to the Promised Land and by promised land I mean sanity.

We need someone to step forward and have the courage to speak the truth.  It’s time to tell the social justice scolds in the Media, the tech companies, the schools and the corporate HR departments that we don’t believe what they’re saying and we aren’t going to play by their rules anymore.  It’s going to take a preacher.  He’s going to have to preach the gospel of liberation.  Liberation from all these petty tyrants who collectively have left us in chains.  He’s got to stir the people up and give them hope and unite them.  President Trump wants to be that man.  I hope he succeeds.  Because the need for such a hero is desperate.  Someone must fill it or we will become a nation of serfs.

The surprising thing is that once the truth comes out it will be like a landslide.  For decades people have been intimidated into silence, afraid of losing their jobs, their families, their freedom.  But if someone just once speaks the truth from a big stage with a big megaphone the dam will burst and there will be a tidal wave of truth.  Just like when Donald Trump was brave enough to say that illegal immigration wasn’t virtuous but a crime everybody was relieved to see that they weren’t alone.  People will accept the Big Lie because they know the powerful are protecting it.  But if once a brave voice shouts from the rooftops that the emperor has no clothes then everyone will laugh and put an end to the charade.

We need a champion and a leader and we need him now.  Support President Trump in every way you can.  He is our best hope to restore sanity to this nation.

 

24JUL2019 – American Greatness Post of the Day – Sorting Out the New Color Wheel by Anthony Esolen

Here’s a fun mockery of the concept of racial entitlement.  As an Italian American of southern extraction I chuckled at the idea that somehow Elizabeth Warren was mistaken for a “woman of color” but I was oviously just an undeserving white man.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/07/23/sorting-out-the-new-color-wheel/

My favorite line, “In America today, a family legend that a thrice-great-uncle was or may have been part cigar store Indian wins you some points for enrollment at Harvard.”

 

 

 

Identity Politics and Civic Nationalism – Part 2

Identity Politics and Civic Nationalism – Part 1

At the end of the first part of this post I said I’d look a little more closely at the specifics of the Dissident Right’s logic and compare it to my own way of looking at where we are.

First off let’s acknowledge something that we cannot afford to forget.  The Dissident Right (or Alt-Right if you prefer) was the only group who both knew what was going wrong in this country and weren’t afraid to say it out loud.  They recognized that the Left was in control of all the levers of power and the Establishment Republicans had no intention of changing the results of the Left’s program.

The Dissident Right explained exactly how the schools and colleges proselytized the children and how the Media, the Democrats, Big Business and the Courts twisted every part of society until nothing remains of the normal world of just a few years ago.  And as proven, the Establishment Republicans use the anger this generates to get themselves re-elected.  But once in office they can be depended on to never actually reverse any of this destruction and instead just talk about how dead set they are against whatever the next outrage is.  And when that outrage becomes law they just move along to the next.

And the Dissident Right identified the fact that both Parties and Big Business were determined to use immigration, both legal and illegal, as a means to swamp out the votes of the citizens of the United States as a way to eliminate all resistance to their agenda.  It was plain during the 2016 election that none of the Republicans, no matter how “conservative” he was, would say a word against illegal immigration for fear of being called a racist.

And the Dissident Right was the only group that supported Trump.  Everyone else either said he was a joke or abhorred him for being a vulgarian.

So, as I said above, ignoring the Dissident Right means ignoring the only group that knew how we were losing the Country to the Left and how we could stop them from doing it.  Clearly what they say has to be carefully considered.

But you might say, why not just jump on their band wagon?  For me, that is a disturbing choice.  The Dissident Right is comprised of people who believe that differences in race and even ethnicity prevent a heterogeneous state like the present United States from living in harmony.  They believe that the future will be a fractious hodge-podge of identity groups that, led by the trouble-makers on the Left, will spend all their time pursuing imaginary grievances against the European Americans that they’ve been told are holding them back from being happy.

The Dissident Right points to affirmative action discrimination and the destruction of the family and the LGBTQ lawfare warriors and de-platforming of people on the right and say we are already there and that once we are a majority-minority-nation, things will only get much worse.

Accepting this hypothesis as true is not something I would do unless forced by irrefutable evidence.  But having it espoused by people who have been right about things that the majority were wrong about means I have to find reasonable arguments for why the Dissident Right is mistaken in their conclusions.

Instead of going through a bunch of cases and subsets of categories I’ll sum up the problem we’re experiencing by saying that in the 1960s when the economy was very strong the leaders of the Democrat party saw that they no longer had an unbeatable coalition of disaffected voters like they had in the 1930s and 1940s.  They decided to follow the Marxist playbook and weaken their enemies by sowing as much division as they could.  They espoused abortion as a way to destroy the family and they sponsored all the grievance movements to further fracture the country.  They infested the schools and steadily eroded intellectual life until even the sciences were politicized and distracted from their primary functions.  And they enshrined massive immigration both legal and illegal.

But even when all this was going on it was still possible for a conservative leader like Ronald Reagan to rally the Right.  And when that happened, the country was able to see itself as one people.  It was only when we were led by people who believed in the propaganda of the Left that everything has fallen completely apart.  Basically, since 1988 (thirty years) we have been living under the rule of the Left and their Globalist Echoes on the Fake Right.  Bush Senior, Clinton, Bush Junior and Obama allowed every outrage of the Left to happen to us with either enthusiasm or feigned reluctance.

This track record is why I think that the Dissident Right may be mistaken in the irreversibility of the changes we are experiencing.  In just two years President Trump has installed a whole generation of federal judges who will begin the process of reversing the damage done by the rogue judiciary.  Without Justice Kennedy it’s possible that the SCOTUS will reverse the decisions that found a constitutional mandate for abortion and gay marriage and affirmative action.  Those types of actions would change the world we live in.  Once those injustices are addressed people would see the world much differently.

The final thing that I need to address is the Race Realism that the Dissident Right says will prevent the United States from existing in harmony.  They claim that both differences in behavior and feelings of separateness will forever keep different races and ethnicities from living peacefully together.  My experience with diversity is a product of growing up and living in New York City in the 1960s, 70s and 80s.  Believe me when I tell you that things were very far from harmonious in the “glorious mosaic” that existed in that era.  There was a separate neighborhood every ten to fifteen blocks and mostly the ethnic and racial groups didn’t happily mingle or even interact.  There were riots and even several large areas of the city burned down.  Crime was rampant and the subways were very dangerous as were the parks and other empty areas.  Of course, the Democrats were always stoking the unrest with grievance propaganda.  But then I remember what happened when the city finally had had enough and elected a law and order Republican, Rudy Giuliani.  It got better!  And indeed, the people of all races and ethnicities felt more united and less angry when a sensible government started enforcing the law and holding everyone accountable.

I won’t claim that there aren’t differences between people.  In fact, I’ll go one step further and says we’re all different from each other.  Every family has a smarter kid and a tougher kid and a kid who doesn’t follow the rules.  But if one kid does better in school you can’t hold him back to make the less smart kid feel better about himself.  And as every parent knows, the best way to keep the peace in a family is to come up with reasonable rules and make sure that everyone follows them.  It’s only when you see someone else getting away with something, you’re not allowed to that trouble begins.

So, this is getting overly long.  My way of thinking about this is that if we can elect non-leftists who want to restore normalcy to the country, we can do it.  Maybe it won’t happen.  But just saying it’s impossible doesn’t appeal to me, at least not yet.  President Trump has given me hope that it can be done.  Let’s see if he can do it before we throw in the towel.

President Trump is Looking to End Disparate Impact as an Affirmative Action Tool

In addition to the other benefits we get from a Trump presidency he is working to defang all of the regulatory tools that Obama inflicted on us during his regime. Among those disparate impact is one of the most noxious.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/02/14/trump_looks_to_end_numbers-only_bias_theory_governing_american_life.html

Good read.

The Falling Down Revolt

The Revolt on the Right is actually a civil rights movement.  Nobody frames it that way because the revolt is of the people that every other civil rights movement in this country has been framing as their oppressor.  This is the civil rights movement that at its core is straight white men.  That is the one identity that has no value in the victim identity rating system.  Or rather the value is negative infinity.  If you possess the three identity components of male white and straight then you can be passed over for a college spot, a scholarship, for a job, for a promotion, for an award and everyone will say it was the right decision even if you were objectively more qualified.

Now I said it was just straight white men who make up the core of the movement but it is becoming clearer that identity politics can affect other people too.  Recent investigations into Ivy League admissions show that Harvard has a policy to limit Asian American applicants even if they are demonstrably more qualified than some of their other favored minority applicants.  And the state of women’s sports is beginning to feel the impact of what having actual women compete against so called trans-gender women will mean.  Pretty soon the actual women will be completely crowded out of the winner’s circle.

And look at the recent cases of minorities running afoul of the royal flush of identity politics, the LGBTQ hand.  Normally being a black man is a pretty strong position when navigating the Hollywood landscape but Kevin Hart saw this credential trumped when he was hounded out of his Academy Awards hosting gig for having said uncomplimentary things about homosexuality in a tweet a number of years ago.  And as the final one-upsmanship situation a lesbian recently was shunned by the LGBTQ community for asking the question “How are trans-women different from men?”

But what is happening is an awakening to the fact that straight white men and to various degrees other groups are being discriminated against in the name of fairness.  And there isn’t a bit of fairness about it.  For decades the people of this country were told that each new identity group needed to be given special consideration to make up for the disparities in wealth or power or acceptance in order to bring the country together.  But rather than make the country more united it only stoked resentment and provided an industry in government oversight into every aspect of our lives.  School, college, work, housing, social organizations, sports and every business and profession became the target for relentless harassment and micromanagement.  At this point we’ve reached the point where freedom of religion has been trampled on to the extent that a wedding cake baker is hounded out of his own business to satisfy the spite of truly evil individuals.

I think Donald Trump’s campaign may be looked back at as the match that set off the powder keg.  Awareness of the situation is growing and more and more regular people are recognizing that they are being abused by a system that’s rigged against them and isn’t fair.  And they’re starting to realize that they don’t have to take it anymore.

To the mainstream media and the democrats this isn’t a civil rights movement.  To them it’s just racist people showing their lack of compassion.  But I think it is exactly the civil rights movement needed to bring back into balance the rights of the only people allowed to be trampled on by the identity politics cabal.

The real problem is what to call this movement.  All kinds of labels have been circulated.  The logic of it is basically Anti-Anti-White.  Now, that is a terrible name but the sense of it is there.  This is a revolt against reverse discrimination.  This is a reaction to the tyranny of the affirmative action regime.  This is a push for freedom from the thought police.  If I was looking for a symbol that represents the spirit of who is behind this movement, I would take the character in the movie “Falling Down.”  A schlub who has been trying to play by the rules all his life and finds that the game is rigged against him.

How about the Falling Down Revolt?

Codevilla’s “Our Revolution’s Logic” Resonates on the Right, but is He Right?

Codevilla’s lengthy article outlining the path forward he sees for the American republic is ricocheting around the right-wing blogosphere pretty heavily.  And that makes sense.  Here is a civic nationalist of unimpeachable credentials sadly confirming what the Dissident Right has been saying for several years.  Codevilla’s thesis is that we’ve gone over the cliff and there’s no going back to a united America.

Without a doubt, the naïve belief that a third of the population can publicly foment the disenfranchisement of 60% of the population without damaging the unity and even the existence of the nation has been exploded.  But does that mean that a coalition of people (of whatever ethnicity) who would prefer to live in a country corresponding to the pre-1965 way of life can’t be cobbled together?  Of that, I’m not convinced.  The Left has appealed to all the various grievances of women, minorities and sexual deviants against the traditional society as a way to build a coalition.  But what would happen if you take away the advantage for that coalition?  What if protected status was removed from these categories so that there was no longer any advantage to uniting under the banner of victimhood?  Suddenly moslems, feminists and trans-women don’t seem to have that much in common.  Just looking at the various minority groups, it doesn’t appear that East and South Asians have very much in common with Hispanics who don’t really get along very well with black folk.  Suddenly it makes a lot more sense for all of us to play by the rules that actually protect each group from the law of the jungle.  The real losers in this type of situation would be the really weird characters in the LGBTQ camp.  It’s pretty certain that there are much worse societies to be noticeably strange than in pre-1965 America.  Just ask the queer folk in Iran (if you could find any alive that is).  And considering the recent statistics on female college degrees and employment advancement I think women are the least entitled to demand special privileges.

I think what made the social and political situation in the last couple of decades seem like a lost cause to the Right was the fact that the only Republican leaders that we had on the scene weren’t really on our side.  Even in the short time that Donald Trump has been on the scene and even hog-tied as he has been by the machinations of the Deep State it’s obvious that our ideas are not unacceptable to the American electorate.  Imagine if a relatively united Republican establishment started to actually espouse the welfare of its constituency on a consistent basis.  I think we could easily sway many of the groups that currently vote in lock step with the Democrats.  What is needed is an assertive stance in demanding the end of unconstitutional practices that disadvantage and disrespect the majority of American citizens in the name of grievances that have no basis in reality.  The American legal system provides more than sufficient protection for all law-abiding individuals and the American business climate when nurtured by a responsible government provides opportunities to thrive for anyone who wants to work.

Anyway, that’s my take on the situation.  That’s why I haven’t despaired yet for the ability of America to revive.  I’m not saying any of this will happen.  I’m speculating that it could be done.  I also freely admit that it’s a long shot.  But if recent history has shown us anything it’s that long shots do actually happen.

I’m interested in your opinions.  Do you agree with Codevilla that all that’s left is dividing up the country or that there’s still a path forward for a United States.  Feel free to leave your comments below.