|
Few people alive today in the West can remember a time when people were free to associate with whomever they chose. It requires some mental exertion to imagine a society in which a tavern or men’s club could legally exclude women, or a commercial enterprise could hire (or refuse to hire) a person for any reason it pleased—and nobody saw it as any of their damn business.
Though human nature can be suppressed, it usually manages to reassert itself in one form or another. “Birds of a feather flock together” and all that. People find workarounds. In our current world, an approximation of free association is most often achieved via narrowly-defined interest groups. If you establish a gun club, specializing in cowboy-style revolver shooting, you will probably not be bothered by the presence of too many woke lesbian illegal aliens. But this method is far from airtight, and one is always fearful of complaints, lawsuits, and other harassment. There are, however, a number of loopholes that are entirely legal. For example, the family business, which I believe is still exempt from certain kinds of interference. Another is the residential community with an “over 55” age restriction. Money certainly helps. If you have a lot of it, you can buy your way into association with a better class of people. You can live in the best neighborhood, send the kids to private school, etc. But this path is not what it used to be, as every word and action is under scrutiny. A path to free association that once saw widespread use in the U.S. was the ethnic enclave. Remember the tapestry of ethnic neighborhoods in New York, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, and other large cities? The iron fist of “civil rights,” notably the destruction of neighborhood schools via forced integration, put an end to that culture. Once a common feature of American life, today a successful enclave requires extremely high levels of homogeneity and unity. The groups that can still pull it off include the Amish, Orthodox Jews, lower-class blacks, and various Asian nationalities. And let us not forget the Indian reservation, which is the gold standard of exclusivity. Strong communities and a true aristocracy cannot develop unless people are allowed to segregate themselves into micro-worlds, based on any number of parameters: education, political views, religion, wealth, to name just a few. The difficulty in achieving this detachment accounts for much of the reticence to form families. Free association manifests itself in effective separation between classes, and in social and occupational groupings that are composed exclusively of a specific human type. These types evolve and are maintained by means of closely-held traditions, and strict rules for recruitment. Naturally, the rules are set by the people within a given domain, not by the legislature. This ancient social foundation was largely in effect in the U.S. until the 1960s. In Western Europe, it lasted even longer. Today, we still have traces of this structure. Almost every field retains an image, however archaic, of its consummate type: the orchestral conductor with long, unkempt hair; the stocky, wisecracking taxi driver; the stoic, unflappable nurse; the absent-minded professor; the slimy salesman; and so on. Until recently, when you stepped onto a commercial airliner and peered into the cockpit, you were almost guaranteed to see two physically fit white men, former Air Force pilots, clean shaven, with short hair. This is the human type most suited to the task at hand. And it could develop and be sustained only under conditions of free association. Obviously, this logical and natural organization of society has been largely destroyed. This accounts for much of our dysfunction and chaos. However, as we transition back to a reality-based world (see my post of 2/10/25), perhaps free association will make a comeback. The dismantling of DEI and other forms of government meddling is an encouraging sign. This must continue until the entire “civil rights” edifice is demolished, to be replaced by a resurgent zeitgeist of liberty, and its corollary, a decentralized, spontaneous ordering of society.
0 Comments
When hysterical Leftists claim that President Trump and his associates are seizing power, or engaged in a coup d’état, in a sense they are correct. Over the course of the last century, the Deep State spread its tentacles into every nook and cranny of the Federal apparatus. On January 19, 2025, this entrenched Leftist administrative juggernaut was, for all practical purposes, the government of the United States. The president had become window dressing, a quaint relic of the bygone constitutional republic.
So when Donald Trump & Co. asserted authority over the Executive branch, thinking that the elected president and his appointees are actually in charge of their agencies, they really were trying to overthrow the government. Let us not forget that “our democracy” is a codeword for the Deep State; the function of an election, as in the USSR, is for the People to show their love and affection for the legitimate rulers of the country, not—Lenin forbid—to replace them. How can you replace the true representatives of the People? And thus we have this bizarre coup d’état, where the president is seizing control of the presidency. We need a new word to describe this phenomenon. Autocoup? Retrocoup? Whatever it’s called, Trump really is overturning the established order. This situation produces a host of ludicrous scenes. As I watched one of the signing ceremonies/press conferences, this one featuring Musk, I thought to myself: Trump and Musk are taking a much-deserved victory lap after uncovering the tip of the iceberg of what may be the biggest fraud in the history of man. This is how a normal human being would view it. But the audience in the room is the White House press corps, mostly composed of “journalists” who are essentially propaganda attachés of the Deep State. Musk is taking away their rice bowl. To them, US AID is not subject to the authority of the president, rather it is an independent branch of the government; dismantling it would be akin to abolishing Congress. Trump could expose waste, fraud, and abuse until the cows come home, and the Left wouldn’t care a whit. If a thousand worthless bureaucrats and consultants inside the Beltway each have to pocket a million dollars so that the election of one conservative East European prime minister is nullified, so be it. This is how the U.S. government works. It is absolutely normal, standard operating procedure. And now we have low-level Federal judges ordering President Trump and his Cabinet to keep their hands off the agencies under their purview. This galactic level of chutzpah is the natural outgrowth of the judiciary’s illegal usurpation of power, growing in intensity for decades. Of all the genies that must be stuffed back into the bottle, this is one of the most urgent. I cringed when I heard Trump say, at the aforementioned press conference, that he would obey the judges, and appeal the rulings. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed this policy the following day. Did it ever occur to him that the President of the United States is not obligated to obey an illegal order conjured up in the feverish mind of a Leftist lunatic? If a judge tomorrow rules that Trump cannot speak with world leaders, or that the White House staff must all appear in public with ice cream cones protruding from the top of their heads, would he obey that as well? What is the limit of this farce? The Administration is going to appeal?! Does Trump not realize that in the eyes of the Left, he just surrendered to the authority of the Deep State? Does he not remember that his first administration was neutered in the same manner? This cannot be allowed to stand. Where’s our new Attorney-General Pam Bondi, that supposedly tough-as-nails supergirl? Oh, she’s busy bringing lawsuits against governors and other top officials of states (most recently New York) that are sabotaging the Administration’s enforcement of the law against illegal aliens. What is it with conservatives and lawsuits? For goodness sake, we are dealing here with criminals. Appoint a prosecutor, and slap on the handcuffs. The state officials are clearly engaged in obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting a felony, and the judges are fomenting insurrection. These apparatchiks must be behind bars, pronto. Otherwise, the autocoup may fail, and Trump will have little else to do but attend MAGA rallies and rearrange the furniture in the White House. In summary, I will repeat the words of Curtis Yarvin that I quoted in my post of 1/20/25: “Progressives do not believe in the American system of government, only in power. Conservatives do not believe in power, only in the American system of government. Therefore, progressives always win and conservatives always lose.” In reading and listening to commentary on possible cuts to the Federal budget, I have noticed that the Department of Defense usually is treated as sacrosanct. It is lumped in with Social Security and Medicare as a permanent, untouchable feature of the District of Columbia.
I believe that the restoration of fiscal sanity requires massive cuts to the defense budget. This can be accomplished while actually boosting national security. There is no reason, other than protecting sinecures and pork, to desist from wielding the scalpel. Bloat and waste are off the charts. The nominal defense budget is approaching the trillion dollar mark. It goes well beyond that point when you factor in dark ops, foreign military aid, and the numerous defense-related functions that are domiciled in other parts of the government. A prime example is the Department of Energy, which has responsibility for the nuclear arsenal as well as the national “laboratories.” We all know about the obscenely expensive weapons systems that don’t work, and have heard the legendary stories of hundred-dollar hammers and such. Is there no way to fix this? Should be a top priority for the incoming Secretary of Defense. He might also be interested in the battalions of consultants who do nothing but consult, and in the research institutes that research how to make PowerPoint slides. The trough that feeds these hogs is virtually bottomless. One beneficial move would be to restore the name of the DoD to the Department of War, as it was called prior to 1947. Let’s be frank about the purpose of this organization: killing people and blowing things up. Everything else is extraneous. If some project or personnel are not directly involved in this mission, they can be cut. This is one area that I believe will be at least partially addressed by the new administration, as DEI, gender madness, and other such pursuits are dismantled, saving money while improving the military’s warfighting capability. Of all the 800-pound gorillas wandering around the room, the hardest to tackle may very well be the role and presence of the U.S. military in the international arena. Does the defense of the United States really necessitate hundreds of bases and installations in scores of countries? Even if it did, the Federal government is bankrupt; an orderly drawdown is certainly preferable to the sudden impact of foreclosure. Putting an end to harebrained interventions such as the wars in Afghanistan and Ukraine will of course save substantial sums of money. Why expand NATO onto Russia’s doorstep? Come to think of it, NATO itself can be terminated; it has far outlived its original purpose. And on the other side of the world, do we need to constantly antagonize China by “patrolling” their backyard? And then stop the meddling in the Middle East. There is no longer any need to maintain the fiction of the Petrodollar system—it’s dead as a doornail. Let Saudi Arabia and Israel handle regional security. We can sell them weapons, and give them a free hand to manage the lunatics in their midst. Instead of "peace in the Middle East," try to forge arrangements that are sustainable. Here’s a novel idea: use the military to defend the homeland. Bring our boys home, as the Left used to say before they became warmongers. If you want to beef up America’s strategic position beyond its borders, concentrate on the Western hemisphere. While we thump our chests over Taiwan, China is quietly expanding its influence in Latin America. Yes, take back the Panama Canal, as Mr. Trump has promised. It’s time to revive the Monroe Doctrine. That would be the kind of imperialism I could get behind. Forge alliances with Milei in Argentina, and other like-minded governments. Meanwhile, I hear the cha-ching of the cash register in the background, as the savings pile up to the ceiling. In the spirit of Thanksgiving, I have been pondering the glory of the Founding Fathers, and indeed, of the early generations that built America. One man that skillfully conveys this epic is the brilliant historian Gordon Wood (born 1933), himself a testimony to the integrity and character that Made America Great.
I recommend watching an hour-long lecture by Wood, “The Greatness of George Washington,” delivered at Brown University in 2013. Wood delves into the stellar qualities of Washington, and of the leaders of the nascent American republic. The lecture is fascinating and inspiring, and it demonstrates what is possible in a society led by men of this caliber. For another view of George Washington, I am reprinting below a post that I wrote on the original AWOL Civilization blog (August 2007). * * * Born of Liberty One of the favorite targets of anti-American historical revisionists is the Founding Fathers. This is logical: You undermine the society you hate by delegitimizing its architects. Anyone who has read Jefferson or Madison knows that the men who fashioned the American republic need no defense. Comparing them to most of today's leaders or "intellectuals" is like comparing Aristotle to Michael Moore. Nevertheless, it’s nice to receive some reinforcement now and then. I ran across such reinforcement while reading Chateaubriand, the great French statesman and writer of the late 18th/early 19th centuries. His remarkable life included a sojourn in the New World, where he met with George Washington, in Philadelphia, in 1791. Chateaubriand was awestruck by the humility of “le Général Washington," a demeanor he described as the “simplicity of the old Roman." Washington had a small house, just like the neighbors, with no guards and no valets. The man himself appeared very tall, with “a tranquil and cool, rather than noble, bearing, looking very much like he does in the etchings.” “Silence envelopes the actions of Washington. He acts with deliberation; one would say that he feels responsible for the liberty of the future, and that he fears compromising it. What light radiates from his profound humility!” Chateaubriand was fascinated by his conversation with “the citizen-soldier, liberator of a world…I was happy that Washington’s eyes looked upon me. I will be warmed by it for the rest of my life. There is virtue in the gaze of a great man.” The author compares Washington with Napoleon: “Washington’s republic lives on; the empire of Bonaparte is destroyed. Washington and Bonaparte spring from the bosom of democracy: both born of liberty, the former was loyal to it, the latter betrayed it.” And finally: “Washington was the representative of the needs, the ideas, the wisdom, the opinions of his era…He blended his existence with that of his country; his glory is the patrimony of civilization…” [Quotes translated from Chateaubriand, Mémoires d’Outre-Tombe, Paris, Editions Gallimard -- Pléiade, 1951, pp. 219-225.] |
Dystopian literatureWelcome to the blog! While you're here, check out the six dystopian novels by Gary Wolf. His latest is The Cubist Supremacy. 
Archives
March 2025
Categories
All
Interesting viewpointsAce of Spades |
RSS Feed