Even a dictator would need to rely on a vast bureaucracy. The difference is that a dictator has lots of power over the bureaucracy, but the merely elected government in the US has little power over the bureaucracy. So the obvious thing to do here is to increase the influence of the elected government over the bureaucracy. Appoint the right judges, and give the president the power to veto or change any rule issued by any administrative agency, within the limits of the agency's authority created by congress. For instance all the disparate impact stuff from the EEOC could be overruled by an EO.
> Some call this the “managerial class,” but I don’t like that term as I think it’s too broad and implies that everyone with a college degree or who works in a white-collar profession is actually taking part in running society. In reality, it’s a very small group that matters
Great article. It is a complex issue with no easy answers. I am reminded of the C. S. Lewis quote:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
The very foundation of our Constitutional Representative democracy was designed to address so many of the issues we face today. Did we just become to wealthy and complacent to maintain the system? I wish I knew the answer.
I don’t think we need caesarism, plutocracy, a managerial class, or anyone else “running” society. I think we need to get back to the idea that society is not to be controlled any more than are free markets. These systems are (or should be) emergent, based upon millions of freely-made individual decisions at any given moment. Government should be limited (and thus drastically diminished) to the role of protecting life and property.
Thus, in a case like Twitter, the proper solution is to let free markets and individuals solve the problem (if there is one). If Twitter is unreasonably applying too much censorship, that creates an opening for entrepreneurs to create alternatives. Or, like the present situation, the opportunity to take over a sub-optimally run company and make it better.
Agree 100%. If anything, recent events have made the case for libertarianism even stronger. It's strange that Richard draws the conclusion that plutocracy is a better system. As others have pointed out, in the United States our billionaires tend to be successful business leaders, but generally speaking, plutocrats tend to be corrupt people clinging to power whose fortunes are due to cronyism. If anything, the fact that we like "plutocrats" like Elon Musk only attests to the power of the market as a selection mechanism for intelligent, competent people who are good at providing value.
In addition, the more localized government is the better. Some of us endured much less COVID tyranny than others due to the state we were living in. Federalism, decentralization, markets, liberty -- I don't support these things ideologically but rather for practical reasons, and especially in the current moment.
"I fail to see how it is possible for us to have a technological revolution, a social revolution, an information revolution, moral, sexual, and epistemological revolutions, and not a political revolution as well …. In this sense the breakdown of government as we have known it – which is to say representative government – is chiefly a consequence of obsolescence. Simply put, the political technology of the industrial age is no longer appropriate technology for the new civilization taking form around us. Our politics are obsolete.” Alvin Toffler, Future Shock.
We Westerners have always distrusted our leaders because our Greco-Roman political legacy is monarchical at heart and, thus, inclined to war.
Elite lying about wars has been a constant for 3,000 years. Our political inheritance is not ‘democracy,’ but irresponsible leaders whose primary responsibility is to maintain the status quo lying on behalf of wealthy sponsors and ignore plebeians’ needs: "Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, we conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of–or even against–the will of the majority of voters.. The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence”. Gilens and Page.
Confucian government, now on public display in China, is an alternative to our ridiculous system but, only when Rome finally falls will we consider it.
The plutocracy idea is extraordinarily bad under the best reading. I think the best case he's arguing is that entrepreneurs should be in charge
> "Someone who builds rocket ships, or founds PayPal, or gets oil out of the ground is likely to have better ideas on how to run society than someone who..."
Set aside for the moment the large number of plutocrats who probably just got lucky (not all of them, but some), and still the whole point of governmental institutions is to make something enduring and stable. Entrepreneurs become plutocrats because they find profit by upsetting existing orders.
And entrepreneurs stay plutocrats by maintaining the existing order they've created. And the heirs of plutocrats typically have even less interest in such innovation and more interest in preserving their plutocracy.
In short, a first generation plutocracy run by dynamic entrepreneurs will almost of necessity give way to a later generation plutocracy run by statists who are hostile to dynamic entrepreneurs.
Great thoughts, but the premise that "somebody" is more competent than "anybody" leads me to wonder why Kings or Queens are still needed in the 21st century.
The US has been an oligarchy since the 1913 Banker's Coup d'Etat (The Fed, income tax, IRS, popular election of senators.) Plutocrats have been pulling the strings for over a century! All they've managed to give us is #BigBrother & the #NannyState (warfare & welfare per every previous failed civilization.)
Let's re-imagine a society where a monopoly of power is not vested in a single institution and individuals have maximal liberty.
"Plutocracy has the fewest problems, mainly because rich guys are smarter, less neurotic, and have higher testosterone levels than activists and bureaucrats, and they have achieved their success through market processes, which is more indicative of an ability to solve problems than success in academia, government, or activism." - - - I had to check that this was not written on April 1.
In the British system, the rich are represented in the House of Lords and the population as a whole is represented in the House of Commons. A mixed form of government may be called for in the US. It also makes sense to restrict the right to vote to the kind of people who can vote well: eg. landowners.
The 21st century American system of governance is bizarre. The Covid response proved that the Constitution as an iron law is a fiction. What remains is an all-powerful bureaucratic machine that is either tempered or enflamed by the reigning executive. In most cases, legislatures are worthless. Even when they have a clear majority, legislatures tend to to be timid and weak.
The defining quality of 21st century American government is unaccountability. By the vote, the US has had one seismic election after another since Gore v. Bush. Yet none of that has changed the trajectory. Consider that 2022 is shaping up economically and globally a lot like 2008. It sucks and the attribution for the policies causing the sucking are the same: Globalists and monetarists who run the world based on the little models they learned in "school".
The only difference between current American government and plutocracy is the illusion of choice. Reality is the American citizen is not going to realize real, lasting reform by voting. The system is rigged, just as if plutocrats were in control.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be 'cured' against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."
I am not sure if Musk is a robber baron, but I am reasonably sure that many of his opponents are 'moral busybodies' in Lewis's sense.
Form of government is irrelevant. Modern western social breakdown revolves around sex and race. In order to not end up living in a dis-functional hellhole like, say, Portland or Baltimore or a hundred other places in the US, people are going to have to eliminate race and sex quotas. It's quite simple really. Get rid of quotas, bring back freedom of association – you can hire, fire, invite, sell or serve, or not, anyone you want. Let the cards fall where they may.
The Pacific Northwest is the whitest part of the country. It gave us Portland and CHAZ. Specifically, its white people gave us Portland and CHAZ, because however eager the movement is to front minority faces, cultural leftism is only genuinely popular among Yankees (and similar NW-Europe derived populations).
Quotas do nothing for the cause of leftism. Removing them will do nothing to combat it.
Quotas apply to women too. No more Title IX, glass ceiling, etc. Freedom of association would cause women to re-access their identification with blacks because there would be less direct parasitical benefit. Obviously, feminism is another issue. Ugh.
But you are correct that the mindset would have to change drastically in order to abandon quotas in the first place. Rather than emphasize negative thinking I would advocate for the benefits of freedom of association. If people want to hire non-whites let them do it and compete with white men non-parasitically. The trouble is, women and minorities know they can't compete. Plus, a lot of white men are cowards. Maybe Elon Musk will break the ice.
Most Asian groups outcompete white people. Hispanics and "underperforming" Asians are probably on par with southern and certainly Appalachian whites. Black people underperform relative to other groups, but most black people are apolitical and not all that concerned with reparations or easy affirmative action jobs. Sure, they'd take them if offered, but it's not something the average black person spends a lot of time thinking or caring about. Ibram Kendi and Ta-Nehisi Coates are not representative of the black masses.
You fundamentally misunderstand the core dynamic, having internalized the leftist narrative of white vs. non-white. There is no coherent pan-white or non-white interest group or demographic profile. The real division is that between WEIRD (who are innately drawn to cultural leftism) and non-WEIRD people, and it's a line that runs within the white race - indeed, within Anglo-American subpopulations.
To be more explicit: American history has always been defined by the conflict between two white ethnocultural blocs - Yankees (i.e. WEIRD white people) and Southerners (reliably joined after the Civil War by Appalachians). There is not and has never been meaningful unity of values or interests among white Americans, and the rhetoric of white vs. non-white (inevitably paired with "white ally" vs. "racist") is used by modern Yankees to keep non-white people as a part of their electoral coalition. There was good organic reason for non-white people to side with the Yankees in 1865, or in 1965; there isn't today. Defusing the white vs. non-white narrative is essential to dismantling the modern leftist/Yankee project in America, as Yankees depend upon non-white groups for their electoral competitiveness.
Embracing white identitarianism, on the other hand, plays directly into their hands. It will never unite white people, because the self-conceptions of the two broad groups of American white people are defined in opposition to each other. It will, however, reverse all gains that the right has been making among blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, and make any similar gains impossible in the future. If the right can win over non-whites, it will destroy the electoral competitiveness of the leftist project, which fundamentally depends on the support of culturally non-leftist non-whites. If the right permanently alienates non-whites, it has signed its death warrant.
As for virtue-signaling whites: I've noticed they become very conservative when their own property, children and health/safety are threatened. They aren't even hypocrites because they don't believe in anything at all except for their careers and egos. Western Europeans are just as bad as Americans, Yankee or otherwise.
Marco, blacks vote over 90% Democrat. I've lived in and around Washington, DC for 50 years. I've worked and lived around black people as a poor white guy. You are blowing smoke so cut the crap, please.
If Asians, Muslims, Hispanics or whoever (other than Japanese and Koreans) can compete against whites they wouldn't be so hellbent on moving into European-dominated lands in the first place. They'd stay in their own lands, right? I don't see huge numbers of Europeans migrating into Africa or Asia or South America other than a few retirees who want to live on a tight budget. It's all one way, Marco.
Black support for Democrats is a historical legacy, not an unchangeable fact of existence. Somehow, despite increasingly racialized rhetoric in American politics, black support for Democrats decreased in the 2020 election. Flipping the majority of black people may not be likely in the near future, but every bit we eat away at a core pillar of the Democratic coalition is an important win, and eating away at it is demonstrably possible.
Within the American context, which is all that matters, Asians as a whole outcompete whites. If Filipinos underperform relative to Koreans, rednecks underperform relative to Mainline Protestants.
Hispanics underperform as a whole, yes. In my experience there is a general but moderate sense of historical grievance, but little desire for political program based around it. There's no reason Republicans can't increase their gains among Hispanics.
The fact remains that cultural leftism is only genuinely popular at a mass level among a specific subgroup of northwest European populations, which in America are the Yankees and their cultural descendants and fellow-travelers. As the left grows increasingly unhinged, the disparity between these people and everyone else will only grow. A political platform targeting this specific cultural element has more of a chance at success than one which is by definition limited to a subset of white people in a 40% non-white country.
This is an old battle, predating the formation of our country. The battle lines among Anglo-American white people are broadly the same as they were 50, 150, or even 400 years ago, but all the middle ground had fallen away. This fundamental division will not change, and non-whites will be the only potential swing vote going into the future. Despite its structural electoral advantages, Trump's America will struggle to compete after another 10 years of demographic change, even if we close the borders (as we should). It needs allies if it wants to avoid permanent subjugation to Yankeedom.
Marco, I have to admire your polite and reasoned argument in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You'd make a great trial lawyer. Maybe you are one.
I've had too much real world experience unfortunately. Asians – I lived in Asia many years – make terrible managers because they have a hard time accepting feedback from inferiors. It's called losing face. Those "rednecks" provide an important and necessary ingredient to the success of the West.
You assume human beings from different genetic strains can change at some fundamental level. I don't. I don't because the West created something unique. And there are reasons for this that cannot be explained by geography, germs, poverty, IQ, blah, blah, blah.
True, but eventually they'll run out of places to move to once whites become a minority. For example, Washington DC initiated a policy where every ward must house unwed mothers. Their children must be admitted to local public schools. Their boyfriends hang out causing noise and crime. Filing complaints with the police is racist. Local real estate prices collapse. Schools begin CRT training. If the ultra-liberal white residents have the money (around $25K/year) they can send their kids to private schools or charter bi/lingual. Before, they could move to Loudoun County, VA, which is now embroiled in CRT battles.
So, in reality moving only works for so long. I'd also speculate that one of the reasons property values are becoming so high in the US is that whites are increasingly being cordoned into smaller but more desirable areas.
Richard, have you read Thomas Jefferson's letter on the "natural aristocracy"? His views seem pretty similar to yours, and the apparent differences might dissolve after you read his letter.
That was a good post: I can't comment much because my yard is being finally "cleaned up".. a huge mess: I, for one, am enjoying the "melt down" on the political left about Elon Musk buying Twitter. I don't CARE one whit that 90 percent of the Billionaires in the world are male. I would not trade the fact when I graduated with my B.S in Molecular Biology and got to then have two gorgeous sons.. whom I adore for all the MONEY IN THE WORLD. NOPE. Money don't buy me love.. of my sons, family or life. So the world has always been governed in a sense by Plutocrats and I did just did a quick search and guess what came back: the attack on the Bank of England was a plutocratic action and we all know ,, if you don't know I will tell you: George Soros did that.. and I didn't know it until I read a book about Currency Trading years ago. Money only one of tools that the Globalists use to foist their will on people of the world. The unseen hand on the levers of the Money winches will never be fully known: we only see the tips of the icebergs or a better analogy would be the tip of the WHALE fin as it rises from the sea: (Leviathan).. anyway. I saw on Facebook that you tweeted something about Elon Musk and I will personally look at it later. I was on Twitter and I will get back on next week.. sometime.. when I am good and ready and all the Joy Reid's types move to Canada or whatever else nonsense they are saying today.. like Larry Kudlow said: try some Xanax (kidding,, I would not advise that). I say GOOD FOR ELON MUSK. let's hope that some "real dialogue" will happen on Twitter which as far as I was concerned was completely co-opted by a group of like Victor Davis Hanson is fond of saying a group of IDEOLOGUES who can't seem to get out of their own way. ttyl.. good work as usual. :)
The argument wasn't very persuasive for me as I fundamentally disagree with your foundational premise: "Plutocracy has the fewest problems, mainly because rich guys are smarter, less neurotic, and have higher testosterone levels than activists and bureaucrats, and they have achieved their success through market processes, which is more indicative of an ability to solve problems"
The rich and successful are simply luckier. Using Elon Musk as an example, the stars aligned for his success; 1) Born to a wealthy family with access to excellent schools and a home computer in the 80's. 2) Family payed for and supported him during his university education in North America. 3) Received large amount of financial support from family (~$30k) to start first Zip2. 4) Sold Zip2 at height of Dotcom Bubble in '99 for 10 mil. 5) Through family connections and those built at Zip2 founds X.com, ends up merging with confinity to created Paypal. Musk involved in lots of infighting and politics at Paypal and ultimately replaced by Peter Thiel as CEO to stabilize the company. Thiel takes Paypal public and organizes purchase by eBay for over 1 Bil. This nets Musk 165 Mil.
Of course Elon Musk worked hard at all those endeavors and has above average intelligence, but his extreme success as measured by his wealth is a function of being born to a rich family and being in the right place at the right time - luck. As far as extreme wealth or would be plutocrats go Musk is an outlier. The majority of them inherited their wealth - the most extreme side of luck or built it in the financial markets providing no real value to their fellow citizens. Are these lucky few really the people that should run society?
Elon Musk is worth $260 billion, and you think a $30K loan from his family is particularly noteworthy? Give all that he's accomplished in life, you don't think he could've found $30K some other way, like working at Walmart for a few months? How much of a loan does the average law student get from the government?
Of course it makes sense that successful people have successful parents. That's because things like drive and intelligence are highly genetic. We know this from cross-adoption and twin studies. The most successful had both great genes and great environments, to be outliers everything has to go well. But genetics are more important and the rich are better than bureaucrats, academics, and activists, who are generally worthless.
Just plug some numbers in for your question. Minimum wage in 1997 California was $5/hr x 40 hr/wk x 52 wk/yr = $10,400 /yr. Median rent in the bay area was $620 in 1990, for this exercise I'll assume that this person lives in a flop house and eats frugally so monthly expenses (rent & food) will only be $500/mo x 12 = $6000/yr. With $4,400 extra per year it would take over 8 years to raise the $30k, putting the perspective entrepreneur firmly in the 2000's and missing the opportunity to ride the dotcom bubble.
Being born to wealthy parents is an extremely lucky break for Musk. He had access to personal computers at a time when they were exceedingly rare where he lived and his family was able to get him out of South Africa into universities in the US where he could build connections with future collaborators. If you take away the Musk family wealth he may have been able to rise somewhat on his brains and diligence but he would not have been able to participate in the dotcom boom and make the foundation of his success.
When you say the "rich are better than", what is your definition of better?
Even a dictator would need to rely on a vast bureaucracy. The difference is that a dictator has lots of power over the bureaucracy, but the merely elected government in the US has little power over the bureaucracy. So the obvious thing to do here is to increase the influence of the elected government over the bureaucracy. Appoint the right judges, and give the president the power to veto or change any rule issued by any administrative agency, within the limits of the agency's authority created by congress. For instance all the disparate impact stuff from the EEOC could be overruled by an EO.
> Some call this the “managerial class,” but I don’t like that term as I think it’s too broad and implies that everyone with a college degree or who works in a white-collar profession is actually taking part in running society. In reality, it’s a very small group that matters
The Intelligentsia?
Good term, but traditionally excludes government workers, which are certainly relevant for Hanania's thesis.
Great article. It is a complex issue with no easy answers. I am reminded of the C. S. Lewis quote:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
The very foundation of our Constitutional Representative democracy was designed to address so many of the issues we face today. Did we just become to wealthy and complacent to maintain the system? I wish I knew the answer.
Thank you for the thought provoking piece.
Charles
I don’t think we need caesarism, plutocracy, a managerial class, or anyone else “running” society. I think we need to get back to the idea that society is not to be controlled any more than are free markets. These systems are (or should be) emergent, based upon millions of freely-made individual decisions at any given moment. Government should be limited (and thus drastically diminished) to the role of protecting life and property.
Thus, in a case like Twitter, the proper solution is to let free markets and individuals solve the problem (if there is one). If Twitter is unreasonably applying too much censorship, that creates an opening for entrepreneurs to create alternatives. Or, like the present situation, the opportunity to take over a sub-optimally run company and make it better.
Agree 100%. If anything, recent events have made the case for libertarianism even stronger. It's strange that Richard draws the conclusion that plutocracy is a better system. As others have pointed out, in the United States our billionaires tend to be successful business leaders, but generally speaking, plutocrats tend to be corrupt people clinging to power whose fortunes are due to cronyism. If anything, the fact that we like "plutocrats" like Elon Musk only attests to the power of the market as a selection mechanism for intelligent, competent people who are good at providing value.
In addition, the more localized government is the better. Some of us endured much less COVID tyranny than others due to the state we were living in. Federalism, decentralization, markets, liberty -- I don't support these things ideologically but rather for practical reasons, and especially in the current moment.
Yes, by "plutocracy" here I pretty much just libertarianism, focusing on who has the power.
"I fail to see how it is possible for us to have a technological revolution, a social revolution, an information revolution, moral, sexual, and epistemological revolutions, and not a political revolution as well …. In this sense the breakdown of government as we have known it – which is to say representative government – is chiefly a consequence of obsolescence. Simply put, the political technology of the industrial age is no longer appropriate technology for the new civilization taking form around us. Our politics are obsolete.” Alvin Toffler, Future Shock.
We Westerners have always distrusted our leaders because our Greco-Roman political legacy is monarchical at heart and, thus, inclined to war.
Elite lying about wars has been a constant for 3,000 years. Our political inheritance is not ‘democracy,’ but irresponsible leaders whose primary responsibility is to maintain the status quo lying on behalf of wealthy sponsors and ignore plebeians’ needs: "Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, we conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of–or even against–the will of the majority of voters.. The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence”. Gilens and Page.
Confucian government, now on public display in China, is an alternative to our ridiculous system but, only when Rome finally falls will we consider it.
The plutocracy idea is extraordinarily bad under the best reading. I think the best case he's arguing is that entrepreneurs should be in charge
> "Someone who builds rocket ships, or founds PayPal, or gets oil out of the ground is likely to have better ideas on how to run society than someone who..."
Set aside for the moment the large number of plutocrats who probably just got lucky (not all of them, but some), and still the whole point of governmental institutions is to make something enduring and stable. Entrepreneurs become plutocrats because they find profit by upsetting existing orders.
And entrepreneurs stay plutocrats by maintaining the existing order they've created. And the heirs of plutocrats typically have even less interest in such innovation and more interest in preserving their plutocracy.
In short, a first generation plutocracy run by dynamic entrepreneurs will almost of necessity give way to a later generation plutocracy run by statists who are hostile to dynamic entrepreneurs.
Great thoughts, but the premise that "somebody" is more competent than "anybody" leads me to wonder why Kings or Queens are still needed in the 21st century.
The US has been an oligarchy since the 1913 Banker's Coup d'Etat (The Fed, income tax, IRS, popular election of senators.) Plutocrats have been pulling the strings for over a century! All they've managed to give us is #BigBrother & the #NannyState (warfare & welfare per every previous failed civilization.)
Let's re-imagine a society where a monopoly of power is not vested in a single institution and individuals have maximal liberty.
Your tweets today were a great reminder that lots of people online are incapable of considering that someone might be kidding.
"Plutocracy has the fewest problems, mainly because rich guys are smarter, less neurotic, and have higher testosterone levels than activists and bureaucrats, and they have achieved their success through market processes, which is more indicative of an ability to solve problems than success in academia, government, or activism." - - - I had to check that this was not written on April 1.
In the British system, the rich are represented in the House of Lords and the population as a whole is represented in the House of Commons. A mixed form of government may be called for in the US. It also makes sense to restrict the right to vote to the kind of people who can vote well: eg. landowners.
The 21st century American system of governance is bizarre. The Covid response proved that the Constitution as an iron law is a fiction. What remains is an all-powerful bureaucratic machine that is either tempered or enflamed by the reigning executive. In most cases, legislatures are worthless. Even when they have a clear majority, legislatures tend to to be timid and weak.
The defining quality of 21st century American government is unaccountability. By the vote, the US has had one seismic election after another since Gore v. Bush. Yet none of that has changed the trajectory. Consider that 2022 is shaping up economically and globally a lot like 2008. It sucks and the attribution for the policies causing the sucking are the same: Globalists and monetarists who run the world based on the little models they learned in "school".
The only difference between current American government and plutocracy is the illusion of choice. Reality is the American citizen is not going to realize real, lasting reform by voting. The system is rigged, just as if plutocrats were in control.
This quote from C. S. Lewis comes to mind:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be 'cured' against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."
I am not sure if Musk is a robber baron, but I am reasonably sure that many of his opponents are 'moral busybodies' in Lewis's sense.
I think you're missing the point.
Form of government is irrelevant. Modern western social breakdown revolves around sex and race. In order to not end up living in a dis-functional hellhole like, say, Portland or Baltimore or a hundred other places in the US, people are going to have to eliminate race and sex quotas. It's quite simple really. Get rid of quotas, bring back freedom of association – you can hire, fire, invite, sell or serve, or not, anyone you want. Let the cards fall where they may.
The Pacific Northwest is the whitest part of the country. It gave us Portland and CHAZ. Specifically, its white people gave us Portland and CHAZ, because however eager the movement is to front minority faces, cultural leftism is only genuinely popular among Yankees (and similar NW-Europe derived populations).
Quotas do nothing for the cause of leftism. Removing them will do nothing to combat it.
Quotas apply to women too. No more Title IX, glass ceiling, etc. Freedom of association would cause women to re-access their identification with blacks because there would be less direct parasitical benefit. Obviously, feminism is another issue. Ugh.
But you are correct that the mindset would have to change drastically in order to abandon quotas in the first place. Rather than emphasize negative thinking I would advocate for the benefits of freedom of association. If people want to hire non-whites let them do it and compete with white men non-parasitically. The trouble is, women and minorities know they can't compete. Plus, a lot of white men are cowards. Maybe Elon Musk will break the ice.
Most Asian groups outcompete white people. Hispanics and "underperforming" Asians are probably on par with southern and certainly Appalachian whites. Black people underperform relative to other groups, but most black people are apolitical and not all that concerned with reparations or easy affirmative action jobs. Sure, they'd take them if offered, but it's not something the average black person spends a lot of time thinking or caring about. Ibram Kendi and Ta-Nehisi Coates are not representative of the black masses.
You fundamentally misunderstand the core dynamic, having internalized the leftist narrative of white vs. non-white. There is no coherent pan-white or non-white interest group or demographic profile. The real division is that between WEIRD (who are innately drawn to cultural leftism) and non-WEIRD people, and it's a line that runs within the white race - indeed, within Anglo-American subpopulations.
To be more explicit: American history has always been defined by the conflict between two white ethnocultural blocs - Yankees (i.e. WEIRD white people) and Southerners (reliably joined after the Civil War by Appalachians). There is not and has never been meaningful unity of values or interests among white Americans, and the rhetoric of white vs. non-white (inevitably paired with "white ally" vs. "racist") is used by modern Yankees to keep non-white people as a part of their electoral coalition. There was good organic reason for non-white people to side with the Yankees in 1865, or in 1965; there isn't today. Defusing the white vs. non-white narrative is essential to dismantling the modern leftist/Yankee project in America, as Yankees depend upon non-white groups for their electoral competitiveness.
Embracing white identitarianism, on the other hand, plays directly into their hands. It will never unite white people, because the self-conceptions of the two broad groups of American white people are defined in opposition to each other. It will, however, reverse all gains that the right has been making among blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, and make any similar gains impossible in the future. If the right can win over non-whites, it will destroy the electoral competitiveness of the leftist project, which fundamentally depends on the support of culturally non-leftist non-whites. If the right permanently alienates non-whites, it has signed its death warrant.
As for virtue-signaling whites: I've noticed they become very conservative when their own property, children and health/safety are threatened. They aren't even hypocrites because they don't believe in anything at all except for their careers and egos. Western Europeans are just as bad as Americans, Yankee or otherwise.
Marco, blacks vote over 90% Democrat. I've lived in and around Washington, DC for 50 years. I've worked and lived around black people as a poor white guy. You are blowing smoke so cut the crap, please.
If Asians, Muslims, Hispanics or whoever (other than Japanese and Koreans) can compete against whites they wouldn't be so hellbent on moving into European-dominated lands in the first place. They'd stay in their own lands, right? I don't see huge numbers of Europeans migrating into Africa or Asia or South America other than a few retirees who want to live on a tight budget. It's all one way, Marco.
Black support for Democrats is a historical legacy, not an unchangeable fact of existence. Somehow, despite increasingly racialized rhetoric in American politics, black support for Democrats decreased in the 2020 election. Flipping the majority of black people may not be likely in the near future, but every bit we eat away at a core pillar of the Democratic coalition is an important win, and eating away at it is demonstrably possible.
Within the American context, which is all that matters, Asians as a whole outcompete whites. If Filipinos underperform relative to Koreans, rednecks underperform relative to Mainline Protestants.
Hispanics underperform as a whole, yes. In my experience there is a general but moderate sense of historical grievance, but little desire for political program based around it. There's no reason Republicans can't increase their gains among Hispanics.
The fact remains that cultural leftism is only genuinely popular at a mass level among a specific subgroup of northwest European populations, which in America are the Yankees and their cultural descendants and fellow-travelers. As the left grows increasingly unhinged, the disparity between these people and everyone else will only grow. A political platform targeting this specific cultural element has more of a chance at success than one which is by definition limited to a subset of white people in a 40% non-white country.
This is an old battle, predating the formation of our country. The battle lines among Anglo-American white people are broadly the same as they were 50, 150, or even 400 years ago, but all the middle ground had fallen away. This fundamental division will not change, and non-whites will be the only potential swing vote going into the future. Despite its structural electoral advantages, Trump's America will struggle to compete after another 10 years of demographic change, even if we close the borders (as we should). It needs allies if it wants to avoid permanent subjugation to Yankeedom.
Marco, I have to admire your polite and reasoned argument in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You'd make a great trial lawyer. Maybe you are one.
I've had too much real world experience unfortunately. Asians – I lived in Asia many years – make terrible managers because they have a hard time accepting feedback from inferiors. It's called losing face. Those "rednecks" provide an important and necessary ingredient to the success of the West.
You assume human beings from different genetic strains can change at some fundamental level. I don't. I don't because the West created something unique. And there are reasons for this that cannot be explained by geography, germs, poverty, IQ, blah, blah, blah.
Anyway, I wish you luck and enjoyed our exchange.
Today, people exercise freedom of association by moving.
True, but eventually they'll run out of places to move to once whites become a minority. For example, Washington DC initiated a policy where every ward must house unwed mothers. Their children must be admitted to local public schools. Their boyfriends hang out causing noise and crime. Filing complaints with the police is racist. Local real estate prices collapse. Schools begin CRT training. If the ultra-liberal white residents have the money (around $25K/year) they can send their kids to private schools or charter bi/lingual. Before, they could move to Loudoun County, VA, which is now embroiled in CRT battles.
So, in reality moving only works for so long. I'd also speculate that one of the reasons property values are becoming so high in the US is that whites are increasingly being cordoned into smaller but more desirable areas.
Richard, have you read Thomas Jefferson's letter on the "natural aristocracy"? His views seem pretty similar to yours, and the apparent differences might dissolve after you read his letter.
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2018/05/natural-aristocracy-thomas-jefferson.html
That was a good post: I can't comment much because my yard is being finally "cleaned up".. a huge mess: I, for one, am enjoying the "melt down" on the political left about Elon Musk buying Twitter. I don't CARE one whit that 90 percent of the Billionaires in the world are male. I would not trade the fact when I graduated with my B.S in Molecular Biology and got to then have two gorgeous sons.. whom I adore for all the MONEY IN THE WORLD. NOPE. Money don't buy me love.. of my sons, family or life. So the world has always been governed in a sense by Plutocrats and I did just did a quick search and guess what came back: the attack on the Bank of England was a plutocratic action and we all know ,, if you don't know I will tell you: George Soros did that.. and I didn't know it until I read a book about Currency Trading years ago. Money only one of tools that the Globalists use to foist their will on people of the world. The unseen hand on the levers of the Money winches will never be fully known: we only see the tips of the icebergs or a better analogy would be the tip of the WHALE fin as it rises from the sea: (Leviathan).. anyway. I saw on Facebook that you tweeted something about Elon Musk and I will personally look at it later. I was on Twitter and I will get back on next week.. sometime.. when I am good and ready and all the Joy Reid's types move to Canada or whatever else nonsense they are saying today.. like Larry Kudlow said: try some Xanax (kidding,, I would not advise that). I say GOOD FOR ELON MUSK. let's hope that some "real dialogue" will happen on Twitter which as far as I was concerned was completely co-opted by a group of like Victor Davis Hanson is fond of saying a group of IDEOLOGUES who can't seem to get out of their own way. ttyl.. good work as usual. :)
The argument wasn't very persuasive for me as I fundamentally disagree with your foundational premise: "Plutocracy has the fewest problems, mainly because rich guys are smarter, less neurotic, and have higher testosterone levels than activists and bureaucrats, and they have achieved their success through market processes, which is more indicative of an ability to solve problems"
The rich and successful are simply luckier. Using Elon Musk as an example, the stars aligned for his success; 1) Born to a wealthy family with access to excellent schools and a home computer in the 80's. 2) Family payed for and supported him during his university education in North America. 3) Received large amount of financial support from family (~$30k) to start first Zip2. 4) Sold Zip2 at height of Dotcom Bubble in '99 for 10 mil. 5) Through family connections and those built at Zip2 founds X.com, ends up merging with confinity to created Paypal. Musk involved in lots of infighting and politics at Paypal and ultimately replaced by Peter Thiel as CEO to stabilize the company. Thiel takes Paypal public and organizes purchase by eBay for over 1 Bil. This nets Musk 165 Mil.
Of course Elon Musk worked hard at all those endeavors and has above average intelligence, but his extreme success as measured by his wealth is a function of being born to a rich family and being in the right place at the right time - luck. As far as extreme wealth or would be plutocrats go Musk is an outlier. The majority of them inherited their wealth - the most extreme side of luck or built it in the financial markets providing no real value to their fellow citizens. Are these lucky few really the people that should run society?
Elon Musk is worth $260 billion, and you think a $30K loan from his family is particularly noteworthy? Give all that he's accomplished in life, you don't think he could've found $30K some other way, like working at Walmart for a few months? How much of a loan does the average law student get from the government?
Of course it makes sense that successful people have successful parents. That's because things like drive and intelligence are highly genetic. We know this from cross-adoption and twin studies. The most successful had both great genes and great environments, to be outliers everything has to go well. But genetics are more important and the rich are better than bureaucrats, academics, and activists, who are generally worthless.
Just plug some numbers in for your question. Minimum wage in 1997 California was $5/hr x 40 hr/wk x 52 wk/yr = $10,400 /yr. Median rent in the bay area was $620 in 1990, for this exercise I'll assume that this person lives in a flop house and eats frugally so monthly expenses (rent & food) will only be $500/mo x 12 = $6000/yr. With $4,400 extra per year it would take over 8 years to raise the $30k, putting the perspective entrepreneur firmly in the 2000's and missing the opportunity to ride the dotcom bubble.
Being born to wealthy parents is an extremely lucky break for Musk. He had access to personal computers at a time when they were exceedingly rare where he lived and his family was able to get him out of South Africa into universities in the US where he could build connections with future collaborators. If you take away the Musk family wealth he may have been able to rise somewhat on his brains and diligence but he would not have been able to participate in the dotcom boom and make the foundation of his success.
When you say the "rich are better than", what is your definition of better?