“Tolerance” is heartless.

Tolerance, as in “I don’t care what you do” is unloving, antisocial, and alienating. It generates the very resentment that leads to sexually disordered people wanting your kids assaulted and you murdered and them choking on the bitter laughs because you still “don’t care what any number of people do in the privacy of their zoom calls”.

The analogue here is very much teenage kids acting out or dressing in low-rent ways. People entrapped in webs of sin do cry out to be loved and pulled from the brink. But instead of showing concern for their immortal souls, or for even the most basic pieces of community harmony, it’s alienating and dismissive rhetoric all the way down. The ratchet from the left happened at the exact point when decency stopped being a criteria and people started saying “I don’t care what two people do”. Most of lived life is private, and by rejecting these sexual deviants from entry into your private life under even the condition that they drop the deviance, you take freaks trapped in perversion and convince them that you will never love them, so they have to MAKE YOU SEE THEM. And why look, that’s exactly what we have. Whodathunk.

The Persistence of Names

Hrolf, whose name means wolf, believed in fairness. So did his boat crew. That’s why they were stroking their axes and glaring at the crews of Sven the long bearded and Ivar blood-hair. The plunder of the smoking monastery sat in a small pile between the three groups of men, and each seemed convinced that the others meant to cheat them. No one wanted to make the first move though, as that meant losing valuable men and no sane man wants to take to the sea in a half-crewed boat.

At length Hrolf spoke, “Sven will divide the spoil and put in in three bags. Ivar and I will choose a bag. Since Sven does not know which bag we will choose, he will divide it equally.”


Ambitious Goths were often named Theodoric, which means ruler of the people, and Theodoric was no exception. He watched the Roman army file slowly past the trees where his men were concealed with undisguised contempt. “The Romans drown in laws and schemes,” he thought, “their generals are politicians. But out here, we judge men on merit. We prove ourselves in battle and the best men rise.” He blew his horn and his steppe-warriors launched themselves at the unsuspecting Romans.


Centuries have passed. The name Hrolf became Rolf and eventually Rawls, who wrote about using a veil of ignorance to distribute goods fairly. Theodoric became Dietrich and then Thiel, who preaches meritocracy and funds enterprising men who disrupt the established order with the latest technology.

The Norse-Germanic peoples were not civilized before the arrival of Christianity, but knowledge of God’s law allowed us to impersonate civilized men with exceptional results. But now that most Norse-Germanic people are either unbelievers or antinomian, we’re seeing the instincts of the breed come back to the fore. Breeding tells in humans, just as it does in animals.

What are those instincts? A crude egalitarianism and sense of fairness that allowed hundreds of boat crews to form a great heathen army to plunder Wessex. A fondness for making laws combined with a discomfort at the use of the civil power to punish lawbreakers. A contempt for established social order and a willingness to upset it for a handful of coin.

Why is Sweden the rape capital of Europe? Why does England bristle with both security cameras and crime? Why are ancient communities being flooded with foreigners? What do you expect from Barbarians who have rejected the only civilizing force they have ever known.

The right gives women a void, not a voice

The longstanding (since the Buckleyite era that began during the 1950s) and heavily but not solely dissident right guy trick of cribbing useful critique and analysis from feminine reactionary, perenniallist and traditionalist (Evola version) voices, filing the female cooties off and repackaging that critique and analysis to dissatisfied young men has been devastating for the right. It’s not masculine, so ultimately it leaves the young men spinning futilely in snippish, cattish circles.

But women find themselves responding to the echo of the feminine in the watered down forms presented by subculture popularizers, yet since it’s a man saying this stuff and he has no real sense of or concern for the women’s sphere, women also find themselves facing a void where a fully formed vision of traditional feminine living should be.

Buckley and his acolytes drove the future Gene Stratton-Porters out of right wing creative and intellectual space. Fundamentalists took it a step further with a neo-frontier set of cult practices that destroyed most creative and intellectual space for traditional feminine arts by telling women they had to home educate and homestead in the suburbs and exurbs. This has had the expected results.

Safety valve behaviors that could have formed rock-solid alternatives and unbroken lines of traditional arts, crafts and creative work instead became “this is how we defeat the liebrulz!”

Which, how is that working out again? Are they defeated, now that millions of women homeschool and grow some herbs or potatoes in their suburban yards? Are the skills to survive with serious supply chain disruption that some people have already faced in the last 18 months in America being taught, refined, renewed? Not really, no.

Why the right in America is basically hippies all the way down.

The right in America is countercultural because it’s people who were unhappy with managerialism (rule by midcentury technocrats and proto-Ifreakinglovescience/VOX.com types). This turned out to be flower children and fundamentalists. During the 1960s and 70s, they literally got together and had babies and those babies are mostly what we call “conservatives” or “the right” or “right-wing” in America. We also use phrases like “Evangelical Christian” as well. So it’s not that righties have no principles, it’s that the two big righty principles are anti-managerialism and a hankering for pastoral living. When you look at the last few stereotypical secular/nonChristian hippie types remaining, you see that there’s not a lot of sunlight between them and your organic chicken raising, homeschooling Christian mom of 2-4 kids.

Righties need to accept the historical transition they underwent and acknowledge who and what they properly are, so they can stop being led around by Ayn Rand acolytes into the very managerialism and hyper-urban life they loathe and fear (mostly rightly, pun very intended). Righties are less formally social than lefties, and this is to be expected since one can only arrive at fandom for managerialism by being overly formally socialized. Note that I’m not saying rightie levels of socialization are necessarily too low or poor (sometimes yes, sometimes no), merely that the left embraces levels that are unnaturally ordered in their formality.

This is, incidentally, why the “homeschool or die” thing is so dumb. It’s exit, done in a way that…forces you into overly formal settings for socializing! It’s worse than public school for locking you in with a very narrow, insular group of people. The righties who are doin’ it rong, who are truly UNDERsocialized, they’re the tail wagging the rest into less socialization, less civic participation, and ultimately less ability to be ORGANICALLY social in the semi-formal, not very managerial environments they so greatly prefer. We don’t have to choose from only social distancing life or the overly regimented daycare to grad school pipeline (pre-pre-k to MA, increasingly). It’s a false binary.

Notes on STEM parent dominance of married parenthood

  • ~5m households among married parents, with heavy concentration in the 12m “top half”
  • 1 in 3 top half married parents is STEM, primarily tech
  • When having kids became a novelty, novelty seeking nerds became fathers
  • STEM parents like yards and golden retrievers and 2-3 child families, and at the margin are ok with 4-5 child families
  • They don’t value density/walkability in the urban planner mold on average, prefer suburbs (inner, not too close and not super far from work)
  • When they do prefer to commute for work, prefer rural telecommute life, not digital nomad “minimalist” urbanite commuting from a cheap foreign country or occasional telecommuting from their coastal city
  • STEM parents like exotic food, but don’t care about localness much and won’t miss farmer’s markets
  • STEM parents have fundamental structural conflict with actual urbanites like Matt Yglesias because they want SCALE life on suburban terms
  • The upper middle model in which doctors and lawyers are the dominant UMC crew is false and criticisms of the group should reflect its changed demographics over the last 25-30 years. They’ve been folded into a broader class of managerial professionals, most of whom are not highly credentialed, but frequently minimally credentialed.

The “Complexity Management” Wage Crunch

A melding of a substantial chunk of professional-managerial-technical work in STEM, healthcare and education (not the parts where you might meet patients, students and retail technical services customers as part of the job) into a wider field of “complexity management” is happening, in which wages are attempting to be compressed to between 75k and 150k/yr, and it is getting more and more difficult to exceed that number. But the narrow band that is allowed permits two such people to marry and one to scale down to .5 job or even .25 job and have 2-4 kids on average as the COL increases keep pace with the expenses. However state and local (and post-2020 federal) governments haven’t gotten the memo and are trying to tax them too much too fast so the future of this is very uncertain.

The Vox.com writing style is why I have such loathing of “college education”

You have to be trained to be so verbally facile, dismissive and yet uninformed about the details of the topic you’re asserting understanding of (which is all of them).

It takes years to train a mind that is bright, but never too bright, to simultaneously accept any expert authority on the basis of credentials and then invoke that credential-based authority in their own right.

The writing style is the product of the college educated person who is told they are just the same as a true polymath, even though they don’t know what one is.  But they can glibly assure you that you don’t understand either, as dictionary definitions reify existing power dynamics and really, polymath is just a shorthand for pretentious techbros.  Which you’d understand if you’d only been to college.

A lot of extremely healthy intellectual challenge was lost when scientism took over after the two big wars and the broadly popular autodidact was sidelined in media by the flood of fresh college graduates.

My issues are my own, but they’re hard for me to let go of. And a lot of it is living in a SuperZip where I’m surrounded by people who have smaller vocabularies and smaller ranges of basic knowledge, but more “educational attainment”.  I’m not getting the intellectual enrichment I was always told is guaranteed from just having 80% of the people around you have a BA and 60% of them have an MA/MS, PhD, MD or JD.  They’re so good at attaining education and so terrible at knowing anything.  But they sure feel certain who’s ignorant and uninformed for not being thrilled about all those dirty diapers in the bushes at the most expensive mall in the area.

The truth about pioneer and settler greed

Something that is always left out of the portrayal of pioneers and settlers as secular saints is how rapacious they were.  FDR’s administration had to intervene during the Depression because whites only a generation or so removed from pioneers were so careless with forest harvesting that they were creating massive hazards and epic forest fires.  There was also the poisoning of water supplies for gold mining, there was the overfishing and rapacious hunting.  The ecological types arose in response to the fairly astonishing way in which (white) Americans were scooping up resources and hollowing out land with no particular thought to keeping it going for some future beyond the next few harvest seasons.

And the pioneers themselves worked hundreds of acres alone or nearly so with the aid of technology so they could have more money.  Wall Streeters putting up 100 hour weeks are working extremely hard, but I don’t see conservatives jumping up to explain how their hard work means they earned everything they have and that we should all look to them as role models for how to really live the Christian life.

Note, I’m not saying the pioneers and the first couple generations following didn’t work very hard.  I’m saying they chased them dollahs until they hollahed and whatever that is, it’s not saintly.  There’s this strain in American conservatism of slaving really hard for any extra profits and I think you have to consider the socialist and communism infiltration in that light.  There was a competing strain that did not win out of using the technology to work only enough to be “comfortable”, a sort of proto-distributism, and it’s very interesting to see it rise up alongside the “gotta get ’em all” mentality of the settlers and their children and even some of their grandchildren.

I have to throw in that “pioneer” and “settler” are terms along a continuum.  Pioneers and settlers were homesteading into the 1950s (Alaska) and there were still what moderns would consider “real Ingalls-style pioneers” as late as the 1920s in parts of the Mountain West and Pacific Northwest.

I am Shirley Jackson and Shirley Jackson is me

As T.W.O. would put it, that’s overegging the pudding a tadge.  I’ll never publish the most notorious and universal short story in American history.  More intimately, my husband is not a Kavorka Man.

But she and I both are housewives with strong intellectual drives living in whitopias where household help is only for weird inferior women who can’t manage entirely on their own or micromanage the bleep out of that poor cousin they did have come by a few days a week.  She couldn’t get nice college girls because mother’s helping was beneath them in 1950 and non-college girls were from families that hadn’t moved in 50-100 years and so they didn’t have anyone “strange” come help.  People tend to think college towns are all the same, but they operate along a continuum.  And Jackson was not in a college town where the degree was a MRS.

She also put her kids in preschool, which was called “community nursery school” and which 10-20% of women used back then.  Exact data is had to come by because of terminology and lack of collecting data issues.  And even back then it was the middle and up stay at home mothers who used it part-time and the smaller pool of working mothers using it full time.

I have her sense of anxiety and frustration, but not her pretty solid domestic skills. Our children find us odd but loving.  There is a sort of weirdly beautiful e-drama online somewhere where one of Stanley Jackson’s coed affairs is bragging about it on salon or something similar and Shirley’s kids post comments defending their mother and whaling on the smarmy coed selling the only interesting thing about herself. I was touched by the love her kids (one of which I think was a grandparent by now) had for her and their respect for her hard work keeping their home so it could be an entertainment vehicle for dad.

Stanley Jackson was a literary critic and professor who tomcatted around and expected his wife to produce both domestically and intellectually, but was jealous of her ability to get thousands of dollars for a handful of stories about women and children and often the domestic sphere.

I 100% do not think I can compete with the mad literary skills of Mrs. Jackson, but it’s reassuring in a strange way to know that this literary ninja had some of the same struggles I, a much more ordinary housewife, have sixty or so years later.

It also brings me back to wanting to smash conservatives in the face for chronically declaring that there was no widespread frustration among average women in the 1950s and during the WWII era and that anyone talking about it was just a loser who was unhaaaaappppy or a communist.  Shirley Jackson wrote for Good Housekeeping, for pity’s sake.  She was not writing some edgy scandal stuff like Peyton Place.  And yet there remain in both sets of writing much the same sort of struggles of women trying to adapt to the rapid shifts in technology, social roles and relationships with men.

One of the anecdotes in her domestic memoirs is about a pregnant woman she meets at the hospital when she has her third baby who is running late on delivering and is relieved and happy to be free of household tasks for what in the anecdote is about two weeks and heading into a third.  General audiences of women wouldn’t have wanted to read about stuff like that if it didn’t seem real.  They were very quick to write letters where they believed something to be unrealistic in its slicing of life.

Anyway I’ve only just begun reading her domestic memoirs and that sensation of being drawn close in time to a writer across so many seismic changes in daily life is dizzying.

Boomers denied Gen X help and Gen X is shelling out on Millennials.

This is a note to self post to put up the relevant files when I have some actual free time, but it appears that the narrative around Boomers coddling Millennial children isn’t necessarily so.  It appears to mostly be older Gen Xers and not that many younger Boomers paying 20something rents and bills and backstopping their kids financially into advanced ages.  Boomers (and Silents) heavily and overtly didn’t support the oldest Gen Xers and the very youngest Boomers.

So now the cohorts that didn’t get much support and did work and school together now pay their kids to not work and focus only on school, which under current trends isn’t adding up to stronger earnings patterns or career trajectories, as would have been predicted by models around education completion.