The frontier was more subsidized than the inner cities of America

I’m gonna go ahead and assert this one, and post potential proofs at some later date, maybe even next week (not likely though). In any case, I think this is a set of numbers worth crunching, even if it takes me years to get around to it and I turn out to be wrong (I’m not lol).

The Rousseau-born idea of the frontier and the idea of living a scaled-down, rustic life beating the earth for its energy is one that requires vast amounts of cash from city folk to allow a much smaller group of people to “live off the land”.

There is a belief among the more technocratic and “human biodiversity (but only on test scores, and only sometimes)” type dissident right wing folk that endless rivers of cash have been poured onto black America (specifically and most widely claimed among these sorts, inner city black America) and that this was bad and didn’t make them uplifted or whatever anyway.

Given that nearly all of the money went to and continues to go to white Americans, I find their chain of logic more than a little confused and incoherent. But the debate about amount is one that might be settle-able in some manner.

The numbers needed, to start with, are the ones around President Johnson’s War on Poverty, plus the ones around the multiple land-grant acts of Congress over the 18th and 19th centuries. Then you have to bring in spending related to the frontier areas (and start with the midwest and work your way out west to California and the Pacific Northwest and Alaska). That can get involved, but the detangling is ever so worth it, if it can be done (ideally by someone with a lot more free time than I have).

The only point I’m fuzzy on is just how big the gap is. It might be small, or it might be comically large. By all means, I am eager for someone, anyone to crunch the numbers all up and issue a report.

Traditional Motherhood is collectivist

Another thread from twitter, this time about a viral meme:

Even in small scale, you can see it’s about how ye olde mothers had more kids and while I think the bottom is cut off, as it passes through time and lower fertility, it ends with a woman who is “mom” to a cat (the stereotypical modern careerist catlady).

Anyway, this was my response thread. It mentions the Hajnal line, which is a very modern way to talk about Anglo, Saxon and Scandinavian historical family formation norms.

“This image is loved among a certain kind of usually male person on the right, but it’s immensely silly. The top woman had 2-4 other women helping her out, the second woman had 1-2, and the third about 50% of the time has 1 woman helping. Also they all akshuly had more kids.”

“Traditional motherhood is collectivist. Among Hajnal-line women, it’s usually more informal, intensely conformist and paid support is downplayed/minimized (going back centuries). Among women outside that line, it varies by era, but mothers are expected to have at least one other woman helping, whether it’s a relative or a paid woman.”

“It does take a village, and the difference when people in your town/neighborhood/city really will keep track of your kids and look after them while you walk downtown to pick up a package vs. mom and dad doing it all is one part of the birth rate decline. Too many people on the right make a false idol out of frontier motherhood, except even those women sometimes had other people watching their kids. And they didn’t homeschool.”

One last quick note about this meme: it’s infected with its own modernity, as I noted in passing in my tweet thread. A lot of “trad twitter” and the dissident right in general believes that 3-4 kids is equally as large a family as 6-7 as 9-10, and they craft their memes accordingly. Most of their memes about a proper traditional wife DIYing her childrearing have her with as few as 2 children, but rarely more than 4. At least it reflects how rare normally-large families have gotten, albeit unwittingly.

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/ 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.

An insurgency post.

Wrote this back in 2018, and in 2021 not only has almost nothing changed, the behavior of the right in the last couple of years has only made this more bitterly accurate, not less so.  

There was some recent talk about insurgency on the right from Larry Correia and Vox Day.  I did read a lot of the comments, it’s always the same stuff with commenters to such posts.  They have elaborate action plans for that day gun grabbing door to door actually happens.  Endless examples of it already occurring cannot possibly get in the way of their latest round of wargaming on some dude’s blog.

That said, I’m doing a GIRLY GIRL GIRLISH insurgency post.

One thing comments in both posts get right is that current efforts to confiscate guns en masse have had pretty low uptake, less than 10% is extremely typical.  However.  The left has very successfully been using the soft power of threatening people with losing their jobs over the latest gender trip or any number of other lefty isms, so it kinda doesn’t matter how many guns you have, they won’t buy much food if you’re fired for using the original name of any number of people who “changed their gender” or if you laugh at someone who thinks peanut butter sandwiches are racist.

That’s the thing none of the insurgency posts that are a semiannual right wing staple want to work through psychologically, that the left already has us occupied and dominated.  And yet we aren’t #Resisting.  We tried via the soapbox, and they yanked it out from under us, and then many of our own said that was the right thing to do.  We tried via the ballot box, and they can’t stop breaking every law known to man while screaming about how the people we voted for are the real lawbreakers who just need to admit to the crime of not being Democrat politicians.

We’re also denied the jury box, with an army of antifa waiting right outside any courtroom at the drop of a hat if you vote to convict non-Republicans for committing crimes.

So am I saying the last box ‘o’ liberty is something people should use right now?

Nope, not even once. I am saying that it was all talk, it’s nothing but talk.  Right wingers like being under the yoke of genderfluid woke fruitbats.  They are desperate to “be witnesses” to those people by agreeing to everything they say, so long as it’s only on social media.  Or at school.  Or at work.  Or in the caverns of one’s private mind.  The people endlessly whining about white supremacy remain the sorest winners in the entire universe.

The real insurgency will come when people are more interested in sacrificing for their beliefs (whether they be Christian ones or non-Christian ones) rather than crawling on their bellies before hysterics who can’t be made happy no matter how much power they have and continue being handed outright by supposedly “racist” and “supremacist” (mostly) conservative (mostly) Christians.

And unlike Larry or Vox, I know it won’t be any 650,000 strong.  It will probably be more like 65,000 or 6,500.  A fraction of a fraction of a fraction.  And what that looks like I have many, many guesses about, none of which you’re going to see on this blog.

What makes this a girly insurgency post?  I’m a woman who knows very little about firearms.  All the guesses I have about how a radicalized Small But Serious Fraction could make the sore winners finally experience a consequence in this life for the evils they’ve visited on everyone else don’t even involve guns.  And many of them are things the insurgency-LARPers haven’t even considered, because women reacting in womanly ways after being radicalized beyond hope or fear doesn’t even compute for them.


You can’t save Western civilization with turtle logic.

Brought to you by what I have observed of classical Christian education over the years.

If you’ve raised kids with a mealy, wishy washy set of views on current events as teenagers, you dun goofed.  But this is very common with the products of classical Christian education.  It’s not essential one pick some specific political party over another, but there are clear ideological boundaries that I find over and over again are, unlike real classical education, handwaved or worse yet not even considered.  

I have yet another cold or flu, as is my fate continually in the land of no vitamin D in winter, so it’s hard for me to cough up the inevitable list of 20 examples the typical anklebiting response to this kind of thing is.  So I’ll stick with the obvious.

The kids aren’t in politics, they never end up in politics, and thus the fundamental underpinning of non-“Christian” classical education– to train up statesmen– is an abject failure.  What we have instead is madrassa education, Christian variation #11.  Teaching kids to recite passages with zero effort to connect their education to shaping and navigating the world they must inevitably go out and live in.  There are no Daniels.  There aren’t even any Esthers or Abigails.  

So we have, at best, a generation or so of kids who have grown up to become classical Christian school teachers.  At worst, they have graduated to become generic evangelical conservatives, but all too often of the mealiest sort that always makes weird excuses for the latest degeneracy and overreach of crazed liberals while nitpicking remorselessly and brutally any non-liberal suggestion that things be slightly less crummy.  

I can’t even think of any classical Christian graduates who have set up shop in classics departments anywhere.  And I personally know some, and have looked up dozens upon dozens who would be in their 20s by now and thus have graduated high school and moved into college in the last few years.  A lot are pretty much the same as “seculars”– living with parents, the Latin half-forgotten or little more than an occasional hobby, and mysteriously lacking in the ability to navigate rhetoric and logic as it’s applied in our wacky will-to-power modern world.  

I speak these words in genuine affection for the attempt to (mostly quite successfully) revive Latin education at all in America.  It’s not back to where it was in the 1960s, but it’s fairly close to the 1970s levels.  There was a real (though partial) recovery there, even if it came at the expense of doing so in public schools.  But ultimately this is like many other retreat patterns of the right.  When the obvious failure to build alternative pipelines is exposed, there’s a reversion to “oh it’s just about individual families wanting a new kind of Christian education for their children, we aren’t trying to do anything structural!”

Only that’s sure not what’s plastered all over the marketing copy classical Christian schools send out.  It’s allll about “saving Western civilization” with no self-awareness that using such a phrase means you have no idea what you’re talking about or what you want to save at all.  There is no boldness, just a brittle bravado.  

Our kids are currently in plain vanilla Christian school learning the basics (reading, writing, math and Bible verses), plus a modern language and we haven’t abandoned the quest to master Latin and Greek, but it’s going to wait until they are 10-12, a common age historically and one that doesn’t keep a bright kid from learning to translate Epicetus and Horace if they wish to at 15.  


College for All leads to high wages for none.

It’s a bit of an exaggeration, but only a bit.  What giving about half of all folks under 30 bachelor’s degrees has done is created a situation where many of them want wage compression even though they don’t realize that’s what they are demanding.  But $15-25/hr “minimum wages”  or “living wages” are explicitly requests for a tiered system in which pay is comparatively low overall.

The reason is that when entry-level pay has to be high due to regulations, what you end up with is a system with two unequal tiers.  In the “uneducated” tier, wages are unstable, frequently not paid and employment is also unstable and exploitative.  If you can’t get a degree in the average college graduate Biden-supporter’s desired system, you’re condemned to spotty gig work where you may or may not be paid, depending on how the algorithm feels that day.  And as for recourse, you won’t have any, since there will be technically legal fig leafs for employers analogous to the infamous zero-hour contracts of the EU.

But it’s not so amazing for the educated tier, no matter what they think they’d get.  Because what they’d get is a credential treadmill (we already have signs of this) where you have to gain more and more credentials to get access to jobs that pay more than that “minimum” wage.  And the higher tier wage is just that, a relatively flat wage that would ultimately end up somewhere around twice the “minimum” wage.

Mass college education leads to a preponderance of platformed people with the pretensions of aristocrats– that is to say, wanting the accoutrements of a well-bred life– but without soiling their little soft hands with actual labor for wages.  So they absolutely want a wage scale where PhDs always make more than MAs (and where noncollege people have zero ability to ever make more than any college graduate) and where STEM degrees offer no premium above whiteness studies degrees because all credentials have their premium compressed into a single value.

This is a profound and ongoing failure of non-left political and social folks in America today.  By having no actual alternative to college for smart students, by rejecting so totally any kind of manual labor, this is where we’re already heading.   To a world where only politicians and people who are already multimillionaires/billionaires earn more than 100k or so per year, and where you have to keep going back to school to collect more credentials to retain your ability to interview for and get the high-tier jobs at all.

And where those who can’t do college are barely allowed to work at all because they’ll be swamped by masses of noncollege immigrants for whom unstable daywork in a wealthy third world nation is superior to unstable daywork in a poor third world nation.  We’re also already seeing signs of this.  It doesn’t have to be this way, but it’s going to keep going this way as long as people cling to a social climbing view that their little college degree makes them not still working class, or a hick, or whatever.  You still are, and all the pretensions about organic mac and cheese won’t change it.  Nor will supporting the media and political class eager to bar your very children from access to the upper-pay work (and if they can, shove them down into the intermittent daywork world in a heartbeat) no matter how much you say you hate Trump and are only personally pro-life.

I live among a lot of people watching their kids turn 24, 25, 26, cut off from the well paying jobs despite multiple degrees, and they still mindlessly rant about Rethuglicans eating all the healthcare up and quietly wonder when the kids will get a “real” job, they heard Sandeep’s kid just started at Google, after all.