*The Revolt of The Public and the Crisis of Authority in the New Millennium*

By Martin Gurri, due out November 13.  I am reading this splendid book for the first time.  It basically explains why Brexit and Trump won, and what will happen next.  Due to social media, we are disillusioned with our elites, and that will prove hard to reverse.

Comments

Due to social media, ...

You just keep telling yourself that, bub.

It's a big factor. No more secrets, real time reporting 24/7, no mystery or grandeur left. Why would anyone NOT be disillusioned. Literally, the illusions are gone. The leaders are jerks like the rest of us.

Social Media is a tiny part of this. Tyler just wants an out and not have to face the fact that policies favorited by people like him have been disastrous.

Exactly right.

The very concept of an elite ruling class.... which is gaining more and more power and control over the deplorables... and publicly mocking those deplorables at every turn?

Tyler has absolutely no problem with this. And he's certain that nobody else would either, if it weren't for that meddling social media!

You sound exactly like Karl Marx these days, with your class warfare.

The traditional left right split hadn’t totally disappeared but it is creaking. Trump saw (guessed? fluked?) that there was a demographic being ignored yet disparaged. He’s the unusual plutocrat who sometimes speaks about the needs of working people. It’s not as if a huge number of working men feel at home in the Democratic Party as it is presently constituted. (The elite culture warrior Susan Sontag’s vicious quip? has become policy for the left wing of the Dems: “the white race is the cancer of human history.”

Come on GoT, you don't think Trump gives even the littlest bit of a shit about 'working people' do you? He knows how to use them to get elected but has he done a single thing that helps them?

Doesn't matter. He's restricting immigration, appointing conservative judges, protecting their guns, and prioritizing them in the public space. And he doesn't lecture them about their privilege and their inherent sexism and racism.

"And he doesn't lecture them about their privilege and their inherent sexism and racism.'

This is the most important part. Modern life is too complex to know if a policy is good/bad for me, but I sure as shit know when someone is lecturing me.

Social media, or mere history?

My readings of history are replete with episodes of brief eras of cultivated political idealism (see Obama, see JFK, see Lincoln) resolutely followed by depths (shallow or deep) of disillusionment, pessimism, cynicism, and/or nihilism.

These effects may be being magnified today by social media platforms: a pity, perhaps, but our corrupt and corrupting Media Establishment seems not to notice.

The retreat of our effete elites remains incomplete.

A male Kennedy, cultivated political idealism? "Yer 'avin' a laff" as they say in London.

'cultivated political idealism?'

Sure, as his famous Inauguration speech laid out in this line - 'Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.'

Lots of reasons to scorn the Kennedies, but to suggest that JFK did not intentionally cultivate political idealism is remarkably ignorant.

Not that remarkable, it's dearieme

If regular people have to learn how to deal with social media, maybe so do leaders.

Why not a lot more retreats to the mountain top? There are certainly examples from other walks of life, actors or musicians who choose to keep a much lower profile then the social media fireflies.

Sure social media will be talking about something, but if you keep a low profile they won't be talking about you.

Tyler keeps wanting to believe that something else other than the policies -- especially social policies -- of the elites are driving disaffection. When you favor a leftist progressive cosmoplitanism over old-fashioned nationalism, and when you push such dramatic social changes that the elites feel comfortable in condemning attitudes as fascist that virtually all the men who defeated the Nazis and Japanese shared, you have lost your moorings. When anti-racism goes from promoting neutrality to condemning white men and honorary whites like successful Asians or legal immigrants over illegal invaders you should expect pushback. Yet somehow, it is the social media that are to blame. The medium is not the message.

This

But social media matters. I’m told everyone trusted Walter Cronkite. Today, people who actually care can get more of the story. Most reasonable people have a more nuanced grasp of the Trayvon martin killing for example than the heirs to Walter Cronkite would like.

In the spirit of Hegel, left me offer an anti-thesis:

When your elites use the threat of leftist progressive cosmopolitianism to raise the ire of whites who already fear their bottom line is less secure, while having a documented history of utilizing the labor of "illegal invaders" in their private lives, those who oppose this hypocrisy (among others) may respond in a way you find over the top.

When this comes a decade after a few thousand soldiers gave their lives while their government was utilizing detainee treatment policies that would have angered the men who defeated the Nazis and Japanese (and certainly angered a man who suffered similar treatment while a POW during Vietnam), those who oppose these policies will likely appear to others to be hyperventilating and out of sorts.

I'll end there. I don't think it all went bad in the 60s. I don't think it all ever went bad all at once. I do think an overlooked period is the mid-90s. Clinton got elected and that infuriated a lot of the men who defeated the Nazis and Japanese. However, instead of sticking with "promoting neutrality" and honoring traditional GOP positions, the party was taken over by a more radical clique led by Newt Gingrich (heck, even Bob Dole backtracked on his deficit-hawk ways by choosing Kemp as his VP). It has now reached its fruition. [Keep your eye on the GOP primary challenges. Who's the more honorable elite: Richard Mourdock or Dick Lugar?]

Back then, being a promiscuous draft-dodger made you the worst kind of limousine liberal. Now it makes you the leader of the GOP, with a private jet replacing the limousine.

I think the synthesis between my comment and yours offers a fairly good substantive diagnosis. Break that synthesis apart and feed the red meat on each side to hyped-up followers via each side's preferred social media delivery system, and TC's/Gurri's point strikes me as appropriate too.

If only we could find a dignified older gentleman to cluck his tongue and wag his finger, and remind everybody about how "Democrats are the real racists!"

Republicans, man. Bringing a toy knife to a gunfight.

"When anti-racism goes from promoting neutrality to condemning white men and honorary whites like successful Asians or legal immigrants over illegal invaders you should expect pushback."

Every life is full of hits and misses, but for the life of me I cannot relate to this framing. Never in my life were my opportunities actually reduced because I was a white male.

Never been in a company with over 50 people, or had public money or benefits that you didn't qualify for because you're a white guy? Doubtful. Like me, though, you probably thought 'no big deal' and went in a different direction, and did well. Just because you worked around them doesn't mean your opportunities were not diminished.

Ah! There's the disconnect! If one believes that not qualifying for "public money or benefits" that you presumably didn't think you needed actually "reduces your opportunities", then IMHO you have engaged in a logical error by assuming that "Anonymous" needed those benefits!

I am not able to eat the same food as the "elites", but I have plenty to eat, so I don't consider myself "disadvantaged" in any way. Do you?

Nice try. The example in my thoughts was when the land bank was desperately looking for people to take abandoned lots, but had few takers. I wanted one, but the program wasn't meant for 'me'.

As for the other part. My largish company told all managers to hire only minorities of they had an opening. We advertised the positions and interview everyone, but all the white guys had no chance, though they didn't know it. Just wasted their time. We already had a pretty good percentage of minorities hired over the years though, and they weren't too happy about the program either. They also had to put up with affirmative action hires doing nothing at work.

So you have an example or two from your own experience - good for you! You're not just envious, then!

My point was that you were expressing disbelief in the point "Anonymous" was making, based on his/her personal experience. THAT was the disconnect. Assuming that your experience is universal is a logical error, and indicates a pretty fundamental problem in the thought process being used, which undermines the argument.

If you'd like to reframe your response to "Anonymous" using your own personal examples, and then reach your somewhat bitter conclusions about how trying to help others is creating disadvantages for your, that would be an appropriate and polite thing to do, and would be a decent start to improving the level of this discussion.

Or you could go the other way and just keep criticizing other people for not thinking about your past experiences in the same way you do.

The choice, as always, is yours!

"My largish company told all managers to hire only minorities of they had an opening."

If this did happen, it sure sounds like a company getting themselves out of a hole.

No hole, they were already pretty well diversified even before it was fashionable. Mostly the CEO like to show up and collect prizes for stuff. Trouble is that the women and minorities there weren't AA hires. They were competent, and disliked the AA hires as much or more than everyone else.

The "venerable organization" with which I am most familiar has abandoned its mission - a very clearly-stated and pursued mission, these many decades - in its obsessive embrace of "wokeness" and internal focus on struggle sessions or celebrations, depending on the day - or hour - to the point that rank and file still engaged in the actual work, do so almost furtively, and certainly without encouragement or support, let alone expectation of advancement. There was one unbelievable, nigh-hilarious lapse of both commonsense policy and wokeness, at the very top, but no consequences came of that ...

The organization will likely be driven into the ground.

Those who care about said mission do indeed find this a problem, quite apart from the natural, though selfish, considerations with which you came at the issue.

"Never in my life ..."

Then clearly you never applied for a job as a "director of diversity". Every city and university has one or more.

I think what he is saying is that some large subset of the population has moved from trying to end discrimination against racial minorities to openly hating white people. The MSM and the elites either openly embrace this pathology or they stand idly by while it is happening.

The elites aren't entitled to the roles of leadership or decision making they enjoy. Sixty percent of the Harvard student body are in the upper 1 percent financially. Being born rich does not mean you are entitled to lead the nation via high influence or high profile positions in government and academia. We all know that. And yet those Harvard grads enjoy those positions because of their wealth, the prestige of their degree, and their connections to others of the same stripe.

They have been running the country and have f*cked up, and we are fixing that. This is nothing to mourn. Though it seems like a disaster to people inside the bubble of academia, government, NGOs, and the heinous, self-congratulatory, narcissistic MSM. I am so sad for them.

What would it be like if, for one week, all the plumbers, septic tank pumpers, dog walkers, nannies, food servers, cashiers, shipping clerks, retail workers, landscapers, auto mechanics, etc refused to serve the elites for one week. The elites can stop doing their jobs for one week too. Better yet, let's do it for an indeterminate period of time, a game of chicken of sorts. Would the world stop if policy makers stopped making policy?

I would love to see those elites in the DC suburbs desperately trying to get a septic pumper when their toilets won't flush.

It's called a "general strike" and it has happened a number of times in modern history.

Thank you for advocating a socialist remedy to elitist capitalism. I'm sure that Tyler will be pleased!

Yeah this thread has made me realize just how Marxist the Trumpies are

So much fun to point out hypocrisy! One might start seeing it where it is not if one were so inclined.

Cyanoman's post was much more reasonable than yours, even if he was honest about his class bitterness. He proposed a strike, not socialism. Just like when a coach calls a time out, he doesn't want to end the game forever. Jeeze. The elitism we are talking about ain't capitalist, either. Many thumbs on many scale pans gave us this bloated and scared class of folk. But I can't tell you anything you don't already know.

Because we can't *all* be "directors of diversity?"

I thought his lack of self-awareness was bad, but don't tell me other newly oppressed white males are blind to this kind of irony.

I am not bitter, nor am I any less self aware than anyone else. We are all biased (Kahneman), including the elite ("Cognitive sophistication does not attenuate the bias blind spot").

I am, however, that the country is run by largely undeserving "elites" just because they happen to be wealthy enough to attend a Harvard (60% of the student body in the top 1% income/wealth bracket). As a result of their "credential", a whole nother subject, and their ivy league connections they get opportunities they don't deserve. They did not earn their elite status via their accomplishments, unless you consider kissing a professor's butt for 4 years an accomplishment.

Not having earned their decision making positions, they have failed, and we have begun the difficult process of firing them.

No bitterness needed.

As I think Tyler might have mentioned in a recent interview, there are many many types of elite in American society. Are you talking sports, science, tech, finance, or politics? They are all different groups of people. Of those, maybe two are associated with Harvard. But tech's new money sure ain't. In fact I saw a tweet from a venture capitalist which said "I have no idea where my last 6 founders went to college."

To treat them as one elite might indicate a bit of story building. One now afield from my starting point, this claim:

"When anti-racism goes from promoting neutrality to condemning white men and honorary whites like successful Asians or legal immigrants over illegal invaders you should expect pushback."

Success in STEM and sports is fairly easy to define. I am not talking about them, though I find the MSM focus on the opinions of athletes and entertainers to be annoying. However, we can choose to ignore them. What troubles me are all the rich kids that end up in bowels of the government, having power and influence out of proportion to their accomplishments. I can ignore football, choose not to buy an Apple phone, or turn off the radio when Taylor Swift comes on. However, there is not a thing I can do about a bunch of ivy league frat boys imbedded in the state department or some other government agency with the power to impact my life in a significant way. All I can do is vote and hope my candidate, my gladiator, will do something about it.

For what it's worth I think "the ivy league has too much power in government" is a much better argument than "we suddenly face anti-white discrimination."

I said a large subset of the left have moved from opposing racism to hating white people, more or less.

Do you think it is not true that shift has happened.

Btw, I think talking about race is a distraction. The original issue, and still the main
issue, is the idea that people don't trust elites because of social media rather that the people recognize that the elites are not do elite, have power and influence not earned through their accomplishments, and have basically f*cked up and need to be fired.

Get back on track or be a weasel.

I think this maps into Francis Fukuyama's writing pretty well. Some of these guys desperately want a white identity politics, of oppression, even if their examples are a bit thin.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/americas/2018-08-14/against-identity-politics-tribalism-francis-fukuyama

Nonsense, but the Fukuyama article is GREAT even if Fuk shows his lefty bias.

'Due to social media, we are disillusioned with our elites, and that will prove hard to reverse'

So modest - that effort goes back more than a generation after all, predating social media.

Maybe the quality of the elites has gone down. Think of the WWII generation of elites who put on uniforms like everyone else. I was watching the PBS BBC story on Chatsworth house. President Kennedy’s sister married the heir. Who served in the British army and was killed at the front in 1942.

The quality of elites, at the very least from a moral perspective has definitely plummeted in the past few decades. They are all simply excellent test takers and resume padders now. It’s exactly the kind of presume Tyler Cowen likes but who can REALLY look up to that sort?

"[L]ast few decades" is just vague enough to resist an attempting at a critical response, but I'll try anyway. Treating a few as less than several, I'll assume you put the beginning of the decline with the Boomers/the 60s generation/etc. The "Best and the Brightest" were really good at taking tests and padding resumes, after all.

So, it would seem you think the elites we should look up to predated the 60s. Eisenhower? FDR? Truman?

What I find interesting is that if our golden era is post-WWII until the 60s, when the Left ruined everything for everybody, one notable thing about the era is that there were far fewer mega-rich elites. No Bezos/Gates/Zuckerberg. No Rockefeller/Carnegie/Mellon.

Yup the golden age of strong unions and 90% upper tax bracket

Well you have a trade-off: the 1950's thru 1970's were a time of remarkably uniform demographics and restrictive global trade and immigration.

I prefer to think of the 50s-70s as world rebuilding. It was easy to be top dog.

It’s fundamentally the policies and the policy outcomes that have triggered this, social media has helped accelerate it. Another thing is the elites today are fucking weirdos. JP Morgan was a guy who would guzzle champagne and eat a 100 oysters before going go to bed with a half dozen prostitutes. What do we have now ? Mark Zuckerburg? It’s a bunch of wierdos drinking soylent. Pardoxically as we know more about the elites they seem less human, so disconnected from normal people. I think of elites more along the lines of the John Carpenter film “They Live”.

That's funny. You say JP Morgan, I say Howard Hughes. You say "wierdos [sic] drinking soylent, I say "Road to Wellville."

When do you date this lost golden age?

I will agree that, vaguely, "policies" and "policy outcomes" have had something to do with this. Not so much this or that policy, as a larger shift to policy-focused governance. Of course, you should be skeptical as I'm just channeling some left-leaning professors:

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674728745

[And a conservative crim. justice professor (RIP): http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674725874]

Well, Howard Hughes was specifically a clinically mentally ill guy, while Zuckerberg supposedly isn't.

Though I generally agree with the sentiment that the elites of the Gilded Age were just as odd and alienating as those today. Probably it is always so.

“The very rich are not like you and me...”

Hemingway's reply to that comment was "Yeah, they have more money."

But I agree with M, there have always been weird/eccentric superrich. When you are at that level it's almost axiomatic, you aren't a regular person anymore.

McMike - Chris Hedges have some interesting things to say about that. I guess time in a boarding school left him a little jaded - a stranger in a strange land.

Chris Hedges is the author of this idiot screed:

https://www.amazon.com/American-Fascists-Christian-Right-America/dp/0743284461/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1539548982&sr=1-3&keywords=chris+hedges+books

No clue why you'd take anything he said the least bit seriously.

Odd to see TC trumpeting claims that Brexit driven by presentation, not substance. Random NPC centre-left pundits who want to pretend that everything is under control, fine. Never any pretence that they could exhibit their own judgement.

But TC's commentary on MR, what he shares and what he says, across the years has generally been more on the euro-skeptic side, if anything (as is typical from a blogger catering to traditionally conservative American base). Now the issue is more socially risky in the US.... well, "Conformity has a hundred fathers, independent thought is an orphan".

Funny to see that the British left, though not the Corbin far left, has chosen the Brexit hill to die on. There is almost no possible discussion one can have with them about Brexit as a sensible national /sovereignty policy.

Democracy and politics will have to adapt to this phenomenon. We have a lot to learn from Athenian democracy if we think social media is like the agora of our time.

The right wing program of institutional deconstruction and ideological nihilism pre-dates social media by a few decades.

It relies on an incessant rhetorical assault on the credibility of everything, coupled with self fulfilling scorched earth conduct that leaves only wreckage and incoherence in its wake.

If this book was written 25 years ago it could blame AM radio. 15 years ago; blame fox news.

Trump is its natural consequence, its emodiment. But alas probably not its apex

I guess you've never read Alinsky.

The Left started this fight. The Right will finish it.

Nobody read Alinsky, which makes him more obviously a Canard than a Cause.

There was once this guy who recently was President...

The was once this woman who wrote her senior thesis on Alinsky who ran for president and having lost (again) is now saying: "if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that's when civility can start again."

The entire malodorous New Left initiated attacks--violent in too many cases--on institutions during the 60s. Now that so many of them have sold out and entrenched themselves in the Establishment, they're clutching their pearls that the lumpenproletariat under Napoleon III...err...Trump I has the audacity to try to overthrow them in turn.

“The right will finish it”

The last words of Dr Frankenstein

... and Adolph Hitler

Literally Hitler!

Is 'Marginal Revolution' part of social media? If so, is it part of the problem?

Absolutely, the bit above about attacks on white men was a prime example.

You are fixated on white grievance - why is that? Do you have OCD?

This site and others like it, with active comment sections, are definitely social media. I'm not on Facebook, Twitter, IG, or any of those. I get my social jollies here and Money Illusion and a sports talk site.

nattering nabobs ...

Oh please, it is not like this is the first time the elites have pursued policies that have alienated the public and resulted in massive shifts in power.

In the US we had the Era of Good Feelings, yet somehow Jackson was able to come to power by breaking with pretty much all the elite opinions of the day. The Panic of 1819 stripped bare the pretenses of the elite of the early Republic and the 1824 election shenanigans made supporters flow easily. By 1832 we had a complete remaking of the fault lines of American politics.

Nor is this limited to the Anglosphere. France, for instance, saw off not just the Ancien Regime, but also the Committee of Public Safety, the elites of the Second Republic, and those of the Fourth. Napoleon III and de Gaulle both were stridently populist on many issues.

Spain had a complete implosion of the ruling elite prior to the civil war with vast swathes of territory going over to populist groups (e.g. the anarchists). And of course Imperial Russia saw overthrow of the elites.

Nor is this a modern phenomena. The Reformation clearly had anti-elite appeal, particularly in the latter stages with the Anabaptists and related sects. And going back all the way to Rome, Caesar managed cast off the Optimates and rule through the Populares. By the time the dust settled under Augustus pretty much all the old ruling class was gone.

Elites are distrusted when they do untrustworthy things. For quite some time the Democratic party has backed positions without popular support in the US: abortion on demand (supported by <25% of Americans), non-compliance with federal immigration law (<20%), bans on school prayer (<30%), political correctness in language (<30%), and race conscious affirmative action (<30%). They have also done so in a manner which isolates and enrages their opponents.

The Republican party has its own set of unpopular policies and tone deafnesses ... but even when in power it has generally failed to deliver on the most popular causes for its voters.

There is a huge swathe of the country that dislikes both the liberal and conservative elite. They dislike the policies being enacted and voted against it. After all the message coming out of DC, London, and Brussels for a generation has basically been "you cannot administer your own lives wisely, so we should turn over more decisions to more competent technocrats." Is it any wonder that the people rebelled?

you cannot administer your own lives wisely, so we should turn over more decisions to more competent technocrats."

That’s the King talking.

You cannot administer you own lives as we think it’s wise is what they’re saying.

Who died and left you the boss of me? Your degree? Who says you’re competent?

We don’t like the way you vote, so you’re going to keep voting until we get the results we want. Or we’re going to keep throwing tantrums....the temperament on display is sorely lacking in sanity.

Tyler is a careful and perceptive thinker. I suspect that the blithe tone of this post is his way of trolling his loyal commenters on a Saturday.

"you cannot administer your own lives wisely, so we should turn over more decisions to more competent technocrats."

The elites themselves are thus admitting that they don't have the knowledge to make important decisions. Ergo, if only the technocrats have this capacity, they, in fact, will end up running the show, perhaps behind the scenes, as they do to some extent even now.

For instance, as has been discussed here quite recently, DNA analysis is a mystery to all but a select few technocrats who will have the ability to interpret it to their own ends. The secrecy demanded by government for security reasons and by business for competitive ones means that the hoi polloi will always be ignorant of the reliability of supposedly scientific advancements.

In all of this, is it perhaps the case that homo sapiens has a deep-rooted but completely illogical belief that some one individual or group has all the answers?

Is the need for a "leader" "savior" "daddy/mommy" who can and will fix all the problems just too strong for the species to overcome?

Elites are elites for a reason - not necessarily the logical, or best reason, but at least some reason, even if it is simply the luck of being born into the right family at the right time.

What is uniquely true about our time is the ability of "the people" to effect regime change relatively quickly, through electoral and economic decision processes, as compared to the past.

And what is somewhat amazing is that, in this electronic day and age, we are still relying on a representative democracy where individual human beings must be physically present in a particular location at particular time in order to officially register their views.

How long will it take to overcome that particular shibboleth?

Ah, so we should all vote on every issue and be a true democracy?

Once you have the electorate vote on every policy you get California - without the Pacific coast and Silicon Valley.

You should check out the propositions on the California ballots this election cycle. California is ratcheting down.

Not necessarily. While that would probably be a possibility, it does not seem to me to be the best option. But there are many many other options that technology could provide - at least, there could be if there was any possibility that the current levels of extreme cynicism are going to abate. There are certainly points at which it would be helpful to understand where the larger electorate stands, with more certainty than the current 2/4 year general election cycle allows.

Perhaps all that really needs to happen is that the general electorate gets to vote on how Congress conducts its business. That would likely eliminate a number of archaic means by which each side currently controls the business of legislation.

Off the top of my head, how much is this book a justification for massive censorship of digital environments?

That is what has become the establishment elite’s go-to demand since November 2016.

It is easy to criticize the public on social media. But using words like 'narcissists' leads to a misunderstanding. The biggest reason for public frustration is that the elites have failed repeatedly to solve problems and to govern responsibly.

Now we might all disagree on the choices the public makes, but it is hard to defend anyone in the status-quo. In light of her very public whining over the last two years, it is not conceivable that Mr Trump's opposition would have governed as well as he has - (notwithstanding disasters, warts and all).

I wonder if Tyler Cowen means that due to the Internet, and a plethora of news and social media sites, control of the news narrative has been splintered.

Painting with a broad brush, the most powerful elites today are the multinationals, and they have an agenda of open borders for obvious reasons. Multinationals, by the way, can pour unlimited funds into academia, media, think tanks, and even political campaigns.

Have you ever wondered why the routine criminalization of push-cart vending in the US is never a topic, but immigration and free-trade are always topics, in so-called libertarian circles?

Tyler's recurring role as petit Earl de Merde won't be renewed next season. He could have advanced the cause of liberty, but that takes work. Instead he bleats and runs; hoping his day won't come until all the other academic sheep have been hoisted from the barn door's crossbar and drained. Historians will ponder why so many sold out for so little; some asking "But for Wales, Tyler; for Wales?" And Tyler will answer "Our academic horizons were so shrunken that the only goal left to us was to survive the mounting fury against the ruin we had wrought. Pol Pot would understand." Likely so, Tyler, likely so.

Trumph's Win can be analysed forever in Straussian way. A comedian had a simple explanation : After 8 years of meritocracy, decency, incremental changes - we got bored and wanted a Whore.

After 8 years of meritocracy, decency, incremental changes

So that's why Lois (5th Amendment) Lerner is enjoying a six-figure pension.

You know, the inner city neighborhoods in my hometown have homicide rates of about 35 per 100,000 per year while analogous neighborhoods in New York and northern New Jersey have rates 1/3 of that. New York City has cut its homicide rate by 82% since 1990 while where I grew up it has declined by 0%. For some strange reason, I don't think much of the political class in my home town.

"Due to social media, we are disillusioned with our elites, and that will prove hard to reverse."

It's about time. And if social media can push this crisis, I am all for it. The elites are not for the ordinary people. They act to push their own interests. Can't say I blame them.

Trump won because he said he would fight for the worker.

But he gave tax cuts to himself and the other rich and powerful. And, of course, we must sell weapons to Saudi Arabia to help them kill children in Yemen. Who can argue with that?

Chuck Schumer is a tool of Wall Street. And the DNC fights against progressives, folks who will work for ordinary people.

Both sides are bought and paid for. By the elite.

It's time for another revolution.

"Time for ... revolution."

We are in it now.
We have the war upon us.

Nassim Taleb on psuedo-ecperts failing without skin in the game.

Start at 5:00. At 7:00 he talks about economists among the elite that review and evaluate each other, fail, then have no 'skin in the game.

https://youtu.be/vKBZ6po4oCE

Comments for this post are closed