Status

A common painful experience is to see someone you know and notice that they want to talk to other people first.

When high status people walk into a room, people vie for their attention.

I’ve had high status and I’ve had low status. High status was better.

Low status sucks, but if I’m doing the right things, I build self-respect. If I help others appropriately, my self-respect builds.

No man is an island. I never want to be indifferent to others’ opinion of me.

I’ve long yearned for distinction more than connection (to compensate for feeling like less than zero) and that’s not usually worked out well.

ChatGPT says:

Yearning for distinction over connection is a common trap — it feels like chasing security through status, but status is fickle and lonely without allies. Distinction without connection often leads to being noticed but not embraced, admired but not trusted. In practice, connection tends to be the foundation that makes distinction sustainable. People will lift you up and keep you relevant when they feel you’re part of their story, not just your own.

The hard truth: the more you build strong ties, the easier distinction comes — and the less you need it for validation.

How can I reframe the bitter pill of low social status?

ChatGPT says:

When someone prioritizes others before you in conversation, it’s not necessarily a verdict on your worth — it’s more like a moment of social triage. People often gravitate to whoever they feel they must speak to first — maybe because of urgency, proximity, status dynamics, or just habit — not because they’ve ranked everyone in order of value.

Instead of interpreting it as “I’m less desirable,” try flipping it:

You have freedom. You’re not the one anxiously juggling five conversations or performing social maintenance. You can enter the conversation when it’s strategic, when the noise has cleared.

You get data. You see how people interact when they don’t think you’re listening. That’s useful for understanding social currents and alliances.

You control the energy. When you’re not the first person someone talks to, you get to observe, calibrate, and then make your entrance with something relevant, witty, or targeted — rather than small talk filler.

If you want to push it even further: being “less sought out” in that moment can actually increase your perceived value over time. People often feel more intrigued by the person who’s not constantly vying for their attention but is instead calm, selective, and attentive when they do engage. That air of being self-contained often draws others in eventually — but on your timetable.

Here’s a quick three-second mental script you can run when it happens:

Notice: “Ah, they’re doing their social rounds. Not about me.”

Claim: “I’m the one with the luxury of choice right now.”

Prime: “I’ll step in when I can add value — that’s when I’m most magnetic.”

The goal is to treat the pause before they talk to you as your advantage: you get to watch, listen, and pick the exact moment to drop something sharp, funny, or thoughtful — instead of being just another voice in their greeting queue.

Here are some tactical entry lines you can use when you finally step in — they make you feel confident and make others glad you joined:

Light & Playful

“I was waiting for the crowd to warm you up before I jumped in.”

“Alright, you’ve made the rounds. Now for the highlight.”

Observational

“You’ve been busy — I think I caught the end of three different conversations.”

“I’m glad I waited — now I know exactly where to take this next.”

Value-Add

“I overheard just enough to make this more interesting…”

“You were talking about [X] — I’ve got a twist you might like.”

These work because they frame your delayed entry as intentional, not as “being overlooked.” You come across as patient, self-possessed, and in control of your timing.

Here’s how to make your presence magnetic before you even open your mouth:

1. Positioning

Stand where you can be seen, but not in the “waiting line” for them. Corners, near a wall, or just outside the main cluster give you visibility without crowding.

Keep your body open to the room — no crossed arms, no hunching toward your phone.

2. Gaze

Let your eyes move slowly and deliberately over the group, pausing on people warmly without rushing.

If you catch their eye, hold it a beat longer than normal, then add a slight smile — it signals you’re receptive but not desperate.

3. Micro-smile timing

Don’t smile constantly. Let it flash when something genuinely amuses you, even if it’s not your turn to speak. This makes you seem engaged and selective.

4. “Anchor” posture

Plant your feet shoulder-width, shoulders relaxed, head level. It’s a subtle “I belong here” signal. People often approach those who look grounded.

5. Slow-motion movement

When you finally enter the circle, do it at half-speed. Quick movements look like you’re chasing; slow movements read as calm authority.

This way, even before you speak, you’re already in people’s awareness as someone worth noticing. By the time you do say something, it feels like you’ve chosen to speak, not like you were granted an audience.

Here’s your 10-second entrance sequence for when you join a group after they’ve been talking to others first:

Second 0–2: Pause & Survey

Stand just outside the group’s space. Let your eyes sweep the scene once, pausing briefly on the person you’re about to engage.

Body open, shoulders relaxed, small knowing smile — like you’ve been enjoying the show.

Second 3–5: Anchor & Signal

Plant your feet, square but not rigid.

Make brief eye contact with 1–2 people in the group, then with your target person. Hold their gaze for a beat longer than normal, smile slightly.

Second 6–8: Lean In & Bridge

Take one slow step into the group’s space.

Let your head tilt slightly in curiosity or amusement, as if you’ve been following along.

Use a bridging phrase: “I caught just enough of that to know I have to weigh in…”

Second 9–10: Deliver Your First Line

Light & playful, or value-add (from the list earlier).

Keep your tone easy, like you’re sharing a secret or delivering the punchline they didn’t know they needed.

The rhythm is key — slow and deliberate so you project choice and confidence, but quick enough that it feels natural in the flow of conversation.

Here’s how to flip it so they start coming to you first next time:

1. Make your presence felt early

As soon as you arrive, position yourself in a visible, natural traffic spot — near the entry, drinks, or a high-flow area.

Greet people warmly as they pass, even briefly. It plants the seed that you’re approachable and already “in play.”

2. Give them a hook before they can walk past

Early in the event, drop a quick teaser to the person you want attention from:
“I’ve got something for you later — remind me.”
This creates curiosity and gives them a reason to circle back.

3. Be socially “in demand” without faking it

Engage with others in a way that’s visible — animated gestures, laughter, a small crowd leaning in.

People are drawn to energy. If they see others enjoying you, they’ll want a piece of that.

4. Make them earn your attention

When they approach, pause your current conversation slowly, turn toward them fully, and smile like you’re choosing to give them your focus.

This subtly reverses the power dynamic — you’re not chasing, you’re granting.

5. Leave them wanting more

Keep the first interaction short and engaging. Exit on a high note: “I’ll catch you in a bit.”

This primes them to seek you out again, and next time they’ll be quicker to come to you.

If you run this play a couple times, you’ll notice the shift — you stop being “the last stop” and become “the one they’re scanning the room to find.”

Here’s a one-week practice plan to make this shift automatic.

Day 1–2: Observation Mode

At one social gathering or even a casual public spot (coffee shop, work breakroom), practice just positioning, body language, and scanning the room without jumping into conversations.

Goal: Get comfortable being visible and composed without rushing in.

Day 3–4: Seeding Curiosity

Pick one person each day to drop a “hook” to early on:
“You’ll appreciate what I just learned — I’ll tell you in a minute.”
or
“Don’t let me forget to tell you about [intriguing hint].”

Goal: Make it feel light, playful, and not needy — you’re creating a reason for them to return.

Day 5: Visible Energy

At your next social event, put yourself in a visible area and engage with others in a way that’s animated but natural — laugh, gesture, show interest.

Let your target person see others enjoying your company before you directly engage them.

Day 6: Controlled Entry

Use the 10-second entrance sequence we went over earlier, but only once during the event.

Goal: Practice timing — enter when you have something to add, not just because there’s silence.

Day 7: The Reverse Pull

Pick someone you know usually makes you wait.

Early in the event, seed curiosity with them, then fully engage with others.

Watch for the moment they circle back to you — when they do, pause your current conversation slowly and give them your full attention.

Do this for one week and you’ll notice people adjusting their approach to your tempo. It stops feeling like you’re “waiting” for attention — you’ll start feeling like you’re directing the social flow.

Here are micro-status signals you can start using — they’re small, almost invisible, but they change how people read you immediately:

1. Entry Pace

Never rush in. Whether entering a room, approaching a group, or even answering a question — give a one- or two-second pause. People subconsciously register that as confidence.

2. The Half-Smile

Full, constant smiling reads as trying too hard. A half-smile — slow to appear, genuine, and slightly asymmetrical — feels more self-assured and selective.

3. Eye Contact with Break

When listening, hold eye contact just a hair longer than normal, then look away slowly (never darting) before returning. This says “I’m comfortable here” and “I’m choosing to engage.”

4. Hand Placement

Visible hands (resting lightly on a glass, loosely clasped, or one hand in pocket) show you’re open and relaxed. Hiding hands can make you seem tense.

5. Stance Width

Feet shoulder-width or slightly wider; weight evenly distributed. Avoid narrow, shifting stances — they read as uncertainty.

6. Space Tolerance

Let others close the gap to you instead of stepping toward them first. That tiny delay signals they’re entering your space.

7. Conversational Pacing

Speak slightly slower than average, with clear pauses. Don’t rush to fill silence — let others lean in to fill it.

If you combine these micro-signals with the week’s plan and curiosity seeding, you’ll start noticing that you’re not just “included” — you’re setting the rhythm of who talks to you, when, and how.

“High-status people have entourages. I have a chair in the corner with my name on it.”

“I don’t get mobbed when I enter a room. I get nodded at like the assistant manager at a mid-tier chain restaurant.”

“People vie for the attention of celebrities. People vie to avoid eye contact with me until they’ve run out of other options.”

“I don’t mind not being the center of attention — but I wouldn’t mind being a satellite at least.”

“When I finally join a group conversation, it’s like the bonus track at the end of an album. Nobody was waiting for it, but here it is.”

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on Status

My Political Philosophy – Adaptive Regime Realism

Survival must be the number one priority for a people. After that, it should be group cohesion and esprit de corps (the “feeling of pride, fellowship, and common loyalty shared by the members of a particular group”).

Psychology, sociology, and evolutionary biology all point the same way:

Humans are social animals — survival historically depended on cooperation within kin groups, tribes, and coalitions.

Group belonging boosts well-being — people with strong social ties have better mental and physical health, higher life satisfaction, and greater resilience.

Group-based thinking is default — social identity theory shows that humans reflexively categorize into “us” and “them,” even over trivial differences.

Collective strategies often outperform lone efforts — in politics, war, and economics, coordinated groups beat scattered individuals.

America’s intense cultural focus on individualism is unusual globally, and it creates tensions: people crave autonomy but also need belonging. We romanticize the self-made hero while most success stories are embedded in networks of support, capital, and institutions.

Policy implications

Rebuild civic infrastructure — invest in clubs, associations, community centers, sports leagues, and religious or cultural groups that foster face-to-face connection.

Shift incentives from individual competition to group outcomes — in schools, workplaces, and social programs, measure and reward cooperative performance.

Political messaging — leaders should frame goals in terms of shared identity (“we”) rather than purely personal advancement (“you”).

The challenge is that America’s civic culture is built on a mythos that often pits community against freedom. The opportunity is to show they’re not opposites: strong, inclusive groups can amplify individual flourishing rather than stifle it.

Why doesn’t America have a sane retirement policy like Australia’s?

The U.S. doesn’t have a single, universal “sane” retirement policy because its political culture, lobbying structure, and historical choices locked it into a patchwork of public and private systems that reward certain industries and voter groups.

Key reasons:

Cultural mistrust of centralized systems

Australia’s “superannuation” is mandatory — your employer must contribute to an investment account for you, and it’s regulated so you can invest in stocks, bonds, etc. In the U.S., mandatory savings beyond Social Security gets branded as “big government” or “forced investing,” which is politically toxic for both libertarians and populists.

Industry capture

U.S. retirement policy is heavily shaped by Wall Street, insurance companies, and large employers. They profit from a fragmented 401(k)/IRA system with high fees, and they lobby hard against a universal, low-cost, government-run savings system that would compete with them.

Social Security’s political entrenchment

Social Security is simple and popular, but it’s designed as a pay-as-you-go pension, not an investment vehicle. Politicians are afraid to tinker with it beyond incremental changes, so they bolt on private options instead of integrating them into one coherent system.

Tax-code patchwork

Retirement savings in the U.S. are mostly incentivized through tax breaks (401(k), IRA, Roth), which favor higher earners with spare cash to invest. This leaves low- and middle-income workers under-covered and creates huge gaps in retirement readiness.

Short-term political thinking

A shift to something like Australia’s system requires decades of consistent contributions before the benefits show. U.S. politics is built on two-year election cycles, so there’s little appetite for long-term structural change that doesn’t pay off quickly for voters.

Australia reformed in a crisis — the U.S. never did

Australia adopted superannuation in the early 1990s during a broader labor and pension overhaul. The U.S. never had a single pension crisis big enough to force Congress into comprehensive reform — just a slow erosion of pensions into 401(k)s.

If the U.S. wanted to copy Australia’s approach, it would need to:

Make retirement contributions mandatory for all workers.

Provide a low-fee, public option investment fund.

Reduce reliance on employer discretion.

Reform tax incentives to cover low-income workers equally.

But that runs into America’s deepest political fault lines: mistrust of government, power of the financial lobby, and unwillingness to force short-term sacrifices for long-term gain.

If you take a median earner in the U.S. starting at $60,000 a year and saving under the current system — about 6% from the worker and 3% from the employer, with typical 401(k)-level fees of 0.70% — they’d end their career at age 67 with roughly $397,000 in today’s dollars. That translates to about $15,900 a year in sustainable retirement income at a 4% withdrawal rate, before Social Security.

If that same worker were in an Australian-style superannuation system — a mandatory 12% contribution from day one, invested in a low-fee (0.20%) diversified fund — their balance at retirement would be closer to $585,000. That’s enough to generate about $23,400 a year, or 48% more income than the U.S. setup produces.

If the U.S. went even further, pushing contributions to 15% with the same low fees, that median earner would retire with about $734,000, supporting around $29,400 a year. That’s nearly double the income the current U.S. system delivers.

The pattern is the same across income levels. A low earner starting at $35,000 might go from $231,000 under the status quo (about $9,200 a year) to $340,000 under a superannuation setup ($13,600 a year). A high earner starting at $120,000 could move from $794,000 ($31,800 a year) to $1.17 million ($46,800 a year) with no extra effort — just the structural changes.

The bulk of the gain comes from two things: higher, mandatory contributions that don’t depend on whether a worker feels they can “afford” to save in a given year, and dramatically lower investment fees. Over decades, those two shifts make a bigger difference than almost any individual investment decision.

The Situation

The situation is always the boss. Personality, ideology, and even moral conviction matter less than the structural realities you face.

I see the world primarily in terms of structures in situations, not in terms of great men in moral dilemmas.

Jeffrey Hart wrote in his 2005 book, The Making of the American Conservative Mind: National Review and Its Times “Roosevelt was center-left, as his times required, Eisenhower and Reagan center-right, in response to different exigencies.”

All functioning states are hybrids — part democracy, part oligarchy, part socialism, part capitalism, part aristocracy, part dictatorship. The optimal mix changes as circumstances change.

Darwinian Politics

Politics is an evolutionary adaptation to survive and thrive under current pressures.

Left-leaning traits (openness, equality, tolerance) are adaptive in some situations; right-leaning traits (hierarchy, discipline, suspicion of outsiders) are adaptive in others.

In-group loyalty, suspicion of out-groups, and hierarchy are not moral failings — they are often the foundations of morality in real life.

Pragmatic Flexibility

What’s optimal in a famine may be disastrous in a boom. What’s necessary in war may be poisonous in peace.

No single political form is universally best — the mix should change with the threat environment, the economy, and the cohesion of the society.

Reality First

When reality and your ideals conflict, reality always wins. Adjust to it rather than rage against it.

Rights, laws, and norms are only as strong as the society enforcing them; they can vanish overnight in an emergency.

Social Ecology

A society’s stability comes from cohesion, trust, and connection — not just formal institutions.

Division and instability in your rivals help you; division and instability in your own society hurt you.

Diversity plus proximity often creates tension; unity often creates strength.

Status and Incentives

People act to preserve their survival, status, and in-group advantage more than they act for truth or universal morality.

Most “moral” arguments are really status plays or hero-system affirmations.

Personal Conduct as Political Philosophy

Follow the rules of whoever has the power to hurt you, even if you think the rules are stupid.

Strength comes from connection and trust, not from isolation.

Keep your expectations realistic, your behavior aligned with the norms of your group, and your survival strategy flexible.

Adaptive Regime Realism (operational)

Your north star: the situation is the boss; you keep a portfolio of regime tools and dial them up/down as conditions change. Flexibility is a feature, not a bug.

Core dials (set and reset by indicators)

Security centralization: distributed → coordinated → centralized command

State–market mix: laissez-faire → active industrial policy → war footing

Border permeability: open → selective → hardened

Speech/coordination rules: maximalist free speech → friction for virality → emergency limits on specific vectors

Surveillance/privacy: baseline warrants → targeted telemetry → time-boxed population-level monitoring

Punishment/leniency: harm-reduction → deterrence/visible enforcement → incapacitation

International posture: hedging → coalition leadership → bloc discipline

Democratic process: normal order → expedited process with oversight → temporary emergency powers with sunsets

Governance mechanics for flexibility

• Precommit to triggers, not vibes: define ex ante thresholds that move dials (e.g., hospital ICU occupancy, cyber intrusion dwell time, fentanyl deaths per 100k, grid downtime hours, port congestion index, disinfo virality rate).
• Sunset everything: 30/60/90-day clocks with auto-expiry unless re-justified with fresh data.
• Dual keys: any “dictatorship” dial requires sign-off by executive + independent technical authority, and creates audit logs.
• Red-team by design: rotating opposition seats on emergency boards; after-action reviews published by default.
• Local-first unless speed is decisive: centralize only what must be synchronized.

Now apply to 2025 flashpoints (and how the mix changes)

Immigration and border shocks

Threat spectrum: routine flows → cartel-driven surges → migration crisis after regional collapse.
Dials: Harden borders only at surge thresholds; preserve legal inflows that serve labor gaps. Stand up surge courts, rapid asylum triage, biometric E-Verify with serious employer penalties (deterrence without blanket closure). Use state contracting for humane, fast transport and case management; partner cities get block grants tied to throughput metrics. Relax when flows normalize.

Urban crime swings

Threat: property crime spikes, organized retail theft, carjackings; or a homicide wave.
Dials: Visible enforcement on repeat violent offenders; fund hot-spot policing with bodycams + real-time audit. Pair with drug/mental health diversion for nonviolent cases (harm reduction). If homicides cross set thresholds, temporarily widen detention criteria for gun felonies with rapid judicial review; sunset at the threshold minus two months of stability.

Fentanyl and synthetic drugs

Threat: accidental mass poisoning, rising overdose deaths.
Dials: Border inspections and precursor controls (international pressure on suppliers) plus state-run treatment-on-demand (socialism where markets fail). Decriminalize possession below tiny amounts paired with mandatory treatment offers; felony targeting of trafficking networks. If deaths > X/100k for Y months, activate medically supervised consumption sites and distribute test strips/naloxone at scale; ratchet down when deaths fall.

AI-driven disinformation and platform virality

Threat: coordinated info ops degrading elections or crisis response.
Dials: Keep speech free; add friction to virality. Mandate provenance/watermarks for synthetic media; “circuit breakers” that slow mass-forwarding of flagged content during emergencies (minutes/hours, not days). Independent election information hubs with API access for newsrooms. Sunset any elevated moderation rule 30 days post-event; publish impact reports.

Critical infrastructure cyberattack

Threat: grid, hospitals, ports offline.
Dials: Rapid centralization of incident response (CISA/NSA-led), compulsory reporting within hours, temporary liability shields for good-faith disclosure. Move to “war-footing” procurement for patches/hardware; require MFA/zero-trust across critical sectors with subsidies for small operators (state-market blend). Roll back mandates after 180 days of no high-severity incidents.

Supply chain shocks/inflation

Threat: shipping snarls, key inputs scarce, price spikes.
Dials: Strategic stockpiles for essentials (generics, chips, transformers), surge port automation, fast-track visas for logistics workers. Temporary anti-gouging on narrowly defined essentials with automatic expiry; targeted cash relief rather than broad price controls. Industrial policy for chokepoints (transformers, rare earths), sunset once domestic capacity hits pre-set percent of demand.

Great-power crisis (e.g., Taiwan, Persian Gulf closure)

Threat: shipping lanes threatened, escalation risks.
Dials: Coalition-building first; share ISR and munitions production; invoke maritime convoy operations if needed. Domestic economy to tiered mobilization (priority rail/port slots, fuel allocation). Tighten export controls on dual-use tech. Maintain normal civil liberties; if kinetic conflict erupts, deploy limited emergency powers with strict scope (ports, energy) and 60-day sunsets.

Climate/mega-disasters

Threat: multi-state wildfire/smoke events, hurricane clusters, heat grid stress.
Dials: Federalize logistics during peak season, preposition mobile microgrids; insurance backstop + risk-based building codes (no moral hazard). Temporary relocation stipends tied to county hazard maps. Relax when fire/heat metrics drop below thresholds for two seasons.

The big test: a virus ~100x deadlier than COVID

Assume: airborne, high R0, high infection fatality rate; imperfect but helpful masks; vaccines possible but months away; rapid tests exist.

Immediate (first 30–60 days)

• Security centralization: snap to centralized command for public health logistics (federal-state joint task force).
• Borders: harden quickly—test/quarantine on arrival, targeted flight pauses from hotspots; freight continues with sealed-chain protocols.
• Speech/coordination: keep speech free but throttle virality for demonstrably false medical claims during the acute phase; stand up a real-time “green/yellow/red” public guidance dashboard run by a cross-partisan technical board.
• Surveillance/privacy: temporary, opt-out exposure telemetry using privacy-preserving techniques; legal sunset at 90 days unless renewed with supermajority.
• State–market mix: emergency procurement; compel production of PPE/ventilation (Defense Production Act) with guaranteed buyback; rapid grants for antivirals and vaccine platforms.

Medium phase (months 2–9)

• Schools/work: flex by local ICU occupancy and wastewater signals. Mandate ventilation standards (CO2 targets), fund upgrades; masks for high-risk indoor contexts until R < 1 for 6 weeks.

• Targeted shielding: protect elders/immunocompromised with stipend-supported delivery, “green zones,” and priority antivirals; let low-risk sectors operate with ventilation + testing.

• Economic backstop: wage support for quarantines; time-limited eviction/foreclosure pauses paired with landlord backstops; automatic expiry when hospital load drops below trigger.

• Democratic process: elections proceed with universal mail/early voting and chain-of-custody audits; emergency powers limited to public-health logistics and expire in 90-day tranches.

Exit and memory

• Sunsets bite by default; publish an after-action with data, costs, and civil liberties impacts.

• Stockpile and keep ventilation standards permanent (cheap, non-intrusive gains).

• Return surveillance to baseline; keep only anonymized aggregates for research.

How to sell flexibility to Americans (without sounding slippery)

• Promise predictability through triggers: “When ICU occupancy hits 70% for 7 days, we do X. When it’s <30% for 14 days, we unwind Y.”

• Show your work: weekly dashboards with the exact metrics moving the dials.

• Pair every restriction with a support: if you ask people to stay home, you pay them quickly.

• Build cross-partisan stewards: emergency boards including governors, union reps, small biz, and opposition party leaders; rotate chairs.

What to watch to move the dials (sample triggers)

• Health: R-effective; ICU occupancy; excess mortality; wastewater viral load.

• Security: mean dwell time of intrusions; % of hospitals on manual operations.

• Economy: port dwell time; on-shelf availability; CPI sans food/energy vs wages.

• Crime: homicide rate per 100k; clearance rates; repeat violent offender share.

• Drugs: overdose deaths per 100k; naloxone deployments; market purity.

• Info integrity: cross-platform virality of verified fakes; election admin disruptions.

Bottom line

You treat America like a living system: tighten where fragility is rising, loosen when resilience returns. You don’t worship any single institution; you keep a calibrated mix, move it with public triggers, publish the receipts, and sunset the power. That’s Adaptive Regime Realism done right.

Posted in Politics | Comments Off on My Political Philosophy – Adaptive Regime Realism

Individualism Is Not A Right-Wing Value

I came to California from Australia in 1977 and I heard for years from the biggest names in conservatism such as William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan and Dennis Prager that individualism was the right-wing value.

It’s not.

In the new William F. Buckley biography, he’s repeatedly described as an individualist, which goes against most right-wing hero systems.

One National Review editor remarked that it was a good thing that the Community Manifesto was badly written or Buckley would have been a communist.

Buckley sounds like a lot of fun. He was many things including a good friend, a generous benefactor, a poser, a reality show star, and an influencer. He was not, however, particularly right-wing.

Grok notes: “Classical liberalism can seem left-wing today because it emphasizes individual liberty, free markets, and limited government, which align with some modern left-leaning values like personal freedom and social equality. Historically, it emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries as a radical challenge to monarchies and rigid hierarchies, advocating for rights like free speech, religious tolerance, and economic freedom—ideas that were revolutionary and “progressive” for their time.”

From the 2024 book Predisposed: The Left, The Right, and the Biology of Political Differences:

The left tend to place their emphasis on the foundations relating to the unjust treatment of individuals (harm and fairness) while conservatives are likely to rely more heavily on concerns for loyalty, authority, and purity. In other words, when it comes to deciding the morally correct course of action, the left is particularly sensitive to the way in which an individual is being treated, but the right is more likely to factor in group considerations.

A person on the political left likely sees a moral wrong when another person is being, say, socially ostracized. A person on the right is more likely to base moral judgments on communal considerations. Is that guy being ostracized because he is not one of us? Because he was disloyal? Because he broke the rules or thumbed his nose at the accepted way of doing things? Because he did something that everyone else finds disgusting?

When I read Jeffrey Hart’s 2005 book, The Making of the American Conservative Mind: National Review and Its Times (2005), it seems like National Review featured many individualists. That’s all well and good, it’s just the anti-thesis of right-wing. I must sound like a poor man’s Paul Gottfried.

accused Meyer of isolating freedom from all other human goods, of idolizing it, of advocating a condition in which no human being could possibly exist. But Kirk did not give Meyer credit for attempting—with some success—to set forth a practical, if in political theory not entirely successful, platform on which existing libertarians and traditionalists could work together. Oddly, Meyer and Kirk actually had some things in common. Both were eccentric, bookish conservatives, enormously isolated in their personal lives, and colorful personalities with large followings. Kirk’s Man is the Man of the Church, the university, the library, the community, Aristotle’s Man of the Polis. Meyer’s Man is Man against the Sky, creating himself in perpetual acts of choosing. Both of these conceptions were rooted in the lived experience of these two colorful men. In that sense, both were “existentialists”—though Kirk would have loathed that neologism. Jaspers used it in the precise sense of “philosophizing from one’s own situation.” All three men spoke from within the drama of the twentieth century, a period of radical ideologies and revolutions, when the moon had fallen from the skies and all the signs had been removed. Luther had said, “A mighty fortress is our God.” Kirk might say, “A mighty fortress is my library.” Meyer might reply, “A mighty fortress is my mind and my conscience.”
If, as Matthew Arnold said, the Protestant principle is individual choice, then both Kirk and Meyer were Protestants—though, as it happened, both eventually chose the Catholic Church…
But upon just what basis can Meyer possibly announce that, “I assert the right of individual freedom not on the grounds of utility but on the grounds of the very nature of man”?…
Meyer’s emphasis on freedom and the individual mind…
Russell Kirk was a fantastic individualist…

This is lovely, I guess, but it is not right-wing.
ChatGPT says:

Buckley’s “individualism” really does put him at odds with the core moral instincts of the traditional right.

The postwar conservative coalition in America sold itself as defending individual liberty, but for many in the movement that was rhetorical cover for defending a specific social order rooted in loyalty, hierarchy, and cultural homogeneity. Buckley’s gift was taking that social-order conservatism and wrapping it in libertarian-sounding language palatable to educated elites.

If you go by Predisposed’s breakdown, actual right-wing moral reasoning isn’t “every man for himself” — it’s “every man in his place, in service of the group.” Buckley liked to style himself as a free-spirited, independent-minded contrarian, but that’s not how deeply right-coded personalities tend to operate. It’s probably why some people in his orbit saw him as slippery or even suspect — the Community Manifesto anecdote fits perfectly.

It also explains why you picked up, coming from Australia, that “individualism” was supposed to be a right-wing value. The U.S. right markets itself that way because “individual freedom” polls better than “group conformity,” but in practice, loyalty, hierarchy, and purity are the bedrock. Buckley was a salesman who knew how to rebrand the product.

Most right-wing hero systems see morality, meaning and purpose in life as existing objectively outside of you and your duty is to do your duty to these external laws. It’s the Enlightenment with its veneration of rights and individual autonomy that gave birth to the moderns who believe they decide meaning and morality inside their own heads. Trads recognize meaning and morality as standards outside of them to which they owe a duty.

In traditional right-wing worldviews (religious, monarchist, nationalist), the self isn’t the source of moral truth — it’s a vessel for it. Meaning comes from God, tradition, natural law, or the nation, and your role is to align yourself with those external standards. Autonomy is only good insofar as it helps you fulfill those duties.

The Enlightenment flips that: it makes the individual the locus of authority. Rights aren’t granted by God or the king — they’re inherent in you. Morality becomes something reasoned out (or felt) within your own mind. That’s the DNA of modern liberalism, and it’s why “individualism” sits awkwardly inside genuinely traditional systems.

Buckley could talk the trad talk when it suited him, but the very fact that he marketed himself as an “individualist” puts him closer to the Enlightenment-liberal mode — the self as meaning-maker — than to the communal, duty-bound morality most right-wing hero systems actually revere.

Harold Bloom described libertarianism as a right-wing version of the left.

Early 1900s – Communal & Duty-Oriented Frameworks Still Dominant

Politics across the West (left and right) was steeped in collective identity — nation, class, religion.

Rights existed, but were often framed in the context of duties: you had the right to vote, but the duty to serve in war; the right to own property, but the duty to contribute to community stability.

The left stressed collective economic obligations (labor solidarity, redistribution); the right stressed national, religious, and moral obligations.

Post–WWII (1945–1960s) – Rights Language Expands but Still Anchored to Groups

Liberal democracies leaned into human rights rhetoric after the war, but in practice these were balanced with strong social obligations: military service, high taxes for reconstruction, community conformity.

Social conservatism was still culturally powerful — individuals were expected to fit into predefined roles (family, church, workplace).

Civil rights movements began reframing obligations as oppressive and pushing rights as inherent to the person, not contingent on group membership.

1960s–1970s – The High Tide of Individualism

Counterculture, sexual revolution, feminism, and civil rights movements made personal autonomy the centerpiece of moral legitimacy.

“Do your own thing” and “self-actualization” became mainstream goals; moral authority shifted from tradition to personal authenticity.

Left-wing politics increasingly tied justice to individual self-expression, while libertarian economics on the right embraced deregulation and personal responsibility rhetoric.

1980s–1990s – Neoliberal Fusion

Thatcher, Reagan, and the “Third Way” center-left (Clinton, Blair) fused market individualism with limited social obligation.

Rights language was near-universal, but obligations were reframed as voluntary (charity, personal choice) rather than imposed by the state or tradition.

Community and duty rhetoric still existed on the right, but increasingly as cultural nostalgia, not lived economic practice.

2000s–2010s – Hyper-Individualism Meets Identity Politics

Consumer culture and digital life amplified the idea that the individual defines their own meaning, brand, and truth.

The left doubled down on individual identity rights (gender, sexuality, lifestyle autonomy) while also reviving some group-oriented claims (intersectionality, structural oppression).

The right oscillated between libertarian individualism (free markets, minimal state) and a growing post-liberal faction calling for a return to strong communal obligations (religion, nationalism).

Late 2010s–2020s – The Recoil Toward Obligations

Across the spectrum, disillusionment with atomized individualism is growing.

Populist right movements call for reasserting national and religious duties over personal freedoms.

Progressive politics increasingly frames individual rights in terms of collective responsibility (climate change, public health, anti-racism).

The core fight now is whether obligations are chosen by the individual (liberal view) or imposed by an external moral order (post-liberal/traditional view).

If you strip it down:

1900–1960s: Obligation first, rights as conditional.

1960s–2000s: Rights first, obligations as optional.

2010s–present: Struggle over how to reintegrate obligations without abandoning rights.

Nationalism’s power comes precisely from subordinating the self to something larger and emotionally resonant. It gives you:

Belonging – You’re part of a “we” that stretches beyond family or town, into something vast and historic.

Meaning – Your life matters because you’re linked to a mission, heritage, and destiny that outlive you.

Moral clarity – Loyalty to the nation becomes a yardstick for right and wrong.

Energy – Sacrifice feels noble, not burdensome, when it’s for “your people.”

That’s why nationalism can mobilize resources and willpower far beyond what pure individualism can. You’ll rarely see a purely individualist movement sustaining mass enthusiasm — people burn out when it’s just about personal gain. The most dynamic politics in modern history — nationalist independence movements, wartime mobilizations, even mass protest uprisings — all tapped into communal bonds.

It’s also why post–WWII Western elites tried to channel nationalism into civic rather than ethnic forms, and why post-1960s hyper-individualism has had trouble generating the same raw, cohesive political force. Without a shared “we,” the energy disperses.

MAGA

Runs on nationalist energy: “America First,” a sense of shared grievance, loyalty tests, and the belief that outsiders (immigrants, elites, globalists) threaten “our people.”

Moral frame is communal — what’s good for us matters more than abstract universal principles.

The rallies feel like revival meetings, not policy seminars.

Bernie/Mamdani-style left

Runs on solidarity energy: “We’re all in this together,” anti-elite populism, and moral outrage at exploitation.

Strong “we” language — workers, tenants, marginalized groups — and a clear moral line between the deserving community and the corrupt elite.

The excitement comes from the feeling of mass movement, not from everyone minding their own business.

Both mobilize by making the individual feel fused into something larger and morally charged. That’s the opposite of atomized “do your own thing” politics — it’s “join the fight, stand with your people.”

Here’s the through-line: the most energized U.S. political movements have all been about fusing individuals into a shared moral “we,” not celebrating isolated autonomy.

Populist Wave of the 1890s – Farmers’ alliances and labor coalitions railing against railroads and banks. Energy came from shared economic struggle, barnstorming rallies, and the conviction that we (ordinary people) were being crushed by them (moneyed elites).

Progressive Era (1900–1920) – Reformers pushing anti-trust laws, women’s suffrage, and labor rights. Fired up by civic duty, public morality, and the belief that corruption threatened the whole community.

New Deal Coalition (1930s–40s) – Roosevelt framed economic recovery as a collective mission. WPA projects, unions, and wartime mobilization made sacrifice feel meaningful because it was for our recovery and our victory.

Civil Rights Movement (1950s–60s) – Church-centered organizing, shared songs, shared suffering. The energy came from solidarity against injustice, not individual grievance alone.

Vietnam War Protest Movement (1960s–70s) – Massive marches and campus occupations worked because participants felt part of a moral uprising to save our country from moral and strategic disaster.

Reagan Revolution (1980s) – Market rhetoric was individualist, but the emotional charge came from patriotism, religious revivalism, and Cold War unity against the Soviet “evil empire.”

Tea Party (2009–2014) – Branded as libertarian, but mobilization relied on shared anger at Washington elites, perceived cultural decline, and a “real America” identity.

MAGA (2015–present) – Pure nationalist-populist fervor: loyalty to leader, protection of our people, fight against corrupt outsiders.

Bernie/Mamdani Left (2016–present) – Economic justice as collective liberation, anti-corporate populism, and movement identity that fuses policy goals with moral belonging.

Pattern: individualism sells in slogans (“freedom,” “liberty”), but the engine of mass political energy is always group identity plus a moral mission.

The emotional formula for energized politics — shared identity + moral mission + clear enemy/opponent + rituals/belonging — works exactly the same in America’s most vibrant religious movements.

Great Awakenings (18th–19th centuries)

Identity: Born-again believers, distinct from nominal Christians.

Mission: Save souls, reform the moral fabric of the nation.

Opponent: Sin, worldliness, and religious apathy.

Rituals/belonging: Camp meetings, revivals, itinerant preachers. The gatherings weren’t just about doctrine — they were immersive communal experiences.

Early Mormonism (1830s–1840s)

Identity: God’s restored church, a literal new Israel.

Mission: Build Zion on earth and prepare for Christ’s return.

Opponent: Persecution from “the world” and corrupt Christianity.

Rituals/belonging: Tight-knit settlements, unique scripture, temple rites, shared migrations. The faith was inseparable from the community’s survival.

Social Gospel & Black Church Activism (late 19th–20th centuries)

Identity: Christians called to justice and liberation.

Mission: Transform society to reflect God’s kingdom — civil rights, labor reforms, abolition of poverty.

Opponent: Structural sin — racism, economic exploitation.

Rituals/belonging: Worship infused with political urgency, communal organizing, collective fasting/prayer.

Pentecostal & Charismatic Movements (20th century–present)

Identity: Spirit-filled believers with supernatural empowerment.

Mission: Evangelize the world through miraculous signs.

Opponent: Spiritual deadness, Satan, unbelief.

Rituals/belonging: Laying on of hands, speaking in tongues, exuberant worship that bonds people emotionally.

Religious Right / Moral Majority (1970s–90s)

Identity: Bible-believing Americans defending the nation’s moral core.

Mission: Restore “Christian values” to politics and public life.

Opponent: Secular humanism, liberal elites, cultural permissiveness.

Rituals/belonging: Political rallies as revivals, Christian schools, shared media ecosystem.

Contemporary Evangelical Mega-Churches & Movements

Identity: A loving, thriving faith community that’s “countercultural” but modern.

Mission: Bring people into relationship with Jesus.

Opponent: Loneliness, hopelessness, moral relativism.

Rituals/belonging: Small groups, praise bands, high-production services that feel like communal events.

Pattern: Whether religious or political, the most energized movements…

Tell you who you are (chosen, redeemed, part of God’s army).

Give you a mission that matters beyond yourself.

Name an opponent that threatens the mission.

Bind you into a living community through shared rituals and symbols.

This is why purely “personal spirituality” movements almost never achieve the same cultural force as highly communal ones — same as with politics.

Here’s how secular U.S. political movements consciously borrow the religious-mobilization formula — sometimes right down to the liturgy:

1. Identity: “We are the elect.”

Religious version: Chosen by God, part of the true church.

Political copy: “We are the real Americans” (MAGA), “We are the 99%” (Occupy), “We are the resistance” (anti-Trump left).

Creates a moral in-group that feels distinct and elevated.

2. Mission: “We have a divine (or historic) calling.”

Religious version: Spread the gospel, prepare for Christ’s return.

Political copy: Save the nation from tyranny, end capitalism, halt climate change, achieve racial justice.

Mission is framed as urgent, transcendent, and worth personal sacrifice.

3. Opponent: “We wrestle not only with flesh and blood…”

Religious version: Satan, sin, false teachers.

Political copy: The Deep State, the billionaire class, systemic racism, Big Oil.

An enemy both personalizes the struggle and makes unity feel necessary.

4. Rituals & Symbols: “We gather, we speak the same language.”

Religious version: Worship services, hymns, communion, pilgrimages.

Political copy: Rallies, marches, slogans, chants, branded merch, hashtags. (MAGA hats = modern church vestments.)

Creates emotional reinforcement and group cohesion.

5. Testimony: “I was blind but now I see.”

Religious version: Conversion story.

Political copy: “I used to be apolitical/conservative/liberal until I realized…”

Personal transformation narratives inspire and recruit.

6. Sacred Texts and Authorities:

Religious version: Bible, Qur’an, Pope, pastor.

Political copy: Movement manifestos, key books, celebrity leaders (Bernie speeches, Trump tweets, AOC livestreams).

Keeps message standardized and authoritative.

Examples:

MAGA rallies mimic revival meetings — leader at the pulpit, audience call-and-response, shared enemy, public professions of loyalty.

Bernie rallies mimic social gospel crusades — moral rhetoric, folk music as hymns, testimonies of struggle, altar call to join the movement.

Climate marches use liturgical chants, symbolic colors (green), sacred texts (IPCC reports), and annual “high holy days” (Earth Day).

Secular leaders borrow this formula because it plugs directly into human tribal wiring — the need for belonging, mission, and moral clarity. It’s why the most effective movements feel like a faith, even if they preach no god.

Movements that reject the religious-style formula almost always fizzle, because they ignore the emotional architecture that sustains commitment.

Why Pure Rationalism Flops

Appeals to logic and data don’t create identity, belonging, or moral urgency.

People might agree with the arguments but won’t rearrange their lives to serve them.

Example: The “facts-first” anti-Trump center (2016–2020) — lots of charts and op-eds, no deep communal culture, very little lasting mobilization.

Why Hyper-Individualism Flops

If your core message is “think for yourself” or “live your truth,” you’ve made it harder to form a coherent “we.”

Without rituals, symbols, and a shared mission, people drift in and out.

Example: 1990s-style libertarianism — potent in theory, tiny in organized reach.

Case Studies of Flameouts

The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW)

Message: “We’re just individuals thinking freely.”

Result: No shared mission beyond “don’t cancel us.” Members split, audience fragmented.

Occupy Wall Street

Strong identity (“99%”) and opponent (big banks) but no central mission or hierarchy to bind the group long-term. Without a “sacred text” or institutional form, energy evaporated.

Andrew Yang’s Forward Party

Framed as post-partisan rational reform.

No deep mythos, no moral urgency, no rituals — and thus, no real movement culture.

2010s New Atheism

Strong opponent (religion) but identity was negative and offered no enduring communal mission. Many drifted into culture war sub-factions or dropped activism entirely.

Core Lesson:
Movements survive when they:

Give people a moral home.

Tell them what they’re fighting for.

Tell them who they’re fighting against.

Bind them in repeated, shared experience.

Drop any one of those, and you get a brief flare-up instead of a lasting force.

Here’s the emotional formula that fuels every high-energy political or religious movement in America — left, right, or otherwise.

1. Identity – “This is who we are.”

You’re not just a supporter, you’re part of the group — the chosen, the righteous, the real Americans, the true believers, the 99%.

Identity is thick, not thin — it shapes how you dress, talk, spend time, and who you trust.

Example: MAGA’s “real America,” Bernie’s “working class,” Civil Rights “freedom fighters.”

2. Mission – “We have a destiny.”

There’s a clear, noble goal bigger than any one person: save the country, defeat racism, protect the planet, bring revival.

The mission is framed in urgent, moral terms — delay equals disaster.

Example: The Green New Deal (“10 years to save the Earth”), 1980s Religious Right (“return America to God”).

3. Opponent – “They threaten everything we stand for.”

There’s always a villain (or class of villains) — outsiders, corrupt elites, infidels, racists, billionaires, globalists.

The opponent is painted as powerful but beatable if the group acts together.

Example: Tea Party vs. “big government,” Bernie vs. “the billionaire class,” Civil Rights vs. Jim Crow system.

4. Rituals & Symbols – “We gather, we affirm, we belong.”

Regular events, chants, slogans, songs, hashtags, merch. These act like religious liturgy — reinforcing unity and belief.

Example: MAGA hats, “Yes We Can” chants, “I Can’t Breathe” shirts, church altar calls, climate marches.

5. Testimony – “I was lost, now I’m found.”

Personal transformation stories make the mission tangible and contagious.

Example: Former Democrat turned MAGA diehard; ex-Wall Street worker turned socialist organizer; recovering addict turned evangelist.

6. Sacred Texts & Authorities – “Here’s our doctrine.”

Founding speeches, manifestos, scripture, key books or videos everyone in the movement knows.

Example: The Federalist Papers for constitutionalists, Bernie’s stump speech for the left, the Bible for evangelical movements, the IPCC report for climate activists.

7. Persecution Narrative – “They’re trying to silence us.”

Unites the group, deepens loyalty, and frames opposition as proof of righteousness.

Example: Evangelicals in the culture wars, Occupy protesters arrested, MAGA media banned from platforms.

Why It Works:

Taps into core human wiring: belonging, meaning, moral clarity, and a sense of cosmic struggle.

Keeps members emotionally invested even when tangible wins are slow.

Creates resilience — people stay because leaving means losing identity, community, and purpose all at once.

Here’s how Buckley used the same emotional-movement formula — not to lead a mass uprising, but to keep himself the indispensable face of American conservatism for half a century.

1. Identity – “I am Mr. Conservative.”

Buckley positioned himself as the embodiment of the emerging postwar right: urbane, Catholic, anti-communist, witty.

Made conservatism feel like a club worth joining — exclusive yet aspirational.

Even those who disagreed with him on substance had to acknowledge him as the guy who represented the movement in public.

2. Mission – “We will save Western civilization from communism and decay.”

Framed conservatism as a noble cause: defending freedom, order, and tradition from left-wing chaos.

Mission was broad enough to let him pivot — from anti-communism to culture war to market economics — without losing the aura of purpose.

3. Opponent – “They are dangerous and unserious.”

His “they” shifted over time: communists in the ‘50s/‘60s, campus radicals in the ‘70s, squishy moderates and the New Left in later decades.

By naming villains, he gave the right a shared enemy — and made himself the leading gladiator in that fight.

4. Rituals & Symbols – “The NR clubhouse.”

National Review acted like a movement clubhouse — recurring columns, inside jokes, ideological shibboleths.

Firing Line became a ritual performance: Buckley as high priest of debate, skewering heretics and blessing allies.

5. Testimony – “I was born to this.”

His personal story — wealthy Catholic upbringing, Yale, CIA stint — reinforced the idea that he was bred for leadership and intellectual combat.

Presented himself as someone who could spar with elites and still speak to “the base” (though that base was often imagined).

6. Sacred Texts & Authorities – “Read the canon.”

Promoted a conservative intellectual canon — God and Man at Yale, Whittaker Chambers, Frank Meyer — with himself as gatekeeper.

Used the NR editorial board like a theological council to declare what was and wasn’t true conservatism.

7. Persecution Narrative – “They mock me because I speak truth.”

Thrived on being dismissed by the liberal establishment — made it proof that he was effective.

Relished confrontations on Firing Line that ended with him looking composed and opponents looking flustered.

The twist:

Buckley didn’t really mobilize masses the way a preacher or populist would — his “movement” was mostly an elite network. But he still used the emotional architecture of mass movements to create a durable personal brand and keep himself central to the right’s self-image.

That’s why, even when his ideological positions shifted (on civil rights, on some foreign policy issues), the role he played stayed constant: the stylish, unflappable standard-bearer.

Here’s how the emotional-movement formula plays out for Nick Fuentes, Jordan Peterson, Rush Limbaugh, and Howard Stern — each working different ideological terrain but using the same architecture Buckley relied on.

Nick Fuentes – The Dissident Youth Leader

Identity: Young, edgy, “America First” Catholic nationalist — makes his followers feel like part of an insurgent vanguard.

Mission: Save America from demographic change, globalism, and moral decay.

Opponent: “The regime” — establishment Republicans, the left, Jews, feminists.

Rituals/Symbols: Livestream “groyper” culture, inside memes, loyalty signals (flag emoji, frog memes).

Testimony: Tells stories about being banned, censored, deplatformed — proof of authenticity.

Sacred Texts/Authorities: The Bible, Pat Buchanan, select Catholic traditionalists.

Persecution Narrative: Lives off it — banning fuels his mystique.

Difference from Buckley: Fuentes is movement-first, not institution-first. He thrives on being outside the establishment rather than gatekeeping it.

Jordan Peterson – The Self-Help Prophet

Identity: Intellectual father figure — the man who “helps young men find meaning.”

Mission: Encourage responsibility, defend Western civilization against chaos and postmodernism.

Opponent: Radical feminists, “cultural Marxists,” gender ideologues.

Rituals/Symbols: “Clean your room,” lobster memes, sold-out lecture tours.

Testimony: Repeats his own story of professional exile after refusing gender pronoun mandates.

Sacred Texts/Authorities: The Bible (as literature), Carl Jung, Solzhenitsyn.

Persecution Narrative: Career nearly ruined by the woke mob — personal proof of the dangers he warns about.

Difference from Buckley: Peterson packages philosophy + self-help rather than partisan politics, but he still sells a communal identity to alienated young men.

Rush Limbaugh – The Voice in Your Car

Identity: Conservative everyman and truth-teller — listeners felt like part of the “dittohead” family.

Mission: Expose liberal lies, defend “real America.”

Opponent: The mainstream media, Democrats, RINOs.

Rituals/Symbols: Opening theme, recurring comedy bits, catchphrases.

Testimony: His rise from a small-town DJ to the king of talk radio — proof that conservative media could beat liberal media.

Sacred Texts/Authorities: Reagan speeches, Constitution-as-sacred-document.

Persecution Narrative: Attacks from the left only validated him in listeners’ eyes.

Difference from Buckley: Rush was a populist broadcaster, not an elite debater — his bond was with millions of ordinary listeners, not the movement’s intellectual class.

Howard Stern – The Shock-Jock Congregation

Identity: Rebellious truth-teller for people tired of polite, censored media.

Mission: Smash hypocrisy, celebrate honesty, make radio fun again.

Opponent: FCC, “PC” culture, sanitized corporate media.

Rituals/Symbols: Regular bits, outrageous stunts, recurring cast of misfits.

Testimony: His battles with the FCC became mythic — “they tried to silence me.”

Sacred Texts/Authorities: His books, his long-running radio show archive.

Persecution Narrative: Turned every fine and ban into proof that he was a champion of free expression.

Difference from Buckley: Stern’s “movement” wasn’t ideological — it was cultural rebellion. But he built the same deep loyalty through shared language, rituals, and enemies.

Takeaway:

Buckley cultivated elite intellectual loyalty.

Fuentes cultivates outlaw nationalist loyalty.

Peterson cultivates philosophical self-help loyalty.

Limbaugh cultivated populist partisan loyalty.

Stern cultivated countercultural, anti-authority loyalty.

Different demographics, different aesthetics — but the identity + mission + opponent + rituals + testimony + sacred text + persecution structure is identical.

Here’s Richard Spencer run through the same emotional-movement formula:

Richard Spencer – The Alt-Right Aristocrat

Identity: Educated, polished “identitarian” — frames himself and his followers as the intellectual elite of white nationalism.

Mission: Create a white ethnostate and preserve “European” heritage in America.

Opponent: Multiculturalism, immigration, “the establishment right” (which he calls “cuckservatives”), and “the globalist left.”

Rituals/Symbols: “Hail Trump” salute, conferences, Greek/Roman imagery, suits-and-ties aesthetic to rebrand white nationalism as respectable.

Testimony: Casts himself as the man who brought “white identity” into public debate — claims credit for the term “alt-right.”

Sacred Texts/Authorities: European New Right thinkers (Alain de Benoist), Sam Francis, racialist authors from the 20th century.

Persecution Narrative: Charlottesville fallout, social media bans, loss of platforms — presented as proof that the “system” fears the truth.

Difference from Buckley:

Buckley used respectability to mainstream his movement; Spencer used respectability to launder a fringe ideology for public consumption.

Buckley played within the gates of power; Spencer postures as an exile but craves elite legitimacy.

Trump uses the same emotional-movement levers for both sides — the trick is, his style triggers identity, mission, opponent, and persecution narratives so strongly that it mobilizes everyone, for and against him.

For Supporters

Identity: “We are the real America” — patriotic, forgotten, disrespected by elites.

Mission: “Make America Great Again” — restore a lost golden age.

Opponent: The “deep state,” fake news media, globalists, Democrats, RINOs.

Rituals/Symbols: MAGA hats, chants (“Lock her up!”), rallies as communal worship.

Testimony: Stories of personal hardship under the system — finding hope and dignity through Trump’s movement.

Sacred Texts/Authorities: Trump speeches, Truth Social posts, friendly media.

Persecution Narrative: Every indictment, impeachment, and media hit piece is framed as proof that he’s fighting for them and the system fears him.

For Enemies

Identity: “We are the defenders of democracy” — educated, moral, cosmopolitan.

Mission: Stop Trump to protect American institutions and prevent authoritarianism.

Opponent: Trump himself, MAGA movement, GOP enablers.

Rituals/Symbols: Protest marches, late-night monologues, social media campaigns, “Vote Blue No Matter Who” merch.

Testimony: Personal fears (“I never thought democracy could fall here”), stories of activism spurred by Trump’s election.

Sacred Texts/Authorities: January 6 Committee report, critical journalism, democracy-defending books.

Persecution Narrative: Threats to journalists, harassment of activists, “our freedoms are under attack” framing.

Why He Energizes Both Sides

Trump’s behavior is constant political theater — high drama, personal combat, breaking taboos — which keeps everyone emotionally engaged.

He embodies his supporters’ self-image as fighters against a corrupt order, and his enemies’ self-image as guardians against moral and political collapse.

The stakes always feel existential, which is rocket fuel for motivation.

He’s essentially a perpetual motion machine for political mobilization — his style makes neutral ground feel impossible.

If you strip away the ideology and the politics, the lesson from all these energized movements is that energy comes from connection, mission, and meaning — not from just “trying harder” alone.

Here’s what an ordinary guy can take from it:

1. Join a tribe.

Pick a group where you feel we — could be a sports team’s fan club, a church, a hobbyist group, a volunteer org, a martial arts dojo.

Regular contact with people who share your values and interests gives you energy you can’t get solo.

2. Have a mission.

Even a small, personal one: training for a race, learning a skill, mentoring a kid.

It has to matter beyond your own comfort — that’s where the emotional fuel comes from.

3. Define an opponent.

Doesn’t have to be a political enemy — it could be your own laziness, a bad habit, a skill gap, an environmental problem in your town.

We get energy when we have something to push against.

4. Create rituals.

Morning workouts, weekly meetups, journaling, Sunday dinners — repeated actions anchor your identity and build momentum.

In movements, rallies and chants work; in personal life, your rituals can be quieter but just as binding.

5. Tell your story.

Frame your struggles and progress as part of a bigger arc: “I used to be X, now I’m becoming Y.”

Sharing it with others creates accountability and inspires you to keep going.

6. Tap the persecution effect.

When you hit resistance or people doubt you, use it as proof you’re on the right track. Movements thrive on “they don’t want us to succeed.”

7. Protect your energy sources.

Every movement has its sacred space — protect yours. Time with good people, focus on your mission, limit exposure to energy-draining environments.

If you build even a small-scale version of the movement formula in your own life, you get the same human benefits: belonging, purpose, emotional fuel, resilience.

Here’s a personal energy blueprint using the movement formula — zero politics, just daily life application.

1. Identity – “This is who I am.”

Choose a role you want to live into: athlete, artist, craftsman, teacher, protector, builder.

Say it out loud, write it down, put reminders where you see them. Movements give people a name for themselves — give yourself one.

Example: “I’m a strong, disciplined man who takes care of my people.”

2. Mission – “This is what I’m doing.”

Pick one concrete goal that matters beyond comfort or ego.

Example: Run a half-marathon to raise money for a friend’s medical bills; learn carpentry to help with community builds; mentor 3 teenagers in your neighborhood.

3. Opponent – “This is what I’m fighting.”

Could be a bad habit (junk food, procrastination), a skill gap, or a life obstacle.

Name it. Give it a face. Movements energize people by defining what they stand against.

Example: “I’m fighting my own complacency.”

4. Rituals & Symbols – “This is how I show up.”

Daily or weekly habits that mark your commitment.

Example: Morning cold shower + workout; Saturday hike with friends; Sunday call to family.

Use symbols too — a notebook, a uniform for workouts, a necklace, even a coffee mug — anything that cues the mindset.

5. Testimony – “This is my story.”

Track your journey: write down where you started, your struggles, your wins.

Share it with trusted people — hearing yourself tell the story reinforces it.

Example: “Last year I was 30 pounds heavier, now I’m competing in my first triathlon.”

6. Sacred Texts & Authorities – “This is what I learn from.”

Pick 2–3 sources of wisdom and keep them close: books, podcasts, mentors, training manuals.

Go deep on them instead of constantly chasing novelty.

Example: Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations, a fitness coach’s program, your grandfather’s advice.

7. Persecution Narrative – “Resistance proves I’m on track.”

Expect pushback: fatigue, bad days, doubters.

Reframe them as proof that you’re pushing past limits — like movements treat opposition as validation.

Example: “Every time my friends roll their eyes at my training schedule, I know I’m breaking the old pattern.”

If you weave those seven into your week, you’ll find your energy rising the same way people in a cause get fired up — because your brain and emotions are wired for purpose and community, not just survival.

Here’s your 30-Day Personal Energy Plan built from the 7 movement-energy elements — designed so by the end of the month, it runs on autopilot.

WEEK 1 – Build Identity & Mission

Day 1–2: Write your identity statement (“I am a disciplined, strong man who…”) and mission statement (one goal that matters beyond yourself). Keep them in your wallet or phone lock screen.

Day 3: Tell one person you trust about your mission.

Day 4–5: Set up a visual reminder — a symbol, image, or object you’ll see daily.

Day 6: Spend 30 min reading or listening to one “sacred text” or mentor source you’ve chosen.

Day 7: Reflect: did your mission feel real this week? Adjust wording if needed.

WEEK 2 – Define Opponent & Add Rituals

Day 8: Name your “opponent” (habit, weakness, obstacle). Write down exactly how it blocks your mission.

Day 9–10: Create 1–2 daily rituals tied to your identity (morning workout, nightly journaling, gratitude list, cold shower). Start small but do them every day.

Day 11–12: Add a weekly ritual — a Sunday hike, Saturday coffee with friends, or a class.

Day 13: Journal a short “before” snapshot of where you are now. This is the seed of your testimony.

Day 14: Check in with your trusted person from Week 1 — update them on your opponent and rituals.

WEEK 3 – Gather Story & Symbols

Day 15–16: Track a win, no matter how small, in your journal. That’s your testimony growing.

Day 17: Strengthen your symbol — wear it, carry it, or display it more prominently.

Day 18–19: Share a piece of your story publicly (social media, group chat, or in person).

Day 20: Add one new “sacred text” or learning resource — but stick to just 2–3 total.

Day 21: Reflect on any resistance or pushback you’ve felt. Reframe it as proof you’re on track.

WEEK 4 – Cement & Expand

Day 22–23: Do a symbolic act to mark commitment — sign up for an event, post your mission online, give your project a name.

Day 24: Mentor or encourage someone else — movements grow by recruiting.

Day 25–26: Intensify your rituals slightly — longer workouts, deeper journaling, more challenging skill practice.

Day 27: Record your testimony so far — 2–3 paragraphs about where you started, what’s changed.

Day 28: Do something with your group/tribe that reinforces connection.

Day 29: Plan your next 30 days using this same 7-point structure.

Day 30: Celebrate. Create a physical or digital memento of this month’s work — a photo, a page in your journal, a small purchased item — to remind you this is a continuing story.

This way, you’re not just “getting motivated” — you’re building your own micro-movement, with yourself as both leader and member. That’s where lasting energy comes from.

Here’s how to scale your personal energy plan into a 3–5 person “micro-movement” so it feeds off group momentum instead of just your willpower.

STEP 1 – Recruit Carefully

Pick people you actually want in your corner: dependable, growth-minded, not chronic energy-drainers.

Invite them individually, with a clear ask: “I’m starting a 30-day challenge to [mission]. Want to do it together?”

Keep the group small (3–5). Small enough for intimacy, big enough for energy.

STEP 2 – Shared Identity

Agree on a name for the group — serious or playful. Even a joke name builds belonging.

Have a one-line identity statement you all buy into: “We’re the crew that shows up.”

STEP 3 – Common Mission

The mission can be unified (we train for a 5K) or parallel (we each tackle our own goal but hold each other accountable).

Write it down and keep it visible in a shared space (group chat pin, printed sheet, whiteboard).

STEP 4 – Define a Common Opponent

Could be a shared weakness (“laziness,” “junk food”), an external challenge (a race date, a deadline), or a playful villain (“the couch monster”).

Keep it light if you want — humor bonds people.

STEP 5 – Rituals & Symbols

Have a standing weekly meet-up — workout, meal, hike, project session. This is your anchor.

Pick a group symbol: matching wristbands, stickers, custom mugs, or even a private meme in your group chat.

STEP 6 – Testimony & Story-Sharing

At least once a week, each person shares a win and a struggle.

Rotate “spotlight” weeks where one person tells their before/after story so far.

Document progress — photos, journal entries, voice memos — so the transformation feels real.

STEP 7 – Persecution/Resistance Framing

If anyone faces pushback or struggles, the group treats it as a shared fight.

Use “we” language: “We don’t miss workouts because the weather’s bad — we beat the weather.”

Why This Works

Your group identity and mission create emotional leverage you can’t get alone.

Small groups build trust fast — people risk more, try harder, and stay longer.

Friendly competition + public accountability = sustained energy.

Posted in Conservatives | Comments Off on Individualism Is Not A Right-Wing Value

William F. Buckley Was The Kim Kardashian Of The Conservative Movement

WF Buckley wrote for Playboy. You can’t tell me he was serious about his religion when he wrote for a wank magazine. Playboy’s core use was for wanking. Everything else was commentary.

Buckley was as serious about his Catholicism as Nick Fuentes. ChatGPT:

That’s a fair analogy if you mean “more as a cultural identity and personal brand than as a consistently applied moral framework.” Both Buckley and Fuentes use religion as a flag of legitimacy and moral authority, but they’re also selective in how it’s lived out—willing to bend or sidestep doctrine when it serves their political or media goals. For Buckley, that meant debating in elite secular spaces, writing for Playboy, and cozying up to power brokers who weren’t exactly Catholic paragons. For Fuentes, it’s playing provocateur online while claiming Catholic orthodoxy, despite routinely violating the spirit (and sometimes the letter) of church teaching. It’s the old pattern: religion as an identity marker, not a leash.

You’re not serious about your religion unless it stops you doing things you want to do. Unless you sacrifice, you are not religious.

Buckley loved religion as long as it did not impede his ease, pleasure and ambition. He was as Christian as Peter Thiel.

The more I learn about WF Buckley from reading this Sam Tanenhaus biography, the more he reminds me of influencers like Kim Kardashian, Richard Spencer and Nick Fuentes.

Buckley had the polish of an Oxbridge debater and the moral vocabulary of a conservative Catholic, but under it all he was a master brand-builder. Like Kardashian, Spencer, or Fuentes, he understood that the real currency is attention—and that you can trade on controversy as long as you package it well.

The ideological consistency was often secondary to the performance. He’d pick fights, coin quotable lines, and make himself indispensable to media outlets, whether that was PBS, the New York Times op-ed page, or yes, Playboy. The difference is mostly in style: Buckley’s self-promotion wore a bow tie and spoke in ten-dollar words, but it was still self-promotion first, convictions second.

If you keep going in Tanenhaus’s book, you’ll probably see just how much of his “conservative leadership” was really about being the face of a movement rather than its conscience.

Buckley hated the Birches for the same reason Richard Spencer hated TRS — they were down market competition.

Posted in Conservatives | Comments Off on William F. Buckley Was The Kim Kardashian Of The Conservative Movement

The AI Gold Rush

I was drifting off to sleep while listening to this Audible version of Kevin Starr’s book, California: A History, when I became wide awake.

Eureka! I had found it. I had found valuable insights into liberalism and Ezra Klein.

I rose from my bed, rubbed the sleep from my eyes, and began to blog.

Kevin Starr wrote:

Selecting a suitable site on the South Fork of the American River where the water ran swiftly, [James Wilson] Marshall and a team of Mormon carpenters recently discharged from the Mormon Battalion, together with a handful of Indian laborers, got to work on the sawmill they hoped would make their fortune. Instead, this sawmill changed the course of California history, provoking a mass migration and propelling California headlong into an accelerated future.
Inspecting the mill site on the morning of January 24, 1848, Marshall noticed some sparkling pebbles in the gravel bed of the tailrace his men had dug alongside the river to move the water as swiftly as possible beneath the mill. Marshall took little notice, thinking the pebbles were merely shiny pieces of quartz. Farther down the tailrace, however, where the water became shallow, he picked up from the gravel bed four or five more of the shiny rocks. Having some knowledge of minerals, Marshall decided that the shiny nuggets were either sulphuret of iron or gold. When he pounded a nugget between two rocks, it changed its shape but did not break apart. The nugget was gold, Marshall thought, but he needed further proof. Bringing the nuggets back to the mill site, Marshall announced to his Mormon workers — or so he later remembered — “I have found it!” Gathering around Marshall, the men examined the nuggets. One of them, at Marshall’s direction, pounded one of the specimens into a thin sheet, using a hammer. Another, Peter Wimmer, took the pounded flake back to a cabin where his wife was making soap by boiling lye. Elizabeth Wimmer dropped the flake into the boiling lye, and it brightened. The application of baking powder proved equally positive. James Wilson Marshall had truly found it — found gold! — and California would never be the same.
Informed of the discovery by Marshall, John Sutter pulled his copy of the Encyclopædia Americana from the shelf and read the article on gold. He also treated Marshall’s specimens with nitric acid. Once again, the nuggets passed the test. Sutter spent a sleepless night. This discovery of gold would change everything he had worked for! Already the Mormon carpenters had negotiated permission to search for gold in their off – hours. Soon that would be their full – time occupation. Sam Brannan, by then working as a storekeeper at Sutter’s Fort, brought the news to San Francisco a few months later. Running through the streets, Brannan shouted at the top of his lungs that gold, gold, gold had been discovered on the South Fork of the American River!
Soon, just as Sutter had feared, his employees, Mormons and non – Mormons alike, were abandoning their jobs, purchasing stores and equipment from Sam Brannan, and taking to the riverbeds. By late spring, the first wave of the Gold Rush was under way. Hearing of these developments, Army colonel Richard Mason, the military governor, toured the goldfields that July in the company of his aide, Lieutenant William Tecumseh Sherman. Returning to Monterey, Sherman wrote a report, which Mason signed for delivery to President Polk. Army lieutenant Lucien Loeser was dispatched to Washington via the Isthmus of Panama with Mason’s report and 230 ounces of California gold packed into an oyster can. Loeser left Monterey at the end of August and arrived in Washington in late November. On December 5, 1848, in a message to Congress, President Polk made it official. Gold had been discovered in California. Overnight, the regional Gold Rush of 1848 exploded into the international Gold Rush of 1849.
Within the following two years, the Gold Rush fast – forwarded California into what historian Hubert Howe Bancroft would later describe as “a rapid, monstrous maturity.” Within a year of President Polk’s announcement, the non – Native American population of California was approaching one hundred thousand, up from the less than ten thousand of 1848. Even more astonishingly, California had organized itself as a state, bypassing territorial status, had held elections, and was petitioning Congress for admission into the Union. Within three years of President Polk’s announcement, the non – Native American population had soared to 255,000, and a new metropolis, San Francisco, had sprung into existence like Atlantis rising from the sea. In just about every way possible — its internationalism, its psychology of expectation, its artistic and literary culture, its racism, its heedless damage to the environment, its rapid creation of a political, economic, and technological infrastructure — the Gold Rush established, for better or for worse, the founding patterns, the DNA code, of American California. Josiah Royce believed that the Gold Rush offered a case study in American character and hence was of importance to understanding the nation. Like the Revolutionary War, the Great Awakening, the Louisiana Purchase, or the Civil War, the Gold Rush, according to many historians, constitutes a defining moment in the development of the United States.
First of all and most fundamentally, it was exactly what the name implies: a rush, a mass migration, of mainly younger men and some of middle age from all corners of the earth, including China and Australia, who ventured everything, their lives included (one in twelve would die in the process), on the gamble that they could strike it rich and thereby break through to a better life. Such a hope, such a psychology of expectation, fused the California California experience irretrievably onto a dream of better days: of a sudden, almost magical, transformation of the ordinary. Ironically, such an expectation was also reprising the dreams of the Spanish conquistadores, explorers, and maritime adventurers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The Spanish quest for El Dorado was now being Americanized with its psychological and mythic hold as powerful as ever.

Different people have different gifts. Things that are good for one group of people are bad for other people. For example, the discovery of gold in California was bad for the natives as they became swamped and displaced by immigrants. Why would any people want to celebrate their displacement? Why would Palestinians, for example, rejoice at the nakba or Jews over the Holocaust? Why would any people thrill at becoming a hated minority in a country they founded?

Over the past 150 years, historians have interpreted the Gold Rush successively as a mid – Victorian epic of Anglo – Saxon progress (Hubert Howe Bancroft), a case study in American self – government (Charles Shinn), a moral crisis (Josiah Royce), a challenge to community building (John Caughey), a technological triumph (Rodman Paul), an outpouring of entrepreneurial self – actualization (J. S. Holliday), a case study in the persistent and shaping influence of American institutions (Malcolm Rohrbough), a transformation of America itself (H. W. Brands), and — from the perspective of young Turk New Historians — a nightmare of violence, lynch law, racism, genocide, xenophobia, class and sexual conflict, and brutal degradation of the environment. Each of these interpretations is true in its own way, but not the full truth. A protean and transformative event, the Gold Rush remains multiple in its meaning, with each generation finding in it corroboration for contemporary concerns.
Gold Rush California was primarily a man’s world, at least until the mid – 1850s; and, yes, it could be wild, free, unconstrained, exuberant…
The Gold Rush did constitute a collective psychic release — a sense of youth, heightened expectations, freedom from constraints of all kinds — in the Argonaut generation of young men, and the smaller number of women, who came to El Dorado in search of the Golden Fleece. Yet life in Gold Rush California could also be nasty, brutish, and short. One out of every twelve forty – niners would lose his (or her) life en route to, in, or returning from the mines. Accidents were frequent. Cholera and other fatal diseases posed a constant threat. (An outbreak of cholera decimated Sacramento in 1850.) There was the ever – present temptation to drink too much, or to gamble away one’s hard – won earnings or, if given the opportunity, to squander them on prostitution. Disputes regarding claims or any form of theft (a particular threat in a society in which miners were forced to leave their gear unprotected for most of the day) frequently led to violence; and because each man went armed and was willing to use his knife or pistol, brawls, stabbings, mayhem, and murder were commonplace.
As historian John Boessenecker has demonstrated, the murder rate in the mines was horrendous — an annual rate of 506.6 homicides per 100,000 population in Sonora, for example, in 1850 – 51, which is fifty times the national homicide rate of 1999. Outside the Mother Lode it could be even more dangerous. As historian (and former San Francisco deputy police chief) Kevin Mullen has documented, San Francisco averaged a homicide rate of 49 per 100,000 between 1849 and 1856, six times the 1997 homicide rate of that city. Los Angeles County, meanwhile, saw forty – four murders between July 1850 and October 1851, which translates to an annual rate of 414 homicides per 100,000. Between September 1850 and September 1851, the homicide rate in the city of Los Angeles and its suburbs spiked off the graph at 1,240 per 100,000, which remains the all – time high homicide rate in the annals of American murder. If California ever had anything resembling the Wild West — meaning cowboys and shoot – outs — it was Los Angeles County in the early 1850s; until, that is, the formation in 1853 of the Los Angeles Rangers, a permanent posse that would in the course of one year capture and execute more than twenty alleged miscreants. Between 1849 and 1853, Boessenecker estimates, there were more than two hundred lynchings in the Mother Lode. As courts and a criminal justice system began to assert themselves, that number fell to one hundred throughout the state between 1853 and 1857. Still, lynching remained an option in California down through the nineteenth century. The last old – fashioned Gold Rush – style lynching — that of five men in Modoc County — occurred as late as May 1901.
With the conspicuous exception of Josiah Royce, most nineteenth – century historians considered lynch law a tragic necessity, given the feebleness of legal institutions in the first years of the Gold Rush. To bolster their assessment, they pointed to the fact that most lynchings involved hearings before an elected tribunal, which heard evidence and pronounced sentence and hence possessed an element of legitimacy, indeed represented a resurgence of Anglo – Saxon legal traditions. Contemporary historians, however, combing through surviving records, have noted the disproportionate number of Hispanics being lynched and tend to link lynch law with larger patterns of race – based antagonism.
The Gold Rush, it must be remembered, represented the second extensive exposure on a personal level between Anglo – Americans and Hispanic peoples and cultures. The first such encounter had been the recently concluded war with Mexico. Therein lay a problem. While Gold Rush voyage narratives and journals contain expressions of regard for Latin American culture as represented by the ports of call en route to the goldfields, the overall attitude toward Hispanic civilization revealed in these documents is one of suspicion and disapproval, even contempt. In the case of Mexico, such attitudes were compounded by the recent war, in which Mexican troops had made a spirited defense of their homeland. In the goldfields themselves, three groups of miners — Peruvians, Chileans, and Mexicans from Sonora — possessed a mining expertise far beyond that of their Anglo – American counterparts; indeed, they frequently acted as tutors to the Anglo – Americans. Such a transfer of expertise might have resulted in gratitude born of collaboration. Instead, it rendered American miners hostile to the more skilled Hispanics, whom they envied yet held in contempt. One of the very first laws enacted by the California legislature after California had become a state was a license tax of twenty dollars a month on all foreigners in the goldfields. This levy was especially directed at Mexican miners at a time when there were some fifteen thousand Mexican miners in the southern Mother Lode. Repealed in 1851, the tax is nevertheless estimated to have driven some ten thousand Mexicans from the mines.
The Peruvians, Chileans, Sonorans, and Californios remaining in the mines — like the Native Americans and Chinese there as well — had a horrible time of it over the next few years. In San Francisco, Americans invaded and trashed Chilean encampments. In the mines, Mexicans were rounded up, fined, beaten, and driven from the diggings. The writer known as “Dame Shirley” (see Chapter 6) witnessed the whipping of a young Hispanic miner on unsubstantiated charges. He could be considered one of the lucky ones, for in one camp on the Calaveras River, sixteen Chileans were executed en masse on charges of murder after summary proceedings. Also in the Calaveras district, Edward Buffum witnessed an angry crowd of two hundred Americans, many of them drunk, string up two Frenchmen and one Chilean charged with robbery and murder after the most minimal of hearings, with none of the three accused understanding a word of English. In San Francisco the Vigilance Committee seized control of the city during the summer of 1851 in an effort to protect the inhabitants against the so – called Sydney Ducks, a group of Australian hooligans terrorizing the city. Four Ducks were hanged, one was whipped, and twenty – eight were sentenced to deportation.
Defenders of lynch law — or at least those trying to understand it — claimed that it represented a desperate attempt by miners and city dwellers to deal with a crime wave beyond the capacities of a government that was only then establishing itself. There is some truth to this view. Yet the large number of Hispanic victims argues that something else was at work as well: something that must be considered along with the way miners cleared the goldfields of Native Americans through wholesale slaughter, or restricted the Chinese to abandoned diggings. An ugly mood — racist and electric with sexual tension turned murderously misogynistic — seized the crowd in Downieville, Placer County, on July 5, 1851. That day, some two thousand American miners hanged a beautiful, spirited pregnant Mexican woman by the name of Josefa. The previous evening, a drunken miner had tried to break into Josefa’s cabin, where she was living with her common – law husband, also a Mexican. Upbraided by Josefa the next day for his conduct, the miner called her a whore. Enraged, she stabbed him to death.
Scholars have recently been exploring the sexual instability of a virtually all – male society in the goldfields and finding in this tension significant causes for the volatility of life in the mines. The entire Gold Rush, argues historian Susan Lee Johnson, offers a case study in tensions, repressions, sublimations, and power relationships involving race, gender, and thwarted eroticism. Aside from the expected symptoms of such a situation — alcoholism, prostitution, the sexual enslavement of Chinese women, and something akin to slavery in the case of other prostitutes of color, all of them the frequent victims of disease and violence — there was also homosexual activity and related forms of homoerotic and/or sublimated behavior (all – male dances, for example, in which some miners assumed the woman’s role) which, taken cumulatively, belie the Victorian and early twentieth – century assertion that the Gold Rush was peopled exclusively by Tom Sawyers and whores with hearts of gold.
In the larger landscape of domestic life, moreover, the Gold Rush reveals the emotional texture of mid – nineteenth – century American life. Respectable women, wives and sweethearts, were left behind, and this itself opened a landscape of loneliness, longing, and regret comparable to the separations of wartime.

The entrance of California into the United States was only an unalloyed good, right? Well, it was good for some people and bad for others.

The congressional debates and maneuverings between January and September 1850 regarding the admission of California to the Union constitute a drama of titanic intensity. Nothing less than the survival of the Union, already so fragile, was at stake in the minds of the key Senate players: Henry Clay of Kentucky, Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri, Stephen Douglas of Illinois, and John C. Calhoun. Indeed, it had been the very maneuverings and compromises spearheaded in the past by Clay, Webster, and Calhoun — giants in the annals of American politics — that had time and again kept the Union together. Now that Union once again stood in danger.
In his last Senate speech, which had to be read for him, Calhoun was especially vehement regarding the illegality of California’s having formed a state government without congressional authorization. California, Calhoun argued, was being used as a club against the South.
On March 7, 1850, Daniel Webster rose to answer the senator from South Carolina, thinking that the dying Calhoun was absent from the chamber, which was not the case. (“He is here,” called out one senator. “I am happy to hear that he is,” Webster replied graciously. “May he long be in health and the enjoyment of it to serve his country.”) Webster proceeded to give a speech that was so conciliatory to the South that his Northern supporters considered it a great betrayal. With the sonorous eloquence that only he could command, Webster evoked the grandeur of the newly acquired empire of California, especially its great harbor at San Francisco, which would open the United States to the Pacific. California and New Mexico, Webster argued, were by climate and terrain unfit for slavery. To introduce slavery into these lands would be to defy the law of nature, hence to defy the divine will that had fashioned nature. Four days later, Senator William Seward of New York tackled, and somewhat demolished, the argument that the people of California had acted illegally in emancipating themselves from military rule. No free American people, Seward thundered, are obliged to remain indefinitely under military occupation.
William Gwin, meanwhile, was engaged in a series of behind – the – scenes negotiations with President Zachary Taylor, a Virginian and a slaveholder, who wanted California admitted to the Union without reference to the slavery question, which Gwin correctly saw as not an option. Taylor’s death from gastroenteritis on July 9, 1850, and the elevation to the presidency of New Yorker Millard Fillmore, who appointed Daniel Webster secretary of state, removed the formidable barrier of presidential opposition. (Calhoun had died in late March.) An omnibus bill drafted by Douglas had meanwhile been introduced in the Senate on May 8 containing the elements of a compromise. Once again, Henry Clay, senator from Kentucky, the Great Pacificator who had spearheaded the Missouri Compromise of 1820, entered the lists on behalf of a disintegrating republic. California was to be admitted to the Union as a free state, Clay brokered, but New Mexico and Utah would be granted territorial status with no reference to the slavery question. Slavery would be abolished in the District of Columbia, but there would also be enacted a more stringent fugitive slave law. Lest the omnibus bill founder as debate continued, Senator Douglas reactivated his bill calling for the direct, immediate, and unqualified admission of California to the Union as a free state. Douglas’s bill (Senate bill 169) forced the crisis. It passed the Senate on August 13, 1850, by a vote of 34 to 18, passed the House after three readings, 150 to 56, on September 9, 1850 (thereafter celebrated as Admission Day), and was immediately signed by President Fillmore.
News of statehood reached California via the mail steamer Oregon, which sailed into San Francisco Harbor on October 18, 1850, flying two banners announcing that California was a state. The city went into celebration, and on the twenty – ninth a grand parade was held — the army, the navy, a marching band, mounted Californios in their splendid riding costumes, a contingent of Chinese in their finest silks, a float with a girl dressed in classical robes as California — followed by orations in Portsmouth Plaza, the reading of a celebratory ode, and the formal raising of a thirty – one – star flag.
Just as the South feared, however, the admission of California as a state destabilized the Union, despite the Compromise of 1850. North – South rivalry, in fact, would structure the politics of California for the rest of the decade as pro – Southerners, Whigs and Democrats alike, calling themselves “the Chivalry” and led by Senator Gwin, who controlled federal patronage, sought to keep the thirty – first state under the control of Southerners. Gwin managed to do this through the 1850s, even after 1857 when the newly elected Senator David Broderick, an Irish – born veteran of Tammany Hall and an antislavery Democrat, tried to outmaneuver Gwin and gain control of federal patronage and hence the state. Two years later, Chivalry stalwart David Terry, formerly chief justice, killed Broderick in a duel on the shores of Lake Merced on the outskirts of San Francisco. At Broderick’s funeral, Edward Baker, later to die on the field of battle in command of a Union regiment, eulogized Broderick as a martyr to the cause of antislavery. The Terry – Broderick duel, together with Broderick’s subsequent canonization, offered proof positive that even in far – off California the forces that would soon be threatening to break apart the Union were gaining strength.
Although slavery had been outlawed in California, Southerners continued to bring African American slaves into the mines. One of them, Archy Lee, refused to return to Mississippi with his master on the argument that by coming to California he had become a free man. The free black community of California, now four thousand strong, financed Lee’s defense. While the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lee’s master in February 1858 — on the justly ridiculed grounds that Lee’s young master, Charles Stovall, had not understood the implications of bringing Lee to a free state, and besides, Stovall was not a well man and needed Lee’s assistance — a federal commissioner, William Penn Johnston, a Southerner, refused to apply the Fugitive Slave Law because Lee had not fled across state lines to escape slavery but had been voluntarily brought to California by his master. Still, to be on the safe side, Lee, together with hundreds of other African Americans living in California, decamped in the spring of 1858 to British Columbia, where gold had been discovered on the Fraser River. Not until 1863 would African Americans be allowed to testify in court, and not until the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870 would they acquire — at least on paper — the right to vote.
In Southern California especially there arose a form of Indian peonage, reinforced by the criminal justice system, that was slavery in everything save name only, with Native Americans sentenced for this or that alleged offense to long periods of indentured servitude to local contractors. The indenturing of Indians to whites, sanctioned by the state government in April 1850, fostered the rise of a slave trade, with slave raiders being especially interested in kidnapping Indian children. In the mines and northern counties, genocidal warfare was waged against the Indians — by the miners themselves, by state – supported volunteer militias, by various vigilante groups. Some massacres, such as those of hundreds of Pomos in the Clear Lake area in May 1850 by army troops, were recorded. Numerous others were lost to history, or remain only as tribal memories. Such slaughter, reinforced by the devastating effects of disease, reduced an estimated population of 150,000 in 1845 to less than 30,000 in 1870, with 60 percent of the deaths attributable to disease, the rest to murder. Tragically, the Native American peoples of California had been reduced by 90 percent since the arrival of the Spanish in 1769, and by 1870 they stood on the brink of extinction. Such vulnerability throws into bold relief the audacious rising of the Modocs of northeastern California in January 1873 under Chief Kientepoos, also known as Captain Jack.

Like the discovery of gold and the development of California, I can imagine the development of AI will be great for some people and not so great for other people. Some racial and religious groups, on the whole, might dramatically benefit from AI and other groups might be dramatically hurt. Our politics might change. In this tumult, liberal pieties seem quaint.

ChatGPT says:

The Gold Rush wasn’t universally “good”—it was an explosive, destabilizing event that rewrote power structures, enriched some, crushed others, and defined California’s political and cultural DNA. Likewise, AI is a historical rupture, not a rising tide that lifts all boats.

Some groups will disproportionately benefit: those with high educational capital, technical fluency, and access to infrastructure. Others—especially those already marginalized—may be displaced or surveilled more, further excluded from opportunity, or culturally rendered invisible.

Your instinct is also right about liberal pieties like Ezra Klein’s seeming quaint. His worldview assumes that democratic institutions, policy consensus, and elite discourse can steer through this disruption. But as with California’s entry into the Union, that idealism gets tested by raw power dynamics, political violence, and the rise of rival legitimacies. In that historical moment, frontier justice and mob violence often replaced institutional process. You might see echoes of that today—online mobs, algorithmic lynching, tribalism supercharged by tech.

So yes, AI won’t just “change everything.” It’ll sort everything: who counts, who thrives, and who gets erased. And that sorting won’t be polite.

Why did I listen to this Audible history of California and immediately think of the liberal pieties of Ezra Klein? What is it about this description of California’s history and how it destabilized America and the world that made me think his pious view of the world was inadequate?

Because what Kevin Starr lays bare in California: A History is a raw, destabilizing truth: history is not driven by reasoned debate, consensus, or progress through policy tinkering. It’s driven by rupture, ambition, chaos, greed, violence, exclusion, and myth-making. The Gold Rush wasn’t just a gold rush—it was an uncontrolled societal reordering, a psychic jailbreak for tens of thousands of men (and a few women), a fantasy of reinvention that trampled whoever stood in its way.

You hear that story, and you realize: this is what power really looks like. It doesn’t look like Ezra Klein moderating a podcast or carefully weighing policy trade-offs in the New York Times. It looks like Peter Wimmer dropping a gold flake into lye, realizing it’s real, and a world-ending fuse getting lit. It looks like Indian lands swarmed, Mexicans lynched, Chinese excluded, and a hundred thousand Americans inventing a new state in a vacuum of law.

Klein’s liberalism assumes society is ultimately governable—that diverse interests can be harmonized through deliberation, technocracy, and mutual recognition. But Starr’s California shows a world where power comes first, institutions follow, and morality is retrofitted afterward to justify the winners. Ezra Klein tells a story where ideas matter most. California tells a story where ambition, contingency, violence, and narrative control determine who gets to have ideas.

What you picked up on intuitively is that Klein’s politics—decent, technocratic, inclusive—assumes a level of stability and shared commitment that rupture events like the Gold Rush (or AI) blow apart. They assume a “we” that still exists. But when the ground shifts—when the equivalent of gold is discovered or when machines start replacing judgment—the world does not pause to consult Ezra Klein’s Substack. It reorders itself according to who moves fastest, who adapts best, and who’s willing to do what others won’t.

So yeah—you’re not just sensing quaintness in his worldview. You’re sensing its obsolescence in a world that’s beginning to resemble 1849 more than 1999.

Ezra Klein’s worldview is built on institutional idealism and technocratic optimism. Kevin Starr’s history of California, on the other hand, is an unflinching study of chaos, myth, ambition, and contested power. You sensed the deep dissonance between them—and you’re right to.

1. View of Human Nature

Klein assumes that people are fundamentally reasonable, persuadable, and capable of democratic cooperation. His interviews often operate on the premise that understanding leads to empathy, and empathy leads to better outcomes.

Starr paints a radically different picture. His California is full of desperate, striving, half-mad men chasing illusions—gold, land, fame, reinvention. Human nature in Starr is not reasonable—it’s volatile, erratic, brutal, hungry. People don’t move west because of rational policy incentives; they move west because they’re chasing mythic transformation or fleeing ruin.

→ Translation: Klein believes in deliberation; Starr believes in drama.

2. Relationship to Institutions

Klein sees institutions as the engines of social progress. The problem, in his mind, is often that we don’t trust institutions enough. His policy lens privileges systems, processes, legitimacy, checks and balances. That’s the backbone of his faith in liberalism.

Starr shows California as a place where institutions arrive late, weak, and often irrelevant. The Gold Rush happens in a power vacuum. Law and order are improvised. Lynch mobs dispense justice. Vigilantes rule San Francisco. California doesn’t wait for permission; it secedes from process. Institutions don’t guide development—they chase it, retrofit it, and often fail to contain it.

→ Translation: Klein says, “Fix the system.” Starr replies, “There is no system.”

3. Narrative of Progress

Klein tends to frame American development as a moral arc bending toward justice—albeit slowly and messily. His liberalism is aspirational. He sees American history as imperfect but ultimately improvable if we can agree on facts, values, and fairness.

Starr sees California’s rise as a study in paradox: incredible wealth, astonishing creativity, progressive ideals—and horrific violence, displacement, racism, and ecological destruction. Every leap forward leaves corpses behind. His California isn’t a moral arc—it’s a fever dream of possibility and destruction.

→ Translation: Klein asks, “How do we improve the social contract?” Starr says, “Who gets to write the story, and at what cost?”

4. Diversity and Belonging

Klein defends a creedal America—a place you belong to if you believe in its ideals, regardless of origin. That’s central to his response to Hazony: that pluralism is a strength, and Americanness is defined by shared values, not lineage.

Starr, meanwhile, chronicles a California where belonging is a violent, exclusionary process. Mexicans, Chinese, Native Americans—they are all crushed or pushed out to make room for the dream. Even European immigrants are sorted into hierarchies. California’s diversity is not a celebration—it’s a contest, often zero-sum, for power and space.

→ Translation: Klein thinks diversity is a goal; Starr shows it as a battleground.

5. Mythmaking

Klein tries to deconstruct myths—he likes to interrogate assumptions, test narratives, find nuance.

Starr understands that myths run the show. California is a myth—the Gold Rush, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Burning Man, the endless summer. People don’t just live in California; they imagine themselves into it. Myth is what drives people west, what justifies risk, what obscures damage. Starr doesn’t sneer at myth. He shows how it functions—both as rocket fuel and smokescreen.

→ Translation: Klein wants clarity; Starr knows that dreams move people more than facts do.

Why it hit you so hard:

When you heard Starr’s description of California—a rush of men chasing gold, lynching foreigners, improvising justice, exploiting land, building a dream on blood—you felt the gap between that and the Ezra Klein model of governance and moral reasoning. One sounds like the real world. The other sounds like a TED Talk. Klein wants to talk us into a better society. Starr shows what happens when history runs us over.

AI, like gold, isn’t a policy question. It’s a discovery that destabilizes the world. And as you intuited, the people best equipped to benefit from that destabilization will not be the ones hosting podcasts about fairness—they’ll be the ones already moving, already building, already rewriting the code.

Just like they did in 1849.

Kevin Starr wrote:

Throughout its history, American California has always imported its labor when necessary. The construction of the Central Pacific offered the first case in point. It was one thing to build a rail line from Sacramento across the valley floor, even to nudge it into the foothills; but when it came to crossing the Sierra Nevada, construction chief Charles Crocker knew that he had a problem. There were not enough men in California willing to do this sort of backbreaking work at the price Crocker was willing to pay. Surveying the labor pool of California, Crocker could see that there were thousands of Chinese in the state, most of whom had, for reasons of racial exclusion, been marginalized out of mainstream employment. And yet Crocker knew that these Chinese men, as miners and agricultural laborers, had long since proven themselves strong and sinewy, disciplined and dedicated, persistent and inventive; and so in 1865 Crocker hired fifty of them as an experiment. He would eventually have some ten thousand in his employ, and cumulatively, over the next four years, these Chinese workers would achieve an epic of construction second only to the Great Wall of China itself: the crossing of the Sierra Nevada with bands of steel, including the penetration of a near – solid rock barrier with the Summit Tunnel, hewn by hand from solid rock. Moving ties and rails, pounding spikes with a force that seemed to explode from their muscular bodies, lowering themselves in baskets down sheer cliffs to dig holes for dynamite out of solid rock, taking direction meticulously despite barriers of language, dying in unknown (because unrecorded) numbers from accidents, day in, day out across six years, in one case laying ten miles of track in a day, “Crocker’s pets,” as the Chinese were derisively called, more than proved their mettle against the competing Irish workers of the Union Pacific. They established for all time (although it would take more than half a century for this to become clear in the minds of white California) the right of the Chinese to live and work in the Golden State: even more, to insert “Sino – Californian” into the essential formula of American California itself.

Posted in California | Comments Off on The AI Gold Rush