These two comments to a recent Zman post were too good to not repost here so that I do not forget them:
First, a comment on the impossibility of “reversing the march” through the institutions:
For me, the bigger take away from Peter Van Buren’s piece is the impossibility of a conservative repair of federal institutions like the State Dept (or judiciary, DoJ, FBI, CIA etc). Article describes how current hiring and promotion practices in these institutions are stacked against reform.
For bottom up reform to happen, something like this is required:
1. Get an “our guy” into Yale or Georgetown or similar Ivey and them not have flip politically. BTW, our guys always flip once they are accepted into an Ivey and get upper class validation (see J.D Vance).
2. Get him/her hired into State Dept. Increasingly unlikely with nascent minority preference policies.
3. Have him/her survive for 30 years in the org as a deep undercover “yes man” for his superiors. Our guy, even if they maintain a dissident political mindset, will not be helpful during this time. The article lays out clearly that underlings have no latitude to implement heterodox policy and doing so jeopardizes promotion potential.
Assuming our guy does all that and gets some measure of real power circa 2050, what possible good can be done? The demographics are already wrecked and the country is gone to the dogs. Similarly, top down reform is frustrated by the inability of political managers to clean house and reform hiring practices to emphasize “identity” (Z-man’s article speaks well to this issue). A conservative will have to play ball with rotten institutions stacked with political enemies that he/she inherits following an election win (this was Trump’s situation).
Any outcome palatable to people with dissident political perspective requires more radical solutions than simply trying (and waiting) for a long conservative march through these institutions.
My only further comment is that the nature of the institutions would need to change themselves, or the institution abolished or made irrelevant.
“Who are your people?”
That simple question can stump the brightest gentile White minds. It can also make life and the choices we need to make so crystal clear.
I’ve joked that I’ve started asking that question to commenters at Steve Sailer. It’s fascinating that so many over there have a hard time – or no ability – to answer that question. Even at a site so sympathetic to the DR, gentile Whites remain abhorred by the idea of saying, “Whites or American Whites or Southern Whites” and instead cling to colorblind meritocracy.
The truth is that they have no people, only relationships and ideas. And this is why they’re being steamrolled by groups that do have a people.
You are not a conservative if have no people. American conservatism is attempting to conserve ideas (freedom of speech, meritocracy, etc.), not a people. But ideas are expressed in words, and words are malleable and open to endless debate – especially by a certain group. Trying to conserve ideas puts you permanently on the defensive. It’s also very vulnerable to propaganda.
But conserving and promoting a people is not open to such debates and gives you a simple, unassailable answer to almost any question.
Should we increase immigration? No, the immigrants aren’t my people and this land is for my people.
Is off-shoring jobs good or bad? It’s bad for my people, so it’s bad.
Is this organization diverse? Don’t care. I built this company for my family and my people. I hire my people.
When talking with my CivNat family and friends, I tell them that the difference between me and you is that I have a people and you don’t. The statement bothers them, which tells you that it’s hitting its mark.