Low Tide

“When the tide goes out you find out who’s naked” is an old gag in the Wall Street world, often attributed to Warren Buffett. He likes to include it in his annual letters to investors. What he means by it is the risk positions of a company are only known when they face adverse conditions, like a downturn in the economy. Others have used a version of the aphorism to mean that you find out who is a smart investor when the market takes a downturn. Similar idea, broader application.

The same sort of thinking applies to politics. Like most Wall Street traders, the political class is the last notice the tide going out on them. Most came into the game during a rising tide and came to assume good times are perpetual. If you live in the Imperial Capital, this sense is reinforced by the fact it is always a boom time, in terms of the economy, around Washington. Every year trillions of dollars flow into the city and those dollars don’t spend themselves. It’s always Christmas in the DC.

The tide does go out in politics. The moderate Democrats learned that lesson in the early 1990’s as the party began to radicalize. For the longest time they got to play the old game of talking like a normal person at home, but going along with the radicals when it came time to vote. Then Newt Gingrich figured out how to exploit this contradiction and the moderate wing of the Democrat party was eliminated in the 1994 midterm elections. The tide went out and the moderates were naked.

Something similar happened with the neoconservative cabal that had controlled the Republican Party for decades. Their appeals to normal white guy patriotism had been so effective at directing support for their endless wars in the Middle East, they just assumed it would work forever. They did not see the growing backlash on their Right until Trump captured the Republican nomination. Their reaction to the tide going out on their enterprise revealed things about them best left concealed.

One of those things revealed in 2016 was just how much these people despises their target audience. That in turn has raised an age-old question about the sorts of people in the neoconservative movement. A warmonger like Jonah Goldberg never met a war you should not fight on his behalf, but he is always ready to lecture you on your moral failings while you wage that war on his behalf. What low tide for the neocons meant was the stench of an age-old hatred for the victims of their perfidy.

Today the tide is going out again and this time it is the remaining figures of Conservative Inc. showing their nature to the world. Nick Fuentes, the young YouTube personality, has become a bug-light of sorts, for grifters to immolate themselves on in a fit of moral outrage over the groypers. It is as if there is a secret contest to see which one can put on the best smug face as they shriek about Fuentes. One after another, the dull and the witless have stepped forward to bleat their unhappiness.

Here we have bugman Dan McLaughlin claiming he sees the army of the invisible Hitlers all around Fuentes. Here we have bourgeois hausfrau Claire Lehmann warning about tricksters between trips to the liquor cabinet. John Cardillo, who everyone assumed was dead, turned up to remind everyone why that would be his best career move. The only thing that guy needs is a pic of himself on his Harley that he never takes out of the driveway. He’s the B-roll of a documentary on boomer conservatism.

Another guy who should collect his paycheck wearing a ski mask and carry a gun is Jim Geraghty from National Review. He penned a tantrum that reads like an interview with a teenage girl after an accident. Not to be left out, David French chimed-in to remind everyone that he is the king of cucks.. French is a guy who stepped over the poor and suffering in his own backyard so he could kidnap an Africa baby to tote around as a trophy to his perverted sense of righteousness.

Of course, the guys with a color in their name have got in on the game. Here we have someone calling himself Dominic Green at the Spectator telling us the groypers are the real fascists. Here’s someone calling himself Matt Purple, at the ironically titled American Conservative, telling us Fuentes is the omen. Keep in mind that AmCon has defended and employed a guy regularly arrested for soliciting sex from children. Yet, they are outraged over talk about demographic reality. When the tide goes out, guys with colors in their name reveal their perfidy.

That is what is so revealing about these guys swarming to attack Fuentes and his young acolytes. They are so craven and hollow; they are incapable of seeing any humanity in these young men. They are antibodies of the establishment, attacking what they are told is a pathogen. Nowhere in their attacks do they mention that these are young men, motivated by a real concern for their future. For the automatons of Conservative Inc., none of that matters. They do what they are told.

In dissident circles, there is a debate about whether conservatism, as an institution, is worth saving. James Kirkpatrick has a book on the subject and has talked about this topic at various events. In the end, it may be a self-answering question. As the tide goes out and more and more of these people are revealed to be hollow, soulless men without chests, the conservative enterprise looks shabbier and uglier. At this point, the question is whether they can withstand the rising tide of the dissident right.


For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!


The War On Reasonableness

The underlying premise of consensual government is that the people in the society, at least participating in its governance, can and will debate the issues facing the people in the society. By debate, it is understood that sharp disagreement will erupt and personal squabbles will inflame any disagreements. After all, men are not angels. In the end, a consensus will form and all sides will accept it. Everyone involved may not be ruled by reason, but trusted men in a civil society are reasonable.

If you think about how a democracy must work, the assumption of reasonableness becomes clear. If it is fifty percent plus one that carries the day, the winner must acknowledge that a large minority will not like the result. That means showing the other side respect, so they will return the favor when they carry the day. On the other hand, the losing side has to accept the will of the majority. Of course, it also means all sides have to be ready to revisit the issue if the majority got it wrong.

If you wanted to characterize the current crisis in America, a way to frame it would be a war on reasonableness. It’s not a war on reason, as in objective reality. At all times and all places reasonable men have been motivated by superstition and nonsense. What matters is the reasonableness, moderation and openness to alternatives, especially from those with unpopular opinions. It is among those willing to reconsider the consensus, where solutions are found when the consensus fails.

This war on reasonableness is most obvious in the reaction to Nick Fuentes and his young followers. Reasonable people can disagree with their opinions and reasonable people can oppose their tactics. Reasonable people must also acknowledge that young people are prone to getting carried away. Reasonable men cut young guys a little slack, because they remember what it was like to be young. In the case of the groypers, they are challenging authority, which is what we expect from young people.

Unreasonable people condemn these young men to eternal damnation for daring to question official dogma. When someone accuses Fuentes of being a fascist, he is saying Fuentes is evil and therefore outside of civil society. That is the intent of using the word “fascist” or the phrase “holocaust denier.” Regardless of the pedantic quibbles about the nature of fascism and the facts of the holocaust, the intent when using those phrases is to anathematize, to declare the accused of being evil.

This is not a reasonable response to a fellow member of society. This is a call for society to exterminate the invader, like a call to the immune system of the body. They want these men removed from society as if they are a disease. It is a hysterical response by people unwilling to concede an inch to dissenters. This is how a winner take all game is played. Those with power utterly and completely subjugate those without power, in order to make sure they never challenge power.

If you are on the other side of these calls to exterminate you, how can you come away thinking there is a bargain to be had with these people? How can those in dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy want to cut a deal with people who want them dead? The start of any deal is reasonable parties willing to compromise and reach consensus. What is the middle position when one side opens with a demand for your head? Do you agree to give up an arm? A leg? Live as a pariah?

Even when you move away from the howler monkeys taking to social media to declare fatwahs on the dissenters, those who claim to be reasonable, stake out the most unreasonable of positions. When some sober minded pundit claims that race is a social construct, a statement in direct contradiction to observable reality, that’s not a reasonable position no matter how calmly stated. That is making a concession to the unreasonable in advance, in order to appease them.

In fact, indulging these crazy assertions from the woke crowd is a war on reason and reasonableness. It is an effort to socialize pathology, spreading the disease to the whole of society. It is akin to the doctor spreading the cancer to the whole body, so that the patient stops noticing the tumor. When this is what passes for reasonable debate, it marginalizes the alternatives, thus normalizing that which is abnormal and anathematizing those who still cling to the normal.

Many of the paid spokesman that the Nick Fuentes crowd have targeted love to wave around the Declaration of Independence. The open lines are their opening and closing statements on all things political. They indulge the sentimentality, without understanding the intent.  That document was a statement by reasonable men, no longer willing to bargain with unreasonable men. Irreconcilable differences existed between the colonists and England. The only solution was separation.

This is where the war on reasonableness must lead. Good men seeking compromise will indulge the unreasonable for as long as they can, perhaps long beyond where they should, but eventually they stop indulging the unreasonable. At that point, there are but two choices. One is peaceful separation and the other is those reasonable men embrace unreasonable solutions to the unreasonable men in their midst. Ranse Stoddard gives way to Tom Doniphon to end Liberty Valance.


For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!


The Wilderness Of Mirrors

A general rule in democratic politics is that nothing anyone says or does should be taken at face value. James Jesus Angleton famously described the espionage game as a wilderness of mirrors, a term he borrowed from T. S. Eliot. The same can be said of democratic politics. Everyone assumes that everyone else is operating from a hidden agenda, so no one plays anything straight. That is something to keep in mind when examining the weird impeachment show the Democrats are staging.

Conventional wisdom says this is an extension of the long running tantrum that began after the 2016 election. The Left, spiraling into revolutionary madness, is demanding vengeance for 2016. Party leaders, fearing a schism in the ranks, went along with what is a ceremonial process. Pelosi has refused to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry, as that would trigger a legal process that could easily get out of control. Instead, she has gone along with what is turning out to be a melodramatic fishing expedition.

Now, Adam Schiff is mentally ill. That’s not an amusing criticism, but an obvious fact based on his bizarre behavior and deranged demeanor. He is not too far from demanding witnesses play leapfrog while entering the hearing room. He’s not the first party member to serve while suffering from mental illness. David Wu, a congressman from Oregon, went around dressed as a tiger. The reason for this circus could simply be that the lunatics have finally taken over the asylum.

If we assume that not everyone has gone insane and that these lunatics were allowed off their leash in order to serve some other purpose, the question is what? It’s clear that they have nothing. If Pelosi allows this to move to a formal impeachment process, then she would be betting that this nothing stands up to what the White House would offer into evidence, which would be very bad for everyone in the political class. The party leaders are not going to roll those dice heading into an election.

All of this, of course, is against the backdrop of the investigation into the seditious plot to overturn the 2016 election. What should have wrapped up a year ago is supposed to be reaching some sort of denouement. Supposedly CIA officials are hiring lawyers and the Inspector General is ready to issue criminal referrals. U.S. Attorney John Durham is making the sorts of inquiries that suggests he is serious. Despite the foot-dragging, it looks like something may finally happen on that front.

This impeachment charade may very well be a part of some political negotiating going on between Democrats and the White House. The IG report has been delayed for months, so it is not unreasonable to think there is backroom dealing going on that is holding up the release. If there are to be indictments, then those who are indicted will surely consider cutting a deal. This impeachment stuff could be a stall to give the party time to cut deals with those who will take a fall and keep quiet.

There’s also the possibility that this impeachment stuff is a stall for time so the party can figure who did what exactly. One of the interesting aspects of the 2016 spying plot is the number of people involved. If it was a small group of conspirators, this would have been swept under the rug a long time ago. The scale is no doubt slowing the official inquiry, so it probably has slowed the unofficial ones as well. Maybe that’s the real point of the impeachment show. The party is still sorting the issue.

On the other hand, many of the people involved in the impeachment charade were involved in the spying plot. The outside lawyers conspiring with Schiff’s committee, were also involved in setting up the fake evidence in the Russian hoax. Some were working in the DOJ during the plot, while others worked on Mueller’s team. Much of the news “reporting” on this is being done by “reporters” who had worked hand and glove with the conspirators during the plot. We’re back to the lunatics running the asylum.

What could be happening here is that the Schiff committee is really trying to get a handle on what the administration knows about the Ukrainian corruption and the seditious plot. These hearings are about getting administration people to secretly tell Schiff what is known about these scandals, maybe talk about what the IG has been doing over the last three years. In other words, it is not about fishing for dirt on Trump, but fishing for what Barr has on the conspirators.

Another angle to that is the Ukraine plays an absurdly large role in American politics for some reason. The scandals of the Obama years always seem to have some roots in the place. Maybe that reason is a bigger, much scarier bit of corruption involving Ukraine that no one wants made public. At this point, the image of Hillary Clinton’s cackling visage should come to mind. Her off-the books e-mail system seems to have a role in all of this. Maybe she sold Ukraine something big.

There is one other facet here to consider. The genesis of this impeachment stuff was the revelation that Joe Biden and probably many other party members, were taking bribes from Ukrainian officials. That probably ended Biden’s campaign as he has been fading ever since. Maybe this Ukrainian stuff was just a way to get that information into the public domain, either by the White House or by party radicals. This is the sort of scheming these people do as a matter of habit.

Of course, you can go the other way with this and maybe the whole point of this was to get the White House to reveal the Biden stuff. If that came from some other source, the party media could not dismiss it as political shenanigans. By raising questions about Trump and Ukraine, the White House had to reveal what they had on Biden and anyone else getting their beak wet in Ukraine. That’s a bit of 4-D chess, but it is a common practice in politics. Accuse the other side of something outrageous in order to make them talk about it or disclose their own schemes about it.

Then there is the planted story about Obama cautioning the party about going too far into crazy land. These stories are written up and handed to sites like The Hill by the party, as a way to communicate to party members. This brings us back to the decision by Pelosi to allow a fake impeachment inquiry to proceed. Given the lack of public interest and the lack of any evidence of wrongdoing, this whole thing may have been a concession to the crazies, a concession that may soon be withdrawn.

Finally, any rumination on this impeachment charade has to acknowledge the lack of interest by the public. The media had their amplifiers turned to eleven. The actors on cable chat shows were given the right lines and the show opened with as much fanfare as possible. Like the new Terminator movie, it has been a flop. People took a peak and then stopped looking when they saw nothing there. Schiff really thought this was going to be a hit, but he may have been the only one.

At this point, the Cloud People are so divorced from our reality they are left to guess as to what interests the Dirt People. What we could be seeing is the fantasy world of the Cloud People in the inner party’s radical ghetto slamming into reality. They are suddenly learning that the rabble does not share their obsession with the orange golem that haunts their dreams. This impeachment show was just a big ceremony by the ruling class that failed to resonate with the general public.


For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!


The Break Up

Not so long ago, societal collapse was a big topic of conversation among critics of the current world order. Usually it was centered on economics, as the financial system has become so complex that no one can explain it. The run-up to the mortgage crisis had lots of people promoting economic collapse theories. A decade earlier, the Y2K panic ushered in theories of technological collapse. Of course, the zombie apocalypse movies and TV shows are a regular part of the pop media rotation.

Societal collapse, however, is probably not in the cards. The best known treatment of the issue is by Joseph Tainter. In Collapse of Complex Societies, Tainter makes the point that collapse in the modern age is unlikely, as all complex societies are dependent on one another. Therefore, when one society begins to fail, the rest will provide support to prevent the rapid disintegration of the failing society. In other words, the modern age is a network of reciprocal relationships between complex societies.

In the case of America, the rest of the world needs America in order to remain intact, so a crisis in America will be met with a response from Europe, Asia and even South America. The internal response to crisis will include global support for repairing the internal problems of America. This network of relationships may not arrest the decline, but it will prevent collapse. The rest of the complex societies will ease America into the autumn of its existence, thus buying themselves time to adjust.

An alternative to this analysis comes from John Michael Greer. He wrote a paper on what he termed catabolic collapse. The general theory is that all human societies create complex institutions and social structures that require maintenance. Over time, the cost of maintaining them begins to exceed capacity. The solution is a deliberate downsizing where these complex systems are abandoned in order to focus resources on the core functions of society. Complex societies don’t collapse. They downsize.

Greer’s idea is a variation of the Tainter theory, in that it focuses on the material aspects of society. In the Tainter view, collapse is like bankruptcy that ends in a liquidation of the society. Greer’s view is a bankruptcy that leads to a reorganization of society going through bankruptcy, so it can reemerge simpler and more viable. In reality, both ideas are working from the same assumption. That is, human societies grow inefficient over time and that inefficiency eventually reaches a tipping point.

One issue that is a problem when discussing these theories of societal collapse is we tend to think of collapse as something that happens relatively quickly. That is, it happens not just in our lifetime, but overnight. One day things are going along just fine and the next day the wheels are coming off the cart. It is the image of Rome at its peak compared to the image of hairy barbarians scaling the walls. We naturally want to think of collapse as the sudden, unexpected death of society.

Collapse is most likely experienced in fits and starts, with those fits and starts spanning lifetimes. For example, the men who founded the American empire in the early 20th century passed out of this world seeing their creation in the throes of the cultural revolution of the 60’s and 70’s. The so-called greatest generation that inherited the empire from the founders, were re-engineering American society so their rotten kids would stop rioting in the street and burning the college campus.

The generation that founded the empire probably thought it was headed for collapse, but by that point they were too old to care. It did not collapse. American society stabilized, regained its footing and started to recover in the 1980’s and 1990’s, with the great economic and technological boom. Ironically, the baby boomers are experiencing what their grandparents experienced as they head for the void. They are seeing what appears to be the collapse of American society in a spasm of multicultural rage.

A half century ago, California was the epicenter of the cultural revolution that threatened to collapse society. It is the test bed for the multicultural favela the rage heads in the ruling class have planned for the nation. Today, they have rolling blackouts in a third world effort to keep from setting the state on fire. Their efforts to manage air pollution, a great crusade in the 1860’s and 1970’s, is beginning to fail. Their pension system is effectively bankrupt, just waiting to collapse in the next decade.

In other words, the spasm of decline and near collapse of a half century ago was part of a cycle of decline. This crisis will probably be followed by some correction, where things settle for a while, but never return to the prior normal. Just as the 1980’s never reached the level of social accomplishment of the post-war years, the next period of tranquility will fall far short of the 1980’s and 1990’s. It will simply be an interregnum between one period of crisis and the next, another step down the ladder of collapse.

At some point, the old social capital of the prior greatness is exhausted. The Romans were a spent people for over century before the collapse. In fact, they were arguably done in the third century. The real question about the late Roman Empire is how it managed to stagger on for so long. That may be where we are now in present day America. The next step down the ladder of decline may be so unstable that the weight of past error crashed society through to the bottom.

The case for this theory of collapse is the rapidly shrinking white middle-class. It’s not just shrinking as an economic institution, but as a cultural one. The dominant culture today is one that celebrates degeneracy and barbarism. Bourgeois culture remains, but unlike the 1980’s, it is not front and center, offering a stabilizing point to arrest the cultural turmoil of the day. The antidote to what’s happening today is not a man in a sundress demanding the rest of us pretend he is a girl.

In addition to the shrinking influence of bourgeois white culture, there is the growing sense that what’s left of America is not worth saving. Everyday, more and more white people come to the conclusion that the people they see in politics, the media and popular culture are incompatible with the world they want for themselves and their decedents. That old bourgeois white culture is looking at America like the family exhausted by an alcoholic relative. It’s time to cut our losses.


For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!


Libertarian Bashing

Watching the kids savage the shills of TP-USA this week, put me in the mood to lash out at the libertarians. It is easy to forget that what is currently called the conservative movement is really just left-libertarianism. On the one hand, it is shilling for global business, open borders and post-nationalism. On the other hand, it is the left-wing war on western culture. Other than some vestigial references to religion and traditional values, there’s no difference between conservatism and libertarianism now.

I know a lot of old school libertarians think that their thing has been hijacked by infidels and that real libertarianism can be compatible with the dissident right. The trouble with that is they need to explain how their thing was so easily taken over by the left-wing degenerates that now dominate the racket. Again, the same critique applies here as to Buckley-style conservatism. The reason these 20th century responses to the Left failed is they all contained a fatal flaw that allowed them to be co-opted.

Now, there is a case to be made that the undoing of libertarianism was its associating with Buckley-style politics. The great paleo thinker Sam Francis observed that the Buckleyites would inevitably be absorbed into the managerial state, as they were engaging in politics on Progressive terms. In order to gain a place on stage, they were forced to accept the basic premise of Progressive politics. That is, they had to embrace the blank slate and egalitarianism. That could only lead one way.

Perhaps that is so, but it does not change the fact that libertarianism is now one of the heads of the monster. You see that in their response to dissident politics. They immediately drop the mask and begin howling left-wing talking points. The response from them to the groyper rebellion is a perfect example. You see the same hysterics and name calling that you see from the Left. It is a good reminder that these people are just part of the candy coating of the Progressive nut inside.

This week I have the usual variety of items in the now standard format. Spreaker has the full show. I am up on Google Play now, so the Android commies can take me along when out disrespecting the country. I am on iTunes, which means the Apple Nazis can listen to me on their Hitler phones. The anarchists can catch me on iHeart Radio. YouTube also has the full podcast. Of course, there is a download link below.


For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!


This Week’s Show

Contents

  • 00:00: Opening
  • 05:00: Community Last (Link)
  • 15:00: Callous Bastards (Link)
  • 25:00: Sacrificing To Baal (Link)
  • 35:00: Fantasy Land (Link)
  • 45:00: Unreliable Liars (Link) (Link)
  • 55:00: Closing

Direct DownloadThe iTunesGoogle PlayiHeart Radio, RSS Feed, Bitchute

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On YouTube

The New Order

One of the curious things about conservatism, as in Buckley-style conservatism, is that it never examined its failures. Even today, when asked about why they were unable to muster a defense against the homosexualization of the culture, a guy like Charlie Kirk is poleaxed by the question. He’s standing in front of a sign that reads “culture war” alongside a homosexual and he is baffled about the question. Even the more thoughtful and honest among conservatives have a huge blind spot for their past.

One reason for this is an assumption by Buckley-style conservatives that the things they oppose cannot “work” and therefore must eventually fail. Socialism, for example, is just assumed to end in failure. That’s why even now, they howl like lunatics about the empty shelves in Venezuela. It is proof that what they fear cannot withstand contact with reality, so they ignore all the other stuff going on in Venezuela. That means they also ignore all of the prosperous countries that make socialism work.

You see that in this Victor David Hanson piece on the 2020 election. He has a section on the troubles in California and mentions the power outages. He asks how it is possible for the tech giants to function in land with power outages. There is that assumption that what should not work will eventually stop working. The massive homeless problem in the state is another example he uses. The assumption is that the open borders, multiracial future is unworkable and must fail.

The trouble with this thinking is that it assumes things about the ruling class that has never been in evidence. That is, they have the same standards for civilization as a conservative like Dr. Hanson. In other words, their definition of what works is the same as his definition of what works. Therefore, unless the rulers wake up to what is happening, the system will collapse. On the other hand, if only someone can get them to see the error of their ways, they will change course to avoid disaster.

Conservatives never stop to think that maybe California is what the ruling class wants for all of North America. After all, the people running those tech giants are living great lives. In fact, they live lives no mortals have experienced in the history of man, so from their perspective, the system works. It’s not just the plutocrats at the top. All the way down the line, the managerial elite is now living as aristocrats. Sure, there is rot down toward the bottom, but that’s true of all ruling elites.

Another thing that conservatives have always gotten wrong is in the same post, where Hanson discusses national character. He laments the radical authoritarianism that is now the campus culture. He wonders what sort of politics that it will produce on the national stage. He wonders how the breakdown of order will alter politics and if this new politics will replace the national character. That is, the cultural revolution from the top will produce a response from the bottom, the victims of this assault.

This fear is rooted in an assumption that has never been true. The United States was never a nation in the tradition sense. It was always a federation of nations. The structure the Founders created was an explicit acknowledgement of it. The regional difference in the colonies at the time of the founding were not superficial. Those regional differences are still with us today, despite the migrant wave unleashed on many parts by the ruling class. America was always a house with many mansions.

Therefore, to speak of national character, other than in the most general terms, is to misunderstand the country and its people. More important, this concept of the national character is one dreamed up by the Right long ago to adjust to the triumph of Norther Progressives over the rest of the nations. It is an entirely fabricated concept with no basis in reality. It’s simply something that worked for the people in charge as a propaganda device. They can easily abandon it for something else.

That’s the thing conservatives have never grasped. For as long as anyone today has been a live there has been a ruling class. They may not have official titles and a formal role in government, but there are people in charge. Like every ruling class, their primary interest is in remaining in charge. When America was 90% white, the national character stuff that resonates with Victor David Hanson was what they used to perpetuate their rule. In other words, that sort of civic nationalism was a big lie.

Now that America is non-white, the people in charge are searching for a new moral construct to control the population. They also seek a rationale for their position as the ruling elite. Without the traditional forms of legitimacy, they have to search in their ideology for a reason to justify their position. As the long reign of Robert Mugabe showed, vengeance for past sins is a powerful tool of control. The national character, if we allow it, will be a blood libel against white people.

Finally, what remains of Buckley-style conservatism, and certainly of its mongrel variant you see from people like Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk, is a weird, fatalistic romanticism for a past that never existed. What draws crowds to these people is the hope that they will make it all better and that things will return to normal. That’s what makes this stuff so insidious. It prevents decent people from facing the reality of what’s coming and most important, it prevents them from preparing for it.

There will be no confirmatory collapse of the Progressive order. There will be no sudden realization of their errors and a great retreat from radical multiculturalism. There is no returning to the America of the past, real or imagined. The old white America where civic nationalism was enough to maintain regional cooperation will not work in a land of hostile strangers. In a land of tribes, many hostile and many encouraged to be hostile, something else will be used to maintain control.


For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!


Poor Rich People

One of the great challenges of the demographic age will be re-conditioning people to think culturally, rather than materially. This is particularly true of conservative white people, who have been trained their whole lives to define their existence by the amount of stuff their heirs will throw away when they die. Theirs is an entirely materialist existence, so the transition to cultural thinking is going to be difficult. An example of this is in this post by Steve Sailer regarding public venues.

He starts with the observation that the ancients built a lot of very sturdy stone theaters and arenas, while those who came immediately after the fall of Rome did not built anything of significance. It was not until the Middle Ages that we see the building of large public structures, but those were cathedrals and churches. He notes that it took until modernity to build large public arenas. Sailer then jumps to the conclusion that the Greeks and Romans must have a lot of money relative to the Middle Ages.

Now, it certainly required a great deal of money to hire men to build amphitheaters and arenas in the ancient world. Reallocating thousands of people from farming and military service can only be done by a wealthy society. The early medieval period in Europe was not a time of great prosperity. Wealth is not enough, however. Those theaters and arenas were not just the toys of rich people. They were not built by rich people, at least not in the way in which our sports arenas are built today.

In fact, the more apt comparison is between the arenas and theaters of the ancient world and the cathedrals and churches of the Middle Ages. The theaters built by the Greeks were an important part of their cultural life. The plays and festivals reinforced the cultural values that made Greek life possible. The arenas built by the Romans were not just for sport. They also had strong cultural importance. The reenactment of great battles tied the Roman to his past and to his ancestors.

For most modern white people, Sailer’s instincts on this seem natural. After all, we live in an age without any sense of culture, other than the endless war on what is left of white culture by the brown tide sweeping the land. For most Americans, the point of life has been to stuff their pockets with as much stuff as they can. The measure of life is your pile of stuff. The super-successful at getting stuff build really large buldings where you can buy stuff, like sports jerseys to remember buying stuff.

It is a good example of how the white people who came along after the Second World War became entirely materialistic in their thinking. This is not a Baby Boomer issue, but more about the legacy of their parents. That cohort went through the Great Depression and then the privations of the war. In the ensuing boom times of the early days of the empire, they justifiably enjoyed the fruits of their labor. It was a golden age, relative what came before, so they quickly learned to value material prosperity.

The so-called greatest generation gets credit for weathering the grinding depression, without embracing communism. They get credit for fighting two industrial wars on two continents, winning both and ushering in the Pax Americana. They also should get credit, and blame, for ushering in the material age, where all things are measured in material terms. The generation that built the American empire, also built a society in which everyone knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

It has become a meme to mock the Baby Boomers for their obsession with stuff, but it is a society-wide phenomenon. Modern America functions like a ghetto riot, in which the culture is a liquor store. Everyone is just smashing and grabbing what they can, not because they need it or want it, but because that’s what they do. This is particularly true with conservatives. All of their arguments, particularly those that fall into the cultural and spiritual, have been reduced to economic appeals.

In the long scope of things, the American empire will be seen as an entirely artificial construct, built on the wreckage of Western civilization. The two great industrial wars that opened the 20th century exhausted the people spiritually. This includes the people who claimed to have saved the West. The cultural achievements of the American empire, such as they are, reflect that lack of spirit. The American empire and the culture around it is a lifeless zombie shuffling through time and space.

A simple way of seeing this is the fact that Los Angeles, the home of Hollywood and the center of American popular culture, has a homeless camp in the center. Estimates say it contains 70,000 of our fellow citizens. Yet, the super-rich who run the city are not concerned in the least. After all, they have their stuff. Even the most callous of Roman emperor had compassion for the poor of Rome. The modern American oligarch has nothing but contempt for those who cannot consume product.

The current ructions are not a response to the changing demographics as the suicidal wreckers like to claim. It’s not about the transition to a post-national order. The reason for the growing unhappiness is that modern American society offers no purpose, no beauty and no reason to celebrate life. It’s an ugly age with a sterile ascetic that reflects the transactional nature of the age. This is an unnatural state for people, so the people are increasingly unhappy with life in the material age.


For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!


It’s Personal

Something that has been noticeable for a long time now is that the Left is in a perpetual state of rage. The smallest things send them into spasms of anger. They hate Trump and they really hate his voters. They will go rummaging around in the social media history of people, looking for reasons to hate them. It’s not a general all-encompassing hate, like hating the fans of a rival sports team, but a very personal and cruel hate. They want the victim to suffer and they want to enjoy his suffering.

One reason for this, obviously, is that many people attracted to the Left are mentally unstable, so their politics are just a vehicle for their pathology. Many of the Antifa people, for example, have no coherent political thoughts. They just like being crazy on the streets and causing mayhem. This is the type of person who was attracted to the riots that used to follow the big economic summits. There was never any purpose to their rampages, other than the thrill of smashing things and causing mayhem.

Another more important reason for the rage is the nature of leftist politics in our post-national age. Being on the Left no longer means joining a group that has a tangible enemy, against whom the group throws themselves. The days of unionist, socialists and communists operating as collectives are gone. Even the post-modern movements like climate change and sexual politics is atomized. Much of it is backed by the sorts of people the Left used to oppose like rich people and business.

Lacking an organized enemy and a transcendent reason to formally organize, left-wing politics is highly personal now. No one is committing to a cause bigger than themselves, as their self is the most important thing in their life. It’s why the pronoun stuff is such a thing for these people. There is not much more personal than how the world will refer to you in terms of sex. This intense focus on how the world must perceive them is the root of their politics now. The issues are just vehicles for self-expression.

This is not something anyone is trying to hide. This essay by one of the organizers of the climate activist group Extinction Rebellion explicitly makes this point. He’s not really concerned about the climate. He concedes that there is nothing to be done that is going to change what’s coming. The purpose of his activism is to normalize himself and his sense of self. It’s all about him forcing you to listen to his story and then accepting it and him as something other than strange.

The idea of the personal being the political is not new. The phrase comes from an essay by feminist Carol Hanisch in the 1960’s. The idea is that personal experience is intertwined with larger social and political structures. One’s personal choices reveal one’s politics. Consequently, one should make personal choices that are consistent with one’s politics. The political person should live the life they advocate, so that means not doing business or associating with the wrong people.

Today, this has moved from simply not buying stuff from a business owned by a bad thinker to committing one’s life to destroying the bad thinker and anyone foolish enough to not share the same hatred. The whole woke movement is a blood lust, an effort to cause real harm to people by denying them the ability to live. Climate activism, as expressed in that essay, is about destruction. Everything the writer sees as keeping him from reaching personal fulfillment must be destroyed.

It is not a politics of self-interest, as the so-called conservative would imagine. The modern leftist is like a bear protecting her cubs. Any perceived threat is met with overwhelming aggression. You see it in the language. They conflate ideas and statements with actions. Holding a contrary opinion makes them feel unsafe, as that opinion is viewed as violence. They need safe spaces, by which they mean the removal of anything and anyone that contradicts their sense of self.

This is the real cause of what is behind the social media purges. From the perspective of a radical, everything in their space is theirs and an extension of their self. When a contrary opinion, or even an oblique reference to one, shows up in their twitter timeline, it feels like a home invasion to them. Those women posting about how they are literally shaking or sobbing because their favorite cable show had a bad person as a guest are not exaggerating. They were physically effected by the experience.

It’s an important thing the alt-right got wrong about their on-line activities. They still assume the reason they get thrown off these platforms is because their ideas are so powerful. In reality, their ideas are meaningless. The reason they are removed from the platforms is the same reason one would kill a snake. It’s not that the snake poses a threat to the ecosystem. It is that the snake is a personal threat. The person kills the snake because they can’t feel safe until they know it is dead.

The ultimate cause of this highly personal radicalism is the same thing that is driving dissident politics. The dehumanization, that is the result of post-national liberal order, is creating a growing number of people looking for something to fill the void left by community, identity and culture. For some, it means a deep dive into their own psyche where they live hiding behind the sandbags of their own peculiar traits. For others it means a search for community and fraternity.

The sorts of people drawn into the politics of self are not new to humanity. These people are not the victims of a new pathogen or chemical contamination. It’s just that in the past, our societies had evolved cultural and institutional ways of channeling these people into defined roles. The obliteration of community by global capital and the destruction of culture through multiculturalism has destroyed everything that gives meaning and purpose to life. That’s why they are so angry.


For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!


The Groyper Rebellion

The youthful rebellion against establishment gate keepers on the college campus has mostly confirmed what has always been understood about the front men hired to be the face of these operations. Never having to answer tough questions allows them to fool people, especially young people, about their motives. The questions young people are posing these guys are not all that tough, but when posed to hot house flowers not used to push-back, the result have been devastating.

The main take-away thus far is that Charlie Kirk is the political equivalent of a lip-syncing pop star. In narrowly staged performances, as long as the sound track works perfectly and the lights are just right, Kirk can put on a good show. When he has to rely on his own talent to carry the show, the results are comically poor. He was recently booed off the stage at his UCLA event. Like that lip-syncing pop star, who gets exposed during a stage mishap, Kirk’s career is now a laughingstock.

Kirk, of course, is not the only fraudster to get the business from the groypers, as it has now become the cool thing to do. Matt Walsh of The Daily Wire, who is always a skipped pill away from a shooting spree, had to be sedated after getting some tough questions from college boys. The cynical con-man Dan Crenshaw has responded by threatening to ruin the lives of these kids. It appears that Pirate Dan is trying to prove that honorable military service is independent of good character.

The most interesting result thus far has been the meltdown by Ben Shapiro last week, which was so bad he had to pull it from his YouTube channel. The comments were full of young people mocking him. Shapiro is probably the smartest of the con-men deployed by Conservative Inc., but he is also the most thin-skinned. Any push-back is met with a childish tantrum. Like Charlie Kirk, it suggests he is a hothouse flower, carefully protected by his handlers, in order to maintain the charade.

If you pay attention to his act, what comes through is he has a deep, subconscious hatred of white people. Take for example his promotion of the dubious claim that European civilization is defined by Judeo-Christian tradition. For most of Western history, Christianity and Judaism were at odds. In the early medieval period, Jews and Christians competed for converts. When the term Judeo-Christian came into use in the 17th and 18th century, it was as a Pauline pejorative against Catholicism.

Putting aside the history, what he is doing is rewriting the European past in order to make it dependent on his religious and ethnic traditions. You can have your Christianity, as long as it is accepting of Jews, which neuters the theologically. You can also have your Western chauvinism, as long as you make sure Jews are central characters in the narrative. Ben Shapiro’s view of Western civilization is colonial, as if he is allowing white people to have some conditional cultural heritage.

This becomes clear when Shapiro says “white civilization is nonsensical.” He says that “civilization is defined by culture, history and philosophy.” He is divorcing what he calls Western civilization from the people who created it. Like his sleight of hand swapping out Catholicism from the heart of European history, he is turning Western civilization into a gift inexplicably granted to the people of Europe. It is not something European people created, but something they received, like hitting the lottery.

There is an obvious implication to this train of thought. If white people are just lucky recipients of civilization, then they are not really deserving of it. This would explain Shapiro’s love for non-white immigration. Why shouldn’t everyone get a taste of this civilization thing? It’s only fair. When he says “he does not give a good damn about the so-called browning of America,” he is not entirely honest. In fact, he really cares, as he is in total support of it as an act of retributive justice.

You can never know what is in someone’s heart and it is entirely possible that Shapiro has not thought through any of this. It is increasingly clear that he is clever, but not a deep thinker. He possesses a vermin-like rapacity that is often mistaken for smart and ambitious in this degraded age. His act is therefore about presenting himself as a smart guy, who just happens to agree with an audience desperate to throw money at anyone showing them some respect. He’s just working the suckers.

Either way, the fact that these guys have no prepared responses to these questions has some larger implications. It is important the keep in mind that the same people bankrolling Shapiro and Kirk and all the rest are also bankrolling versions of these guys on the Left. Both sides of the Progressive morality play are financed by the same amorphous donor class that also underwrites the Imperial Capital. These morality plays are always the product of the Cloud People to control the Dirt People.

This stuff suggests the divide between the Cloud People and Dirt People has grown to a point where neither side really understands the other. The people behind these shows have no idea what’s going on among the hoi polloi. Similarly, the rabble is baffled as to why these people don’t address the questions being raised. Much of the success of this rebellion is due to the groypers assuming their targets were smart and prepared, so they prepared great questions and great logistics.

One thing that is true about revolutions, at least in the West, is that long before the crisis in the streets, there is a quiet divorce between the people and their rulers. The people in charge stop knowing or even respecting the people over whom they rule, while the people lose their connection to their rulers. It is this connection, this set of reciprocal obligations rooted in blood and history that sees a people and their rulers through crisis. Once it is gone, the next crisis becomes a revolution.

When even a guy, who is desperately trying to be the voice of the Dirt People inside the Imperial Capital, is all thumbs on the youth revolt, it says they are flying blind. Gaetz posted his support for the Cloud and hour later he is rushing to qualify that tweet, because his staff noticed the reaction. When the Tribune of the Dirt People instinctively sides with the Cloud People, the gap between us them and them has probably reached a point where it can never be bridged. What comes next is inevitable.


For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!


Mencken Day Two

At an event like Mencken, you can see why conservatism failed. Way back when the founders of Buckley conservatism were plotting their way forward, they started with the assumption that the majority of Americans agreed with them. The two problems they faced were that the Left would claim the intellectual high ground, thus bullying enough people into going along with liberal reform ideas. They also faced the problem of getting their people out to vote. They needed to mobilize the majority.

The solution was an effort to build a movement that would do three things. One it would raise money from wealthy white people. Then it would use that money to build out an intellectual framework from which to confront the Left on intellectual terms. Then it would use the ideas cooked up by those think tanks to rally conservative people in support of those policies. The Right would have better ideas and better mobilization.

This strategy always had an internal conflict. On the one hand, the Right was going to cut through the Left’s heated rhetoric with facts and reason. You still see that today when Ben Shapiro puts on his Spock ears and tries to sound like an intellectual. The central claim of his act is that you must put aside your passion. The trouble is, that directly conflicts with mobilization efforts, which are always going to be an emotional appeal for people to put aside reason and act on their passions.

The resolution to this conflict was to sublimate emotional appeals to the intellectual arguments of the Right. At a conference like Mencken, which is still rooted in the conservative habits, the speeches are all recitations of facts, empirical examinations of the Left’s arguments and appeals to the reason of the audience. The only place you see emotion is outrage at the excesses of the Left. There’s a pride in not allowing that outrage to infiltrate the arguments made on behalf of conservative issues.

That was an effective approach, in a country that was close to 90% white, which was America in the 20th century. The conservative movement turned the GOP from a minority party into the majority. By the 1990’s, even Democrats like Bill Clinton were ready to declare big government dead. Then the effects of demographic replacement started to show up at the ballot box. That overwhelmingly white majority began to decline, so those appeals to reason had a shrinking audience.

That is why Buckley conservatism is dead. It turns out that there are no sound empirical reasons to defend your homeland, at least not ones that will cause men to sacrifice for the effort. Those arguments need passion, not four color graphs with supporting tables and citations. The answer to the Left’s demand for immigration was not a tweedy intellectual, but a man with passion for his people and his way of life, willing to rally his people to do what must be done to defend those lands…

An odd thing I just noticed this weekend is the difference in how academics do public speaking versus the private sector. Academics read their prepared remarks, usually looking down at the lectern. In the corporate world, speakers memorize their speeches, maybe using some notes to jog the memory, but otherwise look at the audience as they are speaking. You’re taught to scan the audience to match the cadence of you speech, so it looks like you are talking to each person directly.

Now, the issue may simply be that in the corporate world, speakers tended to be trained to speak by professional public speakers. In my time in that world, I went to plenty of classes on speaking, interviewing, presenting and so on. My guess is few academic take a public speaking course. Instead they just do what all the other academics do, so it has become the custom. Maybe the audience drives it. Academics may prefer to hear speeches read from text, so that’s why it is done…

At the after-party, I was reminded why right-wing resistance to the Left has always fallen to pieces on contact with the Left. Even in a crusty fringe crowd like at Mencken, there is a weird pride in no one toeing the company line. The Left never tolerates free thinkers, which is why they can maintain disciple. The Right has always assumed that the ideological discipline of the Left is a vice, so they have made sure to have a diversity of opinion. The sperg army will never be a match for the Left.

This is, of course, the result of generations of conditioning as to what it means to be right-wing. Instead of being a stand-alone, positive set of beliefs and aspirations, it is a laundry list of complaints about the Left and a determination to be the mirror image of what is understood to be left-wing at the moment. To be a right-winger is to never impose discipline on the ranks, so everyone is free to be an army of one. The Left, of course, is then free to pick them off one by one…

The main reason to go to these events is the social aspects. In my case, it is an opportunity for readers and listeners to meet me. Given the interactive nature of this form of media, I’m just as curious to meet readers, as I have interacted with many of them for years now. The thing I was thinking about on the way home is that I’ve never met a reader who is less interesting in person than their on-line character. It speaks to the superficiality of internet culture. On-line, we’re two-dimensional.

That is why the Left works so hard to keep us from meeting in real life. When like-minded people get together, socialize and talk about the issues, it raises morale and it builds social capital. That’s the force multiplier the Left fears most, because they lack it in their own ranks. Their discipline is fueled by rage and self-abnegation. Social capital is like a fuel that creates more of itself as it burns. That’s why they work so hard to keep us as atomized strangers living in our bespoke silos on-line…


For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!