Dissident Versus Dispossessed

It is natural for dissidents, collectively and individually, to decry their exclusion from the institutions of society. Collectively, their exclusion means the systematic exclusion of their ideas and their critiques of the prevailing orthodoxy. At the individual level, it means exclusion from the pleasures and benefits of their career. There’s also the fact that human beings are social animals. Exclusion, especially systematic exclusion, is felt as a personal rejection and that hurts even the toughest person.

There is, of course, the unfairness of it all. The people in charge of the institutions rely on purges and exclusion to protect their interests. There is the assumption that they rely on their institutional power to combat their enemies, because they lack the intellectual power to win a fair fight. They are petty men, who would rather persist in their error than face correction, so they use their power over the institutions to purge those who will challenge them and point out their error.

The natural temptation, therefore, is for dissidents to seek access to the institutions, in order to make their case. After all, if they can just get on the stage and make their points, so the theory goes, the superiority of their claims will win over the crowd and win them status. This is the mentality of the reformer, who continues to have a love and appreciation for the institution from which he has been purged. His complaint is largely personal, as he does not oppose the institution, just the people in it.

This has always been the emphasis of the paleocons. They are the result of the neocons gaining control of the conservative institutions. Those neocons then set about purging anyone who opposed their agenda. The paleos came to be more defined by their expulsion than by their ideas. They criticize the men in the institutions, rather than the institutions themselves. Their adversaries made the fight personal, and the paleocons were willing to take it personally. They still do.

That is the trap the modern dissident must avoid. Majorities will always place trust in institutions, as those institutions, if not purpose built, have been adapted to maintain their majority status. Man is a social animal and expects his participation in society to have benefits. Similarly, his society expects benefits from his inclusion. In a social order built around institutions, the natural dynamic will be to seek the benefits of those institutions, while maintaining those institutions.

The exile, in contrast, denied access to the institutions, will place his trust in ideas. His social sphere should evolve around shared ideas. That normal social dynamic will define the exile by his contribution to the intellectual life of his social group. The value he gains from it will be the refining and expansion of the ideas he shares with his fellow dissidents. For the proper dissident, exile provides the environment for a dynamic and creative intellectual life that exists outside of the institutions.

The best example of this is the Protestant reformers we call the Puritans, who eventually settled in North America. They began as reformers of the English church, but eventually ended up as exiles. They were not only exiled from the church, but from English society and eventually their country. As a result, Puritanism was able to develop into a fully formed and independent set of religious and social beliefs. Puritanism probably could not have survived if not for the exile of its adherents.

The birth of European conservatism is another example of how exile creates the dynamics for a new intellectual framework. The aristocrats who fled the French Revolution, found themselves as strangers in foreign lands. In exile, they first waited for restoration, but then moved beyond that to creating an authentic alternative to the radicalism of the Jacobins. The conservatism of Joseph de Maistre remains an authentic alternative to radicalism, because it evolved outside of it.

That is an important thing for modern dissents to grasp. The conservatism of Bill Buckley was always a Burkean response to American radicalism. That is, a response that evolved within the same institutions as the radicals. Burke did not develop his ideas as an outsider, but as an insider. Similarly, the American Right in the last century evolved in the elite institutions, as a traveling partner with the radicalism that developed after the Second World War. Left and Right were co-dependent.

This is the difference between the dissident and the dispossessed. The former not only accepts his outsider status, but relishes it. Free from the institutions, he can develop his own mental framework as a genuine alternative to the prevailing orthodoxy. The dissident sees his expulsion as the break, the vital break, from the historical and intellectual timeline. Rather than being carried forward by the momentum of his inheritance, he creates a new vision to replace the old.

The dispossessed, in contrast, are haunted by their expulsion. Who they are is defined by their loss of institutional support. They are the bitter ex-wife or the disgruntled former employee. They stand outside, perhaps shouting criticisms, as their identity is an entirely negative one. They relish every slight. They celebrate being criticized by those inside, because that’s who they are. They are people purged from that which had given them purpose and meaning. They are men without a polis and nothing more.

If dissidents are going to have a role in what comes next, it must be as the creators of something independent and indifferent to the prevailing orthodoxy. Communities of ideas, operating outside of the institutions, are the greatest threat to those institutions, because they cannot be co-opted and they cannot be easily attacked. Like the Puritans, the dissident eventually has to accept that what comes next for him is out in the wilderness, away from the existing order and independent of it.

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!

Labor Day Thoughts

One of the consequences of the neoliberal order is that labor markets in Western societies are at war with themselves. On the one hand, the relentless competition within the managerial class, the so-called meritocracy, results in a relentless, passive-aggressive struggle for status. Within that class of people it is a state of constant anxiety, as these people worry that one small misstep will cause them to lose their standing within the managerial class. Everyone is miserable.

On the other hand, the math of the managerial system means pitting worker against worker, usually relying on foreign mercenaries, to suppress wages and prevent class solidarity. In order to support the swelling army of otherwise useless people in the media, academy and government, it means extracting ever more from the laboring classes and their private employers. The typical private sector worker is under relentless daily pressure to do more with less.

Compounding this is the natural response to these pressures, where workers accumulate in areas shielded from competition. Government grows, as a jobs program and as a way to maintain support for government. The massive growth in government, education and now health care are responses to the relentless competition within the so-called private sector. Skip to the bottom of this post, where there is a graph showing the growth in administrators within the American health care industry.

One vice jaw is the relentless pressure for efficiency in the daily lives of most workers, while the other jaw is a metastasizing layer of naturally inefficient services crowding into daily lives. The typical American spends all day under relentless pressure to perform, while having to navigate a labyrinth of ineptitude in the other parts of their lives. A trip to your kid’s school or a visit to the doctor is like entering a secret world where nothing gets done, no one gets fired and no one cares.

A reason America is such an angry place, despite the massive material prosperity, is that the labor markets are upside down. Prosperity and efficiency should result in a more relaxed and predictable private work place. Good times are supposed to be good times, not a frenzied state of constant worry. Within living memory, a booming economy meant a rise in general happiness, as workers and business enjoyed the fruits of general prosperity. Today, good times are defined by constant dread.

On the other hand, the administrative side of modern society, government, education, health care, should be declining in the lives of the people. In the dreaded private sector, automation means reductions in labor. In the public sphere, automation has meant an explosion of people. The post-Cold War economic boom has seen government more than double. The education bureaucracy has swollen like a tumor. Health care, as seen in that graph, has grown to become a dominant part of life.

Now, the dynamics in the workplace are not the only reason for the rising unhappiness in the West. Importing those foreign mercenaries to undermine domestic labor markets and dilute the vote has consequences beyond economics. Today, people find themselves living among strangers, who practice weird customs and speak exotic languages. America is rapidly becoming a land of foreigners. Diversity plus proximity always results in conflict. No one can afford to relax anymore.

There’s also the massive wealth gap in modern America. As the middle-class is being squeezed to support the managerial class, the over-class is looking like the aristocracy of 18th century France. The tech and financial barons live lives incomprehensible to middle-class people. Worse yet, the reckless disregard of the over-class makes them natural villains. Americans have been trained to admire success, but today’s successful are ugly, un-American people, who elicit nothing but contempt.

The growth of mass media certainly plays a part in the general unhappiness. At the end of the Cold War, most people had television and a newspaper. It was impossible for unwelcome advertisers to invade the private space. Today, we are awash in media and most of it is terrible. How many times do you have to have a video start playing while you are reading the sports pages, before you are in a sour mood? Make that a constant state and it is easy to see how mass media immiserates us.

Immigration, mass media and massive wealth gaps are certainly sources of unhappiness, but they can be remedied. People can form local communities, tune out the media and enjoy their own prosperity. The conflict in the workplace and the growth of the administrative state are unavoidable. Even in traditional homes, worry about the workplace will cause private anxiety. The swollen ranks of single people, defined by their career, are beholden to the daily uncertainty of the workplace.

Turning America is an economic zone, modeled on 20th century business management techniques, has resulted in a marketplace of miserable customers. Rather than economic prosperity resulting in a happy populace, it is a free-for-all of Darwinian competition, where everyone sees everyone as a threat. Prosperity itself becomes a daily threat, as it is built on a relentless drive for efficiency. Bad times meant belt-tightening. Today, good times means being replaced by a Hindu.

That slams into the other jaw of neoliberalism, which is the incoherent inefficiency of the managerial class and their plaything the administrative state. Leave the office to attend to something at your kid’s school or get a physical and you are confronted with a world of negative productivity, run by people with prestigious credentials, frittering away their days in nonsense activities. The constant clash of unpleasant realities makes a normal man spit on his hands, hoist the black flag , and begin slitting throats.

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!

Thoughts On Sportsball

Sportsball has started up with college programs kicking off their season and the professional sportsball getting started this week. Like most dissidents, I have lost interest in sportsball, for the most part. I’ll watch the college games, mostly because I tend to work on Saturday afternoon. I’ll put on whatever game is available and listen to it while getting work done. The professional games are close to unwatchable. The media presentation is unbearable and the games themselves are not good.

Professional sportsball is totally poz’d up now. During their summer practice period, there were stories about allowing girls to play. Since a girl would get snapped in half playing sportsball with men, the point of entry is kicking. A girl calling herself Carli Lloyd is contemplating a tryout as a NFL kicker. Where this stands at this point is unknown, but the idea of it is ridiculous. I’ve been to a lot of sportsball games in my life and never have I heard anyone say they hoped to see a girl playing the game.

I’ll take it further and say I vehemently oppose adding girls to sportsball. In fact, I’m OK with ending girls sports entirely. Girls should not be playing sports. They should be learning how to be proper women. Exercise is fine, but teaching girls to compete like men is as dumb as trying to teach a fish to ride a bicycle. Sure, a bear playing piano, a monkey drinking a beer and girls playing basketball can be amusing. Building a society around freak show attractions, however, is barbaric madness.

Probably the most vulgar example of this barbaric nonsense is female fighting, like UFC or boxing. Reportedly, a Chinese lesbian beat up a white lesbian to win a trophy and become the first Asian lesbian to do so. The sick bastards that stage this stuff would be torn to pieces and fed to the dogs. The beta perverts enjoying these displays should be sent to the camps. Only a degenerate wants to see women beat one another to a pulp in a fighting ring. This is not how civilized people treat their women.

The reason this nonsense is pushed on us is mostly spite. The fans of sportsball are overwhelmingly male. The paying fans are overwhelmingly white male. Since the religion of the ruling class is based in hated of white males, forcing girls, homosexuals and exotics into the games is normal now. Over the weekend, a sportsball player announced to great, orchestrated fanfare, that he is bisexual. The whole point of these stories is to ruin what little enjoyment white males can find these days.

Of course, when normal men object to this crap, the response from the usual suspects is “why does this bother you?” The answer is that the whole point of forcing this junk on sportsball fans is to bother them. That’s the reason they have girl referees and girl coaches now. It’s why they keep trying to interject homosexuals into the story. The point of the question is to obscure the fact that our cultural masters are trying hard to ruin anything that normal men find enjoyable. These people hate us.

Putting all of that aside, what jumps out when watching sportsball these days is how everything is drenched in sentimentality. Instead of presenting the two squads fighting one another on the field, the game is filled with stories of how the various players had to overcome hardship. You get the sense that the next revolution in television is going to be a hookup that causes the viewer to experience sadness, anguish and despair, as each of the heroic stories is relayed during the game.

It’s not just the television presentation. The coaches and players have all been trained to complain about the difficulties they have had to overcome in order to be in the sportsball competition. Every player says no one thought he could do whatever it is he did and every coaches swears his team overcame great adversity. The point of a sportsball presentation is to convince the viewer that life is hopelessly rigged against you and only the exceptions find any happiness. Just kill yourself.

Presumably, the presentation is popular, but it is hard to know. The normal people I know all complain about the way sportsball is presented. Many have simply stopped following this stuff as a result. My interest has waned, for sure. On the other hand, they say the television ratings are strong, so people must watch this stuff. Then again, the ratings for these shows are probably a lie like everything else these days. The presentation of constant sorrow comes with constant lies.

The funny thing, though, is a key part of keeping the populace pacified is keeping them entertained with things like sportsball. Allowing the lunatics into to ruin it for the target audience seems like a bad move. In dissident circles, you find lots of former sportsball fans, so a good way to fight the dissidents would be to make sportsball attractive to the typical white guy. Maybe these people’s need to hate us simply overcomes their desire to rule over us. Hatred is a powerful narcotic.

On the other hand, maybe the hardcore sportsball fans can be counted on to overlook the poz that is slathered onto the presentation. If you are really into following your team, maybe you don’t notice the rest of it, so the proselytizing falls on deaf ears. Those who notice either turn off these shows or already believe the nonsense. The effort to poison the minds of white males is just a waste of resources, maybe even driving white males away from media and into dissident politics.

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!

Rebellious Thoughts

Most people reading this will claim that they are not surprised that the people behind the seditious plot to overturn the 2016 election will not face charges. To be on the dissident right requires a degree of cynicism about political institutions. Democracy assumes things about humans that the dissident knows are false. Therefore, a system relying on people to act in a way that is against their nature is doomed to fail. That and the people attracted to democratic politics are always the worst society has to offer.

No matter how clear-eyed you are about the nature of man, politicians always have the ability to disappoint even the most cynical. If most people on this side of the great divide are being honest, they are let down by the news that the oleaginous James Comey will escape justice for his crimes. There was that flicker of hope that William Barr would not be another slithering reptile and do the right thing. Again, these people always have the ability to disappoint even the most jaded among us.

The thing is, there has always been a sense that these people operate by a different set of rules than the rest of us. It’s such an overused trope that when you see a James Comey type of character in a movie, they seem one-dimensional. They’re just the stock bureaucratic bad guy everyone knows how to hate. The same is true of the duplicitous villain like Bill Barr. In movies, that’s the guy the hero foolishly trusts, only to learn that he is more villainous than the James Comey character.

That said, the reason that most people have been holding out hope that this seditious plot would be prosecuted is they don’t really believe everyone in the ruling class is a villainous gangster. Again, even the jaded on this side of the divide thought something would come from this caper, even if it was just the release of a documents showing there was a plot. Maybe a few low-level punks like Lisa Page and Peter Strzok would get a show trial and be sent off to Club Fed for a few years.

It is increasingly clear, that nothing will happen. Bill Barr is just the latest flim-flam man to bamboozle Donald Trump into trusting him. It is clear now that his assignment is to cover up the crimes of official Washington. It has been six months since he was authorized to start releasing the classified documents describing the actions of the FBI during this caper. So far, nothing has been released. In fact, Bill Barr is fighting public disclosure of documents a federal judge ordered released months ago.

The path to revolution starts with dissatisfaction. The people are unhappy with their lot and begin to demand changes. At first, they appeal to their rulers, who they assume want to do a good job as rulers. When that fails, they begin to demand their rulers make reforms and address their concerns. At some point, the people realize they cannot appeal to the humanity or the pragmatism of their rulers. Reform will never come, so the last two options are knuckle under or revolt against the system and it rulers.

There seems to be a scale along which people move from pacified to rebellious that is determined by their view of their rulers. At the pacified end, they are happy with how things are going in their personal lives and assume it is in everyone’s interest to make the system work. The rulers benefit from a happy populace, so even if they indifferent to the people, they work to make them happy. The system of rules and the people operating the system are working about as well as possible, so there is peace.

At the other end is where people no longer believe the system is just and that the people ruling over it are beyond appeals to reason and humanity. In fact, the people in charge relish the injustice of the system, maybe taking extra measures to inflict chaos and mayhem on the people. The system is so bad and the condition so intolerable, it is assumed that anything must be better. At this end, the people no longer view their rulers as human men. They are just the face of an evil system.

As Bill Barr slowly and efficiently covers up the seditious plot and other crimes committed by the FBI and DOJ during the Obama years, it is not unreasonable to wonder how far down the scale this moves the political center. Twenty-five years ago, most dissidents would have thought this level of corruption was improbable, if not entirely impossible. The typical normie was still sure the next election would bring reformers, who would chase off the crooks and clean up the system.

It’s hard to gauge these things, because our biases come into play. If you are an accelerationist, for example, the Comey result is good news. You want to think that this moves everyone closer to the “burn baby burn” camp. If you are a Trump-truster, you probably just tune this stuff out, as it contradicts your preferred narrative. Maybe you convince yourself that letting Comey walk is part of some super-secret 4-D chess game Trump and Barr are playing to entrap the deep state in their web.

The likely answer right now is most normal white people are a bit shocked by what is happening, unable to process it. It’s one thing to overindulge in negativity and self-pity, calling the pols a bunch of crooks. That’s just a coping strategy. It is another thing to realize that it really is hopeless and the system is beyond redemption. It’s like that moment when you decide to find a new job or change careers. Nothing changes on the outside, but inside there is a revolution in your thinking and outlook.

That probably explains why the ruling classes in revolutionary times make so many costly blunders. In retrospect, it is baffling, but in the moment the people in charge look out and see nothing but calm. They conclude that things are going well enough that they don’t have to change course. Maybe that’s why Barr is working hard to cover up the crime and corruption. He thinks once the whole thing is dispensed with, it will no longer vex people. Trust in the system will slowly return.

Again, it is hard to gauge these things in the moment. One thing we know is that dissident ranks are growing. Even the Left is admitting it. The popularity of dissident sites, podcasts and video shows are at record highs. More important, the general sense within dissident ranks is that reform is impossible. We not only need a new ruling class, we need a new system. The center of gravity for the opposition to the status quo is moving further down that scale toward rebellion.

That said, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the civic nationalist to operate in anything but a fantasy world. Whatever you may think of Trump, the result of the last three years is proof that elections don’t matter. This shameless refusal by public officials to apply the law to Washington insiders makes a mockery of the rule of law. Throw in the stunning dishonesty of the mass media and the metastasizing surveillance state and it is impossible for even the most gullible to remain a civic nationalist.

Even accounting for all the various biases, a sober minded view of things suggests we are rapidly heading to that place where the people are faced with two choices. It’s either knuckle under and surrender any sense of dignity or revolt against a system that is beyond reform. Maybe like that guy in the cubicle who decided to quit, that’s where everyone is right now. Or, maybe most people are like the other guy, resigned to a life as a cubicle slave. Events suggest we will find out sooner, rather than later.

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 Last Hurrah

The 2020 presidential election, which will probably be Trump versus Warren, is shaping up to be the final act of Baby Boomer America. Both are of the generation that has come to symbolize the culture of those born after the Second World War. Trump was born in 1946, while Warren was born in 1949. That means both came of age with the Beatles and the Stones. Both were in college when the hippies and anti-war protesters were taking over the college campus. They are children of the 1960’s.

It has been argued many times that the Baby Boom generation is more than just the people who were teenagers and young adults in the late 60’s. According to demographers, the Boomers include people who were in college when Ronald Reagan was president. That’s fine, as far as demographics, but when people think Boomers, they think in cultural terms. The generation that grew up on the Beatles is what they have in mind, not the generation that grew up on Lynyrd Skynyrd.

That really is the important thing to keep in mind whenever discussing generational politics in America. For the Boomers, the 60’s were a vastly different time from the 70’s, in terms of the culture and outlook. The 80’s, 90’s and 00’s, in contrast, are not wildly different culturally. It’s like how the 50’s and early 60’s are really the same culture. The cultural revolution that stated in the 1960’s really did change the country, so by the 70’s it was a totally different experience for young people.

Of course, the Democratic side of the battle has yet to be decided, but the signs are all pointing to Warren winning the nomination. The polls say Creepy Uncle Joe is the favorite, but observation says otherwise. At some point in the fall, he will be found wandering in his bathrobe, demanding to talk to President Nixon. At that point it will be time to take his campaign keys away and pack him off to the home. His support will then flow to Warren, the next demographically pleasing option for them.

There’s also the fact that Warren is quietly drawing huge crowd to her speeches, which is always a sign the voters are at least considering a candidate. The feminist white women in the party think it is there turn to have a candidate. More important, they think they were robbed in 2016. Warren is not just a less corrupt and less repulsive version of Hillary Clinton. She captures the seething rage of that demographic. Hell hath no fury like a scorned, menopausal feminist clutching her dream catcher.

The 2020 presidential campaign will be two sides of the 60’s Boomer culture, facing off against one another in one final battle. The male side, represented by Donald Trump, is nostalgic for an America that no longer exists. Trump sees himself as this generation’s Ronald Reagan. Instead of morning in American, though, it is dusk in America. His tenure is a cargo cult of sorts. He and his supporters seem to think if they carry on like it is 1985, it will suddenly become 1985. Trump is pure nostalgia.

Warren is the feminine side of this battle. Unlike Trump, she is not pining for a return to Reagan’s America. She is all of the liberal Boomers in the 80’s and 90’s, who talked about the terribleness of Reaganism, while enjoying the benefits. Just as Boomer feminists talked like Betty Friedan, but lived like June Cleaver, this side of the Boomer political culture publicly hated Reagan and the 80’s economic boom, but privately benefited from it. The conscience of the 60’s was always forgiving.

Then there is the more personal aspect of it. In terms of popular culture, Trump really is the quintessential Baby Boomer male. He made a lot of money, but will never have much to show for his time. Everything about Trump is wrapped up Trump the person, the selfish, boorish oaf living for the moment. When the wife got too old, he traded her in for a new one. When he hit middle-age, he bought a sports car and started dating young women. His story will be one of endless self-indulgence.

Warren, for her part, is the other side of that coin. She is the scorned ex-wife, who got the house and filled it up with trinkets from the various self-actualizing fads she got into after the divorce. In between glasses of chardonnay, she will spend hours telling you about how awful her ex-husband was during the divorce. She is the woman, who rejected the lifestyle of her mother, but at some point, when it was too late, realized her mother was right all along. That is the real source of her bitterness.

The 2020 campaign promises to be Trump running around the country telling his fans about all the winning, while Warren runs around wagging her boney finger at them, telling them about how she has been wronged. It will be the cad versus the nag, largely a fight among white people about how best to go into that dark night. On the one side will be Trump nostalgic for a lost America. On the other will be Warren, haunted by an America that never was. Two characters from a soon to be forgotten past.

Neither side will have much to say about what comes after them, because they are from a generation that thought they would live forever and never grow old. The people who swore they would never trust anyone over thirty, now can’t spare a second to consider the future of those under 30. It’s going to be two perpetual adolescents throwing one final tantrum, demanding the rest of us indulge them one more time. It is the last hurrah for a generation that will buried, not praised, by those who follow.

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 Only Equal End

Normal people look at the public performance of the Left and have the reaction all normal people have to irrationality. First, they will laugh or scoff at whatever the Left is doing, as both reactions come from the same instinct. It is a dismissal of whatever is going on, as too ridiculous to consider. A man in a sundress demanding to be called “they” is absurd. The kinder souls will laugh at it, while the less kind will dismiss it as vulgar degeneracy. Both reactions are justified, of course.

Once we pass the initial rejection, the reaction of normal people to the cultural lunacy we see on display falls into two buckets. One group will continue to dismiss this stuff, as a sign that the Left is just a bunch of crazy, middle-aged white women and their colored assistants, trying to get attention. The cat-lady factor is so strong on the Left it’s hard not to focus on it. Scan the crowd at an Elizabeth Warren event, for example, and it looks like a clearance sale at the wine mart. Spinsters everywhere.

Now, the other camp that forms up after the initial reaction is the people, who suspect there is a deeper motive to what they are seeing. The Left has been in control of the culture for several generations now, so they cannot be all mad. Steve Sailer, for example, thinks these displays are about keeping the Progressive coalition focused on the evil white men so they don’t attack one another. The bad people suspect this is all part of a plot by the nefarious forces to undermine white society.

There is a third option. This insane behavior is not just performance art, but an assault on rationality and order. It is an attack on the very concept of truth. After all, if it is no longer possible to tell boys from girls, then what is true? The very basics of human biology start with the fact that humans come in two sexes. If the very axioms of human reality are now up for debate, then everything is up for debate, even the claims made by the Left. With no truth, nothing is false. The world is narrative of opinion.

Take, for example, the assertion that race is a social construct. This bit of biological denialism is popular with the Left. So much so they are now demanding white historical figures be played by black actors, to prove that race is imaginary. Now, the demand itself contradicts the assertion. If race is not real, then there would be no reason to demand a black guy play Henry VII or Queen Elizabeth. The demand itself is proof that race is very real, so much so the past must be black-washed.

Even if you don’t accept that, let’s take the “race is not real” argument forward and examine the implications. If race is a social construct, then diversity must also be a social construct. In fact, it is irrational, as what would be the point of decorating an organization with things that do not exist? That also means so-called hate speech is a social construct, as it is rooted in the belief in racial and ethnic differences. If those differences are imaginary, then hate speech is imaginary as well.

None of this matters, of course. What matters to the Left is that observable reality cannot be trusted. They can live with their own assertions falling prey to this logic, as their ultimate objective is a world without objective truth. They seek to create the post-modern world, where the only proper response to physical reality is skepticism, because there is no possibility of reliable knowledge. The modern Left is the political implementation of the academic movement called post-modernism.

Post-modernism is the 20th century academic movement popular in philosophy, the grievance studies and the humanities. It denies the existence of a universal, stable reality, insisting everything is arbitrary and subjective. It is a reaction to science and technology that explains reality in objective terms. The post-modernist claims that reality is constructed as the mind tries to understand its own personal circumstances, within the social construct of society and the perceived reality of others.

This is why the Left is now so vehemently anti-science. A generation ago the proper leftists had a Darwin fish on her Volvo. This was supposed to be a signal that the owner was a member of the “reality based community” not a believer is magic, superstition or, of course, a religion. The Left insisted they were the sober minded realists, rooting their opinions in facts and reason. Their opponents were basing their opinion in fear and the irrational belief in nonsense, like tradition and religion.

In reality, the owner of that Volvo was signally a rejection of the very idea of objective or transcendent truth. That is, after all, what religion offers. It is a set of transcendent truths that define the reality of mankind. The point of a religious text, like the Christian Bible, is to have an objective set of rules that are not up to the whims of a cleric or a religious institution. Scripture is God’s rule book and not up to debate by man. The rejection of religion, is the rejection of such an objective set of truths.

Fast forward to the current year and the Left has moved on from rejecting religion and the reality of religion, onto the rejection of science. Genetics and evolution are nature’s rule book. If you prefer, they are the rule book of nature’s god. This biological reality is not only the framework of life, but puts hard limits on human organization. The rejection of science is the rejection of the possibility of reliable knowledge about the natural world and the nature of man. The guy in the sundress calling ximself “they” is the embodiment of this rejection of knowable truth and factual reality.

Of course, the practical benefit of a world unbound from facts and reasons is that the actors in such a world are unbound from the limits of reason. It is the ultimate freedom, as everything is possible and everything can be justified. It’s also why the Left insists their opponents demonstrate that their objections match up with some set of arbitrary standards selected by the Left. If their opponents are bound to reality, while the Left is free to form whatever construct it needs, the outcome is certain.

There can be only one form of post-modernist rule. The rejection of founding truths, the axioms of the human condition, provides not justification for political power, social status or even a social order. The void of nihilism can only be filled by the will to power and the necessary application of force to attain power and impose order. The perpetual revolution of post-modernism, the endless questioning of objective reality, is the only way for radicalism to attain power and maintain it. The on-going insanity of the Left is the necessary precursor to perpetual Progressive rule.

The endless cultural revolution is like rats gnawing at the support ropes. If left unchecked, there can be only one result from such a process. The endpoint of this perpetual social revolution, the institutional skepticism of reality, is a world without any order at all, even that imposed by the strongest. Even the reality of fear falls away and we fall into a world where it is a war of all against all. In this regard, what the Left has become is war on the very nature of man and the reality that shapes him.

This is the logical endpoint of the Enlightenment. Post-modernism did not spring from nothing. It is the continuation of political philosophy starting with Rousseau, through Nietzsche and into the current age. Western liberalism was born of the irrational belief that man comes into the world as a blank slate and can be fashioned into anything through the proper social structures. Ever since, the goal of liberal political philosophy has been to build the right social structure to achieve universal equality.

Since the utopian goal of universal equality is impossible, it leaves only the equality of nihilistic chaos. A world without truth is a world where noting is false. This is the ultimate equality, where everything is opinion and all opinion is equally worthless. While the Left may seem irrational, they are acting on that old Enlightenment impulse to achieve universal equality. If we cannot be equal in the utopian paradise of our own making, we can be equal in the utter and compete destruction of society. After all, the one place where all men are equal is in the cemetery.

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!

Post-Intellectual America

The sorry state of American conservatism is a regular topic in dissident circles, mostly because the decaying carcass of Conservative Inc. continues to stagger around politics and the media. Some parts continue to do the best they can in their gatekeeper role, while others continue to rationalize Progressive fanaticism. It staggers on mostly because of donor money that keeps the various rackets going. For how long is unknown, as the source of that money is now quite old.

An example is the recently dead David Koch. A long time libertarian fanatic, he and his brother poured tens of millions into so-called conservatism. They kept Reason Magazine afloat and helped set up its finances so it will persist after the Koch brothers are gone. They also played an active role in turning Buckley-style conservatism into warmongering libertarianism. Neocon money on one side and Koch brother’s money on the other defined post-Cold War conservatism.

The trouble with this structure is it operated like a vice, squeezing everything useful out of the Right, leaving nothing but pens for hire, career men and fanatics. What was squeezed from conservatism was any reason to support it. On the one hand, it wished to turn men into moist robots serving the economy. On the other it sought to convince Americans they had to be cannon fodder in the national pursuits of Israel. Its political pitch to white Americans was reduced to, “But the Left is much worse.”

You see the emptiness of conservatism in this Kevin Williamson post about how David Koch was supposedly on the Right. The post itself is mostly about Williamson, who has taken to writing like a teenage girl of late. Everything is about his feelings now. Putting that aside, his claim for placing David Koch on the Right, and presumably libertarians as a whole, is that he liked ballet. This is supposedly evidence of his love for high culture, which according to Williamson is the exclusive domain of the Right.

Of course, the question of whose high culture never enters the discussion, as that treads on dangerous territory. For the modern conservative, “culture” has come to mean a universal thing that anyone can enjoy. More important, it has no origin. It just popped from the void, fully formed. Koch’s alleged love for this mystical thing supersedes his support for open borders and globalism, not to mention his support for Progressive causes like homosexual marriage and abortion on demand.

Another reason co-called conservatives were happy to call Koch a right-winger is the Left was happy to call him a right-winger. The best maneuver in the Progressive playbook is to select the leaders of their opponents. They focus their attention on one soft target, making that person the symbol of their cause. That person then becomes the easily mocked and ridiculed leader of the opposition. For example, they turned the alt-right into a joke by cultivating Richard Spencer as the face of the movement.

In the case of the Koch brothers, the Left was happy to make them the bad guys, as they were never going to be a threat. Instead, they would pour millions into conservative operations, which would happily purge themselves of social conservatives and skeptics of global capitalism. That neocon – libertarian sandwich that was conservatism, became the other slice of the Progressive sandwich that controls American politics. The choice is a libertarian warmonger or a Progressive fanatic. That’s democracy!

The end result of that neocon – libertarian vice is that so-called conservatism was stripped of its intellectual core, as well as its connection to its intellectual history. Rather than a defense of tradition and the moral order, conservatism became a public relations department for the plutocrats financing them. Like every racket, the money is always what comes first. Conservative writers are just common streetwalkers, going with whoever pulls up to the curb. They’ll do anything for a buck.

In fairness, their dancing partner is no better. It largely goes unremarked, but the Left is every bit as intellectually vacant as conservatism. They are silent on global capitalism and silent on the ramifications of the post-national order. They are entirely incoherent on why they support the things they support. The conservative case for men in dresses is ridiculous, but looks erudite compared to the Progressive case. The modern Left is a toddler rolling on the floor, sobbing out incoherent demands.

Of course, the purpose of the commentariat in current year America is to operate as an endless distraction. The Left carries on so that their side does not notice that politics is now controlled by a handful of billionaires and their hired men in politics. The Right has the job of keeping the white middle-class focused on punching at air, while those billionaires tighten their grip on the economy and culture. Conservatives and liberals are now just the entertainment portion of the custodial state.

Perhaps this is just the natural transition from one historic cycle to the next. We are arguably at the end of several long historic cycles. The Enlightenment, the Industrial Age and the American Empire are all reaching a denouement. The confluence of these three final acts is responsible for the great tumult in the West. The lack of an intellectual class is simply the result of these cycles having run their course. What comes next is a new intellectual class for the demographic and technological 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!

The Cuck’s Life

The triggering event for when the so-called conservative movement made the final turn toward the dustbin of history was when the term “cuckservative” started to gain traction on social media. A portmanteau of “conservative” and “cuckold”, coined by fans of Richard Spencer, it captured the very essence of the person peddling Buckley-style conservatism during the populist revolt of 2015. These were men routinely humiliated by their women, with the women being their political masters on the Left.

The humiliation comes from the fact that these so-called conservatives are not forced to grovel by the political Left. It’s that they have so internalized their servitude, they think their self-debasement is a point of pride. They are like the house slave defending the master against the field slaves. It’s not that they get material benefits from selling out their kind. It’s that they have come to be defined by the fact that they have surrendered themselves to their masters completely. They are “men without chests.”

It is not enough for the cuckservative to remain silent about the proselytizing of the Left or excuse their excesses. The cuck’s life is one of always trying to be ahead of the curve, when it comes to championing Progressive morality. As soon as the Left starts making noises about something, the cuckservative will turn up with a highly polished explanation for why Progressive morality is, in fact, a conservative principle. They prove their worth by being to the Left of Progressives on moral issues.

The king of the cucks is probably David French, who invests all of his time lecturing the dwindling readership of National Review on why he is too good for them. His game these days is to write long sob stories about how normal white people don’t appreciate his wonderfulness for having adopted a black girl from Africa. There’s the sense in his self-serving posts that he regrets having obtained the black child through adoption, rather than the old fashioned way. Such is the cuck’s life.

That is what makes the term cuckservative so perfect. It is the issue of race where these people reveal themselves to be soulless. This string of tweets from someone called Bradley Wilcox is a great example. Wilcox is Director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia. He’s also funded by the American Enterprise Institute, an outfit that is a breeding ground of cuckservatism. Wilcox also hilariously fell for the absurd rape hoax perpetrated by Rolling Stone Magazine.

That last bit is a good example of how the cuck’s mind works. He is always looking to rush to the front of the latest Progressive crusade, so he can smugly march past the crowd, carrying on like he is an important part of the cause. When the Left was manufacturing the campus rape nonsense, good old Brad was ready to rush out and make himself the champion of the issue. The fact that he picked National Review to be the platform remains a symbolic moment in their decline.

Notice how the cuck always personalizes his tantrums. In this case, Bradley starts with the lament that he has supposedly been called a racist in the past. That seems unlikely, given his minor status, but that does not matter. What matters is that the Left believes that he believes racism is the worst. His tweet storm is a performance, not for the remaining lost souls still kicking around Official Conservatism. He’s performing for the Left, humiliating himself for their titillation.

One tell in this tantrum is that it was triggered by Amy Wax’s observation that immigrants are litterbugs. This is something that is obvious to anyone who has been around immigrants or been abroad. In fact, it is something the immigrants themselves will notice, as they compare their new community with their old. Amy Wax is not claiming that Mexican possess a litter gene and as a result are compelled to toss their empty Modelo cans in the street. She is making a cultural observation.

If Bradley was about anything other than promoting the career of Bradley to his Progressive masters, he could have used this fact to promote his creedalism nonsense. After all, the alleged basis of creedalism is that what makes America is a list of arguments. As a result, anyone can be an American, as long as they accept those arguments. Presumably, part of the American creed is that you should not throw your trash on the ground, so as not to offend a fake Indian, but that’s not the cuck’s life.

Of course, creedalism is a sham. A devoted Christian would use the sin of the fallen as a chance to apply his beliefs to save the sinner. The committed communist uses hard times to argue on behalf of his the abolition of property. The creedalist, in contrast, uses his alleged beliefs to position himself as the fiery critic of the enemies of the Left. It affords him a safe space, so he can post tirades on Twitter about racists not wanting garbage in their streets or piles beer cans in the local park.

This is why “cuckservative” is such an effective term. The cuckold is mocked and derided, not because his wife is unfaithful. He is an object of derision because he refuses to do anything about it. That’s so-called conservatism. For generations now, they have been unwilling to take on their partners on the Left. No matter the humiliation, they come crawling back. The cuck’s life is defined by his humiliation. No man has respect for the cuckold and no one has respect for the cuckservative.

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 China Questions

The trade war with China is heating up, so the usual suspects are now turning up in the media to pronounce on the issue. There is the sense that many of the pundits are relieved to take a break from discussing the culture war that surrounds the Trump presidency and the Progressive response to it. Talking about trade and global economics feels like old times. Here is a longish post from David Goldman, the man behind Spengler of the Asia Times, addressing the trade war.

As is always the case in these matters, the Michael Crichton observation about the media should be kept in mind. The growing rift between China and the United States is a complicated matter by itself. The impact it will have on global trade, the US economy and geopolitics is even more complex. Even people paid to risk real money in these areas don’t have a firm grasp of all the moving pieces. The people posting in the media know even less. Often they know nothing at all.

That does not mean there is nothing we can know. The first question, in any heated trade dispute between two countries, is “who is buying and who is selling?” and the related question is, “What is being traded?” In this regard, trade disputes are not a lot different from disputes between customers and vendors. How they proceed and how the end is entirely controlled by the relationship and the products in question. That determines who has the most leverage in the dispute.

In this case, the relationship is easy to sort. U.S. imports from China totaled $539.5 billion in 2018. U.S. exports were $179.3 billion. That export total is about 7% of all U.S. exports for 2018. Put another way, the U.S. market is about 5% of the Chinese economy, assuming the fake Chinese economic numbers are even close to reality, which is surely not the case. The Chinese market is less than one percent of the U.S. economy in 2018. Imports are about 3% of the U.S. economy.

Right away, the relationship between China is the U.S. is not an equal one, in terms of dollars, but also in terms of impact. Then there is the nature of trade between the two countries. Almost all of the U.S. exports to China in 2018 were aircraft parts, electronic components and car parts. In many cases, these are either high precision items the Chinese cannot produce or they have intellectual property that the Chinese will try to steal, so they are made in the U. S. and sent to China.

This is why Trump is playing hardball. He believes he has far less to lose than the Chinese in a trade war. Even if all trade with China comes to an end, the cost to the U.S. economy is not going to be devastating. In fact, it will be hardly noticed. Much of that trade will be replaced with other cheap labor countries, as it is not really trade in the conventional sense. America’s economic relationship with China is about off-shoring manufacturing to dodge labor, tax and environmental laws.

This is a point that cannot be made enough. When American producers sell good to Canada, and Canadian producers sell good to America, that’s trade. When American producers move manufacturing to Mexico, then bring those goods back home under a tariff free regime, that’s not trade. China is not selling the world anything the world does not have or cannot make. What China is selling is a safe haven to avoid the labor, tax and environmental laws that exist in the West.

That does not mean there can be no impact. That’s the other set of questions that can be examined from the outside. China can play a long game, as the Chinese leaders are not facing annual elections and endless media scrutiny. The West, particularly Trump, are in an endless election cycle. Any little blip in the economy is magnified by the media and then fed into the political calculus. While this trade war will inflict more pain on China, they have a much higher pain threshold than Trump.

That’s the theory. It is not all that clear just how much pain Trump will suffer from this standoff with China. The timing actually works in his favor. The slow buildup not only gives American business time to adjust, it gives the political class time to cast it as the typical good guy versus bad guy story. Xi Jinping is not exactly a lovable Jackie Chan type of guy, so casting him as a villain will be easy. In other words, Trump may be trading a little economic capital for a lot of political capital.

Then there is the question of just how much pain China can take and for how long. It is just assumed by Western analysts that the Chinese can absorb any amount of suffering for as long as it takes. After all, China weathered the Cultural Revolution without a mass revolt by the people. Mao had to die before the party moved to end the madness. Why would the Chinese people revolt over a slight down turn in the economy? Why would the party move against Xi Jinping, if the trade war contracts her economy?

No one can know this, but we do know that wealthy people are far more sensitive to small changes in the economy than poor people. We see this in the West. A small down turn has the middle class turning against their party, but a generation long depression in coal country has not caused a revolt. That same reality may be true in China. There are a lot of people living bourgeois lifestyles along the Chinese coast, all financed by one-sided trade with the United States and her allies.

While all of this economic 4-D chess will occupy the pundits, there may be a simple answer to what is going on with China. It could simply be that China has become a liability to the West. The benefits of moving manufacturing to China has been consumed at this point. What’s left is the liability, which is currency manipulation, IP theft, espionage and financial shenanigans. China is running out of friends in Western capitals. The appetite for tolerating this stuff may be waning.

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!

Medieval Jewish Policy

The standard narrative, with regards to relations between Christians and Jews, is one of constant conflict. The Jews have been subjected to various forms of repression, ranging from marginalization to genocide. The underlying assumption is that the Christian majority was either motivated by religious fanaticism or ignorant bigotry. Of course, the events during World War II loom large in this understanding. The Germans are just assumed to have gone insane and followed an anti-Semitic madman.

That’s what makes the book Early Medieval Jewish Policy in Western Europe such an interesting read. Instead of the modern practice of working backwards to force history into the current narrative, it is a review of the polices toward the Jews, in the centuries following the fall of the Western Roman Empire. It’s an old book, published in 1977, by a now retired scholar of the period. It’s also a short book, just 140 pages. The style and brevity makes it a good introduction to the period for the casual reader.

The book starts with a review of Jewish policy under the Visigoths, who ruled what is now Western France and most of what is now Spain. Both Gaul and Iberia had large Jewish populations by the end of the Roman Empire. The Breviary of Alaric was a collection of Roman laws that applied to the Hispano-Roman and Gallo-Roman population, living under Visigoth rule. It was within this body of laws that official policy regarding the Jews was established in the Visigoth kingdom.

Under the Visigoths, the Jews had a great deal of autonomy. They maintained their own courts, were permitted to own slaves and conduct trade within the kingdom. More important, the Jews were rich and powerful, so they played a large role in the internal politics of the kingdom. The main area of conflict was over the Jewish habit of proselytizing to the Christians as well as the pagans. The Church would tolerate the Jews converting pagans, but not the converting of Christians.

That’s the most interesting aspect of the book. Throughout the early medieval period, the Jewish populations in the former Western Roman Empire were endlessly proselytizing to the Christian populations. This was not just under the Visigoths in the early Christian period. This continued through the Carolingian period, despite very strong objections from the Church. Even the Church, however, was forced to overlook these violations of the law, as the Jews had a lot of power.

If one were to search for a starting point of anti-Jewish sentiment in the West, it would not date to the time of Christ, but to the medieval period. Jews not only competed with the Church politically and culturally, they were very aggressive in their approach to Christians. For example, in the Carolingian period, Jews widely circulated the Toledot Yeshu, which is an alternative biography of Jesus. It describes Jesus as an illegitimate child, who practiced magic, was an adulterer, and died a shameful death.

The Church, of course, was not happy about this behavior, but lacked the power to do much about it, other than train better priests. That’s another interesting aspect of the period. Jews and Christians regulars celebrated feats together and Christians tended to prefer the Jewish sermons to that offered by the Church. Many Bishops also had good relations with the Jews in their area. In other words, into the Middle Ages, there was not much in the way of antisemitism, at least not as we understand it.

It was these twin realities that drove the development of anti-Jewish policy in the Church during this period. Many important churchman, individually and collectively, not only feared the proselytizing of the Jews, but worried about the fact Judaism was very attractive to both pagans and Christians. It was in this period that institutional opposition to Judaism developed and evolved, despite the fact that the secular authorities were pro-Jewish in their policies. Antisemitism was a reaction to this.

Another aspect to all of this is the fact that Jews used to be aggressive proselytizers, working hard to convert pagans and Christians. Today, the opposite is true. While anyone can become a Jew, that’s like saying anyone can become a physicist. It is technically true, but conversion is not common. Jewish law requires the rabbi to try three times to discourage the convert. This policy may have been a response to the conflicts with the Church over the conversion of Christians.

Probably the most surprising thing in the book is just how pro-Jewish most secular rulers were in the early medieval period. Charlemagne and his son Louis the Pious were extremely favorable to the Jews in their domains. They actively encouraged Jews to immigrate into their lands and gave them special privileges to conduct trade. They also had many Jews serving in administrative roles, holding power over Christians. The Jews were treated better than the Church in many cases.

The reality of the early medieval period is that the secular authorities maintained a very tenuous grip on their holdings. The king relied upon the local landowners and community leaders to maintain control. In many cases, those wealthy and powerful people were Jews within large Jewish communities. As a result, the Church was often the least influential institution. In many cases, the local bishop relied upon Jewish support to maintain his position. The Jews had a lot of power.

Probably the most telling point in this regard is the fact that the most successful monarchs of the period all had pro-Jewish polices. Charlemagne, Theodoric the Great and Gregory the Great pursued pro-Jewish polices. The Jews were literate, wealthy and maintained well-organized, long-standing contacts with Jewish communities throughout the West and East. As such, they were a powerful ally. In return for Jewish support, successful Christian rulers protected Jewish interests.

As much as this reality contradicts the current narrative, it also contradicts many anti-Semitic narratives as well. For example, it is popular with modern anti-Semites to claim the Jews worked with the Muslims in conquering Christian Spain. In reality, the Jews were willing to work with whoever looked like a winner. Jews also worked with Christians against the Muslims and sided with the Viking raiders when they sacked Bordeaux. They also worked with the Franks against the Vikings.

One final bit of interest is it seems that the beginning of Jewish hatred for the Catholic Church began in this period. This hatred turns up today in modern Zionism. In Yoram Hazony’s book, The Virtue of Nationalism, he repeatedly claims that Catholicism was a form of empire, which he condemns. It’s a strange tick, given that the Catholic Church holds little influence in the modern world. It was the Church, however, that managed to reduce Jewish power in the West, starting in the medieval period.

The book does not address this issue, but the fact that Church policy was separate, often at odds with official policy, in the kingdoms of the early medieval period, made it possible for Jews to carve out special privileges. Once Church policy became entangled with official policy, this was no longer possible. Jews were then marginalized and isolated, in order to prevent them from influencing the secular authorities and proselytizing to the Christians. The Catholic Church was bad for Jews.

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!