The Cuck Template

With news that The Weekly Standard is about to shut down due to the lack on interest, I wondered what would fill its place. The need for border security may not be a concern for the political leaders in Washington, but it is a necessity for the people in charge of the moral orthodoxy. The system requires there to be a predictable opposition that will squawk a bit, but eventually roll over for the Progressives. That means there are now job openings in the loyal cuck guard for men (and women!) willing to guard the walls against us.

If you are to become a paid chattering skull on the “right” then you better get used to writing and talking about the double-standard. A standard feature of all cuckservative bleating is pointing how there is one set of rules for Progressives and another set of rules for everyone else. Here’s a recent example in the premiere cuck site, National Review On-line. This one is about the black college professor, who was fired from his CNN job, for saying he hates Jews and wants Israel wiped from the map.

The standard cuck response to these events, is to shift the focus away from the actual issue onto the double-standard. In this case, the effete editor of NRO is begging the Left to stop giving wedgies to cucks like Charlie Cooke, when they fumble their lines. The real issue is why is criticism of Israel in violation of the morality codes, but hating white people acceptable? The cuck can’t allow that. His prime directive is to make sure whitey never thinks about this stuff, so the double-standard mew is employed to change the subject.

A travelling partner of the double-standard complaint, is the passive-aggressive assertion that the so-called conservatives are more faithful to the one true faith than their alleged opponents on the Left. Here’s an example from Power Line Blog I used last week in a post. The writer is trying to make the case that he and his fellow cucks are more faithful to Martin Luther King’s vision of a color blind society. There is, of course, the casual reference to the fact Lincoln was a Republicans and his opponents Democrats.

This is what the cool kids on social media call DR3, which stands for “Democrats R the Real Racists.” The Mr. Hanky of cucks, Dinesh D’Souza has made a business out of claiming that liberals are Nazis and Klansmen. Of course, what this gag is all about is reinforcing Prog morality. Racism is bad. So bad that any mention of race or racial awareness is disqualifying. What the cucks are doing is acting as the moral enforcers for the Left, making sure no one questions this essential plank of Progressivism.

A slightly different approach to this tactic is to hair-split claims by the Left in a way that reinforces their claims. Here’s an example about the so-called gender gap in worker wages. The point of the article is to debunk the claim that women make less than men, by normalizing the comparison. The cucks have been making this argument for decades now, so it is familiar to everyone. That means the argument gets punched up with the faux exasperation and some eye rolling, to indicate this has all be addressed in the past.

As with DR3, these gender gap articles are not about the arguments made from the Left, but about reinforcing a bit of the orthodoxy. In this case, that white women should be in the workplace, rather than at home tending their kids. The foundation of the argument is the acceptance that women not only should be working, but should have careers that transcend their lives as mothers, wives and homemakers. Carrie Lukaks may as well be arguing for the mass sterilization of white women in that post.

Another popular position in the cuck army is to be the guy who spends his days noodling over the rule book. Every time Lefty is about to pull a fast one in Washington, these guys pop up in the pages of cuck publications, talking about the finer points of the law. This post is a recent example from after the election. It is a long snoozer about the details of California election law, written from the ludicrous position that the rules matter. If only we can tweak the rules, the cheating in California will stop!

These are the two faces of the cuck army. When it is time to use the rules against the Left, they start talking about principles and morality. When it is time to talk about principles and morality, they start talking about the rules and the need to respect order. Every time the Left makes clear the rules don’t matter to them and that we live in a lawless age, the cuck army swings into action, lecturing us about the rule of law. That’s important to know. The tongue lashings and lectures are always directed our way, never toward Lefty.

Of course, much of the time in any army is spent killing time. An important part of being in the cuck army is to fill the dead time with pointless nonsense. Post that amount to nothing more than advanced whining are standard filler in conservative publications. This post at the Federalist is a recent example. What these posts are really about is demoralizing the opposition. “See, it just gets worse, May as well kill yourself.” An important part of being a cuck is to reinforce the loser aesthetic on the Right.

Finally, when all else fails, the cuck can always stab the people to his right. When someone on the right comes up with a way to throw sand in the gears, the cuck army rushes to stop them. The heretic does not even have to effective. If they are getting attention, that is enough for the cucks to rally like antibodies to surround the heretic and begin attacking them. This is a good recent example. Whatever you think of Laura Loomer, it was a funny stunt that drew attention to a serious problem.

In the end, policing the vast sea of people opposed to the moral orthodoxy is the number one job of the cuck army. They are the palace guards, protecting the orthodoxy from challenges. Often, that means going on the attack and taking out people they see as threats to the one true faith. Stabbing right is what every cuck is born to do. In some cases, as we see with The Weekly Standard and probably National Review, the cuck will be asked to make the ultimate sacrifice for his real audience.

After Conservatism

National Review was founded in 1955 by Bill Buckley and, until the last few years, it has been the prestige publication of American conservatism. The late 50’s is a good starting point for the movement that has been the alternative to Progressivism. Buckley was greatly influenced by Russel Kirk, so the magazine took on Progressivism, but also the libertarianism of Ayn Rand and the failures of previous efforts to create a legitimate conservatism in the United States. The goal was to create a new Right.

Reading the take down of Ayn Rand by Whittaker Chambers all these years later, it is easy to see how things have changed. In the early days of Buckley conservatism, it was understood by people claiming to be on the Right that libertarianism suffered from the same materialism as Marxism. Rand loved ideology so much there was no room in her cold heart for humanity. Today, the so-called Right is indistinguishable from the libertarianism of today. The editor of National Review actually celebrates it.

It has become a cliche of sorts that what passes for conservatism today is just yesterday’s liberal fads. The social media gag “the conservative case for [fill in name of liberal degeneracy]” stopped being funny because it became common on the page of National Review itself. Here they make the conservative case for homosexual marriage and here they make the case for transgenderism. Of course, one of the leaders of what passes for conservatism these days is a man who walks around dressed as a woman.

When confronted by the ridiculous spectacle that is Conservative Inc., it is tempting to fall into the same trap as Muslims, Marxists and libertarians, when they confront the lunacy of their cults. Whenever a Muslim explodes in public, the response is, “well, that’s not the real Islam.” In the Cold War, Marxists professors would always say that Bolshevism was a mongrel and defective form of Marxism. Of course, libertarianism spend all their time wheeling around those goal posts on roller skates that define libertarianism.

The fact is, the conservatism of Bill Buckley was always defective. It was a continuation of what Robert Louis Dabney observed a century ago about Northern Conservatism. Russell Kirk saw conservatism as a disposition, the lack of ideology. What Buckley conservatism was, in fact, was a pose. The range of allowable opinion on the Left, however, allowed for the existence of a reformist element that drew on the old Right, as well as western traditionalism. The managerial state had not yet snuffed out liberalism.

A couple decades ago, the great paleocon academic Paul Gottfried noted that the managerial state had killed liberalism. By liberalism, he meant the philosophical view that distributed powers and bourgeois moral standards worked to restrain the state and protect civil society. The system of governance refined in the 19th century was being wiped away and something new would replace it. Today, what passes for the Left and the Right both agree to call it neoliberalism and both sides strongly embrace it.

In that Fred Bauer post, you see that Buckley conservatives are on the last leg of the journey into the sun. They no longer see a reason to oppose the Left, because the Left disappeared into the sun of neoliberalism a long time ago. As has been its habit since birth, the conservatism of Bill Buckley follows Progressivism around like a puppy. Its last act on the stage will be fusing itself permanently to what was once called the Left to form the bipartisan fusion ideology of the American managerial state.

Paul Gottfried coined the phrase “alternative Right” in his speech at the Mencken conference, when discussing what happened to the paleocons. Richard Spencer appropriated the idea and started the alt-right, but it was never a coherent movement nor did it have anything resembling an intellectual foundation. It was, at best, a grab bag of ideas plucked from various subcultures in the larger umma of the Dissident Right. As a result it became a cult of personality and then fizzled out entirely.

It is easy to lay the blame for the alt-right at the feet of Richard Spencer, but the real problem is something you can pick up in Gottfried’s speech at Mencken. Paleos never fully grasped the reality of Buckley-style conservatism. Paul remains puzzled by how easy it was for the neoconservatives to overrun the conservative institutions. The reason, of course, was that those institutions were built on the same manor as the Progressive institutions. Conservative institutions were just outbuildings for the main house.

If there is to be a genuine alternative to the prevailing orthodoxy, the first task is to accept a central truth of the managerial state. That is, it must approach an intellectual and moral singularity in order to exist. While it will never reach the point where all opinion is assimilated, the allowable differences are now so small they cannot be seen by the naked eye. A system that evolved out the principle of universal truth, must evolve a morality that is intolerant of anything that challenges it. There can be no room for an alternative.

That means that whatever comes after conservatism must first sink roots outside the neoliberal order and maybe even outside the Enlightenment. It cannot be a reaction to neoliberalism, as that implies a dependency. The obvious implication is that what comes after conservatism, in the framework of the American Right, is nothing. That line of discovery and inquiry has reached a dead end. It is an intellectual tradition with no future and no shadow. What comes next must be a clean break from northern conservatism.

The Pale Man’s Burden

Georgia is one of the places to watch if you want to get a partial glimpse into the future, as it is 61% white, but a growing portion of its white population is from outside the south. The Atlanta area has grown like a weed and much of the growth has come from attracting outsiders. A big chunk of those outsiders are Hispanics, so the state has a little bit of everything, as far as demographic challenges. As a result, it will be one of the first states to realize democracy cannot work in a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society.

This story from the past election is a good example of something that pale-folk will come to realize all over the country. That is, you can run out of places to hide. Georgia “solved” the problems of Atlanta by allowing the better parts to secede from the city proper, thus avoiding the challenges of being pale in a diverse city. This concept was applied to other areas that found themselves with a pale tax base, governed by a vibrant majority. Instead the residents fleeing the jurisdiction, the jurisdiction fled the people, so to speak.

As is the case with all such schemes, the Left soon figures out how to defeat them and that seems to be the case with this latest proposal. The author of that piece is an anti-white, so he is a useful example of the attitudes the pale-folk will face in the future, as they seek out new ways to maintain their own communities. The hostile tone masks an important assumption among the diverse. That is, It’s not that they oppose free association. It’s that the diverse have a right to be in close proximity to pale-folk.

It is a strange alteration in the dynamics of race relations that goes unremarked, because the people in charge are still locked in another era. They frame everything as a fight over denying the diverse the same access as the pale. That shipped sailed a long time ago, as the diverse now have greater access than the pale. Even new arrivals from lands over the horizon have special access. Every federal government IT contractor is from South Asia for a reason. That’s right, Indians have a special door just like blacks.

There are so many special doors now, all of which reading “no white men may pass” that it has become a racket in itself. There are firms around Washington that exist just to provide diversity to the government contractor. They are not explicit, but it is the thing everyone knows, but no one says. After generations of this stuff, no one thinks about it anymore. The only people fighting it are East Asians at Harvard, who are basically squabbling with other diverse people over how to slice up the pie. Otherwise, anti-white is the norm.

The new reality that has gone unremarked is something you get a glimpse of in that story out of Georgia. The diverse now demand access to the pale. Even if the pale find some way to carve out their own places, but remain within the law, the diverse will find some way to force their way inside. In other words, the Danegeld of the Civil Rights Movement, which was affirmative action, was not enough. It turns out Kipling was right about the Danegeld. Once you have paid the diverse, you never get rid of the diverse.

That’s what makes Georgia an interesting case to follow. In other jurisdiction, the pale simply keep moving. In Lagos on the Chesapeake, the pale first decamped to the first suburbs, just on the edge of the city. Pale-folk could still bus into jobs in the city, but avoid being killed on their own streets at night. But then the the diverse could take the same buses out to the suburbs, so the pale moved further away. Those inner suburbs decayed and many are now dumping grounds for Hispanics and Africans.

As we saw in the Obama  years, the people in charge are plotting to solve this problem with housing laws. The usual suspects have been hard at work on this for a couple of decades at least. The Obama Administration plan called Affirmative Housing or some such nonsense, was basically an effort to compel pale-folk to live among the diverse, by forcing them to have the diverse in their areas. In other words, the same logic they use to diversify schools would be applied to pale areas in order to make them vibrant.

The underlying assumption to all of this is that the diverse have a natural right to access to the pale. We’ve gone from a mindset that says the diverse should have the same rules as the pale, a sensible thing on the surface, to a mindset that treats the pale-folk as a public good, to which the diverse have a natural right. Given the use of disparate impact law, it is not going to be long before the pale will be responsible for making sure they make themselves available to the diverse. They will have to prove they are accessible.

The Civil Rights Movement was always about the pale people. The usual suspects just used blacks as a weapon in their war on pale people. Most people get that, but still cling to the old pale ideas about equality of access and so forth. Those habits of mind that make pale society so successful, make pale societies vulnerable. As long as pale-folk have had a place to run, they have preferred to hold onto those old pale ideals, rather than face the reality of what’s happening. Disorganized retreat before dishonor!

As we see in Georgia and other places, the trap is slamming shut and the pale will no longer have the luxury of heading off for paler pastures. That’s part of what sparked the emergence of the alt-right. It was suburban pale boys suddenly facing the reality of diversity. They found out that libertarianism is no match for organized vibrancy and that dropped the scales from their eyes. The pale man’s burden is an unsustainable Danegled that just makes the final resolution that much more costly.

The Coming Violence

Interpersonal violence tends to escalate quickly, where the combatants seem to go from wary suspicion to verbal confrontation and then trading blows. Anyone who has been in a bar fight understands this accelerated process. Two guys are playing pool, words are exchanged and suddenly a beer bottle is smashed over someone’s head. Sports fights follow a similar pattern. Two players get a bit heated and then all of a sudden, you have a bench clearing brawl. This even happens in the professional ranks.

Of course, people don’t actually go from zero to eleven in the blink of an eye. It just appears that way to the outsider. In reality, there is an underlying hostility between the parties that simmers until one or both come to the conclusion that violence is the best option or the only option. In a bar fight, the guy taking the first blow often assumes the other guy is about to do the same thing. In a sports melee, normal male honor requires each side to match the escalation of the other side until a fight breaks out.

This pattern can certainly play out in other areas of life. In fact, rulers have always understand that general discontent among the rabble is like dry underbrush. It only takes a spark and you have a forest fire. In the case of civil unrest, a simmering discontent in the community, or among a sub-group, can quickly turn into a riot. The Rodney King riots in 1992 are a good example. The black underclass had developed a deep hatred of the cops, so when the cops were acquitted, that was the spark that set off the ghetto riot.

More recently and on a smaller scale, the shooting at the Pittsburgh synagogue is an example of a member of a sub-culture who went from zero to mass shooter in one afternoon. He did not pick the target at random or even because they were Jewish, but rather because they were part of a subversive group throwing open the gates to the country to foreign invaders. In other words, like the guy slugging someone at a bar, the shooter thought he was acting rationally and violence was the only rational option.

The point being, whether it is the seemingly incoherent and ad hoc violence of a bar fight or sports melee, or a person or group committing social violence, the actors arise from predictable conditions and act quite rationally. There is a degree of predictability to their actions, if you’re willing to notice. It’s why bouncers in bars keep an eye on the males competing with one another for females. It’s why sports referees look for guys getting agitated and send them off the field to cool down and get their head back in the game.

In modern America, there does not seem to be anyone in charge willing to play the role of bouncer or referee. Instead, the people in charge are like the guy with the stick in old-time bare knuckle fights. They are trying to get the combatants to go at one another, rather than keep them under control. The deployment, tolerance and protection of Antifa, for example, is a deliberate provocation. The people in charge not only hope these idiots hurt someone, they hope white men will defend themselves so they can be railroaded by the courts.

At a smaller scale, the vicious and petty war on white men seems like it is designed to create an American Anders Breivik. Every day, the news brings stories of a white guy getting fired from his job because he told the wrong joke, liked the wrong social media meme or simply was not enthusiastic enough for Progressive fads. This story about a sportsball fan fired because he was upset at the black coach of his favorite sportsball team is a good example. The celebratory tone of the story should be noted.

Now, what’s driving these hunts for the impertinent white guy is the deadly virtue spiral among the ruling class. The dingbats in the media who spend their days hunting down bad thinkers and getting them fired, are acting from a desire for attention. The people at the company who play along with it are acting out of fear. Is this a replay of the Reign of Terror, where radicals spiraled out of control in an orgy of violence. or, is it the Great Terror, where Stalin locked in his control by killing off anyone that could threaten him?

The historically appropriate analogy is debatable, but what is not debatable is modern America is not 18th century France of 20th century Russia. In a multi-racial society, where the old majority is being swamped by former minorities and those former minorities are told they must hate the old majority. The atmosphere is nothing but kindling. A prudent ruling class would be acting as firemen, hunting down anything that looks like a spark, over- reacting if necessarily, in order to prevent a blaze they may not be able to control.

That’s possibly a clue about what our ruling class truly fears. Much of the political talk on the Left after the 2016 election was about how they may have jumped the gun and created a bit of backlash. The BLM murder sprees the summer before the election certainly opened a lot of eyes about the reality of what comes next. The relentless hunting down of internet racists could simply be an effort at calming their constituents. A black guy, enraged by racists memes, going on a shooting spree would be bad for the cause.

Alternatively, the hunting down of internet racists could simply be another sign that the ruling class is oblivious to what’s happening. Hanlon’s Razor says to assume stupidity in these cases. The people who rule over us are strangely unfamiliar with violence. They know it only through their televisions. It’s why they have embraced the Antifa mobs. To people unfamiliar with violence, those black clad idiots look like what managerial class types imagine revolutionaries look like. They don’t know what they don’t know.

Either way, social discontent can easily turn to social unrest and then violence. The people in charge are loading the forest with dry underbrush and kindling, while flicking matches at one another. Maybe they don’t see the danger. Maybe they fear the wrong things. Perhaps they want to see it all burn. Regardless of the motivation, the conditions for political and social violence are just about perfect. One of the matches the idiots in the media are flicking into the underbrush will eventually set the world on fire.

Understanding The War On Whitey

It is tempting to think that the war on white people we see today is some sort of weird incoherent spasm of Progressivism. As Steve Sailer likes to believe, it is part of an electoral strategy to keep the coalition of non-whites from killing each other. If they are focused on how much they hate white people, white men in particular, then they won’t fall into slaughtering one another. That’s a tempting belief, because it suggests it will abate on its own, once the various tribes of the Left have exhausted themselves.

While there may be some truth to that assertion, at least in the narrow confines of electoral politics, the truth is we are simply seeing the next phase of a war that started not long after the end of the Second World War. It was not an explicit war on whitey, as we see today, but rather a war on white ideas about how best to organize a society. One front was the war on institutions, by overrunning them and turning them into pillboxes, from which the Left could attack white society. The academy is the most obvious example.

Another front in this war has been the attack on the basic concepts that whites in America have accepted as the foundation of order. In the 1960’s, the Left managed to outlaw freedom of association, with civil rights legislation. The long held view that you are free to associate with whom you like was banned, in favor of a system of permissions, administered by the courts. Like in a prison, white people now need to seek permission to associate or disassociate. You’ll note that non-whites are free to organize as they please.

Another white concept that has been under attack for generations is the notion of free inquiry. A peculiar feature of the West has always been a curiosity about the world and a willingness to consider new ideas. Openness predates the Enlightenment and is the reason the Enlightenment happened where it did. There’s no analog in Mesopotamia or Asia, and certainly nothing similar in Africa. Free inquiry, the willingness to reconsider old ideas and debate new ideas is a quintessentially white concept.

Of course, the only way you can have free inquiry is to have the freedom to challenge accepted notions in public. Free speech, as a political concept, is just the implementation of free inquiry in the realm of current affairs. The war on speech that we see today, actually started generations ago, as part of the general war on whiteness. In the 1970’s, neoconservative thinker Walter Berns successfully argued that free speech was limited to “good speech” by which he meant speech that served the interest of his team.

This quickly became neoconservative dogma. In the 1980’s, for example, neocons attacked Ronald Reagan’s choice of M.E. Bradford to be chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, on the grounds that he was insufficiently worshipful of Abraham Lincoln. An essential element of the neoconservative persuasion is a deification of Lincoln as the true founder of the Republic. Questioning that questions the neocon role in the American narrative, so that sort of speech can never be tolerated.

Later on, the odious carbuncle Bill Kristol used a similar tactic to drive off the paleocons, particularly Pat Buchanan. The charge this time was that the paleos were not sufficiently worshipful of Israel and Judaism. Of course, the neocon analogs on the Left were more than happy to lock arms with their brothers in making war on Buchanan. This is something we see happening again as Jewish intellectuals and commentators across the political spectrum lock yarmulkes to fight the menace that is Donald Trump.

That’s why we see the overturning of basic contract law and property concepts by the finance and technology giants. De-platforming is part of the war on whiteness, specifically the rule of law. When a registrar steals the domain name of a site they don’t like, that is no different than government agents busting up their property. It’s state sponsored terrorism by proxy. The rule of law and the orderly administration of the law are white concepts, so overturning them is as important as attacking white people directly.

This war on whiteness, that has now become an explicit war on white people, is an accident of history. Some paleocons used to call it Hitler’s revenge, because it grew out of a response to the holocaust. Jewish intellectuals after the war struggled to understand why the Jews of Europe did not fight back. The Warsaw ghetto uprising, for example, is interesting only because of its uniqueness. Instead of this puzzle resulting in self-examination, the response was an obsession with antisemitism and fascism.

The Frankfurt School, for example, started as a project to apply Marxist concepts to the culture. That’s where we get the term “cultural Marxism.” The project quickly curdled into an obsession with antisemitism and fascism, culminating in The Authoritarian Personality, a model for evaluating the morality of white people. Inevitably, that moral code was based on what the authors thought was good for the Jews. Anything that was exclusive or excessively curious about the role of Jews was deemed to be fascist or proto-fascist.

In a strange way, Hitler’s real revenge was the curdling of diaspora culture into a war on Western civilization and a self-defeating war on white people. Of course, the defeat of the Nazis also unleashed American Progressivism as a global firestorm of cultural destructiveness. The Nazis could not hold a candle to the viciousness of the modern human resource department staffed by left-wing harpies. The popularity of Man in the High Castle is that it seems benign in comparison to today’s cultural environment.

Radical Disorder

A mistake often made when analyzing the actions of the Left is to assume everything they do is driven by some master plan. For example, there’s a touch of conspiracy mongering in all of the George Soros stuff. While there is no doubt he is an evil person, much of what he finances is unknown to him.  Left-wing activism is full of grifters and scammers attracted to the free flow of cash. More important, it is a bug lamp for the mentally unstable, whose activism is based on pure instinct. They don’t think about what they are doing.

The attack on Tucker Carlson’s house is a great example. That’s the sort of escalation that a subversive mastermind would not approve. The reason is the Left is far more vulnerable to this sort of thing than the gentry conservatives. Progressive enclaves are made up to look like 1950’s America with a limited police presence and no surveillance cameras. Then there is the fact that the ever-so-slightly to the right talking heads all live in Progressive enclaves. All their neighbors are barking at the moon lefties.

Now, the people responsible for the “action” against Carlson were certainly just acting on a  whim. The people financing them are similarly acting from emotion, rather than strategic thinking. They feel like they are doing something and they somewhat envy the people who get involved in street activism. A major part of the Antifa performance is exactly that, a performance. It’s aimed at the bourgeois bohemians who write checks to operations like the One People’s Project, one of the financiers of Antifa.

This has always been a part of radical activism in the United States, at least since the 1960’s with the rise of the New Left. Read the biographies of people like David Horowitz or histories of groups like the Weathermen, and two things always shine through. One is the activists were often seeking attention from their parents. These were kids raised in bourgeois opulence, but desperate for attention. That’s the thing that turns up over and over in 60’s radicalism. Most of it was just an effort to scandalize their parents.

Then there is the fact that almost all of it was financed by middle and upper middle class people. Radicalism in America is a bourgeois enterprise. People often get this confused, thinking that the Left is just a bunch of hypocrites. After all, the most liberal places on earth are the wealthiest. Today, all of the politically active billionaires are throwing their money into causes that claim to oppose neoliberal capitalism. George Soros is a billionaire, yet he pours money into groups that swear they are going to murder the rich.

Even if you put aside the puerile emotionalism of what’s going on with the Left, the general plunge into lawlessness is far worse for them than it is for the dissidents. The rules, as currently written, are designed to protect the Left. Antifa gets police protection at riots, because the cops know the dissidents would tear the spaghetti armed Antifa boys to shreds, if given the chance. Everywhere you look the system is rigged to protect the Left and make it difficult for dissidents to mount a challenge.

A big part of that is keeping middle-class whites thinking they have to follow the rules, because that’s who they are. By convincing white people that they have to scrupulously follow the rules, the Left maintains an institutional advantage. If whites come to think the rules are for suckers, because the game is rigged by their enemies, the Left loses its most important advantage. Put another way, if the cops decide they don’t have to follow orders and protect the left-wing rioters, we will see our final left-wing riot.

If the Left was really controlled by a super villain, as the talk radio type of conservative insists, they would not be promoting lawlessness. The people in charge always benefit the most from order. This is an iron law of life. That was obvious in communist countries, where the revolutionaries leaders quickly turned into stone-faced defenders of order once they assumed control. The radicalism of today is entirely self-defeating, as it a top-down assault on that which keeps the radicals in power. It’s suicidal.

One possible reason is Continental radicalism was always material in nature. The communists believed their system, if implemented, would result in plenty. Once in power, they needed order so they could figure out how to make their system work. Before long, order became an end in itself, as it provided plenty for the ruling party and insulated them from the masses. The Bolsheviks became an ugly, delusional version of that which they replaced. Their materialism ultimately made them into conservatives.

In America, radicalism has always been spiritual. The Puritan notions of salvation, coupled with an outsider’s hatred of the majority population, has made for a radicalism that can never be satisfied with control. The point of the march through the institutions was not simply to replace the WASP ruling class. It was to gain the high ground in a never ending war on the white majority. The war on whiteness is an all consuming reason to exist. If it takes destroying everything to get whitey, then our radical rulers will blow up the world.

The Between Age

One of the things people come to realize, when they make the journey to this side of the great divide, is that America lacks an authentic Right. In fact, it may have always lacked an authentic Right, as the country was formed by people who explicitly rejected the ideal of inherited rule and a hierarchical society. That’s certainly debatable, but what is not debatable is the fact that modern America lacks an authentic opposition to the prevailing orthodoxy, which is founded in radical egalitarianism and the blank slate.

Since Gettysburg, Progressivism has been ascendant, first controlling the federal state, then slowly and methodically taking total control of the culture and politics. It’s opponent, what Robert Louis Dabney called Northern Conservatism, what we just call conservatism, was never an authentic Right, but “merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition.” Instead of offering an alternative vision of society, the American right offers a series of tweaks and modifications to the Progressive vision.

The result is that the Left comes up with some new radical idea, conservatives throw their dresses over their heads and a make big deal out of opposing it. They rarely offer an alternative, in the case of a real public policy debate. If they do offer an alternative, it is one that accepts the morality that is driving the Left’s interest in the subject. The result is the “opposition” to every radical idea is just a different radical idea, that is rooted in the radical morality of the Left. The obvious example is homosexual marriage.

In this age of media saturation, the phenomenon described by Dabney a century ago can be seen playing out in compressed time on the internet. For example, the Left is in the process of stealing the Florida election, by use of wholesale fraud and rule breaking. The response from the so-called conservatives is ridiculous nonsense like this post at the American Spectator. To quote Dabney again, “The resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism.”

The tone and content of the piece is so stunningly obtuse that it seems contrived, until you step back and think about how this has been the pattern for as long as anyone reading this has been alive. It is why the alt-right coined the term “cuck” and why it stung so-called conservatives. It perfectly describes the so-called opposition. Their first instinct is to come up with some way to explain away the latest Progressive outrage. Their obsequiousness to so repugnant, it suggests a total lack of the very essence of what defines a man.

Of course, there is the philosophical issue. An actual opposition would note that democracy has to result in the sort of circus we keep seeing in our elections. They would also note that a system designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator must always result in the worst possible answer. At the minimum, an authentic opposition would point out that the Left sees democracy as a bus they can ride to power. Once in power, their goal is corrupt and destroy it so there can be no legitimate challenge to their rule.

Another example of this instinct to grovel is from Joel Pollak at Breitbart. We now live in an age where the federal courts says the President cannot decide who gets a press pass into the White House, but the court is perfectly OK with big banks shutting people off from the financial system because they hold the wrong opinions. An authentic opposition would immediately point out the absurd contradictions of the dadaist legal system constructed by the Left. Instead, the response is to argue this latest outrage is a conservative principle.

The debate about where to place fascism on the modern political scale is mostly pointless, but it does underscore the problem of today. The people feverishly arguing that “the liberals are the real Nazis” do so by first accepting the Progressive moral framework. As a result, like someone trying to build a ship in a bottle, they are reduced to working within arbitrary confines in order to achieve something with only ornamental value. They don’t even notice that they are doing it, because that habit of mind has been institutionalized.

That said, the debate does open the mind to the idea of there being no authentic alternative, because it was killed off in the Enlightenment. As a result, the great debate, the great ideological competition, has all been within radicalism. Bolshevism, liberal democracy and fascism were all competing with one another. After a bloody century, liberal democracy came out as the unchallenged political philosophy. Because it evolved as a response and now lacks an authentic challenger, it is slowly spinning out of control.

In the mean time, we live in this between age, where liberal democracy is universal and unchallenged, but decaying into madness. It’s why the aesthetic resembles the inside of a mental ward and the players carry on doing the same thing over and over, but in an increasingly bizarre fashion. Perhaps Fukuyama was not completely wrong. Instead of it being the end of history, maybe it is just the end of liberal democracy. It was something that could only exist in opposition to the more depraved variations of Rousseauism.

Social Capital

My dentist is located on a side street in a professional building. It’s one of those generic commercial buildings you see in business parks all over America. It’s not a big building, just two floors and half a dozen suites or so. It’s an odd stretch of road as there is a public library and a school on the street, along with my dentist, but the rest is a residential neighborhood of nice single family homes, most of which were built in the middle of the last century. It’s a nice little neighborhood where everyone knows one another.

On one side of the dentist was an old house that had fallen into disrepair, but after a series of mysterious happenings, the building was condemned and knocked down. The last time I was at the dentist, the old house was just a pile of debris and a front end loader was putting it into a dumpster. My assumption was that whoever took possession of the property had decided to start over and build a new house. After all, even though the lot was near the professional building, it was a nice little neighborhood on a quiet street.

This trip to the dentist saw a beehive of activity on the lot. The lot is on a steep hill, so the houses along the street are on terraced plots, with one side of the yard being a steep incline to the terrace up the hill from them. Every driveway has a four wheel drive vehicle, as it would be impossible to get up the street in the snow otherwise. By the looks of the foundation and some of the excavating, it looked like the plan was to build another office building on the lot. It had that cheap, slapped together look you see in office parks.

I asked the hygienist about the construction and she told me that the plan was to build three townhouses on the lot. Keep in mind that there are no townhouses in this area and the lot is the size of a postage stamp. Once the thing is done, each townhouse will have a strip of grass about twelve feet wide and ten feet long to call a lawn. It’s going to be a monstrosity that is completely out of place in the neighborhood. According to my dentist, no one had a clue as what was happening until construction had started.

This an example of the modern economy. The builders are not adding value to the land or to the neighborhood. You can say the value of the land they bought has been increased by their activity and that would be a true statement, but their activity is the process of stealing the social capital of the neighbors, in order to increase their property value. All the houses within eyesight of this mess will now lose value, as people looking to move into a nice neighborhood like this one, don’t want to be near townhouses or renters.

That’s apparently the other thing. According to my dentist, the word is the houses may not be sale, but instead they may be rentals. The scheme is to tap into a low-cost housing program to put blacks from the city into these townhouses via the miracle of Section 8 housing vouchers. Not only will the neighbors have their home values decline because of the aesthetics, they will now have to contend with three houses full of rampaging blacks from the city. I noticed several “for sale” signs on the street already.

Of course, it will not just be the immediate neighbors who pay for this. The school will get much worse, if it is Section 8 renters going into the houses. The local stores will go into decline, as crime will become an issue. This killed off a mall on the west side of town. It started as a very nice, upscale place that mostly served the Jews, who live west of Baltimore city. Then it was overrun by blacks and all of the businesses closed. The last time I there with a friend, the place looked like the end times. Total bedlam.

Again, this is the nature of the American economy. Sure, there are still people coming up with ideas to solve old problems, but most of what is called economic activity is just organized theft. Some clever guy figures out how to monetize the social capital of a part of society and then proceeds to sell it off. Amazon is an obvious example of this. There will be no little league teams sponsored by Amazon. There were always little league teams sponsored by the local store owners. That’s all gone because Amazon cannibalized it.

The internet economy is pretty much just the monetization of existing ideas, along with the artificial creation of bottlenecks. Apple and Google control the mobile space, so they now operate as toll takers. Neither company does anything interesting, in terms of technology or innovation. They just rob helpless travelers on the internet. PayPal is another example of a firm that adds zero value, but gets to operate as a gate keeper. None of this would be possible without the massive tax payer subsidies to build and maintain the internet.

Cost-shifting is obviously true in real estate. I’ve joked for years that the builders name developments after whatever it is they bulldozed to build the houses. It is a strange, unintentional mockery of culture. They knock down the authentic, to build a synthetic town, so a bunch of strangers can move through it. The argument is that there is a demand for new houses, so the old must give way to the new. No one ever bothers to ask why there is a demand for new houses or wonder from where these people are fleeing.

That’s just the thing. America is just a continental sized pump and dump right now. Millions of illiterate peasants are moving in, turning modest neighborhoods into squalor, so those people flee to somewhere else. Of course, the affordable housing for them is plopped next to nice organic neighborhoods, so those people flee to an upscale planned community a little further out from the city. On and on it goes, all financed by credit and perpetrated by people who hate us. The result is a land of strangers with no social capital.

The Potemkin Resistance

If you are over the age of forty, one of the remarkable things to happen in your lifetime is the collapse of Buckley Conservatism. Odds are, if you are reading a site like this, you used to read National Review and similar publications on a regular basis. Maybe you moved to paleocon outlets like Chronicles, when you got too strong of a whiff of the neocons in the 1990’s. Alternatively, maybe you wandered into the Von Mises or Lew Rockwell style libertarianism, after growing disenchanted with conservatism.

All of that stuff is now in steep decline, fading from the scene so quickly that the next generation will probably not understand why it was popular. The Von Mises style of libertarianism will always be with us, as there is a theoretical foundation there that transcends contemporary politics. The synthetic, Reason magazine version will soon follow the Buckleyites into the void, just as soon as the Koch brothers get tired of funding what amounts to a carnival act. That’s largely true of the rest of Conservative Inc.

The funny thing is though, Official Conservatism™ and its traveling buddies in libertarianism was always more useful to the Left than to the Right. This is well traveled ground for people on this side of the divide, but it bears repeating. The conservative movement that grew up in the 70’s and 80’s never managed to conserve anything, other than their sinecure’s at think tanks and media outlets. After the end of the Cold War, this reality became even more clear as conservatism morphed into international liberalism.

This was not obvious in the Cold War, as prosecuting it was a real area of contention with the Left, but the main role of the Buckley movement was to provide a buffer zone for the culture warriors of the Left. Conservative Inc. would channel public rage at Progressive social policy, into harmless efforts at resistance. Articles would be written, books would be sold, oaths would be taken, but the trophy case would remain empty. The history of conservatism is a laundry list of defeats in the post-war culture war.

After the Cold War, this became increasingly obvious, as conservative voter rallied to elect conservative majorities, yet nothing changed. Instead, the Right launched the war on Islam, which became the new distraction. Meanwhile, the borders remained open, the culture declined and the white middle-class continued to shrink. This is why Buckley-style conservatism has fallen apart. It never managed to conserve anything and white people finally woke up to this reality. It’s now blinking out of existence.

The collapse of Official Conservatism™ has been a good thing for the Dissident Right, which grew out of the paleocon resistance of the last century. Talk to people in this thing and they almost always broke this way in the Bush years or after it was clear that Ron Paul would never crack ten percent of the vote. Unsurprisingly, people on this side of the great divide know this well, but few people think about what it has meant for the Progressive movement. The collapse of conservatism has effected them too.

This lack of a credible opponent, even one paid to lose, is one reason the Left has spiraled into a raging lunacy. Since the left is in complete control of the media and popular culture, they get to create the comparisons. When the comparison was between the dumpy and demure conservative, they had to tone down their act to avoid looking like a lunatic. Now that their basis of comparison is imaginary Nazis, figments of the most fevered imaginations on the Left, they are free to indulge the full depth of their rage and lunacy.

This lack of a sober sounding punching bag seems to be the motivation for pumping air into the tires of the synthetic “intellectual dark web” stuff. Calling the people involved “intellectuals” is pretentious, but pretending they operate in the shadows is silly. The point of casting them that way is to give them credibility with people who have walked away from conventional conservatism and especially libertarianism. This is just an elaborate honey trap designed to lure people over from this side of the divide.

Of course, their contempt for the rest of us gets the better of them. They are calling this thing “the intellectual dark web” as a poke in the eye at the people they truly fear. It’s the same reason Jonah Goldberg called is latest book “Suicide of the West.” It is a sneering contempt born from self-loathing. These are people who embrace all the shibboleths of the prevailing orthodoxy, not because they necessarily believe them or even understand them, but because they lack the intellectual firepower to build a coherent response.

Just as the demand for Nazis vastly exceeds the supply, and therefore the Left manufactures them, the need for a buffer zone between themselves and the dissidents requires them to build this wall called Quillette. They envision the “intellectual dark web” to function like a force field. The “dark web” will supply complaint opponents who will say their lines and take their beatings, in exchange for a one percent lifestyle. They will also actively police the boundary between what is acceptable what is “not who we are.”

Interestingly, the orthodoxy’s choice of buffer says a lot about the people who are ruling over us. In the previous age, the face of the opposition was a WASP-ish looking guy with an over-the-top Brahman accent. The only thing missing from Buckley’s act was a sash and a monocle. It’s fun to poke fun at Buckley from this distance, but in his prime he was a good example the middle class American male ideal. He cultivate the American James Bond persona, a smart, educated and sophisticated risk taker, who got the girls.

The people taking over the ruling class wanted to beat that kind of guy. This time the leader is a Jewish girl from Australia. The rest of the ensemble looks like the guest list for a Commentary Magazine fundraiser. No love for toddies and cucumber sandwiches in that crowd. It appears the great intellectual struggle of this new age will not include any white guys. Then again, when the plans for the future don’t include white guys, it probably makes sense. The phrase “intellectual ark web” begins to take on a whole new meaning.

Modern Genocide

If you conquer a people and wish to eliminate them, the classic way is to kill all the men and marry to women off to your males or sell them off into slavery. This was the favorite way of solving tribal conflict in ancient times. Alternatively, you could just slaughter everyone you found, which was another way to eliminate problem populations in the ancient world. This was fine for small populations, but it usually included driving off a large portion of the defeated population, as mass murder is difficult to execute.

An alternative to mass murder is to do something a bit more subtle, something the English employed at times on their island. Instead of slaughter, they would simply ban the cultural expression of the conquered tribe. People want their descendants to remember them and they can only do that through language and culture. If you ban that language and culture, you erase the memories of the people and their connection to their past. This leaves them with nothing to fight for and no reason to fight you. More on that here.

In modern America, we see that happening as America’s alien ruling class works to solve the problem of numbers by flooding the country with foreigners, pitting groups of whites against one another and replacing white culture with garbage culture. The latter effort has been with us since the 1960’s, when black ghetto culture was sacralized by Hollywood and the media. Today, blacks are treated as objects of worship. Whenever a black gets upset, a pogrom is launched against whites in the name of anti-racism.

The old way of pretending that non-whites could function in a white society was to recreate the white shows, but with a black cast. The Jeffersons were a black version of All In The Family. The point of the gag was not to replace whites, but to supplement them with the newly included blacks. The audience was expected to see that blacks could do all the same stuff whites did, in terms of functioning in society. That still maintained their black identity, but fit it into the greater culture, alongside the white culture it emulated.

The new weapon in the culture war on whites is to erase whites from the past entirely, as if white people are the alien visitors and the foreigners were always here. The Cheddar Man hoax is an explicit example. Recasting King Arthur as an African is another example of blackening the past. Television shows from the past, which stared whites are being recast to exclude whites. The show Magnum P.I. no longer has white men in it, instead using a Latino, who presumably swam over the Rio Grande into Hawaii somehow.

The point of these efforts is to erase history, by retelling it in a million small ways to exclude whites. It’s easy to write-off television as gutter culture, which is certainly true, but the war on whitey is a total war. Our alien elite is now taking the very basics of white America and vulgarizing them in such a way as to make them alien to us. Nothing says “white America” like Norman Rockwell so those images are now being turned into propaganda posters for degeneracy and white genocide. That’s the right word for it.

The alt-right buys get grief for throwing that phrase around, but this is exactly what is happening. The culture war today is about the alien over-class otherizing white males, divorcing them from their past and pitting them against white females, who are encouraged at every turn to support Team Brown. Rather than kill all the males, as conquerors did in the ancient world, the modern conqueror un-persons the males, cutting them off from their past, their present and their future, by making them strangers to their own women.

It is tempting to excuse this stuff, as you see with older commentators like Steve Sailer, who still cling to the hope that this can be peacefully resolved. Chuckling into your sleeve about it being an example of “cultural appropriation”, turning the language back on the Left, probably feels comforting, but it is sadly mistaken. It’s not harmless agitation. The current American ruling elite does not simply hate old white America. They are defined by their hatred of white people. It is literally who they are why they exist.

There can be no reconciliation with people are are trying to murder you. There can be no peace with people who repeatedly say there can be no peace. This is the ultimate red pill, as the cool kids put it. The Armenians could not believe the Turks would actually murder them, even as the Turks were murdering them. Armenian leaders were sure there was someway to resolve the problem. The lesson of history is you either fight to the last man or you submit as the last man. There’s no peaceful solution to genocide.