Who Says?

Posted on May 6, 2024 by thezman

191

Note: Behind the green door is a post about the odd neo-romantic subculture that exists among the young online right, a post about how the Germans were right about the liberating nature of work and the Sunday podcast. Subscribe here or here.

There is a famous line from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov in which one of the characters asserts that if God does not exist, then everything is permitted. This has been resaid many ways and attributed to many people, but the original is from Dostoevsky, the great Russian novelist. For most of human history, the answer to the question, “Who says?” has been God, maybe the gods or perhaps a holy man who everyone agrees has some connection to the gods.

When someone said you should not do something, that question, “Who says?” was baked into the statement, along with its answer. You should not speak ill of the gids because the gods will exact revenge on you or maybe the authorities, fearing the wrath of the gods, will punish you. The answer to the question of who says you should or should not do something was always the same. it was some concept of the supernatural or its manifestation in the natural world.

In modern times, we do not appeal to the gods. You should not drive your car recklessly in a school zone because the government says you should not do that, and they have men with guns to arrest you if you do it. The answer to the question, “Who says I cannot speed in a school zone?” is the government. Every prohibition in our lives comes with an assumed answer to the question, “Who says?” That answer is almost always the government or its agents.

The government is not a god or claims connection to the gods, no matter what the politicians have to say about it, so who says they have the authority to decide how fast you can drive and where you can do it? In theory, it is we, the people, who decide these things through the democratic process. We created government and the process by which men hold power and they make the laws. The answer to the question, “Who says I cannot speed in a school zone?” is us, the people.

Of course, it does not stop there. If the government enacted a rule that says you must beep your horn when you see an orange-colored vehicle, no one would be satisfied with the answer “the government says you must do it.” It is a stupid rule and people would want more than that as an answer. In fact, some people might argue that the law is invalid because it requires people to do what they would otherwise would not do and for no reason that can be deemed in the best interest of the people.

In other words, the horn beeping law would fail to satisfy the question of “Who says?” because there has to be something more than just “because we say so” as an answer in order to satisfy the question. In the case of speeding around school zones, the real answer to the question is the safety of children. We prohibit reckless behavior around schools because we value the lives of our children. More important, we feel compelled to protect the safety of children.

Instead of something ridiculous like beeping the horn when you see an orange-colored car, pretend the law says you cannot teach women to read. The argument is that once women learn to read, we end up in the Aristophanes cycle. That is a good and valid reason for the law, but some would argue that it is more wrong to deny women the basic rights nature grants all people. Women have a natural right to exercise their minds by learning to read and using that knowledge to improve their lives.

What the critics of the prohibition on female literacy are saying is that it is not enough that the laws reflect the general will and have a practical purpose. There is some universal standard of justice against which the laws are measured. The horn beeping law is not just invalid because it is ridiculous. It is invalid because it unjustly compels people to act for no reason other than the state has the power to force them to beep their horns whenever they see an orange car.

A more serious way to think about this is with the waves of laws being pushed by Republicans regarding prohibited speech and thoughts. It is the official policy of the Republican Party that you should not think poorly of Israel, and you should not be permitted to criticize Israel. In fact, Republicans now think the one group of foreigners that should be deported are critics of Israel. The question they are never asked is, “Who says we should ban criticism of Israel?”

Most people would say it is rude to say mean things about Jews or Israelis, just as it is rude to make fun of fat people or homosexuals. No one suggests we deport people for telling jokes about fat people. In other words, there must be some other reason for the extraordinary emphasis on being rude to Israelis. It cannot simply be that we have all agreed that it is wrong. If there is no reason given, then it must be assumed that no reason exists, so there is no answer to the question.

Obviously, everyone knows the answer here. The massive Israeli lobby is bribing these people to pass these laws. Marco Rubio owes his political career, and thus his luxurious lifestyle, to a Zionist billionaire car dealer named Norman Braman. Rubio has been in the pocket of the neocons his entire career. Most Republican officials have a similar backstory, so this is why they want to strip what remains of your speech rights and ban large swaths of the Christian Bible.

None of that changes the basic problem. This crusade against anti-Zionism and antisemitism have to answer the same question that all prohibitions must answer, which is “Who says?” Being anti-Zionist might be viewed as rude to Jewish people and anti-Zionist are often rude to everyone in their presentations, but whoever says they must be muzzled must answer the question, “Who says?” Who says these people must be silenced and by whose authority are they being silenced?

This is a long trip to the basic question that lies at the heart of the current crisis and that is the question of authority. In the anti-Zionism debate, the problem is the same as with the horn blowing example. The answer to the question of “Who says?” is “the government says so” but that is not adequate because who says the government has the right to police your opinions? The only possible answer to that question is us, the people, and no such authority has been granted.

The question of authority always resolves to two possible answers, which is the collective will or the supernatural. The natural rights crowd will say the authority is nature, arrived at by reason, but that is just a way of blaming God while pretending he is no longer around. Once God is removed from the set of possible answers to the question “Who says?” we are left with our collective will, which means whomever we choose to be the final authority.

In the end, the response to all new demands for censorship and prohibitions against thoughts or actions must be “Who says?” Who decided that being rude to Jewish people is the worst sin? When was this decided? Who says we have to pretend crime is not what it is? Unless and until the scolds can answer these basic questions of authority, they have no legitimacy. An unjust prohibition is no prohibition at all, but merely an invitation to social conflict to the benefit of outsiders.

If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!

Promotions: Good Svffer is an online retailer partnering with several prolific content creators on the Dissident Right, both designing and producing a variety of merchandise including shirts, posters, and books. If you are looking for a way to let the world know you are one of us without letting the world know you are one one is us, then you should but a shirt with the Lagos Trading Company logo.

Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb. Just email them directly to book at sales@minterandrichterdesigns.com.

Burn Baby Burn

Posted on May 2, 2024 by thezman

225

For the last few weeks, protests have raged at some elite colleges between anti-Zionists in support of Gaza and Zionist in support of Israel. At Columbia University in New York City, the protests essentially closed the college. The cops were finally sent in yesterday to clear the pro-Gaza camp, but at this point there is probably no point in trying to resume the spring semester. At other colleges, police continue to battle with protestors in an effort to restore order.

The protests provide some insight into what is happening among the Cloud People and also some insight into how the Dirt People see the Cloud People. It has been a long time since factions of the anti-white coalition that makes up what we call the left have squared off against each other. As a result, the Cloud People are struggling to grapple with what is happening. Usually, it is easy for them to pick sides, as the protestors are always targeting Dirt People.

The first thing worth noting is that the pro-Gaza protestors are not white. It is anti-Zionist Jews and nonwhites, with a smattering of upper-middle-class white girls from the grievance studies programs. The pro-Israel side is primarily Jewish students organized by the network of anti-BDS organizations that exist on every campus. As a result, the pro-Gaza side uses the antiwhite language they have been trained to use against the mostly Jewish protestors on the other side.

One result of this is the bellowing about antisemitism has had no effect on the protestors or their supporters among the faculty and media. This is has been the most powerful magic in American politics for so long that no one remembers a time when it was not otherwise, but the magic seems to be fading. Amusingly, this has the conservative commentariat chanting “antisemitism” even louder, sort of like how English speakers shout at foreign fast-food workers.

One reason for this is the youth are not as white as they used to be due to the deliberate demographic changes over the last half century. This is especially true on the college campus where antiwhite activism is now admissions policy. Those nonwhites and post-whites trained up to hate whitey now look at the people carrying Israeli flags and repeat the classic Jared Taylor line, “They look huwhite to me.” It would take a heart of stone to not laugh at this development.

There is a serious element here. Young people are nowhere near as supportive of Israel as in the past, due mostly to demographics. Support for Israel remains strong with old white people, but support declines rapidly after the boomers. There is also an antisemitism fatigue setting in with whites. Decades of crying wolf has had the natural impact on the culture. People are tired of the complaining from people who have done better in America than any other group.

There is another angle here. The shuffling husk that is the conservative movement has been trying to do what it exists to do, which is get white people to focus on the how and why, rather than the who and what. They shout about the pro-Gaza side being communists and antisemites, so their aging followers will focus on that rather than the fact these people do not belong here. They do not want you to notice the two alien tribes from the Levant fighting it out on the college campus.

That is why they jumped on the image of the “frat boys” supposedly “defending” the American flag at UNC. It was a staged photo by the usual suspects because this sort of boomer bait always works to distract middle-class white people. The “frat boys” were part of some anti-BDS operation. They were also waving around an Israel flag, but that was trimmed from the scene. This sort of thing is a reminder that conservatism exists to distract white people from what is happening.

The fact is none of the people involved in these protests should be in the country and that is what people should notice. Thirty percent of the undergrad student body in Columbia is foreign. Less than half of the student body is classified as white and half of those identify as Jewish. If you are the typical white person, Columbia University may as well be located in another solar system. It is not just a foreign place. It is an alien place that rests on hostility toward you.

These protests not only suggest fractures in the antiwhite coalition, but they suggest the Potemkin opposition in American politics is losing its grip. The Republican response to these riots was to pass a bill banning parts of the Christian Bible and stripping you of your right to criticize foreign governments. The Antisemitism Awareness Act is probably the most vulgar and depraved piece of legislation to ever pass the House, and it passed with overwhelming support from Republicans.

The Republicans passed this, in part, because they are trapped in 1985. They still think their voter base cares more about Israel than anything else. The idiot who dreamed up this monstrosity is right out of central casting. He is the typical clueless zombie that gets recruited into Republican politics, because he is biologically incapable of noticing what is happening all around him. The GOP is the party of feckless, clueless goofballs who can no longer play the role for which they exist.

In the end, these protests matter to Dirt People only in so far as they indicate problems among the Cloud People. None of these people are on our side and all of them would lock shields with the other side if asked to put on their Antifa and BLM outfits in order to terrorize white people this summer. The hope is that both sides of these protests are committed to the theory of escalatory dominance. After all, revolutions often grow out of the cracks in the ruling coalition.

The Right-Wing Coffeehouse

Posted on April 30, 2024 by thezman

Last week Keith Woods posted on his Twitter a video montage of a guy going about his daily routine somewhere in America. Woods captioned the video with “One of the most disturbing videos I’ve ever watched.” What followed was a chain of thousands of comments back and forth, either trying to explain what Woods meant by that tweet or why he missed the point of the video. The video is worth watching and the comments are worth reading to get a sense of the debate.

The video itself was posted by the guy you see in it, and it turns out that he is a reasonably successful man. He has an advanced degree and a nice job. He is obviously doing well in the material sense. He is also married to a professional woman, and they are expecting their first child. Reportedly he posted the video without thinking much about how people would react. As is often the case with “viral” content, this one is about the people reacting to it, not the content.

The first thing it reveals is there is a segment of the on-line right that looks at normal life as something to be avoided. For Woods and many of his fans, a life like the man in the video enjoys is a nightmare. The reason for it is they see his life as having been reduced to material goods. He is not “living” in any meaningful way. He labors in a tedious job inside a sterile office in order to pay for things that are as sterile as the life he lives in order to obtain those things.

For this side of the on-line right, the point of life is not material prosperity, but something else that they are never very good at explaining. Keith Woods is not a hardy guy who is going to go off on dangerous adventures. He is not signing up to be a soldier of fortune or sail the seas as a merchant marine. In all probability his life is as routine and boring as the man in the video. Yet, he thinks that life should be about more than material comforts and should have a higher purpose.

Romanticism like this is associated with the people we call the left, but there has always been a strain of it on the right. This is especially true in Europe, where the terms left and right used to mean more than tomorrow and yesterday. In America, the people we call the right have always embraced the sterility of material existence. The point of life is to get a good job, work yourself to death to buy stuff and then die before you become a financial burden on the next generation.

Note that Woods was not universally denounced for his post. There was another divide in the responses and that was the age divide. His younger fans were right there with him in condemning the traditional definition of success, while the old guys like Matt Walsh were baffled by the response. From his point of view, the old American right’s point of view, the video guy is living the best life. It is impossible for Walsh to grasp why people like Woods reacted negatively to the video.

No doubt hoping to benefit from the debate on Twitter, Nick Fuentes posted this video of himself mocking people with jobs. Unlike the Keith Woods reaction, Fuentes is crude and self-indulgent, but the point of view is the same. He is rejecting what most people would consider a normal and happy life. It is important to him that the world knows he rejects the conventional life. His critique of women, heterosexuality and marriage all come from the same rejection of the conventional.

This new romanticism is not entirely new with the Zoomers. Richard Spencer should probably get credit for introducing this to the alt-right. Much of his appeal was to the sorts of young men who suspected that the middle-class suburban life they have always known was missing something important. Spencer was never able to explain what was missing, but he was able to tap into this longing in order to make himself a cultural phenomenon for a brief time.

The superficiality of this new form of romanticism is what gives it the coffee house radicalism vibe. By any reasonable standard, Richard Spencer lived a boring life, even when he was at his peak fame. Other than a few publicity stunts, he spent his days drinking and playing on the internet. The next generation of online romantics does even less living in the romantic sense. Woods and Fuentes, for example, are teetotalers who primarily exist as avatars online.

Even so, there does seem to be a change among the young right-wing with regards to their view of what constitutes a good life. Read the comments to that Fuentes video and they are more slobbering than normal. The new counterculture forming up is on the right and it is exclusively male. Having been raised online, they want nothing to do with the mundane life that makes the physical world possible. They may not know what they want, but they do not want what is on offer.

The FUD-Packer’s Ball

Posted on April 24, 2024 by thezman

Throughout the Cold War years, it was a standard claim from the people called the left in America that the intelligence services manipulated domestic politics. This did not come from the mainstream left, but the fringier left-wing activists. For its part, the right in all its forms simply ignored the claims. Eventually, the mainstream right became the primary defenders of the intelligence agencies. They were viewed as the first line of defense in the Cold War and thus were lionized.

Of course, the claims about the intel agencies were not without some merit. In the late 1960’s a communist student publication called Ramparts reported that the National Student Association, which was a federation of student governments, was funded and controlled by the CIA. Later it was revealed by the Church Committee that many newspapers were cooperating with the CIA. Operation Mockingbird was one of the CIA programs used to manipulate the media.

The Church Committee is an interesting bit of history as it might be the last time Congress did anything useful in terms of oversight. The final report was massive and you can still access it on the Senate website. One reform that resulted from this event was the establishment of the permanent US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which has been thoroughly captured by the CIA. Members of this committee participated in the Russian collusion hoax, for example.

Putting that aside, the headline item at the time was that the intelligence agencies were spying on Americans, experimenting on Americans, and manipulating the media by placing assets at media companies. In the fullness of time, the important revelation was that this practice was thoroughly normalized in the agencies. The intel agencies saw nothing wrong with what they were doing. That means we can assume they continued doing it despite the revelations.

Again, the Russian collusion hoax is a good starting point. If the intel agencies were comfortable in trying to overturn the 2016 presidential election, then it is safe to assume this behavior is normalized inside these agencies. That returns us to the Church Committee and the scale of operations fifty years ago. In the analog days, the intel agencies were comfortable with subverting newspapers, so what sorts of things will they be comfortable doing in the digital age?

For example, would the intel agencies pay social media influencers? If they were paying student groups in the 1960’s how opposed would they be to paying social media characters to push certain themes? It is not as if anyone bothers to look into the background of bigfoot influencers. These characters seem to appear from nowhere, gain a big audience and join the ranks of influencers. Inserting intel agents into this space is a low-cost, high reward activity.

Look at someone like Michael Tracey, who is a bigfoot influencer on Twitter with over a quarter million followers. According to Twitter, about 15% of their users have more than one thousand followers. Only one percent of American users have more than three thousand followers. That means someone with a quarter million followers is in a ridiculously small club of users. This assumes the follower counts are accurate and the followers are not purchased from a bot farm.

Michael Tracey has no job and no obvious source of income. He lives in New York City, one of the most expensive places in America. He regularly travels the world to pester government officials at press gatherings. His Substack mostly gathers dust, in terms of readership, and he never posts monetized content on Twitter. Maybe he has a rabbi that underwrites his activity, which is not unusual, but maybe that rabbi is tied to one of the intel agencies, which would not be unusual either.

Note that Tracey spends most of time doing FUD-packing. FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Right now, he is flaming the Trump world right now with claims that Trump is responsible for the war funding bills. It is a weird claim, but coming from a major account it does seep into the public consciousness. This is new for him, as he usually spends his time attacking progressives. In fact, he built his following on the right by FUD-packing the people on the left.

Now, Michael Tracey is probably on the level, but there is no way of knowing it, which is the point of this example. In a world where people are more likely to get their information from anonymous and unexamined characters on social media, how hard would it be for the intel agencies to manipulate this system? Build up a network of influential FUD-packers and you can control the unhappy portion of both political parties by saturating them with misery.

Here is something else to consider. These days, the intel agencies do not have to actually buy the FUD-packer. They can simply manipulate him though the various donations options most people have these days. When they like the FUD-packing from an influencer, they can send a bunch of small donations. They can also use their bot farms to boost that guy’s FUD-packing. In other words, a FUD-packer could be compromised without even knowing it.

The point of thinking about FUD-packing is that we live in an age where it is much easier for the intel agencies to do what they habitually were doing fifty years ago, so it is wise to assume it is as common now as it was back then. The digital information space is now a wilderness of mirrors manipulated by people who are drawn to the work because they love FUD-packing. As a result, our information space is a FUD-packers ball where nothing should be taken at face value.

Everyone Believes It

Posted on April 23, 2024 by thezman

The mostly online wars over what has come to be called “woke culture” obscures a reality that lies behind the fads and programs. That reality is an ideology that evolved in the last century and now defines the ruling class of America in a way that the people in the ruling class do not understand. It is just an assumed part of the culture they were selected into and conditioned to accept. They believe what they believe because everyone they know believes it.

That ideology begins with egalitarianism that has its roots in Protestantism and eventually gave birth to the progressive movement. The claim that all men are equal in the eyes of God became simply all men are equal once God was dropped from the thinking of the ruling elites. Since all men are obviously not equal, the blank slate evolved as a solution to this dilemma. The inequality we see is the result of society, so the great and the good have a duty to fix it.

What many now call the civil rights revolution is the most recent and damaging manifestation of this urge to level society. In his pamphlet on the landmark Supreme Court decision, Brown versus Board of Education, professor Jesse Merriam explained how this case revolutionized the law by transforming the Constitution from a rights based political system to a civil rights political system. What is now called antiracism is actually the point of our political order.

This interview with Merriam is interesting for a number of reasons. One is the exchange he had with the interviewer over the case of an Alabama eatery that had separate seating for whites and blacks. The interviewer tries hard to get Merriam to say the restaurant should be allowed to set its own policies, even if these policies violate what is, in reality, the ruling dogma of this age. It is a long game of verbal chess as Merriam deftly avoids the trap set for him by the interviewer.

That exchange is a good example of the prevailing orthodoxy at work. The interviewer, most likely without thinking about it, tries to get the interviewee to say he would tolerate discrimination, which is the chief sin of this age. The interviewee, knowing this, carefully avoids stating this by refocusing the discussion on the legal dynamics behind the court case that arose from this situation. Imagine this going on in elite offices every day and you get a sense for how ideology rules our elites.

The case in question, Katzenbach v. McClung, is another good example. The restaurant did business only in Alabama so it should never have been subjected to the interstate commerce clause and therefore immune from the new civil rights provisions recently enshrined in federal law. The court acknowledged this, but then imagined a scenario in which the restaurant bought goods that at some point originated out of state, so therefore it was now subject to federal regulation.

What the court did was reason that since the primary evil against which the Constitution stands is discrimination, it is logically impossible for any part of the Constitution to stand against overcoming discrimination. Whatever “the words on the paper” say, as Barak Obama once put it, they can never be read to oppose what is now assumed to be the spirit and point of the document. Belief and righteous commitment to that belief are now the litmus test of the ruling class across all domains.

We are about to see the flipside of the civil right revolution in the federal case launched against the Sheetz store chain. The feds are quite open about the fact that they do not think the store is using race to discriminate. In fact, they are not even claiming the policy is leading to fewer black employees than what would happen without the policy against hiring convicts. They simply say it could happen, because of upstream discrimination in the criminal justice system and the economy.

This strikes normal people as madness, and it is madness, the madness that naturally arises from ideology. The ethical model of the world that arises from the belief that all men are equal must inevitably target reality as the ultimate obstacle to achieving the promised goal of the ideology. It is why ideologues always end up in a life and death struggle with the reality of the human condition. It is also why they usually kill a lot of people before reality finally defeats them.

It will not be long before the zombies that dominate the late-night comedy circuit begin to make jokes about Sheetz not hiring blacks. Jon Stewart is now practicing his funny faces in the mirror to go along with his new Sheetz material. This provides the social proof needed so that everyone in the managerial class will adopt this assertion as a part of their shared reality. No one will think of the lunacy at the heart of it because there is no benefit to questioning the belief.

This ties back to that exchange between Klingenstein and Merriam over the choice involving the Alabama restaurant. There was nothing but danger for Merriam in defending the ancient right of free association. For Klingenstein, there was nothing but accolades awaiting him for defending antiracism. The cult of antiracism that arose from egalitarianism selects for those who are loyal to the cause and weeds out those who question the logic of the cause or its underlying assumptions.

This is why we have a ruling class that seems to be at war with not just the culture and traditions of America but at war with reality itself. The American ruling elite has evolved to serve the needs of the civil rights revolution and what Professor Merriam calls the antiracist constitution. Happening as it has over generations, the people in it are unable to see that they are operating within an ideological framework. They believe what they believe because everyone they know believes it.

The End Is Nigh

Posted on April 16, 2024 by thezman

Since it became clear during the 2016 election cycle that Conservative Inc no longer had any influence on the Dirt People, there has been an effort to reconstitute a New Right that will fill the void left by the now Old Right. This being the mass media age, one part of that effort is to promote certain online personalities as spokesmen for a particular point of view. You see an example in this debate organized by a site called IM1776, which is “a magazine of cultural and sociopolitical analysis.”

It should be noted that IM1776 is the product of a not-for-profit called The Art & Literature Foundation, which appears to be the brainchild of an Italian guy named Mark Granza, who had his political awakening in 2016. You can read a lengthy interview of him in this English language Hungarian site. For the sake of clarity, IM1776 is financially supported by Claremont. It is always wise to know how someone pays his bills before assessing his political opinions.

That aside, what you see in this back and forth is the same specter that has haunted Western political thought since 1789. That is the specter of ideology. Both men are in their own way ideologues. They have an image of how society ought to be organized based on how they think men ought to act toward one another. While their ideal society is something of an end point, it is, in fact, the starting point for them. In other words, they begin with the end in mind.

For Curtis Yarvin, the end is a form of monarchy not because he thinks it is the best in the abstract sense of the best society, but that only through an absolute ruler can the things he likes about Western society be defended from the dark forces that seek to unsettle our cultural norms. Rufo, on the other hand, is a natural rights republican, who thinks the ideal society is based in individual rights. It is only through reaffirming our natural rights that we can restore the republic.

While there is a lot of overlap between what both see as the ideal society, they clearly have different visions for how to achieve it. Yarvin thinks we have to wait for the great man to emerge and topple the present order. Alternatively, the present orders collapses, and a great man emerges. Rufo thinks the way forward is to nibble away at the civil rights order by attacking it fruits. His current project is to hold the diversity hires in the academy to the alleged standards of the academy.

For most people this sounds logical. You start every project with the end in mind and you see that is the Yarvin – Rufo debate. In fact, that is the primary appeal of both Chris Rufo and Curtis Yarvin. They hold up this image of a possible future and if you like what you see, you support their program. This has been how political debate has been framed in the West since the French Revolution. You are presented with two images of the future and asked to pick one of them.

The problem with this, the reason that ideology must always fail, is that it never considers if the end is possible or even plausible. This is not because the ideologue is incapable of doubting the ideology. It is because ideology must always rest on the assumption that all societies are intentional societies. What we see is the product of human labor, therefore the goodness or badness of society reflects the goodness or badness of the people who made it.

Good people not only follow a certain code, but they must constitute the telos of the society of which they are a part. No ideology ever concludes that the ideologue must disengage with society, other than if it helps him engage with fellow ideologues in plotting to overthrow the present order. Ideology assumes you must be engage in the project of moving society toward the desired end. Otherwise, you are assumed to be working against those who are doing so.

To think that society is anything other than the fruit of human labor would be a nullification of ideology. If society is the product or random chance, for example, then what we ought to do to improve society is meaningless. It makes no difference what we think we ought to do, as the result is just a random walk. If what we see is the best we can muster from the material at hand, then the ideal, what we ought to seek, is actually a hindrance to creating a harmonious society.

As an aside, this explains the rejection of biological reality. The popularity of the trans business is one way of denying biological reality and the limits it must place on what is possible for human society. The New Right rejects biology as it undermines their claims about the nature of man. As soon as you accept biological reality, most arguments about how we ought to live become superstition. You are left with the question of what can we do with the material at hand.

Another thing you see with all of the participants in the New Right project is that none of them are looking forward in the sense that some novel vision of the future is leading them to question their own assumptions of the past. Their prize is something like what the French philosopher Jacques Derrida called hauntology. The New Right is sentimental for a promised future that never materialized. It is why they focus so much on the “wrong turns” of the past.

What all this leads to is the fact that we are seeing the end of ideology. It is easy to forget, but ideology is a relatively novel thing in the history of man. The Franks did not have a governing ideology. The Greeks were not ideologues. Rameses did not govern with a vision of the future in mind. For all of human history, how we ought to organize society was a practical question, not a moral one. Ideology is an invention of Western man, the weeds that grew out of the rubble of the Thirty Years War.

Above Time Coffee Roasters are a small, dissident friendly company that roasts its own coffee and ships all over the country. They actually roast the beans themselves based on their own secret coffee magic. If you like coffee, buy it from these folks as they are great people who deserve your support.

There Is Worse Than Hitler

Posted on April 11, 2024 by thezman

If you have paid any attention to British politics, you will note that what passes for the political right in Britain is more feckless and ridiculous than what passes for the political right in the United States. It is one of those things that should be impossible, but once you look at the recent string of Prime Ministers, you have to accept it is reality, which means things will inevitably get worse in America. No matter how much you hate the Republicans, you will have reason to hate them more.

The Tories are facing what many predict could be a party ending election this year, as current polling has them winning just a handful of seats. The Tories currently have a 35% approval number, an all-time low. As a result, there is a movement afoot to wipe out the party entirely. The “zero seats” campaign started as a joke but as is often the case, this joke could turn out to be reality. Italy’s Five Star movement started as a gag and eventually overturned the political establishment.

Neema Parvini, also known as Academic Agent, has a post up explaining why the end of the Tory party would be a good result. His argument should be familiar, as it is the standard analysis you see in dissident circles. The system of competing parties that we call liberal democracy is just theater. Both parties are beholden to the same interests and most important, they agree on all of the big issues. In the case of Britain, Labour and the Tories are dance partners, not opponents.

Since voting for one team or the other ends up with the same result, there is no voting your way out of this problem. Sherlock Holmes famously said, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” This is where the Brits and the Americans are regarding their parties. Getting positive results at the ballot box is impossible as things stand. That leaves the list of alternatives that may seem improbable, but they are at least possible.

One of those options is to crater the false opposition. If the supporters of the false opposition walk away, that party will collapse. This then leaves the regime exposed, as it cannot use the controlled opposition as a fig leaf. Their choice then is to nakedly rule as tyrants, thus exposing the system as a fraud or allowing a new opposition to form up among the masses. They would pick the former, maybe creating a new fake opposition, but at least we would have clarity.

The opposition to this argument is that things would be worse if the current theater of democracy is destroyed. Instead of slowly easing over the edge into the abyss, we would speed into the abyss. This is the argument you see from Paul Gottfried in response to Parvini’s post. Working to make things worse, in order to provoke some sort of reaction, could very well end up with things getting worse, without provoking a reaction or getting an unanticipated reaction.

Gottfied uses the example of the German communists working with the Nazis to bring down the liberal Weimar government, because it is impossible to discuss anything without mentioning you know who. Fukuyama’s end of history idea was nonsense, but you could argue that for the collective West, history ended in 1933 when the Nazis seized control of the German state. Since then, every event has been recast as a replay or reworking of those events.

Putting that aside, the argument from Gottfried is familiar. No matter how terrible the right-wing party, it would be worse if they did not exist. Therefore, the only acceptable solution is to try and fix that party. That means voting for the most right-wing option in every primary unless he is a meanie, of course. Then you hope to get enough of these people in office to take control of the party, before they get comfortable with the riches heaped on them by the establishment.

This brings us back to Sherlock Holmes. History makes clear that it is impossible to infiltrate and take over an organization and make it conservative. There are no examples of this ever happening because it is impossible. Integral to the radical mind is “what we have we keep” which means they make a priority of preventing reactionary forces infiltrating their organizations. It is why they create controlled opposition in order to police the right facing walls of the regime.

This is why Parvini gets the better of this debate. He does the rational thing and eliminates the impossible. In Britain, as in America, there is no voting your way out of the problems of liberal democracy and there is no way to co-opt any party of the liberal democratic regime. Once these impossible options are eliminated, the only goal remaining is to topple the regime entirely. Throwing sand in the gears becomes the only moral choice when facing an implacably immoral system.

That leaves us with the abracadabra phrase “worse is worse” that Gottfried thinks is a kill shot in this debate. Since his preferred course has been the default course and the result has been things getting worse, what he is doing is offering a false dichotomy between the worsening reality of his approach and the terrifying but theoretical outcome he tries to conjure with references to Hitler. While Hitler is one possible future, it is not the only possible future or even a probable one.

Western people are like a hockey team down late in the third period. You can pull your goalie and put an extra skater on the ice, or you can play it straight. Maybe the other team commits a penalty or has a mental lapse. If you pull the goalie, things could get worse, but a loss is a loss, no matter the score. If you play it safe, you will probably lose, but again, a loss is a loss. The reason teams always pull the goalie is the possible trade-offs favor that option.

In the context of our politics, abandoning the establishment right is the same as pulling the goalie in that it opens the door to more good outcomes. It could so terrify the economic elite that they impose reform on the system. It could send the system into crisis and open the door for a real opposition. It could end up with Hitler, but is the death of the West by Hitler really any worse than its death by bad management? After all, death is death, no matter the cause.

If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!

The Pepper Cave produces exotic peppers, pepper seeds and plants, hot sauce and seasonings. Their spice infused salts are a great add to the chili head spice armory, so if you are a griller, take you spice business to one of our guys.

A Very American Scam

Posted on April 10, 2024 by thezman

For fifty years abortion was a part of the national political debate due to the fight to overturn Roe v. Wade. Those who opposed abortion sought to overturn this court decision, thus returning the issue to the people. The pro-life side assumed they could win the argument and get laws passed to end most abortions. The pro-abortion people obviously fought to prevent this, even though they always claimed the vast majority of the people saw abortion as a holy sacrament.

Abortion was always a good money maker for Conservative Inc. because on the one hand, they only had to pay lip service to the moral issue. It was not as if they could pass legislation or change a regulation to meet the demands of their voters. The courts would just strike down those changes. On the other hand, the only path to victory was getting a majority of pro-life people in office, especially the White house, so the courts could be stocked with pro-life judges. That meant voting Republican.

The way the two party grift has worked since the middle of the last century was that the Democrats conjure novel ideas and find creative ways to normalize them with the progressive segment of the population. Once these ideas gain circulation, the Republicans pretend to oppose these new ideas. Both sides squabble over it, thus narrowing the options to their preferred positions. Then they aggressively fundraise off it as the novel ideas are slowly implemented.

The genius of this arrangement is the elites get what they want, while both parties protect themselves from outside threats by sucking all the oxygen out of the room in their endless media debates. With the oxygen comes the money, which keeps both camps in the lifestyle they think they deserve. Just as important, none of that money goes to anyone who has a third opinion. The political rackets rest on every issue being reduce to a binary choice.

Here is where you can see why the ruling class hates Trump. When he ran for office, he went to the pro-life crowd with a rational offer, rather than the old offer they have always got from conservatives. He told them he needed their vote and even though he was not one of them, he would deliver for them because he needed their vote. Social conservatives, outside of the professional ones, saw this as a rational offer and maybe better than what they have gotten for the last fifty years.

In office, Trump did what he saw as the rational thing and set about appointing pro-life judges up and down the system. From his point of view, this made perfect sense as he would need the support of these people in the next election. If he could show he delivered, then they would come out in droves. His good fortune was that things broke in such a way that the court finally overturned Roe. Both parties hate him because of things like this that disrupt the political rackets.

Putting that aside, the overturn of Roe was a disaster for Pro-Life Inc and the elite of the social conservativism rackets. They no longer had this issue to use in their fundraisers, other than to wage battles at the state level. Since the leaders of these rackets live in swanky homes around the imperial capital, heading out to the wilderness to help the Dirt People wage political fights is horrifying. This idea is equivalent to Pol Pot sending the intellectuals out to the rice fields.

Since the court sent the issue back to the states, the people running for national office no longer have a reason to primp and preen about abortion. If the national candidates stop talking about abortion, the associated money rackets no longer have a reason to raise money to help “their candidates.” That means the money givers no longer have a reason to give money to these guys. Suddenly, thanks to Trump, a billion-dollar industry is threatened with extinction. What to do?

This is why we now have the mass media claiming abortion is the most important issue on the minds of voters. If a Democrat wins a race for dog catcher in East Podunk Missouri, the Washington Post has a pic of young females standing in line to vote, with the claim they are there because of abortion. The political experts, who are always wrong about everything, rush in to explain how this is a threat to Trump as women too busy in their cubicles to have sex are furious about abortion.

It is all nonsense, but despite the fact the media is nothing but a firehose of lies, people still fall for these tricks, especially people who call themselves conservative. Integral to being a conservative is accepting without question the opinions of your enemies while endlessly tone policing your supporters. If the New York Times announces that the cool kids are now wearing flowerpots on their heads, conservatives will swear it is true and produce the conservative case for flowerpots.

This is where Conservative Inc. has swung into action on abortion. Their new scheme to re-nationalize the issue is to champion a national ban on abortion. You see, their big idea now that the courts sent the issue back to the states, something conservatives argued for since Roe, is to take it back from the states and pass a bill that bans all abortion at the federal level. Of course, they cannot do this without your support so make your check out to Conservative Inc.

The only way such a scheme could ever happen is if the Republicans had a huge majority in the House, a super-majority in the Senate and had a pro-life president in the White House. Thanks to Republican support for open borders and election rigging, this is now impossible. Even if it did happen, the Bush years tell us that they would fink on their voters anyway. Remember fake evangelical George Bush nominating pro-abortion Harriet Miers to the court?

Abortion is a good example of why moral issues cannot be decided through any sort of democratic process. Even if the process is legitimate and the participants come to the issue in good faith, you will not get universal agreement. If such an agreement were possible, it would have happened organically and then the only politics around the issue would be about the best policy to support the moral consensus. Otherwise, there is no debating someone out of their sense of right and wrong.

This is why the scam that is the American political system loves moral issues like abortion, because they can never be solved politically. This means they can frame it as two sides with neither side ever having a chance to fully win. Roe was manna from heaven for Conservative Inc., but now the overturning of Roe is manna from Gaia for the aging spinsters running the feminism rackets. They can finally stop talking about men in dresses waving their genitals at children.

If one is looking for a white pill in these dark times it is that the abortion issue has finally returned to its natural place. Like all moral issues, it is one that must be decided by the collective agreement of likeminded people. This means it is a local issue. States and localities can then treat abortion the same way they manage other thorny moral issues like the location of gentlemen’s clubs. In the end, sanity prevailed, and abortion has become something for communities to resolve on their own.

Liar Land

Posted on April 8, 2024 by thezman

Note #1: Behind the green door is a post about Bonnie and Clyde, a post about narrative in the managerial class and the Sunday podcast. Subscribe here or here.

Note #2: Here is a roundup of the shows I was on last week, for those who love the sound my voice. Here is my appearance on the Killstream I was on with a show with a young YouTuber and another young YouTuber named J Burden.

If you were to go back in time, just a couple of generations, and snatch up some politically active people and bring them forward to this age, they would not only be disappointed that things did not turn out as they predicted, but they would be horrified by what has happened with the public square. They would wonder why there even is a public square when it is now so polluted with deception. How can you have a public debate when so many start with a lie?

This is one of those things that is hard to appreciate about this age as it has crept up on us like the fog and become the new normal. No one tunes into public affairs shows expecting a good faith effort to present the issues and the arguments in a fair and honest way or an effort to inform the viewer. It is not even an attempt to persuade in most cases, but something like a revival for a certain audience. The performers say the expected things and the viewers cheer.

It is not just in the narrow area of performative politics. Deception is now the coin of the realm, even where the truth would serve the parties better. For example, the ongoing feud between Candace Owens and The Daily Wire. None of this would have happened if the Daily Wire had been honest and said they dumped Owens because she is critical of Israel and the platform is pro-Israel. No one would have been surprised and it would have been a one-day affair, but instead they chose to lie.

This is not a peculiarity of the Daily Wire. Lying is now the new normal and truth telling is a good way to get hurled into the void. Whole subjects have been consigned to the shadows because you cannot speak candidly about them, and the lies are so absurd that even the performers cannot say them with a straight face. Crime is the most obvious example of a topic that no longer gets discussed by “serious analysts” because you are not allowed to speak honestly about it.

Crime is a great example of endemic lying. We can no longer trust the FBI crime data because everyone involved in reporting it now lies about it. It used to be that the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting was the gold standard for data, but now it is like everything else in that it is the product of perfidy. The police departments lie about their stats to please the politicians, who lie about the stats to hide the truth from the people they claim to represent. It is liars all the way down.

Every day, the White House sends out that goofy looking black women to address the media on the issues of the day. Everyone in the room knows she is a moron, and everyone knows she is just repeating obvious lies written down in her book that is provided to her by the White House. Everyone in the room then pretends that this is a sincere presentation of events. They refuse to ask obvious questions or address the obvious lies, but instead continue like it is normal.

That is the thing. It is normal. Karine Jean-Pierre is the most absurd and ridiculous example so far, but well within the trend. No reasonable person can accept anything from official sources at face value. The only way to read the news is to first start with the assumption that the truth is from the set of things not mentioned in the news. If you see your picture in the news with your name in the caption, you best check your birth certificate as it is a good chance you are not who you think.

What you see when you lay up a trivial internet drama alongside official pronouncements from the state is that lying is the new normal. Whether it is a small issue or a vitally important issue, the first instinct of everyone involved is to lie and often lie fantastically. It is as if there is a secret competition for who can generate the most outlandish lie each day. Here is a great example of a lie so outlandish that it is hard to imagine anyone doing it without being struck by lightning.

The question is whether this is the result of a corrupt and rotten ruling class or is it the inevitable result of democratic society. In favor of the latter is the observation by the Persians that the ancient Greeks habitualized lying to one another. The agora, the place where Greeks bought and sold things, debated issues of the day, and conducted public affairs was a riot of deception. Winning the argument and winning the sale were the product or clever deception and storytelling.

In the former case, it is clear that the ruling class started to change for the worse after the end of the Cold War. The Clinton’s brought a style of lying to Washington that sent our politics into the abyss of perpetual deception. The financialization of the economy shifted the focus away from building a better mousetrap to creating new and increasingly complex financing of the mouse trap business. These schemes were clever but devoid of any truth value.

As is often the case, it is a combination of these things and some others, but the result is what matters. We now live in a carnival of lies. It is tempting to think that this cannot last, but much of the world lives this way. The reason conspiracy theories are so popular around most of the world is they make more sense than official truth. They also let people think that at the heart of the whirlwind of official lies is a truth that is both rational and reasonable. It lets them sleep at night.

Can Western societies function this way? It is hard to know. A low-IQ, low-trust population can be manipulated by clever midwits, but a high-IQ, naturally trusting society may grow violently irritated by a perfidious midwit ruling class. The general unhappiness we see may be the result of living in a world where stupid people, who think they are clever, tell us obvious lies. One can tolerate someone like Karine Jean-Pierre for so long before something must be done.

Cuban Versus Rufo

Posted on April 4, 2024 by thezman

An interesting exchange took place this week on Twitter between Mark Cuban, former owner of the Dallas Mavericks, and Christopher Rufo. The topic of their exchange was diversity, with Cuban claiming that diversity was our greatest strength and Rufo claiming that the diversity movement is un-American. Neither man put it exactly that way, but that is the simple summary. Cuban thinks diversity makes things better, while Rufo thinks the push to impose diversity makes everything worse.

The exchange was amusing for the simple reason that Cuban clearly does not understand the issue, beyond knowing the slogans which he spasmodically repeats when the topic is raised. At one point he seems to be saying that the three branches of government are the President, Congress, and the bureaucracy. Everyone had a good laugh at his expense, as it became clear in the thread that Mark Cuban is not the brightest bulb in the bunch, despite being a billionaire.

To some degree that is the point of these mini dramas. The hoi polloi gets to feel good seeing one of their champions best who they think is the enemy. Mark Cuban puts a lot of effort into insulting normal people, so normal people love it when he has his pants pulled down on Twitter or anywhere else. Rufo clearly understands the mechanics of the Diversity Industrial Complex, so he easily swats down the trite claims made by Cuban throughout the thread.

More important, these exchanges frame the debate in such a way that alternative points of view are systematically excluded. Strip away the drama and what we have here are two similar views on race. One side says that racial inequality is the result of racial exclusion by whites and therefore must be remedied by forcing whites to include nonwhites in their activities. The other side says it is immoral to notice race at all, so forcing people to be race-conscious in this way is immoral.

Despite appearing to be opposites, both sides are making the same moral claims with regards to race. Rufo thinks using race to make decisions is immoral, while Cuban thinks whites use race to make decisions, which is bad. In other words, both men agree that making general observations about race is immoral. The difference is that Cuban thinks whites do it all the time, while denying it, and Rufo thinks the diversity crowd is guilty of that which they accuse white people.

Both men are not disagreeing about ends, but about means. This is the model of politics that has prevailed in America since Gettysburg. Both sides agree on the ends but disagree on how best and how quickly to get there. As we see with the race issue, it is not always clear that they both agree on the ends, but once you strip away the rhetoric it is clear that at the minimum, they agree with one another as to the morality of each other’s goals with regards to race.

This is an important bit of conditioning that arises from the selection pressure within the American political dynamic. People approved to be on the stage are conditioned to first evaluate the goals of people seeking to get on stage. If their goals fall within the moral framework of the stage owners, they can debate them. Mark Cuban read portions of Rufo’s book, probably because people he knows read it. He knows Rufo is not advocating for things that are proscribed.

Of course, we know Rufo has put an enormous amount of effort into making it clear that he is not like those bad people who think race is a real thing. This is where you see the selection pressure. This is why he focuses on the goal of organizational success, rather than the details of race. He argues that diversity programs make colleges and corporations worse, by preventing them from hiring the best. You see, in a color-blind society we get a true meritocracy!

Interestingly, if both sides of this debate want to see organizations like Harvard maximize their potential, then they would have to support what is a subtle truth about how the sports world evaluates talent. If you are a white guy who plays cornerback in football, the evaluation of you will be much stricter than if you are black. Tall white guys find it much tougher to standout in basketball. Asian guys are assumed to be poor athletes, so they tend to be ignored.

What happens in sports is what the legendary quantitative blogger La Griffe du Lion described as the theory of differential cutoff. The extremely short version of that post is that those from groups that objectively underperform should be held to a higher standard than those from groups that objectively overperform. In other words, hiring a Jewish guy as your lawyer, even though he went to a state school, is a better bet than hiring the black guy from an elite law school.

Note that this reality lurks beneath the diversity arguments. Mark Cuban assumes people make these judgements about race, thus making it more difficult for qualified nonwhites to gain access to positions for which they are qualified. Put another way, an ancient truth is what haunts the diversity industry. They may not have the smarts to understand it, but they feel it. Note also that it haunts the arguments of people like Rufo, who also seek to banish this ancient truth.

The most important takeaway in all this is that both sides agree that you do not have the right of free association. Cuban thinks you should be required to hire a black guy to meet the demands of diversity, while Rufo thinks you should be required to hire the black guy as long as he meets the objective criteria for the job. Your subjective qualifications and individual preferences are not important. Both men wish to dictate your choice based on their version of reason.

Ultimately, that is the point of framing the debate this way. Nowhere in their exchange is a consideration of preference or free association. They are arguing about which version of reason should be imposed on you, when in reality they are debating whose clerics will decide your punishment for having unacceptable preferences. It is a good reminder that politics is never about facts and the reasonable conclusions from those facts, but about who will impose their morality on whom.

The Z Blog

Sports, Culture and Other Stuff

Category Archives: Culture