The New Romantics

One of the forces pushing the alt-right along is a rejection of the modern, sterile aesthetic that is the technological age. This seems to be especially true of the younger millennials and Gen Z. They grew up in a world of glass and stainless steel, smooth edges and shades of gray.This is also an age that rejects speculation and spontaneity. It’s why popular culture is so dull and feminine. There’s a drugged dullness to our age. It’s not a rational age, for sure, more like a unromantic age, in which nothing interesting happens.

That’s part of the appeal of the new dissident politics. There’s a danger to showing up at alt-right rallies or associating with hate thinkers on social media. Men, especially young men, like adventure. For the generations raised by helicopter parents, thought police and sensitivity training, the danger of the alt-right is wildly attractive. Breaking taboos and standing outside the herd is exhilarating, but the associated brotherhood fills a void the custodial state created in young men. It’s not just fun to be bad, it’s liberating.

We seem to be at the confluence of two forces acting on our societies. One is the hyper-feminization we see everywhere. There are few public places where men can be themselves or hold a dominant place. In fact, any sphere of life that is male oriented is under pressure to bring in girls. Even things like sports are forcibly integrated. We live in an age where elites want to put girls on football teams and in the boxing ring. Modern life is covered in a wool blanket, drenched with the fetid waters of feminism.

The other force is mass media. If you examine modern movies, one of the odd things is that many are in celebration of old weird America. Boston, for example, became a popular setting for movies, but almost always the old Boston of ethnic neighborhoods. Mass media allows young people a glimpse of the old lost age. They can see a time where the South was still rural and mysterious, the Northeast had tribal ethnics and Los Angeles still had Americans. For the young, old weird America feels like a foreign country.

The point here is that we are now at a time, at least from the perspective of a young male, where America is a feminine and deracinated society. For those of us who have lived through this transformation, it may be depressing, but it is not jarring. We saw the changes over time, We heard the warnings of those commentators on the Old Right and we saw those warnings ignored. It’s like driving a new car for ten years. You know it is old and you remember when it was new, but you also remember everything in between.

Young people lack that middle part. They came into a world disconnected from the old world they can still see on TV or in movies. For young white males, increasingly alienated from the modern culture, it is not a big surprise that they would look backward for examples of how to move forward. Spend time following alt-right social media, and you see lots of references to the fact that the current culture is degraded and ugly. The past had true diversity, while present is a homogenized, degenerate slurry of nothingness.

This interesting story from the Guardian UK, about something similar happening in Germany, suggests this could be a pan-Western phenomenon. The difference is that it is still possible to be a famous intellectual in Europe. You can also be famous as a writer of fiction, read by men. In the US, public intellectuals are chattering skulls on cable TV, who spit out vapid platitudes approved by the people in charge. Literature, of course, is now dominated by women, so it has no point and no audience, outside the academy.

That said, Europe and America have something in common. Young males, disconnected from the culture, are searching for something to give purpose to their lives. A common refrain on the alt-right is about the uselessness of being a wage slave in a cubicle farm, just so you can buy useless crap from global corporations. That seems to be a theme of the new romanticism bubbling up in Europe. It’s young people, particularly young males, reaching back to an age before they were born, for inspiration and  purpose.

The Guardian piece is quick to point out the connections between German Romanticism and you know who. That brings up a big difference between the US and Europe. Germans are not about to become minorities in their own country. The same is true of the rest of Europe. In the US, whites will be a minority in a generation. The cultural phenomenon may have many parallels today, but in the fullness of time they will head off in different directions. It’s why the alt-right is less artsy than the new European romantics.

All in all, what we are seeing is validation of an age old truth. One of the top-level duties of a ruling class is to keep its young men busy. Too many alienated and idle young men always spells trouble. What’s happened in the West is the ruling elite has deliberately pushed men out of the social order. The follow on act was to invite in millions of foreigners to gloat over the deracinated male population. There are only so many mixed race couples you can see on TV before you get the message.

This will not end well

Warring With The Cult

Last weekend, Richard Spencer tried to hold his annual conference. The vehicle Spencer uses to run his alt-right thing is the National Policy Institute, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit based in Montana. This is a standard thing to do these days, for any sort of activism. It allows rich people to quietly fund activities, and take a tax deduction for it. It also gives solo acts a way to fund their activities, without having to keep a day job. Once a year, Spencer has a conference and dinner for the people interested in his efforts.

Last year was the infamous Heil-gate episode, where Spencer’s imprudence got himself in trouble. Since then, Progressives have been working hard to un-person him and anything he touches. That linked video has 2.8 million views for a reason. As a result, he was unable to book the Reagan Building for his event, which is a violation of Federal law, but the people in charge think the law is for suckers. They do what they want. As a result, Spencer was forced to find another venue for the event.

A weekend conference organized by white nationalist Richard Spencer was shut down after the owners of the Maryland farm he rented discovered he was behind the event.

The think tank that Spencer leads, the National Policy Institute, hosted the conference for about 100 people at Rocklands Farm, a winery and events venue in Montgomery County. Spencer said in an interview that a third-party logistics company contacted Rocklands Farm on behalf of the National Policy Institute this month and didn’t reveal that white nationalists were affiliated with the event when they booked it. The company told the farm’s management only that it was a “corporate” gathering, according to Spencer.

The conference started about 11 a.m. Sunday and was scheduled to continue until 8 p.m. Caterers at Rocklands Farm served brunch, and participants recapped 2017. At about 4 p.m., Spencer said, someone working the event learned that Spencer was there, and management told everyone to leave.

“We didn’t lie, we didn’t deceive, and we certainly did not break any rules while we were there,” Spencer said. “We had sharp words and were obviously disappointed, but there was no confrontation of any kind.”

The farm refunded the group’s money after asking it to leave.

The owners of Rocklands Farm didn’t comment on the incident beyond a statement on their website Monday, which says it proudly does “business according to family values, including welcoming people of all backgrounds, race, ethnicities, cultures, and religions.”

If you go to the source article, the picture of Spencer they use is from his thing at the University of Florida. OK. Stock photos are standard stuff in the news business. Then they use a picture of a black protester from that Florida event. That has no place in a story about something entirely different and 3,000 miles to the north. It is an important lesson that no one on our side can seem to get through their thick skulls. The people in charge are perfectly willing to lie, cheat and steal to win. They are not bound by any rules.

Putting that aside, the highlighted portion of the story is illustrative. This is the sort of the stuff Gentry Conservatives wave around claiming they have their principles, while the winning side is riddled with hypocrisy. The winning side, however, just shrugs, because as far as they’re concerned, that quote is the model of logic. That’s the nature of cults and the people inside them. The rules and tactics of the cult are the model of moral perfection and timeless logic. You not getting this is proof that the adherents are anointed.

Cults have an internal language that only the members fully understand. The zombie who issued that statement knows that “family values” means the cult’s definition of family values. By “people of all backgrounds” they just assume it excludes people outside the cult. The people outside the walls are not really people. They don’t exist as a flesh and blood humans. It’s the same reason the Puritans had no trouble burning Indians and chasing Anglicans off into the wilderness. They did not see them as human.

I’ll also note that the Washington Post story is not an actual news story. The Five W’s could have been done in a paragraph, which by the conventions of news reporting make it not worth doing. It was a non-event. That’s why the bulk of the story is folklore and legend now popular with the cult. There is the Charlottesville reference, the preening and pleading of the fearful restaurant owners and so on. This is written as a cautionary tale for other cult members. “Beware! If you are not vigilant, the Nazis will show up at your door!”

It’s why it is useless to bother engaging with these people at any level. It’s better to imagine them as a colonizing tribe of aliens. There is no middle ground, no room for agreement, because their reason to exists, their core identity, is based on wiping out all non-believers. Anything that even hints at compromise, is seen by the cult as a direct threat to its very existence. That’s why they take so much pleasure in stalking guys like Spencer around and preventing him from living a normal life. It’s what defines them.

Devlin Reviews Hawley

One of the items on my vacation list is to read Making Sense of the Alt-Right, by Alabama political science professor George Hawley. His book, Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism, was well received. It is refreshing when someone from the academy peers over the walls of the hive and not only sees what’s on the other side, but makes an honest effort to understand it. I don’t know anything about the man’s politics, but he does not appear to be a guy spending his nights howling at the moon.

That came to mind reading F. Roger Devlin’s review of Hawley’s latest, posted on VDare.com the other day. Devlin is a serious guy, who is largely responsible for the whole man-o-sphere subculture. He literally wrote the book on critiquing feminism. That’s not a small accomplishment. He’s also been involved with the alt-right from the start, so he has observed and interacted with all of the big shots of the movement. That positions him to be a good critic of a book written by an outsider, attempting to understand the alt-right.

The review is worth reading, even if you are not interested in a book length treatment of the alt-right. Devlin’s four key points that define the alt-right are excellent and precise. I think the fourth point cannot be emphasized enough, mostly because it is a point I often make about dissident politics. When I write about peaceful separation, it is not intended to be a road map or political treatise. The point of the exercise is to break free of the old moral paradigm and get readers to start thinking outside of those restrictions.

Before I get off onto another point, I would take some issue with Devlin’s criticism of Hawley’s use of scare words like “racism” to describe the alt-right. Paul Gottfried, in reviewing Hawley’s previous book, made the point that it is a requirement of every academic. “If I were young enough to be considered for tenure in the average political science department at an American university, I too would spray my books with PC bromides in order to keep the Leftist lunatics off my back.”

This is a point that cannot be overstated. Every university is infested with feminist rage-heads, writing autoethnographic “research” papers about how toxic masculinity makes them angry. In departments like political science, feminist “scholars” demand that the white males take a version of the Voight-Kampff test, to make sure they are replicants. “If you see a white person and black person in a photo, how much do you hate the white person?” My guess is Hawley salts his lunch orders with PC jargon, just to be safe.

Putting that aside, Devlin makes a point that is always missed when people discuss the alt-right or the larger ummah of the dissident right. There are layers to it. The guys posting frog cartoons into the timelines of Progressive media people are not the alt-right or any part of the dissident right. They are part of this cultural phenomenon, in the same way that hippies were part of the 1960’s counter-culture. Hippies played no role in the intellectual side of the New Left, just as Milo has no role in the intellectual side of the alt-right.

It is one of the things I learned over this past year, attending the hate festivals of the dissident right. There are a lot of smart people having second thoughts about the modern world and the intellectual traditions that created it. Roger Devlin is a good example. He’s not spending his evenings trying to promote his brand on Periscope. He’s reading books and writing essays on sites like Amren and Counter-Currents. There’s a lot of intellectual capital in this thing that is concealed by the pranksters and self-promoters.

That said, I would take issue with this bit in Devlin’s review:

The Alt-Right is a political movement which seeks to ensure the continued existence and well-being of European descended people. As such, it neither implies nor precludes any particular religious beliefs. We are not opposed to Evangelical Christianity as such, but some figures the Evangelical leadership (notably Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention) are our declared enemies and we treat them as such.

The alt-right, like the larger dissident right, is a cultural phenomenon, not a political movement. Smart young males, mostly out of necessity, are picking up paleo-conservative ideas and questioning the prevailing orthodoxy. These ideas are being extended to question the core assumptions of modern American political order. It’s more akin to the Scientific Revolution than a political movement. The former was about rethinking our place in nature. The latter is about rethinking who gets to be in charge.

It’s why it feels like the alt-right is hostile to Christianity. It has to be. What is generally understood to be mainstream Christianity in America, has been hollowed out by Progressivism, and is now worn like an animal skin by crackpots and degenerates from the fringes of the Left. Even the more culturally conservative parts of the country practice a form of Private Protestantism than embraces extreme egalitarianism, anti-racism and universalism. It’s not an accident that these churches are deep into the refugee rackets.

I think most big names in the alt-right avoid the subject, mostly because it results in howls about how this is not real Episcopalianism or this is not real Christianity. It’s reminiscent of the days when academic Marxists would say the Soviet Union was not real Marxism. It may be theologically true that the current iterations of Christianity are outside the traditions and teachings of the faith, the fact remains that the people running mainstream Christianity these days look a lot like the faculty of your local gender studies department.

That’s not a small thing. The reason the New Left was able to sweep the field in the culture war, that included deposing the Old Left, is that their thing took on a quasi-religious tone. Humans are built to be believing machines. That’s a part of biological reality our side has yet to face, but it must be faced eventually. Something is going to have to fill the spiritual vacuum if this cultural phenomenon is going to be a cultural and then political movement. An Alt-Right form of Christianity would be a welcome development.

Those quibbles aside, the review is worth reading if you are interested in a sober rendering of alt-right thinking. A part of the development of an intellectual movement is learning how to engage with critics. If your thing cannot hold up to scrutiny, your thing is not going to be a thing for very long. Having intellectuals from outside this thing engage with elements of the alt-right is healthy. When serious people start to take dissident politics seriously, it means these ideas are starting to penetrate the mainstream.

The Past Is Always Uncertain

Progressives are often, and correctly, accused of re-writing the past in order to endorse their current claims about the present. It is a necessary habit that has been incorporated as a feature of the movement. Since most of what they currently believe about humanity and human organization is contrary to observable reality, they have to no choice but to reinvent the past. Something similar seems to be happening with the Buckleyites as they fall into obscurity. They are creating alternative realities to explain the present.

This piece by Henry Olsen is a good example. He makes the point that what so-called conservatives consider to be “conservative” has not been a winning formula for them in Republican elections. He then picks some representative examples of liberty-conservatives, presumably the sort championed by the Buckeyites, who went nowhere in the GOP presidential primaries. The main point Olsen is trying to make is that what he calls the liberty-conservatives have not had a lot of success in elections.

The subtle normalization of Rand Paul is interesting, given that NR types savaged Ron Paul when he was a real candidate. I’ll also note that National Review was prone to calling the utterances of George W. Bush “Reaganesque” and they praised “compassionate conservatism” as some sort of advanced form of Buckley conservatism. It’s what makes their current fetish for timeless principles so comically bizarre. The definition of timeless conservatism is a set of goal posts on wheels that they push around to fit the moment.

That’s the thing about re-imagining the past. You have to cherry pick and time shift in order to make it work. Barry Goldwater, for example, has not been salient in American politics for going on 40 years now. The youngest person to have voted for him is now 74. On the other hand, the “liberty conservatives” were ebullient when George W. Bush won in 2000 and the GOP controlled both houses of Congress. Of course, there is no mention of Reagan, who was a Goldwater conservative, and the GOP’s most successful President.

The general point that Olsen is making is that today, the constituency for libertarian-conservatism is small, even within the Republican base. This is probably true, but the question is why? All of the megaphones of Conservative Inc. have been tuned to blast out the message of libertarian-conservatism. Talk radio, websites, Fox News, the commentariat, all of the organs of the so-called Right have been preaching about shrinking size and scope government for as long as anyone reading this has been alive.

So, why is that position a loser within Republican circles?

One obvious reason is no one believes it. When the GOP had opportunities to shrink government, they grew government. When they had chances to normalize our foreign policy, they went empire building. When they had the chance to defend the domestic economy, they threw in with open borders and globalist trade policies. The most egregious sin off all, however, has been their liberal use of Progressive rhetoric to denounce dissenters as racists, excluded from acceptable pubic discourse.

There is one exception and that is immigration. The one big win for liberty-conservatives was the 1986 immigration reform act. This made it possible for tens of millions of foreigners to flood into the country. Ann Coulter the other day noted that one in eight Virginia residents is foreign born. That means there are more foreigners in Virginia right now than the liberty-conservatives said they needed to amnesty in 1986. The one thing these guys were good at doing has been a disaster for their alleged love of liberty.

You see that in this post from Audacious Epigone. The sort of civic minded libertarianism, that is popular with Conservative Inc., is really unpopular with the sorts of people they are hellbent on importing by the millions. The reason their favorite bugman was trounced in the Virginia election is that the sort of people liberty conservatives are fond of championing, are not interested in supporting liberty conservatives. It turns out that a policy of wishing death on your voters and their culture, is not a good way to win elections.

That’s not a reality these so-called liberty-conservatives can face. Olsen does not bother to address this, as there is no way to explain away the mathematical and demographic realities. His only mention of immigration is to be gobsmacked at a Cato-backed study that shows Trump voters are not in favor of their wholesale demographic replacement. The fact that their one success has been a disaster for them, never registers. Instead, it is ignored. Olsen’s suggestion is more of the same, just even more of it.

This is where you see that all forms of mainstream conservatism share the same assumptions as Progressives about the nature of man and human organization. It’s also why they have developed the habit of rewriting history, especially their own history, in order to explain the present. When you start from the premise that biology is unimportant, that all people everywhere are essentially the same, you are condemned to a life of disappointment, unless you can endlessly redraft the narrative to avoid facing reality.

The one major difference between the retconning of so-called conservatives and what we see from Progressives, is that the latter controls the institutions. Rewriting and replaying old fights is a proven way to distract people from current failures. When you control the levers of power, an unpredictable past becomes a useful tool in maintaining control. When you are allegedly challenging the status quo, an inability to clearly remember yesterday undermines your credibility. No one believes these guys and they keep reminding us why.

Uncivil Religion

One of the weirder aspects of the modern age is the endless calls for unity from our superiors, particularly those in the Progressive camp. It’s weird for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact the Left is endlessly trying to marginalize anyone that disagrees with them. It is how diversity came to mean rigid homogeneity. Putting aside the hypocrisy, it’s weird because it is fairly new and very un-American. It also contradicts the very premise of democracy, which is about competing opinions, jostling for support.

It seems that the calls for “unity” have coincided with the spread of the American civic nationalism stuff. Thirty years ago, no public figure talked about “who we are” or made grand claims about a unified America culture. In fact, the lack of conformity was the gold standard of intellectual rigor. Democrats used to claim they had so much internal debate, it was like herding cats. Republicans used to crow about being the party of ideas, meaning that they had the bulk of free thinkers and dissident chattering skulls.

It’s not a coincidence that the flowering of the civic religion stuff has coincided with increasing calls for unity and now the un-personing panics. Religions, particularly in their growth phase, are highly intolerant of competing religions. It’s why the Left, even today, attacks Christianity. They see it as competition. In order to have a civic religion, it means stamping out ideas and movements that contradict it, even if those ideas are rooted in observable reality. In the name of unity, dissent must be crushed, along with the dissenter.

Related examples of this are Iran and Saudi Arabia. The ruling elites of both lands are members of sects within Islam. In both countries, the demands of unity require hordes of religious enforcers making sure no one has incorrect thoughts. To tolerate any dissent puts the power and authority of the ruling elite into question. Since the ruling elite are the embodiment of the religion, any dissent is a direct threat to the very existence of the theocracy. Unity is a necessary element of theocracy, even it comes at the point of a gun.

In terms of pure civic religions, ones that expressly reject the supernatural, the most obvious examples ended in bloodbaths. The French Revolution is the first real stab at establishing a civic religion. Nazism, Bolshevism and Maoism, on the other hand, quickly devolved into murder machines, killing off over 100 million, but they did so in the name of national unity. With Nazism and Bolshevism, even well intended questioning of the the prevailing orthodoxy got you killed. Again, unity abhors anything resembling dissent.

There’s a chicken and egg issue here. Is the rise of a priestly class the inevitable result of a civic religion, or does the elite attempt to legitimize themselves by peddling civic religion and making demands for unity? In prior ages, ruling dynasties would claim divinity in order to eliminate challenges to their reign. Even today, the motto of the monarch of the United Kingdom is dieu et mon droit. I’ll also note that the kingdom is united in the body of the monarch. This is a common element of all European monarchies.

Getting back to modern America, the fetish for unity and the promotion of the American civic religion looks a lot like a search for a reason to maintain the status quo. It’s reactionary. The very real threat of nuclear annihilation during the Cold War held the American nations together, under the Yankee Imperium. Once that was gone, something had to replace it, or the Cold War arrangements would be replaced. It’s not an accident that “both sides” of the political elite rely on the same language to quash dissent.

The increasing demands for unity, however, will probably backfire. You see this with social media. Facebook has instituted polices to silence unapproved facts. They have been moving much slower than Twitter, which is aggressively going after anyone who disagrees with the Council of Cat Ladies running the place. They have now declared jihad against anyone who is suspected of thinking bad thoughts. That means they will use your search results and surfing habits to police your access to Twitter. Think about that.

The unintended result of this is to de-legitimize the Right half of the ruling class. A so-called conservative with a twitter account, especially one with a blue check, will now be seen as nothing more than an organ grinder’s monkey. The civic religion only works when political debate is confined to the tiny ideological space occupied by Progressives and their hand-picked opposition. Strip away the legitimacy of the so-called conservatives and the civic religion is revealed to be a public relations campaign by the ruling oligarchs.

That’s the core reason that American public debate seems so uncivil. In an effort to defend the status quo, the ruling elites have become increasingly aggressive at stamping out dissent. The whole “Russian hacking” nonsense was a thinly veiled way of saying that those who voted for Trump were either stupid or un-American. The fact that it appears the purveyors of this story were themselves in cahoots with the Russians suggests there are no limits to what they will do to crush their opposition. Torquemada would be proud.

This heavy handedness also legitimizes the dissidents. Gab has struggled along, but the purges and promised purges have resulted in a boost in membership. The steadfast determination by the owners, in the face of serious threats and even laughably stupid threats, has given them legitimacy with people who think a marketplace of ideas is essential to civil society. Put another way, that which was previously dismissed as heresy, now has the air of legitimacy. That’s the real threat feared by the ruling class.

Eric Hoffer said, “Fanatical orthodoxy is in all movements a late development. It comes when the movement is in full possession of power and can impose its faith by force as well as by persuasion.” It’s also a late phase effort, a rearguard action, intended to defend the status quo, despite there no longer being an obvious use for it. The current arrangements in America no longer serve anyone other than the relatively small number of people who live like royalty in the Imperial Capital and its satellite cities.

At some point, the cost of maintaining unity among increasingly hostile tribes outweighs the benefit. The increasingly shrill demands for unity and obedience, along with the corresponding fissures opening up in public life, suggest we’re following a familiar path that leads to a break down. Some social scientists seem to get, to some degree, what is happening, but no one knows what comes next. Maybe it is just too frightening to consider or maybe it is impossible to know. What’s not coming, though, is national unity.

Is Drudge On The Level?

The first time I heard of Matt Drudge was in the 1990’s. I was living in Virginia and I would listen to Mary Matalin in the car. I think her show was syndicated, but it was broadcast from a station in Virginia. Matalin would have Drudge on her show to talk about the gossip in his newsletter. This was before he had a website. Not long after, he started a website and then the whole Monica Lewinsky thing blew up and Drudge became a household name. Like many people, I visit his site daily to see what’s happening in the world.

In 2012 I started to wonder if Drudge was on the level. He promoted so many pro-Romney stories, it felt like he was working for him. I get that Drudge is just right of center in his politics, so he does a lot of “counter programming” in his choice of stories, in order to keep his mostly white middle-class audience. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan were the dream team of SWPL-ville civic nationalism. Therefore, it made some sense to tilt toward Romney against Obama, but his promotion of Romney struck me as a bit deceptive.

The truth is, mainstream news is 100% access journalism. If a reporter wants to get stories handed to them – and that’s how all news is done now – they have to play ball with the people making news and their appointed gatekeepers. That’s how Harvey Weinstein kept his troubles out of the news for decades. His people would give reporters gossip on celebrities so they would not spill the beans on Harv and his love for potted plants. A site like Drudge is just as beholden to that system as any other news site.

The thing with Drudge though, is he made his bones playing all sides of the street. He was willing to promote anything that was newsworthy. That meant that the Prog media was willing to dish him inside stuff on their own people. The Bezos Blog and Carlos Slim Times love it when Drudge links to them. He sends tens of millions of eyeballs to any site he links to, even if it is a side link. As a valuable promoter, in theory, he is getting all sides sending him tips on politics, current events ans the happenings in Washington.

I’m starting to wonder if that is still the case. In the last election, he was not pro-Trump. For a tabloid guy, Trump should have been manna from heaven. Instead, he tilted toward the company line about Trump. Every time the RNC howled about how Trump violated some sacred taboo, Drudge was out there with fake news stories about how the end of the Trump campaign was near. It got to be a running joke in my office. Every time Drudge had stories about how Trump went to far, you knew Trump’s polls had ticked up again.

Maybe it was a coincidence, but two elections in a row and Drudge was out pitching the RNC line. It’s almost as if someone inside the RNC is feeding Team Drudge the narrative now. That’s very obvious in the Roy Moore flap. From the start it looked like a Mitch McConnell hit job. That’s mostly because it was so ham-fisted. McConnell is not head of the Stupid Party because he is a brilliant tactician. Yet, Drudge was posting links to all the RNC sourced stories, in a way that started to look choreographed.

The topper was the fake poll leaked by the RNC and the Gloria Allred stuff. The poll was laughable. Even Democrats snickered at it. Yet Drudge had it up on his site in red for two days. Then the Allred hoax collapsed and he had nothing on it. In fact, now that Franken is the top story and it is clear the hit on Moore backfired, Drudge has suddenly forgotten the Alabama senate race. This comes as the Republicans are now hiding under their desks, wondering when the harpies will be coming for them over a sex scandal.

Now, it has to be mentioned that Drudge is a homosexual. He’s also one of the fussy sorts of gays, like Lindsey Graham, who are attracted to gentry conservatism. A southern firebrand or someone opposed to homosexual activism is going to come in for criticism by Drudge. His coverage of the South and Christians has always reflected his homosexualist sensibilities. A guy like Roy Moore, who is overtly Christian and vocally opposed to the normalization of homosexuals, is not going to be popular at the bathhouse.

Even so, in the age of access journalism, succumbing to temptation is to be expected. I’ve written before about how access journalism has turned sports reporting into company public relations departments. The same thing has happen to mass media. This is most obvious when mass media tries to cover the alt-right. The “reporters” now working in mass media don’t know the basics of news reporting. That article on Anglin is embarrassingly written and riddled with easily checked factual errors. It’s bad reporting.

Modern media people are stenographers with a social media strategy. They don’t know how to do traditional news reporting. Some are story tellers who leave gaps in their tale to place some cherry picked quotes, while others just wait for someone to hand them a story they can type up for their employer. It’s most obvious in sports reporting, but it is true all over. There’s no upside to being curious or inquisitive. That may be what has happened with Drudge. He has a good gig so he plays ball with the “news makers” now.

The Tribe To Emulate

The Asians are often called the “model minority” in America. This is based on the fact that they have very low crime, very low welfare dependency, low social dysfunction and high academic achievement. Some mentally unstable Asian females have tried to rail against this as racist, but Asians make terrible social justice warriors. That and only a lunatic could construe what is an obvious compliment as racism. The thing is though, they are not the model minority. The most successful minority is the Jews.

If you are in an African tribe and your people are thinking about moving to the West, the group you would want to emulate are the Jews. They have figured out how to wildly succeed in all sorts of places, always as a tiny minority. This is in despite of some very serious efforts by majority populations to keep the Jews from succeeding. Then there was the bit of trouble in the middle of the last century. Asians can’t hold a candle to the Jews in this area. In the US, Jews have become the ruling class.

Steve Sailer has picked up on something that has been an internet meme for some time and that is “Jewish privilege.” This used to be a gag in response to the cries of “white privilege” by Progressive lunatics, but it is slowly becoming a legitimate topic for public discussion. Whether or not you buy into the whole “privilege” argument, the point is Jews have been wildly successful in America. The question that should follow is why? What group qualities have worked for Jews that are unique to Jews in America?

Now, this is usually where people will starting mentioning Kevin McDonald and The Culture of Critique. The more empirically minded will bring up the landmark study of Ashkenazi intelligence, by Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, Henry Harpending from a dozen years ago. Neither of those are going to help your African tribe make it work in the West. That’s like the Koreans reading the Talmud looking for the secret of Jewish success. A better approach might be identifying a few qualities and copying them.

One is something Steve Sailer picked up on during the short-lived Larry David flap. It used to be that Jews were obsessively self-aware. Thaddeus Russell touches on this in his book, Renegade History of America. Jews used to obsess over the quirks and flaws of their people, and tirelessly harangue the tribe about the flaws. Shame is taboo these days, oddly enough. but it makes for an excellent self-policing mechanism. In fact, it used to be the default way in which the American ruling class policed itself.

Related to the self-policing instinct is clannishness. A lot of alt-right people criticize Jews for being clannish. They call it nepotism, but they really mean clannish. There’s no doubt that Jews throughout the diaspora have always worried about what is good for the Jews, so much so it is a cliche. The thing is though, unlike, say, Arabs, Jewish clannishness defends the tribe against all threats, external and internal. Arabs will protect complete idiots, who cause the tribe trouble. Jews don’t do that with their members.

This is something that all identity politics should adopt. Going back to the African tribe at the beginning, if they have a member, who brings shame on the group or simply cannot pull his weight, the best course is to cut him lose. If you have talent and you are Jewish, the tribe is an enormous asset. if you’re a mediocrity or a loser, being Jewish is not going to benefit you in the least. Clannishness as a reward encourages loyalty, but it also boils off the losers who drag down the group. Along with shame, it makes for a better tribe.

Another quirk of the Tribe that could help any tribe is the unwillingness of Jews to self-marginalize in society. The Ultra-Orthodox do this, but they are the exception. Generally, Jews engage with the society in which they reside and are willing to engage at the highest levels. Gypsies in Europe, in contrast, live on the fringes. Asians in America tend to gravitate to a little Hanoi or a Chinatown. Jews don’t do that and when forced into a ghetto, and we have the word ghetto thanks to the Tribe, Jews resist it and try to engage.

This is not just something Jews have done in America. Italians and Irish are notable examples of groups that would not stay in the ghetto. Unlike Europe, America has never had a lot of rules about this stuff. We did not inherent Europe’s class structure. Still, the winning hand everywhere is to not settle for a quiet little corner of society. The winning formula is to embrace the greater culture and carve out a place in the center of it. The trouble last century in Germany not withstanding, it has worked very well for Jews.

Going back to the shame issue, there is a Jewish quirk that is a huge advantage and that is a form of shamelessness. That is, Jews are never ashamed of their efforts. You see this with the neocons. Guys like Bill Kristol have no problem walking around in public, despite the things he has done to the country. Anthony Weiner was out and about, even after he was caught in the “bing-bing-bing.” It’s not always an asset, but having the conscience of a burglar makes it easier to overcome failure and keep plugging.

The genesis of this post is a conversation I had with a black guy from Zimbabwe. We fell into conversation about his country and one of the things he said was that his people are the Jews of Africa . He thinks his people should come to America and follow the same path as the Ashkenazi. I did not think to ask if he was Lemba, but that’s my hunch. His general point was that inculcating certain group habits that have worked for other groups, is a good way forward for tribes, be they in identity politics on the African bush.

Cord Cutting

Anytime I mention cord cutting, I get a ton of responses on it. It’s not just about the cultural phenomenon. For a lot of people, the alternatives to the traditional cable model are much better at delivering the desired content. If you think TV is immoral, the solution is simple. Don’t buy a television. If you enjoy some shows and movies, it gets a little more complicated. Given how many times it comes up, I thought it would be worthwhile to post about what I’m doing as a cord cutter. Others can chime in with what they are doing.

Like a lot of men, I ended up with a cable bill because I liked sports. When I was a kid, there were a few games on a week. Then ESPN came on-line with live sports. Then regional sports networks. Now every league and sport has multiple channels dedicated to showing live events. It is the golden age of TV sports, if the gold standard is measured in quantity, rather than quality.That said, I had all the other stuff on cable so I tried to watch popular shows. It was there and people talked about, so I watched.

My first foray into cord cutting was due to technical issues. I did not have cable for a summer and one of things I noticed is I did not miss it very much. I’ve always been a baseball fan, but listening on the radio is a better way to consume baseball. The other stuff I used to watch, well, I did not miss it. If I felt like watching a movie, I got a disc or watched one of the discs I owned. That’s one of the truths of TV watching I learned. Most of what we watch is re-runs and old movies that we have already watched.

With that in mind, I cut the cord at the same time I bought an Amazon FireTV box. This is a simple little device that lets you access Amazon library of movies and TV shows, over the internet. It plugs into your TV via an HDMI cable and connects to the internet over your wireless. You can also connect it with an Ethernet cable. It also has a simple browser so you can access video on the web, like YouTube. It lets you load apps for other video content providers like Hulu and Netflix. There are a lot of small providers with apps.

I have been a Amazon Prime member for a long time, as I do almost all of my shopping on Amazon. The free shipping pretty much covers the cost of the membership for me. That means I get all of the Prime video, which is old movies and TV shows. For instance, I watched a series called Justified that had gone off the air long before I heard of it. They also have original content and some of it is very well done. Amazon also has a movie and TV show rental service. For most people, Amazon Prime for $90 a year is all they need.

In my case, Amazon is all I needed, but I got curious and sampled some of the other serves and devices just to see what was available. I tried the Hulu live TV service, which is one of the many new services for live TV. Their package has most of the popular cable channels for $40 a month. That also gets you their massive library of old TV shows going back to forever it seems. If you liked Taxi or Three’s Company, you can watch it with your Hulu service. You can also watch Hulu on other devices like phones and tablets.

I gave the DirecTV service a ride and it was buggy as all hell. They say it got better, but my experience was not good. In theory, it should be great as it is an internet version of the DirecTV service, which rated the best of all traditional TV offerings. I know when I used their satellite service, it was fantastic. Their internet option has lots of content, but getting it too work was so frustrating I finally gave up and deleted the app. I was an early adopter so maybe it is better, but I’d recommend Hulu over DirecTV for most people.

Now, if you are not interested in the Amazon ecosystem, then you can use something like Roku. I got one of these free when I signed up for comething. Like the Amazon box, it is a small device that connects to your internet via wireless and to your television through an HDMI cable. The interface is easy to use and the setup is super simple. I had it running in five minutes. That’s really the amazing part of all of these new devices. They are vastly more simple to setup and operate than your old cable box.

Roku does some things really well. It is good at buffering content so even if your internet connection is a little buggy, you get no interruption in the video service. Amazon is not as good at this. It’s also really good at finding content on your PC’s so you can use the Roku to play your music and movie collection in another room. I was really impressed at how well this feature worked. I have a vast music collection so having it available anywhere is nice feature for me. I would imagine the same is true for video collections.

One more thing about the ease of use bit. The new devices are modern, unlike your old cable box. For instance, they use Bluetooth for the remote. You don’t have to point the remote at the box, which means the box can be hidden away for a nice clean look to the TV area. I have mine behind the TV. The remotes are also amazingly well designed. You can navigate everything with a few buttons. The Roku remote has a feature where you can plug headphones into the remote and listen, without disturbing everyone else.

Finally, there is one other thing I’ve been doing. I loaded an app called Kodi on the Amazon FireTV. This is a service that uses add-ons to allow you to see content from anywhere on earth. The legality of this service is dubious, but it is impossible to police. The upshot is you can use Kodi to get all your TV and movies free. You can also watch sporting events from all over the world too. There are two downsides. One is you have fiddle with the installation and configuration. The other is the quality is not always the best.

If you are the sort who enjoys fiddling with stuff, then you can find plenty of on-line guides to setting up the Kodi system. Here’s a guide to installing Kodi on a FireStick. You can get the Fire TV Stick for $40, so you can use it for an experiment without spending much. You can also buy a box that is configured, but people really into this stuff tell me those boxes are mostly junk. My experience is that installing on Amazon took about 30 minutes, most of which was spent watching a video on YouTube. Otherwise, it was simple.

Here’s the thing with Kodi. I have no idea how it is legal or how it could be policed in the future. This has the same vibe as the Napster and LimeWire fads of yesteryear. The technology is designed to circumvent current efforts by the gatekeepers to maintain their monopolies. In the music rackets, the gatekeeprs eventually waged jihad on the users in order to scare people out of using file sharing. It failed, but a lot of people were bullied and hassled by Big Music. You need to assess your risk tolerance before using Kodi.

That’s my cord cutting story.

Clown World

I was talking with someone the other day, who I know well enough to talk about current events. I don’t talk about my politics with anyone in real life, but I will chat about current events in the cable chat show sort of way, always careful not to take the wrong side. If I’m around a gang of Progs, for example, I make sure to sound like an NPR listener, if I’m forced to speak about current events. The person I was with is what you people would call a Boomer normie. He watches Fox News and voted for Trump, over Hillary.

I forget what we were discussing, but he said, “Do you ever get the feeling that things are spiraling out of control?” He went on to point out that his parents thought the world was going to hell when his generation was going crazy, but he did not think they ever lost confidence in the country. They were just sick of the kids and communists. His last thought on it was “It just feels like no one is in control anymore. All it is going to take is someone to pull on the right thread and the whole thing comes unraveled.”

I did not have a response, as that’s the sort of topic that leads to saying banned things in public and you cannot be too careful. Even when around people I’m pretty sure think the bad thoughts, I’ve made a habit of keeping my mouth shut. I figure it is good practice for when they start coming door-to-door like they are doing in Europe, looking for people who post truthful things on social media. It will probably never happen in America, but you can never be sure, so I only speak freely around certified hate thinkers at hate conferences.

All that said, there does seem to be a constant state of crisis about things now. I don’t remember that being true during the Obama years, even though there was that constant sense of foreboding over economics. The near death experience faced by the financial system in the Bush years is the reason. My sense is most people, even Cloud People, think we just got very lucky. The mortgage meltdown was just one of the tremors before the credit volcano explodes and covers the world in useless debt.

It does feel different now. Part of it is the Prog panic over Trump. You cannot engage in mass media without seeing someone shrieking about the latest Trump crisis. It’s not the shrieking that is unsettling, it is the ham-handedness of it. The NeverTrump loons like Bill Kristol and Jonah Goldberg are so transparent and phony, it makes most people wonder if we are ruled over by sociopaths. It’s not the constant state of panic in the media that is unnerving to be people. It is what the panic is revealing about our ruling class.

That’s just one aspect. The troll culture is another. Americans are increasingly getting their news through social media. That means they inevitably run across guys like Mike Cernovich. He’s just one of many professional trolls who are slowly casting themselves as legitimate news reporters. It’s not what they post, so much as how much they post that gets them attention. They are a shotgun blast of bullshit, hyperbole and self-promotion that fills the space. A million Geraldo Rivera’s have taken over social media.

It’s not just the fringe trolls. Mainstream soy-boys are now hired to generate click-bait for mainstream news sites. Most people reading this remember when the Boston Globe was a readable newspaper. No more. Idiots writing about gun confiscation are just dull-witted attention whores. He even brags about it. The thing is, guys like him would not survive the first week of the civil war that would ensure if the government tried a gun grab like he proposes. Congress would be forced to hold session in Canada or Hawaii.

There’s also the clown world aspect to it. Americans go on-line and learn that the US Army has now lifted a ban on the mentally disturbed. That’s right, they are letting “people with a history of “self-mutilation,” bipolar disorder, depression and drug and alcohol abuse” join the Army. Imagine yourself or your son in a unit with guys, who cut themselves or struggle with thoughts of suicide. If you are a normie, you look at that and think they have already let crazy people into the Army and now they are in charge.

On the other hand, it is just another day in clown world. Not so long ago, men who dressed as women – and the trans thing is always men dressing as women – were expected to keep that stuff private. If they could not control themselves, then they were shunned or even institutionalized. It was just assumed that people who think they are trees or space aliens or Filipinos trapped in a white guy’s body are suffering from a form of madness. Today, they are celebrated as heroes of the culture, by the people in charge.

That may be why people think things are spiraling out of control. It’s not the lunacy, it is the pace of lunacy. It seems to be accelerating. In one generation we went from “Maybe one day a black guy can be president” to having an exotic weirdo with a Muslim name in the White House and his supporters making war on the native stock. One day, comics are making gay jokes as part of their act and in the blink of an eye, Canada is throwing comics in jail for upsetting lesbians. The clown world spiral is accelerating.

In the 60’s and 70’s, the narrative had two sides. The Prog version was that young whites wanted to open society up for the smattering of non-whites, particularly blacks. The alternative narrative was that white society came under assault by cosmopolitan communists who used the youth movement to attack white society. Both sides relied on a civil war framework to describe that age. Both sides assume some sort of resolution where a middle ground is the result and everything gets back to normal.

That’s not the vibe of today. It feels like America is a fleet of ships lashed together for so long that no one remembers why they are lashed together. As the ropes begin to break, no one is trying to repair them. Instead. people are severing them so everyone can drift apart and go their own way. In the process, various madmen are setting fire to other boats and cackling like lunatics. Those who want to keep things together, just because that’s the way it has always been, are starting to think it is time to cut everyone loose.

Maybe that’s the best result for clown world. Whatever America was a generation ago or five generations ago, it is no longer that. It is soemthing different and something increasingly untenable. Too many people want off the ride. To return to the previous metaphor, it used to be the responsible thing was to restrain the crazies from cutting the lashings. Now, the responsible thing may be to cut the cords that bind clown world together, before something much worse happens.

Peaceful Separation

There are a limited number of ways to peacefully govern a multi-racial or multi-ethnic society. There’s the hard separation that existed in the North before the Civil Rights Movement. The South had a soft segregation. The old way of stating the difference was that whites in the North were willing to treat blacks as equals as long as they did not have to live near them. In the South, whites were willing to live near blacks, as long as they did not have to treat them as equals. Both are now forbidden to mention in public now.

America has settled on Proportionalism for the last half century, as a way to navigate through the impossible task of keeping the peace between blacks and whites. Now that tens of millions of foreigners have been added to the mix, what was a pretty good situation in the 1980’s has become increasingly untenable. Thirty years ago, most people, black or white, were optimistic about race relations. That’s clearly not the case today and people are starting to wonder if it is even possible to make it work.

That’s what makes this New York Times op-ed so interesting. The conventional way to read it is as more of the same blame and shame the Left has done for decades. The writer is supposed to be the sympathetic character and the whites are the bad guys in the never ending drama. The writer spends a lot of time listing the sins of white people and how that makes him feel. The thing is though, the way it is written leaves the impression that race relations are hopeless. This bit at the end strikes a dark note.

For African-Americans, race has become a proxy not just for politics but also for decency. White faces are swept together, ominous anxiety behind every chance encounter at the airport or smiling white cashier. If they are not clearly allies, they will seem unsafe to me.

Barack Obama’s farewell address encouraged us to reach across partisan lines. But there is a difference between disagreeing over taxes and negotiating one’s place in America, the bodies of your children, your humanity. Our racial wound has undone love and families, and ignoring the depths of the gash will not cause it to heal.

We can still all pretend we are friends. If meaningful civic friendship is impossible, we can make do with mere civility — sharing drinks and watching the game. Indeed, even in Donald Trump’s America, I have not given up on being friends with all white people. My bi-ethnic wife, my most trusted friend, understands she is seen as a white woman, even though her brother and father are not. Among my dearest friends, the wedding party and children’s godparents variety, many are white. But these are the friends who have marched in protest, rushed to airports to protest the president’s travel ban, people who have shared the risks required by strength and decency.

What has become common, when blacks are trotted out by Progressive to lecture us about race, is that they make the case that they will never be satisfied with the efforts of whites. A close reading of this essay reveals that the writer is not unhappy with the social structures of race. He does not like white people. There’s no way he can be happy in America, living among whites, as long as whites continue to act white. This is the state of things. Blacks can never be happy and whites can do anything to change that fact.

That’s not a problem that can be resolved to anyone’s satisfaction. When America was 80% white, it worked OK for Progressives, as it let them guilt the rest of the country into going along with the liberal agenda. As America approaches majority-minority status, this is entirely untenable. Ekow N. Yankah, the writer of that piece, is living the dream. He has an elite position in an elite profession. He gets treated like royalty and lives an upper class lifestyle. He’s also an African immigrant. If he can’t be happy, no one can.

The thing is, the people commissioning these sorts of pieces have to see the implications of what elite blacks are saying. American has done everything humanly possible to make it work for blacks in America. They have to see that white America is completely out of patience with this stuff. If you’re a plumber worried that you could be replaced by an indentured servant from over the horizon or you are an office worker worried about the robots, Ekow N. Yankah’s complaints just sound like ungratefulness.

The inevitable end game with race relations as America careens into majority-minority status is separation. The question is what kind of separation and whether or not it will be peaceful. Ekow N. Yankah is an accomplished guy with lpads of talent. Africa could use a man like him. Maybe the people in charge are pushing these sorts of essays, because they know what’s coming. It helps prepare the ground for the inevitable. Or, maybe they locked in the past, and they just don’t see what’s coming down the tracks

Let’s hope it is the former.