Ruminations On The Audience

Whenever I watch or participate in a live stream, I’m always curious about who is watching or listening, specifically the numbers. I tuned in for some of Spencer’s new gig the other day and I saw that he had about thousand people listening. When I was on with Josh Neal we had about one hundred people. Spencer is obviously a bigger name and surely draws lots of of enemies to anything he does, in addition to supporters. Still, these are small numbers, compared to what we think happens with television and radio.

Now, in fairness, local radio often has just a few thousand people listening at any one time and some small TV channels have such small audiences they round to zero. There’s also the fact that live streams are a new and different medium. It’s like watching the rehearsal, rather than the finished product, but you can interact with the performers. That and you can watch it anytime, because live streams are recorded. If you look at the views of these things, 90% of the audience is for the recorded version, not the live feed.

The newness of live streams can be seen in the radio programs that have started putting their content on-line. Lots of talk radio people have set up cameras in their studio to simulcast their shows over Facebook or YouTube. They also provide a feed to services like iHeart and TuneIn. I listen to the legendary Howie Carr off YouTube, as he is in Boston and I’m in Lagos. I’ve never seen the viewer count on his YouTube feed exceed a hundred. Most of the time, it is below 50, yet he is the #14 talk radio guy in America.

Anyway, it got me thinking about the new audience for the new media. One thing I’ve learned after a year of doing a podcast is there is little overlap between my writing and my spoken word material. In fact, I have been approached by people at secret handshake meetings who only listen and have never bothered to read my blog. Lots of readers have told me they have no interest in the podcast, but they would read a transcript. John Derbyshire has been doing transcripts for years now, because most prefer it.

My guess is the audience for live streams is a completely different animal than the audience for writing and podcasting. There is a sense of urgency to the live stream, in that watching one from a year ago feels like reading an old newspaper. Most live streams are about current topics. Podcasts are often topical, but necessarily so. The people doing history and philosophy can expect an audience long after they have published their shows. That does not seem to be the case with the live stream.

A few weeks ago I was made aware of the fact a very famous person reads this blog on occasion. They don’t read regularly because they think I’m too wordy. That person wanted to know where I was on social media, because that person prefers Twitter over longer written material. This was a bit of a revelation, but it made perfect sense. While there is overlap between the audience for longer material and the audience for social media, there are many who do one but not the other. Live stream is the social media of video.

A few years ago I predicted Twitter’s problems. A large scale public platform is either open to everyone or it allows for self-segregation. Any attempt to moderate an open platform fails and this was known long before Twitter of Facebook. UseNet and message boards were the first social media and they learned that you either have segregation or you have the Wild West. Any effort to tone police or regulate blasphemy ends in disaster. The reason is the cost of regulation eventually outweighs the benefit.

What’s happening in social media is segregation, as people retreat to their own kind. The dissidents are the first to start building their own, but it will spread everywhere. Your social media platform will be your tribe. That or platforms like Facebook will simply acquiesce to reality. This has happened to some extent as there are private Facebook groups populated by alt-right people. Something similar will have to happen with Twitter or it will collapse under the weight of its own stupidity.

This brings me back to live streams and video is general. The live stream is a response to YouTube censorship. The hosts make sure to stay within the rules and they have the option to not post the recorded show if it could cause problems. The thing is though, even the most berserk member of the volunteer morality police is not sitting through three hours of Spencer talking about himself to find some blasphemy. The use of guarded language and the format allow for some self-segregation within the YouTube platform.

One final thought on all this. I mentioned that I’m not a very good live stream guest. Some people with small brow ridges will accuse me of false modesty, but I think there is a skill at being a host and a guest. This has always been true. A good host features the guest and keeps the guest from getting lost in the sound of his own voice. On the other hand, good guests have answers like a woman’s bathing suit. They are big enough to cover the material, but small enough to keep it interesting. They keep the show moving.

With these new formats, developing new skills to exploit the format is something we see all over now. The cut and paste bloggers, for example, have mostly faded away, as that has been displaced by social media. Those pithy comments are easily done on Facebook and Twitter. Content driven bloggers like Audacious Epigone and Heartiste are the future of the format. The group blog is the new magazine and the solo blog is the new pamphleteer. Similar skills, but more interactive and responsive.

On the video side, that’s where things will be more interesting, as the format has no analog to the analog age. Live streams are not like TV. YouTube channels are not like a cable channel. PewDiePie is not Howard Stern. As Paul Ramsey talked about in his chat with Millennial Woes the other day, the internet video format continues to evolve as people try to figure out how to use it. Look at old videos of a guy like Molyneux and they are nothing like what he is doing today, because he evolved with the format.

That also means the audience will change too. Fifty years ago, movie stars never did television, other than chat shows to promote themselves. That may be how things unfold with video, at least initially. The live stream guys will be a special skill, while the recorded people, with high production values, will appeal to a different audience. Bloggers and writers that can be good guests will use appearances to promote their work. Otherwise, like the difference between book readers and TV watchers, there will be little overlap.

The Death Of Edgytarian Man

The other day, Paul Ramsey had an amusing take on Gavin McInnes dramatically quitting his fan club, the Proud Boys. Everyone is assuming this was in response to the FBI using the word “extremist” when describing the McInnes fan club in a bulletin they issued to the Portland Oregon police department. The assumption is that the FBI is now going to treat Proud Boys as a criminal organization or a terrorist group. McInnes is disavowing them in order to avoid legal guilt by association or any financial culpability stemming from lawsuits.

Maybe that’s what motivated McInnes, but the more likely answer is something I pointed out a year ago with him and other edgytarians. For right-wing edgytarians, the game is always to keep an eye on where the Left is drawing the line. To be edgy on the Right means always staying just inside that line. When the line moves, make sure you move with it, maybe do so reluctantly, while lecturing those to your Right about the need to play nice or be civil. A good discourse on principles and “who we are” always helps.

It is a tough life and many trip up and fall into the void. That’s what’s happening with McInnes and his fan club. Let’s not kid ourselves about the Proud Boys. It was never intended to be anything but a fan club for McInnes. He got the idea from hanging out with alt-right people in the run-up to the presidential election. He saw that guys like Mike Enoch and Richard Spencer had built an audience around a personal brand, so McInnes created what he thought was a mom-safe version for himself. Proud Boys is alt-right-lite.

Now, the assumption that the FBI is about to RICO the Proud Boys is way off base. The use of the term “extremist group” is meaningless. There is no such formal designation in the law or with the FBI. It is as meaningful as saying the Proud Boys are a drinking club or they like wearing polo shirts. The FBI is a corrupt and broken organization, but they are not about to RICO a TV clown’s fan club. The dramatic reading of his resignation was about getting inside that line again, so McInnes can keep his career alive.

It’s why it is always wise to think about the motivation of popular figures who dabble in dissident politics. A guy like McInnes is primarily a performer. He has spent his life feeling around for a vehicle that will get him a big audience. He’s tried edgy magazine writer, edgy polemicist, TV clown, YouTube clown, jokey political analyst, cheeky ad-man and now he is the hipster gadfly. His instincts, with regards to politics, are conventional white guy politics, but they have always been a a decoration for his performing career.

Another example is Stefan Molyneux, who built his career being a dramatic, somewhat edgy, anarcho-libertarian YouTube performer. His edginess was to flirt with things like biological realism, by posting available data on things like race, sex and IQ. Molyneux is a trained stage actor, who has developed an act that works well on YouTube. As soon as he got some heat from the Left, he has quickly retreated into generic libertarianism, which is completely safe, because it is completely harmless. The show must go on.

On the surface, the right-edgytarian feels like a good thing, because through humor (McInnes) and dramatic presentation (Molyneux) they can help normalize and popularize heretical ideas. Lots of alt-right people love Moly, because his videos are useful in making clever social media memes. The trouble is these guys can just as quickly vilify dissident ideas, when they are sprinting to catch up with the new line Lefty has drawn. Effectively what McInnes is doing is throwing his own fans into the gaping maw of Lefty outrage.

The trouble, of course, is that in an age of extreme intolerance, like we see today, the ideological enforcers are less tolerant of edgy clowns like McInnes than the serious dissidents. They see the edgy clowns as mocking their identity and that can never be tolerated, so they go after these otherwise harmless performers. It’s why a relatively safe performer like Molyneux gets mass reported and protested. The ideological enforcers know they are defending a dead and brittle orthodoxy, so there is no room for tolerance.

It’s why edgy guy is doomed, at least for now. As I pointed out a year ago, in an ideological age, you pick one side and only one side. There’s no bridging the gap or performing on both sides of the street. The edgytarians, if they are to exist at all, will have to operate on this side of the great divide. That requires a new type of performer with a grounding in dissident ideas. None of the edgy guys today have that, so they will eventually end up on the other side, singing to an audience of true believers.

Wall Street Jihadist

One of the positive developments of the last few years has been the collapse of respect for the mass media by white people. Blacks always assumed the media was run by “the man” and no one really cares what Hispanics think, so the mass media has always relied on gullible white people. Most whites have always assumed the media was biased in favor of the Left, but now most white think the media is just making stuff up. Older whites still fall for the lies coming out of the magic box, but younger people assume it is all fake news.

The funny thing about this is the collapse of trust in the media has changed the media and not for the better. Thirty years ago, media people would fight tooth and nail against the charge of bias. Today, they routinely hire Progressive activists and give them a platform for their activism. The Daily Beast, for example, pays Antifa spokesbot Kelly Weill to harass white people. The New York Times famously hired anti-white rage-head Sarah Jeong to their editorial board. They were worried it was not anti-white enough, apparently.

Further, the media is not only just a conduit for anti-white propaganda, it is now a part of the activist wing, directing doxxing and de-platforming campaigns. This post last week at the Wall Street Journal, by anti-white activist Yoree Koh, was an effort to force YouTube to shut down channels that don’t comply with the sensibilities of our imported overlords. The fact that Mx. Koh would be working in a rice paddy if not for the heroic efforts of white men most certainly never comes up in her commentary. She just hates white people.

Since the Journal has fire walled the piece, I’ll post it in full.

After Robert Bowers stormed the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh on Oct. 27, far-right personality Ethan Ralph launched a live stream on YouTube to discuss the shooting that claimed 11 lives. Soon, some viewers began paying to have their comments featured on the live chat scrolling alongside the streaming video, through a feature YouTube launched last year called Super Chat.

During the live stream, which YouTube said Mr. Ralph has since deleted, one user paid two British pounds to write, “How u get a Jewish girls number? Roll up her sleeve.” Another viewer paid $5 and wrote: “If you want to know if the Synagogue shooting was a false flag then check out the lucky Larry life insurance policies on those dead Jews.”

YouTube said late on Friday that it had permanently removed Mr. Ralph’s channel, “Ralph Retort,” from its platform for policy violations and for going against its terms of service.

Mr. Ralph, whose channel had 22,500 subscribers, is one of several far-right YouTube celebrities who have used the Super Chat function to make money. Topics among such users can be wide-ranging, from events like the tragedy in Pittsburgh and the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to critiques of the media and internal debates among members of the far-right online communities.

Most Super Chats generate a few hundred dollars in revenue, according to an analysis conducted for The Wall Street Journal, with YouTube typically collecting 30%, people familiar with the matter said.

A spokeswoman for YouTube, owned by Alphabet Inc.’s Google, said the company donates to charity the proceeds from any Super Chats that violate its hate-speech policy.

“Hate speech and content that promotes violence is prohibited on YouTube,” the spokeswoman said. “We have also been working over the last several months to refine our policies on who has access to monetization features, and while this work is ongoing, we are dedicated to continuing to improve in the fight against hate online.”

Like other popular social-media platforms, YouTube has struggled to draw the line between cracking down on hate speech and allowing freedom of expression. The company relies on a sprawling ecosystem of “creators” to supply a steady flow of content to the world’s most popular video site, where they get access to special benefits and resources on the platform.

Super Chat was launched last year to further encourage those creators to produce more content and attract more viewers. Paid comments receive special treatment: The video host often reads the comment out loud on air, and it gets pinned to the top of the fast-moving chat thread. The more someone pays, the longer the comment stays featured at the top of the chat box.

While the Super Chat function is available to YouTube’s vast cast of video celebrities, and was made primarily to appeal to gamers, it hasn’t gained the same traction or scale among those groups as it has with the far-right crowd, according to an analysis by Storyful, a social-media intelligence firm that is owned by News Corp, the Journal’s parent company.

Racist comments are not uncommon. Just as troubling, according to researchers, are the comments that stay within YouTube’s guidelines to avoid getting taken down through the use of coded language in place of hot-button topics and slurs. For instance, some commenters use the term “basketball Americans” rather than a slur against African-Americans and “population replacement” when referring to conspiracies about white genocide. Some users spell certain words with numbers to avoid detection by YouTube software.

Many payments, for example, are made in the amount of $14.88—the number 1488 is often used as shorthand among white supremacists to signify their ideology, and related merchandise is often sold for $14.88.

“What they’re doing is transmitting these ideas in other ways,” said one researcher. The researcher has been targeted in the past by white supremacists and other members of the far-right fringes.

After a BuzzFeed article in May detailed the popularity of Super Chats among white nationalists and other far-right personalities, YouTube said it had started using machine-learning technology that can detect hateful comments and put them on hold for further review. The company doesn’t disclose how much it makes from Super Chats overall.

When YouTube temporarily suspends a channel for a violation, that creator often appears as a guest on a like-minded person’s channel until the ban is lifted. The problem for YouTube, said this researcher, is that “YouTube is going to be continuously trying to apply a technological fix to what is a social problem.”

Mr. Ralph didn’t respond to a request for comment. On Thursday evening, after the Journal approached YouTube with questions for this article, Mr. Ralph opened a new live stream by reading what he said was a Super Chat submitted earlier in the day, in which the viewer wrote “Abort Hebrew babies.” The stream continued for more than 20 minutes before it was shut down for violating YouTube’s policy on hate speech, according to a notice posted on his Twitter account. Mr. Ralph then shifted to another channel and continued for several minutes before that also was shut down.

St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital this week arranged to return donations raised in September during a live stream by Mr. Ralph dubbed a “Super Chat for Good,” even as the comments section became populated by anti-Semitic comments and the hosts talked about a Holocaust meme. The money totaled about $26,000. Many on Twitter complained Friday about having their donations returned to them. They also attacked the Journal and members of its staff, blaming the news organization for the return of the money.

When contacted earlier in the week, St. Jude said it was aware of the chats and was making arrangements to reverse any donations. On Friday, a spokesperson said: “We had no intention of receiving or accepting any of the funds associated with the live stream.”

Following the Journal’s questions, YouTube also took down a live stream by far-right personality Jean-François Gariépy that was broadcast after the Pittsburgh shooting and included a number of anti-Semitic and racist comments in the paid Super Chats.

Mr. Gariépy said his channel doesn’t allow hate speech and that he tries to delete Super Chats that “are either hateful or that constitute calls for violence.” He said his channel has banned thousands of viewers from his channel for repeatedly violating that policy.

Mr. Gariépy, who calls himself a white nationalist, said he doesn’t see a problem with people referencing 14/88 or Hitler, saying such comments “are aimed at encouraging people to gain a better historical understanding of Germany during the first half of the century.” He added that it would be easy for YouTube to prohibit donations made in that amount “if they differ from my interpretation.”

Mr. Gariépy’s live stream in the wake of Pittsburgh generated $244 in revenue, according to the Storyful analysis.

Write to Yoree Koh at yoree.koh@wsj.com

Corrections & Amplifications

YouTube said Ethan Ralph deleted a video he posted about a shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said that YouTube deleted the video. (Nov. 2, 2018)

You’ll note the reliance on the site Storyful by the activist who wrote the story. Storyful is a company owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, that bills itself as a social media intelligence firm. That means it researches content found on-line. In reality, it is just a hive of Progressive activists. For example, anti-speech activist Michael Edison Haden is one of their “researchers” and probably the guy who fed this story to the airhead activist at the Wall Street Journal. Mike Enoch explained this on the Jean-François Gariépy show.

The point of all this is that the media is not just biased or even just fake. The media, including allegedly right-wing sites like the virulently anti-Trump Wall Street Journal, are activists now. There’s no question that cucky outfits like the Wall Street Journal and Fox News fear the growth of alternative media on economic grounds. When a guy like Ethan Ralph, who is not even very far to the right, is able to get audiences bigger than most of the cable chat shows, just by showing up, the conservative model has much to fear.

It’s more than just economics though. It is ideology. The people running the Wall Street Journal, hiring anti-white activists like Yoree Koh, are operating from the same animus as the New York Times. The approved media does not just want to shut down your ability to speak and hear alternatives. They want to stop you from eating. When Trump says the media is the enemy of the people, this is exactly what he means. That’s why the Wall Street Journal hired Yoree Koh to try and deprive dissidents of a way to make a living.

Kept Men

In a series of tweets yesterday, someone calling herself Emerald Robinson announced she had evidence that at least one “conservative” magazine was taking payola from a tech giant. The implication was that the magazine was taking money in exchange for countering the stories about the tech oligarchs censoring dissidents.The woman works for an outfit called One America News, which is a small operation that has made a name for itself during the Trump phenomenon. Here are the tweets in case they vanish.

The most likely candidate, before examining the hints in the tweet, is National Review, which lost its moral compass when Rich Lowry took over the operation. It’s also the one conservative publication with any influence, at least before it hurled itself onto the NeverTrump bonfire three years ago. If you are going to bribe a conservative publication, you may as well bribe the biggest one. It’s not like any of these operations are making so much money that they would say not to a bribe. It’s their reason to exist.

Of course, the clue about the subscriber base evaporating adds to the speculation that the culprit is National Review. When you look at the tax filings for the 501(c)(3) they use to launder contributions, it appears their donations shriveled up during the campaign. Their ugly smear campaign against Trump and his voters turns out to have been a costly blunder. That is if the tax filings tell the whole story. It is possible that the tech giant or some other wealthy patron is paying writers directly or using another vehicle.

I speculated during the campaign that Dan and Farris Wilks were buying support for Ted Cruz and funding the NeverTrump lunacy among so-called conservatives. The two are members in good standing of the donor class and the guys bankrolling people like Ben Shapiro, Dennis Prager and Glenn Beck. My suspicion was they were spreading cash around on the side to the various pens for hire at operations like National Review and the Federalist. It would explain some rather obvious patterns we saw in the campaign.

Now, in fairness to National Review, we don’t know if the person tweeting this stuff is legitimate or correct. Her name suggests she should be swinging from a pole, rather than covering the White House, but these days, the differences between the two professions are microscopic. In fact, it would be a relief to learn that the mass media is simply singing for their supper, delivering what a handful of billionaires demand. Otherwise, it suggests a systemic failure that can only be addressed by madame guillotine.

Still, even if the rumor is just that, it raises an important point. The media in America has never been objective or bound by a code of conduct. Into the twentieth century, everyone understood that the newspapers were owned by rich guys with an agenda. There were newspapers for the parties and for the factions within each party. What happened in the Cold War is the bias was concealed in an effort to fool the public into supporting the struggle against the Soviets. Suddenly, reporters became journalists and priests.

When you dig through the tax forms of the various not-for profit operations used by Conservative Inc., you find that their stars are living lifestyles that would make the people who read them faint. Jonah Goldberg is a great example. He’s gets 200 large from the National Review Institute. He gets a similar figure from American Enterprise. Then he has a cable deal from Fox. He writes books that no one reads, but the not-for-profit system buys these books in bulk. Add it all up and he lives like royalty for doing very little.

Of course, this explains why the so-called conservative opposition is unwilling to oppose or conserve anything. They are afraid to bite the hand that feeds them. To wander off the reservation and possibly anger their pay masters, means leaving a life of extreme luxury for, at best, a middle-class life. It’s not as if a Jonah Goldberg could replicate his earnings in the dreaded private sector. The life of a kept man is one of trepidation. They live in fear that the fads will change, they will be deemed heretical and ejected from the hive.

At the human level it is somewhat understandable, but when you look at the whole, it means the whole system is a massive scam design to fool the public. Just as campaign finance laws are designed to obscure who is bribing your politicians, the labyrinth of 501(3)(c) operations that finance the commentariat are designed to conceal who is controlling public opinion. Even if we never get the full story about which publication was taking the bribes, the truth of it is slowly bleeding into public consciousness.

In the meantime, the kept men glance furtively at social media, wondering if it will be their publication that gets outed or if maybe their name will turn up in the story. Maybe some are reaching out to their friends at other media operations, just in case they need to find a new landing spot. It’s the whore’s life they chose, so no one should feel pity for them. In fact, these people deserve nothing but scorn. They choose to play an active role in the decay of our society, by undermining social trust. They deserve what’s coming to them.

Site Plans

Some may have noticed some performance issues with the site recently, as well as some down time and connectivity issues. There were at least two de-platforming efforts, but most the trouble here has been technology related. Part of the problem is the traffic, which keeps ticking up despite my best efforts. The server this site lives on is just not up to the task so it results in downtime. There’s also the problems that come with using WordPress, which is fine for what it is, but it is not without its problems in terms of reliability.

After many hassles with broken plugins and comments systems not working, I’m now committed to looking at alternatives. I have the move to a bigger, better server ready to go, but I want to do it when I do the site redesign. That way, I can work out issues with the new software before going live with it. Conversions are always full of surprises, so it is best to measure twice, covert once. The domain is not going to change, so the only change for the user will be look and feel, and I hope better performance.

With that in mind, now is the best time to solicit suggestions for features of changes in the new system. Number one on my list is a better comment system. One option I’m considering is a system with an integrated message board. This will mean commenting is for registered users only, but you can use your social media account to register. This means that the character you play on Twitter of Facebook can become your character on this site. It also means more commenting features as well as granular privileges.

Another thing I want to do is make it easier to get around corporate firewalls. What I’m learning is that many companies just block anything running WordPress. I found this out the other day, when I sent a link to a business to someone. I did not notice that the business was using WordPress for their website. My client tried to o`pen the link but his firewall blocked it. Using something like Joomla or Drupal would get around that, but there are other less complex options that may be better and require less work on my part.

Another item on my list is a better way to organize posts. I write a lot so not every post is going to be a winner, but some are clearly better than others. Organizing posts by popularity seems like a good idea. New readers can look at the greatest hits selection and see if they should stay or paddle back over to normieville. The ability sort and search by subject matter could be useful too. I have over 2300 posts now. I’ve written something about almost everything. Organizing by subject matter strikes me as useful.

With that said, the floor is now open. if anyone has suggestions, demands, desires, whatever that they would like to see in the next version, post them up. Obviously, I’m working with a limited amount of resources, so I will not be building a site to rival Facebook, but there is a lot that can be done for very little. Developing a community around the content posted here is certainly possible. Adding the ability to start a premium service, if I ever decide to go full on Dinesh D’Souza is also a possibility.

The Little White Book

Edit: I was working from the draft copy that Greg was kind enough to send me over the summer. He changed the chapter titled “Slow Cleanse” in the final version and made clear that “ethnic cleaning” is used as a leftist slur. The irony here is this was a recommendation  I made after I read the draft. My apologies to Greg and the readers for the error.

What is “white nationalism”? If you ask a Progressive, you will get a list of the other abracadabra phrases they use to label heretics. A white person insufficiently enthusiastic for things like egalitarianism, unlimited immigration or racial quotas is dismissed as a white nationalist. They call President Trump a white nationalist, for example. For normal people, the term conjures images of white separatists, maybe, or perhaps nothing at all. Unlike black nationalism, the phrase white nationalism lacks an agreed upon definition.

Greg Johnson, in his new book The White Nationalist Manifesto, sets out to define white nationalism and also make the case for it. The book is a series of essays, grouped around three major themes. The first section focuses on the state of white people, the forces operating against whites and the need to restore white homelands. The second section covers the basic concepts of white nationalism. The final section addresses the cultural and political movement necessary to make White Nationalism a reality.

The first thing that recommends the book is the structure. In this age of short attention spans, breaking it into a series of essays is more effective. Writers will have to come to terms with the fact that their audience simply lacks the patience to read long complex arguments. In the case of something like white nationalism, the format allows the reader to quarrel with one or two points without having to reject the over all argument. Even people comfortable with white identity politics are going to have their disagreements.

There’s also the fact that most white people remain allergic to thinking sensibly about the issues facing white people. The adherents of Frankfurt School arguments and tactics have been in control of public discourse for generations. They have controlled the school curriculum since the 60’s. As a result, few white people alive today have ever existed outside the poaching liquid of multiculturalism. Short, easy to digest arguments that explain the basics of white identity politics provide a useful antidote to this conditioning.

Perhaps the most important argument in the book is at the beginning, where Johnson lays out the facts of white demographics. To people familiar with white identity politics, none of this will be new. Sadly though, most white people simply have no idea they are members of an endangered species. Even when the facts are presented to them, they will find some way to deny reality. Again, generations of proselytizing by an alien intellectual elite have conditioned whites to avoid facing the reality of their own dispossession.

The other aspect of this is the cause. The public polices that are putting whites in danger are not accidental. He makes the important point that the elites pushing these polices have to know the results of those polices in advance. Otherwise, it means the cultural and political elites are smart enough to craft and implement these policies, but too ignorant of reality to understand the inevitable consequences. In other words the ads on your television that always feature a brown man and a white women are calculated.

That removes the handy excuse whites have used for generations for not rising up against their rulers. For as long as anyone reading this has been alive, the claim has been that all the opposition needs to do is craft the right argument. Once they do that, the ruling class will throw down their weapons and embrace us as brothers. The responsibility is shifted from the people implementing public policy to the victims. By eliminating the excuse that they simply don’t know, the burden shifts back to the elites.

Another highly useful essay is titled Homogeneity, chapter eleven in the book. For American readers this is going to be challenging because the argument in favor of homogeneity contradicts everything they have been taught about diversity. The challenge presented in this chapter is that everything about observable reality makes clear that ethnically homogeneous societies are healthier and happier. More important, up until fifty years ago, everyone understood this, even in America. It’s a big red-pill for normie.

Now, in fairness, the book could do a better job explaining white demography. The empirically minded will hate the fact that Johnson makes a lot of assumptions, without providing studies, graphs and so forth. For American readers, an essay on the history and nature of white American ethnicity would be helpful. For generations, whites have been pitted against one another on ethnic and regional lines, so thinking about white identity is very difficult. White Americans don’t exist, even to themselves.

I’m also firmly in the camp that thinks we have to be careful with the choice of words, when it comes to discussing these topics. White nationalism is going to conjure mostly negative images. The essay titled The Slow Cleanse uses the phrase “ethnic cleansing”, which brings to mind firing squads and death camps.The word “cleanse” reminds people of Hollywood weirdos drinking prune juice for a week. Fair or foul, the bad guys control the language, so using words and phrases that make that hard for them is important.

That said, a big part of this project is the rejection of the prevailing moral orthodoxy. This does not mean the puerile role playing that came to define the alt-right. That’s just juvenile rebellion that accepts the moral supremacy of the Left. The proper way to reject the prevailing orthodoxy is to not be bound by it and not react to it. One way to do that is to return to the clear use of language. Nothing infuriates the people in power more than the indifference of their subjects, so maybe Johnson is on the right path with the language.

Finally, the target audience for the book is not your MAGA hat wearing granny or the Ben Shapiro loving CivNat. The book is best aimed at the type of person who generally knows the reality of race, but maybe thinks “racism” is crude or low-class. What a book like this does is provide language and arguments that the typical white person can use to inoculate their own mind to the prevailing culture. It also supplies the tools to help bring people over to this side of the great divide. It’s the Little Red Book for modern white people.

Lost Boys

A thing you get used to on this side of the great divide is seeing people go through the transformation. It’s like seeing a blind man suddenly given the gift of sight. At secret handshake events, a topic of conversation is “how you got here.” By that it means the book, event or person that finally opened your eyes to the reality of the world. For a lot of people, the absurdity of libertarianism was the gateway. Others found an old book by a banished writer, who used to be in the mainstream of conservative thought.

Not everyone makes the trip. Some people are so immersed in the prevailing morality that they will probably never find their way out. It’s not a matter of intelligence. We have plenty of mediocre minds on this side of the divide. It is the inability to step out of the old morality, the prevailing set of rules about what defines the moral person and what describes the immoral person. It’s not fear either, although that is often a big part of it. There are just some people who see Ben Shapiro as the great barrier after which is nothingness.

This article at PJ Media is a good example. The writer is unknown to me and probably unknown to everyone. The first thing to notice about the article is the caption on the picture is a lie. It is a deliberate lie, as well. That was not “white supremacists” surrounding counter protesters.” Nothing of the sort happened. That was a flash mob the night before Charlottesville. The lie, however, says something. It shows that the people at PJ Media are deep in the weeds of the Progressive moral framework. They accept all of it.

The setup of the post strikes me as contrived, but putting that aside, his response about tribalism is the standard CivNat spasm we see in response to biological reality. He writes, “An America where every group is primarily loyal to its own country of origin or race is an America without a bright future.” No quarrel there, which is exactly why all the sub-groups of the Dissident Right exist. They have come to understand that America is being balkanized by mass immigration, the racial awareness of non-whites and identity politics.

Then there is this. “Are most people inherently tribal? Absolutely. Our natural tendency as humans is to split ourselves off in different ways.” This is true, but there are no multi-racial tribes. In fact, we don’t have multi-ethnic tribes. The various tribes in Italy were bound together by blood, just as the Irish clans were bound together by blood. That’s a perfect example of the obtuseness of people unable to shake themselves free of the prevailing moral order. They will use the most ridiculous reasons to avoid facing basic reality.

Towards the end, we see this obtuseness again when he writes, “I think “civilizational ability” is something that should be chalked up to culture, not race. The most successful nations have been those that have adopted the tenets of Western civilization.” This is right out of the CivNat playbook. It is the most absurd form of circular reasoning, but it allows the timid to avoid noticing. It’s also a basic premise of Progressivism. The West is what it is by sheer dumb luck and that’s the root of white supremacy and all the evils tied to it.

No, the reason Europe began to race ahead of the world five centuries ago is the human capital of Europe was simply better than what populated the rest of the world. Sure, geography, history and chance came together to make the humans of Europe, but that’s true everywhere. That’s called evolution. It is a basic bit of reality that human evolution is copious, recent and local. Europeans can no more be blamed for being white than Africans can be blamed for being African. It’s just a fact of the human condition.

Now to be fair, the writer avoided most of the clownish virtue signalling that defines the people calling themselves conservative these days. The emptiness of conservatism, as well as it is ineffectiveness, leaves little for the conservative writer to do other than virtue signal. This guy at least acknowledged that the swelling ranks to his right are not simply evil, but motivated by facts and reason. He disagrees with those facts, but he has no choice, as to do otherwise means packing up and making the trip to our side.

The point of this is that you can’t save everyone. In fact, if someone from our side were to sit down with John Hawkins and explain the facts of life, he would probably nod along, but then go right back to chanting the old slogans again. Those old slogans and beliefs are comforting and require no risk. Thoreau was wrong. The mass of men do not lead lives of quiet desperation. The mass of men live in mortal fear that they will one day find themselves alone, separated from the pack, facing the dangers of the world alone.

That’s frustrating for many on this side, They wonder how it is that otherwise smart people like a John Hawkins can remain trapped on the other side. The fact is, you can’t save everyone and we don’t have to save everyone. The way these things work is you change the minds that can be changed and eventually, you have enough numbers to offer comfort to those who fear separation from the herd. You offer them a new and better herd in which they can find fellowship and comfort. That’s a how a counter-cultural movement works.

The Great Awakening

Ron Unz has gotten back to writing and he has put out a handful of long columns under the American Pravda category. These are posts where he digs into the official narrative on some subject and his experience with discovering the truth. They are packed with lots of well researched information about the topic, often from obscure sources that have been erased from the official narrative. To his credit, he digs into the credibility of his source material, as to why they have been deliberately forgotten. That’s always useful.

I find them a bit too long, but that may be a matter of taste. There is something about reading from a screen that makes long articles less pleasant for me. People have looked into this and found that shorter is better than longer on-line. It’s one reason the long form essay is going away. Most people consume their content on-line, so they prefer short pithy articles. There’s also the fact that most of this stuff is read at work, where you steal a few minutes to read something before lunch or on a break. But, that’s a small quibble.

Anyway, this entry on post-war Europe was really interesting. The post-liberation reprisals in France and Belgium get some mention in the official narrative, but almost exclusively with regards to women who slept with German soldiers. The gang-like warfare between communists and their enemies is never mentioned. Of course, there is never any mention of what happened to many German soldiers in prisoner of war camps. War is an ugly business and ideological war is the ugliest. so the post-war was no picnic.

In regards to the ideological aspects of it, the blind hatred of the Germans by the American elite is never discussed. That’s why no one learns about the Morgenthau Plan in their history classes. It is another example of how ideological enemies cannot see the humanity in one another. The rage-fueled Progressives of America were no different than their moral predecessors, the abolitionists. They came to see the other side as the pure expression of evil and wanted them exterminated. The Morgenthau Plan was about genocide.

The most interesting part of theses posts is that they fit into the “red pill” experience you hear from many who journey to this side of the divide. Not everyone makes the journey, as they were always here, but did not know there was a “here.” Many do have a moment when the light went on and they either began to question their view of the world or simply changed their mind about some important item. Often, it is a book or article that is the triggering event. In that regard, these posts are a good addition to the catalog.

Of course, none of his posts would be possible without modern technology. When the only store of knowledge was controlled by the people running the official narrative, there was no way to “red pill” anyone or be red-pilled yourself. Unless you found a stash of old books that had been proscribed, you had to accept the official narrative at face value. Whatever happens in these troubled times, the fact that the society that produced the technological revolution could be consumed by it suggests nature in the long run, is self-correcting.

Reading the article on post-war Europe, I was reminded of something that often gets forgotten. That is, it is not enough to undermine the moral legitimacy of the prevailing orthodoxy. That phony narrative sold to us is not just propaganda in support of the current order, it gives Americans a reason to feel patriotic. It makes us proud of who we are as currently defined by the people in charge. Learning that it is a lie is like like learning that you were adopted. It leaves a hole and something must fill it. Something will fill it.

While undermining the moral authority of the people in charge is a big part of our project, we also have to work on a replacement. It’s not enough to get people wise to the hypocrisy of the New York Times, for example, with regards to race. They Sarah Jeong fiasco does red-pill  a lot of people, but that only matters if they have something else to embrace. In the movie from which the term “red-pill” originates, the characters had an alternative vision of their future. Without that, they would have had no reason to take the red pill.

This is the lesson of the Great War. The collapse of the monarchical system left a giant void in Europe. That system had been discredited, but there was not a replacement for the people to embrace. Liberal democracy had yet to evolve the secular morality to justify it, so into the void flowed Marxism and Fascism. The twentieth century was the fight between liberal democracy, fascism and communism, with the result being the neo-liberal order we have today. The lesson is that what comes next is not better by default.

The posts on antisemitism will be of some interest, especially to the JQ’ers. Ron is Jewish, so he comes to the subject from a different angle than the anti-Semites, but he is refreshingly frank about the material. It’s  good reminder that Jews are not the monolith JQ people need to believe. There are a lot of alt-Jews out there. It’s not a majority or even close to one, but it is a substantial minority. Their fight within the Jewish community over Jewish identity is a mirror of what is happening within the Occident.

It’s a good reminder that even if you embrace the fact that human diversity requires separation, it does not mean hostility. In fact, diversity requires cooperation in order for peaceful separation to work. Even though one group may have different interests and a radically different sense of identity than another, they can still cooperate with one another where their interests align. For the JQ people who think they have taken the ultimate red-pill, this understanding about cooperation and diversity is the ultimate red-pill.

I’m fond of pointing out that much of what defines the modern age is that everyone forgot the timeless lessons of the human condition and now we have to rediscover them. This great awakening we see on our side of the great divide is, in many respects, a rediscovery of the past. So much has been hidden from view in order to prop up the current regime, it’s shocking to most people. Like that kid who learns his parents had lied to him and he was adopted, what matters next is what we do with this new knowledge.

Vae Victis

The FTN guys posted a special podcast on the American Revolution and the process that resulted in the Constitution. Instead of reciting the standard mythology about the Founders and their alleged love of liberty, they get into the economic motivations of the men who met in Philadelphia to restructure post-colonial America. They also talk about the men who were excluded, as well as the interests they represented. It’s a well done episode that gets into the forgotten parts of the founding story, as well as the economic motivations.

The basis of their analysis is the historian Charles Beard’s An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Beard argued that the structure of the Constitution and the process that produced it, was the result of the personal financial interests of the Founders. For example, George Washington had provided significant financing for the revolution, so the Constitutional guarantee that the newly formed nation would pay its debts, worked out pretty well for people like Washington and the other bond holders.

Beard built on earlier Progressive interpretations of American history and can probably be described as a proto-Marxist historian. His analysis of the Founding is that it was first a revolt against the monarchy and then a counter revolution against democracy by the mercantile class located in the cities. It was not just the issue of repaying war debts. The financial class also saw the Articles of Confederation as a hindrance to trade, because there was no central authority to strike trade agreements with foreign governments.

Beard is an interesting guy, who was very popular with the Left into the Cold War, but then fell out of favor in the 1960’s. This seems like an odd thing, given that his reading of American history is based in class conflict. The New Left historians, however, rejected that interpretation in favor of  racial and sexual conflict, which meant abandoning facts and standards in favor of emotion and vengeance. Neo-conservative historians rejected all of that in favor of selling the narrative of Americanism as a vehicle for present policy.

One of Beard’s insights was that the people located in cities not only have a different set of economic interests, but they also have a different relationship with government. In the 19th century, that meant the city dweller was much more receptive to socialism than the citizens in the country. The main reason was that the city dweller gets used to bumping up against government on a daily basis. It feels natural to them. Citizens in the country, particularly in the 19th century, had little contact with the state, so it seemed alien to them.

This suggests something about the nature of socialism, as throughout history urban populations have supported authoritarians, while rural populations have not. In the ancient world, a savvy tyrant like Peisistratus could appeal to the masses of urban poor, to challenge the power of the aristocrats. On the other hand, authoritarian appeals work much better in high density environments. Still, daily familiarity with the power of the state makes people more trusting and comfortable with it. Socialism relies on that trust.

Of course, the defect of class-conflict historiography is that it tries to jam all facts into a model of society. Instead of the theory explaining history, history is used to explain the theory. There’s no question that the men who met in Philadelphia had direct financial interest in the outcome. They were also motivated by all the usual stuff like patriotism, regional loyalty and petty stupidity. That stuff is every bit as interesting as the economics and just as important. In other words, history is both particles and waves.

More important and related to the podcast, is the fact that the people who drive history have personal interests. The men who revolted against the king, did so because they saw an advantage in it. Once they gained control of the country, they were not about to give it away or arrange things to their disadvantage. After all, the whole point of the revolution was to get a better deal. The Articles of Confederation were simply an interregnum, while the new elite figured how they were going to lock in their position after evicting the old elite.

That was the point of the Constitution and the point of all subsequent changes to it, including the Civil War. Similarly, the mythology of the founding, as well as the “second founding” as neoconservative historians call the Civil War, is part of locking in that position via the miracle of propaganda. All of the soupy romanticism of American history is intended to convince the rest of us that the current arrangements are the result of Providence. Political arrangements are not about ideals. they are about power.

This is an important lesson for anyone in dissident politics. The first goal, that which everything bends toward, is to gain power. This is why the New Left has rolled through the culture. They first seized power and then cooked up timeless principles to justify their position. It’s also why the legacy Right’s appeal to principle must be rejected. Limiting your options by self-imposed rules and inviolable principles is a recipe for failure.  The truth of life is that politics is about power. First you seize power and then vae victis.