Author Archives: thezman

The Revolutionary Man

Posted on by

Radical feminist Andrea Dworkin is credited with coining the phrase “war on women” in 1989, when she first used the phrase in a book introduction. Perhaps sensing she had something useful, she later used it in a book title. Democrat politicians have used it ever since to gaslight single female voters. Given the life of Mx. Dworkin, it is no surprise that the phrase is one of those fine examples of the Opposite Rule of Liberalism. The actual war on women has always been from the cult-Marx radicals of feminism.

In other words, just because the war on women, as described by slovenly feminists like Mx. Dworkin is a fiction; it does not mean there is not a war on women. In fact, the main thrust of the cult-Marx war on white society has been a war on white women, convincing them that their role in society is illegitimate. Not only is the role of wife and mother immoral, but it is also a tool used by the patriarchy, by which they mean white culture, to prevent women from reaching their full potential. Feminism was called women’s liberation for a reason.

Sex roles in a society are never about one sex. The roles of men and women are complimentary. When one changes even a tiny a bit, the other much change. It is why the Saudis are so cautious about changing their rules on women. It is not because they hate women, as loony feminist would have you believe. It is because they fear setting off a chain reaction that would destroy men and women. After all, generations of enforcing a set of rules on the sexes has shaped how men see themselves and each other too.

An example of this in our society is in this story about a pornographer in Florida, who is accused of being sexist. The idea of a pornographer being accused of exploiting women, in the context of modern feminism, strikes most people as an amusing bit of irony. Every day we are being treated to increasingly absurd claims by overwrought females, about how they were done wrong by some mean man. Until the Kavanaugh fiasco, the idea of doing this to a pornographer probably struck most people as the limit of the absurd.

Put that aside and consider the morality at play here though. According to feminist dogma, being a pornographer is fine, if he respects the choices made by the women he films having sex.  Similarly, a woman degrading herself on camera, for the amusement of desperate men, is a celebration of feminism, if the “sex worker” does so of her own free will and has “control of her body”, whatever that means. In other words, morality has been so deformed it now champions prostitution as a celebration of female liberation.

Pornography, of course, is as old as human society, most certainly older than human settlement. Prostitution is cheekily called the world’s oldest profession, because it has existed wherever settled people existed. Human societies everywhere have had to find a way to both accept the permanence of this reality, but also curtail it to maintain the social conditions necessary for the people to flourish. The balance struck is slightly different in all cultures, but the practice always falls outside of what is considered moral.

The thing that is stunning, though, about that story of the Florida pornographer, is the shameless way he goes about his business. He agreed to have a documentary done about him, believing it was good for his image. He is more than happy to talk with the media and let the world know his name and location. Within my lifetime, people in the pornography business tried to conceal their activity and hide from public view, because the public would not tolerate it. The pornographer lived in fear of men.

That is an important point deliberately erased from the record. Laws governing things like pornography were not imposed on the public by puritanical rulers. They were in response to the threat by men to hang the sorts of people who preyed on young girls, grooming them for lives of prostitution and pornography. By relegating this stuff to a protected fringe, it satisfied the demands of men to protect their women, but also kept the streets from being littered with the corpses of degenerates. It is that balance that must always be struck.

Today, “porn king” Riley Reynolds is not only free to go about his business in the public square, but he is also celebrated for it. Feminism was a war on women to emasculate men, so that they would be indifferent to degenerates like Riley Reynolds. As much as modern white men complain about modern white women, a big part of why women are acting as they do is that men are no longer willing to guard their women. If a group of guys dragged Riley Reynolds out of his house and hung him from a tree, more than a few women would cheer.

This is where the men’s rights crowd and the pickup artists got it all wrong. The answer to the degeneracy of feminism is not sullen indifference or craven opportunism. The solution to feminism is for men to get back to policing their own ranks, by enforcing codes of conduct that leave women no choice but to fulfill their natural roles. If white people are going to survive, it will be in a world in which guys like Riley Reynolds are found dead in a ditch. It is a world where Roosh V lives in fear of men, not in fear of women.

That was always the insidiousness of feminism. It was never really about women. It was always about undermining Western societies by emasculating the men. A society where the men are unwilling to protect their daughters from pornographers, too timid to fight back against Pakistani rape gangs, is a defeated society. Men who wait for someone else to protect their women will never find the courage to fight against their masters. When men on our side get that and begin to enforce a moral code on other men, the revolution begins.

Fascism And Bolshevism

Posted on by

Everyone reading this has been indoctrinated in the cult of anti-fascism, where Hitler is a mysterious super-villain, with magical powers. The Nazis are a hyper-efficient military machine designed to kill all that is good in the world. It borders on the ridiculous, but it has been effective in establishing fascism as the worst evil imaginable. There is not much worse than being called a Nazi, other than having been an actual Nazi. Outside of prison, Nazis are considered the worst thing possible, even worse than child molesters.

On the other hand, Bolshevism has never been given the same treatment, despite the body count. The Nazis killed a lot of people, but the Bolsheviks were every bit as murderous. In fact, Stalin was vastly more efficient at killing the inconvenient. His policy of starving the Ukrainians killed more people than Hitler’s death camps and it did so much more efficiently. Not only that, but the Bolsheviks also exported their murderous ideology all over the world, causing tens of millions of deaths. Maybe more than 100 million.

Yet, you can be an open Bolshevik and there is no punishment for it. On every college campus in the 1980’s, for example, you could find clubs for Marxism, various forms of third world communism and even pro-Soviet organizations. Of course, hipsters have been sporting Che Guevara gear for decades. Guevara was not just a murderer and a communist; he was an over-the-top racist. He really hated blacks. Read his diary and even David Duke would squirm over some of the things Guevara said about blacks.

Anti-fascism evolved from an academic fetish among Frankfurt School members into a cult of sorts in the 60’s and 70’s. The Antifa loons of today are well within the tradition of prior anti-fascist loons. The puzzle is why no similar movement ever started in response to the Soviet atrocities. Even if you think the Nazis were worse than the commies, in terms of intensity, the Bolsheviks were around a lot longer. They also managed to kill, or cause to be killed, millions around the world. The commies were a global killing machine.

Why is the former the symbol of evil, while the latter is still popular?

The anti-Semites argue that the reason the Bolsheviks get a pass is that Jews invented communism and Jews now run the world. It is certainly true that Jews are, as a group, politically radical and opposed to Western traditions. It is also true that Jews were wildly overrepresented in Marxist movements, including Bolshevism. Having won the ideological war with fascism, it made a lot of sense for Jews in America to use the Nazis as a lever to pry open the doors of the ruling class. Self-interest made fascism the great villain.

The fatal flaw in this theory though is that while it explains why anti-fascism remains a powerful force in the West, it does not explain why Bolshevism gets a pass. Stalin turned on the Jews in 1948, when he saw how his Jewish subjects responded to Golda Meir and the establishment of Israel. When 50,000 Jews showed up in Moscow to cheer their new ambassador Stalin decided he had a Jewish problem. From that point until the end of the Cold War, Jews in the communist bloc were subjects of official repression.

There is another problem and that is the assertion Jews have the power to bewitch and beguile the masses. Even accounting for their exceptionalism, Jews are still 2% of the American population. Unless they are a race of super smart aliens with the ability to control minds, like the John Carpenter film The Live, it’s unlikely that they have controlled the debate for 60 years. If they are a race of super intelligent aliens from beyond the stars, we will never know it, so there is no point in contemplating that option.

Paleocons, like Paul Gottfried, have suggested that communism may have an appeal to Christians that fascism lacks. That is, communism in the abstract is inclusive, universal, and egalitarian. These are concepts that you find in Christianity, at least in the general sense. Anyone can become a Christian and everyone is equal before God. The Social Gospel sounds a lot like neo-Marxism and post-colonial socialism. Liberation Theology in South America is explicitly Marxist. The current Pope is out of this movement.

The problem here, of course, is that, in Europe, the Latin countries were explicitly Catholic and fascist. In fact, some scholars argue that fascism is an outgrowth of Catholic ideas like corporatism and localism. Spain under Franco was both Catholic and fascist. Portugal under Salazar was also Catholic and fascist. Of course, Mussolini’s Italy was very popular with American Progressives until the outbreak of the war. The best you can argue is that fascism seems to have had less appeal to Protestant academics that Bolshevism.

The elephant in the room is that this argument connecting communism with Christianity is made almost exclusively by Jewish anti-communists. This could simply be an example of the strange lack of self-awareness among Jews. That is, they are instinctively trying to shift the focus from their coreligionists, who are wildly overrepresented in Bolshevism, by laying the blame on Christians. All the best Christmas songs are written by Jews, so maybe they know something about how to sell this to Christians. Who knows.

The fact is, the anti-Semitic and philo-Semitic arguments explaining the popularity of Bolshevism versus the demonization of fascism, do not hold up under scrutiny. Both answers have some truth to them, but they do not provide a complete answer. A big reason is that no one, especially anti-fascists, can provide a workable definition of fascism. In the book Fascism: The Career of a Concept, the aforementioned Paul Gottfried does an excellent job explaining the various and contradictory definitions of historical fascism.

This is why conservatives fall for the “liberals are the real Nazis” stuff peddled by grifters like Dinesh D’Souza and Jonah Goldberg. Fascism is a poorly defined political movement that can mean just about anything at this point. Even in the interwar period, the various fascist movements had some things in common, but they also had things in common with the Bolsheviks. After decades of anti-fascist proselytizing, fascism is simply a catch-all term for that which the Left currently finds upsetting or threatening.

As is often the case, the reason for the relative cultural positions of Bolshevism and fascism is due as much to serendipity as anything else. For example, Frankfurt School anti-fascism came packaged with the claim that America was a proto-fascist state, which made it attractive to European academics looking for a reason to oppose their new conquerors. Before long, the provincial clodhoppers from the American academy were getting in on the trend. Anti-fascism became a fashionable pose for the bourgeois radicals.

It was also a useful dodge for leftists who could shift the focus from their own unreliability in the Cold War onto their critics, by calling them fascists. It is a good example of how immediacy can have a far greater impact on societal evolution that design. The Frankfurt School types never seemed to contemplate the role of the pseudo-intellectual poser, but their critiques set off a chain of events leading to anti-fascism becoming a handy weapon for feckless airheads and preening popinjays to gainsay their opponents.

Another interesting twist is that the current fad of anti-fascism is probably the primary driver of the new anti-Semitism. Younger people have no emotional attachment to the events in Europe a century ago. The leftist street bullies and campus enforcers have managed to make anti-anti-fascism attractive. This has opened the door to old fascist writers and thinker that have been memory-holed for generations. Julius Evola has probably sold more books in the last ten years than in the previous fifty.

Even more critically, modern anti-fascism has made the corresponding generation of Jews reckless and stupid. The social media meme “fellow white people” is the sort of thing that never would have been noticed without the anti-fascist hysteria. Previous generations of Jews were more circumspect, careful to avoid publicly living the stereotype. Younger Jews, caught up in anti-fascism as hipster cause, have managed to define themselves as an absimiliated alien tribe, with a chip on their shoulder about white people.

Given that the West is well into a post-industrial age where intellectual capital is the means of production, it is long past time for these industrial age ideologies to disappear, but we are also in the post-Christian age. People must believe in something, even if it is opposition to something that has not existed for three generations. Similarly, opposition to the hauntology of anti-fascism, is providing a breeding ground for a new politics and a new metaphysics that exists outside the strictures of prevailing orthodoxy.

The Game Of Chicken

Posted on by

A corollary to Hanlon’s Razor is “never attribute to behind the scenes scheming what can more adequately be explained by chance.” It is always tempting to think there is some great design or designer behind events, but most of the time chance is the real hand pulling the strings. Humans in general simply lack the ability to see more than a few moves ahead and usually just react to what is in front of them.  We’re seeing this in real time as the Senate prepares to vote on the Brett Kavanaugh nomination this week.

The game began when Mitch McConnell decided to schedule the hearings and vote on the nominee before the election. He calculated that it was good politics for the Republicans and tricky politics for the Democrats. They have half a dozen Senate seats up this time in very Trump states. Now, McConnell correctly figured that the Democrats would have to go nuclear on the nomination, so he and the GOP brain-trust convinced Trump to go with the cleanest guy on the list. Kavanaugh had been vetted many times, so he was safe.

That was the first mistake by McConnell. Despite being in Washington for a lifetime, he somehow failed to notice that the Left never abides by its own rules. When their rules work against them, they either ignore them or make up new rules, swearing that the new rules are ancient traditions handed down by Moses. That is what they did here by hiring the Jewish lesbian to troll for middle aged women willing to swear Kavanaugh assaulted them in the time before anyone could verify. They were going to #metoo him into withdrawing.

Given the climate in the world in which the beautiful people live, this seemed like a clever ploy to Feinstein and Schumer. After all, they could count on the cucks in the GOP to run screaming into the darkness at the first sign there was heresy afoot. In other words, they never thought they would have to produce witnesses. That is why Feinstein leaked the anonymous letter she was holding since the summer. She figured all she needed was a good whisper campaign run by the fake reporters in the media.

Despite spending so much time with Kavanaugh, they appear to have misjudged how he would handle being smeared. It also reveals how petrified white men in the Democrat coalition feel right now. They just assumed Kavanaugh was as scared about this stuff as they are right now. Either way, the judge turns out to be a Boy Scout, who thinks he has a duty to defend his honor in public against these smears. His speech last week resonated with white people, who are the only demographic that still believes in fair play.

Another miscalculation by the tribal leaders of the coalition is they assumed Trump would light up Twitter about these attacks. That would allow them to shift the focus from their attacks on an innocent white man and instead make this into a fight against the pussy-grabbing womanizer in the White House. Instead, Trump was strangely quiet, saying it was up to the Senate to decide. Trump’s instinct was that this was working to his favor so he could just stand aside and let the Democrats dig their own grave on national television.

An interesting bit from the Hill story on the Democrats is this:

The lawmaker said Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) is urging undecided centrist Democrats to wait until three undecided Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Jeff Flake (Ariz.) — make their positions known.

“He’s telling them, ‘Keep your powder dry.’ That means you don’t have to decide this — wait and see how it plays out. There’s some speculation that Kavanaugh may not last,” the lawmaker said. “They always vow to stay right until they don’t.”

A second Democratic senator said there’s widespread disbelief in the caucus that Kavanaugh is holding on.

“I just had a conversation with a colleague who said they couldn’t believe he hasn’t dropped out yet,” the second lawmaker said Monday evening. “There was a time he could have done it gracefully and could have protected the Supreme Court.”

In other words, all along the tribal elders were telling the members of the coalition that they would never have to vote on Kavanaugh. Just as we saw with vulnerable Democrats being forced to vote for Obama Care in 2010, the tribal leaders of the coalition have no qualms about lying to their members or putting them at risk. It is what allows them to be so brazen, but it also means being reckless. The Democrats may have blown up their chances to win the House and could lose some Senate seats, as well.

The game is not over yet. McConnell really was out foxed on the smear campaign, which is a reminder that he is no Machiavelli either. The hysterical reaction of Lindsey Graham to the discovery that his “colleagues on the Left” were willing to lie to him, should be a useful reminder that the average GOP politician is quite stupid. The fact that Feinstein has not been reported to the ethics committee is another reminder that the GOP will play fair even when they know the other side plays dirty. We are not dealing with geniuses here.

Thus, we find ourselves in a strange game of chicken. The Democrats are praying the FBI pulls their bacon out of the fire by finding anything they can use to force Kavanaugh to retire. Otherwise, they will have to vote. On the other hand, McConnell must wonder if his three super-cucks will fink on him at the last minute, thus blowing up the GOP’s chances in the November election. Those vulnerable Democrats must be wondering if it makes sense to be in a party that is so willing to throw them to the wolves, just for the sport of it.

Of course, what this sorry episode reveals are that the people who have been building the coalition of non-whites is not as clever as they assume. They are dishonest and devious, for sure, but they cannot see around corners. What they always rely upon is their ability to turn the virtues of white people into vices, that they then use to sow division in the white population. A point that cannot be made enough is that if whites thought like Jews or blacks, there would be none of this. After all, 60% is still a majority in a democracy.

The Wisdom Of The Ad Men

Posted on by

Last night I watched an NFL football game for the first time in so long I do not recall the last time I watched a full game. I did watch a game this year on Balkan television. It may have been in Bulgarian or possibly Croatian. I do not speak either language, I just knew it was a feed from a Balkan country. It was entertaining for the short time I watched, mostly for the commercials. From what I could tell, the people in the Balkans who watch American football really enjoy casino gambling and drinking.

It used to be that you could tell a lot about the audience for a show or time slot by watching the commercials. After all, the people buying ad time want to market to the demographic that will buy their product. Years ago, when I was between jobs, I found myself staying up late and I noticed the ads were mostly for products popular with senior citizens. I discovered that retired people often keep odd hours. If you do not have a reason to get up early, you have no reason to go to bed early.

The ad last night that got me thinking about this was a DirecTV spot where two little Aztecs are running a lemonade stand. What looked like a Hispanic woman walks up and asked for a cup of lemonade. The mother of the Aztecs jumps in and gives the woman all the lemonade. The scene flips to the mother and her children in Raider gear on the couch cheering a football game. Apparently, the people of DirecTV think the audience for NFL games is single Aztec mothers.

The ad that almost had me turning it off and picking a different topic for the post today was one for an NBC TV show. This was for a show called SUV and it appears to feature screeching middle aged hens. In the episode they were hyping, the hens were about to arrest a government official for kidnapping migrant children on the border. Yeah, these lunatics really believe that stuff. What are the odds that screeching harpies are watching football? Obviously, it is just agit-prop.

Most have figured out that commercials are just as much about selling the antiwhite as about selling product. In fact, many of the ads are just propaganda. There was an ad for American Express featuring two gay guys playing house. A BMW ad had a short clip of couples kissing and one of the couples was two hairy guys. The people creating these ads certainly know that the viewers find this stuff revolting, but they do it anyway, because they hate you.

On the other hand, I noticed something strange in the car ads. There were high production ads for BMW, Mercedes, and the new Audi A7. An NFL audience seems like an unlikely place for selling luxury German sedans. You cannot walk out of a Mercedes dealership without spending sixty grand on a car they use for taxis in Europe. The Audi they were hyping starts at seventy grand. I am sure some luxury car owners love football, but my bet is most fans like pickup trucks more.

The thing is though, those ads were early in the game, but then they gave way to the ads for the networks degenerate programming and then later to ads for domestic cars and fast-food products. Maybe the agit-prop makers have learned that upscale people will watch a little of the game then move on so they beam ads at the cackling hen demo early and then they switch over to the core audience. After all, lots of middle aged single white women pretend to love football and motorcycles.

The hilarious part was the halftime show. It featured the dream team of three well-spoken black guys. You can be sure that the audience for Ben Shapiro was trying to get selfies of themselves in front of the TV screen during halftime. That is where you see the genius of the marketing men. Whites in America are like trained seals when it comes to the heroic black guy. It is why Candace Owens will become very rich simply by tweeting about how much she loves Donald Trump.

Another funny thing you see in the ads is the tech companies have the super smart black guy as the spokesman. You would think they would go with an East Asian or a South Asian, since most people are used to those guys. Instead, it is the sort of black guy no one has ever seen on earth. He is a bookish looking mulatto, who is glib and confident. Sightings of Big Foot are more common than black guys running IT departments and far more plausible.

It is tempting, of course, to say that it is just another example of how out of touch the Cloud People are about who is watching television. The reality is though, the ad men know their audience. Whites in America are fully immersed in anti-white hatred. In fact, it is the civic religion of white people now. It is the reason they gobble up shows featuring blacks in traditional white roles. Most white people think the glorious future will not include them because it should not include them.

It is why howling about the volcano demon is counterproductive. The response from white person is to bark out some version of “what about Ben Shapiro.” He is popular for the same reason ads with race mixers are popular. You cannot change those minds by confirming what they have been trained to believe. The game is to sow doubt and confusion about the joys of diversity into the minds of the typical white person, getting him to question why he feels good about seeing those ads on TV.

That is the thing you see with these ads. The first task of the ad maker is to create a positive image. The happy black man with the white wife and caramel-colored kids, juxtaposed to the gloomy old white guy is not going to sell the gloomy old white guys in the audience, but it will sell the white women. People on our side need to come to terms with the fact that reason is never a winning approach. No one has ever been talked out of their religion. They have a crisis, lose faith, and then find something else.

Letter To The CivNats

Posted on by

One of the strange aspects of the last century of American politics is that the defining arguments have all happened on the losing side. The winners have always been sure about what they want and what they are willing to do to get it. It is the losers who have always been squabbling with one another about the proper response or the meaning of the latest failure. National Review types always used to argue that all the interesting debates were on their side, rather than on the side of their alleged adversaries.

They were not wrong about that, even though they were deluded about who they were really fighting. For at least forty years and maybe longer, all the arguments have been on the Right. That is the thing though, they were always fighting the people to their right, the people now forming the new opposition. It is easy to get down about what is happening in our time, but the one thing we can point to is that there is an authentic alternative forming up now. The veil has been lifted for more of us now than any time in the past.

Of course, we remain a tiny minority, even within the white population. George Hawley, the left-wing college professor from the University of Alabama, estimates that the dissident population is in the 6% range, which would be about ten percent of the white population, give or take. Greg Hood, the main writer at American Renaissance, is bit more optimistic, as he thinks the data says there are many more “leaners” in the population, but his number is still small. You can read Greg’s review of Hawley’s numbers here.

The point is most white people remain in the civic nationalist camp. About 25% of whites identify as Progressive, so that leaves about 65% in the civic nationalist, dissident right and indifferent buckets. This is what the alt-right learned the hard way two summers ago. They held a rally and 500 people showed up, but 2,000 opponents showed up. Many of those protesting the alt-right were MAGA hat wearing CivNats. Even more crucial, s solid plurality of white people blamed both sides for the violence.

It is why the math of democracy makes white survival an impossibility. That 25% of whites who lock arms with the 40% who are non-white gets the anti-whites close enough to a permanent majority that they are the default option in an election. It is why they put all their energy into making sure blacks, Jews, migrants, and lesbians are super-angry. The left just needs the turnout, and they win. They know the math of democracy too. That means the future is the Kavanaugh hearings over and over until you are dead.

That is the lesson and the reason for this letter. The civic nationalists need to look at that circus on their television and know that is their future. The people who are rejecting due process and the presumption of innocence do not look like you. They do not sound like you. They do not believe what you believe. More important, they do not love what you love or hate what you hate. What they are willing to live and die for does not include you, because you do not look like them or sound like them. You can never be on their side, and they know it.

When you appeal to their sense of civic virtue, all you are doing is encouraging them to punch you in the face again. That is because their civic virtue is not your civic virtue. It can never be otherwise. After decades of work to train blacks, for example, to embrace civic nationalism, they still cling to their own ideas and their own hatreds. It turns out that those racists you guys were always trying to run off were right after all. Civil society is a white man’s thing. It is not an idea. It is the result of white people living in their own lands.

Now, I know a lot of civic nationalists. Many of them post comments here. Some of my best friends are civic nationalists. Many will beg at the tiny feet of Ben Shapiro, convinced it is ideology, not race, until he slams the oven door on them. Just look at South Africa, where whites are being slaughtered by blacks. Yet, many whites refuse to accept the reality of their situation. The father of Mollie Tibbetts, the white girl murdered by an invader, cares more of his civic virtue than his own child. Some people cannot be saved.

On the other hand, if you are watching this circus in Washington and wondering if it is all coming apart, you may want to take a moment and look hard at the scene. It is a white man going through trial by ordeal, something white people banned 1500 years ago. The people putting him through that ordeal do not look like you. They do not believe what you believe. They mock what you believe. They think things like due process and rule of law are the white man’s law, not their law. Their law is what you see on your television.

You need to ask yourself, is there really any way to tame them that has not already been tried? Is there an argument that is going to cause Debra Katz or Michael Bromwich to reconsider their war on white people? Will Maxine Waters or Kamala Harris ever agree with you? You sat and watched Judge Kavanaugh give a stirring speech in defense of decency and civic justice that Cicero would have found moving. Think about all that has been said and written in favor of civil nationalism, yet here we are anyway.

More important and this is where you as a civic nationalist either head down the road to Damascus or heads into the darkness. Look at the fruits of civic nationalism. The champions of the constitutional order and rule of law are all sitting on the Republican side, getting rolled by the non-white rage heads responsible for this circus. The professional civic nationalists have built out a well-financed system to promote your cause. Yet here they are getting clobbered again. If they cannot win this fight, what can they win?

Look. I get it. In your heart you know our side is right about “the race stuff.”. It is why you moved to a neighborhood with good schools and a bad basketball team. It is why you support Israel and oppose Islam. You know that only in a society run by white men, can there be anything resembling civil order. You hate yourself for it, so you have created all sorts of ways to show you are not an anti-Semite or conceal your real feelings toward blacks. It is hard to put down that steamer trunk of guilt you have been taught to carry.

I get it. All of us on this side of the great divide get it. All of us have made the journey you will have to make. It is not easy to accept that all the stuff you have been taught about the constitution and patriotism was just a way to blind you to the approaching darkness. Now you have a chance to open your eyes and see what comes next if you do not begin your journey to this side. That circus on your television is not going to just fade away. it is a glimpse into the future, of your children’s future and your grandchildren’s future.

No matter what you choose, the years ahead will be every bit as ugly as the spectacle unfolding on our televisions and on social media. The Great Brown Army believes this is their time to the destroy the white patriarchy, by which they mean white America. The fight to stop it is going to ugly and you will have to get used to thinking about things in a way that used to feel wrong. But the fight is going to happen whether you snap out of your daze or remain in the CivNat delusion. The question before you is which side are you on?

Tales Of Ordinary Madness

Posted on by

With the infuriating madness going on in politics, I thought it was a good idea to take a look at the general madness that is the current age. It really is remarkable just how crazy things have gotten in a short period of time. The other day I was picking around YouTube, watching some old clips from 1970’s shows and I was struck by how strange and alien it all seems. Even though I was alive then, I was too young to notice what was happening in the world, so to my old eyes, it looks like another country, because it is another country.

Even in my adult life, things have changed so fast that my teenage years now feel like the past of different person from a different world. When I was in high school, no human walking the earth thought teenagers fumbling around in the dark was anything but normal, as long as it was a boy and a girl, of course. Today, it is grounds to destroy a man’s life, humiliate his family and maybe even warrant physical harm. The Anita Hill travesty looks quite innocent now, compared to the disgusting displays we saw this week.

More worrisome, the madness we see is almost exclusively a female problem. The women of America have gone insane. Not all women, of course, but a very large swath of them. Now, it is possible many are just liars, taking advantage of the lunatics to gain attention, but that seems worse to me. I think I’d prefer it if some women are simply insane, infected by some unknown pathogen, rather than knowing that some portion of our women are sociopaths. We are faced with nothing but bad choices.

Anyway, this show is a sampling of the more popular forms of madness we are witnessing today. Sadly, most of it is female madness. I guess the last two segments could be argued as both male and female, but I don’t see that as encouraging. The fact that male and female are close to being forbidden concepts speaks to the madness of this age, more than anything else, I think. Perhaps that is the real shame of it. The men are no longer able to keep pace with the women in the race to the asylum.

This week I have the usual variety of items in the now standard format. Spreaker has the full show. I am up on Google Play now, so the Android commies can take me along when out disrespecting the country. I am on iTunes, which means the Apple Nazis can listen to me on their Hitler phones. The anarchists can catch me on iHeart Radio. YouTube also has the full podcast. Of course, there is a download link below. I’m now on Spotify, so the millennials can tune in when not sobbing over white privilege and toxic masculinity.

This Week’s Show

Contents

Direct Download

The iTunes Page

Spotify

Google Play Link

iHeart Radio

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On Odysee

A Rotten Elite

Posted on by

Long before Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, the Roman Republic stopped being a serious political entity.  The system was still a well thought out and conceived system of governance, but the people operating could no longer be trusted to operate it. The Roman political class could no longer trust itself, because the political class was no longer dominated by serious men. The proof of that was not just its collapse, but the fact that men like Marius and Sulla existed and needed to exist for the system to stagger on.

The old line about people getting a government they deserve always comes up whenever someone points out the defects of democracy. It is circular reasoning but an effective way of not addressing the real issue. That is, a people with a capable ruling elite can get along and be happy with just about any form of political system. A people who need the restraint of democracy or a strong constitution to tame their ruling classes is a people with a ruling class incapable of operation a constitutional government and abiding by its limits.

What this means is the people do not get the government they deserve, so much as they get the government their ruling class deserves. Even that does not explain why it is that the ruling elites of a society can go rotten within a generation or two. The human capital of America in the 18th century was certainly different than that of today. The ruling elite it produced was very different from today. But the population of America a century ago was not that much different than today. We are a little browner, but materially much better off.

As the circus of the Kavanaugh confirmation unfolds, it is important to note that the people creating the circus are not the brown ones. Sure, they were the opening acts, but the main stage is populated with geezers produced by the ruling class of a half century ago. Diane Feinstein is the representative of the generations that produced the cultural revolution of the 1960’s, not someone from the current age. In other words, the American ruling class started going sour a long time ago. We are just getting to smell the rotting corpse of it.

You must wonder if events like this are what gives the remaining serious men the idea of toppling over the system. In the Roman Republic, the one place where merit counted was in the military. There were plenty of politics, of course, but ultimately a man was what he showed on the field of battle. Read accounts of Caesar in Gaul and the man was not just a great general. He was a lion on the field. While there were plenty of old men in the Roman senate who served their time in the legions, none were the equal of Cesar.

No matter how sophisticated a society, men judge other men by the simple calculation of whether they can take them in a fight. You must think that the men running the military look over at their civilian leadership and wonder why they are taking orders from clowns like they see in the Senate. This must be especially true of the junior officers, most of whom by this point have done tours in Afghanistan and the Middle East. As patriots, they must be looking at the civilian leadership with nothing but contempt.

That is not to say we are about to have a military coup. It is always possible, but the one place where civic nationalism is strongest is within the military. The one place where multicultural lunacy is strongest is within the senior leadership ranks of the services. The civilian leadership remains cautious enough to make sure the top brass of the military is just as feckless and craven as the civilian side. Even there though, the ingredients are in place for a young and ambitious officer to start thinking about a short cut to the top.

Putting the military coup aside, watching the Kavanaugh circus should be a reminder that America is one crisis away from collapse. The financial crisis of 2008 was so terrifying to the elites, because they sense the fragility of their position. The central bankers were able to contain it and limit the damage to the public, by pushing the costs off into the future. The US debt now stands at $21.4 trillion for a reason, but you can only charge off the costs of a crisis so many times. At some point, the elites must act.

The political elite of America is incapable of handling a genuine crisis. They struggle to do the basics of government now. They still have not written and passed a budget for next fiscal year. This is ground floor stuff. If they cannot handle the simplest of tasks, how will the “world’s greatest deliberative body” manage to debate a response to a genuine crisis? The answer, of course, is they will not because they cannot. Instead, they will look around for the strong man to arrive and take over the task from them.

That is what we are seeing with the Kavanaugh hearings. Serious men would never have allowed a handful of deranged matrons, suffering from the typical middle aged female hysteria, to disrupt this process. Generation after generation since Gettysburg, the political elite has grown weaker as the quality of the ruling elite has declined. Maybe the system is to blame. Maybe the breeding patterns of the elites are to blame. Maybe it is just an example of reversion to the mean. Either way, our elites are no longer elite.

The Cult of Neoconservatism

Posted on by

The word “cult” is a term often abused by progressives, because it carries with it negative connotations. They like to use it to slander their enemies. The usual suspects convinced the world that Nazism was a cult, to make their case that anyone finding fascism appealing is not just mistaken, but crazy. Progressives picked up on this to brand their enemies. Even so, it is a useful concept, as the cult seems to be a feature of human behavior. Cults go back to the Bronze Age.

In the modern sense, we think of a cult as having certain features, like a charismatic leader and a sense of isolation. A cult always has a set of beliefs that are so convincing to the adherents, in terms of defining their existence and their relationship to the world, that they almost seem brainwashed. It is as if they are controlled by them. The identity of the cult and its purpose becomes the identity and purpose of the adherent. As a result, they operate like an ant farm or a beehive.

Neoconservatism has many of the features of a cult. The members are increasingly isolated from the rest of the world, both physically and emotionally. There is the sense of the embattled minority, ready to martyr themselves for the cause. The members seem to operate in an ideological fog, unable to recognize the massive disconnect between their beliefs and reality. To the neocons, their ideology is perfectly rational, but to outsiders it seems dangerously nutty.

The late great Eric Hoffer pointed out that all mass movements can get along without a god, but they always need a devil. You see that with the neocons. They do not have the charismatic leader, like we normally associate with cults, but perhaps to the adherents, Robert Kagan is charming. Despite his unpleasant demeanor and long list of failures, they venerate him. Still, what holds the cult together is their list of devils, which are all cast as a manifestation of the great authoritarian villain.

That comes through in this piece by Anne Applebaum in the Spectator. It is a good example of the paranoid fantasy. Mx. Applebaum is a neocon rage head, who specializes in scanning the eastern horizon for signs of Alexander III. The neocons  obsession with Russia borders on the pathological, which leads many to assume it is biological. As a result, resistance to cosmopolitan globalism in the east is cast by the neocons as the return of you know who.

A feature of neoconservatism that is shared by all Jews is they are haunted by the thought of exclusion. Being left out is their greatest fear. This manifests as an abhorrence to limits, borders, and clear definitions. This mania for formlessness has been picked up by other tribes of the left. Feminists, for example, rage against biology, because definitions of sex are by nature exclusionary. The BLM activists toppling over statues do so because it is not their history.

This is why neocons favor open borders and recoil in horror at efforts to restore some sense of national unity. When the neocon thinks of borders, he thinks of fences and then starts to think about you know who. You’ll note that the bad guys of the Visegrad are talked about by neocons as an implementation of the all-purpose bogeyman, the authoritarian Übermensch. The neocons have this imaginary, all-purpose bogeyman, they manifest in the real world, but exists in the world for forms.

Another cult-like aspect of the neocons is their internalization of fundamentally irrational and contradictory ideas. For example, after 9/11, the neocons advocated importing millions of Muslims into the US, while at the same time advocating the bombing of Muslim homes and villages.  People can be forgiven for thinking the creation of the “home grown” terrorist, the angry Muslim living in the West, radicalized by US foreign policy, is intentional. To neocons cult this all makes sense.

What argues against calling neoconservativism a cult is how well it fits in with the other two pillars of the ruling orthodoxy. The heirs of William Bradford, with their neo-covenant theology and sense of communal salvation, fit in neatly with Jews and their fear of exclusion and anti-majoritarian animosities. Together, they domestically form the progressive orthodoxy we see today. In a way, the neocons are a complimentary piece, that extends this mode of thought into the areas of foreign policy.

On the other hand, American progressives are showing all the signs of devolving into a cult, with their strange siege mentality and bizarre internal logic. The fact that their pantheon of heroes is referred to by three initials is not an affectation. It is part of the ritual of sacralizing their former leaders. Perhaps the inevitable move by the neocons back to the left, is the completion of some cosmic puzzle. Perhaps like a UFO cult, they see it as the final piece of the cosmic puzzle, signifying the end times.

There is a strong case that neoconservativism is a cult, one based on an obsession with public policy and haunted by nightmares of the authoritarian bogeyman. Their inability to adapt to present reality, becoming more extreme in the face of disconfirmation, is the sort of thing you expect from a cult. Perhaps it runs its course peacefully disappearing into the dustbin of history. Prudence suggests caution as end times cults tend to end with a bang, rather than a whimper.

The Revolutionary Mind

Posted on by

The conventional model for framing Western politics, since the French Revolution, is the left-right axis. This dates from when supporters of the king sat to the right of the president in the National Assembly, while supporters of the revolution sat to the left of the president. Ever since, the left are the radicals of one sort or another, who seek to overturn the present order in favor of something else. On the right are the defenders of the present order, but also those who seek to restore a past order.

That means radical republicans in the 18th century, like the American Founders, would be on the left, alongside 19th century Marxists or even 21st century queer theorists. In the 18th century, Thomas Jefferson was a radical. In fact, he was a supporter of the French Revolution. It also means that modern Civic Nationalists, who claim allegiance to the Founders vision of republican order, are on the same side as 19th century monarchists and 20th century fascists. It turns out that libertarians are the real Nazis.

This also means that the game of political theory always has the left playing offense, while the right is playing defense. It is why 20th century fascism never made any sense as a right-wing or left-wing movement. The fascists were just as anti-traditionalist as the communist. They were not trying to restore an old order. On the other hand, they were a reactionary movement, driven by a rejection of international communism. The fascists were both reactionaries and radicals, embracing the rhetoric and tactics of the left.

The interwar period in Europe is a good example of the left-right political model not holding up in the face of reality. There were multiple social and cultural forces working on European society, in addition to the consequences of the Great War. Even in America, the first half of the 20th century saw the old left radicalize into something that drew on European fascism but was littered with communists. It is why people today, who try to argue that the fascists were left-wing or right-wing, are simply missing the point.

That is what makes the period so fascinating. A lot of history happened in a very short period. It is a lot like Roman history, in that there is something for everyone and their favorite political theory. On the other hand, the period is not very useful for understanding the present age. Interwar Europe may as well be a story set on different planet. The flow of events that led up to that period and the history of the people involved, is foreign even to their descendants alive today. It was the great break in the timeline.

Now, the interwar period is useful for one reason and that is as an example of how history is not a river that flows uninterrupted through time. Instead, it is many rivers and sometimes those rivers find themselves occupying the same space. The Thirty Years’ War, for example, was the confluence of historical forces leading into the 17th century. Similarly, the two industrial wars of the 20th century were bookends to the great confluence of intellectual forces in Europe, dating to the Enlightenment.

This age may be another such confluence. Like the interwar period, there are many forces in conflict with one another today. You have global capitalism, which is disrupting the normal functioning of western societies. There is the collapse of the Cold War political order, that is collapsing the domestic political arrangements within nations. There’s mass migration, where hundreds of millions seek to move from the fringe of civilization into the heart of it. Of course, there are the various reactions to these forces, as well.

This piece by Victor David Hanson is a good illustration of how the conventional way of framing politics is not helpful today. Hanson is one of the remaining sober minded people on the conventional right. He is a conservative of the old sort. He is also a good analyst who lives in the real world, rather than the Potemkin village that is the home of the commentariat. Despite that, he remains attached to the old paradigm of left and right, trying to jam present reality into the old model of two warring political camps.

Hansen is that sort of conservative who is excellent at describing what is rotting away the present, separating us from the past. He just cannot bring himself to accept that there is no going back. There will be no great rollback. The present conflict is not a choice between the glorious future and the status quo. That is the old mode of thought. Today is one of those great confluences. What comes out the other end will bear little resemblance to what came before it and may not even have a strong connection to the forces that shaped it.

For example, the alt-right is not about restoring an old order. To assume that misses the fundamental point. Richard Spencer has spoken for years about how the past is what caused the current crisis. To return to 1950’s America, for example, means replaying the 1960’s and 1970’s with the same outcomes. His concept of the ethno-state, even if it is limited to North America, results in an America that is completely different than anything imagined by conventional politics. His idea is a complete departure from the liberal past.

Greg Johnson’s new book is about as radical as it gets, with regards to conventional political thinking. What he describes as white nationalism, is an overthrowing of liberal social democracy. What his version of the ethno-state means is a rejection of the foundation item of neo-liberalism, the free movement of people. It is not a “return to tribalism” as that is a past that never existed in the age of the nation state. It is a new nation state that accepts the fundamental biological reality of man.

The Dissident Right world view that is slowly coming into focus, one that has grown out of the paleocon critiques of managerialism, is also a sharp break with the past. What is the point of fetishizing the Founding period, when what they created lasted one lifetime. That form of social order simply could not hold up to modernity and was replaced by a series of increasingly radical innovations. To go back and start that process all over is to relive the same nightmare. The antidote to radicalism is not going to be its antecedents.

The revolutionary mind of the new opposition is not focused on restoring the past or even engaging in conventional politics. The use of “us versus them” rhetoric is only useful as a rallying cry. The real fight is about what comes after liberal democracy. Ours is not a fight to restore the past or even romanticize it. Ours is a fight about who will build the future, after this present is vanquished. Whatever comes out of this great confluence will not reflect the past. Instead, it will reflect the spirit and aspirations of those who build it.

A Tribal Dilemma

Posted on by

For as long as anyone reading this has been alive, Jews in America have been firmly on the Left of American politics. Milton Himmelfarb famously quipped that “Jews earn like Episcopalians, and vote like Puerto Ricans.” It is not just voting patterns. Jews have been the intellectual engine of the Left since the Second World War. Members of the Frankfurt School took up positions in the American academy, transforming the soft sciences into a cultural force. Jews were front and center in the radical movements of the 60’s and 70’s.

Jews are not a monolith, despite what some may claim. There are divides within American Jewry and some degree of geographic diversity. German Jews that came to America in the middle of the 19th century have different cultural patterns than the Pale of Settlement Jews who arrived in the early 20th century. There are sectarian divides, as well, with Reformed and secular Jews having different cultural patterns than conservative Jews and the Orthodox. Still, the bulk of Jews fit neatly into the stereotype of cosmopolitan Jew.

For liberal Jews, the world is becoming increasingly complicated as the American Left becomes not just the coalition of non-whites, but the coalition of anti-whites. For a long time, liberal Jews were able to be allies to non-whites, arguing for greater access and participation, while also being viewed as white by heritage Americans. As the American Left becomes anti-white, this is no longer possible. In the world of identity politics, it is impossible to hold two passports. Everyone gets one team and only one team.

Another complication is that Team Brown is not all that fond of Jews. Blacks have always had a bitter relationship with Jews, despite Jewish support for black causes. Hispanics are casually antisemitic at levels most do not understand. The Left has also always had a complex relationship with Israel. The BDS Movement that flourishes in Progressive bastions further complicates things. Most important though is the fact that the brown hordes see Jews as white and therefore the enemy, regardless of their politics.

This does not mean that Jews are about to be evicted from the Progressive coalition, but the winds are certainly blowing that way. As much as resistance to globalism is viewed as a force on the Right, the Left’s hostility to order, any order, a legacy of the Frankfurt School, means trouble for anyone trying to harness the forces of the Left. Look around the rest of the English-speaking world and you see a similar phenomenon. The Left’s anti-Zionism is slowly curdling into a quiet hostility to Jews in the generality.

The neocons are the obvious exception to the stereotype of liberal Jews. In the 60’s and 70’s some disaffected Jewish intellectuals made the journey to the Right, mostly over the issue of the Soviet Union and Israel. Their embrace of cultural conservatism was a matter of necessity, to fit into the Republican coalition. Critics have described them as Trotskyites, because of their advocacy for revolutionary democracy around the world and their lust to use military power to “move history in the right direction.”

The situation for neoconservatives is vastly worse than for liberal Jews. The neocons went all in on opposition to Trump’s primary run, launching the NeverTrump movement and then worked to undermine Trump in the general. It was a disastrous miscalculation as it probably helped Trump tap into the deep well of resentment among whites toward the neocon elite that captured the party in the Bush years. Rather than remaining in the coalition debating policy, they have placed themselves at odds with the Trump coalition.

Even though people like Jonah Goldberg could probably waddle back over to the Left, most neocons do not have that option. Opposition to an aggressive foreign policy has been a plank of the American Left for generations. The hyper-violent neoconservatives and their desire to invade the world is never going to work. Then there is the general opposition to Israel and support for the Palestinians. Add in the explicit identity politics of the modern Left and there is simply no way to square neoconservative ideas with the modern Left.

Taken together, what is shaping up for Jews in America is a political arrangement where they have no natural home. Liberal Jews are increasingly at risk in the Left coalition due to looking a bit too pale for Team Brown. The new opposition that is forming up in opposition to Team Brown is explicitly white, as well as nationalist and populist. While it is not explicitly antisemitic, despite what some claim, it will certainly be hostile to the sort of cosmopolitanism Jews have historically preferred. Jews could be left without a home.

Ironically, Jewish exceptionalism is turning out to be their undoing, as they have managed to transform the American Left and the American Right. Domestically, the Left is every bit as radical and disruptive as anything the Bolsheviks imagined. On foreign policy, the Right is as revolutionary as the communist radicals of yesteryear. The result is a political class at war with itself and at war with the majority population. It is beginning to look as if the Jewish century is curdling into a Jewish disaster for Jews in America.

That said, Jews are the most adaptive people in human history. There is no reason why Jews in America could not simply throw in with the white majority. Just as the neocons broke with the Left-over opposition to the Soviets, perhaps liberal Jews will break with the Left over the issue of identity politics. After all, in a balkanized country, the only way for a tiny minority to survive is to attach to the most powerful tribe. Given the options on Team Brown, Team White is going to look like a better option, assuming the option is open.