Category Archives: Badder Thoughts

The Cuck’s Life

Posted on by

The triggering event for when the so-called conservative movement made the final turn toward the dustbin of history was when the term “cuckservative” started to gain traction on social media. A portmanteau of “conservative” and “cuckold”, coined by fans of Richard Spencer, it captured the very essence of the person peddling Buckley-style conservatism during the populist revolt of 2015. These were men routinely humiliated by their women, with the women being their political masters on the Left.

The humiliation comes from the fact that these so-called conservatives are not forced to grovel by the political Left. It’s that they have so internalized their servitude, they think their self-debasement is a point of pride. They are like the house slave defending the master against the field slaves. It’s not that they get material benefits from selling out their kind. It’s that they have come to be defined by the fact that they have surrendered themselves to their masters completely. They are “men without chests.”

It is not enough for the cuckservative to remain silent about the proselytizing of the Left or excuse their excesses. The cuck’s life is one of always trying to be ahead of the curve, when it comes to championing Progressive morality. As soon as the Left starts making noises about something, the cuckservative will turn up with a highly polished explanation for why Progressive morality is, in fact, a conservative principle. They prove their worth by being to the Left of Progressives on moral issues.

The king of the cucks is probably David French, who invests all of his time lecturing the dwindling readership of National Review on why he is too good for them. His game these days is to write long sob stories about how normal white people don’t appreciate his wonderfulness for having adopted a black girl from Africa. There’s the sense in his self-serving posts that he regrets having obtained the black child through adoption, rather than the old fashioned way. Such is the cuck’s life.

That is what makes the term cuckservative so perfect. It is the issue of race where these people reveal themselves to be soulless. This string of tweets from someone called Bradley Wilcox is a great example. Wilcox is Director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia. He’s also funded by the American Enterprise Institute, an outfit that is a breeding ground of cuckservatism. Wilcox also hilariously fell for the absurd rape hoax perpetrated by Rolling Stone Magazine.

That last bit is a good example of how the cuck’s mind works. He is always looking to rush to the front of the latest Progressive crusade, so he can smugly march past the crowd, carrying on like he is an important part of the cause. When the Left was manufacturing the campus rape nonsense, good old Brad was ready to rush out and make himself the champion of the issue. The fact that he picked National Review to be the platform remains a symbolic moment in their decline.

Notice how the cuck always personalizes his tantrums. In this case, Bradley starts with the lament that he has supposedly been called a racist in the past. That seems unlikely, given his minor status, but that does not matter. What matters is that the Left believes that he believes racism is the worst. His tweet storm is a performance, not for the remaining lost souls still kicking around Official Conservatism. He’s performing for the Left, humiliating himself for their titillation.

One tell in this tantrum is that it was triggered by Amy Wax’s observation that immigrants are litterbugs. This is something that is obvious to anyone who has been around immigrants or been abroad. In fact, it is something the immigrants themselves will notice, as they compare their new community with their old. Amy Wax is not claiming that Mexican possess a litter gene and as a result are compelled to toss their empty Modelo cans in the street. She is making a cultural observation.

If Bradley was about anything other than promoting the career of Bradley to his Progressive masters, he could have used this fact to promote his creedalism nonsense. After all, the alleged basis of creedalism is that what makes America is a list of arguments. As a result, anyone can be an American, as long as they accept those arguments. Presumably, part of the American creed is that you should not throw your trash on the ground, so as not to offend a fake Indian, but that’s not the cuck’s life.

Of course, creedalism is a sham. A devoted Christian would use the sin of the fallen as a chance to apply his beliefs to save the sinner. The committed communist uses hard times to argue on behalf of his the abolition of property. The creedalist, in contrast, uses his alleged beliefs to position himself as the fiery critic of the enemies of the Left. It affords him a safe space, so he can post tirades on Twitter about racists not wanting garbage in their streets or piles beer cans in the local park.

This is why “cuckservative” is such an effective term. The cuckold is mocked and derided, not because his wife is unfaithful. He is an object of derision because he refuses to do anything about it. That’s so-called conservatism. For generations now, they have been unwilling to take on their partners on the Left. No matter the humiliation, they come crawling back. The cuck’s life is defined by his humiliation. No man has respect for the cuckold and no one has respect for the cuckservative.

For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!

The Problems Of Design

Posted on by

Whenever the subject of Intelligent Design turns up, it is always in the context of believers in ID attacking evolutionary biology. The ID’ers have a list of claims about “Darwinism” that they insist make evolution impossible. A popular one now, for example, is that there is not enough time for natural selection to produce enough gene mutations to explain the fossil record. A fair description of ID is that it is a list of arguments and assertions about evolution wrapped around a set of central claims.

One of those claims is that creation, as we observe it, must be the result of design and therefore a designer. They never describe the designer, as most people just assume they mean God, but the designer could be space aliens, in theory. A certain type of self-described Christian finds this appealing. They assume the designer is God, as they have an understanding of God that is much more personal. They believe God is highly involved in the granular details of human existence.

Now, it should be pointed out that this understanding of God is outside Christian tradition and perhaps even anti-Christian. Early Christians, like the Jews of the period, were highly influenced by the Greek understanding of the world. For them, the universe was an orderly place operating by fixed rules. You can’t have a covenant with God, after all, if the universe is a lawless place controlled by a fickle creator. That would make God’s covenant with man just another trick played by him on mankind.

Intelligent Design is occasionalism. While the natural world seems to operate along a set of knowable rules, God often intervenes to change results. He is always in that space between cause and effect, ready to alter the relationship according to his design. God created the platypus for reasons only known to God. If he chooses, he can make the Nile flow south or the sky turn pink. The proof of this, according to Intelligent Design, is the variety of species alive today, as well those no longer in existence.

In fairness to the ID’ers, occasionalism did creep into Christian theology in the Middle Ages, as the Christian West came into contact with Islam. Nicholas of Autrecourt was a 14th century French theologian, who was a critic of the orderly view of the natural world and a proto-occasionalist. David Hume dabbled in the ideas, but stopped short of claiming a creator or designer. Modern ID’ers can therefore claim they are not way outside Christian tradition, but they would have to defend against it.

Another central claim of Intelligent Design is that the natural world is either the result of chance or design. This is the keystone of their theory, as Intelligent Design is not an affirmative argument in favor of a designer. Instead, they frame the debate as between two competing theories. Therefore, if one is shown to be invalid, by default the other must be true. It is a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand to avoid the central problems of Intelligent Design, which of course is that it can never be proven.

This aspect of Intelligent Design relies on a characterization of natural selection as random chance, like rolling of dice. It’s the claim that a football game is either the result of random chance or the game is fixed by the officials, either in advance or as the game proceeds to its conclusion. Obviously, this is ridiculous. The result of a sports match is not random and it is not predetermined or fixed. The result of a sportsball game, is the result of the players acting and reacting to one another, within a known set of rules.

That’s the case with evolutionary biology. Random mutations in the genome are one aspect of the evolutionary process. Environment obviously plays a role here.  Sexual selection is another. Human intervention is another. After all, people have killed off whole species. People have killed off whole groups of people. Like the sportsball game, there are multiple actors, acting and reacting, within a set of rules that science does not fully understand. Evolution is not an argument in favor of chance.

The point here is Intelligent Design is built, in part, on a false dichotomy. Natural selection is not random chance, at least not how most people understand what random chance means. Further, even if natural selection is unable to explain everything, there are other forces, like sexual selection, that come into play. Even if everything about evolutionary biology is wrong, it does not make Intelligent Design true. It simply means we have no good answer understanding the natural world.

This again comes back to the question as to whether Intelligent Design is at odds with Christian theology. The Sphynx cat exists and we know why. The ID’ers would argue that it is an example of design, but that presupposes the breeders were either directed by God or compelled by God to create the breed. That means man has no agency and that sin cannot truly exist. This argument for Intelligent Design comes dangerously close to the argument that man has no free will, which is heretical on its face.

This is why ID’er focus all of their energy on the negative argument, making various claims about evolutionary science. That way, the discussion is always on the science, rather than the theology. This rhetorical sleight of hand is also dishonest, which raises another theological problem for ID’ers. How can something be in line with Biblical teaching if it is based on a falsehood? Maybe the ID’er have a way to explain this, but it is not something they choose to address in their books and articles.

The most serious issue with Intelligent Design is what it implies about God. A designer that is endlessly tinkering with his creation is not a designer with foresight. Alternatively, it is a designer that is a fickle trickster, tinkering with his creation for his own amusement, without regard for his creation. It is a designer that purposely makes flawed creations that harm his other creations. This is a designer burning army men with a magnifying glass and blowing up the model train trestle. That’s not God. That’s the Devil.

From a mainstream Christian perspective, Intelligent Design has some serious theological problems, with occasionalism being the main one. The one way to solve the theological problems is to move the designer back to the beginning, where the Bible writers preferred to place him. The classic watchmaker model, where God sets the universe in motion, according to a fixed set of rules, with evolution possibly being one of them. That leaves room to debate evolution, but does not make God a villain.

For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!

Civic Anti-Racism

Posted on by

In modern America, there are two things that are on display simultaneously in the realm of public debate. One is the celebration of the fact that white people and the interests of white people are in sharp decline. The other is a growing fear of white people. It is a strange combination at first glance, as this should be a time for the coalition of the ascendant to celebrate their looming hegemony. Instead, they endlessly talk about themselves, but in the context of a prophesized white backlash.

The root of this is the strange obsession with racism that has become a religion of its own over the last two decades. The anointing of Obama as the completion of the Second Founding, the event that was supposed to wash the stains of slavery, segregation and racism from America, instead ushered in an era of race panic. The Left is in a near frenzy over racism, which they now see everywhere. It is an obsession to the point where even the so-called Right is infected by it.

The recent outbreak of hysteria over white supremacists allegedly plotting a violent revolution is a good starting point. This post at Reason Magazine, after the El Paso shooting, is a good example. The libertarians used to take a pass on the race issue, preferring instead to obsess over weed and sexual deviance. They avoided it because preaching about free association regarding race would get them in trouble. Today, they are right there with Left hooting about white supremacy.

Now, libertarianism was always just a Progressive heresy, but it attracted a lot of conservatives. Operations like Reason had to pretend to be on the Right. That’s no longer the case, as actual conservatives have abandoned libertarianism for dissident politics. Perhaps they now feel free to let their guard down. The Koch Brothers have abandoned the GOP and are now backing left-wing candidates, so maybe this is part of their scheme. Still, the turn to berserk anti-racism is notable.

The so-called conservatives are not being left out of the panic. Right-wing goblin Ben Shapiro has been all over the white supremacy scare. He is working his tiny little fingers raw explaining why his grift has nothing in common with those really bad people to his Right. As is always the case with this guy, he takes the latest Progressive bogeyman and assigns it to his competition on the Right, so his motives always suspect. Even so, it feeds into the general hysteria over race.

Confidence men like Shapiro may not be the best examples, but it is clear that unhinged anti-racism is becoming a conservative principle. A rising star among conservatives is a guy calling himself Joshua Tait, a doctoral candidate at North Carolina, who is fashioning himself as a historian of conservatism. He turns up all over posting articles about various aspects of conservative intellectual history. Of course, he is an enthusiastic anti-racist and obsessed with those bad people to his Right.

That’s the remarkable thing about his writing. It is infected with a weird obsession about race that used to be cringe inducing when done on the Left. This piece reads like a panic attack over Amy Wax noticing the realities of immigration at the National Conservatism conference. This piece reads like a sobbing apology for the fact that people on the Right used to hold sensible opinions about race. The fact they have been proved correct over the last few generations goes unnoticed.

Now, to most readers, Joshua Tait is an unknown, but he is being groomed to be the next generation of so-called conservative intellectuals. Like we see with the more pedestrian stuff from Ben Shapiro, the so-called smart conservatives will be every bit as hysterical about race. The religion of anti-racism will be a core conservative value. Put another way, a rhetorical trick to rally the tribes of the Democrat coalition is quickly being turned into the organizing ethos of the new political class.

An interesting aspect of this new civic religion of anti-racism is it is mostly built on the assumption that whites, at any minute, will go bonkers and start attacking black bodies, while erecting old statues. The anti-racism of Joshua Tait is not rooted in something practical like greed, as in the case of Ben Shapiro. It’s not the product of cowardice, as you see with the Reason Magazine crowd. It’s a genuine sense that whites are a ticking time bomb that have to be monitored.

In this sense, the new anti-racism is like the old communist obsession with opponents of the revolution. With commies, the opponents of the revolution did not have to exist, but they must be made to exist. That is, if they could not find real counter-revolutionaries, they invented them. Something similar is going on with the anti-racists. They can’t find actual white supremacists, at least not in quantity, so they hunt for signs of it, like an evil spirit lurking on the fringes. The price of anti-racism is eternal vigilance.

It is tempting to think that this all about rallying the tribes of the Left, but it is probably the symptom of a different problem. What’s happening is white people are disengaging from the ruling Left. The old game of Team Blue fighting Team Red, where whites cheered for Team Red, is falling part. The cheering section of Team Red is shrinking. The over-the-top anti-racism is an effort to draw those disaffected fans of Team Red back into the game in order to maintain the old dynamic.

The problem, of course, is that Team Red has been designed to keep as little space between themselves and Team Blue as possible. They are children that can never be out of sight of their mother. As Team Blue races shrieking into the darkness of multicultural fanaticism, Team Red is racing after them. The old political arrangements, animated by hyper-anti-racism is a civic religion of the ruling class that is based on a hatred of sixty percent of the people over whom they rule.

For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!

The Mad Hater

Posted on by

In modern America, it is generally assumed that intelligent people are smart about everything, not just a narrow specialty. It is also assumed, with regards to social policy, that smart people are on the “right side” of the issue. Taken together, smart people are general experts, who agree and amplify the current Progressive fads. Whenever the television chats shows want to add weight to some claim, they roll out credentialed experts to repeat what the left-wing presenter just said.

The flip side to this, of course, is that critics of the current Progressive fads are ignorant and primitive. They oppose the current trends because they lack the intellect or proper education to understand the issue. There is an oriental quality to it. The experts are talked about as enlightened, as if years of focus have allowed them to ascend to a high plane of existence. The critics, in contrast, are unenlightened, unaware there is a higher plane and thus ignorant of their own ignorance.

It is a useful social control mechanism, as it puts a tremendous moral burden on the intellectual class. No one, especially smart people, wants to be considered ignorant, so the natural tendency is to conform to the latest trends. Social pressure is a powerful weapon, as humans are social animals. To live as a pariah is the worst punishment in a status seeking community like academia. The result is the people who know better tend to keep quiet, while the rage heads and cranks run free.

There is an exception to this. There are people who seem to be smart, but they also go against the current trends, usually in a flamboyant way. Today that means acting like a crazy homeless guy on-line, screaming about stuff to no one and everyone. A good example is someone like Nicolas Taleb, the popinjay of probability. His latest thing is to gainsay evolutionary biology, by claiming all of it is all bunk. It usually involves attacking people. Here he picks out people at random and calls them names.

Taleb has a special animus for psychometry. Here is a long essay where he claims that IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle. This is ironic, given he made his money in a field that does not rise to the level of pseudoscience. Finance is just a swindle, where the “winners” have found a way to swindle the losers. Putting that aside, his essay is typical of his work. Heavy on complicated graphs and meandering logic, all of which is intended to make the reader think the writer is a super genius.

Of course, this is the stock and trade of the intellectual grifter. A pretty good rule is that a graph in an essay better be a highly simplified representation of what the preceding text just explained. If on the other hand, it is a complicated splatter chart following a pile of spaghetti language, the writer is trying to run a con on you. There are exceptions and complex topics can sometimes defy simple explanations. Still, the Feynman Rule and its natural derivatives is good to keep in mind with guys like Taleb.

Another interesting aspect of the Taleb act is that he is extremely ethnocentric. In fact it is his ethnocentrism that drives many of his Twitter tirades. This one is a good example, as it reveals a couple of things. The first thing is he does not know much about fascism or localism. He seems to think the fascists were internationalists. Of course, he assumes fascism is a synonym for bad. Therefore, it must have an opposite, as all bad things are bad because they are the opposite of the good things.

He picks localism as his good opposite of fascism and then makes the claim that the Phoenicians were localists. A popular thing with Lebanese nationalists (Christian) is to claim they are descendants of the Phoenicians. What he is up to here is a sideways celebration of his people. They were the first anti-fascists! Put another way, the root of his political analysis is an extreme pride in his people and culture, real or imagined, not a desire to understand the motivations of those making public policy.

It may be that his attacks on psychometry are driven by his ethnocentrism. Lebanon is a curious place. It is blessed with many natural resources and an ideal location between Europe and the Middle East. Yet, Lebanon is pretty much the ghetto of the Levant. If not for the Palestinians, the Lebanese would be at the bottom of the status pole. Israel, Syria and Iran use Lebanon as a staging area for their proxy wars. The Lebanese live as perpetual victims of their more powerful neighbors.

For a Lebanese nationalist, it is easier to look outside Lebanon for reasons why their country is such a mess. To admit that the Lebanese smart fraction abandoned the place a long time ago, which is mostly true, leaving the less able behind, is not going to fit well with ethno-nationalism. From an ethno-nationalist perspective, it is better to just deny there can be such a thing as a smart fraction. That obviates the need to explain a lot of Lebanese history, as well as Taleb’s personal history.

Now, it is possible that the real motivation behind these frequent rants against biology is just good old fashioned attention seeking. Taleb is a bit of gasbag and he certainly likes himself a lot. On the other hand, he could simply be a great example of someone with one good insight and not much else. Intellectual history is littered with people who had one great insight and a bunch of crackpot ideas. There were a lot of brilliant physicists in the last century, who were convinced international communism was the future.

Regardless, Taleb is a good reminder that smart people are right about things more often than dumb people, but they are still wrong about a lot of things. The further they stray from their narrow specialty, the more certain they seem to be in their wrongness. That and intelligence is a different from morality. Holding the right ideas is a different thing from holding the correct ideas. A guy like Taleb, in addition to providing free entertainment in Twitter, is a good example of how dumb smart people can be when they try.

For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!

The un-Americans

Posted on by

A popular argument from the Judeo-Christians, mostly in response to people like Ilhan Omar and other anti-Israel advocates, is that one cannot be anti-Israel without also being anti-Semitic. Now, in this context, “Judeo-Christian” applies to the Jewish pundits, who are primarily pro-Israel, but have an exclusively Christian audience. People like Ben Shapiro and Dennis Prager. Both of whom are tireless advocates for Israel and promiscuously use the phrase “Judeo-Christian” in their arguments.

Their claim works as follows. It’s not that being anti-Zionist is just a ploy by the anti-Semites. It’s that the very nature of Jewishness is tangled up in the existence of Israel, which transcends the current state of Israel. According to their argument, Israel the idea, as well as the country, is what defines Jewishness. To oppose Israel, especially its right to exist, is to oppose that which makes being a Jew possible. Therefore, opposing Israel, by definition, makes that person an anti-Semite.

It is a curious argument, when you examine the implications. There is no doubt that Israel the concept is an inextricable part of Jewish identity. Anyone who has watched the move The Ten Commandments gets that. The Judeo-Christians, however, take this further and move beyond the concept of Israel to the physical country itself. It is hard to know if this is something Jews accept, but we do have example of Jews that have opposed Zionism, so some Jews oppose some aspects of Israel.

Let’s just assume, for the sake of argument, that Prager and Shapiro are right about this and Israel and Jews are one in the same. The first conclusion, the most obvious one, is that Israel is an ethno-state. Sure, anyone can become a Jew, but that is like saying anyone can become a physicist. It may be true in theory, but in reality the conversion rate to Judaism rounds to zero. Jewish law requires the rabbi to strongly discourage gentiles from converting to Judaism.

The other conclusion from the Shapiro-Prager argument is that Jews are, by nature, primarily loyal to Israel. For a Jew to oppose the very essence of what makes him a Jew is an unsolvable paradox. In order to be authentically Jewish, a Jew has to adhere to that which makes one Jewish. If loyalty to Israel comes before everything else, that means all diaspora Jews are guests. They can and do work with their hosts, but in the end, their first loyalty has to be to Israel and the Jewish people.

This is, the argument Hazony makes in his book The Virtue of Nationalism. He does not apply it to Jews in the diaspora, but that is the implication. If Jews are a nation, then the primary loyalty of all Jews must be to that nation. He tries to run the “anyone can be a Jews” line through his argument, but that would invalidate all of his claims about Zionism, so it must be decoration. The implication here is clear. Jews are a nation, spread out around the world, but their ancestral land is Israel.

Another implication of this link between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is that Ben Shapiro is lying when he says ideology trumps race. After all, if Zionism is just another ideological viewpoint, then so is anti-Zionism. Yet, Shapiro insists that being opposed to Zionism immoral on its face. The only way that can be true is if Zionism is based in biology, rather than ideology. Therefore, opposing Zionism is the same as racism, which means that Shapiro thinks race transcends ideology after all.

A possible way around this problem of Jews being a guest population is the claim that America is the new Israel or an extension of Israel. This is something that sells to the Christian Zionists and solves the problem of loyalties. America, according to this theory, is a both a defender of Israel and a staging ground for Jews who will one day return home during the ingathering of the Jewish diaspora. Aliya, the return to Israel, is a core idea of Zionism and it is included in Israel’s Scroll of Independence.

This has appeal to Christian Zionists in America, who believe that the gathering of the diaspora in Israel is in accordance with Bible prophecy and a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus. Christian Zionism has its roots in the 17th century America with the Puritans. It turns up in the 18th century and especially the 19th century with the abolitionists, so it has a long history in America. As a result, there is a large audience for this form of Zionism among American Christians.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it means America is not really a nation or even a country. It’s just a temporary staging area. Loyalty to America, therefore, is contingent on American policy toward Israel. That is as un-American as you can get, as it denies the very existence of America as a country, much less a nation. Even here, the end result of the Judeo-Christian model is one where the Zionist can have no loyalty to America, as America does not exists, outside its role in Zionism.

This logical problem is why smarter Jews have always opposed this line of reasoning with regards to Israel and especially Zionism. In fact, Jews in the diaspora have tended to oppose Israel. The ADL, for example, has steadfastly rejected the argument that anti-Zionism is antisemitism. They argue that Israel is just another country without any special claims upon Jews. Whether they are sincere or not is debatable, but at least their logic allows them to be loyal Americans and Jewish.

That is, fundamentally, the problem with people like Prager and Shapiro. In their zeal to inculcate pro-Israel sentiment, they define themselves as both un-American and opposed to the very concept of America. Worse yet, they encourage Christians to sublimate their national loyalty to the ends of another nation. In order to sell this, they have to lie about their own intentions and their own beliefs. They demand you place ideology over biology, while they place biology ahead of ideology.

For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!

The White Fright

Posted on by

One of the features of current year America is the occurrence of panics, particularly among the managerial elite. The most recent is the White Fright, where the media is hysterically reporting every disturbance as the act of white supremacists. This panic appears to have been triggered by the El Paso shooting, but it is a manifestation of a much longer occurring paranoia among the managerial classes. It dates back to at least the last presidential election and has roots in the Obama years.

The underlying assumption of the White Fright is a belief that whites are secretly organizing to overthrow the current order and impose some sort of pale patriarchy on the country. These white supremacists are everywhere and look just like normal everyday white people, so any white person could possibly be one of them. These people can, at any moment, turn into a violent spree killer, if exposed to certain kinds of content called “hate speech” which is found on-line.

The similarities to medieval witch hunting are too obvious not to notice. The adversary is not something that appears in material form. Like Old Scratch, white supremacy is an evil spirit that works through the infected. Once under the control of white supremacy, the person no longer has agency. Not surprisingly, like the accused witches in Salem, the modern white supremacist is most likely to be someone that vexes the moral authorities, either by their presence or by their actions.

Now, many on the Right have been conditioned to look at this stuff and come up with an explanation that makes the Left seem less nutty. For example, Steve Sailer will argue it is a clever ploy to rally the coalition of the ascendant. The National Review types will claim it is a ploy to conceal the fact that Democrats are the real racists. These are conditioned responses that are not intended to explain what’s going on with the Left, but to fit it into the normal Left-Right dynamic that describes America politics.

A more nuanced explanation is that the White Fright is part of a great fear that is sweeping the managerial classes. Like that which swept France in the summer of 1789, this fear is rooted in both the economic and the social problems of society. There’s also a paranoia about the ruling class. These people are riddled with angst and fear of being dropped from the managerial class. This causes them to be highly sensitive to any disruption in society and as a result, they are prone to panics.

The media, internet censors, social justice warriors and corporate HR departments are the servants of the ruling class. As such, they are wholly dependent upon them for their status with regards to the rest of us. Unlike the commoners, who are only vaguely aware that there are powerful people behind the political theater, the managerial class is much more aware of this reality. As a result, they live like the peasants of France, keenly aware they are dependent upon people they cannot trust.

This anxiety manifests itself as panics about imaginary villains plotting to topple the existing order. The Russia hoax is a good example. It is assumed that the people peddling it did so for cynical reasons and that may be true. The people spreading and repeating it, however, were motivated by a genuine fear of dark forces working in the shadows against their interests. Marianne Williamson got a lot of attention in the last debate by mentioning “dark psychic forces.” It resonated with certain people.

Now, another possible explanation for the White Fright is that something similar to what happened in Salem is going on in current year America. At the end of the 17th century, what amounted to a Puritan theocracy, had taken root in New England. Everything about social life was controlled by the religious sensibilities of the people, mostly enforced by a narrow theocratic elite. The form and purpose of New England towns was based in the religious understanding of the people we now call Puritans.

This model, when facing the challenge of witch panics, was unable to adapt and cope with the phenomenon. The response from the religious authorities decreased public trust and eroded their authority. The trials themselves, instead of reducing fear among the panicked, increased suspicions. Before long it became obvious that the religious authorities were as much a part of the problem as the people making accusations and spreading rumors. The witch trials discredited Puritanism.

That could be what is happening in current year America. The similarities between modern Progressivism and Puritanism, in its manifestations, not theologically, is hard not to notice. Everything from vinegar drinking scolds to their effeminate male enablers are present in modern day Progressivism. Current year America is ruled by a bizarre identity cult that is every bit as superstitious as the Puritans. The White Fright may turn out to be the witch scares of late empire America.

Those are all the amusing and gratuitous explanations for what we are seeing. There is another possibility and that is a genuine fear rooted in real danger. The response by the managerial class may seem hysterical and irrational, but maybe that is just a byproduct of mass media culture. Maybe there is a real threat. The people running from the monster, shrieking like madmen, are not acting rationally, but their fear is not irrational either. The monster is real and is a real danger to them.

It should be noted that panic is not the default response to disasters or dangers. In things like fires, natural disasters and combat, panic is not typical. Instead, mutual aid is the most common response. An obvious example is the response of the people in the World Trade Center buildings during 9/11. Among the stories of great heroism were stories of incredible cooperation. People came together and helped one another get out of the buildings. Mutual aid and cooperation was the natural response.

Rather than a panic or mass hysteria, the White Fright may be a call to familiarity and mutual aid by the managerial class. The old political order is breaking down, as the inevitable consequences of multiculturalism manifest. What we could be seeing is a primal call for social re-attachment. The primary purveyors of the White Fright are white, or at least white presenting. The old good-white coalition is rallying around the fear of white supremacy, in defense of what is lurking outside the walls.

Of course, all of these possible explanations for the panics we are seeing are rooted in the general sense that society is fragmenting. That’s because current year America is fragile and possibly ready to shatter. The old political order is in decline and the rise of identity politics promises to replace it. These panics are as much about the fear of what comes next as superstition or immediate threats. The White Fright may one day be seen as the turning point in the rise of white identity politics.

For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!

Post Soviet America

Posted on by

Way back in the late stages of the Cold War, the Soviet political class started to fracture and splinter. The reform movement of Gorbachev was one faction, while the old guard that resisted him was another. There were other factions playing both sides against one another, as well as genuine reformers on the fringe. The reason the ruling elite was splintering was the system over which they ruled was no longer functioning. This reality was becoming clear to many, but not everyone in the party agreed.

Intrigue began to dominate party politics in the final stages of the Soviet Union. There was always politics within the party, but it revolved around the ruling center, much as court intrigue would revolve around the king. As the system began to falter, that center collapsed and party politics was conspiracies within conspiracies, as factions jockeyed for power. Eventually, the system collapsed and the party with it. What followed was a period of looting by oligarchs that rushed into to fill the void.

It is an important thing to think about when analyzing what’s happening in current year America. In the West, the response to the end of the Cold War was the replacement of the old sober minded political class with their self-absorbed, amoral children. The most notable example being Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have come to symbolize Baby Boomer political culture. Theirs is a politics of limitless mendacity. Everything is for sale, including the very institution over which they preside.

In other words, the Soviet Empire fell into a period of chaos and disorder in response to the end of the Cold War, while America fell into a period of self-indulgence. This way of framing it is like two sports teams after a championship match. The losers fall into finger pointing and blaming one another. The winners go on a bender to celebrate their victory and the benefits that come with it. Eventually, the loser regroups. In the case of Russia, it is becoming a normal country again.

There may be another way of reading the post-Soviet period in America. It may be that the period ushered in by the Clintons was an interregnum.  Both sides of the Cold War were purpose built to face off against one another. The Russians bankrupted themselves with an ineffective organizational model, so the end of the Cold War brought a genuine collapse, as that was the only way forward. In America, the country was still rich, so the old model could trundle on as if nothing really changed.

This interregnum was a period where the old political order carried on searching for an enemy to replace the Soviets. First it was the Muslims, which gave us two ghastly wars of choice and the surveillance state. That weakened America greatly, but instead of facing the long overdue reorganization, the political class tried reinventing the Russian bogeyman. Now, as in late stage Soviet Russia, the political center has collapsed and we are entering a similar period of chaos and intrigue.

Like the Soviets, we have oligarchs jockeying to loot what’s left the country, seemingly uninterested in staving off collapse. Big Tech and Wall Street have all the signs of super-predators from another planet, waiting for the chance to rush in and steal whatever they think has value. Like Gorbachev’s government at the end, official Washington is weak, while a populist reform movement builds. Trump is not Boris Yeltsin, but no historic analogy is intended to be perfect.

Of course, there came a point in the late stages of the Soviet Union where the emerging power centers outside the party, what would become the oligarchs, resorted to violence in their struggles with one another and the party. This is something that is starting to turn up more and more in America. Starting with the execution of Seth Rich on a Washington street, through the explosion of Antifa violence, the country is now buzzing with conspiracy over the bizarre death of billionaire Jeffrey Epstein.

That is another thing we are seeing in America that was common toward the end of the Soviet Union. The public is so cynical about the motives and character of the ruling class, that no one believes anything. The fake news meme was effective because trust in the media had dropped to zero. The lies had simply accumulated to the point where no rational person could accept anything from the media at face value. The continued existence of mainstream media just increases the cynicism.

Now, something not reported in the old Soviet Union that we are seeing in current year America is the panic. We are currently in the midst of a White Fright, where the media is tasked with casting daily events as signs of a white supremacist uprising. The coalition of the ascendant is being told to lock their doors and remain vigilante, as the twelfth invisible Hitler is slated to return at any minute. Like the Russia hoax, this one is a ruling class hoax that suggests a breakdown at the very top.

Again, it is not a perfect analogy. That’s not how analogies work. That said, there are important differences between the end of Cold War America and the end of Cold War Russia. The interregnum between the end of the Cold War and current year America is one example. Another is the nature of the oligarchs ready to seize power from Washington. They are foreign in outlook, if not legality. The tech barons and Wall Street financiers have loyalties that transcend any attachment to nation.

These new oligarchs are globalists, while the Russian oligarchs were local. The oligarchs of current year America are anti-nationalists, seeking a post-national world order. Their desire is to turn the heart of the American Empire into just another province. There’s also a class consciousness to their enablers. The managerial elite see themselves as a new class, tasked with administering the new global order. These are not men for hire, as we saw in Russia. These are true believers.

There’s also the fact that the American military is a different thing than what evolved in the Soviet Union. The Russian military was quite comfortable involving itself in politics, while the America military lacks the talent and culture to do it. Civilian leaders in America have always been smart enough to choose obsequious and incompetent generals to run the military branches. The talent is down a few ranks. The culture of the military would not lend itself to political involvement either.

Even so, what all of this suggests is America is headed for a period of chaos similar to what gripped the Russians after the Cold War. Just as the Russian oligarchs were too greedy and short sighted to replace the party, our oligarchs are too foreign and feckless to provide an alternative to Washington. A period of chaos in probably what comes next for post-Soviet America. The sudden collapse of empire and then a reversion to its natural state after a period of chaos and violence.

For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!

The Bad Humor Man

Posted on by

Back in the halcyon days of 2015 and 2016, most white people were feeling like little kids on a summer day, waiting for the ice cream man. If you are of a certain age and a certain place, you probably remember the Good Humor Man. That was the guy in the white uniform driving the ice cream truck. Kids would hear the sound of the truck coming, stop what they were doing and run to get money for ice cream. Usually the truck had a bell or a speaker that played a unique tune.

Of course, these days, the ice cream truck is not operated by a white guy wearing a spiffy white uniform. Instead, it is operated by a degenerate, who looks like he just came from the methadone clinic. The Good Humor brand is now owned by a global corporation called Unilever, which is run by people that hate you. According to public documents, Unilever gives all of its political donations to Democrats, because Progressivism is the religion of the corporate ruling elite.

Putting that aside, the election of Trump was greeted by most white people as a relief from the rising tide of diversity. Trump was going to build a wall and drastically limit immigration, and not just illegal immigration. The worm was finally turning on the use of indentured servants to displace American workers. He was also going to stop selling out to cheap foreign labor through trade deals. Trump was the creamsicle of politics. He was orange on the outside and white on the inside.

Despite what the grifters and cucks of the alt-lite, people like Jack Posobiec, Bill Mitchell and Mike Cernovich were saying, everyone understood what Trump meant. He was going to make America white again. Not in the demographic sense. He was not going to start mass deportations or bring back segregation. It was that he was going to bring back the sort of politics associated with white people. That’s good government, economic nationalism, prudent patriotism and community awareness.

Here we are three years on and we have none of things he promised. Instead it has been three years of boasting, considering and looking at, but no results. Immigration is worse now than when he took office. He has completely caved to the cheap labor lobbies on the indentured servant issue. There is no wall and no plan to build one, despite his boasts to the contrary. Remember those Dreamers? They are still here and he has done nothing about it. Ditto the anchor baby issue.

The plan-trusters, MAGApedes, QAon suckers and so on will reply that he has been thwarted by the establishment, so he cannot be blamed. Maybe. The reply to that is he should have been aware of this from the start. Maybe if he had been a little smarter about how he went about these things, he could have won a few fights. Talking and losing is standard GOP procedure. The reason Trump won is the voters, the white voters, were tired of all talk and no action. Yet, here we are again.

Even if you want to excuse all of that, and maybe there is a good argument in favor of doing that, you cannot excuse his stiff-arming of his own voters. Every day he is on Twitter celebrating black this and Hispanic that. Of course, he is endlessly going on about Israel, as if he is the chief rabbi of the country. He seems more conserved with the welfare of people who will never vote for him than the people who put him in the White House. He sounds like Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney.

The topper is his constant demands for gun grabbing. There is no issue more closely tied with white America than guns. When people talk about self-defense, everyone knows what they mean. When anyone talks about “gun crime’ everyone knows they mean black crime. If gun ownership and defense of gun rights is implicit whiteness, then gun grabbing is explicit anti-whiteness. Trump’s knee-jerk gun grabbing means he is a lot closer to the anti-whites than he is white America.

Getting back to the analogy at the top. White people thought the relief they were getting was that creamsicle. Orange on the outside, white on the inside. Instead, white people are getting a turdsicle, orange on the outside and full of bullshit on the inside. Some broken promises and absurd boasting was expected. Everyone understood that Trump was a flagrant self-promoter and bullshitter. That was the price for getting some action on things like immigration and trade. That’s not what we are seeing.

This is where the plan-trusters, MAGApedes, QAon suckers (Yes, QAnon was a hoax) stop reading and post an angry comment about how he is better than Hillary. That’s probably true. We can’t know that. Her husband was better than Bush. By any reasonable measure, Obama was better than Bush. Let’s pretend it is true and Hillary would have been much worse. The turdsicle that is Trump is better than the fetid fishsicle that was Hillary. Ask yourself, is this how you want to be treated?

For as long as anyone reading this has been alive, that has been the deal on offer to people on the Right, by which we mean most white people. Your choice is the turdsicle or the fishsicle. Politics has been nothing but you running up to the Bad Humor Man thinking this time you might get something you want. Instead, you’re always told the choice is between two terrible options no one should ever accept. For most white people, the last three years has been more of the same.

Now, the temptation is to throw yourself down the hole of self-loathing, despair and Trump-bashing. The remains of the alt-right have chosen that course. Richard Spencer sounds like a racist Bernie Bro. Many White Nationalists are lining up behind Xena The Warrior Princess. The error here is these people think if they don’t show up, the Bad Humor Man will stop coming around. In reality, they will not be missed, as there is always a long line of normie whites willing to lick the turdsicle.

The right answer is a point Greg Johnson has been making. Instead of stomping off in a rage, the disaffected Trump voters need to engage more forcefully with those normies so they stop accepting the choice on offer. You can’t do that if you are on the sidelines or joining the other team. Things change when the Bad Humor Man is faced with a crowd that refuses the choice between the turdsicle and the fishsicle. When that day comes, he either stops coming around or he gets better inventory.

For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!

The Reality of Life

Posted on by

In his July Diary over at VDare, John Derbyshire recounted an exchange he had with Mark Steyn about biological reality. Like most men his age, Steyn is incapable of thinking clearly about race and ethnicity. Instead he tries to jam reality into the blank slate fantasy, where culture makes the man. Steyn asked, “Why is Haiti Haiti and Barbados Barbados? Why is India India and Pakistan Pakistan? Skin color and biological determinism don’t get you very far on that.”

This is a popular form of arm flapping by right-wing Progressives. Whenever they are confronted with biological reality, they reel off a series of exceptions they think extremely clever. Somehow, they think their ignorance is some sort of magic spell that will make the bad men go away. If biology cannot explain everything to them to their satisfaction, then they will hang onto their magical thinking. It is a good example of how you cannot overcome superstition with facts and reason.

Now, as to the challenge, Derb correctly points out that biology is one ingredient that results in the societies we see. The biology of Barabbas is a lot closer to the biology of Haiti than it is to Iceland. Yet, Barbados seems to be closer to Iceland on the civilization scale than it is to Haiti. Of course, Barbados is not Iceland, not even close. Botswana is much nicer than Somalia, but that does not make Botswana a paradise. Maybe Steyn should first explain why Barbados is not Iceland.

It turns out though, that Steyn’s “gotcha” response is actually a very good example of the role biology plays in social organization. Haiti was a French colony and its current population is descended from the slave population used by the French. Barbados, in contrast, was a British colony. About ten percent of its population is white and its black population is descended from both slaves and free men. Further, Barbados never sank into anarchy, so its population has been stable for generations.

How big a difference does that white population make in Barbados? If we assume the whites are fairly typical of the sorts of people willing to colonize the New World, they are probably a bit smarter than the average European. That means they will make up the bulk of the island’s smart fraction. Haiti, in contrast, will have no smart fraction, as even the talented ten percent fled a long time ago. Barbados may not have the smart fraction of Iceland, but it has one, while Haiti does not have one.

Of course, Barbados will have a talented ten percent, as well. While the bulk of the black population is descended from slaves, a lot of blacks came to the island as freemen during the age of sail. Just as with North America, the British were a much softer touch on their colonies than the French and Spanish. That history has resulted in a much better black population than in Haiti. It’s talented ten percent, plus the white population, is capable of maintaining a civil society.

That may strike some as a small difference to hang an argument, but in biology, small difference can have very large downstream consequences. As Derb pointed out, Albania has an average IQ in the low 80’s while Ghana is in the 60’s. That does not seem like a big difference, but it means Albania has about 4% of the population that qualifies as a smart fraction, while Ghana has none. That 4% has a huge impact on the outcome of Albania. Small differences mean a lot in biology.

That does not explain all of the differences between the two places. As Derb points out in his piece, history and geography play a role. Chance plays a role as well. Haiti has not been helped by its geography. That massive earthquake would have been tough for any of the island populations to endure. It’s also regularly raked by tropical storms and hurricanes. Outside interference from America has not always been in the best interest of the Haitian people. Haiti is a very unlucky place.

Still, there is a reason no African nation has created a modern society or been able to maintain one that was handed to them. Somalia has all of the things modern libertarians celebrate, but it is a violent hell hole. Liberia adopted the US constitution, but Liberia is nothing like America. Detroit has a much better history than Salt Lake City, but it has much worse biology. Perhaps Steyn thinks Detroit’s problems are due to weather, but most likely he knows the real reason. He just hates it.

That really is the issue with the science deniers. It’s not so much that they don’t accept biological reality or even that they lack the numeracy to grasp it. They just hate facing the reality of the human condition. It should be noted that the science deniers tend to live as far from human diversity as possible. Steyn, for example, lives in a whites-only part of northern New Hampshire. Celebrating diversity from a great distance is the hallmark of the science deniers and egalitarians.

Putting aside the revealed preferences of the deniers, they cling to their superstitions because to do otherwise means accepting some harsh truths. One of which is that the only way to maintain Western civilization is to maintain the European people. That means playing very rough with the rest of the world’s people. It turns out that we have not advanced beyond our nature. Life for us is the same struggle for survival it has always been. The winner has to play for keeps.

As a practical matter, that means the Europeans will have to deport their non-European populations. Not all of them, but most. Telling a few million Muslims they have to go back is not something our betters care to face. Similarly, it means sinking enough migrant boats in the Mediterranean to discourage the practice. Europe’s leaders lack the stomach to defend their people, so instead they have embraced magical realism as a coping strategy. It’s an effort to gracefully lose the struggle for life.

Reality is that thing that does not go away when you stop believing in it. Biological reality is no exception. The history of man has been a struggle between people. History, geography and some good fortune made Europeans the dominant people on the globe, because they were willing and able to out-compete their rivals. That’s reality. If Europeans are unwilling to compete, then they will be overrun by their rivals. That too is reality, a realty that will not go away even if the deniers stop believing it.

For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!

Why They Hate Us

Posted on by

It is conventional wisdom on certain parts of the Right that the anti-white animus we see on the Left is nothing but a practical solution to a political problem. For years, Steve Sailer has been pitching the idea that the Left has to keep its non-white auxiliaries focused on the evil white man. Otherwise they will notice they don’t like one another all that much and begin squabbling. The implication is the Left is not really anti-white. They just work that double-game for practical political consideration.

Another way to frame it is the Cold Civil War that John Derbyshire described twenty years ago. This imagines the political battle field as the good whites, the old Yankee coalition, versus the bad whites, the old Confederate coalition. The good whites use anti-bad-white language to recruit non-white auxiliaries. At the same time, the bad whites rely on subtle calls to racial solidarity to bring in whites from outside the Old South, including disaffected whites in good white areas.

The implication of this view is that the anti-white rhetoric is just a pose. The good whites are not really anti-white, as they themselves are white. As Joe Sobran observed decades ago, “In their mating and migratory habits, liberals are indistinguishable from members of the Ku Klux Klan.” This observed preference for their own kind not only undermined their moral claims, it motivated them to keep a firm hand on those non-white auxiliaries, which would make their coalition unwieldy and ineffective over time.

This way of imagining the Left is comforting, as it suggests they will come to their senses at some point and pull back from their suicidal leap into multiculturalism. It also means it is possible to appeal to their humanity and decency. This has been the path so-called conservatives have chosen since they lost the Civil Rights debate. Instead of confronting the Left, they have functioned as the conscience of the Left, but also as a loyal assistant, shielding the Left from a real opposition willing to fight.

What is becoming clear today is the rhetoric from the Left is not just a clever way to organize their coalition. It is not just esoteric language in the cold civil war. The Left really does hate white people. This is plain when you watch their candidates react to news events. They sound like ambitious pols in the African National Congress, trying to establish themselves as the cutting edge. Their favorite chant these days is to claim America is haunted by white supremacist going back to the founding.

This anti-white hysteria has its roots in the revising of American history after the Second World War. The America ruling elite stood not just as the rulers of America but the rulers of the free world. America was a global empire with a global elite. That required a new narrative and mythology to explain and justify this new reality. That new narrative was the second founding theory, which argued the Civil War was the second founding, finishing what was started in the original founding of the country.

As is usually the case, we can understand this by examining the obsequiousness of the co-called conservatives. This post on the ironically named American Conservative is a good example. Note the repetition of the idea of America’s original sin, which of course is slavery. The implication is that the original founding was flawed, as it maintain slavery, at that sin is with us to this day. Just as man’s struggle with original sin is what animates life on earth, the sin of slavery is what animates American history.

In this framing, the promise of America was the Declaration, but the result was the constitution adopted in Philadelphia. The starting point of “all men are created equal” gave way to the three-fifths compromise and the maintenance of slavery. You see, that is the original sin. The promise of the founding was subverted by those wicked slave holders in the South. This not only justifies a blood libel against those bad whites, it justifies endless self-loathing for the good whites, who went along with it.

The person to blame for turning an ancient rivalry between English cultures into an endless brother-war is the historian Harry Jaffa. His retelling of the Civil War is considered the starting point for the idea of the second founding. He is largely responsible for turning Lincoln into the American Moses. Eric Foner is another historian who promotes the notion that the Civil War was a second founding, or a completion of the first founding. Foner has a book conveniently titled The Second Founding due out this fall.

Now, this second founding that completed the first founding, re-centering the nation on the Declaration, rather than the Constitution, was not the end. After Reconstruction, blacks were not fully incorporated into society. Women did not have full legal rights. Jews, of course, were still excluded from the elite. Whites were still allowed to control their own lands. The story from the second founding to now is the process of rectifying those things and achieving the ideal of the Declaration.

In other words, we have slowly and steadily moved from a place where ending slavery in a bloody civil war fixed the defects of the first founding, to a place where making the rhetorical flourishes of the Declaration the religion of the land. The founding cannot be complete until all men are equal, which means as long as whites are seen as doing better than non-whites, the task remains unfinished. The conclusion of our rulers is that the second founding can only be completed when there are no more white people.

That’s how we got to this place where anti-white proselytizing is becoming something of a religion for the ruling class. It’s why bigots like Max Boot and Cathy Young are compelled to lecture white people on their failings. You’ll note these types never write columns about how Jews need to relax or consider their privilege. One does not have to be an anti-Semite to wonder why two Russian-born Jews feel the need to lecture American white people about their alleged moral failings.

Contra the anti-Semites, this is not part of some global plot. People like Max Boot and Cathy Young are not terribly bright, but they are ambitious. They stake out these positions because it helps them gain entry to the elite of their field. Boot, despite being wrong about everything for decades, has a perch at the Washington Post. Sarah Jeung landed a prized spot on the New York Times editorial board, based solely on her emotional rants against white people on Twitter. Today, hating white people is the key to success.

For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!