The Cult of Neoconservatism

The word “cult” is a term often abused by Progressives, because it carries with it negative connotations. They like to us it to slander their enemies. Frankfurt School types convinced the world that Nazism, for example, was a cult, in order to make their case that anyone finding fascism appealing is not just mistaken, but crazy. Progressives picked up on this to brand their enemies as well. Still, it is a useful concept as the cult seems to be a feature of human behavior. We have records of cults going 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’s 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. The suicide cult is the extreme example of this.

Neoconservatism has many of the features one would associate with 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 observable reality. Then you have the fact that 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 don’t have the charismatic leader, like we normally associate with cults, but perhaps to the adherents, Bill Kristol is charming. Despite his unpleasant demeanor and long list of failures, they do seem to venerate him. Still, what holds the cult of neoconservatism together is their list of devils, that are all cast as a manifestation of the great authoritarian villain.

That comes through in this piece by Anne Applebaum in the Spectator. The piece 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 of Russia. The neocons all have an obsession with Russia that 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 authoritarianism and you know who.

A feature of neoconservatism that is shared by Progressive 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 they hate whitey, but also 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 the bad guys of the Visegrad are talked about by neocons as an implementation of the all-purpose bogeyman, the authoritarian Übermensch. The neocons, like liberal Jews, have this imaginary, all-purpose bogeyman, that manifests 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 pissed off Muslim living in the West, radicalized by US foreign policy, is intentional. To people inside the neocon cult, however, this all makes perfect 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 Progressive Jews and their paranoid 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 are referred to by three initials may not a pointless affectation. It could be 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. Or perhaps like a UFO cult, they see it as the final piece of the cosmic puzzle, signifying the end times.

In a seriousness, there is a strong case that neoconservativism is now 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, in fact they are 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. Still, prudence suggests caution as end times cults tend to end with a bang, rather than a whimper.

A Tribal Dilemma

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’s 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 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 don’t 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, in order 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 don’t 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’s simply no way to square neoconservative ideas with the modern Left.

Taken together, what’s 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’s 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.

The Little White Book

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Managerial Clique

The political philosopher James Burnham is usually credited with coining the phrase managerial state. In his seminal work, The Managerial Revolution, he theorized about the future of world capitalism. He was a former communist, like a lot of intellectuals of the period, so he thought about social organization from that perspective. He was mostly wrong about the evolution of capitalism, but he did describe an emerging phenomenon that is with us today. That is the semi-permanent managerial class that runs American society.

Paleocons would later pick up on the phrase and the concept to critique both the conventional Right, as well as Progressives. Sam Francis, Joe Sobran, Paul Gottfried and others would describe the managerial elite as an amorphous collection of bureaucrats, politicians and academics that occupies the important institutions. This class maintains power by not only controlling the institutions, but also public morality. Gottfried described it as a theocratic religion, that uses accusations of impiety as a shield against challenges.

Like most theorists of his age, Burnham had an understanding of capitalism shaped by the materialist philosophy of Marx. Therefore, he could not conceive of an economic model evolving as a weapon used by a new class that formed out of the bourgeoisie. The paleocons understood this as they lived it. Their friends and family were often members of this new class. Paul Gottfried was a college professor, for example. They could see how a hybrid form of capitalism was used by this new class to maintain power in America.

Even the paleocons missed an important aspect of this new class. It’s something rooted in the nature of man and that is the extreme provincialism in the managerial elites. Despite their claims to worldliness and cosmopolitan affectations, these are people with the worldview of burghers. They may pronounce foreign words with a foreign accent, but their knowledge of anything outside their tiny bureaucratic universe is limited. With few exceptions, theirs is a world of small cliques conspiring against others for bits of turf.

We see this in the unfolding conspiracy within the FBI and the DOJ to subvert the last election. Taken in total, the FBI portion of the conspiracy looks like something you would see in high school, where the nerds plotted some caper against the jocks. Like teenagers, they did most of their plotting via text message. This is not the work of sophisticated actors operating on the world stage. This is the work of a small collection of clerks and functionaries. It’s petty provincialism directed at an outsider viewed as a threat.

This last week, this pettiness was underscored by the revelation that Rod Rosenstein was plotting against Trump. It could be a caper run by the neocon loons that are now infiltrating the New York Times and Washington Post. More likely, given the source is FBI memos about meetings with Rosenstein, this is the small group of FBI plotters stabbing at a former ally for personal reasons. Andrew McCabe was more concerned with someone he viewed as a rival in his little world, than he was with the over all plot to subvert Trump.

This is the nature of the managerial revolt we see going on, as well as the resistance to the Trump agenda within Washington. It is not a collection of policy professionals with deep philosophical differences with the White House. It’s pods of overgrown college students throwing tantrums about petty turf disputes and hurt feelings. Look at the nature of the push back against declassifying documents. It’s cliques of coevals operating from purely personal motives. For most of these people, this is just another playground dispute.

That’s the nature of the managerial class now. When you start to look at the people in these various cliques, you see that they often share more than just a cultural and class background. They grew up with one another, went to the same prep schools and worked with one another for years. Once one member of the clique lands an important position in the bureaucracy, he sets about recruiting his friends, classmates and neighbors to join his team. It turns out that the Dunbar number applies to the managerial class too.

The crisis we see in Western liberal democracy may be rooted in this feature of the managerial class. The bureaucratic government of Diocletian was like a super tanker plodding along through the sea. It was hard to steer, but even harder to stop. It’s strength was in the sheer force of its size. The modern bureaucracy has evolved not to defend the secular leadership through sheer force. Rather, it has evolved to serve the narrow interests of the bourgeoisie class who populate it, as a way to defend their interests.

Like all things that evolve within a democratic framework, the time preference of this class is very high. The plotters within the FBI, for example, were more concerned about jostling for status within their clique, than what could happen after the election. Judging by the text exchanges between Strzok and Page, it appears these two had the time preference of the typical ghetto dweller. None of these people thought much about what would come next or what could happen if their emotional needs were not properly satisfied.

Since the dawn of human settlement, the point of the state has been to maintain the power and position of the people in charge by protecting the interests of the people. The king gets to be king, and all that comes with it, by defending his people from threats. This requires a low time preference as the king expects to be king tomorrow and maybe even have his heirs sit on the throne when he is gone. Even a republican form of governance is designed to serve the interests of the property holders, who obviously have long term interests.

The managerial class that has subsumed western public institutions, exists to expand and protect the interest of these petty cliques, at the expense of the public. It’s not just parasitic, in terms of undermining the middle and working classes. It is parasitic within its own institutions. Since what matters is status within the clique, which has a transactional relationship within the institution it occupies. No one within the clique can think long term about the good of the institution. All they can do is borrow the language of the institution.

The College Collapse

Back when National Review first allowed comments on their posts, they would post all sorts of things in their group blog. Readers would respond to all of it. For example, when they were looking for a receptionist, they posted the job on the blog. Hilariously, one of the requirements was a four-year degree. Why anyone with a college degree would take a receptionist job was a mystery, but an even bigger mystery was why National Review would require it. The comments on it were the best things posted that week.

Of course, Rich Lowry was not really thinking about the requirements of the job when he posted it. What he wanted was someone from his world, the world where everyone goes off to college and sends their kids off to college. In other words, he was signalling to potential applicants that he did not want Rosie from the neighborhood, who likes to file her nails while on the phone. Instead, he wanted a young white girl fresh out of college, who just needed a job while she sorted out what she was going to do with her life.

That is, in many ways, what a college degree has become since the 60’s. It tells potential employers things about yourself that they could never ask and that would never show up on the CV. For example, if you went to a private college, it means you most likely were raised in an upper middle-class family. If you went to the satellite campus of the state university, it probably means you came from the lower ranks and you were not a great student. These are the sort of subtle clues that are reflected in the education section.

Of course, attending an elite university is the big flashing neon sign on a person’s resume, which is why entrance is super-competitive. It’s also why it is not difficult to graduate from one of these colleges. The graduation rates at these colleges are near 100%, even for athletes. Compare that to Ranger School, where 60% fail the first time. Yet, if you have the former on your CV, it counts for more than if you have the latter. The people hiring for elite positions care much more about what the former says about the applicant.

This is why a few years ago the elites started to panic over the influx of foreign students into elite colleges. The competition for these slots was already tough. Having to compete with the children of foreign ruling classes would make the process even more difficult for the children of Cloud People. Of course, this is why Harvard, and most likely the other elite colleges, discriminate against Asians. The elite is for whites and Jews, with a sprinkling of diversity to spice it up to allow the elite to pretend they like diversity.

This “problem” with the elite colleges has been an excuse for the ConservoCons to shriek “hypocrite” at their Progressive masters, but it is actually a good thing that the people in charge are fine with racial discrimination. At the minimum, it suggests they still have the will to survive. It also reminds us that they are not bound by their own rules when defending their privileges. No ruling class in human history has peacefully agreed to step aside based on the logic of their own rules. They always have to be removed by force.

At the other end of the spectrum, colleges that serve the hoi polloi have been struggling with a different set of problems. A diploma from State U is about practical things like getting a job and bargaining for a salary. In fact, it really only matters for the first decade after graduation. After that, the work history is what counts. The great bust-out that is the American public college system has reached a terminus and enrollments are now starting to drop, as people figure out the return is not always worth the investment.

As a result, the public universities in America are slowly beginning to change. One remedy has been to import foreign students, who will pay full rate. This actually started with small private colleges like Boston University in the 1980’s. They figured out that Japanese kids would come to Boston, pay tuition in cash, as long as they were not required to study too hard. For state colleges, there is the added benefit of being able to charge full rate, rather than the discounted rate for in-state students. That and it counts for diversity points.

Of course, like every business fighting a revenue drop, cost cutting is on the table. In America, much of college is just an extension of high school. Look at the requirements of college fifty years ago and compare them to now. Then there are the frivolous things like gender studies or communication arts. Pretty much everything in the core curriculum of a modern college should be tackled in high school. The rest should be discarded. That’s why we see colleges dropping large chunks of their current offerings.

There is something else going on that speaks to the larger issues looming over the North American Economic Zone. Members of the High Moral Council are starting to drop the college requirement for new hires. What this tells us is the elite are beginning to set fire to the bridges over the river that separates them from us. The positions in the Cloud will require passing through one of the monasteries to be properly vetted. In the future, the Dirt People will have to sort out their status system within their favelas.

It also opens the door to further polluting the standards that reflect biological reality. By dropping the college requirement, the companies are free to hire the black over the white, the female over the male. After all, without anything close to an objective standard, the latest moral fads handed down from on high are the default filter. It also makes the diversity tax explicit. Companies will be expected to hit their vibrancy quotas, because they will not have the excuse that they cannot find qualified non-white candidates.

The Knock At The Door

I used to tell people all the time that if you have a chance to listen to Greg Cochran speak, you should take it, as he is probably the smartest person you will ever hear. Cochran has excelled in two fields, physics and anthropology. The former requires a very big brain in order to gain entry. In the case of anthropology, many of the people in the field are crazy or sociopaths. To be an exception and contribute to the stock of human knowledge, requires a rare combination of curiosity and blinkered indifference to social pressure.

Cochran has contributed three very important ideas that may not be correct, but they open up new avenues to understanding human evolution and biological diversity. In the book The 10,000 Year Explosion, he and his partner, the late Henry Harpending, explained how agriculture and human settlement accelerated human evolution. This explains local differences in skin color, eye color, hair texture disease resistance and other genetic differences in human populations. It also explains personality and cognitive differences.

Another idea, one that has received less positive press, is Cochran’s theory that homosexuality must be caused by something outside of evolution. For example, a pathogen that sets off a chain of events in the womb resulting in the child being a homosexual. Cochran points out that the observed level of exclusive homosexuality means genes cannot be the cause of homosexuality.The fitness cost of genes ‘for’ homosexuality being too great. Natural selection would have eliminated the gene.

His “gay germ” idea is controversial and it could be completely wrong, at least in the case of homosexuality. It’s utility is really in how it changes thinking about human disease and the treatment of those diseases. Take something like Alzheimer’s disease. Researchers have spent decades laboring under the assumption it is genetic, but have had little success in finding any proof. Well, what if the cause is something like a pathogen that sets of the process in the brain? What if cardiovascular disease is caused by pathogens?

That’s a huge and controversial idea, but it probably is not the one that most scandalizes the moral authorities. Cochran is most infamous for his work on Ashkenazi IQ. A dozen years ago, he and his partner Henry Harpending published The Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence. In it they argue that Ashkenazi ████inherit higher verbal and mathematical intelligence than other ethnic groups, on the basis of inherited diseases and the peculiar economic situation of Ashkenazi ████in the Middle Ages.

The paper is controversial for three reasons. One is the heretical idea that IQ is a real thing that can be measured. Worse yet, they claim intelligence is heritable, which means it is largely immutable. Smart parents have smart kids. Both ideas are against everything we believe and probably a direct threat to our democracy. It’s not who we are. Only very bad people think that human diversity is the result of biology. Everyone knows that racism is the cause of all the bad differences, while diversity is the cause of the good differences.

That’s bad enough, but the most outrageous aspect of the paper is that it focuses on the special people and that’s not allowed. Even mentioning them in a direct way is justifiably forbidden now. After all, the Nazis started noticing these people, talking about their “group differences” and before long the Holocaust! The fact that racists and white supremacists often reference this paper is proof enough that it should be banned, the authors forced to confess and then they should be hurled into the void as a lesson to others.

If further proof is needed, this post on Greg Cochran’s blog should be enough. The post itself is just one sentence long, but in the nearly 200 comments, Cochran counter signals Holocaust skeptics so hard he probably sprained something while banging away at the keyboard. Clearly, it is the sign of a guilty conscience. At the minimum, it suggests he is worried that the morality police will be coming for him soon. He hopes that his outburst can be presented at his trial and he will be given a reprieve. Good luck with that pal.

All joking aside, the post and the comments are a hilarious bit of Boomer posting. Ron Unz is an eccentric guy and he is prone to conspiracy theories. It’s hard to know how much he believes them. He could just find them intellectually titillating, like reading a very clever crime novel.  I get the sense that he is fascinated by the fact there is an official narrative and it is ruthlessly enforced. Almost all Americans struggle with the bit of reality. Either way, the worst you should say about Ron Unz is that he is a harmless weirdo.

Casual indifference is never allowed in a theocracy, at least with regards to the moral codes. You are either enthusiastically on the right side of the question or you are an enemy of the faith. There can be no middle ground. Maybe Cochran is worried that the authorities will be coming for him soon, so he is hoping to inoculate himself against charge of insufficient signalling against antisemitism. Like a lot of Boomers, he still thinks we live in a rule based society and that you can appeal to reason when defending yourself.

He would deny this and probably threaten to punch me in the nose for suggesting it, but false consciousness is common with many old white men. Just look at the comment thread in that post. Why are people in 2018 so worked up about something that happened 80 years ago in a foreign country? The cultural and ideological processes of the neo-liberal age blind people to their own motivations. You can be sure that the people commenting on that post felt great about it, but they never bothered to wonder why.

All that aside, they will be coming for Greg Cochran soon enough. If he is lucky, the non-binary, gender non-specific persons of uterus from the campus committee on inclusion will only require him to wear a dunce cap on campus. Maybe they will make him recant what he said about Cordelia Fine, peace be upon her. It’s only a matter of time and appeals to reason will have no impact, because we live in an unreasonable age, ruled by ridiculous people. One day, there will be a knock on the door and they will have come for Cochran.

The Black Death

Way back when I still had a cable sub and still watched television, I was watching an episode of Red Eye, the late night Fox News show, and the topic was crime. One of the guests was a black libertarian, who said something along the lines of, “In order to have a sensible discussion about crime, the first thing we have to do is put aside the issue of race.” All of the nice white people on the panel fell all over themselves agreeing with the black, of course, mostly because they were grateful that he let them off the hook.

My recollection of my own reaction was to wonder why they would bother talking about crime at all, if they are not going to consider the primary element. After all, net out black crime from the statistics and crime is not an issue we bother discussing. Sure, Hispanic crime rates are significantly higher than white crime rates, but they pale in comparison to black crime figures. The only people worried about white crime are white liberals, who like to tell each other scary stories around the fire pit about their trip to Walmart.

People on our side of the great divide tend to think the people in charge deliberately obfuscate on the race issue, because of nefarious motives. It’s tempting and there is no doubt that we are ruled by sociopaths, who enjoy lying to us about everything, not just crime. Still, a lot of people have simply lost the ability to talk about race. They have become so fearful of the issue that it has taken on magical qualities. Just as Jews are prohibited from speaking the name of God, most white people fear saying “black.”

This weird New York Times op-ed reminds me of that.

When they staged a “die-in” at Stroger Hospital in Chicago earlier this year, Delmonte Johnson and his friends — who together formed GoodKids MadCity, a group dedicated to ending violence in urban communities — had a straightforward request. They wanted what their wealthier, whiter, more suburban peers already seemed to have: freedom from the oppressive fear of being gunned down in their own neighborhoods.

Mr. Johnson, a 19-year-old who loved to sing and dance, who was an athlete and a budding social activist, will not get to see that vision realized. He was shot and killed Wednesday after playing basketball near his home.Mr. Johnson’s death was tragic and unnecessary and enraging. It was also the sort of death that’s become far too common in America, and in particular in Mr. Johnson’s hometown, where more than 2,000 people have been shot so far this year, nearly 400 of them fatally. While mass shootings involving high-powered guns and high death tolls have claimed an outsize portion of the nation’s collective grief — and its headlines — street shootings like the one that killed Delmonte Johnson are far more common.Mr. Johnson, who lost several of his own friends to gun violence, knew that fact all too well. His own advocacy emerged in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Fla., in February with the hope that some of the attention captured by that massacre might be cast toward communities like his — communities that are underserved, overlooked and routinely plagued by gun violence. “We have been screaming for gun control for the longest time,” says Carlil Pittman, a friend of Mr. Johnson’s who co-founded GoodKids MadCity. “But it’s not until it hits other communities that people pay attention. And then they respond with harsher laws that criminalize black and brown kids.”

As everyone knows, guns stalk the streets of our city. For some reason, the government just let guns walk in over the border, unmolested. In fact, they have programs to help guns come in to the country and gain residency. It’s as if the government wants guns to come here and kill people of color. If you did not know better, you would think that the people in charge of government care more about guns than American citizens. When will people wake up and realize that we need a big wall on the border to keep guns out of the country?

All kidding aside, you have to wonder how it is even possible to write about “gun violence” with a straight face. To a sober minded person, it seems impossible for anyone to believe such nonsense. That’s why so many in 2A community think it is deliberate and well considered lie. A multi-generational conspiracy sounds more plausible than people thinking guns magically cause black people to shoot one another. Sadly, that is what the people who write this stuff think. They think blacks are compelled to violence by guns.

The murder problem in Chicago is a problem easily understood with a bit of math and a little bit of race realism. Put a lot of black people in an area and they will start shooting at each other. Chicago has a lot of black people, so it has a lot of murders. The city is roughly 32% black, 32% white and the rest Hispanic, Asian and a mystery. Of the 405 homicides this year, as of this writing, 330 of the victims have been black. Just 26 have been white. Just 48 have been Hispanic, who are over 25% of the population.

Now, it is possible that there are gangs of white supremacists roaming the streets killing black people in all black neighborhoods. It’s possible that these white supremacists are so skilled that no one has ever seen them. It’s also possible that a gang of leprechauns are terrorizing the black neighborhoods. All things are possible if you wish hard enough, but the most probable answer here is that the victim rates reflect the crime rate. That is, 75% of the crime is being committed by 30% of the population, the black population.

Again, sober minded people understand this. The trouble is, we are not ruled by sober minded people, at least with regards to race. They really do believe that race is a social construct and that astronomical black crimes rates are a symptom of social inequality, racism and poverty. Rather than Old Scratch tempting the villagers into sin, there is now this mystery force called “whiteness” that is like swamp gas, rising from the America’s long racist past. In other words, black crime is a spiritual problem, not a practical one.

The Seekers

The book, When Prophecy Fails, is a classic work of social psychology written in the 1950’s based on a study of a UFO cult called the Seekers. This group was led by a woman named Dorothy Martin, who claimed that aliens spoke through her to warn of a coming apocalypse. She employed something called “automatic writing” to channel the messages from the people of the planet Clarion. Through her, they were telling humanity that a great flood was coming and the world would end on December 21, 1954.

The study documented the believers and how they coped with the fact the word did not end on December 21, 1954. What they found is that instead of the group realizing they had been duped by a lunatic, they quickly developed an explanation for why the great event had not occurred and came to believe that with the same degree of intensity they had believed the original prophesy. In the case of the Seekers, within hours they were telling themselves and the world that their faith had convinced God to spare the world.

It is a useful thing to keep in mind while observing the actions of the America Left. Whatever it was, today it is a cult. We tend to assume cults have a charismatic figure at the top, but that’s not always the case. Hassidic Jews are not led by a charismatic leader, unless you consider the Rabbi a cult leader. In fact, that may not be a bad comparison, in that Rabbis come and go, temporarily holding the position of sect leader. Progressives swap out their chief lunatic as well. Look at their list of three initial heroes.

In the summer before the 2016 election, the Cult was sure Hillary Clinton would be anointed as their new cult leader. They were so sure of it there were people quitting their jobs so they could prepare to move to Washington and serve the new ruler. Then disaster struck and the prophecy failed. Like the Seekers, they waited all night for a miracle, but there was no miracle. Also like the Seekers, the cult has cooked up an elaborate explanation, rather than accept the result. Russian collusion is a coping mechanism.

It does not stop there with the Progressive cult. They have a new prophecy that they are sure will come true on the first Tuesday of this November. They believe the magical blue wave will cleanse the Imperial Capital of the sinners, who defend the evil Donald Trump, by concealing the Russian hacking scandal. It’s why fiction writer Bob Woodward released his book this week and why the NYTimes ran the fictional op-ed. These are intended to be evidence at the trial of Donald Trump, when he is impeached and removed.

It’s also why Elizabeth Warren was out demanding they invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump now. After all, if it is inevitable, why wait for the election? As far as she and the other hormonal crazies in the cult are concerned, the impeachment and removal of Trump is written in stone. True believers always succumb to the Tinker Bell Effect, because they believe so intensely, they inevitably begin to see everything as confirmation of their deeply held beliefs.  Fanatics see only that which confirms their fanaticism.

You’ll also note that these periods of extreme mania come and go. When Trump fired Comey, the Left was apoplectic for a week. Comey himself was out there casting himself in the role of martyr for the cause. Then it passed and no one talks about him anymore, outside of grand jury rooms. When Trump met with Putin, there was another week of fevered lunacy in the Progressive media. This week’s spasm of fervor from the cult coincided with the Kavanaugh hearings. Next week, all of this will be forgotten.

What’s happening is the cult is responding to disconfirmation in the same way the Seekers handled it. Rather than reevaluate their positions or beliefs in light of obvious reality, they escalate their intensity as a way to pull the faithful together. Firing Comey showed Trump was not about to resign, as the cult believed. When he met with Putin, it annulled their Boris and Natasha fantasy. Now that Kavanaugh is obviously going to be confirmed, it undermines their belief that his own party is about to abandon him.

Another aspect of the Seekers is relevant here. Dorothy Martin came out of the same cult that gave birth to Scientology. She later went on to reinvent herself as Sister Thedra and start a new cult called the Association of Sananda and Sanat Kumara. Progressives have similarly morphed into different things over the years. You’ll also note that spiritual cults tend to be led by women or have a lot of high profile females.  The same thing is happening with the Progressives. It is hormonal woman shepherding non-whites.

All of this is amusing, but imagine a country with a powerful army and nuclear weapons being run by nutters like Elizabeth Warren. Imagine a situation room that looks like the editorial board of the Huffington Post. There are no obvious remedies to having the ruling class succumb to mass insanity. The big challenge is accepting it. The public can accept that their rulers are corrupt or evil. It’s really hard to accept that they are insane. The proof of that probably comes too late as the loonies have already pulled the roof down us.

The Original Sin

The original sin of modern conservatism is that it never came to terms with the reality of the Left’s race delusions. Last century, Progressives came to the conclusion that the obvious racial disparities in the world were solely due to racism, specifically the racism of whites toward the world’s non-whites. Everything that defines the American Left now is based on this assumption. This a lie, not a sin. The sin was that the American Right, or at least those who came to define the Right, never honestly challenged this claim.

Instead, Buckley-style conservatives accepted this two part assumption about the world and tried to fit their ideas within it. This was mostly expedience. By going along with the Left’s egalitarianism, they could have a place at the table. With the Civil Rights Movement, the Left claimed the moral high ground on the matter of race. Confronting them on the reality of race would have required courage the conservatives did not posses, so they chose to make an accommodation with the Left. Cowardice became a feature of the Right.

This mistake has haunted Buckleyites for fifty years, because there is no way to fit conservative ideas about society and culture with what amounts to race delusion. The fact that race is real, ethnicity is real and human diversity is immutable, means differences between the races are eternal. Worse yet, by casting the issue in moral terms, opposition to the Progressive race program was by definition immoral. After all, if racial differences can only be due to white racism, any white resistance to reform must be racism.

There was always another problem with Progressive race delusion. Eventually, the Left would run out of ways to address the immutable racial differences. That means they would run out of possible explanations, leaving them with just one conclusion. That is, racism is what defines white people, so the only way to achieve social equality is to get rid of white people entirely. This is why the media is full of over-the-top anti-white rhetoric. The Left  is now entirely defined by a visceral hatred of white people.

This leaves conventional conservatism with nowhere to run. When the Left howls about white privilege, the white guys of Conservative Inc. have no response, since they can’t get away from the fact that most of them are white. Then they have the neocons, the shape-shifters of American politics, who will be white and non-white depending upon how they want to play an issue. The result is that any resistance of the Left is automatically a white guy thing and therefore immoral. The prevailing morality is now explicitly anti-white.

As their ranks dwindle, the Buckleyites seem to have some sense they are now in a blind alley, but they are baffled as to why. Super-cuck David French thinks conservatives should try to out-hustle the race hustlers. Roger Clegg would like to hide under his bed until the issue goes away. That’s the default position of conservatives on most things now. The swarthy cohort  of the Buckleyites thinks the way forward is to bore everyone to death on the issue and this guy has decided to hold his breath or something.

The conservative position on the Left’s anti-white turn is a combination of pleading, groveling and wishful thinking. The reason is they can’t do anything else as long as they accept the Left’s egalitarianism and blank slate assumptions. If all the problems of the world are due to white racism, and all other efforts failed, it is only logical and moral to get rid of white people, or at least make them sub-citizens. If the problems persist, then killing off the whites is not just the right thing to do, it is the only thing that can be done.

Buckley conservatives have written often about the original sin of race, but the real original sin was their unwillingness to confront Progressives on their racial delusions. Whatever American Progressivism was in another age, in this age, for more than half a century, it has been a cult based on the belief that whites are the root of all evil. It is a toxic religion that makes Bolshevism look optimistic by comparison. There was never any reason to accommodate it, other than expediency and greed. Now it is the ruling ethos of our age.

The opposite of race delusion is not a different form of race delusion. That’s the problem with colorblind society argument. There can be no such thing as a colorblind society as long as society is populated by humans. Man is tribal and hierarchical. These are defining features of our species. To think otherwise is at odds with biological reality. The dream of the colorblind society we hear from civic nationalists is just as nutty as the Left’s delusions about racial justice. Egalitarianism is not just wrong, it is toxic and perverse.

The foundation stone of western conservatism is the unblinking acceptance of the human condition, without reservation. The point of society was to mitigate those aspects of the human condition that interfere with a peaceful and prosperous existence. The original sin of the Buckleyites is they agreed to abandon that core understanding. The result is a movement composed of hollow men, inexorably shuffling toward their demise, as they plead for a second chance. Sin pays its wages in death, but reality is eternal.

The Wrong Stuff

A regular feature of the news, going back decades, is how the military is struggling to meet its enlistment goals. One reason for this is the Left’s antiwar past, which is a big part of their origin myth. The geezers in the cult still carry on about how they protested the war in college. There’s also the fact that the Left needs to believe the tide is turning their way and the people are rushing to their banner. That means the sort of white men who join the service are in decline. The result is regular stories about the lack of recruits.

The thing is though, volunteer armies don’t have a great history. In the French Revolution, there were lots of people ready to fight for the revolution, but nowhere near enough to man the massive armies required to fight the rest of Europe. Wide-scale conscription was necessary to meet demand. The same was true during the Napoleonic Wars. In the 20th century, both world wars were fought with conscripts. For example, 70% of the US soldiers were drafted, despite massive public relations efforts to get men to enlist.

America has been running the world with a volunteer army for about fifty years now, but the cost has been enormous. Official spending numbers put the defense budget at about $600 billion per year, but lots of stuff is off-budget. The microprocessor has also been the great force multiplier. The United States has the most technologically advanced war machine in history and a fighting ethos to go with it. That just raises the cost of operations, relative to the overall fighting strength, in terms of manpower and material.

As a result, there is a general consensus that the current US military configuration is inadequate to continue ruling the world. This is a big part of Trump’s push to delegate some of the task to Europe and Asia. There really is no reason why the EU countries need any support from the US to police the Continent. The Russians have nukes, but the bear is poor and the people are in no condition to fight a war. In Asia, the Japanese and South Koreans could do much more to help deal with Chinese aggression.

There is another problem though, one that the Europeans have, but are not willing to acknowledge. That is the lack of men willing and able to fight. This is a problem American warmongers are beginning to notice in America. Right-wing Progressives are noticing that the struggle to meet enlistment goals are not just rhetorical. The military is struggling to find young men willing and able to do the work of a modern soldier. Those with the talent are wising up to the reality of this age and the rest simply have the wrong stuff.

For starters, the sorts of men excited about taking orders from a girl are not the sorts of men you want fighting your wars. That only works in Hollywood propaganda. That propaganda, however, has had an impact on the culture. As a result, a decreasing number of men are physically able to meet the minimum requirements. A boy who spent his formative years playing video games and being asked if he would prefer to wear a dress, is unlikely to have the ability to make it through basic, much less be a good soldier.

Then you have the fact that white guys are starting to figure out that the government is their enemy, so signing up to fight for the government is not in their interests. Part of it is the fact that the public has figured out that the neocon response to 9/11 was a scam. They did not care about keeping the country safe from Islam. They only cared about keeping Israel safe from Islam. Importing millions of Muslims after 9/11 did not go unnoticed. A volunteer army relies on patriotism to fill the ranks. Fighting for strangers does not cut it.

There’s also the fact that whites are getting wise to what’s happening and public trust is plummeting. A volunteer army not only relies on patriotism, but it relies on civic duty. It is why we still call military service a duty. Some still call politics “public service” even though no one is so naive these days. The point is, like patriotism, civic nationalism is a social contract. Both parties have to uphold their end of the deal in order for it to work. It’s why blacks lack patriotism and they have never been willing to join the military.

The black issue is one to understand. We are constantly bombarded with propaganda about the heroic blacks in the military, but blacks have always been under represented in the services. Blacks, of course, are leading the charge against the  national anthem. It’s not just a stunt by coddled athletes. Blacks in America have never felt a sense of duty to the country, which makes perfect sense, given the nature of black identity. If you see society as dominated by the people you hate, why would you feel loyalty to society?

Then you have the much celebrated browning of America. As of the last census, the majority of people under-18 are non-white. By the next census, it will be distinctly non-white. War fighting is a young man’s game. A military built to run on smart white guys with a sense of duty is not going to function when it has to rely on non-whites, who despise their host population. Inevitably, the military is going to start looking like a Chicano version of Stripes. No one says it, but everyone in charge sees the problem.

The response will be a greater reliance on high technology, but the cost of the robot warrior goes up faster than his effectiveness. No one bothers to notice that the space age war machine of the Unites States has been fought to a standstill by cave dwelling archaics in Afghanistan. Trillions have been spent trying to outsmart the locals and the graveyard of empires is going to win anyway. In the end, there is no replacement for human capital and there is no way to replace the premier human capital with cheap knockoffs from overseas.