Category Archives: Politics

Trust Nothing

Posted on by

The official story on the seditious plot to overturn the 2016 election is that nothing happened and citizens should return to the economic duties. A few over-enthusiastic agents engaged in nothing more than office gossip. All is well. Like everything that comes from the rulers, this is all nonsense, but this is just how things are with a highly corrupt ruling class. The rulers don’t lie because they are hiding something. They lie because they take pleasure in humiliating the people.

There are plenty of theories about what went on, supported by leaked documents and clever people fitting puzzle pieces together. The website The Last Refuge has done a lot of work aggregating publicly available data. They are a bit conspiratorial and often fill in blanks with speculation, but they have a lot of good stuff. Doug Ross has put together an amazing list of news items related to the plot. Seeing all of the planted news stories in chronological format makes for interesting reading.

The sober minded analysis says that elements in the FBI and the DOJ took it upon themselves to help the Clinton campaign win the 2016 election. Some of them were motivated by greed. Some are obvious fanatics. Others are just mediocrities, who rose well above their abilities and were easy patsies. They planted stories in the press to then use to get FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. That information was then leaked to the media and to the Clinton campaign through cutouts.

The reckless nature of the operation has been explained as resulting from the belief by the participants that Clinton was a lock to win the election. Clinton would come in and reward these people with good jobs and the whole operation would be locked away in the vaults. When Trump won, the plotters were forced to go into damage control, which is why they cooked up the Russian collusion scheme. The special prosecutor would sequester the details of the plot from public view.

Additionally, the special prosecutor would build and trap to ensnare Trump and his people, which would then be used to impeach him or force him to resign. It’s clear that Senator Mark Warner and Senator Richard Burr were deeply involved in orchestrating this scheme. It’s why they went to war over Trump nominating a loyalist, John Ratcliffe, to the DNI position. Warner and Burr need one of their people in that job, so incriminating information is not declassified by Bill Barr.

That’s the unofficial version of the plot. It’s the sort of narrative that is fun to follow, but not a conspiracy theory that requires great leaps of faith. There’s not much in the way of assumed associations, which is the stock device of conspiracy theory. Person X is around Person Y, so it assumed they are connected. That connection is then used to connect a bunch of unrelated people and events. This narrative lacks that as there is plenty of documentation to tie all of these people together.

The trouble is, the supposed motivation to setting this whole thing off is based on a glaring contradiction. The conspirators supposedly did all of these things, because they just assumed Clinton would win in a landslide. Well, if they really thought that, why bother with the shenanigans? There’s also the fact that most of the people in this caper are incompetent office drones. On the FBI side, the participants are careerist nobodies, who rose up the ranks through rumpswabbery and time serving.

The Watergate break-in has been mythologized by the Left, but the caper itself is probably instructive when analyzing the FBI corruption. The people who actually broke into the Watergate thought they were pulling a campaign caper. The person who organized it, John Dean, appears to have been working a separate operation that he kept from the burglars. That’s the thesis of the book Silent Coup. Dean engineered the break in and cover up for reasons having nothing to do with politics.

Given the presence of oleaginous schemers like Rod Rosenstein in the middle of every aspect of this caper, the comparison to Dean is natural. When you factor in people like Clapper, Brennan and people in Congress, the natural question is what is their interest in this caper? It’s possible that these people are just natural schemers, the sorts that are always attracted to power. Royal courts have been hives of these people since the first human settlements. Maybe these people just like the action.

There being some unknown first mover in all of this would explain a few things. The clowns from the FBI should have been charged by now. The worst they could do is rat on some other flunkies in the political scene. Cutting a deal so they take the pinch like men would be easy. The same would be true of the FISA abuse stuff. There’s no obvious upside to concealing what everyone assumes to be true. This whole thing could have been wrapped up a long time ago, but it still lingers.

The same can be said for the impeachment stuff. The House Democrats are intent on holding impeachment hearings. Politically, they think it is a good idea, despite all the evidence to the contrary. That suggests they know something the rest of us don’t know or they think they do. One reason for the Mueller probe was to build an impeachment trap for Trump that Congress could spring on him. That seems to have failed, but what if there is something else going on here?

Supposedly, the IG will be releasing his reports over the next few months, so we should learn a bit more, even if it just a white wash. Often, what the official story excludes is what matters. Bill Barr has been promising to release documents to clear up the FBI sedition, so maybe that will fill in some blanks. Even so, this is a story that lacks a sensible origin point and believable narrative. There’s something missing. We’ll probably never know the full story, but the current version is surely false.

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 Debates

Posted on by

Watching the Democrats debate the last two nights, the unmistakable impression is that the people turning America into a land of strangers has not thought about how such a land can operate as a democracy. The debate field has just about one from every category among the ascendant. The only thing they are missing is a 65-IQ East African and a Muslim wearing a dynamite vest. Otherwise, the field looks like the brochure for multiculturalism the party likes to wave around.

The trouble is, the impression one gets while watching the parade of strange faces and bizarre identities is that these people are not capable of doing much of anything. The only thing they have going for them is their intersectional claim to have been oppressed by Joe Biden at some point. They spend all of their time talking about how they feel about various things and how they have been made to suffer by the man, but otherwise they have nothing to say about anything relevant to the job.

That’s been the theme so far. In round one, the angry black women, who used to sleep with Willie Brown, led the charge against Joe Biden. Creepy Uncle Joe was a racist because 80 years ago when he started running for office, he held normal opinions about stuff like most everyone at the time. Everyone else then spent their time explaining how they have never had normal thoughts about anything. It was a two-episode explanation on why none of those people are like you.

Round two was much the same, except this time a Jewish mystic showed up selling incense and dream catchers, while warning of dark forces. Marianne Williamson stole the show on night one, by sounding like that woman at the office, who likes to talk about your aura and her friend the psychic. According the on-line polls, she was the clear winner and she was the most searched name during the show. Looking at black twitter, it was clear she was their favorite, as well.

The second night was billed as Angry Black Women versus Creepy Uncle Joe, round two, but it was mostly just everyone feeling sorry for themselves. The women who slept with Willy Brown reminded everyone of those videos of black women going nuts in a fast food joint. The rest took turns trying to explain why Biden’s racism made them feel bad for some reason. The lone exception was Gabbard, who probably won the night by sounding like an adult, rather than a toddler.

Normally, at least back when the word “normal” did not get you fired from your job, watching the other side debate made a normal person a little angry. The other side would characterize your side and your issues in ways that seemed unfair. In the glorious future, watching “the other side” is like watching the movie Jackass. You’re made uncomfortable because you laugh at things that no adult should find funny. Last night was two hours of Ow My Balls! in real time.

The one exception has been Gabbard, but she is the poster child for why so many of us have thrown in the towel on America. She is a childless women of mysterious origins, running on the basis of her military service. Like the gay guy from Indiana, she likes reminding us that she is a veteran. Unlike the gay guy, she regularly claims to be a combat veteran. She has other positions, but the starting point of her career is that she was a soldier that served in Afghanistan.

At the risk of sounding impolite, no decent man wants to live in a society that sends its mothers and daughters into combat. If you want to understand why so many of us harbor dark thoughts about the people who rule over us, it’s right there. Tulsi Gabbard should be home raising her children, not running for president. No women should be serving in the military, outside of administrative and medical areas. There should never be a discussion about putting girls in combat – ever.

Of course, the point of these ridiculous shows they are calling political debates is to normalize the crap-fest heading our way. The future is not going to be a boot stamping a human face. The future is going to be a parade of formerly marginal people mewing about their troubles, while a mysterious brown women tells war stories. What we saw the last two nights is a society running on the capital built up over generations, by people no longer allowed to be in charge of their society.

The response from the civic nationalist types is that this freak show will backfire on the Democrats, giving Trump an easy victory. That not only misses the point, it assume a normal society should have someone like Trump in the presidency. Just as the normalcy of the Happa Warrior underscores the lunacy of the Democrat field, the relative normalcy of Trump underscores the degeneracy of the modern age. If Trump is the best we can do, then Kim Jong-un can’t nuke this place fast enough.

That brings us back to where we started. The billionaires and plutocrats behind this circus have to wonder what they have done. They may be without scruples, but they are not stupid. They have to see that no society can function with fruitcakes like Gay Spartacus in positions of authority. Maybe that’s why real authority is slowly being shifted from the political class to the emerging power centers like Silicon Valley. The over-class sees what we see and is acting accordingly.

Support the media that supports you. While all of us toiling in the fields of dissident media are motivated by a sense of duty, having a place to sleep and food on the table still requires money. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. Or, you can send money to me at: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. I now have a PayPal setup for those who prefer that method to donate. Thank you for your support!

The Gladiator

Posted on by

In the movie Gladiator, Russell Crowe plays Maximus Decimus Meridius, a Roman general who is betrayed by the demented son of the Emperor. His downfall first leads to him in a slave camp and then as a gladiator in the provinces. His prowess as a fighter leads him to Rome to fight before the emperor, where he is revealed to be the famous general, in Rome to seek his revenge. The movie is a reworked version of the Count of Monte Cristo, but set in imperial Rome.

The subtext of the movie, is that the honor and integrity of the main character is what will eventually bring him home. Maximus is a loyal and honest man who serves Rome, without personal ambition. The bad guy, the Emperor’s son Commodus, is motivated by nothing but personal ambition and a deranged lust for his sister. Maximus fights and wins by the rules, even when the rules are rigged against him. Commodus lies, cheats and even kills his own father to get what he wants.

The juxtaposition, the honorable, rule-based hero, versus the ends justifies the means villain, is a common devise in American culture. When Hollywood made movies with traditional male leads, this was a common setup. Gladiator is probably the last movie featuring a normal male hero. Even though the hero dies in the end, he does so in a way that completes his arc and confirms that underlying assertion. In this case, the brave man died once while the coward died a thousand deaths.

All of this comes to mind when examining the political career of Kris Kobach. He is the champion of immigration patriots, now running for the Senate in Kansas. He had been rumored for jobs in the Trump White House, but Trump’s daughter feared he would be too effective and vetoed the idea. Instead, he has been left twisting in the wind by his own party and by the President he helped to elect. Like Maximus in the slave camp, Kris Kobach is without friends in high places.

Similarly, Kobach is determined to get back to the Imperial Capital, not to slay the emperor, but to be the voice of reason. His Senate run is considered a long shot, given that he lost the gubernatorial race in 2018. On the other hand, that was an off-year election and there was a lot of shenanigans in that race. His own party sabotaged his chances by running third-party candidates. With Trump at the top of the ticket, the winds may be more favorable for Kobach this time.

Of course, there is the chance his own party pulls some shenanigans this time, but with the Senate in the balance, maybe not. Then again, they were happy to throw the 2018 House elections in order to prevent Trump from getting anything done in his first term. Like the movie, Imperial America is thoroughly corrupt and no man can count on the honor of anyone in either party. If Kobach is make it back to the imperial capital, he will do so on the strength of his own virtue.

This belief that in the end, the virtuous will triumph over the villainous, the truth will prevail over falsehoods, is at the heart of civic nationalism. Despite all the evidence around us, the civic nationalist insists that if we get the right people in office, make the right arguments and pass the right laws, all the problems of democracy can be resolved. In order for that to happen, they insist that everyone assiduously play by the rules and support the democratic process.

In this regard, Kris Kobach may be the last true civic nationalist in politics. He is a genuine, issues based candidate that is playing by the rules in order to save that system of rules, not because it advantages him. In fact, the rules disadvantage him, but he is counting on the virtue of his fellow citizens to overcome that reality. His supporters are fighting with him, because they don’t want to give up on a system that has long ago given up on them. They still have hope.

Now, it is unlikely that his supporters will be chanting “Maximus” at Kobach rallies, although it would be great if they did. He is, like the character from the movie, the last champion for an old idea. Maximus was the old idea of Rome, while Kobach is that old idea that was America. While lots of people lament the passing of the old idea, only the champion is willing to fight for it. Like the character in the movie, Kobach’s end is most likely to have his corpse carried out of the arena by his supporters.

At the end of the movie, when they are carrying the hero’s body out of the arena, Commodus lies dead in the dust. The arc of both lives had reached their end. The hero would return to what he loved and to be with his family. The villain and what he represented gone for good. Presumably, what would come next for Rome was not the old Rome represented by Maximus or the Rome represented by Commodus. It would be something different, having gone through this ordeal.

Perhaps that is the best way to look at the Kobach campaign. Maybe he wins and maybe it begins the slow turn back to sanity that seems impossible. Maybe his campaign will ignite the revolt of Middle America. On the other hand, maybe it is the last chapter of the old way of doing things. Perhaps the result will be the final acceptance that what comes next is not a return to the past, but instead an overturning of the present in order to get to something new for our people.

Support the media that supports you. While all of us toiling in the fields of dissident media are motivated by a sense of duty, having a place to sleep and food on the table still requires money. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. Or, you can send money to me at: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. I now have a PayPal setup for those who prefer that method to donate. Thank you for your support!

Orange Versus Black

Posted on by

Just when you thought it was safe, after the Mueller testimony was a colossal flop, President Trump finds a way to get everyone outraged all over again. His tweets about Congressman Elijah Cummings and his congressional district, have all the usual suspects pointing and sputtering. Given the amount of pointing and sputtering they have had to do the last three years, it is a miracle that they can even sputter. It should not be possible to be outraged for three years, but here we are.

Of course, the usual suspects are howling about the racism, as Cummings is black and his district is a black carve out. It includes some of the worst parts of Baltimore city, which means the mostly black parts. The district is about 30% white, which is why Cummings wins his elections with ease. In 2018 he won with 76% of the vote. If you are white and trapped in one of these districts, voting is pointless. In fact, voting for anyone is pointless as the results are known in advance.

As is custom with these types of districts, Cumming is as crooked as a ram’s horn. His wife runs a shady charity that gets millions from people with business in front the Congressman’s committee. He also seems to have some connection with the recent scandal that brought down the last mayor of Baltimore. In one of his tweets, Trump mentioned the corruption. It should be pretty easy to run a sting on Cummings, but he is off limits for the reason everyone knows, but does not say.

Of course, no one will bother disputing the facts of Trump’s tweets. That’s a dangerous subject that must never be mentioned. Any examination of Baltimore would not only reveal Trump is right, but also reveal those things we all know are true, but are told we must never mention. Baltimore is a black city and the highest crime areas are the blackest areas. For example, 92.9% of those arrested for murder are black and 91% of their victims are black. Crime in Baltimore is a black thing.

 

Of course, this is something everyone knows to be true. In fact, no one alive in modern America has ever lived in a time when people were puzzled about the nature of crime, with regards to race. The reason the urban hipsters exist is their hipster neighborhoods were ethnically cleansed of non-whites, mostly blacks. Giuliani cleaned up Manhattan by having the police put out the unwelcome mat for blacks. The stop and frisk policy was a success, because it relied on those assumptions about race and crime.

This link between race and crime is so well understood, efforts to conceal it have become a meme on social media. For example, when the news says they are looking for teens involved in a wilding incident, everyone knows what it means. Here’s one from Washington. The same thing is true for the party shootings, which always have a certain color to them. Here’s one from the current news. Shootings at block parties are like shootings at hip-hop concerts. Everyone knows what it means.

Of course, black crime is a young black male problem. When the Obama Administration tried to make the case that the cops are racists, they learned that the cops are probably not racist enough. In their report on crime, they found that young black males are 3% of the population and near 30% of homicides. Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders. The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000).

The fact is, crime in Baltimore, like everywhere in America, is a black thing. The internent meme “1350” works because it is something everyone knows, even if they don’t know the exact details. Even when the issue is contained in certain sections of cities, people are made painfully aware of this reality, because crime in the hood does not stay in the hood. Every white person in America has a story in their family tree that involves leaving the old neighborhood because it went bad.

That brings us back to Trump. In sane world, his noticing the obvious should not be front page news, but we don’t live in a sane age. As the legendary quantitative blogger said long ago, “There are very few moments in a man’s existence when he experiences so much hostility, or meets with so little benevolence, as when he challenges fashionable perceptions of race.” Trump is about to face a fury of hostility from the usual suspects that no man has withstood in the past.

In fact, one of the usual suspects responsible for inflicting Barak Obama on the country is predicting that this is the Gettysburg of his presidency. From the perspective of the usual suspects, of course, Trump is Lee in this analogy. Like Charlottesville, this event will be the rallying cry for the Left until the election. Whatever other issues come up in the next year and a half, the 2020 election will be about race, specifically the old Progressive view of race versus one based in observable reality.

That is fundamentally the choice before us. Do we want to accept the Progressive view on the human condition, slowly sinking into the desperate, grinding poverty of a place like Baltimore? Or, we will not accept that and do what is required to prevent America from becoming a multicultural ghetto ruled by and parasitic elite? That’s what Baltimore is right now. It is a vision of tomorrow that no one should welcome. It does not have to be that way, but the only way to prevent it is to face it.

Support the media that supports you. While all of us toiling in the fields of dissident media are motivated by a sense of duty, having a place to sleep and food on the table still requires money. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. Or, you can send money to me at: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. I now have a PayPal setup for those who prefer that method to donate. Thank you for your support!

A Day At The Theater

Posted on by

Politics in a modern democracy is mostly theater. The various actors hired by the wealthy, put on shows for the people. Today, we have entire television outlets dedicated to staging these performances. Sometimes the performances are intended to sway public opinion on an issue. Sometimes they are intended to distract the public from something important. The Russian collusion hoax was intended to be a distraction, so the public would not think about the FBI corruption.

The difference between Hollywood and political theater is a different measure of the return on investment. Hollywood can make a crappy movie that goes straight to video, but still make money, as long as the cost was low. Killer Klowns from Outer Space can be a success, even though it is a ridiculously bad movie, because it was cheap and has become a cult favorite. Hank Johnson worrying about Guam flipping over really does not work the same way.

Political theater is all about keeping one faction of the public engaged in the political process, ideally at the expense of another faction. The Left gives some character on the Right a rough time, so the public is either exhilarated for their side, the Democrats in this case, or angry at their side, the Republicans. That’s a success for both teams of actors, as their handlers get the engagement they seek from the public. The public is focused on the theater, rather than the laws being passed.

As much as pundits mock the political theater, the people staging these events are pretty good at their job. Mass media has provided them with tools to engage even the most disinterested of the public. Fifty years ago, most people paid little attention to politics or political theater. A century ago, about 15% of adults bothered to vote in presidential elections. Today, half of all adults vote in presidential elections and about 65% of eligible voters turned out in the last presidential election.

That’s what makes the Mueller hearings a puzzler. Five minutes watching Mueller made clear that he is an old man who has lost a step. He was never a brilliant guy to begin with, but he could play his role as the horse-face Brahman. Today, he has the horse face, but not much else. His fumbling around with friendly questions from the Democrats was hard to watch. Anyone who has had to deal with a family member making the long slow walk into the sunset knows the feeling.

These events are not just a last minute staging. The Democrats have been working for months to put this show together. Staffers would have spent weeks preparing questions, preparing Mueller for those questions and making sure he knew the answers he was expected to give. The point of these shows is to provide soundbites for state-run media to use in the following propaganda broadcast. In fact, the cable channels get a heads up on those soundbites in advance.

Yet none of that happened. Instead, poor old horse face was left to look like a guy who had wondered off from the home. Instead of clips of him repeating the scripted catch phrases, it was clips of him fumbling about looking confused. It would take a heart of stone to not feel some anger at the people who put that old man through that ridiculous hearing in front of Congress. Lefty media was so caught off-guard, they were forced to concede the obvious and call it a debacle.

Now, maybe that was the point. The Russian collusion hoax has become a problem for the political class, because the people still peddling it make Mike Cernovich seem like a sober minded skeptic. Maybe this show was not really for public consumption, so much as a way to embarrass the people peddling the Russian conspiracy theory and the impeachment nonsense. If so, they forgot to let the presidential candidates know, as they were out demanding impeachment the same day.

Just as Hollywood makes expensive flops and Broadway has shows that close after a month, the political class has their flops too. McDonald’s, the most successful fast food operation on earth, once tried selling a burger you had to assemble yourself. The Arch Deluxe is considered one of the great product flops in history. Hollywood, of course, has made a lot of box-office bombs that lost tens of millions for the backers. Maybe that’s what we saw with this hearing. It was the Gigli of politics.

That said, political disasters tend to have downstream consequences that you don’t see in the theater or in Hollywood. In the entertainment realm, they just accept the occasional disaster as a cost of doing business. In politics, these disasters tend to shift the political dynamic by discrediting one side. In this case, the Democrats may have disqualified themselves as reliable critics of Trump, just as Bill Kristol and the neocons did to themselves back in the 2016 election.

With an election coming up, simply being against Trump more than the other guy is not going to be a winning strategy. If you look at the Democrat race thus far, it is has been a contest to see who can be the most creative at hating white people and who can be the most enthusiastic in hating orange man. After the Mueller hearing, the field may be left with just hating white people. Poor old creepy Uncle Joe could be in for a very rough time of it at the next debate with the brown horde.

Theater, especially political theater, relies heavily on symbolism. The sad image of Bob Mueller, a caricature of WASP America, fumbling about for answers, was a powerful image for the ascendant. They did not see a failed performance. For them, they saw the door opening for their opportunity to take the stage. The only thing missing from that show was a chorus lead by Ocasio-Cortez, singing Tomorrow Belongs To Me. In that regard, the show was not a total bust.

Support the media that supports you. While all of us toiling in the fields of dissident media are motivated by a sense of duty, having a place to sleep and food on the table still requires money. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. Or, you can send money to me at: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. I now have a PayPal setup for those who prefer that method to donate. Thank you for your support!

We Need A New Elite

Posted on by

Probably the worst thing Buckley conservatives did to their middle-class white supporters is instill in them an unconditional love of rich people. Conservatism accomplished very little, but one thing it did amazingly well is hypnotize middle-class whites into instinctively and ferociously defending the rights and privileges of the rich and powerful. Even today, the most racially aware white still gets a little angry when they hear an Ocasio-Cortez or Liz Warren rail against the rich.

This conditioning, of course, was deliberate. The super-rich donors that made Buckley conservatism possible saw the movement as a vehicle to protect their interests from the Left during the Cold War. It’s not that the American Left was ever a real threat to the rich and powerful, as most of them came from rich and powerful families. Progressivism has always been a rich man’s religion in America. It’s that the Left put a lot of conditions on the rich, something we see today with the Left-Corporate alliance.

With Buckley conservatism, the middle-class could be turned into an army of defenders that put no conditions on the rich. By the 1980’s, the anti-communism of Buckley conservatism was turning into the worship of rich people. The movie Wall Street or the popular TV show Family Ties are good examples. There you have heroic figures, who are pure materialists, with no sense of duty to their fellow man. Getting rich, by any means necessary, was a social good in itself.

This conception of conservatism is thoroughly at odds with any past conceptions of conservatism. In fact, there was never anything conservative about Buckley conservatism. From Joseph de Maistre to Russel Kirk, conservatism accepted that every society has a ruling elite. In order for a society to function, that elite must be explicit and indebted to the welfare of the society over which they rule. Conservatism always started with an understanding of duties and obligations.

Whatever Buckley may have said or written in his younger days, by the time the conservative movement reached it maturity, it was something that would have been unrecognizable to a historic conservative. It was a celebration of materialism and individualism that placed no obligations on the elite. Instead, it divorced the rich and powerful from their duties, turning their indifference into a virtue. That virtue has now curdled into a contempt not seen since the French Revolution.

To this day, the few intellectual hobos shuffling around the ruins of Buckley conservatism still try to peddle this lie. They wave around the Medusa head, painted up as Ocasio-Cortez, in an effort to scare their dwindling ranks into thinking socialism is their great enemy. That only a suicidal defense of those terribly vulnerable billionaires will prevent the Left from raising their taxes. It is a revolting display of toadyism that makes a decent man ball his fist and have dark thoughts.

Much of what ails the American Empire today is rooted in this terrible trick played upon the white middle-class of America. Once the Cold War ended, vast resources used to fight the communists could have been turned toward addressing long ignored problems in the homeland. Instead, the white middle-class went on a long orgy of pointless consumption, while a new class of super-rich oligarchs rose up, unconstrained by any obligation to the society that spawned them.

The truth is, if America had better rich people, rich people who felt a sense of duty to their fellow citizens, there would be no dissident right. Even putting aside race realism, if the rich just embraced an immigration and economic policy that was explicitly good for Americans, there would be no Donald Trump. The political center of America would be to the Right of the current GOP. The debates would be about how best to manage trade with the world and how best to guard the border.

Instead, we have political parties that despise their own voters, financed by billionaires, who despise the American people. Of course, this culture of contempt is not just an American phenomenon. It has spread throughout the empire, infecting the rich and powerful of the West. This story about the billionaires of France reneging on their commitment to rebuild Notre Dame is a perfect example. These people carry on like spoiled brats, living in the moment, indifferent to everyone.

In a business, bankruptcy is when the current arrangements are no longer sustainable, so the enterprise is either liquidated or reconstructed. That requires terminating current management, either to be replaced with better people, who will bring the firm back to solvency or so the firm can be dissolved. In a nation, revolution is similar, in that current elites need to be eliminated so a new set of elites can retool the country and bring it back to health. Bankruptcy and revolution are about new beginnings.

That’s where things are in the West, but America in particular. The current elites are rotten to the core. They are irredeemable. There’s no talking them out of their corruption or appealing to their humanity, at least not until they are on the gallows. These are people who now define themselves in opposition to that which makes nations possible and makes a people possible. For the people of the West to regain their sense of self, to make countries into homelands again, it means replacing the current elites.

The people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.

–Thomas Jefferson, Paris 1787

Support the media that supports you. While all of us toiling in the fields of dissident media are motivated by a sense of duty, having a place to sleep and food on the table still requires money. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. Or, you can send money to me at: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. I now have a PayPal setup for those who prefer that method to donate. Thank you for your support!

Self-Loathing As Medicine

Posted on by

At the national conservatism conference, a recurring theme of the speeches was the awfulness of identity politics. The speakers would not get into the details, beyond noting it made unifying the country impossible. There were no references to black identity or the variety of group identities coming from the grievance studies departments. They would just refer to it in the same way that people refer to drug taking of drunk driving. That is, these are obviously immoral things that good people know to avoid.

The thing is though, this sort of talk only occurs in front of white people. Despite all the invective aimed at people on the dissident right, about their alleged racism, there was not a lot of diversity at the conference. A back of the envelope count says it was 65% white, 30% Jewish and 5% other. It may have been more Jewish than that, but not every Jew wears a yarmulke. Regardless, there may have been one black person and a few dozen people of mysterious origins. No a lot of vibrancy.

In other words, despite the hooting about white racism, the room was full of white people, who spend most of their time around white people or fellow whites. The typical black person experiences vastly more diversity in his daily life. Even the emotionally crippled women of the gender studies department get more diversity. The point being, Joe Sobran’s line about liberals applies to the various types of conservatives and now these newfangled national conservatives.

Putting that aside though, the typical white person in America really and truly does think identity politics is a bad thing. They look at the alternatives to the bourgeois civic nationalism of their lives and see that it is a shabby alternative. In fact, non-white identity politics can only exist where white people are in sufficient numbers to keep the water flowing and the lights working. That’s because identity politics is actually just anti-white politics. It is an entirely negative identity.

No public white person would dare say such a thing, but that’s the truth of it and more and more white people are waking up to it. The old paleocons can pearl-clutch this stuff all they like, but there is no turning back from it. Lecturing white America on the dangers of identity politics is now getting people killed. The only responsible thing to say in front of a white audience on the subject is the truth. What animates the new faces of the Democrat party, for example, is a hatred of white people.

Of course, one reason why the people railing against identity politics do so exclusively in front of white audiences is they fear this truth settling in on whites. That’s why tirades against white nationalism often coincide with the tirades against identity politics. They are two sides of the same coin, which is a fear that whites will begin to see their collective interests as primary. If in the next election whites vote their skin, Trump wins a fifty state landslide and 70% of the popular vote.

At the risk of over-making the point, these lectures to whites about identity politics are more insidious than they seem at first blush. The temptation is to assume it is just bourgeois white people extolling civic nationalism, by criticizing anything that undermines civic unity. Alternatively, it is a way for these people to puff out their chests and declare that it is the Democrats who are the real racists. Even today, this is a wildly popular tick among the civic nationalist types.

There’s something more important about these lectures. They are built on the assumption that the worst of all identity politics is white identity politics. Blacks embracing their racial awareness is not only ignored, but often celebrated by the same people fretting over white identity. Jewish identity, of course, is the greatest of all possible things. A multi-million dollar celebration of it was just staged in the capital, along with hundreds of media people, marched in to report on it.

White identity, well, that’s the worst and that’s why these lectures against identity politics never happen in front of non-whites. David French does not spend his days going to colleges demanding they junk their black studies departments. The boys at various Koch Brothers rackets are not going to the grievance studies departments, holding seminars on the dangers of identity politics. Instead, rants against identity politics are only aimed at white audiences, because white identity is what they fear.

When you witness this stuff up close, it is hard not to get angry about it and develop a deep loathing for the people behind it. When a Tucker Carlson does a bit on the evils of identity politics, one has to wonder if he is really an asset. To perpetuate white self-loathing in an age of racial politics and minority-majority demographics is to invite terror upon white people. To anathematize whites in order to prevent white identity is to counsel the victim to just like back and take it.

In fairness, a lot of the hooting about identity politics from civic nationalists is just alienation dressed up as nostalgia. They feel the same loss the rest of us feel for an America that is never going to return. Those on this side of the great divide have come to terms with it and seek to build a new identity that provides community and a sense of purpose. The civic nationalist just wallow in the self-pity and nostalgia. They are the new flagellants, who think more self-harm will solve the problem.

Support the media that supports you. While all of us toiling in the fields of dissident media are motivated by a sense of duty, having a place to sleep and food on the table still requires money. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. Or, you can send money to me at: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. I now have a PayPal setup for those who prefer that method to donate. Thank you for your support!

A Book Of Contradictions

Posted on by

When reading Yoram Hazony’s book, The Virtue of Nationalism, the image that keeps coming to mind is of a man working a puzzle, only to keep arriving at an unsatisfactory conclusion. There’s the period where it feels like it is all coming together, then that moment when he realizes the emerging answer is all wrong. Not factually wrong, but unacceptably wrong. After a brief moment of terror, he then throws his work into the fireplace and begins again with a fresh sheet of paper.

The point of the book is to make the case for nationalism, but not just any old form of nationalism. Hazony sets out to craft a new definition of nationalism that is essentially Zionism, without the overtly Jewish attributes. It is a nationalism that any people can embrace, but not every people can have. He then compares this form of nationalism with the alternative, making the case that this form of nationalism is superior. In the process he makes some interesting claims that are worth exploring.

The book starts with the rather interesting claim that imperialism is a political system that “seeks to bring peace and prosperity to the world by uniting mankind, as much as possible, under a single political regime.” This a curious way to describe empire that makes imperialism sound like a hippy movement from the 1960’s. While it is true that empires grow from a desire to create peace for the conqueror, the prosperity and happiness of the conquered is never a concern.

This odd way of defining imperialism is a part of his rhetorical sleight of hand. What he seeks to do is redefine imperialism away from its biological and material motivations, to something that is ideological. The empire is not about putting one tribe ahead of all others or the material benefit of the emperor. It is about imposing a politics and culture on all people. The reason this is important is it allows Harzony to claim that Nazism is imperialistic, not nationalistic, in its fundamental nature.

Few scholars of fascism would agree with this, even though they would acknowledge that Nazism was expansionist and probably necessarily so. This is the result of the geopolitics of the period, not the inherent logic of fascism. That’s not the point. What Harzony is doing is inoculating himself and Zionism against the charge that is always leveled at nationalism. That is, it the logical endpoint of it is Nazism and that inevitably leads to war, genocide and barbarism.

That is the real argument of the book. Harzony puts no effort into explaining how his conception of nationalism could be applied in Europe or America. Instead, his argument is that Zionism, Jewish nationalism, is both the pure form of nationalism and the best form of human organization. It allows a people to chart their own destiny, but also prevents one nation from meddling in the affairs of another. A world composed of naturally occurring nation-states would be peaceful and prosperous.

He is not wrong. Judaism is the purist expression of nationalism. On the one hand, you have a collection of people, who not only share a language, history and religion, they share a common ancestor, hand-picked by God. Not only that, the Lord picked a land for his chosen people. To be a Jew is to be a member of a timeless tribe with an unrivaled link to the heavens and an unrivaled claim on the land. It is a sense of nation that transcends time, place and boundaries.

This is where Hazony reaches that point where the emerging answer to the puzzle he is working terrifies him. If a nation is a people with a common language, customs, history, territory and ancestors, then how is it wrong for a nation to not accept foreigners into their ranks? If France is for the French, they should have the right to deport the non-French from their lands? More precisely, would they not have a duty to deport these people, as their patriotic duty is to preserve the nation for future generations?

To get around these obvious difficulties, Hazony compares the nation to a family with lots of adopted children. Some reviewers think this sort of equivocating is a bow to the ideological realities of this age, but a closer reading suggests he is concerned with a different part of his audience. If a nation can decide who it allows in, based on its own internal logic and customs, then there can be no moral basis for opposing racism or antisemitism, as both are just natural extensions of nationalism.

Of course, the other problem with nationalism for the Zionist is the case of the Arab minorities in the Levant. If a nation is defined as a people with a common language, history and territory, then why can’t the Palestinians have a country? Why are their claims against Israel not valid? In chapter 17 Harzony resolves this by refining his definition of nationalism to limit it only to those who can attain a nation. In other words, everyone can have a nation, if they can get it and keep it.

In chapter nine we get another one of those moments where you can imagine him pulling up short as he realizes the implication of what he is writing. He starts out making the case for the biological underpinning of human society, then realizes where that is headed and swerves into the guardrail of civic nationalism. Then in the following two chapters, he makes the dissident case against social contract theory and the case against the materialist view of society peddled by libertarians.

If you can ignore the whiplash, the book has some excellent points to make that dissidents would be wise to read. In chapter 15 he carefully explains how federalism cannot work, using the case of America leading to the Civil War. He then compares that to the internationalist dream of a world controlled by supranational bodies arbitrating disputes between states. In the following chapter, he eviscerates the arguments of Ben Shapiro, without actually naming him.

Chapter 16 is his best chapter and one of the strongest arguments for ethno-nationalism you will find, outside of dissident circles. That chapter would not look out of place in Greg Johnson’s White Nationalist Manifesto. It is both an argument against multiculturalism and an argument in favor of ethno-nationalism. He is careful to avoid directly mentioning the biological aspect of nationalism, but no rational person can read that chapter and no think Hazony assumes a biological root to nationalism.

The last section of the book, which most reviewers apparently skipped, offers some very interesting insights into Zionism. In chapter 22 he writes about the shame Jews feel over not having fought back against the Nazis and how this is integral to Jewish nationalism and national identity. Instead of Jews being a people whose men and women stood helplessly as their children were murdered by the Nazis, Israel is a nation of armed men and women defending their children.

Similarly, chapter 24 offers insight into why Jews see criticism of Israel as a form of racism and antisemitism. On the one hand, they see the West adopting the Kantian model of nations, which holds white nations to a higher standard that non-white nations, like the Arab countries surrounding Israel. That’s the racism. On the other hand, the imperialist opposition to nationalism, which is what defines the Jewish people, is a hostility only aimed at Israel. That’s the antisemitism.

As is to be expected with polemical book, The Virtue of Nationalism will drive the pedant mad at times. Hazony makes some odd claims about the Thirty Years War. His view of Catholicism is weird and comes close to bigotry. As stated at the beginning, his definition of imperialism is hard to accept. Of course, the equivocation on the biological foundations of nationalism, especially Jewish nationalism, will strike a certain type of reader as predictable. That said, it is a good read for the dissident.

Finally, something that is not touched on by Hazony, but is implied in all Zionist discussions of nationalism, is this basic reality. For Israel to exist as currently constructed, it needs a robust relationship with a robust America. That America can only exist as a majority white and chauvinistically white. This inevitably puts the Zionist on the same side as the white nationalist. It turns out that the great irony of this age is that the fate of the West may ride on ancient enemies finding common ground.

Support the media that supports you. While all of us toiling in the fields of dissident media are motivated by a sense of duty, having a place to sleep and food on the table still requires money. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. Or, you can send money to me at: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. I now have a PayPal setup for those who prefer that method to donate. Thank you for your support!

At War With Ourself

Posted on by

In the age of kings, the monarch’s interest in the economy or in the law, was purely personal. Trade with another kingdom, for example, was about how it would profit the king and the people who served him. The same was true of domestic policy, where the point was to maintain order, so the king remained king. In theory, the king was the leader of his people and charged with looking out for their welfare, but in reality the reciprocal obligations were about maintaining the interests of the king.

In any system of personal rule, the law is about maintaining the relationships between the individuals in society. Disputes between individuals are adjudicated based on the established order, the position of the individuals in that order and the details of the personal dispute. Justice in such a system is never about public interests, as there is no such thing as public interest. Society is a system of hierarchical private interests that ultimately serve the interest of the monarch, who sits atop the social order.

In a liberal democracy, things are reversed. Public interest is now sovereign, transcending the personal interests of even the most powerful. Prosecutors can charge a prominent rich guy, for example, because they see it as their duty to the public to do so. It’s not about their personal conviction or their personal relationship with the rich guy. It is about what is understand as the public will, as defined by the law. All men are equal before the law, because the law is the public will, which is sovereign.

In theory this sounds superior to private rule, as the state operates as referee, maintaining and enforcing a set of rules on everyone equally. All of the private interests in society are then free to pursue their private interests, within the rules established by the law. Businesses compete with one another for customers. Individuals compete with one another for wealth and status. Society is a dynamic ecosystem of individual interests operating within the medium of the public good.

Because political offices lack transcendent legitimacy, the authority of the office rests in the general will, as expressed by the civic religion. This civic religion justifies not only the political structure of the state, but the manner in which office holders are selected. Instead of men rising to the top because they are favored by the gods or by the design of biology, they are selected because they win the favor of the people. They hold office because the public wills it and the public will is sovereign.

Because civic religions lack a limiting principle, civic mindedness inevitably becomes and ideology venerating the public good. The individuals occupying public office begin to see themselves as keepers of public morality, a priesthood, which serves the public in the same way a priest serves his flock. That brings state regulation of private interests in the name of public interests. Before long, the very nature of private interest assumes its primary purpose is the public good.

This is the nature of woke capital. The reductionist interpretation is that the people in these corporate giants are motivated by power or political ideology. They just want to help their tribe. In reality, what drives this is a culture inside these organizations around the belief they are there to serve the greater good. Apple is not a firm that makes expensive toys in China. It is a company with a mission to make the world a better place. The people are not there to profit the company, but to benefit mankind.

The conflation of private interests and the public good that inevitably must happen in a democracy, turns every company into a religious order and every powerful man into a bishop of the civic religion. As happens in all markets, the competition for what defines the public morality consolidates into one universal public morality. The entrepreneur wants to get rich, not for material reasons, but for spiritual reasons, as that becomes the path to high status. “Giving back” is the ultimate goal of wealth.

It is not just the private sphere that is subverted by the public will. The very institutions of the democracy become one with the new religion. Instead of training young people in the practical arts, education turns into indoctrination centers. Everything about our modern education system, even the private schools, is bent toward brainwashing young people into the ideology of the state. It’s why standards have collapsed. They are making believers now, not scholars.

The democratic custodial state, like all ideological enterprises, must eventually consume itself, as ideologies are always at war with nature. Ideology is about how things should be, not how they are. We are seeing that with the custodial state, where institutions, in order to carry out their spiritual duty, must violate the basic principles of law that make democracy possible. For the woke corporation or progressive college to complete its mission, it must violate the principle of equality before the law.

We see this in the explosion of sexual assault allegations on campus. These are hotbeds of ideological fervor, producing waves of new fanatics. In order to function as such, no discouraging words are permitted. Since Chad’s very existence is a discouraging word to the concept of feminism, the campus is now at war with Chad and the front line solders in that war are hysterical coeds. You cannot be a fully actualized women without having been raped by Chad in your dorm room.

The trouble is, rape has a legal definition. Sexual assault has a legal definition. These are legal constructs that bring with them legal procedures. When Becky claims she was assaulted by Chad, she has to supply some proof of the allegation. If the police think there is enough to arrest Chad for assault, they will do so and turn him over to the prosecutor, who will determine if there is enough to prosecute him. If that happens, then the court will determine Chad’s legal guilt through another legal process.

The result is a conflict between the desire of the coeds to fully actualize their moral self and the structures that makes liberal democracy possible. This conflict turns up all over woke capital, as well. That person sitting in a cubicle, debating whether to cancel your bank account, is balancing their duty to the greater good against the rules limiting their power in the organization. Where ever they can serve the greater good, they will, even if it pointlessly harms you. To them, you are just an irrelevant abstraction.

The inevitable end point of liberal democracy is a system that is at perceptually war with itself, because it is animated by a religion without a limiting principle. Every reform in the name of the public good is followed by calls for more reforms. Every new rule or limit that replaces some old discredited rule is immediately attacked as against the good of the people or a danger to the democracy. The end point of liberal democracy it a riot of fanatics murdering one another in the name of the people.

Support the media that supports you. While all of us toiling in the fields of dissident media are motivated by a sense of duty, having a place to sleep and food on the table still requires money. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. Or, you can send money to me at: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. I now have a PayPal setup for those who prefer that method to donate. Thank you for your support!

The Party Of Hate

Posted on by

The Left in America has always been adept at playing identity politics. While it is a useful way to build coalitions, identity politics fits naturally with radicalism. The Left in the West starts with the assumption that human society is like a watch. Each component interacts with other components to make the whole thing go. It is not a big leap from there to seeing society as a collection of parts. Appealing to those parts on narrow grounds is simply the logical way to go about politics for the Left.

This worked pretty well after the Second World War, because America was 90% white, so the Left could sure up their numbers, without ceding power to these auxiliary forces they bribed into their coalition. They could promise blacks whatever was needed, as there was never a fear of blacks taking over the party. If any of these auxiliary groups got mad the people in charge, there was not much they could do about, other than complain and ask for a better deal next time.

As America becomes majority-minority that old formula can no longer work. In the current Democrat party, blacks make up a majority of primary votes in some states. It’s not enough for candidates to promise them free stuff. More important, the loyalty of those tribes to the whole is transactional. Their first loyalty is to their tribe and their loyalty to the cause of the party is conditional. That means identity politics within the party is an endless negotiation to redress of past grievances.

You see this in how poor old creepy Joe Biden is being treated by the coalition of the ascendant. He made the rather valid and sensible point that he has found a way to work with all sports of people in his career, even segregationists. They were, for a long time, a key part of the Democrat party. He is being pilloried for this, not because it is good for the party in anyway, but it is good for the blacks. Kamala Harris is running as a black, so calling Biden a bigot is good for her, as it boosts her credibility with blacks.

That’s where the tribal loyalty comes in. Michelle Obama, who spent more than eight years around Biden, is also piling on poor old Joe. Even though Biden was a loyal toady to her husband, helping him get into the White House, Michelle can’t come to his aid, because she’s black and he’s white. Her tribal loyalty comes before her loyalty to the party. This, despite the fact Harris is backed by the Clinton machine. For blacks like Michelle Obama, hatred of white people is who she is, above all else.

Within the domain of group identity, there are two types of identity. One is the positive identity that is rooted in the attributes of the group. The other is a negative identity that is rooted in some outside force or group. Icelandic, for example, is a positive identity as it is rooted in genetic qualities of the people of Iceland. African-American, in contrast, is a negative identity, because it is based entirely on the negative relationship between the decedents of America slaves and white people in America.

In the case of the people of Iceland, they would continue to be Icelandic, even if every other type of human on earth died tomorrow. If those people then migrated off their island and took up residence in what is now England, they would still be Icelandic, at least until evolution worked its magic on them. Given enough time, the people living on what is now England, would develop traits that are unique to them. They would create a shared history that is different from their ancestors in Iceland.

On the other hand, African-Americans are entirely dependent upon white people for their identity. If every white person moved to Canada, blacks would move to Canada, as they need to be near whites in order to maintain their sense of identity. If all other humans on earth died tomorrow, the African-American population would lose its identity and devolve into some new identity or identities. Evolution and their innate qualities would no doubt make them into tribes of hunter-gatherers.

This is the problem Democrats will face as they elevate blacks and other non-whites in their party. When you’re defined by your hatreds, there can be no limit placed on that hatred, as it is the celebration of self. That’s why the anti-white campaign is rapidly accelerating on the Left. In the quest to reach a new limit of self-affirmation, they must find some new way to hate white people. The result will be something like then ANC, where the only white faces will be Jews and some females.

Support the media that supports you. While all of us toiling in the fields of dissident media are motivated by a sense of duty, having a place to sleep and food on the table still requires money. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. Or, you can send money to me at: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. I now have a PayPal setup for those who prefer that method to donate. Thank you for your support!