Monthly Archives: February 2018

Hakuna Wakanda

Posted on by

If you were trying to reduce the main points of the Dissident Right with a few bullet points, it would be:

  • The people in charge have dangerous fantasies about the future of society and the nature of man
  • The mass media is just propaganda for those fantasies and can never be taken at face value
  • Race is real, ethnicity is real and evolution is real. In the main, humans prefer to live with their own kind. Diversity leads to conflict.

There is a more to it, but those are the three main items that come up over and over among writers in the Dissident Right. The people in charge, of course, dispute these and consider them to be ignorant, paranoid and immoral. Question the browning of America and you are a dumb racist. Notice that mass media often looks like a coordinated public relations campaign and you are branded as a paranoid. Of course, anyone mentioning the realities of race and sex is the branded a Nazi or white supremacist.

That’s what makes the run-up to the most important movie release, since Birth of a Nation, a bit comical from the perspective of someone on our side of the river. All you have to do is look at the coverage on TV and the internet and point two above is made manifest. The movie is getting a near perfect score from reviewers and anyone not slobbering over it is getting bullied by the media. The TV networks are carrying on like Obama is going to come back for a third term. They were more subdued in 2008 when Obama first won.

Most people get that our mass media is run by Progressive pitchmen for the managerial state. For as long as anyone can remember, “liberal media” has been a common phrase in America. What the Dissident Right has introduced is the idea that the media is not just biased, it is a coordinated effort to deceive. Thanks to the internet, it is much harder to wave this off as paranoia. Black Panther has moved the level of coordination from the shadows to center stage. Movie reviews are now regulated to sell this black movie.

Of course, what the mass media is selling is the crackpot fantasy our rulers have about a non-white future. It used to be they would finesse this by arguing that race and ethnicity did not matter. With the right policies, the swarthy hordes they were importing would be transformed into middle-class burghers. They do not do that anymore. Instead, they are frankly talking about the browning of America, by which they mean the elimination of white people. The Black Panther movie is part of the celebration of the end of whitey.

The black utopia that is Wakanda, the mythical state in the movie and comic books, could never exist. If the white world suddenly stopped sending food aid to Africa, famine would set in within a month. The West sends about $50 Billion in aid to Africa every year. That is the official amounts from governments. The billions that flow in from charitable organizations is on top of that. A world without white people means Africa experiences a mass starvation event, followed by a mass die off. Africa could end up depopulated.

The underlying argument from our rulers is that Africa is a mess, because of racism. The book Why Nations Fail is the model for this argument. Whites destroyed the native African institutions and left behind extractive ones. That is why Africa is a mess. The reality is sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ in the low-80’s. Eritrea is the “smartest” country with an average IQ of 85. What that means is most Africans are borderline to mildly retarded. The reason Africa is not and never will be Wakanda is it is full of Africans.

Now, you cannot fault blacks for celebrating this fictionalized black homeland where they are at the top of the heap. The promotion of this fantasy, however, makes the essential point of the Dissident Right. Humans naturally want to reign supreme in their own domains, surrounded by people that are like them. Wakanda would not resonate with black people if the ruler were a guy named Maury Greenblatt and his minions were all East Asians or Mexicans. Like everyone, blacks dream of a world without diversity.

The over the top promotion of this black supremacist movie makes all the main cultural arguments you hear on the Dissident Right. If it is OK for blacks to dream of their own homeland, why cannot whites do the same? If blacks would be better off without whites around, doesn’t the same hold true for whites? If the natural order is for the races to be separate, then why in the hell is diversity a good thing? If you were hoping whites would become racially aware, the movie Black Panther is manna from heaven,

A long time ago in another country, conservatives would blithely say that the facts of life are conservative. It was a shorthand way of pointing out that reality does not yield to wishful thinking. Just as socialism and Marxism eventually buckled under the weight of the human condition, the racial fantasies of our rulers will also crack under the weight of biological reality. Like the last batch of utopian nutters, the current group is fully capable of killing millions of people in an effort to immanentize the eschaton.

Black Panther and the Progressive celebration of it is a good thing for our side. It makes many of the big points our side rarely gets a chance to make on the big stage. More important, it rips the mask off the Left. What they think of you is now clear. Oddly, the future of white people lies in Afrofuturism. The more the other side tells us what they dream of when they sleep, the more white people wake up to the demographic reality that is facing them. Black Panther is the ultimate Dissident Right movie.

Blade Runner 2.0

Posted on by

Often, how a movie is reviewed says more about the reviewers than the movie itself. For example, the usual suspects are raving about Chocolate Charlie and the Wakanda Factory for all the obvious reasons. Rotten Tomatoes is literally enforcing a zero tolerance rule for reviews. Love it or else. You can be sure every reviewer will praise the movie as the next Star Wars, for fear of reprisal. Everything around the movie appears to be designed to confirm everything said about the modern age by the Dissident Right.

The new Blade Runner is not a social statement, but the reception does say something about the people who love it. I am specifically talking about the alt-right, which has embraced the movie. The film critics generally liked it, because it is an extremely well done science fiction movie that is made for adults. Most of what passes for sci-fi these days is either made for kids, like Star Wars, or it is just not well done. The new Blade Runner is an exception, so the reviewers seemed to like it on artistic grounds.

Knowing that the alt-right embraced the movie, I watched it the other night expecting to see some pro-white subliminal messaging, but it is just a good movie. In fact, it is better than I expected, in terms of the video presentation. Like everyone, I am conditioned to expect whiz-bang special effects in everything now. The cool thing about this movie is the special effects do not impress you so much as convince you. The look and feel of the movie goers a long way toward transporting you to this alternative reality.

Remakes, of course, are usually terrible. The filming is updated, the story and characters are downgraded for stupid people. This is an exception. It is a movie for people who like thinking about the meaning of certain aspects of the story and discussing the overall significance of the tale. The original Blade Runner was like that too. It was a plot driven action story, but in the end, you thought about what Harrison Ford’s character had gone through and what it meant. It was a movie about what it meant to be human.

The remake is similarly a contemplation of what it is that makes us human. Unlike the first one, this version operates under the assumption that the audience is aware of the robot revolution going on just out of sight. In the first movie, Harrison Ford was a human charged with hunting replicants that had gone bad. In this one, Ryan Gosling is a replicant, a new model, who is designed to hunt down defective replicants. Like the first movie, this movie starts with our hero being set off on journey that will reveal himself to himself.

The thing about this movie, something you only ever notice these days when it is missing, is it is devoid of the sort of casual degeneracy we always see in pop culture. There are no 20-minute, soft-core porn sex scenes. There is no grand chase where half the world explodes. That is the thing about modern movies. They rarely treat the audience like an adult. It is assumed that everything has to be explained, the ending must be positive and, like horny teenagers, the audience demands extended sex scenes set to bad music.

That does not mean it is not a modern film. The original Blade Runner would not hold a modern audience, because of the slow pace and lack of plot spoilers. This film makes sure to keep the story moving. That is to be expected. In this age, all of us have lower attention spans, mostly due to being bombarded by mass media. No one these days has the patience to let a story unfold. The new Blade Runner does just enough to keep an adult audience, with a three-digit IQ, interested in what is happening on screen.

Now, the reason the movie is popular with the alt-right. It is entirely possible, if you are a young person seeing this film, that it is the first movie you have seen that is not overtly anti-white. Older people remember when movies were made to be good and would avoid celebrating multiculturalism. This movie does exactly that. It has white men acting like white men, not foils for the magic negro or as sidekick to the female star. In fact, the only black guy in the movie is a minor character who has a small role in the story.

The other big reason the movie is popular with the alt-right is the central message of the movie. If you hate spoilers, then look away at this point. The thing our hero in the movie learns is that being human is about making copies of yourself with another human. It is not what you do or how you feel. It is that ability to make more people who look like you that makes you human. Not even God can do that, or at least the character who imagines himself as God in the film. It also means you are who made you. That is your identity.

That is also what makes it work as a great sci-fi movie. This central question that gets resolved in the film is not in your face. Most movies with a message beat the audience over the head. That is bad film making. Blade Runner lets you enjoy the story arc of the characters and when you get to that final denouement, it all makes sense. It is not perfect and I think the ending could have been much better, but you do not come away feeling like you just spent two hours in diversity training either. It is a well told story.

One final thought on the alt-right angle. I have written before that the alt-right are romantics, but updated for the current age. Theirs is not a nostalgia for a forgotten era or just a rejection of the sterile, materialistic present. There is some of that, but it is more of a nostalgia for a future that will never come. There is a temporal disjunction in the way the alt-right frames the world. They talk about the 1950’s, for example, not as an ideal, but as the start of a descent down the wrong path that has led to this bad current.

In Blade Runner, that aesthetic is on display. The movie picks up where the old one left off and imagines how that world evolved. You get the sense that everyone in the movie wished the past had never happened, which is why the replicants are implanted with fake memories of a past that never happened. The movie seems to say that what happened was terrible and what comes next is not good either, but the green shoot, the bit of hope, is that fact that our people can make more copies of ourselves and make a different future.

Political Violence

Posted on by

Why is George Soros still alive?

For most of human history, a person who caused trouble for rulers found himself either on the run or on a pike. An earl or prince that made trouble for the king was dragged before the king, humiliated and then hanged. If he fought back, then the king sacked his lands, killed his family and made an even bigger spectacle of killing the troublemaker. After all, the point of political power is to reward your allies and punish your enemies. Yet, George Soros, an international troublemaker, is free to make trouble wherever he likes.

The obvious reply to that is civilized nations no longer rely on political assassinations to handle their business. Political leaders have a self interest in discouraging the practice of killing heads of state. If ruler X has ruler Y killed, because it advantages him, the other rulers have no choice but to band together and kill ruler X. Otherwise, it is a lawless world of all against all. President Gerald Ford issued an executive order in 1976 prohibiting US intelligence services from conducting political assassinations for this reason.

That makes sense with legitimate political leaders, but George Soros is a rootless grifter, who has no allegiance to any government. Killing him would be no different than droning a terrorist. Some argue that international law prohibits targeted assassinations, but international law is mostly meaningless. The Israelis have been using targeted assassination against whoever they like for a long time, including the murder of Canadian engineer Gerald Bull. The US has droned more Arabs than we can count.

The most likely answer is that George Soros is not seen as anything more than a nuisance and only to certain members of the political class. He may be a billionaire, but he has no armies and he has no real reach. He is smart enough to know that, so he makes sure to keep on good terms with the right people. It is fair to assume that he is a master at not pissing off the wrong people. The proof of that is he has not suffered from whatever the Europeans call Arkancide. Still, no one stays lucky forever, yet Soros still lives.

It is not just Soros. What we do not see in the current age is any political assassinations in the West. For that matter, there are no attempts to take out an important person. The last such example in America was Patty Hearst and there is some question as to the reality of her kidnapping. Maybe there have been some recent cases of rich people targeted in Europe for political reasons, but none spring to mind. You would think with all the Muslim fanatics lurking around that some of them would decide to target a rich person.

It is a strange thing that makes even less sense when you consider the realities of the modern age. In the 1970’s, someone like Squeaky Fromme taking a shot at Ford had a certain logic to it. Today, killing the president does not make a lot of sense. Sure, Trump is a critical component of the current fight, but generally the head of state is nothing but the part of the iceberg we see. The real political power is the cabal of rich people under the waterline, controlling things out of site of the public. Regicide has no value these days.

On the other hand, blowing up a few important political influencers in the Imperial Capital would have an enormous impact. Imagine back in the Bush years if opponents of the war, started targeting neocons. Alternatively, think about the impact it would have if Muslim terrorists blew up Mark Zuckerberg. Sure, taking down an airliner is a big show, but it is really hard. Killing some billionaires is a lot easier and the impact is much more significant, assuming you kill the right billionaires. It never happens though.

Of course, we could be in a transition period as the world of political violence adjusts to the changing nature of politics. Thirty years ago, it made a lot of sense for political terrorists to attack civilian targets. The IRA and the Basques separatists lacked the capacity to take on the state, so they attacked the people in effort to put pressure on the state. Today, the state is not the only player and not the most important player in most of the world. Maybe political actors have not yet internalized the new global order.

The decline in political violence in the West sounds like a good thing. Most people would prefer it if car bombs were not going off in their cities. Even if heads of state are off limits, killing important political figures is destabilizing. The rise of a global order not only reduced the need for violence between countries. It may have reduced the need for violence within countries, as the political factions merged into a unified managerial ruling class. Rule by hyper-educated bureaucrat means disputes are handled over cappuccinos.

This may not be a good thing. For all of human history, power brought risk. The higher someone climbed the hierarchy, the greater their responsibilities and the greater their personal risk. The very real threat of personal violence had a tempering effect. Today, people in the managerial elite do not have to worried about getting fired, much less assassinated. They occupy a world where no one is ever held accountable for their actions. As a result, they have become dangerously cavalier about their duties.

In fact, the main feature of the on-going domestic espionage scandal of the last administration is the brazen and reckless way the players went about it. High moral character is what leads good men do the right thing when no one is looking. Fear of the hangman is what leads lesser men do the right thing when no one is looking. In the political game, personal risk has always been what weeds the reckless and dangerous from the game. That has been removed so our political class is full of reckless and stupid people.

Nature has a way of correcting itself. If a species evolves down a dead end, something else evolves to replace it. Maybe what comes next is a new brand of political violence that meets the needs of the managerial state. Instead of people shooting political players, managerial class types will get snuffed out when going for their mocha latte. The assassination of Seth Rich could turn out to be the model. Maybe what will evolve to provide vigor and discipline to the managerial state is a grad school version of Arkancide.

Dealing With Lefty

Posted on by

Most of us have a lefty in our lives. No matter how hard you try to avoid talking politics or current events with them, it always happens and you come away frustrated by the experience. The reason for this is Lefty is nothing but political, so even discussing the weather can lead to them veering the conversation into something like global warming. Progressives have politicized every nook and cranny of life, so dealing with a liberal means wrangling over progressivism.

What makes it doubly frustrating is that normal people tend to treat people as if they are normal, rather than members of a bizarre cult. You forget yourself and make a reference to current events and all of a sudden, you are wrangling with lefty over some topic in a way you find deeply frustrating. Usually, they take something you have said and twist it around so that you find yourself trying to argue about something you never intended to discuss. It is as if they exist to be a social irritant.

That is the first rule when dealing with lefty. As soon as you realize you are dealing with one of these people, accept that everything they say is the opposite. The progressive mind is a lot like the mind of a criminal, in that it assumes its own guilt and acts accordingly. The criminal says things to lead prying eyes away from their own culpability. The progressive will accuse others of things he or his cult are doing at the moment. When they accuse X of something, it means lefty is doing it.

The Russian hacking stuff is turning out to be a great example of this. Exactly no one in America thought about the possibility of Boris and Natasha scheming to upset the last election, until out of the blue, lefty started saying it. A year later we have learned that it was not Trump working with the Russians, but members of the cult inside government that were scheming with the Russians. None of this would have come to light, but the guilty minds of the left compelled them to accuse others of their criminality.

Similarly, the progressive, on an individual basis, will seek to shift the focus from the topic at hand to something related, but far enough away from the topic to send the conversation off on a tangent. The most common method is “What about X?” Mention some failing of Progressives and Lefty will blurt out “what about X among your right-wingers?” Normal decent people respond to questions and Lefty uses that decency to avoid addressing the failings of his cult. Lefty naturally shifts the focus off himself.

Another trick Lefty will use is to start talking about exceptions. This is another way of distracting from some obvious truth, like the fact blacks commit a lot of crime, to a debate about exceptions and outliers. The alt-right boys call this tactic NAXALT, as in Not All X Are Like That. As with the above tactic, this is all about shifting the focus from an unpleasant topic for Lefty. Put the two together and in a few questions, lefty can shift the conversation so far from the original topic, you no longer remember what you were saying.

This is why you always avoid answering a question from lefty. The surest way to send him into a panic, is to respond to the “What about X” trick with “Let’s not lose focus” and then return to the original point. An alternative is “We can talk about that, but first let’s focus on” and then get back to the issue. This almost always causes them to spasm as they are being forced to address an unpleasant topic and what they thought was an easy escape is now turning into a trap. Often, they just walk away or explode in anger.

That is the thing to keep in mind when dealing with lefty. You can no more convince them to question their faith than you can talk a schizophrenic out of being crazy. All they can be for you is a prop, or, if you get good at tormenting them, a toy to kill some time when you have time to kill. This is the hardest thing for normal people to accept. Normal people think they can cure Lefty by presenting facts and evidence. There is no cure. These people are forever lost to a form of mental illness. Just accept that and act accordingly.

Most important, when dealing with lefty, always make him the focus. A good tactic is what that British dunce Cathy Newman tried to do to Jordan Peterson. “So, what your position is…” is a good way to focus on Lefty in a very personal way. They hate this. They want to believe they are simply accepting transcendent truths, rather than their own individual opinion. That is the thing with people in cults. They hate themselves. That is why they are in a cult so they no longer have to face themselves or have their own identity.

By personalizing the topic, re-framing it as their opinion or their belief, it has the effect of separating them from the herd. Often, they will become quite passive and even submissive. That is because Lefty has no opinions of his own. He truly is the Borg and the Borg is him. He sees no separation between himself and the faith, so isolating him rhetorically makes him feel detached from his true identity. It is why liberals always set their chat shows up as a gang attack on some helpless non-liberal.

Finally, always insist on clear, plain language. A central tactic of the left is to disrupt the opposition by sabotaging the language. The habit of expanding the definition of words to include fringe or dubious examples, then contracting the definition to exclude the original stuff. The use of modifiers to turn definitions on their head or neologism that conjure banal or even pleasant images for negative things. The game is to force you to accept their language, which is a back doorway of forcing their moral framework on you.

The Fate Of The NeoCons

Posted on by

The term “neocon” has been a fixture of political debates in America for the last 40 years, being both an epithet, sobriquet and honorific. In the 80’s, a white person in the commentariat using the term was doing so as a stand in for “hawkish liberal Jews” and he would most likely be called an anti-Semite. It became important to neocons for people not to notice they were all liberal Jews. After the Cold War, Progressives started attacking the neocons, so the squealing about antisemitism lost its potency.

The truth is the original neocons were never conservative. Many were Trotskyists, but most were just very liberal Jews who wanted to use up America’s wealth to fight their ancient enemy, the Russian empire. Otherwise, they embraced the cosmopolitan Progressivism emerging on the Left. Probably the most generous description of neoconservatives was that they were anti-communists, who integrated into traditional conservatism in the effort to prosecute the Cold War. That was the spin, at least.

The years since the end of the Cold War has revealed them to be something else. The berserk, preternatural hatred of Russia is now a major component of neocon arguments, which is why they never shut up about Putin. After the Cold War, neocons opposed efforts to integrate Russia into the modern global economy and they have advocated in favor a hostile foreign policy toward Russia. They backed intervention in South Ossetia and they were behind the coup in Ukraine that has plunged the country into chaos.

Neoconservatism has also curdled into a bizarre hatred of Trump, with many neocons indulging in the most bizarre conspiracy theories. The people defending the FBI in conservative publications are all neocons. Here’s Ben Shapiro defending the FBI. Here’s Jonah Goldberg defending the coup plotters. Of course, the chief nutter of the NeverTrump club is Bill Kristol, whose son-in-law bought dirt on Trump from the now infamous Democrat dirty tricks operation, FusionGPS.

In the interest of accuracy, a major cause of neocon hatred of Trump is money. For eight years these guys were rubbing their hands together thinking about the great jobs they would land in the Jeb Bush administration. Jonah Goldberg’s old lady spent 2015 shopping for outfits, anticipating a six figure job in the next Republican administration. When you add up the book deals, salary, speaking gigs and insider dealing, Trump was a million dollar catastrophe for each of the leading lights of neoconservatism. Of course, they are mad.

That can explain some of the bitterness over Trump, but none of these guys are skipping any meals. John “Thanks Dad” Podhoretz takes $400,000 a year in salary just from his limited work at Commentary. Goldberg lives in a seven figure home in one of the most elite suburbs on earth. Max Boot just signed on with the Washington Post, where he probably makes $250,000 per year to write a weekly column. All of these guys were born into the world of “high pay, but low work” lifestyles that define the commentariat.

What really vexes them, is the fact they can no longer hide in the weeds of Buckley Conservatism. They used to be able to pass themselves off as conventional conservatives, who just had an active interest in foreign policy. Now, it is eminently clear that there is nothing conservative about them in the least. Whatever hand waving they offer in favor of traditionalism and normalcy, is always in the form of “Of course we should defend X, but let’s not waste political capital on that when we should be doing…”

Reverting to their liberal roots is one thing, but it is hard to see what is American about them, given their advocacy against Americans. When a central plank of your philosophy is that native stock Americans need to be replaced, you are un-American. Steve Sailer once described neoconservatism as “invade the world, invite the world” and it was an excellent observation. The growing recognition of this truth seems to be turning neocons in to outright, anti-white bigots. They despise you for noticing what is happening to you.

You see it in this Jonah Goldberg column the other day. The debate over immigration has made plain to white voters that the divide in Washington is between those celebrating the “browning of America” and those who oppose it. The Trump Effect is making that increasingly clear to voters. The people opposing Team Brown, want to preserve their communities and their culture. There is nothing more conservative than that, but the neocons have now taken to calling this a cult, an obvious reference to you know who.

Neoconservatism has come a long way from when Irving Kristol wrote “Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed ‘Neoconservative'” in 1979. The world has changed since the concepts that came to define neoconservatism were developed. Of course, all of the guys who founded it are dead. The people leading the movement today are mostly the ne’er do well sons of the founding generation of thinkers. The “Thanks Dad Chorus” that is modern neoconservatism is a good example of reversion to the mean.

Of course, what Eric Hoffer observed about causes is true of the neocons. “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” In fact, this is true of the entire ecosystem that is mainstream conservatism. The Buckley crowd are just squeezing out every last dime from National Review, trading on nostalgia to fleece Baby Boomers of donations. Commentary Magazine has a dwindling readership of septuagenarians worried that Hitler really did not die in that bunker.

Even so, Jews in America have faced little in the way of Antisemitism. That is something white Americans have always celebrated. So much so that no one thought much of the emergence of Jewish triumphalism in the last decades. If that triumphalism curdles into anti-white ethnocentrism, then that could change. When you see a guy like Jonah Goldberg appropriating the title of James Burnham book for his next screed against white people, you have to suspect this is all going to end poorly.

Something’s Happening Here

Posted on by

True believers are incapable of accepting disconfirmation. The reason for this is their individual identity becomes so entangled in the cause, that anything contradicting the cause is viewed as a personal assault. That’s why Progressives react to contacts with reality as if they have been violently assaulted. For them, there is no line separating themselves and the cause. An assault on the cause, even just contrary facts, is felt like a kick to the groin. It’s why Progressive women equate free speech with violence.

There’s another product of this and that’s the inability to adapt to political reality. They set off on a course, with a pleasing narrative in their head, and stick with it no matter what happens. This delusional determination is why the Left keeps at their pet causes with a great deal of success, but it is also why they eventually burn themselves out in an orgy of recrimination. They can’t let go of the dream, even when the cause is lost, so they look for people to blame. You see that in this Atlantic piece.

Remember “this is not normal?”

A year ago, it was the motto of the self-styled “Resistance”—the coalition of liberals, Democrats, and a few wayward conservatives who were implacably opposed to the Trump administration. The endless refrain represented the refusal to countenance Trump as an ordinary political actor. Doing so, they feared, would eventually lead to the acceptance of racism, xenophobia, corruption, and authoritarianism as a regular and unremarkable feature of politics and society.

People articulating  such views were easy to find—online, on the front pages, and on the streets. The day after President Trump’s inauguration, the Women’s March turned into one of the largest nationwide demonstrations in American history. A week later, tens of thousands of people turned up at airports to oppose and obstruct Trump’s Muslim ban. By harnessing this unqualified opposition, Democrats were able to score shocking political and policy victories: stealing a Senate seat in Alabama, saving Obamacare, winning deep-red districts in state races, and coming close to taking the Virginia House of Delegates in the face of heavy gerrymandering.
And yet, today, in the highest circles of Democratic party politics, resistance is waning. “This is normal enough,” many key Democrats seem to be saying. When Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote in advance of Trump’s State of the Union several weeks ago, he focused on finding ways to “work with” the president, such as infrastructure.

The lunatics are sure they are winning. It is written in the prophecies. How can their elected leaders not see this? Why are they quitting just when victory is at hand? Of course, that’s not reality, but reality is far too unpleasant to accept, so they are re-imagining the present in order to hold onto the dream. The Democrat leaders, especially Chuck Schumer, they know what’s happening. Thanks to Trump’s political maneuvering, white voters now see the Democrats as the Brown Party.

The outcome of any final immigration deal is unknown, in part because Democrats voluntarily relinquished much of their leverage by striking a bargain on the budget. But there can be little doubt that many in the party were prepared to make serious—and politically unpopular—policy concessions to Trump. At one point, that reportedly included funding for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border (opposed by 60 percent of Americans). As it stands, Democrats in both houses appear to be on the brink of dropping demands to protect the “Dreamers,” undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children (protections that are supported by 74 percent of Americans). “He’s not asking for the kind of money that would build a wall sea to shining sea,” reasoned Missouri’s Claire McCaskill. “He’s asking for the kind of money that can say he built a wall.”

The reality is the Democrats got a better deal from the seditious Mitch McConnell than they were ever going to get from Trump, so they cut a deal with the treacherous wing of the GOP. That was smart politics, even if the lunatics in the Democrat Party refuse to accept it. As it stands, spending for the wall is now off the table for two years and there is no reason for the cucks to bring immigration issues to a vote. Basically, the cucks are doing the heavy lifting for Team Brown to undermine the patriots.

That’s depressing, but the good news here is that Chuck Schumer suddenly realized that the whites are waking up to what’s happening and they are prepared to act accordingly. That means the midterms could very well be a referendum on Team Brown’s plan to turn America into Brazil. More important, Trump seems to have figured this out too and he is now talking about making the midterm a referendum on immigration. That’s a huge change in the political culture. It speaks to just how fast things have changed in the last year.

The better news is the mouth breathers of the “resistance” movement have decided to go full jihad over immigration. They see their leaders as insufficiently enthusiastic for the great brown future. They will want to make the midterms about immigration and send a message to their leaders. For decades, immigration patriots like John Derbyshire and Peter Brimelow labored just to get politicians to mention immigration. Now we appear to be heading a big political fight about serious immigration reform.

It’s just a symbolic fight. Chad and Stacy are now talking about chain migration and wondering if it makes sense to be importing Somalis into Minnesota. Up until recent, most Americans have known nothing of visa lotteries, chain migration and visa abuse. Now the granular details of the issue are circulating in polite company. People are waking up to the fact that the nice Hindu at the 7-11, also means a village of his kinsmen settling in your town, going on welfare and turning your town into a squalid mess.

It’s a long war, but Team White has gained some ground on Team Brown.

Back To White

Posted on by

I’m back in Lagos so this episode was recorded in my state of the art studio, which is my bedroom and a $200 microphone. I got a lot of feedback from friends about the podcast last week. They had plenty of suggestions, but everyone says the sound quality is perfect the way it is and I should not change a thing. It’s a good reminder that good enough is usually good enough. It’s easy to lose sight of that, because we always think we can be better. It’s human nature. Genius is knowing when to stop.

Of course, friends are unlikely to criticize, but my friends are jerks so they would never hesitate to tell me I suck. Their suggestions, therefore, meant a lot. They tell me I have a good thing going and I should make some effort to promote myself and monetize my act. They had suggestions on both fronts. I’m not comfortable with either of those things, but maybe I’m wrong about it. I thought this podcast would be a fun gag, but I’d stink at it and get bored. I’m getting better and I’m enjoying it. Still, I need to mull it over.

This week I have the usual variety of items in the now standard format. Spreaker has the full show. I am up on Google Play now, so the Android commies can take me along when out disrespecting the country. I am on iTunes, which means the Apple Nazis can listen to me on their Hitler phones. Of course, the Hitler Phones are so slow now, you may never finish. YouTube also has the full podcast. Of course, there is a download link below.

This Week’s Show

Contents

  • 00:00: Opening
  • 02:00: Colors
  • 12:00: Xirl Science (Link) (Link) (Link) (Link) (Link)
  • 22:00: The Shadows (Link)
  • 32:00: Alt-Jew (Link)
  • 42:00: Bring Back The Branks (Link)
  • 47:00: The Palace Guard (Link)
  • 52:00: Pray To Xim (Link)
  • 57:00: Closing

Direct Download

The iTunes Page

Google Play Link

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On YouTube

The Time For Choosing

Posted on by

In 1964 Ronald Reagan gave what used to be a famous speech on behalf of Barry Goldwater. It came to be called A Time for Choosing. If you watch it today, it is quite jarring for a couple of reasons. One is the aggressive, almost angry style Reagan used while delivering it. The other is the clarity of it. There was no dancing around the topic or soft selling the arguments. Reagan was making the point that the nation was at a crossroads and the decision would determine the future of America.

Whatever you might think of Reagan, he was right about many things. At the time he was giving that speech, the nation truly was at a crossroads. It is reasonable to argue that the decisions made in that period sent America careening down the path that led us to the current crisis. It is remarkable just how horrible the 1960’s were for America and the West. The Baby Boomer era in America started awful and got worse every decade, but the general direction was set in the late 1960’s.

An interesting aspect is that there have been chances to retrace our steps and fix the mistakes of the past. Reagan is the obvious example. If in 1964 the presidential election had been a narrow run thing for the Democrats, that may have been enough for Republicans to fight them in the kulturkampf that followed. Maybe it would have made little difference, but a major reason the Buckley Right has been so cowardly and pathetic over the last fifty years is they lost the moral argument.

A dozen years later, the Right had a chance to make up for it and nominate Reagan in 1976, but those old cucks from the previous decade prevented it. Still, they were overwhelmed in 1980 and Reagan went on to beat Carter. The GOP and conservatives had a great opportunity to rollback much of the damage done to the nation in the 1960’s, but they chose to fight the Cold War instead. Maybe that was the right thing but imagine if Reagan had rolled back the welfare state.

The end of the Cold War set off a set of reactions by the political class that have shaped and defined the current crisis. Imagine if Reagan’s populism was more like Trump’s and instead of an amnesty and open borders policy, with a generous welfare state, we got a closed borders policy and greatly reduced welfare state. If the Soviets had staggered on for another generation unchallenged, the West would probably be poorer now, but it would be immensely whiter and more chauvinistic.

In fairness to the men making these decisions in the 1980’s, they did not know what we know today. Reagan certainly had a sense of it with regards to immigration. He later called the immigration deal the biggest mistake of his presidency. Still, with regards to prioritizing the Cold War over all else, no one could know that the neocons were curdling into an ethnocentric suicide cult and the end of the Cold War would free them to indulge in all of their fantasies, at the expense of the nation.

The point of all this is every age faces a series of crossroads that have something in common. That is what defines the age. Our current age is a series of decisions about demographics. It is why so many of us on the Dissident Right no longer have patience with civic nationalists. That is a debate of the past. Demographics, race, ethnicity and identity are the debates of the now. Today’s decisions will define this era and define the choices for the next era.

You can see the little choices forming up. The loathing of bad whites by Yankeedom has now curdled into a bizarre hatred of whites in general. Nancy Pelosi spent eight hours speaking on the House floor, about how the future belongs to the swarthy others over the horizon. One of the stunning developments in my lifetime has been the lurch into naked, gleeful hatred of white people by the Left. It turns out that Obama was a warning about what comes next.

On the other side of this are those sensible white people who are now waking up to the demographic reality facing them. Some voted for Trump based on economics. Some voted for him because of habit. They just vote Republican. Still others voted for him because they oppose evil and that meant voting against Clinton. There are a million reasons Trump won, but the result was a re-framing of the choices facing white Americans. It is no longer about liberal and conservative.

A lot of us see the choices shaping up and lament that it has come to this. “If only the Republicans had blocked immigration reform in the 80’s!” John Derbyshire once said that future generations will dig up the bones of the people who opened the borders and smash them to bits. There is some temporary solace in pondering what if and cursing the mistakes of the past, but that does not change the present. We are headed to the majority-minority world faster than our acceptance of it can keep pace.

The choice now is accepting this reality or continue to live in the past.

Are We Happy?

Posted on by

Generally speaking, it is easy for you to know if you are happy. While happiness is not a binary condition, you know if you are not happy. You may not be able to describe why it is you are happy, but the lack of complaints is usually a good answer. For the most part, you can tell if your wife and family is happy too. It is once you get past your close circle of friends, that it gets hard to know. Richard Cory, whenever he was in town, seemed like he was living a happy life, but you never can know for sure.

When it comes to society, social scientists have produced an array of measures to figure out if people are happy. These efforts have been financed by government for a long time, because rulers always assume that happy people are docile people. That is not a bad assumption. You never see depictions of rioting peasants, where they are grinning and laughing. Revolts are always associated with angry mobs. Therefore, keep the people happy and you do not have revolts.

For as long as anyone can remember, these measures of societal happiness have been focused on economics. Do people have enough food, housing and medicine? Is the economy growing? Can young people replicate the lifestyle of their parents? Is the gap between rich and poor creating tension? Pretty much all of the measures used to assess how things are going are focused on the bread side of the “bread and circuses” way of framing this issue. History says that is a good way to do it.

I recall walking down Commonwealth Avenue in Boston, in the late 80’s, seeing every business with huge “help wanted” signs. It was like they were competing with one another for the biggest sign. Everyone seemed happy about the boom times. I know I was happy, but I was a young man with nothing but green grass in front of me. Still, it was good times and the long winter of the 1970’s was still in the back of people’s minds. It was a great time to be a young man in America.

It is in part why people old enough to have lived through those times, are so sentimental about the Reagan years. Overall societal happiness was also evident in the political realm. Reagan won a massive landslide in the 1984 election and his proxy followed it up with a landslide win in the 1988 election. It is almost impossible to imagine it, but Reagan won states like Massachusetts and New York. Imagine that. There was a brief time when the Roundheads stopped hating everyone else long enough to cast a sensible vote.

This brings me back to the question of this post. The economy was supposedly doing well in the Bush years, yet no one seemed happy about the direction of the country. The neocons were the one exception, but they are only happy when Americans are suffering and dying. The Obama years were equally terrible, in terms of our collective psyche. The economy under Obama was not great, but it was not a depression. It was a long, slow recovery from the damage done by the cosmopolitan bankers in the Bush years.

Now? The economy is booming. Economists are talking about 5% annual growth, which has not happened since the 1980’s. The stock market, despite recent turbulence, has seen massive growth over the last year. If you believe the economists, America is nearing full employment. If you do not believe them, you know that demand is now drawing people back into the workplace for the first time in decades. Wages are even starting to tick up in STEM fields, which has not been true in a generation. We are in incredibly good times.

Yet, no one seems happy. Even a levelheaded and sensible person like me struggles to be optimistic. Everyone I know is glum about the cultural trajectory of the nation. If the fans of Jordan Peterson are correct about his fan base, it means millions of younger Americans are unhappy with the current state of affairs. If the critics of the Dissident Right are correct, it means tens of millions of white people think their country is heading for a bad place. The Left, of course, is trying to burn it all down in a frenzy of rage.

Maybe all of these things really do not matter. Maybe the culture wars and political wars are just the result of a bored people enjoying unprecedented, good times. We are in a post scarcity age, where even the poorest person has more than enough food, shelter and leisure activities. In many respects, we are amusing ourselves to death. It could simply be that humans are built for struggle. When times are good, we look for reasons to create a crisis to against. Maybe we are too happy.

On the other hand, it may be that the reading of history, with regards to social unrest, is incomplete about the causes. The American revolution was not triggered by severe economic troubles. The Civil War was not preceded by a depression. The English Civil War had nothing to do with economic difficulties. Even the French and Russian revolutions were about long cultural trends. The food riots that touched off the revolts were just the final straw. The fabric of those nations was in tatters long before they ran out of food.

It is something to ponder as Trump tries to recreate the 1980’s. That was when he began his steep climb to national prominence as a real estate magnate and public personality. He is a man of the 80’s, a child in the 50’s. Reagan wanted to restore the America of the 1950’s, his salad days, and now Trump wishes do the same. Maybe it will work or maybe it is just the remnant of a dying culture getting together for one last festival. Maybe the ennui is the knowledge that the old America Trump is trying to revive is gone forever.

Maybe we are Richard Cory.

The Eternal Guru

Posted on by

The other day, someone asked me about Jordan Peterson, who is all the rage now, especially after his run-in with a local lunatic in London. I must admit, it was a funny 30 minutes, but mostly because Cathy Newman is so dumb. She tried using the active listening technique to paint Peterson as some sort of monster, but she just came off sounding deranged. I have run into a lot of women who use this technique. It is immensely popular with women in sales for some reason. My guess is it is part of standard sales training.

As far as Peterson, his angry Evil Bert style of speaking is a bit annoying. I know he cannot help it, but his voice conjures images of Kermit going Ike Turner on Miss Piggy. That and I am just not into the civic nationalist stuff. I have heard all of it and know everything they have to say. Ask Peterson why sub-Saharan Africans had not discovered the wheel until Europeans arrived and he runs out of the room. All the tough talk about sticking to facts and clear thinking goes out the door as soon as a taboo topic is mentioned.

That said, Peterson seems to know his limitations. He stays away from taboo subjects as much as possible, so he does not reveal those limitations. That way he can stick to new age advice and religious topics, which he does better than most. He does talk honestly about the biological roots of sex differences and that is often the best way to introduce people to biological realism. If someone can accept that evolution made boys and girls different cognitively, as well as physiologically, they can accept the diversity of man.

Anyway, I saw this on Maggie’s Farm yesterday. It appears that not everyone is a fan of Peterson. That Mic piece makes a lot of nutty claims, like “cultural Marxism is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory cooked up by conservatives in the 1980’s.” He also says the alt-right are fans of Peterson. It is the nature of the hive mind to see the world as those inside versus those outside. The people outside are just an undifferentiated other. That means “alt-right” is now another name for “the people outside the Progressive walls.”

The remarkable thing about Peterson is that no one seems to remember the previous versions of him. Self-help gurus have been a common phenomenon in the English speaking world, going back to the 19th century, when a guy named Samuel Hines published the book Self-Help. The birth of mass media after WW2 made it possible for the self-help guru to reach a wide audience. The snake oil salesman put down his patent medicine and picked up a pen. Same pitch, same promise, different vehicle.

Peterson is lot like Stephen Covey from a couple of decades ago. Peterson uses religion and his credentials as an academic to add authority to his work. Covey relied on rich, successful people to provide the authority. His book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People sold 25 million copies. Everyone wants to be successful, so they will buy the secret if they can. Peterson’s new book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos is already a best seller. It promises a lot for just a little, which is the key to a good self-help book.

That is the thing with all self-help gurus and lifestyle guides is they almost always rely on the appeal to authority. Their presentation can be boiled down to “this is who I am, this is what I have for you and here is why it is good for you.” That first part is critical. The self-help guru must first convince you he is an authority or he has learned from people who are an authority. Covey was fond of name-dropping the successful people he had met, as a way to burnish his credentials. Peterson relies on his credentials as an academic.

Unlike Covey, Peterson doles out his secrets in the form of finger-wagging lectures. In his book, the first of his twelve items are a reminder to stand up straight. He is recycling some quackery from a few years ago called Power Posing. Peterson re-frames it using animals, but it is the same quackery. Rule six is a fancy way of saying “clean your room” and his eighth rule is “tell the truth.” Maybe he is saving it for the next book, but there really should be a rule about not picking your nose and making sure you clean your plate at dinner.

There is another unique twist to Peterson. He has used his status as victim of the Cult of Modern Liberalism to ingratiate himself with his audience. Most self-help guys eschew the victim stuff. Instead, they want you to see them as winners. Peterson is pitching himself as a noble warrior fighting the last futile wars on the college campus. There is an undercurrent of romanticism to his presentation. That is probably why his stern granny routine is popular with younger people. It is how they imagine adults used to act before Progressivism.

The interesting thing about the modern professional advice giver is they are filling a role that used to be occupied by priests and ministers. As America lost its religion in the last fifty years, the self-help guru has filled the void. It is probably why Peterson’s use of religion in his presentation works so well. Rather than invent a new religion, he can just borrow the good stuff from the old ones. People may not believe in God anymore, but they are going to believe in something. Humans are built to be believing machines.

That is the trouble with the modern age. In the prior age, we had a way to deal with proselytizing fanatics. We made them missionaries and sent them off to convert the savages. If the savages ate them, there were more missionaries ready to go. Those with a burning desire to dispense advice to others were put into the priesthood, so they could help those who needed it. The death of organized Christianity has removed these options from us. As a result, we are plagued with fanatics, busybodies and scolds.

\