Monthly Archives: October 2018

The Civil War

Posted on by

The paleocons recognized in the 1980’s, that the conservatism of Bill Buckley was doomed to fail, because it started from the premise that the current political arrangements were legitimate. Since the left had defined those arrangements, it meant the right was going to become corrupted by its willingness to operate within the progressives rules. For example, if you agree that segregation is evil, there are only a narrow set of policy positions you can support with regards to race.

That is, of course, exactly what happened. Instead of being a moral philosophy that stood in opposition to Progressivism, it became a foil. Conservatives were the controlled opposition, who gave legitimacy to left-wing ideas by opposing them and then ultimately embracing them. If you embrace the premise, you inevitably embrace the ends. The debate is about the middle part. It is why conservatives have spent decades trying to accomplish the goals of the Left, without embracing the means of the Left.

During the Cold War, the debate between the left and right was mostly about economics and foreign policy. As much as the conservatives tried to paint the left as a bunch of Bolsheviks, the right never seriously challenged the left on socialist policies like public pensions, socialized medicine, and anti-poverty programs. Similarly, the approach to the Soviets was a debate about how to best manage it. The exception was Reagan’s talk of roll back, but that was mostly rhetoric.

That is something to keep in mind with the battle over what will come to oppose the latest iteration of progressivism. The Ben Shapiro types who are endlessly punching right by demanding America be defined as an idea, rather than a place and people, are embracing the main argument of the left. They have different notions of what those ideas mean and how they should be implemented, but Shapiro agrees with the left that America is just a set of ideas, not a place and people.

This new right must end the same way as Buckley conservatism ended. That is, as an amen chorus for the progressive state. If you agree that the new definition of a nation is post-national, as in not being defined by borders, language, and people, then the debate is what defines the new state. If you further agree that the new state is defined by ideas and a set of values, then the only thing left is to figure out who defines those ideas and how will they be enforced.

This notion of the state as a post-national, post-Christian theocracy is not without real consequences. It may seem ridiculous, but when the people in charge believe in something, no matter how absurd, the people pay the price. You see that in the Kavanaugh fight. Big shot intellectuals are starting to notice what people on this side of the great divide have been saying for years. If society is defined by “who we are” then someone who dissents must be excluded from that society, by force, if necessary.

In that context, splitting the difference could no longer be passed off as moderation. It was cowardice. Any Republican who voted against Kavanaugh (and, of course, any Democrat who voted for him) would thereby exit his party. Just as the congressional vote in 1846 on the so-called Wilmot Proviso revealed that the fault-line in American politics was about slavery, not party, the Kavanaugh nomination shows what American politics is, at heart, about. It is about “rights” and the entire system that arose in our lifetimes to confer them not through legislation but through court decisions: Roe v. Wade in 1973 (abortion), Regents v. Bakke in 1979 (affirmative action), Plyler v. Doe in 1982 (immigrant rights), and Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 (gay marriage). The Democrats are the party of rights. As such, they are the party of the Supreme Court. You can see why Ted Kennedy claimed in a 1987 diatribe that the Yale law professor Robert Bork would turn the United States into a police state. For Democrats, an unfriendly Supreme Court is a threat to everything.

That means the country itself. The general Democratic view that has hardened since the 1960s is the one expressed on many occasions by Barack Obama. The United States is not a country bound by a common history or a common ethnicity—it is a set of values. That is an open, welcoming thing to build a country around. But it has a dark side, and we have seen the dark side during the hearings. If a country is only a set of values, then the person who does not share what elites “know” to be the country’s values is not really a member of the national community and is not deserving of its basic protections, nice guy though he might otherwise be. Such people “belong” to the country in the way some think illegal immigrants do—provisionally.

At the founding, opponents of the new Constitution argued that the new political model would inevitably result in the supremacy of the court. Anti-federalists argued that the Supreme Court would become a source of massive abuse. Beyond the power of the executive, the court would eventually come to dominate the legislative branch. This is exactly where we find ourselves today, where both sides of the ruling elite view the court as the only source of legitimate moral authority.

That’s why the Kavanaugh fight was so vicious. Progressives fear the court could define “who we are” in such a way that excludes them. It’s also why guys like Ben Shapiro are not just wrong, but dangerously wrong. By going along with the general premise of a country being just a set of values, he is committing suicide on your behalf. He has a place to go if things don’t work out here. If the definition of “who we are” turns out to not include you, where are you going to go?

That’s why this new notion of the state can only end in horror. Since the Greeks, political philosophy has assumed that a society is a group of related people, with a shared history and shared space. The debate was over how best to organize society, to match the temperament and character of the people. This new model allows no room for debate and no tolerance of dissent. Like every totalitarian ideology, it has to end in a bloodbath to define “who we are.”

The Survivor

Posted on by

Something that has gone unremarked in the latest outburst of female hysteria is why these purple-faced rage-heads we see on television and on social media, call themselves survivors. The word turns up in all their self-descriptions. It is clear the word has taken on a spiritual meaning. The survivor, they insist, is incapable of error or dishonesty. We must not only believe survivors, but obey them. To do otherwise violates some unexplained, sacred code.

What it is they have survived? The claim is they are survivors of sexual assault, which is a strange thing to say since no one dies from sexual assault. The law defines assault as “an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.” Therefore, sexual assault is the credible threat of unwanted sexual contact by someone with the present ability to do it, but not the act itself. That is a different crime.

No one dies from a threat, so the idea of being a survivor of a threat, at least in the narrow sense of the law, is ridiculous. Most likely, these women are using “assault” colloquially, as in a physical attack. Even so, this has two problems. One is no one dies from sexual assault as currently defined. Even rape is non-lethal. The victim could die from the physical encounter that preceded or followed the rape, but we have moved into a realm of crime no one includes in the definition of sexual assault.

If we are to take them seriously, we must stick with present reality when defining sexual assault. In the current age, sexual assault means anything from a dirty joke to a woman being pressured into sex. Somewhere in that range is the woman who got knee-walking drunk and woke up with her panties on her head. Even allowing for the alleged trauma that ensues, these are not things one survives. It is like saying you survived a parking ticket or a rainy week of vacation.

The other problem is the concept of survival is not passive. It is active, which is why people get applause for things like fighting off a shark attack at the beach. It was not dumb luck, at least not exclusively, that saved the person. They fought for their life to overcome the threat. Exactly no one has died from being hit on by the boss, so you do not get special credit for having endured it until you found a new job, or the guy got canned for being a creepy perv in the workplace.

That may sound monstrously indifferent, but that is the point. An objective view of what we are seeing, therefore, must include the very real and very intense emotion we see from these women. The purple-faced shrieking does not validate their claims, but it does suggest they really believe this stuff. They truly believe they have gone through some transcendent ordeal, a purifying trial that has altered them in ways that only those who have experienced it can understand and appreciate.

That is the clue as to what may be going on here. Purification rituals are common to religions in all times and places. For example, baptism, according to the Catholic Church, is the ritual through which we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God and members of the Church. Conversion to Judaism requires full immersion in a Mikveh, a ritual purification bath connected to a natural spring. In the Greco-Roman world, the mystery religions were those that required initiation of some kind.

We have in modern times the phrase “trial by fire” which we understand to mean a potentially lethal ordeal that also purifies the survivor. They come out the other end of the experience, changed by the ordeal. Soldiers, for example, who experience heavy combat are assumed to have been changed by the experience. The assumption is the act of survival requires skills and deeds that are otherwise never required. The survivor therefore gains special knowledge as a result.

Within the progressive coalition, various tribes have creation myths that hinge on the concept of the survivor. American Jews have turned the holocaust into something that dwarfs the flight from Egypt. Survival is integral to Jewishness. God’s chosen people survive because they are God’s chosen people. Surviving the Nazis not only bestows special status on the victims, but it feeds into the sense of Jewish identity as a people under assault.

Blacks have a similar origin myth. Like the Jews, they were in bondage, but unlike the Jews they never fled oppression. Instead, they were transferred to a different form of oppression in the form of segregation. Their survival as a race and their ongoing fight for freedom is what defines blackness in America. The “black body” stuff that turns up in Afrocentric literature is a mystical implementation of the assertion that blacks are under constant physical threat and it defines them.

White women find themselves at a loss to match blacks and Jews in terms of victim status, so they invented intersectionality. Since the only thing white women must complain about is white men lusting after them, they must find something else. For a long time, feminists have been trying to compare their “struggle” with that of blacks and Jews, but it is a tough sell. Comparing Becky’s struggle to get that promotion, with slavery or the holocaust, does not go over well.

That seems to be where the “I’m a survivor” stuff comes into the mix. Claiming special victim status because your great grandfather had to ride in the back of the bus does not hold up to someone claiming they were assaulted last week. For Jewish women this is like hitting the lottery. They get to remind everyone that they lost family they never knew, and they can say Haven Monahan grabbed their boob at a college party. So far, black women have not jumped on this, but maybe that is a bridge too far.

In other words, the anger being directed at normal people by these enraged women probably has nothing to do with the rest of us. It is a battle within the progressive cult over status within the cult. Brett Kavanaugh was just a convenient prop to be used in what amounts to a morality play. This drama allows people in the audience to display their piety, by how they react to the show. It is why white and Jewish male progressives have been falling all over themselves in support of this.

The Haunted Present

Posted on by

For a while now I have wanted to do a post on the intellectual origins of these rather weird political theatrics we are seeing in the public space. A mistake our side tends to make is to assume the Left is not working from an intellectual foundation. Because the Left never talks about their intellectual history, we just assumed it does not exist, outside of Marx or maybe some feminist writers. That’s not true. What we are seeing today is the culmination of a mode of thought that started a century ago in the interwar years.

It’s only one facet of it, but it is an important one. A point that cannot be made enough is that what we call Progressivism is a religion, a civic religion of sorts, but increasingly an esoteric mystery cult. The attraction for the modern Progressive is purely emotional and temporal. It is all about how the swirling torrent of Progressive fads makes them feel in the moment and how it makes them feel in relation to one another as initiates in the cult. What the show is about this week is taking a look at the sources of this phenomenon.

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

This Week’s Show

Contents

Direct Download

The iTunes Page

Spotify

Google Play Link

iHeart Radio

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On YouTube

The Revolutionary Man

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fascism And Bolshevism

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Game Of Chicken

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Wisdom Of The Ad Men

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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