Monthly Archives: November 2018

Back To Basics

Posted on by

Something I noticed putting together last week’s show is I have fallen into a pattern as far as material and format. That’s a good thing as without order, there is chaos, but the orderliness of the show has left out some things I like doing. I had not done a Xirl science in a while, for example. When I started this, I was just grabbing random stuff that I found entertaining, without thinking about how it fit together.That’s how I stumbled into the whole Xirl science gag and the black science gag and the libertarian bashing.

Anyway, I decided that once in a while, for variety, I should put together a podcast the way I used to do it. That way I can mock libertarians, which I will henceforth call NAP-bashing, and do some Xirl science. This also helps when I am short on time or stumped for ideas, as it is easy to surf the Reason site or the twitter feed for New Peer Review for material that I can use for the show. To do a one hour podcast each week probably consumes about ten hours of time each week, spread out over the entire week.

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

  • 00:00: Opening
  • 02:00: Tranny Troubles (Link)
  • 12:00: That’s Not Funny (Link) (Link)
  • 22:00: Race and Ideology (Link)
  • 32:00: Hitler’s Revenge (Link)
  • 42:00: Xirl Science (Link) (Link) (Link) (Link)
  • 52:00: Forever Cuck (Link)
  • 57:00: Closing (Link)

Direct Download

The iTunes Page

Spotify

Google Play Link

iHeart Radio

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On YouTube

https://youtu.be/d2qNrd2bPtU

President Echo

Posted on by

Over the last two plus years, the prevailing assumption has been that the Trump phenomenon is part of a greater populist backlash against the corrosive effects of cosmopolitan globalism. Trump’s alleged populism is linked to nationalist movements in Europe, where natives are rebelling against the migrant invasions. Despite the superficial similarities, what’s happening in America may not be analogous to what’s happening in Europe. Instead, the Trump phenomena may be the last echo of old stock America.

If you look at what Trump has actually done in office, versus what he has said, his presidency has been rather conventional. He has cut a lot of regulations, which is pretty standard Republican stuff. He got a tax overhaul passed, which is also standard issue Republicanism. His judges are all right out of the Federalist society. Otherwise, the Trump administration has been what we would have got from Jeb bush, except the marketing of it has been much more entertaining than what you get from standard issue conservatives.

What Trump’s presidency looks like is an echo of the Reagan presidency. Reagan ran on a platform to roll back the cultural revolution of the 60’s and 70’s. He did not explicitly say it, but that’s what everyone assumed. He talked about shrinking government, reforming taxes, rolling back the cultural excesses like abortion and affirmative action. He also talked about economics and foreign policy, but the people who voted for him were looking at the domestic items. People really believed the Reagan revolution was a rollback.

That last bit has been understandably forgotten by the current ruling class. They don’t even talk about the Reagan Democrat phenomenon. That was the great re-alignment in the 1980’s that carried into the 1990’s. Working class whites, who had always voted Democrat, changed parties over the culture issues. Things like taxes and regulation were nice, but what got them to change parties was the culture war. They voted for Reagan because they believed he would fix everything broken in the 60’s and 70’s.

Instead, Reagan delivered a huge military buildup, massive deficits, bigger government and a debt fueled economic boom. All the talk of entitlement reform ended, for example, when it threatened the military buildup. Despite the enormous support from social conservatives, Reagan delivered nothing on that front. Of course, the currency reforms in the Reagan years made today’s debt boom possible. Then there was immigration reform, which is turning out to be the Gipper’s most important policy achievement.

Reagan was the Baby Boomer’s ideal president, in that he delivered to middle-class boomers exactly what they wanted. They were in their prime work years, so they got low taxes, a roaring economy and booming investment climate. Their parents were getting old, so they got assurance the government would pay for all the entitlements. Of course, the boomer kids were in school, so we got a boom in education spending. Boomers have always been socially liberal, so nothing was ever done to address the cultural stuff.

The way to look at the 1980’s is as an echo of Eisenhower’s America. Watch movies from the period, like Star Wars or Indiana Jones, and what you see are remakes of the wholesome action films middle-class boomers grew up on as kids. Even the foreign policy stuff had a whiff of Eisenhower’s era. Instead of kids hiding under their desks at school, kids watched movies like Red Dawn or The Day After to get good and scared about the the Soviets. The 1980’s were a Spielberg remake of the 1950’s.

Trump won election as a remake of the Reagan election. It’s not a perfect analogy, but people forget that the Gipper talked pretty tough on the campaign trail. The tone police followed him around too. As much as Trump gets cast as the white nationalist’s president, he’s pretty much just standard middle American white guy, in terms of his politics and delivery. Like Reagan, the white working class voted for him thinking he would roll back the last three decades of excess. Just as with Reagan, none of that is going to happen.

Instead, he is delivering what the middle-class boomers want. They are heading into retirement, so keeping the stock market humming and making sure inflation is in check is their top priority. Of course, entitlements cannot be touched. As for immigration, nothing is going to change, because this is not important to them. They live in nice safe suburbs and rely on the little brown guys to mow the lawn. Maybe the visiting nurse is from Trinidad or perhaps the grand kids nanny is a nice Guatemalan woman who is teaching them Mam.

The trouble, of course, is that middle-class boomers are a shrinking block. The invasion plus the actuarial tables are making them less of a factor. The remnants of the old Reagan coalition came out of mothballs to shock the pollsters and the political elite in 2016, but they are not making that mistake again. As we saw in the midterms, they can manufacture all the foreign votes they need to win the 2020 election. This echo of old heritage America, is going to be weaker and shorter than the Reagan echo. It will be the last.

The Pale Man’s Burden

Posted on by

Georgia is one of the places to watch if you want to get a partial glimpse into the future, as it is 61% white, but a growing portion of its white population is from outside the south. The Atlanta area has grown like a weed and much of the growth has come from attracting outsiders. A big chunk of those outsiders are Hispanics, so the state has a little bit of everything, as far as demographic challenges. As a result, it will be one of the first states to realize democracy cannot work in a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society.

This story from the past election is a good example of something that pale-folk will come to realize all over the country. That is, you can run out of places to hide. Georgia “solved” the problems of Atlanta by allowing the better parts to secede from the city proper, thus avoiding the challenges of being pale in a diverse city. This concept was applied to other areas that found themselves with a pale tax base, governed by a vibrant majority. Instead the residents fleeing the jurisdiction, the jurisdiction fled the people, so to speak.

As is the case with all such schemes, the Left soon figures out how to defeat them and that seems to be the case with this latest proposal. The author of that piece is an anti-white, so he is a useful example of the attitudes the pale-folk will face in the future, as they seek out new ways to maintain their own communities. The hostile tone masks an important assumption among the diverse. That is, It’s not that they oppose free association. It’s that the diverse have a right to be in close proximity to pale-folk.

It is a strange alteration in the dynamics of race relations that goes unremarked, because the people in charge are still locked in another era. They frame everything as a fight over denying the diverse the same access as the pale. That shipped sailed a long time ago, as the diverse now have greater access than the pale. Even new arrivals from lands over the horizon have special access. Every federal government IT contractor is from South Asia for a reason. That’s right, Indians have a special door just like blacks.

There are so many special doors now, all of which reading “no white men may pass” that it has become a racket in itself. There are firms around Washington that exist just to provide diversity to the government contractor. They are not explicit, but it is the thing everyone knows, but no one says. After generations of this stuff, no one thinks about it anymore. The only people fighting it are East Asians at Harvard, who are basically squabbling with other diverse people over how to slice up the pie. Otherwise, anti-white is the norm.

The new reality that has gone unremarked is something you get a glimpse of in that story out of Georgia. The diverse now demand access to the pale. Even if the pale find some way to carve out their own places, but remain within the law, the diverse will find some way to force their way inside. In other words, the Danegeld of the Civil Rights Movement, which was affirmative action, was not enough. It turns out Kipling was right about the Danegeld. Once you have paid the diverse, you never get rid of the diverse.

That’s what makes Georgia an interesting case to follow. In other jurisdiction, the pale simply keep moving. In Lagos on the Chesapeake, the pale first decamped to the first suburbs, just on the edge of the city. Pale-folk could still bus into jobs in the city, but avoid being killed on their own streets at night. But then the the diverse could take the same buses out to the suburbs, so the pale moved further away. Those inner suburbs decayed and many are now dumping grounds for Hispanics and Africans.

As we saw in the Obama  years, the people in charge are plotting to solve this problem with housing laws. The usual suspects have been hard at work on this for a couple of decades at least. The Obama Administration plan called Affirmative Housing or some such nonsense, was basically an effort to compel pale-folk to live among the diverse, by forcing them to have the diverse in their areas. In other words, the same logic they use to diversify schools would be applied to pale areas in order to make them vibrant.

The underlying assumption to all of this is that the diverse have a natural right to access to the pale. We’ve gone from a mindset that says the diverse should have the same rules as the pale, a sensible thing on the surface, to a mindset that treats the pale-folk as a public good, to which the diverse have a natural right. Given the use of disparate impact law, it is not going to be long before the pale will be responsible for making sure they make themselves available to the diverse. They will have to prove they are accessible.

The Civil Rights Movement was always about the pale people. The usual suspects just used blacks as a weapon in their war on pale people. Most people get that, but still cling to the old pale ideas about equality of access and so forth. Those habits of mind that make pale society so successful, make pale societies vulnerable. As long as pale-folk have had a place to run, they have preferred to hold onto those old pale ideals, rather than face the reality of what’s happening. Disorganized retreat before dishonor!

As we see in Georgia and other places, the trap is slamming shut and the pale will no longer have the luxury of heading off for paler pastures. That’s part of what sparked the emergence of the alt-right. It was suburban pale boys suddenly facing the reality of diversity. They found out that libertarianism is no match for organized vibrancy and that dropped the scales from their eyes. The pale man’s burden is an unsustainable Danegled that just makes the final resolution that much more costly.

The Coming Violence

Posted on by

Interpersonal violence tends to escalate quickly, where the combatants seem to go from wary suspicion to verbal confrontation and then trading blows. Anyone who has been in a bar fight understands this accelerated process. Two guys are playing pool, words are exchanged and suddenly a beer bottle is smashed over someone’s head. Sports fights follow a similar pattern. Two players get a bit heated and then all of a sudden, you have a bench clearing brawl. This even happens in the professional ranks.

Of course, people don’t actually go from zero to eleven in the blink of an eye. It just appears that way to the outsider. In reality, there is an underlying hostility between the parties that simmers until one or both come to the conclusion that violence is the best option or the only option. In a bar fight, the guy taking the first blow often assumes the other guy is about to do the same thing. In a sports melee, normal male honor requires each side to match the escalation of the other side until a fight breaks out.

This pattern can certainly play out in other areas of life. In fact, rulers have always understand that general discontent among the rabble is like dry underbrush. It only takes a spark and you have a forest fire. In the case of civil unrest, a simmering discontent in the community, or among a sub-group, can quickly turn into a riot. The Rodney King riots in 1992 are a good example. The black underclass had developed a deep hatred of the cops, so when the cops were acquitted, that was the spark that set off the ghetto riot.

More recently and on a smaller scale, the shooting at the Pittsburgh synagogue is an example of a member of a sub-culture who went from zero to mass shooter in one afternoon. He did not pick the target at random or even because they were Jewish, but rather because they were part of a subversive group throwing open the gates to the country to foreign invaders. In other words, like the guy slugging someone at a bar, the shooter thought he was acting rationally and violence was the only rational option.

The point being, whether it is the seemingly incoherent and ad hoc violence of a bar fight or sports melee, or a person or group committing social violence, the actors arise from predictable conditions and act quite rationally. There is a degree of predictability to their actions, if you’re willing to notice. It’s why bouncers in bars keep an eye on the males competing with one another for females. It’s why sports referees look for guys getting agitated and send them off the field to cool down and get their head back in the game.

In modern America, there does not seem to be anyone in charge willing to play the role of bouncer or referee. Instead, the people in charge are like the guy with the stick in old-time bare knuckle fights. They are trying to get the combatants to go at one another, rather than keep them under control. The deployment, tolerance and protection of Antifa, for example, is a deliberate provocation. The people in charge not only hope these idiots hurt someone, they hope white men will defend themselves so they can be railroaded by the courts.

At a smaller scale, the vicious and petty war on white men seems like it is designed to create an American Anders Breivik. Every day, the news brings stories of a white guy getting fired from his job because he told the wrong joke, liked the wrong social media meme or simply was not enthusiastic enough for Progressive fads. This story about a sportsball fan fired because he was upset at the black coach of his favorite sportsball team is a good example. The celebratory tone of the story should be noted.

Now, what’s driving these hunts for the impertinent white guy is the deadly virtue spiral among the ruling class. The dingbats in the media who spend their days hunting down bad thinkers and getting them fired, are acting from a desire for attention. The people at the company who play along with it are acting out of fear. Is this a replay of the Reign of Terror, where radicals spiraled out of control in an orgy of violence. or, is it the Great Terror, where Stalin locked in his control by killing off anyone that could threaten him?

The historically appropriate analogy is debatable, but what is not debatable is modern America is not 18th century France of 20th century Russia. In a multi-racial society, where the old majority is being swamped by former minorities and those former minorities are told they must hate the old majority. The atmosphere is nothing but kindling. A prudent ruling class would be acting as firemen, hunting down anything that looks like a spark, over- reacting if necessarily, in order to prevent a blaze they may not be able to control.

That’s possibly a clue about what our ruling class truly fears. Much of the political talk on the Left after the 2016 election was about how they may have jumped the gun and created a bit of backlash. The BLM murder sprees the summer before the election certainly opened a lot of eyes about the reality of what comes next. The relentless hunting down of internet racists could simply be an effort at calming their constituents. A black guy, enraged by racists memes, going on a shooting spree would be bad for the cause.

Alternatively, the hunting down of internet racists could simply be another sign that the ruling class is oblivious to what’s happening. Hanlon’s Razor says to assume stupidity in these cases. The people who rule over us are strangely unfamiliar with violence. They know it only through their televisions. It’s why they have embraced the Antifa mobs. To people unfamiliar with violence, those black clad idiots look like what managerial class types imagine revolutionaries look like. They don’t know what they don’t know.

Either way, social discontent can easily turn to social unrest and then violence. The people in charge are loading the forest with dry underbrush and kindling, while flicking matches at one another. Maybe they don’t see the danger. Maybe they fear the wrong things. Perhaps they want to see it all burn. Regardless of the motivation, the conditions for political and social violence are just about perfect. One of the matches the idiots in the media are flicking into the underbrush will eventually set the world on fire.

Voluntary Suicide

Posted on by

In debates about monetary policy, there is an old saying about the fundamental flaw in hard money arguments. “If your government is so corrupt you need a gold standard to keep it under control, your government is corrupt enough to find a way around the gold standard.“ It is an observation that is fundamentally true about the reality of ruling classes, regardless of the political system. It also speaks to the way liberal democracy warps the way the intellectual classes think about the relationship between ruler and ruled.

In all forms of government prior to the Enlightenment, the defects of the state were assigned to the people in charge of the state. In a tyranny, problems in one of the provinces meant the tyrant replaced the local governor. In a monarchy, bad policy coming from the crown meant the king was the problem. If he was enough of a problem, he would have a hunting accident and there would be a new king. In all forms of personal rule, the assumption is the problems arise from the person doing the ruling, not the system.

Since the Enlightenment, in contrast, whenever problems in governance are discussed, it is assumed that the system is the issue and not the people. This is true within various forms of socialism or liberal democracy. The one obvious exception is Chinese communism, where changing the people is still the rule. Thar’s mostly due to the fact that China was always Chinese first, communist second. Otherwise, the debate about government is about systems rather than the sorts of people who should rule.

All forms of communism start from the assumption that property arrangements, and relationships between property holders, is the basis of human society. This was certainly true of feudalism, but communists picked up where Rousseau left off and assumed property is the fork in the road of human societies. The communist solution is to get rid of property. This allows the scientific socialist to create new social arrangements that are beneficial to all of society. It’s a property solution to the human condition.

Similarly, libertarians start from the assumption that property is the basis of human relations and human society. Contrary to the communist, libertarians see the violation of property rights as the source of human misery. Their solution is to sanctify private property, by re-establishing it as the basis of human relations. That’s the thing about libertarianism. When you strip away the window dressing, it is simply a system property relations. Like communism, it is a property solution to the human condition.

Democratic systems are an effort to address the natural inequality of society by harnessing the will of the majority in the political system. The notion of “one man, one vote” acknowledges that all men may not be equal in wealth and status, but they have an equal stake in society, so they get an equal vote. The flaw is that what is good for the individual is often bad for society. If everyone votes their interests, or what they think of as their interests, you may end up invading Sicily and losing the Peloponnesian War.

Even if democracy does not result in a catastrophic failure, as with the Greeks, the system we call liberal democracy produces unfavorable results. A long observed problem with democracy is something called the Condorcet paradox, where the results swing between two fixed extremes. We see this in American democracy. We get one party in charge for a few elections, then for some reason, the results of the next election go the other way. The last two elections are pretty good example of cyclical results.

That’s the motivation behind schemes like quadratic voting, which seek to tie economic interest to the weight of the vote. The very short version is that everyone gets so much vote capital to spend on the issues they think are important. The greater the interest in an issue, the more voting stock you invest in it. Presumably this means people with no interest in some topic, will not vote on that topic. It is an interesting theory that is not based in reality and could never work in the real world. It’s a fun exercise for the bored.

Again, what you see here, and quadratic voting is a good example, is an effort to arrive at a system solution to the human condition. We know some people are not very smart and are not going to make rational choices when voting. We know there are evil people who will exploit dumb people. Democracy allows for no way to address this, as the starting assumption is all votes are equal, because everyone has the same stake in the outcome of elections. Quadratic voting is a clever attempt at vote-stripping that will fool no one.

The central defect of all political and economic systems since the Enlightenment is they assume there is a rational system that can address the human condition. Whether it was socialists trying to solve the problems that arise from material inequality or the humanists, who seek to address the biological reality of man, the assumption is there is a system that once in place, people will voluntarily support, thus making authority unnecessary. At the heart of all western political philosophy is the dream of voluntarism.

The funny thing is there is never much speculation into why it is or how it is that men voluntarily cooperate. The fascists, to their credit, looked at the brotherhood of trench socialism, as a model for voluntarism. In times of crisis and great danger, men of all classes and interests will join together in the struggle. Marxists came to rely upon perpetual revolution as a way to maintain discipline, but that hardly qualifies as a voluntarist solution to human cooperation. It’s an excuse for state terror.

French conservatives, writing in the later years of the Revolution, probably came the closest to understanding this problem. Joseph de Maistre looked at society as an organic thing, where the parts were defined by their relationship with one another. Individually, they could not exists, because their form and purpose was defined entirely within the state and in relation to the other parts of society. The members of society voluntarily participated in their role, because it is what defined them as human beings.

The fact that the old aristocratic order, that conservatives came to represent, collapsed in the face of Enlightenment radicalism, suggests it either had different defects or never addressed the problem of human cooperation. The long experiment that followed the French Revolution, all the murder and mayhem that defined it, has arrived at the same point as the old aristocratic order. The question is what will come along to push over the liberal democratic order, promising to solve the problem of human cooperation.

Perhaps it is just voluntary, cooperative suicide.

Understanding The War On Whitey

Posted on by

It is tempting to think that the war on white people we see today is some sort of weird incoherent spasm of Progressivism. As Steve Sailer likes to believe, it is part of an electoral strategy to keep the coalition of non-whites from killing each other. If they are focused on how much they hate white people, white men in particular, then they won’t fall into slaughtering one another. That’s a tempting belief, because it suggests it will abate on its own, once the various tribes of the Left have exhausted themselves.

While there may be some truth to that assertion, at least in the narrow confines of electoral politics, the truth is we are simply seeing the next phase of a war that started not long after the end of the Second World War. It was not an explicit war on whitey, as we see today, but rather a war on white ideas about how best to organize a society. One front was the war on institutions, by overrunning them and turning them into pillboxes, from which the Left could attack white society. The academy is the most obvious example.

Another front in this war has been the attack on the basic concepts that whites in America have accepted as the foundation of order. In the 1960’s, the Left managed to outlaw freedom of association, with civil rights legislation. The long held view that you are free to associate with whom you like was banned, in favor of a system of permissions, administered by the courts. Like in a prison, white people now need to seek permission to associate or disassociate. You’ll note that non-whites are free to organize as they please.

Another white concept that has been under attack for generations is the notion of free inquiry. A peculiar feature of the West has always been a curiosity about the world and a willingness to consider new ideas. Openness predates the Enlightenment and is the reason the Enlightenment happened where it did. There’s no analog in Mesopotamia or Asia, and certainly nothing similar in Africa. Free inquiry, the willingness to reconsider old ideas and debate new ideas is a quintessentially white concept.

Of course, the only way you can have free inquiry is to have the freedom to challenge accepted notions in public. Free speech, as a political concept, is just the implementation of free inquiry in the realm of current affairs. The war on speech that we see today, actually started generations ago, as part of the general war on whiteness. In the 1970’s, neoconservative thinker Walter Berns successfully argued that free speech was limited to “good speech” by which he meant speech that served the interest of his team.

This quickly became neoconservative dogma. In the 1980’s, for example, neocons attacked Ronald Reagan’s choice of M.E. Bradford to be chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, on the grounds that he was insufficiently worshipful of Abraham Lincoln. An essential element of the neoconservative persuasion is a deification of Lincoln as the true founder of the Republic. Questioning that questions the neocon role in the American narrative, so that sort of speech can never be tolerated.

Later on, the odious carbuncle Bill Kristol used a similar tactic to drive off the paleocons, particularly Pat Buchanan. The charge this time was that the paleos were not sufficiently worshipful of Israel and Judaism. Of course, the neocon analogs on the Left were more than happy to lock arms with their brothers in making war on Buchanan. This is something we see happening again as Jewish intellectuals and commentators across the political spectrum lock yarmulkes to fight the menace that is Donald Trump.

That’s why we see the overturning of basic contract law and property concepts by the finance and technology giants. De-platforming is part of the war on whiteness, specifically the rule of law. When a registrar steals the domain name of a site they don’t like, that is no different than government agents busting up their property. It’s state sponsored terrorism by proxy. The rule of law and the orderly administration of the law are white concepts, so overturning them is as important as attacking white people directly.

This war on whiteness, that has now become an explicit war on white people, is an accident of history. Some paleocons used to call it Hitler’s revenge, because it grew out of a response to the holocaust. Jewish intellectuals after the war struggled to understand why the Jews of Europe did not fight back. The Warsaw ghetto uprising, for example, is interesting only because of its uniqueness. Instead of this puzzle resulting in self-examination, the response was an obsession with antisemitism and fascism.

The Frankfurt School, for example, started as a project to apply Marxist concepts to the culture. That’s where we get the term “cultural Marxism.” The project quickly curdled into an obsession with antisemitism and fascism, culminating in The Authoritarian Personality, a model for evaluating the morality of white people. Inevitably, that moral code was based on what the authors thought was good for the Jews. Anything that was exclusive or excessively curious about the role of Jews was deemed to be fascist or proto-fascist.

In a strange way, Hitler’s real revenge was the curdling of diaspora culture into a war on Western civilization and a self-defeating war on white people. Of course, the defeat of the Nazis also unleashed American Progressivism as a global firestorm of cultural destructiveness. The Nazis could not hold a candle to the viciousness of the modern human resource department staffed by left-wing harpies. The popularity of Man in the High Castle is that it seems benign in comparison to today’s cultural environment.

The Death Of Edgytarian Man

Posted on by

The other day, Paul Ramsey had an amusing take on Gavin McInnes dramatically quitting his fan club, the Proud Boys. Everyone is assuming this was in response to the FBI using the word “extremist” when describing the McInnes fan club in a bulletin they issued to the Portland Oregon police department. The assumption is that the FBI is now going to treat Proud Boys as a criminal organization or a terrorist group. McInnes is disavowing them in order to avoid legal guilt by association or any financial culpability stemming from lawsuits.

Maybe that’s what motivated McInnes, but the more likely answer is something I pointed out a year ago with him and other edgytarians. For right-wing edgytarians, the game is always to keep an eye on where the Left is drawing the line. To be edgy on the Right means always staying just inside that line. When the line moves, make sure you move with it, maybe do so reluctantly, while lecturing those to your Right about the need to play nice or be civil. A good discourse on principles and “who we are” always helps.

It is a tough life and many trip up and fall into the void. That’s what’s happening with McInnes and his fan club. Let’s not kid ourselves about the Proud Boys. It was never intended to be anything but a fan club for McInnes. He got the idea from hanging out with alt-right people in the run-up to the presidential election. He saw that guys like Mike Enoch and Richard Spencer had built an audience around a personal brand, so McInnes created what he thought was a mom-safe version for himself. Proud Boys is alt-right-lite.

Now, the assumption that the FBI is about to RICO the Proud Boys is way off base. The use of the term “extremist group” is meaningless. There is no such formal designation in the law or with the FBI. It is as meaningful as saying the Proud Boys are a drinking club or they like wearing polo shirts. The FBI is a corrupt and broken organization, but they are not about to RICO a TV clown’s fan club. The dramatic reading of his resignation was about getting inside that line again, so McInnes can keep his career alive.

It’s why it is always wise to think about the motivation of popular figures who dabble in dissident politics. A guy like McInnes is primarily a performer. He has spent his life feeling around for a vehicle that will get him a big audience. He’s tried edgy magazine writer, edgy polemicist, TV clown, YouTube clown, jokey political analyst, cheeky ad-man and now he is the hipster gadfly. His instincts, with regards to politics, are conventional white guy politics, but they have always been a a decoration for his performing career.

Another example is Stefan Molyneux, who built his career being a dramatic, somewhat edgy, anarcho-libertarian YouTube performer. His edginess was to flirt with things like biological realism, by posting available data on things like race, sex and IQ. Molyneux is a trained stage actor, who has developed an act that works well on YouTube. As soon as he got some heat from the Left, he has quickly retreated into generic libertarianism, which is completely safe, because it is completely harmless. The show must go on.

On the surface, the right-edgytarian feels like a good thing, because through humor (McInnes) and dramatic presentation (Molyneux) they can help normalize and popularize heretical ideas. Lots of alt-right people love Moly, because his videos are useful in making clever social media memes. The trouble is these guys can just as quickly vilify dissident ideas, when they are sprinting to catch up with the new line Lefty has drawn. Effectively what McInnes is doing is throwing his own fans into the gaping maw of Lefty outrage.

The trouble, of course, is that in an age of extreme intolerance, like we see today, the ideological enforcers are less tolerant of edgy clowns like McInnes than the serious dissidents. They see the edgy clowns as mocking their identity and that can never be tolerated, so they go after these otherwise harmless performers. It’s why a relatively safe performer like Molyneux gets mass reported and protested. The ideological enforcers know they are defending a dead and brittle orthodoxy, so there is no room for tolerance.

It’s why edgy guy is doomed, at least for now. As I pointed out a year ago, in an ideological age, you pick one side and only one side. There’s no bridging the gap or performing on both sides of the street. The edgytarians, if they are to exist at all, will have to operate on this side of the great divide. That requires a new type of performer with a grounding in dissident ideas. None of the edgy guys today have that, so they will eventually end up on the other side, singing to an audience of true believers.

Black Friday

Posted on by

Steve Sailer likes to draw comparisons between this age and what happened when the 1960’s counter-culture turned toxic in the the 1970’s. The Civil Rights Movement had curdled into militant black power and the hippy movement had soured into roving gangs of militants like the Weather Underground. It’s not a bad comparison, because then as now, the cause of the turmoil was an incoherent radicalism. What did the Black Panthers want, other than access to white women? What was the point of the BLM violence?

A key difference between then and now is the issue of race. In the 1960’s, America was 85% white and whites just assumed blacks were a poor fit for modern society. Today, America is 60% white and everyone has spent their lives indoctrinated in a cult that worships blacks. Fifty years ago when blacks turned violent, everyone sort of expected it, so no one was really surprised. Today, black violence is a mystery to the beautiful people and they insist everyone else pretend that it is a mystery or caused by whites.

That’s what makes the Ferguson Effect an interesting topic, even after the consequences are slowly starting to fade. Prior to the Black Lives Matter stuff and the liberal tub thumping over events like Travon Martin, crime in general, and black crime in particular, had faded from the public’s consciousness. Then all of a sudden the blacks were angry and murder rates in certain cities began to shoot up again. In 2011 Baltimore had 211 murders. In 2015, the year of Freddy Gray, the city recorded 342 homicides.

White liberals, broadly speaking, have argued the Ferguson Effect is the result of black rage in response to police brutality and racism. The reason blacks in Baltimore, for example, started murdering one another at a record clip, was over anger at the police department’s rough justice in the ghetto. It’s an argument that assumes blacks have no agency of their own and are simply controlled by the behavior of whites. This is a gratuitous assertion by people with an anti-white agenda, but it is the prevailing opinion.

Blacks, on the other hand, have never accepted this line of argument. Instead, they prefer to dismiss the whole thing as an baffling anomaly. The prevailing argument from black activists is that there is no such this as the Ferguson Effect. This piece in City Lab, the urban subsidiary of The Atlantic, is a good example. It has become an article of faith among blacks that the Ferguson Effect is just another effort to explain away the real causes of black crime. Namely, to hide the institutional racism in modern America.

There is, of course, something to it. Blacks seem to get that the underlying assumption of the Ferguson Effect is that left to their own devices, black society would quickly devolve into something pre-modern and violent. Without the constraints of white society, blacks are simply unable to achieve anything above the neolithic. If whites come to accept this again, then all of the concessions and benefits that came out of the Civil Rights Movement no longer make any sense. The whole project unravels in the face of biological reality.

Reality is that thing that does not go away when you stop believing in it. Race relations in America, with regards to blacks, have always been about a series of gates. Blacks who can behave themselves pass through the gate from the ghetto to the suburbs. Blacks with something on the ball can enter into the managerial class, assuming they are willing to accept their symbolic role in the system. The violent and stupid, in contrast, cannot pass through those gates, so they are penned up in urban reservations guarded by the police.

Whites in America, have come to terms with this by never thinking about it. Liberal whites invest their time in fantasies like structural racism and white privilege, while normal whites just ignore it. Blacks, on the other hand, are keenly aware of this reality. For those able to pass through those gates, there is a need to obscure this reality, but also a deep resentment for it. You’ll note that black anger at white America comes from those able to pass through the gates, because they know the underlying assumptions are true.

This is why middle-class black anger at white America is visceral and incoherent. You see it at the end of that posted article, when the writer celebrates pointless protest. “If the word “Ferguson” was permanently and exclusively attached back to its original meaning, we might find evidence of an “effect” when it comes to a number of recent, inspiring events: the bringing down of Confederate monuments, the ousting of Chicago’s police chief, or the recent Chicago protests that forced Donald Trump to cancel a rally.”

The truth is, black crime rates went up in areas where Black Lives Matter was active, because the white cops were simply unwilling to do the job that was necessary to control the ghettos. Many simply moved to other jobs, while the supply of new recruits dried up, leaving these police departments woefully undermanned. On the other hand, the blacks who have made it through the gates are reminded of the reality of their situation. They know that in order to avoid this, they must accept this. That’s the source of their anger.

Letters To Z Man

Posted on by

With what will be an extended weekend ahead of me, I decided to post the podcast early this week. That way, if you are stuck in traffic or waiting in an airport, you can pass the time listening to my soothing voice. Given that tomorrow is Thanksgiving and I will be slipping out early today for the long weekend, I figured I should close up shop for the week and get this up on Wednesday. I’m not sure if I will be posting anything over the weekend, but I often say that and end up posting things anyway. Still, the plan is to take a break.

I’ve also been feeling a bit guilty about letting the e-mail pile up. I’m getting more mail as the audience grows. Much of it actually comes from the podcast now. I think most readers will post a question on the site, but many listeners get the show through iTunes, Spotify and other platforms that now syndicate the podcast. The result is I’m getting more e-mail related to the podcast. I try to read all of it and respond, but I am woefully behind and often don’t get to it until weeks later. I have a very busy schedule these days.

What I decided to do a few months back is organize them into similar topics and then do a post answering the most common questions. Then it occurred to me that it could be a podcast, for a week when I want to do something light. There’s no better time for that than before a holiday. The topics are the common ones, but also ones I wanted to address for one reason or another. I get some interesting questions from time to time. A little artistic license has been employed to avoid outing anyone or offending anyone.

You’ll note that there is no table of contents. That’s because it is just one sixty minute segment this week. That means no explosions, for those who have complained about that in the past. Never let be said that I am not generous to my critics. I actually recorded this whole thing straight through with very little editing. I did have to take a break to get a drink or clear my throat, but otherwise it is one straight hour of me talking. That was a lot harder than I expected. Talking to yourself for an hour is not as easy as it sounds.

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.

Direct Download

The iTunes Page

Spotify

Google Play Link

iHeart Radio

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On YouTube

https://youtu.be/nH75nZ2LyuM

Kritocracy Then Chaos

Posted on by

Imagine if in some local courthouse, we discover that the judges are giving accused child pornographers a free pass. The accused come into the system, get booked and then a judge finds some reason to either let them free on their own recognizance or simply drops the charges. After a while, someone notices that this sleepy little courthouse has a rather high number of people arrested for kiddie porn, but that all of them get set free on some technicality by one of the judges. The public would want some answers.

Upon further inquiry, it is learned that the head judge belongs to some weird club that thinks the age of consent is immoral, that adults should be free to have sex with children and consume child pornography. Once installed at the court house, he hired other judges from his club, as well as clerks and secretaries. The whole courthouse was full of these people. Further, the child porn people heard about it so they would travel to this jurisdiction to indulge in their fetish, knowing the local court would give them a free pass.

Needless to say, such a thing would be the scandal of the century. Now, instead of something abhorrent like kiddie porn, let’s say the secret club is composed of people loyal to some strange religion or bizarre ideology. They think the laws of the country are immoral and seek to overturn the entire legal system. Instead of operating in a local courthouse, they are targeting the Federal system. In other words, it is the same sort of conspiracy, but the motivation is ideological and the target is national.

That’s what we have happening in the Federal court system. The system is riddled with judges who belong to a bizarre political cult. They are members of a legal sub-cult that does not accept the rule of law. Instead, they think the law and the enforcement of the law should always be in support of their cult’s radical agenda. As such, they no longer abide by the law as written and refuse to obey the authority that issues the law. That is what we are seeing on a daily basis, as Federal judges revolt against the legal system.

This is not a new thing. The legendary ninth circuit out west has been a dumping ground for lunatics appointed to the federal bench by their coreligionists. Rulings come out of the ninth circuit, only to be struck down on appeal. The reason the ninth existed, was that everyone acknowledged the existence of this cult, but instead of exterminating it and its members, the idea was to keep them bottled up in specific circuits. It was like a quarantine around an infected zone. Rather than kill the afflicted, they would be isolated.

To continue the metaphor, the virus has jumped the quarantine and now the entire system is showing signs of infection. For two years the Trump administration has been plagued with federal judges who just make up rulings out of thin air. In many cases they are ruling on behalf of plaintiffs who have no standing in the court. In other cases, they are simply making up legal theories so bizarre they would get a first year law student dismissed from school on mental health grounds. The Federal bench is in revolt against the rule of law.

In this particular case, the law is clear. It’s not just US law, but international law. There is a legal process for applying for asylum. No country is required to accept anyone who does not follow the procedures. US law is crystal clear on the issue, yet this judge is making up law that is direct conflict with black letter law. This is no less deranged than if the judge stood up, stripped off his clothes and declared he is an invisible chicken and that everyone in the court must cluck in worship to him. This judge is not mentally fit.

Yet, this judge is not an exception. He is now the rule. The Federal system is full of his fellow cultists, trained in a bizarre legal theory that insists there is no law, just an unwritten ideology that is the rejection of the very basis of western civilization. The boys at FTN jokingly call it the kritarchy , but it is not a bad way to think of it. Instead of the judge being a neutral interpreter of law, as is the western tradition, the judge in this cult is a shaman, charged with reaching justice, as understood by the teachings of his cult.

Kritocracy is a system associated with pre-modern societies, in which there was no central rule making authority. Instead of a legal tradition upon which judges relied, they looked to local custom. This works well enough, it’s better than anarchy, as long as the people within the community adhere to the same customs and beliefs. The idea is to reach a peaceful result, not a legally consistent one. In a modern, rule based society, this form of legal theory is as alien as human sacrifice. It is an assault on civil order.

The thing is, the outcomes are not important here. Even if this lunatic is overruled and the law is enforced, the damage that is being done to civil order is incalculable. Every time one of these cult members gets on the bench and starts making these bizarre rulings, public trust in the legal system is eroded. We are very close to the point where a majority of people no longer think we have a legal system at all. Instead, it is arbitrary rule by robed shamans. Therefore, the law is irrelevant and the system for writing laws is illegitimate.

We now live in an age in which the Federal court says the White House cannot decide who gets a press pass, but it is perfectly OK for the banks to collude to shut you out of the financial system, because they don’t like how you voted. The law says a business can fire an employee, because he does not accept the company values, but the same business must hire a mentally unstable man in a sundress and let him watch the female employees undress. This is a revolt against rationality and reason and it can end only one way.

Getting back to where we started, the remedy for that courthouse overrun by perverts is to clear out the perverts. That’s a simple answer to a small, isolated problem. What American faces is the near total takeover of the institutions by a secular cult that is evolving into a suicidal mystery cult. Removing the believers from positions of authority will not be peaceful. Allowing their madness to run its course will not be peaceful either, as the overthrow of order can only lead to anarchy. Either way, what comes next is chaos.