December Grab Bag

Most likely, this is the final show of 2018. I’m not sure if I’ll do one next week, because of this being the start of a long holiday. Lots of people drop out between Christmas and New Year’s day to travel and decompress. I’m one of them. I was going to spend the week in Paris, but the whites are rioting again, so that’s out. Instead, I’ll be using the time to take care of administrative items around the office, catch up on my reading and reset various projects I have going. It’s a good time to reset and get ready for a fresh start.

I will be dropping in on Happy Homelands on Saturday. Paul and Tiina will be hosting a special Christmas show, which will have a bunch of people on over two hours. I always recommend Paul’s videos to people curious about what’s happening on our side of the great divide. They are a nice, gentle introductions to our topics and people. I thought his appearance with Millennial Woes last week was great. Our side needs more accessible personalities, because most people see us as the Hell’s Angels of politics.

Otherwise, the next week will be a light posting week. For me, light posting means a day or two off, but everything is relative. It also depends upon how events play out with the big showdown over the wall funding. I’m not all that confident Trump can get a deal done, but maybe Ann Coulter taunting him has finally snapped him out of his funk. This is probably where we find out if Trump has any chance of winning a second term. But, we’ll have to see what happens. maybe we get lucky and it wraps up today.

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 have been de-platformed by Spotify, because they feared I was poisoning the minds of their Millennial customers.

This Week’s Show


  • 00:00: Opening
  • 02:00: The Rackets (Link) (Link) (Link) (Link) (Link) (Link)
  • 12:00: Our Petty Royalty (Link)
  • 22:00: Theocracy (Link)
  • 32:00: Anti-Anti-Israel (Link) (Link)
  • 42:00: We’ve Always Been At War With East Africa (Link)
  • 47:00: Broken Women (Link)
  • 52:00: Man Of The Year (Link)
  • 57:00: Closing (Link)

Direct DownloadThe iTunes PageGoogle Play LinkiHeart Radio

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On YouTube

Witch Hunters

Alex McNabb is one of the personalities on The Right Stuff. His primary role is as a side kick on the TDS podcast, but he turns up on other shows and works on the various bits they do. In his spare time, he is a licensed emergency medical technician working in rural Virginia. That means he is one of the people riding an ambulance to situations where people are injured. In rural parts of America, there is a shortage of EMT’s and ambulance services, so much of the work is done by volunteers like McNabb.

For the past few week, Antifa agitator Christopher Mathias has been trying to get McNabb thrown off the ambulance crew. Mathias pretends to be a news reporter, but his real job is to harass people with whom Antifa disagrees. He started harassing the ambulance service and when that did not work, he started calling the state licensing board. When that went nowhere, he started harassing the Board of Supervisors. He finally found a fellow lunatic to try and use his government position to pull funding from the ambulance service.

Now, it should be said that most people in McNabb’s position would have tried to lie low for a while until the lunatics found a new target to harass. Instead, he stood up for himself in public and made his case. The Board of Supervisors appears to have been suitably impressed, or perhaps shamed, as none of them were willing to support the lunatic’s effort to harm the ambulance service. That’s not the end of it, of course, as lunatics never quit after they lose a fight. Instead, they redouble their efforts and keep coming.

Even so, you have to wonder if people are starting to get tired of these ridiculous show trials, where mentally unstable people like Christopher Mathias get the final word on public morality. Whatever you think about McNabb’s entertainment life, he’s causing no one harm with it and his work as an EMT saves lives. It’s why rational societies maintain a barrier between public and private life. We’re better off not knowing the interior life of the people we deal with every day. More important, we don’t need to know it.

Watch the video of the exchange between the chairman of the Board of Supervisors and McNabb and it looks like something from a Stalin show trial. The chairman was not there to serve the people of his county. He was there to put on a performance and show his betters that he is a true believer, willing to sacrifice all for the cause. In fact, his antics were so cringe inducing, it made McNabb look like a hero. If you’re on that board and you see that, you don’t want any part of that Boyd character. He’s a nut.

Of course, it is a great example of how people like Mathias are the new Puritans. They spend their days looking for sinners. Replace the phrase “white supremacist” with “blasphemer” or “heretic” in these things and it makes much more sense. It’s why they indiscriminately throw around the term, applying it to anyone they oppose. Just as Eskimos have lots of words for snow, these new Puritans have lots of words for the sinners they are sure must be holding back progress toward the Promised Land.

It’s also another example of something that never gets discussed. Settled society is that space between the fanatics on one side and the barbarians on the other. For most of human history, the barbarians were a real threat, so keeping the fanatics under control was a necessity. The witch hunters in the 16th and 17th century were eventually suppressed, because they were dangerous. In this age, our rulers have no fear of barbarians, so they are amused by fanatical lunatics like Chris Mathias.

At some point, one of these witch hunter is going to mess with the wrong witch and something very bad will happen. It would be one thing if these nuts were content to write silly posts on sites like the Huffington Post, but they are not. As we see in this situation, this Mathias guy has invested a big chunk of his life trying to ruin a life. McNabb is a reasonable guy willing to combat this nut within the rules. One day, the target will not be reasonable and he will not be concerned about the rules.

Even if that day never comes, these stories serve to make the case that the people in charge are, at best, indifferent to what is happening in America. A responsible elite steps in and puts the brakes on this nonsense. The people running the Huffington Post, that would be Verizon, would not give these loons a platform. They may not be able to stop a crackpot like Mathias from stalking people on-line, but they can send the message that his behavior is unacceptable. It’s how sensible elites maintain order.

Instead, we live in a world of daily reminders that the people who rule over us hate us and take pleasure in our suffering. Again, no matter what you think of McNabb, he provides a much needed service. People will literally die if this ambulance company is shut down because of McNabb’s blasphemy. Rural communities rely on volunteers like McNabb for these vital services. That tells you the truth about our rulers. They may not agree with what you say, but they are willing to lay down your life in order to suppress it.

American Cicero

In an apocryphal exchange between F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway, Fitzgerald said, “The rich are different from you and me.” To this Hemingway replied, “Yes, they have more money.” This gets repeated a lot, because it tickles the egalitarian sensibilities of most Americans. A big part of what has kept America together since the Civil War is the myth that ours is a classless society. Some people have more money and power than others, but that’s entirely due to merit, not class and connections.

Like the exchange itself, this belief is completely false. Every society has an elite and that elite uses its influence and connections to perpetuate itself. The daughters of rich guys marry the sons of influential guys. Their children are groomed to take up positions in the elite, mostly due to their family connections in the elite. Just as important, a floor is placed under members of the elite, protecting them from reversion to the mean. It’s how the Kennedy family has been in politics for four generations, despite their deficiencies.

What used to be unique about the American elite is they had a strong connection to the rest of America. This is a big, continent sized country, composed of man nations. That regional diversity, which is driven by biological diversity, made for a national elite that was really just a collection of local elites. This greatly reduced the distance between the elites and those over whom they ruled. Therefore, the American elite tended to be less elite, relative the Europe, and much more connected to the people.

In this interview on C-Span, Tucker Carlson explains some of the themes in his book and how he had this epiphany about what is happening in America. It’s an amazingly frank interview about how he and his fellow elites know pretty much nothing about the country over which they rule. At around the seven minute mark, he makes the point that he and his neighbors don’t know things like how much gasoline costs. The reason is, they have lots of money and the price of staples is simply unimportant.

Carlson is in many respects, a throwback. He’s what the WASP elite used to be like in previous generations. That is, he grew up in privilege, but had plenty of exposure to the common people and developed some common habits. In that same interview, he mentions that Claiborne Pell drove a beat up old car, despite being from old money. It was partially an affectation, but it was also a sensibility. American elites not only did not want to look like elites, they wanted to make sure they were a responsible elite.

That’s the interesting thing about Carlson’s book. It’s being bought and read by the hoi polloi, but it is aimed at his neighbors in Georgetown. It is a warning to them that they better start paying attention to what’s happening on the other side of the great cultural wall that separates us and them. What’s even more interesting is the people who should be reading it, are not reading his book. Instead they are attacking Carlson for it. They want his severed hands to be put on display in the Capitol rotunda.

The fact is, the Trump phenomenon is showing that the time for reform has passed and whatever comes next is unavoidable. That’s a truth about all reform efforts. Once a reform effort gets going, it is almost always too late for reform to work. The entrenched interests are too strong to overcome. Democracy moves quickly from a point where corruption is too minor to be of any concern to a place where corruption is too rampant for the system to confront it. Systemic failure is the core code of democracy.

You see this in late empire America. The ruling elite is composed of many parts, none of which has a reason to care about public welfare. The so-called deep-state is thoroughly beholden to global interests, many of whom are foreign. The semi-permanent administrative state is composed of people who hold the rest of us in contempt and people happy to not be subjected to the vagaries of the dreaded private sector. The mass media is a collection of propagandists and court jesters, mostly stupid rich kids.

The political class is always the main focus of reform, which is why many Americans are flirting with the sort of radicalism circulating in dissident politics. These well trained actors run for office on well-designed appeals to bourgeois sensibilities, then immediately begin speaking in tongues when they get to Washington. To follow modern politics, as a normal person, is to see the movie They Live over and over, thinking there can be a different ending, that the aliens will come around to our side.

The reason for this is the political class is just a collection of hired men. The plutocrats, who control both parties and the administrative state, have found that it is a lot easier to hire actors to stand in for them in office. That means every election, the choice is between two actors hired by the same people, playing different carefully scripted roles. When they get to Washington, they are given a different script. It is why so many of them are quite dumb. Stupid people don’t ask too many tough questions.

The defining feature of our modern elites is that a big part of who they are, their sense of identity, comes from not being us. The cultivated contempt from FBI functionaries like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page is part of the dress code of these people. In the same way a rich guy will sport an understated, but expensive watch or article of clothing, the people who rule over us wear a contempt for Americans, especially white Americans. The dying white middle-class is especially despised by the administrative state.

This is why reform is impossible. We see this with Trump and we would have seen it if Bernie Sanders had scored the upset. It’s not about the old ideological framework. It is about the new cultural framework. The people who rule over us see themselves as different from us, at war with us. They are defined by that sense. While it is amusing to see Carlson play the jocular Cicero role, it is important to remember the fate of Cicero as Rome succumbed to authoritarianism. No one should buy him gloves for Christmas.

The Coming Crisis

In a crisis, people either turn to their institutions or they turn to their leaders to provide a path forward through the emergency. This is especially true when the path forward is waiting out the emergency. People respect action, so they have to have faith in their leaders if the right course is patience. Alternatively, if the leaders and institutions are not up to the task, then the people turn on each other.The French Revolution is the perfect example of what happens when leaders and institutions fail in a crisis.

It has been a long time since American faced a real crisis. The closest we came to anything major was the financial crisis a decade ago. For people foolish enough to take on the crazy mortgages, it was a very real emergency, but for most people it was more of an abstraction than a real crisis. Unemployment ticked up and the stock market took a header, but it was not the Great Depression. There was a concern, for sure, that the wheels were about to come off the cart, but it never materialized.

Of course, one could say that the leaders and institutions stepped in and guided the country through the crisis. People tend not to think of the Federal Reserve as an essential institution, but it is probably the most important part of government now. The head of the central bank is every bit as important as the President. In fact, he may be more important, as we saw with Greenspan and George Bush. An overly tight monetary policy led to a slight downturn in the economy at just the right time to sink the Bush election bid.

In 2008, the world was lucky to have a Fed chairman, who had prepared his whole life for such an event, and a very weak political class. Bush was near the end of his reign and no one thought much of him anyway. Congress has not had much credibility in decades, so they could not cause too much trouble. Bernake was given the room to do what had to be done to stabilize the financial system. People can argue about the solution and various alternatives, but the Fed did provide a peaceful path forward.

The world was lucky in another way. The public was still confident in the system, even though they may not have liked many of the people in it. George Bush was down in the polls, because of the Iraq war, but people still trusted he was a good guy. The restoration of public trust during the Reagan years still cast a shadow over the Bush years. Even though Clinton had been a degenerate and Bush was an incompetent, people still thought the system was fine. They could trust the system.

That brings us to the present. Half the country voted for Trump and increasingly blames the system for blocking his efforts. The other half voted against him and increasingly suspects he is punishment for a broken system. The political class is at war with itself, as it grapples with the fact it no longer commands respect. Then there is the hidden war between the semi-permanent administrative state and the reformers in the White House and Congress. Right now, the people and institutions are not very stable.

That’s what makes the rumblings from the financial system ominous. Wall Street is not Main Street, so a year long bear market should not be overstated. The old line about the markets being predictive is nonsense. If people could see the future, there would be no stock market. The US markets went on a crazy upward run and may simply be going through a correction. Still, the housing market is heading into a recession and the economy is showing signs of a slow down, if not a recession.

None of this is cause for alarm, but what if the long prophesied collapse of the credit system is a lot closer than we know? A lot of smart people said that 2008 was one of those tremors that precedes a major earthquake. Maybe what we have been experiencing is something like the Long Depression, which ran in fits and starts for two decades. The last few years have simply been a respite and we’re about to have another serious downturn or even a panic. Will the leaders and institutions hold up?

In other words, the economic pendulum swings back and forth. That is the lesson of economic history. The salient question is whether or not the political institutions and the leaders are able to hold up as the pendulum swings. In the 19th century, Europe was convulsed with civil unrest and war as the Industrial revolution blasted through traditional institutions. In the US, the post Civil War period was relatively calm, even though the same forces were at work. The institutions and leaders held up.

Again, we really don’t know if the current system and the people in it could hold up under a real crisis. Maybe the 2008 crisis can be read as proof that the system is better than the people in it. Maybe the lessons learned from it have made the system even stronger. On the other hand, maybe the system held up up because of residual stability that has now dissipated. That’s increasingly obvious with regards to public trust. It is much lower today than it was a decade ago. Maybe the same is true of the internal stability.

The thing is though, there are a lot of signs that the people at the very top of the global system are slowly rearranging the board. For a long time, America could count on the dollar as the world reserve currency and, more important, a hungry market for US Treasuries. The system built by the American empire relies on credit to operate and the reserve credit of the world is US debt. If there is even a hint of that changing, the great crisis will be upon us. Will those institutions and people hold up?

The Other Trump Effect

One of the things that is true of the dissident right is that it was helped greatly by the collapse of libertarianism. Starting in the late 1980’s and into the 1990’s, right-libertarianism was a safe haven for temperamental conservatives to exist on the right, but also reject large parts of what was calling itself conservatism. The two most notable issues were the war on drugs and foreign policy. Most people were attracted to libertarianism because it was serious about small government and restrained foreign policy.

After the fiasco of the Bush years and the metamorphosis of the Left into a strange morality cult, libertarianism seemed ready to have its moment. The Ron Paul campaign of 2008 was probably the peak. While no one thought Paul could win, it certainly looked like he could break through and be a serious candidate. Then the New Hampshire primary happened, where he was able to get just eight percent of the vote. It was thought to be the ideal place for a guy running on libertarian ideas, but he bombed.

Talk to people in the alt-right and what you typically learn is they moved into dissident politics after the disappointment of the Ron Paul campaign. What they slowly figured out is that right-libertarianism was just a proxy for white identity politics. The sort of country imagined by Ron Paul could be nothing but a white country. Not only did it have no appeal to blacks, it could never be multi-racial. Put another way, if you want libertarian politics, you need libertarian people. Politics is down stream from culture and biology.

Left-libertarianism is just a beard for Progressivism, much in the same was conservatism is just window dressing for the prevailing orthodoxy. That’s something else you hear from alt-right people. Many passed through left-libertarianism, realized it was just low-tax liberalism, moved into right-libertarianism and finally race realism. This is a common story, even among Gen-X people who maybe started out as Buchanan supporters. They found the Ron Paul crowd the next best thing and moved into it in the 1990’s.

Something similar may be happening with Donald Trump. We’re seeing some new voices in the dissident right, guys like Josh Neal and Jefferson Lee, who have recently made the trip from the nether world of libertarian Trump supporter. There are a lot of people in the libertarian-conservative camp, who voted for Trump as the least worst option. These are the Flight 93 voters, who never really liked Trump, but saw him as an agent of change. He would break the old model of politics and usher in an era of reform.

A strong whiff of this is turning up in comment sections and social media, where people sympathetic to Trump are increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress. The overtly racial response to Trump from the orthodoxy has probably red-pilled more people than Jared Taylor has done in 30 years. The combined effect of Trump’s failures and the intensely racial response from his opponents, is having a similar impact on whites as the failure of Ron Paul libertarianism a decade ago. Disappointment is leading to discovery.

Inevitably, the Left had to make race and ethnicity central to their presentation, because it is explicitly a coalition of identity groups now. There is the Judeo-Puritan elite, ruling a collection of tribes based in ethnicity, race and selected perversions. There’s simply no way for the people at the top to rally their tribes without being explicitly racial. Even their anti-male rhetoric is obviously anti-white male rhetoric, which has always been an obvious war on white people. The elephant in the room is now visible to everyone.

The new blasphemy laws aimed at whites talking race is just a blunt force implementation of the old prohibitions against frank debates about race, but done so in a way to rally the tribes. On the one hand, the hope is they can stop the exodus of whites from both the Left and conventional conservatism, by anathematizing the subject. On the other hand, it is a useful way to rally the troops. The result, however, is that our politics are saturated in race and identity. Inevitably, whites are becoming race conscious.

That’s the other Trump effect. Most likely a Clinton or Bush presidency would have been another four years of more subtle race mongering. It’s hard to know, of course, but there certainly would not have been the panicked response from the orthodoxy if anyone else had won in 2016. It was the shock of Trump not only rumbling through the first line of defense and smashing the GOP, but then driving the populist tank into the middle of the Progressive camp. The response has revealed a lot that had been concealed.

What’s happening now is that the amorphous blob of whites variously called CivNats, Conservatarians, right-libertarians and BoomerCons, is waking up to the a hard reality that defines dissident politics. That is, the problem is not the people running the system, it is the system itself that is the problem. No open system can govern a multi-racial, multicultural empire. Liberal democracy is antithetical to multiculturalism. Voting will not change that reality. Something else must be done.

Just as many libertarians a decade ago realized that that you can only have libertarianism in a white society, many Trump people are learning something similar. The disillusionment with what is happening is leading many Trump supporters to doubt the institutions, rather than the people in them. You can have liberal democracy, orderly elections and the rule of law in an overwhelmingly white society. The lawless response to Trump and his policies is driving Flight 93 voters  into the camp of the dissident right.

Ruminations On The Audience

Whenever I watch or participate in a live stream, I’m always curious about who is watching or listening, specifically the numbers. I tuned in for some of Spencer’s new gig the other day and I saw that he had about thousand people listening. When I was on with Josh Neal we had about one hundred people. Spencer is obviously a bigger name and surely draws lots of of enemies to anything he does, in addition to supporters. Still, these are small numbers, compared to what we think happens with television and radio.

Now, in fairness, local radio often has just a few thousand people listening at any one time and some small TV channels have such small audiences they round to zero. There’s also the fact that live streams are a new and different medium. It’s like watching the rehearsal, rather than the finished product, but you can interact with the performers. That and you can watch it anytime, because live streams are recorded. If you look at the views of these things, 90% of the audience is for the recorded version, not the live feed.

The newness of live streams can be seen in the radio programs that have started putting their content on-line. Lots of talk radio people have set up cameras in their studio to simulcast their shows over Facebook or YouTube. They also provide a feed to services like iHeart and TuneIn. I listen to the legendary Howie Carr off YouTube, as he is in Boston and I’m in Lagos. I’ve never seen the viewer count on his YouTube feed exceed a hundred. Most of the time, it is below 50, yet he is the #14 talk radio guy in America.

Anyway, it got me thinking about the new audience for the new media. One thing I’ve learned after a year of doing a podcast is there is little overlap between my writing and my spoken word material. In fact, I have been approached by people at secret handshake meetings who only listen and have never bothered to read my blog. Lots of readers have told me they have no interest in the podcast, but they would read a transcript. John Derbyshire has been doing transcripts for years now, because most prefer it.

My guess is the audience for live streams is a completely different animal than the audience for writing and podcasting. There is a sense of urgency to the live stream, in that watching one from a year ago feels like reading an old newspaper. Most live streams are about current topics. Podcasts are often topical, but necessarily so. The people doing history and philosophy can expect an audience long after they have published their shows. That does not seem to be the case with the live stream.

A few weeks ago I was made aware of the fact a very famous person reads this blog on occasion. They don’t read regularly because they think I’m too wordy. That person wanted to know where I was on social media, because that person prefers Twitter over longer written material. This was a bit of a revelation, but it made perfect sense. While there is overlap between the audience for longer material and the audience for social media, there are many who do one but not the other. Live stream is the social media of video.

A few years ago I predicted Twitter’s problems. A large scale public platform is either open to everyone or it allows for self-segregation. Any attempt to moderate an open platform fails and this was known long before Twitter of Facebook. UseNet and message boards were the first social media and they learned that you either have segregation or you have the Wild West. Any effort to tone police or regulate blasphemy ends in disaster. The reason is the cost of regulation eventually outweighs the benefit.

What’s happening in social media is segregation, as people retreat to their own kind. The dissidents are the first to start building their own, but it will spread everywhere. Your social media platform will be your tribe. That or platforms like Facebook will simply acquiesce to reality. This has happened to some extent as there are private Facebook groups populated by alt-right people. Something similar will have to happen with Twitter or it will collapse under the weight of its own stupidity.

This brings me back to live streams and video is general. The live stream is a response to YouTube censorship. The hosts make sure to stay within the rules and they have the option to not post the recorded show if it could cause problems. The thing is though, even the most berserk member of the volunteer morality police is not sitting through three hours of Spencer talking about himself to find some blasphemy. The use of guarded language and the format allow for some self-segregation within the YouTube platform.

One final thought on all this. I mentioned that I’m not a very good live stream guest. Some people with small brow ridges will accuse me of false modesty, but I think there is a skill at being a host and a guest. This has always been true. A good host features the guest and keeps the guest from getting lost in the sound of his own voice. On the other hand, good guests have answers like a woman’s bathing suit. They are big enough to cover the material, but small enough to keep it interesting. They keep the show moving.

With these new formats, developing new skills to exploit the format is something we see all over now. The cut and paste bloggers, for example, have mostly faded away, as that has been displaced by social media. Those pithy comments are easily done on Facebook and Twitter. Content driven bloggers like J’Onquarious and Heartiste are the future of the format. The group blog is the new magazine and the solo blog is the new pamphleteer. Similar skills, but more interactive and responsive.

On the video side, that’s where things will be more interesting, as the format has no analog to the analog age. Live streams are not like TV. YouTube channels are not like a cable channel. PewDiePie is not Howard Stern. As Paul Ramsey talked about in his chat with Millennial Woes the other day, the internet video format continues to evolve as people try to figure out how to use it. Look at old videos of a guy like Molyneux and they are nothing like what he is doing today, because he evolved with the format.

That also means the audience will change too. Fifty years ago, movie stars never did television, other than chat shows to promote themselves. That may be how things unfold with video, at least initially. The live stream guys will be a special skill, while the recorded people, with high production values, will appeal to a different audience. Bloggers and writers that can be good guests will use appearances to promote their work. Otherwise, like the difference between book readers and TV watchers, there will be little overlap.

No Apologies Interview

I wish I was better at being a guest on these things, but I accept the fact that I can’t be good at some things. Josh was a very good interviewer. He’s new to the movement, but he is not new to video work. I told him after that we need more people, who do nice, civilized video shows that allow normal whites to ease into this stuff, without feeling like they are doing something immoral. Josh has a very pleasant presentation so he is a good fit for that role. I enjoyed the show and I thank him for having me.

A Show Of Don’ts

This week I decided to do some housekeeping. I started looking at the lists I keep for posting and podcasting with an eye on doing some year-end cleanup. This time of year I like to take some time to reorganize and reset. I noticed on my podcast list that I had some stray items and leftovers that I was probably never going to use, so some housekeeping was in order. That’s when it occurred to me that maybe I could bundle all of them into a single show. That way I would not discard them entirely.

The result this week is a show about things you should avoid doing. These are all ideas I thought about using for different topics, but they never quite fit. The first segment, for example, was something I thought about in the show on fascism, but it was left on the cutting room floor, as the professionals say. The last segment is something I thought of using in a show about popular culture, but I decided I did not care enough about popular culture to do a whole podcast on it. This show is a hunter’s stew, of sorts.

Tonight at 8:00 PM EST I am scheduled to be the Josh Neal live stream. I don’t know a whole lot about him, but he seems to be interviewing people involved in dissident politics, so I figured it would be fine. His list of topics to discuss is free will, the near future of dissident politics and my thoughts about Donald Trump. The show will run about 90 minutes and you can watch it at anytime. Given that this livestream will happen during my designated drinking time, it should be an entertaining episode.

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 have been de-platformed by Spotify, because they feared I was poisoning the minds of their Millennial customers.

This Week’s Show


  • 00:00: Opening
  • 07:00: Don’t Worry About Principles
  • 17:00: Don’t Chase The Stick
  • 27:00: Don’t Worry About Details
  • 37:00: Don’t Play The Role
  • 47:00: Don’t Black Pill Yourself
  • 57:00: Closing

Direct DownloadThe iTunes PageGoogle Play LinkiHeart Radio

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On YouTube

The Reforms Of Z-Man

In the 6th century BC, many Greek city-states were succumbing to one man rule, which they called tyrants. Today the word conjures images of a ruthless and cruel autocrat, but in that time is simply meant a dictator. The reason for this would be familiar to anyone living today. The elite gained an economic stranglehold on society and used it to subvert the political system. The great inequality in Athenian life meant that the bulk of the citizens were becoming victims of a predatory elite.

In order to avoid what was happening in other city-states, the Athenians decided they had to reform their society, but could not trust the existing elites to do it. Instead, they turned to the wisest man of their age, a man named Solon, who is remembered today as one of the Seven Sages of Greece. He was given temporary dictatorial powers in order to push through economic, political and moral reforms. The goal of these reforms was to address economic equality and restore political stability, in order to avoid tyranny.

If we look around at America today, the similarities are obvious. Instead of rich landowners preying on the populace, it is a handful of megalomaniacs, who rule from atop global corporations and hedge funds. The normal democratic system of governance has broken down, so that the desires of the people are ignored, while the small donor class wields the state as a weapon against the people. Another weapon against the people is a vulgar popular culture, aimed at undermining public dignity and self-respect.

Clearly, reform is needed. Increasingly, people are coming around to the idea that what is needed is a Pinochet, who will fumigate the political class and deal harshly with the moral and economic predators currently atop the system. It’s why calling Trump a dictator has only helped his cause. The people who voted for him are not so sure it would be a bad idea if he assumed dictatorial power. In the spirit of Solon, are there reforms that could be implemented to arrest the decline into tyranny?

The first thing to acknowledge is that “get back to our constitutional roots” is the sort of thing a moron mutters to himself while watching the news. The people saying this really should be rounded up and shipped off the Africa, where they could be eaten by the natives. Similarly, rolling back the laws and legal rulings of the last 150 years is not happening either. Reform is not revolution. The way to prevent a violent end is to push through changes that could be accepted, maybe grudgingly, by the elites.

The first reform would have to be an amendment to the Constitution enshrining free association and private discrimination as a sacred right. The core idea of America was always the idea that it was a big country and people could self-segregate. If it was not working for you in the town in which you were born, you could head off to another town to find a better situation. You can’t have a mobile, self-segregating population when they need permission from the state to associate or disassociate with one another.

The trouble with mobility in a democracy is people can move to a new place and then organize to vote for things against the wishes of the locals. New Hampshire, for example, has been ruined by people from Massachusetts moving there to escape taxes, but then voting for drunken Hibernians as soon as they get a ballot. An amendment to tie voting to your place of birth not only solves this problem, it makes immigration useless as a political weapon. You cannot import new voters. This amendment would be retroactive.

A third amendment would alter who votes in Federal elections. Universal suffrage is every bit as a crazy as open borders. It lowers the intelligence of the electorate and encourages the worst habits of the political class. An amendment fixing the voting age at 35 and assigning one vote per family household solves this problem. That’s right, only the married can vote. Maybe some allowance for homeowners could be considered, but the family is the future and voting is about the future, so you have to be future oriented to vote.

Those are big reforms that would face a lot of resistance from the billionaire predators that prosper from the current corruption. That would necessitate a pruning of the billionaire class. Bluntly, no one is going to care if Tim Cook is stripped of his wealth and thrown in a dungeon. The world will not change if Jeff Bezos drops dead tomorrow. The cemeteries are full of indispensable rich people. Therefore, the advice of Thrasybulus is warranted, which means an orderly trimming of the financial elite will be required.

Some lesser reforms to the political system would also be required. Restoring the Senate as the house of the states, by repealing the 17th Amendment is one reform. Another would be the elimination of tax breaks for charitable giving. Charities have become money laundering operations for political activity. That would also get rid of the vast sea of not-for-profit think tanks that saturate Washington. Some would survive, but only those that do legitimate work on public policy. This would restore some transparency too.

The whole point of democracy is for the elected officials to work a hedge against the rich and powerful exerting control of society. Addressing the money problem in politics is another small reform. In Federal elections, all money must go to candidates and be reported to the public, Further, no candidate could accept money from outside his state or district. The use of front men to evade this rule would come with a draconian punishment, like the stripping of all assets and permanent banishment from the continent.

There are plenty of other small reforms that would go a long way toward restoring stability and trust in public institutions. Presumably, if the big items are passed, the new political class that would emerge could address those smaller items. That is, of course, is why these sorts of reforms could never pass. Political reform in a democracy is about altering the political class. The only alteration they could tolerate is that which entrenches their position as front men for the cosmopolitan global elite.

I’ll just note that Solon was able to get his reforms implemented and once they were in place he gave up power and left the country. The Athenians swore to abide by them for ten years. Within four years, the old social rifts re-appeared, along with new ones created by Solon’s reforms.  It quickly became clear that the reforms could only last as long as Solon was around to lend his moral authority to them, as well as work out the new problems he created. The Greeks were right back where they started.

Eventually, someone named Peisistratos, a relative of Solon, rose up to become the tyrant and impose order on the Greeks. Solon accused the Athenians of stupidity and cowardice for allowing this to happen. He was right about the first part, but completely wrong about the second. The Greeks were being practical in the face of an impossible problem. In time, democracy returned, drawing from the reforms of Solon and the lessons from the period of reform and tyranny, suggesting democracy is a result, not a process.


Exile is a central part of human existence, most certainly as old as human settlement and probably predating it. Humans are social animals. Banishment and ostracism are primeval weapons, wielded by human groups for the worst crimes like sacrilege, murder and subversion. Exile as a punishment is based in the understanding that much of who we are as a human is based on our relationship with others. Our role in the group is who we are, so therefore being forced out of the group is a nullification of one’s identity.

Death, of course, is the ultimate nullification. For a group of humans to decide that one of their own must die is the acknowledgement that the person can never be a part of the group. Who they are is not just out of sync with the group. It is a danger to the very existence of the group. Exile, in contrast, assumes the exiled can be reformed. It offers the exiled at least some opportunity to regain himself and become a part of the group again. Alternatively, he can find a new group where he belongs.

While exile is as old as man, it is also as modern as man too. In fact, we would not have modernity without the prominent role of exiles in the human story. The Bolsheviks, for example, came out of exile to rock the old order and begin close to a century of struggle in the West. The Iranian revolution was engineered by exiles, who ushered in half a century of unrest in the Muslim world. Of course, America was born as an enclave for exiles, men divorced from the old country and starting new in the wilderness.

A useful way to understand the role of exile in shaping the West is to think about the birth of conservatism in Europe. Unlike everything else in modern thought, it was not the result of the Enlightenment, but rather a consequence of the French Revolution. The destruction, terror and wars that resulted from the revolution, created a generation of exiles, divorced from their lands, their people and their way of life. Their struggle to understand the revolution and formulate a response, was the birth of conservatism in the West.

Today, of course, there is never any discussion of how the revolution transformed the aristocracy of Europe. The radicals who rule over the West, like chimps looking in a mirror, can never stop obsessing over their antecedents. The revolution, however, fundamentally altered the elite of Europe. There was the material changes, of course, as they were forced to abandon their lands and flee to neighboring lands. There were also a spiritual and intellectual changes that resulted in being exiled from their homes.

The French aristocrat living in Vienna, for example, suddenly found himself around a new elite, with different habits and different tastes. This sudden juxtaposition gave these aristocrats a new perspective on their own culture. Prior to exile, they had no reason to think about why they lived as they did. It was just the way things were as they entered the world. In exile, they had to examine why it was their way of life existed, why they existed, and why it was swept away by the revolution.

In other words, exile created a romanticism for that lost past, but also an intellectual framework to understand how that old order was lost and how best to respond to the radicalism that was unleashed on society. Further, the restoration cemented the point that the old order was gone for good. The saying among conservatives at the time was that the restored king Louis XVIII was not sitting on the Bourbon throne, he was sitting on the throne of Napoleon. It was an acknowledgement that there was no going back.

In this age, exile explains why northern conservatism was a shabby response to northern radicalism. The conservative was not the result of exile. He was always as much a part of the ruling ethos as the radical. The relationship between the American conservative and the American radical was always as co-dependents. The radical needed the conservative as a foil, while the conservative needed the radical for a reason to exist. Without one, the other could never exist as an independent mode of thought.

The closest America has come to having an authentic conservatism was in the South where the conquered and displaced planter class had to reconcile the loss of their past with a way forward as a regional elite. It never really worked, as there could never be a restoration, even an artificial one. The anathematization of Southern culture has been so thorough and complete in the 20th century, that now the very symbols of it are treated as an affront to public morality. That aristocracy was exterminated, not exiled.

What may be happening in this age of cultural upheaval, however, is the birth of a new class of exiles. White men of the older generation are seeing the world in which they were born slowly succumbing to the darkness of multiculturalism. Theirs is not a romanticism for that old age, but a growing anger at its loss. The baby Boomer conservative takes a lot of grief, and deservedly so, but every day that group inches closer toward identity politics as the only available response to the gathering darkness.

In the younger generations, there can be no romanticism or an angry response to the loss of old white America. Instead, there is an acceptance that old white America can never be restored. There’s also a reconsideration of what created mid-century America and what sent it rocketing into the abyss of self-abnegation. These are the new exiles, divorced from the past, cut off from their culture and hounded by the radicals of this revolution, as the aristocrats of France were hounded by the Jacobins.

The defect in the conservative response to 18th century radicalism was it could never get past its own romanticism. The conservatives of that age were still surrounded by the results of their lost culture. In every city center, in every local village, they were reminded of the glorious past. As a result, the conservatism of Europe was always destined to be a compromise with radicalism. Constitutional monarchy was an effort to retain the spirit of the past, inhabiting the sterile, lifeless body of social democracy.

This generation of exiles will have the benefit of not living in a museum. In a way, the radical destruction of the symbols and language of old white America is doing a service to the exiles of today and tomorrow. Without the ghosts of the past, clawing at the present, the response to today’s radicalism can be independent and new. Today’s exile will not be animated by a longing for a lost past, but instead be haunted by the unrealized present and an anger at the radicals who foreclosed his future.