Mercenary Rule

Posted on October 17, 2023 by thezman

In the novel Starship Troopers, Robert Heinlein described a world ruled by a military elite called the Terran Federation. Only veterans of the military enjoyed full citizenship, including the right to vote. Those who did not perform military service retained their rights of free speech and assembly, but they could not vote or hold office. As is true of every system there were some exceptions here and there, but important government jobs were reserved for federal service veterans.

This idea of earning citizenship through military service has always had some popularity on the Right, for no other reason that it would seem to exclude the sorts of people who are living arguments against democracy. It seems unlikely that you will get too many people like Ocasio-Cortez in public office if she must first do a tour in the military, rather than just wink at customers as a barmaid. Even if she passed that threshold, military veterans are too serious to vote for someone like her.

Rule by warrior elite has an appeal because it conjures images of the Middle Ages in which a ruling elite arose from the warrior class. A world governed by an honor code just sounds better to right-wing people. It also brings to my Spartan society, which proved to be superior to Athenian democracy in the Peloponnesian War. A society rule by male warriors just feels like it would be better. At the minimum, it would avoid the problems that come with the feminization of society.

There is a less fantastic appeal to this concept. In the novel, this system arose in the aftermath of the collapse of 20th century Western democracy. That system proved itself unable to combat crime and juvenile delinquency. Interestingly, Heinlein also imagined a future in which the West teams with Russian against China. Another reason for the new system of military governance was due to the inability of fully democratic systems to confront the authoritarianism of China.

Another way of looking at this setup is in the larger context of the novel in which earth is at war with two alien species. The decisions that must be made in such a war cannot be left to lonely barmaids. They must be made by the people who have skin in the game, which in the case of earth, means the warrior class. Remove the giant bugs trying to destroy earth and a system controlled by those with skin in the game could simply mean a system ruled by property owners and families.

The Heinlein idea sounds good until you look around at present day America. Some of the worst people in public life are veterans. The obvious example is Lindsey Graham, who is arguably the wort human in the Senate. The reason we can say this is his mentor John McCain is now in Hell. When Graham joins him, there will be other veterans ready to fill the role. Richard Blumenthal and Joni Ernst will be the early favorites, but we will no doubt be spoiled for choice.

By the time Lucifer calls Graham home, Dan Crenshaw and Brian Mast may have parlayed their military service and general awfulness into the Senate. Crenshaw is the veteran’s version of Ocasio-Cortez. Mast has used his service and wartime injury to make himself Israel’s main representative in Congress. They have many other representatives in the imperial congress, but only Brian Mast wears the uniform of the Israeli military to work every day.

While the Heinlein model sounds good in theory, in practice it is probably better to ban veterans from public office. There certainly have been some veterans in Washington politics who have done good work for their constituents, but the terrible ones have done far more damage. The fact that veterans are so easily turned into weapons by the neocons suggests the military selects for the sorts of people who will gladly become a mercenary for whoever can write the biggest check.

This may be the result of the volunteer military. Despite all the patriotic blather, the American military is composed of mercenaries. They structure their pay to attract the types of people they need. The military does not restrict itself to citizens, as military service is one way to win citizenship. Due to the lack of white men joining the ranks, the military is now looking to recruit foreigners. The fact is the relationship between the institution and the soldier is purely transactional.

Another reason for the terrible veterans rising up in the political ranks is the nature of all democratic systems. Voting bestows authority on the people doing the voting. Win the crowd and you are right, morally, and factually. Of course, the best way to win the crowd is by convincing them you are a virtuous person. If the people assume you are a good person, they are going to give you the benefit of the doubt, which means you will win those 50-50 debates against someone without your reputation.

John McCain leveraged this reality by waving around the flag with one of his damaged arms, while reminding everyone he was a prisoner of war. His initial foray into politics came soon after he returned home. He commissioned a long article in a big foot magazine about his deeds as a POW. His physical injuries won him sympathy and his tales of heroism won him respect. Who was going to challenge John Wayne McCain, especially when it came to military matters?

Another reason military service should be a disqualifier is that it is the worst possible training for democratic politics. In theory, politicians in a democratic system are in office to represent their constituents. Maybe those constituents are determined by geography or by ideology, but they are always real people. Those real people are living in the real world living normal lives. The ideal representative is one who has lived as his constituents and alongside his constituents.

Outside of congressional districts that have a large military base, life in the military is alien to civilian life. The military trains you to be a useful cog in a vast bureaucratic machine in which none of the cogs get to make many choices. The choices that do arise come with a well-defined list of options. Most important, the military comes with a floor as long as you do the minimum. Real life does not come with a floor. You can do all the right things and still get dealt a bad hand by reality.

Of course, all of this is an argument against democracy. It is a system that selects for the worst sorts of people. These are people who seek to use any means necessary to win over the crowd in order to profit themselves. Whether it is Ocasio-Cortez shaking her boobs in front of the camera of Crenshaw waving the bloody shirt around, the point is always the same. Democracy rewards the politicians who are adept at turning your virtues into a vice so they can exploit them.

If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!

Promotions: Good Svffer is an online retailer partnering with several prolific content creators on the Dissident Right, both designing and producing a variety of merchandise including shirts, posters, and books. If you are looking for a way to let the world know you are one of us without letting the world know you are one one is us, then you should but a shirt with the Lagos Trading Company logo.

The Pepper Cave produces exotic peppers, pepper seeds and plants, hot sauce and seasonings. Their spice infused salts are a great add to the chili head spice armory, so if you are a griller, take you spice business to one of our guys.

Above Time Coffee Roasters are a small, dissident friendly company that roasts its own coffee and ships all over the country. They actually roast the beans themselves based on their own secret coffee magic. If you like coffee, buy it from these folks as they are great people who deserve your support.

Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb. Just email them directly to book at sales@minterandrichterdesigns.com.

The Virtue Of Survivalism

Posted on October 16, 2023 by thezman

Note: Behind the green door I have a post about Double Indemnity, a Bill Wilder classic from the film noir genre, a post about a forgotten post-war classic, The Best Years of Our Lives and the Sunday podcast. You can sign up for a green door account at SubscribeStar or Substack.

In his book The Virtue of Nationalism, Yoram Hazony argues that the ideal world order is one based on the nation state. All the peoples of the world would have a place to call their home and be governed by their own kind. He defines the nation as a closely related people with a common language and history. Since shared history requires close proximity, he assumes this history happened in a place. He avoids the phrase “blood and soil” but that is his intent.

Of course, the ideal world can only exist in the abstract. He points out that there are thousands of identifiable groups of people without a county of their own. He points to India as having over one thousand languages. Since language is tangled up in blood and history, it is a good proxy for identity. All over the world there are pockets of people living as minority groups. It is unreasonable to think that all of these people should be granted a nation of their own.

He also points out that his definition of a people is arbitrary. Two groups of people could share a language and history, but also find a way to see themselves as distinct from one another. There has to be some limit to this as the logical end point is to reduce all human societies to tiny tribes. Without some lower bound on what constitutes a people, nationalism would “pulverize” exiting states. For a people to be a nation they must exceed some threshold of sustainability.

If on the one hand the ideal is for every people to have their own nation, but on the other hand it is impossible to create sustainable nations for every group of people, how can national claims be properly judged? Hazony’s answer is self-referencing in that he sets the threshold at sustainability. In Chapter XVII of his book, he argues that a people are entitled to a nation if they can sustain it and prudence suggests it is practical or moral to support their claim to national independence.

His first example is the United States. The thirteen colonies had a legitimate claim to independence, despite sharing language and history with England, because it was impractical for England to resist their demands. The great ocean between England and the New World was too large. On the other hand, the Confederacy did not have a rightful claim to independence, because the Union could and did force those states back into the Union. The South could not sustain its independence.

Another example he gives in Israel, which gained independence in 1948, thanks to changing moral perspectives in Britain and America. Hazony claims that the English-speaking world opposed the creation of a Jewish state on the grounds that it would upset the Muslim world. The events of World War II involving the Jews, however, changed this calculation. “The holocaust demonstrated with maximum moral clarity the moral case for Jewish national self-determination.”

Putting aside the veracity of his claims here, the Hazony model for determining the edge cases for national independence comes down to either winning the support of the international community through moral persuasion or gaining your independence and maintaining it against all challenges. The two can be combined to enlist the support of powerful neighbors to take your side, as the American colonists did when they got the support of France in the American war for independence.

When you boil it all down, the Hazony formula for determining who has and who does not have a moral claim to self-determination is quite simple. Your claim is valid if you can make it stick. If circumstances or the actions of larger nations around you prevent you from gaining independence, then your claim was invalid. In his view, the virtue of nationalism lies in its effectiveness. Nationalism is a virtue if it wins your people their independence, but it is not a virtue in and of itself.

If this sounds a little bit like trial by combat, that is because it relies on the same view of man and society as ancient people. From Hazony’s point of view, you are morally indistinguishable from your people. You are a virtuous person if your life is lived in service to your people. Your people deserve respect and support if they are able to gain and keep their independence, by any means necessary. Nationalism is, in effect, trial by combat but between peoples.

This is a way of viewing virtue that is alien to the modern Western mind, as we think of virtue as an end, not a means to an end. You are a virtuous person, for example, if you practice certain habits like charity and conscientiousness, not if you make a lot of money or attain great power. For Hazony, virtue is about your purpose in helping your people attain their freedom as a people. This means anything that you do in pursuit of that collective goal is by definition virtuous.

This may not seem all that interesting, but in the context of the war between Israel and the Arab population in Gaza, it sheds light on what we are seeing from the Zionist supporters of Israel. The reason they do not see the contradiction between their claims about the Palestinians and their behavior toward the Palestinians, is the difference in how they see virtue. It is not simply tribalism that lets them maintain these contradictory views, but an alien moral framework.

From the point of view of the Zionists, Israel has a right to exist because it has gained independence and convinced enough big countries to support them in their fight to maintain their independence. The Palestinians, in contrast, have not been able to secure their independence and even if they were granted it in Gaza and the West Bank, they lack the means to sustain it. Therefore, their moral case for independence is invalid and their war against Israel is immoral.

Despite it being alien to modern people, this view of the world has its appeal, which you can see in the bloodlust voiced by Americans in support of Israel. The calls for vengeance and retribution titillate some ancient part of our brains that was of great value to our ancestors but is now buried under the conditioning in favor of individualism and moral objectivism. The suburban peasant may not be allowed to root for his own side, but he can root for Israel, so he does that instead.

In the end, Hazony may be correct in that the only thing that matters is the survival of your people, so all moral abstractions must be sublimated to it. The West has simply taken a holiday from reality by asserting that there is an objective moral standard for how people should act and how nations should act. In reality, the only thing that matters is winning the battle for survival and the winner can then declare how he won as the only acceptable way for how nations out to live.

Friends & Enemies

Posted on October 13, 2023 by thezman

This past week has been an interesting display of mask dropping by many people who have been courting nationalist and populist audiences. As soon as word got out about the Hamas attack, these people immediately reverted to their nature. Social media was like a time machine, taking everyone back to the heady days when it was okay to express some strictly approved hate to the other.

It has been a good example of how people with an agenda can wear your politics like a costume if it furthers their cause. Ben Shapiro will tell you whatever you want to hear as long as you unquestionably support Zionism. Maybe you get some positive noises from his big megaphones, but in the end, his cause will always come before anything he has to tell you in order to get you to support his cause.

Does it help our side if a duplicitous reptile like Ben Shapiro voices opposition to the Left on some issues, but then comes out guns blazing, pointed mostly at our side, when he wants unconditional support for his people? It is not an easy answer. There is no doubt that his operation did some good work on the tranny business, but now he is demanding all that be put aside for another war on behalf of his people.

The Charles Haywood formula would suggest it is best to ignore Shapiro right now, rather than publicly oppose him. No enemies on the right, as Haywood states it, means everyone focus on the main quest, not the side quests. On the other hand, is Ben Shapiro really on the Right? Does he honestly oppose the Left on the things that matter to the genuine opposition? That is an important question.

That is the gist of the show this week. I wrote about this, and I got some interesting feedback, so I thought I would expand on it in the show. Partisanship is not something that comes easy to the Right. There is a natural empiricism to any politics that opposes what we call the Left. That works against partisanship, which often demands accepting the inaccurate in pursuit of larger goals.

For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation via crypto. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks. Thank you for your support!

This Week’s Show

Contents

No Enemies On The Left
The Neocons
The Alt-Right
Charles Haywood
Praxis

Direct Download, The iTunes, Google Play, iHeart Radio, RSS Feed

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On Rumble

Full Show On Odysee

Manna From Heaven

Posted on October 12, 2023 by thezman

One of the many problems with most conspiracy theories is they contain a central contradiction on which the theory depends. Usually, it is of the type where the villain is both omnisciently genius and incredibly stupid. The “deep state”, for example, is able to know every thought and action of every person, but they have been outwitted by the collection of aluminum foil hat guys. The central villains of most conspiracy theories are the same people who built the Death Star in Star Wars.

Another big problem with conspiracy theories is they confuse opportunism with skillful planning, as we see with the fighting in the Levant. The internet is full of theories about how Mossad or the IDF or Netanyahu deliberately let Hamas stage that raid so they could use the ensuing crisis to advance their agenda. The real goal was to clear out Gaza or maybe instigate a wider war in the region. Like 9/11, this attack was a five-cushion bank shot by the deep state.

In reality, the most likely answer for how this started is stupidity. Israel politics have been a mess for a long time now due to demographics. The Mizrahi Jews, sometimes called Oriental Jews, are those who never left the region. They are growing in number and pollical power. As a group grows in power, it tends to come at the expense of another group, or it is perceived as such. In Israel, the group threatened by the Mizrahi are the Ashkenazi, who dominate the ruling elite.

One result of this growing internal conflict is the Jewish state is not working as well as people have come to expect. The reputation of the Jewish security apparatus was made in the wars with the Arabs but also in support of the neocon wars against the Arabs during the Bush years. As is always the case, success brings complacency and that is how they got the Hamas raid. The Israelis were caught letting their guard down and the result was the Hamas raid.

That does not mean they are letting a crisis go to waste. The Dresden-like assault being waged on Gaza is one example. It is unnecessary and gratuitous, but it does sure up support in Washington, where the neocons are desperate for a win. The site of blown-up buildings and dead Palestinians not only gives people like Ben Shapiro some cheap thrills, but it also gives him a reason to whip his white audience into a frenzy of support for the war machine and its neocon operators.

It is also good for the Washington establishment. It feels like old times in the imperial capital and that is just what the doctor ordered. The rebels in the House GOP caucus have been silenced because we are at war now and no one has time for their complaints about corruption and Republican perfidy. The result is the compliant Kevin McCarthy will be replaced by the equally compliant Steve Scalise as Speaker, rather than the more independent Jim Jordan.

It is also giving Washington an excuse to cut Ukraine loose. All of a sudden no one is taking those calls from Zelensky. In between sobbing fits, White House spokesbot John Kirby made clear that Israel is now the priority. He said that “we are coming to the end of the rope on Ukraine funding” which is very bad news for Ukraine. That was a signal to regime media to wrap up their “coverage” of the war and put the whole thing on ignore and instead focus on this new war in the Levant.

This is also a golden opportunity for the Pentagon. The imperial war machine was not built to fight a land war against a peer. This has been rather embarrassing for them over the last year in the Ukraine war. From a public relations perspective, Ukraine has been terrible for the Pentagon. Now, they can switch back to their preferred role of bombing lightly armed militias. This has the added benefit of getting the flag waving yahoos excited for the war machine again.

The biggest winner in this could be the neocons who have been searching for a way to get invited back into the Republican Party. As everyone knows, a neocon cannot enter your house uninvited, so they have been searching for a way to get the Republicans to throw out the welcome mat for them. This is proving to be just the ticket, as every presidential candidate is now in a race to the sea in an effort to be the most bellicose with regards to killing Muslims.

This has the added benefit of letting them use their version of no enemies to the right, which they successfully used in the Bush years. You see, this new threat to America in the Levant is too important to risk dissent. That means Donald Trump and his criticisms of the party have to go so the more serious people like Nikki Haley can lead the party against Joe Biden and his Iranian deal makers. The fact that team Biden is run by the Kagan cult, just like Nikki Haley, will be ignored.

Of course, what will follow is new limits on speech online. The usual suspects are demanding that the social media platforms ban anyone questioning the official narrative on the war. Anyone doubting the crazy stories, for example, will be smeared as an apologist for Hamas. Maybe even an antisemite. In an ideological society, the bogeyman is always a reason to crush dissent and the regime now has a fresh new and familiar bogeyman, so the results are predictable.

That is the thing about ideological societies. The ruling elite can always take advantage of a crisis because it exists to manage crisis. Whether it is in containing counter-revolutionary forces or the inevitable crisis that arises from the irrationality of the ideology, the first task of a ruling class in an ideological society is to use every crisis as a means to advance the interest of the regime. Once Hamas parachuted into Israel, the regime had a crisis and they never let a crisis go to waste.

Virtue And Justice

Posted on October 11, 2023 by thezman

In the Western world, concepts like justice and virtue are thought about as objective things, as if they have been handed to us by God. You cannot have personal justice as it is a thing that exists independent of you. You can have personal virtue, but that just means you voluntarily abide by a set of objective rules. The modifier in that phrase is for emphasis rather than to shift the meaning of the word. To be a virtuous person is to live by a set of rules that apply to all individuals individually.

This is most obvious in the way we use the word justice. It is often treated like a god that must be made happy or bad things will happen. The internet is full of videos where an idiot is breaking the law in a flagrant and gratuitous way only to come to a bad end by his own hand. The popularity of these videos is due to the notion that this proves justice will always be served. Justice is like a ledger and in the end, both sides of the ledger must sum to zero or else.

Justice is the great balance between right and wrong. There are things that are right and things that are wrong. If you do something wrong, like break the law, then the needs of justice say you must be punished. It is not the cops or the prosecutor or the judge punishing you because they are upset by your actions. They are punishing you because justice demands it. They may even have sympathy for you, but justice is justice and criminals have to be punished.

Something similar exists with virtue. The virtuous person abides by the rules of society and maybe the tenets of his religion. Our sense of virtue in the West is a very republican one in that it is based on your relationship with the social systems, not how you serve your family, your community, or your people. The virtuous person adheres to the rules and defends the institutions without regard to personal consideration. It is why every politician claims to be a public servant.

Of course, the word “public” is entirely impersonal. The reason you never hear a politician say he serves his people is there is no sense of a people. There is the public, this abstract collection of individual economic units, who have nothing more than a transactional relationship with one another. In this way, the public servant is not serving real flesh and blood people, but an implementation of them. The public is the interface for whatever lies behind it.

This was not always the case in the West. Justice, for example, was a personal matter for pre-Christian people. If a guy in the next village killed one of your people, justice required you to kill him or one of his people. On the other hand, your people might decide that it is not in their interest to exact revenge this way. Instead, they decide to kill the cattle of the other village. Justice was both a personal and collective concept that was only loosely tied to universal concepts.

In Germanic societies, they had trial by combat. In a dispute between two people, justice would be determined by the two parties fighting it out. The idea was not that the gods would pick the winner in the name of justice, but that justice was a personal thing to be imposed on others. It was not the duty of the ruler to sort this out for the two parties in a dispute. His job and that of society was to set the conditions for the two sides to figure this out for themselves.

When it comes to virtue, the reverse was the case. The measure of you as a person was not against an objective set of rules for individuals, but wholly in the context of you as the member of a people. You see this in Homer where the heroes perform great deeds on behalf of their people. The Norse legends have similar tales. Virtue was all about your service to your people. It was simply impossible to be a virtuous man without contributing to the defense and prosperity of your people.

This is why exile loomed so large. Death was a terrible end because you were forever exiled from your people, so you could no longer serve them. Exile was the next worst for the same reason. It also brought the torment of living with the fact that you are denied the opportunity to serve your people. Virtue was defined by you fulfilling your potential in service to your people, so it was simply impossible to be virtuous outside the context of you as a member of a people.

There are still some flickers of this sense of virtue in the modern age. Men who volunteer for the army are thanked for their service. Military honors are often tied to selfless commitment to fellow soldiers under duress. We have parades for cops who get killed chasing criminals. Again, politicians call themselves public servants so they can pretend to be virtuous. All of this, however, is limited to a narrow space of life and measured against a universal standard of justice.

This contrast in the old views on virtue and justice with the modern views is obvious when you look at the current war between the Jews and Arabs. Hamas committed an atrocity against the Jews because their justice demanded it. The Jews are the enemy of their people and justice demands they strike at their enemies. The men who no doubt volunteered for the mission will be celebrated, because they accomplished a great feat in the war against the enemy of their people.

For their part, the Jews are following the same path. Twitter was full of Jewish commentators demanding vengeance. They were not demanding justice in the way in which modern Western people think of it. Look at how Washington reacted after the 9/11 attacks. The promise was to go after the people responsible. George Bush did not promise to carpet bomb Kabul. Jews around the world and the Jewish government are promising to exact vengeance on the people of Gaza.

The contrasting views on virtue are also obvious on the Jewish side. Diaspora Jews conflate their sense of virtue, which is service to their people, with the Western sense of virtue and demand you give over everything to their fight with one of their ancient enemies in the Levant. A similar mindset drives the neocon demand that the West risk nuclear war in the Ukraine. Note that they speak of Russians as the enemy, not the Russian state or the current form of government.

That last bit is vital to grasping the differences. The sanctions regime was specifically aimed at the Russian people. The hope was that sanctions would collapse the economy and throw the population into starvation. We see the same thing happening with Gaza, as the IDF bombs residential areas. In both cases, the point is to harm the people, holding them responsible, not specifically their leaders. In both cases, it is assumed the leaders are acting in service to their people.

It is tempting to think that modern Western views on virtue and justice are superior to these older forms, but there is much to favor in what we see in the Levant. If the Palestinians adhered to Western views, they would no longer exist as a people, at least not in the Levant. Most would have fled to new lands and lost their identity. The Jewish people would have gone away a long time ago. Their old school views of virtue and justice have allowed them to exist in the most hostile places.

The test of these two outlooks is happening within the West. As non-European people flood into the West, bringing their Bronze Age mindset on virtue and justice, they are challenging Europeans and their universalist and individualist mindset. Will the former naturally give way to the latter or will the latter have to be imposed by force on the former and is this even possible within the framework of the latter? Will Europeans just have to return to their old ways to preserve themselves?

Whither Rufo-ism

Posted on October 10, 2023 by thezman

Since the wrecking ball known as Donald Trump swung through the walls of conservatism almost a decade ago, there has been a desperate attempt to either rebuild the wall or fill the void left by the old conservatism. The Never Trump project was mostly an effort to chase the barbarians out of the city so the good people can rebuild the wall and restart the old politics. For the most part, this project has failed as the massive hole in the wall remains.

A good recent example of this is this post by neoconservative writer Mathew Continetti in Commentary Magazine. He claims that the populists supporting nationalist policies and candidates are actually Marxists. This has become a popular theme with the East Coast Straussians, of which the neocons are a part. It is a hilariously insane line of thought, owing to the steep decline in the human capital we see everywhere in politics, but especially in the neoconservative subculture.

On the other hand, the project to recreate the old dynamic of Left and Right, has quietly plodded along with a new generation looking to create a New Right. Many are just the hucksters we have come to expect in this age. These are the people who live on social media and front-run whatever is happening at the moment. Others are rejects from the old conservative rackets hoping for a fresh start. These are the buzzards that arrive at the end of every movement.

Then you have the more professional and perhaps sincere players who operated on the fringes of conservatism but now see a chance to spread their wings. The Claremont crowd, for example, is working hard to create a New Right based on the primitive notion of natural right, supplemented by appeals to the classical liberalism of the Framers along with large dollops of Lincolnism. Claremont subscribes to the apocryphal version of the founding and Lincoln promoted by Harry Jaffa.

It is from this world that we get Chris Rufu, the guy best known for waging jihad against critical race theory in the schools. He also has waged campaigns against the sexual exploitation of children in the schools. He worked in support of the Florida bill to ban child pornography in grammar schools. He now has a book out titled, America’s Cultural Revolution, which describes the New Left and how it gained power. Paul Gottfried reviewed it here and Charles Haywood here.

Most of what Rufo describes in his book has been kicking around dissident circles for the last decade, mostly due to it kicking around paleo circles for decades. Contrary to the claims of conservatism, the New Left was never an economic or purely political movement, but a cultural and spiritual movement. With the collapse of 20th century conservatism and the cultural revolution of the last decade, this reality has become clear to everyone except libertarians.

Rufo is not without his critics. In fact, Rufo-ism is a very modern political phenomenon in that it is as much about its critics as its content. Thanks to the cultural revolution and the internet, we now live in a purely Schmitt-ian world, as in the German philosopher Carl Schmitt. Politics is only about friends and enemies, so Rufo-ism is becoming one of those points of the friend-enemy distinction. In a follow up post, Paul Gottfried talks about some of Rufo’s critics.

One of the interesting things about the critics of Rufo, as well as his supporters, is the dog that never barks. That dog is race. This is odd, given the material at the heart of his current project. Critical Race Theory is about race. Then there is the fact that Rufo spent much of his early time on this protect lecturing white people that the real victims of CRT were black kids. He put most of his effort into shooting down the idea that CRT is antiwhite, on the grounds that the term is “racist.”

This is an important part of Rufo-ism and the milieu that spawned it. These are people who are opposed to any discussion of race. It is not that they oppose the New Left’s view on race but that they embrace the New Left’s view on race more completely and sincerely than the Left embraces it. Rufo does think race is a social construct and it must be eliminated from all discourse. This New Right imagined by Rufo, Claremont and others is not just colorblind, but colorless.

It is tempting to assume this is just the old conservative two-step. They embrace the moral claims of the people they oppose but they have a different and more lucrative proposal for how to achieve them. Of course, there is the constant fear of being called “racist” which has haunted conservatism since the Old Left declared discrimination the greatest sin and diversity the greatest good. In other words, it is tempting to think Rufo’s act is an effort to avoid the R-word.

This is a reasonable suspicion, but it does not appear to be the case with Rufo nor the other popular figures from Claremont. Rufo married outside of his race and has mixed-race children, so unlike his New Left critics, who live like White Nationalists, Rufo’s “lived experience” comports with his stated views on race. This is not an uncommon phenomenon in this subculture. Further, the Claremont view of politics leaves no room for race or even natural inequality.

There is another reason for the aversion to race. Rufo is a science-denier. He rejects biology as we know it. He worked for the Discovery Institute, which peddles crackpot theories like intelligent design. Of course, the Claremont people largely reject the last two thousand years of scientific progress. They instead embrace the Straussian belief that nature comes with a secret code book on how humans should act. If you say Aristotle’s name enough times, the secret is revealed.

The starting place for the New Right is the assumption that humans are infinitely malleable in terms of character. What you are as a person is determined by the society into which you are born. If you get the moral code of society right and enforce that morality through the institutions, you end up with virtuous citizens. Since virtue in their view is a life lived to the benefit of the polis, there can be no place for things like race, because that undermines their idea of virtue.

If this sounds a bit like Marxism, it should, because this is the basic assumption of Marx and most radical thinkers. Once you assume that morality is an objective truth that lies outside of collective agreement, it means there can be only one truly moral way to organize human society. The goal of politics, therefore, is to discover it and then ruthlessly enforce it. Instead of historical materialism as the moral authority, the New Right embraces their interpretation of classical philosophy.

Putting aside the underlying philosophical reason for their embrace of colorless politics, it sounds a lot like the colorblind politics of the old conservatism. In the 1980’s conservatives were sure America was ready to move beyond race. Everyone had the same opportunity and society would finally escape the long shadow of slavery, segregation, and discrimination. Race would still exist. It simply would not matter in our behavior as citizens and as a society.

The New Right is more reactionary, but the idea is the same. Instead of the optimism of the 1980’s, they are informed by the pessimism of the present. While they agree that discrimination is the worst sin, they see the antiracists as bad as the racists they claim to oppose. The New Right wants to use any means necessary to remove any discussion of race and biological reality from the public square, mostly because they see it as a tool of the people they claim to oppose.

From a dissident perspective, this New Right seems doomed to failure because reality is undefeated, but that view suffers from a flawed view of success. The New Left, like the Old Left and it antecedents since the Mayflower needs a dancing partner, one that shares its ultimate goal. That means something will rise up to take that spot now that the old Buckley-style conservatism is caput. Rufo-ism is a good bet to be what fills that void on the New Left’s dance card.

Trouble In The Levant

Posted on October 9, 2023 by thezman

Note: Behind the green door I have a post about the classic historical drama, Doctor Zhivago, a post about demographic reality and the Sunday podcast. You can sign up for a green door account at SubscribeStar or Substack.

A good rule when trying to understand anything in the Middle East is to first assume that nothing is as it appears on the surface. This is the land of endless intrigue and a land nearly devoid of candor. Another good rule is to assume all interested parties are lying, even those outside the region. This is especially true of anything concerning Israel, which is usually at the center of intrigue. Naturally, that is the place to start when analyzing the recent fighting in the Levant.

For those living off-grid until this morning, the Arab militia group Hamas launched a series of daring raids into Israel from the Gaza strip. They overran Israeli border posts, blinded radar systems, and attacked IDF garrisons. Once inside Israeli, they attacked some sort of outdoor rave that was going on at the time, killing hundreds of people and taking many of them as prisoners. Israel is now promising to genocide the Arab population in the Gaza strip in retaliation.

The first question to ask is how was it possible for such a large, complex operation to happen in a walled ethno-state like Israel? The IDF is a fully modern, high-tech military that is supposed to be the best in the word at defending against insurgents, yet they were caught unawares by Hamas. Further, Mossad exists to monitor these populations for exactly these sorts of threats. Somehow, poorly armed militants were able to organize this without being detected.

Adding to the intrigue is this story in the Wall Street Journal claiming inside information on how this was planned. Since we know regime media does no independent reporting, it means the story was recited to them by the regime. Is it plausible that Washington knew about this while Israel knew nothing? How likely is it that Washington knew about this and did not relay warnings to Israel? Maybe the story is a fake planted by the neocons to paint Iran as the villain.

Regardless, this attack could not come at a better time for the Israeli government, which has been in crisis for a year. Not so long ago there were large protests over constitutional reforms pushed by the Netanyahu government. Some thought civil war was possible, due to the scale of unrest. Those protests reflect a larger demographic problem within Israel. The old liberal ruling class stopped having children, while the ultra-orthodox continue to breed like rabbits.

A full-scale mobilization and war on the Palestinians is just the thing to suppress dissent and whip up support for the state. After all, this is the reason that Washington has been on a war footing since 1945. All of the parties in Israel will now have no choice but to fall in behind the Netanyahu government, at least until the emergency is over and the hostages are returned or killed by the IDF. The early results suggest the plan is to annihilate Gaza and drive off the remaining population.

There is another benefit. For decades Israel has been trying to get the United States to attack Iran and topple the Iranian regime. This was the neocon plan in the Bush years, but the debacle in Iraq forced them to table the idea. Hamas and Hezbollah are backed by Iran, so a slaughter in Gaza could provoke Iran, which in turn would give Washington an excuse to attack them. The bodies were not cold and Lindsey Graham was out reading this exact script to the media.

Israel and the neocons are not the only people dancing on rooftops over what they are calling Israel’s 9/11. The Saudis are probably taking a sigh of relief. Washington has been pressuring the Saudis to normalize relations with Israel, something they would like to avoid as it would complicate their relationship with Iran. Both countries are now in BRICS and slowly working through their longstanding issues. Of course, China and Russia are promising both sides support in this effort.

The Saudis have not made it this long by luck. They understand that the world is changing, and they know their role in this new world will change with it, but they are not going to get ahead of things either. They probably want to see how things develop with Russia and China before alienating Washington. If they can remain on good terms with all sides for now, they have more cards to play. This new flare up in Arab-Israeli tensions give them an excuse to slow-play Washington.

Then we have Iran, which is going to get the blame from Israel and the neocons for instigating this attack. Whether Iran did or did not greenlight the attack is debatable, but they have real power in this game. They have also cultivated strong relations with Russia and China, who would love to play a bigger role in the region. This new war gives Iran a reason to invite both counties into the process of finding a solution to the conflict, thus strengthening Iran.

That is another angle to this that does not get mentioned. Washington has been slowly pushed out of regional politics, outside of Israel and the garrisons in Syria. With the massive drain on the American war machine in Ukraine, is Washington capable of launching a war against Iran? Can Israel sustain their war without new supplies from Washington, which may be low on weapons too? In 2006 Israel actually ran out of certain munitions fighting Hezbollah.

In other words, Iran may be calculating that this is now the time to reset the game board in order to setup new negotiations. Imagine a scenario in which both China and Russia are pushing for a regional peace conference, but Washington and Israel are pushing for war with Iran, but neither has the means to do it. Just as every other Western empire has exhausted itself in the Middle East, Iran may be thinking the Global American Empire has exhausted itself and is ready to leave.

This brings up another angle. The Russians are the big winner in this for the simple reason that the West now has to choose between Israel and Ukraine. Washington had to requisition 80% of Israel’s reserve munitions for Ukraine. They scoured the empire for weapons and ammunition. Facing a second front, they will have to choose and everyone on planet earth knows who will win that one. A hot war in the Levant is going to make for a very cold winter in Ukraine.

This may not be the worst thing for Washington. Ukraine is a loser that will only end poorly, so putting that war on the ignore list and focusing attention on this new front in the Middle East could be a blessing in disguise. Right now, the volunteer army of Ukraine experts are rebranding as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran experts, so the Ukraine war can be quickly forgotten. The power of regime media is the power to ignore, so if they ignore Ukraine, everyone ignores Ukraine.

One interesting sidenote to all of this is the conservative zombies chanting about how weakness in Ukraine has led to aggression against Israel. They have no idea why they are saying this, but they are not entirely wrong. The failure in the proxy war with Russia has exposed the rot in the American system. Decades of looting and grifting have left the empire unable to follow through on its threats. As a result, the world is becoming less afraid of Washington’s bluster and bullying.

That is the subtext to all of this. The fossils from the Reagan-Bush Museum are not wrong when they say Israel is the only Western outpost in the Middle East. It is just that the West is in decline and that means these outposts will be abandoned or overrun as part of the process of decline. If Israel is to survive it means becoming something other than an outpost of the West. If the West is to survive, it means abandoning these outposts and setting about the task of renewal.

Let’s Talk About Politics

Posted on October 6, 2023 by thezman

The ouster of Kevin McCarthy is one of those things that quickly gets internalized, despite its novelty, because the media machine operates like a hype man for a professional wrestling operation. It turns everything into trashy daytime drama, so even an important thing becomes just another poo-flinging contest between professional media partisans. As a result, it loses all meaning.

In the fullness of time, we may look back at it as one of those cracks that appeared in a system that was about to collapse. Think back to the downfall of Speaker Jim Wright in the late 1980’s and what followed. Like McCarthy, Wright was not very popular, but he was a system man who would not rock the boat. The trouble was the old system was no longer sustainable as the world outside was changing.

In the case of Wright, there was a new generation coming along and there was the final leg of the political realignment that started in the 1970’s. In the case of McCarthy there is a generational change and the radicalization of politics. The days of playing the old Republican Party tricks are coming to an end. McCarthy’s “say one thing and do another” approach is no longer going to work for the GOP.

The thing not getting enough attention is the fact that the Democrats were willing to let him swing rather than cut a deal. Maybe it was pure partisan spite or just incompetence, but they left money on the table in order to avoid being seen by their donors and voters making a deal with the other side. Even the dumbest Republican had to notice the unanimity of their “friends across the aisle.”

This McCarthy business suggests Washington may be reaching one of those inflection points like 1994 or 1974. The baby boomer generation is about to leave the stage just as the world is changing rapidly. When Speaker Wright was toppled, the boomers were ready to take over as the Cold War was coming to an end. As the millennials are taking over, the Global American Empire is coming to an end.

This Week’s Show

Contents

What is going on in Washington
McCarthy
What It Could Mean
The Brewing Problems

Direct Download, The iTunes, Google Play, iHeart Radio, RSS Feed

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On Rumble

Full Show On Odysee

Numbers

Posted on October 5, 2023 by thezman

If you were a young person in the 1980’s and caught up in the swelling conservative movement, you needed to know the numbers. Conservatism, to a great degree, was about making rational arguments which meant starting with the numbers. Things like the budget deficit, economic growth, crime rates and inflation were a common part of the conservative counter to progressive claims. At its most basic, conservatism was rational while liberalism was emotional.

For a while it seemed like the conservatives had carried the day on this issue as the public discourse slowly mirrored conservative discourse. When public figures talked about politics and social issues, it was about the numbers. The media would make a day of covering the latest speech by the Fed chair. Alan Greenspan became a rock star who gave speeches to huge crowds. Every politician made sure to have the Congressional Budget Office bless his latest idea.

Through the Bush years, economists took the place of the court astrologer, providing empirical authority to every normative claim. This reached its peak in the first Obama term when they said that every dollar spent by the government created more than a dollar of economic activity. A line of people with impressive sounding credentials provided the math of this claim. This was the argument in favor of the massive spending program unleashed by the Obama administration.

It was not just politics that got the numbers treatment. After every Super Bowl, the media would spend a day or two crunching the numbers to prove that you were the only weirdo who did not set aside the day to watch the big game. Television ratings were a mainstay of media coverage. The stock market became the central measure of social happiness, with cable channels dedicated to telling us the numbers and what the numbers meant for your happiness.

Today, no one discusses the numbers. Someone arguing for a policy on the grounds that it is good the economy sounds like someone arguing for free silver. In fact, it is the primary criticism of Conservative Inc. They do not care about crossdressers chasing your son around the playground or the tidal wave of brown people pouring over the border into your neighborhood. They care about the carried interest deduction and locking in tax cuts that few experienced or remember.

What is the current projected federal deficit? Without googling it, few people would know, and most people would not bother to do it. The same is true of the total federal debt, which used to be a headline topic. How much does the Federal government owe and to whom do they owe it? Washington is embroiled in a huge drama right now set off by the Federal budget debate and no one bothers mentioning that about forty percent of what they spent is borrowed.

One reason no one talks about the economic numbers is they have become inconceivable large, so they have no impact. People can grasp a million and they can sort of grasp a billion. Being a millionaire would be nice and being a billionaire would be awesome, but trillionaire? It is probably better than billionaire, but what is bigger than anything you can imagine? The thirty-plus trillion federal debt is a meaningless number because it is outside of what most people can imagine.

There is a bigger issue that applies to all the numbers. Decades of lying about the numbers have made all of them suspect. The totally fake economic data pumped out in the Obama years sunk the credibility of the court wizards. When those people with impressive credentials put on their serious faces and said that taking money from you and giving some of it to your neighbor would grow the economy, even the most innumerate started to question the math.

It is not just the big stuff where lying has undermined the trust in the numbers that used to be the guideposts of society. Television ratings are obviously bogus or not as meaningful as claimed. If the people making the content cared about ratings, they would not have smeared their feces all over popular content. Ad makers would not have replaced most of the white people with nonwhites. They certainly would not have every white woman paired with a black guy.

Probably the most egregious offender of the numbers are the tech companies, who clearly fake all of their numbers. How many users are really on Twitter? No one knows but we know the official number is a lie. We can clearly see that the follower counts and impressions are fake. Before buying Twitter, Elon Musk made the rather obvious claim that the site was riddled with bots and fake accounts. Once the deal closed, he stopped talking about the bots and fake accounts.

There is more to the general fakery than the unreliability of the numbers. It is that it reflects a collapse in trust. When the government claims inflation is under control, but you keep seeing your expenses climb, you are reminded by the numbers that the people in charge cannot be trusted. When some new personality bursts on the scene claiming to have a huge audience, but no one you know heard of the guy until last week, you cannot help but wonder if it is a lie.

The numbers of life are not supposed to tell us what we ought to do, but to be a measure of what we are doing. If we cannot trust the numbers or the people issuing the numbers, then we cannot know what they are doing. We have no way of judging what is being told to us or if it is on the level. The only logical response is to assume the numbers are fake and the people issuing them are lying. A society with unreliable numbers is a society run by unreliable people.

Of course, this is most clear in politics. The most important numbers are the votes counted on election night. The logic of democracy is that everyone gets their say, then everyone votes and the side with the most votes wins. Along the way polling tells us how the various arguments and people are doing. If all of these numbers are fake, then what is the point? If the numbers at the soap box and the ballot box cannot be trusted, you are left with the numbers in the cartridge box.

Since the end of the Cold War, American society has travelled along an arc that started with a trust in the numbers and the people behind them to a place where no sane person trusts the numbers or the people behind them. That is probably why it feels like this pirate ship of a society called America is sailing into dangerous waters. Odds are just numbers, and the odds say that in a world without reliable numbers, the most likely outcome is the ship eventually sinks.

No Enemies On The Right

Posted on October 4, 2023 by thezman

Charles Haywood of Worthy House has a post up explaining and defending his concept of “No Enemies On The Right”, which he originally formulated as “No Enemies To The Right” last December. He used that original phrase when discussing the jihad led by Rod Dreher against a schoolteacher who was accused of heresy. Dreher was doing his Christian piety act to both attack someone who could not defend himself and to curry favor with the people he pretends to oppose.

Dreher panicked when Haywood used the phrase “No Enemies To The Right” because it would be very bad for business if people embraced it. Like everyone in for-hire conservative politics, Dreher exists to attack people to his right. That is his reason to exist and why rich people fund his operations. What we insist on calling the Right in America is primarily a policing operation. They impose the morality of the Left on the rabble that the Right is charged with keeping at bay.

Over the last year, Haywood has defended his original argument, refining it as necessary, in response to criticism. Haywood has no interest in becoming the Emily Post of right-wing politics, but his continuing work on this concept is producing something like a rulebook of right-wing etiquette. His ten-point outline for what he means by “No Enemies On The Right” should be viewed as a useful guide for discourse between the various groups in dissident politics.

The slogan “No Enemies On The Right” is not new to Haywood. Those around way back in the alt-right days, which feels like a lifetime ago now, will recall this was a slogan with some of the more popular figures in that space. In fact, it was the motivation for organizing the Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville. The idea was to both bring everyone together but also break the pattern of the Left pitting one group against the other to enforce their moral code.

Amusingly, before the alt-right used the term, it was a popular way for the neocons to stamp out dissent during the Bush presidency. They argued in the runup to the 2004 election that their war plans were too important to let the many lies of the Bush administration divide the Right. Their basic argument was “Sure, Bush is Lyndon Johnson, but the Democrats are worse, so you have to hold your nose and vote for the guy who is the opposite of what we promised.”

Of course, like everything political on the Right, this concept has been lifted from the Left, which coined the term “No Enemies to the Left” during the French Revolution for the same reason Haywood is promoting his version today. Opposing the King and the aristocracy was too important to let petty squabbles drive the many opponents of the regime into the ghetto of endless quarreling. Overthrow the system first then everyone can argue about what comes next.

There is an obvious appeal in this age. The one thing everyone outside the political class can agree upon is the system now only works to serve the interest of the people at the upper reaches of the system. There is a zero-sum game mindset in the ruling class where they assume what is good for them is bad for the people, so what is bad for the people must be good for them. The result is a system run by people who hate the people over whom they rule.

The logical answer is to hate them back. Since the people have numbers, the only way to use this advantage is to unite enough people under an opposition banner that has as its singular goal the removal of the ruling class. This is why this idea terrifies the house slaves of Conservative Inc. They know exactly what this means, which is the toppling of the people who keep them in the lifestyle they think they deserve. From the point of view of people like Rod Dreher, it is Only Enemies On The Right.

There is another advantage to this mode of thought. It forces clarity on the politics of dissent that helps flush out the poseurs and profiteers. Those committed to the larger project will refuse to condemn anyone on their side for crimes against the regime or regime orthodoxy. At most they remain silent. The poseurs and profiteers are always quick to point their bony finger at someone and condemn him for violating the morality of the opposition, like you see with Rod Dreher.

There is one major flaw with the “No Enemies On The Right” concept. It makes it difficult to police the ranks for lunatics and crackpots. Populist politics has always struggled with the weirdo problem precisely because it is unwilling to criticize anyone willing to join the fight against the Left. You can chant “No Enemies On The Right!” until you are blue in the face, but you must have some way to filter out the lunatics or you end up being defined by them.

There is also the problem of what constitutes the Right. The drug addled Antifa marchers oppose the system, but they are not of the Right. Jimmy Dore, the old school progressive comic, opposes the regime, but he is a socialist. The Grey Zone people oppose the America military machine, but they are communists. There has to be something more than opposition to the Left or you end up putting a leash around your neck and handing the other end to people you hate.

This leads to the third problem, which Haywood addresses in his seventh item in his list of “Tenets of NEOTR.” Disagreement is vital for any opposition to the regime as this is the only way to improve the opposition. Ideas need to be debated and that often results in hurt feelings, which leads to public disputes. Chanting “No Enemies On The Right” in these times will just alienate the people in the dispute. There needs to be a way to argue but in a way that keeps the focus on the enemy.

Finally, there is no escaping the fact that this is not a new idea and prior efforts at practicing it have failed. There is a reason it has failed. The main reason is the people chanting it were never really serious about it. Instead, they tended to use it as a shield to ward off criticism. This is how we got to Charlottesville. The way forward with this concept must be to go back and address the past failure. That means more discussion about “No Enemies On The Right” with the aim of getting it right.

The Z Blog

Sports, Culture and Other Stuff

Monthly Archives: October 2023