The Lost Boys

I suspect most people who read blogs like this get their news and commentary from alternative sources, rather than conventional outlets. People in our thing still watch the cable shows on occasion and drift over to mainstream news sites, but more as visitors than partisans. Listening to a guy like Sean Hannity rant about how the Democrats are the real racists is uninteresting. The old Red Team versus Blue Team stuff is no longer relevant to the sort of people reading sites like this one.  Our politics is outside that stuff.

The few times a month I bother to scan National Review, I feel the same way as when I watch a B-movie from the 1980’s. Yeah, it reminds me of that time I got to second base with Sally Sugarpants, but the movie is still terrible. Even more so now. Reading one of the bugmen NRO employs to write copy, tub-thump about their principles, I wonder what it must be like to live trapped in amber. Conservative Inc is a Potemkin village, where the people carry on as if nothing has changed since 1984. It’s creepy.

There is a reason, beyond the financial considerations, why these people cling so tenaciously to the past. They have nowhere else to go. They have always lived in a world, whose map is a tiny intellectual zone dominated by the Left. Around it is a blank space labeled “Here Be Monsters.” Even for those who figure out that the old Left-Right paradigm is no longer relevant, their fear of what’s out there has them staggering around on the fringes of the old world, like homeless beggars looking for a place to lie down.

This probably explains some of the Bernie Bros too. They no longer can tolerate Progressive Globalism, but they fear association with the Right, so they have staggered over to 19th century socialism. They don’t really embrace Bernie Sanders or his anachronistic politics, but they have nowhere else to go. It’s a form of populism they can embrace, without changing parties and supporting Trump. The Bernie Movement is just a convenient doorway for them to sleep in while the world sorts itself out.

My sense is libertarians got a boost in the 90’s and 2000’s when Gen X and Millennial males decided that Clinton degeneracy and Bush stupidity were not their bag. Libertarianism was a safe place to hide. On the one hand, it allowed for mocking of the Left, but it also allowed for a rejection of Bush-style conservatism.  The reason libertarianism is now collapsing is that so many of those folks have made the trip over to the Dissident Right. Most of the alt-right is former libertarians, for example.

Still, there are a lot of people who broke with conventional conservatism in the Bush years, but remain lost in the wilderness. Rod Dreher and the people at American Conservative are good examples. A guy like Dreher gets that people like D’Souza are venal grifters and neocons like Jeff Flake are clueless airheads. He gets, to some degree, why Trump resonates with whites. The trouble is he remains stuck in that old Progressive paradigm, where politics is a binary world of Left versus Right.

The center remains to be grabbed by a politician (or political party) that can move to the left on economics while either moving to the right on social issues, or at least making a firm stand against the loony leftism that has taken over the Democratic Party. A tolerably center-right party would not necessarily campaign for socially conservative initiatives, but it would stop using the federal government to push the causes of the progressive fringes.

This is complete nonsense that only makes sense if you refuse to acknowledge the last 25 years of political history. He’s basically describing a less personally degenerate version of Clinton or a less violent version of Bush. In other words, unable to consider any of the areas outside the well mapped safe zones of conventional politics, lost souls like Dreher stagger around reinventing the same stuff over and over, with decreasing levels of enthusiasm. Even these so-called centrists get tired of the same gruel.

Dreher is not an exception. There are lots of people who find themselves wandering around unfamiliar terrain, but relying on the same old maps they got in the 1980’s. They are like people transported from that era, wearing thin ties and listening to Flock of Seagulls on their Walkman, baffled by the sites and sounds of the current age. They know the world has changed and is changing rapidly all around them, but they stubbornly cling to what they know, mostly out of fear of those monsters on the map.

As I’m fond of pointing out, a political map devised by 18th century radicals has little value today. The spectrum with Right at one end and Left on the other no longer exists. The political map is now ideological spheres that do not overlap in most cases. Where they do overlap is in the area of public policy and not ideology. You are either in the ideological camp based in biological realism or you are in the camp that embraces the blank slate and egalitarianism. If you reject both, you are a lost boy, staggering around in the darkness.

That’s the challenge for our team. The blank slate is taking on water, but that does not mean their members will rush to the life boats of the Dissident Right. As I pointed out in the most recent podcast, bringing these people out of the darkness is a slow process. They first have to come to terms with the fact that their political map is no more useful than a map of America from the age of sail. Of course, it also means punching holes in the old paradigm, making it hard for guys like Dreher to cling to those moderate fantasies.

125 thoughts on “The Lost Boys

  1. Re: “A guy like Dreher gets that people like D’Souza are venal grifters and neocons like Jeff Flake are clueless airheads.”

    ZMan, would you mind explaining why you are so tough on Dinesh D’Souza (Jeff Flake I don’t know and don’t care about)? Perhaps I am the clueless one here, but I don’t see what he’s done to merit the opprobrium you heap upon him.

    Unlike most people who identify as conservative or part of the opposition to the cultural Marxists, D’Souza has paid heavily for his willingness to plant his ideological flag and defend it. His film, “Obama’s America” must have gotten to B. Hussein, since not long after it came out, his people came after D’Souza with a vengeance.

    Ultimately, Obama’s neo-Marxist “Justice Department” ended up hanging a bogus campaign finance charge, to which D’Souza pleaded guilty (he could read the tea leaves as well as anyone by that time) and thereby managed to avoid prison.

    This is a total fiasco and mockery of justice, since Obama himself and his people committed a number of very serious violations of campaign finance and voter registration during his two Presidential campaigns. Holder’s people at DOJ were told to keep digging until they found something on D’Souza – and in true Lavrenti Beria/KGB fashion – i.e., “Show me the man and I will show you his crime” – they found something, or perhaps just invented what their bosses wanted.

    I don’t know the man personally, and have no dog in this fight, but the fact that D’Souza has had the guts to stand up and be counted when the chips are down should be worth something, right? Whatever else he may be, D’Souza certainly isn’t a coward.

  2. I’ve had it up to my eye teeth with D’Souza and his, “Dems are the real fascists,” bullshit clogging up my Twitter timeline. It’s bad enough I follow too many Conservative normies on there, but I don’t need them all continuously re-tweeting this garbage, 24/7. How much longer is this promo bonanza expected to last?
    From what I’m being told, there was also a period of time in the past, where D’Souza was shtupping Laura Ingraham, that I also somehow know nothing of, anyone else have info on that? If half the rumors I’ve read online about that poor woman are true, she really has gotten around, for a “Conservative” gal. What’s with all these Conservative women, anyway? None of them ever seem to find a husband.

  3. I’m not sure we can get to biological realism if we are going to have trouble getting to realism. If the dysfunction ind Detroit, Chicago, and Baltimore has at its root the destruction of the black nuclear family, but either you can’t say that because it is racist, or (like DACA) consider it to be too cruel to stop the have-a-kid, get-a-check for mothers (and if the father is in prison or can’t even get minimum wage you can’t discourage child support – jail them all you want but then another cruelty, debtors prisons where we force them to do some kind of work maybe with cattle prods they won’t be paying for their bastards).

    To preemptively control people involves one form of human rights violation, but to not hold people who do wrong responsible violates the rights of all the people who bear the costs, taxpayers, society, and even the “unplanned” children.

    I use this as a simple but obvious example. Marijuana should also be legalized, and the “war on drugs” severely limited – here is another bizarro world element – we worry about drugs causing property crime, but there are almost no federal laws or mandatory minimum sentences on property crimes, but there are on drugs. Would I rather a drug addict panhandle or break into my home?

    There is also gender biological reality. Bruce and Bradley bulls don’t become Caitlyn and Chelsea cows – the technology doesn’t allow that. They are steers on hormones but they can’t be milked (at least not a nutritional fluid). But real women have a limited number of fertile years, their anatomy is more vulnerable to STDs, and they aren’t going into the dirty, stinky, stressful, or dangerous professions. Where is the female version of “Dirty Jobs”, “Deadliest Catch”, or “Axe Men”? Women can’t have it all and have to choose between career and spinsterhood or being a good – not absentee – mommy.

  4. Has anyone tried to go to Anonymous Conservative’s website today? I keep getting access denied messages. Is he the next White-Supremacist-Fascist-Hater that had to be banned?

  5. The funniest part of that Dreher wishlist is that it is mostly embodied in the person of Donald Trump. Trump’s trade and manufacturing stances make him sound far more like an old union democrat than a country club Rockefeller republican, and he pretty much ignores the social issues while allowing conservative republicans to capitalize on the gains they’ve made in state and local offices. When he does wade into the culture war quagmire, he typically takes a common sense approach that is approved of by most Americans while leaving out the moralizing.
    Take the trannies in the military issue. He didn’t ban them because they are gross and deranged (though they are) but on pragmatic grounds (they cut into the military’s combat readiness and their health costs are too expensive). Same thing with the whole C’ville mess and monuments (those nazi guys are knuckleheads but they’re right about the left attempting to erase our past).
    Dreher is too blinded by his own effete snobbery to see that the great populist (for this is what he is describing) candidate has appeared in all his rough hewn glory. But I guess that’s not good enough for ol’ Rod since Trump likes taco bowls, doesn’t drink $18 beers or badmouths his immediate family.

  6. Zman,
    in some sense you already touched on this point but there is a subset of people out there from a cross the spectrum, from old-school conservative Inc boomers to crunchy Birkenstock wearing liberals who are all in the same predicament. They all secretly realize that the path they are on, conservative inc, crunchy liberal, gibbsmedat boomer is suicide. Yet they are frozen into inaction because they realize that the life they have built, their entire perception of the world will shatter and become as ephemeral as the smoke from their world view as it burns to the ground. To put it another way they are standing on top of the world trade center as it burns. They hope they can stand on the top and finish their time on this world before the flames reach them or the building collapses underneath them because, taking that step off the edge into the abyss of the unknown is beyond them at this point.
    These are the people who make up / will make up the 40% that sit in the middle during revolutionary times. History suggests that 30% or so actively participate or support one side. As a rough estimate 15% are active revolutionaries on each side and another 15% or so support those actively engaged. Then again history also suggests being in the middle 40% is very dangerous as in identity based conflicts anyone not on your team generally becomes considered the enemy and tends to disappear in the night or get stood up against a wall, from Yugoslavia, to Spain, to Chile, Rwanda, etc.

    • My view on this is that people will choose to be *for* something, rather than against it. The challenge for everyone in the post-modern, technological age, is in coming up with a positive platform. Globalism is such an attempt. It’s entirely materialistic. It offers nothing but cheap thrills and a quick death. That’s not much of an offer. Until an alternative comes along, the best we have as globalism and anti-globalism.

      • Zman,

        I think that there is already something on offer, something to be for on the right, blood and soil. Its still embryonic and coalescing as evidenced by the internal struggles currently seen amongst the alt-right, and still makes many people uncomfortable even though its the end game conclusion to HBD / race realism.
        Blood and soil doesn’t require some distopian ethnic cleansing but it does end up with the historical US ethnicity becoming dominant as they fully adopt identity politics.
        Blood and soil is probably the ultimate end game whether we like it or not. The US will probably see a fracturing of the nation even if we avoid full on civil war. Some regions will be “diverse” but I’d guess most go the blood and soil route.
        As a sign of whats coming look at kid rock. look at his latest video “po dunk”. blood and soil is arising from the “deplorables” just as Trump did. The deplorables that have been dumped on for every problem in the nation for the last 20+ years is not willingly going to go back to being the whipping boy.

      • I think my problem with modern conservatives is that for them everything comes down to economics and what produces the most wealth for the nation (or globe) as a whole. I will readily admit that free trade is best for the “globe” as well as the free flow of labor, but there are other elements to happiness other than material wealth. That to me is why modern conservatism rings so hollow.

        • Free trade is best for the globe- dude, there is no globe in the we-are-world sense imagined by silly people like conservative inc and the rest of the cloud people.

          There are only a wide variety of competitive nation-states and disparate ethnicities who mostly don’t care about any other, except when they are either a threat or a target.

          It’s only the cloud people of the West who are too dense to understand this, because they wrongly imagine that they are responsible for the entire world.

          They are not. In actual practice free trade and open borders will destroy the West, as Western economies are bankrupted by foreign merchantilism and Western nations are simply overrun by foreigners.

          Examples of this process are legion, and should be familiar to anyone likely to read this.

      • The forces at work are bigger than all of us. As in the run-ups to the Civil War and the two World Wars, we can see where things were likely to go, but we are not in a position to do anything but ride the beast. A better understanding of the forces at work, and their most likely resolutions, is the best that we can do. The rest of it is largely out of our hands.

    • Bob, there are a lot of Ben Franklins out here, hoping to avoid bloody revolution, and a lot of Lenins on the alt-right looking to foment one. I’m among those who would rather not light it up because the more vocal identitarians are as Bolshevik as they are anything else.

      What comes next is the question they never want to answer, and for people with kids, looking at one side saying its time to oppress whitey, and the other side saying ‘trust me, we’ll figure it out after we win the race war’, there is no side to stand on, not because I’m on top, but because I’m very much on the outside of each group.

      To carry the analogy a bit further, Franklin finally came on board because the cause was more freedom in the face of an intransigent Crown. And ‘the normals’ who didn’t really want the revolution were persuaded to not to stand in the way because the promise of more freedom was better than the promise of retaliation if the Red Coats won.

      Lenin, on the other hand, created a revolution on the promise of a more just world for his people, but was never all that clear who ‘his people’ were, and ran roughshod over all who he felt were insufficiently ‘woke’.

      And when I hear people like Jimmy, who responded to my comment above, dismiss any talk beyond ‘provide for my people’, I don’t hear a rousing call that people can stand behind, but a voice calling for stage one of a purge that could outlast my children and theirs.

      So, no, those of us still involved are not standing atop a burning building. We’re trying to stop a brushfire before it consumes a forest. A lot of what can put it out is achievable, and has wide support.

      But the voices calling for oppressing thy neighbor to protect thy people are counter productive UNLESS fire is all they really want.

      • You point sounds reasonable on the surface however, I believe that as was said up above, these events are far larger than all of us and are already well underway. The west has been broken with “diversity”, there is no putting those pieces back together. The inherent conflicts are at the most base levels and cannot be squared.
        Purges will occur, the left openly calls for them already and history shows time again that it is not the “reasonable” middle that decides events. the middle simply goes along with the victor. Thats not to suggest I want any of this, but the historical patterns are fairly clear on where all this goes the only real questions at this point is who is on which team and whether the US breaks up into multiple entities or not.

        Time will tell which of us is correct.

        • Wholeheartedly agree, the question is how far down the path we really are.

          Some, like the replies to my post above and their kissing cousins BLM/AntiFa/LaRaza/CAIR/LGBTQWhatever are fanning the flames, when in my life spent criss crossing a good part of this country I just don’t see the fire to match the smoke.

          In fact, I’d be far more concerned if I lived in Toronto or Montreal. The takeover by truly hostile groups is undeniable, and there is no appetite to protect any of their heritage as a Commonwealth nation.

          History isn’t a straight line, so I can’t bring myself to panic about splitting into tribes, mainly because based on where I grew up and who I count among my friends and compatriots, there are plenty of Asians and Hispanics that are as American as I am, and I know too many Redneck and/or suburban, all-American black guys.

          Not to say that can’t change, but I’m not seeing that virus spreading nearly as far offline as I am online.

          • You touch on two important things here. One is that out there in the world, the Antifa/BLM/La Raza stuff doesn’t hold much weight with most people. Attach the Left to them, and the battle is half won, people don’t like crazy. And the Establishment Left is cooperating here, by giving lip service to the crazies.

            Two is that the Dissident Right isn’t a skin color or a set of specific policy initiatives. It is an idea of what America and being an American is about, and it can serve as a very big tent when the alternative choices are batshit crazy as a starting point.

            Call me an optimist, but I trust the average person to figure out his own best interests in the long run, and it is on our side.

  7. I think the big divide as Derb has pointed out it is between nationalists and globalists. There are alot of other fault lines as well such as blank slate vs genetic determinism, traditional vs progressive, but to me this is most salient, I do wonder how many NR types truly fall into the globalist camp. I read Jonathan Cole on Taki mag state that alot of NR types read vdare and alternative sites and secretly agree with much of what they have to say, but owuld never publicly admit it.

    • They all go together. Genetic determinism goes with nationalism and tradition. Blank slate goes with globalism and progressivism. The thing is, genetic determinism is something you are born with. The national-global and tradition-progressionism trade-offs are intellectual choices. The genes are something you are born with and ultimately immutable. That’s why I would place genetic determinism vs. blank slate at the top of the list.

      • All advances in civilization are anti-instinctual, but we have arrived a point where it is the formal rejection of instinct which is anti-civilizational.

  8. I didn’t even need to read any further into Dreher’s statement to see what nonsense it was.

    “The center remains to be grabbed by a politician (or political party) that can move to the left on economics….”

    Yes we would be so much better off if we only follow Paul Krugman and Keynesian economic policy…….right into the toilet. Bravo.

  9. I’ll admit to some real confusion on these matters, namely where the hell the Dissident Right is heading.

    The current system of carve outs, special rights, and tribal warfare has to lead to more internal conflict, violence, and eventual segregation if not secession.

    Is this just an accepted fact for the Dissident Right, with Alt-Right as the vanguard aiming to gain control? Or is there any faction of the DR looking to both cut free from the blank slate ‘everything is oppression so all must be punished’ progressivism and get rid of the police state being created to manage the tribes?

    Is there any wild west, ‘let god sort em out’ segment that wants local consequences for stupid leadership, but the kind of federal government outlined in the Constitution? Does the Constitution (as written, not as mangled by the judiciary) have a champion on the DR?

    • I appreciate this is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution but if you take the two as both articulating the presumptive prevailing sentiment of the American founders.

      “We hold these truths to be self-evident (they are the opposite, deeply counter intuitive), that all men are created equal (they are not), that they are endowed by their Creator (almost certainly false) with certain unalienable Rights (definitely false, both the alleged inalienability and the innate endowment), that among these are Life (conscription was a feature of life in America from the get go, as has the right of the sovereign to call to arms of most if not all civilisations), Liberty (please) and the pursuit of Happiness (meaningless phrase)”

      How could a member of the “Dissident Right” possibly read such a declaration, second paragraph, RIGHT AT THE FOUNDING OF THE NATION, with a straight face? How could such a man have any respect for “America” as that idea that Z’s mates at National Review are always on about? How could the very concept of a “nation founded on an idea” (something true of the Soviet Union or the First French Republic) as opposed to for the benefit of a people possibly hold water when the idea as expressed is so violently against the precepts of nature and at any rate is completely incoherent?

      All these muh constitution types, have they considered the paragraph above and noted it would not be out of place on a poster situated on a die hard progressive’s wall?

      • Got it – Jimmy is a white nationalist leftist. Classic Progressive, Cultural Marxist, Post Modernist. On the old school ‘left is communist, right is fascist’ paradigm, he’s definitely ‘right’, but it leaves out Liberty as a conceptual possibility, and too much good has come from freedom to give it up because Jimmeh says its a farce.

        I’m for protecting and expanding the rights and liberties of Americans, and am anti-immigration. But just as mass immigration was the wrong way for the Boomers to atone for the ‘racism’ and ‘imperialism’ of their parents, so is the incitement of a race war which oh-so-coincidentally has some Marx in tow is the wrong way to deal with the Boomers’ many, many mistakes.

        I just know too many good, smart, helpful, liberty supporting people of varying backgrounds/ethnicities to stand beside Jiminy Jew Hater until he decides I’m expendable too.

        • A. Livingstone,

          Jimmeh sez that the Declaration of Independence is larded with ludicrous nonsense fit for a Prog fanatic, and he is correct. Observe that the alleged equality of “all men” can’t be “self-evident” when it’s not even clear what is meant by “equal”. We might suppose, however, that the alleged equality includes an equal right to rule through agents or other form of representatives. Could this assumption be true given the obvious absence of equality of requisite intelligence, aptitude, energy, virtue, etc.? Of course not. Where there is no ability to rule, there can be no right to rule.

          Another dubious claim in the DoI is for an “unalienable” right to “Life”. Well, rights are defined in terms of the obligations to which they give rise. When you claim that you have an unalienable right to live, you are saying that all others have an unconditional duty not to kill you. This means that you have no right to form, say, a lethal militia to defend yourself against a group of commie activists like “Antifa”, or against their puppeteers, or against a race war mob stirred up against you. Also, let the record of history remind you that the British republicans in North America did not impose upon theirselves the limitation implied by their high minded claptrap about unalienable rights.

          Now, it matters not in the least that Jimmy could be a “white nationalist leftist” or (gasp!) a “Jew Hater”. You will need to do much better than those lazy minded ad hominem attacks to rebut criticism of your precious Declaration. It is important, however, to suspect that the DoI accelerated a flow of humanist sewage out of Europe such that now the whole world has been flooded by it. There is no end in sight to the Caucasian predilection for spreading the pollution, so you should not be surprised if, one day, a number of the world’s noncaucasian men unite against you and present an ultimatum:

          White man, listen. Burn your declarations of equality, and extinguish your egalitarian children, nieces, and nephews without further foot dragging. If you refuse, we will take all of your lands, extinguish your degenerate civilization, and terminate your breed.

          • First, let me be clear that in my original post, I referred not to the high minded idealism of the Declaration, but to the written law that was to set the standards by which the government was to be restricted, giving far more latitude to local governance and individual liberty than any set of laws before or since.

            And I stated in my response that I was referring to the original Republic, not the judicially mangled mess with all of it’s penumbras and permutations since, though I am largely in line with the properly executed Amendments.

            That said, the DoI states that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

            Your declaration that it nullifies the right to self defense ignores the 2A to the constitution, the reason why the DoI was created (defending the right of the Colonists to defend themselves from an oppressive Crown), and the Revolution in defense of those liberties was launched.

            Now, the document – a declaration of war, not rights – that all men are created equal with certain rights. it does not say they are equal to share in the spoils of economic success, equal in intelligence, equal in the size of their manhood, or any other possible declaration of ‘equal’ you can come up with. It says men are created equal in the eyes of God, and as such should be considered equal in the eyes of the law, hence the unalienable rights to live, be free, and do what makes them happy.

            This, of course, was a fine statement for people to get behind, but it’s not the law of the land, but a national ethic to be pursued.

            The Constitution you and Jimmeh so carefully ignore does in fact lay the groundwork for law, including when life can be forfeited, and leaves all other impositions of law to be decided by the states so long as the 10 primary rights are not violated.

            That’s why my comment referenced not the DoI, but the Constitution. I’m not arguing about the merits/demerits of the ethic, because that’s subjective and (as you so aptly demonstrated) distortable beyond recognition.

            The Constitution is a basis for societal organization, and you and Jimmeh are silent on the matter. Which means I don’t trust you – everything that drives you is based on savage bloodlust, either your own or that which you believe will/does drive your opponents.

            I’ve too much experience both here and abroad working with people of a variety of races to see all of X as my enemy, all of Y as my ally. There are plenty of people whom I share genetic heritage that I find to be horribly untrustworthy, plenty of 2nd generation Americans I trust implicitly because they came here specifically because of the DoI’s ethic and the Constitution’s protection from the kind of corruption they fled.

            You, Allan, scare the shit out of me. You are exactly the type who will string up the guy who claps insufficiently. And Jimmeh is the type to follow your lead, no different than the followers of Pol Pot or Robert Mugabe.

          • “This, of course, was a fine statement for people to get behind, but it’s not the law of the land, but a national ethic to be pursued.”

            And yet it is the ethic that is sovereign. Where is gay marriage in your constitution? Affirmative action? Abortion? Right to immigrate to thr usa? Its right there in the DoI.

            Curiouser and curiouser.

            But the law says! Is it possible the United States is…lawless?

            Yes, Virginia, it is.

          • The Declaration is a manifesto. The Declaration’s stain of equality is largely misunderstood, which serves to make it a greater stain. The Constitution is an attempt to make amends for that offending document. Tom Paine was a revolutionary by temperament and went on to other revolutions complete with heads on pikes. Jefferson, among others, was also a fan. The Federalists backed away from revolution with speed. The anti-Federalists were always solidly suspicious. But the barn door had been opened. The Declaration is a religious document, and Americans are evangelicals to the bone.

        • Making political rhetoric from the 18th century the equivalent of holy scripture does not make one a realist or a member of the alt-right. In my books it makes one a patriotard.

        • I’m very proud of already earning a nickname on this site! I’m afraid I didn’t join this movement because I was afraid of being called names. I have no particular opinion on the jews but it’s interesting…some might say telling, that you immediately went there. Perhaps you could just call me a Nazi grab your black balaclava and be done with it?

          I’d hate this to devolve into a “no you’re a leftist!” Pissing contest but I must object.

          Your childish understanding of freedom as something akin to elves or fairy dust sprinkled on a chosen people by the gods does not agree with me I’m afraid.

          Your remarks remind me of mainstream conservatism. My main objection when reading you or David French or Gavin McInnis is this:

          if your constitution is so great why has it devolved to this?

          It has moved left ever since jump street. Civil war. FDR. Civil rights. Kennedy tells me Washington and co. There’s even gay marriage in there.

          What are you going to do about this perpetual and rapidly increasing leftward shift?

          Screaming at me for being a Nazi won’t solve the problem Livingstone. I’m the easy target.

          Your magic paper won’t help you now.

          We’re on the same side, even as you imply I am subhuman in some way.

          But I will show patience with your slurs because we need you on our side.

          Join us.

          • We have reached an interesting place when French and McInnes can plausibly be placed in the same sentence on the same side like that. I can just about see it, but that’s the speed.

            I’m 46, so GenX. I’m also in another country. So on the one hand I grew up into Reaganaut, Cold war conservatism with a paleo tinge after a while. Burke and Kirk. It’s still my preference, although that already puts me far right of Boomer Consensus.. And I deal fine with non-white people.

            But I’ve never, as an outsider, had the Constitution and DoI reverence, and my own country’s trad institutions have been under just slightly slow-motion siege my entire life. I’m used to the idea the enemy will ditch them. I’d be just about willing to ditch them first if for advantage.

            And I’m conscious also of:

            all trad North American and Western European politics is white politics. Neither recent variants of conservatism nor traditional liberalism has shown any real purchase among other groups and it won’t. America and other countries have sped away from them.

            And it is almost certainly too late for my country. Not yours.

          • Like I said, I don’t trust you. I don’t know what you stand for beyond whiteness. Fine, I remind you of mainstream Conservatives, which you made clear is as abhorrent to you as it would be if I’d called you Nazi (which I didn’t).

            The first thing you did was take what I said and twist it to argue against the Declaration. As did the others in the thread. Fine – it’s a beautiful statement that has been twisted – by you and others – to fit the needs of a variety of movements. It wasn’t my point, but you made it clear that you are a totalitarian that brooks no dissent, and that’s as leftist a trait as there can be.

            Regarding the Constitution, any law or structure is only as good as the willingness of the government and the people to stay within it’s boundaries.

            That’s the inherent weakness of any law or book of laws, and I’ve seen no other document before or since that has held up under scrutiny, and no other nation that has fought since it’s founding to stay within it’s bounds. Have we failed? On a number of counts. But that’s not the fault of the law, and it’s not a reason to abandon its protections. And recognize, please, that it has been bastardization of the basic protections that are to blame for all you lament – also by leftists who chose to create new rights at the expense of the greater society’s morals.

            Want to change that? Argue your points, win elections, get leftists kicked out of office and off the bench. All other methods devolve into rule by mob, a power that once unleashed leads to the death of millions.

            I was serious before about how you and Allan literally scare me. Not because you are some badass wordsmith, but because you are the same breed of tribal savages that tear down great cultures, great nations.

            Your anger is directed at those who are different by color now, but it will spread to those who are different by temperament, perspective, and enthusiasm later. Because it can’t be sated, only dulled temporarily.

            Why would I join forces with someone who will turn Frida Kahlo as soon as there is a new master to please?

          • I don’t like to use this card as it’s so cheap and cucky but in my case it’s true. I use it not to defend myself against your charges but because it immediately mocks so much of your argument.

            My wife is a Punjabi sikh.

            I self interestedly don’t oppose all immigration but I certainly think it should be very tightly controlled and limited to assimable, high iq populations.

            Anyway continue about how evil and scary I am. Continue explaining the finer points of “created equal” to your prog superiors. Oh and a non bitchy one: read some Moldbug among many many many others to understand what power actually is and how it works.

            Our challenge is to coalesce around some form of stable and responsible government that can resist this leftward pull. It’s a big challenge, this positive vision z refers to.

            Again, join us or the Borg, there is no third way friend. 225 years of history should have taught you that I would habe thought.

          • John Derbyshire has an Asian wife…is he a white totalitarian too? Btw if you’ll call me a white nationalist and a totalitarian are we not arguing the moral toss at you calling me a Nazi?

          • The heart of my comment was ‘where is the Dissident Right heading? what is the end game?’

            And in all of your responses, you have not offered up any semblance of an alternative, only a rejection of the Declaration as facile, the Constitution as ineffectual, then a half hearted ‘oh, but we’re really friends cuz we’re both white bruh, my people uber allies’.

            your positive vision tip of the hat at the end is an admission that in spite of going ugly early, you have no vision, no plan, and no respect for anything that we’ve inherited as a nation, and allegiance to some odd pagan myth.

            but don’t worry, when Allan goes crazy ensuring that no darkies have a chance to do what he plans on doing to them first, I’m sure you and Vishnu are going to be juuuust fine.

          • White nationalism, even HAN NATIONALISM would be better than this fiasco. Hows that foe leftism for you? Bring on Xi Jingping if it will end this descent into the abyss.

            I’d rather salute the party than kiss the ring of the least civilised people on the planet given license to indulge whatever deranged fantasy pops onto their head.

            Sigh. Yes indeed I am running out of patience with the Livingstones of the world.

  10. One caution I would throw in is the problems there could be with declaring everything to be quantifiable in a world where such claims always end up hitting a wall sooner or later. One could look at blank slate theory as part of a long term battle, both physical and intellectual, against the mentality represented by the Domesday Book. Sometimes we swim in waters whose true undercurrents we have no clue of.

  11. A case in point: Tom Nichols is on Twitter disparaging Trump supporters as sweaty people in gyms with MAGA hats, and suggesting Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing by cancelling DACA. Of course, these so-called conservatives had no problem with Obama’s executive orders, and have no idea that the millions of Americans who are fed up with their shambolic immigration system even exist.

  12. I think a lot of people on the right misread a large cohort of people they consider to be blank slate liberals. These people believe what you believe (or rather know what you know), but feel the social sanction or conflict brought on by making their thoughts explicit would make them…for lack of a better word…icky (the real crime of people who use the “N” word, for these types, is that they live in trailers or at least eat at Olive Garden). Dr. Kevin Macdonald’s “Implicit Whiteness” is not just NASCAR and country music. The people who listen to NPR and fantasize about European-style healthcare, walkable communities, and public transportation are dishonest, but they’re not stupid. They know the sun and sand people make their utopia impossible, but it’s impolitic to point it out, so they heap scorn on the dirt people, because no one’s going to gasp and lose a monocle in a samosa at brunch if you start talking about how rednecks are ruining everything.

  13. Though it’s fair to say Left/Right has become (or has long been, depending on how you’re accounting for derivatives) something of a facade, it still has nomenclature value with respect to branding. At the risk of sounding like one of the alt-lite snake-oil salesmen, I’d remind the audience that there are, by virtue of human cooperative/competitive nature, only ever two political entities of functional value. The best way to seed influence is to control both, but as my ethnic relations are illustrating today, that’s not very stable. Best to stick with merely influencing both, or controlling one while influencing the other.

    All of that being said, what’s gnawing at the “center-right,” in particular is the unimaginable success of a slightly bastardized version of liberalism. One gets the feeling they knew all along that, at some point, they would be called to join the elect in the one-party state (a post-Hillary immigration flood United States where the neo-DNC would rule unopposed) in exchange for copious amounts of duplicitous cucking unto their white hinterland base. Now that the process is 90% complete, but faces unfathomable resistance, they have no idea what to do. They realize the chance of rolling the tide back is slim, so they don’t want to compromise their future by taking up arms with the rebels. But they also, increasingly, recognize the fervor of the rebels as something they cannot long ignore. I expect the mid-term results will expedite their decision making. Should Trump succeed in ousting any of his cuckservative thorns with other republicans, it will be extremely hard to hold position on the fence and you will likely see some cucks run to the DNC while others fold into at-least milquetoast nationalism.

    With respect to the Bernie Kadets, I think too much isk is spilled attempting to ponder how to get them “on the right.” Branding alone is a huge gulf, but even if one were to successfully re-align them, I don’t know if it would be the best outcome. As I mentioned in the first paragraph, the best case scenario is for an ideology to manifest completely (as politically feasible) in one party while casting some influence over another. Bernie voters seem to be the ideal vehicle for inserting implicitly white interests into the left as most of them naturally operate on a kind of tribal (yuppie middle class white) self-interest. It isn’t and certainly will not be sufficient to drum the DNC into a white worker’s party ever again, but it certainly could provide enough of that sought-after “bipartisan,” leverage to bind the mandibles of the all-consuming maoist-neoliberal alliance. We can see already where the intellectual left is firing warning shots at the hardest identity politicians in their own camp. This is, I suspect, hurried damage control to stop the Bernie contingent from making more trouble internally, rather than defecting to Trump.

    When all is said and done, I don’t see much of either camp hopping into the lifeboat-right. But that needn’t be a problem as the dissident right’s greatest strength is their ability to encircle their enemies. Through attacking the right from the right (accusing them of being anti-nationalist communist sympathizers and moral degenerates) and attacking the left from the left (accusing them of being anti-worker feudalistic corporate tools), they are bringing the political right into a more appropriately nationalist position and forcing the left to continuously triage its comically disparate base. The lesson of the 20th century is that liberalism itself is unstable due to it’s utopian view of humanity (interchangeable worker widgets). The lesson of the 21st should be that liberalism can only be reformed with biological realism.

  14. I have sympathized in the past with the ducks for this very reason. Nearly all of us have been there, cucking to a more or less degree and we need to have patience with those who take a little longer. These people are scared and they should be scared. There’s lots to be scared of. The idea of painting them as out and out cowards always sat uncomfortably with me.

    But I’ve been losing my patience ever since pussygate. What I found interesting about pussygate was it was clearly, almost undeniably a “scandal” that came from the GOP . Even a bush! They launched into their finger wagging denunciations literally on cue. And it wasn’t just the blatant coordination but the VENOM. You’d think he confessed to herding jews into Auschwitz.

    And what did he really do? A private conversation was taped almost certainly without his knowledge and leaked to the press to destroy the Republican candidate for president (no “conservative” expressed discomfort with this). Extraordinary.

    And what heinous crimes did he confess to? Well…none. He said hot women will allow super rich and famous men grope them. Hyperbolic perhaps but obviously fundamentally sound on the basic merits: hot chicks dig power. This was apparently the equivalent of an asteroid colliding with earth.

    Now I see how it’s degenerated to “sure you can hit Nazis. In fact, this country was founded on assaulting people for their political views. Antifa is expressing that eternal American dream…” etc etc

    Someone commented recently “the conservative case for race riots” and I laughed as hard as I could remember in recent memory.

    He’s right. That’s a perfect symbol of what the GOP and their media support structure have become.

    I’m out of patience these days.

    • Never forget that Loyal Responsible Republicans like Hugh Hewitt actually called for Trump to withdraw after pussygate. These people really wanted Hillary in the White House.

    • Yeah, this had all the earmarks of a deep state joint operation from the very beginning. It followed the pattern of the typical MSM election year anti-Republican sh*te-storm, but this time the hysterical shrieking was bipartisan. It was as though every Republican had gone hard-core PETA about the Romney dog-on-the-car-roof story in 2012. So, were the GOPe in on it ahead of time or just short-sightedly opportunistic (I know, I know, the latter doesn’t preclude the former.)

      Indicators: Convenient timing (= last sh*te-cycle has just played out), check; Appears stupid its face but is carefully crafted (i.e. DNC fingerprints) to discredit the Republican candidate with a key segment of his base at an emotional level (sentimental females for Romney – social conservatives for Trump) Appears in the media simultaneously from nowhere with no early indicators (= the DNC talking points had just gone out on Jurno-list), check; Candidate tempted to ignore it early on while the curated media hysteria mounts due to it’s transparent idiocy, check; Advisors thinking, ‘Surely nobody will fall for this obviously partisan media ploy’; check. Except this time it was bi-partisan.

      Re stupidity: As you say, boiled down to it’s essence, Trump was saying something everybody older than 25 knows and has seen in action numerous times. It took days to discover that there was no evidence that Trump had actually *done* any such thing to any woman who was willing to go on the record (and I’m sure that much time was spent in advance looking for same). Interesting that all Clinton Inc. could come up with was the Venezuelan gangbanger.

    • Very well said. And endless patience in the face of onrushing catastrophe is not a virtue. As the old aphorism goes, it’s time for people to “sh$t or get off the pot.”

    • RepubliCucks are worse than Democrats/Leftists/Progressives/Commies/or whatever you want to call them..
      There ares ZERO excuse for them, or their cucking, nor should you be granting them any patience or leeway to come around to “your way of thinking.”
      These people purport to be on our side, yet sabotage us, at every step. In essence, we are “sleeping,” with an even more dangerous, and certainly a more traitorous, enemy, in these cowards. We know the left will obstruct us and attempt to destroy us, at every turn, that is to be expected, but having your own party members either fail you continuously, signal against you in the media, or outright vote against you, is traitorous behavior.
      People on the right have to sack up and stop capitulating to the left, the right, the media, and remove themselves from these people, these politicians, who use these Stockholm Syndrome-like tactics on them that would make any seasoned wife beater burn with envy. It’s disgusting.

  15. “My sense is libertarians got a boost in the 90’s and 2000’s when Gen X and Millennial males decided that Clinton degeneracy and Bush stupidity were not their bag. Libertarianism was a safe place to hide.”

    Yeah. I actually joined the Libertarian party before the 2008 election. “Liberty”, right?
    Then I saw that they had nominated Bob Barre as their presidential candidate, and that was the end of my Libertarian crush.
    (The fifth-grade language and grammar they used in their writings and mailers didn’t help, either.)

  16. Another false paradigm that needs to be debunked is the notion that we are going to talk our way out of this mess we’re in. Evangelizing and taking-the-long-view in hopes of spawning some sort of game-changing movement is not going to do any good if the house burns down first. Stupidity, hive-mindedness, and dependency are at epidemic levels, and attempting to convert the stupid is stupid. What we need is a new solution paradigm.

  17. What are you fighting for?

    That is the essence of the old Right-Left distinction. It’s not a progressive paradigm, its a metaphor from when the war was clearer. The Right fought for the old order (Ancien Régime). It was something ordered to specific goods, God and country, i.e., something that could be fought for. The first thing the revolution destroyed was orthodox Christianity and legitimate authority. (Think about what our historiography and entertainment – and for that matter your own metaphors – teach us to hate: religious dogmatism and divine right.) This is why whenever the left embraces Christianity it is heretical and whenever it embraces authority it uses it in the most unlawful way possible. The essence of the revolution was to overthrow these things,to sew confusion, and to turn them against each other, all the while replacing them with a secular authoritarianism – as if Cthulhu swimming left, or the Devil restoring his princedom over the world, were both accidental and the arc of history at the same time.

    It’s true that the NRO Right claimed the name of the Right when they became grifters and decided to serve mammon above all else, but what now? Now that Right and Left are obsolete, what is it? The spectrum no longer clearly exists, but that is their doing. So, back to blood? Like the pagans? If so, it is our own blood that testifies against us for they established the old order in building our culture. You often say this will not end well, but we are not fighting Ragnarok, some of us want to win and know what we want to win.

    So, what are you, what is the not-Dissident-, fighting for? And who’s the lost boy?

  18. The democrats are sliding down the rabbit hole of their own anomie, having created the public persona that they are antifa unmasked, not to mention DOJ investigations that are bound to culminate in indictments.

    The identity crisis of conservatism has created a massive opportunity for brilliant and aggressive leaders to dictate the new narrative utilizing social media as a choke point to slough off the dead weight of useless and obsolete ways of thinking.

  19. Most non ideologues have to be pushed across the Rubicon. I’m a historian,and I have been waiting for the John Brown Moment to finally depopulate the center. After Charlottesville, I think the moment is approaching faster. People like Dreher are deluding themselves that compromise is going to bring out the “better angels of our nature” among the revolutionary left. It’s not quite 1859 again, but it took Harper’s Ferry to finally convince people like Col. R.E. Lee, a dedicated gentleman who avoided partisan politics, that it was time to choose a side in the face of a violent political movement.

  20. I believe that the center is now everyone who is sick of the Cloud People and their insane anti-reality, culturally poisonous ideas. By electing Trump they have pulled the emergency brake. What happens next is anyone’s guess, but recognizing the new center and what drives it is an essential start in getting our country back.

    • I agree with this. It provides a good response to my comment upthread about being at sea. At least it sets a direction.

    • James;
      Excellent proposal for a preliminary organizing principle. I say preliminary only because we got to be for something(s) as well as against the Cloud Folk’s ideas. Q: *Why* are they able to press their obvious lunacy on the rest of us_?

      Blank Slatism is certainly part of the package. But why would anyone believe that after being cut from Little League_? I’d say it is because it’s part of a false religion*, and so not susceptible to ordinary rhetorical persuasion.

      So, how to combat a false religion_? I’d say employ the same methods the anti-Christian intelligentsia have used for 300 years: A counter enlightenment (endarkenment_?). To begin with, reject their premises at every possible turn with confidence. Critique their scriptures using HBD. Also it would be very useful to defund their state church, i.e. NGO world and big U.

      *A Christian heresy IMHO.

      • I agree. That’s why voices like Z’s are so important. They are saying loud and clear: STOP THE MADNESS, and at the same time offering rational arguments for realism as the only way forward if the country is not to be lost to the crazies. The Dirt People have been lied to for the past 60 years. Let’s support and encourage those who can reach them in larger and larger numbers with the truth.

      • First, show me someone in this country under the age of 50 or 60, that’s ever been cut from a Little League team, or has any idea what that means. My son is 27, and played Little League, and if you described the concept of cutting someone from the team to him, he’d look at you like you were nuts.

        • ZT;
          You’re actually serious_? Ce Moi; LL did me a really big, gotta get outta here, favor. You can call me Herr Oberst thanks to God’s blessing from this casual ‘oppression’.

    • The one-humped camel is now a two-humped camel. The center is in the same place, but there isn’t anything there.

  21. Z Man;
    The odd thing with a lot of Dreher’s followers on Am Conservative is their lack of arm’s length analysis and non-emotionally-driven (what some would call realist) discussion. I say this because I was roundly hammered for saying on a thread or two about our ME ongoing clusterfark something like, “On 9/12/01 Pres. GW Bush had a lot of critical decisions to make and not much time to make them.” I thought I was stating a simple, self-evident fact. But I was accused of being a neocon warmonger, etc.

    They apparently couldn’t grasp the simple point that decisions made under duress and uncertainty are often subject to error, but the real mistake is failing to revisit them as soon as better information is available. This was GWB’s actual major mistake, IMHO. I gave up and came to your place.

  22. “Most of the alt-right is former libertarians”…who realized importing a third world electorate is going to be a disaster.

    How many Rs get sent packing in the midterm primaries will be a good indicator of the power of the alt-right to creep into mainstream R politics. If Trump kills DACA with a 6 month window for Rs in Congress to pass legislation…wow…that will be an interesting vote. How many Rs can survive a yay on amnesty in the midterm primaries?

  23. My somewhat alternate take on a couple of points here: First, that Hannity rants on about Democrats being the real racists may be uninteresting, but it’s uninteresting to us those of us who read and explore beneath that surface-level understanding. Hannity and his like are gateways out of the Group Think and into places like VDare, AmRen, etc, and as such, they remain useful.

    I also don’t find that the left/right divide is irrelevant, merely that it is poorly understood and deliberately misused. For example, the religious types wind up on the right with fascists, for some reason; but the fascists belong on the left with the rest of the control freaks, and this includes those of a religious bent who would use the power of the state to bend the rest of us to whatever they think best.

    • Libertarians want minimal government but they support liberals policies and are fine with radical changes to society due to their worship of capitalism. They are hardly on the right, nor are they conservative or traditional. Lack of governmental interference does not act as a reliable indicator either.

      Fascists believe in tradition, hierarchy and state socialism and were anti-egalitarian.

      Communists were radically egalitarian, anti-traditional, socialist, and usually had a defacto hierarchy despite ideological opposition to it.

      Left/right, statism, economics…none of it really does the job to describe modern ideological reality.

      We seem to be at sea.

      • We are at sea because we don’t have a movement we’re willing to give our loyalty to — loyalty of the kind people give to a union, a church, or a political party.

        What we have is a realization that we don’t like the way things have gone. We have that realization vividly, in great detail, and with many examples, cross-referenced by our readings of the dissident pundits.

        That realization is a necessary condition to making progress. But it is not sufficient.

        • “We are at sea because we don’t have a movement we’re willing to give our loyalty to — loyalty of the kind people give to a union, a church, or a political party.”

          If by “we” you mean non-Christian post-conservatives (I’m just guessing at the right nomenclature here) then yes, you are quite correct. It’s a real problem.

          Unions and political parties are dessicated hulks that no serious person could give loyalty to. The Church, however, remains a different matter. Sure, it’s in decay and overrun with leftist scoundrels. But it’s still an institution of the Word, and a loyalist to this creed can ignore the silky ructions of the Pope or the pastor. And we have heroes who watched, as we do, the collapse of beloved civilizations: Jerome, Augustine, Tertullian, those kinds of guys.

          They had a program: What’s ours?

    • Hannity is a drone. He and Limbaugh are sucking down oxygen and making the air stale for new talent. They haven’t had a thought in years, which is astonishing considering how much of interest there is to learn. Hannity is an example of the too busy life making a sterile mind.

      • All your new talent has to do is be more creative and interesting than Limbaugh or Hannity, then work for some years building a brand and reputation like those guys did. Then the new guys will knock the old ones off their perches, but not until then. I’m pretty sure Limbaugh, on his way up, didn’t waste much time complaining about how Howard K. Smith was using up all the oxygen.

        • Limbaugh was great once, which makes his present act so unfortunate. His own audience has been ahead of him for many years but staying on through loyalty. It’s sad. I don’t suppose radio is a medium with any future and new talent may have gronked that.

      • We all know what they stand for, so expecting “new” thoughts (I’m assuming that’s part of what you meant) from people working the current events angle on a daily basis shouldn’t be what you expect. Like I said — gateways. Someone who hasn’t spent any time thinking about politics the way it’s done here or at JAG is going to have a hard time with that strong a dose.

      • +1000. Especially true of Hannity. Not a bad man, just annoying and counter-productive. In fairness, though, I’ll bet Rush and Sean get lots more death-threats than we do.

  24. The fastest way to do it is with aesthetics. Consider that Amazon had to pull its ads for “The Man in the High Castle” from New York subways because their portrayal of Nazi America — blonde SS man and wife, well-scrubbed kids, happy dog with a swastika tag, a perfect suburban home — looked way too good. It was supposed to be frightening, but too many people were looking around at their fellow passengers and wondering what, exactly, was so bad about National Socialism. A clean, well-scrubbed, nicely uniformed movement — NOT Nazi-larper goonsv — would do wonders. If your options are “that nice boy with the Party armband” vs. “Moldylocks the black-clad tattoo addict who looks like she stopped a grenade with her face,” I’m pretty sure which one Chad and Stacey will pick. Ideology is secondary.

    • Of course the contrast between the poster Nasties and the subway riders was a big part of You-Know-Who’s advertising and propaganda. It got things moving for him and his pals. Alas, Chad and Stacey would get, in the long run, what Jürgen and Elke got, not to mention what happened to Shmuel and Raisel.

    • Sev;
      Agree about aesthetics-based appeals being effective. It is no accident, as Lenin used to say about everything, that idealized first world aesthetics appeal to first world audiences. And maybe that’s all we could hope to pull in. A critical majority for now.

      Those aesthetics were informed by historically Western ideas of beauty and order, which were largely Christian in origin, if not expression in the 1930s and ’40s. The actual Nazi’s hoped to have the fruit of the tree of Western Civilization while poisoning one of the key roots, namely Christianity because it looked like it might restrain them. Sadly, their fears proved largely baseless.

      Slightly OT: Say all you want about uniforms, but they greatly uncomplicated potentially stressful, not to mention expensive, wardrobe choices 😉

      • Agreed. Aesthetics can’t be the only appeal, but it’s the quickest and most effective opener. The Nazi aesthetic wasn’t sustainable in the long run, because it boiled down to “the feudal system with autobahns.” Contemporary critics saw this, of course, and called it kitsch — the famous “Degenerate Art Exhibition” was supposed to be a big failure, because it showed the German people how kitschy their art was versus the hot new stuff. And maybe so… in 1937. But nowadays, when “art” is fat lesbians rolling around in melted chocolate and menstrual blood while screeching about patriarchy, a kitschy Nazi nude looks pretty damn good. A style that says, in effect, “we are militantly normal” would go a long way to pulling people in. Black uniforms are too scary, and brown is a bit on the nose, but how about Union blue? (Or Confederate gray?) 🙂

        • Actually, the US Army beat you to it. The semi-formal (Class A) uniform is now Union Blue. Papers could be written (and maybe even published) about whether surface reversion to older forms by a decadent polity is a sign of the end times 😉

          • If Spengler (Oswald, not the joker from Asia Times or whatever) didn’t write something along those lines, he damn well should have. 🙂 But if the Army is wearing blue, what’s the Air Force wearing? (If we really want to bring back the good ol’ days, go back to brown like in WWII. Except the Navy. That Popeye-looking bib-overall thing was just hideous. You don’t need to go 3rd Reich and get Hugo Boss to design your threads, but *anything* is better than that!)

          • To answer your question, the USAF now wears a lighter shade of blue (not pale) in the office and a brownish camo in the field. Some sort of tannish, ME pesthole blending, infra red diffusing color scheme, IIRC.

            Buht, if I mahy correct you, suh, the WWII era Army wore “OD Green” *field uniforms* aka ‘combat fatigues’, not any sort of disgusting brown. The OD stood for Olive Drab which was also worn up through the Vietnam era in the field. The idea was to blend in with most foliage. Works poorly in winter, hence the white over-pants and parkas seen in Band of Brothers, etc.

            The WWII coat & tie (Class A) Army* uniforms were known as (ahem) Pinks & Greens**, a poor choice of words these days 😉

            *Also worn by the Air Force of the day.

            **Pants had a bit of a pink-khaki cast and the coats were forrest green or the like. Pretty sharp in an art deco sort of way. But you’d have to get a new name for it to use it now.

          • Ugh – don’t know how I messed that up! The USAAF class As sure look brown in old photos, though. Which makes gray look more and more like a winner for our Militantly Normal Party’s working uniform. I’m not a fashionista, but we need to get someone with a good eye designing those things. Do they cover that in art school, I wonder — why do loser regimes always have the coolest threads? They may have been godless commie bastards, but the USSR had some sharp uniforms too.

          • Pinks & Greens were officer attire. Enlisted uniforms were OD stem to stern. Wore Pinks & Greens my first two years of AFROTC, then four years after it was formed, USAF finally issued blue uniforms to AFROTC students.

          • Gotta be pedantic-until late 1944 the Army wore brown combat uniforms with those idiotic leggings, the OD#7 pattern jacket was based on, you guessed it, Wehrmacht feldbluses.

            For the most part, the Army has been determined to impose some seriously bad fashion on soldiers, but I’m biased, because I am a Marine veteran, and our dress uniform has remained unchanged in essentials since 1910

    • Take that same picture and remove all the nazi imagery. Put the man in a regular suit, or work shirt and jeans. Update the clothes on mom and the kids. Fix the flags. Guess what. A significant number, if not an out-right majority of people would still find it “problematic”. Any celebration (hell, just depiction) of an intact/nuclear/white/hetero/middle-class family is automatically considered an assault on every other group that can be imagined.

      Image linked here for those not familiar with it. Apologies if this is considered poor manners.

      • Just look at a random selection of tv commercials. You would think the nation’s families are half biracial with the men being clumsy beta dorks and the women being grrrl power amazons.

        • Right. Hence the uniform. “You want to call this problematic? Here’s what problematic **really** looks like! I’m not just a normal American who wants to be left alone, because I’ve tried that, and you still call me every name in the book. I’m a Militantly Normal American, and I WILL be left alone.” See what I mean?

      • I’d like to know what your example is, but all I get from that link is: “You don’t have any WordPress sites yet. Would you like to start one?”

        I’d rather just see the picture I was expecting; any chance you could post a jpeg?

          • So revealing… You see? Normal happy white families are really Nazis. It couldn’t be more plain what the agitprop intends here.

          • Smiling, cherubic white familes in clean, orderly suburban neighborhoods are ripe to be labeled Nazis. So, let’s give our imaginations a walk. How can we visualize the ideal prog family? Imagine an Asian tranny wife alongside a Hispanic husband in a bowling shirt with two black kids and a pit bull. Would that elicit howls of laughter? But you are not allowed to laugh at that, much less be horrified. How about adding antifa flags in the background?

            We are expected to despise a conception of white normality as fascist dystopia yet also required to celebrate every degeneracy as Progress.

            It reminds me of when, years ago, I saw American Beauty in a theater. I was rudely howling aloud with laughter at the parade of cartoon diversity shown in Annette Benning’s array of real estate clients. And of course, the redneck Marine neighbor was really a closet homosexual who watched Ronald Reagan movies. I really lost it with jest during the scene where the young male character showed his love interest play a video of a trash bag blowing around in circles. It was shown as a profound, deep moment. To this day I can’t tell if the director was mocking or praising Diversity.

    • I got in a huge argument with my Old Man in the 1960s (he was blown up and badly burned in WW II). He was reading the paper and commented to me, “it probably would have been better if the Germans had won.” Of course his know-it-all son couldn’t believe the stupidity of that comment. Sorry, Dad, you were right yet again.

  25. I have an author/professor friend who just left a good paying gig at “The Main Street Partnership” who wrote a well reviewed book (Rule and Ruin) on Republican moderation. I think he is currently wandering in the outer darkness. He and his inner circle are very afraid of the Alt Right. I hope he finds his way over.

  26. may i please be the turd in the punch bowl?

    it looks like the guy to the right of center is offering up his bitch for a price.

  27. Inside every normie is a race realist struggling to get out. So let’s get our heads and asses wired together and come on in for the big win.

  28. The new right / left divide is between biological realism and egalitarianism /blank slate. Well said indeed. I can chart my own course exactly as you stated. I am ready to draw sword and commence to slaying dragons.

    • There certainly are many sides. And feminism was always a blank slate. The most obvious thing about feminism is that feminists wanted to destroy the rules imposed by the patriarchal system (and they have done so) but they didn’t want the old rules overtly replaced by any new rules at all regarding women’s behavior. So young women are behaving as if they can do anything they want. Blank slate. And women are handling it horribly. (As a side issue, there has been speculation about the emotional basis for shit-testing being some innate need in women to be able to trust their man to stand up to them. This IMO is complete bullshit. Anyone who wants to be in a relationship where they either need to dominate or need to be dominated is not fit to be in an adult relationship. At the first unmistakable dating shit test, pull over to the side of the road, look her in the eye and say “get out now”. And then actually make her get out and never speak to her again. You want a mate, not a dependent. Period.)

      I almost hate to admit this, but humans seem to do poorly when confronted by too many choices. At least that is true if they have been poorly raised, undisciplined, and have no extended family and social structure to call upon for guidance when needed. The old social structures (extended family, religion, community, morality, stigma) were the targets of the destroyers. Of course, discipline is and always was a learned self-discipline. No dad = no discipline = no self discipline = blank slate. Volumes have been written about this. It takes time and effort to develop balanced and fully functional humans. Destroy the family and you destroy the culture. We know this, we have always known this.

      So I think the new tensions are between: a) establishment types don’t like the current threat to their power and money and want a return to the way things were and would be had Hillary won; b) remnant traditional families and family-minded who don’t like the current threat to their existence and their culture and are engaged to do something about it; c) blank slaters who are truly lost but not violent; d) egalitarians embracing Marxism; e) fringe violent types looking for a cause to use as a cover for their love of violence; f) the normies who wish this whole thing would go away so they could live in blissful ignorance.

      The bulk are either blank-slaters or normies.

      According to a friend of mine, religion is the path to reaching the blank-slaters, and he may be right about that. All it will take to get the normies is offering them economic opportunity and progress, a growing economy, because the normies just want to live and work and be oblivious to everything else.

      The left understands this also.

    • The big divide is, as it always has been between those who exercise power and those whom it is exercised upon.

      The big change in the past decades is that the former has devised many more ways of splitting and dividing the latter.

      The most recent past best example of this was OWS and Tea Party whose overall goals were basically the same: Stop the looting by the banks and their political whores but the two groups were carefully positioned by the Media to be bitterly opposed to each other.

      We do seem to be enrering an extreme phase of this: Those who Pay versus those who Prey.

  29. The way you define team is very perplexing. First you say that the old red blue is over and I agree, but then you lose me where you narrowly define the teams. Are there only two teams? Are we lost in the haze if we don’t buy into every thing you believe? I like most of what you write but some things concern me. You seem super smart but you mix it in with a lot of don’t owe me anything but I’m just being honest when i say i don’t always know where you are going.

    • There are differing factions within each of the two groups and they often disagree, but you either agree with the blank slate model…or you don’t.

      What things concern you? Are they simply a hesitation to acknowledge an unpleasant and perhaps cruel reality, or more substantive?

      • I don’t agree with the blank slate side in almost anything. I agree with the real world side but not everything.

        • Could you proved an example of something on the ‘real world side’ you don’t particularly agree with?

          • I just want to point out that, while it’s important to have these discussions, one will never find a political party with which one finds complete agreement, or (sadly) even majority agreement. We must not let that prevent us from engaging in politics, though that is a tempting reaction.

            It’s possible that the attraction of the libertarian party has been desire for small government. If I can’t have a government which is what I want, then I will take a government which is small enough to let me do most things my way.

            I am willing to consider that this may no longer be a viable position, but that means being forced into a choice between even more authoritarian systems.

            I don’t like being backed into such a corner. Who would? But the left extremists are forcing it on to the table.

            Cui Bono?

          • Just to clarify, I have little interest in what most people think is the best way to handle healthcare or the economy. My question was more in reference to science than politics. The biological realism vs. blank slate question is fundamental to understanding if one is going to navigate through the cultural Marxist agenda and actually do battle against those who would bring the West to it’s knees.

            In his original post, William nohmor expressed to being a bit confused about this. If there are any doubts, misunderstandings or concerns, this is a good place to have that discussion.

          • *provide. There, happy now?

            I made no demands in my question. I was inviting him to open up about his concerns. Why flame me?

          • Sorry for the very late reply – I dont live on the internet and tend to think better if i think slower. I dont really disagree with anything on the real world side as long as the real world side is the team that thinks in a practical manner which hopes for a sane society. The imaginary world side disgusts me but not to the point where I want to see them harmed. The one thing that worries me – legitimately, about all of this rhetoric, is that it sometimes seems violent. And I dont strive for that and I dont feel that is inevitable. I am christian and tolerant and I hope there is a path forward without the real world side becoming insane.

      • ideologically, I am very clear, very committed. However, sometimes there is an undercurrent that is mean and violent and I dont like it. Dont get me wrong – I am ready to act – but I think the rhetoric is absurd and is driven by absurd propagandist media, Orwellian shit that fools most people, and the right and left – alt crap whatever – the labels are ridiculous. Choosing sides is for mindless followers. I get the Mike Tyson quote that game plans are great until you get punched but I feel we are rising and not falling. I think we lose many people if we make it ugly. I think the Z-man is a great thinker and is putting out food for thought that is amazing – but we have to take what he says and apply some next order thinking.

  30. Blank slate people, one by one, are going to get figuratively or literally mugged by those blank slate peers that look and speak a bit differently than they do. Each one will be lost in the darkness for a bit of time, then come out the other side, which is where we are. Once rational self-interest kicks in, they have no place else to go. All we need to do, at this point, is maintain a halfway reasonable environment in which for them to land. The rest will take care of itself.

    • Consider that tabula rasa is a civic religion for these lost boys, and people will suffer for their religion. Even being literally mugged won’t change their minds necessarily. Watching this play out will be instructive.

      • I call it Amy Biehl syndrome. Or pick any heinous Negro-on-White crime where the victim’s grieving wife or mother or child rushes to publicly “forgive” the utterly unrepentant criminal. Regrettably, a large number of Whites and churchians are so irretrievably deluded that they will continue proclaiming that they “don’t see color” as they’re drowning in their own blood. Please note I am prescribing nothing, merely predicting based on patterns I’ve criminally noticed.

        • Every time one of those scenarios plays out, there are plenty of other uninvolved “whites and churchians” who observe and begin looking around for alternatives to the kool-aid they have been drinking. Give them a reasonably “normal” alternative and they will take it every time. Not everyone, and not necessarily right away. But it will happen.

          • Whites and “Churchians” need not be badgered nor bullied into your world view. They make up their own minds when it comes to race and culture.

        • One of the causes is the creep of liberalism into religion. I can count on my hand the number of times that the wrathful justice of the Old Testament is mentioned publicly. I can’t even tell you how often I’ve heard, “Judge not. . .” Like the Bill of Rights and so much else, the Bible can be cherrypicked to the point of supporting the opposite of its actual words.

Comments are closed.