Mencken Club Diary Part II

There were three reasons I decided to attend Mencken. One was just curiosity. I have been a reader of Paul Gottfried since I was a kid, so I was curious about the sort of people who follow his work. I also wanted to meet Derb again. I have been a big fan of his for decades now. I also wanted to hear his views on the alt-right. He was part of a panel devoted to that topic on Saturday. Of course, the normal social stuff was a motivation, as well. You always end up meeting fellow travelers at these sorts of things.

The session on the alt-right is what I was most interested in seeing. John Derbyshire is one of the few in the older generation who seem to get that the alt-right is not a club or even a defined movement. At this point, it is mostly a collection of aspirations, observations and critiques. The second speaker was Keith Preston, who was unknown to me. I was interested in what Professor Gottfried had to say about the alt-right. He has spent his life in right-wing politics and philosophy so his opinion is important.

John was first up and he used The Dork Tard’s 16-points blog post as the framework for his talk. He made the point that Dork is by no means the leader of the alt-right or the voice of it, but a representative sample that is useful for analyzing the movement. His comments about item number eight were laugh aloud funny, to the empirically minded. What John was doing was introducing the general ideas of the alt-right to a crowd that is not spending their evenings in the meme war. He did a good job presenting the broad strokes.

The next guy up was Keith Preston and I think it is fair to say he is not a fan of the alt-right, but he is not dismissing it either. He took some shots at some of the crazier elements flying the flag, but he gave a good long overview of all the different groups that get lumped into the category alt-right. Preston reminds me of Fred Reed, before Fred went crazy. There is an almost forgotten tradition of Southern populist skepticism that works very well when critiquing political ideologies. As a result, his review of the alt-right was well done.

The final speaker was Professor Gottfried. His talk was interesting for a number of reasons. One is he does not like Richard Spencer very much. He thinks Spencer is just playing make believe and is a bundle of unforced errors. He also said Spencer hates working class people. This is not the first time I have heard someone say some version of this. Gottfried did not say it, but the accusation is that Spencer is a dilettante. Having been around enough trust fund guys, I get why people think that, but I do not share that opinion.

Gottfried’s main theme about the alt-right is that they are not well run and not good at presenting themselves on mainstream media outlets. He used, as an example, someone who either writes for Spencer now or used to write for him. Gottfried said the guy was a racist and therefore an embarrassment. He got quite worked up over this point and said you cannot have a political movement without moral standards. Purging racists should be the absolute minimum standard for any political movement.

Gottfried is trying to replay the purges that landed him and the rest of the paleocons outside the institutions. He wants a do over. That is something you hear from the older crowd a lot and I understand it. There is a lot of bitterness as to how things played out in conservative politics over the last half century. I do not blame a guy like Gottfried for looking at a guy like Jonah Goldberg with contempt. Gottfried wrote the book on fascism, but Goldberg got rich off the crackpot idea that Progressives are the real Nazis.

The truth of the matter though, is mainstream conservatism failed to conserve anything, other than the some well paid positions in Progressive media. The reason is they lost the culture war. In the 1960’s, when the Progressives decided to finish what they started in the 1860’s, the Official Right buckled. Instead of fighting to the last man, they agreed to the new moral paradigm, with regards to human relations, that the Left wanted to impose on the rest of the country. When racism became a sin, conservatism became one two.

That is what the paleos do not get. There is no stopping the white replacement project and the systematic erasure of our culture, until the Progressive moral framework is brought crashing down. I am no spring chicken, but I fully endorse the youthful antics employed by the alt-right. Putting up posters like Identity Europa does on college campuses, helps build a counterculture and draw in young people. The ad hoc guerrilla marketing campaign of placing “It’s OK To Be White” signs is lethal to the people in charge.

Sure, some of it backfires. Despite what anyone says, Charlottesville was a clusterfuck for all involved. In this sort of movement though, you have to take risks and accept some losses. Let us also not forget that Charlottesville is why the Hispanic KKK ran that hilariously stupid ad in the Virginia governor’s race. It is not always easy to know if an action worked. Going off the hot takes of Sean Hannity is a good way to keep losing, like the generation of paleos now carping about the alt-right.

One of the crazier things Gottfried said, is that the alt-right is creating a war between whites, when it is claiming to defend whites. He then went onto say that the reason things are such a mess in America is that Christians did it to themselves. I am a heretic on the JQ issue, but man, that was hard to take. Anyone vaguely familiar with the arguments of the alt-right would know exactly what the response would be to that. I will just say it is an example of the vast cultural divide between the Old Right and the alt-right upstarts.

I have a lot of respect for guys like Paul Gottfried, so this should not be read as a condemnation of him or the paleocons. I think in the fullness of time, they will be remembered fondly for having kept the fires burning, despite having been un-personed by the Buckleyites and neocons. The alt-right owes everything to these old guys, even though many of them made the trip from libertarianism. Richard Spencer got his start because of guys like Gottfried and Taki Theodoropoulos,

The difference is the new guys categorically reject the current moral order. If that upsets the Fox New types, so be it. Politics is a pointless enterprise, if rooting for your own team is expressly forbidden. Taking over institutions does nothing, if the price is embracing the morality of the Left. The Old Right always defined itself as defending the existing culture and institutions. That made sense when those things were worth defending. Today, those things are a cancer on our people. They must be replaced or we will be replaced.

118 thoughts on “Mencken Club Diary Part II

    • He started picking fights with guys like John Derbyshire for no reason. He went on some long rants about evolution. He’s pretty much a biology denier, as far as I can tell. Admittedly, his corn-pone philosopher act does not sit well with me. That and he does not always argue from good faith.

  1. Zman, Thanks for this post. Hopefully the Mencken Society will post the talks, but by your assessment, it almost seems as though some of the speakers are still seeing our predicament as though it is 1991.
    When I talk to folks over 75 about the dire state of western nations & the treason of our Elites, many are resigned to a ‘too bad, so sad’. Most of the shitstorm is coming in the 2024-2030 period when they’ll probably be passed on. If you still have more than half your life to live, this is going to preoccupy us & be an existential issue.

  2. Gottfried needs to distinguish Racism from Race Realism. He was clearly sympathetic to Jared Taylor’s “Paved with Good Intentions” and P Brimelow’s “Alien Nation” so he surely sees the big picture, and sees what is at stake in the demographic question. If he thinks that a sizable element of the Alt Right have signed up for some diabolical program of Exterminationism, well that is just absurd.
    The key issue is whether the relatively more homogenous demographics of the USA from 1925-1970 are morally acceptable or not. The Alt Right says yes (that White supermajorities are fine), but the ruling Elite says Hell No & we will bury you w/ a 3rd world wave.
    Beyond that is the ideal of freedom of association, and willingness to adopt a common sensical white Euro-American identity to fight back against the identity politics unleashed post-1990 by our cancerous Elite.
    Honestly, the hour is too damn late for hair splitting, and nitpicking. We either get an immigration moratorium by 2024, or there will be nothing left worth arguing about.

  3. I know this is a place for looking at the issues in a mainly rational and intellectual manner, and I am sure the Mencken club people consider that to always be their way of operating, I despite being of average intelligence I try to do the same. But if I had been listening to Gottfried’s speech I would have told him to get the stick out of his ass and then to go f’ himself with it.

  4. A summation

    Progressives = The Left
    The Left = Marxists
    Marxists = Communists
    Communists = Atheists
    Atheists = Humanists
    Humanists = Love of Self
    Love of Self = Lucifer
    Lucifer = Destruction of all

  5. Fine post on an interesting evening. Made me think alot about voices from the past. And that is you’re final point: it really is time to pick a side.

  6. When did Fred Reed lose his mind? His latest articles have been pretty good. Are you just upset that he’s race-mixing in Mexico, now that you have come out of the closet as a white nationalist? (Insert favorite nasty “coal-burning” or “mud-shark” comments here)

  7. I agree that the “it’s okay to be white campaign” is lethal. It’s just such an innocuous statement that is being misidentified as reactionary. But the more times it’s repeated the more obvious the error will be. I hope it’s spreads and spreads and spreads.

        • Third paragraph above:
          “John was first up and he used Vox Day’s 16-points blog post as the framework for his talk. He made the point that Vox is by no means the leader of the alt-right or the voice of it, but a representative sample that is useful for analyzing the movement. His comments about item number eight were laugh out loud funny, to the empirically minded. What John was doing was introducing the general ideas of the alt-right to a crowd that is not spending their evenings in the meme war. He did a good job presenting the broad strokes.”

          • Voxday is super butt-hurt about the (well deserved) mocking he received here. Is working on a comic book rebuttal.

  8. I don’t need all the whites and this dovetails pleasantly with my sure as hell not wanting anything to do with the terminally useless among them.

  9. To understand Paleocon Man, you have to understand the times in which he was forged. He was literally in the same boat the dinosaurs were when the asteroid hit. It’s old stuff to us, the feminism, the Marxism, the idea that all races and cultures were equal, and all the other claptrap proggies base their ideology on. But to Paleocon Man – back in the 70’s this was new stuff that he did not understand. Literally overnight he was plunged into a political ice age where all his traditions and values broke down. Because he was brought up to be a gentleman, he backed down whenever some vibrant, bitter woman, tool or sexual freak show screamed ‘I’m offended!’. Because women had access to electrical appliances and housework became a thing of the past, his women went nuts and he didn’t understand why or what to do about it. He foolishly brought them into his workplace hoping to mollify them and help them. His traditions and institutions disintegrated: the church became a haven for evangelical hucksters and homosexual pedos. By the time he figured the church had fallen, his wife was suing him for divorce. His sons and daughters weren’t raised right – either by the empowered single mothers with double-barrelled last names, or by the schools where he was expected to believe that fat angry lesbians could teach teenage boys and be role models for them.
    The smarter Paleocons fled into what little they had left for retirement, finding solace in the garden, or the RV or the fishin’ boat. In such places he could avoid any further payment for the social consequences of what he and the chitlibs of the day had done, or admit that they screwed up and dump the problems on the next generation.
    These men are, for the most part, noble, virtuous and chivalrous, in a world that hates them for it. It’s why they hate Donald Trump and the Alt Right. They don’t understand that the time has come to fight, and that organisms that don’t defend themselves – die.
    We at least SEE things. We can associate actions with consequences where as they can’t. Be nice to Paleocons. They don’t understand the world they came from never mind the one we have to live in. We need to take what little of their wisdom we can, and bring them with us if we’re able. It’s gonna get nasty before it gets better… but their chivalry and nobility cannot be allowed to die.

    • Yes, the future belongs to those who will fight for it. Those who drop out or remain on the sidelines are still part of the problem. The old Paleocons that backed away from this battle will not likely step up until they have no room left to retreat. As such, I would not count on them to join ranks and contribute much. Desertion is a soul killer.

      • Concur- and I was rude to Glen yesterday, taking out my ire against something else. Let me apologise.

        This was a good comment that engendered much thought.

    • You paint with a very broad brush, Mr. Filthie. It would be fun to watch you discuss these points with an actual person who belongs to the group you have just so patronizingly credited for the kindergarten origins of your own brilliant assessment of “the actually existing situation”.

      But first you would have to give examples, and then set their outmoded and precious ideas against your own better, sharper ideas, or “ours” I guess, those of us who “SEE”.

      And really, what do you mean, that “we can associate actions with consequences where as they can’t”. Come on, now: Not one paleocon of the 80s-90s of any value today (Francis, Buchanan, Sobran, Auster to name four) was blind to the career-ending consequences of speaking their minds.

      That was in the print age, when men wrote under their own names. I’ll be damned if I’ll join up in your dismissal of writers like this, who actually paid the price for not falling in line with their paymasters.

      • Forgive me for sounding hostile; I don’t mean to be. We’re on the same team and you write very well.


        Reading these posts by the Z man, it struck me that I’d never actually read anything by Mencken. So, going to the Gutenberg library I grabbed ‘The Defense of Women’ yesterday morning, and read it.

        Based on that alone, I’m not sure what the HL Mencken Society is committed to, unless it be brutal and offensive frankness in the service of truth as seen by the writer. Here’s a text that essentially concedes that women are smarter and more developed than men are, yet, by observing the ruthless and even heartless characteristics of this superiority, renders itself unprintable in any reputable newspaper or journal today.

        I salute the country of my grandparents – a country as vanished as the Holy Roman Empire – that ate its breakfast over columns in the paper written by such a man. And make no mistake, the guy – Mencken I mean – was kind of a prick.

  10. I think a clue to where Gottfried is coming from is in his essay “Saturday in Charlottesville”. He wrote:

    “According to white nationalist protocol, am I supposed to ally with white cultural leftists against the very black African Cardinal Robert Sarah…”

    He’s asking can we decide who’s an ally on the basis on race alone. If the answer is yes, what do we do with a traditionalist like Cardinal Sarah?

    Admittedly, men like Cardinal Sarah, or like Justice Thomas, are rare and don’t have many black (or white for that matter) allies. But they’re on your side. So I think this is what Gottfried may have had in mind in decrying the “racism” of the alt-right – perhaps a better term might have been racialism.

    • In a sea of choices, race is at most a tie breaker. Or, put another way, a lot of the alt right spends huge amounts of energy finding people to kick out of the club.

      • Or, put another way, a lot of the alt right spends huge amounts of energy finding people to kick out of the club.

        The opposite is true. The alt-right has one rule. You have to be white. They don’t care about fringe cases or exceptions. In contrast, the CivNats obsess over exceptions and fringe cases. It’s pretty much what defines Civic Nationalism.

  11. Personally, I’d be very interested to hear what John Derbyshire had to say about Vox’s point number eight. Derbyshire is great intellect, a fantastic writer, and has enough moral courage for several men, but he (like all of us) is a product of his Time, and sometimes has way too much respect for “science” and the “scientific community”. He sometimes does not seem to realize just how politicized “science” has become in our day. As much as both he and I might regret it, this ain’t 1955.

    • He comically analyzed the possible entomology of the words, “scientodific” and “scientody”. He also pointed out the absurdity of the claim that scientific conclusions are liable to future revision. For instance, Mars is closer to the sun than Jupiter, a conclusion of science that will never be liable to revision. John correctly pointed out that number eight is gibberish.

      I’ve written a little about this topic. I’ll be revisiting it frequently. I think there may even be a book in it, if I can manage to squeeze more than 24 hours from each day. Suffice it to say that I don’t think science and technology can be jammed into the moral philosophy of the 17th and 18th century. Therefore, we wither kill all the scientists or create a new moral philosophy.

      • Mars is closer to the sun than Jupiter… Anyway, that’s a stupid argument. While facts may be immutable – for a time, which may be long, like in the case above – our interpretations in the form of theories are always placeholders. Good till something better comes along, which, btw, must have the same predicative power as the old theory had where it was applicable, while extending the range of predictability. See classic Newtonian mechanics vs. theory of relativity. And as it happens, neither addresses Vox’s point of all so many modern “scientists” who employ the trappings and outer forms of science while gleefully ignoring everything that makes it actually useful. Nothing of this strikes me as overly difficult to either comprehend or establish, given the state of sciences today.

        • I’ve heard every iteration of factual nihilism and I have no interest in taking it seriously. It’s just another way of putting the goal posts on roller skates.

      • Zman said:

        “He also pointed out the absurdity of the claim that scientific conclusions are liable to future revision”

        I am assuming and hoping that what John meant is that SOME scientific conclusions are not open to revision, as his example — though questionable as science — shows. Because if not, and if the above statement is what he actually meant, then it is foolishness of a high order given the provisional nature of science and the fact that we know that there are unknown errors in scientific conclusions (as the replication crisis is presently showing us) that may be discovered at a later time.

        Of course, John may have a unique definition of ‘science’ or of the word ‘conclusions’ which gives him some wiggle room, but then he is just playing semantic games.

        • Think of it this way. There is a set of things that have to be true or nothing is true. There is a set of things that are most likely true, but have yet to be conclusively proven. There are a set of things that may be true, but there’s either no way to test them or the efforts to prove them have fallen short. Finally, there is the set of things that are unknown.

          Scientific conclusions are the first set. The second and third sets are open to revision and challenge. It’s not a matter of semantics. It is about definitions. People tend not to grasp the definitions of science, because the have had little exposure to math or science.

          • Your first category encompasses logic and mathematics. Your second includes theories of gravitation, where Einstein,s superceded Newton’s. But your words seem to place today’s scientific “conclusions” in the first category, rather than the second. Can you explain without casting nasturtiums?

            “Factual nihilism”. Hmph.

          • I wrote, “Scientific conclusions are the first set.” That seems to cover it. Science, like mathematics, is about the accumulation of axioms, things that are assumed to be true by their nature.

            Put another way, if everything is open to revision, there is no truth.

          • I am gobsmacked, and I say this lovingly, by your wrong-headedness.

            Science deals in theories, not conclusions. Theories are always contingent; we strenuously fail to falsify them, accumulate partial belief in them, build on and with them, but can never reach axiomatic mathematical certainty.

            Not long ago, the best available theory was that neutrinos had zero mass. It could have been loosely said that science had concluded that this was the case. But the progress of science demands that it does not make conclusions.

            A pesky observation (that the wrong kind of neutrinos were arriving on Earth from the Sun) forced that theory to be abandoned. A better theory accounted for the observation (and all previous observations), and entailed a non-zero mass. This is a perfect example of scientific progress.

            Axioms are not subject to abandonment. Had the zero mass of the neutrino been treated as an axiom, we would have been forced to reject the observation and the better theory, because the contradiction of an axiom is automatically false.

            Karl Popper’s criterion for deciding whether a theory is scientific is whether it could by some conceivable observation be falsified. Theories that can withstand any contrary evidence are called “religions”.

          • Falsifiable does not mean falsified. Falsifiable means that this theory says that certain things will not happen. What Karl Popper was saying was that for a theory to be scientific, it has to make a prediction, and that prediction has to rule out certain things from happening.

          • Much more is known now about the natural world, than was known fifty years ago, and much more was known then than in 1580. So there has been a great accumulation or growth of knowledge in the last four hundred years.

            This is an extremely well-known fact. Let’s call this (A). A person, who did not know (A), would be uncommonly ignorant. To assert that all scientific conclusions are open to revision, as Vox Day has done, is to deny the existence of (A). I see he is now pushing around the goal post on wheels to try and obscure the fact he made a ridiculous statement, but that changes nothing.

            Look. Lots of people like to throw around the phrase “scientific conclusions” for reasons that range from laziness to cynicism. That does not change the fact that the Multiplicative Axiom is not open to debate and never will be.[1]

            [1]This is a paraphrasing from Stove. I apologize for not making this clear. The pedantic ankle biter can go back to playing with his dolls now.

          • *facepalm*
            The very reason there has been, or COULD BE, “a great accumulation or growth of knowledge in the last four hundred years,” is precisely BECAUSE scientific conclusions are open to revision.

          • Explain how this will be revised or falsified.

            Given any set A and any set B, if for every set X, X is a member of A if and only if X is a member of B, then A is equal to B.

          • I’m pretty sure that is older than four hundred years.

            And no, it will not be revised or falsified – because mathematics and logic are not science.

            Scientific knowledge is like Newton’s theory of gravity, which described the motion of objects accurately enough for its time. Then Einstein revised it to account for information Newton did not have. If and when a better theory comes along, Einstein’s will get the same treatment – but only after scientists can be convinced to do so.

          • You are thinking of Russell’s Paradox. See Zermelo–Fraenkel.

            A much more simple example is the reflexive property. That will never be revised. All it takes is one such example, and there are many, to disprove the claim that *all* scientific conclusions are open to revision.

            That’s why guys like Vox Day rocket off into dopey made up words like scientody. It’s the same reason feminists started using “gender” instead of sex. It is an attempt to break free from the constraints of reality.

            I suggest reading David Stove’s Popper and After.

          • That is logic again. That is not science. Nobody performed an experiment to verify the reflexive property, and nobody can perform an experiment to falsify it.

            Derbyshire’s was a better example – and then, it could be noted, that although Mars is definitely closer to the Sun than Jupiter, it is possible that the exact trajectories will be revised – if only to add another significant figure.

          • Not surprising you’d suggest Stove, considering that six posts up you stole large chunks of the first page of that book without attribution.

            By the way, the case for the accumulation of knowledge in recent centuries and Popper’s falsifiability standard are two different things. If you think Stove was making your argument, I have a bridge to sell you.

      • Both the scientists and the moral philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries would be the first to agree with you! I’m amazed that people don’t…. well, actually, I’m not, because I teach History and of any given 100 undergraduates, maybe 15 have even heard of, say, Hobbes…. and of them, maybe 5 have any idea what he actually said and of them, approximately 0 have actually read him (I’m being very generous with all these numbers). Guys like Hobbes thought their moral philosophy was the logical conclusion of the very hottest, most up-to-date science. Should the science change, the philosophy would have to — if it didn’t, they’d be no better than the musty old “Schoolmen” they spent so much time mocking, who spent their days arguing from First Principles about how many angels could dance on a pinhead.

      • We do need a taxonomy of “settled science”. If you don’t like Vox Day’s coinage, what’s yours?

        What conceptual tools would you use to distinguish between the propositions “Mars is closer to Sol than is Jupiter” and “New York City will not be underwater by {current year + 20}”?

        After all, the first can be discredited by pointing out that it’s put about by the self-interested Belters just as easily as the second by pointing at Big Oil.. and that’s what settled Fkn Science is all about!

        • I prefer “the scientific method” vs “the science industry” for the simple reason that they are already common English phrases that neatly encapsulate the same thing and are already in use. But that’s neither here nor there. The terms are less important than the concepts, and I’m somewhat amazed to see the Z-man and Derbyshire both opining so… embarrassingly ignorantly about how science works, what science is, unable to distinguish an observation from a hypothesis, unable to distinguish nihilism from skepticism, etc.

          Most especially, I’m surprised to see them unable to view the context in which the Point 8 was made, when they blog themselves about it almost ad nauseum. If the whole concept of “the settled science” on the blank slate vs the ACTUAL growth of our understanding about HBD isn’t a textbook example of exactly what Vox is talking about then I don’t know what is. “Global warming” qualifies too. As do most semi-libertarian and classic liberal economics models.

          The list goes on and on.

          • There are three defects in your argument. You are conflating a whole bunch of things, you are re-writing what I wrote to fit your definitions and you are assuming facts not in evidence. Look. I know what this is. You and the other Voxbots are railing about global warming. Go right ahead. I have never once defended the cult of global warming. Using that to deny the reflexive property or claim that there is no truth, well, you have drifted into waters well over your head.

          • I have done absolutely none of the above. I’ve conflated nothing—whereas you’ve conflated skepticism and falsifiability with nihilism, and mathematic axioms with “scientific conclusions”—the example of which provided is merely an observation, not a conclusion of any kind.

            I’m rewriting nothing either, although I’m sure that the ability to nitpick paraphrasing is crucial to pedantic non-argument eveywhere, so I doubt that that claim will disappear.

            And I’m assuming no facts not in evidence. Unlike you, who assumes that somehow I’m railing about global warming, which is absurd.

            Look, I know what this is. The 8th point, clumsily worded though it may be, strikes a potential blow against your self-proclaimed identity as the false modest, iconoclast voice of truth crying out in the wilderness, and what we’re seeing now is one of Scott Adams’ diagnostic tells of reacting against cognitive dissonance. If your model of reality can be proven wrong in the future due to new discoveries that falsify its assumptions, then what are you?

            I’m not the one who’s in over my head here.

          • You are the guy dragging in the terms “settled science” and “global warming.” I made no mention of either.

            Again, if you want to explain how the reflexive property is open to revision, go ahead. I’m all ears. But, we both know you will not do that because it can’t be done and that would invalidate everything you believe. You’ll resort to sabotaging logical expressions in order to avoid getting to that conclusion.

          • “Using that to deny the reflexive property or claim that there is no truth…”

            No one’s doing that. You’re unresponsive and frankly off the deep end on the subject.

            Logic is not science!

          • Debating ID’ers is not something I find interesting, especially dishonest ones like the Vox Cult. Frankly, Vox is just a pest who tries to get the attention of his betters by punching up. I have better things to do though.

          • Weak. Very weak sauce there Z. You’ve managed to lower yourself several notches in my view.
            You are simply wrong here.
            Nothing wrong with facing that but you resort to ad hom name calling bs and picking your ball up and going home to mommy. Not very distinguished.
            I’ll still check in once and a while but no more daily reading of a person who is so stubbornly entrenched- I can get enough of that in the main stream media- it calls all you do into question.

  12. Something odd about Gottfried calling for policing of racists as that is what got many paleocons drummed out of the movement.

    • Maybe that’s why they lost the fight in the first place. They weren’t really fighting, only protesting.

    • I found it jarring. I think a lot of the paleos think it is possible to return to the sensibilities of the 1950’s. What they don’t get is that the sensibilities of the 1950’s are what made the 60’s and 70’s possible. If we could wave a magic wand and return to yesteryear, in short order we would be right back where we are now.

      Again, once you accept the argument that racism is a real thing and it is immoral, you can only end up in one place.

      • Doesn’t it depend on the definition of “racism”? On one end you have the stupid idea that all members of race X are inherently superior to all members of race Y. I have no problem condemning that sort, and I think that’s what Gottfried meant. On the other extreme is the ultra-loose, ever-expanding SJW definition, which includes noticing any average statistical differences. That’s the sort of “racism” that is not real, and deserves mockery and contempt.

        By the way, I was one of the guys at the conference who briefly spoke with you at the bar, and said I was an occasional reader. I’m sorry you didn’t hang around for the room party on Saturday night. I’d have liked to talk more with you.

  13. Mass shooting in Texas by a white male Christian

    No comment? Just because it doesn’t fit your narrative doesn’t mean it didn’t happen

    • He arranged Russian deals for Trump, too.
      Plus, he was an NRA member! And an alt-right shupershtar!!

      Boy, Mueller and Hillary really, really want those headlines to go away.

    • The early returns this morning seem to indicate a militant atheist loser who was court-martialed (for beating his wife and child) and dishonorably discharged from the Air Force. Also a “double” prohibited person in terms of firearms ownership. I expect more and more accurate information will come out, but he’s currently shaping up as belonging more on Prog/Panty-fa side of the spectrum.

    • Sorry Bill, you don’t even merit a consolation prize in the “can I even get my facts straight before I make a complete ass of myself” sweepstakes.

      The murdering Texas scumbag was an avowed, even pathological atheist, Bill. Atheist. Say it Bill, I know you can.

      So Bill, as my mentor Willy Wonka, was fond of saying, “You lose! You get nothing!”

  14. The “It’s Okay to be White” campaign was brilliant, for one simple reason: The smarter element of the right always says “X will lead to Y,” the left laughs and says “That’s nuts” and then X leads to Y as sure as night follows day. Gay marriage sounded insane to almost all liberals until recently. Everyone from Bob Dylan to Molly Ringwald used the word “fag” without any consequences. Now gay marriage is a sacrament, rather than a joke. The smarter, younger fraction of whites is saying that this critique of white privilege, embrace of diversity, etc. is a stealth way to foster support for the extermination of white people, that our future is South Africa or Zimbabwe. Sounds nuts if you put up a poster of, say, Hitler on campus and it gets torn down. Sounds less nuts when you say you have a right to exist and it gets the same apoplectic treatment as if you said you love Hitler.

    Trump invoked the slippery slope to say we shouldn’t tear down confederate monuments because the purge would get to the founding fathers. The left laughs, and then a few days later you have a post up about dyke “priests” trying to ditch George Washington. Non-whites want us dead and so do a large cohort of traitorous, psychopathic, or just weak whites (and pretty much all powerful Jews). The sooner this becomes obvious to normal white people, the sooner we can save ourselves and our civilization.

  15. The meat. Part One was amusing and informative. This is Intelligent(as was Part 1. I was less so for failing to note said fact). And provides useful Intelligence. Historical background and ‘structure’. Previous (and ongoing) failures and logical framework to build upon. All stout meaty substance to chew and perhaps gnaw upon.

    Much has begun and vastly much more lies ahead of us. It is good and useful to have some history and names of people who have tried and come up short. Names of people who are/have failed. Names of bat-scat crazies who seek attention and adulation. Well written and thanks for taking us with you. TBoone from MI.

  16. Since Zman mentioned it, the “It’s OK to be white” meme is brilliant. Of course, the institutional Left has wildly overreacted, and further exposed themselves as the childish monsters they really are.
    Charlottesville was a disaster, but memes, like the one above, are golden and serve a real function in the culture wars.

  17. “…taking over institutions does nothing, if the price is embracing the morality of the Left. The Old Right always defined itself as defending the existing culture and institutions. That made sense when those things were worth defending. Today, those things are a cancer on our people. They must be replaced or we will be replaced…”

    …this is good.

    • Reminds me of meeting Larry Schweikart. I asked him what could be done to replace liberal professors and reform the university. His reply was that the university shouldn’t be reformed but destroyed.

      • And one way to start on that is to take over the accreditation mechanisms. Start pointing out that certain courses at a given college are merely day-care and lack academic rigor. Hold their degrees at risk of being declared worthless. When a bachelor’s degree at one college is deemed insufficient preparation for entry into a master’s program at another, things will change.

        I await the day that a California high school diploma is deemed inadequate preparation to entry into any college in the other 49 states.

        • Nope, start with the money, it’s easier. Remove the tax breaks for indebtedness. Collapse the funding structures of the schools. Require them to privatize their Division I athletic programs in the way that investment and conventional banking are separate.

          Don’t waste your time in an ideological struggle. Take their money. It’s faster.

  18. “That’s very white of you”.

    The “current moral order” is SJW insanity. Anyone that doesn’t reject it is stupid, insane, or both. The “new guys” obviously reject it because they are neither.

  19. “Gottfried’s main theme about the alt-right is that they are not well run and not good at presenting themselves on main stream media outlets. He used, as an example, someone who either writes for Spencer now or used to write for him…”

    Are we by any chance talking about that guy – can’t remember his pseudonymn, now – but he was pretty much explicitly neo-nazi – way back in the days when Spencer got me & Mangan, briefly, to write for his new alt-right website?

    We immediately agreed that we didn’t like the company we were keeping, and jumped ship.

  20. I don’t think the Paleocons lost the culture war, nor do I think that the Progressives won it. For more than half a century now, we have been an exceptionally affluent society that has made hardship nearly extinct. It is the loss of an existentially competitive environment that has degraded the human animal into dependent parasites rather than the self-reliant survivors of life’s harsh gauntlet of yesteryear. Our real enemy is not the deranged Liberal horde, but the missing fitness competition that formerly made us stronger in each succeeding generation.

    • I think you need to take that one step further. As individuals and as members of a society, you have to be able to demonstrate emotional fitness… e.g recovering from a brutal raid from another tribe or seeing your brother ripped to shreds by a predator. The SJWs/progs have demonstrated that they are not fit emotionally to even compete socially and sexually (not to mention my earlier examples). That’s why you see the safe rooms and hear about “triggers.” That also explains the multiplicity of genders they have created since they are not in competition for mates. They cannot cope with even low-level competition and run away or medicate with anti-anxiety medication.

      My guess is that we are seeing an adaptation like Tay-Sachs or Sickle Cell Anemia. The genes that enable the adaptation are recessive. One set helps keep you alive. Two sets kills or hurts you. Normally, the proto-SJWs with two sets of the gene would never make it to breeding age. They would withdraw mentally or be cast out of the tribe. Perhaps Ophelia is a good literary archetype. My guess would be that this is a neolithic adaptation that enabled fairly murderous, “feral” tribesmen to live harmoniously in agricultural communities. One copy of the gene and you are OK. Two copies and you are a suicidal poet type — too sensitive for your own and society’s good.

      • ” That’s why you see the safe rooms and hear about “triggers.” That also explains the multiplicity of genders”

        I don’t think they actually believe that crap. It’s narcissism with the added benefit of irritating the squares.

        • Could narcissism have a genetic component? Might someone with an excessive self-regard be less likely to brawl on the village green?

          Maybe we are really saying the same thing?

        • I am married to an SJW, and she is really trying to figure it out. She loves the medieval style fantasy books with swords and tribes and fighting, yet the idea of gun ownership is appalling to her. She buys into just enough of the media crap to think they describe reality. She had no idea that Trump and the Republicans are two different things and are not allies, in a conversation we had just last night. The concept of the “Uniparty” eludes her. She cannot comprehend the propriety of the proposed tax law that would penalize us, because she does not understand that we live in the top 5% of incomes and wealth. If you are going to redistribute wealth through taxation, step right up, sweetie, this is how it works.

          My point is that there are a bunch of smart and/or well meaning people out there who buy what the Left is selling. They are brainwashed, and we just need to patiently take them through long-term deprogramming. A slow trickle will turn into a cascade, just give it time. The well-meaning Lefties (not necessarily a contradiction in terms) are going through the cognitive dissonance experience of a lifetime. The Reagan ‘80s were nothing compared to today. They are seeing everything they thought they knew being torn down from within. All we need to do is patiently and consistently offer real-world understanding and explanations of what is going on. Like other brainwashed people, their notions and understandings need to be shattered before something more constructive can replace them. It is not the specific tactics or beliefs, it is the constant working, every hour of every day, to get these people to a different place. We need to remember what it is we need to do, and then just keep doing it.

          • This is so true, I’ve spent my life around Lefties. They really believe it and mean well. They think they’re making the world a better place. Of course, the Lefties closest to me are now mostly Trumpies, Alt Right, Dissident Right. These people can be considered brainwashed, as Dutch said, the product of decades of our nation’s successful propaganda/psyop program. They didn’t get this way overnight, and it’s not going to be undone overnight. The temptation for those of us impatient for change is to consider absurd White Shariah-type ideas but, of course, we don’t win by adopting the ways of Islamic extremists, whose intolerant ways we claim to reject. It’s critical alternative media continues to grow into mainstream because the mindset won’t be turned around unless we wage massive de-programming and propaganda of our own.

          • Have to disagree, strongly. People don’t change, they just spend more energy blocking out the disagreeable truth. Recovery as a nation will only occur as the boomers, then the gen-x’rs die off and are replaced by un-indoctrinated youngsters. Your wife has a much higher probability of reporting you to the government, than of being red-pilled.

          • The Boomer generation dying off is going to be crucial. Especially all the radicals infesting Hollywood, journalism, and academia. X’ers have a duty to provide a vision for the way back, as we remember a little of the society and mores they threw away. Also as the global power edifice starts to fail then our elites will be forced to detach from it and represent local interests again. The faster the EU fails the better. Soros’ death will help too, assuming his heirs won’t be as political with the trust funds.

        • You have to differentiate between those that articulate and promote the various “progressive” lies and those that believe in the Emperor’s New Clothes. Those that are the leaders in injecting liberal poison into society are interested in power for themselves and their tribe and destruction of their enemies. They know that what they sell are lies. The masses are just cannon fodder and useful idiots that do it for narcissistic reasons and may deceive themselves that they actually do see the Emperor’s Clothes.

      • In our current political-economic environment of extreme borrowing & welfarism, whining is both a survival and a social success strategy. The notion that you can talk a parasite into being less whiny is insane. These people will not stop being whiny until it no longer works to get them more stuff. And that won’t stop until politicians are no longer able to buy votes with tax dollars.

        • that won’t stop until politicians are no longer able to buy votes with tax dollars.

          That happens when there are no votes to buy.

          Again, this is not a tax policy issue. Economics is way down stream from culture.

          • I agree. Parasitism is a cultural malady, and it now infects tens of millions of our citizens. You can try to heal them with words or motivate them through deprivation of dependency handouts. To accomplish the latter, it may be more effective to focus on the problem of the grifter politicians.

  21. Anyone that rails about “racism” to the degree Gottfried did should be asked to define what they mean by this. What you usually get is some pompous assertion that anyone that uses race at all to evaluate any situation is beyond the pale. Which, of course, is absurd. The definition of racism includes anything from believing that a race is a biological entity to anyone other than my race should be killed. And, invariably, those that use it accept the left’s view that it only applies to Whites. Even those things that many people raised in the public school system would consider “unfair”, like segregation, are actually common sense solutions to problems that “non-racists” have no clue how to proceed on. Most conservatives that take the cuckservative view on race would probably say that even if racial problems are solvable by separating the races, no society should ever engage in such “heinous” activities. This makes their opinions useless.

    • Racism is the condition that persons suffer who are in the grip of the belief that races and ethnic groups are similar by birth in intelligence, talents, tastes and habits.

    • Weird that the author of “Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt” is railing against racism. He used to laugh off such accusations when they were lobbed at him. What makes him think he’ll get a different reception.

      • Joey. This doesn’t surprise me at all. Some people are able to compartmentalize these things. On a personal level I am probably one of the most tolerant people you could meet. My understanding is that Anglin is, too. For me racism is something that is practiced by the other side and projected upon us. Our problem is that reaching our goals necessarily entail recognizing race differences, making it easy to attach the negative connotations that the left has successfully attached to recognition of that kind, in part because they did a good job of making their form of racism socially acceptable for so long.

        The average person doesn’t think about racism as a political necessity. They act on personal beliefs rooted in the experiences they and those close to them have. This is easily construed as reaction and it used to be easy to make people feel guilty for it. With new media it is becoming evident to folks that the elites do not have to suffer the consequences of their actions in this and that those fall upon the lower and middle classes. It is getting much harder for people to think that these bad policies will never affect them.

        They are waking up to the fact that these policies are destroying their nation and their culture.

    • Spot on. Ranting about racism is what the left does, because everyone knows that it means “whitey, just shut up and take it.” Gofffried refuses to understand this: the left has defined the future in terms of identity politics and uses charges of racism as a way to deligitimize and discourage whites from participating in a game where, once again, the left has defined the rules of the game. I can understand why Gottfried doesn’t like identity politics – frankly, I don’t like identity politics either – but, as instigated by the left, our society has been transformed by mass immigration (just another societal bedrock that conservatives failed to conserve), and our present “vibrant diversity” doesn’t herald a future of in which all the colors of the rainbow live together as one. The old post-WWII liberal/conservative nexus defined by the parameters of the Cold War has less and less meaning as that era recedes into the past. All this talk about the alt-right really boils down to a debate, which is as yet in its earliest stages, about what white identity politics will look like and what its political goals will be. Because the writing is on the wall. “Conservatives” like Gottfried have no answers as the Democrat Party transforms itself into the “Anti-White Party,” but its obvious to anyone paying attention that this is what is happening. Racialized politics on the part of whites is not just legitimate, it is necessary. To moan and wring your hands about phony charges of racism by the party that has enshrined racial politics as its guiding principle is to surrender to enemies motivated by race hatred and a deep desire for racial revenge. And by now we all know what happens to the losers of those struggles.

  22. What ever happened to James Fields of the Charlottsville car mishap. Is he in jail or out on bond ? The large woman supposedly died of a heart attack.

      • Safe bet: The poor jerk panicked and put his foot to the floor when the peaceful protesters started beating on his car with clubs. His fine motor coordination was shot and the only thought in his head was “escape”.

        Then by the time he processed the presence of the people in front of him, it was too late to stop the car.

        No ill intent at all, is my bet. I’ll further bet that he’s wracked by remorse.

        • Nonsense. He drove at a considerable rate of speed towards the marchers, who filled the street, for more than a block. Nobody hit his car until the very last moment, and then again after he had come to a halt. He obviously intended to run into the crowd.

    • He’s in jail and charged with 2nd degree murder, as well as a bunch of other felonies for the 15-20 non fatal injuries he inflicted with his car. After a little research, I found that the defense and prosecutor asked for a delay of the preliminary hearing until December. Probably to allow the investigation to continue, and to get this out of the media circus. The lynch mob would’ve helped no one.

      The guy sounds like a real ass hat, whether he “meant” to drive into the crowd or not.

Comments are closed.