The Great Questioning

A popular topic among the members of the alt-right is the red pill moment. This is the event or experience that opened the person’s eyes to some reality. In the case of the alt-right, it’s more often the JQ they have in mind, but it can be race or even just politics. I’ve talked to many people flying the alt-right flag, who came from libertarianism. The campaign of Ron Paul seems to have turned many people into dissidents. My bet is the biggest source of recruits into the Dissident Right is libertarianism, followed by Buckley Conservatism.

Something I’ve noticed about the world of dissident politics is it is increasingly cut-off from mainstream conservatism and maybe politics in general. I know in my own case, I stopped watching Sunday chat shows twenty years ago and stopped watching cable chat shows in the Bush years. About five years ago, when I started blogging, I stopped reading mainstream conservative sites. I still check in on National Review or the Weekly Standard once in a while, but I can’t remember the last time I found anything relevant.

It’s not that people on our side of the great divide are ghettoized, there is some of that, but that conventional politics no longer seems relevant. Progressive assaults on speech get a lot of discussion, but this barely registers in the mainstream political chatter. The far left media doxxing people gets some attention, but again, that never gets discussed in mainstream circles. Otherwise, the old time fights between “conservatives” and “liberals” that used to define politics seem to have lost all relevance to our side.

It’s hard to know about these things. In my daily life, I meet some people who think like me and mostly people on the far left. Friends will mention Tucker Carlson on occasion, but I can’t remember the last time someone mentioned Hannity to me or Rush Limbaugh. Yet, the former is the top cable talker and the latter remains the top radio talker. In other words, my perspective on these things could be warped by the fact that I spend my time reading dissident right web sites and following hate-thinkers on social media. I could be the weirdo.

That said, I can’t remember the last time a liberal friend or acquaintance mentioned someone on the conventional right. It’s all Trump and his secret allegiance with Putin for them. To a lesser degree they obsess over people like me and our plans to bring back slavery, roll back women’s rights and turn America into a medieval fortress. As a rule, the American Left has always obsessed over that which it sees as a genuine threat or that which is a mirror held up to them, forcing them to examine their own beliefs.

Anyway, this is a long wide up to something I was sent the other day. This piece by Michael Anton in the Claremont Review of Books is a long response to something in The Federalist. Apparently, the two writers are having a dispute about the social contract and how it is defined in America. The best I can tell, the Federalist guy is a NeverTrump loon still angry at Anton over his “Flight 93” article. Robert Tracinski appears to be a Rip Van Winkle sort of guy, struggling to come to terms with modern America.

There was a time, maybe, when a debate over social contract theory and its relevance to American politics, would have been interesting to me. Today, it seems about as relevant as a debate over the proper way to saddle a unicorn so Sasquatch can ride it without falling off. Like the state of nature model, popular with Enlightenment philosophers, we know without a doubt that there is no such thing as a social contract. The current American conception of it is most certainly nonsense. America is not an idea.

That’s a point I often write about here and others take up in other places. It’s not the conclusions of liberal democracy that are the problem. it is the premise of it. When you start from the social contract and the state of nature, the conclusion is inevitable. That’s the problem with liberal democracy. It can only lead to one end and that is the obliteration of culture, which is what defines a people. Once the culture dies, the people soon follow, which explains the falling fertility rates, marriage rates and the migrant invasions.

Now, the point of this post, if there is one, is not to argue for or against any particular conception of the social contract. It’s just an example of the growing divide between those in dissident politics and those who remain trapped in conventional politics. The project on our side is to ask how it is we have arrived at this point and to then question the premises upon which is built the old order. For example, if the natural order is not a voluntary agreement among men, then what is it and what would a modern version of it resemble?

The great divide may not simply be a dispute about the nature of man. That’s certainly a big part of what separates a reader here and a reader at Reason, National Review or The Nation. The one side embraces the diversity of man, while the other embraces the blank slate The difference also extends to topics that have long been considered axiomatic. As we seem to be heading into a denouement of the long Calvin – Rousseau dynamic, many of us are questioning the foundations of the liberal order and the Enlightenment itself.

180 thoughts on “The Great Questioning

  1. “…they obsess over people like me and our plans to bring back slavery, roll back women’s rights and turn America into a medieval fortress.”

    If that means I’m going to be consigned to the home perhaps that won’t be a bad thing. I’d love to be able to have enough time to keep my home clean, to get back to gardening and preserving, to be able to finish my chicken enclosure before any more chooks get eaten by raccoons or skunks, and have time to weave again. And spin. And knit.

    But we’re all dreaming. The reality is that I have to work, either for myself as I am now, where I have three other lives that depend on my business succeeding and continuing to provide an income for them, or for someone else where I’m equally dependent on them for my income. My garden is not going to provide for us, my loom and spinning wheels will continue to gather dust, and my house will continue to be a clutter haven.

    Thanks liberals.
    BTW I’d be willing to give up voting rights, after all I’ve never been required to serve in the military, or register for selective service. I’d prefer it in fact if men’s voting rights were also predicated on mandatory military service.

  2. “In my daily life, I meet some people who think like me and mostly people on the far left. Friends will mention Tucker Carlson on occasion, but I can’t remember the last time someone mentioned Hannity to me or Rush Limbaugh. ”

    Anytime something political comes up in conversation where I work or among people I know, its the lefties who give the mainstream talkers a mention. Hannity and Tucker Carlson come up a lot though its mostly lefties mocking them; Rush never comes up at all. (And I’ve never heard anyone on either side mention Ben Shapiro; if it wasn’t for all the attention he gets on twitter, I’d have never known that he exists.)

    With the right wingers I know though, mainstream commentators don’t really get a mention that much any more. Its not so much that they are red pilled as much as they seem to have checked out of that. When something does come up its usually Trump getting most of the oxygen.

  3. Rousseau was an idiot who had little understanding of sinful human nature. John Calvin had his problems, intellectually, but he was far closer in his understanding of the nature of man than anyone in the enlightenment.

    The more I have studied the Bible, the more trouble I have with the enlightenment.

    • Rousseau was the world’s first douchebag. Wasn’t he the guy that started the whole coffee house confessional? Where people stand up and talk about how special and tragic they are? When I think about going back in time and beating the crap out of someone with my bare fists, it’s him.

      • Old saying about Time Travelers

        Amateurs shoot Hitler
        Professionals shoot Gavrillo Princeps
        Masters shoot Rosseau

  4. I’ve lost all interest in most talk radio and television “debate” shows. It’s like watching a rerun of a show I’ve seen way too many times. Nobody is arguing from my position, they are all faking it.

  5. I stopped listening to Rush in the late 90’s. He showed himself as an establishment whore by not acknowledging Ron Paul despite his BS love for ‘muh Constitution’. I stayed home on election day during the Magic Kneegro years since Team R could not run a compelling candidate. Libertardians have also fallen over the last decade especially with their open borders stupidity and thinking it’s okay for a company to import a bunch of people for $1 a day while the community dies or suffers. Libertardians and cuck servatives have a blind spot regarding race, IQ, and culture that’s as bad as the left.

    There is pretty good conservative type at an AM radio station out of San Antonio. Those like him though can’t go national without becoming an establishment whore like Rush.

  6. My first Red Pill was Limbaugh of all people, it was when he sided with Clinton to promote NAFTA while his listeners were pleading with him not to.

    I realized then that the GOP as opposition didn’t exist. That they didn’t care about the American people one bit.

    Perot also played a part in exposing how rotten and phony the GOP was and how they played their voters with bullshit issues.

    It was also then (1992) I realized the press was totally controlled as well when they all went into lockstep supporting NAFTA and not allowing opposing editorials.

    The final piece was Bush and the MSM claiming that Saddam did 9/11 and that he had massive state of the art bio warfare and chem warfare facilities so our intel agencies stated with the utmost confidence. I watched as the MSM ginned up support for a totally illegal war and our military and political leaders all in support.

    At that point I knew I couldn’t trust the pols, business leaders or the media at all. They are all professional propagandists who use weaponized language to manipulate the populace for their own ends.

    BTW the MSM finally bared it’s fangs in regards to us. Via the Daily Caller. They are openly calling for us to be murdered. The business as usual alt-right big thinkers better start re-evaluating their views that the party will go on for more decades. The gentle folks don’t get that a lot of fights start with words and testing the waters. The Left is doing that right now.

    When people threaten your life you really, really ought to take seriously, Especially when they control the establishment. Just sayin’.

  7. How old are all y’all? I couldn’t vote in 1980 and one look at Reagan to my young eyes scared me. I was sure he was going to gets us in a war. Then a few years later I turned 18 and had to register for the draft. I immediately registered as a democrat in self interest for sure. Thr fooloshness of youth. I think history has been and will be kind to Ronnie Raygun and rightfully so. The 80’s sure were a great time. If I only knew then what I know now. I think we can all say that to some extent. Forge ahead with knowledge and wisdom earned!

  8. Conventional politics is for the boomers. I cringe every time I hear one mouthing off about “liberals” or “liberal logic” as though they don’t hold exactly the same beliefs with extremely minor policy differences.

    But that’s the Rush and Hannity audiences. Seriously, you can look this up, the average age of a Fox viewer is well into the 60s, maybe even 70s. That’s *average*. They’re simply not capable of reinstalling the OS at this point – so much crapware has accumulated that they’ve actually started to depend on the crapware, and on interactions between the crapware and other crapware.

    But then, what’s worse – the mouthbreathing boomercons or the shrieking mewlennial SJWs? The younger generations are producing much higher-quality rightists, but in terms of sheer quantity they’re overwhelmingly spitting out leftists.

    • Couple of thoughts … not all “boomers” are mired in the old thought templates; many are on top of the changes occurring at the dissident right. As I see it, generalities hold, generally; but, you have to take your people one at a time.

      Certainly, the boomers (of which I’m one) have a lot to answer for. Spoiled, self-centered, arrogant, driven, hyper-materialistic, destructive, short-sighted. Yes. I was there and saw it — from the Beatles first album through anti-war protests, the Summer of Love, the really awful decline of movies (Shaft, really?) and the spiraling decline into the late 1970s. And that was just then …

      I will say, though, that I neither liked nor went along with the prevalent behavioral and ideological trends. Do remember, though, that even those of us who didn’t jump on board with all the BS, or fall for the “… new world coming …” Age of Aquarius crap, that we were still products of the time, and didn’t have the benefit of hindsight when evaluating what was going on. We were there looking at it for the first time.

      Some of us thought that it was and would be OK, and that America as we knew it would just keep trucking along.

      Also, those younger people on the right you positively reference above don’t have the same challenge we faced.

      This included WW2 generation parents who were unprepared themselves to see and deal with what was happening politically, socially and intellectually. Those of the WW2 generation had often performed incredibly — as individuals and as a group. Imagine — surviving 30+ missions as a B-17 crewman over Germany and Occupied France. Or moving ashore toward Japanese machine gun emplacements on Peleliu, or living through nine war patrols in the far western Pacific. The Depression; 16 million in uniform out of 130 million. Astounding. I know men now as friends who did these things (ok … one just died). But in the end, they failed in some very important way. They failed to protect our civilization upon their return, and they failed to pass on their own values and character to their children. OK …yes … they were tired, and many felt they’d done their bit. And they, too, were manipulated by forces dedicated to tearing our culture down. But this reality — this paternity — is part of the environment that the (admittedly disappointing) boomers faced.

      And for many of us boomers who sought a path different from the one our cohort blazed, those very institutions, people and ideas that we knew and trusted, well, we just didn’t know that those were from much earlier on working against what many of us knew, believed and loved.

      Now, this is not intended as a blind defense of this terribly flawed generation. Honestly, I didn’t like them much then — those on the cutting edge of coolness — and, I often don’t like them much now.

  9. I’ve long since accepted that I have unconventional views that would make me look like a weirdo or a kook so I often just stay quiet or pretend to not care about politics. That or say something like “wow, things are really getting crazy” and leaving it at that. You could bring up The Most Important Graph in the World, Hart-Celler, etc. but it will either get you considered “that guy” or their eyes will just glaze over.

    The Red Pill is more like the Red IV as truths slowly get into your system in a slow drip. For me, it was several months as the Trayvon Martin saga started and ended. I was a leftist going into it and an alt right guy getting out of it. Not sure why that one event caused me to go over to the other side but it did. However nobody evangelized it to me and if they did, I would probably have rejected it at first. I understand that people make it over at their own pace and looking at how politics have turned out since 2013-2014, people are slowly but surely coming around to our side.

    • I congratulate you on your long journey in a short time. That’s quite a trek. It’s funny how, now, raising mere factual issues like Sailer’s African population graph will brand you as a kook in Normieworld.

    • Not to be a dick. But I don’t believe you were the Leftist you say you were. Anyone of the Right has had the red pill gene since birth. Which is to say, a mindset that recognizes bullshit and hates bullshit. There’s almost no way to start out true Left and end up True Right.

      Yes, I realize all the major figures who’ve switched. But they always had the aversion to BS. That’s the prime factor separating “Left” from “Right”.

      I just listened to another episode of Waking Up with Sam Harris. It’s deceptive. He’s actually a Right thinking hater of bullshit. But in Leftist guise to keep his status, and the money rolling in. These are the worst people in the world. It’s why we hate the Shapiros of the world. They could be and should be helping us. They’d be such an asset, with their IQ and ability to reach the educated masses with their verbal ability. But no. They go out of their way to fuck us.

      Remember when we were happy-go-lucky American kids and couldn’t understand why all the French in the 18th century murdered each other in masse? Like they were mad psychos or something. Well, now we relate to that bloodthirsty anger.

  10. “There was a time, maybe, when a debate over social contract theory… Today, it seems about as relevant as a debate over the proper way to saddle a unicorn so Sasquatch can ride it without falling off.”

    One grateful thing we have as partisans of the dissident Right is a new freedom in our minds, a freedom to disregard the pointless baseball scores that consume both cucks and shitlibs equally. Pretending to be sworn enemies in a sham battle between forces in Manichean opposition, we can identify nearly any game they play as irrelevant noise hiding the signal. Especially after the advent of Trump, policy on any topic from entitlements to foreign policy reveals the Uniparty to be just that: one party with modestly antagonistic wings. Why, on some things like Obamacare they behave identically. The only opposition in DC is between Trump and everyone else. It’s refreshing to disregard the daily melodrama over meaningless turf battles that equally consume both Conservatism Inc. and the MSNBC degenerates. I myself have abandoned websites that, ten years ago, I considered So Edgy And Daring, such as Ace Of Spades. Now it reads like a CivNat/Cuck safe space.

  11. Vox Day said, Alt-Right is inevitable. Notice I ommitted “The” as in The Alt-Right. Because what Alt-Right is is not a movement per say, it is The Zeitgeist. It is because culture, political science, family tribe and community. The White Christian Grecco-Roman Men of the West where not and are not a movement. It, they, is Paradigm, a sea change in thinking from conventional thought of the day.
    Take for example, the 2016 election is a color revolution, of course the 5th column media and intelligentsia would die before admitting, never mind creating journalistic essays on the political science of such a profound event which has made their long march irrelevant, exposed their elitist class of unaccountable old Soviet style neo-bolsheviks and Amerikan Nomenklaturer class executive branch traitors, and shit stirrers.

    Yrs, we waged, in an incredible display of solidarity, us dirt people pulled off a color revolution right under their arrogant noses and they never saw it coming.
    Trump is to us dirt people, The Great Fuck You. We know in our bones there is no voting our way out of this, but what the hay, its better to give liberty and Republican form of government one more try before we have to wave our rifles in the bastard tyrants faces. And they know it, now. And they know Mr. President Trump is our murder weapon.

    Red Pill, or Alt-Right, they are absolutely not static features of our culture rebelling against the globalists’ 1 world order. They will constantly evolve, least of all because they are not ideology, agenda, or cult, they are expressions of things far more deeper and profound, many of us can never adequitely put into words, but they sure as the sun rises real things that matter to us enough we are going to end up having a violent revolution over. If for no other reason, and brother are there a lot of reasons, this war is an existential war. One side, Alt-Right/Hard-Right/Dissedent-Right is the insurgency, we will wage 4th Generation War, we hold vast territory, dirt people nation, that sea of red of that color revolution, rich with resources, we are the ones who keep the energy going, the food growing, the water flowing, we control the transportation vectors, we keep the bridges up, the damns from collapsing, make the parts that keep thing working. And that territory, it is everything in 4th Generation war. It makes us legitimate. The enemy has to take it, then keep it, pacify it, feed it, keep it warm, and fed. If it fails, or if it chooses to punish the dirt people for their audacity, it looses, because the one thing, the one weapon greater than almost anything else, is winning hearts and minds. And they haven’t been very nice at that so far have they Precious? No army on Earth can hold the size of dirt people land. Hell, they can’t hold it now with politics and diversity.
    The two real clinchers here in insurgency 4th Generation War, is withdrawal of Consent: The greatest weapon ever devised. Consent is unique to all activity of the dirt people. Consent can never be taken, it can not be forced, or coerced, even I you put a fucking .45 against my head, pull the trigger back, tell me you will blow my brains all over the room if I give you my consent to make me a slave to your ideology, I still, no matter what you threaten me with, still have choice. And for you resistance is futile chicken shits, that right there is why rugged individualism wins. Withdrawal of Consent Bitchez! Fuck you very little.
    But, the real cherry on top of this because fuck you that’s why sundae, is we have guns. Looooots of guns. And boolits. Many boolits. And you can’t take them. No where enough, because we who will never give up our guns, have guns to spare, guns to cache, guns to give up so we can shoot your ass later with the guns and boolits we kept just for you to shoot you. And because we aemre Americans, we are very good at making guns, and boolits, and because you outlawed us as Freemen in order to outlaw our guns, you never realized you made so much “illegal” with your diktat, you end up making everything legal. Like very large guns that shoot bigass boolits that make big explosion and kill many of you at once, make all sorts of creative ingenious ways to kill you.
    So go ahead, lets have a 2nd Revolution to free us of your tyranny. So us dirt people of the many -Right’s, because we are really fed up with your dirty steenkin’ jaw boning and equality bullshit, your all from of the bus kill Whitey crap.
    Almost all of us are smackin’ our lips and getting ready to be done with you. Like ridding Gods green Earth of your worthless arses. That’s the truth of our little color revolution and Red Pill.
    Thank you.

  12. In my experience there are three questions that tend to divide the purple pillers from the red pillers;

    Race realism; if you totally deny this you are not even purple pilled, you are still blue. But there are still varying degrees of openness to discuss this..

    The JQ; many purples still dread being accused of being closet Nazis and to be honest, I also find that most cant discuss it, either b/c it is ‘off limits’ or b/c they totally brown pilled on it and now ‘ze Jews are behind erezing’. Neither are worth discussing this with.

    Gender realists, by which I do not mean recognizing that there are only two genders (that’s effectively a requirement not to be in blue land) but purples are still reluctant to discuss women and IQ, psychology or whether they should have the vote or not.

    I don’t know what the best ways to handle these three issues are but the point is, if you are really red pilled, you can discuss these questions in an adult manner.

    • Re ‘ze Jews are behind erezing’– they are indeed disproportionately driving the destruction of western civilization. For thousands of years. They couldn’t do it without our help but our participation does not absolve them. Aside from our own pathologies the JQ ranks a very close number two or even 1.1.

      • Z wrote what I thought was a really balanced take on the JQ. They are disproportionately represented in a lot of unfortunate places and contexts; if you re not happy w multi culti and the West collapsing I think that’s simply a matter of fact.

        The issues Im unsure about are the extent to which they do this ‘deliberately’ and the extent to which there is a concerted JEWISH plan I don’t know. It cant just be blamed only on ‘ze Jews’, the whole culture is rotten to the core and they are prominent in culture and education.

        Israel is almost a trailblazer as an ethno-nationalistic state, they just passed a law defining themselves as ‘the state of the Jewish people’ (don’t ask me how that is different from how they viewed themselves before but they just passed a law saying that and it is making waves). An interesting question will be how Jews that support THAT law, feel about laws defining Sweden, Hungary, Britain etc as ‘the land of the [insert nationality] people’. Some will say ‘makes sense’ and some will probably think ‘what s good for the goose isn’t necessarily good for the gander’.

        I am fairly new to looking at the JQ myself (it used to be ‘off limits’ to me, for the reasons I mention above); I don’t know what the real story there is. But it is a legit issue to discuss and I think that’s a start.

    • MyS, I didn’t know there were more colors. Purple, ok, I kinda get it. But brown? What’s brown? Anyway, I think you forgot about gay marriage. I think you can be red pilled and still support it. The JQ, yeah, I’ve seen the darkness that dwelling on that brings to peoples’ lives. The obsession and anger. Without saying too much, I’ve seen it up close and it scares me. I can’t deal with the subject. I used to deal with it, quite seriously. No more.

      When I began reading the Dissident Right I thought it was a joke when they talked about denying women the right to vote. It slowly occurred to me that it’s serious. Such talk will cripple the cause. It’s such a non-starter dumpster fire. Still, funny as shit you guys actually discuss it. Surreal.

      • I ll admit I kinda made up purple and brown, purple’s sort of self-explanatory, brown was from brown shirt, I just pulled it outta my a$$ as I wrote the comment.

        It’s not clear to me if you re a lib troll or where you d place yourself. But the JQ is difficult and some ‘take the brown pill’ as I put it above, focusing completely on that to the exclusion of all else.

        I consider gay marriage more a symptom than a central question. I’m against it, I think it makes no sense, but I don’t feel strongly about it. My position is that homosexuality should be tolerated but not encouraged and registered partnerships must be enough. Gay marriage was largely a fight over a word, ‘marriage’, ie semantics rather than substance.

        Women’s vote is a long-game question. Depending on where you are politically, you may realize that we are watching one of history’s greatest processes ever, the transformation of the West into something completely different, ethnically etc. That suggests that liberal democracy is in its twilight phase and it probably is. You cant imagine discussing women’s vote. Man (or girl??), we ll be discussing everyone’s vote as things go from twilight to sundown. It’s not about what we ‘want’, I think liberal democracy is great. But it has largely abolished itself or at least is abolishing itself. You don’t know coz you re still blue pill.

          • Read my original comment, I said the issue of women in politics is one of the questions you need to be able to discuss to be red pill. Your last paragraph, on women, was pretty blue to me. You’re not even open to discussing it.

            I haven’t read any of your other comments. Your comment to me, its not clear what you meant to say on the JQ other than that it’s difficult to discuss. On women, Id say you re blue. On the other stuff I dunno.

  13. I remember reading Sobran’s 1985 “Pensees” in the mid 90’s in NR. It now occurs to me that he was trying to red pill me but I thought he was exaggerating the Lefty mindset. Turns out he was especially right about the coming rule of the misfits.

  14. Back in the day a (((kid))) in my h.s. class befriended me. Over the years he inserted me into (((their))) society at very high levels and I witnessed firsthand the mental pathologies, drugging, scheming, lying, cheating, perversions, temple and community practices, and (((tribal))) loyalty.

    I kept trying to overlook as much as possible but (((these folks))) of Chicago and Glencoe just piled on continuously. Around the time I realized I was being screwed over by the (((new law firm))) my jogging partner had enticed me to join, some of you people were busy compiling and mapping data about (((leadership and influence))) that made clear and convincing unmistakable patterns based on my life experiences with (((them))). And I thank you for bringing me to the red pill. It has been a few years since I removed nearly 100% of (((them))) from my personal and professional lives including my childhood “friend.”

  15. Do you guys really believe that a libertarian society is incapable of defending itself against an enemy? Would you like to test this proposition?

      • Yeah, I listened to it. I find it unconvincing. One flawed assumption in the libertarians cannot defend themselves argument is that it takes large numbers of soldiers to kill large numbers of the enemy. Robotics (air, land, and underseas drones as well as the logistics supply chain), laser weapons, and biological/nanotechnological weaponry will make large human militaries obsolete in the next 10-15 years. This technology revolution makes the small competitive with the large. It also favors defense over offence. This technology revolution will make it much easier for a libertarian city-state, for example, to effectively defend itself from a much larger entity. I think you’re going to find that libertarian transhumanist types will be more the capable of defending themselves against any enemies.

    • The fact that there aren’t any libertarian societies means they either couldn’t defend them or couldn’t create them.

  16. first red pill moment came long ago, UC Berkeley 1966-69. When I noticed that 95% of the campus communists were Jews/Jewesses. 9/11 and it’s evident neo-con Zionist genesis closed out the (((System))) for me.

  17. Forgot an obvious road to the Alt Right. Gotta give credit to Rogan being willing to talk about, and to, Milo. He was intelligent, well spoken, and weirdly cool. I think Milo’s presence went a long way in showing us newcomers that the Alt Right wasn’t just goons playing pretend Nazi.

    I remember the first time I heard Rogan talk about Milo, who I’d never heard of. Rogan was interviewing Jeff Ross, the comedian. Rogan went off on a long tangent about this articulate, charismatic guy who was taking on feminist sacred cows, and PC culture. When Joe finished, and it was Ross’ turn to respond, Ross (the fearless King of the Roasts) said, “I’m eating my lunch. I didn’t hear a thing you just said.”

  18. My gateway drug was Rudyard Kiplings Kim. Read it age 12 and always stuck with me. The old imperialists were right.

    We need our times Kipling. Instead we got Tom Clancy. Entertainment working on emotions creates stronger bonds than a political tract.

    • The British Imperialist writers were tremendously entertaining. including the hisotrians.

    • If you’re gonna compare Victorian to contemporary culture, I think you ll find that we re lagging in much more than just the poets of the time. Victoria’s age qas probably the zenith of Western civilization.

  19. The first red pill I took was when my brother, searching for answers after his kids’ mother forced him out, turned me on to Heartiste et al. I was so ready for the message that I adopted it easily. Same thing happened to me once Trump started talking about walls and Mexicans. I had always wondered why the GOP always ceded ground to the lefties, but once I expanded my reading to this blog, amongst others, the word ‘uniparty’ made absolute sense to me. I think the red pill applies to all areas of life, not just politics.

  20. Also, credit where credit is due: there is so much wrong with Ayn Rand, but she rips young people away from “the official consensus” in industrial quantities.

    No one over 21 can take her seriously, but she sinks the goodthink ship out from under you, and then you’ve got to find your own shore.

    She pulled me out of the bugmen in high school, and I never went back.

  21. Social Contract? Our elites ripped up the social contract (which for brevity’s sake, I’ll call the terms of the post-Civil War constitution and its regional accommodations), perhaps because they were bored with it’s success, and decided around 1964-65 to depose the old citizenry without their consent and import a new people to rule over. They succeeded beyond their wildest imaginings. Predictably, this has resulted in ever deepening social and political chaos, which after festering for many years has now entered a crisis phase. It’s why we’re here. We’ve noticed, even though we weren’t supposed to and have been scolded by the megaphone media that there’s nothing to see and by the way, you’re also a racist (the worst epithet in their book). But something else is coming, and the people here at Z’s are aware of it, and are aware that their thoughts and actions will be part of determining what that something will be.

  22. When the Tea Party organized the first gathering in my town a number of years ago i attended and was amazed, and pleased, that i wasn’t alone in my thinking. But i’m not a joiner. By the way, what every became of the Tea Party?

  23. Given how focused the alt-right is on biological differences between peoples and the consequent implications for immigration policy, why does the recognition of such require that we give up the Enlightenment? We only need a renewal of the 1924 immigration act.

    You guys rightly point out that the beliefs of the Enlightenment are incompatible with other cultures. Why should we give up the Enlightenment ourselves just because others cannot handly it? Why not just enact immigration reform to keep those others out? We largely stopped immigration between 1924-1965 without giving up the Enlightenment itself. Why the hell do we have to give it up just to enact immigration reform?

    It sounds like you guys want to cut off the nose to save the face.

    • Golly gee, yeah, those Ellis Islanders and their progeny handled pseudo self-government and rugged individualism so well that they elected FDR four times!! They felt the Enlightenment values right down to their bones, all right.

  24. Thank you, Z Man, for pointing out that there is no “social contract”. It’s a concept I hatefully detest. Like the slop the left liked to push in the 70’s about Affirmative Action being the “law of the land”. I often got a good laugh at a leftist when they couldn’t point out a single law confirming Affirmative Action. It was just another leftist post-horse, looking for know-nothings to embrace it. And I did this while I was in the Army! I stumped the EO/HR NCO with my question, “Name one LAW that confirms Affirmative Action”. Of course he was black, I never saw one that wasn’t. He got so mad when he realized HE had been had, I thought he would pop a vein in his brain. Social contracts and how we all got here to this current nonsense should be pretty well understood by now. The leadership that’s called for, is the one that tells us where we are going.

  25. My red pill was when I realized there were oceans of people like me. That I was not alone. That intelligent, normal men had explanations about my intuitions about race.

    For personal reasons my life kinda shut down from about 2013 to 2017. Barely paid attention to politics, or anything else in life. Then during the presidential campaign I kept over-hearing on other peoples’ TVs about an “Alt Right”. The TV always said they were neo-Nazi’s. So I didn’t ever bother looking into them. I knew the TV was exaggerating, but I figured it was only exaggerating about a bunch of moron yesterday men. So I didn’t care, and went on my way.

    I’d always kept a casual eye on Derbyshire. When I found out (much too late) that he was fired by NR. I kept a closer eye. Took me to Taki’s. Then on Derb’s podcast he mentioned a guy named Zman last fall and said Z was “utterly reasonable” or something. I was like, “cool, so there might be another podcaster who talks about demographics who isn’t ridiculous wacko evil.”

    From Z’s site and his links, I realized there was a real alternative to the boring fake conservatives that I’d given up on 15 years ago. That something had sprouted from it and it was NOW and COOL. It was the nasty Alt Right I’d heard the news talk about, but it was NOT, in fact, stupid.

    Funny, if the news had just ignored it, I’d never had known there was an alternative to gentry con. The Left introduced me to the Alt Right. I guess they had to since the Alt Right made such a ruckus.

    As for a red pill concept that I hadn’t considered before, I’d say Z (then others) turned me on to the idea of an overclass who have specific ideas against us. Cloud People vs. Dirt People. etc. That’s been an interesting one and I’m still trying to get a feel for it.

  26. “As a rule, the American Left has always obsessed over that which it sees as a genuine threat or that which is a mirror held up to them, forcing them to examine their own beliefs.” – The Zman (empahsis mine)

    That reminded me of this:
    “Thou asked me my name, Don Quixote, and now I shall tell it.
    I am called the Knight of the Mirrors!
    Look, Don Quixote! Look into the mirror of reality, and see things a s they truly are!”

    Man of La Mancha (1972)

  27. Bumped into my Congressman at the cigar shop two days ago and had a long, informative chat. He’s conservative, principled, sees himself as fighting for all the right things, but I got the sense that in regards to the dissident right, he knows we’re out here, but he doesn’t know where we are. Any ideas on when that might change?

    • We need to organize. The left has tons of email lists, electronic campaigns, which people forward to their friends and families and that grows the email lists, have meetups and protests. Since dissident rights are not pozzed whiners getting into everyone else’s business, we’re not out in the streets. There’s a lot going on online with the dissident community, but we need some good dissident right groups to collect and organize contact info. so we can start giving lawmakers an idea that the dissident community is a force that intends to lobby for things like immigration control (push for moratorium so they’ll be forced to settle for at least a decrease in numbers), welfare control (only temporary and only for U.S. citizens!!!), American manufacturing, protect 2nd amendment, mandatory voter ID, etc.

  28. My turning point was the Ross Perot campaign. No one ever really gave substantial counters to his points, they just demonized him. My trust factor of the existing political system fell to zero at that point.

  29. To Rush’s credit he rarely makes pronouncements on “doctrine” so to speak, but he is a highly astute observer of the left and he can usually predict their next move. I grow tired of listening to him because most of what he discusses is mainstream politics.

    Someone like Savage, an insufferable blow hard who loves toothless little poodles more than his fellow human beings, at least has a very uncanny instinct on issues and events so I might still tune in occasionally. But for the most part I too have given up on talk radio. Podcasts are the way to go!

    • Can you imagine what his show will be the first few weeks after that f*cking little poodle dies? He’ll demand that Trump declare a month of worldwide mourning.

  30. I just looked up what social contract theory is. It comes from John Locke and is the idea that governments exist based on the consent of those being governed. In general, this idea makes sense to me. You guys seem to have a beef with this idea. I don’t really see any credible alternative to social contract theory.

    What do you guys propose as an alternative to social contract theory? The only thing I can think of is some variant of anarcho-capitalism.

    Perhaps you’re expecting that technology (3-D printing, molecular nanotechnology) will lead to a true post-scarcity economic system like that depicted in the SF novel “Voyage From Yesteryear”.

    I get you’re guys’s obsession with HBD. I even agree with it. Different peoples require different systems. There is no such thing as a universal system or belief that is applicable to all humans. So different people can have different systems. This implies the “Thousand State Sovereignty” model as the future for humanity. I can assure you that the alt-right types are not the first to come up with this idea. I have a professor at graduate business school who also discussed this possibility in class….in 1990!

    • Let’s assume someone says the earth sits on the back of a giant turtle. They think this explains the world. Someone else comes along and disagrees with the turtle guy, who then replies, “well, what do you propose as an alternative? I can’t think of one.”

      The point is the lack of an alternative to the turtle theory does not make the turtle theory correct. We may not have a unified theory to explain the universe, but we can safely say the earth is not attached to a giant turtle. That’s the way to look at the social contract. It does not exist. It is a theoretical model at odds with biological reality. Once we can move past the faulty premises, we can start to think about social arrangements more in-line with the natural order.

      • One of the things going on these days is to realize that you must question everything. Every last darn thing you are told, about why something is the way it is, is generated by someone with an agenda to sell you. If you are not questioning things, you are mentally a sell-out to those who would manipulate your thoughts.

        • I certainly agree with you. I question everything. I especially question any attempt to limit my personal and economic freedom, and so should you.

          • Your last sentence will be the epitaph of the white race. Death by radical individualism.

          • We got a new principal at our high school. Ms. Silverstein. And the first thing she did was have a big mural painted in the commons of a kid standing alone in the wilderness with the words, “First and foremost I am an individual.” I was one of the most “individual” kids at my school, yet I suspected the concept. The clue was that it was from an authority figure. And this force was trying to push an idea on us so hard (under the guise of peaceful art) that she’d deface a perfectly good brick wall. You can’t answer back to a mural. Bitch.

      • You guys might be right that the Enlightenment is bunk. However, everything that predates the Enlightenment is even more bunk. This means that the alt-right really has no choice but to come up with something entirely new from scratch. You will have to look at the future rather than the past for some clue to designing effective social organization. It is coming to light that a lot (maybe all?) human cognitive and personality traits are biological rather than environmental. This suggests that you alt-right guys should pay attention to developments in neurobiology. Neurobiology is the science that underlies all human personality traits and behavior and, thus, any concept of social organization.

        One thing you have to keep in mind is that intelligent, competent individuals will never consider themselves subservient to any other kind of human. Indeed, the very concept of subservience does not make sense to such people at all. If your proposed system is based on hierarchy, the most intelligent and competent people would naturally be at the top of that hierarchy. In other words, it would be some kind of a meritocracy. It is pointlessly silly to pretend otherwise.

        I would look at websites such as Stephen Hsu’s ( and the like to follow developments in understanding of cognition and behavior. These sites usually provide links to the technical papers in this work.

        You might also look at what successful companies do to create more effective and productive organizations. This information is plentiful and easily found on the internet.

        • “You guys might be right that the Enlightenment is bunk. However, everything that predates the Enlightenment is even more bunk.”

          … I guess your utopia will leave us Christians behind, then.

          “If your proposed system is based on hierarchy, the most intelligent and competent people would naturally be at the top of that hierarchy.”

          … You must have missed Z’s post a few days ago about how highly intelligent people can be profoundly stupid.

          • What make you think that I would ever accept any kind of “non-merit” based hierarchy where I was not in the top class? Tell me you are no so delusional to think that people like myself would ever go for something like that.

            BTW, Christianity is no less a form of utopia than any other concept of social engineering.

            I stand by my point. Any further improvements in social organization can only be found through neurobiology.

          • Except that neurobiology has far too many unconstrained variables (known unknowns and unknown unknowns) to be anything close to science – it may be a good explanatory theory, but it’s got little predictive power. Predictive power goes up in direct proportion to the ability to constrain variables – make the known unknowns and unknown unknowns into known knowns. So far as I can tell, neurobiology is about as exact as sociology or the other soft sciences, which are simply apologiae for one sort of politics or the other.

          • Basing a society on Christianity will not work because many of us are not Christians and, thus, do not accept the authority of this religion. You would either have to create parallel legal systems (like what they have in Malaysia) or self-segregate into a Christians only society. The latter implies a “balkanization” of North America (which may happen no matter what).

            The problem with hierarchy is who gets to be at the top. Competent, intelligent self-starter types like myself consider ourselves to be fully comparable to any other kind of human. Thus, we’re not about to join any hierarchy unless of course we’re in the top class. Naturally we do not consider ourselves to be subservient to any other humans. We wouldn’t dream of it (LOL)!

            All of this is immaterial anyways. Those that would give up liberty for any other values deserve neither liberty or that other value. I am contemptuous of those who would give up liberty for any other value.

          • “Basing a society on Christianity will not work because many of us are not Christians..”

            Ah..but you will be master Luke…You WILL be.

            Your position is based entirely on a false premise… That there will be a need for a “parallel legal system” to accommodate your presumed ‘parallel society’… There will be no such society.

            Everyone who survives will be a Christian. If you live through the Crisis, you will happily embrace the Christian Society that will follow. It will be known as the “Kingdom of God”. It will work. Pray that your eyes will see it.

      • If, as you say, social contract does not exist, then pure self-interest becomes my only criteria for my personal life choices.

        • Justice, order, common purpose, these are goods in themselves. In order to attain those for your people, you may be willing to sacrifice on their behalf. Similarly, in order to attain those things for yourself, you may be willing to sacrifice your own interests. In order to maintain justice, you may tolerate behavior from the sovereign that you disapprove or the sovereign may tolerate behavior he does not like.

          A people’s conception of justice, order, common purpose and sacrifice is the result of their shared history and the selective pressures that have shaped them as people. Justice is different in Africa than China. Order is different in Europe than in the Middle East.

          • I am actually a “good neighbor” if that’s what you’re getting at. I see no reason to accept any limitations on my personal liberties and, in particular, my long-term life decisions other than to be a “good neighbor”.

        • Pure self interest has always been most people’s unacknowledged criterion for doing anything. The difference is that some of us recognize that reality, instead of coming up with a fancy theory and name for it, and yet still accept that in addition to self interest, there exists a cohort that really does value the greater good (with ‘greater’ defined as one’s people and nation, not all of mankind) as well. That while naturally prioritizing ourselves and our families, we also value our people and nation and genuinely want the best future for it, because ultimately that matters more than any individual, even oneself. No true nobility of character need be involved, merely the recognition that the parts do better when the whole is healthy or successful. Hell, at this point, most of us would settle for ensuring the whole (White people or Christendom or Western Civilization, call it what you will) merely survives all the current attempts to exterminate it.

      • You haven’t started shooting anyone yet, have you? “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

  31. I came to conservatism through the National Review gateway, but had to give up on them when the RINOs they had been pushing for years finally got into power and refused not only to follow through on their promises, but actually opposed the one man who is giving them 80% of what they claimed to stand for all those years. I can now see it was all a game of masturbatory libertarian preening while making a living within the liberal Overton window.

  32. While no one moment kept me from changing from an 18-year-old Goldwaterite to a standard-issue Leftist was that I just couldn’t accept that Happy Rockefeller was the oppressed and I was the oppressor. Homomania was just beginning then, and I couldn’t get past the yuck factor.

  33. I can’t remember when it was, but it can’t have been that long ago (geologically speaking), I saw Lou Dobbs being asked about “gridlock” in D.C. His response was that there wasn’t any gridlock, and as far as the GOP and the Dems were concerned everything was working just fine. I was like, “Hmmmm.”

    Later on I saw a picture of Mitch McConnell yukking it up with Dem Senate leader at the time (HIS MORTAL ENEMY!!! WTF!!!) and the scales finally fell away from my eyes completely.

  34. Political theory is post facto rationalization. While a system is functioning, theory might elucidate some details, but it never accounts for the emergence of the system. When systems function well, it’s because they suit the character of the people who make up the system. Liberal democracy works for some folks. The Big Man works for others.

  35. Evolution has been the natural process guiding the development of all life on the planet for about a billion years now. The civilization trait exists in just one species and has only been around for a few millennia. Natural order in the natural world arises from the culling process that occurs in a survival of the fittest environment. Civilization has fundamentally changed our environment and associated fitness drivers.

  36. 1) Technology (birth control and abortion) rather than culture explains the collapse in fertility rates over the last half century. Your analysis reverses cause and effect. The cultural effect of technologically induced declining fertility is that women go nuts when faced with the prospect of limitless professional and erotic opportunity unrelated to their primary biological vocation as mothers.

    2) “When you start from the social contract and the state of nature, the conclusion is inevitable.” Nonsense. Anton likes to argue from the social contract because it’s OUR social contract, not the abstraction of a social contract identical in all its characteristics with the various social contracts that gave rise to governments in the UK, France or the shithole countries. The government formed under the American social contract exists to fulfill the selfish purposes of the American people. Anton’s argument is that birthright citizenship for illegals is irrational if the American people are to be understood as bound to each other by a social contract.

    3) All this talk about the JQ doesn’t make us any friends. Remember Charlottesville? Forget the skirmishing with Antifa. It was all over when those boys started chanting “Jews will not replace us.” Where the hell would we be if Stephen MIller has used that as an excuse to leave the White House?

      • Im not so sure youre right, in the general sense. Maybe you mean that ‘that’ social contract, America the proposition nation, is a hoax. But if we don’t have some form of ‘social contract’ between ourselves (call it something else if you like, race/ideological solidarity?) we re just ‘rugged individualists. And we ll be done for one after the other.

    • Technology (birth control and abortion) rather than culture explains the collapse in fertility rates over the last half century.

      No, it does not. Your argument assumes people have no agency. Either before the advent of birth control they just reproduced like bunnies or after birth control they forgot how to make babies. Both are obviously wrong.

      Your post is a good example of thinking you can arrive at different conclusions, by accepting Progressive assumptions. It’s not possible.

      • “Your argument assumes people have no agency.” Well, I’m not quite as much of a libertarian as I aspire to be. In connection with the sex drive, human agency is pretty limited. The purpose, whether in the context of natural law or evolutionary theory, is to trick men and women into having babies. We have this in common with nearly all the other animals. Call me a Malthusian. And then one day it all ends badly when there’s a war, epidemic, drought or some other damn thing. BTW, which prog assumptions have I accepted? ‘Cause, in all sincerity, I really want to know.

        • You are putting the goalposts on roller skates. Sex drive is not the same as fertility rates. If people wanted more babies, there would be more babies. You deny this because you seem to think porn and birth control have magical properties, preventing people from having more babies. It’s simply an argument based in nonsense – feminist nonsense. “People have fewer kids because of education!” No, people knew how babies were made for a long time. The Romans understood that certain plants worked as abortifacients.

          I’m picking on this because it is a good example of the tendency of CivNats, BoomerCons, etc., to embrace Progressive assumptions, but hoping for a different conclusion. Abortion and birth control are symptoms, not causes.

          • “Sex drive is not the same as fertility rates.” Well, yeah. Sex drive is fairly constant, but fertility is an inverse proxy for material adversity of some sort, e.g., disease, malnutrition, natural disaster, etc. Birth control (did I mention porn?) is manmade reproductive adversity. Here’s a thought experiment: if sexual reproduction were completely replaced by cost free press-a-button fertilization, would fertility rates go up or down?

          • They’d stay the same. Babies aren’t the real cost. Its the two+ decades of care that are and people in cities will find that children a cost, not a benefit.

            Also sex drive is far from constant and Japan will tell you. There are huge numbers of people over there who rarely want or have sex and its fine with them.

            That said the US fertility rate in the 30’s and 40’s was around what it is today and there was little porn and only condoms were common (and not everywhere) which tells me that either people were chaste or having non reproductive sex with their spouses despite laws or taboos

      • The US TFR in the 1930’s was around 2 actually with a much higher infant mortality than now and it stayed low until the 1950’s or so

        That bubble itself was not as big a deal as you might think though. We hit like 1920’s rates for a couple of decades but what made all the growth was antibiotics and low infant mortality

        By and large the children per household has been steady or declining for nearly a hundred years maybe more.

        I’ll also note why I don’t think its Poz, the US hit “steady” in 1972 and the rate hasn’t varied in any meaningful way since than.

        We were not that liberal at all at that time, abortion wasn’t everywhere (its pre Roe) divorce was still almost always only for cause and so on.

        Despite the Cultural Marxists take over of the culture lately , the fertility rate is the same now as than.

        Its skewed a bit, Lefty types have fewer, Religious people a few more but its not shifted in nearly 50 years to any meaningful degree

        This seems to be independent of the economy , technology and society which suggest its a natural consequence of the way people live at certain levels of development

        It also suggests that other than removing foreigners we don’t need to do anything about the TFR and shouldn’t try as its independent of plausible policy options

        This decline is to be expected and so long as society is homogeneous enough, it will be fine, In time we’ll reach our societal carrying capacity and level out

        Likely we’ll breed a more religious population, fertility will increase to at least stable and it will self correct at a lower number.

    • How did ppl control pregnancies before birth control and abortions, I honestly don’t know??

      About the JQ, a lot fo ppl do as you do and stall on it. Some others go totally Himmler on it and focus ONLY on it. You re effectively talking political strategy when it comes to the JQ, saying it ll scare everyone away. Its the same w women and the vote. But both are sufficiently credible that they merit discussion, regardless of what conclusion one reaches on them (I haven’t reached a conclusion on either but now I think they are both worth looking at, to find out what one should think about them).

      There’s a difference between planning a political strategy and then discussing the issues, all the issues, as one sees them.

    • Birth control clearly plays a role, yes, but other groups such as Latinos and blacks still have high birth rates and expanding demographics, so the availability of birth control cannot be the whole explanation for cratering European populations.

      • Good point. I think it’s a question of both tech and culture mattering. Before cars there was no drunk driving. But the invention of cars is not the only reason there’s drunk driving.

      • The reason that African, Latino, and Muslim people have high birth rates is that religion and culture not only encourage them but in some cases almost dictate them, especially in Wahhabist Muslim societies where the expectation for women is that they’re barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, from puberty onwards, and with African fertility cults which accord status exactly in proportion to the number of females impregnated. In contrast, in European societies, it’s quite costly to have and raise children and there’s the constant threat of State intervention, so it’s just a pain to have children – hence decreasing birthrate. In African, Latino, and Muslim societies this State intervention is absent.

  37. My journey to the Dissident Right began as a teenager with George Will. Then I borrowed a book from a local public library – The Suicide of the West by James Burnham. I was blown away. From 1985 to 1994 I subscribed to The National Review and was an admirer of Joseph Sobran and Peter Brimelow. The National Review was still politically incorrect at times; e.g., running ads from the South African Board of Tourism while apartheid was still in place. I let the subscription lapse because of the obvious embrace of neoconservativism. In 1987, I purchased a copy of Chronicles magazine from a bookstore in NYC (!) and finally discovered the greatest thinker of the Dissident Right before Zman appeared on the scene – Sam Francis. I am such an admirer of Dr. Francis that I have two big binders with photocopies of his columns (one day they will scanned into my computer), additional columns and articles on my computer already and books on my bookshelves.

    I’ve been waiting for you guys and gals to join my on my voyage.

    • Finally reading Gibbon (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire). Despite the archaic writing style, the story is constructed as a set of fireside stories, each chapter dealing with an element of the story and a few of the players. One can argue about style and emphasis, but the thread I am already picking up is that the sweep of history is a thing all its own (in Gibbon’s view), and the “great men” or “turning points” are largely preordained, waiting for the specifics to fill in the details of the story. The Roman march from Republic to Empire to ruin has a lot of resonance for today. I feel like we are bit players in a tragedy that has already been written, waiting for the details of person, place, and time to be fleshed out. Where it all goes falls into a timeline that almost certainly beyond our childern’s children’s lifetimes.

      Interesting to me is that Christianity appeared as a wildcard in the Roman story, something inevitable in concept yet a surprise to the story. What is the unexpected, inevitable important element to our story? The civilizational black swan?

    • Steve Sailer is an excellent observer, researcher, and writer, but his tone of light mockery for the “foibles” of the left sours after too much exposure to the true nature of the rot. It’s fine for a while to joke that they’re absolutely nuts, but to suggest they perhaps don’t know what their actions are leading up to or how dangerous they are is thin gruel when, in reality, they want you and your children DEAD and all you hold dear destroyed, and they think that is funny.

      While some portion of his commentariat is wise and worth reading, far too many are boomer faux intellectuals who love to pontificate and lecture and pick fights over minutiae. I still read there and even comment, but I strongly dispute your claim that Sailer produces the most accurate view of the world (far too Californiacentric, just to start with).

  38. What’s relative to me is there’s a thing called cultural Marxism, a cult of sorts a very crazy ideology of destruction which wants to destroy everything I know, practice, cherish and love.
    I kind of have a problem with that, and have absolutely no intentions of being destroyed, and as things heat up, I’m ready to do my part as a Man of The West, Christian thank you very much.
    I think my legacy as a White Christian God fearing man speaks for itself, and implies everything good and right about being such a man in this great republic we call home. There are no other places like it. There is no place to bug out to. No safe havens and shelter from this storm coming.
    This is it. We are all in it together, and any and all good comes out of it begins with me, with oneself. It always has been that way. But it is all of us starting with ourselves where something unique originates. And if we are to survive as Men of The West that is how we make it.

    Its the human extinction movement and its little totalitarians among us who we got to be concerned with. Out in very rural farm and mountain dirt people land, not so much, but as you get closer to the hives of SJW’s and leftist paradise, it begins to be like operating behind enemy lines.
    Though dont get me wrong, the human extinction movement exists out in dirt people land, they have not become the hive of assimilating everything. Yet.
    But they sure stick out. And makes for a target rich environment.

    As for myself and other Christian Men of The West it is do or die time. It only remains to be seen what form, where the territory where we make our stand, armed violent redress and seceding from the madness of The State will take.
    There is no question there will be a fight between us and the human extinction movement.
    This is existential war. It is either we go down in genocide, or we win and will have to hunt down everyone of the sonsofabitches, exterminate them to the last one.
    There can be no truce or forgiveness. These psychopaths who created the Fabian long march started on this path to destroy the crown jewel of Christian Grecco/Roman Western civilization and culture. And its destruction is everything. This has always been the end game. Nothing less.

    I think it could not have happened any other way. The die was cast so long ago in early American history, nobody knows for sure where it began, and by the time Lincoln and his Marxists hit the stage of tyrannies history, there was no stopping this when the South capitulated in order to stop the wholesale genocide of its civilians from scorched earth strategy. It really has been down hill ever since.
    Sure its wonderful to hear and see America First, MAGA Bitchez!, all the rest, but, the body politik and the Amerikan Nomenklaturer is dug in like a tick on a hound, its sycophants and useful idiots are manifold, it will take wholesale slaughter to dig them out, or a large enough redoubt with the resources and geographic size, territory that can be held and secured, a critical element, cleansed and constantly watched for of every leftist scum, or it begins all over again.
    Are there Men and Woman of The West able and capable of doing this deed and defending this territory for posteriors sake?
    There better be, because at this stage, tho old battered Republic is one big ass piece of real estate, and hunting down every element and keeper of the human extinction movement may never be achievable.
    Remember, in the final analysis of what’s coming, this is a non negotiable priority. Not a one can be left to reinfect us.

    Sounds extreme?
    You bet your arse it is.
    Its a whole lot better than the genocide taking place and ramping up on us White Men of The

    • Rugged individualism is the best remedy for what ails us. The most one can do for the collective good is to look after himself. Nothing feels better than self reliance. Certainty: There are no collective solutions to individual problems.

      • Rugged individualism is one of the reasons that whites cannot respond as a group to the attacks from the anti-whites. It is one the clubs that our enemies beat us with.

        In a white society, rugged individualism can improve people, although it is mostly attractive only to English-derived people in frontier environments. In a multiracial society, it suppresses our willingness to respond as a white collective and leaves us atomized and helpless.

        If you respond to a post on the red pill with enthusiasm for rugged individualism, I suggest you have missed the point.

        • Spoken like a true cuck. You can surrender, I’m not going to stop you. Have at it. If your so desperate to surrender to tyranny, that’s your right. If anything, it is resistance is futile cowards who are a worse kind of enemy of us Men of The Christian West, because you are the great deceivers among us. Your cognitive dissonance is rich and sophisticated. How bitter and hateful, such nasty envy. Now, your not a troll our cultural Marxist agent provocateur attempting to hijack this comment thread from discourse about liberty and freedoms?

          Because your words are poison.

          • Doug, you re absolutely right about cultural Marxism. But LineintheSand has a point about rugged individualism. Blacks, browns, everyone else, see themselves as a group. Whites see themselves not as ‘white’ but as individuals. I like individualism but there’s a balance here. You talk about an existential war. Lemme tell you, no individual wins wars. There’s a reason the military is not hot on ‘rugged individualism’. Even if it has both its charms and its uses, in some contexts.

          • Rugged individualism is one of the most despised qualities of the cultural Marxist. A quality almost impossible to stamp out in Men who live by its precepts. Its obvious, lol around at the emasculation of men in the cities, metros, academia, and other Western institutions which have been converged by the long march. Seriously, good luck to you. Your going to be whishing you had some rugged individualists before this is over. Especially you Woman folk. You have been used as the most useful of dupes, what with the genocide of abortion, the woman of the cities have become whole generations of unwitting murderists. How can such a part of the female race even begin to grasp the concepts of rugged individualists, when they can’t even see they are participants in Marxian genocide? In any case, you didn’t read my full 1st comment. And missed the whole point of family tribe, community and precinct. Which had little to do with rugged individualism as a redress or remedy. It is the spirit and audacity, the motive power of such individuals who lead others by example, who represent a reference for never quitting in troubled times. You and the other commenters brush it aside caverlearly, when you have not lived such individualism, your comments read like revised history of the Frankfurt Institutes rewriting Western Christian Wrstern Culture.
            Even though, it is the strong who survive, and your theoretical political science is not actual living history, and we are past the ordered civilization of Republican form of government we are “guaranteed”, and into the neo-bolshevik stage of kill the Kulaks. Those who survive out in dirt people land will be the rugged individualists who form tribes and communities, its about being anti fragile, and living and surviving 4th Generation war in all its facets.
            Its about thriving under austere pressures, something which at least for the rugged individuals who populate the Appalachian Mountains in my area of operations, have centuries of traditions of family tribe and community. Most of us will hardly notice the shit hitting the fan. In truth, as Men in these mountains and hollows, rugged individualism is a high virtue, qualities which the Woman folk regard as the acme of masculinity and desirability.

            Another factor here, the days of the large State, Hobbes Leviathan are toast. Most haven’t yet been red pulled enough and seen how deep the rabbit hole goes to grok this eventuality. The worlds dirt people are revolting, they choose to return to small intimate Nation States, or even abolition of the state in entirety. Just look at all the secession movements.
            It takes rugged individuals, who understand everything begins with themselves before it is all of us. The future no matter how brainwashed or deluded the ideology of the statists and little totalitarians among us believe in their perfect dystopia, once again will belong to the rugged individualists, their families, traditions and their tribes, allies, and commitment to personal liberty.

          • Look, your defense of ‘rugged individualism’ (why not just say ‘individualism’?) is kinda cute. But its’ pretty obvious you know nothing about how war or combat works, or even politics. You wanna defend your bugout w your AR when Mexican drug gangs or desperate hungry city dwellers storm through your neck of the woods looking for food, on your own?

            That may make you brave, it certainly makes you stupid and hence dead.

          • Everyone agrees that a strong guy who is good with a gun is useful in a local crisis. Our disagreement is that you refuse to see that many non-whites see themselves as a tribe against the whites but the whites are too deluded to acknowledge it.

            Until whites stop saying, “I know this Mexican guy who works hard so we can’t exclude Hispanics,” we are going to lose. Most non-whites feel racial tribalism in a way that most whites can hardly imagine and that’s one of the reasons that libertarianism doesn’t fit reality.

      • Utter nonsense. And 4 up votes so far !
        Rugged individualism has cratered the West and left it open to ideological and demographic subversion and invasion.
        Rugged individualism is destroying us.

        • Aaaah. The chicken little moaning of resistance is futile.
          You miss the whole concept behind the individualism of Liberty.
          Everything begins with each of us before it is all of us.
          Have you ever wondered how such a tiny plurality was able to defeat the greatest Empire to exist, and to win for an idea nobody in recorded human history had before achieved?

          You come off as so contrite with your superiority of hatefulness.

          How sour and useless your words, cheap, how obsolete the excuses of the little totalitarians among us you sound to me.

          Too bad you have quit and submitted before you even attempted to make a stand for your God given primal rights. That is your choice and liberty

          But think, if it was not for brave Americans before you, you would not even have the freedom of your speech to begin with, which makes your comment a contradiction in terms on Crank.

          One day your gonna be in a real pickle, and realize you really fucked yourself. Because useful dupes like yourself, are cannon fodder for those who intend to destroy everything. You wont have any allies or legion to rely on. Nevermind the will to win.
          Maybe you will become enlightened, the more of us who will fight together for what matters most thr better.

      • Well I think that is really well and nicely said. Thank you for that. Appreciate you.
        You could not be any more accurate about the personal rewards and accomplishment of living day to day self determined, to strive to remain so, to persevere and never quit.
        Yes sir.
        That was one great insight you posted. I hope with all my heart others are inspired by your wisdom here.

        There are so many elements here, from the truth it all begins with each of us, before it is all of us, for that rugged kind of plurality is indomitable, to the personal wealth you create and retain based on the precepts of liberty.
        It is a mind set. Where the path to that rugged individualism leads to intrinsic wealth independent of false empty fiat.
        When others see you as focused, where your will and determination lead you to these forms of physical, spiritual, and self sustaining wealth, they begin to think, like a seed is planted, and as the Stoic Senneca put it, in the rich kind of fertile ground it grows out of all size to its diminutive beginnings.

        I think it is very important to understand such individualism has been sanitized from the dirt people living memory, yet these ideals of living liberty, set well with many, almost like a legacy instinct, or something in the blood passed down thru generations.

        You know, we are the only humans on Gods green Earth in all of our species existence to be born into liberty. That the 5000 Year Leap was a zeitgeist of immeasurable proportions, like Christianity’s birth, where for the first time in dirt peoples lives something created and nurtured hope and self betterment, of leaving better than you got the little bit of dirt below your feet where your liberty originates.

        There’s a lot worth fighting for here, things worth dying for if needs be, and everything worth winning for.

        I like many I’m so glad to say, am not going was into that long good night. Not even close. It is clear today, there exists a legion of us who will never say die, who are by whatever it takes will live free or die for what’s worth fighting for.

        And I’m very pleased to have received from that legion your wonderful comment.
        You made my day. Reinforced my motive power, and made our liberty that much more worth fighting for.

    • Radical Islam and cultural Marxism are two heads of the same Hydra, supported by the Left generally, institutions such as the UN, and many mainline Christian churches. A formidable set of foes. What they have in common is an empty space in the center, where the heart and soul of a person lives. Perhaps we do not exploit that so much, as simply stand against it. People with an empty space in their souls are ultimately mindless orcs, who make a lot of noise but don’t really stand for anything other than what they are told.

  39. I still have to live with my shame of having read or listened to George Will or for that matter, Mona Charen (my god!). My migration from normycon started in Reagan’s second term. When Buckley started his neocon aided purge of Sobran, Buchanan etc. I went with them.

    Blogs like Z’s or certain Youtube channels plus a handful of dissident rightists keeps me informed now. I kived long enough to see Sam Francis vindicated. That’s somethin’

  40. My first red pill swallowed was reading a Sam Francis article back in the early nineties. Right before that, I can remember watching Bill Kristol, who was presented as a conservative, on one of the talking head shows. I considered myself conservative, but nothing Kristol said hit home with me. I was confused as to what camp I belonged. Sam Francis appeared at the right moment and it was like the sun rising and I never looked back.

    • Kristol said “Gore is annoying” after a TV debate. It was perfect, and reflected my opinion precisely. I looked into him, and found the “Weekly Standard” was almost broke, so i subscribed to help them out. I renewed faithfully, and enjoyed most of the articles, especially the humor of P.J. O’Rourke until the announcement of Trump. Almost every article was critical of Trump after that, and i got tired of it even though i wasn’t a Trump fan, and cancelled. Now i see he is thinking of running against Trump in 2020. What an idiot. But he was right about Gore.

      • Kristol was right about Gore in a broken clock kind of way. Or a blind squirrel finding a nut kind of way.

  41. The way I look at it the problem with the use of theory to explain things is the limitations of theory itself. Theory can help to explain up to a point at which it is useless. Using theory to build something will be useful only up to a point, again, at which it becomes useless.

    • That’s like knowledge. Its good, but not as good as understanding. Knowledge leads to understanding at which point, it can become an impediment.

    • That is very like Garrett’s description of pre-cabal capitalism, which was still a proxy for liberty–Capitalism was not designed. It came not from thinking but from doing. In the beginning and for a long time it had no more theory about itself than a tree; like a tree it grew, and its only laws were remembered experience. When the writers of political economy began to provide it with a theory they had first of all to study it to find out how it worked. Many capitalist were innocent of its existence. What could theorist tell them about what they were doing every day?

  42. I don’t know exactly when it happened to me, but it likely came out of my background in biology and the obvious reality of genetically based human biodiversity.

    Nowadays I ignore the MSM and almost all cable and broadcast news. I do like the NYT crossword puzzles, however. I occasionally listen to Limbaugh, Hannity and Carlson but not regularly, and never a whole broadcast from beginning to end. I have contempt for the libertarians.

    I like Trump because he is a loose cannon, and the only source of creative destruction in our time. No doubt the Deep State/Cabal will become exasperated and kill him. If they do, it will signal the end of American.

    • Aside from eye-opening experiences, libraries used to be the only potential source of Red Pill moments; now it is the internet. We sometimes speak of gateway drugs to the dissident right. I can trace my journey through the various websites; the color of the pill on offer changing until it glows cherry red (hat tip, Zman). It’s also true that you can’t go home again; once truth has been glimpsed the former revelatory pundits become less relevant. I have a long list of websites I no longer visit, mostly because they cling to conventional political ideas and definitions.
      There’s no way of knowing how many adherents there are in Our Thing. Sometimes I think that I may be part of a truly tiny minority. Shunning all forms of popular media and focusing on sites like this, I wonder if I am misinterpreting the reality of our situation. That’s the Black Pill talking.

      • Reagan and Limbaugh were important elements of my journey. They not-so-much opened my eyes to new ideas, but instead gave me the perception that I was not alone in my thinking. The internet has broadened my thinking considerably, and I find that I migrate around quite a bit over time, with a couple of lodestar websites that I constantly return to. What to do with it all? Making sure the things that keep me up at night are worthy of my fretting, to be honest.

      • I was once a regular reader of Ace of Spades and Instapundit. Now I find their civic nationalism nauseating. Claims in the comments sections that the alt-right is a leftist plot to make “true conservatives” look bad really get my eyes rolling.

        • I still read Ace of Spades quite a bit and I think he leans toward the dissident, although he hasn’t gotten of the CivNat bus yet. I think he might given enough time. Instapundit and his ilk like Bill Whittle are still nauseatingly BoomerCon at times, but otherwise decent fellows. Lots of folks on are side are ‘compromised’ by our relations with the opposite sex so the CivNat train is appealing and rolls on. I have a bunch of friends who are married to wonderful women who are Latinas or Asians of one flavor or another, most of them christian and married for 20+ years now. It’s not a majority, but it might be one in ten, including my best buddy. That’s substantial road block from peeling guys off Ace toward Zman. That’s among the guys in my set who are in their early to mid 50s. Based on what I see walking about town out here in my small city in flyover country, I think the Millenials are mixing at probably twice the rate of the Xers if not more.

  43. My red pill was a book by Tom Baugh, “Starving the Monkeys”. Then I read “Hologram of Liberty” by Boston T. Party. (So much for muh Constitution.) The Sunday shows and conventional politics immediately became irrelevant and I started anticipating the collapse and realignment of the social and economic order.

    We may not be circling the drain yet, but you can see it from here.

    • I always thought that I must be fundamentally retarded or some sort of throw back to the 1700s because no political platform or discourse in the media made any sense to me. Then one day I happened to pick up pat buchanans 2008 book in a little library where I used to study. He laid it out so simply, the neocon agenda, the reasons we were in Iraq, etc etc. It was similar to the things going on right around me. it all made so much sense, I nodded all the way through. Within a week I was reading Burnham, vdare, culture of critique. Buchanan was my gateway drug, but I still do him recreationally every week!

  44. I stumbled into questioning the Enlightenment and Lockean liberalism, etc. perhaps a decade ago, but it was more in a spiritual/philosophical sense. I was more interested in the way that scientism and secularism made religious faith difficult to maintain. I came across references to Joseph de Maistre and JG Hamann and read Isaiah Berlin’s book about the latter. At the time I felt like this was a rather weird, esoteric thing to be investigating. Now it has, as you say, become more salient to actual politics/culture while the old left-right debate stuff is falling into irrelevance.

  45. I came here from the NRO crowd. Like you I was surrounded by progs and lefties, maybe the odd cuck. When I started experiencing the blowback of leftist culture I was told to shut up and take it because reasons. When no reasons came I was done. I flirted with neo-reaction, but those guys weren’t much better than progs. They told me to shut up because reasons too. Moved into the alt right and ran into shysters like Cerno and Vox Day… and when Milo came along I packed up and left.

    What impresses me about the dissidents is that they don’t get mad. Their heads don’t explode with cognitive dissonance when they err… they back up and re-evaluate. You can argue and debate here too, and get a fair hearing. The reactionaries and alt-right crowd piss and moan about censorship and free speech but won’t hesitate to use it on dissidents and heretics either. I am beginning to regard them as obstacles for people further left who want to move right; they are liable to run into that crowd , be turned off by the idiocy and just stay where they are.

    I personally think the challenge going forward for the dissident right will be to maintain that objectivity and willingness to confront unpleasant truths and realities. The other challenge will be keeping the loons from running away with the movement the way they did with the alt right.

    Patience and perseverance are the order of the day, IMHO, the left will destroy itself without any help from us. When the survivors over there get that red pill shoved up their rectums good and hard, they’ll need some place to go when it takes effect. In the times ahead I think we are going to need all the patience and clarity we can muster.

    • “Patience and perseverance are the order of the day” Yeah but… I follow south africa closely. When Black rule was established, i gave it 5 years tops. 20+ now, and they still have liberal whites, although fewer to be sure. My boss is a Boer who came to the US, because SA is so shitty. He recently adopted two children from somali, one with disabilities. (new immigrants woohoo!). I guess what i’m trying to convey (rambling about) is that i used to think that whites had balls. That when the nonsense started cutting into their ass, they would put a stop to it. Is this the same people that firebombed and nuked cities a mere 70 years ago? I don’t think we will be able to turn this ship around.

      • At times I feel as you do, but remember that most white people are not adopting disabled brownies from overseas.
        Most whites go along to get along lest they lose their jobs and/or social standing.
        You don’t judge white people by what they parrot in public. You judge by where they decide to live and where their kids go to school and who they socialize with.
        The overwhelming majority of white liberals are utter hypocrites about race, but they know, deep down, maybe even only on a sub conscious level, what is going on and they respond accordingly in terms of residential and mating patterns.
        Plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of those who seem amenable, as in those who aren’t screeching SJW’s. Point out the obvious hypocrisy that is white liberalism if and when you can. No need to be confrontational about it.
        Just point out simple facts as they relate to group differences or civilizational incompatibility.
        There is hope. All is not lost. Don’t cave into that nonsense. We have far more power than it seems.

        • When leftists talk about buying homes in “good neighborhoods” that have “good schools” they certainly aren’t picturing Paco living next door and V’Antavius down the street.

          Yet still they smugly brandish their leftist piety.

          • Oh yes, hypocrisy w/o ticking people off is an art to master if you want to rise in society lol

        • I sometimes work with a 32 year old “open borders” child who just bought a house with her fiance. It’s in a nice town that is probably 90% white. She is quick to point out that her house is on the “good” side of town, not on the side next to the overwhelmingly brown ghetto city that it abuts. Deep down, as you say, she knows she’s a hypocrite. As much as I like her – she’s a good worker when you can get her head out of her phone ( Millennials! ) – I also can’t wait to see her reaction as the ghetto spreads out and Paco or Tyrone move in next door to her new house.

    • I came from the NRO crowd as well. But do I have to be the first to mention the great John Derbyshire, and his boxes of red pills that he handed out?

  46. That entire argument about our “democratic traditions” is wearing thin. Democracy has historically played a very small role in our history. It did not last long in Greece, and representative government in Rome was essentially a long, drawn out food fight among aristocrats. And people forget that most of the Lockean concepts about freedom were incubated shortly after the horrors of the Thirty Years War, which ended in 1648. The basic human impulse of driving while looking in the rear view mirror was pretty much on display with John Locke. Essentially, we are a reactive species crawling around in our earthly petrie dish. Look at the laughable policies adopted by all the “wise” men we produced following the catastrophe of WW2. Sometimes, I just want to grasp my head in total despair. It would seem to me that humans create their politics on an ad hoc basis. We’ll stick with dumping pollutants into the air and water until it finally dawns on us that we’re dying from it. Then we change. Not before. And here we are again, this time drowning in a sea of brown while arguing over tax breaks.

    • The problem with “Democracy” (majority rules) is we aren’t doing it right. South Africa understands democracy, talking about changing their constitution to take the white man’s land without compensation. They have the majority, they use it. We have the majority, but rather than rule, we appoint Jewish and Latino women to the Supreme court out of some misguided sense of fairness? If we are going with “democracy” rather than Republic, let’s do it right.

      • Whites are only 4% of the births in South Africa, and 8% of the population at large. This is down from 25% a century ago. The current of black politics is to demand that as whites are only 8% of the people, they get only 8% of national wealth and jobs. And as that number is shrinking, blacks must always be getting more. The only way for whites to gain power is to raise their fertility and concentrate in a single region. A tall order, compounded by the fact that the Indian minority is (2%) is viciously anti-white.

        • “compounded by the fact that the Indian minority is (2%) is viciously anti-white.”

          They hate the ones (the British) who brought them to the dance, more than their African brothers who genocided them next door.

          I met an Indian from Uganda; Idi Amin killed most of the South Asians there, and drove out the rest. Oddly, I had never heard of it, and not a peep from the Holocaust crowd.

          I think the anti-white movement is soon to get very, terribly real. Still, that does tell ya who the good guys really are.

        • I dunno about the Indians of SA but I know about the Indians of India and they LOVE whitie (and, btw, no Im not Indian myself but Im involved, peripherally, in tiger conservation).

          I got into a bit of skirmish w both ‘the sole proprioter of the blog’ and some of his most die-hard fans when said proprioter made comments about Indians that I found to be unfairly derogatory.

          My thinking is this, us whities are gonna need an ally in this world where blacks, muzzies and Chinese are all starting to smell some real white blood. And the only obvious ally is also the civilization that is probably genetically the closest to whites, ie Indians.

          This goes for both in America and on the world stage. Whites are gonna be a minority in the US, none here ‘likes’ that but that’s just gonna happen. And China’s gonna be the big gorilla on the block ‘out there’. We’re gonna need a friend and maybe we cant find any. That’s possible and then that’s tough luck. But maybe Indians can be. And that’s something worth looking at. B/c we re gonna be playing for infinite stakes eventually. And so are they.

          • It’s “just gonna happen” as long as we keep paying for it. When the money runs out, the kids either starve or find another way to die, either case, it’s a check on population growth.

          • A majority of pre-school children in the US are non-white today. What are you gonna do to avoid being in minority?? As Z put it, barring some genocide or great plague that only or overwhelmingly targets non-whites, realizing that whites will be minority in the US is the final red pill. (some might call it a black pill but not sure). Face the facts bro.

          • It’s actually a very simple question – what happens when the EBT cards run dry? No more “free money”. What happens to the dependent populations then? Fifty percent of the high school graduates in Detroit can neither read nor write – and those are the ones who actually graduate. They’re unemployable, they come from generations of dependent people. Some of them may be parents of the preschoolers you talk about – and those preschoolers may well end up in the same situation – and probably will, too. If they’re unemployable and they’re dependent on taxpayer money to survive, when the tax money gets cut off, what happens?

            Short answer – Detroit turns into Lagos, without the oil.

          • You re basically talking about societal collapse, SHTF style. Granted, then all bets are off. But that might include bets that favor us.

  47. Is it obtuse to comment that the subtext of all this is biology? High faultin terms like social contract and rights of man are small adjustments in quality of civilization within predominantly European countries. Those words ceased to be relevant when the subtext of all political debate became tribal. Like that president of Singapore stated, when there are substantial fractions of different racial groups with strong distinct biological proclivities, people vote along tribal interests. The most common model for where we are headed is a Latin American style country, with a large colored underclass supported by “intellectuals” asking for an unworkable communism and a more or less military dictatorship maintaining an unstable order due to the sheer incompetence of the opposition. You can see it already—isn’t that Ocasio-Cortez practically socialist?

  48. The key red pill is understanding that Egalitarianism and the Blank Slate are lies, and have been known to be lies for centuries, created by academic marxists, and that the key purpose of most propaganda is to reinforce those lies…

    • Egalitarianism and Blank Slate nonsense are foundational points. Influential guys like Dinesh D’Souza and Charlie Kirk, preaching “Dems R the Real Racists” get young people going in the wrong direction.

    • This is the way to communicate. Simple, clear, and striking right at the foundation of the problem.

      It’s also important to keep repeating these ideas. Calmly and without anger. It takes a few exposures before people overcome their initial (programmed) emotional reaction.

      • It’s a process. You tell a man that the world is in fact round, not flat, and he knows that you are either a fool, a weirdo, or trying to put something over on him. But you tell him the clues he can gather to demonstrate it’s round, so that he will in time start tripping over them.

    • Smart people understand this whether they are willing to admit it or not. That’s what’s behind the calls to halt/defund research into the genetics of human group-differences in various traits. But behind that is the belief that it’s better to be “nice” than to be truthful when the facts are unpleasant.

  49. Once you red pill, your frame shifts. I used to listen to alot of local talk radio. After exposure to the dissident right I cant bring myself to listen to it anymore. My frame has shifted, and the guys I used to listen to don’t sound compelling. They aren’t saying anything important. They are are saying things but their words are hollow and superficial, unwilling to address real issues. I see them as controlled opposition now, the Vichy Right. I feel like John Nada from the movie “They Live” who wanders around and sees everything in a radically different way once he puts on his glasses.

    Many of these people dont mean to be controlled, but the fact they operate within a frame that is determined by their own enemies makes them unwitting accomplices in their own defeat and oppression.

    • I have the same reaction. It’s sort of insulting to watch a Ben Shapiro play the old tunes from the 80’s. First off, he was not alive then, so his Reagan romanticism is totally false. More important, it’s like “Ben, I know you know none of that stuff matters today. Why are trying to confuse people.” Then I remember they get six figure salaries and my fist balls up…

      • I detest Reagan romanticism, as I have come to detest 50’s romanticism. While i think 80’s society is infinity preferable to modern Pozmerica, it was Reagan who empowered the neocons and latinoised california and texas. He has become a kind of tribal fetish for the Vichy Right, brought out to mobilise nostalgic boomercons and those of us in Gen X who remember how much better things were then. But he is an unworthy idol.

        The same as the 50’s. Here the hard truth..the left’s critiques of the 50’s arent wrong. It saw the massification of everything, the systematic destruction of localism and the new technologies greatly accelerated the managerial bughive. They are superior only in relation to the following decades, where all the things that began after the war accelerated and worsened.

        • Detest? Mighty strong word to use when talking about Ronaldus Magnus. He had his flaws, but he was so much better than the previous administrations and the turmoil since 1968. By your self-description as Gen X, I’m guessing you weren’t a tax paying adult during the Reagan years. Those of us who were the direct recipients of Reagan’s tax & fiscal policies were mighty grateful for those 8 years. I don’t necessarily yearn for the return of those days, neither am I willing to trash a generally good President. But He did turn a whole lot of us into conservatives, and that shouldn’t be overlooked. [end rant]

          • He didn’t start the globalization engine, but he sure stoked the fire. Offshoring, mass immigration, and, on the cultural side, divorce on demand, are the offspring of Reaganism.

          • That’s not so. Offshoring and divorce on demand were being done and promoted before Reagan. And the “cultural slide” arguably started in the sixty’s with the left infiltrating universities, the media and Hollywood. As far as mass immigration that was the brainchild of Fat Ted Kennedy in the 60’s also. Reagan was the best man we had at the time we needed one. Don’t belittle the guy. Just like the vulgar, mouthy gutter snipe Trump is the man we needed now. Perhaps mostly because no one else can drive a leftist nuts faster than Trump. That alone is worth my vote.

          • The “cultural slide” has been going on forever, in the eyes of the contemporaries of each age. Wars, especially (think the Civil War and WW2), enable historians to mask the cultural slide taking place by changing the subject. The wars also tend to accelerate the slide, when all is said and done. Maintaining a culture is a matter of fixing one end of the house while another part rots away, and moving along making repairs faster than the forces of decay can do their work. You are never done, and the house looks quite different over time.

          • Ronald Reagan’s greatest acting role took place in the White House. But you’ll never convince his groupies of that.
            Most people spend their entire lives idolizing others, never realizing they play groupy to fake personalities, instead of working on themselves and learning to live their own life as lead director.

          • Ronald Reagan signed the nations 1st No Fault divorce law in 1969 and as such is directly responsible for the problems after. He was practically patient zero for the divorce Poz

            He also signed the 1986 machine gun bill and the much worse immigration reform of 1986 which gave us millions of central Americans and got us nothing in the way of future enforcement

            Tell me again why this guy was such a great “Conservative” president because I’m not seeing it

            If you are talking social Conservatism , Carter was far more of a Trad Con than divorcée Reagan was was

            This thing so many on the right don’t get is its not at all about money or a welfare state . Those are side matters of little importance at all.

            A real conservative society is ethnically stable and fairly homogeneous and has intact families and stable jobs

            Reagan eroded every meaningful facet of Conservatism except anti Communism and if that is the greatest Republican president? No wonder we are screwed

          • Reagan signed the bill allowing “no fault divorce” in California. He did it because of the sewer his first wife drug him through when she frivorced him.

          • A sure sign of the impoverishment of the conservative position in this country is the worship of Reagan.
            When we get a Putin, or an Orban, then you can talk about greatness. Trump is as close as we can get right now, and it remains to be seen how effective he will be.
            When we have a leader who boldly puts Jewish oligarchs in prison and chases the rest out of the country, and proudly champions the rights of the dominant population and it’s culture while actively suppressing the poz, then you can talk about greatness.
            Reagan was not that leader.
            Not even close.

        • Despite being in my teens and early 20’s during Reagan’s era in office – I don’t have the same romanticism for him that a lot of right leaning men I know my same age do. Probably because at the time I was too busy actually have to earn a living, put myself thru school – and just generally survive.

          I think it needs to be pointed out however – that Reagan was managed right from the start.

          The fake news media was hard at work even back then – and Walter Cronkite in particular was used to threaten Reagan and make him put Bush on the ticket as his VP. This is similar to how Barry Goldwater lost the support of the Republicans when he was nominated. Gary North has chronicled all of this behind the scenes machinations.


          I have discussed Council on Foreign Relations Team A vs. Team B for 35 years. I have seen two anti-CFR people get through the screening.

          The only exception to the vetting process over the last 80 years was Barry Goldwater. When he got the nomination, the eastern wing of the Republican Party walked out of the convention, and it would not provide the money to let him win. The media turned against him overwhelmingly. The Council on Foreign Relations members understood exactly what he meant in terms of a threat to them, and they torpedoed his campaign. They cared not at all that Lyndon Johnson would win. That was irrelevant to them. It is equally irrelevant to them today whether Obama wins or loses. He is expendable. So is Romney.


          Ronald Reagan also seems to be an exception. Here was one case in which the elite really did have trouble suppressing his candidacy. He was too good with the media, and he had already proven twice that he could win in California. There were no real leaders in the Republican Party in early 1980 — before Volcker’s recession — who were capable of beating Carter.

          As I have written before, two men approached Reagan at a secret meeting in Leesburg, Virginia, shortly before he announced that George Bush would be his Vice Presidential candidate. He had promised publicly that he would not put Bush on the ticket. Then he broke his promise. The two men who approached him were crucially important figures of the Establishment. One was in the media. The other was in foreign policy — a Rockefeller agent. They spent the weekend telling him, in no uncertain terms, that if he did not put Bush on the ticket, the media would savage him, just as it had savaged Goldwater 16 years earlier.

          I was personally told this story by Cleon Skousen, who had a nephew at that meeting in a menial position. The nephew was well-informed, and told his uncle what he had seen. One of the men is dead, so I will now say who he was. It was Walter Cronkite. The other man is still alive, and is extremely powerful. I choose not to mention his name. When he dies, I will. I do not want legal problems.

          Reagan agreed to the deal, and his first chief of staff was Bush’s number-one advisor, James Baker III. Bush appointed Baker Secretary of State.

          I have discussed the CFR’s vetting process here:

          So – you could say that what is going on right now with Trump is nothing new. Goldwater was a wrinkle in the Matrix – and was handled. Reagan was a wrinkle in the Matrix – and they handled him. As you pointed out – Ron Paul led a lot of people to the red pill. I know I was a big Ron Paul supporter – and watching the shennanigans that the Republicans and the media engaged in to keep him from winning was very eye opening and illuminating.

          Which is a big part of why I voted for Trump. Besides the fact that I simply cannot vote for a Democrat – Trump seemed like the type of guy who would upset the apple cart. When I hear about all sorts of crap being pulled against Trump – I think ” seems like the truth” – because I’ve got a frame of reference (the RP campaign).

          My take on Ron Paul and Trump? It’s – ” Ok fine – we tried to do this the nice way – now we’re going to do this the hard way”.

          I supposed you could add Goldwater and Reagan in there too. They were both relatively “nice” – at least in comparison to Trump.

          If the Swamp somehow manages to drive Trump out – well then we’re going to be at “OK apparently now we have to do this an even HARDER way”. The left seems to think that driving Trump out will lead to capitulation. I think it leads to shooting. I guess we’ll find out who is right.

          • Tremendous comment, carlsdad.
            I agree that the little-mentioned Council are the men behind the curtain.

            Any info on the CFR and Trump?

            (Whether handled or not, I’d like a decent guess on what we might expect.)

            Also, talk radio is 15 to 20% of the radio market. Heck yes we’re the wierdos.

            That’s perfectly alright, it seems to be the way significant movements and brilliant cultural innovations work.

            I’m in, all the way, do or die.
            I cannot, and will not, love the lie.
            In the immortal words of james wilson:
            “The first step along that path is to realize that you’ve been had.”

          • The masses still refuse to accept the fact that the shadow organizations (CFR, Bilderbergs, etc) actually have any influence on our elections, instead they still play by the same rules their parents and grandparents did, then cannot and will not understand they’ve been played the fool, again and again.
            America as we knew it WILL go under, on account of brainwashing and apathy.

        • Reagan handled very different problems in a very different era. He was first and foremost trying to take down the Soviet Union w/o setting off Breshnev’s 40,000 nukes. I think he was a great leader for that issue.

          Saying ‘he didn’t handle/prevent the problems we face today’ is a little like blaming Churchill for destroying Nazism ‘and thereby opening Europe up for multi culturalism’. Doh!!, one doesn’t follow from the other. We happen to know that Churchill did not want Britain to become multicultural b/c he said so during his 1950s premiership but regrettably by then he was in his late 70s and w several strokes behind him so he was a spent force.

          But generally, blaming patriotic leaders from a very different era, who very much had their own problems to fix, Hitler’s war machine or Breshnev’s doomsday arsenal, for not fixing OUR problems, that’s asking the impossible.

          • Churchill deserves a little bit of blame – as does the FDR administration – for any multi culturalism that followed after the Allied victory in WW2.

            The fact of the matter is that the FDR administration was riddled with commies. The Lend Lease Aid that we sent to the commies helped mightily in their war against the Nazis. The Frankfurt School moved to NYC after a stop in Geneva because they were fleeing the Nazis.

            We could have said “no thanks – you’re not getting in” – same as they did to Jewish refugees.

            Do you think we’d still see the same level of multi culturalism in the current day and age – if the Soviet Union had been destroyed during WW2?

            I don’t.

            The Nazis didn’t seem to have a problem cooperating with Muslims – but I highly doubt that they would have supported the influx of millions of black Africans into the Fatherland.

            There still seems to be unresolved questions around whether or not the Nazis really did try to make peace with England during and following the defeat of France. I do seem to remember reading something about how Churchill worked to defeat any of these efforts – and he is well known for having been “warning” people about Nazzis since the 1930s.

            I find it hard to believe that 5 more decades of commie meddling after WW2 hasn’t contributed mightily to the whole multicultural disaster that we’ve got in the current day and age.

            As such – I think you’ve really got to re-evaluate whether the “right” side won WW2, seeing as how we’re likely still dealing with the after-effects of the results of that war in the here and now.

        • When it comes to Reagan worship or even when some clown says “Dubya wasn’t too bad, he was a true conservative”, it’s always good to roll out The Conservative Test: ask them what their conservative hero did to actually conserve anything.

          We now live in a world of ten year old drag queens, men in dresses can take a dump in the women’s restroom, rape kangaroo courts are set up in every university where the accused are not allowed to defend themselves, etc. Seems to me like these TrueCon heroes did little or no conservation of the culture at all. Even “Ronaldus Magnus” did little or nothing to stem the tide. He put in more of an effort than every “conservative” since up until Trump, who is not a culture warrior guy at all. Reagan might get a D- on the Conservative Test; the Bushes get a nice big F, and if there was such a thing as an F-, that would go to John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan.

          • ‘…Trump, who is not a culture warrior guy at all’

            Uhm, Trump is in the white house because of the culture war. He is at once both a symptom of it (the man is a pop culture icon, having run reality TV shows) and an expression of rebellion against it.

            In an interesting way the Trump presidency is both an expression of advanced decadence and a rejection of it at the same time. He is the political equivalent of ‘particle AND wave’, which suggests you cant understand him only via logic.

          • Reagan wanted to prevent the nuclear war, planned and schemed and compromised, and did so. (He laid out his deliberate plan in diaries he kept when in his 30s.)

            I don’t blame him for being as blue-pilled as the rest of us.

    • Curious, that’s precisely what the movie they live is really about. It’s based on the book Twilight Eyes, where one boy is born with the power to see that some people are really goblins. Guess what the goblins symbolize!

    • They Live….good analogy. The majority are locked into the Narrative, their powerful psychological-filters reject anything that runs contrary to it.

      Consider the wailing and outrage on Facebook over that big game hunting Minnesota dental surgeon. What about abortion Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s House of Horrors? Where was the outrage over his trophies (hands and feet in jars of formaldehyde)?

      Most people have probably never heard of the story, and if you told them the details they would probably look at you like you were from Mars. They simply can’t process a story in which a black man exploits the misery of black women for profit and pleasure all the while big government turns a blind eye.

      • Big government did not turn a blind eye. Big government financed and protected him. I wish I could say they are only guilty of turning a blind eye.

      • The outrage over hunting charismatic megafauna is entirely racial in nature. If it was being done by black sportsballers it would be lauded, the the hunting industry would be well served to recruit wealthy black clientele. Rural Africans don’t seem to take issue with hunting as it brings jobs, and the megafauna damage crops/livestock. The main opposition is from First World whites that believe hunters are causing extinction. The real cause is black and Chinese poachers.

    • The number of people still listening to Limbaugh or Hannity is likely a pretty good measure of just how large the task ahead remains for the dissdent right.

      • Hannity and Limbaugh are also long time professional talkers. Over years of practice, they can be entertaining in a casual way that looks easy, but is not easy at all. It took these guys years to get good enough to attract a national audience. What hurt the paleocons the most was their unwillingness to embrace mass media. They wanted to write books and give speeches at conferences. That made them easy to ignore in the mass media age. The alt-right grew up in mass media and they embrace it. It takes time though.

      • Furthermore, if Hannity/Limbaugh were really committed they would be having people like Sailer or our Zman on their shows, or, at least be sending traffic their way.

        • John Hinds, that is true, but while Hannity and Rush mostly “get it”, they are not particularly interested in having people come on their shows and challenge their ideas and assumptions. They would rather hold the role of ringmaster in their own circus tents. That state of affairs almost always comes about when someone gets a big media presence.

          • That’s all true, but at bottom it may be that people who stay so busy 24-7–Hannity is the best example–are not reflective. They are in the business of talking and instructing, not listening. Nobody became dissident right by talking. The first step along that path is to realized you’ve been had.

    • My friends laugh at me when I tell them, I don’t listen to Rush anymore, he is too far left wing for me

    • They Live – excellent movie reference.

      “I have come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass – and I am all out of bubble gum!! ”

      Pretty much sums up what I think a lot of red pilled men think these days.

Comments are closed.