Our Conservative Enemies

Hunting around for material this week, I stumbled on some stuff from Conservative Inc. that reminded me of why so many of us threw in the towel on them and made the journey to this side of the great divide. It also reminded me that there are lots of people just starting the journey from Buckley conservatism or libertarianism. A lot of things readers and listeners here take for granted, they are just experiencing. It’s why it is necessary to go back and play the standards once in a while. So, I have a show about cuck-bashing.

A funny thing I discovered while doing research is that The Weekly Standard website is now for subscribers only. They used to post their stuff to the public, but now you need a sub to read their articles. What that means is my posts now have more readers than anything at the Weekly Standard. They claim 65K subscribers as of 2012, which is probably down to 50K now, maybe less. This site gets about 100K unique readers every month. My heart is an alligator. Let’s hope their numbers continue to fall.

It’s not all good news. I saw that one of the dingbats NRO hires to churn out pap for them was on twitter demanding someone be purged. The fact that any young people still think that crap is edgy or relevant means there is still plenty of work to be done. Like it or not, the cuck-o-sphere still has a vast audience for their surrender ideology. That’s why it is important to keep going over these arguments about the futility of Buckley conservatism and the danger of subversive neocons like Ben Shapiro.

This week I have the usual variety of items in the now standard format. Spreaker has the full show. I am up on Google Play now, so the Android commies can take me along when out disrespecting the country. I am on iTunes, which means the Apple Nazis can listen to me on their Hitler phones. The anarchists can catch me on iHeart Radio. YouTube also has the full podcast. Of course, there is a download link below. I’m now on Spotify, so the millennials can tune in when not sobbing over white privilege and toxic masculinity.

This Week’s Show

Contents

Direct Download

The iTunes Page

Spotify

Google Play Link

iHeart Radio

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On YouTube

https://youtu.be/lfFxlAwZ6qU

71 thoughts on “Our Conservative Enemies

  1. Unable to listen b/c granddaughter visiting, but note comments on Shapiro.

    His biggest sin to me is his arrogation of a right to group solidarity to himself and anyone he approves of while denying it specifically to white people.

  2. From the comments it sounds like an entertaining podcast. Gonna listen tonight out at dinner. I always worry when listening on my Bluetooth earpiece that it’s gonna glitch and broadcast Z thru my phone speaker for the whole bar to hear. “LOOK, THERE’S SIMPLY NO AVOIDING THE CONSEQUENCE OF IQ. SO IT’S NO WONDER THAT BLACKS…”

  3. Enjoyed today’s podcast, but I have a quibble. Describing media masthead cucks as the Progressive Movement palace guard is cute phrasing, but not accurate. In reality, they are fifth-column combatants operating behind enemy lines in times of war. They should be viewed as such and the harm they cause is quite serious and they should never be underestimated.

  4. Clicked on the Youtube link for the ending music and discovered they had flagged it as offensive.

    Wut?

  5. First, that Williamson opening was friggin awesome. I started out ‘well, well, we all know Z hates these F-ers….’ Then the evidence, the flip when it was time to apply the principle to Trump….I was ready to hang the f*cker lol As prosecutorial rhetorics that was bull’s eye.

    Now, ironic that you say YOU sound like a marxist w your skepticism of grey goo materialism. No, I think you got it the wrong way around. Marxism is THE grey goo materialist belief system. It’s the hyper capitalists who accepted the materialist first assumptions of marxism, not you, not us. That is why they can work almost frictionlessly together as ‘globalists.’ Anyway, good, got me hating conservative inc lol

    • A lot of people miss the fact that capitalism and communism share many first principles, and are both essentially globalist ideologies.

      • Hypercapitalism and marxism both have a 1-D view of humans as economic units. That is why they deny the existence of culture, race, biology, etc.

        Hypercapitalists accept Karl Marx’s basic assumptions. Then they reach different conclusions. Globalism is just marxism for those lucky enough to be ‘more equal than others’.

  6. It seems like we need to distinguish between “conservatives” like David French and Bill Crystal, in that one group is getting cucked and the other is doing the cucking.

    The first group is the cuckservatives, of course.

    But we need a name for the second. “Fakeservatives,” maybe? Meh, maybe we’ll have to stick with the old dogwhistle “neoconservatives.”

  7. Hysterical women of The Huffington Post
    Antifa writers for the Daily Beast
    Conservative Inc of National Review
    Bronze Age cult

    Lots of great nomenclature in this podcast. I’m going to be using all of that but I’ll give you credit

  8. Want to know what today’s elegant criticism of conservatism would be like if re-written by Mickey Spillane? Well, wonder no more:

    https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2018/10/25/ben-sasse-is-everything-wrong-with-elite-conservatism-n2531362

    Didn’t know much about this guy; I guess I wrote him off a while ago as an establishment or alt-light guy who tried to look cool by dropping lots of f-bombs. But he’s sounding pretty redpilly now. He even names (*cough*) names.

    But he’s a good example of a guy who sneaks into the real dissident right (note his telling use of “Conservative Inc.”) and carries its plundered treasures to different audiences in simplified form (cf. Coulter, Carlson). I bet he’s listening to the Zman with the door locked right now.

  9. Z: “This site gets about 100K unique readers every month.”

    I’ve heard you say this before. I don’t doubt you. And I’m thrilled if it’s that much.
    I’m just surprised by that number.

    So you’re saying you have about 100,000 consistent readers every month. That’s the capacity of the Rose Bowl, including fans filling the field.

    That’s a lot of people.

    https://www.discoverlosangeles.com/blog/rose-bowl-stadium-story-la-icon

    Let’s say you average about 100 comments per post.

    So that means that only 1 in 1,000 of your readers submits comments.

    Or, say, 30 Zman posts per month, gets about 3,000 comments per month (from many regulars, and some random visitors).

    However you slice it, judging by comments vs. stated readers per month, it’s hard to fathom 100K. I guess going on comments is a terrible way to estimate a blog’s popularity. There must be a lot of shy people out there.

    • A tiny percentage of readers ever comment. This is also true of talk radio, where a tiny number of listeners bother to call in. Message boards work the same way. Fewer than one percent of members bother posting. In radio they actually use call volume as a proxy for listenership, but i don’t think it works the same way on-line. A site like this is less inviting of comments, while the short blog/paste-and-comment style is much more interactive.

      There may be a way to estimate traffic by comment volume, but I’ve never been able to do it. Look at Brietbart that gets tens of millions of readers. They get 20K comments. The WaPo has similar traffic, but get a tenth of the comments.

      I just use the server logs, netting out robots and crawlers. I have no way of knowing how many of the 100K is regular. I just assume most of it is the same people, but I could be wrong. I tend to visit the same sites every week. I assume others do the same, but maybe not.

      It’s an interesting subject though.

      • Constant visitor, but rare poster, it’s a show of respect (not endlessly posting) to your high IQ regular crowd.

        Better to keep the online ego in check, instead of posting thoughts that do little more than echo….echo….echo…

  10. Off topic, your last three podcasts haven’t shown up on Google Play. Your old ones are all still there, but the most recent one showing there is Episode 61.

  11. Your shapiro comment is so bullseye. (People come to our side when they realize guys like shapiro are not on our side)

  12. “Benny Passports” is hilarious. It’s like the best Mob nicknames — hilarious, sad, and terrifying, all at the same time. Did you coin it?

  13. Good observations on the Ben Shapiro beenie. In his defense, perhaps he is merely signaling his religious devotion, a practice generally acceptable among Republicans. Exhibit kavanaugh’s “I will pray for that woman!” Lol. But hasn’t that always been part of the Jewish strategy? The chameleon nature of is it a religion or a race? Either, both, neither, what is more politically efficacious for the issue in question?

    I frequent these millennial chat rooms for things like magic the gathering and video games, and they are very pc on identity and race, but they are almost applauding and eulogistic of Jews and calling them “members of the tribe.” They find it cool, just awesome, but any other form of exclusive identity would be bowled out of the room, like tiny duck! I think it shows the level cultural hegemony that Jews have achieved in twenty first century America, that this level of exceptionalism is countenanced and accepted without reflection.

  14. Greed – I feel like I’m in a race to accumulate enough “fuck you” money before the PC police locate me and end my ability to earn a living.

  15. Romney is the new Nelson Rockefeller of GOP liberalism. To call him an anti-Southern bigot is an act of restraint on my part. The fact that the people of Utah fall for this jerk is making me re-think what kind of cucks live in Utah.

    • As i told my coffee group at the time, anyone gullible enough to believe Joe Smith was a prophet of God is too gullible to be president.

    • Inbred cucks (due to a closed gene pool) are the kind you get in Utah. Lots of fukked up DNA in Utah.

    • As odd as Mormonism may be, I gotta say that all the Mormons I crossed paths with or worked with over the years have been polite, professional, industrious and many were goodlooking people as well. I rather think it’s the result of their Christian (such as it is) religion that makes them hardworking and decent. I bet that’s how most whites used to act before we abandoned God and going to church in exchange for moral relativism, nihilism and black ghetto culture. We could do with more whites like that in our country. (Just without the Mormonism!)

      • The ones I have known have been very nice too. But like any closed group, there’s a lot of nasty things going on behind the scenes. Look at poor Marie, does she strike you as having had a good life?

  16. “Get the biology and culture right and economics will follow.”
    Agree. I think that the economic system matters very little to the well being of a society, within the extremes of perhaps the most repressive form of communism and the most laissez fair capitalism, it doesn’t matter all that much, there is a broad spectrum of workable.

    • I’m old enough to remember when the Left would point to Sweden and Denmark as example of how socialism could work. Both countries were happy and healthy, despite heavy taxation. They were not wrong, in that both countries were happy and healthy. Their traditions, culture and demographics made Scandinavian socialism workable.

      • Their relatively small size, combined with a sense of accountability across the culture, have been very important. A large system, without widespread accountability, allows the economic sloth and huge “skim” that has always debilitated large-scale socialized systems. Small scale systems without accountability fail similarly.

        • Agreed. I’ve always aid that socialism at a national scale is doomed in the US, because Americans are terrible at the things socialism requires. America is a land of nations, not a single nation. For example, the New England states could probably come up with a universal health insurance scheme that works for them. Perhaps excluding Maine. That would never work in the South, where the demographics are wildly different.

          The thing with the Scandinavian cultures that gets lost is their “sharing economy” predates socialism. The same is true of the social flatness. For centuries, the people in that part of the world had to have a high degree of economic cooperation in order to survive. This seems to be common with all fishing based societies. You can’t fence off the sea, like you can land. That means there was selection for the sort of traits we associate with Scandinavians.

        • And letting them immigrate here, in the mid to late 1800’s is why the midwest is semi-socialist in their voting.

          Also, as their traditional culture has rotted away over the last 50 years, their social model has also broken down. More and more people started free riding.

  17. That was a good piece on Ben Shapiro. I admit I don’t follow Shapiro much, but the little I did see of him was entirely palatable – I disagree that he only punches right – he has a mean left hook and he uses it to devastating effect. He can reduce Lefty to a gobbling, hysterical wreck almost as effectively as you can.

    This bomb thing sticks in my craw too, to be honest. Yes, I can concede that this is just some false flag thing, and wouldn’t be surprised if it were at all. But… dammit…laughing about this kind of thing ain’t right either. What that does is open the door for Lefty to reciprocate and escalate. And he is dumb enough to do that too, we know he is. Of course the flip side to THAT is that we are heading for a civil war anyways, so arriving at that a little sooner rather than later is not really an issue, I suppose. It would be timely to remind YOU, Z – take some extra care for your own personal safety. There is going to be blood shed before this is over.

    I personally think Ben means well, but he is just one of those jews that has a knack for pishing everyone off.

    • If you are pro-Trump (and I don’t know if you are or aren’t) then Shapiro is unequivocally a rat.

      • I am for anyone that puts a boot up Lefty’s arse.
        I strongly suspect that Shapiro is only one good boot away from the red pill. There’s lots of people that are just like him.

        • That’s thing with guys like Shapiro. He always remains just one click away from the red pill, because his job is to guard the border. That’s why he is at that place. He’s there to remind you that what lies beyond him is “not who we are”.

          • There’s a very good essay in “A Fair Hearing” arguing that the real dividing line between cuck-right and alt-right is (1) race realism and (2) awareness of the JQ. Those are exactly the two things that Shapiro is at the gate to guard against. Note all the labels that he and his compatriots will slap on you if you try to cross that line: “racism”, “anti-semitism,” etc. Career-ending labels. Those labels are the weapons of the border guards.

            https://www.amazon.com/Fair-Hearing-Alt-Right-Members-Leaders-ebook/dp/B07CZ3VTXN/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1540580740&sr=8-1&keywords=a+fair+hearing+book

          • Well, I know I am going to get egged for this – but let’s face it, Ben’s problem is obvious. You’ve seen the guys on your blog that either rightly or wrongly hate Jews. You yourself, if I understand you correctly – are divided on the Jewish Question as am I. Of course we are going to scare the chit out of him and anyone in that demographic that wants to otherwise come to our side.

            But I can be reasoned with. If the nutter anti-Semites want to make soap out of the Jews that seriously deserve it – like the Goldberg’s, Feinstein’s and Weinsten’s etc – they should be allowed to go for it. Jews that actually give a chit for the rest of us besides themselves – they deserve a fair shake from us at the very least. And just so that The Usual Suspects can’t scream “RACISSSSS!!!!” – there are plenty of leftwing white people that need to be fired out of a cannon too. That, I think is my stance on the Jewish Question: take them one at a time just like you would with anyone else.

            That’s the way it looks from my seat in the Peanut Gallery. Like I said, I haven’t seen much of Shapiro, but from what I have seen – he seems to have ammo for his arguments to a certain extent.

          • A couple of years ago I was convinced by an alt-Jew that guys like Shapiro are bad for Jews. By playing the double game, he polices not only whites moving this direction, he polices Jews moving into Team Whitey. The ben Shapiro types literally demand divided loyalty among Jews.

            That said, I don’t care enough about Tribal politics to think much about it. My focus is on Team Whitey. I figure if whites start rooting for their own team, the rest will take care of itself.

          • In any war lots of good people are going to get hurt. I am with Team Whitey too, of course. Taking the discussion outside of politics, the Jews are going to test us to our moral and ethical limits, and probably beyond. They’ve tested their Maker often enough if the scriptures are to be believed.

            I will need to study Shapiro. Like Jordan Peterson, he might still be a useful tool for flanking the left.

  18. I never read any of the “conservative” negro writers (like Walter W) because in the end, a negro is a negro is a negro. That’s just the way the DNA goes…

    • Your loss, Dumbo. Thomas Sowell is several magnitudes your superior in intellect. You might learn something, but probably not.

      • He’s anti-Trump so how smart is that? You can keep your magic negro, and rub his head for luck on occasion. Please tell me one original insight of Sowell’s?

      • Maybe you could give us a summary of one of his books you’ve read? You did read at least one of his books, didn’t you?

    • If you think nobody from a low IQ group can have a high IQ, then you clearly have no idea how DNA goes.

  19. Mr. Man,

    It seems to me that there is still a lot of free, yet still over priced, stuff up on Weekly Standard. Check out this little ditty from on of our “fellow Conservatives”:

    https://www.weeklystandard.com/adam-rubenstein/steve-king-says-he-didnt-know-faith-goldy-was-a-white-nationalist

    We really need to get away from the “Conservative” label. It muddies the water. There is going to be a battle for the Republican party starting in 2020, but in earnest in 2024, between the voters and the gaslighting of our “betters” like this slime ball.

      • “Steve King says he didn’t know faith goldy was a white nationalist”

        Heh. It gets harder and harder to know what is the precise mixture of willful stupidity and actual malice with these f!cktards; at least with the Chosen you can pretty much always assume “malice”.

        “White nationalist” and, even better, “white supremacist” are deliberate, malignant misrepresentations of what any sane, thinking person understands to be the actual key issues. It’s not a new thing to weaponize horseshit, but all the same, weaponized horseshit it is. Onya, Faith Goldy.

        • Yes, Lester Fewer, it’s almost impossible to overestimate the importance of the shorthand names used to describe positions. We can complain till we’re blue (or red) in the face that these terms don’t capture real-life subtleties and variety, but every advertising copywriter knows that a slogan is worth a thousand words of argument.

          Some suggestions for replacing standard journalese:

          Instead of white nationalist: white defender. White supporter. White advocate. (No, they’re not thrilling, but they have the advantage of sounding inherently neutral or “fair,” like “civil rights.”)

          And please, instead of “It’s okay to be white,” which is wobbly and defensive, “It’s good to be white.”

          • I would go with the simple and matter-of-fact “White preservationist.” Put it in simple environmental and ecological terms, which of course it in fact is. This is at bottom not a question of “supremacy”, but rather an ecological question about the preservation of an endangered subspecies whose flourishing is demonstrably of vital importance to the survival of the species as a whole.

            The argument is quite plain:

            1) It is manifestly evident that an overwhelming percentage of human prosperity derives from the White subspecies.

            2) However, because of easily enumerated and readily understood biological and sociobiological circumstances which cannot be avoided, the White subspecies is not capable of successfully reproducing and thriving, except in supermajority White territories and populations. Simply put, the Brown and Black subspecies are capable of thriving in any environment, but the White subspecies can only thrive in a White environment. That’s just genetics, folks — which is also a White creation, like every other damn thing.

            3) Preservation of the White human subspecies is mission-critical to the survival and prosperity of all the other human subspecies. White extinction or extermination leads to the eventual extinction of the entire human species.

            4) Due to the unusually high (well, stratospheric) creative, mediational, and empathetic nature of the White subspecies, Whites create a “tragedy of the commons” wherever they go: viz., Whites create superior stuff in their territories, which creates an attractive nuisance, drawing in non-Whites incapable of making their own cool stuff, which leads to the fouling of the White breeding territories (non-Whites destroy White territories merely by their very presence), which leads to White decline. Repeated often enough, this spiral will lead to the destruction of all cool stuff. Despite the misguided applause of Retards of Color at the notion of White decline, in fact the absence of Whites will cause non-Whites to enjoy a highly fulfilling future of mud huts, cholera and typhus.

            5) The solution to this problem (a problem of existential concern for all humanity) is both simple and painless: Whites require, as a necessary condition of their existence, a substantial Whites-only territory in which they can reproduce and thrive. This is to the demonstrable benefit of the entire human species. Europe from the Atlantic to the Volga Basin, plus North America north of say the Tennessee River Valley should suffice. The rest can be multicultural: glorious POCs will have the rest of the planet to roam around in and foul up.

            None of this is “supremacy” or “hate”: it’s just a clear-eyed view of plain reality.

          • Yes, all your points are great. I was thinking “White Americans” because it’s a broad term simply indicating that white Americans built the wonderful country that all the brown people wanted to come ruin. It’s both a reminder as well as a promise.

      • Weird. You’re not missing much, other than some humor:

        “America’s most deplorable congressman is back…[blah blah blah]…

        “[D]uring a…trip to Poland to visit ‘Jewish and Holocaust historical sites’ King ventured into Austria—on his own dime—to meet with members of its far-right Freedom Party…the inheritors of party founded by those who helped perpetrate it.

        …[blah blah blah]…

        ‘What does [mass immigration] bring that we don’t already have?’ King said in [an interview with a Freedom Party-aligned publication]. ‘Mexican food, Chinese food, those things—well, that’s fine. But what does it bring that we don’t have that is worth the price?’

        …[blah blah blah]…

        “[The interviewer called this] the ‘Great Replacement.’ King responded, ‘Great replacement, yes. These people walking into Europe by ethnic migration, 80% are young men. They are somebody else’s babies.’

        …[blah blah blah]…

        All point and sputter and “really, just really.” No counter arguments. But here is what REALLY got under Mr. Rubenstein’s skin:

        “In an interview with Iowa’s Channel 13 News [the interviewer, after citing criticism of King by the Weekly Standard, said], ‘that’s not a left wing publication.’ [King responded], ‘Well they’re heading in that direction…. [T]hey have separated themselves from the conservative wing of the Republican party very clearly. And they’ve been anti-Trumpers for some time now, for some months. So anyone who’s a conservative is more likely to be a target than an establishment Republican.'”

        Mr. Rubenstein called this response “priceless.” I agree, but for completely different reasons!

      • When I clicked on it a pop up said they were giving me a free 3 day pass. I assume after that is over it goes straight to the login screen. National Review has gone to a limited access to their site as well, I think you get 5 free articles before they ask for a subscription. Of course, you can always use a different browser or delete cookies to get around it. I would say they are crazy, but National Review is near the end of a fundraising drive with over $210,000 raised from 2,120 donors. You are right, there are a lot of people out there still falling for the garbage Conservatism, Inc. produces.

        • Regarding their fundraiser, I’m actually shocked at how little they raised and from so few people. They have been at it for two months. Jordan Peterson does five times that number. Molyneux probably makes twice that now from his operations. NRO has the benefit of access to the megaphones and the donor class.

          That said, Conservative Inc in a billion dollar operation with hundreds of people supported by it. Maybe thousands of people.

          • I really know nothing of fundraising or tax law but I’ve been wondering recently whether these NR fundraisers are shams. Maybe in order to pretend to be a nonprofit so billionaires can write off their donations you have to periodically pretend to ask for contributions from the public. 210K barely pays Goldterd’s salary so that little money can’t possibly make or break them.

      • I could copy and paste the whole column in the comments section or just tell you that the author’s name is Adam Rubenstein.

    • (((Adam Rubenstein))) is so intelligence-challenged an SJW that he actually quotes Steve King’s perfectly valid comments, thus giving King some intellectual shelf space. We need more synthetic conservatives like Rubenstein.

Comments are closed.