Optical Delusions

This post from last month drew a lot of responses, mostly from people who did not want to go along with the conclusions. Someone made a 20-minute response to it on YouTube, making what they call the defense of the big tent. In light of the recent controversy over Nick Fuentes getting banished from YouTube, it is a good time to revisit the whole issue and the topics that surround it. Fuentes is probably the best known purveyor of the good optics argument, so that is highly relevant to this.

For starters and to clarify a few things, the creator of that YouTube response makes some mistakes that are common in these discussions. The first one is to frame the issue as between a big tent and presumably a smaller tent. That was not the point of the column and that is not the issue at hand. One can have a broad-based movement that also excludes people who think they are Roman emperors. Even the biggest of big tent claims have limits on what is and what is not accepted.

The second claim is to conflate the term dissident right with other sub-cultures that may or may not have claims to being right-wing. It is a form of binary thinking to define right-wing as anything not tolerated by the Left. The goat blood drinking pagans calling themselves Roman emperors may not be liked by the Left, but that does not automatically qualify them as dissidents or even right-wing. The left is not all that fond of scientists these days, but most scientists are not right-wing.

Then there is the use of the term dissident. In a generic sense, sure, lots of people would fall under the definition. Anti-Semites, for example, are in dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy on antisemitism. That’s most certainly true. Would that put them in the same club as someone like John Derbyshire, the guy who coined the term dissident right twenty years ago? How about Steve Sailer? Calling all of these people dissidents is as useful as calling them mammals.

The fact is, what distinguishes the dissident right from the conventional right is not just opinions on the human condition and biological reality. What ultimately divides the two camps is the lack of ideology among the dissident right. It is the old Russell Kirk observation about Right and Left. Conservatism is not a set of ideologies, but the rejection of ideology. Conventional conservatism has embraced the Left’s ideological views on human nature, which is the roots of the dissent among the dissident right.

This divide also exists within dissident circles. Anti-Semites, ethno-statists, fascists, third positionists and so on are ideologues. The root of their dissent is they have a different vision of the model society from prevailing orthodoxy. Similarly, they are never in doubt about the possibility of it. Like the Left, to quote Kirk, “they see politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society.” That is an important difference between them and the dissident right.

Now, in the YouTube clip, the narrator makes some of the common claims about optics and “punching right” that are popular in certain parts of dissident politics. For example, he claims early on that the alt-right was ruined by the media, who highlighted weirdos and lunatics in their coverage. In reality, the alt-right was doomed when the face of it became a narcissistic dilettante, incapable of organizing a one car funeral. A serious movement never would have tolerated Spencer as the leader.

The whole Spencer fiasco puts the lie to the claims by some that optics are unimportant in their politics. The sole reason Spencer rose to become the face of the alt-right is he looked good on camera. He presented an appealing face to the cause, so he quickly became the face of it. The reason why some of his former followers stick with him is they think he makes their cause look good. It is nothing more than a coping strategy to pretend appearances don’t matter. They always matter.

Another point that needs emphasis is that the whole “no punch right” business was the creation of people trying to sneak into more legitimate politics. You never hear this from people who can function among normal people, despite holding heretical views. It was the dubious claim that a right-wing movement cannot have legitimacy unless it is tolerant of people who have not updated their views since the 60’s. It was, in the end, an effort to co-opt dissident politics by the 1.0 crowd.

Then there is the issue of taboos, which is raised at about the ten minute mark of that YouTube clip linked above. Unsaid, but implied, is the claim that excluding certain people from dissident politics reinforces left-wing taboos on certain opinions. The claim is that excluding people, who are bad for the image of the group, automatically gives legitimacy to the left, by reinforcing left-wing taboos. In other words, trying to present a good image is playing by the Left’s rules on politics.

This is the error of all reactionaries. Instead of developing an internal logic that naturally results in a set of rules and standards, the reactionary simply responds to what he perceives to be his opponent. To be a reactionary in a society run by ideologues is to be a rebel without a cause. Whatever the people in charge of for, the rebel is against and whatever is taboo, the rebel embraces. The modern reactionary is someone who puts a leash around his neck and hands the other end to his opponent.

It also relates to the optics debate this way. Imagine a society that has been ideologically tuned to associate the color purple with heresy. There are regular ceremonies where the bad people are dressed in purple and defeated by the good people. To go around wearing purple would certainly challenge the taboo, but it would also convince most people you are nuts. Unless you have the power to dispel the taboo, breaking them just gives the people with power the chance to reinforce that taboo.

The irony of the reactionary is that ultimately, he embraces the core starting point of all ideologues and that is the binary universe. The ideologue sees the world as white hats versus black hats, good guys versus bad guys. You are either inside the walls with the good people or outside the walls with the bad people. Those taboo breaking reactionaries, with their disdain for optics, embrace the same view. You either break the taboos or you must embrace them. There is no middle ground.

This is why reactionaries fail. Most of life is in the vast middle ground of exceptions, conditions and contradictions. Most people get that. They get that politics is always about trade-offs, half-measures and compromise. You don’t win them over by being as fanatical as the people you oppose. You win them over by juxtaposing your apparent reasonableness against the fanaticism of the prevailing order. You do that by making concessions to their morality. You don’t wear purple.¹

There is the final point worth making here. Those who deny the value of presentation always say, “The Left is going to demonize you anyway.” They mistakenly think optics and presentation are about winning over the Left or abiding by their rules. Again, this is the mind of the reactionary. Good presentations and subtle compromises to convention are about winning over the vast middle. The point of politics is about controlling the field between the various sides.

Yes, the Left will call us Nazis and fascists no matter what we do, but that can only be turned to our favor if it looks absurd. Spencer was easily demonized because he embraced the role of prep school Nazi. Nick Fuentes is not so easily demonized, because he reminds most white people of their kids or grand-kids. He may be a smart-alecky twerp at times, but calling him a Nazi violates bourgeois sensibilities. To put it another way, it is very bad optics for the Left.

Politics is always about keeping the ends in mind and making the necessary compromises to further those ends. Politics is a means to an end. Ideologues always fall into the trap of thinking politics is an end in itself, which is why ideological states are always unstable and usually short lived. Successful outsider politics has to be practical in its application in order to win ground in the vast area that is always up for grabs between the orthodoxy and those challenging it.

¹Anticipating the response from certain circles, the Nazis winning the street battles with the Bolsheviks in Weimar Germany is an exception, not the rule. The middle had collapsed in Weimar Germany, along with the old ruling order. The Right and left, as understood at the time, were not fighting to win over their fellow Germans. They were fighting to fill the power vacuum that resulted from the collapse of the middle.

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

129 thoughts on “Optical Delusions

  1. If I may dissent-

    1. You are denouncing your competitors, this must be noted and weighed.
    2. Never punch Right is too far, only punching Right gets old.
    3. Politics is Power, what is your path to power? Win over the reasonable?
    So as to win elections? You denounce democracy at every chance. What changed your mind?
    4. Reasonable people are useless in any other context than a stable polity, which we don’t have; this is why and actually how we “dissidents” exist.
    5. There are many other Right Wing success stories besides the Nazis; Mannerheim, Franco, the record of actual Fascist regimes in Portugal and elsewhere. The fact that they weren’t eternal means nothing, they saved their nations and their peoples for a generation or two. No polity is eternal.
    6. What is your path to power?

    All of the above and certainly the Left have a path to power. As far as winning without ideology, or pointing out they’re ridiculous- so what? Without power who is ridiculous?
    Point Deer, Make Horse is ancient and still quite viable. Point man, make woman.

    All of Communism was ridiculous. It didn’t fall from ridicule.
    It fell because the much maligned Reagan cut off their money, with the much maligned Buckley providing the intellectual and ideological cover and movement that bought Reagan to power. In the much maligned, reviled here GOP and conservative movement.

    What have any of you ever DONE?

    What do you propose to do?
    And when?

    Because at present its nothing and never.

    Consider this me “punching Right.”
    It’s all fair.

    Such wasted potential; that’s the dissident Right. Even Hamlet manned up and killed his enemies, as well as the annoying Polonius.

    The epitaph for the alt-right is written, the epitaph for the dissident Right never shall be- no one noticed.
    No one should. Wit and mockery are not a plan or a program.

  2. First step to positive identity is defining it.

    You can define it for yourself and whoever likes your definition subscribes to your definition.

    But the definition must exist. That’s how you avoid the reactionary thinking. That’s also how you start building policy ideas (another thing you brought up in another post).

    VD made a start with his 16 points.

  3. Zman asks

    “If beating the Left requires embracing some differently insane ideology, what would be the point?”

    I respond:

    The point is winning, making history, saving your race and civilization and using power to shape the world in the way you want it.

    The current nightmare world is a product of too many Whites giving up on the above and leaving it to others.

    Wanting to save your people and achieve sovereignty for them already an ideology. But by itself, it’s somewhat of a vague and ill-defined ideology that needs some fleshing out.

    The person in question kinda knows what the future he wants looks like, but he kinda doesn’t, and he hasn’t really clarified exactly what he wants.

    Having a vague and poorly defined ideology leaves the person in question vulnerable to manipulation; he doesn’t know right from wrong, he’s receptive to whatever sounds good.

    If his goals and values are vague and poorly defined, others will act on him from outside to push him in the direction they desire. “Doing ____ will save your people, trust me. ” (Oops, it turns out it actually benefited the influencer more than the influencee)

    In the end the people who do the influencing will have a clear and well defined internal understanding of what they want and will act accordingly. They will have a clear basis to determine if someone is taking things in the direction they want or misleading / subverting. They will clearly understand friend vs enemy.

    To the extent that people are non-ideological they are intellectually passive and receptive. Whether directly or indirectly, they are told what to do by the ideological people.

    Telling people to be non-ideological is exerting power over them / influencing them / persuading them / propagandizing them to freeze their intellectual development at a certain stage where they will be more vulnerable to certain kinds of manipulation.

    If anyone tells you to remain non-ideological, you should suspect him of being ideological and of intending to keep you in a receptive state so that he can act upon you, without you realizing it.

    Whites will be better off if less of them remain intellectually passive and receptive, and if more of them figure out what they really want, believe in it wholeheartedly and actively work for it.

    • Whites would do better to grow some balls and act, overthinking and only thinking and talking allowed the weakest, most retarded groups in history to gain great power over us.
      And they suck as masters, they can’t even master themselves.

      Point 1; Bitchez out. No:Women.
      Point 2: who’s car we taking?
      Point 3: Victory.

      • It doesn’t have to be a complicated ideology, but Whites have to clearly understand what they want and want something different from this world, otherwise action is pointless and likely detrimental.

        Having balls doesn’t matter if you just get tricked into “trusting the plan”, following your enemy’s moral system and in engaging behavior that will be self defeating in the long term. You will end up right back where you started.

        MAGA Whites have no brains, so it their balls don’t matter. If they achieved political power they would not accomplish anything with it and they would soon lose it again, because they would allow their enemies to control them through soft power.

        Actually, that already happened. And you can make fun of other groups all you want, but a lot of them would not fall for something as dumb as Q-Anon / plan trusting.

        • Trump has power, real American power and MAGA which should and other countries would be its own party has power through Trump.

          Real Power, and the much maligned whites of MAGA have it, Trump tapped into it. He’s got it, and he delivers for them.

          Brains vs Balls; sadly the really smart people are bifurcated from those willing to act, or more precisely our intellectuals have become cowards.
          True of the Left as well. This is a disease of a wealthy society too long on easy money and too long at peace. This does not mean all smart people are cowards, and the average man is far smarter than many choose to believe. It does mean the only real priesthood is on the Left. >on a good note their squandering the inheritance of the men who conquered the world.

          I will tell you why I say grow balls;
          Because as all know here we’re in real danger still, and this man only a respite. Now the commons aren’t unaware of this, they are simply too busy with the immediate. They have awoken, but other than this centrist President lack leaders. One is not enough, many are needed.

          Short version; when facing your own genocide and civilizational Doom, stop waiting for the perfect plan and act with a merely good one. Grow balls and go forth.

          I understand you’re afraid; get over it. You should be more afraid of winking out of existence than physical and other dangers of acting.

          FFS at least organize; and not sit around fretting for the “right idea.”
          No formula for inaction is safe now.
          No action will be perfect.

          Organize. Anything. Everything.
          Exactly what the Left does.

  4. The difference is the left does embrace their wack-jobs, but keeps them on a short leash. Every once in a while one of them goes berserk and tries to mow down a tent full of people or assault a young child.

    Why not make them the face of the looney-left ? Anyone uncomfortable with that kind of violence would be drawn to our side. The rest ?

    Well most Boomers will never reach this side as well as their millennial hellspawn. It’s time to concentrate on our grandchildren. They don’t care about Bad Optics . They just know what they like. A simple walk on a warm sunny day feeling safe with Grandpa beats any day locked in a room with some drag queen reading them story.

    planting trees and all that 😉

  5. In defense of Spencer and the other flawed men who got in the ring:

    “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming…” TR

    And Z is not just a critic, but a man cautiously climbing into the ring.

    • I can salute both climbing into the ring and caution.

      Z appears to be organizing.

      This is wise action.

      I differ on the parts that point towards inertia, or too little, too late. Or too small a number to matter.

      What about sane, organized types one may differ with, or find a bit rough?
      > I keep saying go to the gun club for a reason – that’s real. They’re real.

      Nothing is more radicalizing on the right than getting someone to buy their first gun and go to the gun club. Covers Mannerbund too – in spades.

  6. Sometimes Z-man’s arguments are really funny:

    So the “good” right is characterized by the absence of “ideology”, which is a characteristic of the left and of the “bad right”.
    Conclusion: we should stay away from any “ideology”!

    Let’s look at it.

    Hitler opposed and ridiculed “multiculturalism” and the Jews controlling it (in his Austro-Hungarian Monarchy). That, of course, was part of his “ideology”.
    We do the same in our countries, but that’s no ideology.

    Hitler wanted ethnostates for the “Aryans”, excluding non-Aryans. That’s an “ideology”, and a bad one, of course. We want ethnostates for “people of European descent”, which we dont dare to call Aryans. That’s why this is no ideology and a good thing.

  7. There is no need for someone on the Right to “Punch Right”. If I want to read someone “Punching Right-wingers” I can read the MSM and 1000 left-wing blogs. Given the limted number of Rightists and our de-platforming by the Left, maybe we should keep the focus on “Punching Left”. But that seems impossible.

    PS. I tried to listen to the you-tube referenced and even at X2 speed, I was still getting bored. Why is it so many right-wingers talk so ssslllooowww?

  8. I dunno, perhaps being a bit less philosophically LARPy and a bit more direct?

    Pointing out that Trump, Boris’ Red Tories, and Sinn Fein in Ireland are all devoted to expanding Replacement immigration?

  9. What is our group goal at this point. Because frankly I view us all on the same side at this point. Right now the Larping Nazi and the citizen concerned with immigration are on the same side.

    The needle has moved so far left that even a moderate critic of immigration is painted with the same brush as an ethno-nationalist. I really don’t see the benefit of drawing lines to my right. It is a case by case basis.

    Even Jared Taylor has said that all White people have to be welcome on the team. Even the undesireable ones.

    My solution is I won’t attack anyone. I might not defend somebody, but I am not going to attack. Even a jackass like Vox Day has a place at the table.

  10. “Like the Left, to quote Kirk, ‘[the ideologues in dissident circles] see politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society.’”


    “Politics is always about keeping the ends in mind and making the necessary compromises to further those ends. Politics is a means to an end. Ideologues always fall into the trap of thinking politics is an end in itself…”

    So which is it? Is the error of the ideologues to have “transforming society” as their end goal, or is it to treat politics as “an end in itself?

    For instance, the anti-Semite sees the manifest outsized role of Jews in politics (e.g., campaign contributions and the push to impeach and remove the president), foreign policy (e.g., wars for Israel), the judicial system, academia, the media, entertainment, etc., as a bad thing for the country and seeks to change this. Your dissident rightist sees the rejection of the manifest reality of “the human condition and biological reality,” and seeks to change this.

    The former makes the anti-Semite an ideologue, but the latter dos not. Please explain.

  11. “The collapse of the center” as it played out in Weimar Germany seems to rhyme with what we face today (including in Germany; Tom Luongo just wrote that, “The center has completely collapsed in Germany, as it has in so many countries in Europe”). Trump and Sanders are illustrative. But the Weimar collapse featured two socialist movements fighting for dominance (nationalist Nazis vs. internationalist communists); today we seem to be facing a choice between two welfare-statists, not a left-vs.-right struggle. Still…I’ll go with Trump.

  12. I urge you to read Curtis Yarvin’s “The Clear Pill” where he proposes a three-layer model: Gentry, Commoners, and Clients.

    On this model, Left vs. Right is a squabble within the Gentry, and the left wins because its game is to bribe the Clients with loot and plunder.

    The genius of Trump is to put himself at the head of the Commoners. And that is what a future Gentry Right must do. Lead the Commoners and promise them the right to live their lives as ordinary citizens protected from the ideological furies of the Gentry Left and the criminal violence of the Clients.

  13. Respectfully, there’s an error in your logic Z man.

    Instead of developing an internal logic that naturally results in a set of rules and standards, the reactionary simply responds to what he perceives to be his opponent.


    Conservatism is not a set of ideologies, but the rejection of ideology.

    What you’re saying is that “sound” conservationism does not have rules and standards (which are part and parcel of ideology) but the reason why it fails is because it is reactionary and doesn’t have rules and standards.

    Sorry, but you’re muddled in your thinking.

    The Right does need rules and standards in order to define membership but its really important to understand what it means to be of the Right and what it means to be of the left. This is a huge problem which very few people take the time to understand or are even interested. It’s also why the dissident Right is always prone to infiltration by Natsoc elements or their sympathisers. The dissident Right isn’t just anti-Left, a lot of it is of the Left itself.

          • What is the ideology behind “not shirts, no shoes, no service”?

            The idea/ideology that civilised behaviour and dress matter. Otherwise why the rule? The rule is a second order effect of a first order value.

            The ideology establishes the values which are normative. It’s the rules which are the practical implementation of these values. Without the ideology which gives the rules their justification, the rules simply become habits or reflexes. i.e. Conservatism. And like all habits and reflexes can be de- conditioned. Look about you.

            Conservatism has simply become a habit. i.e. see what the left says and vote against it. If you really want to put the cat among the pigeons try defining a propositional conservatism, one with explicit values and see how many of the dissident-Right agree with you.

    • “The dissident Right isn’t just anti-Left, a lot of it is of the Left itself.” – I see that in some ways. But not as the left is, but as it was per WW2, and it wasn’t all bad, I kind of like the fact that we have meat inspectors and while FDR in the end threw into vile war mongering, I kind of like the amount of resources he used to build massive dams and power lines and other infrastructure. That was very leftist at the time, but he was doing it for a people who still had a national identity other than random mud people wandering through malls. Just as the right is unrecognizable from generations ago, so is the left.

      • Proof you are correct:
        The 1900 Democratic Platform


        Now I get the kvetching about Lincoln.
        The Radical Republicans were revolutionaries, good old warmongering mercantile imperialists who saw a weak, rich target in the South.

        This was imperialism before Bolshevism, before the kosher sandwich had matured into a long strategy of revolt communism to weaken the target, followed by vulture finance capitalism to grow and then grab its developed, devalued resources.

        Venezuela was set up in this way;
        China is now squarely in the bomb sights.

        And everybody thought China would be taking “us” over- ha! What a masterful pitch.
        Our turn for harvesting is only next.

        • Now I get the true power of unmoored, ‘virtual’, usurious fiat banking.

          Such a flood of “money” can build infrastructure, like a railroad, a NASA or an Army, true;

          But its real value is in buying unmeasureable influence- false promises based on projected fantasies, such as pensions, welfare, future income streams, trade deals, speculation, think tanks and marketing media, political graft and lobbies.

          Intangible “moneys”, buying the intangibles to deliver the tangibles. Selling the sizzle to get the steak.

          Can the DR use this?
          We’re pretty intangible ourselves.
          But! We’re trying to save not just the cows, but the whole darn farm.

          • (Yeah, I know, we didn’t start out 3000 years ado with the plundered wealth of Canaan and Egypt. Another bunch of canny raiders got a long head start.)

        • “China is now squarely in the bomb sights”

          Maybe so, but the Chinese have two advantages compared with Western nations. Maybe three.
          1. No IFF (identify friend or foe) problem. Chinamen will have no qualms about naming the manipulating foreigner.
          2. The Chinese are at LEAST as xenophobic and ethnoculturally conceited as the Chosen.
          3. Chinese have ZERO guilt about The Holocaust. So far as Chinese are concerned, if you managed to get six million of yours killed in job lots, then you are weaklings and you suck and you deserve to be annihilated. The Chinese are not a sentimental people.

  14. I like this blog but if I’m honest its a pet peeve of mine when political people claim not to be ideologues. It seems to imply that ideology is a dirty word. You have a vision for what you want the world to be like? That implies a set of ideas and thus an ideology. You’re an ideologue. And that’s fine. Its the wishy washy people without a position who don’t think things through that are one of the major problems in democracies. I totally agree with you that uncompromising dogmatism leads to failure in the real world of politics. You can’t always get what you want. But you have to have ideals so you know where to draw the line on compromise and know what direction to push things.

    • I believe the word you need is “idealist”.

      ideologue = dogmatic idealist

      And yes, a successful movement needs idealists, but when it’s nothing but idealists it effectively becomes controlled opposition, which is the point Zman makes again and again.

      A radical pragmatist will have nothing but contempt for an idealist like Richard Spencer, who will inevitably make an ass of himself from time to time. I can understand that, but it doesn’t seem right to call Spencer a dilettante while most of us hide behind pseudonyms.

  15. It’s about giving the vast majority of normies in the middle plausible deniability when it comes to your ideas. They’ll go along with whoever seems and looks more reasonable, just in case things turn bad they can absolve themselves of you cleanly. Make the other side look crazy and they’ll have to side with you, because to side with the crazies would mean no absolution and taking responsibility for whatever may happen, which no normie wants to do.

  16. Last genuine political party were Dixiecrat against power hungry maniacs who claim great humanitarian ever live
    Republican party and conservative were always carpetbagger
    carpetbagger who pretending care about white people
    white people vote for him because other party were lunatic who want to destroy very existence of white people

    of course, carpetbagger doesn’t want fight back his lunatic cousins, why wouldn’t he?
    After all, they are part of family and family don’t destroy each other


    recent SAS airlines commercials basically denied existence of Scandinavian
    obviously Airlines and Sweden ruling class decided to quit with incrementalism and instead just go full ham

    Again, I don’t know why I keep saying this, but I will say it
    We have to kill carpetbaggers, the Anglo Zionist establishment, white upper class
    Because they will never stop to kill their race for cheap profits
    time of accommodation is over, its kill or be killed situation

  17. “You cannot make men good by law: and without good men you cannot have a good society.” — C. S. Lewis

    I am not sure what everyone here means by “on the right” or “right-wing” or “dissident right”. As one who has been to the far right all his life, or at least thought he was, I think dissidents will have to define what makes a good society — what one looks like. Then we sell that.

    My first thought is that democracy is total crap just as the ancients told us centuries ago. For a governance to work, I suspect it must be for a particular nation. (you know, a particular tribe) God did not make the nations to have them all commingle in Sodom (USA). We must break up the Empire into smaller groups of ethnic peoples. What not many different nations?

  18. There still is a normal America.
    We who poke around the dissident right are probably never gonna get the majority middle completely to our side on every subject. But we don’t need to get them over on every subject in order to have a livable society for us.. The left is making a mistake deplatforming and throwing hissy fits.
    A lot of the middle don’t know Nick Fuentes but they do know Trump and Trump if we like him or not for our side is getting everything and the kitchen sink thrown at him by the nut jobs on the left.
    Our best way forward is to spread our dissident politics by being normal people with somewhat strange normal views in today’s unnormal society. But do not be so wacky that we drive good people in the middle away from us.
    Let’s play softball, attend sporting events, go out to eat, dance, enjoy others company.
    Maybe attend a conservative church occasionally, clean up, dress nice.
    And sharpen the guiitine for when we get a chance to use it.

    • Agree and add; Go to the gun club.
      That’s at least as social as softball, and 100% mannerbund. Women don’t get to ruin it. I’m sure they’ve tried.
      Some things even they can’t ruin.

      For one thing even a gentleman’s range is authoritarian, it has to be for safety reasons.

      Come to think of it in the military over decades I’ve never seen a female running a range. Or the Tower.
      Or even on the line as safeties.
      Funny that.

  19. Conservatism suffers for its lack of a coherent ideology. The routinely comedic “Conservative Case For X (degeneracy)” shows the worst aspect of this. When you can’t say what conservatism is, it’s hard to convince people what it isn’t.

    We can articulate a set of practical hueristics as well as lofty principles – and we need to.

    • “We can articulate a set of practical heuristics…”

      The US Constitution was a pretty good starting point, but then the judiciary took on the role of the legislature.

      • I would say ignore the Declaration of Independence with its “… that all men are created equal.” The long march of “equality” led us to gay marriage and women in combat. Thomas Jefferson would certainly not approve, but that’s what “equality” led to.

      • 50 separate heuristics, or experiments on a common baseline.

        As O’Meara notes, what Europe used to be, what he’d like to reconstitute, that old thing called “nations”.

  20. I have noticed that people who got here from what I will here call the middle (that is somewhere other than conservatism, libertarianism or the ideological left) have much less trouble spotting the difference between a big tent and a freak show.

  21. Off topic (or maybe not) an apparently serious attempt at peaceful separation. The Greater Idaho organization wants to peel off rural counties in Southern and Eastern Oregon and Northern California and merge them with Idaho. They are trying to get their proposal on the 2020 ballot.


    • This kind of thing might be one of the more peaceful ways to create a more perfect (dis)union. Greater Idaho can’t extend much past the Cascades or Mt. Shasta but that’s where Greater Utah begins, followed by the New Lone Star Republic, and so on. Get enough of this and you can start to re-form the US as it was meant to be – a loose federation of states locked together in a mutual support and defense pact.

      As the various elements of The Diversity flee the new states for the coasts you get the remaining white shitlibs packed ever more tightly together with illegals, blacks, wetbacks, pajeets, and degenerates of all types. A lot of the problems could roll themselves up without us needing to do much at that point.

  22. Optics do matter in terms of recruitment and public perception. These things are independent of the MSM – who mostly try to find the craziest loose cannon of a movement they can find and use him as a poster child.

    This won’t stop the MSM from manufacturing a loon, but we should never help them by allowing the unhinged a place at the table. We keep them away. They are trouble.

    Though it is foolish to think we can turn the DR into a political movement that will be tolerated by the ruling class – it won’t. Once it gets big enough to be perceived as a competitor or threat, they will come after us with both barrels.

    Just look at how the Left and the GOP treats MAGA types – like dirt. They’re trying to kill Stone That shows you how much they hate Trump and his peeps.

  23. Fuentes made all the same “optics,” mistakes in his early days. Groypers are just the Catholic alt-right. Productive paths for young men don’t include side-shows be they ideolgically racial or theological LARP.

      • The point was that Fuentes is and was just as easily demonized. He was largely correct about optics, but it didn’t matter. Ideology never became a problem for him because he was disqualified a priori for having too much to think about taboo subjects. A true ideological pragmatist would simply donate money to the inner party. Unfortunately for most dissidents; however, the pragmatist position is limited to those with a disposable income of seven figures or better.

  24. My thoughts on this are that the dissident movement is not at a point where a coherent ideology is important, or even desirable. It’s a collection of rag tag groups on the perimeter of the establishment, or within the establishment but no longer accepting the programming and hiding that fact in a bifurcated life. You can’t build a new structure until the old structure is thoroughly discredited (See Saul Alinsky) and they discredit themselves every day at this point. So a “dissident” has to be anything outside the Overton window. That includes this site. That includes Nick Fuentes (there’s something wrong with him I can’t put my finger on). But that also includes FTN and even TDS with its jew ranting, which I don’t quite buy but find hysterical. It even includes certain Bernie bros (as a demolition force only) who don’t even know that they’re helping us. Now is not the time to start removing the flavors from the Baskin Robbins. We need everyone, including people who like the coffee flavor. Also, the left itself is changing even faster than the right wing. This is all being moved along at a steady pace, as Mike Bloomberg picks Hillary Clinton, turning his Presidency into Satan’s HR Department. Nothing is aging well around here and it will be kicked over in this decade. In 1916 everyone knew the Tsar was done. In 1787 everyone knew Louis was done, the battle comes after the Tsar falls, and all of the power plays in the aftermath and also where the monied interests want to go at that point.

    • ” You can’t build a new structure until the old structure is thoroughly discredited”

      I think you hit the nail squarely on the thumb here: The major task is to convince (or rather to confirm, because most suspect ) that we are witnessing societal collapse, that all major institutions are complicit.
      Then let that sit for a while. Exact details of what we ultimately hope for would be a bit premature- especially as we don’t really know.
      Immigration though, seems to be one issue on which people can be red pilled fairly easily.

  25. On the topic of “ideological states”: I think this is actually the whole problem with all modern societies. They have ALL turned into an endless civil war (sometimes hotter or colder) between various factions who all want to be the ones to decide what the “perfect society” is. There doesn’t seem to be a consistent faction that just believes there is no perfect society and just wants all the ideologues to STFU, put down their megaphones, and leave the rest of us to get on with our lives.

    Of course in a way this is my “perfect society” – a society where what we call politics is effectively marginalized and people spend most of their mental and physical effort on productive things. If there’s anything that accounts for the astounding success of the West and the US in particular besides it’s racial makeup and accidents of geography it is that it’s motto used to be “stop arguing and get the fuck back to work!”

  26. René Girard had an interesting take on one of the stories of demon possession in the Gospel of Mark. Of course, for Girard, everything is mimetic, so the idea was that this particular unfortunate was living among the tombs, covering himself with filth, cutting himself, hurling himself against rocks, and so on was part of living out the role of the scapegoat.

    It was a coping strategy: Look, I’m already the scapegoat. I’ve done everything you would want to do to me already, so there’s no need to beat my head in with rocks or throw me off a cliff. The Lord rehabilitates the guy by casting out the demon and allowing him to rejoin the community.

    One can’t help but see a parallel with the neo-pagans or the neo-national socialists, who are eager to adopt the role the community has planned for them. Of course, like the possessed man in St. Mark’s, they are essentially correct – they really are the most likely targets to be made scapegoats, marked for ostracism or worse. So the coping strategy makes exactly the same sense as the possessed man in the gospel: you can have everything, just don’t take my life.

    I get it, but that’s how losers act. You don’t win a mimetic fight by embracing the scapegoat skin and asking for mercy. You win it by making the other sons of bitches the scapegoats, instead. That’s the meaning of “optics matter”: we are trying to tag the other side as the cause of our society’s sickness and have _them_ ostracized. There is a way to do that (see, for example, how effectively Creon places the blame on Oedipus after Oedipus tries to make Creon the scapegoat), and the way to do that is by opposing and redirecting their claims. It isn’t by adopting their slurs as your own.

  27. All politics ultimately settles on Stalin’s method for solving problems: Eliminate the people who are causing them, in his case, Trotsky & company. Right-wingers like Suharto and Pinochet correctly identify Communists as the source of problems, eliminate them, and prosper. Left-wingers blame and eliminate productive citizens, turning their nations into Venezuela, which now lies prostrate, just waiting for a competent right-winger to invade, rout the starving remnants of its army, and declare himself king.

    So my strategy is to lay low and survive until the left annihilates itself and the right-wing death squads take over. Survive hell so I can serve in heaven.

    • You can kill a man, but not kill the idea. Leftist ideas must be routed once and for all and replaced with something else. Chile elected a socialist in 2006 and again in 2014. It’s like cutting a dandalion at ground level without pulling up the root. It’ll just grow back.

      What that “something else” is … well, that’s the question.

  28. What’s the story with Fuentes getting banned? I know he’s made enemies on both the left and grifter-right, but what did he do that he hasn’t always done?

    • Both Conservative Inc and the Left ganged up on him. He was a threat to both and they silenced him. He actually hurt them unlike the DR that is mostly a cerebral kegger for spergies.

      Z can spin it as he sees fit. But that’s where anyone or group that is a threat to the status quo will end up. This is why there is no real 3rd party in the U.S.

      The DR can offer it’s belly to the ruling class all it wants, but once it crosses a threshold, they will stomp into a bloody pulp.

      Too many on our side don’t get this. There is no playing nice with a ruling class that wants to make us extinct.

  29. If I understand your admirably laid out logic, the Dissident Right occupies a space on the Venn Diagram where we find those who reject the ideology/ies of the Left and also the ideologies of the Right (civnat) and any other dissident ideologies (antisemitism, TradCath, etc.). They either have no ideology or if they do, they keep it to themselves (private opinion).

    That sounds like Conservatism 1.0, a la Kirk. Of course, it failed. These are Francis’s “Beautiful Losers,” what Hegel would call the fallacy of the Beautiful Soul (too good for the world). Add a British accent and you have Oakshott.

    If I understand Gottfried, that was the point when the neocons took over, since Right 1.0 had no ideology (i.e. brains — The Stupid Party) and decided they needed some to win.

    One can criticize their choice (“Let’s get some Jews!”, like Archie Bunker looking for a lawyer) but not, I think, their diagnosis.

    If the Dissident Right is by definition a group without any ideology, in what sense are they a movement, rather than simply a random collection of Sore Losers? They seem more like what the Cabal-lists call the realm of the Klippoth, the scraps leftover from Creation.

    It lacks what Hegel would call the seriousness of the Concept. It sounds rather Rousseu-like: strip away all false tinsel of ideology, and behold the Natural Man, he’ll know what to do … naturally!

    • @James_OMeara – Well, yeah. If you wake up one morning and discover you are being made the scapegoat for all that ills the community, then your goal is to avoid that fate. I agree it doesn’t really count as an ideology, but saving your skin can still focus one’s mind, don’t you think?

      But if we must have a goal, it would be something like: we want lefty and his individual water-carriers to be blamed for what’s wrong with society, and to have them marginalized, ostracized, or otherwise removed as a threat.

      It’s more complicated than that, of course, because we have to hit righty, also. See, the right are owned by capitalists who know very well that, except for whitey being the scapegoat, they would live under the thread of going to the chop. So both left and right are aligned in hating whitey, because he serves as the best scapegoat.

      That, I think, is the real problem with our gatekeepers: they defend capitalism but never accuse lefty. They never threaten lefty with being turned in to a scapegoat himself, because when it comes down to it, they also prefer the scapegoats the left prefers.

    • That sounds like Conservatism 1.0, a la Kirk. Of course, it failed. These are Francis’s “Beautiful Losers,” what Hegel would call the fallacy of the Beautiful Soul (too good for the world). Add a British accent and you have Oakshott.

      Well, Democritus and Leucippus both failed by that standard, but they were both right. Conservatism as Kirk explained it is just an acknowledgement of reality. If beating the Left requires embracing some differently insane ideology, what would be the point?

  30. I think the most clarifying thing would be the defining of goals. Then you can decide “optics” issues in light of that goal. Otherwise you’re kind of bickering without really knowing what you’re bickering about.

    Hey, what the heck, I’ll go ahead and define our goals:

    (1) White identitarianism
    (2) Ethnostates

    You might say that the first goal is the pyschological condition of the second, more ultimate, goal. You might also that the first is a fallback position if the second becomes unobtainable: we might become “diasporized” in our own countries because of demographic change and will have to survive on a minority identitarian basis.

    I think Spencer, for example, moved us closer to our goals in the early days, simply because he didn’t look like a Nazi larper. But then he became a liability so it was generally better to cut him loose.

    Same with the Roman emperor guy. If he’s really drinking blood and stuff like that, we’ll have to cut him loose. On the other hand, if all that is fabricated by the FBI, it might be a useful exercise to rally around him and make him a martyr figure.

    Fuentes moves us closer to our goals, so I think he’s a keeper. In fact he does something very important. If we visualize the gatekeepers’ gate, then he’s the guy standing right next to the gate on our side, taking people through.

    In that way guys like him are crucial to have on Redpill Road. People can come further right after Fuentes, but he gets a lot of guys though the gate. Bashing him because he’s not as 100% right-wing as we are, or because he “punches right” sometimes, is insanity. He brings us closer to our goal.

    Gotta keep your eye on the prize.

  31. Every movement has a trail of dead ends, cul-de-sacs, burnouts, mummified corpses and all sorts of other detritus. They all had their little roles and most no longer matter. As someone here pointed out a few days ago the dissident wave is building. Some studies have almost 75% of whites thinking about white group interests in some form or other. Let’s put our energy in communicating intelligently with these people. Let the dead bury the dead.

    What’s the bigger tent, a click of carping screw-ups or more than 100,000,000 white people who are beginning to sense that something is rotten in the state of Denmark?

    • When freedom dies out – and it has pretty much died out globally – what “movement” is left that doesn’t involve death and destruction?

      • The tide of tyranny overall has been rising globally. Perhaps this is where it crests and recedes. Perhaps it keeps rising and the whole planet eventually looks like a scaled up UK, with security cameras everywhere, and a license being needed just to take a shit. We don’t know but we still have time to stop it and roll it back.

        I think anything that starts in the US, for good or ill, will spread virtually everywhere due to modern technology and communications. Whatever happens in the US to restore freedom may be more or less violent but I imagine that if freedom starts to spread around the world, it will indeed be bloody in many places.

      • That’s actually a good point to address.

        Because one of my answers to lefty types in the past – when I approached their argument about why more government power was needed for this , that, or the other thing from a “libertarian” perspective was to argue that we didn’t need more government – what we needed was more freedom.

        This – of course – elicited howls of anger and screaming about how I wanted people to die in the streets and how I was racist and sexist and so forth.

        My follow-on argument was: ” Look – if you finally ‘win’ and actually change things up enough that we stand on the edge of tyranny – well then you should know that I’m still NEVER going to buy into your proto-communism. There’s absolutely nothing there for me – and I’m pretty familiar with the history of communists over all of their many disasters. If you are going to FORCE the imposition of tyranny – then I guess I’ll be forced to sign on – but my support will get thrown fully behind whatever proto-Nazi group that promises to crush you and all the rest of the commies. Force tyranny on me – and I’ll choose the tyranny that works for ME – and truth of the matter is that something akin to Nazism just simply works a lot better than Communism does. Now I’d suggest freedom – but you seem intent on forcing the issue – so I figured it was only fair to warn you that I don’t think this is going to turn out the way you think it will……..”

  32. Talking about being reactionary reminds me of the people on the Right whose immediate reaction to the Ground Zero Mosque was to call for a strip club to be build next door. It was stupid and counter productive.

    The thing about Lefty taboos is to pick ones that make the Lefty’s looks nuts. Marching around in Nazi gear is bad. Mocking them over their fear of the OK sign is the way to go.

      • I don’t think it was counter productive at all. It was answering one deliberately offensive provocation with another. Fighting fire with fire, as it were. In the end neither was built (there are already plenty of mosques and gay bars in NYC.)

    • The real problem with the GZM is that normies swallowed hook, line, and sinker the taqiyya that the GZM is a monument to peace and reconciliation.

      Anyone that understands the true nature of Islam knows this is absolutely incorrect. The GZM is a monument to Islamic victory and humiliation of the West in its very core.

    • Hardly reactionary, it was quite proper considering what the presence of a Mosque symbolizes in Islam. The Muzzies were rubbing our nose in s**t.

  33. The big mistake these guys make is they think early 20th century victories by outsiders can be replicated today under entirely different circumstances. The dissidents of the early 20th century were up against very weak states which few people in the state had a lot of confidence in and belief of the validity of that state. The existing states also did not have deep and broad support in the population. This was particularly true in Germany and Russia. From 1918 to 1932, the German people went through unprecedented suffering. America is an absolute utopia in comparison. The newly created Wiemar Republic had very little in the way of confidence and legitimacy both inside and outside of the state. The takeover in Russia to form the Soviet Union came at a time when the Russian state had little legitimacy and had been fighting a bloody war on foreign soil. It was broke, it was weak and there was little confidence in the state among the population. There were similar problems in Italy and Spain.

    These circumstances no longer exist anywhere in the Western world and especially not in America. Almost everyone sees the US government as legitimate. They may want to take the reins and change some policies and directions, but they do not see the state itself as illegitimate. Aside from the fact that everyone sees the state as legitimate, there are/were very few states in history better positioned at this time to defend the existing form of government and ruling class. An unprecedented state apparatus exists to throw the revolutionaries in prison and parade their scalps in front of the nation and any other revolutionaries who are thinking about getting cute.

    • I am not so sure about the perception of the legitimacy of the state any more. Normie’s assumptions have been shaken (hence the collapse of the political center), but he knows not where to turn. Some vague version of our thing appeals to many, but the powers that be have flagged it as a “no-go zone”. As Normie prefers to play by the rules, as they are told to him, he does not come our way. Yet.

      In the meantime, Bloomberg and Hillary scheme. They may just take things in the fall election. That would ultimately blow the lid off the Jewish and female control of the conversation, and what it actually means, for all to see. Just as Obama demonstrated the limits of his own intelligence, and that of the racial anger of the black man that will always simmer just barely under the surface of things, always, in our culture; so Mike and Hillary will demonstrate that the Jews actually do run the show, and run it into the ground for the rest of us, to their own benefit. Furthermore, Hillary will demonstrate quite clearly, in her own inimitable way, her personal qualities of throwing lamps at those who anger her, the whole red queen thing. That little game will be emulated by the NWLs and a bunch of others of the female persuasion, who are always quick to jump on board the sisterhood train as it leaves the station (the important thing is not where the train is going, the important thing, to them, is to be on board in solidarity).

      So, here we are. We can act like gentlemen and be the adults in the room. It might work, but it is hard to do when everything wrong in the world is deemed, socially and legally, to be your fault. It will be hard to maintain that Stoic demeanor in the face of it. More likely, the Benedict option (or MGTOW) is a choice, or also going the other way, which is way out there, but is available. That is to go full Muslim. The so-called religion is really a gang mentality all dressed up, but it offers a militant and belligerent sanctuary of sorts. As the weight of the application of the law and persecution come our way, our dusky brothers offer a no-holds-barred version of “knock the chip off of my shoulder, bro, I dare you”. Not an attractive choice, but a good jump-start of a “plan b” if the midnight SWAT raids begin to happen. In the calling-out process, to be Muslim is to position oneself squarely against the PC elements of the day, and to do so with 1.2 billion people at your side, more or less. Situational allies.

      The problem is that there are no good choices for us here, hence the concern and angst. We may also lose the four year window we are all hoping for. The only real choices for us are to stand as the adults in the room in the midst of a food fight, bug out, or go all Rambo. The circumstances don’t give us a choice that is comfortable or easy.

      • While I agree there are a lot of unsatisfied people, I would say that they are still committed to the system. They still believe in Democracy, equality and the Constitution. Normies want to grab the reigns of power, but they don’t think the system itself is illegitimate. There is almost nobody saying “Democracy” sucks and that we need a fascist dictator or a king. They fundamentally agree with the system. The fact that we are even discussing what the normie thinks is a tacit endorsement of liberal democracy.

        My guess is that Jews don’t want Bloomberg to win. That would put too much emphasis on Jews, not to mention Jewish money. Jews absolutely love their plausible deniability. After all, the king might get assassinated while the wormtongue whispering in his ear is unknown to the people with the knives.

        I don’t particularly care for MGTOW. It is mostly a really toxic sub-culture. Even at face value, it’s cowardly. That doesn’t mean you should marry the first hoe you run into, but the future doesn’t matter to man without children.

        • Agreed, Normie is not nearly there yet. But things move fast these days, and preference cascades are hard to stop, once they get started. My concern is that even if Normie really begins to buy into the WANVOWOOT thing, getting him to come our way is going to be difficult for a lot of them. They are herd animals, and, as far as I can tell, coming our way may always entail their breaking with the herd.

          Personally, I am adopting elements of Stoicism, MGTOW, and a bit of belligerence. None of it turned up to eleven or anything, but getting practice in all of them and keeping my options open.

        • I think if they’re still committed – then they’re committed to what they *think* is the system.

          Normie will still wave the flag, talk about the Constitution, expect that everybody is paying their taxes and that Social Security isn’t getting looted ….. etc.

          I bring this up over and over again – but as far back as the 1930s Garet Garrett wrote about how the FDR administration cut out the underlying structures of the Republic and replaced them with the “progressive” structures that enabled the progs to use the government for their own purposes – while wearing it like a skinsuit.

          People may be waking up more since Trump is in office – but going back 10 years or so ago – it was plainly clear that what most people believed was in a form of government that disappeared many decades ago.

          Being pissed off is a young man’s game. When you get old the anger will eat you alive and send you into an early grave. So at a certain level – the full recognition of what this country has become is something a lot of the oldsters just can’t handle. So ignorance becomes an act of self preservation.

      • I would say a lot of the MAGA types are waking up to the fact that the state is illegitimate and there is no justice to be had if you are on the wrong side.

        MAGA sites like the Gateway Pundit illustrate it every day showing the raw deals Flynn, Stone and Trump got. How the FBI and DOJ are run by the swamp for the swamp etc. Tucker points out on his show the collective silence from the GOP in regards to how Stone has been treated and tells us to expect the same.

        What to do? At this time continue to recruit, make contacts, etc. Beyond that we wait. There is enough big variables at play that if any of them go side ways they could collapse our rickety system. Covid-19 is still a wildcard and it could take down the Chinese economy which has serious global implications. Also the FBI has declared WN’s in the same category as ISIS and that means any white male that is pro American – American First type is essentially fair game. The latter if pushed could make it impossible for us to recruit or even converse without risking a visit or worse from the FBI.

        • The FBI/DOJ jumped the shark with its failed coup. It receives absolutely no respect from MAGA types already, and normies are getting there. Minorites, save the Jews who use it as paid mercenaries, already hate the North American KGB. Given state oppression previously was given the patina of legitimacy by the FBI/DOJ, the agencies’ diminution doesn’t bode well for the Deep State in the long haul. I have no idea where this goes, but there is a state of hostility between a substantial minority and its rulers, and that trend appears to be accelerating toward outright majority opposition. It already has been quite illuminating to see how poorly the Deep State operates in the current environment.

          My guess is there is a flashpoint coming from the other direction this summer in Milwaukee between Antifa and the Deep State’s FBI/DOJ goons. It may change the trajectory of things for many years. Buy popcorn.

    • Legitimate?
      McCabe admitted to lying under oath, and the DOJ is still not going to prosecute! Maybe that’s simply a two tier justice system. Yeah, that’s it. The rest is legitimate. Sorry Tars, but when my Whackadoddle acquaintances start raising their eyebrows, I think even they are catching on.

  34. I want me and mine (blood and race relations) to win. Not particular about the means and i see no reason to restrict freedom of action by defending ideologies or principles not essential to my objective. Let my descendants figure out what it all means and what principles can be sussed out of it all. AFTER me and mine win.

  35. As a Yesterday Man, one of the big mistakes we made was taking our eyes off Lefty, and letting ourselves be distracted by his stick handling. He got inside our decision loop and in no time he had us chasing our own tails. Then he started moving goal posts, changing the rules, and our focus became “Get Lefty”… and we looked like idiots. We lost the media and then we lost the schools and even most of the churches. Look around boys: most of those institutions are failing or are dead already. They don’t work anymore.

    The dissidents are going to go mainstream sooner rather than later. They will have to be ready because Leftie has lost his chit. Look at that election coming up – the democrat candidates look like the cast from SOAP and sound like them too.

    My advice is to keep an eye on Leftie, but other than giving him rope to hang himself… stop with the games, the psyops, the posturing and posing. This is not that hard. You have to look like somebody who can run a class or a school where you don’t have to worry about your kid. You have to look like someone that can be an adult in court or balance a cheque book. You have to look like the well mannered next door neighbour that you can lend tools too, and expect to get them back in good condition. You have to appeal to the people that want to work and pull their weight. You have to give young people a reason to hope, and a reason to emulate you.

    You guys aren’t only going to have to build a movement, you are going to have to rebuild a nation. No, you won’t circle the wagons around nutters. But nor can you allow yourself to play fair with Leftie or worry about what he thinks of you. He’s a dead man walking and he fully intends to take you with him. When he falls (and he will, sooner rather than later), I think the movement will explode and men like you will be in charge. You won’t have time to prepare, you won’t have the resources you need, you won’t have time to think. You’ll be responsible for dealing with the legions of monsters Leftie created like the queers, the drug addicts, the Chardonnay soaked cat ladies, the low skill/low IQ vibrants, etc. You will have to deal with them as fairly as your founding fathers would. You will have big shoes to fill.

    Optics, gentlemen, are the least of your problems. God be with you, fellas.

    • ‘Get lefty’ becomes ‘become lefty’. Funny how that happens. Stare into the abyss too long and you become the abyss.

      • @Paintersforms – well, yeah. The whole game is to delegitimize lefty, to make people agree that wine-soaked cat ladies and trannies and the rest are the ones responsible for our problems. It’s either that or else we remain the problem – I say remain the problem because our side has been scapegoated for a while now, and we’re losing).

        Lefty gets this, which is why he has such a thin skin for mockery. Mockery is the first step to reframing the target as a possible scapegoat.

        That’s one reason I’m not down on twitter, memes, and the rest of it. It’s a necessary first step. I am really, really down on complaining, D3R, and the rest of it because it’s so ineffective. We’re playing Satan’s game here, as Alinsky understood very well, so let’s do it well.

        • Yes. I meant if you spend too much time getting in lefty’s head you start to think like lefty. Then you’re fighting on his terms, and that’s a losing battle. That opens the door for subversives to steer the right leftward.

          People instinctively get this. When Hannity talks about offering real alternatives and clear distinctions, he’s giving a voice to what even normie senses. I’m sure it’s gone on for a long time. From Eisenhower to Goldwater to Nixon to Reagan to the tea party to Trump, and probably much longer. But nobody cuts to the quick. Trump comes close but not quite, and you see the freakout. Conservatives will say it’s uncivilized or whatever, but really it’s taboo.

          That’s why mockery, as you mentioned, is essential. It’s the body blows to soften the other guy up and get him to drop his gloves. It’s how you operate in that taboo space without alienating normie. And you needn’t operate on lefty’s terms, or play Satan’s game. Laughter is universal and Satan is pathetic after all. Laughter helps people to see it

        • Lefty gets this, which is why he has such a thin skin for mockery. Mockery is the first step to reframing the target as a possible scapegoat.

          The tyrant fears the laugh more than the assassin’s bullet.

    • “The dissidents are going to go mainstream sooner rather than later. They will have to be ready because Leftie has lost his chit. Look at that election coming up – the democrat candidates look like the cast from SOAP and sound like them too.”

      There are hour long montages of all the really smart people in America gloating about how Trump cannot win covering from mid 2015 all the way up until election eve. They were saying this right up the eve of election day when the votes started coming in. Then reality hit. Moods turned sour. People cried. They melted down on live TV. Even Tucker Carlson was so disturbed he went outside to smoke a cigarette, something he had quit years before.

      Trump is extraordinarily weak. The left hates him for what he says and how he says it and Republicans are widely disappointed in his governance. There is still an entire wing of Republicans that hate him so much they will vote Democrat.

      The left gloated unbelievable in 2008. The GOP was so soundly defeated they commissioned a study to see what went wrong and how they could win again. Of course, they quite stupidly decided they go after Latinos. In 2010, just 2 years after the gloating about ‘the GOP being in shambles with lunatics in the Tea Party dragging the GOP into right wing extremism,’ they had a remarkable turnaround retaking the House, winning back some Senate seats, governorship, state reps etc.

      • It’s entirely possible that Bloomberg’s going to buy the election. He just gave Stacey Abrams 5 million and she’s going to support him. He just starts passing around money like that and he could get a lot of support. I don’t think anyone’s going to be screaming my principles! He might even make Stacey Abrams his vice president. Yikes!

        • Bloomberg spent $170 per vote to win the NYC mayor’s race. If he spends $170 per vote this time (130 million voters, and he needs a bit over half), that’s about $12 billion. The man is worth $54 billion. Would you spend 22% of your net worth to be king of the world, especially if spending down over 90% of your net worth would be irrelevant to your lifestyle?

          Furthermore, much of that spending was “pass around money”, in the old-school fashion of simply going out in the neighborhoods and passing out wads of cash, in the style of Oprah giving her studio audiences free cars. Not illegal, but shady as all hell.

          The thing is, a rich old Jewish guy buying the presidency is going to reveal a lot about the deep state that many people have refused to acknowledge, up to now. This is late Roman Empire stuff.

          • That’s a lot of money with no guarantees.
            I don’t even know why anyone would want to be president these days. Everyone thinks you are something close to a dictator, while in reality, you have thousands of people fighting you no matter what you do.
            I fully expected Trump to face a lot of shenanigans from the Congress and deep state, but even I was surprised at the level of blocking and maneuvering they have proven themselves capable of.

          • Tars, a few things here. One is that a very old guy who has succeeded in big ways, but is still not satisfied, can still want that golden ring for its own sake, to be able to say he has done it. I think that was one element of Trump’s quest,

            Another is that Trump has publicly dissed the man, and continues to do so. Like the milquetoast that goes all road rage, sometimes people simply have scores to settle, and trying to look rationally at something that has an emotional element to it makes it hard to comprehend why the man is doing such a thing. Part of Trump’s thing was to repudiate Obama’s dissing of him at the press dinner some years before, IMO. Again, a rich old guy with an ego, a lot of spending money, and nothing meaningful to lose, so why not?

            Finally, there is a (((cultural))) element in play. Members of the tribe want to show off to the team. They want to master over us, but a big part of it is they want to show off that mastery to their (((peers))). It is a thing that is hard for us outsiders to really fathom, but it is a big deal. Like the Freemason or the Mormon that makes it to the twenty-third level or something-or-another of their thing, it is meaningless to the rest of us for its own sake, but it is a “big deal” for those on the inside (as Obama was for the black community, and Hillary for the sisterhood, no matter the aptitudes or policies of the candidates). Don’t sell that part of it short, and the whole wink-wink-nudge-nudge of it fries my circuits, frankly. Trump is dabbling in it a bit with son-in-law, Netanyahu, and people like Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, and it is not a good look, when you understand what it is you are looking at.

          • I wasn’t disagreeing. I was just saying it is incomprehensible to me. But then again, I ain’t in the club either:)
            You gotta have massive respect for Netanyahu. Talk about brass balls! He was on Twitter bragging about how (((little-hat \Americans,))) working with the Israeli state, got the BDS movement illegal in like 1/2 of the US states. Unfortunately, I don’t think there will be an Israeli collusion story in the (((press))).

          • Netanyahu plays in a rotten sandbox, but he does have brass balls and is doing some unappreciated and non-understood good things for his own people. He is a very effective advocate for his crowd. We all need those effective advocates for our own crowds. That’s how the game is properly played.

          • The civil service/contractor/lobby complex that actually runs things have had their own agenda for years. The idea that politicos actually have real power is a useful tool to keep the sandwich in place. Trump never understood this, he thought he was going to be the CEO. Yes the president still has a remnant of power, but without a serious exercise of it ala Jackson amd mass civil service firings he will never get to use any of it.

          • He doesn’t have to buy all the 65,000,000+ he only needs to buy a few at the margins. Those at the margins are a bit more expensive, but the total will come in at far less than $22 billion.

          • I don’t know, I think the idea of Bloomberg going out and simply buying the black vote is pretty damn funny. Maybe they aren’t as dumb as the IQ norms say? After all, they are getting something for their vote. What did we get?

        • Not much of a prognosticator, but am a former New Yorker. Bloomberg has a record which has yet to be told to middle America. He is a conniving Eastern Lefty fascist—but I repeat myself—a free booter of the worst sort.

          He has the personality of a dead fish. If Trump is Hitler, this worm Bloomberg is Goebbels. And if he does buy the Presidency, It will serve to rouse the population of normies more than we ever could.

          • Due to the amazingy odd collection of Rats running for the nomination I think Bloomberg saw, exactly as Trump once did, that he had a real shot at this. I’m making him #1 right now because all the others have a hard ceiling. The main difference between Trump and Bloomberg appears to be in the quality of pussy around them.

        • Wow! So these are the ‘progressives.’ They are running the Democratic Party like the ward healers of the 1930s in New York and Chicago. I guess with inflation the cost went up, but they still use today’s version of the ‘walking around money’ which they’d spread around to local party hacks, gratuitous promises and provide adult beverages to bums on skid row – which they have now resurrected in numerous Democrat-run cities.

      • There is still an entire wing of Republicans that hate him so much they will vote Democrat.

        I think that’s more of a feather than a wing.

    • Their candidates are terrible, but remember, we’re becoming a third-world country, and third-world countries get truly embarrassing politicians. (Just look at the astoundingly terrible “black leaders” we’ve got now.)

      (And I think you could argue that Trump himself is in the third-world style.)

      The challenge is going to be to stay first-world people in a third-world country. As you suggest, that will become a kind of leadership in itself. And make you a target for the third-worlders.

      • Bloomberg also fits in really well with both third-world politics and the current politics of the left. He gets his way by the distribution of “walking around money”, which really matches the Dem platform of “free everything”. What people don’t understand is, just like it is not who votes that matters, but who counts the votes, it is not the walking around money that matters, but who is in control of the walking around money. You can be a glad recipient of free stuff, but if you are not the one passing it out, sooner or later the freebies stop and everything is taken from you. The whole Dem “free everything” is third-world 85-IQ stuff.

      • “But while making the rounds and introducing herself to the troops, Outlaw (the first black female police commissioner of Philadelphia) said, people kept pointing out that her black nail polish technically violated the department’s directives on appearance.

        So in one of her first official actions as top cop, Outlaw changed the rule to allow for more stylish nails.”

  36. I agree with most of this, but the constant internecine war between different groups and individuals on the dissident right is stupid, and wastes a lot of time, and effort. Just for crying out loud, IGNORE them. Attack the Left, and just ignore people who are annoying you. Everyone seems to have a chip on their shoulder. We are a gorilla army that’s spends more time attacking each other, than who we all hate in the Capitol. We take one step forward, then 2 back, because someone can’t just ignore an insult. Too many egos….

  37. Not sure I follow all your thoughts in today’s posting, Z-man. They are in many ways well above my level of understanding. I then attempted to listen to the YouTube posting you referenced—I simply could not. The person you refute seems to be thinking (let’s call it that in all charity) while he is talking. It is way too painful to follow. I do not disagree, nor agree. I simply tuned out. There is no reason for it. He has all the time in the world to script (think through and edit) his argument before recording and posting.

    I assume, as is human nature, that since he specifically and publicly disputes a posting of yours, that you have more of an interest and desire to comprehend his logic, I however simply can not. This may be a major failing on my part, and if so others may comment upon it. Through all my teachers I am made wiser.

    Once again I thank you for your concern for your readers’ time and your normal level of discourse in your postings. So I guess my comment here is to make a single point: It makes little difference if you are the most astute observer in the world of the human tragedy when you are incapable of communicating such knowledge to others.

    • I couldn’t make it more than a minute. He has the male version of vocal fry. Very unpleasant. Also it’s a month old and only has 88 views. Doesn’t seem like he’s a real mover and shaker in the movement

      • I had full intentions of struggling through the entire 18:30, but had had enough by about the 6:30 mark. You didn’t miss anything in that additional five and half minutes, in case you were worried about it. Ha, ha.

        By the way, at the time of this writing he is up to nearly 200 views. So I guess he owes our host a big debt of gratitude.

    • One of the many things I hate about the new century is that video has replaced text as the primary means of presenting ideas and arguments. You see this across fields as diverse as technology (how to build an amplifier circuit, etc…) and politics.

      I have tried to make videos on technical subjects. Even though I had written things down in advance I found myself rambling and going off on tangents. I then sat there editing clips together at a ratio of (optimistically) 1 hour editing for every 5 minutes of relatively coherent and watchable video. IOW, it’s harder than it looks. Most of the people on YT don’t know this though and think “I’ll just turn on the webcam and talk”.

      • Yep, heck I ramble even when I write—and I know it. The only thing that somewhat saves me is that typing takes time and one simply quits after awhile—thereby saving both myself and the audience even more pain. 😉

      • Agreed times one thousand. I cannot sit and watch a video when it would make so much more sense for it to be a simple blog post. Podcasts are ok when im driving but video is so slow.

  38. Disquieting possibility: the extremists anticipate a collapse of the middle and are simply acting accordingly. Maybe extremists always do this, or maybe they’re blind, or maybe they’re on to something.

    The order is so eroded that I think it’s a battle of wills to decide what comes next. Having lost institutional dominance, does the normally meek middle have the guts to hold?

    • Extremists and ideologues are always in the pumpkin patch, sure the Great Pumpkin is about to arrive at any moment. They hope the middle collapses, because they think they automatically win. At best, that is a 50-50 proposition.

      • We’re being put at a disadvantage because the left is abandoning the center faster than we are.

        If the Great Pumpkin came today, it would be 30-70 (we’re the 30).

        I think that’s part of what redpilling means at the moment: not just grasping reality (the intellectual component of redpilling) but also abandoning the center (the political component.)

        Keep redpilling, lads. We’ve got to get it to at least 51-49 before the Day of the Pumpkin.

          • Ha, thanks, man. That’s one reason I’ve been a little quiet on the Zblog recently.

            By the way, Zman, if you’re interested in me putting together a similar anthology of your blog posts for you, let me know and I’ll send you an email to set it up.

          • Thanks. I’ve been slowly going back through the old posts plucking out ones I liked or that were popular. It’s a long process, but I keep pecking away at it.

            I suspect I will meet Morgoth at Collett’s thing next month.

    • I had a similar response; the middle seems to be collapsing. This may be an illusion stemming from social media and the sharp left turn the Democrats have taken in the wake of OrangeManBad’s election.

      The counter to this view is that most people don’t follow politics and most are not on Twitter. They’re not looking for anyone to rock the boat because they are relatively comfortable. The last thing they want is to have some wingnuts take over. Anyone who looks likely to upset the order is going to be viewed with suspicion.

      Democratic Party regulars are getting scared all over again the Bernie is going to win the nomination. That’s a sign that their internal polling, or whatever Ouija board they use, agrees with this assessment. We’re not at Weimar-level decadence yet.

Comments are closed.