The Neoconservative Persuasion

The title of the show this week is taken from the title of a book by the guy most consider to be the founder of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol. He was one of the first far-left intellectuals to break with the Left and migrate to the new Right. He embraced the term neocon, in an “own the insult” way, which is probably why the term has remained with us, despite it originally being an insult. The Left used it as a way to criticize their former colleagues for their break with them over various issues.

Today, of course, our side uses the term as an insult. Even within what is left of mainstream conservatism, the term and the people associated with it is falling out of favor, especially as the neocons get nastier in their critiques of populism. David French now sounds like a less masculine version of Robin DiAngelo. That is not an exaggeration, as he sounds like Mickey Mouse, and she sounds like she has had one too many Pall Mall’s with her boiler makers.

Just as it is useful to understand the language of the Left, it is useful to know the intellectual history of the legacy Right. When the Left uses the slur “racist” they do not mean it in the way normal people understand it. This is why it is stupid to debate them on those terms. When you deny being a racist, you are legitimizing the term and their definition of it. If you try to own the insult, you do the same.  Instead, when you know their definition, you can attack them from the moral high ground.

The same thing applies to the history of the neocons. Understanding why they say America is an idea, rather than a nation, is key to dealing with the claim. Someone like Ben Shapiro does not really know why he believes America is just an idea. He was simply taught that by his Straussian professors. The same is true of his chanting about Judeo-Christianity. You can strip away the intellectual authority of the claims when you know the source of it. Knowledge is power.

The other thing that we can learn from studying the neocons is how the conservative movement was so easily coopted by them. The reason is that the New Right, as it was called early on, had no moral philosophy of its own. The Buckley movement started from a disposition and then became a reaction to current events. They were not starting from a body of moral philosophy that contradicted the Left. The neocons supplied a morality framed by the founding documents.

It is why any genuine opposition to what is going on in the West must first start with a moral philosophy that stands outside of the prevailing orthodoxy. Only by being able to say, “this is who we are, this is what we believe, this is why we believe it, and this is why it is superior to the alternative” can a genuine alternative blossom. Simply starting with a laundry list of outcomes, desired or opposed, like the Buckley crew, means falling prey to the same sort of corruption that killed conservatism.

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. I am now on Deezer, for our European haters and Stitcher for the weirdos. YouTube also has the full podcast. Of course, there is a download link below.

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!

Promotions: The good folks at Alaska Chaga are offering a 15-percent discount to readers of this site. You just click on the this link and they take care of the rest. About a year ago they sent me some of their stuff. Up until that point, I had never heard of chaga, but I gave a try and it is very good. It is like a tea, but it has a milder flavor. It’s hot here in Lagos, so I’ve been drinking it cold. It is a great summer beverage.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link.   If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb.  Just email them directly to book at

This Week’s Show


  • 00:00: Opening
  • 02:00: The Origin Story
  • 22:00: Leo Strauss
  • 42:00: Never Right
  • 57:00: Closing (Be Like Me)

Direct DownloadThe iTunesGoogle PlayiHeart Radio, RSS Feed, Amazon

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On YouTube

166 thoughts on “The Neoconservative Persuasion

  1. I say something like only by being able to say, “this is who we are, this is what we believe, this is why we believe it, and this is why it is superior to the alternative” can a genuine alternative blossom. 24-7 on other boards.

    Problem is that getting so called Conservatives to cooperate or sacrifice for the common good is not easy. Something tin the psychology of these men is fundamentally broken, too much TV/Internet not enough Faith or Fathers are maybe a just plain pathological obsession with economic systems and materialism.

    I don’t know.

    Many are utterly repelled to the point of considering collective purpose to be evil, Communism 2.0 or something.

    Boog or Collapse can still happen but my notion is that it will end up more a giant collective temper tantrum like the Irish Troubles writ large or Syria.

    Now they might win eliminate rivals in their area, break apart the US (pretty likely actually) or create a war of reduction so that no one can win c.f Lebanon but the real victory a healthy functional USA is beyond them unless a whole lot of people pull heads from backsides and get the above.

    I suppose we deserve it, individualism and materialism are both trash tier ethos.

    Live by garbage, die by garbage.

  2. When you get back to Strauss, you might include some comments on the Michael Anton/1776 Project controversy: Chronicles Magazine and Paul Gottfried and the other side at side at AmGreatness which would then occasion some comments on the neo-Machiavelian nature (or its caricature) of today’s culture war politics.

  3. Who else broke out laughing when the intro music to a session on Neo-cons was Hava Nageela?

  4. The show avoided the J question. Immigration is a j issue. Professor McDonald laid out the reason for this- Jewish people are safer in a multicultural society as opposed to a majority white gentile society. Or so they think

    Neocons were primarily Jewish. Frum, Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz and on and on. They primarily endorse the Middle East wars because those wars made it safer for their people in the special country. This has been prevailing wisdom for years. Not anti semitic. Just realistic.

    • “Jewish people are safer in a multicultural society as opposed to a majority white gentile society”

      Are they too short sighted to realize that no one is safe when civilization breaks down and civil war breaks out?

  5. You know what is truly tiresome?

    Listening to normies pontificate how the US is going to debate and vote its way out of its current predicament.

    Yeah, no.

  6. @ Stephanos Xytegenios

    Leave it to a Greek to fixate on anything anus related lol

    But thanks, yes, I needed a laugh.

    • The breaking news today was that the Frankfurt School ordered somebody in the Pentagon to unleash the B-52s.

      When I first saw it this afternoon, I thought maybe it might be a parody [of a meme or something], but apparently it’s a real story:

      US sends in B-52s in desperate bid to stop the Taliban seizing key Afghan cities – where British troops fought and died – as fighters seize prison and set all the inmates free in latest town to fall

      I’m telling you, the Frankfurt School is hell-bent on Neo-Khazaria extending from Warsaw in the east all the way to Kabul in the west.

  7. I’ll take a stab stating at a moral philosophy that “works.”

    We all evolved, and that evolution has been ongoing for a few hundred thousand years. And as we spread out around the globe, each cohort of our species adapted to the local environment in which they settled. This adaptation produced “traits” that “worked” in the sense that it enhanced their ability to survive & thrive in the midst of hardships & existential threats endemic to that region. In a sense, our ancestors were the survivors of a unique gauntlet that rewarded what DID work locally and penalized what didn’t.

    And so, each unique cohort of our species has acquired unique traits, some of which are easily visible (skin color), some are internal & microscopic (metabolism & disease resistance), and some are cultural (local customs). And now the hard part. Someone whose ancestors evolved in Africa is not well suited to thrive in a northern mid-latitude environment. They are like a fish out of water. Similarly, someone whose ancestors developed customs that “worked” in the Middle East is not well suited to get along with peoples that evolved their local customs in a Central or Northern European environment.

    Moral of the story. When you mix up different peoples with different evolutionary histories, conflict is inevitable. None of us got to choose our parents, so blaming a child for being born into a fucked up society is simply wrong. The blame properly belongs to the assholes that are creating the fucked up society. They are the problem that must be solved before any remedy can be implemented. And if the remedy involves blaming the victims, it’s not a remedy.

    • But the whites seem to do well enough in Brazil’s torrid climate. (It’s polite there to ask a guest, “do you want to take a shower” when they come over just to visit.)

      If there’s ever a global catastrophe visited upon the Earth, I think Brazil might become the new center of world civilization. I have an article I wrote on this at my blog. Click on my name and scroll down to “World Civilization At Its Most Resilient.”

      I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if in such a circumstance the whites of Brazil visit a genocide upon the browns and the blacks, thinking the favelas have got to go . . .

      • Yeah, drop them into an Amazon backwater with just a spear and loin cloth and see how well they do.

        • Man’s defining characteristic is the ability to create tools to allow him to adapt to his environment and adapt his environment to him. Modern Whites would die in Europe, too, if you dropped them into an uninhabited Europe with just a spear and loin cloth. We have brains so we don’t have to live like apes with accoutrements.

          • The first Homo sapiens to arrive into what is now called Central Europe were in fact hunter gatherer tribesman with spears & animal skins as clothing. And they migrated into dense & dark forests with many existential threats, including large animal predators that dominated these forests. No doubt many of these early inhabitants died from these extreme hardships, but you are descended from the ones that survived, prevailed, and reproduced. That is your evolutionary heritage. Squander it at your own risk.

    • No such thing as evolution. Good grief. THeres no evidence for it, and its philosophically impossible. Why does this attract people? My guess is the nonsensical theory of evolution allows man to be God, and to say that morality is a creation too, so I can do what I want

    • TomA—looks to me as though you’ve simply restated the basic principle of Race Realism—the outcome of which dictates separation of the races. Not sure where the “moral” in moral philosophy comes in (I’ve always been slow in these matters). It seems simply HBD science principles, and scientific inquiry to me is an amoral undertaking.

      • Not just race realism, but evolutionary history realism. Everyone of us was born into this world with an evolutionary heritage that we did not choose; it was bequeathed to by our parents. Ditto for the place of our birth and all of the customary & cultural baggage that came with it; which we absorbed in our developmental years long before we could even understand what it meant to be “of a people.” Nevertheless, you must play this hand in life regardless.

        Now the morality part. There are “persons in a position of power” in this world who are actively mixing up all these disparate “peoples” in the misguided belief that “we can all get along.” And it’s not “working.” Rather, it causing extreme conflict, destroyed lives, and needless death. It is not moral to blame the victims for this state of affairs. It IS moral to hold the persons responsible for this carnage to account for their actions & the concomitant harm they’ve done. That is your moral license to implement a remedy to the core problem. And complaining is not a remedy. It’s an avoidance of rolling up your sleeves.

    • I agree! I come not to bury Z Man but to praise to him! Encore!
      Seriously, thanks for putting together a succinct history of Neoconservatism to point those newly acquainted with race realism after years of indoctrination in the school system.

  8. I wonder whether young people are more prone to being liberal-progressive, or if it is because they have spent most of their lives in the progressive factories called school. I wonder if the kind of idealism attributed to young people actually existed before mass public schooling.

    • Tars, I think about that question a lot. These poor kids today are water boarded with propaganda like none of us were.

      Some kids are naturally rebellious but we must observe how easily these rebellious instincts are directed by those who control the media. The hippie phenomenon is probably the best example. Most of those boomer kids were manipulated into being hippies by the controllers of the media. The boomer kids did NOT rebel against the actual authority. They followed the media authority and submitted to it.

      In general, youthful rebellion is bVsh1t. Rebellious kids follow the media because they don’t know any better.

      • Line Out: “These poor kids today are water boarded with propaganda like none of us were.”

        Funny way to put it. But sad.

        Yep, I thought we had it kinda bad in high school in late 80’s. Sure, back then if you had good Right instincts and a nose for manipulation, you could see that every page in the history and sociology textbooks had either subtle or blatant Prog bias. Blatant in our sociology texts for sure. Those books may as well had the words BECAUSE BIGOTRY typed in bold letters on every page.

        But now, like you said, they’re clubbing kids over the head with it.

        As for the rebel kids of today. Since Prog is in such control now, there’s maybe fewer than ever. If a teenager thinks outside the lines of the race script, he not only will be seen as a grotesque. But will think of himself as a grotesque the moment he catches himself thinking it. I guess Orwell or someone already summed this up with the concept of pre-think or whatever the idea is called where you squash your bad-thought pupa before it can take wings.

        • There’s been a nearly complete reversal, in my experience. In any crowd where masks are “recommended,” you see almost every member of two groups wearing the face diaper: the old (who have a reasonable case, though one that I believe is over exaggerated) and….teenagers. Those natural, instinctive rebels can’t wait to conform. I saw the same thing with college kids back when – junior volunteer commissars, all of them (bear in mind that I retired some years ago; I can’t even imagine what the Junior Volunteer Thought Police are up to on campus these days).

          • Severian, you’ve stated this before. And as previously, your point is so prescient I must again agree and emphasize. I too see the younger folk—teenagers/20-somethings—wearing the mask of “submission” proudly and openly. Like a badge of honor, worn even in crowds of non-wearers! It is perhaps the most disheartening thing I witness in my daily routine. As they say, the youth are our future, and it’s not looking bright.

          • They’ve been brainwashed and gaslighted from infancy.. You think the bignoses don’t know how to manipulate the cattle?

      • I slightly disagree because it seems as though the rebellious instincts in most people don’t surface until the pre-teen and teen years.

        The Bolsheviks are well aware of this, and they know they can limit these instincts if they can start the brainwashing as early as possible in a person’s life.

      • Line In: “Most of those boomer kids were manipulated into being hippies by the controllers of the media.”

        It’s good you said “most”, because it shows that you grant that it can’t be totally reduced to a Pavlovian: Media Stimulus = Predictable Public Reaction.

        And this is where I usually differ from the DR view of societal change. DR says our degenerate media lords feed society low quality degenerative poison. I agree it’s poison. But strongly disagree that it’s low quality. I think the music, art, architecture, fashion, movies, etc, from every era is great. And when it gets stale for a period, the creative reaction against it has progressed wonderfully. (Except for some aggressively nefarious architecture here and there).

        For me and the Left, the fight against boredom and the imaginative thirst for the new are the motivating factors in creative arts’ progression. The DR/Conservative sees Prog willful destruction as the motivating factor.

        The beatnik, hippy, punk, new-waver etc aesthetic happened because it was fresh and the quality WAS there. Media tries to sell us on lots of things. Not all successfully. They “threw” the Beetles at us. We didn’t eat it up just because we were commanded to. We could sense the quality.

        Just saying man. Yeah, agree, it’s all degeneracy, but it’s freaking great stuff. Men are super creative.

    • My sense of things is that family divorce has made them

      A). Perhaps less trustful of families and open to what government has to offer in terms of stability

      B) afraid to start families of their own and they find an outlet and acceptance in the “group”

      C). Less willing to take on adulthood head on

      Not saying that divorce is 100% the cause but I have definitely noticed that kids who come from intact families are more confident and willing to take more risk. Seems divorce has shellshocked so many young people. Another crime against our people among the many

  9. Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » The Neoconservative Persuasion

  10. IMHO, FDR doesn’t get enough blame for the problems of the 50s and 60s and of today. FDR very fundamentally changed this country and especially the courts and particularly, the field of law. Not only do you get a generation of FDR appointees throughout the government and the entire SCOTUS, but having all of those progressive judges throughout the system fundamentally changed law. Not only did they do their evil activism with the actual law, but as a side effect of being such a large force. They had outsized influence on the entire field of law through the prestige of their positions and the number of young lawyers who clerked for them and the books on law they wrote that got in the law universities. The entire court system is nothing but law school graduates, the same is true of Congress and governors as well. Even the Neocons were affected by this change of the culture of law.

    The total loss of freedom of association under the post FDR era, for example, was tried in the 19th century. In the late 19th century the Congress passed a law saying that no place of public accommodation could discriminate on account of race. The courts immediately struck it down as unconstitutional because it was so blatantly unconstitutional.

    • Yeah, he was a real doozy. But Im starting to see that all of the country’s politicians since the income tax have just been opportunists

      Seems they were always about how to buy as many votes as possible while disguising the motivations in moral dressing.

      As we say, democracy attracts the worst people

      The only ones who could have stood in the way were people of old money and perhaps the military but they weren’t strong enough if they ever even tried

      Moral of the story, the moment the concept of democracy was hatched began its countdown to its own death. Expecting everyday regular people to manage a nation’s affairs, to show restraint in the face of being promised gibs, is pretty asinine on its face. It has taken me most of my life to realize it. And now that I have there is no going back.

    • Just for fun, I’ve read a few legal papers that gave a history, perhaps slanted, that showed what a hodge-podge the various state laws were about public acomodations and similar access issues (pre 1964 Civil Rights). Like it was ok to refuse service to someone in a military uniform, or because they weren’t wearing a tie, but not because of race, etc. America has lost a lot of rights over the decades, not the least are most rights to decide who can and cannot enter private property. I suppose the logical extreme all this would be when the State nationalizes all property, and decides who you share your home or apartment with, a la classic Soviet Union.

  11. Speaking of … El Jebe! is back in the news. Tweeting out how much he dislikes Americans and how much he loves foreigners, and how disappointed he is that the Olympic Team is not 100% foreigners for hire. Its not playing well. So it looks like people prefer the strong horse. Rather than the weak one.

    • Anyone with a twitter account should remind him that Orange Man beat his ass with 1/10th or less of money and zero media or party support while he was the party and media favorite. Not only did he knock him out of the race, he utterly humiliated Jeb Bush, turned him into a laughing stock and the but of jokes.

      He is so repugnant that people voted for a reality TV star with seemingly ZERO chance of winning at the time, so as not to support Jeb friggin Bush. What a scumbag. The whole Bush family, every single one of them, belong in prison. His brother should be brought up under a tribunal for crimes against the peace. He should be buried next to the Nazis hung under the same “law.”

      • and in fact when Jeb was Gov of Florida his people screwed over my dad on a real estate deal

        Via the so-called “Christian” Roger Staubach who is a total fraud and a low down pos

          • Basic details

            My father negotiated a new lease with a state agency. They were a long term tenant in a building he owned and up for a renewal when their lease expired. So my dad negotiated it directly with them. Which was how it was always done in Tallahassee.

            But Jeb comes in and had hired Staubach to be the state’s exclusive brokerage for all state leases. This was during his push “to privatize” much of the state’s dealings.

            So my dad was set to get his broker’s commission for having negotiated the lease by himself, which was a decent chunk of change like $50,000. But Staubach comes and takes it, and meanwhile had done absolutely nothing to earn it. Was never even involved. My dad asked how can you take money when you never did anything? It was laughable. At next meeting there is Staubach with a Jeb flunky who tells my dad if he keeps it up he’d never see another state lease in his life. Blacklisted, basically. This went far up the food chain only because Staubach was directly involved and is not either a good Christian or honorable Navy man. As far as I concerned he stole $50,000 from my dad.

            These are gangsters. Make no mistake about it. And I hope I didn’t divulge too much lol.

          • Obviously none of us know with any certainty the background of any of the others of us on an anonymous bulletin board like this.

            But that poast of yours reads like nothing I’ve ever seen on teh innerT00bz, and I go all the way back to FTP & Gopher for muh gossip.



            PS: Deeply deeply disturbing about Staubach.

            But I guess that explains why he’s sitting on a billion dollar real estate empire.

            Because all other things being equal, psychopaths always win, and Nice Guys always finish last.

            Dead. Last.

  12. The Neoconservatives policies, ideology and effect on the country, have been an area of interest to me for the last 20+ years, especially as a former service member. The grand ideas and goals they have tried to implement in foreign policy took me around the world.

    I was not a high-level analyst or spook, yet even as a 22 year old kid my intuition and background told me that many of the actions after 9/11 did not pass the logic test. Shortly after that event, I went to the library to expand my prior knowledge, and research the region I was being sent to for an all-inclusive business trip courtesy of Uncle Sam.

    A book that really affected how I saw things happening was Raphael Patai’s “The Arab Mind.” This book, while generalizing the culture, customs and traditions of the Middle East, gave an insight into how the countries came to be formed after WWI, and the multiple tribes that inhabited each country.

    If a young enlisted kid could recognize the futility of trying to establish the concept of liberal democracy amongst the former nomadic Bedouin tribes that now, playact as “nations”, surely the men and women at the highest positions of US political power and advisement knew this as well. To believe otherwise is a sure indication of their lack of sanity.

    There was not an Arab Thomas Jefferson or Afghani John Q. Adams waiting in the wings to step in. Saddam was not the Arab Hitler figure ready to capture and rule the lands between the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean. At the time (2002-2003), the no-fly zones were in effect, military bases surrounded the country The greatest treasure of a nation is the youth, yet this was wasted in places like Fallujah, Baghdad and dusty hovels of no use.

    NeoCons gave us death, a surveillance state that rivals anything the USSR could have dreamed, more restrictions on civil liberties, and a host of other maladies we still have to deal with for a long time.

    Tomorrow is the tenth anniversary to the day for the death of a good man who, among many others, died in a backwater country that we did not need to be in. I will celebrate his life, hoist a drink in his honor, and curse every NeoCon Chickhawk ruling class demon for putting him there.

    In summary, I despise Neoconservatives and their sick ambitions that continue to put the young through the meat grinder for nothing.

  13. As for esoteric writing, mostly it’s just bad writing, which Germans (except for Schopenhauer) excel in, rather than any attempt to encode a message. Rather, it’s a means of creating a cult: it casts an aura of an important bit of wisdom, if only you are smart enough to figure it out. When you reach the center of the labyrinth, you find there’s nothing, but by then “it’s too late, after all these years of study, to do anything but become a professor of Heideggerism” (as Walter Kaufmann said). It also gives you the ability to then dismiss all criticism as “uninformed” etc. It’s a key way to set up and preserve Jewish guru cults (Marx, Freud, Strauss). As for Heidegger, the official SS newspaper, The Black Flag, said that his philosophy “was Talmudic in nature, which is why he has so many Jewish students.”

    • Walter Kaufmann—last great Jewish intellectual? probably—was Jordan Peterson for men with still-somewhat-classical educations and normal testosterone levels. That’s why he’s forgotten. Yours is the first reference to him I’ve seen in about twenty-five years.

  14. Neocons: when I was a teenager, short on money, I bought lots of “remaindered” books from the Barnes & Noble mail order catalog. One of these was a collection called “The Neoconservatives” by NYT’s Peter Steinfels. IIRC, it was mostly a bunch of articles from Dissent by big names like Harrington. Harrington said he didn’t coin the term, but it was “widely used” among the editors at Dissent.

    And yes, it was a slur, like “neo-homophobe” or “neo-heteronormative” or “neo-racist” would be today. Like “neo-confederate.” As the joke went, a conservative was a liberal who got mugged. These were liberals, even socialists, who had “second thoughts” (like David Horowitz’ later movement) about the Great Society. Maybe it had gone far enough, or too far. Maybe the bleks should be under more supervision. There was James Q. Wilson on “broken windows” for example. Daniel Bell talked about being “a socialist in economics, a liberal in politics and a conservative in culture,” Democrats like Moynihan who worked for Nixon and advised him to treat the bleks with “benign neglect.” To the editors of Dissent, they were at best mistaken, at worst just traitors, or sell outs. “Wreckers” as Stalin would say, or “capitalist roaders” as Mao would. Hence the term. As always, “dissent” only meant dissent from the Establishment, not within the movement.

    Amusingly, one of the tsk-tsking writers was Joseph Epstein, who, by the time the book was remaindered, had become a necon himself. There he was “refuting” all the arguments I had already read him making in Commentary. (Remember Woody Allen’s joke about Dissent and Commentary merging to form Dysentery?)

    Amazon tells me book was reissued in 2016, with Steinfels adding a Preface “From Dissent to Political Power,” which might be worth a look.

    • Oh, and there was always a hint that the real problem was big city Jews who didn’t want to deal with bleks. It started in NYC when there were demands that Jewish teachers be replaced with black teachers. Turns out the “Jews heroically teaching in black schools to tikkun olam” were actually rather protective of their closed shop. And of course, crime. So an early example of the Jewish motif of “Integration for you badwhites, gated communities for us goodwhites.” Today they’re still arguing about this kind of thing in NYC schools.

    • Interesting backfill. I knew Harrington had at least popularized it (and that the term was always meant pejoratively). It wasn’t synonymous with Scoop Jackson omni-invader foreign policy until the 90s. When you’d read the N word before that it usually referred to some United Social Workers’ Call-In Hour type of dispute, e.g. “broken windows” or alcoholism or porn/censorship.

    • After another cup of coffee, and downloading the kindle preview, I see that Steinfel’s book is not the one I remember. I return to my original memory, that Epstein was himself the editor, in his capacity of pre-neocon liberal. The book, a Dell paperback, is nowhere on Amazon, and Epstein’s wikipedia page doesn’t mention it. Of course, a web search for “epstein and neoconservatism” is pointless. Is this the Mandela effect? Or is somebody hiding something?

      Anyway, the kindle preview has the whole 2016 intro, which is worth reading. Steinfels talks about 3 stages of neocons, which he acknowledges he got from some French guy’s book. The first were the guys I described, liberals who thought the 60s had gone too far. With Reagan’s election, they moved into DC, and became promoters of corp. capitalism (remember Daniel Bell in stage 1 saying he was a socialist?). They were quiescent under Clinton, but re-emerged after 9/11 as the Global War Forever types we know today.

      The notion that the neocons were welcomed because they provided the Right with ideas is correct. Joe McCarthy was right about commies, but he was no intellectual. In my day, “conservatives” were Ignatius Reilly style weirdos, who flaunted their knowledge of arcane subjects like Scholasticism (Richard Weaver) or Sanskrit (Revilo Oliver) while deploring such modern degeneracy as the habit of wearing shoes (Weaver; really, read his Ideas Have Consquences). World in between was anathema to them. And now here were guys saying that the New Deal was a good idea, so was Medicare (shoes for Granny!), and while blacks should keep in their place, there was no need to lynch them. Birth control was OK, but maybe their were too many abortions, and homos should keep quiet. And McCarthy was right! That’s an attractive position for someone who wants to be, you know, modern and normal. You know, it still seems like common sense.

  15. Hey Z man, I suppose that this is a bit off topic, but could you tell me the name of the song (I am presuming it was Dean Martin) that you closed this episode with ? It would save me a lot of time trying to go through the Dean Martin catalog trying to find it. Thanks. BTW, as always, an interesting look at a subject that I might never give a second thought to without you bringing it to my attention

  16. Great show, Z! Remember, Rod Stewart hated Maggie May and thought it would be a flop…you never know what the masses want!

      • When I was a kid I was told I looked like him

        Later on some said Matt Dillon

        Even later I’ve gotten the Baldwin brothers


        Man I hated those comparisons.

        • You think that’s bad? I’ve been compared to Troy Garrity, the unholy spawn of Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden! But also Harry Connick, Jr., which is not too bad, I spose.

    • Popular culture is full of things that their creators were lukewarm on and turned out to be maximally successful.

      It’s entirely possible the Dark Enlightenment will follow the same road of popularity. Right now we dissidents appear to be small in number, but we could be sitting on a winning lottery ticket. There is supposed to be a “tipping point” at which a small number of people suddenly infect the rest with their idea and it becomes majority rule.

      Historic Christianity falls in this camp. For decades it was much on the outskirts, and then suddenly the Eastern Roman Emperor was in its ball court. Constantine declares it the official state religion. Alt-right thinking and similar variants may end up being the same kind of thing, with the population scrambling to find a place within its political structure.

  17. Excellent episode. With regard to Marx, doesn’t the ambiguity and long-windedness of his writings come from the influence of Hegel? Anyone who has read Schopenhauer’s ferocious skewering of Hegel and his followers for their gobbledygook can never forget it.

    • All German philosophers before Nietzsche were linguistic obscurantists, and all the ones after him are linguistic obscurantists and also liars. This is my only “Straussian” opinion.

    • As a recent “expert” on Nietzsche (I’ve read his catalog within the past year), I concur with your post and Hemid below. He was no fan of the prolix German authors. He had not so nice things to say about Kant, Schopenhauer and Strauss. Nietzsche is credited, probably by one of his critics, eschewing sesquipedalian Hochdeutsch for a clearer German adopting styles of English and French prose. His writing style, not just his philosophy, influenced later Kraut writers.

      Humor: one famous Monty Python skit/song (Philosophers Song*) posits that all famous thinkers are drunks. I have no data on Nietzsche, but it’s a fact that in Plato, wine, sometimes to excess, at times appears at the day’s discussion. Attendees were excused from imbibing if they were still tore up from the previous revelry 🙂


  18. Here is a good article about the recent troubles in South Africa.

    I was heartened by the reports of White citizens and communities organizing to form effective self-defense units.

    The fire rises!

  19. Is the “west coast” Straussian, Michael Anton, threading the needle? His last, lengthy, article for American Greatness made some good points laying out the synthesis between the founders and St. Abe.

    Loved your “Be Like Me” closing song.

  20. If I were crafting a “moral high ground” campaign, I might steal a page from Warren G.* Harding: “It’s ok to be Normal.”

    Witness the success of “It’s ok to be White.” It drives them stark raving mad, because it puts the onus on them to explain why, exactly, it’s not ok to be White. The smarter ones try desperately to change the subject, while the dumber ones (i.e. 95% of them) are all too happy to tell you, which makes them sound like Heinrich Himmler on Whip-Its. That’s a big win either way.

    So… it’s ok to be normal. Men have a penis, girls have a vagina, as Schopenhauer once said. No biggie. Why should it be any other way? The fact is, most of us just aren’t that interesting, and that’s ok. You can be a wonderful human being, even without indisputable video evidence posted all over social media. Just being an average, decent guy these days is, in fact, pulling off the kind of quadruple axel that would force even the French judge to give you a 10. You like what you like because you like it. Not everything in this world requires a ten page, fifty footnote justification. Kittens are cute. Sunshine is nice. Pretty girls are pretty. They just are (alternate campaign slogan: The New Sincerity).

    The key is the affect. Our so-called culture introduced a new facial expression into the human repertoire: The smug, shit-eating Jon Stewart smirk. That is the one thing we must train our faces never to do, by electroshock therapy if necessary. An open, honest expression at all times. Of course Beethoven is better than Cardi B. How could anyone ever think otherwise?… he asked, eyes wide, all sincerity. No explanations, no excuses, and above all no smirk. They don’t have the vocabulary to even start “arguing” with you, so let them tie themselves into raging estrogen knots trying.

    *and let’s not forget his lesser-known but still vital running mate, Nate Dogg.

    • There’s been sort of a reversal

      Used to be the drama queens moved to L.A. and the norms stayed home

      Now the people I L.A. are almost too boringly normal and all the caked up drama is in small town America

    • > The fact is, most of us just aren’t that interesting, and that’s ok. You can be a wonderful human being, even without indisputable video evidence posted all over social media. Just being an average, decent guy these days is, in fact, pulling off the kind of quadruple axel that would force even the French judge to give you a 10.

      The Ned Flanders Option

      I would only add when being intentionally a pain on the system up to and including being essentially ungovernable, do it politely with a sincere smile on your face.

      HR: I noticed you didn’t get the mandated vaccination
      Ned: I’m sorry. I have conditions that make me feel uneasy about the vaccination.
      HR: It’s required for all employees.
      Ned: I understand and I’m sorry for the inconvenience. Could we set up a meeting next week to discuss it further? I have to get back to work.
      HR: I need your assurance you will get the vax.
      Ned: Can I get back to you in a week with written reasons? Like I said, Some of my colleagues are waiting on me.

  21. Great show, Z.

    But I have something bothering me and I’ll be damned if I can shrug it off. You talk about Strauss and some of his ingeniously crafted ideas that stroke the egos of the people in such a way that they forget the nonsense they’re based on.

    Let us be honest. Sometimes those things sound right because they ARE right. Not trying to be a dink here – but – as an example: the dissidents are all over race realism and tribulations and challenges of dealing with blacks. We have a black family at our church – and they are nice folks. They’re smart, they’re charitable, and have virtues that exceed that of many whites. I am serious, I cannot find fault in these people. You couldn’t. Yes, race, genetics and science is real… but here these guys are. You could set your watch and warrant by them. And before anyone accuses me of it – no, I am not a neocon. (Or at least I don’t think so. I know that the exception to the rule is an exception

    Nowadays, I am a redpilled stubfart that questions everything – myself most of all. I wonder that when these ‘cleverly crafted narratives and ideals of guys like Strauss pop up… could it just be that they DO have the better of us? That maybe we need to do some homework on our side of things?

    Are there areas that you feel that the dissidents are on thin ice?

    Regardless – great show as usual. Have a great weekend you guys.

    • There are multiple replies to you “nice black family” example – which comes up often in various forms.

      First, the moral answer.

      Short version:

      The nice black family is not my people. Simple as that.

      If whites allow every nice, smart non-white family into our community, it will no longer be our community. Eventually, we likely won’t even exist as a people as the various groups mix.

      Your nice black family is the first step to the end of my people, something you’re literally watching happen before your eyes.
      Real men have understood this danger for millennia, which is why they didn’t allow it.

      Do you have a people or not?

      Longer version:

      My people are European Americans, not because I believe them to be superior to other people/races but because they are my family. I don’t hate other races because I love my own, just as I don’t hate my neighbors children because I love my own.

      I want a community for my people because I want to live among and be ruled by my own. If we allow other races into my community, it’s no longer our community.

      Or if you prefer an example, I knew a Japanese guy. He lived in America for many years, really loved Americans and America. Before he returned home, he would often tell us that if we ever visited Japan that we should stay with him. That guy – who loves America and Americans – would never want us to be allowed to become Japanese citizens and live their permanently with our families.

      We were not his people. We were not welcome to settle in his land no matter how much he liked us personally. Simple (and correct) as that.

      There are hundreds of millions of nice, hard-working people of other races in the world. So what. They are not my people. If I allow them into my community, we die.

      Now, onto the facts and logic argument:

      Ask your smart black family to explain the oh-so-deep statistical concepts “on average” and “regression to the mean” to you.

      The nieces and nephews of your smart black family won’t be so smart or so punctual. They will be more like average blacks as will the children of your smart black couple. And so will the black families that move into your neighborhood next.

      • Yes, and – the enemy always frames immigration as: “If you’re against immigration, it must mean you’re a white supremacist,” as in you must believe whites are superior to all other races. People don’t want to seem snooty or arrogant (and REALLY don’t want their lives destroyed by a whiff of white supremacy) so they shut up and submit.

        But that’s not really the reason to be against immigration. My house is my house. If you and your 10-person extended family demand to move into my house and I say no, it doesn’t mean I think I’m superior to you. It’s just that I want to keep my house – and it’s my decision.

        • This is why I push the concept of “Who are you people?”

          Once you answer that question, the answer to so many other questions become clear.

          More importantly, it’s morally defensible. If I have a people – and I have every right to have a people – and I want the best for them, just as I want the best for my family.

          Therefore, every question can be answered by asking yourself “Is this good for my people?” or “Will allow my people to survive and thrive in the future?”

          Does allowing a black family into our community pass those tests?

          No. First, they’re not my people, so why should I let them in at all. Second, how does letting them in improve my people, my community. It doesn’t.

          And it presents a ton of dangers to my community. Their presence might lead to more blacks moving in. Their children might mix with our people, thus making us less of who we are.

          Who are your people?

          Such a simple question but very hard for many whites to answer.

          • Multiculturalism is saying that YOU specifically are not important enough to keep living

            If you say you need protection, safety, and that is best achieved by living among your own who would be willing to die for you, then multiculturalism says too bad. Take your chances with these hired guns, and if that’s not good enough and doesn’t work, oh well. If you want a wife who follows your same cultural traditions and who “gets” you, too bad, your choices are this weird looking thing from that continent or this brown one from this other continent. And if they end up hating you and wanting a divorce, we got an app for that.

          • The left and neocons would argue that you don’t have a right to have “your people.” I’ve teased out this moral logic With them, and their ultimate answer is that “our people” is the human race. The end game (at least with the leftists I’ve conversed with) is that some day there will be no races or borders. We’ll all be under some United Earth Government. You and I know this is foolish, and that the vastly different cultures of the different races could never allow this, but they see this as their endpoint in their “arc of history.”

          • Greek,

            Just ask them about the Jews. Are they anti-Semitic?

            Their better answer is that it’s okay for other countries to based on race, such as Israel, but that the United States is different. We were never based on race but on ideas.

            It’s pretty easy to show how that’s wrong, but they don’t care. They have their morality with “All men are created equal.”

            I simply tell them that I don’t care. I have a people and that every race on earth deserves to survive. They have a tough time with that.

        • Is that what white supremacy means? That a white person believes whites are superior? If so, sign me up. My understanding, however, is that white supremacy means that white people, by dint of their superiority, are justified in ruling over PoC. By that definition, I most certainly am not a white supremacist because my most fervent desire is to live in a white nation entirely separate from PoC.

          • I think that’s well said. There’s also a good tie-in, I think, with Zman’s often saying that the best way to ridicule a Progressive is to just laugh at him or otherwise make fun of him and his absurd ideas.

            I’m White, I think I’m pretty good. I don’t especially feel like a “supremacist:” Socrates would ask “What do you mean by that?” I don’t want to lord it over Blacks nor anyone else. I’ll agree with you, Whites certainly were unkind to them, in the past. What better way to avoid hurting them, going forward, than to minimize all contact? In fact, i don’t want to have to deal with them at all. They offer nothing to Whites, indeed they only take and are a danger to my people.

            Yeah, something like that should leave a Leftist twitching on the floor, turning blue 😀

            Was it Kipling who spoke of the “White Man’s Burden?” Let’s revise that to perhaps a new slogan, “White Man, lay down your burden!”

          • Pete: the enemy always frames immigration as: “If you’re against immigration, it must mean you’re a white supremacist,” as in you must believe whites are superior to all other races.

            CoaSC: And it presents a ton of dangers to my community. Their presence might lead to more blacks moving in. Their children might mix with our people, thus making us less of who we are.

            OK: Is that what white supremacy means? That a white person believes whites are superior?

            Truth be told, none of us believe in White superiority; all of us necessarily “believe in” [i.e. understand all too well the existential horror of] White INFERIORITY.


            Because in the great mating game of the races,

            {jew} x {White} produces a jew

            {chinese/japanese/korean} x {White} produces a chinese/japanese/korean

            {mexican} x {White} produces a mexican

            {black} x {White} produces a black

            etc etc etc

            White genes – for eye color, hair color, skin color, physiognomy, temperament, morality, spirituality, etc etc etc – are always RECESSIVE when matched up with the genes of any other race.


            NEVER DOMINANT.

            Ergo any possible “mixing” due to proximity* will necessarily end in the death of at least a certain portion of some White family’s White presence in the Tree of Life.

            Whereas for the other races, that’s simply false; they live on perfectly fine as mischling mixed-race mud-people.

            Because a drop of wine in sewer produces sewer, precisely as a drop of sewer in wine produces sewer.

            *PRO-TIP for any incels reading this: A chick takes the male appendage from whichever male happens to be in her immediate physical presence at any particular point in her life.

            If you’ve ever worked professionally in a high energy environment, where young men and young women are in one another’s “Proximic” zones all day long, then you will very quickly notice the jarring reality of reasonably intelligent & attractive chicks stooping to taking the appendage from total loser guys, simply because the total loser guys are right there in the chicks’ immediate physical presence, ergo that’s the appendage which nails the chick.

            There used to be a video of a younger Donald Trump warning men not to allow their wives to have jobs outside the home, but I can’t seem to find that video anymore [it’s likely been memory-holed, precisely because it was such good advice for the average beta].

            Anyway, the PRO-TIP is that if you wanna score teh p00nt@ng, then you need to get up close & personal with teh p00nt@ng – you can’t imagine getting it from five hundred miles away – you gotta get five feet, four feet, three feet, two feet, one foot close to it.

            Then you score.

        • It’s the “extended family” business that I find useful for talking about this. Yes, the nice middle class, two parent black family is fine. But… the “cousins.” There are *always* “cousins,” from places like Chicago, with names like DeAndre, who show up six months later. Freaking *always.* And then you can kiss your neighborhood goodbye.

      • Exactly. And back in the days of rigid segregation, the better Black family was the shining beacon on a hill, in the Black neighborhood. They were a guiding, stabilizing influence. Put another way, they were the best of a bad bunch. Come Civil Rights and Whitey’s loss of restrictive covenants, etc. the Blacks who could had every rational reason to get the hell out of the slums. Problem is, as Citizen notes, is regression to the mean. And even if that weren’t a factor, the better Black family is going to be in White terms, merely middling, nothing exceptional, save maybe they play a better game of basketball and can cook up some kickass ribs. In a very real sense, the Talented Tenth Blacks were the only ones who gained and even those gains may have been illusory. The bulk of their race they left behind, as well as the non-Black communities they moved to, were worse off overall.

    • I think I have an answer, teacher

      This one is easy

      You CAN’T say just because you know a good black couple that ALL black people are going to be that same way. In fact, every day life and stats prove out that the more blacks there are — 20% is the threshold — the worse things get.

      See I told you that was easy. We went over this problem like a year ago.

        • I think Professor Z has used 20%

          Meaning that blacks are okay up until they are 20% of the local population after which Africa creeps in

          • That seems mighty high. And I can say from personal experience that if a Hutu pack moves into the house across the street from you, you may very well find yourself experiencing Ougadougou in an all too direct manner.

    • CoaSC and Falcone—

      Thanks bros. I knew ya’ll n-ggas would be on it! (see what I did there? 😉)
      It is distressing how many on ‘our side’ of the great divide still don’t get it. The IKAGO syndrome is so deeply embedded in their worldview I don’t know that we can ever be free of it. We are suppose to be the -most- aware and yet here we are listening to someone proclaim- Bbbbbbb…bbbbbuuuut- “I Know A Good One”.

      Pro Tip: We –all– know good ones. And the 1 becomes 2 becomes 4 becomes 16 becomes 256. Blink your eyes a few times and you are a stranger in your own land. More clear now to you brainlets that hold this position in spite of ALL evidence of the last half century to its disastrous consequences. Why is this so hard for people?

      • Yup, and then THEY look around and see that they outnumber you…suddenly your children are being told to leave what is no longer their land.

        • Pete, this is a very good point. All the previous points made obviously stand. However, that one black family in the white neighbourhood (or Asian, for that matter) may act all white to begin with. They’ll want to fit in. But many simply need ask: “What when mine’s the only white family in the neighbourhood?”.

          They’ll soon change their tune. They most always do. And even if they don’t, why take the risk? I mean, wouldn’t you rather wear six masks in your car, than three? Why take the risk?

      • I don’t know what’s so hard about “Yeah I have black friends but doesn’t mean I want their whole extended family living on my street”

      • Since we’re talking about moral battles here, whites have a moral right to survive as a people. We won’t survive as a people if we don’t exclude other races from our lands and/or communities.

        It’s as simple as that.

        Immigration of non-whites into white countries/communities is a slow form of genocide. Not sure how people find that to be morally superior to whites surviving as a people.

      • Amen Apex.

        I must be wired pretty differently because I know several IKAGOs from my time in the Third World.

        I still wouldn’t want them and their families in my US neighborhood.

        I regularly call Civnat normies out on their IKAGO anecdotes and how they don’t disprove the larger interethnic group dynamincs.

    • Naxalt is thrown about as an epithet at times. That is nonsensical. Naxalt is factual and indisputable and someone who believes themselves to be a ‘race realist’ would be disingenuous to not realize that variance occurs in every group.

      If we are embracing realism though, we should be honest and understand that forced cohabitation with vastly different folks in any significant numbers always ends in discord. We have no examples in the history of our species where this is a successful arrangement.

      It is also fair to say that some races more easily cohabitate with each other. Further, there are endeavors wherein the overarching mission, belief, or subculture can bind otherwise disparate people together… mitigating the disharmony and conflict of race.

      We could go into the maddening purity spirals of what exactly constitutes a white person, but personally, that crap annoys me and is divisive.

      We have to focus on the defense and promotion Our People. Understand that we have an inate right to exist, flourish, and associate freely with each other.

      You can associate with those you find worthy. There are nonwhites in my life that I love dearly. That doesnt mean that Our goals have changed. I wouldnt mind living in a world of my people with a sprinkling of non-whites that are compatible. But a race realist must also acknowledge that in any great numbers… no groups prefer such an arrangement nor are made better separately for it.

      • I agree with Penitent Man that NAXALT is literally true. Nonetheless, most non-whites have an ethnocentrism that overrides the values that you imagine that you share with them.

        Glen notes that there is a wonderful black family that attends his church. On a micro level, they are probably good neighbors.

        But how do they vote? How do they feel about OJ, Trayvon, Michael Brown, and BLM? Or how do conservative Hispanics feel about strict immigration enforcement? Most Hispanics have illegals in their extended family. In almost all cases, this is where the ethnocentrism comes out.

        They may be good neighbors but most of the time they have a deeper commitment to the bad ones in their race than they do to the values that you imagine that you share with them. The black reaction to the OJ verdict demonstrated this clearly.

        Again, NAXALT is literally true but due to ethnocentrism it doesn’t matter.

        • The sister of my ex dated a black man who was as nice as could be. The only way you would know he was black was his skin color. Otherwise, he acted white in every way. They were shocked at his positive reaction to the OJ verdict.

          • The sister of my ex dated a black man

            I hope you broke up with your “ex” just as soon as you learned that there was mudsharkery in her family.

      • Indeed. Heartiste memorably coined “Diversity + Proximity = War” to express just that slice of reality. I like to imagine an aboriginal of the eastern region of what has become North America (colloquially, Indians — feather, not dot) telling his tribe mates not to get so worked up about these encroaching Europeans because, hey, that Puritan fellow John Smith and his family are so kind and helpful. I imagine the Aztec guy who said, hey, these Spanish guys with their guns and horses could really help us with our enemies. Or the Sabines who said, hey, that Titus Negronicus is not really one of those thug Romans always trying to snatch our women and acting like they own the whole place.
        When George Wallace preached the gospel of segregation, he was a veritable Cassandra, doomed to speak a truth that normies would not believe.

    • I think the best answer I’ve read on here to counter your good black argument is this: yes, absolutely, there are great black people. Thomas Sowell could live in my neighborhood any day. However, for every Thomas Sowell, you get 9 below average individuals that’s are more likely to be criminal. The societal trade off just isn’t worth it statistically to get that high performing above average IQ black population (I believe it’s 4% if I remember correctly).

      • Why go to the trouble of even defending them. Simply say “I just like to live around my own people.”, and be done with it.

        Mind you, you’d need to be wary who you say such a thing to these days… there are why ‘spremaciss everywhere.

        • Thank you.

          What the fuck is with people trying to find excuses for not wanting non-whites in their communities/countries.

          They are not my people. I need no other justification than that.

          • I tell normies something similar when I start code-switching on them.

            It’s not about sitting around hating other groups 24/7/365.

            It’s about always preferring to be around my people and wanting to see my people succeed.

            I don’t lose any sleep if my people’s success comes at the expense of other peoples.

            Not complicated at all.

          • I don’t discount the validity of your argument that people have a right to their tastes without need for justification (I like mint chocolate chip because I like mint chocolate chip). However, different arguments and reasoning will resonate with different people. I also think there’s value in explaining why The Godfather is a better movie than Justice League or some other comic book drivel.

          • Greek,

            I get your point, and some of the other arguments may resonate better with some people. But they don’t have a moral underpinning and that matters because it always leaves you vulnerable.

            Arguing that blacks have a lower IQ and higher crime on average and therefore the nice black family’s kid or relatives will regress to the mean or that the nice black family will cause more blacks to move into the neighborhood are true.

            But that’s not a moral argument.

            What about Asians? What about Indians?

            You have accepted the other side’s morality and therefore will lose eventually.

            If you don’t have a moral underpinning, your argument can always be challenged. You’ll always be on the defensive because you’ve not given a moral reason for your belief.

            “They are not my people” is a moral argument. It does not accept the other side’s morality.

            Sooner or later, you have to discard the other side’s morality and present your own. Otherwise, you will always lose.

      • That’s not the best answer because it has no moral underpinning.

        What about NE Asians? They’re smarter and less violent on average than whites; therefore, under your logic, the more the merrier in your neighborhood or country.


        The moral answer is that neither blacks nor Asians nor any other non-European are my people and my people deserve to survive and thrive. We deserve our own communities and lands.

        I don’t want to keep the black family out because blacks have a lower IQ than whites. I want to keep them out because . . . THEY ARE NOT MY PEOPLE!

        I need no other justification than that, just as the Jews need no other justification to not allow non-Jews into Israel, just the Japanese need no other justification to not allow non-Japanese into Japan.

        I have a people. If you’re not a member of my people, you can’t live here, just an strangers – no matter how nice or smart – can permanently live in my house.

        • Citizens,

          I think our back and forth today has illustrated that there’s also a divide within the race realist community on our side of the divide. Z pointed out the divide between Christians and agnostics on this side of the divide, but there’s an additional one. Your argument illustrates the ethno-state side, while there are others that are race realists because of the science, logic, and reasoning, and just desire to live in a society that looks to recognize these differences and address them realistically. People on this side of the argument are OK with a nation that has races that’s are genetically and culturally similar (East Asians mostly, Hispanics to a lesser extent). People on my side listen to Edward Dutton and the science behind hybrid vigor of mixes between certain races. Amren had a rather good article that touched upon this as well:

          As the morality of this side, I’d argue that pursuing the objective truth, regardless of taboos, is moral. Beyond that, your argument that allowing non whites into white countries is genocide. That’s an all or nothing proposition. In my ideal world, countries would be allowed to be exist around ethnocentrism. Afterall, I do believe Greece should always be Greek. However, countries should also exist that approach its racial mix academically with vetting based on similar genetics and cultural values. This wouldn’t be genocide, but ethnogenesis.

          • So Greeks get to survive as a people, but not European Americans? How is that moral? Doesn’t sound so great to this European American.

            Regardless, your making the Steve Sailer commentators’ argument or as I disparagingly call it, the “Faculty Lounge” argument.

            Instead of being colorblind CivNats, they’re HBD-aware CivNats. They recognize racial differences but also understand that certain races are more similar to other either genetically or in terms of IQ/temperament. They also get that even amongst blacks, you’ll find smart, thoughtful people such as their beloved Thomas Sowell, or Saint Thomas as I like to call him.

            In their minds, there’s nothing wrong with mixing high-IQ, non-violent people. After all, they have more in common with the Indian doctor or Chinese engineer than the white truck driver. (You’ll notice that this argument is incredibly snobby.)

            Basically, if liberals are willing to sell out their fellow whites for ethnic restaurants, Sailer commentators are willing to sell out their fellow whites for witty banter in the faculty lounge.

            Again, not sure of the morality in that. But putting morality aside for the moment, their argument simply doesn’t work on the ground, just as Libertarianism doesn’t work in the real world.

            First, as Ed Dutton would tell you, other groups are much more ethnocentric than whites, even their smart members. Therefore, all those smart Indians, Chinese, etc., aren’t going to just forget who they are. They will think and act as a group once they get numbers.

            Hell, all you have to do is look at Jews. Did they just blend in with smart whites and disband their ethnic political and community organizations. Um, no. They ran circles around individualistic whites and now run the country – for the benefit of Jews.

            The same would (actually, is) happen with other groups. Non-white smart people aren’t as cold-hearted as smart whites. They don’t their their people under the bus so easily.

            Hell, look at Canada. You think the Indians and Chinese there are just blending in. Absolutely not.

            Second, good luck containing immigration to only smart people who act like, well, you. Once you accept immigration as a moral right, it’s tough to limit it to only smart people.

            Your vision of the world is less realistic than a Libertarian – and that’s saying something.

            You want to quietly genocide my people and not feel bad about it. You want to import smart people because you’re smart enough to hold your own intellectually and from a career standpoint with anyone in the world. And all those smart people will make for such fun at dinner parties.

            The fact that you throw poor and even middle class whites under the bus doesn’t bother you at all – because you don’t think about them. Well, I do. I grew up with them. I won’t throw them under the bus so I can talk about interesting vacation spots with my world-traveler Indian neighbor.

            Again, I have a people. You, apparently, don’t. You have acquaintances.

      • One of my favorite subtly (?) sardonic summations of this phenomenon:

        “There are some good Blacks, just as there are some bad Whites.”

        The beauty of dry wit like this is that it takes a certain level of intelligence to realize it is sarcasm. You could deliver this line straight-faced to many Whites, nearly all Joggers and they’d accept it at face value, never realizing they’ve been had. 🙂

      • However, for every Thomas Sowell, you get 9 below average individuals

        For every Thomas Sowell, you get more like 9,999,999 below average individuals.

        Thomas Sowell is a 1-in-10-million kneegr0w, and even he was a Never-Trumper Neo-Con.

    • There’s a strange thing where on one hand a White person gets upset/disappointed at another White person (lazy, slovenly dressed, blaring gangsta rap, etc.) and finds an example of an Other who impresses you, and it’s more wanting Whites to be more like that guy in whatever trait it is you like. Like how Jesus is impressed with the Syro-Phoenician or the Samaritan, and says “Never have I found this much faith in Judea and Galilee”.
      My granddad would use the phrase “workin’ like a nigger” in a positive way, like you’re doing really arduous work

      But then it mutates in elevating other races above your own people, and you become Fred Reed. Is it spiteful disappointment in your own people? Is it pining for the numinous Negro or the workhorse Latino? Is it wanting desperately to make equality true?

      • I think the American rat race has a lot to do with it

        What it did was heap big rewards on the people who work hard and are more intelligent than most. You hear it framed “life is about making the right decisions. I didn’t go blowing my days in high school getting high. I studied. I went to school and I work hard, if you’re poor and can’t get ahead it’s because of bad decisions you made.”

        Then these people inevitably drift toward the wealthier cohorts of people around whom they have more in common, isolated from their old chums who are failing in the game of life.

        From there the emotional gap widens, the empathy declines, and the two camps end up hating each other.

        So a white guy who did all the right things will find kinship with any one of any race who was like him. Stuff like that. See it all the time.

        You get a taste of this when you listen to Dave Ramey subtly rubbing it in the poor schmucks faces who made “bad decisions”

        It’s very bourgeois and shallow if you ask me. These successful types, never dawns on them that maybe their friend who got high in high school was just wired differently and working and studying hard wasn’t what he was good at, a victim of his own natural shortcomings. They never go there, it’s always only about 100% free will. They take it to the max.

        I see the same where a guy works his way out of humble beginnings and is embarrassed of his roots, and if there are drug addicts in his family/circle then he really starts to hate his people and from there it’s very easy to start identifying only with people who are more like him regardless of race and show nothing but contempt for his own

        • I’ll put here cuz Hopkins played the role you describe, in The Human Stain…& cuz “free will to the max” (“what one man can do another man can do!”):

          My people? Hand picked, & that’s mutual. Not defaults.

          I’ve had a share of scrapes with blacks. But I’ve had more scrapes with whites. Way more.

          The scraping’s the thing, not what scrapers look like.

          My only interest in large groups is how large a distance I can put between my people and those groups.

          But as prerogatives go (& would it were the prerogatives went more commonly) everybody’s innocent until they’re not…even tho most large groupies are full o’ guilt, & always will be (mean regression, into an obese middle, covered in bulging hernias, is indeed the thing). And the utilitarian efficiency expert wind “began” to howl (all along the watchtower): kill ‘em all, god will know his own.

          Trust but this: verification is continuous…there ain’t no tenure in real life. And those who ache for tenure? See “scrape,” above.

          And if present niche (most likely brought to you by what scraping skintone, btw?) exceeds attention span, or spends that span in ways you’d rather not, move. Moving out others en masse to scrub the ones that are wasting your bandwidth ain’t your prerogative. Ol’ Nietzsche moved his niche to Switzerland, for example. Hell is always gonna be other people, even if every one of them is blueblond/earyan, & hellishness is purely a density thing, not a racial purity thing.

          There are a few well known titles re the groupiefficiencyellers (that ol’ hydrophoby afflicted dog). Am reading Kuehnelt-Leddinn’s The Menace of the Herd (or Procrustes at Large) now.

          And that title rings an in tune bell, to another title, Taleb’s little book of aphorisms, The Bed of Procrustes, had (probably) this one: “The fool generalizes the particular; the nerd particularizes the general; some do both; & the wise does neither.”

          Fools & nerds & wise’rs – oh my! Cue that Steelers Wheel tune. And maybe get unstuck from that middle. You will if you have to. Or you’ll Yellowbrick Road if you have to. There’s freewill.
          Urban→suburban→rural→just us justice wilderness….find your edge: ”I’m gonna’ kill the motherfucker” (the bear was innocent until it wasn’t: it ate the black guy, instead of Alec Baldwin…& that golddigger wench):

    • While you have heard from the race realists and other members of the Dissident Right, perhaps you could benefit from the viewpoint of a Christian who is also a neoreactionary. The reason why you are having trouble squaring away the race realists claims, and your experience with that black family is because race realists are the flip side of the same coin as the progressives. That is, they are ideologues.

      For the race realist, the eikon they rally around is genetics and heritage, thus everything in life must be interpreted in those lens. For them, they see a hated symbol of Globohomo in the Black, the Asian, and the Indian. Thus their approach to these people is ever one of fitting them into the box that they approach everything in. Your problem is that you don’t see the black family as an eikon of Progressivism, you see them as human.

      The reason why we are having trouble with the Black ethnos isn’t because they are genetically inferior, or that their intelligence is low like the race realists would like you to believe. The reason why we are having trouble is two things: their refusal to assimilate to the broader culture in the nation, their immigration to said nation having been involuntary, and their viewpoint of the broader culture as an enemy tribe.

      Whether or not you let someone move into the community should be based on whether they assimilate and join the community. Unlike the maximalist position from the progressives that you must needs let all in your demesne, and the maximalist position from the race realists that your community must needs be a closed, insular community shut off from any kind of assimilation from others not of your ethnos, you can strike a balance between the two. You can let the black family live in your community, and have them assimilate to your ethnos, and you don’t need to invite more either.

      In summary, a community closed off from the outside suffers innervation, and eventually destruction, wherefore a community that throws open its doors to all and sundry faces displacement, and also death. You and yours must strike a balance between the two.

      • HBD-aware civic nationalism is just colorblind civic nationalism for higher-IQ folks. It’s still sticking your head in the sand and is completely detached from reality.

        Colorblind civic nationalism was the strategy for the past 50 years in this country. How’d that work out for whites?

        You have no empathy for your fellow whites, perhaps because you are a Christian who view all Christians – white or non-white – as God’s children. Well I do. l love my people.

        You go live in your multi-racial paradise where you magically pick the “good ones” from every race and you all live in a colorblind harmony. I’m sure that it will all work out.

        Like the Jews, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Koreans, etc., I’ll take my chances with people who share my ancestry because they are my family. You have fun with your strangers.

        • Where we differ is that you and yours occupy a maximalist position that you either let none in, or you let all in. That is indicative of a black and white worldview that doesn’t have any place in reality. It makes since because race realists are at their core ideologues. Therefore, everything, everyone, and everywhere has to be interpreted and squeezed through the lens of your ideology. There isn’t a bit of difference between you and the progressives except for who/whom. Ideologues never see the humanity in humans.

          My advice to the original poster is that just because he and his community accepted the black family doesn’t mean he has to accept everyone else into the community, nor does he need to feel that he and his needs to shun and despise all outsiders. What should matter to him and his community is to seek the Good for the community. Sometimes, the Good means that they open their doors to outsiders becoming part of their community in order to prevent innervation and stagnation. Other times, it means closing the doors because the community is losing its identity and is being overrun by outsiders.

          My advice to the poster is that if the black family is fully integrated and assimilated to the community and the culture, there is no harm with letting them be. There is no need to assume that he needs the burden of therefore having to let everyone into the community, nor does he need to feel that he needs to shun them all either. What he should do is what is the Good for that community.

          • I’ve long held the borderlands, the edges: all is good, nothing is just as good – it’s the herniated middle that’s no mans land.

            But I apply that edge hone to the prerogatives, those inherent inalienables that apply to persons irrespective of geography as defined by lines on maps & other model-makers Frankensteins that are monstrous, but that aren’t the territory.

            And all the satellite stuff orbiting around the star/chamber is good, or spacejunk, based on its emergence/property of the prerogatives, or not.

            How is what matters. How it “turns out” doesn’t matter at all. That’s the maximalism of persons. All the rest is the mulcting, always with lots of mewling, too, of gangs/ters.

            “In the meantime America suffers greatly from the handicap of electing a large part of the nonfederal officialdom by the people; even policemen & judges are often elected by hobos, little businessmen, & migratory soda jerkers. (See the sheriff in Erskine Caldwell’s masterful description of a lynching in his short novel Trouble in July, New York, 1940.) Under these conditions it is obvious that courts can often not afford to be independent. A few miles behind Richmond or Chattanooga the most ochlocratic of all judiciary systems – lynching – is still in force. In a strictly ochlocratic world the only logical judiciary procedure based on general disapproval is lynching, & the democratic Athenians cooled their anger on unpopular fellow citizens in a bloodless lynching without photo cameras & blowtorches – through ostracism. Yet not less immoral than lynching is the passing of a verdict while listening with one ear to the Vox Populi. The judge who did not want to risk his popularity & his job has been immortalized by the Book of Books – this man, who rather obeyed the Jewish mob than his own conscience & who tried in vain to wash his hands in innocence, is Pontius Pilate.” ~ The Menace of the Herd, Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddinn

        • As an aside, I’ve no loyalty to “Whites”, what that is. I am Greek and a Christian. My Loyalty is to Greeks and Christians. I’ve no kinship with you and yours Remember, it wasn’t that long ago that you and your fellow barbarians were living in mud huts and flinging dung at each other while we Greeks were building cities of marble. The same way you look down on the other ethne is the same way we look down on you. The only reason you and yours are even civilized was because we educated you barbarians in the ways of the Greeks and the Romans.

          Never forget the debt you owe us.

          • Well what is it?

            If they’re Christian but also come from mud huts they’re okay? They’re kin? Or not?

          • @Falcone, the hierarchy goes like this:

            On top is Greek Christians, then other Greeks, then other Christians of a different ethnos, then there is the dirt, the worms inside the dirt, my stool, then you and yours.

            Does that answer your question?

          • So your loyalty is to Greeks, but other peoples should slowly genocide themselves by allowing in other groups?

            Or are you in favor of allowing 50,000 to 100,000 smart Africans who want to assimilate into Greek life into Greece each year? You know, to avoid innervation.

          • @Citizenship of a Silly Country, isn’t that what being a nationalist is about? Determining you and yours own destiny free of manipulations from outside the nation? You white nationalists are reminding me more and more of woke imperialists who believe that they and only they know best how to run our society. You and yours are not Greek, nor any other ethne other then your own. You don’t have the right nor the authority to tell us what we must do. You haven’t shared in our triumphs, nor in our failures.

            As for your second “question”, the fallacy of false alternatives doesn’t make it any less of a fallacy if a white nationalist says asks it. We Greeks allow in who we want, when we want, period. If we feel the need to open up immigration to those willing to assimilate to the Hellenic society, then we have the right to. If we believe that such numbers will overwhelm us, or that the ones immigrating have no intention of assimilation, then we shut down immigration. We do not occupy a maximalist position of only either open borders or a closed society. The open borders is a position of the EU, a closed society is a position of white nationalists who believe that Greeks and English and French, etc. are one and the same, Whites.

          • You seem to have a massive and fundamental misunderstanding of what I and others around here want and believe.

            First, I’m not a white nationalist. I’m an ethno-nationalist. They are not the same thing, not even close.

            Europeans and European Americans are an incredibly varied people. To say that a Dane is the same as a Greek is insane. (Believe me, commentator Felix Krull would be very insulted by that comparison.) The same is true European Americans. The Yankee from New England has a very different ancestry, culture and history than the Scots-Irish of Appalachia.

            And while I’m an ethno-nationalist, i.e. I believe that people generally best served by living among and being ruled by their own, I full accept that some ethnicities may disagree. If the Germans choose to bring in a million Muslims in a year, that’s their choice. (I think that it’s stupid, but it’s their choice.)

            If Greeks decide Africans promising that they want to assimilate into Greek culture should be allowed in, have at it. I wouldn’t stop you. It’s your society.

            I don’t get where you think that we want to impose our ideas on you. Indeed, we want the exact opposite. We simply want to be left alone, to be allowed to have our community based on our beliefs, which in our case is ethno-nationalism. No different from Israel, or Japan or China.

            Admittedly, we use the term “white” a bit loosely. What we mean is various white ethnic groups, but that’s a bit long to write. But, sure, if other whites races/ethnicities want to blend into some hybrid group with non-whites, more power to them. No one is stopping them.

            But people are stopping us. Our lives could be destroyed if we spoke out publicly.

            I have no idea why you think that we want 1) some pan-European ethno-state and 2) to impose our ideas on anyone else. We simply want the right for European Americans of the various flavors who want to survive as a people (and that likely would mean a number of different peoples) to allowed to do so.

            We don’t care a whit what Greeks do. Why would we.

          • Race realism being argued vis a vis nation/al unrealism, or maybe surrealism, is funny. No “this nation is (or was)” declaratives in this thread are correct, accurate, or true.

            These battles of the narratives neverending are…bear chow…”you want to die out here, ha?”

            “If the doors of perception were Windex’d everything would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro’ narrow chinks (eurowhites, blacks, hispanics, etc) of his cavern.” ~ William Blake


    • White America has tried to coexist with blacks for 250 years now, no expense spared, and nothing worked. They must go. This is the only solution left. They must go.

      Guess what, “let only the nice ones into our neighborhoods” has already been tried. Repeatedly. With the same outcome every time.

      Let America’s loss be Liberia’s gain.

      • I know. He seems like he just arrived on our shores

        He has no clue about our history and is trying to see it through a European or some other lens.

  22. “Only by being able to say, “this is who we are, this is what we believe, this is why we believe it, and this is why it is superior to the alternative” can a genuine alternative blossom.”


    We’re in a “morality” battle, not a college debate where the team with best logic and facts to back them up win. (I’m talking to you, Steve Sailer.)

    This is why colorblind CivNats get so triggered when I ask them “Who are your people?” I’m pushing them to answer Z’s questions, and they come up looking like fools.

    Who are your people?

    CivNat: Americans, fuck yeah!

    The Truth: That’s not a people. It’s a club – and not a very exclusive one at that. A people share a common ancestry, history, culture and language. A piece of paper can’t replace that. You have no people.

    What do you believe in?

    CivNat: American values and institutions.

    The Truth: American values and institutions reflect the people who created them – Anglo-Saxon Americans who settled and built this country. Those values are a reflection of a race of people.

    You believe that these values and institutions can be grafted onto anyone in the world if they are receptive. That is a lie. They were (mostly) successfully adopted by other Europeans who came to America but it took a hundred years of serious cultural pressure. People less related to Anglo-Saxons will never embrace American values and institutions.

    We can see that with blacks and Jews. Both have been in this country for centuries, yet they’ve never accepted our values and institutions. Without Anglo-Saxons (and their very closely related European cousins), those American values and institutions you love so much will die, something we’re watching happen before our eyes.

    No need to go farther with the exercise. It’s already obvious that colorblind civic nationalism can never succeed and thus is not an alternative.

    • The problem with people like Sailer is is that he has never seen his homeland invaded by a rival or hostile clan. They never came to rape his wife and daughter.

      This came to me last night watching the clip of Tucker with the Hungarian PM, Orban. Hungarians are a people and they need their own land just for them. Their own part of the land mass, their part of the zoo. And the reason is because they need to protect themselves form outside adversaries.

      Makes perfect sense in that context. Chances that a CivNat will be able to grasp this are low

      • Problem is, Hungary is under the EU cosh. Other states with a very strong dislike of the EU, Greece, for example, also have their hands tied in many ways.

        There is a hell of a lot of dislike for the EU, but some of the countries (UK included, really) sold their souls without thinking. Now what? Got to either forcefully leave or hope the crappy thing crumbles.

        Once the EU gets it’s progressive foot in the door, the poz will creep in from on up high. And eventually saturate everything beneath – some of the Eastern European countries might realise before it’s too late – but as usual, the pull of gubmint gibs keeps them trotting along.

        Actually, the problem with the EU is effectively spiritual, it matters not if you’ve ‘left’ the union – seeing that all the key politicos loved it so much anyway. It’s got it’s own foundation myths and everything. Perhaps like your Democrats and Republicans; allegedly different, but actually in spiritual synchronisation all the way to the nearest Pride parade.

      • Falcone says that Steve has never seen his “homeland invaded by a rival or hostile clan.”

        But he has. He’s lived a lot of his life in SoCal. He’s watched it turn from a white supermajority into Mexico and the problem is that he doesn’t mind.

        He may be the kind of guy who looks at how cheap lawn care has become and thinks that’s he’s the big winner.

        I can’t image seeing the world the way Steve does, as much as I respect and admire him. Living in SF made me a racialist even when I didn’t want to be.

        • Steve Sailer lives in my neighborhood in fact.

          It’s like 75% white and heavily orthodox Juice in one part.

          He travels around only in studio city, Sherman oaks, and valley village where he and I both live, going by his blogging. He never really leaves his bubble. These are all wealthy to rich areas. Plus he’s a total homebody. I doubt he even knows where to find a taco stand

          Plus he doesn’t care, like you say. All of this crap just gives him material to make a living. He’d be nothing without having multiculturalism to talk about.

          Incidentally, I started to realize something today that sort of ties in. Regarding the lockdowns, I think so many people in Los Angeles and big cities don’t mind them because it’s actually preferable to stay inside that having to go out everyday and see what a total friggin mess our country has become.

          • Another thing that made the lockdowns perhaps even a net benefit for many was the rapid adoption of remote work. I have a remote job now. It’s crap and pays crap but… most of the people I “work with” are abominations. Purple hairs, tatt-sluts, qwerty-sexuals. The thought of actually spending a day around them in person makes me feel like throwing up.

            A lot of guys like me also enjoy having an excuse not to spend money on stupid chick stuff like eating out at “ethnic” places. I think the Coof may have actually taught my wife that it’s better to keep the money in your pocket than hand it to Juan, Chung Li, or Ibrahim.

            The only reason this stuff was tolerable was that many people were already pretty much self-isolating simply because almost everything good about the wider culture turned to multicultural, gibberish-speaking shit years ago anyway.

          • His preference is pithy snark. Not sure what that means but it seems to fit. I could live a whole life without seeing “black girl magic” again or reading about black women’s obsession with their hair. He is still obsessed with sports also which is a major turn off. I agree that he doesn’t really care about anything besides having material to write about.

  23. Just some general principles. The quotes come directly from the New Testament as far as I know. I offer some editorial comments, or if you prefer, the Devil citing Scripture for his own purposes.

    “Whoever is not for us is against us.”

    This is at once one of the most powerful tool of rhetoric but also one of the oldest political lies of all time. The implication of course, is that anyone who’s not on board 100% with your ideology must be an enemy or a “wrecker.” From the radical’s point of view, this is wonderful, since you can paint virtually anyone who brooks the slightest disagreement with your aims to be a sworn enemy. Consider some real-world implications:
    If you aren’t vehemently pro-Israel, you are branded an anti-Semite. In the universe of the Zionist, it is inconceivable that an entity might be merely neutral, neither supporting nor opposing his cause. Anyone who dares to question current policy is probably a latent Neo-Nazi at the very least and should be ostracized accordingly. Similar calculus exists for other volatile issues: minority rights, transgender issues, etc. How DARE you question the motives of Critical Race Theory! Why, you must be a White Supremacist! Can’t you see that the entire structure of government proves institutional racism?

    This motto has been weaponized to near-perfection by the modern Left, although it is not their exclusive property.

    “Whoever is not against us is for us.”

    This one, I assert, is probably more practical in day-to-day life. In marked contrast to the above motto, this one allows a neutral position. You are free to advocate support for Israel, or preach your faith, without having to cast anyone who is not of your identical persuasion to be a blood enemy. This attitude allows the realization that the vast majority of people will most likely neither support, but neither will they impede, your pet project or belief. This ties in nicely with how the universe interacts with us: impartially, totally fair, according to laws that apply to everyone in all times and places, with no exceptions granted. The original motto is not strictly true. But facing no opposition is better than confronting active resistance to your intended path.

    Finally, perhaps the most important one:

    “Beware of the wolf in sheep’s clothing.” This is probably the biggest risk: the false ally. This is a huge risk with anyone who came over from the opposing side, and now claims to be an ally. Is he really? Or a double agent? Or merely a lukewarm hanger-on? Perhaps he can prove his new allegiance some way, but until then, his loyalty should always be doubtful, compared to a partisan who has remained consistent from his beginning, who has shown no reason to doubt his loyalty to the cause.

    Almost as bad is the person who mouths the words but is empty of works. I know this will piss off the Lutherans out there, but even as an atheist, I agree with the Catholics, that faith without works is dead.

  24. ||| “It is why any genuine opposition to what is going on in the West must first start with a moral philosophy that stands outside of the prevailing orthodoxy. Only by being able to say, “this is who we are, this is what we believe, this is why we believe it, and this is why it is superior to the alternative” can a genuine alternative blossom.” |||

    – Given the state of Christianity in the Occident, how will that be achieved?

    – When we say ‘we’, we transcend ourselves. The ties of blood get strength and nourishment under a healthy spiritual system.

    Whenever that takes place, the debate between Jared Taylor and E. Michael Jones will be very interesting to watch.

    • That was the exact thing that came to my mind when reading Citizen’s comment including the scheduled debate (which I want tomorrow not next April dammit!). It’s that double-edged sword aspect to Christianity: is it the force that binds us or the philosophy that makes us vulnerable to destruction? The practicing Christians I know well simple don’t care about “heritage” only if you’ve accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. At the same time, except for their refusal to accept HBD, they are exactly the type of people with whom to build great communities.

      The older I get the more it seems there is nothing on this plane of existence that escapes that conundrum.

      • That’s interesting about the heritage thing, as I think that one of the commandments talks about honouring your father and mother. Which presumably would establish some sort of chain of honouring all the way back down the lineage.

        Who knows, maybe I read the wrong Bible.

        • I’ve never had a devout Christian be able to explain to me what the Holy Spirit is. It’s not really spelled out anywhere in the NT. I take it to mean the thread (DNA) that connects one with their ancestors. Not honoring the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin in the Bible which I find exceedingly interesting.

          • Holy Spirit is how God connects with us

            Simply stated, God is Good, but he’s also not of this material world.

            The goodness in our hearts, the goodness in our souls, the goodness we find in others, the spirit of goodness all around us, is God sending and infusing us with his goodness through the Holy Spirit

          • Peabody: explain to me what the Holy Spirit is

            I guess we could start with the three synoptic gospelists, who are united in agreement as to the greatest sin [that being the only sin which is unforgivable]:

            Matthew 12:31
            Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

            Mark 3:28 – 3:30
            Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
            but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
            because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

            Luke 12:10 – 12:12
            And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.
            And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:
            for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.

            Now the fourth gospelist – the gnostic gospelist – was just a boy at the time of the Last Supper, no more than maybe 10 or 12 years old, whereas Jesus & the older apostles were probably in their thirties & forties [and some possibly even in their fifties], so the gnostic gospelist was a good 20 or 30 years younger than anyone else present that evening [apparently he was small enough to sit in Jesus’s lap, and he may very well have fallen asleep while the grownups continued talking all night].

            The accepted thinking on the gnostic gospelist holds that he probably wrote his gospel upwards of a century after Jesus’s birth, which would have given him an entire lifetime within which to reflect upon what he had witnessed as a boy.

            My guess is that somewhere along the way, the gnostic gospelist decided that if he were going to evangelize the entire world, then he would need to master the language of the literate, which was of course the Greek language, and so a fair portion of his life would have been devoted to the study of Greek literature & Greek philosophy.

            It’s also fascinating that the gnostic gospelist adopted a strangely second- or third-party tone of voice, fashioned after the style of Jesus, wherein positions are not declared nor asserted so much as they are implied [to be inferred by the listener or reader].

            For instance, Jesus was very careful never to declare himself to be the King of the Jews: When accosted on this question, Jesus would merely reply, “Thou sayest it.”

            And the gnostic gospelist adopts precisely the same tone of voice in his writing.

            For instance, his gospel begins with the words:


            But the gnostic gospelist never asserts that Jesus is the Logos; the gnostic gospelist merely allows the reader to decided for himself whether the inference should be made that Jesus is in fact [the physical incarnation of] the Logos.

            Here we should note that there was likely no extant word in ancient Hebrew [or “Aramaic”] which could have been invoked to describe a phenomenon such as the Logos, which is why one has to assume that the gnostic gospelist needed [and/or stumbled upon] a vocabulary which would allow him to attempt to describe those aspects of Jesus’s nature which the gnostic gospelist wished to convey to the readers of his gospel.

            If you’ve made it this far, then we can get back to the question of the nature of the Holy Ghost; here the gnostic gospelist quotes Jesus as again having spoken by implication [requiring an inference by the reader]:

            14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
            And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another COMFORTER, that he may abide with you for ever;
            even THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

            16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, THE COMFORTER will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
            And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
            of sin, because they believe not on me;
            of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
            of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
            I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
            Howbeit when he, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.

            Again, as quoted by the gnostic gospelist, the reader [or, at that time, the listener] is required to make [for himself] the inference that the Holy Ghost is precisely the Spirit of Truth; it’s never declared as such, and can only be inferred.

            There is one exception to this tone of voice however, and it comes when the gnostic gospelist, in his first epistle general, makes a very bold declaration and assertion about the nature of God Himself:

            4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
            He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for GOD IS LOVE.

            4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. GOD IS LOVE; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

            So, the gnostic gospelist leaves us with the following pieces of information:

            1) An implication that Jesus is the Logos [which we must infer for ourselves].

            2) An implication that the Holy Ghost is Truth Itself [which we must infer for ourselves], and

            3) An outright declaration that God is Love Itself.

            It’s a fascinating narratival approach, which requires the reader, of his own free will, to make the inferences that Jesus is the Logos and that the Holy Ghost is Truth.

            In the case of both Jesus & the Holy Ghost, there is no declaration nor law nor principle nor any kind of legalistic line drawn in the theological sand; instead, the assertions are simply presented as an opportunity to exercise the will [in making the inferences], which opportunity can be accepted [or refused] by the reader.

            FINALLY, getting back to the greatest sin, as alluded to way up above here, we have one last quote as relayed by the gnostic gospelist:

            8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews…
            8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do: he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in THE TRUTH, because there is no TRUTH in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

            So the conclusion we draw is that the very first sin committed by any of God’s children was in Lucifer’s inventing Lies as an assault upon Truth Itself, which is to say, as an assault upon the Holy Ghost.

            And as all three synoptic gospelists documented, this was the greatest sin – the one sin which cannot be forgiven – which is to attack Truth Itself.

            PS – Fast forward two millennia, and you see e.g. the Frankfurt School sanheder, (((Jacques Derrida))), the self-styled “deconstructionist”, continuing the never-ending hebrew assault on the very idea of Truth:

            As writing, communication, if one insists upon maintaining the word, is not the means of transport of sense, the exchange of intentions and meanings, the discourse and “communication of consciousnesses.” We are not witnessing an end of writing which, to follow McLuhan’s ideological representation, would restore a transparency or immediacy of social relations; but indeed a more and more powerful historical unfolding of a general writing of which the system of speech, consciousness, meaning, presence, truth, etc., would only be an effect, to be analyzed as such. It is this questioned effect that I have elsewhere called logocentrism.

            PPS – If we accept the gnostic gospelist’s assertion that the Holy Ghost is Truth Itself, and Jesus’s declaration of the Holy Ghost as THE COMFORTER, then we conclude that happiness [COMFORT] can only be experienced by those living a Truthful life, whereas a life lived in lies is necessarily a miserable life [absent any possible spiritual COMFORT].

            PPPS – Towards the end of his run at the Chateau, Heartiste was adamant about an intellectual position which held that to get to the Truth of the matter involving intimate relations between male & female hominids, one would have to dispense with “All the Pretty Little Lies” and start being completely honest with oneself about the nature of the female of the species.

            And of course the experienced Playahz would warn the neophytes that you can either know women, or love them, but not both.

        • OrangeFrog: Excellent point. Whenever I see a mudshark, I think of how her great-grandparents and various ancestors would have been shamed by her, and shunned her. With ample cause. Miscegenating and birthing children of mixed heritage is not honoring your parents nor the heritage and race you are by virtue of your God-given genetics.

          The vast majority of modern Christians are irredeemable cucks. They will happily parade a sub-Saharan son-in-law as a ‘good Christian man.’ They utterly ignore that Jesus did not instruct Christians to go seek brides from other peoples. He said to spread His word, not to bring all the aliens back and insist your neighbors house them. Modern Christianity is a globalist and feminized perversion of historical Christianity, and it needs to burn along with all the rest of the modern world’s dross.

          • ‘Modern Christianity’ if defined as Moralistic Thereputic Deism, and/or whatever it is J Osteen purveys, is not Christianity.

          • To Not My Usual Pen Name – first of all Arghhhh! I accidentally pushed the disapprove button. What a brilliant and interesting response to my comment! Thank you for taking the time to share such your thoughts and understanding. Since we’re now on to a new post I’m going to reference this for anyone interested (hopefully I can find an appropriate opening) in digging through Friday’s post to find it. Well worth the effort.

  25. Just want to thank Mr. Zman for all the great content. It’s the only blog I read every day and it’s my favorite podcast, one that I savor each Friday when I have the time to listen to it without much distraction.

  26. Cal Thomas was the quintessential Evangelical neocon way back in the day. his columns were everywhere, with swarmy smug style that made readers feel good while never taking the right to task about their absolute failures in their leadership. I guess later in life he pivoted to saying that Christians should not try so hard to attain political power and the dangers of associating the Christian right with the Republican Party.

    Oh, and he was fanatically pro-Israel.

    He seemed a sincere guy who, like most of his generation, misunderstood how political power works by accepting the gaslighting of his neo-con constituents at face value. He actually believed the neo-cons gave a lick about social values, and when he was backstabbed for the 80th time, decided politics is now too corrupt.

    The problem is, you can’t have your own culture without at least some political power. If you find the people you are giving political power are failing time and time again, it may be a feature rather than a bug, and it’s time to be skeptical of the institutions and think-tanks that are elevating them.

  27. Good podcast and Excellent choice for opening music on a show about neocons. I just finished reading a hilarious book called Never Trump in which all the never trumpers are interviewed and explain themselves. Turns out they’re mostly driven by their tribal affiliations. And when they listened to trump talk they heard the hoof beats of the Cossacks.

    • All it ever is, tribal affiliation

      And it’s an inferior way to approach and view the world.

      But it’s what works now and a protection against the worst of universalism. But it’s just sad we had to let our society reduce to a state where we’re survival and simply getting by means acting like a pack of animals.

      Ain’t multiculturalism grand? Was sold as the height of sophistication and turns out it’s the height of rancor and primitivism

      • Universalism might work if we required others to come up to our standards. Instead we grovel and accommodate, and this is the natural result.

        It’s a satanic inversion of the Christian ethic, or the transvaluation of values, or clown world. Pick your poison.

        Saving the world instead of saving souls. Sermon over.

        But right now, I agree, it’s about surviving.

        • In the land of plenty we are, yet we’ve been reduced to the level of animals struggling to survive as if we’re starving

          What an inversion of what was always thought the natural order

          Again, multiculturalism leads to a bare, pack animal existence.

  28. Another lesson in history where there is never getting away from the idea that the juice have not been good for America

    As the smart kidz say, it all gets so tiresome

    Also noticing the internet is now just as Kosher as the MSM. Same companies own pretty much all of it, Except for a dwindling number of sites like this.

    I’m going to enjoy it while it lasts. Good show btw,

  29. Given that we live in a time where we have to deduce the race of the perp by what the press doesn’t tell us, Esoteric Writing doesn’t sound all that far fetched.


Comments are closed.