25 thoughts on “Happy Homelands

  1. Z-Man nice interview and you should do more of those. However I’d take issue with the Left winning because they are relentless. So are the nuts like Richard Spenser. The difference is their nuts are the kids and grandkids of the Managerial Elite. Since the 1910s the Managerial Elite has been in revolt against White middle and working classes being able to have a decent standard of living and even worse having some say in running the country. What’s the point of being rich if ordinary people have nice things too?

    Bill Ayers was the son of the Chairman of Con Ed. Chesa Boudin’s parents were the kids of rich big shots. Barack Obama never worked a day in his life because his parents were rich and he hung around other third world big shot kids. Gavin Newsom is the scion of one of the three families that have run California since the 1920s: the Newsoms, Gettys and Browns. They have the same complaints:

    1. Middle and working class people have / need traditional Christian morality and that holds down the perversion freedom of the bigshots to go tranny, or molest 14 year old girls as Epstein’s Pedo Island (frequent visitors Bill Gates and Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton). This is why a big shot morality (“Its ok if we do it peons”) is high on their agenda.

    2. Middle and working class people not miserable makes them miserable. They can only enjoy their private jets if your “vacation” is watching streaming video in a shipping container.

    3. They like/prefer non-White servants and gofers, who won’t give them lip or be independent. Hence mass third world immigration for cheaper nannies and gardeners and cooks.

    This is the open door the left has pushed on for 130 years. Its remarkable and only due to WWI and WWII that it took this long for the near total victory. [That it might cause collapse totally is not their concern. They figure their money and power will always get them out of tight spots and so far it has.]

    • Middle and working class people have / need traditional Christian morality and that holds down the perversion freedom of the bigshots

      Spot on. Pervesion has always been top down….

  2. Z
    Nice broadcast

    The Metzger takedown happened when I lived in Oregon. A couple of skin head goons drove from Idaho into Portland and picked some African refugee (I think he was named Mulageta Surow – or some such) and beat him to death on the streets.

    Some local do-good attorneys filed suit against Metzger because he filled their heads with shit and caused a crime 300 miles away. Based it upon the treacherous nature of his teachings/rantings. Took his ranch/compound.

    I always have waited for someone victimized by an enviro lefty to file suit against Al Gore. Hope it happens during the upcoming snap back.

    As an aside – reference the Soviets – I was a signal officer in ROK during the 80’s.
    Had frequent intelligence updates on the Soviets/Norks/Chinese.
    My favorite briefing started with ‘the entire Eastern USSR Air Force is grounded because the pilots are blind’. The jets used methanol alcohol as windshield cleaner during flight. The pilots ran out of vodka and drank the anti freeze and went blind.
    From that day on I had a little less fear of Ivan.

    Keep up the good work.

  3. Nice show today. I used to listen to Ramzpaul a few years ago, but for one reason or another, stopped. I think he might still be in at least the semi-vote harder group, but not sure. Anyway, very enjoyable. Thanks.

    • He believes a bunch of forbidden things but fundamentally he’s a pleasant normal guy, and normal guys think elections are real-ish and even if not they have some signal value, that mass voting contrary to the government’s wishes is a meaningful protest, etc. He remembers America and loves it. I’m a generation younger so I don’t have much firsthand experience of it. I mostly know America from Christmas commercials, Beach Boys records, and ’70s movies about the ’50s. So I fundamentally don’t *care* if elections are real. He always will. It’s enviable.

    • he’s ok, but overly concerned about the hebes. you aren’t going to learn anything you don’t already know, watching his podcasts.

      • Paul is good for the recently disconnected from the matrix. He shouldn’t have taken the early retirement because he wouldn’t grift so hard. If you aren’t a patron or superchatting him , you won’t get acknowledged.

        • Lolz, he replied to a 1$ chat. Hardly call that grifting. We sit around and bemoan the fact that our children/grands are being fucked (sometimes literally) and subverted. Yet we don’t support our guys. Sure, avoid the obvious charlatans, but Paul been at this a long time and is clearly genuine. While a little cucky, I like us having a nice continuum from normie adjacent to see-ya-Kyle types. If you reading Z and not kicking in >109$ per month to dissidents you a cheapskate. Hell, I might even buy a comic book from Vox and I hate the guy, and comic books. In Zs case I would like to see him get a assistant and travel budget.

          • The majority of non-superchats aren’t worth reading anyway.

            Superchat: “Hey Paul, have you finished that biography of Jefferson Davis yet? What’d you think about it?”

            Non-Superchat: “Hey Paul, have you finished The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion I sent you? Please give us your honest take.”

        • Chipping in 5 bucks once in awhile supports good writers and video bloggers like Z and RamZPaul.
          We don’t have multi billionaires or even multimillionaires supporting our cause.

          • Not the point, i do kick in monthly to a few including this one. It would be as if Z only responded to members or financial supporters, which he doesn’t.

            You are invisible to Paul as a non superchatter. That is to his own detriment.

          • Keeping up with the questions in the chat is almost impossible. That is why you see most live streamers stick to the paid chats. You can easily spot them. When I’m on these shows I see the other side and the interface is very busy and not easy to follow.

    • So did I and I stopped watching him a couple months ago. I started noticing that his content became really similar to Republican twitter. He would go over meaningless partisan stuff, just news of the day events that no one will remember in a week.

      I really don’t agree with Hannity or the talk radio approach so I just go for other things once I see it veering towards that direction. I tried watching this video but I gave up when he brought up the budget and good guy Tom Cotton.

      • Since this is a weekend and Z won’t be posting any articles, and there aren’t many comments here, I thought this might be the time to post my long-winded rant against a National Conservatism article I read on The American Conservative. Enjoy (or don’t).


        The usual suspects are rebranding Conservatism. Now that the old con has failed, they need a new one that does pretty much the same things, but without all the negative press. Over at TAC, they’ve run this article in support of “National Conservatism”:


        In short, the author tries “nationalism” without a nation. Appeals to identity are so broad as to subtly justify the same multiculturalism he disingenuously denounces. All the right code words are present, almost as if someone made a list for him, but the meaning is largely absent. Essentially nothing he advances stands any chance of success, which I’m sure is the point – redirect popular anger into non-threatening endeavors unlikely to succeed. National Conservatism is the old conservatism, including with some of the same people, but with a new coat of paint to fool their marks.

        TL;DR: Superficial religious, economic, tax cut and liberty appeals. Quotes from Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln, and Edmund Burke. Roe v. Wade. “Woke capitalism, multinational corporations, ruling class, elite, cheap labor” rhetoric (someone has a made list). Piggybacking on popular social concepts among the right-wing youth (masculinity). No mention of the Left’s racial radicalism against Caucasians. One or two general denunciations of CRT. No mentions of anything being “anti-White” or anti-male. Absolutely no appeals to our identity. Basically, the article boils down to “vote harder, but not as a group, and some legislation.”

        It’s a retread of the same National Review Conservatism that failed to conserve anything or win any meaningful battles over the last four decades. Only the language has changed and superficial acknowledgement is paid to past failures and some milquetoast concerns of the present. The movement is national in name only because it makes no reference to an actual people or their interests.

        Not surprisingly, National Conservatism appears to be organized by an Israeli citizen and former advisor to Benjamin Netanyahu — Yoram Hazony — who, in each of his prior National Conservatism conferences, has taken the time to legitimize the “white supremacy” slur by loudly denouncing it, implying our side is racist through association in the process. Do the democrats ever denounce “Black Nationalism” or “Jewish Power”? If they did, would the public think the democrats had a problem with Jewish power or Black nationalism because the democrats keep talking about them?

        With that question in mind, why is Yoram Hazony denouncing “white nationalism” as if it’s present or common among republicans? Because this kind of language certainly implies that it is, and that’s exactly what the public is going to think. How does that benefit us? … or maybe that’s not the point.

        National Conservatism appears to be a thinly disguised excuse for denouncing our people’s efforts at group solidarity by offering diversionary, superficial appeals to our group’s constituents (religion, republicanism, history fetishists) and by linking it to racism. The people behind it are primarily interested in their group’s benefit, not ours. It is to their benefit (but not ours) to denounce our solidarity by linking it to the “supremacism” slur, which is why they do it.

        • As for what’s in the article itself, here’s my take:

          1. “We must restore cultural sanity in part by means of the return of God to the public square.”

          American society is now much less religious than it used to be with no signs that trend will ever reverse itself; religious affiliation has declined by up to 40% since 1999 and continues falling. The religious talk from the “National Conservative” crowd is just that, talk. Nothing much will change on that front (they know that), but the rhetoric is a useful tool to divert growing Caucasian solidarity and channel it into something ultimately fruitless for us and, as a consequence, beneficial to them.

          The article further offers no meaningful plan of action as to how to achieve this aim or even addresses how increasingly secular Americans will tolerate “God” being imposed on them. Very likely, they won’t; the effort will only serve to divide Whites by generating backlash and mockery just as the media used to mock Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson while accomplishing practically nothing of value on issues that matter – immigration, anti-white racism, CRT, the economy, the loss of our civil rights, etc. The Christian Coalition and the Religious Right ultimately failed, so why are these people trying to replicate their efforts unless that’s the point?

          Don’t get me wrong, I’m definitely a Christian, certainly in the cultural and ethnic/racial sense. I’ve even advocated reforming Christianity to be more exclusionary and explicitly Caucasian as a means of restoring value to modern, rootless populations of White secularists (Israel is majority secular despite being “Jewish”). But what National Conservatives are advocating here is “God” in the broadest and blandest sense. This religion is not exclusively Christian. Rather, it’s for everybody … which means it won’t really motivate anyone on our side, which I’m sure is the point.

          Under “National Conservatism” the nation could see a dramatic rise in Islamic affiliation and that wouldn’t disturb these people. They define “God” as something that ultimately legitimizes the Left’s multicultural doctrine. When I say “God”, I mean “MY God.” I have little in common with anyone else of the earth’s non-Christian population – all five billion of them. Nor do I have any desire to live among them. National Conservatism includes 95% of the earth’s population in the conversation, which is why it’s ultimately a dead end; it’s yesterday’s liberalism.

          Our people wouldn’t be any better off if National Conservatives got their way on this. I personally don’t want to live as a hated minority among people of “any” religion, I want to live among my own kind and according to our shared values, culture, and history. That’s the best way to prevent racism against our people (there can’t be anti-White racism without anti-Whites); that’s the best way to ensure happiness because young men will be given something larger than themselves to contribute to; that’s the best way to prevent infighting and promote tranquility. National Conservatism doesn’t do any of that, so it’s a waste.

          Yoram Hazony’s Israel, in contrast, is not just a religious state, it’s a specifically “Jewish” state. It’s not about “God” in a general sense but “THEIR God, nation, culture, and history as a people.” What all people really want – including Hazony’s — is group identity. They don’t simply want religion or culture or freedom in a generic sense, they want an exclusive group identity and to live according to its established norms. Group belonging is fundamental to all humans and has a deep evolutionary origin; you seek it out every time you join a club – the constituents of which are more similar to each other than strangers picked at random – or gain a friend.

          In America, there used to be an Anglo Saxon ethnic and cultural identity. Ask yourself if White Caucasians were happier back then than they are now. The suicide, substance abuse, and rates of psychiatric care will tell you the answer. Now ask yourself if National Conservatism really addresses the root causes of our people’s problems: the lack of an exclusive group identity due to mass immigration, self-hate, racism, and other factors.

          2. The usual Conservatism Inc. economic appeals are present, albeit couched in an explanation of American Conservatism’s origins. The author slyly denounces Eisenhower’s “oppressive … marginal tax rates” of the 1950s without mentioning that 90% White America was healthier and happier than ever before (or perhaps since) when they were instituted. He traces high taxes to the formation of modern Conservatism, or at least its appeal to conservative normies.

          A more truthful explanation is that conservatives cynically exploited backlash to the Left’s racial radicalism of the 1960s to funnel efforts into fruitless economic dogmas (the public perhaps thinking they were saving their money from being wasted on ungrateful demographics of minorities) while conservatives ignored truly important issues such as immigration and the disintegration of the social fabric. It wasn’t the Cold War that got White normies voting republican. It was Nixon’s Southern Strategy and dog whistling against the race hustlers of the Civil Rights Era.

          These people got what they wanted with Reagan and Bush II lowering taxes, and none of that prevented the current situation. So, why would more of the same do it?

        • 3. “Let’s review how we got here.”

          What got us here are the very policies once touted by some of National Conservatism’s champions (Rich Lowery), namely policies like mass immigration. Remember, these are the guys who justified it along purely economic grounds – muh GDP, muh Social Security, muh jobs Americans won’t do. They purged lots of people who argued the contrary. These people were also behind free trade, WTO for China, and they did everything they could to assimilate the Left’s many cultural revolutions over the decades. Now, literally the same people are telling us what we need to do to fix the problems they originated.

          How we got here: as the minority share of the population has risen, far-left fanatics (disproportionately upper middle class, college-educated Whites) have gained in electoral dominance. The Left’s authoritarian mask is slipping because they believe demography is destiny, and they believe they will soon have absolute power as a result. They think there will come a time when they become unbeatable at the ballot box no matter how many Whites turn out, so they think they can get away with whatever depravity or miscarriage of justice they want. The champions of National Conservatism brought that situation on if it ever materializes.

          It’s true the country is close to 50-50 now, but so was California in the early 1990s. Things could fast break the Left’s way on a national scale due to demographic turnover. Consider that the last republican to win the popular vote was George W. Bush back in 2004, and barely at that. And no republican since 1988 has won more than 51% of the popular vote. California hasn’t voted for a single republican president since the 80s, and much of that due to demographics. Democrats also regularly win the majority of votes across all House districts even if they lose the majority of seats due to redistricting.

          You can claim “demography is destiny” was wrong in 2020 because White males made Biden president, but I’d retort that Trump would have handily won that election with the demographics of 1980, so clearly demographic change has made an impact.

          4. The author tries to set National Conservatism apart from the failed National Review Conservatism by denouncing some arcane figures from its founding era and by claiming that it’s “unmasculine” (“see normies, we watch Jordan Peterson, too”). The point is to say to the reader that they’re different, but since National Conservatism doesn’t offer any realistic alternatives, I don’t see how they really are.

          5. The author pays lip service to the negative effects of free trade with China without offering any solutions such as imposing tariffs or incentivizing reshoring of critical industries.

          6. The author gives away the game with following quote: “the nation-state, the church and synagogue, and the family.”

          It’s all an effort to bind our people to a certain other demographic through superficial appeals to conservative White Christians*, to gatekeep and control what we are allowed to pursue based on what’s in their interest. As I noted, nothing in National Conservatism would stop “church and synagogue” from becoming “church and synagogue AND mosque.” That acknowledgement is deliberately omitted by proponents of National Conservatism.

          *Hazony has advocated indoctrinating our children into the Hebrew language even though it played essentially no part in Christian history or culture. If our people want to explore our roots, I would suggest learning either Latin or Greek; they did at one time.

        • 7. “To sacrifice the levers of power of the national government is to unilaterally disarm in the culture war.”

          Vote harder, basically. And vote for the same people who got us into this mess at that. Presumably, this is the solution to the problems he addresses.

          But the best way to seize those levers is through group solidarity, as Virginia just showed. That’s what inspires the sacrifice and long-term efforts required to achieve meaningful gains. The ADL and countless other ethnic advocacy groups understand this. Compare their success with Heritage, the AEI or any Libertarian group. One good way to make sure you fail is to make a general appeal to ideology. During WWII, Stalin learned that the people would not fight for Communism but they would fight for the Fatherland; he cynically exploited that to push back the invading German army. National Conservatives want the former with the result of the latter. Does anyone think that’s likely?

          8. The author smartly denounces the effects of “the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act” without explicitly calling for its repeal or explaining in detail why the act was bad. Instead, he redirects with a general call for “more God.” But there is a huge problem with that. We could make America far more Islamic, thus more religious, but would that really foster solidarity among the public or would it further divide people? Repealing this bit of legislation is an obvious first step in stopping the erosion of the social fabric because “more God” is only better if He’s “our God.”

          9. He calls for certain tepid reforms to prevent tech censorship & Leftist foundation abuse by “ensuring they are not treated as charities under the U.S. tax code.” I don’t think that would happen because it would also apply to AEI, Heritage, and a plethora of Conservative think tank scams. They’ll grease the right palms to make sure this never sees the light of day. I would welcome it happening, but it’s a bit childish to suggest this alone would fix the issue even if it somehow got through. He also suggests changing the interpretation of some laws to prevent abuse, but I see no reason why democrat-appointed judges would respect that.

          Going much farther, openly advocating the breakup of these tech companies via anti-monopoly enforcement, would be a better approach, in my opinion, as legislation requiring their neutrality might be challenged in court along free speech grounds and alternative judicial interpretations would be overturned by Leftist judges. YouTube can’t abuse your rights if there are lots of competitors through anti-monopoly enforcement or if there are incentivized alternatives – perhaps through favorable tax legislation and prohibitions against refusal of service. The government could also directly fund an alternative to YouTube, Reddit, and the like. Sure, that’s “big government” but the government also couldn’t then legally censor you.

          10. “Poisonous multiculturalism threatening to further divide an already-divided people on the other hand, such as critical race theory.”

          I don’t see where anything in the article actually clamps down on multiculturalism. The logic of the article seems to endorse it.

          11. “The silver lining of the ultimate failures of the postwar, neoliberal-inspired ‘conservative movement’ is that those failures have laid bare for all to see the misbegotten notion that the public square, and by extension institutions such as the free market and the constitutional order, can ever be ‘values-neutral.’”

          The author wants to connect these issues to “values” in order to preserve the status quo, but I would argue that different people have different values. Change the people, change the values. He’s wanting to impose alien values on alien peoples, and that’s not likely to work.


          Author suggestion: “More God (but whose God?), ignore identity, minor legislation changes, judicial reinterpretations, subtly endorses multiculturalism, no big changes on economics.”

          Author Strategy: “Vote harder, do something in congress next time.”

          Likely result: “Secular and moderately religious Whites (and some Christians) are turned off by this inept foisting of a vague, non-Christian religion and nebulous value system upon them; the White vote splits as a result; Leftist judges overturn your interpretations; the Left & democrats win as infinite immigrants are imported and then indoctrinated into anti-white hate; the country gets poorer; China dominates the world.”

Comments are closed.