223 thoughts on “Moral Disorder”

1. You can function successfully as a society even WITH all the crazy liberal ideals. My best friend is from Denmark. That place is a good example. Welfare state, open to whatever, the Alphabet soup group, trannies, free health care, free education on and on. Problems yes, some minority, but for the most part it works. Safe, clean, white.

   It functions because the society, for the most part, has the same values and there is a much larger contingent of working normal people that crazies. So the crazies are supported by that group and it is accepted.

   And when something totally unacceptable happens in Denmark, they usually respond as a cohesive group. Like when they killed Van Goghs son they actually rounded up all the rag heads and shipped a bunch out.

   It works and functions up until the minorities with differing values start to control. Then it falls apart. The people who abide by the same sets of rules and produce have to far outnumber those who don’t.

   In the minorities groups across the globe the takers way out number the creators. This creates the animosity we see between those who produce and those who take all throughout the West. The inverted pyramid.

   What about the insane whites that support this? For the most part they represent the white “takers” that were, for the most part, always supported by society. It was accepted.

   The takers now rule, and they are going to take until there is nothing left, like South Africa. Even look at London.

   And now the US is fast approaching a racial unrepairable inverted pyramid. Its finished. We have lost. It will never be saved.

2. Lol! Cat chorus in the background.

3. Yup, forget who said it but classic wisdom.

   “Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times”

   We are nearing the rock bottom of the hard times. It’s gonna suck. Silver lining is the money printing class has become weaker than us now. We have been been hardening a bit due to the intensity of their anti-white psychological and financial attacks. The term anti-white wasn’t even a thing ten years ago. Let that sink in, because it’s important. The awakening has been forced upon us, it’s either get serious or fade slowly into complete subjugation.

   Things are destined to get a lot worse before they get better. Soon enough we are going to have to take some pretty serious risks if we want to secure for our children and grandchildren the freedom to live decent lives. White people need to get tribal again. Nobody is “colorblind” but us. It’s clear that we are being walked all over, the double standards can’t be denied by even the most cuckiest cuck. We organize and fight for our people or we drift further into a sub-class of hated untouchables.

   There is no other group in america that doesn’t advocate for their race but whites. This needs to change, and it needs to change fast and hard.

   • Strength is respected. Tolerance is publicly praised by those whom it benefits but is privately derided.

     I am young. I am attractive so people trust me and I keep my cards close to my chest. Every other race is flabbergasted by how stupid white people have become. They see us as idiots. And we have been. Colorblindness is a lie that our inherent altruism was attracted to because it sounds utopian and nice. But the world is not butterflies and rainbows. Israel just machine gunned down starving women in gaza trying to feed their children. Reality is knocking. We have to toughen up. They would do it to us if they could, it’s obvious they hate us, go watch Santa Inc, go listen to pretty much any jew’s opinion about white people. It’s time for men to be men.

     • OH also I grew up in a less than 10% white area so I know a lot of non-whites. Forgot to add that. But yeah, they think we are retards for being race blind. They are right.

       • The brainwashing works.

         • Not really. It works on people who are safe and comfortable. For the rest of us they have to use terror and abuse. There were far less than 10k J6ers. The leaders were sentenced to decades in prision. It’s easy for them to isolate and destroy when we aren’t untied. Solidarity matters, my father built great works, amazing bilding and he was in a Union of mostly white people. Fuck Republicans who say “Right to work” They just are in the pockets of people who hate us and want to get rid of our collective bargaining. DMV workers.. fuck their fake unions but real americans who build thing s should not have to worry about being homeless and withour medical care. Fuck Jew Lehman brothers. Fuck Janet Yellen.

           But the Irish, who burned down refugee centers and came out in tens of thousands actually made a difference. Their occupied gov’r is actually granting some concessions We need to organize and get serious, cucks respond to fear, Judases who take 30 pieces of silver are cowardly tools. They respond to fear and greed, We only need to show strength of will and courage on mass. Just that would change a lot.

     • “I am young.”

       Approximately how young, sonny?

       Respect for your clear vision.

       Do you see any signs of the survival instinct kicking in among your male peers?

       On one hand, you would think that when anti-white-man speech and policies are so explicit, then young men would be forced to notice. On the other hand, the whites in South Africa show how delusional our people can be.

       • It’s a big country, I can’t speak for my entire generation but I grew up in socal. What I can say that nearly every white I’ve known sees the double standard because it’s so obvious for white minorities. Some have cucked for job opportunities, some have not. but everyone knows.

         If we start showing some actual strength and will the cucks will cuck a lot less though, I can tell you that for sure.

         There is a lot of under the surface knowing. It’s mostly just… a feeling of powerlessness and alienation.

         • I pray for all of you young white people. If you have not already, learn marshal skills and prepare.

           TPTB are not importing an army for nothing.

         • I think our people are ripe to follow a genuine and honest pro-white figure that we can rally around.

           Censorship makes it very hard but as hard as they are trying they won’t be able to duct tape that dam forever. Especially once inflation hits hard., and it… well.. bad news and good news, the USA’s credit limit is most likely nearing it’s end point.

           Even the Saudis are turning away and hedging their bets, if you follow international politics… this is a big thing. USD fiat is not healthy. Hard times are coming in not too long, no matter what. It’s a done deal at this point. Wont be fast, but won’t be slow. History no longer moves at the pace it did during the Roman or even the USSR times. Much faster now. The globe is connected.

4. There is a meta-reason why our rulers went insane. They only need to virtue signal to themselves. We no longer matter. All that constant social media, legacy media, bullhorn/megaphone stuff is to convince each other they are not the bad guys. Its inevitable in a distributed Tyranny. They need to coordinate and the insanity is made worse because no one is in charge.

   Putin, and Xi as well, have complained they have no one to talk to in DC. They literally have no idea who is in charge. Because no one is. I have seen company after company where the CEO or Board Chair is not in charge — it is the HR director, or marketing director. Sometimes higher ups live in terror of their employees who can make charges or protests. Bob Iger for example does not run Disney. Its mostly Kathleen Kennedy, Kevin Feige, and a few others who do. Same with Project Ukraine. There its toad-like Victoria Nuland really running things. I’ll bet Austin does not really run Defense, its his deputy.

   Francis Fukuyama the End of History Guy has a MASSIVE op-ed in the Financial Times today taking up half the page. He is basically calling for a self-coup per Fujimori in Peru, to punish not just Bad Orange Man but his voters. He walks right up to the line for “an emergency declaration” and wants the Senate Filibuster ended, proportional representation in the Senate, ending due process, ranked choice voting, and crushing the deplorables for “efficiency.” He calls it ending political statis.

   We have to remember that the source of morality for the literal hive-bugmen of the elites is “experts” declaiming on “efficiency.” This is what its all about. Eggs in my area, after being affordable at $3 a dozen for the lowest end, have now rocketed up when they are found at all to $6 a dozen for the lowest end. This is showing up in polling nationally where Weekend at Biden’s is collapsing against BOM. We have to recall that the Project Ukraine grift must go on. No matter what.

   Hence never let a crisis go to waste. Various circles in elites are sending out pheromones like the bug-men they are, that it is time for a self-coup, time to give BOM the Natalny treatment, send his voters to Manzanar 2.0, and use them as either Uighur style forced labor for arms manufacturing as trial ballooned in the UK or disposable troops on the Russian Front. That is the plan. Meanwhile legalizing “MAPS” (Colorado Dems refuse enhanced penalties for child-traffickers) and all sorts of stuff. [Sailer is wrong, p3d0s are the next big thing since most gays/lesbians fall into that category and are sacred holy redeemers of heterosexuality.]

   [Canada is the proof-of-concept of modern tyranny. They now have sure to pass laws making life in prison for “hate speech” (defined by the government, no appeal), years for even “possessing” something “hate speech” (again defined by government, no appeal), “preventive detention” for people who “might” commit “hate speech” with no limits of detention (in prison), and years in prison for “advocating” for “fossil fuels.” You really should blame Canada. It is where tyranny goes from proof-of-concept to production.

   Does Canada matter? Yes. They can extradite you for “hate speech” or “fossil fuel” advocacy in distribute tyranny, the way Obama used the Canadians and Brits to spy on Trump.]

   In reality, we are short 80,000 truckers nationwide. This is not 1917 Russia, nor 1789 Paris. It is not even 1933 Berlin. Already during Covid, the National Guard was called to drive school buses, serve in hospitals, act as prison guards, due to a shortage of manpower. It is not just Putin who lives in the Demographic Age.

   The US is now almost out of advanced missiles. We cannot even crush Hootie and the Blowfish in Yemen. We have no industrial capacity to replace all the missiles used up in Ukraine, in Gaza, in Lebanon, not the machines NOR THE MEN. Jose Ibarra may be very good at killing promising young nursing students at UGA, he’s not going to be assembling an ATACMS missile any time soon. Or ever. All those violent felons recruited deliberately from the Venezuelan prisons with deals with Maduro, and from Central Africa, are there for boots on the ground thuggery only. The weak point is the same at the assumption of one A.H. — that slaves will work for their masters in highly complex armament plants. By the end of the war over half German artillery shells were duds.

   • https://www.ft.com/content/2b204c19-4050-4316-852c-9b0dbfdf23a1
     fillerfiller

     • Well here’s a giant whopper:

       In today’s polarised America, Maga Republicans are inclined to veto simply for the sake of undermining the other side. They have been pushing for stronger security measures on the southern border for months. Biden essentially gave in to their demands in order to get funding for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan through, at which point Trump, still only a candidate, intervened to veto the deal because he didn’t want the president to get any credit.

       • The fact anybody thought that deal was in anyway for “stronger” borders is a disingenuous liar. A man worthy of goebbels and Baghdad bob.

     • https://archive.is/fruAC

       without the paywall

       not that it’s worth reading

   • I’m sure I’m not the first person to realize that they can solve their Biden problem and create their casus belli for martial law against “maga” with one single act

   • One proof of this is that TPTB are no longer screaming for war with Iran. It seems to have donned on some of them that we will not win such a war. If fact it would probably mean a quicker end to the GAE.

5. The Boomers never had a moral compass.

6. This guy pretty much sums up most of what the Z man and most of us here see as the current situation. Basically a crisis of competence.

   https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2024/03/wilkerson-speaks-loudly.html

7. “The inflection point is the 1992 election when the Boomers officially took over and began to shape the post-Cold War world.”

   1948. Truman de-segregates the military
   1948. SCOTUS ends restrictive covenants, which allowed Whites to keep neighborhoods White.
   1954. SCOTUS ends segregated schooling
   1957. POTUS Eisenhower sends armed troops to enforce integration
   1964. Civil Rights Act canonizes Blacks and make “anti-discrimination” supreme
   1965. Immigration Act opens floodgates to Third World.

   I am in no way exculpating the Boomers, BUT huge and foundational damage was done to the USA before the first Boomer could vote. 1992 is way down the riverbed from the broken dam.

   • The most important effect of the 1064 Civil Rights Act was to outlaw free association. This was the last barrier to total Jewish penetration of society and the radical moral corruption that ensued. The civil rights movement was actually a Jewish movement using black frontmen.

8. I disagree, I think the post World War 2 consensus of anti racism, anti fascism, and egalitarianism is the same moral guiding principle of the West today in 2024 as it was in 1983 or 1957. I also think it is a strong fervor and sets forth an aspirational path with clear enough milestones to be striving towards. That the West lacks an alternate great power with its own ideology after the collapse of the Soviet Union, did not hinder the West’s all subsuming quest to embody their “woke” *(the same ideals from Churchill to Blair to Reagan to Clinton to Thatcher) values.

   • Yeah, I’d say that the end of the Cold War let the underlying morality of anti-racism, globalism and Minoritarianism hit the West in full force. With the Soviet Union gone, there was nothing left to oppose or challenge that morality or its policies.

     Since the 1990s, all sides have agreed that racism and discrimination – even in your private life – is the Worst Thing Ever. That has been and continues to be the West’s moral authority.

     Every policy or legal decision has to pass through that morality test. If you oppose immigration, it’s racism. If you don’t want men in dresses, it’s discrimination. Etc.

9. George Galloway who campaigned against Gaza war wins UK by-election
   Rochdale is a town filled with multi ethnic group
   Turn out that only stupid white people buy up Jewish bullshit

   Don’t worry jews, those second-rate half-breed won’t gassed you
   They just shots in your head and be done with it

   • Nice downvotes! IDF out in full force this weekend it looks like. I guess its a slow weekend in Gaza.

   • That guy is a fringe character and has previously been associated with communists.

10. In the current age in which everything seems orchestrated and rigged, it feels reassuring to know that a mere 30 years ago, the end of the Cold War happened organically and took the “elite” by surprise. We know that’s true, because none of them had a plan for it.

    • Jeffrey Zoar: ” the end of the Cold War happened organically”

      From what I’ve read, there may have been something of a literal miracle in the relationship which Ronald Reagan & Mikhail Gorbachev shared.

      As though something akin to Divine Intervention might have played a role in the outcome.

      But then Bill & Hillary came along, shat all over it, Larry Summers seized the opportunititty, and we got the Oligarchs and their Rape of Russia.

      [A few years after that, Larry Summers also created Mark Phμckerberg, whilst simultaneously destroying the Winklevoss twins (Cameron & Tyler). Strange, those cohenincidences are. Very very strange.]

11. The thing about the Soviet Union was that it was a barely functional society from the beginning. The joke “they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work” is based on a true state of affairs. Workers didn’t compete for labor’s medals, they shirked work whenever possible.

    The special stores available to the elite added to the corrosive nature of society. If there is a two-tiered system, then what does that mean for Communist equality? And even though it wasn’t advertised, the fact of the stores must have leaked out to the common Russians …

    The brutal fact is that everywhere men do not want to be equal. They want as much stuff for themselves as possible. The only “plus” with Communism is that most people get dragged down to subsistence level and vast wealth is obliterated. That’s it.

    • I’m going to point out one contrary example.

      This example is found in the book, “Behind the Urals,” written by an American who traveled to and helped build the industrial city of Magnitogorsk, modeled on Gary, Indiana and Pittsburgh, PA.

      Anyway, in that book the author describes wage schedules based on a worker’s production output, with bonuses paid for things like exceeding the production targets for a given shift.

      Stalin built up this heavy industrial city because he feared a capitalist attack within a decade of his ascension to power. He was correct about the attack part.

    • “The brutal fact is that everywhere men do not want to be equal. They want as much stuff for themselves as possible.”

      Forgive me, I know that I am becoming a bore but:

      If your explanation for our current lamentable plight is greed then you are overlooking forces that are much stronger. Especially much stronger in non-whites and our greatest ally.

      You are missing the most consequential parts of the story.

      • Vis-a-vis the Meta-Darwinian forces which propel both the non-Whites and our greatest ally, mere greed does seem like a laughably silly old character flaw from the copybook headings.

        Our ancestors were truly hopelessly childlike in both their innocence and the naivete of their assessment of the human condition.

        Deep Inner Hajnalia must have been like Heaven on earth.

        https://tinyurl.com/3u98ktyd

        • The naiveté of the white men of the Enlightenment almost clouds my eyes with tears.

          They were crafting Universal Rights of Man for a planet mostly full of people who were genetically incapable of even understanding what they were trying to express.

          Well, live and learn!

      • This is what really annoys me about Denninger, who thinks the plandemic jab scam was simply about money.

        Uh, no, guy.

        • Karl is a force of nature and I share your disappointment.

        • “Denninger… thinks the plandemic jab scam was simply about money.”

          Is that assertion correct?

          If so, are we talking “Projection” here?

          Or is the assertion false, and Denninger is well aware of the s@tanic motivations of the DePopulationists?

    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93tR96egox4

      “I’ve been such a fool, Vassili. Man will always be man. There is no new man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there’d be nothing to envy your neighbour. But there’s always something to envy…a smile, a friendship…something you don’t have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love.”

12. Someone has probably already said it, but as far as I’m concerned, our moral authority began imploding in the 1960’s – everything has been downhill since. Granted, it has accelerated in the last decade or two. As an example, just think back on entertainment. Once we got into the 70’s, both music and especially movies became far more explicit – vulgarity, graphic violence and sex – prior, it was implied, and you had you use your imagination, but now it was upfront and in your face – totally undermining (if not upending) the moral order.

    It’s interesting that in both the 19th and 20th centuries, the 60’s were a complete and utter disaster for America, and ultimately the west.

    • That stuff started when “The Greatest Generation” was still in charge. What’s past is prologue.

    • Taking a slightly broader view encompassing Europe as well we peaked in the Victorian era. And exactly because it was the peak something must have gone wrong there. Otherwise it would have been a stepping stone to further heights.

      So what went wrong in that splendid era? In one word sentimentality. We wanted to be good more than we wanted to be right. We have never reversed that priority amd today it has reached abominable proportions

      • In an inversion of Machiavelli’s dictum, Western man eventually wanted to be loved more than he wanted to be feared.

        Ultimately, he ended up nether loved nor feared.

13. See, I think it is Real Simple, Sen. Iselin.
    Curtis Yarvin: there is no politics without an enemy.
    In the Cold War our rulers had an enemy to fight. Yay!
    But now, there really isn’t an enemy. So they have to make it up: Climate, systemic racism, Putin, Trump, Christian nationalists, etc.

14. “Who are we?” An answer in two parts.

    Part 1 – Ancestral: For about 200,000 years, our ancestors evolved in a natural environment like all other life forms and “who we are” was the present incarnation of what “worked” in that particular locale on the planet. And most of this was encoded in DNA, which included both physical and behavioral traits. After we developed complex language skill, postpartem nurture augmented our habitual behaviors with ancient wisdom passed down to succeeding generations. And this wisdom was similarly unique to local conditions and consisted of what “worked” for those people.

    Part 2 – Post Civilization: When we learned how to create “artificial” environments, everything changed. In particular, the death of hardship and existential threat eliminated culling of the dysfunctional among us. And this gave rise to the era of pathogenic parasites that have now come to dominate our societies. We are now subject to the forces of “artificial” evolution being directed predominantly by the pathogens. And we are getting sicker and weaker as a result. And this is happening faster as well. The pathogens want to create a homogenized and docile sheeple that they can control from above while they become a pantheon of gods on Olympus.

    But there will be antibodies, and getting there won’t be guaranteed.

15. Relating to punching Libertarians:

    I’ve only been following Zman for about 6mo, so can someone point me to an article/podcast where the root of this scorn is described?

    I’ve found them to be (mostly) agreeable people who are just stuck with an 18th century mindset. “Liberals with low taxes” seems an accurate enough description, but not enough to justify the scorn.

    Disclaimer: I’m not a Libertarian or defending them. I am curious about counterpoints to their ideas.

    • ZMan is not shy about his love of Libertarians. My opinion is that Libertarians, besides being laughably unrealistic, are essentially cowards. Libertarianism allows a white guy to stand on the sidelines and feel morally superior about refusing to take a side and hiding out.

      https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=8252

      https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=19052

      https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=28062

      • Thanks so much for running these links down for me. 👍

        • Plus there’s the ‘Autism Factor’. You can’t be a sincere Libertarian and grok the basic outlines of the Human Condition / Human Nature (neither are pretty) at the same time. (*)

          Ergo there’s something deeply wrong with committed Libertarians and they need rebooting. What better way to do this than to punch them? It may not work, but it’s worth a try.

          Of course none of this applies to just plain stupid, weak, cowardly Libertarians who hide behind this ideology as a way of avoiding facing Capital R Reality.

          It also doesn’t apply to Libertines who mislabel themselves as Libertarians because it sounds more respectable. They’re just dishonest scum. That being said, I’ve more respect for an honest libertine than a LARPing Libertarian.

          * If you don’t get this then you may be young and lack life experience or you may in fact be Autistic. Punching yourself might do the trick 🙂 Self-help is an old-fashioned American virtue I’ve been told.

          • A lot more punching may be the answer.

      • Just FYI, the correct spelling is LOLbertardian.

    • Re-framing cowardice as morally principled. The only time they ever get worked up about anything is opposing normal people wanting normal things.

      Even if they weren’t cowards, they support the most evil stuff. They support property rights to the extreme, like saying the community cannot ever have any say in what can be done with property. We are not, or should not be just a random collection of individuals. We are communal and there must be community standards and the ability to enforce them. Like if you want to open a house of prostitution next to my house, I have the right to stop you.

      • [Libertarians] support the most evil stuff. They support property rights to the extreme, like saying the community cannot ever have any say in what can be done with property.

        That’s just stupid. It’s why one cannot have a reasoned philosophical discussion of the topic here. Libertarians think that if your community wants to put up Satanic shit for Christmas, knock yourself out. You just can’t tell a different community they have to do it, too. They get to decide what kind of decorations they put up, or no decorations at all.

        My beef with libertarians is that like all statists, they are hopelessly idealistic. “Oh, yes, every time government has been tried in the past, it’s screwed stuff up, but once /ourguys/ get the chance, it will be all sunshine and lollipops so far as the eye can see.”

        Same damn crap you see from the commies. “Real communism has never been tried.”

        • How about if they want to put a house of prostitution next to your house? How about a pig farm right outside your development?

          Yeah, if Satanists want to put up decorations, they can start their own community many miles from mine. In a real society, me and my neighbors would warn them once nicely while inviting them to leave.

          Sorry you’ve been brainwashed into believing community standards are evil or somehow amount to communism.

          • Where did you get the idea they are opposed to community standards? Even people more anarcho-capitalist like Rothbard acknowledged community standards. He used the pig farm specifically as an example.

            Now, sure, you go to a libertarian site that has armchair libertarians you will likely get n00bs to say whatever you want, and, if you adopt a somewhat morally casual attitude, can quote them as what “real” libertarianism is.

            But you and I both know what a strawman is…

          • He framed up the other Z-characterization (which I prefer) just well:
            Libertarians: There when you don’t need them, gone when you do.

            When you want to defend your community/people from some debauchery they show up to “moralize” to you, and when you have to deal with the results of said moralizing they are no where to be found.

          • Uh, @steve I’m quoting YOU.

            “Libertarians think that if your community wants to put up Satanic shit for Christmas, knock yourself out.”

            You’re accusing me of straw-manning you while I was directing answering your example. Stop being silly.

          • Uh, no @Tars. I said, “if your community wants” yadda yadda. Emphasis on the “your”. That does not mean they believe Satanists can barge into your town and put one up, merely that they can do so in their own town.

            Libertarians often aren’t very specific about what remedies are allowable if the Satanists did try to muscle in, but most would call it aggression, and can be dealt with as could any other aggression.

            It is the existing state which is standing in the way of “explaining” the error of their ways. Which is the fatal flaw I mentioned about libertarians at the outset.

          • @steve Stop pretending you don’t understand what was being said. There are no communities of “Satanists” There are only 1 or 2 individuals looking to sow discord and unhappiness and want to spoil things for everyone.

            We don’t have to hypothesize about this. It has happened all over the US. During Christmas there’s always some Jewish “Satanist” who want to say they have the right to put up Satanist stuff if Christians have the right to put up Christian stuff. As a result, Christmas has been wiped out of many towns in the US.

            Further, we don’t need your stupid fake offical “remedies.” In the old days, if we were in a good mood, they got one warning before being run out of town for good.

            Besides, anyone publicly declaring themselves a Satanist should be tried for witchcraft or as a Satanist.

        • Steve: Perhaps you ought to read C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity.” While he uses the analogy of a fleet of ships to morality, the comparison works for society overall as well. You may think that what your neighbor does in his bedroom doesn’t affect you (or what the
          Satanists in the next town do doesn’t change what you do in your town). But you would still be dead wrong. And libertardian.

          • Read it a long time ago. I’ll do so again at your recommendation.

            I’m a little disappointed that a well-spoken person like yourself goes ad hominem. It’s pretty common here, though. Is that what DR does to one’s brain?

            BTW, I was not the downvote.

          • Steve: Downvotes don’t tend to upset me; everyone is entitled to his opinion, even if it’s wrong! If I have mischaracterized you and your viewpoint, I apologize and would ask that you clarify it. But I’d like to think that as I’ve gotten older I’ve also gotten wiser, and come to realize that all the achievements of my life – which I used to consider solely ‘mine’ – would not have been possible without the civilization and society that fostered them.

            Not the same as Obama’s “You didn’t build that,” but rather the realization that without the West and its history of learning and education, and the colleges started generally by Christians, I would never have achieved anything. So it’s more a symbiotic relationship, and I’ve moved from valuing the highly individualistic to a much more sympathetic and appreciative view of communities.

          • I’m pretty sure I’ve presented a very negative viewpoint of libertarianism. “Hopelessly idealistic” or whatever I said is not a compliment. I was interested in presenting an honest critique of their philosophy, not just slandering it. I even snuck in “Rothbard” so if anyone were genuinely curious, it’s one internet search away.

            Re: lived experience, same-same. My life would not have been possible without Western Civ, including Enlightenment thought. Yes, there’s a lot to find fault with, but like pretty much every other radical change, the Enlightenment was a reaction to the world at the time, with some facets that would only apply in that context. Like Adams would point out much later, the Constitution is wholly unsuitable for a non-religious people.

            To the best of my knowledge, not a single development of African culture has improved my life. If the African culture were so great, it would at least be able to keep the power on or the water treatment functioning after whites did all the work of getting it working. Or have gone from what must have been a culture sufficiently advanced to build a pyramid down to a neolithic culture. But instead, we see blacks being no better able to manage Flint or Jackson or Detroit or Gary than they can a city in Africa.

            But do I have a “problem” with Africans screwing up Africa? No, not really. That ship is far enough from my fleet that I’ve got more pressing matters.

        • @Tars Stop pretending you don’t understand what was being said.

          You were the one who brought up evil. You said libertarians support most evil stuff. My answer was that libertarians hold that if your community wants to engage in evil, and contains whatever damage to their community, no foul. It gets more complicated when you are talking about nukes that entail massive externalities, but you will note, somehow the worst regimes ended up with nukes anyway. Not really a criticism of libertarianism.

          I get that you take umbrage with the idea that I’ve tweaked a standard problem, Satanists forcing their way into our communities, which I (and libertarians, BTW) agree can and should be met with force if necessary. My point was that if the Satanists want crap like that for their own town, why do you get a say in it? I get you aren’t a Kantian (neither am I) but what kind of principle are you going for here? My way or the die-way?

          And they are not my remedies. They are the remedies allowed by the existing state. I’m in the SSS camp, myself. A self-described pedophile or Satanist or, heck, anything, wants to come into my town and screw stuff up, SSS. I’m not even that committed to a trial in those cases.

          • Steve: This is where you appear to contradict what you said in response to my critical comment earlier. Yes, we do have a right to have a say if the next town over becomes Satanist. Because these people are living lives directly oppositional to traditional morality. They may be the next town, but they remain part of the same ‘nation,’ and their ‘ship’ is leaky, poorly built, and sailing in the opposition direction of the majority.

            Same with the ridiculous “Whatever goes on between consenting adults in their bedroom is none of my business.” When they are into S & M and their children see and hear it, it f&cks up the children. And they go to school and express their mental trauma in ways that affect other children. And furthermore, people never keep these things in the bedroom. It spreads to the workplace, and to their politics, and yes – to their children down through the generations.

            I don’t have a simple, one-size-fits-all answer, but what happens in the next town matters. What happens in the next state – presuming its part of the same overall polity your state is – matters. If you don’t share the same morality and culture and ultimate societal goals, you have AINO today – diversity + proximity = war.

            Let the Jews cheat one another in their own nation. Let the Mohammedans mutilate their daughters. As long as it is in their own culture and polity, I don’t care. But if I’m forced to tolerate them in the same polity, let alone the same neighborhood, I damned well do have a say.

          • @3g4me, They may be the next town, but they remain part of the same ‘nation,’…

            That’s really the crux. What is sufficient distance to be considered a separate polity? Your neighbor? Yeah, that’s close enough that you will notice if he has gay sex with his curtains open. Within a town is definitely reasonable that it’s your business.

            Another town? Well, jeepers, if you have to bundle the kids into the station wagon and drive half an hour, and park in some other guy’s driveway, maybe that’s a bit excessive.

            But if you are bouncing states, or half a continent, for God’s sake mind your own damn business. The States were considered “free and independent”, and the peace treaty with Britain acknowledged that. Unless you are a libertarian, you don’t believe in rights in the first place, but even if you are, you have no “right” to object to another polity’s laws.

          • Assuming for a moment that an actual community of Satanists exists, they exist inside a larger community. They hold views deliberately obnoxious to the majority (in America anyway). If you push a “Satanist” about their views, they will deny Satan even exists. They just use “Satanist” because it pisses off the Christians.

            What is the principle? There really is none other than this is a fine example of how “diversity” far from being a strength is a debilitating weakness and source of conflict. A community can only be formed around a core of like-minded people. This requires a shared vision of the world, shared morality and a broad consensus of what is allowed and what is forbidden.

            I am unaware of any libertarian principle that allows you to oppose these Satanists. It’s not just the weirdos on libertarian websites who endorse this toxic “pluralism” It’s no accident that the major thought leaders of libertarianism like Rothbard are Jewish outsiders.

            This kind of toxic thought process happens over and over again with libertarians. When the desire of a community is at odds with the desires of a single person in that community, libertarians always come down on the side of the individual. The NAP offers no defense, if it did, if it could re-frame property rights as aggression, it wouldn’t be a principle.

            Why are you talking about nukes? I gave a perfectly reasonable “externality” example with putting a very smelly pig farm right next to a housing development. Your nuke example is pointless because a state is sovereign. It does what it wants at its sole discretion.

            Frankly, most libertarians are low-tax liberals. Don’t get me wrong, I am highly suspicious of most government programs. Libertarians get some things right, but usually for the wrong reasons and with a lot of liberal baggage. They are reliably on the wrong side of most issues and they forget their principles when it goes against the mainstream.

          • Steve: You state that I ought to have no say in what happens in a different state. Fair enough in principle . .. but disastrous in practice. The Puritans were quite bothered by the existence of the Quakers – even when in another state. Seems slavery was deemed acceptable in some states to start with, and then other states took exception and then we ended up with lots of dead Whites and the beginnings of the federal behemoth.

            2nd amendment people today argue that concealed carry permit from one state ought to be honored in other states. But then the the LGBTQ crowd also insist that their version of ‘marriage’ ought to be legal in all states. Once again, in come the feds.

            This isn’t a new thing. Do you perhaps recall the tale of King Solomon and two women insisting each was the mother of a child? The ‘solution’ in the Bible was cutting up the child. The initial solution in the US was secession. Again, some states and moralists and war put an end to that.

            So while the idea of a federation of totally free and disparate states sounds nice in theory, it does not work in practice. Either we are a people with a shared culture and morals, or we are a disparate conglomerate held together by habit, consumerism, and force. The moralizers tend to be on the left; most anti-abortion people seem to be content to leave the decision up to individual states.
            Same thing internationally – AINO embassies push the rainbow flag and anti-raycism throughout the world.

            Either you have a united and homogeneous country with shared values, or you have today’s AINO. In that way, any shade of libertarianism is much like communism – everyone is equal except some are always more so.

            Human nature and history have repeatedly proven that your ideal of “live and let live” given a certain distance does not work. So best of luck relying on some vague “mind your own business” society. Never has been nor will be a real world example other than by force.

          • @Tars, I am unaware of any libertarian principle that allows you to oppose these Satanists.

            And that is exactly why it’s pointless to discuss here.

            Like has been pointed out several times in this very comment section already, by several different people, it was not libertarians who eliminated freedom of association.

            “Libertarian” without freedom of association is like a t-bone steak without meat. Until you restore freedom of association, libertarianism is going to give poor results.

      • Libertarian economics is just rationalizations for supporting the economic interests of the ruling class.

        • How so? I’m familiar with and agree with lots of critiques of libertarianism, and have not seen this one. Other than on a-soc or “true” anarchist sites, where it’s just commie-speak.

          If there’s really something there (as evidently 3 other people now agree), I’d sure appreciate learning about it.

          Incidentally, I usually don’t say anything about Zman’s criticisms of libertarianism, because he explains he’s talking about left-libertarians (Cato, FEE, etc.) and he’s largely correct there. They are kind of like a pack of prairie dogs who invade a pasture, ruin it, then move on to another pasture. I think he incorrectly believes that right libertarians are basically non-existent . I’d bet just mises.org has more views than the entire DR, and that’s not counting mises’ foreign localizations.

        • You are conflating the sensible arguments of men like Friedrich Hayek with the Koch Brothers and opportunistic US political grift. This is unfair.

16. “The inflection point is the 1992 election when the Boomers officially took over and began to shape the post-Cold War world. The trouble is they had no idea what they were doing… The result is the newly ascendent baby boomer generation was operating without a moral compass.”

    Quite the contrary, my dear Z. I couldn’t disagree more. The Boomers sure as hell knew what they were doing and sure as hell had a moral compass. They were the most cocksure, moralistic generation in the 20th century.

    Their moralism when hand-in-hand with their supreme narcissism. Everything the Boomers did was moral, everything in the past was immoral. Everyone who came before the Boomers was either evil or ignorant (or both) and knew absolutely nothing about nationalism, the military, war, sexual propriety, marriage, monogamy, the role of the sexes, drugs, grooming, economics, or race. Everything the Boomers did was justified as the only moral choice.

    The Year Zero for the Boomers was 1968 and the riots in Chicago. Everything before that was immoral and deeded to be corrected, violently if necessary. The Boomers knew everything about morality because they went to college, unlike their stupid parents, who worked in factories or fought in World War II.

    Yes, it is true that they did not take power until 1992. But they were entitled to it, you see. Hillary was the feminist “co-president” who was going to singlehandedly fix health care without consulting those stupid rubes in Congress. Bill thought that the Oval Office was a great place to get a blowjob from a Jewish intern. What’s your hang-up, man? Are ya a prude or something? It’s nothing thousands of naked, stoned girls didn’t do in the mud at Woodstock. Groovy, man. Sexual liberation.

    Remember when Newsweek called George H.W. Bush a “wimp”? The guy who got shot out of the sky at age 19 and could have been tortured by the Japanese or eaten by cannibals before he was rescued by a submarine didn’t know shit compared to the Boomer Rhodes scholar-genius Clinton.

    I vividly remember the Clintons and Gores dancing to Fleetwood Mac on inauguration night and couldn’t got over how déclassé and adolescent it seemed after having a dignified war hero as president.

    There were many valid criticisms of G.H.W. Bush but narcissism, lack of patriotism, and behaving in an undignified manner weren’t among them.

    • Of course, thanks to George’s CIA ties, the Bush I administration was the time the intelligence community got it’s teeth firmly clamped on the government of the country.

      • I don’t disagree. The guy wasn’t perfect. The Deep State/Military-Industrial-Complex/spook community originated during the Cold War and compromised American principles in the name of anti-communism.

        That being said, ALL of the Cold War presidents (with the exception of Johnson) were fucking geniuses compared to the Boomer blowhards.

        Let’s not forget the most self-righteous, moralistic blowhard Boomer of them all: the priggish mulatto stoner Obama and his insufferable moralistic preening (“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” “We’re on the right side of history,” “It’s the right thing to do,” “That’s not who we are”…)

        • None of the presidents were stupid. Johnson was, like the others, quite bright and high in willpower. To get to the highest levels of power takes special attributes. It is a mistake to assume that someone you don’t like is a retard solely because he rubs you the wrong way.

          • LBJ was likely one of the very most intelligent presidents America had. He was also one of the very worst. Make of that what you will.

    • I was thinking the same thing. They were the most certain of their own morality while having the morals of a hedonist. In their worldview, everything was permissible. Sex, drugs and rock n roll in the most juvenile sense imaginable. Most of them never grew up. They think sacrifice is for suckers.

      I think this was always going to happen when the Boomers took over. Sadly, Gen-X is every bit as bad, maybe even worse.

      I personally don’t like the boomer-bashing. But it is undeniably true that the personal moral compasses in America along with the national conscious were utterly destroyed in the time of the Boomer youth. It is only gotten worse since. Hedonism rules the day. Morality is turned on its head. What is moral is immoral and what is immoral is the height of morality.

      They have done a very good job of passing this down to the younger generations.

      • I try to stay away from generational warfare even though I very much enjoy being a late Xer and wouldn’t trade my youthful years for any other time period.

        That said, it is correct there was plenty of, “free love,” available in the 90s and 00s. Sometimes I regret not indulging in that scene more deeply.

        The other key piece that gets left out of generational discussions are the huge, steady, economic tailwinds that existed from 1945 to 1971. This is in contrast to the spottier, more speculative bursts of economic increases I’ve experienced.

        That said, I freely admit I should have played my cards better financially with the many opportunities that have popped up in my lifetime. Best case, I could’ve retired with eight figures in my early 40s. Oh well.

    • I hear your admiration for Poppy Bush and it may be true of him personally. He was certainly a better man than his sons.

      BUT. . .Poppy was pure CIA/globalist. There’s a reason he became so palsy-walsy with Clinton. Both CIA.

17. “The inflection point is the 1992 election when the Boomers officially took over and began to shape the post-Cold War world.”

    I don’t know if it was the Boomers or the Boomers being led by the nose by Jewish neocons (PNAC, etc.), who came in to their own during the Clinton and GWB days. I see it more as the supplanting of the old white Protestant elite by the new Jewish elite, though you can frame it in generational terms.

    • The Silents, true to their name, have this way of flying under the radar and avoiding their share of the blame. A lot of what is attributed to boomers is really on them. I guess boomer and ok boomer is just catchier. Not that I’m overly hung up on the distinctions; late Silents such as Biden and McConnell being closer to early boomers than they are to earlier silents, as late boomers and early Xers are more or less the same thing.

      • Late boomer/early X is distinct. They’re the fountain of “wokeness.” It’s a strong break from the late silent/early boomer hippies and pomos (though of course there are overlapping characters). As a later X, theirs has been the ideology/morality/etiquette of my immediate superiors, professional and social, for my whole conscious life. If there was a Great Awokening, its *latest* possible date is (fittingly) 1992.

        I’m sure I’ve said this before but everything Jim Goad wrote while he lived in Portland was a Nietzsche-level-insightful chronicle of the rise of the blue-haired “enby” and her Cluster B friends to social dominance. For some reason he doesn’t realize this, or he just doesn’t say it. Maybe he doesn’t want to blame our friends, or maybe insight isn’t his job anymore.

        Regardless, his Redneck Manifesto was the last great political book. Conservatives can’t explain anything, and while /ournerds/ like Gottfried and Moldbug are great pattern recognizers, they don’t know *who did it*—because they’re nerds. The “social animal” of everyday life eludes them. Outside of books and oligarch-sponsored pseudo-events, *who* is *what* and *who* is *how*. Goad was full-on Gorillas In The Mist with them, a first-hand witness/victim.

        I miss him very much.

        • He’s very much alive at Counter Currents.

        • Early X is interesting. Half-hearted about it, even nihilistic. I think that’s what we’re seeing today. Next stop, Woodstock ‘99!

        • As an early X’er, I am the exact opposite of what you refer to as “The fountain of woke”.
          In fact I know of no one in my age bracket who is a fan of that cancer. Quite the opposite, everyone I know has been a victim of DIEversity at some point in their professional lives.

18. When I first became a conservative as a result of learning a little about the real world, the difference between “the West” and Soviet-style communism was still quite stark. I knew, even in 1981, that West Berlin was not a fully natural outgrowth of free-market economics, but I was still shocked by the contrast between the admitted ‘showpiece’ environment and the greyness and restrictions of East Berlin. Crossing Checkpoint Charlie, one felt a definite and fundamental change – almost a “here be dragons” sense of foreboding. Fwiw, those soldiers’ guns were loaded and not for show (unlike Perry and Abbott’s posturing by putting unarmed troops at the border) and they had shot and killed more than a few people over the years.

    While the US had only just begin the partial and ultimately short-lived recovery from Carter back then, it was still a relatively safe and free country – at least when I left in 1980. Oh, the magic black stuff was in full-force in public schools, but in college everyone knew the few blacks there were academically sub-par and there was minimal social interaction with them. The homosexuals were coming out of their supposed closets at the time, but the average person still regarded them with revulsion. People were rightly warning about still nascent political correctness, but the iron speech and thought control was barely noticeable compared to even the early aughts.

    The Soviet Union in Brezhnev’s twilight was a very grey and somber place. Westerners were watched. Locals did queue up for a pittance of consumer goods (and I stood in some of those lines and spoke with others while we waited). The standard of living was dramatically lower. It wasn’t just political slogans – the real-life consequences of political differences were stark. I knew just how privileged I was when I drove around blasting “Boston” in my employer’s Niva. But I also noticed the grandeur of Moscow’s subway compared to the baby DC metro that was touted back home – ugly and stark and grey.

    I couldn’t claim to be a ‘cold warrior’ – I was too young and had been raised to be a loony liberal. But, to my credit, I saw the left’s shrieking about Reagan for what it was. And I saw the fundamental lie and insanity at the base of leftist thinking about human nature and where its policies led. The US I returned to for good in 1993 was a very different place, and those beginnings of rot were solidly established and on their way to full flower.

    tl;dr: I don’t think it’s quite so simple that the US lost its way because it lost an enemy to focus on. The roots of the anti-Western movement -as most here well know – go back to social Puritanism, late 1890s progressivism, and the accursed Frankfurt School in the 1920s. With the fall of Soviet communism, though, we forgot the real-life consequences. We no longer saw its fruits. Fundamental differences in beliefs about man and society became nothing more than political slogans.

    Our “enemies” didn’t disappear; they won. And too many still insist people aren’t genuinely evil, merely misguided. And Satan blatantly and triumphantly struts around AINO’s cities and schools, and people luxuriate in the ‘warmth’ of his fire.

    • I always took Yuri Bezmenov with a grain of CIA blessed Kosher salt. But his warning about the subversion, how it is permanent and how it would “demoralize” the West and leave us unable to fight just gets truer with every passing year.

      We did not “win” the cold war in any real sense. What happened is the other side collapsed for its own reasons before defeating us for good. We did not hit them with a knockout blow. Nothing we did harmed them. They fell for their own internal reasons. The rot simply killed them first. WE did not kill them. But the rot is here also, just 25 years behind them.

      A lot of the craziness stems from groups funded and supported by the Soviet Union before the collapse. They infiltrated many of our institutions. They used our “rules” against us. Our tolerance of free speech allowed them to rail against us openly and we had no answer most of the time.

      • Tars: Vitally important to note the heavily Jewish influence in Soviet ‘communism.’ It was never “communism versus capitalism.” It was always a battle of ethnicities and different moralities disguised as full shopping carts versus lines to buy potatoes.

      • And people might tend to forget how anti-anti-communist many mainstream liberals were during the Cold War. For them, McCarthyism and normal, patriotic Americans were much more horrific than anything the Communists did.

        Such people fawned over monstrosities such as Howard Zinn’s pseudo-history, and ensured that schools were promoting it.

        I don’t remember ever seeing an apology from such liberals about how wrong they were.

        • True. Case in point being the response to The Manchurian Candidate (1962). There was a great hue and cry that the film was far too rough on the poor unjustly demonized communists. No complaints whatsoever about how it maligned the so-called “McCarthyites,” who, as later events revealed, were absolutely correct.

          • The same thing happened when Forrest Gump came out in the summer of ‘94.
            The average person liked it, the critics couldn’t stand it because for the first time in the history of the left – a history they constructed – they were portrayed as degenerates and not the nobility they see themselves as.

    • “With the fall of Soviet communism, though, we forgot the real-life consequences”

      “Our “enemies” didn’t disappear; they won.”

      Beautiful comment and the excerpted sentences are two of the truest I’ve read here. I mentally try to calculate when that last became true but it is a fool’s errand. The Cold War ultimately was a civil war and neither was our side.

    • The roots of the anti-Western movement -as most here well know – go back to social Puritanism
      —
      It’s hard not to go back to the enlightenment, arguably the birth of “subversion as government”

    • Somewhat related to what you said. I read a quote by Putin:

      “Anyone who did not morn the fall of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who would desire that it be brought back has no intelligence.”

19. “baby boomer generation was operating without a moral compass.”

    No truer words were ever spoken Z…
    And not just regarding the Cold War, or the political order in general.
    We like to hammer on the millennials for the current tyranny of political correctness and rightfully so. However, it all starts with the Boomers in the late 60’s, pissing and moaning about every god damn thing under the sun, and the invention of “victim politics.” In spite of the fact that the boomers were born when the American economy was at the heights of its powers, the nuclear family was the essence of American life, and they just plain had opportunities in every facet of life, that no other generation in the history of mankind has ever had, past or present.
    The civil rights movement, 3rd wave feminaziism, and the invention out of whole cloth of “we are going to save the world” idealism. This has never been heard of before.
    Most of Gen X “my Gen” was spared the brainwashing because most of the teachers, at least the ones I had were pre boomer. Then in the late 70’s, early 80’s boomer teachers took over education and by the 80’s, full tilt boogie victim politics, and politically correct tyranny. Out of that you get millennials. Gen Z seems to be pushing back a bit but we’ll see.
    I’ll credit the boomers with great music / movies / literature / art.
    After that it’s a shit show.
    Looking forward to this weeks show Z and the video podcasts you’ve been promising, hope they’re coming soon. Have a great weekend Zman!

    • I meant to say by the 90’s, not 80’s, full tilt boogie political correctness came into full swing. Wish we could edit comments.

20. This is a difficult thing to explain but has anyone here had the sort of magical thinking I have had. I always assumed that if something unexpected happened that it would mean year zero and everything would change. So when the police precinct was burned in Minneapolis I thought “maybe mad Max is here”. Or when McConnell filled Ginsburg seat with only six weeks to go before an election I kept thinking “maybe this is the part of the movie where the bunker in Yekaterinburg scene happens”.

    So to put it another one way we have something where words are mostly disconnected from any real.world events. Like I hope that on the campaign trail this year that trump says something like “joe Biden is a puppet of the child sacrifice cabal” because it would magically create a sort of year zero. But would it? Maybe not

    • Tues Nov 8, 2016 was probably the closest thing we’ve had to a Year Zero moment lately. But the progressive degeneracy was already in motion prior. That’s just when they tripled down on it, in response to this impertinent affront.

      • I still have not truly LAUGHED as much as I did the evening/ morning Trump took the crown from Her Nibs.
        The looks on the news readers faces as each state was called for BOM, Queen Hillary going into hiding, the realization that nobody cheated because “everyone knew” she was going to win.

    • This is the end of the world as we know it. This fact is what most miss. We are not moving towards a reset. We are moving into a global, tyrannical government.

      • Our rulers are TRYING to move us into a global, tyranny.

        However, Diversity is our strength.

        The regime might convince the Goodwhites to take their jabs and force the Badwhites, but they can’t get the Joggers, Arabs, Hindus and Guatemalan’s to do anything but Jogger / Arab/ Hindu/ Guatemalan stuff.

      • Under whose auspices? The GAE is slowly crumbling and neither Russia nor China have world conquering ambitions.

        • You assume a great deal.

          • Not sure it’s an assumption, but rather an astute observation on the part of Ostei. The only assumption I see is that “world conquering ambitions” will appear in the form of prior world conquering ambitions, e.g., large armies, war production footing, armed invasions.

            We don’t see any of this occurring and if they do, we’ll have years to prepare. What we do see however is that China in particular is cementing trade ties with many countries, thereby securing power and influence. But is this wrong or a natural part of world economic competition in a capitalistic process? We seem to have gotten lazy after WWII and increasingly used force in our dealings with other countries. Lest we pull everything down upon our heads, we need to consider a change in tactics.

          • Umm… assuming the desires and motives of another is a big assumption, much less two civilizations.

          • @Eloi, sure, you cannot know another’s motives, but you can know his revealed preferences. Like @Compsci points out, there’s no objective evidence that China or Russia are working on a global military conquest.

            There are a lot of revealed preferences that deserve a higher priority than a Russian invasion.

        • The GAE crumbling externally will motivate it to double down on the police state internally.

      • I’m sure the people who work for and support the Left’s vast network of NGOs and “charities” *think* they are going to build a world government. It’s a clever plot really and something I’ve suggested we do – namely, build the infrastructure of a state *before* you have an army and police to enforce your will.

        Then again, this is what every halfway competent revolutionary organization does. The problem for the Left is that the human material they are building with has all the strength and resiliency of wet paper mache. Building a state is like building any other structure and the bigger it gets, the stronger the material needs to be. If you want to span a creek, you can cut a tree down and walk across it. If you want to span the Grand Canyon, you need structural steel.

        Of course you could say that Western corporations allow the Left to piggy-back on them into virtually every society on earth. This is true but most nations remain justifiably vigilant regarding corporate shenanigans. They know these organizations cannot be trusted and need to be watched. The faux-libertarian ideology that deifies them has no purchase outside North America. You can see this in Russia. There are certainly people camping in coffee houses in Moscow and St. Petersburg who think the glorious color revolution is just a latte with extra foam away. Putin’s FSB watches them closely and every time they get uppity some more of them end up rotting in Russia’s very unpleasant prisons. Examples include the Pussy Riot sluts and the wannabe comedian Navalny.

21. The most amazing thing about the show, to me, was Z being able to stay on message while his cats were providing a competing social commentary 😉

22. There’s a very interesting game theory problem when winning by itself sows the seed of future disaster. I first thought about it after reading Glubb because that is what he is saying. I won’t geek on about it here but that is a very interesting problem and hard to wrap one’s head around

    It is tempting to wish for one’s kin and people near-victory and near-security but even they may be too much. Maybe humans need enemies at least as much as they need friends. Enemies are a great help in answering “who are we?”

    • I suppose that’s good luck for us because our so-called leaders are making enemies for us all around the world.

    • If an external enemy is defeated, then unity is (seemingly) less necessary, and it’s time for infighting over various petty and non-petty issues.

      Human beings are inherently violent and competitive. Both men and women btw are inherently violent and competitive, just in different ways.

      It’s what Nature demands. It is what it is. So you either acknowledge that and go with it and all it entails and find a way to channel it to stability and productivity. Or you stay a destructive child and insist we’re all noble savages that society corrupted; that is a sure way to ruin.

    • True. But the GAE has never lacked for enemies, even when it has to manufacture them (viz Russia).

23. Sorry Z, no sale on your version of the 90’s. I was there, I saw it all too.

    The church still had a few shreds of integrity and moral authority. A lot of the Silent Generation were still around. The Paleocons walked the earth, a few proto-dissidents swam in the primordial political soup.

    But even back then, ages ago… you were told. You KNEW. “If you let the queers out of the closet, the pedos, the trannies and other degenerates will come out with them…” You can not sit here in 2024, clutch at your pearls, and shriek, “where did all these perverts come from?!?! Who would have seen THIS coming?!?!”

    In retrospect all I can say by way of response is, “How could you NOT see it coming?” The solution to this problem is coming too. You may well be judged for your complicity in creating it, and “I was just following the crowd” may not be a viable defence.

    • Way back in the early 1980’s, the elementary schools in our area were constantly organizing anti-bullying campaigns. Even then, my dad wondered if it was just one of the preliminary stages of the gay agenda.
      Who could have imagined child mutilation and children being chased around and pursued by men in dresses?
      It is absolutely egregious that this is the world we are leaving to our children and grandchildren.

      • Your dad would have been along the political median for his time, M. I was a young adult coming of age back then. The schools were bad then…and now they’re ten times worse.

        If I were a parent today I’d save my kids by either home school or private school. Public education today is a leftist scam and a cult.

    • Some wake up earlier than others. I always thought gay marriage was corny or something but didn’t realize at first what it would lead to. We are relearning why all surviving cultures suppress gays. History is full of torn down Chesterton’s fences

    • The church still had a few shreds of integrity and moral authority.

      Oh, come on. The Catholics had fully collapsed by ’65 when they completed Vatican II. Also in ’65, Methodists also switched their “social justice” plank from the original, “slavery is bad” to “white is bad.” I don’t know when the Lutherans fell, but certainly before Nixon’s second term. Their Lutheran Social Services was a big force in importing the third worlders.

      Personally, I think the church pissed away the last vestiges of integrity when they pushed the Progressive agenda in the latter 19th, early 20th century. All that was left were a few holdout congregations that were slow to convert to the new “christian” ideas.

      • Agreed. The church has been ostracized, smeared, vilified scapegoated and censored for decades. Not saying your complaints are baseless…but regardless, when the church came out against the gay agenda in the 90s… guys like you stood on the sidelines and laughed at them. Or worse, you participated in efforts to silence them.

        Classical Christianity evolved the way it did based on human nature and facts. Homosexuals are miserable people that like to spread their misery. They are a threat to children and make war on their families and communities.

        It begs the question: Do queers have a place in the dissident community? If so, I will make another prediction that will bear out in 20 years when you guys will start saying “Diversity is our strength…”

        • …but regardless, when the church came out against the gay agenda in the 90s…

          Canada must have been a different timeline. In the States, the Moral Majority took off in the early 80s, and was killed off by the antics of Falwell and Swaggert by the end of Reagan’s second term. To the extent the Satanic Panic took root, it was also an 80s thing.

          When in the ’90s do you remember the church taking a stand against homosexuality? By then, the “enlightened” churches in Minneapolis were already hanging Pride flags. That’s what drove me away from the church, not to return until I found out if you get out of the shithole cities, the world is a lot brighter.

          But, hey, if all you have is ad hominem, I guess you gotta lead with your best.

          • In this case I’d call it “ad homo”…😂

            And no, I shouldn’t be a dink. If you want to throw out the church I have no problem with it given their compliance with the faggotry and thereby the devil. I’d reject my church in that case too. But I wouldn’t throw out my faith, morals and ethics… and that’s what so many people have done.

            People without a shared moral code are nothing. If you think things are bad now…just wait. It’s gonna get much, much worse. The church is just another institution that will need to be repaired when Globohomo falls…

          • Agreed, Filthie. One of my few regrets in this life was conflating my faith with attending church.When my kids were old enough to rationally think about spirituality, we incorporated it into homeschooling, and it was at their request that we joined the local Methodist church, where I learned about the roots of the church (awesome sauce — God is a rational being, and His creation makes sense, even if we do not have the wisdom and knowledge to understand it now) and, eventually, the church’s current state. I put up with it longer than I felt comfortable there; my kids left first, after the homo crap started. But the final straw was the preacher’s sermon where he committed the Marcionist heresy, and I found out that was “our” official theology. Millstones. I even warned the preacher those were the stakes. He was not concerned.

24. “…war of all against all… tribe up.”

    I moved from NJ to the deep south 2 years ago. Lots of tribe-up going on. Meeting new neighbors, people at church, at parties, etc., there is a kind of feeling out dance on both sides. Once we both realize we’re talking to generally like-minded non-wokes, there is a sense of relief followed by honest conversation.

    I’m sure Z-man is having those conversations in his new neighborhood.

25. Interesting that Z notes that the underlying belief of the Civil Rights movement was that we’d give blacks full access to society so they’d eventually end up acting like whites.

    You still see that belief now in people like Steve Sailer. He’s constantly harping on black crime and traffic statistics, implying that if only whites enforced our culture on blacks, they’d behave better, i.e., white, and live better lives.

    Now, in some senses, that’s true, but Sailer never seems to get the joke that he wants to impose our culture on a people who neither want it or can live up to white standards.

    What’s even funnier is that Sailer does the same for Asians. Sailer doesn’t like that Asians game the system to win. Being an IQ/education snob, it really drives him nuts that Asians grind their way to higher SAT scores and grades rather being like smart white kids who just enjoy learning for learning’s sake.

    The whole ethos of the Civil Right movement, as shown by Sailer, is hilariously ethnocentric. It was all about making non-whites become white because why wouldn’t they want to be just like us. That same mentality dominates who the US views the entire world.

    Btw, I like to tweak Steve and his reading by telling them that Steve is really just a modern Yankee missionary trying to save the heathen.

    • Ironically, it sure seems like blacks were trying much harder to act white before the civil rights movement. I’m thinking of pictures of Harlem in the 1940s where everyone is wearing a suit or uniform.

      • Yes, because we were proud of culture, our culture was dominate and we demanded that you act white to advance.

        In essence, we imposed our culture – quite forcefully – onto to blacks.

        But it’s like holding a chair over your head. You can do it for a while, but sooner or later, you get tired and put it down. And as soon as you do, things go back to where nature intended.

        • Exactly. The Irony is that when Blacks were allowed unearned full admission to White culture, they (most) simply turned around and created their own “subculture”.

          They no longer had to “act White”, so they reverted to the lowest denominator. They invented their own culture from (mostly fabricated) bits and pieces they claimed from Africa at the urging a new era of race grifters.

          If you can’t compete, might as well develop your own subculture where you need not be compared with others.

          • There’s a reason rap was the first musical genre to massively employ sampling of other music.

      • Maxda: They only ‘acted White’ when forced to – i.e. at threat of legal or social penalties. As far as wearing suits goes – first, that was considered standard and appropriate public dress for men at the time – hat, tie, etc. Second, black men have always loved peacocking – they invented the ‘zoot suit,’ and their penchant for nontraditional colors, patterns, and fabrics is evident going back many decades.

        But otherwise their natural inclinations are as oppositional to White norms as it is possible to be. I was recently looking into 1920’s dances – what moves went with the names – and was actually a bit shocked by just how blatantly sexually provocative many of them were. The “black bottom” was, unsurprisingly, created by blacks and is extraordinarily reminiscent of today’s ‘twerking.’

        Nothing good has ever come from Whites having any sort of social congress with blacks. They are profoundly alien and dyscivilizational.

      • The postmodern relativism, which came to dominate Leftist consciousness beginning in the second half of the 60s, undermined white cultural superiority and elevated negro cultural forms. Effectively, whites were enjoined to eschew their own culture and to do obeisance before negro tribal rituals. Bye bye Beethoven, hello Soulja Boy.

    • a people who neither want it or can live up to white standards.

      That is unknowable. It so much depends on what the real split of nature/nurture is, and even talking about that is verboten. The State depends too much on the savages rampaging through the dirts to keep the wealth extraction going. Whether they knew that would be the result of the welfare state or not, it soon became indisputable that even the reasonably domesticated ones could be turned feral merely by driving the adult males out of the house and letting the she-boons “raise” the kids. You see the same in white households, and throughout the animal kingdom, well studied in elephants.

      What I’m saying is that you are right. Even if Sailor’s prejudices have merit, it doesn’t matter. The horses have already escaped. No point slamming the gate shut now. If you could somehow manage to get society to hold blacks to white standards, it’s going to be a minimum of 2-3 generations before there are more than a relative handful of domesticated males.

      The only reasonably peaceful solution I can see is sending them back to Africa. Or at least halfway there.

      • “That is unknowable. It so much depends on what the real split of nature/nurture is,”

        Actually, we have a pretty good idea. From the 1920s to 1950s, whites put about as much pressure on blacks as you could. (A similar thing was going on with poor whites to act like upper middle class whites.)

        That period was about as close you were going to get in terms of making blacks act white without extreme measures.

        Btw, the nature/nurture demand always annoys me because, at least in the short term (a few generations), nurture will follow nature unless an outside force imposes a foreign culture as we did with blacks. A parent can impose an environment on a child, but as the child grows up, they increasingly create their own environment. After they leave, they completely create their own environment.

        Basically, outside of extremes or imposing a foreign culture on a people, nature will account for the vast, vast majority of behavior.

        “If you could somehow manage to get society to hold blacks to white standards, it’s going to be a minimum of 2-3 generations before there are more than a relative handful of domesticated males.”

        It’d take a lot longer than that. The English killed off their most violent 1% for 500 years to create what they became, those medieval English were nothing like blacks.

        “The only reasonably peaceful solution I can see is sending them back to Africa. Or at least halfway there.”

        Couldn’t agree more. To be honest, it’s more humane. Forcing blacks to live in a society where 90% of will fail isn’t good for anyone.

        • From the 1920s to 1950s, whites put about as much pressure on blacks as you could.

          At risk of being called a commie pinko, what we actually did then was put pressure on them to see if they could build their own parallel structures. Despite the popular culture beliefs, this was most strongly enforced in the North, which codified zoning laws about where blacks could live and work, and minimum wage laws, (“If I have to pay that much, by gum, I’ll hire a white guy!”) while the South pretty much let them live wherever they could afford, and regulated their interactions with white society, like colored drinking fountains.

          That’s why Brown happened where it did. In the North, they forced blacks into neighborhoods where their closest school was 100% black, or close enough, and that kept them out of white schools. In the South, servant’s quarters were often across the back yard, or maybe a street or two away. The closest schools to those black kids were what the week before was 100% white.

          • Again, the irony is that schools are as desegregated now as before in many instances. All we’ve done is make the Whites move out of the system.

            Here in Tucson, we have perhaps the oldest and largest school district in the country still under desegregation oversight (it was in the process of leaving that order a few years ago, not sure of where the issue stands today however). The order was challenged due to the fact that there simply are no Whites left to use to enforce the original desegregation order. So what we have is a major State school district with mostly Hispanics as verses Whites and others outside the district. 🙁

      • The welfare state is an example of unintended consequences in many ways. We all know about how it created the modern black “family” of a woman and her feral kids. What isn’t talked about much is that the bureaucracy of it created a flow of stolen wealth that could be siphoned into a great many pockets. The corruption of White women today is partly due to the abundance of paid “work” that the social services create for them without the need for a man. It’s ironic that the dysfunctional black family, created by welfare, is precisely mirrored by a new dysfunctional female-headed White family that very much resembles it.

    • “… the underlying belief of the Civil Rights movement was that we’d give blacks full access to society so they’d eventually end up acting like whites.”

      It was the same thing for Jews in Britain. Macaulay had the bright idea of fully normalizing Jewish civil rights and hence participation in power in Britain on the assumption that responsibility would get them to quit behaving badly. It was never their lack of power that caused the dyscivilizational behavior. All he did was greatly expand their capacity to cause harm. Now they are facing the same dispossession and slow-motion genocide that we face.

      Ethnicities will, in aggregate, always behave according to the mores that are an extension of their genome. Active force can modulate behavior, but as soon as the force is removed, the natural steady-state behavior always returns because it is an extension of biology. You cannot teach the jackal to not want to eat the sheep. You can use force to keep the jackal from eating the sheep, but as soon as the threat of force is removed, the time of feasting returns.

      • Yep. Whites had and still have an incredible hubris. We just assume that everyone wants to be like us, can be like us and should be like us.

        We’re paying the price for that pride today.

      • Horace: “Ethnicities will, in aggregate, always behave according to the mores that are an extension of their genome. Active force can modulate behavior, but as soon as the force is removed, the natural steady-state behavior always returns because it is an extension of biology.”

        Very well said.

      • I wonder then how much the push for Catholic Emancipation in England/Scotland/Wales (leaving the Irish Question aside) was a stalking horse for the Usual Suspects having their remaining disabilities removed? Be interesting if there was evidence of Cousinhood financial backing for the Reformers.

        It’s not all that unusual for Chalk and Cheese to find common cause against a third party — e.g. The United Irishmen.

    • Blacks are a safe and easy target. It’s a little risky, but not by much, therefore one can have a nice cottage industry saying things everyone thinks but can’t quite say.

      There are a lot of pseudo-dissidents who attack blacks, boomers, windmills, clouds, what have you, but won’t mention those who are the real issue, and go out of their way to buff the enemy a bit.

      Dr. Kevin MacDonald said it well:

      Jewish power requires everyone to know about it, but no to speak about it.

      You know deep inside and through out, this is the truth.

      When people do speak about them, their jig is up. More and more are, all over the world people are pointing at the evil demons. And at America which is the reservoir of evil’s power.

      Moles are popping up faster and faster now, faster then the hammers can whack.

      Speak truth to power.

      .

      • True. I and others hammer people like Sailer all the time for looking at the symptom and not the disease.

      • With the college protests regarding the treatment of the dispossessed and oppressed Gazans, it has been instructive watching the young eat the tiger. Perhaps the march through the institutions wasn’t quite as strategically sound as previously thought.

        • Well, Jews put that little rebellion down quickly. College presidents now very clearly know whom they work for – and it ain’t Palestinians.

          Jews will force non-whites to say that Jews are not only part of the Team Victim, but the biggest victim of all.

          • They can do that with uni presidents, but the students are far more difficult to rein in.

          • @ Ostei Kozelskii

            I agree. Moreover, the heavy hand merely reinforces in the students’ minds that they are in the right. I suspect that many of them are getting more than a little frisson of self-righteous joy, even in defeat. Now they have a new target to hate and (oh, joy!) it’s not us for a change.

            Jewish ‘donors’ acting through college administrations have just solidified anti-Semitism as a integral component of leftist identity. Tactical victories can still lead to strategic defeat, because the donors don’t even remotely control the entire battlespace.

        • Your skin is your uniform. The Finkels never learned that. In helping to make anti-white racism the coin of the Western realm, it never occurred to them that despite their inestimable aid in condemning whites and transfiguring PoC, they too would still be seen as white and suffer the consequences of the forces they unleashed. As ye sow, so shall ye reap…

      • Yes. Z is understandably worried about being canceled but not prioritizing the ascension of Jewish dominance of the power structure makes it impossible to understand why things have gone so insane. The tribe has been very upfront about what they wanted to do and they did it.

        It is silly to blame the boomers not only because the silents still have had a lot of power in the last 30 years but because you won’t get canceled for blaming the boomers like you will the tribe. That should tell you who is to blame

    • Another problem with “civilizing the negro” is that it only works–and even then, provisionally–so long as constant cultural pressure is maintained. Remove the tourniquet even briefly and Africa comes hemorrhaging out. And it is impossible to maintain the pressure because doing so requires constant, wearisome effort. Social fatigue eventually sets in and you’re done-cakes.

      Having said that, I believe AINO is now transitioning from a white nation to an African one. White elites hate white civilization and therefore no longer even bother trying to impose it on the savages. In fact, in many ways they’ve gone so far as to join the other side. Consequently, AINO is now effectively a negrocracy.

      • If African means “Black” as in race, rather than some description of poor behavioral norms, then I’m not too sure. Why? Because Blacks are a minority compared to Hispanics. Given the recent influx of so called migrants, I’d say we have double the number of Hispanics compared to the 13-14% Blacks.

        Given in any number of instances in which we’ve seen Hispanics take over Black neighborhoods, they don’t seem to willing to put up with Black antics any more than we would. My prediction would be that as White majority fades, Hispanic majority will assert itself wrt Blacks. It won’t be idyllic, but definitely better than “little Africa”.

        • I too would prefer a Hispanic AINO to a negro one. However, while negroes punch far above their weight culturally and politically (thanks in no small measure to Finkel subventions), Hispanics punch far below theirs. Watch corporate TV advertising (you may have to steel yourself with several shots of rotgut) and what do you see? Wall-to-wall negroes, always portrayed positively, and scarcely a Messkin in sight, despite AINO’s demography. And if you want to take the temperature of a nation, look at its culture.

          • Agreed. It is a mystery indeed that Hispanics are not rioting in the streets for equal “gibs” as are Blacks. I’ve remarked before that the most underrepresented minority in TV ad’s and such are not Whites, but Hispanics. I believe it’s because of a common enemy—Whites—that Blacks and Hispanics keep a unified front.

            However, that should fade as White numbers decline. I’d give it another generation. Hispanics are no great blessing wrt politics, as seen in my county and city, but as you point out—anything beats Black “culture”.

    • Puritans gotta Puritan, Yankees gotta Yankee.
      Anglos gotta Anglo. Even getting rid of the Africans and Jews wouldn’t remove this inherent flaw, the need to try and one up Jesus and save everyone.

26. Regarding “winning the cold war”, I like to point out three situations, where the west thought it won the war, while the Russians regrouped/restructured.

    1. Ukraine 2022 – Russians gave away a bunch of territories, and Western media interpreted this as victory against “weak Russia”.

    2. Ukraine 2014-15 – media in the West expected Russia to invade after the Ukraine coup. Instead Putin made the breakaway provinces sign a bunch of papers (Minsk agreement), and let West do whatever they wanted. NY Times recently disclosed that West built a bunch of CIA stations right on the Russians border. So, clearly Putin’s action was interpreted as a victory for the West.

    3. 1991 – if USSR was a business, it could be seen as resource-rich Russia maintaining several loss-making provinces. In a way, Russia let the loss-making units go and restructured. West saw this regrouping as “victory” and took over the loss-making units under its own umbrella.

    • “A western military source comments: “I’m not so sure, as some of the Russian milbloggers are, that the broad front approach [Russian General Valery] Gerasimov is taking heralds a new approach to modern warfare – or operational art, if you like. The push at different points, conserving men and materiel in favour of firepower is being done as much, or more out of political considerations, which include those of a domestic character (Putin’s public support, domestic stability); and also the military objective since Day One of the Special Military Operation — to draw in and destroy as many and as much of the US-NATO manpower and equipment in the Ukraine as possible.”

      “The Russian ‘retreat’ conducted in Fall of 2022 was part of the plan and struck me as being inspired by the Mongol tactic of attacking, making a big show of running away, only to turn to pursue and then destroy the enemy. The Ukrainians and their NATO handlers fell for it hook, line and sinker.”

      https://johnhelmer.org/scorching-the-earth-westward-what-comes-next-as-the-ukrainian-army-collapses/#more-71293

    • On Number 1, some of the relinquishment of territory was due to the genuine smallness of SMO initial force; but significantly some of it was goodwill gesture when it seemed that the Ukrainians were going to accept the basics of the negotiations held in Turkey early on. And then came Boris Johnson, promising the Banderites full support if they went back in the deal…

      On Number 2, Putin was overly optimistic, given him being a lawyer, that reason would obtain with the Ukrainians, especially given that the French and Germans were supposedly backing the Kiev Accords. But they were snakes, never intending to honor anything. Lesson now fully learned now.

      On Number 3, once the Eastern Europeans have gotten the measure of the EU’s decadence and ultimately its leanings toward authoritarianism and their permanent second class position, the fit between the Eastern Europeans and the West has begun to be reexamined in detail. Similarly with the supposed “benefits” of NATO membership. The Russians are probably relieved to be shut of them at this point.

      • On Number 1, some of the relinquishment of territory was due to the genuine smallness of SMO initial force; but significantly some of it was goodwill gesture…

        And a good share was tactical. There were local “militias” holding a lot of ground, with token Russian support. When the Ukes pushed, the correct tactical move was to withdraw, which the Russians did, and deployed their artillery and rockets to harry the advance, expecting the “shoot ‘n’ scoot.” But either NATO didn’t tell the Ukes about counterbattery fire, or Ukes didn’t bother with it, so when the Russians found out they didn’t have to fire a few rounds, move somewhere else, repeat, but could sit tight and rain shells on the column as fast as they could reload…

        The Ukes would fall for the same thing later on.

        • My suspicion, not often mentioned, is that a Putin is casualty adverse, hence the war drags on. He’s patient and with the Uke’s following GAE orders, reluctantly killing every combat age Ukrainian “voluteer” sent his way. For him, it’s a no lose situation. For GAE quite a moral failing, but then again one might say, “what morals has the GAE to lose”?

27. I was a young man working on Pat Buchanan’s campaign in 1991 and 1992, and this was a constant topic of conversation among younger staffers. We sensed — somehow, despite our age — that this was a turning point. The Cold War was over; Buchanan was urging “Come Home, America,” and it seemed *possible* that a nation that had been relatively inward, rural, and secure in its national identity until the 1910s (and certainly until the madness of chasing the Reds around the planet for 60 years) could return to a different style of life and leave the Cold War mentality behind.

    As I was a young guy, I wasn’t particularly attached to that mindset, anyway, although I was extremely well-versed in Soviet affairs and history. I simply knew that I wanted to live my life differently from the way people had been living it since the 1940s. And with the USSR gone and Russia a basket case, we had that opportunity.

    Sure, I was naive to think it would change, but only older guys will know the hopefulness of late spring/summer 1992, when Bush was on his knees trying to deal with the LA Riots and Buchanan and Perot were hammering away at him and Clinton.

    I think the August 1992 convention was the highest vantage point we attained. We saw what was coming. We had an opportunity to turn back and go back the way we came. Instead, we went down the other side of the mountain, and here we are, living the way many of us envisioned over 30 years ago.

    • Nice comment. In fact there are a lot of high quality comments today.

      CC had a story yesterday about Ross Perot and the impact of 1992. You might be interested in it. https://counter-currents.com/2024/02/ross-perot-and-the-us-presidential-election-of-1992/

      • Ever notice how Ross Perot has been erased from history? Leftists never mention him because he is the one that got Clinton elected, and Republicans never mention him because he shined a light on their hypocrisy.

        • He got my vote ecause he was the only one who seemed to welcome a realistic assessment, and a willingness to work to integrate that into national policy, both foreign and domestic.

        • And thus that “giant sucking sound” of NAFTA came to pass.

    • I remember the gasps of horror I prompted back then when I would proudly announce to all and sundry that I voted for Pat in the 1992 primary. If only the fools had listened to him. Hey, how you all likin’ the New World Order?

      I wonder what has become of all the urban Texas megachurch Baptists who worshipped the Bushes in the ’90s and beyond. Do those huge George and Bar coffee table books still adorn their formal living rooms? Perhaps now a print of some of W’s less-than-mediocre artwork hangs on the wall instead.

    • Pat, IIRC, did very well in NH, grabbing the “big mo,” the momentum. Then they rigged Iowa and it was basically over.
      Was that the view of the campaign insiders?

28. For historical reference, Russia went through dramatic political/social changes in 1917 and then in 1991. That was a gap of 74 years.

    In contrast, West continued in the same manner after WWI. No dramatic social rearrangement took place in continental Europe after the war, and the German physicists, mathematicians and biologists made their greatest discoveries (quantum mech for example) in the post-war period.

    The dramatic reordering of the West took place in 1945. Add 74 years to that, and you get to 2019. So, even when USSR fell in 1991, we continued to follow the same old path, while the Russians reordered into a new society. That could explain why our current politicians appear like the geriatric figures from the late soviet era.

    • Possibly, but you could also argue that our dramatic, domestic reordering happened in the 1960s, so our reckoning will come in the late 2030s or so.

      We might only be in the 1970s version of the USSR with another 15 years to go.

      • “When the Cold War ended, so did the moral framework and the moral consensus. The result is the newly ascendent baby boomer generation was operating without a moral compass.”

        As Z said above, Citizen, I think you’re touching on it. The “Cold War” simply masked a change, an undercurrent, that was going on since the 60’s. It was perhaps the last great unifying principle/goal left. I remember the time before the USSR fell and how we cowered in fear of nuclear annihilation—a favorite plot theme of the movies of the 60’s and into the 70’s.

        The moral compass postulated by Z-man (to me) was simply a general agreement that we had an existential threat/enemy to combat. After that enemy was vanquished we were left to find another.

        What’s the old adage: a society may live without a god, but can never live without a devil. Well the new devil is ourselves.

        • Agreed. And I’m afraid conservatives’ monomiacal focus on the USSR and global communism blinded them to the postmodern viper that was suckling at the breast of America’s universities beginning in the second half of the 60s. They were so focused on proxy wars and Hollywood commies that they couldn’t see the intellectual monsters who would quickly come to undermine the very basis of white civilization.

          By the way, compsci, I want to say that I was overly harsh in a couple of my comments yesterday. I was dealing with some sort of upper-respiratory crud, and perhaps that made me even crankier than usual. I certainly respect you, errors about the wisdom of infinite wealth accrual notwithstanding. (-;

          • If one’s respect of long standing is made or broken with regard to a harsh or unconsidered word, then there really was not much respect to begin with—was there? If the above is true, then I’m as much at fault—perhaps more so—than anyone here.

            As I’ve said before, every post is considered in and of its own merit. Nothing to apologize for when the day passes…

29. The 80s were ostensibly “white” in the USA, but the cultural rot was firmly in. TV was boomer/liberal/Lear stuff like Cosby Show, Family Ties, Different Strokes. Movies were white, but you still had liberal messaging of evil whites in stuff like Karate Kid, or promiscuity/abortion/feminism in stuff like Fast Times. The only thing that seemed non-ashamed white, or at least non-political, in retrospect was Rock music. Lot of talented white all-American bands where white men could actually be great!

    By the 90s, border was wide open, liberal messaging continued, and the rulers phased in gangsta rap into music and movies and “Dances with Wolves” taught a generation that whites in America were illegitimate. It was all so long and inevitable a road to clown world. Once you give up your borders, your women, and your morality, and your God in the name of “freedom” what else could come?

    • I’ve been working my way through season 1 of The Rockford Files (1974), and it is refreshing. No poz, diversity, or degeneracy at all. (But plenty of swindlers, mobsters, thieves, and con men, it is a PI show after all). Pure entertainment. This is about the latest such example that I have found in television. I’ll have to keep going to see if it starts getting pozzed as it goes along.

      • I’ve been going through WKRP. With my current eyes, the poz had a firm grasp by ’78, but I did not recognize it at the time. I don’t remember it being avant garde, but compared to Rockford?

        • The episode where Venus teaches the young, black gang banger about an atom by using street lingo is wet dream fodder for blank slate adherents. And, if I’m remembering correctly, at the end of the scene the audience is practically in the throes of ecstacy. “See, this young black male has all the cognitive ability of his white cohorts! He just needs things explained to him in the language of his surroundings, that awful decrepitude that the white man has forced on him!”

          • Greater living and physics through Ebonics. Of course! How could we have been so obtuse?

          • Yeah, that part really got me, too. I don’t know if I had never seen that episode (would not surprise me — my folks monitored the little television they allowed pretty closely) or I was just too much a product of the current culture to notice it.

            Now there is just so much that sticks out. Watching 1/3 of a season at a sitting, I’m seeing the change in Venus’ clothing. He’s moving away from the Huggy Bear look at a fast clip.

      • I’m sure you’ll find plenty of “poz” if you look. Here’s how to simplify to search. Look for the producer of the show. Basically, identify the “Norman Lears” and you will identify the poz’d shows. There is always a “man behind the curtain”, you need not view every single episode of every single show.

        These 5th columnists were quite open wrt their subversive efforts at the time and were celebrated in Hollywood. Indeed, their show line got worse and worse over the years with every success. Once Archie Bunker became a household name, the war was lost. Indeed, plot lines for some of these shows were leaked to the media beforehand and newspapers wrote about them and politicians decried them at their speeches. All to no avail and general ridicule by the media.

        • Yes, you can see some obvious “pozzing” back even in the late 50’s. TV westerns around that time became very blatant, with badwhites, noble indians, buffalo soldiers, strong women, etc., still with a strong, silent goodwhite thrown in to make it tolerable to the yokels. Bonanza and Gunsmoke are loadedwith examples.

          Then there was the widespread cancelling of popular rural-based shows in the late 60’s, in favor of urban settings and mores. Of course Lear and his allies soon did tremendous damage.

          And for the kiddies, the relatively gentle, and substantial, Captain Kangaroo got overwhelmed by loud, abrasive Sesame Street and Electric Company by the 70’s.

          If it’s possible to look at old TV Guides through those years, the shift is striking. By the late 70’s things were awfully swampy. TV always had it’s junk, but there was a surprising amount of good-quality, substantial content before ca. 1975. In some ways, more quality choices with only a few channels than there is today.

        • One might observe that Archie’s last name conjures up the image of the Führerbunker, and the deluded Nazi within still thinking he had a chance to prevail. Geez, wonder if that might have occured to Norman Lear?

          • I think Lear was also thinking of the “bunker mentality,” wherein somebody unreasonably considers himself to be beseiged and then lashes out combatitively. Of course, traditional America was most definitely under seige in the early 70s and had every reason to lash out. The Lears of the world wanted us to turn the other cheek until there was no America left to defend. They got their wish.

        • Being British, I’d never heard of Norman Lear until he popped off but Blackpilled’s Dead Lear Edition brought me up to speed. A big piece of the puzzle, indeed:

          https://odysee.com/@Blackpilled:b/deadlear:2

      • I love The Rockford Files. The show was before my time, but in my early teens, I probably watched every episode on broadcast TV reruns. James Garner oozed charm.

    • I agree with your take on rock music in the ’80s. But was it the beginning of the infantilization of young white men, in that albums, CDs, Tommy Lee, Rolling Stone, and the whole rock music culture consumed them and kept them from maturing in a timely fashion to pay attention to important things, like borders and morality and holding feminization at bay. Our house of cards prosperity was probably the biggest cause, with rock music merely the hypnotic soundtrack.

      On the other hand, look how the Depression shut down the Greatest Generation and made it vulnerable to every government scheme that came down the pike.

      • Your point is well taken, but I was talking about REAL rock bands not a mediocrity like Motley Crue. There was real talent in the 70s and 80s music that was beyond just image.

        • Oh, I just threw that out there snarkedly because the popular culture seemed to focus on Tommy Lee and his ilk at one time. I wouldn’t walk across the street to see Motley Crue.

          Well, I kind of take that back. I attended an Alice Cooper, Motley Crue, and Def Leppard stadium concert this past summer, mainly because I had never seen DL in concert before. MC was the miserable embarassment and bore it has always been. Alice was great, larking about in his seventies in the summer heat with that snake, and Def Leppard was its phenomenal self, just right after releasing that fantastic album with the Royal Philmarmonic. Forgot my political troubles for an evening.

    • You have a huge blind spot: rock encourages and celebrates degenerate practices. I love rock, but you cannot claim that rock was free of pushing promiscuity!

    • Point well taken, but the rot goes back to the beginning of pop culture. How many ancient Hollywood films have we seen that featured a morally wise Sassy Mammy speaking truth to power as she served the white family their roast beef, mashed potatoes, and jello molds? Negrolatry goes back to the very beginning. The worship of perversity, however, is admittedly of more recent stint.

30. I bought the shirt, but it’d be nice to have a sweatshirt option for the colder months.

31. America lost most of its morals when it opened the doors to large minorities who were Catholic, Jewish or Anarchist in the 19th and early 20th centuries, because those morals were based on Western Protestantism…The results were a civil war that destroyed Constitutional government and two world wars, none of which were necessary, but all of which created enormously wealthy industrialists who largely took over government…Money became the measure of all things…

    • 1848 immigration to the US brought a lot of failed Young Revolutionaries here. St. Louis Germans, et alia, aligned with abolitionist maniacs really sped up the centrifuge of bloodlust.

      • “Sped up the centrifuge of bloodlust.” Very nice.

    • The Civil War happened precisely because of fundamentalist Protestant morality and had nothing to do with the groups you mentioned.

      • I guess if you buy into the whole anti-slavery schtick, yeah, it was largely Methodists, Baptists and Quakers. Though blaming a war on Quakers…?

        Personally, I’m more of the camp that historical revisionism painted Protestantism as the hero, and set the stage for them leading the Progressive movement a couple decades later.

        • Slavery or not, it was the Puritan North forcing the stratified South to worship at its altar of egalitarianism.

          • After the war, yes. The Radical Republicans were nothing if not disgusting. Particularly in the way they forced martial law to impose standards they would not apply to themselves. Heck, they didn’t even free the slaves in DC until halfway through the war, and then they bought them from the slaveholders in Congress using taxpayer money. Note: the South had already left, so we are talking reimbursing Northern slaveowners, feggin’ vile hypocrites that they are.

          • Steve, I wonder—all things being equal—if the purchase of the slaves from all holders would have been simpler and cheaper than starting a civil war? We usually find these things out afterwards.

          • @Compsci, oh, definitely it would have been cheaper. At $300 for a prime buck, and, IIRC, $50 for an old woman, they could have bought the whole kit ‘n’ caboodle for less than it cost at just Vicksburg, not counting the human toll.

            Thing is, that wasn’t the point — the point was preservation of the Union.

    • The USA never lost her founding Protestant “morals” of plutocracy and blatant dishonesty, and the P in WASPicide can stand for Papist, too. Or Pest, which is how most of the world ought to regard you and yours for your role in normalizing Jewish supremacy, Capitalism, Inc., and democracy all over the Earth. Way down ye go, and rightly so.

    • I think a better argument would be that the large influx of German and Scandinavian immigrants in the 1800s and early 1900s led to the politics of the Progressive era. This was the era of Kaiser Wilhelm in Germany, and Scandinavian culture was always Progressive. The immigrants simply voted their identity here in the US–the dirt is not magic.

      The Progressive era, in turn, led to the Federal Reserve, globalism, world wars, and eventually the American Empire. And here we are today.

      • Did you just explain Minnesota? 😉

        • Give that man a Powdermilk Biscuit!

    • Frankfurt School much.

32. Three of the biggest mistakes made over the last century or so were tne 19th Amendment, the legalization of poo marriage and kicking God out of the classroom.

    • Although some States already allowed women to vote in State elections, the 19th Amendment largely sealed our doom…Our 8th grade History teacher referred to it as “the Great Mistake”…
      Because women are gullible, like invaders, and want to dish out money to anyone who asks….

      • Negro women are not gullible, nobody could be after getting treated the way they have been by their men. They’re just generally dumb and permanently resentful of whitey. White women, alas, are the most gullible creatures in God’s creation. Which is also an outcome of how they’ve been treated by their men, who were knights in armor who put them on pedestals.

33. I haven’t listened to the program yet, but I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the consequences of victory in a protracted conflict.

    America won the Cold War. Sparta won the Peloponnesian war. Rome won its war against Carthage. The Greeks won the Trojan War.

    Did any of these societies emerge from victory better off, in the long run, than they were going into the war? Sparta was never the same. Rome entered a period of internal crisis that ultimately saw the republic fall. The Greek returns from Troy became a byword for disaster, and preceded the Bronze Age collapse. We are seeing what American “victory” has brought about.

    Very often, prosecuting a long bipolar conflict requires a society to transform itself in ways that are antithetical to its previous success. It introduces elements into its system, in the name of the war effort, that will prove to be poison to the society in its “traditional” mode.

    In America, for example, the idea of the “proposition nation” was embraced and promoted as one way of asserting that America was built on abstract principles and not, as the Soviets claimed, the material self interest of the ruling class. We see where that has gotten us, 30 years after the end of the USSR.

    To go a bit further: Victory in war usually benefits a small number of people in the winning society, for a brief (in the larger scheme) period of time. There may be a shared benefit of national pride in victory, but that is fleeting, and not a material improvement in the lives of most people in the society. Once that spirit dissipates, a more systemic collapse often follows.

    For the loser in the conflict, on the other hand, if it has escaped utter destruction, the humiliation can be a spur to societal self examination, and certainly the expulsion of the leaders who led the society to defeat. Defeat is sometimes the ferment from which a new sense of “peoplehood” grows, a consolidation of national identity, which can be a great long term benefit to a society and its people.

    We may be seeing something like that with Russia.

    • I’d wager we’re seeing the first shoots of it here in the West, too. Many of us may not be around to see it fully blossom but we – white males – lost the culture war of the past century and are finally starting to come to grips with the idea of what’s next.

      • I was a reference for a young acquaintance of mine for a law enforcement job with a statewide agency which used to be known for its manly men. Got an emailed online questionaire today asking several questions pertinent to him, such as “describe their [sic – makes me crazy] good qualities.”

        Good qualities. Given the agency, I thought about putting “masculine”. It was going to be thrilling, like speaking in code to like-minded refugees and delivering unto them this handsome, polite, smart young Stoic. Then as I went futher down the survey, I saw questions about whether he “has shown bias or prejudice”, whether he “can work well with others,” ad nauseam. All the usual feminized drivel. And I knew (and probably did all along) that I would sink his career, even with this agency that used to be known for its gentlemanly no-nonsense alphas, if I listed one of his good traits as “masculine.”

        It was fun for the few minutes it lasted.

        • Last time I was a reference for anyone, the FBI interviewer asked a few basic questions, but was rather intent on finding out other people and contacts for the individual in question.

          I asked as this interviewer was leaving why the decided lack of interest in my perspective on the candidate. The answer was pretty straight forward. Something to the effect that references put down on applications were always positive and therefore not seen as useful. It’s the people who know the candidate, but not chosen as references they were after. 😉

          • How were all those great employees found in the mid-20th century without such inquiries?

            Welcome to our newly-minted, Ed Dutton-defined low-trust society.

          • Vikings. This is true. One thing my old department was known for was hiring *outside* the process. If a tenure track position opened, then faculty came forward who were “in the know” of a good candidate and/or would inquire of others for the position. Once this person was determined, the position opened for the minimum time period and the basic journal ad. I don’t remember a hire that I had not heard about before the position opened. In the end, a tenure track position—even opened in that manner—would glean 300+ applicants.

          • And now we have the Rooney Rule in the NFL, among other assassination attempts on meritocracy. Actually, it is an especially silly and insulting window dressing. Those black coaches that get called in for interviews, how must they feel at being paraded around for Der Kommissar’s benefit? Those owners are going hire whomever they want to after going along with the charade.

            Reason #155,349 to hate the NFL.

      • Fascinating observation, KGB (funny writing that!). In fact, now that you’ve mentioned it, I see that my para beginning “For the loser in the conflict…” describes what many of us here are experiencing.

        It also suggests why the rulers strive so mightily to bring about “utter destruction” on the “defeated”: deep down they know they have set in motion forces that can fortify opposition.

34. The West always knew it was going to win the Cold War. It was implied in the earliest containment policy of the first postwar Secretaries of State.

    The joint Republican-Democratic project to hold the Russians at bay held a quiet confidence to it. When, in 1991, George H. Bush confronted Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, he bounced back from the Cold War consensus with extreme certainty, thus proving America’s sanguine attitude during the 1945-1990 period.

    But this confidence became toxic hubris during the war on Terror in Afghanistan. It is then that humility should have come into play….

    • America doesn’t do humility…Afghanistan was strictly a looting expedition…US Intelligence knew that Bin Laden was already in Pakistan, so the war’s entire premise was false….

    • The only way we were going to lose it was if it became WWIII. That’s all I remember being worried about in the late 70’s and early 80’s – that Russia would attack rather than collapse.

      • Back then I was worried that I would never find an Erica/Lea Thompson sort to hole up with during the invasion by the Soviets and Cubans, after they dropped outta the sky next to my high school and RPG’d my black history teacher. She would have avenged my screen dad and we could have hidden in the mountains, making lots of future free Americans while Powers Boothe and the neighbor kids did the fighting.

35. Can talk about boomers?!?!

36. Referencing the vision of post-civil rights act America:

    My three favorite fantasy TV shows are Star Trek, Game of Thrones, and The Cosby Show.

    • Hilarious comment. Perfect thought to close out black history month. I guess at this point, black history month is eternal.
      Kind of like wakanda.

      • You are pleased to jest! ESPN actually runs spots stating “Black history always!”

        Hasten onward, o fiery meteor…

37. Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Moral Disorder

38. You still hear consensus all the time. They just use it in a different context: consensus of the experts. They then use the “consensus of the experts” to bludgeon disagreement on the said topic like climate change, child genital mutilation, or covid. If you don’t agree with us, you’re an uneducated rube. All the smart people believe this.

    • He was referring to the word itself, not just that it’s implied.

Comments are closed.