The Game Of Chicken

A corollary to Hanlon’s Razor is”never attribute to behind the scenes scheming what can more adequately be explained by chance.” It’s always tempting to think there is some great design or designer behind events, but most of the time chance is the real hand pulling the strings. Humans in general simply lack the ability to see more than a few moves ahead and usually just react to what is in front of them.  We’re seeing this in real time as the Senate prepares to vote on the Brett Kavanaugh nomination this week.

The game began when Mitch McConnell decided to schedule the hearings and vote on the nominee before the election. He calculated that it was good politics for the Republicans and tricky politics for the Democrats. They have half a dozen Senate seats up this time in very Trump states. Now, McConnell correctly figured that the Democrats would have to go nuclear on the nomination, so he and the GOP brain-trust convinced Trump to go with the cleanest guy on the list. Kavanaugh had been vetted many times, so he was safe.

That was the first mistake by McConnell. Despite being in Washington for a lifetime, he somehow failed to notice that the Left never abides by its own rules. When their rules work against them, they either ignore them or make up new rules, swearing that the new rules are ancient traditions handed down by Moses. That’s what they did here by hiring the Jewish lesbian to troll for middle aged women willing to swear Kavanaugh assaulted them in the time before anyone could verify. They were going to #metoo him into withdrawing.

Given the climate in the world in which the beautiful people live, this seemed like a clever ploy to Feinstein and Schumer. After all, they could count on the cucks in the GOP to run screaming into the darkness at the first sign there was heresy afoot. In other words, they never thought they would have to actually produce witnesses. That’s why Feinstein leaked the anonymous letter she was holding since the summer. She figured all she needed was a good whisper campaign run by the fake reporters in the media.

Despite spending so much time with Kavanaugh, they appear to have misjudged how he would handle being smeared. It also reveals how petrified white men in the Democrat coalition feel right now. They just assumed Kavanaugh was as scared about this stuff as they are right now. Either way, the judge turns out to be a Boy Scout, who thinks he has a duty to defend his honor in public against these smears. His speech last week resonated with white people, who are the only demographic that still believes in fair play.

Another miscalculation by the tribal leaders of the coalition is they assumed Trump would light up Twitter about these attacks. That would allow them to shift the focus from their attacks on an innocent white man and instead make this into a fight against the pussy-grabbing womanizer in the White House. Instead, Trump was strangely quiet, saying it was up to the Senate to decide. Trump’s instinct was that this was working to his favor so he could just stand aside and let the Democrats dig their own grave on national television.

An interesting bit from the Hill story on the Democrats is this:

The lawmaker said Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) is urging undecided centrist Democrats to wait until three undecided Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Jeff Flake (Ariz.) — make their positions known.

“He’s telling them, ‘Keep your powder dry.’ That means you don’t have to decide this — wait and see how it plays out. There’s some speculation that Kavanaugh may not last,” the lawmaker said. “They always vow to stay right until they don’t.”

A second Democratic senator said there’s widespread disbelief in the caucus that Kavanaugh is holding on.

“I just had a conversation with a colleague who said they couldn’t believe he hasn’t dropped out yet,” the second lawmaker said Monday evening. “There was a time he could have done it gracefully and could have protected the Supreme Court.”

In other words, all along the tribal elders were telling the members of the coalition that they would never have to actually vote on Kavanaugh. Just as we saw with vulnerable Democrats being forced to vote for ObamaCare in 2010, the tribal leaders of the coalition have no qualms about lying to their members or putting them at risk.It is what allows them to be so brazen, but it also means being reckless. The Democrats may have blown up their chances to win the House and could lose some Senate seats, as well.

The game is not over yet. McConnell really was out foxed on the smear campaign, which is a reminder that he is no Machiavelli either. The hysterical reaction of Lindsey Graham to the discovery that his “colleagues on the Left” were willing to lie to him, should be a useful reminder that the average GOP politician is quite stupid. The fact that Feinstein has not been reported to the ethics committee is another reminder that the GOP will play fair even when they know the other side plays dirty. We’re not dealing with geniuses here.

Thus we find ourselves in a strange game of chicken. The Democrats are praying the FBI pulls their bacon out of the fire by finding anything they can use to force Kavanaugh to retire. Otherwise, they will have to vote. On the other hand, McConnell has to wonder if his three super-cucks will fink on him at the last minute, thus blowing up the GOP’s chances in the November election.Those vulnerable Democrats have to be wondering if it makes sense to be in a party that is so willing to throw them to the wolves, just for the sport of it.

Of course, what this sorry episode reveals is that the people who have been building the coalition of non-whites is not as clever as they assume. They are dishonest and devious, for sure, but they can’t see around corners. What they always rely upon is their ability to turn the virtues of white people into vices, that they then use to sow division in the white population. A point that can’t be made enough is that if whites thought like Jews or blacks, there would be none of this. After all, 60% is still a majority in a democracy.

The Wisdom Of The Ad Men

Last night I watched an NFL football game for the first time in so long I don’t recall the last time I watched a full game. I did watch a game this year on Balkan television. It may have been in Bulgarian or possibly Croatian. I don’t speak either language, I just knew it was a feed from a Balkan country. It was entertaining for the short time I watched, mostly for the commercials. From what I could tell, the people in the Balkans who watch American football really enjoy casino gambling and drinking brightly colored cocktails by the pool.

It used to be that you could tell a lot about the audience for a show or time slot by watching the commercials. After all, the people buying ad time want to market to the demographic that will buy their product. Years ago when I was between jobs, I found myself staying up late and I noticed the ads were mostly for products popular with senior citizens. That’s when I discovered that retired people often keep odd hours. If you don’t have a reason to get up early, you have no reason to go to bed early, so a lot of old people stay up late.

The ad last night that got me thinking about this was a DirecTV spot where two little Aztecs are running a lemonade stand. What looked like a Hispanic women walks up and asked for a cup of lemonade. The mother of the Aztecs jumps in and gives the woman all of the lemonade. The scene flips to the mother and her children in Raider gear on the couch cheering a football game. Apparently, the people of DirecTV think the audience for NFL games is in large part composed of single Aztec mothers living in America.

The ad that almost had me turning it off and picking a different topic for the post today was one for a NBC TV show. This was for a show called SUV and it appears to feature screeching middle aged hens. In the episode they were hyping, the hens were about to arrest a government official for kidnapping migrant children on the border. Yeah, these lunatics really believe that stuff. What are the odds that screeching harpies are watching football? Obviously, it is just the network slipping agit-prop into the broadcast for spite.

Now, I think most of us have figured out at this stage that commercial ads are just as much about selling the anti-white as about selling product. In fact, it is clear that many of the ads are only about selling degeneracy. There was an ad for American Express featuring two gay guys playing house. A BMW ad had a short clip of couples kissing and one of the couples was two hairy guys. The people creating these ads certainly know that the viewers find this stuff revolting, but they do it anyway, again suggesting it is spite.

On the other hand, I noticed something strange in the car ads. There were high production ads for BMW, Mercedes and the new Audi A7. An NFL audience seems like an unlikely place for selling luxury German sedans. You can’t walk out of a Mercedes dealership without spending sixty grand on a car they use for taxis in Europe. The Audi they were hyping starts at seventy grand, which means the typical model is in the eighties. I’m sure some luxury car owners love football, but my bet is most fans like pickup trucks more.

The thing is though, those ads were early in the game, but then they gave way to the ads for the networks degenerate programming and then later to ads for domestic cars and fast food products. Maybe the agit-prop makers have learned that upscale people will watch a little of the game then move on so they beam ads at the cackling hen demo early and then they switch over to the core audience that will stick with the whole game. After all, lots of middle aged single white women pretend to love football and motorcycles.

The hilarious part to me was the halftime show. It featured the CivNat dream team of three well-spoken black guys. You can be sure that the audience for Ben Shapiro was trying to get selfies of themselves in front of the TV screen during halftime. That’s where you see the genius of the marketing men. Whites in America are like trained seals when it comes to the heroic black guy. It’s why Candace Owens will become very rich simply by tweeting about how much she loves Donald Trump. It’s like taking candy from babies.

Another funny thing you see in the ads is the companies peddling some technology concept have the super smart black guy as the spokesman. You would think they would go with an East Asian or a South Asian, since most people are used to those guys working in the company IT department. Instead, it is the sort of black guy no one has ever seen on earth. He’s a bookish looking mulatto, who is glib and confident. Sightings of Big Foot are more common than black guys running IT departments and far more plausible.

It is tempting, of course, to say that it is just another example of how out of touch the Cloud People are about who is watching television. The reality is though, the ad men know their audience. Whites in America are fully immersed in anti-white hatred. In fact, it is the civic religion of white people now. It is the reason they gobble up shows featuring blacks in traditional white roles. Civic nationalism is just a suicide note. Most white people think the glorious future will not include them because it should not include them.

It’s why howling about the volcano demon, while amusing, is counter productive. The response from the typical white person is to bark out some version of “what about Ben Shapiro.” He’s popular for the same reason ads with race mixers are popular. You can’t change those minds by confirming what they have been trained to believe. The game is to sow doubt and confusion about the joys of diversity into the mind’s of the typical white person, getting them to question why they feel good about seeing those ads on TV.

That’s the thing you see with these ads. The first task of the ad maker is to create a positive image. The happy black man with the white wife and caramel colored kids, juxtaposed to the gloomy old white guy is not going to sell the gloomy old white guys in the audience, but it well see the white women. People on our side need to come to terms with the fact that reason is never a winning approach. No one has ever been talked out of their religion. They have a crisis, lose faith and then find a church that makes them happy.

Letter To The CivNats

One of the strange aspects of the last century of American politics is that the defining arguments have all happened on the losing side. The winners have always been sure about what they want and what they are willing to do to get it. It is the losers who have always been squabbling with one another about the proper response or the meaning of the latest failure. National Review types always used to argue that all the interesting debates were on their side, rather than on the side of their alleged adversaries.

They were not wrong about that, even though they were deluded about who they were really fighting. For at least forty years and maybe longer, all of the arguments have been on the Right. That’s the thing though, they were always fighting the people to their right, the people now forming the new opposition. It is easy to get down about what is happening in our time, but the one thing we can point to is that there is an authentic alternative forming up now. The veil has been lifted for more of us now than any time in the past.

Of course, we remain a tiny minority, even within the white population. George Hawley, the left-wing college professor from the University of Alabama, estimates that the dissident population is in the 6% range, which would be about ten percent of the white population, give or take. Greg Hood, the main writer at American Renaissance, is bit more optimistic, as he thinks the data says there are many more “leaners” in the population, but his number is still small. You can read Greg’s review of Hawley’s numbers here.

The point is, the vast majority of white people remain in the civic nationalist camp. About 25% of whites identify as Progressive, so that leaves about 65% in the civic nationalist, dissident right and indifferent buckets. This is what the alt-right learned the hard way two summers ago. They held a rally and 500 people showed up, but 2,000 opponents showed up. Many of those protesting the alt-right were MAGA hat wearing CivNats. Even more crucial, s solid plurality of white people blamed both sides for the violence.

It’s why the math of democracy makes white survival an impossibility. That 25% of whites who lock arms with the 40% who are non-white gets the anti-whites close enough to a permanent majority that they are the default option in an election. It’s why they put all their energy into making sure blacks,Jews, migrants and lesbians are super-angry. The left just needs the turnout and they win. They know the math of democracy too. That means the future is the Kavanaugh hearings over and over until you’re dead.

That’s the lesson and the reason for this letter. The civic nationalists need to look at that circus on their television and know that is their future. The people who are rejecting due process and the presumption of innocence don’t look like you. They don’t sound like you. They don’t believe what you believe. More important, they don’t love what you love or hate what you hate. What they are willing to live and die for does not include you, because you don’t look like them or sound like them. You can never be on their side and they know it.

When you appeal to their sense of civic virtue, all you are doing is encouraging them to punch you in the face again. That’s because their civic virtue is not your civic virtue. It can never be otherwise. After decades of work to train blacks, for example, to embrace civic nationalism, they still cling to their own ideas and their own hatreds. It turns out that those racists you guys were always trying to run off were right after all. Civil society is a white man’s thing. It is not an idea. It is the result of white people living in their own lands.

Now, I know a lot of civic nationalists. Many of them post comments here. Some of my best friends are civic nationalists. Many will beg at the tiny feet of Ben Shapiro, convinced it is ideology not race, until he slams the oven door on them. Just look at South Africa, where whites are being slaughtered by blacks. Yet, many whites refuse to accept the reality of their situation. The father of Mollie Tibbetts, the white girl murdered by an invader, cares more of his civic virtue than his own child. Some people can’t be saved.

On the other hand, if you are watching this circus in Washington and wondering if it is all coming apart, you may want to take a moment and look hard at the scene. It is a white man going through trial by ordeal, something white people banned 1500 years ago. The people putting him through that ordeal don’t look like you. They don’t believe what you believe. They mock what you believe. They think things like due process and rule of law are the white man’s law, not their law. Their law is what you see on your television.

You need to ask yourself, is there really any way to tame them that has not already been tried? Is there an argument that is going to cause Debra Katz or Michael Bromwich to reconsider their war on white people? Will Maxine Waters or Kamala Harris ever agree with you? You sat and watched Judge Kavanaugh give a stirring speech in defense of decency and civic justice that Cicero would have found moving. Think about all that has been said and written in favor of civil nationalism, yet, here we are anyway.

More important and this is where you as a civic nationalist either head down the road to Damascus or heads into the darkness. Look at the fruits of civic nationalism. The champions of the constitutional order and rule of law are all sitting on the Republican side, getting rolled by the non-white rage heads responsible for this circus. The professional civic nationalists have built out a well financed system to promote your cause. Yet here they are getting clobbered again. If they can’t win this fight, what can they win?

Look. I get it. In your heart you know our side is right about “the race stuff.”. It’s why you moved to a neighborhood with good schools and a bad basketball team. It’s why you support Israel and oppose Islam. You know that only in a society run by white men, can there be anything resembling civil order. You hate yourself for it so you have created all sorts of ways to show you’re not an anti-Semite or conceal your real feelings toward blacks. It’s hard to put down that steamer trunk of guilt you have been taught to carry.

I get it. All of us on this side of the great divide get it. All of us have made the journey you will have to make. It’s not easy to accept that all the stuff you have been taught about the constitution and patriotism was just a way to blind you to the approaching darkness. Now you have a chance to open your eyes and see what comes next if you don’t begin your journey to this side. That circus on your television is not going to just fade away. it is a glimpse into the future, of your children’s future and your grandchildren’s future.

No matter what you choose, the years ahead will be every bit as ugly as the spectacle unfolding on our televisions and on social media. The Great Brown Army believes this is their time to the destroy the white patriarchy, by which they mean white America. The fight to stop it is going to ugly and you will have to get used to thinking about things in a way that used to feel wrong. But, the fight is going to happen whether you snap out of your daze or remain in the CivNat delusion. The question before you is which side are you on?

Tales Of Ordinary Madness

With the infuriating madness going on in politics, I thought it was a good idea to take a look at the general madness that is the current age. It really is remarkable just how crazy things have gotten in a short period of time. The other day I was picking around YouTube, watching some old clips from 1970’s shows and I was struck by how strange and alien it all seems. Even though I was alive then, I was too young to notice what was happening in the world, so to my old eyes, it looks like another country, because it is another country.

Even in my adult life, things have changed so fast that my teenage years now feel like the past of different person from a different world. When I was in high school, no human walking the earth thought teenagers fumbling around in the dark was anything but normal, as long as it was a boy and a girl, of course. Today, it is grounds to destroy a man’s life, humiliate his family and maybe even warrant physical harm. The Anita Hill travesty looks quite innocent now, compared to the disgusting displays we saw this week.

More worrisome, the madness we see is almost exclusively a female problem. The women of America have gone insane. Not all women, of course, but a very large swath of them. Now, it is possible many are just liars, taking advantage of the lunatics to gain attention, but that seems worse to me. I think I’d prefer it if some women are simply insane, infected by some unknown pathogen, rather than knowing that some portion of our women are sociopaths. We are faced with nothing but bad choices.

Anyway, this show is a sampling of the more popular forms of madness we are witnessing today. Sadly, most of it is female madness. I guess the last two segments could be argued as both male and female, but I don’t see that as encouraging. The fact that male and female are close to being forbidden concepts speaks to the madness of this age, more than anything else, I think. Perhaps that is the real shame of it. The men are no longer able to keep pace with the women in the race to the asylum.

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

This Week’s Show

Contents

Direct Download

The iTunes Page

Spotify

Google Play Link

iHeart Radio

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On YouTube

A Rotten Elite

Long before Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, the Roman Republic stopped being a serious political entity.  The system was still a well thought out and conceived system of governance, but the people operating could no longer be trusted to operate it. The Roman political class could no longer trust itself, because the political class was no longer dominated by serious men. The proof of that was not just its collapse, but the fact that men like Marius and Sulla existed and needed to exist in order for the system to stagger on.

The old line about people getting a government they deserve always comes up whenever someone points out the defects of democracy. It’s circular reasoning but an effective way of not addressing the real issue. That is, a people with a capable ruling elite can get along and be happy with just about any form of political system. A people who need the restraint of democracy or a strong constitution to tame their ruling classes is a people with a ruling class incapable of operation a constitutional government and abiding by its limits.

What this means is the people don’t get the government they deserve, so much as they get the government their ruling class deserves. Even that does not explain why it is that the ruling elites of a society can go rotten within a generation or two. The human capital of America in the 18th century was certainly different than that of today. The ruling elite it produced was very different from today. But, the population of America a century ago was not that much different than today. We’re a little browner, but materially much better off.

As the circus of the Kavanaugh confirmation unfolds, it is important to note that the people creating the circus are not the brown ones. Sure, they were the opening acts, but the main stage is populated with geezers produced by the ruling class of a half century ago. Diane Feinstein is the representative of a the generations that produced the cultural revolution of the 1960’s, not someone from the current age. In other words, the American ruling class started going sour a long time ago. We’re just getting to smell the rotting corpse of it.

You have to wonder if if events like this are what gives the remaining serious men the idea of toppling over the system. In the Roman Republic, the one place where merit counted was in the military. There were plenty of politics, of course, but ultimately a man was what he showed on the field of battle. Read accounts of Caesar in Gaul and the man was not just a great general. He was a lion on the field. While there were plenty of old men in the Roman senate who served their time in the legions, none were the equal of Cesar.

No matter how sophisticated a society, men judge other men by the simple calculation of whether they can take them in a fight. You have to think that the men running the military look over at their civilian leadership and wonder why they are taking orders from clowns like they see in the Senate. This must be especially true of the junior officers, most of whom by this point have done tours in Afghanistan and the Middle East. As patriots, they have to be looking at the civilian leadership with nothing but contempt.

That’s not to say we are about to have a military coup. It’s always possible, but the one place where civic nationalism is strongest is within the military. The one place where multicultural lunacy is strongest is within the senior leadership ranks of the services. The civilian leadership remains cautious enough to make sure the top brass of the military are just as feckless and craven as the civilian side. Even there though, the ingredients are in place for a young and ambitious officer to start thinking about a short cut to the top.

Putting the military coup aside, watching the Kavanaugh circus should be a reminder that America is one serious crisis away from collapse. The financial crisis of 2008 was so terrifying to the elites, because they sense the fragility of their position. The central bankers were able to contain it and limit the damage to the public, by pushing the costs off into the future. The US debt now stands at $21.4 trillion for a reason, but you can only charge off the costs of a crisis so many times. At some point, the elites must act.

It’s clear that the political elite of America is incapable of handling a genuine crisis. They struggle to do the basics of government now. They still have not written and passed a budget for next fiscal year. This is ground floor stuff. If they cannot handle the simplest of tasks, how will the “world’s greatest deliberative body” manage to debate a response to a genuine crisis? The answer, of course, is they won’t because they can’t. Instead, they will look around for the strong man to arrive and take over the task from them.

That’s what we are seeing with the Kavanaugh hearings. Serious men would never have allowed a handful of deranged matrons, suffering from the typical middle aged female hysteria, to disrupt this process. Generation after generation since Gettysburg, the political elite has grown weaker as the quality of the ruling elite has declined. Maybe the system is to blame. Maybe the breeding patterns of the elites are to blame. Maybe it is just an example of reversion to the mean. Either way, our elites are no longer elite.

The Cult of Neoconservatism

The word “cult” is a term often abused by Progressives, because it carries with it negative connotations. They like to us it to slander their enemies. Frankfurt School types convinced the world that Nazism, for example, was a cult, in order to make their case that anyone finding fascism appealing is not just mistaken, but crazy. Progressives picked up on this to brand their enemies as well. Still, it is a useful concept as the cult seems to be a feature of human behavior. We have records of cults going back to the Bronze Age.

In the modern sense, we think of a cult as having certain features, like a charismatic leader and a sense of isolation. A cult always has a set of beliefs that are so convincing to the adherents, in terms of defining their existence and their relationship to the world, that they almost seem brainwashed. It’s as if they are controlled by them. The identity of the cult and its purpose becomes the identity and purpose of the adherent. As a result they operate like an ant farm or a beehive. The suicide cult is the extreme example of this.

Neoconservatism has many of the features one would associate with a cult. The members are increasingly isolated from the rest of the world, both physically and emotionally. There is the sense of the embattled minority, ready to martyr themselves for the cause. The members seem to operate in an ideological fog, unable to recognize the massive disconnect between their beliefs and observable reality. Then you have the fact that to the neocons, their ideology is perfectly rational, but to outsiders it seems dangerously nutty.

The late great Eric Hoffer pointed out that all mass movements can get along without a god, but they always need a devil. You see that with the neocons. They don’t have the charismatic leader, like we normally associate with cults, but perhaps to the adherents, Bill Kristol is charming. Despite his unpleasant demeanor and long list of failures, they do seem to venerate him. Still, what holds the cult of neoconservatism together is their list of devils, that are all cast as a manifestation of the great authoritarian villain.

That comes through in this piece by Anne Applebaum in the Spectator. The piece is a good example of the paranoid fantasy. Mx. Applebaum is a neocon rage head, who specializes in scanning the eastern horizon for signs of Alexander III of Russia. The neocons all have an obsession with Russia that borders on the pathological, which leads many to assume it is biological. As a result, resistance to cosmopolitan globalism in the east is cast by the neocons as the return of authoritarianism and you know who.

A feature of neoconservatism that is shared by Progressive Jews is they are haunted by the thought of exclusion. Being left out is their greatest fear. This manifests as an abhorrence to limits, borders and clear definitions. This mania for formlessness has been picked up by other tribes of the Left. Feminists, for example, rage against biology, because definitions of sex are by nature exclusionary. The BLM activists toppling over statues do so because they hate whitey, but also because it is not their history.

This is why neocons favor open borders and recoil in horror at efforts to restore some sense of national unity. When the neocon thinks of borders, he thinks of fences and then starts to think about you know who. You’ll note that the the bad guys of the Visegrad are talked about by neocons as an implementation of the all-purpose bogeyman, the authoritarian Übermensch. The neocons, like liberal Jews, have this imaginary, all-purpose bogeyman, that manifests in the real world, but exists in the world for forms.

Another cult-like aspect of the neocons is their internalization of fundamentally irrational and contradictory ideas. For example, after 9/11, the neocons advocated importing millions of Muslims into the US, while at the same time advocating the bombing of Muslim homes and villages.  People can be forgiven for thinking the creation of the “home grown” terrorist, the pissed off Muslim living in the West, radicalized by US foreign policy, is intentional. To people inside the neocon cult, however, this all makes perfect sense.

What argues against calling neoconservativism a cult is how well it fits in with the other two pillars of the ruling orthodoxy. The heirs of William Bradford, with their neo-covenant theology and sense of communal salvation, fit in neatly with Progressive Jews and their paranoid fear of exclusion and anti-majoritarian animosities. Together, they domestically form the Progressive orthodoxy we see today. In a way, the neocons are a complimentary piece, that extends this mode of thought into the areas of foreign policy.

On the other hand, American Progressives are showing all the signs of devolving into a cult, with their strange siege mentality and bizarre internal logic. The fact that their pantheon of heroes are referred to by three initials may not a pointless affectation. It could be part of the ritual of sacralizing their former leaders. Perhaps the inevitable move by the neocons back to the Left, is the completion of some cosmic puzzle. Or perhaps like a UFO cult, they see it as the final piece of the cosmic puzzle, signifying the end times.

In a seriousness, there is a strong case that neoconservativism is now a cult, one based on an obsession with public policy and haunted by nightmares of the authoritarian bogeyman. Their inability to adapt to present reality, in fact they are becoming more extreme in the face of disconfirmation, is the sort of thing you expect from a cult. Perhaps it runs its course peacefully disappearing into the dustbin of history. Still, prudence suggests caution as end times cults tend to end with a bang, rather than a whimper.

The Revolutionary Mind

The conventional model for framing Western politics, since the French Revolution, is the Left-Right axis. This dates from when supporters of the king sat to the right of the president in the National Assembly, while supporters of the revolution sat to the left of the president. Ever since, the Left are the radicals of one sort or another, who seek to overturn the present order in favor of something else. On the Right are the defenders of the present order, but also those who seek to restore a past order.

That means radical republicans in the 18th century, like the American Founders, would be on the Left, along side 19th century Marxists or even 21st century queer theorists. In the 18th century, Thomas Jefferson was a radical. In fact, he was a supporter of the French Revolution. It also means that modern Civic Nationalists, who claim allegiance to the Founders vision of republican order, are on the same side as 19th century monarchists and 20th century fascists. It turns out that libertarians are the real Nazis.

This also means that the game of political theory always has the Left playing offense, while the Right is playing defense. It’s why 20th century fascism never made any sense as a right-wing or left-wing movement. The fascists were just as anti-traditionalist as the communist. They were not trying to restore an old order. On the other hand, they were a reactionary movement, driven by a rejection of international communism. The fascists were both reactionaries and radicals, embracing the rhetoric and tactics of the Left.

The interwar period in Europe is a good example of the Left-Right political model not holding up in the face of reality. There were multiple social and cultural forces working on European society, in addition to the consequences of the Great War. Even in America, the first half of the 20th century saw the old Left radicalize into something that drew on European fascism, but was littered with communists. It’s why people today, who try to argue that the fascists were left-wing or right-wing, are simply missing the point.

That’s what makes the period so fascinating. A lot of history happened in a very short period of time. It’s a lot like Roman history, in that there is something for everyone and their favorite political theory. On the other hand, the period is not very useful for understanding the present age. Interwar Europe may as well be a story set on different planet. The flow of events that led up to that period and the history of the people involved, is foreign even to their descendants alive today. it was the great break in the timeline.

Now, the interwar period is useful for one particular reason and that is as an example of how history is not a river that flows uninterrupted through time. Instead, it is many rivers and sometimes those rivers find themselves occupying the same space. The Thirty Years’ War, for example, was the confluence of historical forces leading into the 17th century. Similarly, the two industrial wars of the 20th century were bookends to the great confluence of intellectual forces in Europe, dating to the Enlightenment.

This age may be another such confluence. Like the interwar period, there are many forces in conflict with one another today. You have global capitalism, which is disrupting the normal functioning of western societies. There is the collapse of the Cold War political order, that is collapsing the domestic political arrangements within nations. There’s mass migration, where hundreds of millions seek to move from the fringe of civilization into the heart of it. Of course, there are the various reactions to these forces, as well.

This piece by Victor David Hanson is a good illustration of how the conventional way of framing politics is not helpful today. Hanson is one of the remaining sober minded people on the conventional Right. He’s actually a conservative of the old sort. He’s also a good analyst who lives in the real world, rather than the Potemkin village that is the home of the commentariat. Despite that, he remains attached to the old paradigm of Left and Right, trying to jam present reality into the old model of two warring political camps.

Hansen is that sort of conservative who is excellent at describing what is rotting away the present, separating us from the past. He just cannot bring himself to accept that there is no going back. There will be no great rollback.The present conflict is not a choice between the glorious future and the status quo. That’s the old mode of thought. Today is one of those great confluences. What comes out the other end will bear little resemblance to what came before it and may not even have a strong connection to the forces that shaped it.

For example, the alt-right is not about restoring an old order. To assume that misses the fundamental point. Richard Spencer has spoken for years about how the past is what caused the current crisis. To return to 1950’s America, for example, means replaying the 1960’s and 1970’s with the same outcomes. His concept of the ethno-state, even if it is limited to North America, results in an America that is completely different than anything imagined by conventional politics. His idea is a complete departure from the liberal past.

Greg Johnson’s new book is about as radical as it gets, with regards to conventional political thinking. What he describes as white nationalism, is an overthrowing of liberal social democracy. What his version of the ethno-state means is a rejection of the foundation item of neo-liberalism, the free movement of people. It’s not a “return to tribalism” as that is a past that never existed in the age of the nation state. It is a new nation state that accepts the fundamental biological reality of man.

The Dissident Right world view that is slowly coming into focus, one that has grown out of the paleocon critiques of managerialism, is also a sharp break with the past. What’s the point of fetishizing the Founding period, when what they created lasted one lifetime. That form of social order simply could not hold up to modernity and was replaced by a series of increasingly radical innovations. To go back and start that process all over is to relive the same nightmare. The antidote to radicalism is not going to be its antecedents.

The revolutionary mind of the new opposition is not focused on restoring the past or even engaging in conventional politics. The use of “us versus them” rhetoric is only useful as a rallying cry. The real fight is about what comes after liberal democracy. Ours is not a fight to restore the past or even romanticize it. Ours is a fight about who will build the future, after this present is vanquished. Whatever comes out of this great confluence will not reflect the past. Instead, it will reflect the spirit and aspirations of those who build it.

A Tribal Dilemma

For as long as anyone reading this has been alive, Jews in America have been firmly on the Left of American politics. Milton Himmelfarb famously quipped that “Jews earn like Episcopalians, and vote like Puerto Ricans.” It’s not just voting patterns. Jews have been the intellectual engine of the Left since the Second World War. Members of the Frankfurt School took up positions in the American academy, transforming the soft sciences into a cultural force. Jews were front and center in the radical movements of the 60’s and 70’s.

Jews are not a monolith, despite what some may claim. There are divides within American Jewry and some degree of geographic diversity. German Jews that came to America in the middle of the 19th century have different cultural patterns than the Pale of Settlement Jews who arrived in the early 20th century. There are sectarian divides, as well, with Reformed and secular Jews having different cultural patterns than conservative Jews and the Orthodox. Still, the bulk of of Jews fit neatly into the stereotype of cosmopolitan Jew.

For liberal Jews, the world is becoming increasingly complicated as the American Left becomes not just the coalition of non-whites, but the coalition of anti-whites. For a long time, liberal Jews were able to be allies to non-whites, arguing for greater access and participation, while also being viewed as white by heritage Americans. As the American Left becomes anti-white, this is no longer possible. In the world of identity politics, it is impossible to hold two passports. Everyone gets one team and only one team.

Another complication is that Team Brown is not all that fond of Jews. Blacks have always had a bitter relationship with Jews, despite Jewish support for black causes. Hispanics are casually antisemitic at levels most don’t understand. The Left has also always had a complex relationship with Israel. The BDS Movement that flourishes in Progressive bastions further complicates things. Most important though is the fact that the brown hordes see Jews as white and therefore the enemy, regardless of their politics.

This does not mean that Jews are about to be evicted from the Progressive coalition, but the winds are certainly blowing that way. As much as resistance to globalism is viewed as a force on the Right, the Left’s hostility to order, any order, a legacy of the Frankfurt School, means trouble for anyone trying to harness the forces of the Left. Look around the rest of the English speaking world and you see a similar phenomenon. The Left’s anti-Zionism is slowly curdling into a quiet hostility to Jews in the generality.

The neocons are the obvious exception to the stereotype of liberal Jews. In the 60’s and 70’s some disaffected Jewish intellectuals made the journey to the Right, mostly over the issue of the Soviet Union and Israel. Their embrace of cultural conservatism was a matter of necessity, in order to fit into the Republican coalition. Critics have described them as Trotskyites, because of their advocacy for revolutionary democracy around the world and their lust to use military power to “move history in the right direction.”

The situation for neoconservatives is vastly worse than for liberal Jews. The neocons went all in on opposition to Trump’s primary run, launching the NeverTrump movement and then worked to undermine Trump in the general. It was a disastrous miscalculation as it probably helped Trump tap into the deep well of resentment among whites toward the neocon elite that captured the party in the Bush years. Rather than remaining in the coalition debating policy, they have placed themselves at odds with the Trump coalition.

Even though people like Jonah Goldberg could probably waddle back over to the Left, most neocons don’t have that option. Opposition to an aggressive foreign policy has been a plank of the American Left for generations. The hyper-violent neoconservatives and their desire to invade the world is never going to work. Then there is the general opposition to Israel and support for the Palestinians. Add in the explicit identity politics of the modern Left and there’s simply no way to square neoconservative ideas with the modern Left.

Taken together, what’s shaping up for Jews in America is a political arrangement where they have no natural home. Liberal Jews are increasingly at risk in the Left coalition due to looking a bit too pale for Team Brown. The new opposition that is forming up in opposition to Team Brown is explicitly white, as well as nationalist and populist. While it is not explicitly antisemitic, despite what some claim, it will certainly be hostile to the sort of cosmopolitanism Jews have historically preferred. Jews could be left without a home.

Ironically, Jewish exceptionalism is turning out to be their undoing, as they have managed to transform the American Left and the American Right. Domestically, the Left is every bit as radical and disruptive as anything the Bolsheviks imagined. On foreign policy, the Right is as revolutionary as the communist radicals of yesteryear. The result is a political class at war with itself and at war with the majority population. It is beginning to look as if the Jewish century is curdling into a Jewish disaster for Jews in America.

That said, Jews are the most adaptive people in human history. There’s no reason why Jews in America could not simply throw in with the white majority. Just as the neocons broke with the Left over opposition to the Soviets, perhaps liberal Jews will break with the Left over the issue of identity politics. After all, in a balkanized country, the only way for a tiny minority to survive is to attach to the most powerful tribe. Given the options on Team Brown, Team White is going to look like a better option, assuming the option is open.

The Little White Book

Edit: I was working from the draft copy that Greg was kind enough to send me over the summer. He changed the chapter titled “Slow Cleanse” in the final version and made clear that “ethnic cleaning” is used as a leftist slur. The irony here is this was a recommendation  I made after I read the draft. My apologies to Greg and the readers for the error.

What is “white nationalism”? If you ask a Progressive, you will get a list of the other abracadabra phrases they use to label heretics. A white person insufficiently enthusiastic for things like egalitarianism, unlimited immigration or racial quotas is dismissed as a white nationalist. They call President Trump a white nationalist, for example. For normal people, the term conjures images of white separatists, maybe, or perhaps nothing at all. Unlike black nationalism, the phrase white nationalism lacks an agreed upon definition.

Greg Johnson, in his new book The White Nationalist Manifesto, sets out to define white nationalism and also make the case for it. The book is a series of essays, grouped around three major themes. The first section focuses on the state of white people, the forces operating against whites and the need to restore white homelands. The second section covers the basic concepts of white nationalism. The final section addresses the cultural and political movement necessary to make White Nationalism a reality.

The first thing that recommends the book is the structure. In this age of short attention spans, breaking it into a series of essays is more effective. Writers will have to come to terms with the fact that their audience simply lacks the patience to read long complex arguments. In the case of something like white nationalism, the format allows the reader to quarrel with one or two points without having to reject the over all argument. Even people comfortable with white identity politics are going to have their disagreements.

There’s also the fact that most white people remain allergic to thinking sensibly about the issues facing white people. The adherents of Frankfurt School arguments and tactics have been in control of public discourse for generations. They have controlled the school curriculum since the 60’s. As a result, few white people alive today have ever existed outside the poaching liquid of multiculturalism. Short, easy to digest arguments that explain the basics of white identity politics provide a useful antidote to this conditioning.

Perhaps the most important argument in the book is at the beginning, where Johnson lays out the facts of white demographics. To people familiar with white identity politics, none of this will be new. Sadly though, most white people simply have no idea they are members of an endangered species. Even when the facts are presented to them, they will find some way to deny reality. Again, generations of proselytizing by an alien intellectual elite have conditioned whites to avoid facing the reality of their own dispossession.

The other aspect of this is the cause. The public polices that are putting whites in danger are not accidental. He makes the important point that the elites pushing these polices have to know the results of those polices in advance. Otherwise, it means the cultural and political elites are smart enough to craft and implement these policies, but too ignorant of reality to understand the inevitable consequences. In other words the ads on your television that always feature a brown man and a white women are calculated.

That removes the handy excuse whites have used for generations for not rising up against their rulers. For as long as anyone reading this has been alive, the claim has been that all the opposition needs to do is craft the right argument. Once they do that, the ruling class will throw down their weapons and embrace us as brothers. The responsibility is shifted from the people implementing public policy to the victims. By eliminating the excuse that they simply don’t know, the burden shifts back to the elites.

Another highly useful essay is titled Homogeneity, chapter eleven in the book. For American readers this is going to be challenging because the argument in favor of homogeneity contradicts everything they have been taught about diversity. The challenge presented in this chapter is that everything about observable reality makes clear that ethnically homogeneous societies are healthier and happier. More important, up until fifty years ago, everyone understood this, even in America. It’s a big red-pill for normie.

Now, in fairness, the book could do a better job explaining white demography. The empirically minded will hate the fact that Johnson makes a lot of assumptions, without providing studies, graphs and so forth. For American readers, an essay on the history and nature of white American ethnicity would be helpful. For generations, whites have been pitted against one another on ethnic and regional lines, so thinking about white identity is very difficult. White Americans don’t exist, even to themselves.

I’m also firmly in the camp that thinks we have to be careful with the choice of words, when it comes to discussing these topics. White nationalism is going to conjure mostly negative images. The essay titled The Slow Cleanse uses the phrase “ethnic cleansing”, which brings to mind firing squads and death camps.The word “cleanse” reminds people of Hollywood weirdos drinking prune juice for a week. Fair or foul, the bad guys control the language, so using words and phrases that make that hard for them is important.

That said, a big part of this project is the rejection of the prevailing moral orthodoxy. This does not mean the puerile role playing that came to define the alt-right. That’s just juvenile rebellion that accepts the moral supremacy of the Left. The proper way to reject the prevailing orthodoxy is to not be bound by it and not react to it. One way to do that is to return to the clear use of language. Nothing infuriates the people in power more than the indifference of their subjects, so maybe Johnson is on the right path with the language.

Finally, the target audience for the book is not your MAGA hat wearing granny or the Ben Shapiro loving CivNat. The book is best aimed at the type of person who generally knows the reality of race, but maybe thinks “racism” is crude or low-class. What a book like this does is provide language and arguments that the typical white person can use to inoculate their own mind to the prevailing culture. It also supplies the tools to help bring people over to this side of the great divide. It’s the Little Red Book for modern white people.

The Managerial Clique

The political philosopher James Burnham is usually credited with coining the phrase managerial state. In his seminal work, The Managerial Revolution, he theorized about the future of world capitalism. He was a former communist, like a lot of intellectuals of the period, so he thought about social organization from that perspective. He was mostly wrong about the evolution of capitalism, but he did describe an emerging phenomenon that is with us today. That is the semi-permanent managerial class that runs American society.

Paleocons would later pick up on the phrase and the concept to critique both the conventional Right, as well as Progressives. Sam Francis, Joe Sobran, Paul Gottfried and others would describe the managerial elite as an amorphous collection of bureaucrats, politicians and academics that occupies the important institutions. This class maintains power by not only controlling the institutions, but also public morality. Gottfried described it as a theocratic religion, that uses accusations of impiety as a shield against challenges.

Like most theorists of his age, Burnham had an understanding of capitalism shaped by the materialist philosophy of Marx. Therefore, he could not conceive of an economic model evolving as a weapon used by a new class that formed out of the bourgeoisie. The paleocons understood this as they lived it. Their friends and family were often members of this new class. Paul Gottfried was a college professor, for example. They could see how a hybrid form of capitalism was used by this new class to maintain power in America.

Even the paleocons missed an important aspect of this new class. It’s something rooted in the nature of man and that is the extreme provincialism in the managerial elites. Despite their claims to worldliness and cosmopolitan affectations, these are people with the worldview of burghers. They may pronounce foreign words with a foreign accent, but their knowledge of anything outside their tiny bureaucratic universe is limited. With few exceptions, theirs is a world of small cliques conspiring against others for bits of turf.

We see this in the unfolding conspiracy within the FBI and the DOJ to subvert the last election. Taken in total, the FBI portion of the conspiracy looks like something you would see in high school, where the nerds plotted some caper against the jocks. Like teenagers, they did most of their plotting via text message. This is not the work of sophisticated actors operating on the world stage. This is the work of a small collection of clerks and functionaries. It’s petty provincialism directed at an outsider viewed as a threat.

This last week, this pettiness was underscored by the revelation that Rod Rosenstein was plotting against Trump. It could be a caper run by the neocon loons that are now infiltrating the New York Times and Washington Post. More likely, given the source is FBI memos about meetings with Rosenstein, this is the small group of FBI plotters stabbing at a former ally for personal reasons. Andrew McCabe was more concerned with someone he viewed as a rival in his little world, than he was with the over all plot to subvert Trump.

This is the nature of the managerial revolt we see going on, as well as the resistance to the Trump agenda within Washington. It is not a collection of policy professionals with deep philosophical differences with the White House. It’s pods of overgrown college students throwing tantrums about petty turf disputes and hurt feelings. Look at the nature of the push back against declassifying documents. It’s cliques of coevals operating from purely personal motives. For most of these people, this is just another playground dispute.

That’s the nature of the managerial class now. When you start to look at the people in these various cliques, you see that they often share more than just a cultural and class background. They grew up with one another, went to the same prep schools and worked with one another for years. Once one member of the clique lands an important position in the bureaucracy, he sets about recruiting his friends, classmates and neighbors to join his team. It turns out that the Dunbar number applies to the managerial class too.

The crisis we see in Western liberal democracy may be rooted in this feature of the managerial class. The bureaucratic government of Diocletian was like a super tanker plodding along through the sea. It was hard to steer, but even harder to stop. It’s strength was in the sheer force of its size. The modern bureaucracy has evolved not to defend the secular leadership through sheer force. Rather, it has evolved to serve the narrow interests of the bourgeoisie class who populate it, as a way to defend their interests.

Like all things that evolve within a democratic framework, the time preference of this class is very high. The plotters within the FBI, for example, were more concerned about jostling for status within their clique, than what could happen after the election. Judging by the text exchanges between Strzok and Page, it appears these two had the time preference of the typical ghetto dweller. None of these people thought much about what would come next or what could happen if their emotional needs were not properly satisfied.

Since the dawn of human settlement, the point of the state has been to maintain the power and position of the people in charge by protecting the interests of the people. The king gets to be king, and all that comes with it, by defending his people from threats. This requires a low time preference as the king expects to be king tomorrow and maybe even have his heirs sit on the throne when he is gone. Even a republican form of governance is designed to serve the interests of the property holders, who obviously have long term interests.

The managerial class that has subsumed western public institutions, exists to expand and protect the interest of these petty cliques, at the expense of the public. It’s not just parasitic, in terms of undermining the middle and working classes. It is parasitic within its own institutions. Since what matters is status within the clique, which has a transactional relationship within the institution it occupies. No one within the clique can think long term about the good of the institution. All they can do is borrow the language of the institution.