Nigger Winning

Screen Shot 2018-12-15 at 5.51.02 PM

the tragedy of the commons

I grew up in a left-coast granola-ville where every third person is basically indistinguishable from the Rachel Maddow picture above. So although his wording seems a tad inexact, I know exactly who Sam Hyde is referring to by “these people,” and I agree wholeheartedly with his tweet. Or, I would, except for one thing:

Who is this “we” ?

In the case of France’s gilles jaunes, there is likewise a great deal of confusion about identification. Copycats outside France have been tepid so far. Progressives are waiting things out; tax revolts aren’t their thing. Tankies can’t support anything so reminiscent of 1956. The whole scene’s too down home for Antifa and all such faux-syndicalist hipsters. The stateside mainstream right is feeling smug, but only tentatively—perhaps they smell trade unionism in the smoldering tires. The movement alt-right seems disappointed by the lack of overt racism, although the broader dissident right is cheering, because immigration expenditures are tangentially implicated in the protests. Certainly the vrai francaises comprise the bulk of the movement. There were even early reports in the mainstream press that the whole thing was cooked up by Marine Le Pen, but that appears unlikely. In the end, protesters, like armies, march on their stomachs. This is why the gilles jaunes are so sympathetic: they’re truly non-aligned.

Still, I cannot sympathize with them entirely. I’ve never liked crowds. I loathe apartment buildings, nightclubs, amusement parks, and twenty-minute wait times at sit-down restaurants; I despise louts and revelers and revolutionaries. Perhaps you, too, are in debt, will never own anything, are fed up with anarcho-tyranny, and see no prospect of a better life for your children. So what? Join the club. Neither you nor I are in danger of starving anytime soon (thanks MasterCard), but if one of us were, the other would be unlikely to help. I’d like to see Macron defenestrated as much as they would, but what the gilles jaunes are demanding, in the end, is a gloved hand.

Obviously the lumpen Frenchman is squeezed to death. But is he preferable to Macron? On the surface, sans doute. But if I have to get somewhere, and you’re blocking traffic, I don’t care what your problem is, you can render unto Caesar and quit fucking up my day, for I am an individualist anarchist: the Moloch of abstraction can only devour my babies with my permission, and it seems, despite a distinct lack of experience living in France, that the Arabs have no trouble evading taxes. Join hands to make the world a better place? No thanks. The crowd is inherently foreboding; it represents the transcendent unity of death. Who is this “we,” anyway? Nobody I’ve got time for—contra 99.98% of sperg WN e-celebs, I’ve got kids who aren’t theoretical, and a blond/blue Aryan wife who veritably chirps the praises of my circumcised slab. And unlike the pallid, grasping souls who read  Chateau Heartiste, Saul Alinsky, and The 48 Laws of Power, I do not aspire to be the conniving pecker in anybody’s mind’s vagina, because I am the measure of me, and sincerity needs no instruction manual.

When Socrates, the Prophet Isaiah and St. Paul inverted morality, they challenged and undermined rulers who were truly terrifying. Whereas, in Sam Hyde’s rendition of slave moralitythe master is genderqueer and has daddy issues. What could make anyone who comprehends the nature of power and truly appreciates the power of nature allow themselves to become the predictable moral foil for such postmodern degenerates?

Here’s a clue:

Screen Shot 2018-12-15 at 6.37.31 PM.png

a whole vibrating realm of subterranean revenge

What is being defined here as “intellectual awakening”? Arrival at the ossified certitude that evil is embodied solely in the Jews. For the alt-right, this is the key to accurately comprehending reality. According to these people, nothing, really nothing but this has true explanatory power.

Well, kids, there’s a name for this kind of narrative frame: it’s called a morality tale. To be movement alt-right is to submit oneself to a thought-system as surely as any NPC; and not even a cybernetic one but a 1.0 feedback loop. If you’re doing this with an IQ >120, you’re feeding kale to a stage 4 tumor. (You’re the kale.) For example: according to the alt-right, there is no appreciable difference, morally, ideologically, or evolutionarily, between Rachel Maddow (above) and this woman:

Screen Shot 2018-12-15 at 9.31.18 PM.png

trad life, minus the hashtag

If the alt-right had one woman like her, there’d be Nazi colonies on distant star systems. Meanwhile, the question remains: how best to avoid becoming “broke, dead, your kids raped and brainwashed”?

Well, by avoiding Twitter, for starters.


The Two-Pronged Thesis, Illustrated

Screen Shot 2018-11-25 at 2.07.39 PM.png

more than demographic replacement

As iterated in the previous post:

(1) Capitalism (the pretense of endless technological and economic development) is a natural complement to progressivism (the pretense of endless moral advancement); and

(2) the cultural assault on whiteness is a natural complement to the destruction of the middle class.

As an example (a perfect example) of how this works, consider, if you will, the following 21st-century reimagining of Norman Rockwell’s Four Freedoms:

Screen Shot 2018-11-25 at 1.50.29 PM.png

Freedom of Speech

In the original, two white-collared gents are craning their necks to hear a blue-collar Joe speak his mind, because social status is not the whole measure of human worth. In the revision, two men who apparently sell burner phones in a mall are craning their necks toward a moon-faced woman in a plunging blouse, whose practical utility in the community is as unclear as a LinkedIn profile with a description that reads “Seeking opportunities.” Rather, superficial characteristics such as the subjects’ ethnicity, gender and/or style are the sole and total measures of their intrinsic worth. And just as racial distinctions and gender roles have been diluted, so have class distinctions faded, except for the retail sales baby-daddy at bottom-right. (Incidentally, in order to emphasize the white male listening to the lady-POC, the artists not only make him the richest person in the room, they intuit, in spite of their ideological conditioning, that he would need a rapey neck tattoo.)

As opposed to Rockwell with his blue-collar Joe, it appears that all we get, class-wise, from the revised version are for the most part the perpetual students, petty bureaucrats and temp contractors of the sub-Office Space gig economy. And just as it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism, the browning of America is easier to imagine than a workforce with bargaining power that actually produces any of the things it actually needs to live, because that would be the opposite of what the browning of America is demonstrably all about. Personal fulfillment and “having our say” here is, instead, all about the visibility of superficial characteristics.

Screen Shot 2018-11-25 at 1.50.17 PM.png

Freedom of Worship

In the original, you have a Jew (foreground, right), Protestants (the elderly couple with clasped hands), a Catholic (the blond in the middle with the Rosary), a skeptic or agnostic (the pensive-looking, dark-haired man behind her with one hand tugging on his chin) and a black woman, presumably Southern Baptist, in the back (in the original you can see more of her; part of the frame is cut out here).

Meanwhile, in the revision, there’s no discernible religious or even ethnic diversity, unless the arresting prettiness of the girl in the star-spangled hijab is intended to imply that she’s a convert or a fair-skinned Bosnian or Levantine, i.e., (in either case) that whiteness, being intrinsically more beautiful than the alternatives, is something to which Muslims, too, can aspire. The mixing here of genders at a Muslim prayer service is likewise illusory, a fantasy, total bullshit. Though there is a man with a hand on his chin, this is probably just unthoughtful mimicry of the original, because overt skepticism is so unlikely in a Muslim prayer quorum. But supposing he’s a skeptic, in the future this painting imagines, there’s only one religion to be skeptical of. That’s what is meant here by diversity.

Screen Shot 2018-11-25 at 1.50.00 PM

Freedom from Want

There’s a discernible reduction here (on the left) in freedom from want, with a loaf of bread replacing the turkey. Also, no grandma—perhaps the reduction in living standards that always accompanies these kinds of progress leaves no possibility of sustaining the elderly. Again, the sole measures of human worth in the revision are superficial: ethnicity, gender, style. On the other hand, the subjects in the original seem only to need each other’s presence, regardless of those qualifications. As proof of this key difference, notice that no one in the revision, other than the woman with the baby, is gazing directly at anyone else—and in that case, the baby looks apprehensive as fuck, as though he’s just been passed to a stranger. The woman looks equally unfamiliar with him. Perhaps he was only just recently harvested from her Nepalese surrogate.

Screen Shot 2018-11-25 at 1.50.39 PM.png

Freedom from Fear

Nearly fifty percent of gay men report having been molested as children. In any case, the kids on the left have no mother, so theirs is a qualitatively worse situation than that of the children on the right. The original was titled “Freedom from Fear.” Ask yourself whether kids in 2018 are more likely than their 1943 counterparts to be free to play outside unsupervised without fear of molestation (in both the classic and the contemporary senses of that word) and you’ll immediately understand the delusional ridiculousness of any suggestion (like the one in the painting) that things have improved or not deteriorated utterly in terms of children’s freedom from fear. Only sodomites with inexplicable notions of collecting children have less to fear in 2018 than they did in 1943.

There’s a movie about precisely the transition this Rockwell-redux is proposing/imagining/documenting. It’s called Idiocracy.

The overarching take-away of this reimagined Four Freedoms is that the proponents of multiculturalism can conceive of nothing comparable to the standards set by white, heteronormative Christians, whom they both fetishize and hound, because they can’t stand the thought that those who traditionally had no regard for them should enjoy happiness. They cannot match Rockwell, so they usurp him. They are the sad loaf of bread to the juicy roast turkey, the swivel-eyed jazz-hound to the loving matriarch, the cryogenically fertile poofter imitators to the biologically complimentary genuine article. Diversity is a “strength” only because (in the words of Tucker Carlson) our elites are “dividing in order to rule.”

The alt-right is predictably kvetching about this predictable desecration strictly in terms of “demographic replacement,” which is certainly a thematic element of these paintings and a horribly dire concern in realtime and meatspace. But what is demographic replacement? Do we still have the freedoms that Rockwell’s painting suggested we had and needed to fight for? Can we look forward to the spiritual and psychosocial quality of life that Americans enjoyed in 1943? The original Four Freedoms would have been inconceivable, or nonsensical, if those freedoms had not actually existed in America then, the way Rockwell portrayed them. Yes, my left-leaning friends, I realize that not everyone in American in 1943 enjoyed those freedoms to the same degree, and that some didn’t enjoy them at all. But after so much “progress,” is that more, or less true today? What I mean to suggest this Rockwell-redux should be prompting us to ask, is: does the 21st-century version bear the same degree of symmetry with reality as the original did?

Well, in one way, yes, it does: we do have all the diversity it portrays, and then some.

And, in another way, it doesn’t, because we don’t any longer have anywhere near the same degree of any of those four freedoms.

If you don’t understand the connection by now, you probably never will.

The Two-Pronged Thesis, Revisited

Screen Shot 2018-11-24 at 2.44.53 PM.png

You believe in evolution, don’t you?

As propounded in a previous post:

(1) Capitalism (the pretense of endless technological and economic development) is a natural complement to progressivism (the pretense of endless moral advancement); and

(2) the cultural assault on whiteness is a natural complement to the destruction of the middle class.

(By “the cultural assault on whiteness,” we mean any and all anti-racist agitprop such as the Newsweek article illustrated above, which is clearly aimed solely at altering the attitudes and psyches of whites; or, where it is aimed at inflaming non-white resentment, the ultimate aim is nevertheless to “deconstruct whiteness,” which in practical terms means some adverse affects on white persons.)

This is a symmetrical thesis: capitalism has destroyed the middle class, and progressivism’s primary aim is the deconstruction of the white, western civilization that produced the middle class. In other words, the global economy makes you a serf, and constant moral upbraiding (e.g., “We need to have a conversation about whiteness” clickbait certified by the money-laundering scam known as the university system) keeps you one, psychologically.

As to (1), of course, there are exceptions: you could be a racist, misogynist plutocrat, but eventually, your businesses will suffer unless you LARP as a progressive. (This is Bret Easton Ellis’s American Psycho in a nutshell.) Conversely, you could be a woke capitalist (in which case, your woke only furthers someone else’s capitalism), or a crypto-consumer quasi-anarcho-syndicalist who loves to diss bourgie libs on social media and just happens to share their politics 100%.

As to (2), the real “Et tu, Brute?” shank in the ribcage of the American middle class came in 2008, and the familiar tropes of the cultural revolution against whitey became paradigmatic in 2012, at the height of the Trayvon administration’s moral cluck-clucking. If the connection is not clear to you by now, it probably never will be. I may expand on this point in a later post, but for now, in case you’d like some food for thought I’ll just throw in the well-known fact that white liberals (and indeed, white radicals in majority-white Granolavilles like Berkeley and Portland) are perhaps the most self-segregating demographic on the planet. Psychologists call this “revealed preference,” i.e., actions speak louder than words. Malcolm was wise to this decades ago.

Bottom-line: you cannot be woke to unreality, and reality has a well-known racist bias.

The Alt-Right Viewed From the Right, Pt. II

(Part I here)

“Being and stability are regarded by our contemporaries as akin to death; they cannot live unless they act, fret, or distract themselves with this or that. Their spirit (provided we can still talk about a spirit in their case) feeds only on sensations and on dynamism, thus becoming the vehicle for the incarnation of darker forces.” Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World (1934)

What could be more Weimerican than coquettish insistence on enjoying complicity and rebellion simultaneous? As consciousness itself is debased, collectivized and uploaded to a cybernetic panopticon, the movement alt-right feigns resistance like a ridiculous wench.

What made the alt-right novel was its Emperor’s-new-clothes cogency, but shitbags always have cogent rationales. I say this although I concur with much of the alt-right worldview, because the internet is a hive of scum and villainy. At bottom, the whole alt-right phenomenon is a human ressentipede, a quasi-Nietzschean victimology, a bug that thinks it’s a windshield (“When we win…“). Its pathetic thought leaders make Silicon Valley technogarchs look like Roman gods. And it doesn’t matter how incisive they are: in the final analysis, which is power, Sam Hyde is an embittered professional sniveler who makes Joe Bernstein look like Mad Max. Erik Striker’s shrill mouth makes Fran Drescher sound like Clint Eastwood. Richard Spencer’s petty antics make Larry David look like Lou Ferrigno. Chateau Heartiste’s reams of bile make the yentas on The View look taciturn. Subterranean, ressentiment figures is all these people will ever be, and there’s a name for what they do: it’s called race-baiting (as distinct from race realism), and if it ever had its moment, that moment has passed, because it’s dishonorable on its face, and transgresses the basic coolness of the traditional Anglo-American temperament. Never be rude to an Arab: we get it. Nine years is too long to be dragging out this punchline without becoming an accomplice of its object.

Being de-platformed, by the way, doesn’t prove that you’re a threat, it proves rather conclusively that you aren’t one, and the NPC meme is unintentional self-parody, because anyone who’s on social media at all has reduced himself from the get-go of the conversation to a reflexive limbic system with thumbs, beholden to all and sundry in endless multilogue leading nowhere. “Will to power bro! Oh shit, another 30-day ban.” What are you doing cracking voluminous classics if you can’t understand one measly sentence from Marshall McLuhan?

Every podcast pledge drive, every Patreon panhandler, every PayPal button, every alt-right merch-huckster out there selfie-sticking the Kali Yuga is eating, like a dog, directly from the hand of Silicon Valley. Their one paramount concern, before degeneracy, demographic displacement, neocon wars or any of the rest, is whether mom and dad are going to cut off their internet and their allowance; and when the hammer comes down, vey iz mir, its literally anuddah shoah, oh gawd, there oughta be a law. Pure slave morality.

Like any other pack of fanatical wags, the alt-right’s enemies are a monolith; its conscience is clean. Take the latest snafu: the doughy little carnie behind a YouTube live-cast called the “Killstream” raised over $26K for St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital using the SuperChat feature on YouTube. A Wall Street Journal reporter working on an asinine hit-piece on alt-right podcasters contacted the host for comment around the same time YouTube refunded each individual donation. Rather than asking themselves what it is about them that not even a children’s cancer center will take their money, the alt-right Twattersphere flared up in righteous indignation, trending hashtags and excoriating the WSJ as baby killers, even though St. Jude’s announced they never had any intention of taking the money. By the same logic being directed at the WSJ, this would have to mean that St. Jude’s cares less about cancer stricken children than the alt-right does. Pure idiocracy.

Only clickbait mills and minority grievance racketeers can even pretend to take this Eric Cartman hive-mind seriously. Fascism is always a symptom and accomplice of degeneracy. Like vindictive women, niggers and faggots, the alt-right doesn’t hate the mainstream so much as they desperately want its attention. Every withdrawal of hosting relieves them of having to slink off into an irrelevant little echo-chamber. “But the Daily Stormer is a parody!” So was Hitler, he just didn’t realize it. Like a cretinous lech mistaking a woman’s disgust for secret desire, the alt-right takes these obstacles as proof of anything but their own incapacity. What kind of sadomasochist needs this grim, lurid entertainment? What human type feels compelled to play these games? He need not fear the future, because “his race is as ineradicable as the flea.”

Relevance-Whoring with the Austrian Corporal

Screen Shot 2018-10-30 at 5.31.01 PM

the alt-right cries out as it strikes you

“[T]his plant thrives best amongst anarchists and anti-Semites today, so . . . it will come as no surprise to find attempts coming once more from these circles . . . to sanctify revenge with the term justice—as though justice were fundamentally simply a further development of the feeling of having been wronged—and belatedly to legitimize with revenge emotional reactions in general, one and all.” Nietzsche, Genealogy (1887)

I was four parts into a five-part critical essay series on Judaism when the Pittsburgh massacre happened. Unsurprisingly, it’s very hard to coldly and objectively assess Jewish identity when a pogrom has just taken place.

Pittsburgh is a lovely town. My father was born there. His mother grew up worshipping at Temple Rodef Sholem, a beautiful beaux arts building erected in 1906, and located a mile down the road from Tree of Life, which is exactly the kind of conservative shul where I worshipped and was bar mitzvah’d as a kid. So this thing hit me very hard.

Politics is always closely connected with public spectacle. It goes without saying that the doyens of our present-day system of public spectacle are disproportionately Jewish, and their tendencies and prejudices are abundantly clear to those on the alt-right who take a critical view of Jewish identity and see it as a pernicious facet of political power. But what does that have to do with eleven elderly worshippers in a Pittsburgh synagogue? How woefully few of us are truly able to grasp that the internet is a projector screen? This massacre was pure idiocracy, a ressentiment phenomenon through-and-through.

But it was something more as well. It was the apotheosis of alt-right logic, as perfectly representative of the alt-right as child drag queens and Mexican heroin are of progressivism. Each side complements the other in manifesting the same disease process whose only beneficiary is social media, i.e., one man’s casting couch. The NPC meme, by the way, is inadvertent self-parody because anyone who’s on Twitter is just a limbic system with thumbs. Do you know what your perspicacity is when it’s harnessed to the push and pull of every ADHD nanosecond of rumor, exult, and indignation? It’s shit. It’s fucking shit. “But Twitter and Facebook are the public square!” Next you’ll be telling me Hot Pockets are an indispensable source of dietary fiber.

Supposing I concur with every bit of the alt-right critique of American civilization. So what? If you’re trying to rent a room in the Tower of Babel, you’re gonna have to sign Babel’s lease agreement. Who are these embittered, murmuring cattle, anyway? So jealous of a corpse, so angry at a vulture. They need Jesus more than George Soros or Wolf Blitzer ever will.

So I couldn’t care less about the de-platforming of, or the Stormer before it. Free speech is the simpering demand of the vanquished.

Screen Shot 2018-10-30 at 7.00.36 PM.png

“The best lack all conviction, while the worst   
“Are full of passionate intensity. . . .”

Sodom Janitorial

Screen Shot 2018-04-08 at 9.25.32 PM

when the toxoplasmosis comes before the cat shit

If God exists, it’d probably be best to worship him. But the Devil, if he exists, seems to have managed just fine all these years without a fan club. Worshipping him is not only optional, but superfluous.

This is why I can’t stand Luciferians. For one thing, they’re only considering one side of the story—which ought to be their foremost grievance against the competition. For another, in terms of what he has to offer, a disaffected lieutenant can only contrast poorly with the boss. Worst of all, Luciferians either worship Satan, in which case they’ve altered none of what they object to about religiosity, or else they’re frivolous, i.e., they don’t really believe in the Dark One, but conceptualize him instead as just an elaborate metaphor for humanism. Well, the Devil may get along fine without a following, but (to channel my inner Mark Twain) I don’t see why he ought to be insulted this way.

In The Master and Margarita, Mikhail Bulgakov’s rollicking satire of 1930s Soviet life, Satan comes to Moscow with his retinue, and gets up to all kinds of mischief. Ironically, the only Muscovites Bulgakov’s Satan seems to attack are those who really deserve it. Before destroying Moscow, he rescues a blacklisted novelist and his mistress, who has literally sold her soul in order to rescue her love and his condemned manuscript from the authorities. In the end, even Bulgakov’s Jesus looks kindly on this ultimate sacrifice, and intercedes with Satan to spare her from eternal torment.

Why would Satan do God’s work for him? And why would God allow Satan to get up to any kind of mischief at all? It isn’t only in Bulgakov. It’s in Genesis, and Job, the Islamic Story of the Cranes, and the betrayal of Christ in the Gospels. We might surmise that it gives the universe a certain balance, but perhaps there’s another explanation.

Bear with me.

What separates man from beast? Language? Other apes can be taught sign language. Even robots can talk nowadays. Bipedalism? Opposable thumbs? Here I can even refer you to monkeys. But according to all three Abrahamic faiths, only free will—reason—distinguishes man.

Does God give us free will in order to amuse himself? This is what Nietzsche said about the Olympians in Homer. But supposing you were Richie Rich, and could never know who your true friends are. Wouldn’t that suck? I imagine that is why God gives man free will.

Hasidic Rabbi Manis Friedman, in a click-baity YouTube video entitled “Only Judaism Will Tell You This,” makes the similar suggestion that man’s relationship with God is a two-way street—that God needs us as much as we need him, because just as God is infinitely powerful, he is also infinitely vulnerable. The only problem I can see with this supposition is that Judaism is certainly not the only religion that will tell you this. After all, don’t the Christians believe God came to earth in mortal form only to live as a despised itinerant preacher and be executed excruciatingly?

Nearly six decades after Bulgakov completed his masterwork, and nearly six years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, one Yevgeny Rodionov, a Russian soldier and Orthodox Christian, was captured by Chechen insurgents and executed after refusing his captors’ offer to spare his life in exchange for converting to Islam. Supposing (just supposing) that Rodionov was mistaken, and that Islam is the one true religion. Even so, given the limitations of what he knew, it can hardly be the case that his refusal to compromise was wrong. Faith is something indelible, not interchangeable. Refusal to compromise—to the point of martyrdom—deserves the utmost respect. One could even imagine Mohammed interceding with Satan to spare the young soldier hellfire.

According to Sheikh Imran Hosein, when the Dajjal (“deceiver,” i.e., the Antichrist) emerges, he will have the word kafr (unbeliever) written on his forehead; the mu’amin (believer) will be able to read this, and therefore identify the Dajjal, even if he is illiterate; but the kafr will not be able to read it, even if he knows how. For Hosein, the mu’amin can of course only be Muslim. The only caveat he proffers that would disqualify a nominal Muslim is that the belief must be complete and heartfelt. Obviously, this wouldn’t include believers of other faiths. Still, there is something to this idea about the ability to discern evil being dependent on a fixed inner guidance that resides in the heart.

Maimonides teaches that emunah tmima, i.e., innocent (or simple) faith—as opposed to a faith that depends on great learning—is the truest and strongest form of faith. The New Testament says something very similar. Let me tell you how I got mine.

My great-grandfather came to the United States from Moldova in 1908. He was offered work with his brothers-in-law at the Studebaker factory in South Bend, Indiana, but turned it down when he was informed he couldn’t have a Saturday sabbath. Though not haredi (ultra-orthodox), he was a masorti (traditional) Jew. Instead of settling for a Sunday sabbath, he went out and bought a few heads of lettuce, then sold them on the street for a meager profit. Eventually he became a green grocer with his own shop. His refusal to compromise his faith is a simulacrum of Daniel’s refusal to bow before Nebuchadnezzar.

My grandfather was the only one of his siblings born in America, in 1911. He sat me down, starting at the age of four, and taught me Hebrew liturgy, scripture and midrash. I remember the lessons only vaguely, a few aphorisms at most, but they imbued me with an abiding faith in the Almighty, and this is the heartfelt simplicity that Maimonides calls the truest form of faith, and the foundation which eventually enabled me, after many trials, to discern wickedness, just like Imran Hosein’s mu’amin, who can read the writing on the forehead of the Dajjal, even if he is illiterate.

At the age of 19, I moved to Israel. Nobody leaves an affluent country for Israel unless they’re in search of some sense of purpose in life—some inner guidance—that they feel devoid of, that they believe the holy land can give them. I’ll spare you the details, but at the time, this described me perfectly.

At one point shortly after I arrived, I took a bus from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and walked to the Old City. At the Kotel, there are haredim (ultra-orthodox Jews) who stand around waiting for tourists to come. They ask if you’re Jewish, and if you reply that you are, they either invite you to a sabbath dinner, or to lay phylacteries and pray with them. They believe that prescribed prayer hastens the coming of the messiah, and that the more Jews they can get to perform it, the faster the messiah will come.

Well, rather than lay phylacteries with the haredim, I prayed on my own at the wall. According to rabbinic law, the son of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother is not Jewish, and I didn’t want to disrespect the beliefs of the haredim by partaking in their rituals without full disclosure. However, as I was leaving the Kotel plaza, a white-haired and frock-coated old haredi with a Brooklyn accent approached and asked if I would like to stay for free in a Jewish youth hostel. I said that I would, and he led me through the winding alleys of the Jewish Quarter, peppering me with questions about my upbringing and knowledge of Judaism. His name was Rabbi Meir Schuster, and he explained that he ran a Jewish outreach program for diaspora youth in Israel. When we arrived at his youth hostel, the place was empty except for a few rucksacks on the beds. He showed me to a bunk, but as I laid down my pack, he suddenly remembered to ask whether both my parents are Jewish. (I suppose I don’t quite resemble a Ferengi as nearly as a good Jewish boy ought to.) I answered honestly. He became irate and told me to get lost.

Rav Schuster was right: rules are rules, and he didn’t make ’em. The Hebrew liturgy is hauntingly beautiful to me, the Hebrew language has a deep spiritual resonance, and as I said, my grandfather’s emuna tmima is the foundation of my strength and discernment in God. But in sum total, none of this amounts to Judaism in any official sense. Besides, if the Jewish people are in error, should I compromise my ethnic affinity, or my faith? For instance, according to poll data, 76% of American Jews are pro-choice. This is nothing but Moloch-worship. In fact, Jews are disproportionately involved in all kinds of white collar scams and unnatural sexual hijinks. If these are my people, then ethnic solidarity has no meaning. So I want as little to do with the Rav Schusters of the world as they want to do with me.

Secondary to ethical and theologic precepts, my grandfather also taught me to despise Christianity and, to a lesser extent, Islam. (Rav Schuster would’ve surely approved.) I used to think this was part and parcel of the faith he imbued me with. But when I eventually married a Christian, I agreed to her desire to baptize our sons. As distasteful as the prospect was for me, given my upbringing, I realized that denying a sacrament to a believer would contravene the ethics my grandfather taught me. This cognitive dissonance gave rise to an open-minded exploration of Christianity and Islam that I never would have undertaken before. The blinders fell off, and I finally acknowledged the salience of the many aspects of Judaism I object to, rather than feeling the need to minimize or rationalize them, or serve in the Israeli army to prove Rabbi Schuster wrong (which I actually did, from 2006-2008.)

In essence, what I had to acknowledge was the fact that since 70 CE, Judaism has been a defeated and subterranean culture. Rabbinic Judaism took out of the old Hebrew faith the virility and jihad that once gave rise to successive Jewish uprisings against foreign domination, replacing them with vindictiveness and snide intellectual superiority.

Zionism has done relatively little to reverse these tendencies. But whereas pre-emancipation conditions required some spiritual fortitude of the Jews (which was much remarked upon and commended by Nietzsche), in the world of democratic values, the modus operandi of repulsive, manipulative weaklings is to constantly demand deference from others to their own sense of insecurity, which they lack the self-awareness (or the honesty) to ascribe in any proportion to their own failings, or to circumstances beyond what can readily be blamed on others. Those who nurse grudges also tend to lack scruples. Thus, we can discern an essential similarity between the ends-justifying lack of moral restraint in Zionism, on the one hand, and the various minority grievance rackets in the developed world that you’d think would have nothing in common with a highly militaristic ethno-state, or with a people that gave the world the Old Testament.

Yet somehow, especially since the end of the Cold War, Israel always finds itself on the side of international liberalism: Davos, Hollywood, the EU, CFR, international banks, Silicon Valley, and NATO destabilization of illiberal regimes. But while Israel practices certain liberal restraints in relations with its Arab subjects, this proves Israel’s humaneness no more than it displays the same profound unease of conscience that lies unexamined at the heart of all cosmopolitanism and technological progress. Certainly there are socially conservative elements in Israeli society, but Jewish solipsism dictates that they can never consider themselves in terms of the traditional, monotheistic values under assault by the centrifugal tendencies of the wider modern world. Thus, what is holding Israel and the Jewish people together is not primarily values, but fear, and roiling, pathos laden feelings of superiority. Meanwhile, the Jewish state’s leaders are accomplices to the idolaters of this world, the ultra-rich and libertine. They express the values of the state in the pithy phrasing of human liberty, even as they operate from pure machiavellianism.

But there’s a widespread and long-standing tendency to see fault only in the Jews, when the fact is that the Churches have long been worldly, pharisaical, and sycophantic. It’s difficult not to notice the pro-Caesar bent in parts of the New Testament. And of course, Islam has its own problems, from the marriage of the prophet to a six year old and consequent doctrines allowing sexual exploitation of minors to the outright murder of non-Muslim children with clerical sanction.

Yet for Sheikh Imran Hosein, the Dajjal can only be a Jew. It has likewise been said by certain Christians that Islam is Satanic, or that the Antichrist will be Jewish; and of course, rabbinic authorities have propounded some very ugly doctrines regarding Gentiles, and Christianity. For the simpleton and the demagogue—which any of us may be at times—the Antichrist is always on the other team. Despite his best intentions, the proverbial beam is always in the eye of the neighbors. When we use religion as a mask in this way, we need unbelievers, for the negative transference of our own ungodly impulses.

From the Devil’s perspective, what could possibly be better for business?

Last of the Kike Wiggers


I even like a song or two by One Republic

Okay, look: on this blog, I’ve been critical of the alt-right. In my salad days, I even visciously battered a couple of neo-Nazis, and that was back when “neo-Nazi” meant something. I certainly wouldn’t call myself a white nationalist. But….

There’s a lot going on that the alt-right is reacting to. If I had to really boil it down, my thesis would be two-pronged:

(1) Capitalism (the pretense of endless technological progress) is inextricable from progressivism (the pretense of endless moral progress); and

(2) the cultural assault on whiteness is inextricable from the destruction of the middle class.

Of course, there are many qualifications we could make here about capitalism, but I use the word for lack of one that better captures the ideology and methods of the present planetary managerial class (Davos, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Madison Avenue, Fortune 100, MSM, EU, NATO, IMF, etc.) In any case, the cultural assault on whiteness is part of a larger assault on teleology, on organic loyalties (ethnic, confessional, communal, familial, conjugal) that make people difficult to manage. In the near-term, there may appear to be winners and losers, e.g., Islam as opposed to Christianity, Zionism as opposed to Islam, the rising tide of color as opposed to white supremacy, etc. But in the long term, all these groups’ adherents lose the ability to maintain independent communities. Consciousness itself is collectivized and fed into a cybernetic panopticon. As a web-based subculture, the alt-right actually perpetuates this a great deal, and so can never serve to restore the medieval values it fetishizes, any more than Western backpackers in Kathmandu or pilgrims in Jerusalem’s Old City can really experience something deeper than is possible anywhere else in the modern world.

In these circumstances, white nationalism is a low grade, one-dimensional reaction, but not an entirely illogical or emotionally illegitimate one, and I concur with a great deal of the WN critique. So while I personally am not a white nationalist, I wouldn’t disavow the label. Yes, me, a not self-hating half-Hebrew. If a left-leaning colleague or fellow dinner guest were to accuse me of being a white nationalist, not only would I not genuflect, I would defend white nationalism. (The same goes for a lot of ideologies I disagree with. If voting Republican makes me a Nazi according to some deluded person, then if I choose to answer him, I’ll be answering as a Nazi in any case. If you wouldn’t split a hair, why split a tree trunk?)

The most common argument from those on the far right who want to disassociate themselves from white nationalism is to deride it as inauthentic (i.e., merely an internet phenomenon), its followers as largely mouth-breathing, autistic, and pathetic; and to argue that race is an inadequate criteria to judge people by, because it’s too inclusive, rather than local and pragmatic. Jack Donovan’s variation on this argument, in a 2017 essay entitled “Why I am not a White Nationalist,” is one of the most widely read that I’ve seen:

I’ve learned to hate white people and White Nationalists more than any of their opponents. Not because they are evil monsters, but because they generally suck. I hate white people and White Nationalists because they are weak, broken, phenomenally autistic, or all three.

I agree 100%. But no nationalist loves all his people, and there are ardent believers in every cause who personally can’t stand the bulk of their fellow travelers. Freud called this “the narcissism of the small difference.” Its rich history can be seen in intra-party purity squabbles and religious schisms of every kind. So why would someone who might otherwise be associated with white nationalism want to distance himself from it?

Having used Richard Spencer’s conferences to promote himself, Jack Donovan now has a pinky toe in the mainstream (and, unlike most ruthlessly self-promoting internet personalities, has earned his stripes to talk shit about whomever he pleases.) So there’s nothing mysterious about his disavowal, whatever the rationale may be. But what about those who have less visibility, and less concern for the opinions of the multitude, with all its potential customers? Why would some anonymous and otherwise right-leaning person draw the proverbial line at the alt-right? Clearly, all this demonstrates is the desire to remain neutral on a moving train. Whiteness as an end in itself is plainly retarded, but right-wingers of nearly any stripe who have misgivings about white identity politics are nevertheless going to have to stop beating around the bush and acknowledge, sooner or later, that whiteness is an unavoidable distinguishing factor in their views and interests, and that non-whites who side with them are, to some degree, siding with whiteness. If saying so gets me labelled a white nationalist, then turning around like Donovan does and projecting that label on ol’ Neckbeard McJergens or some similar straw man out of central casting, is bad faith, not to mention collusion with those doing the labelling.

Mencius Moldbug’s 2007 essay on the subject (like Donovan’s, entitled “Why I am not a White Nationalist”) argues from the class-not-race angle (as if class and race are mutually exclusive considerations), and that white nationalism is inherently ineffective, due to its taboo radioactivity in the mainstream. All true—again, whiteness as an end in itself is clearly retarded. But at the risk of forfeiting all nuance and aloofness, this line of argument avoids the issue. So if whiteness and white people per se don’t mean anything to you, just wait and see how you like it when there is no more whiteness to mean anything.


An Introduction to Hermeticism

Screen Shot 2018-06-17 at 3.51.00 PM


Okay: I’m going to reveal something crazy deep that sounds counter-intuitive. Stay with me. Are you ready? Here goes:

Hermeticism is bullshit; elaborate riddles and intimations of great profundity masking empty smugness and rapacity. It’s a cool-kids’ circle jerk, and the cool-kids are all Dorian Gray with one fuckin’ mirror in front and another behind:

“There is a substance that comes from your…..” wherever, the obvious implication (because Christianity “has been altered”) being that, once revealed, the esoteric is the only real insight in scripture. Of course, a narcissistic minion like Jim Carey is not the finest exponent of this thinking, but he’s the perfect product of it.

Keep in mind that I’m not denying that the Bible is full of pre-Abrahamic wisdom and imagery. I’m not saying you’re going to burn in hell if you don’t hew only to the exoteric and take it all literally. But the esoteric, astrologic and pre-Abrahamic stuff is embedded in scripture because it’s being made subordinate to the moral order of the Supreme Being. It’s not saying “do what thou wilt” between the lines.

This solipsistic pop-exegesis and schlock number magick is utterly literalistic and narrow, amounting to what is referred to in Judaism as making use of the Crown (as in Pirke Avot, “He who makes use of the Crown shall perish.”) Whatever control-freak nonsense made its way into the Talmud, Hadith, the Pauline epistles, etc., whatever may or may not be encoded in scripture from the Egyptians or the Babylonians or the Pythagorean Hermaphrodites, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the simplicity of faith. If Christianity’s Jewish roots are any indication, the only real way to the Son is through the Father. The Kingdom of Heaven, the Tao, the Brahman, the Son, morphic resonance (whatever you want to call it) is a gift contingent upon good will and moral restraint. Just because you’re a special snowflake doesn’t mean there can be more than one non-contingent entity. “As above, so below” becomes the credo of Babel when metaphysics becomes atheistic. This is why monotheism opposes “star worship” and magic. It isn’t a divorce of metaphysics from nature, it’s the only way nature can be understood metaphysically.

By the way, Christianity and Islam are at bottom no more universal than ancient Judaism was. They highlight boundaries in the world. All three place the believer at odds with corporeality, fundamental error, and self deception. Whereas all you need to know about the Occult is its emphasis on secrecy, and personal attainment.

May I humbly suggest the following sources instead?:

“There is no enchantment against Jacob; no divination against Israel.” (Numbers 23:23)

“Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.” (Proverbs 3:7)

“Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.” (Mark 10:15)

“Do not be sure of yourself until the day of your death.” ―Pirke Avot

“Understand that for every rule which I have mentioned from the Quran, the Devil has one to match it, which he puts beside the proper rule to cause error.” ―Al-Ghazali

A fig leaf for sanity

Screen Shot 2018-06-04 at 4.07.41 PM

This dude has a problem with homos?

I just read the SCOTUS decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and I have to say, Justice Ginsburg’s dissent—though disingenuous on numerous points—is more logically consistent than the majority opinion. The fact is, gay marriage cannot, and was never meant to coexist with the free exercise of religion. “Well if your stupid Flying Spaghetti Monster wasn’t such a goddamned bigot….” I rest my case. (See also: “Real Jesus loves everybody just the way they are.”)

But Masterpiece is not actually a victory for religion, or the free exercise thereof. All this case does is differentiate conscientious objection from actual freedom. It’s a protracted religious test at the behest of scorned, chubby poofters, with the result that only the inscrutable fig-leaf of religion at its most passive and irrational now merits a carve-out, so long as you can satisfy a roulette wheel of vindictive bureaucrats that it’s all just in your head; whereas a straightforward moral rationale against the enfranchisement of sexual deviance would never, on its face, have stood a chance here. With Obergefell, such uncomfortable questions about public morality were effectively rendered hypothetical, merely philosophical, historical curiosities. With Masterpiece, they’re now conveniently quarantined (unlike AIDS.)

Of course, like killing a fetus, the scope of the Court’s purview is procedural, not moral. So: does a retailer have a right to inquire what I intend to use his product for, as a prerequisite of doing business? If so (a big “if”), does he have a right to refuse if he dislikes my answer? That depends. In Masterpiece, Phillips (the baker) was presumably being asked to include some message (“Congratulations Adam and Steve,” a couple of little plastic grooms, etc.) That would be compelled speech, a matter the Court already settled in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston. But that’s not the issue this decision focuses on. Rather, Masterpiece is about whether Phillip’s religious beliefs were duly taken into account by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (boy, that sure sounds like an impartial body, doesn’t it?)

Indeed, the inverse case cited by Philips’ attorneys—of one William Jack, a hellfire-and-brimstone Okie from Muskogee who submitted complaints to the Commission against three separate bakers for their respective refusals to decorate cakes for him with biblical verses condemning homolingus—is a bad analogy to Masterpiece, because in the latter case, the Commission was considering (or refusing to consider) a religious exemption; whereas, in the former three cases, it was compelled speech that was the issue.

But according to the majority, there was another problem with the way speech was treated by the Commission:

The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism.

This is highly telling, and Ginsburg doesn’t really have a rebuttal, so she ultimately addresses another difference between the two cases, one that’s more pliant to her purposes:

The different outcomes the Court features do not evidence hostility to religion of the kind we have previously held to signal a free-exercise violation, nor do the comments by one or two members of one of the four decisionmaking entities considering this case justify reversing the judgment below.

The first half of that sentence seems to me factually sound. But there are two problems here. First, Ginsburg comes very close to saying that the Commission’s rationale is irrelevant. Secondly—of course the different outcomes do not evidence hostility to religion per se. Rather, the peculiar way Phillips’ case was adjudicated evidences hostility to his religion in particular. Obviously, the “love-wins” Unitarian community did not file an amicus brief in support of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Neither is Phillips alleging that the Commission’s ruling implied disapproval of Reform Jews, androgynous Episcopalians, or anglo-Buddhist hot-tubbers. In fact, the notion that a ruling against Phillips would compromise such peoples’ rights, even just in principle, involves quite a stretch of the imagination. So the Court’s decision necessarily grants “religion” a wide berth because otherwise, we persons of Sodom might have to acknowledge what religion actually is, and this here ain’t America if you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

In any case, the comments Ginsburg is referring to are treated more seriously by the majority:

As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.

A lot hinges there on the word thus, and Ginsburg’s dissent sidesteps and downplays most of it. But she’s right that a carve-out is being created here for discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, and to that extent her dissent has greater rhetorical force and logical consistency than the majority opinion.

Ultimately, however, the Masterpiece decision does not merely create a carve-out for religious discrimination against gays. Rather, it creates a carve-out for religious discrimination against gays that affirms the otherwise wholesale banishment of religion from public life; an exception that proves the rule.

Ginsburg again:

Colorado, the Court does not gainsay, prohibits precisely the discrimination Craig and Mullins encountered. Jack, on the other hand, suffered no service refusal on the basis of his religion or any other protected characteristic.

Again, William Jack wanted a cake with anti-homosexual Bible verses on it; three bakers refused, and were vetted by the Commission. They should no more be compelled to make him a cake than Phillips should be compelled to provide one for Craig and Mullins’ wedding. But if objection to decorating a cake with biblical verses on it—on the basis of what those verses say—isn’t “refusal on the basis of religion,” I don’t know what is. And that’s not a carve-out that will ever require defending before the Supreme Court. On the other hand, the carve-out that Masterpiece provides for is tenuous, and remains open to challenge: Jack Philips is being allowed to discriminate not on account of his sincerely held beliefs, but because those beliefs were belittled and not taken seriously prior to being rejected by the Commission.

Reductio ad Iudaeoram, Pt. V

Screen Shot 2018-03-10 at 1.01.20 AM

The world’s foremost problem

(Part I here, Part II here, Part III here, Part IV here)

“The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes.” —Antony Sutton

In The Forest Passage (1951), Ernst Jünger (1895-1998) references Oedipus and the Sphinx to illustrate that the psychic scar tissue obscuring our inmost vitality represents a fear to be overcome, just as the forest is at once a refuge, and a place of deep foreboding.

Jünger was a radical individualist, a believer in the ultimate prerogative of the rarified spirit—in some sense intensely Christian, yet also a Nietzschean relativist of sorts—and it occurred to me when reading him that Heidegger, in contrast, by asking “Why are there beings at all instead of nothing?” took man’s confrontation with the void in the exact opposite direction, i.e., outward. This suicidally literal-minded question is analogous to Nazism’s misspent intensity and titanic hubris.

Perhaps not incidentally, while Jünger openly disdained the NSDAP, resigning from his WWI veteran’s association when its Jewish members were expelled, Heidegger was an enthusiastic party member. As their contemporary Eric Blair put it, “some ideas are so stupid only intellectuals can believe them.”

Take, for example, the following pile of garble from Patreon panhandler Chateau Heartiste:

Ted Colt notices,

“One needn’t look further than a Wikipedia article describing NeoConservative history to comprehend the connection between neocons & free trade


If your Alt-Right brand isn’t ‘anti-semitic’ then you’re not alt-right”

I prefer the more accurate term of art “countersemitic”. (The ADL, unsurprisingly, does not.) We are countering the malicious agenda of a hostile minority intent on drowning us in foreign invaders, trite consumerism, backbreaking debt, endless interventionist wars, and basically anything that destroys the historical and cultural bonds of the majority’s community, neighborhood, town, and nation.

Wow. Ted Colt, huh? “Branding,” while bitching about consumerism. “No further than Wikipedia,” indeed. (Isn’t that a Jew-run outfit?) It tires me to argue with this middle-school caliber copy-pasta, to rattle off litanies of phenomena that are driving world events, other than a conspicuous handful of Jews being wealthy, disgusting, and politically active; or to point out that Zionists are about as sinister as every other foreign and domestic grifter-set milling around, raining bukake on the bloated, insensate pudding vagina we have for a system in this country, hoping the next queef out of Congress will blow their direction.

What has been analogized to humor can be analogized to so-called game: you can dissect a frog, but the thing dies in the process. And of course, if sincerity doesn’t work for you, the problem isn’t your tactics, it’s you. If you have to ask, you’ll never know, and Chateau caters to a readership that’s always asking. That’s the problem with alt-media, it’s like couple’s therapy, the point is to pay the therapist. So what do I care about some vindictive little self-help feed for beta-anons with anxious delusions of Clevon-like virility?

Well, anthropologically-speaking, what interests me here is that Chateau’s JQ-woke Aspergers is obviously cribbed without blinking from Kevin MacDonald, the evolutionary psychologist [in]famous for his thesis that Judaism is a “group evolutionary strategy” aimed at subverting Gentile host societies. Now, I’m no fancy-pants evolutionary psychologist, but if by “group evolutionary strategy” we mean anything that involves, you know, not being legally handicapped and regularly massacred for twenty centuries at a stretch everywhere from Malaga to Mosul (plus a millennium of cousin marriage, which is evidently bad for selection) then the suggestion that Judaism is a “group evolutionary strategy” is ridiculous on its face. I’m happy to hear out any conspiracy theory, but if your culprit is evolutionary psychology, then you’re getting a bit ahead of yourself.

But these are all just superficial arguments. Who really wants to argue that ethnic groups don’t have fixed qualities and specific interests? Of course Judaism is a group evolutionary strategy. Obviously, such strategies don’t always conduce to excellence: witness the lionization, among American blacks, of the most slack-jawed, pea-brained behavior that characterizes their kind, and the ostracization of group members who “act white” by reading books, not going to jail, not expressing ostentatious hostility toward out-groups, etc.

So my real beef with MacDonald’s theory is two pronged:

(1) There’s a difference between (a) recognizing the reality of ethnic differences and interests and (b) hating a given ethnic group for its intrinsic qualities and blaming that group for everything; and

(2) There’s a difference between recognizing (a) that ethnic group differences and interests condition individual behaviors, and (b) imputing an ethnic explanation to every objectionable behavior we see from a member of a given group.

As an example of number (1), MacDonald blames the Hart-Cellars Immigration Act of 1965 on Jewish activism. Certainly it was a significant factor, but there was also significant support for the bill among organized Catholicism and mainline Protestantism, and MacDonald discounts this.

As an example of (2), supposing Rothschild is a bad, bad man, and a Jew. If the vast majority of Jews are not as bad nor bad in the same way, might we not ask ourselves whether Rothschild’s badness, as a man, has as much or more to do with idiosyncratic qualities unrelated to his Jewishness?

So it’s not that you can’t fill in a few blanks with MacDonald’s theory, it’s just that, in the big picture, it doesn’t explain nearly so much of what it purports to, e.g., “foreign invaders, trite consumerism, backbreaking debt, endless interventionist wars, and basically anything that destroys the historical and cultural bonds of the majority’s community, neighborhood, town, and nation.” Who else but Jews could’ve been the ruin of a nation founded by lawyers, speculators, mercantilists and Dr. Johnson’s “drivers of negroes”? Do you really want to hang all your righteous fury at this world on the victimization-by-Jews theory, anyway? Have you seen Jews? Can you show me on the doll where they hurt you?

If nothing else, what you might take from MacDonald’s work is that inter-ethnic enmity is a two-way street—especially if you’ve been fire-hosed your entire life with the liberal narrative of perennial white guilt. But his thesis is the exact inverse of that, so the street is still one-way:

With his thousand-year-old mercantile dexterity he is far superior to the still helpless, and above all boundlessly honest, Aryans…. While he seems to overflow with ‘enlightenment,’ ‘progress,’ ‘freedom,’ ‘humanity,’ etc., he himself practices the severest segregation of his race…. His ultimate goal in this stage is the victory of ‘democracy’…. It is most compatible with his requirements; for it excludes the personality and puts in its place the majority characterized by stupidity, incompetence, and last but not least, cowardice….

….und so weiter. I guess a plurality’s better than a full majority. (As for boundless honesty, that point can probably best be disputed by the Plains Indians. Or Thucydides, or Chaucer, or Shakespeare, or Dale Carnegie. Was PT Barnum of Hebrew descent, or just the bearded lady?)

The full-retard anti-semite will usually balk at being associated with Hitler, calling it a libel although he agrees with der führer entirely. But I didn’t just quote Mein Kampf in order to associate Kevin MacDonald with the Austrian corporal—there’d be no need for that. Rather, I’m quoting Hitler in order to provide the smidgeon of contrast necessary for pointing out how incredibly innovative and thoughtful a theory like MacDonald’s would be, in spite of every flaw—if it was original. But it isn’t. On the contrary, it’s the most recycled theory of history in all of history. If you stumbled upon it as if upon a revelation, and felt your scattered erudition suddenly bundle itself tightly into a faggot (or fasces, if you prefer) of clarity and purpose, then you may as well be holding a bouquet of balloons there, luftmensch. 

Perhaps for this reason, the utility of this shibboleth is not lost on up-and-coming merch-pimps, aspiring alt-media gadflies and PayPal/Patreon panhandlers. Getting slapped on an ADL hate list is now marketable martyrdom, such that cookie-cutter manifestos and Hitlerian little memoirs of awakening are regularly produced by non-entities as varied as (for example) Roosh V and Squatting Slav. The former, a self-styled manosphere pick-up artist, writes prolifically at a seventh-grade reading level about his sexual encounters on the road in developing countries. Undoubtedly by mawwing the requisite JQ-dribblings, he was able to secure a time slot to hustle his fetid, unedited self-publishings one year at Richard Spencer’s NPI conference (a controlled-opp termite’s nest if ever there was one), despite being a patently non-white immigrant with a beady-eyed sociopath’s countenance. Squatting Slav, meanwhile, hawks hoodies on a satirical pan-Slavic FB meme-page that can claim the minor feat of having gained a few hundred-thousand former-Yugoslav followers, not only despite their own intractable enmities but in spite of the admin’s unabashed Serb-posting. Apparently unaware (or unashamed) of the arming of the Serbs by Israel during the 1990s, and of the singularly barbaric WWII massacres perpetrated against his people by and with the support of the Nazis, even Mr. Squat could not get past the apparent need to clear the air by regurgitating the MacDonald-redux of their theories into a handful of v-log tutorials. Because you can’t fully appreciate repetitive jokes about rakia and pickled tomatoes without being JQ-woke, I guess.

Then there’s wall-eyed Lana Lokteff of Red Ice Radio (rockin’ that Caucasoid mean IQ), whose antipathy to all things yiddish is such that she is able to read rootless cosmopolism into the Hasmonean revolt against the Seleucids, recounting it as an instance of Jewish meddling in the sovereign prerogatives of Gentiles (ROFL.) With “logic” like this being pervasive on the alt-right, one is entitled to ask whether JQ-spergers is the punchbowl, or the turd—which brings us back to Chateau Heartiste, in an essay defending kid-fucking:

Say what you will about Roy Moore, at least his girls agreed to date him (even if they retconned a discomfort 40 years later). The Synagogue of Seediness doesn’t bother with the formality of mutual agreement, they just passive-aggressively jam tongues down throats “to rehearse our lines”.

Of course, Chateau absolutely condones those tactics (that’s half of what his blog is about— assuming the sale) unless the perp is tribal—the latter reference being to Al Franken, who at least targeted grown women. But if this twerp really believes his forever hypothetical 14-year old daughter would be qualified to give Roy Moore consent, you’ve at least got to commend his intra-Gentile solidarity.

But this is all just grist for the infotainment landfill. What do a bazillion YouTube views and Twitter followers really add up to? Just look at the Charlottesville dumpster fire of mouth-breathing self-abusers and agents provocateurs, with Richard Spencer condemning violence in a therapeutic lilt as cops and revelers died of tidbit-nipply passive aggression gotten out of hand, and his associates went to jail. Even if he’s a fed (or a lizard person or an ancient alien) so what? You may not consider him your personal führer (who really consciously has leaders nowadays, anyway? The whole reason we have the internet is for distancing and plausible deniability) but the fact is, Spencer’s as alt-right/WN as it gets—and the sum total of his activity is to expose himself and a half-dozen sycophants to jeering and tomato throwing at huge cost to municipal resources. He’s nothing more than Milo with street-cred. Pure clownworld—the apotheosis of Nietzsche’s “worm-eaten men.”

As Jünger puts it in The Forest Passage:

An assault on the inviolability, on the sacredness of the home, would have been impossible in old Iceland in the way it was carried out in 1933, among a million inhabitants of Berlin, as a purely administrative measure. A laudable exception deserves mention here, that of a young social democrat who shot down half a dozen so-called auxiliary policemen at the entrance of his apartment. He still partook of the substance of the old Germanic freedom, which his enemies only celebrated in theory…. Naturally, he did not get this from his party’s manifesto….

But he sure as shit didn’t get it from Mein Kampf, and you’re not gonna get it from Kevin MacDonald or Chateau Heartiste, either, because it comes from within. How many people on the alt-right are the “so-called auxiliary policemen, celebrating in theory” and how many are the young social democrat? To ask the question is to answer it.