Satanic Butt Hurt

Screen Shot 2019-06-13 at 10.50.25 AM

I’ve got some redpills down here

Let’s play a little game. I’ll name a famous person, and you react by saying “Good!” or “Bad!” Of course, I’m aware there are many shades of grey, but whichever answer (“good” or “bad”) is closer to your gut impression of each person I name is what I want you to say.

(1) Chuck Yeager. Good? Good.

(2) Arnold Schwarzenegger. Good? Good.

(3) Mark Zuckerberg. Bad? Of course. He may in fact be a wonderful person, superlatively ethical and compassionate, but there’s no way of knowing that, and when looking at or listening to him it’s simply impossible to escape the impression of creepiness and malevolence.

(4) Jack Dorsey.

Many people will have to do a double take here. Dorsey is the founder and CEO of Twitter. So if you’re anywhere to the right of Bernie Sanders, politically, you probably think that Dorsey is an evil mastermind of big tech censorship. And if you’re a Bernie person, or further left, you probably think of Dorsey as emblematic of late capitalist bean counting frivolity and callousness.

Each of those descriptions fits. But neither one matters. No doubt, Jack Dorsey has incredible luck, and white privilege, and is possibly a lizard person. But the point is that he’s on a level beyond society’s moral standards—left, right, or other.

Not long ago, I wrote a rant on this blog, criticizing the TV series The Office. I called it an example of ruling class social engineering that promotes conformity and lowered expectations. And that’s all true…. But so what? Most people are conformists, with low expectations that should be kept low.

Take another example: Joe Rogan. People on the alt-right love to bag on Rogan. He’s a sycophant, a Zionist shill, an arbiter of middling tastes and corporate-American parlor talk who takes faux-edgy positions on aliens and weed without ever confronting the powers that be, who use him to keep mass discourse within acceptable parameters.

Again, this may all be true, and yet it’s completely irrelevant. Joe Rogan went from a successful cage fighting career, to a successful stand-up comedy career, to hosting major network TV shows, to being called the Walter Cronkite of the 21st century. He interviews fascinating people. He drives a Lamborghini. He spars with MMA greats, and talks shit to their faces. He works out with former Navy SEALs, and keeps up. If that guy’s a shill, what the fuck am I?

I’m not saying you shouldn’t be aware of the powers that be, or of the messaging that Joe Rogan is being used for. You should be. But don’t try to tell me that all those elites are is malevolent oppressors and beneficiaries of unearned advantage. Because what they primarily are is nodes in a network of people and cities and infrastructure, and dog poop on a sidewalk and a billion chinamen and a butterfly flapping its wings in Japan. And if you say you wouldn’t relish getting to the point on the map where they are, you’re a goddamned liar.

So drop the fucking victimology about how you, personally are being manipulated and stymied and held back. You’re not. This is America in the 21st century. Even Mel Gibson is still working. Conscription was abolished fifty years ago. If you want to know something, you can find it out. If you have a great idea for a business, there’s someone who will loan you a billion dollars for it, and his contact info is right there on LinkedIn. If you want to study some obscure and useless topic, you can get grant money to do that. If you want to go back to school and learn a marketable skill that will allow you to earn a six-figure salary, you can. If you want to be a hero, you can spend six months working out like an inmate on a prison yard and then go become a Marine or a firefighter, and if you’re too old for that there’s always cage fighting or mountain climbing or serial killing.

Look, I’m not denying white genocide or white privilege or late capitalism, that Jews control the media or that 9/11 was an inside job. I agree with all that shit. But how is any of it narrowing your options? You, personally, right now? Because if the entire locus of your worldview is on the Aryan race and how it’s being persecuted by Jews, or on the wretched of the earth and how they’re being held down by the white man, or on late capitalism and how morally removed you’d like to be from all its hypocrisy, then you’re just looking for someone to pass your freedom off onto so you can go on marinating in habitual excuses for mediocrity. You’re peremptorily giving away whatever it is you feel that “they” are taking from you.

Here’s a perfect example:

Screen Shot 2019-06-13 at 9.40.54 AM

Voluntary victims voluntarily victim shaming other voluntary victims. So fucking what if the lady who tweeted this nonsense is “a well-respected academic” and a WaPo contributor? How is she hurting anybody? She isn’t. She’s tweeting nonsense, and the edgelord who posted it to FB is choosing to feel hurt by it. “Keep in mind, this isn’t just some random idiot online.” Are you sure?

I got in an argument with a left-wing friend the other day about Ernest Hemingway. My friend said that Stephen King is a better person, because King is a liberal and Hemingway was a misogynist who severely beat one of his wives. I argued that even if Hemingway did terrible things, his writing is not incidental to his personal morality, and that an admitted hack like King who has none of Hemingway’s sense of striving, is probably a worse person, as evidenced by his creepy choice of subject matter and his compulsion to moralize from behind a Twitter account. If he never beat a woman, it’s because he rightfully never got the chance.

Well, my friend was not pleased with my apparent moral relativism, and I was not pleased with his moralizing. And we went back and forth. The point is, he was choosing, for no real reason whatsoever, to feel vicariously effected by Ernest Hemingway and all such dead white drunks, and I was choosing to feel vicariously effected by Stephen King and all such sexually maladjusted left-wing morality trolls. This butt hurt is 98% of the internet. What the fuck? Who needs it? In fifty years, we could be welcoming back Jesus Christ, or sacrificing bound and buttfucked toddlers to Moloch. We could be living in a technotronic dystopia, or a Jeffersonian yeoman’s republic. We could be at war with China, or colonizing a blue planet through a wormhole in the space-time continuum. All I know is that Joe Rogan is not going to decide. Not even Jack Dorsey is going to decide. And in the meantime, no one is stopping you from organizing the neo-Nazi biker gang of your dreams, or a pansexual polyamorous kibbutz, or from becoming Mr. Olympia or going on “Shark Tank” or “Wheel of Fortune.” No one. Fucking no one.

Except you.


Escape From Freedom


No daddy, please don’t demonetize me

There’s a certain type of woman who loves to seethe while she’s being walked all over, and I’m telling you that today, that woman is the alt-right. If you need proof that neofascists are as walnut-brained and inclined to half-faggotry as their ideological forbears, look no further than the alt-right argument that big tech censorship is an affront to freedom of speech “because big tech is the new public square.”

In the old public square, circa (IDK) 1945-2010, could Oswald Mosley or George Lincoln Rockwell reach tens of millions of people? In what other known universe can a 35-year old NEET with half a bachelor’s degree get thousands of strangers to listen to him rant about Jews? 24 million Americans follow the alt-right on big tech platforms. The equivalent of this thirty years ago would have been Tom Brokaw giving David Lane airtime on NBC Nightly News.

If the alt-right really wanted unfettered freedom of expression, those 24 million people would be exclusively using Gab, Minds, Bitchute and Telegram. But then who would they troll? Where would they drum up the flamewars that give them all their fodder for bloviating? Even if they had the capital to build their own social media infrastructure, it would be a sad, depressive echo chamber. No one but the alt-right would be interested, and the big tech platforms would still be the go-to mainstream for 90% of America.

No, the alt-right hangs around on YT and Twitter because it massively amplifies their message, and the possibility of periodic censorship provides a repetitive dopamine hit by validating a false sense of self-importance and danger. OMG, look at me, I’m a thought criminal in an Orwellian dystopia! No, you’re not. You’re a 100% passive, voluntarily babysat tech consumer in a ginormous open-air Montessori school, as excited for next products as any fourth-be-with-you bugman except that, unlike him, you’re the product and Thanos is the Jews. The whole charade is no less hypocritical than any MacBook Pro marxist sipping $4 cold brew in a bohème coffeeshop that won’t let homeless people use the toilet. Each type is just mendaciously looking for others to blame for his own total and volitional abdication of eminently available personal freedom.

Don’t get me wrong—the power of big tech is indeed massively inordinate and distinctly insidious. But your concomitant freedom is precisely what makes it so insidious. Not your theoretical freedom, not freedom as a moral standard, but the actual, anxiety-inducing freedom that goes from abstract to tangible the minute you’re reminded it exists and that you aren’t using it. Every minute of every day, billions of people literally choose to be surveilled, to be made rats in an information labyrinth far, far beyond what mere passivity would subject them to from surveillance cameras and using their credit cards.

Screen Shot 2019-06-07 at 10.41.29 AM.png

Not only is the alt-right wholly incapable, even just theoretically, of presenting a viable alternative to this, it actually facilitates it in ways that are fundamental to its (the alt-right’s) existence. There are two reasons for this. First, because the alt-right is just warmed-over fascism. That it has become a source of serviceable social satire is a piss-poor commentary on the overall health of public discourse and mass culture in the 21st century, but as a mindset, the alt-right is essentially no less totalitarian than Mark Zuckerberg and the lizard people. Its only distinguishing feature (that it should be called “the alt-right”, and not just fascism) is cultural and generational, i.e., the way it leverages the internet.

Second, while FB, YT and Twitter may be “the new public square,” while they may have been clandestinely seeded by DARPA or the CIA, they’re also still corporations. So just like everybody else, alt-right users are initiating (or continuing) a business relationship with every keystroke, every like, every retweet, every time they log in to these websites. And every alt-right thought-leader with paycuck minions is eating, like a dog, directly from the hand of Silicon Valley. Are the powers-that-be leaving us no choice (except to put down the smartphone and get a life)? Arguably, yes. Like DARPA and the lizard people, that argument presupposes that people have no free will, but nevermind that for the moment. What’s the solution?

Only one is ever proposed: “treat big tech like public utilities.” Which means taking the power of these companies that are already coextensive with government, and tangling it up even further in…. the government. Well I’m sorry, but if you think your private sector lawyers stand a better chance against USG than Google, just wait ’til Google is USG. At least today these theoretically private entities can to some extent be swayed by public pressure. That trick hasn’t worked on the government since Vietnam. And if you think your freedom of speech is in jeopardy from Silicon Valley today, just wait until Silicon Valley’s Congress is making the call as to what constitutes incitement, defamation, harassment, extortion, assault, etc. etc. ad infinitum in this cybernetic panopticon you’ve now inextricably wired yourself into. What the alt-right and their “limited government” fellow-travellers are proposing with this public utilities nonsense is to get the government far enough up your ass to do dental work; to have every flamewar be litigated. Do you really think government regulation of public utilities is less onerous than Jack Dorsey’s arbitrary terms of service? The fuck outta here.

That clerical fascists and Ragnar Redbeard messageboard Nazis are rank hypocrites for crying totalitarianism and invoking their free speech rights all the goddamn time is no reason to censor them. But it’s more than sufficient reason to never trust them or take them seriously under any circumstances.


E. Michael Jones, Dismantled

Screen Shot 2019-05-19 at 6.15.00 PM.png

smell the vapors

Who drowned the ceremony of innocence? Today that question weighs heavy on the mind, but it’s older even than hoary William Butler. For example, the followers of Christianity, a religion focused heavily on the expiation of sin, have often found the expiation of their own sins to be dull work, while scourging others can be far more exciting.

On a related note, it is increasingly probable that a major anti-Jewish outburst will occur within the present century. If that happens, the intelligent 5% among the JQ-woke will perhaps get a better idea of exactly what demonic spirits and concave-headed tendencies they’ve gotten into bed with.

One of the louder anti-Jewish voices in the burgeoning alt-media wilderness is Catholic apologist E. Michael Jones, author and peddler of a windy tome entitled The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. Although it’s no less critical of Judaism, readers will find my thesis on the JQ a tad deeper and more novel than Jones’s—rooted, as it is, in reason and experience, rather than warmed-over Papist dogma.

Not that I consider all Papist dogmas unacceptable. 50 million Elvis fans can’t be wrong, after all; every idea has its moment, and some have recurring lives. Indeed, for those who’ve had their brush with Catholicism, Jones’s major ideas are familiar: (1) that there is a moral order to the universe that the human mind is a reflection of (which the Gospel of St. John calls logos), and (2) that when we acquiesce to our base passions we estrange ourselves from that moral order—in particular, Jones says that “sexual liberation is a form of political control,” and that the spread of moral corruption (smut, debt, drugs) is fundamental to the power of America’s ruling class, which is disproportionally Jewish.

Aside from pointing out that in any advanced civilization, the maintenance of elite political power will inevitably involve the spread of moral corruption, I find little to argue with any of this, and Jones is both a talented historian and an engaging speaker. Where he (and the Church) is on shakier ground, however, is when he argues that (1) the Jews are the par excellence rejectors of logos, that (2) rejection of logos is the essence of Judaism, and (3) that the Jews’ rejection of logos, i.e., of God in the form of His son, Jesus Christ, lies at the root of all subsequent moral subversion in western civilization, as well as all Jewish misfortune throughout history.

While there can be a great deal of truth in ethnic stereotypes, and many of Jones’s criticisms of certain acts Jews have committed is trenchant indeed, the basic psychological mechanism here is exculpatory. In other words, Jones views Judaism as being especially implicated in evil, such that the culpability of the remainder of mankind in the world’s tribulations is necessarily diminished. This is why Nietzsche classed anti-semitism as a form of slave morality. The essence of master morality is, “We are good, you are other, therefore you are bad.” The essence of slave morality, on the other hand, is, “You are bad, therefore we, the other, are good.” Jones’s Catholicism has a negative center, one that’s full of whitefish and clarinet music.

Because many of my readers will probably be familiar with Jones from his prolific podcast appearances on YouTube, I’m going to just dive right into my arguments against his theses on the Jewish Question:

  1. Jones calls the medieval Church doctrine of Sicut Judaeis, under which the Jews were officially protected but denied basic freedoms, “a workable modus vivendi.” This is a bald-faced lie. That pogroms took place under Sicut Judaeis, which was selectively reaffirmed and selectively enforced, is an elementary fact that Jones is surely aware of. In fact, Church authorities were complicit in the state murder of Jews as recently as WWII. If this causes you no sadness, that’s your business. Personally, I think the whole subject of Jewish suffering is a bit tired, but lying about it just won’t do, and this is as true for the Catholic Church as it is for the State of Israel. In his bizarre advocacy for this archaic policy, Jones reveals himself as a man who wishes to deprive his fellow citizens of basic constitutional rights.
  2. Jones claims that he cannot be anti-semitic because anti-semitism is a form of racism, whereas he is only criticizing the Jewish religion in accordance with Church teaching, which incidentally condemns racism. This is purely pharisaical. It’s also what’s known as an etymological fallacy. Jones is correct that when Wilhelm Marr coined the term “anti-semitism” in the 19th century, what he meant by it was antipathy toward Jews as a race. Yet for most of its lifespan in the common parlance, anti-semitism has referred simply to hostility toward Jews qua Jews, on whatever grounds. Jones of course likes to accuse others, particularly Hebrews, of playing semantic games. He’s projecting.
  3. According to Jones, the Jews first became revolutionaries when we rejected Christ, and have been revolutionaries ever since. The first problem here is that the historicity of the Gospels is highly doubtful. The second problem is that many other peoples and faiths reject Christ, but Jones does not impute the same degree of revolutionary spirit to them, and thus cannot explain by what peculiarity the Jewish spirit is so especially revolutionary without resort to selective attention fallacies. Third, Jones suggests that by maintaining Jewish faith or ethnic affinity, all Jews are participating in this pernicious revolutionary spirit he imputes to us. Thus, every Jew is guilty, regardless of his behavior, and in spite of his personal beliefs. If that’s not a rejection of reason, I don’t know what is.
  4. When he isn’t engaging in selective attention fallacies, Jones blames his Jewish revolutionary spirit for things that Jews had nothing to do with, such as the Reformation and the English Civil War. Here, again, Jones resorts to semantic tricks, referring to “Judaizing tendencies” when he cannot blame Jews directly. Protestantism may indeed have “Judaizing” aspects, but explaining why the Jews or Judaism should be blamed for things Luther and Cromwell did in the utter absence of Jewish influence more recent than the Old Testament is beyond Jones’s considerable sophistical prowess. What claims like these demonstrate is that Jones, and the traditional Catholicism he speaks for, considers evil to be fundamentally Jewish. This is precisely the scapegoating impulse at the heart of anti-semitism. So before complaining that he cannot make a valid criticism without being called an anti-semite, Jones might consider narrowing his criticism down a bit from blaming evil itself on Judaism. Just a friendly suggestion.
  5. Jones faults various Jewish Christians (e.g., Jews for Jesus, certain Jewish converts to Catholicism) for retaining some attachment to their ethnic kin and culture. In this way he is liable to confirm many Jews in their suspicion that Christian proselytization aims to eliminate Jews entirely as a distinct people. Although I see no reason why we ought to justify our national existence to anyone, I also see no reason why a Hebrew ethnos might not persist even if all the Jews were to become true believers in Christ. Either way, if a Jewish ethnos is somehow less acceptable to Catholicism than the idea of a Polish or Italian nation, then we’re dealing with a double standard. Yes, I’m aware of Galatians 3:28, but the onus in that argument is on the Church to explain why this nevertheless permits there to remain a Greek nation. (By the way, using Galatians to obviate Jewish national identity is not dissimilar to the way it has been pressed into service by certain advocates of transgenderism and mass migration.)
  6. Jones faults Israel for persecuting Palestinians. There is truth in this, of course, but coming from a Catholic apologist, it is particularly rich, as the Church has obviously condoned the persecution and subjugation by violence of many sects and peoples over the centuries. Lest I be accused here of tu quoque whataboutism, keep in mind what Jones is saying: that the Jews are uniquely evil. I am not saying this about Catholics like Jones, although he may be uniquely deluded. To give just one example, I heard him say on a podcast that the Spanish Inquisition did not target Jews, only Christians, i.e., insincere conversos. Again, utter pharisaism. The conversos were christianized by force. Yes, they had the option of leaving Spain, or being murdered for their faith. However, no one who has yet to make such sacrifices for his own faith has the right to recommend them to others. More to the point, why does Jones reckon that wracking anyone for inadequate belief in Catholicism is compatible with human dignity? Why is murder excusable when it’s committed by Torquemada, but not Ariel Sharon? Jones doesn’t explain.
  7. Jones is wrong that 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15 designates Jews as “the enemies of the whole human race.” The full text reads, “For you my brothers have modeled yourselves on the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea, in that you have suffered the same treatment from your own countrymen as they have had from the Jews, who put the Lord Jesus to death, and the prophets too, and persecuted us also. Their conduct does not please God, and makes them the enemies of the whole human race.” Here, two things become clear: (1) that the designation “enemies of the whole human race” is conditional upon conduct, not religious belief or ethnic affiliation, and (2) that the Christians of Thessaloniki, like their coreligionists in Judea, have suffered at the hands of their own countrymen. Does St. Paul here mean to tell us that the exact same misconduct displeases God more when it is committed by Jews than by Greeks? Gimme a break.
  8. Jones claims that were it not for big tech censorship and ADL/SPLC attacks on him, his recommendation of Sicut Judaeis might have been heard by the latest synagogue shooter, thus preventing the shooting. First of all, Jones has no way of knowing whether the Poway synagogue shooter knew or would have cared about Sicut Judaeis—such ideas have a way of sounding awfully perfunctory when your source for them tells you over and over that some hapless fellow citizen is an “enemy of all mankind.” (One can only imagine how Jones would feel if some equally shrill Jew was going around claiming to have received analogous insight from God about people like him.) Secondly, you don’t have to be a public relations executive to understand that Jones’s voice (and book sales) have obviously been amplified, not stifled, by self-appointed PC officialdom’s attacks on him. (As a free speech purist, I have no problem with this.) Third, Jones is deluding himself if he thinks that a Christian like the Poway synagogue shooter would have benefited from knowing specifically about Sicut Judaeis even if he had taken it into consideration, since there are so many other Christian doctrines the young man willfully ignored, from the Sixth Commandment (in Catholicism it’s the Fifth, since they permit idolatry) to Ephesians 6:12.

So there you have it. If God is Truth, then teachings that are patently false cannot be consistent with Him. One can only hope that Mr. Jones will one day realize the hubristic error of his squawking claims to speak on behalf of the Almighty.

’tis the season for sleep of reason


reaction in theory

Just when you thought we’d hit peak clownworld, another JQ-woke sperg emerges, half-educated and emotionally labile, from a humorless intellectual cul-de-sac of half-truths and logical fallacies, to confirm once again that the Jew indeed cries out as you strike him.

What else is there to say? If only for their comparative lack of prolixity, better reasoning might be expected from the wounded-mammoth sounds of an explosive Down Syndrome outburst in a Burger King playpen. In a manifesto of 4200 words, the shooter proclaims little more than that he is a white male Christian. Gunning down defenseless geriatrics was how he intended to honor his kind. When confronted by defensive fire, he fled abjectly. Rather than display the fortitude and common courtesy to commit sepuku, he instead called ZOG-LE for protection, and veritably leapt into their arms when they arrived.

What a perfect embodiment of the alt-right, of history repeating itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.

I attend synagogue services maybe twice a year. Though the chances aren’t high, it could be me getting shot in a similar incident. Yet I bear no ill will toward John Earnest. On the contrary, I pity him utterly. A nineteen-year old is mentally closer to a toddler than he is to a thirty-year old. Neither do I note my pity for this child out of sanctimony, but because there, but for the grace of God, go I. Perhaps I’ve never been at risk of shooting up a place of worship, but when I was younger and stupider, which wasn’t long ago, I had numerous close brushes with potentially grave consequences.

As a half-Hebrew, why do I bother with the alt-right? Part of it is a puerile aversion to hypocrisy, which is itself a form of hypocrisy that conduces toward attraction to radical ideas. But it’s also because there is clearly an agenda against white people, against the middle class, against family values and normative sexuality. As the father of towheaded pre-teen boys living in a blighted, majority-minority flyover city, this is all a little terrifying. And of course, in many ways the liberal class, organized Jewry, black people, baby-boomers, and the alphabet-soup homosexual commissariat merit every bit of the alt-right’s mocking critique.

Yet fascism is always a farce, not even slave morality but rather a kind of vengeful mediocrity. This becomes obvious from the most cursory of glances at its pathetic thought-leadership. Its central tenet, full-retard anti-semitism, is a fundamental category error. Take, for example, the EVERY.SINGLE.TIME meme—a classic selective attention fallacy. There is simply no proof, either logical or scientific, that the Jews are a necessary cause of societal decay. The argument can only be affirmed in a vacuum, and that vacuum is a mirror image of clownworld.

Ernst Jünger understood this when he wrote that

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. (The Forest Passage, 1951)

Screen Shot 2019-04-28 at 11.14.59 PM.png

playlist of an auxiliary policeman

il y a une lumière

Screen Shot 2019-04-19 at 10.57.39 PM.png

mirror mirror, on the wall

>”For some, Notre Dame serves as a symbol of an idealized France that never really existed.
>”For some, the human brain, which is really just taco meat, serves as a symbol of an idealized, interconnected web of neural pathways.”
>”For some, geometry serves as a discriminatorily encoded reification of hierarchies of institutional dominance in a romanticized grid of space-time.”
>”For some, Botticelli’s Venus serves to unrealistically conflate womanhood with light and beauty, thus obscuring and denigrating cankles, acne, period blood, cockroaches, dead puppies, and choleric diarrhea flecked with wiry asshairs.”
>”For some, a cocker spaniel is a child, and a kindergartener is a melanoma.”
>”For some, belly buttons are assholes, midgets are space dolphins, and you can get pregnant in the poopy hole.”

Egalitarianism is the hatred of ideals

I Know You are, but What am I?

Screen Shot 2019-04-05 at 6.48.55 AM

say goodnight to the bad guy

“I barely glimpsed the face of Mars [and] that privation grieved me, and was perhaps why I threw myself into the quest, through vagrant and terrible deserts, for the Secret City of the Immortals.”       —Borges, “The Immortal”

Long story short, there’s this Roman legionnaire who hasn’t seen any action, so he makes a perilous journey across oceans and continents until finally he comes upon a pristine marble city that’s eerily devoid of life. Once inside, it turns out to be a labyrinth. Eventually he encounters a troglodyte who leads him back out to the city’s edge.

The point is, the legionnaire represents the chickenhawk Hitler-worshippers of the various mid-20th century South American officers’ corps, whose countries sat out WWII. The imagery’s all Freudo-Jungian, as you might expect from a pinko Buenos Aires coffeeshop scribbler.  The senseless quest, the vacant city, the troglodyte who emerges from a labyrinth . . . . It’s all one great psychoanalytic rip on fascism.

Of course, Borges was right about fascism. But at least those trendy bullies in the Argentine officers’ corp had some sense that they themselves were missing something. After all, anyone can be right about anything when they’re just criticizing other people.

A case in point: Vox Day has a recent series of podcasts ripping chickenhawk Ben Shapiro for selling out the brave men and women of our military. He’s right, of course he’s right. Right right right. But I wonder, in a country where anyone can say anything, is it worse—personally worse, as a man—to advocate for war from the safety of a TV studio, or to rip the guy who does from the safety of wherever it is you record podcasts? Because to me it just looks like the same self-righteous carping. If Trump manages to install his guy in Venezuela, and next summer gas is a buck-fifty a gallon, is it worse to be the scurrilous little poindexter who says we did it for democracy, or the scurrilous little poindexter who obliviously fills his tank, farts pepperoni and goes home to record a podcast about the predations of the neoliberal empire, die lügenjuden, etc., and claims to be speaking for muh troops while he does it?

I don’t know. It’s none of my business.


Merchant Memes and Crocodile Dreams

Screen Shot 2019-04-03 at 2.18.24 PM.png

there can be no justice without vengeance

Everyone knows the old joke about two Jews sitting on a park bench in Berlin in the 1930s: one is reading Der Stürmer, the second asks ‘How can you read that garbage?’, and his companion replies that all around them, reality is getting more and more grim for the Jews, but when he reads Der Stürmer it cheers him up because it tells him that the Jews are actually in charge of everything.

This article from yesterday’s Intercept is a bit like that: the Saudis and the Israelis are at the height of their power, with a US president practically in their pocket, shoveling massive military aid their direction. Each country has contributed heavily to and benefited mightily from the destruction of half a dozen impoverished Arab countries over the past two decades. Jewish oligarchs are verifiably in charge many of the biggest, evilest financial and media institutions in America. Israel’s intelligence capabilities are unrivaled, organized Jewry wields significant influence in Washington, and Muslims have conducted thousands of deadly attacks on non-Muslim civilians around the world over the past twenty years.

Meanwhile, here sit this Jew and Muslim at their bully pulpit, pretending to be victims of the negligible and pathetic specter of white nationalism, which is responsible for an infinitesimal fraction of the destruction wrought in the world by Israel, by Arab kleptocrats, Jewish oligarchs and Muslim terrorists.

Funny joke, guys.

Confessions of a Jihad Advocate


man is clown to man

Lenin once said that capitalists would sell the rope that would be used to hang them. In this analogy, the capitalists are progressives seeking to usher in a utopian Gomorrah, and the rope is Islam. Yet this is where the conservatives and even most nativists fail to comprehend Islamic terrorism as a backlash against the nihilist decadence of the first world, which indiscriminately imposes itself on traditional civilizations by ruthless military and financial force. This whole vacuous left-right discourse about white supremacist violence and whether it is worse or less bad than Islamic violence entirely misses the point, which is that evil will always exist, and periodic horrific violence is the norm for our species. Personally, I prefer the neo-Nazis and the radical Muslims who understand this over the oligarchs, the politicians, and their expert mandarins who want to suck all the danger and enchantment out of the world and replace it with data.

Just the Tip

Screen Shot 2019-04-06 at 12.55.23 PM

college is the scam

Whenever the media shines a light on a relatively anomalous illegality, you can bet that it’s a normalizing tactic for some corollary, legalized corruption. So what’s surprising about the college admissions scandal is that these rich parents felt they needed to do anything illegal in the first place – which is an outrage in itself, when you consider what it implies about the power of colleges. Simply put, college is the absolute most cynical scam in a civilization that at this late date runs almost entirely on swindling. A whole generation is essentially priced out of home ownership, expected to subsidize entitlements out of stagnant wages, and living under a storm cloud of debt that college full-profs and admins and their private sector accomplices are literally feasting out of. At least a landlord has some legal liability. At least most employers have to use their own budget to pay workers. At least when the Pentagon pays a contractor $37 per 8 oz. chocolate milk, it gets the fucking milk. Meanwhile, aside from a thin proportion of STEM researchers, academia provides nothing but moral arrogance in exchange for its massive subsidization. The ROI from cow farts is ginormous by comparison, at least you get a steak. The self-importance and con-artistry of college officials make the big banks and the drug cartels look like mere beasts of the field by comparison.

Make Judaism Great Again, Pt. V

Screen Shot 2019-03-02 at 2.36.07 PM

My soul is prepared

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

Where there is concession, there is strength.” —Arab proverb

I was waiting on the perfect prompt for the concluding post in this series, and Ilhan Omar’s detractors have provided a pretty clean one. Omar is the shmata-clad Somali-American congresswoman from Minneapolis who is being called an anti-semite by some of Israel’s more prominent American supporters, whom she publicly alleged are putting Israel’s interests ahead of America’s, and using dirty money to do it.


As somewhat of a revisionist Zionist myself, I have no problem with Omar’s remarks. In fact, the backlash against them is totally inimical to Zionism. At this point, “Zionism” itself is a bit inimical to Zionism.

Zionism calls for Jewish political and military control over part of the Levant. It does not call for Jewish influence over public discourse in the United States. On the contrary, it was intended to offset any need we might have to concern ourselves with the public discourse in any country but our own. As we all know, however, this theory turns out to be quite different in actual practice:


hard canarding

But just as the eradication of tribal and chauvinistic ideologies is an inherently progressive pursuit, so is the idea of combating a prejudice like anti-semitism. So it is strange to see the American supporters of Zionism, which is basically a tribal and chauvinistic movement, denouncing Ilhan Omar for progressive anti-semitism. 

A few years back, a trio of foolhardy Jewboys attempted to start up a Jewish alt-right. The thrust of their ideology was that Jewish progressivism is inimical to Zionism, and that Jews should instead be revisionist Zionists and support white nationalism in its opposition to Islam. They attended an NPI conference, started a blog, did an interview on Red Ice Radio and were smeared in a couple of MSM hit pieces before fizzling back into obscurity. Their website, The Jewish Alternative, no longer exists. The reason they added nothing to the debate is that Zionism is not actually incompatible with progressivism. You could actually say that the two ideologies work hand-in-glove.

The goal of progressivism is to advance progress across a theoretically limitless field of human backwardness. The goal of Zionism is to secure the existence of the Jewish people against a theoretically limitless field of outside hostility. Like the enemies of Big Brother, these ideologies’ adversaries are everywhere and nowhere at once. Efforts to ferret them out and crush them must constantly be redoubled.

Thus, the fundamental premise of both progressivism, and Zionism, is that might makes right. Both movements are made up of basically vindictive, excluded people prone to neurotic discomfort and moral hysteria. Like progressivism, which functions in machiavellian fashion as its adherents go around preaching human rights, Zionism asserts in the same breath both that Israel has a non-contingent moral right to exist, and that its contingent, amoral strength is its ultimate justification:


conflating means with ends

Zionism’s chief adversaries are no progressives, either. Of course the Arabs view Zionism as evil, and they have every reason to. But they view it as evil in effect, not in essence, because its essence is assabiyah, a concept they know all about. However, their assabiyah is manful, rooted in Islam’s transcendent acceptance of death, while ours is pathos-laden, characterized by greed for life, a feminine kind of deviousness, and an almost limitless capacity to nurse a grudge.

This is why Holocaust remembrance (horribly contrived now, and often farcical) keeps becoming more and more central to Zionism, and why military applications, like a locust, consume a greater proportion of Israeli GDP and R&D each year, at the same time that Israel gradually becomes more socially liberal, e.g., by deploying its military to facilitate child-trafficking by homosexuals, allocating funds to further the Muslim invasion of Europe, exporting decadent postmodern art, profaning what is holy (but only what is holy to others) in the name of secularism, and colluding with transnational bodies to cleanse the internet of “far-right” thoughtcrime.

And just like progressivism, with the passage of time the hubristic pride at work in Zionism gradually becomes clearer. For when you enjoy the kind of overwhelming asymmetry of force that Israel does, and still cannot win decisively, you start looking very ugly. The establishment of the State of Israel was an epic scarcely paralleled since WWII, a profoundly inspirational residue of Old Testament heroism. Yet today, Israel is best known for its outsized talent for applying high-tech band-aids to the negative externalities of organic limits, and a foreign policy centered around a perpetual blood boy, ginormous and nonconsensual, from tens of millions of its Arab neighbors. The mask is so far fallen that bald-faced censorship is being prepared in its place. A man is known by the company he keeps, and Israel’s regional allies are the most debauched and senile regimes, clinging to power by their fingernails just like Israel always has its fingers caught in the pearly gates of peace or victory or normalization that never comes. I am not a peacenik, or a proponent of land-for-peace, but Israel’s policy of dividing and immiserating Arab countries has produced so immense and continuous an extent of human suffering in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Palestine that it can no longer be countenanced by civilized men. To be Jewish is to believe that there is some virtue to a beleaguered people weathering centuries of abuse in order to maintain their identity. And yet look what the advances of Israel, Saudi Arabia and America’s proxies in Libya, Syria and Iraq has meant for religious minorities there. It’s unconscionable.

The storied machinations of Israel’s clandestine services are the exact opposite of Nietzschean affirmation—this is what I meant when I referred (above) to “greed for life.” Sometimes, it’s possible to be too clever for one’s own good, or anybody else’s.

This doesn’t mean that Zionism has not been highly successful, but what we’re measuring by here are essential qualities and ultimate aims. Indeed, Zionism has succeeded in every respect except at making the Jews into “a nation like all other nations” because it failed to uproot the voracious bitter herb of victimology official Jewry now worships in place of God.

So the question I’ve tried to address here is, what is Judaism in essence? As opposed to the selectivity with which modern Americans tend to approach identification with their religion and ethnicity, I want to know what Judaism is in the aggregate, and whether, viewed in that light, it is something worthwhile or pernicious.

In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche says that, “In the Jewish ‘Old Testament,’ the book of divine justice, there are men, things, and speeches of such impressive style that the world of Greek and Indian literature has nothing to place beside them.” In the Genealogy of Morals he wrote that, in the Hebrew scriptures, “I find great human beings, an heroic landscape, and something that is rarest in the world, the incomparable naïveté of the strong heart. And what is more, I find a people.” 

In contrast, as I’ve tried to explicate in this series, what Judaism has become is, to some significant degree, a neurotic personality disorder. What is worse, its best exponents are financial war criminals, peeping tom tech-oligarchs, Bond-villain grey eminences, and TV court jesters who specialize in mocking and denigrating decent, God-fearing people. A malign, inordinate Jewish influence on public affairs is not a conspiracy theory, it is life imitating farce, and it’s right out in the open. These stereotypes exist for a reason.

If you’re Jewish, and you’ve read this far, you probably think I suffer from a horrific lack of ahavas yisroel. But I would ask you to consider who was the first casualty of the Hasmonean revolt against the Seleucid empire in 166 BC:

Then Mattathias answered and spake with a loud voice,

‘Though all the nations that are under the king’s dominion obey him, and fall away every one from the religion of their fathers, and give consent to his commandments:

Yet will I and my sons and my brethren walk in the covenant of our fathers. God forbid that we should forsake the law and the ordinances. We will not hearken to the king’s words, to go from our religion, either on the right hand, or the left.’

Now when he had left speaking these words, there came one of the Jews in the sight of all to sacrifice on the altar which was at Modi’in, according to the king’s commandment.

Which thing when Mattathias saw, he was inflamed with zeal, and his reins trembled, neither could he forbear to shew his anger according to judgment: wherefore he ran, and slew him upon the altar.

(1 Maccabees 2)

The Maccabees’ first victim—not their second, or third—was a Jew. These Maccabees sound like a bunch of Nazis to me. What the hell was their problem?

A Muslim sermon I heard recently on YouTube channel The Vigilant One put it aptly: in every religion there is the party of God, and the party of Satan—a religion can only be destroyed from within. So if the Jews really believe in the God of Abraham, there is no outside force that can destroy them. But if the Jews do not truly believe in God, then no iron wall, no iron dome, no defensive shield or preemptive strike or increased birthrate or qualitative edge can possibly save them in the long run.

Unfortunately, official Judaism today compares more favorably to King Saul than to King David. For example, the lesson that secular Jews and Zionists take from the Holocaust is that the universe is fundamentally meaningless, and that man must make his own justice, something inimical to classical Abrahamic faith. The lesson the frummies often take from it is that the victims had it coming, on account of collective moral guilt, something not even the Christian churches teach about the Holocaust. Meanwhile, like the Nazis in Indiana Jones, religious Zionism essentially worships intermediate objects it deludedly imbues with talismanic power, e.g., a certain geographic site to be occupied, an archaeological specimen to be located, or the third temple to be built on Mt. Moriah. When its adherents evict Arab shopkeepers’ children from their homes, they are brazen as lions; when their women and children are savaged by Arabs, they transform suddenly into simpering, uncomprehending lambs. As for orthodox Judaism, by far its strongest emphasis is the assiduous rote performance of mitzvot so onerous and convoluted that most Jews perform them only selectively and infrequently, if at all. And the liberal denominations are a superficial moral void so gaping it’s approaching the level of absurdist performance art:


I could gas this one myself

A couple years ago I went to a “conservative” shul for Yom Kippur, only to discover that the “rabbi” was a lesbian, and the cantor was a transgender “man.” A choir of yentas performed kol nidre to the tune of a ginormous circus organ. This is what has become of the people whose forefathers invented jihad. If the prophet Samuel were alive today, he’d be on an ADL hate watch list. Where the Jewish zealots of yore defended their faith at the cost of their lives, Zionism today is determined only to preserve the Jews’ lives at any cost, no matter how sordid and faggoty

If it is to live with honor, a people, like a man, must live for something greater than itself. I will always be a proud Hebrew, but the truth is more important than Judaism, and Judaism today is a shit-show. I don’t say that the Jews are uniquely bad, or that comparable problems don’t exist in other religions and ethnic groups. But among questions of human difference, the JQ is a unique Gordian knot. While it’s evident that Jews disproportionately occupy positions of great power, it’s equally evident that the vast majority of Jews are fairly average. And while it’s evident that in many ways Jews, as a group, are cohesive and effective at advancing their group interests, it’s just as evident that there has long been great diversity of intra-Jewish trends and factions, and that the Jews have often been persecuted. I couldn’t get a clear understanding of who the Jews really are until I figured out why we keep having the same recurring kinds of problems, and there is immense pressure obscuring the way to satisfying answers, both from my Jewish upbringing and the Jewish community, from the anti-semites (who are enjoying a resurgence and whose ideas I’m obviously willing to entertain), and from polite society at large, which likes to avoid this topic or limit it to kitsch. 

So where do we go from here?

In January of 1939, a young American woman, the daughter of German immigrants and married to a Jew, took anonymously to the pages of the Atlantic to talk about the social stigma surrounding her marriage:

Naturally, to our friends, the most interesting aspect of our marriage is its interracial side. I know that even now many of them, aware of my pro-German leanings, still chuckle behind our backs; ‘Well, well, our little Nazi Gertrude had to go and marry a Jew, of all people.’

At one time or another almost every one of my intimates has asked me sotto voce, ‘What is it like, living with a Jew? Is he very Jewish? Do you ever discuss the differences between you?’

It was this that finally propelled me to our typewriter—to tell the world how it really is between a Jew and a Christian, since the world is evidently so intensely interested. I wish I could say that, because Ben and I have worked through to complete happiness, there is no reason why Jews and Gentiles everywhere cannot live peaceably and happily side by side. But I am afraid that this harmonious relationship can come about only when Gentiles stop being one-hundred-per-cent Gentiles and Jews one-hundred-per-cent Jews—when both sides drop their false pride of race, their hidebound, worn-out traditions, and meet each other halfway.

The article is worth reading in its entirety. Though false pride of any kind should of course be abandoned, I’m not an advocate of anybody’s giving up pride in their race. So I’d even say that if this woman’s proposal had been formalized in a contract, most Aryans not only performed their side a long time ago, but in fact went way too far. Needless to say, not only has Judaism not abandoned pride in its race, it has actually cultivated a great deal of false pride, as we have seen. So how, you ask, can the title of this little essay series be effectuated? How can we Make Judaism Great Again? Stay tuned for answers…….