Category Archives: Alt-Rightgeist

Hell is Other People

so strong is tradition that later generations will dream of what they have never seen

Curtis Yarvin, as usual, has nothing to say, and takes only 185,000 words to say it. Monarchism, democracy, oligarchy—just spare me. The whole effect of these gigabrained debates around governance and multifarious -isms is to avoid asking the questions that threaten to ask back at us. Take this Chestertonian slop-gob, for example:

When an Anarchist is poor he breaks laws; when he is rich he makes them. In neither case does he ever dream of obeying them.”

Obviously, Chesterton was exempting some third class of persons that included himself. But really, who could this dictum possibly not apply to? What the fuck is life if it’s not personal? Everyone‘s an anarchist, some are just better at it than others. And if you’ve been sold an ideology by one of these door-to-door gigabrains, let me assure you, you are very, very bad at it.

I come from a coastal town. Over the years, Fourth of July celebrations at the local beaches became ever louder, more violent, more crowded and intoxicated. Finally, one year the City simply shut them down by setting up klieg lights, 20-foot high chain-link fences, and police patrols in riot-gear with menacing loudspeakers. The whole thing looked shockingly draconian and post-apocalyptic. It was awesome. My high school pals—the ones with rap-sheets and land-whale baby-mamas and horrible tattoos, who like to get hammered and blast hip-hop—were aghast.

Should people like that have freedom? Of course not. They should be used in medical experiments instead of monkeys. They also shouldn’t own single-family homes:

The idea of living in an apartment on what is now green rolling hills jarred people with visions of their own porches and yards… Residents might support density in theory, but what they really want is a single-family home to call their own… How Steamboat solves this conundrum could have implications for communities across the country that are struggling with affordability as their populations grow.

Fulminating about every lifestyle psyop in the corporate press is the next-worst thing to going along with it, and the above-quoted article from Time magazine is perfect catnip for based soyfacing. If you think the “dissident” right (LMFAO) is anti-conservative, you should see their critique of liberalism. At the rate they’re going, in fifty years’ time they’ll be nostalgic for bug protein. There is nothing about the right today that isn’t pure rejection of the present in favor of pure fantasy about the past. If there’s a homestead without an Instagram page, did a tree really fall in the woods?

Go to any shopping center right now and sincerely tell me why everyone there shouldn’t be living in a pod. What do you care if other people can’t afford a house, aren’t eating right, aren’t having kids, can’t stop binge-watching anal porn? If you’re gonna to tell me you’re sincerely concerned about the well-being of a million strangers, I’d like you to please keep your distance until my cattle-prod is fully charged. What’s going to fix all these misguided people so that society is more to your aesthetic liking? The Church? The wild hunt? A gay Renaissance fair? Please.

I’m against tyranny, full-stop. Beyond that, I don’t care by what name we call our government system, as long as life is reasonably tolerable and I get left the hell alone. Everything else is messianic mob mentality.

We Are Hyperborians, Lebowski

Of all the dumb schisms in the DR, Christian versus pagan is by far the most persistent. What’s dumb about it is the longing for a static attachment to creed, which is very Christian but negates paganism entirely. The unnamable is the eternally real. Religion is just an abstraction; a mature man recognizes truth wherever he finds it.

But while I feel strongly (and, over the years, pretty consistently) that in its broad strokes Christian metaphysics is sound and perhaps superlative, as for this alt-right schism, I have to say that Christianity carries a great deal of wistful baggage that paganism does not, and I think the one question that puts the lie to the devotion of alt-right Christians is to ask whether they could worship Christ if they knew for certain he’d been a black man.

On Easter Eve I had a vision, a kind of night-reverie, where I saw an image of the living Christ, all sparkly and bedecked in golden light. But when I dared to gaze more closely I began to realize—like the lookout in Blazing Saddles—that the Lord is a nigger. In a split second the part of me that was perturbed by this—and it was deeply perturbed—welled up, and then burst. All of a sudden I began laughing maniacally. Imagine my relief—if that is Christ, then all debts truly are forgiven. 

Could an alt-right Christian have reached such a conclusion from this experience? Of course not. He’d have to fall on his face and fellate this Jobu, right alongside all the rainbow-flag Episcopalians and George Floyd mourners, because the widening-gyre god of Christianity and that of the liberals is one and the same. He is small, this Christian god. The true Christ has not given us leave to examine him so closely. And if the DR stands for anything, it is the first ecstatic stirring of something well and truly beyond, something nameless and timeless and sufficient unto itself, that inhabits a part of us that we’ve forgotten.

After visiting the village of Leukerbad in the Swiss Alps, James Baldwin wrote:

For this village, even if it were incomparably more remote and incredibly more primitive, is the West, the West onto which I have been so strangely grafted. These people cannot be, from the point of view of power, strangers anywhere in the world; they have made the modern world, in effect, even if they do not know it. The most illiterate among them is related, in a way that I am not, to Dante, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Aeschylus, Da Vinci, Rembrandt, and Racine; the cathedral at Chartres says something to them which it cannot say to me, as indeed would New York’s Empire State building, should anyone here ever see it. Out of their hymns and dances come Beethoven and Bach. Go back a few centuries and they are in their full glory—but I am in Africa, watching the conquerors arrive.

Baldwin is one of my favorite authors, a writer’s writer whose talents were sharpened against the lifelong deficit that came into focus for him so dramatically in that village in Switzerland. To say Another Country lies outside the Western cannon is just false. But in our day you’ll never meet a black man so self-deprecating, because the West—which Baldwin frankly acknowledges is something racial—is dead.

In The Rebel, Camus posits that rebellion can only have meaning in Western civilization, “where a theoretical equality conceals great factual inequalities.” (If you don’t believe him, try thinking of a counter-example. It’s like rhymes with orange.) What’s bemusing about this remark is that it applies equally well today in the inimical context: whereas Camus was writing as a leftist and, essentially, an egalitarian, bemoaning the inequalities in western civilization and supposing that rebellion is always aimed in the direction of greater equality—that type of thinking is precisely how western civilization’s egalitarianism today covers over the great factual inequalities of nature, and it is in favor of that natural inequality that today’s rebel asserts himself. Stripped of Camus’s obvious intent, the statement that rebellion can only have meaning in the context of western civilization is profoundly racist and authoritarian.

That is why American pop culture’s association of rebellion with blacks over the past century is so deeply unsatisfying. Despite periodically having to defend myself in school from non-white terror, by a complex system of mental canal locks I was never allowed to view this problem directly. The whole culture around me awarded these people a kind of animal authenticity that it forbade me, as a white boy, because my parents’ generation had traded it for easy living. From a very young age I recall perceiving the post-industrial domestic hedonism, the corporate pop-psychology and consolidation of ownership of the Clinton-era boom years with foreboding. I remember when Office Space and American Psycho belonged to the left. Contrarianism itself was something liberal, and it was from that perspective that I first understood the whole edifice of modern comfort and convenience as a kind of facade, sclerotic, doomed to expend itself utterly, its dying energies devoted to an endless capacity to rationalize—and here we are. Yet this clarity was obscured by the cataract of a saccharine and fanatical egalitarianism, so that rebellion meant rejecting the possibility of order and dominance utterly.

It was seeped in that weltanschauung that I came of age right around 9/11. The widespread anti-war sentiment of the Bush II aughts was characterized by a masochistic rectitude, something vegan, estrogenic, and dogmatically unreconciled to the Jungian shadow, and it seemed to me that this ideology correlated more closely with the lithe nihilism and having-it-both-ways of bourgeois corporatism than its purveyors were ever likely to admit. Zionism became a way for me to reject all this. In 2002, Israel had narrative. America’s then-narrative was that a man who cohabits with a goat and sounds like Noam Chomsky incinerated the World Trade Center because he hated consumerism, but that God was thankfully on the side of Spencer’s and Hot Dog on a Stick. Israel’s narrative, on the other hand, was that the plucky little Dwarves had persevered against odds and fought their way back to Erebor. Israel was the Joker to First World campus liberalism—unabashedly militarist, colonialist and racial (at the street level, if not always the diplomatic one) with none of the false motives that came to characterize America’s foray into the middle east. For example: because Jews believe that the soul of a person whose corpse is scattered in pieces can have no rest in the afterlife, when a Palestinian IED destroyed a tank in the early 2000s, the IDF sent a massive force into Gaza and cordoned off the area so that infantrymen under rabbinic supervision, crawling on hands and knees, could recover every last scrap of human flesh for identification. Make of this superstition what you will: what other modern country would ever deploy its armed forces to protect the souls of the dead?

But when you drink Zionism to the bottom of the glass you find exactly the kind of alienation that Baldwin experienced in the Alps. It’s not just bad mustache man and the Arch of Titus. It’s the cathedral at Chartres, Shakespeare, Beethoven, the Hermitage, the fucking Pyramids—for Jews these are all just symbols of persecution. The reason why Jew of Malta is long forgotten while The Merchant of Venice will never be forgiven (despite Marlowe being a thousand times more anti-semitic) is because Merchant is accurate.

For a long time, the Indo-European world understood itself intrinsically as something distinctive, unitary, imbued with special destiny and incontestably superior to any given runner-up. The swastika, for example, can be found all over the place in late 19th century America. It was still emblazoned on the leather binding of the yearbooks at my alma mater as recently as 1932. So it’s silly to trace the decline of the West to Plato or St. Peter or the French Revolution. The West wasn’t even getting started back then. It wasn’t until the period circa 1880-1945 that the transcontinental railways were built, the British Empire spanned the globe, Shackleton and Hedin made their expeditions, and Siberia, the Yukon, the southern capes and the heights of the Himalaya were all finally conquered. 

Bruce Chatwin’s In Patagonia is a remarkable travelogue of Argentina in the 70s, that memorializes this outpouring in the form of anecdotes from elderly British and German settlers living at that time in the southern Andes, who still remembered the influx of Europeans three-quarters of a century earlier, their conquest of the remotest lands, and the Odyssean sailors who transported its wool to market in London and Seattle, following nigh to the heels of Tennyson’s ancient mariner. Kipling, Jack London, the pre-Raphaelites, the Beaux Arts, and especially the children’s literature of that period all testify to the self-awareness of the West as something unitary and incomparably dynamic. The decline begins around the same period: the cynicism and malaise portrayed in Chekhov and Oscar Wilde, the banker’s coup of 1913, and the Great War, which precipitated maudlin Nazism, Wickard v. Filburn, the Stalinist purges, and the unseemly domestication of the American 1950s.

No literature encapsulates the awareness of a constricting malaise during this time better than the Lost Generation. When I was in high school in the 90s, back when reading was mandatory, The Great Gatsby was still mandatory reading. Tom Buchanan was taught as anti-racist satire, Meyer Wolfsheim shrugged off as a product of the book’s time. But Gatsby is incredibly based and prescient: not only is the portrayal of Jews there (and their relationship to the kind of arrivism  revealed in Gatsby’s fawning remark over lunch about the criminal Wolfsheim’s superior intelligence) exactly what it seems, but Tom Buchanan is not being smeared as a racist—he’s being smeared as a degenerate. Call of Cthulu was contemporaneous and its message is likewise deeply racial.

The Sun Also Rises is also incredibly based, with the capricious and overcompensating Jew, Robert Cohn, too googly-eyed and childish to ever be loved; the lapsed Catholic narrator, Jake, who’s too cynical to ever love again; and the bankrupt and cuckolded aristocrat, Michael, drowning in debt and drink. Likewise the ruined old nobles of Chekhov’s Cherry Orchard, overtaken by the merchant Lopakhin, of peasant origin, and played off by a Jewish orchestra. Lady Chatterley (and Forster’s Maurice) are altogether cast from the same mold.

I once read somewhere that The Big Lebowski is about the death of God, with each of the characters representing one of the several inadequate, cookie-cutter responses that Western culture has been acting out ever since, trying to cope and compensate. And yet the one personality the film seems to have left out entirely is that of the fascist. There are nihilists and a neocon, yes—but no Nazis. Or are there? 

It’s always dark in The Big Lebowski. Most of the action takes place at night. It seems to me that the various characters do indeed represent the empty masks we cling to like buoys of fake meaning on a sea of dread, as we navigate a dark night. The nihilists’ mask is simply the pretense of not wearing any. And this pretense may have many analogues, but fascism is certainly one, because it is pathos-laden and purely vindictive. It cannot resurrect an age of martial valor. It can only lower itself to the challenge of bestiality and dementia.

Consider the recent demonstrations by operatives of the so-called Rise Above movement, and their slogan, “white lives matter”:

Perhaps the principal conceptual shift that occurred during the 2010s was the passing of the torch of (advocating for) consumerist creature-comfort to the liberal class and its orcs from the withered hand of (more or less) conservative middle America, whose vanguard now takes to the streets to annunciate exactly the same kind of simpering and pathos-laden victimology the blacks once did. Indeed, this is the entire tendency of right-wing politics today. Does a virile and forward-gazing people need to debase itself in this manner? The unnamable is the eternally real, and true dominance is always implicit.

For everyone else, there’s the so-called dissident right.

Fuck White People

yes we can

Nationalism is a psychological defense against misanthropy in 100% of cases. Accordingly, no one hates white people more than white nationalists. And why wouldn’t they? Have you seen white people? Jackson, Jipsum, Jaylyn, Jordyn. I know a white man—a professional hip-hop DJ, the lowest form of race-cuck—who named his son Iverson. Negro circus animals with literal prepubescent mental capacity command the popular imagination the way astronauts once did, and this man named his son, his only son—by a “baby mama,” no less—after the surname of one of them. Reality just doesn’t get any lower and more demoralizing.

You should see the white parents at my youngest son’s elementary school. None of the men under 50 will shake your hand. They all prefer “fist-bumps,” a symptom of negrified stupefaction and egomania if ever there was one. The women, meanwhile, are all in yoga pants—what used to be called leggings, which are technically an undergarment. Every bit of cellulite, every inch of ass crack is visible in these overpriced biohaz receptacles. They’re not tasteful, like a miniskirt. They simultaneously cover everything while leaving nothing to the imagination. 

Then there are the tattoos. None of my friends’ parents had tattoos when I was growing up. Now, they’re everywhere—on adults, even affluent ones. Especially affluent ones. The future bankrupts of various post-industrial industries, who expect that their stripmall gym or their real estate license or their degree in marketing or criminal justice should entitle them to the fat of the land in perpetuity, play acting at the age of forty like cowboys and sex-kittens and movie gangsters while their doughy, half-autistic children dissipate into the dullening amusements of a Microsoft annuity blue-screen.

No amount of deadlifting or paleo dieting or churchgoing could possibly dilute this grandiose narcissism. The gyms and trad churches are the worst venue for these theatrics and fake personalities and sex pests, clamoring to wring the last drops out of the American dream like any other type of yuppie. Even the alt-right “active clubs” and macho “tribes” all live for Instagram, for “the grind” and “the hustle,” like the kind of delusional recidivists you’d expect to meet in Narcotics Anonymous who’ve all read The 48 Laws of Power yet can’t keep a job as a barback. \

White power!

Fuck Right-Wingers

Can the absorption of alt-right brain coom into the rectum of boomercon jowl-theater be more complete than this? The men of Sodom were less vindictive. The “mystery speaker” turned out to be that fat-headed tranny, Marjorie Taylor Greene, “washed in the blood of Christ.” What a freakshow.

There is nothing remotely coherent about this lineup. Al Bundy was more right wing. Why would I want to see a Twitter handle talk in meatspace? Can I take a shit at the same time? It’s pathetic. This is what happens when alt-right attention whores gaze long into the abyss of e-money.

I’ve said it before: there’s no longer any daylight between conservatism and the alt-right. The radicals had their say, and the normies have all been radicalized. And do you know what changed? Nothing. And it never will.

Rise of the Normie Fascist

I’ll show you no nut November

Progress and civilization, religion and the ideal have closed life in a mortal circle where phantoms most grim have erected their viscid reign.” —Renzo Novatore

Beware of those who talk much of their ‘justice.'” —Nietzsche

I have a confession to make: I can’t stand Tucker Carlson. It’s not that I disagree with him much. It’s just that…. Some evils are so ubiquitous, so predictable, that I can no longer be bothered with anyone who’s still gawking at them.

It would be difficult to pinpoint the exact moment when the 2010s alt-right merged completely into basic conservatism. It didn’t happen all at once. For me, I think the first sign came a few years back, when the tattooed, pot-bellied pastor at a boys’ church activity group I take my youngest son to told the parents (apropos of what, I can’t recall) that “Strong men make good times, good times make weak men,” etc. But there have been lots of little moments like these over the past ten years, Yarvin on Tucker being the most recent. Or when The Tim Allen Show parroted the “white people built civilization” trope (which is true, but also pouty and cringe), or when rumors were going around that Steve Bannon was fond of Julius Evola. And who can forget this Chestertonian slop-gob, which made quite the rounds a few years back:

It’s always sad when your comedy heroes confess to being humorless. The verbiage, the sentiment…. It’s a perfect illustration of Wilde’s definition of a cynic. Note the outrageous abuse of the word “stygian.” The Enlightenment was a milestone in the history of consciousness. Its assassins are who is lurking in wait, and they’re all so…. tiresome. Little do alt-right Twitterers realize, when they skewer the uncouthness of Marjorie Taylor Greene, that they’re looking at their own souls in the mirror.

In late 2012 I was in college, when I encountered an article on TakiMag. Before long, I was reading Jack Donovan, then Radix and Alternative Right. It was all so heady and subversive. At the outset, the alt-right was equal parts Tyler Durden ontology and Tom Buchanan shitshow bombast. But the sense of alienation it spoke to was so raw, the venue it emerged in so incompatible with the catharsis of being punched in the face, that before long the alt-right went from skewering puritanism to practicing it. The moment of clarity for me came in 2013 when an alt-right page on Facebook shared a Counter Currents article condemning the Kansas City JCC shooter—but purely for tactical reasons, “optics” and the like. It wasn’t long before the whole thing became a Nuremberg rally, just another exhibitionist ring-around the fetid altar of full-retard anti-semitism.

The thing about fascism is that it’s all bark. Whereas Zionism started out with great feats of daring against precipitous odds, only to degenerate into a liberal consumer culture and a victimology, Nazism started out with bawdy talk and broken glass, only to take on precipitous odds that its ersatz heroism was insufficient to overcome—Tolkien’s “ruddy little ignoramuses,” stroked with assurances of their congenital fortitude, morality, and entitlement.

But we shouldn’t be too hard on the Nazis. After all, the complexity of nature and of human life is lost on ideologues, who are always in the vanguard of far dimmer wits—the man with one eye, leading the proverbial blind. For as I have sung many a time in the shower:

When one reflects how necessary it is to the great majority that there be regulations to restrain them from without and hold them fast, and to what extent control, or, in a higher sense, slavery, is the one and only condition which makes for the well-being of the weak-willed man, and especially woman, then one at once understands conviction and ‘faith.’ To the man with convictions they are his backbone. To avoid seeing many things, to be impartial about nothing, to be a party man through and through, to estimate all values strictly and infallibly—these are conditions necessary to the existence of such a man. But by the same token they are antagonists of the truthful man—of the truth…. The believer is not free to answer the question, ‘true’ or ‘false,’ according to the dictates of his own conscience: integrity on this point would work his instant downfall. The pathological limitations of his vision turn the man of convictions into a fanatic—Savonarola, Luther, Rousseau, Robespierre, Saint-Simon—these types stand in opposition to the strong, emancipated spirit. But the grandiose attitudes of these sick intellects, these intellectual epileptics, are of influence upon the great masses—fanatics are picturesque, and mankind prefers observing poses to listening to reasons.

The party-men of the alt-right are on trial this week, in a federal court in Virginia, and things look to be going badly for them. Little do they (and their opponents) realize that they’ve already won. They got what they wanted—they radicalized the normies. Conservatism in 2021 is completely isolationist. Jews are about as popular as they were in 1937. Old-time religion is enjoying a resurgence. The Great Replacement is on Fox primetime. Everything is “based.” Alt-right memes and tropes are everywhere among normie conservatives and Trumpists, who in 2021 are finally as alienated as the readers of Radix were in 2012. The only problem is, they’re no less stupid for having been radicalized. The circus of American public life absorbed these poison darts, and carried on. The vanguard led its child army to the Holy City, and the windswept streets whispered “Rosebud” (and a promo code for MyPillow. Thanks, Jack Posobiec.)

Pay careful attention. I say this as a Pale Horse-before-it-was-cool conspiracy theorist: such an outcome is far, far beyond the abilities of Dr. Woland, Project Monarch, or the Elders of Zion. It depends on the constitution of the human creature—and his apotheosis, the American—something that can only be ascribed to the sick sense of humor of God Almighty. The problem was not hatched in a Prague cemetery, it was ordered loud and clear with a Dr. Pepper and a large fry.

Some carnival barker called Darren Beattie—a self-styled genius whose star is rising among right wingers, because they lack all sense of style—proposes that the antidote to left-wing moral fervor is right-wing moral fervor:

Juxtapose the slogan ‘Silence is violence’ with ‘Don’t tread on me.’ ‘Silence is violence’ is morally imperialist, and it will always beat ‘Don’t tread on me,’ and [this] registers the fact that the left, for all its faults, has the moral high ground, and that’s why they win. And so, until Republicans can be just as confident in being protectors of civilization against barbarism and destruction and defend civilization as such with the same kind of moral fervor that the left attempts to tear it down [using] words like ‘racism’…. Until they’re prepared to do that, they will lose. And so that’s the moral framework, and having the moral high ground gives you the confidence to hold frame in a discussion.

Where to begin with these brain contusions? The Republicans as “defenders of civilization”! “Civilization” is a buzzword, an affliction to which its sufferers apply the snake oil of moralism the way a junkie uses smack. This right wing junkie hates the left because the left has better smack. He needs the good stuff because getting help is out of the question—he cannot work for a living, he’s too far gone. “I’ll see your AOC and raise you a Father Coughlin and a No Nut November.” Is public discourse not insufferable enough? Who that lived through the summer of George Floyd could possibly want more moralism? This lunatic’s will to power is a game of blackmail anybody’s mother-in-law could beat him at, yet he intends to “defend civilization” with it. Sad!

Here is what this Beattie’s “moral high ground” looks like in practice:

Such shameless sniveling! The French and Indian War? Why not the Battle of Thermopylae? These dimwit spergs are everywhere now, with nothing to say for themselves but this trivia. Outhouse intellectuals, consumer dissidents and high school football has-been dad bods who’ve learned the word “oligarchy.” The oligarchs couldn’t wish for choicer enemies, Beattie’s moral rectitude is the extent of their power:

Has the baggy-eyed soul of Spiro Agnew acquired a new flesh suit? The awakened Saxon would like to please speak to a manager. This loyalty-oath fetishist thinks the military is too woke because he doesn’t realize that Nietzsche’s “regulations to restrain him from without and hold him fast” were already gayer than a rubber dolphin. That’s why my sole loyalty is to my family and friends, and to timeless principals. I wouldn’t waste a drop of it on ideology, or institutions, or on making common cause with patriotic louts and moralfags against woke fairies and loons. If our rights don’t derive from government, but from God, then why this obsession with power? I don’t know about you, but my rights derive from me, and I don’t give a fuck what God or America has to say about it.

Those Who Can Make You Believe Banalities Can Make You Forget Atrocities

It doesn’t take a crude, fanatical anti-semite to see that Curtis Yarvin and Michael Malice are obscurantists. I’ve said much the same thing about TRS. I’m not presuming to know these people’s motivations, or their true identities and associations. But each of them is successfully peddling some dead-end ideology that casts a shadow in the buyer’s mind over valid, competing ideas, and can only be arrived at circuitously. The carrot is always an apt critique; the stick is always to tar doubters by association with e.g., Jews, or conspiratards, or statists, or lolberts, etc. “You’re not a sucker are you? Here—buy my book!”

The same is true of BAP: his followers are ordering Achilles, and being served Trump through the back door.

I never understood the hype around BAP. Every one of his ideas is lukewarm. For example, here he is on his latest podcast:

Periodically, I remark that the people who rule us are incompetent losers, and it is always interesting to see how much statements like these anger a subset of my followers. I am open to many theories, but I am opposed to what I would call the conspiratorial, paranoid style of thought. This is a way of interpreting political happenings [where] it is assumed that geopolitical events are mostly intended, and fruits of hidden plans; that the politicians and other visible actors are puppets for hidden, conspiratorial parties, and that we are more or less powerless to influence the course of events. The conspiratorial, paranoid style is a cope. First of all it relieves those who think this way of the great burden of understanding what is happening. Many conspiranoids I see are under-informed about events. Secondly, the conspiratorial, paranoid style spares its adherent of the burdens of opposition. What happens is inevitable, and there is little or nothing that can be done against it; and finally, it is submission to occupational elite propaganda; it is an acceptance of the truth of basic stories these people tell about themselves. Villains like Klaus Schwab consciously play to conspiratorial, paranoid reconceptions because they benefit from them.

“Klaus Schwab is a villain who’s playing a villain to trick you into believing he’s a villain.” Uh….

This take is itself a cope: Klaus Schwab and friends don’t give a fuck what you think. They’re going right ahead with their program.

Does anyone seriously believe that politicians the world over aren’t puppets who serve at the pleasure of a billionaires’ club? Read BAP’s words carefully—he’s not saying that conspiracy theory can go too far; he’s denying that it has any validity whatsoever. Watch as he escalates deftly from “a subset” to the whole genre. It’s sleight of hand. No wonder Kanye came out as a BAP fan. Like so many others, he’s a moron with good instincts and no critical faculties.

Many conspiranoids are under-informed. So what? So are many non-conspiranoids. I have no doubt that imbeciles are in the majority. And tyrants always seek to instill terror—this is no great insight. What they never encourage, however, is the dissemination of authentic, comprehensive information about their crimes. Of course, pride cometh before the fall, and the oligarchs are nothing if not hubristic. But that’s exactly why virtually no one who earnestly traffics in so-called conspiracy theories does so out of a sense of powerlessness. Nothing has been more empowering for more people than the rise of independent online journalism over the last 20 years.

What BAP is telling us here is to underestimate an enemy. I, too, think they’ve overplayed their hand, and am hopeful about the future because I can’t afford not to be. But these people are playing an exceedingly long game, and musings like BAP’s here can only make sense in the eye of the storm, to those who have the long-term memory capacity of a goldfish. COVID-19 is the biggest experiment in trauma-based psychological conditioning ever conducted. A virus was intentionally created and unleashed so that nations could be looted and subjugated in perpetuity. We can ignore the perpetrators’ dictates as best we can, we can protest and perhaps strike fear into them and can certainly disbelieve everything their marionettes have to say—but in that case, what’s stopping them from making any number of course corrections? Oh, but the ruling class wouldn’t do anything like that, ’cause only losers believe in conspiracies.

Klaus Schwab is either a villain, or an incompetent. He can’t be both.

Please Hate Israel More

they’re the same picture

Alt-right tropes have been percolating into populist conservatism for awhile now. Chief among these is an outsized opprobrium of Jews and Zionism as major sources of national and societal ills. As the 2020s progress and the boomers die off, this dime-store eschatology will only intensify and spread. And you know what? I can’t wait.

I love being hated. I’m a born contrarian. The other foot is never any better than the shoe, and moral rectitude is always a mask. That’s why anti-semites are invariably all windy mediocrities. Some things never change.

Please don’t misunderstand—my recent polemics may have given the wrong impression. I am emphatically not urging anyone to hush-up their sniveling about Israel. On the contrary, please, please keep it coming. I like my enemies ridiculous, and if you ever stop honking your red rubber nose I don’t know what I’ll do with myself. Five years ago, these midwits were a vanguard; today, with reactionary clichés selling like Beatlemania, T.S. Eliot’s “freethinking Jews” are the stuff of teenybopper nightmares.

Chief among “dissident”-right dilettantism’s apostles to the magapedes is the lithe and dilated carnival barker, Nick Fuentes, who this week emerged triumphant from a debate with an obscure boomercon attorney, hosted by Alex Jones, on the subject (what else?) of perfidious Israel. Who that is impressed by this can rightfully complain about boomers? The fruit nowadays is as rotten as the vegetables. If Sacha Baron Cohen and Jonathan Greenblatt were to sodomize them in a pizza parlor and delete their Twitter app, I’d fall down laughing.

What does it mean, “America First”? It’s a spiteful, circuitous admission of worthlessness and defeat. It means, “why is no one defending me? Why can’t we have nice things? Where is my safe space to criticize your privilege? I’d like to please speak to a manager.” It is a syndrome of grown men who’ve only lately had the milk tit removed from their gibbering gobs.

And who is this American, who must be put first? What is an American? He is someone who would resent you if he had to lift a leg to step over your dying body on a hot sidewalk to get through the entrance of Panda Express. He’s a passive-aggressive spiritual carnie who loves his dog more than his next-door neighbor. Mountebanks like Fuentes out insisting he be catered to give no more of a shit about him than Lindsey Graham or Sean Hannity do.

The chief objective of U.S. foreign policy and military strategy since 1945 is unassailable technological and geospatial dominance. Jews ex machina is just the cost of doing business, when your business is to be in everybody else’s business. America was toppling legitimate governments, occupying foreign lands and handing out no-bid contracts to crimson profiteers long before Israel existed. It uses its reserve currency to decimate the economies of whole hemispheres and suck the surplus value out of them like a marrow bone. No one in the alt-right has anything to say about this unless they can pretend to blame it on Jews. “I can’t believe I’m doing this, I’m not that kind of girl.” Show me a radcon newly woke to ZOG, and I’ll show you a replicant who has no affirmative vision of what an “America First” foreign or military policy would look like. When the money changers are driven from the temple, the Groypers will follow them to Wal Mart.

all the hasbara we need

Racism Will Save the World

The alt-right is spergy, and sentimentalist, and contains a largely half-educated substrata. Yet it is the only truthful and genuinely insurgent thought-trend of the internet age. Its detractors understand this, and in the present denouement from the Trump era, disaffected liberal pundit-grifters are trying to cannibalize these ideas and pass them off as their own. Here, for example, is a promotional blurb for one Christopher Ryan’s 2019 Simon and Schuster release for the middlebrow set:

Civilized to Death counters the idea that progress is inherently good, arguing that the “progress” defining our age is analogous to an advancing disease. Prehistoric life, of course, was not without serious dangers and disadvantages. Many babies died in infancy. A broken bone, infected wound, snakebite, or difficult pregnancy could be life-threatening. But ultimately, Ryan argues, were these pre-civilized dangers more murderous than modern scourges, such as car accidents, cancers, cardiovascular disease, and a technologically prolonged dying process? At a time when our ecology, our society, and our own sense of selves feels increasingly imperiled, an accurate understanding of our species’ long prelude to civilization is vital to a clear sense of the ultimate value of civilization—and its costs. In Civilized to Death, Ryan makes the claim that we should start looking backwards to find our way into a better future.

This easily could’ve been written by Jack Donovan. It’s basically the ideology of Fight Club (which was not only influential on the early alt-right, but whose author has praised the alt-right specifically for its willingness to transgress current-year pieties).

Then there’s Glenn Greenwald, whose recent banishment from his comfortable perch at The Intercept precipitated a fiery Substack campaign against establishment shills and big tech. To wit:

The most prolific activism demanding more Silicon Valley censorship is found in the nation’s largest news outlets: the media reporters of CNNthe “disinformation” unit of NBC News, and especially the tech reporters of The New York Times… Due in part to a self-interested desire to re-establish their monopoly on discourse by crushing any independent or dissenting voices, and in part by a censorious and arrogant mindset which convinces them that only those of their worldview and pedigree have a right to be heard, they largely devote themselves to complaining that Facebook, Google and Twitter are not suppressing enough speech. It is hall-monitor tattletale whining masquerading as journalism: petulantly complaining that tech platforms are permitting speech that, in their view, ought instead be silenced…

Then there is the question of who does and does not spread “misinformation.” It is rather astonishing that the news outlets that did more than anyone to convince Americans to believe the most destructive misinformation of this generation—that Saddam had WMDs and was in an alliance with Al Qaeda—have the audacity to prance around as the bulwarks against misinformation rather than what they are: the primary purveyors of it.

In its current incarnation this all dates back a decade, and until 2016, only the alt-right was ringing the alarm bell. That a resurgence of fascism—literal fascism—was needed for this is the lobster bisque of irony.

Then there’s David Reich, not a grifter (though the journos promoting his book certainly are) but the world’s leading geneticist, writing in the world’s leading newspaper:

I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science. I am also worried that whatever discoveries are made — and we truly have no idea yet what they will be — will be cited as “scientific proof” that racist prejudices and agendas have been correct all along, and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims.

This is why it is important, even urgent, that we develop a candid and scientifically up-to-date way of discussing any such differences, instead of sticking our heads in the sand and being caught unprepared when they are found.

Did you catch that? The world’s foremost geneticist says that in order to avoid vindicating scientific racism, we need to invent entirely new ways of speaking. In itself, that is a major vindication of scientific racism. One would think that if Reich (who is in an excellent position to know) truly has no idea what “the onslaught of science” will show, there’d be no need for this commentary.

But even if there was no objective basis for racism (and Reich doesn’t say that there isn’t): that scientific discourse and inquiry should be so politically fraught and needful of gatekeeping has chilling implications for intellectual freedom. Contra Mr. Reich and the New York Times, I am far less concerned about racism than I am about the possibility of living in a world where objective truth is subject to these caveats.

Just what is so wrong about racism, anyway? Can any of its detractors answer this simple, Socratic question? Supposing we define racism solely as a passion: there are many dangerous passions. Why is racism alone among them not an abstraction, but a crime increasingly to be legislated against and a pathology to be eradicated by science? And are its opponents really so sure that that’s what it is? Because whatever else it may be, racism is a subjective preference and a matter of private conscience that generally does not implicate sanity nor necessitate any given behavior. That it manages to persist despite all progress casts more doubt on the regimen than the patient. Yet it is so singularly perturbing to the managerial class that it is increasingly viewed as a policy obstacle to be extirpated from the human mind, no matter its factual or evolutionary basis. Responsible authorities now blithely discuss the possibilities for brainwashing and re-education in this area.

Perhaps the time has come to ask just what is at stake here. Anti-racism is not germ theory, or a law of thermodynamics. It is a hegemonic moral philosophy with no scientific basis, and unprecedented powers of censorship. Deputizing the medical and tech establishments to meddle in the most intrinsic prerogatives of conscience represents a death sentence over the human personality. Let me repeat: deputizing the medical and tech establishments to meddle in the most intrinsic prerogatives of conscience represents a death sentence over the human personality; one that has only to be or not to be carried out once the technology is in place. In the world of 1984, “Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres inside your skull.” In the world of anti-racism, governments and evil corporations are able to remedy that, and will not stop at unpopular opinions or marginalized ideologies.

Only the alt-right has grasped this, and for that reason I do not regret engaging with the movement and taking it seriously. You should, too.

Wear the Mask, Bigot

Screen Shot 2020-06-19 at 1.24.22 PM

“TRS retweeted”

I had an instructor in college, a black woman, who used to arbitrarily hand out low grades to smart white students. (No—not just to me.) She would always gerrymander the topic of race into her lectures, too. It was very annoying. Essentially, this person lived and breathed negritude. She had a software system in her brain that not only scanned constantly for certain signs, but could make totally unrelated signs fit the patterns her software was designed to uncover. This is the kind of thing I have always seen going on with the JQ on the alt-right:

Screen Shot 2020-06-16 at 8.29.52 PM

You’re more than welcome to take a look at the thread that Enoch here is retweeting from. You may notice a few things. First, Zach Goldberg does not have a blue checkmark. He’s not a public personality. For a private person, 12.9K followers is nothing to sneeze at, but his word is no more consequential than Enoch’s is at 14.3K. Second, where does Zach Goldberg “blame whites for the problem”? I don’t see it. Third—who is “everybody clapping”? The reactions to Goldberg’s thread seem to mostly be from Joe Rogan bro types. For them, the information presented is novel indeed. So what’s more likely? That Goldberg is appropriating WN talking points because he’s a Jew who wants to co-opt sperg audiences? But that would be Mike Enoch’s job. Zach Goldberg, on the other hand, is obviously just a derpy centrist who’s late to these insights.

When you commit yourself to narrow activism, you have to die on that hill, and there will be times that you have to make a lawyerly argument, to obfuscate, to filibuster and demagogue. It takes no great powers of perception to pick up on the fact that Mike Enoch is a master of this. But what this little example with the Zach Goldberg retweet reveals is that Enoch also has no problem concocting the purest, most blatant lies and putting them in front of his audience.

A couple weeks ago I was listening to an FTN podcast, and within the first ten minutes, one of the presenters, referring disdainfully to conspiracy theories about COVID-19, says, “If you can convince me that Bill Gates is Jewish, I’ll believe this conspiracy.”

Putting aside the fact that of course the plutocracy is disproportionately Jewish, FTN here encapsulates my whole problem with alt-right JQ memes. Bill Gates is fucking shady. COVID-19 is shady. The government’s whole response to it is shady. It’s obviously a huge psyop. Yet in the absence of Jews ex machina, none of this interests TRS. Months after they happened, these guys are still disparaging the statehouse anti-lockdown protests (~45:10) in terms resembling those used by liberal pundits. What remains of Spencer’s cohort is likewise still treating COVID skepticism dismissively (~38:00). This isn’t just a difference of opinion about the numbers. It’s moral support for a plutocrat agenda from people who brand themselves as dissidents.

Here’s another example, this one from James Allsup: “Easily Falsifiable 5G Conspiracies are a Hamster Wheel for White People.” Well of course an “easily falsifiable” theory is not worth anybody’s time. But that’s not what Allsup is really saying. TRS has internalized MSM tactics, which (again) they have an obvious talent for. So the point of an article like this is not to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to 5G “conspiracy theories.” It’s to plant a suggestive seed in the minds of unwary followers that some (pretend) authority says you’re a moron or a liar if you’re concerned about 5G whatsoever. Yet 5G is a critical tool of an incoming system of totalitarian social control. You only have to look at the facts. Why would these self-styled dissidents want to discourage that?

They do the same thing with 9/11—not just to their audience, but to their colleagues. A few years ago on a podcast (~50:00), podcaster “The Mad Wop” starts in with a bit of trutherism. Promptly, and with a lot of pretentious sighs and awkward pauses, Enoch and McNabb start steering him away like a couple of boardwalk con-men, claiming there’s no hard evidence for non-mainstream theories, blaming Saudi Arabia and “bureaucratic incompetence.” McNabb then asks, supposing it was an inside job, “what does it get us” to promote 9/11 truth?

IDK, what does it get you to promote Goebbels and Himmler? The fuck outta here.

Screen Shot 2020-07-13 at 6.56.06 PM

First they say al-Qaeda did it, then they say they’ve “always been skeptical” (~20:00) of the official narrative. Then they say the Jews did 9/11 at the same time (~20:00) they say the Jews “created the whole 9/11 truth movement.” None of this makes sense. Noticers aren’t supposed to not notice things. Professional noticers are not supposed to run a sideline in telling their audience, “Move along, nothing to see here.”

So what am I saying? Am I saying that TRS are feds or that you shouldn’t be listening to them? Look: when they’re right, they’re right—amen. When they’re entertaining, they’re entertaining—bravo. And when they’re lying, they’re lying. I frankly couldn’t care less about their identities, or their real motivations. I don’t really know who anybody is on the internet. The only barometer of honesty is whether the things you say are true. TRS says many true things, and they also have a propensity for obscurantism that’s very odd considering the boldness of their worldview in other areas.

Beyond that, I won’t speculate. I don’t have to.

Nationalism as Nihilism

Screen Shot 2020-07-25 at 10.43.14 PM

Is this tradition?

Some of the best recent alt-right commentary has been from Keith Woods. Yet his views also evidence the paucity of political imagination from this milieu, which is perfectly encapsulated in a horrible little listicle he just published over at Radix Journal.

In “The Coming Decline of Globalism,” Woods lists his reasons why nationalists should be hopeful that liberalism is dying. It’s a Gordian knot of dead-ends and clichés: the rise of populism is touted. The internet is held up as a harbinger of decentralization. The decline of the United States is forecast hopefully. The Putin kleptocracy is hailed as a religious revival, dystopian China’s vast human ant farm as a bastion of “tradition.”

The first item on Woods’s list is China’s reintegration of Hong Kong: “In many ways, Hong Kong is symbolic of the western international order. It has little identity or culture to speak of beyond being a city state ruled by financial interests for financial interests.” Identity. What an absolute vacuum of a word. This is typical alt-right question-begging. Exactly how is “identity” or “nationalism” an antidote to neoliberalism? When it’s convenient, neoliberalism dredges up nationalism all over the world (Ukraine, the Balkans, the Caucasus, along the South China Sea, among American blacks) and offers a plethora of a la carte identities, of which alt-right dilettantism is a perfect example.

Woods goes on: “In fact, [Hong Kong’s] lack of a real identity is precisely its identity, the kind of anti-identity that characterizes the spaces where neoliberalism finds its truest expression.”

Again: what the fuck is “identity”? Are global financial interests really inimical to it? China is the murky boiler room of the global economy—nothing that destabilizes it is good for the bankers. It’s also a testing ground for the infrastructure of automated social control, which is a favorite predilection of global oligarchs. The riots in Hong Kong saw people attacking that infrastructure. That’s a good thing.

But for Woods to address the fact that China is imposing with hard power the same AI dystopia that Euro-Atlantic elites are ushering in using soft power (and that the two sides collude extensively) would disrupt this neat paradigm where neoliberalism represents pure disorder (rather than managed chaos) and statism is a good in itself, so long as it is cheaply predicated on some Potemkin “identity.” The suggestion seems to be that neoliberalism, as the opposite of order and statism, is wholly systemic, a permutation, and its increasing authoritarianism need not be taken seriously as the product of deliberate policymaking informed by a guiding vision.

Woods’s views are even less well-considered when it comes to economics. He says that “China has demonstrated that economic development and innovation can be achieved without democracy and liberalism.” Putting aside the issues of pirated technology and (more importantly) who China’s customers are: has China demonstrated that development and innovation can be achieved without sprawling, neo-Dickensian charnel houses? Without a pervasive, dystopian AI minder state? Without ecological destruction unprecedented in scale? Without centralization of power in ways that destroy everything local, seasonal, and traditional? Without cultural homogenization across vast areas? Without the targeted destruction of traditional cultures and nations (like the Uyghurs and Tibetans) through mass migration, forced intermarriage and horrific anti-natal policies?

On the contrary: China, like America, has proved that economic development inevitably produces all of those things. Yet democracy and liberalism are the only explanations Woods has for them, because he has nothing to say about them unless they occur in the West. “Economic development and innovation” here is just a euphemism for state capitalism, and if you look at who put up the seed money for Apple and Google and Oracle you’ll find the exact same thing. But whether it takes hold on the eastern or western model, the Lorax end-result is the same.

Woods goes on to claim that “Without the force of American unipolar hegemony and the expansive dominance of rootless international finance capital, tradition and identity can again assert itself.” Again: what the fuck is “tradition”? The decline of the United States is a stage, not in the decline of capitalism, but in the “expansive dominance of rootless international finance capital” itself.

I’m not trying to be a lefty deconstructicon here. I’m not saying identity and tradition don’t exist. But terms are meaningless without clear definitions—and they’re even more meaningless when they’re given fake, insipid and opportunistic definitions by ruddy little gangsters, regardless of how much they counter-signal Washington.

Accordingly, though he offers no positive vision or definition of “identity” and “tradition” as such, what Woods will accept as compatible with these precepts is all kitsch. “[The Hagia’s Sofia’s] place as a museum was a symbol of Ataturk’s vision of a secular, westernizing Turkey. Its reversion to a Mosque is a rejection of this vision, another bold assertion of a primordial national and religious identity against the infestation of the identity-less, consumer friendly spaces of neoliberalism.” No doubt there is validity to this, but the restoration of the Hagia Sofia to a mosque is not so much a gesture to the West as it is part of a power struggle within the dar-el Islam—which is an aggressive, international force that has always sought to homogenize cultures and territories, and in the end is no less vulnerable to modernity and increasingly cheap self-reinvention than any other subterfuge we might cherish as “tradition.” If it represented a threat to neoliberalism (or neoliberalism to it) there would be no mass-migration of Muslims into Europe.

Then there’s the astounding ignorance Woods brings to the subject of Russia:

Russia’s transformation from a failed state of demoralized people subjected to the worst effects of liberal governance and privatization in the early 1990’s to the independent, religious and nationalist state it is today looks like a potential best case scenario for other western countries looking to what comes after globalization.

This is pure fantasy. Russia’s fortunes today rise and fall at the behest of NATO, Congress and the Saudi oil ministry only slightly less than in 1995. “[T]he worst effects of liberal governance and privatization [of] the early 1990’s” are still haunting Russia in the form of a debauched hereditary oligarchy that made its fortunes as a direct result of those policies. Among its most shameless members is the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, a noted cigarette smuggler and unrepentant communist stoolie. And while this monk lives in opulence, profaning the name of God by ratifying every greedy act of the government, his country’s life expectancy (and church attendance) is among the lowest of any developed country, its rate of abortion, drug abuse and single-mother households among the highest. One of Woods’s videos makes much of Putin’s purges of 1990s-era oligarchs, but this changed nothing of the character of power in Russia. While Putin’s associates keep their money offshore and send their kids to western Europe for school and medical care, the ruling clique plunders pension funds and imposes exorbitant new taxes on even the smallest personal savings accounts, year after year. This self-styled protector of Syrian Christianity enables a sharia-mafia state to flourish within Russia’s borders—not just in Chechnya, but in every major Russian city where Chechen criminals enjoy commodities monopolies with the connivance of the FSB. He uses Muslim mercenaries to attack nationalistic Christian neighbors in Georgia and Ukraine. And his attack on the latter country—not just his support for separatists in the east but his totally gratuitous and counter-productive takeover of Crimea, a display of vulgar impunity for its own sake—directly caused the first schism within the Orthodox Church since 1096. 

A worldview that takes all this approvingly for “identity” (much less “tradition” in the Evolian sense) is Joker-tier stuff. It cannot even decide between populism and autocracy. It’s not a “third position.” It’s not any kind of position. It’s nothing.