Category Archives: Alt-Rightgeist

I am a liberal and so are you, Pt. I

Screen Shot 2020-11-20 at 12.13.04 PM

ever given yourself a stranger?

I am a liberal. You might find that surprising, considering I am a conspiracy theorist who dabbles in all kinds of so-called extremism on dark corners of the internet, my distaste increasing proportionally as I move inward along the political spectrum between Lysander Spooner and Julius Evola. But a liberal I am.

You are a liberal too. How do I know? Most earnest readers of this site will be radical conservatives at least, probably reactionary and quite possibly racist, at least by mainstream standards, with a pronounced attraction to unconventional ideas and convinced that the liberal worldview of the Council on Foreign Relations is implicit in nearly all the great crimes of our age. Even so, you are a liberal.

On this site I have regularly denounced global liberalism, liberal democracy, and relativism of various kinds—all of them (supposedly) liberal. I am not now rescinding or modifying these criticisms. Instead, I am clarifying terms. Liberalism has its departments, its factions and its tendencies, to be sure. But liberalism writ large is not just an idea or a system; it is an entire stage of human development, and what it becomes and where it goes is the whole locus of our era. Besides: the creature that passes for liberalism today is a species of totalitarianism. To oppose it by opposing liberalism misses the mark.

The liberal episteme is a mutation, a genie escaped from the bottle. Even if you could put it back, you cannot say it has worked no significant affect on your perception of reality. John of Kronstadt was a liberal, and so was Heidegger. Hitler was as liberal as Hamlet. You don’t have to agree with Hume about free will or with Mill about what are properly private as opposed to public affairs. You just have to have been born at a certain time.

I have repeatedly said on this site that the sole criteria of whether a person is truthful is whether or not the things he says are true. I cannot prove that e.g., Richard Spencer is “a fed,” or that Alex Jones is a method actor. But I can usually know within a fair degree of certainty when either man is lying, and when he is telling the truth.

Indeed, truth is the sole criteria of any inquiry. I submit that such a dictum is much easier spoken than lived, and that if you even attempt to live it, you are a rationalist, i.e., a proponent of the view that reason is the best navigator of reality and arbiter of human affairs. Granted, I am not a hard empiricist or utilitarian. Inasmuch as one believes that the evidence of his senses and experiences leads (however improbably) to certain metaphysical conclusions, to objective truth as a general proposition or even just to inductive reasons, one cannot be. But it is the requirement of evidence that makes us rationalists, and a rationalist is always a liberal.

Just what is a liberal? What is the core criteria of liberalism? The core criteria of liberalism is the belief in the need for free inquiry. Free inquiry, in turn, depends on belief in a universal, objective truth. What other reason could there possibly be for inquiry in the first place? Relativism is as shoddy a refuge from this as reaction, or organized religion. If Hitler is in hell, he’ll soon be having a threesome with Pope Francis and Michel Foucault.

There are, conversely, many strongly identified liberals who do not believe—at least not fully or sincerely—in free inquiry. This no more absolves them of liberalism than reaction or religion can. It only means that they are incredibly stupid and irrational. If this was 1937, and I told you that of the three prevailing world systems, the one that will come closest to imposing universal totalitarianism is liberal democracy, you’d think I was insane. Yet here we are. Churchill said that the fascists of the future would call themselves anti-fascists. This is less offensive than the panopticon calling itself the open society, but pointing it out is banal, and it is easy absolution. Denouncing liberalism as if it were merely a thesis in the hands of overweening courtesans and their coddled rabble won’t do. The question of liberalism is the question of the whole future of the human race. It is malleable yet, and I intend to have my say.

Thrift Shops for Spiritual Hipsters

you can fit so many icons in this bad boy

Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom

Even at my most youthful, arrogant and anti-religious, I never really stopped believing this. Though the three Abrahamic faiths are too convoluted and implicated in mortal foibles for me to settle on any one of them, I’ve always been averse, not to paganism or magic per se, but to hubris, dark arts and left-hand ideologies. Particularly, in this connection, I’ve long felt that the argument (best summarized by Yeats) connecting Christianity directly to liberalism is quite shallow. And it is, except when it isn’t.

I often encounter liberal friends and colleagues, and I’ve come to realize that what they have in common is that they hate themselves. The milieu has its alphas and its omegas, to be sure, and everyone consoles him or herself with rectitude to a greater or lesser degree—but at bottom, for whites at least (there are no non-white liberals) liberalism is a form of self-abnegation. 

Meanwhile, there seems to be a resurgence of interest nowadays in Eastern Orthodoxy among right-wingers. I used to follow a lot of alt-Orthodox accounts on Twitter and Facebook. About a year ago I saw a post that ran roughly as follows:

“Pray for me! My wife has apostatized and absconded with my step-daughter. I received a notification from a lawyer that she is filing for divorce. I miss my step-daughter terribly! I tried so hard to keep my wife in the fold, but she was not strong enough” etc., etc.

I felt bad for the guy, of course. But something about this marriage sounded strange. I mean, first off: why do you only have a step-daughter? The Bible says be fruitful and multiply, bro. I’m pretty sure you’re allowed to stop fellating God long enough to accomplish this. God probably doesn’t even want to be fellated. Hymns, candles, etc…. It’s all very nice, but perhaps there’s just an understanding God wants us to attain and try to imbue our actions with. That seems to me to be the whole message of Christ.

So I could see how the holy-rolling husband made himself a huge pain in the ass. But by itself, that’s probably not enough to repulse a wife. Rather, taking on a groveling aspect is not conducive to manhood. Like liberalism, it’s passive aggressive, a way of indulging self-loathing, of valorizing a weak chin. Obviously, hedonism wrecks people, and I’m not advocating it. I’m all for Christian continence, to a degree. But how TF are you allowing yourself social media (which is real poison) and not raw-dogging the wife? The only way that makes sense is if your religion is for show.

I know the Orthodox response to this is probably that homeboy was doing it wrong, that the Bible indeed commands us to be fruitful, that Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount says not to make a parade out of piety, etc. But Christianity is nothing if not utterly sexless. And what’s a sacral procession? It’s literally a parade.

Does the trinity make any sense at all? How about communion? You know, the blood wine and the flesh bread? Either that all makes zero fucking sense whatsoever, or you have to be way smarter than everyone to comprehend it, in which case you’re damn sure not receiving the kingdom like a little child. If God is logos, i.e., universal reason, then why am I being told that I must believe things that make no fucking sense?

I’ve been reading the Old Testament my entire life, and the New for the last five years or so. My wife is nominally Orthodox. We have young children, and I’ve been looking to inculcate them in a tradition that emphatically teaches (among other, related things) that faggotry is a sickness. So I tried getting into Orthodoxy over the past few months, and what I’ve found is just as much idolatry as there is in Judaism. In particular, converts to Orthodoxy in modern America (usually about half the congregation) are invariably obsessed with authenticity. It’s hipsterism grown old, with the insufferable knit-picking about 80s movies and musical subgenera re-canned and transferred over to theology and apologetics.

Jay Dyer is a perfect example of this. Don’t get me wrong: I appreciate and recommend his conspiracy lectures, and even some of his philosophy stuff. But he’s totally glib. Paul Krugman couldn’t be more smug. Dyer has found the thing, and can hold forth literally for hours about why he’s smarter than you. That’s what apologetics amounts to. And it has to be a facade, because (as with liberalism) the suggestion is always that downloading and then going through life insisting on some horribly circuitous reasoning is akin to having a woke third eye. In both cases, it’s purely performative.

The Republic

Mencius Moldbug is having a bit of a moment lately. Or he was, until a moment ago. He kept popping up on YouTube this summer, very openly panhandling. After a riveting half-podcast the word-count smoke seemed to dissipate, and I remembered what a one-trick pony he is. He never gets to the point. He just leads you around by the nose.

What I liked about Moldbug was the very thorough way he diagnosed liberalism as a kind of mania, using primary sources. What I disliked about him was his dismissal—by turns high-handed and skittish—of conspiracy theories. Drug addiction isn’t treated by diagnosis alone. Sometimes you have to kill a drug dealer.

Moldbug’s most black-pilling feat by far is his critique of the American Revolution. Supposing he’s right that the founders were rabble-rousing charlatans, and that King George did nothing wrong. So what? You don’t have to tell me things are bad. But I’m armed to the teeth over here in America, I can own land, and can’t be prosecuted for what I write on Twitter. Contrast this with life under the British monarchy, where the government can literally murder your kid.

So I fail to see the need for this huge blackpill. Power is always diffuse, even under an absolute monarchy. Rome began as a republic, and degenerated into a monarchy. Like any system, the problem with America is not form, but function. Personnel is policy. In the last installment of his “Gentle Introduction,” Moldbug essentially says that a worthy alternative only needs to exist, and when America implodes, this alternative will fill the vacuum, because people will just roll over and accept it. Call me cuckoo for conspiracy puffs, but that’s exactly what Klaus Schwab thinks.

You may say I’m a dreamer, but I think there’s a much simpler way. A republic and an aristocracy are basically the same thing. In The Republic, Socrates used the allegory of the ship’s captain to suggest that only the wise should participate in politics. But the unwise (both the shrewd and the misguidedly fervent) are fully capable of overthrowing the wise. Might I suggest an alternative criterion? Only those who have a real investment in the future have the right to decide the future course of state, and determining who they are is far easier than determining who is wise. Obviously, they are people with biological children, who have treated their investment (their kids) with the consideration and care it deserves, i.e., by maintaining a functional marriage to the other biological parent.

I know it’s a long-shot. Solutions to big problems always are. But if we could limit the franchise to couples married and cohabiting continuously at least ten years, with at least one biological child together, we could strike those whose interests are selfish, decadent and fleeting from the voter rolls without discriminating by race, sex, or property ownership. Narrow interest groups would still have their proxies, but the proxies would have as much in common with the rest of the electorate as they do with their separate identity groups.

Understand: I’m not saying every non-voter should effectively be a non-person. Every provision in the Bill of Rights would still apply to all citizens, but the criteria I’ve outlined would have to be met in order to participate in civic policymaking, i.e., to vote. Make that ironclad, and it wouldn’t take too many other reforms to make things real nice for normal, decent people. Normal, decent people are the only ones who have a shot at happiness anyway, because deviants will always be miserable.

That is a worthy alternative. If you will it, it is no dream.

Wear the Mask, Bigot

Screen Shot 2020-06-19 at 1.24.22 PM

“TRS retweeted”

I had an instructor in professional school, 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 white nationalist narratives because he’s a Jew who wants to co-opt pro-white 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 in the current year, of course Jewish plutocrats are involved in a ruling class conspiracy, 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 (apparent) absence of Jews ex machina, none of this interests FTN. Months after they happened, TRS podcasters are still disparaging the anti-lockdown protests (~45:10) in terms resembling those used by liberal pundits. NPI/Radix is likewise still treating COVID-conspiracy theory 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” conspiracy theory is a trap—for anyone who falls for it. But that’s not what Allsup means. 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 if you’re giving consideration to any 5G conspiracy theories. Yet 5G is a critical tool of an incoming system of totalitarian 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 dissenting 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? TFOH.

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.

There’s a name for this kind of thing. It’s called gatekeeping. Beyond that, I won’t speculate. I don’t have to.

Unfollow, Pt. III

Screen Shot 2020-05-23 at 12.51.32 PM

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

As I stood in the socially-distanced self-checkout of my nearby Idiocracy Costco, gazing vacantly across a field of eggplant-shaped cattle, the whole history of our species from the agricultural revolution flashed before me, and I understood all at once how the instinct for safety is strangling everything worthy that’s in us.

I don’t want to beat my sword into a ploughshare—that’s ridiculous. My sword is who I am. Yet here I am, smashed between a hammer and an anvil. I look at my youngest son and see the most unadulterated aggressive instincts. There’s no resentment or ulterior motive, just pure joy. He just wants to fight—to box and run and sword-fight and do archery—and the whole world is against him. Our world is predicated on neurosis and anti-social impulses. Every protected class of people is fundamentally self-loathing. Every feature of modern life conduces toward cowardice and resignation.

Lysander Spooner described the U.S. Constitution as a contract that binds no one. Ironically, that is now the U.S. government’s position as well. You probably don’t know my identity, and I don’t know yours, but (as you already know) a global shadow government knows both our identities, because its skynet backlogs our every word and keystroke—every purchase and fap sesh—in real time. No proposition could be more straightforward than that this proves you are not a man, a citizen, nor even a consumer (who at least in theory has choices) but a subject.

What does it mean to be a subject? It means you have no moral agency. The mandarins of a parallel society will decide right and wrong for you. A good illustration of this was in the news recently. An Omaha middle school employee named James Fairbanks sent letters to the local press confessing to the murder of a repeat child rapist who had gotten away with a couple slaps on the wrist and was out walking around. Somehow, Fairbanks became aware of him, and of some pretty clear evidence that he intended to continue kid-fucking, and decided to kill him instead.

He was charged with first degree murder. The district judge who ordered him held without bond declared that, “There is a reason we are a nation of laws and don’t take justice into our own hands.” Yes, exactly—so that children can be raped. That is the reason. According to his own daughter, the victim in this case raped lots of kids over a period of decades. Lots of people knew what he had done, and could reasonably know that he was never going to stop, yet none but Fairbanks took the highly intuitive step of greasing him. Why not? Because the system told them not to.

Milan Kundera said that “The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.” What’s this guy’s beef with power? Well, by power, he meant the Stasi, who were capable of a great deal less than the U.S. government, but at least knew how to read. As Jonathan Bowden once remarked, under liberalism, you talk like a Jamaican gangster, and books don’t have to be burned because 40% of the population can’t read them anyhow. We are to our forebears what a beagle is to a grey wolf. By the sum of a million little undecisions, we sign up for this degradation.

The coronavirus lockdowns—the destruction of livelihoods and total abrogation of civil liberties—put me in an extremely libertarian, even anarchist place. I wasn’t alone: a great deal of overlap began to manifest between the anarchist accounts I follow on social media, and the alt-right ones. And then something strange happened: the Minneapolis riots broke out, and (apparently for the sake of consistency) not a few of these alt-right people stuck around on the anarchist side, decrying supposed police heavy-handedness against African-Americans and lauding the riots as a “boogaloo,” with memes like “This is what ‘don’t tread on me’ looks like.”

This is an absolutely delusional take.

First of all, Metro PD is undoubtedly a part of “the system.” But so is the media, the Department of Justice, and every public official in Minnesota (and beyond) now calling for Derick Chauvin’s head. Yet (as always with these events) the rioters’ grievances are focused solely on municipal police—and on the average white person, whose “privileges” and “implicit attitudes” are presumed to be propping up the world like Atlas.

And this narrative persists when the same system—that just put 100 million people out of work and vilified them for protesting peacefully; that backlogs virtually all our private communications; that tells us not to “take justice into our own hands” and ice a child rapist—gives a mob the go-ahead to torch American cities. George Carlin once remarked that “The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there just to scare the shit out of the middle class.” Accordingly, as with every race riot since Rodney King, Minneapolis is 100% a media phenomenon. And if the system has direct access to your brain the way it does with these “protesters,” then you’re not against the system. You are the system.

The alt-right is the only sub-culture that clearly perceives the cynical ways that the deviant and the marginalized are pressed into service by the powers the be. What the alt-right cannot see is the way this draws their alienation into fruitless hostility with those groups. Orwell once said that “if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you.” That time is now. The minute corona hit stateside, the whole alt-right peanut gallery came down with a major case of hyperchondria, praising the Chinese and denigrating “conspiracy theories.”

Screen Shot 2020-04-05 at 11.46.59 AM

neoliberalism is statism

It’s very hard to believe (for example) that the TRS network can be so well-versed in Whitney Webb’s reporting on Israeli spyware (they never seem to cite her work, but it’s the sole basis of a lot of their podcasts) and not take seriously everything she’s been reporting about DARPA and big tech plotting to chip everybody like cattle. Deep-diving the “evolutionary psychology” of every lumpy kike they worked with in a call center is more interesting, I suppose. But when every problem looks Yiddish, it’s because you have a favorite gas.

This is actually analogous to certain alt-right criticisms of the alt-lite, e.g., Tommy Robinson:

The whole argument of all these sorts of anti-Islamists is, Muslims are scary, please don’t hurt us… All they’re doing is, they want to preserve their own nihilism, because Islam is a metaphysically objectivist system… Whereas these western nihilists just want to wallow in their own hedonism, that’s what they want to defend.

This kind of eggheaded take ignores the fact that alt-right thought leaders are as eager as the EDL to be kept creatures of a paternalistic state, so long as no one rocks the boat. I mean, what’s more “metaphysically objectivist” than a chimp-out? Forcing people into stadiums to do calisthenics hasn’t altered mass man’s basic mediocrity anywhere it’s been tried. The only difference between the alt-right (or 3P or whatever autistic label they’re giving themselves nowadays) and fully automated luxury space communism is that the former is racist. Well I don’t think that racism is all that wicked per se. But if you’d trade the Bill of Rights for Hugo Boss, what exactly is setting you apart from the homies?

68688497_1405528912920140_6894826792587100160_n

To see human liberty as an illusion is perverse. I’m reasonably certain that western powers are abetting the HK protests. But no one really believes this demagogue when he says he “has no idea what these protests are even about.” And what they’re definitely not about is biological determinism.

Whiteness is not the paramount threat to misplaced power. Liberty is. I’m not talking about capitalism or NAP or any libertarian dogma. I’m talking about the things that make the heart exult. I’m talking about the experiences we can only have—the sensations we can only feel—when we are free to decide our path. “All good things are wild and free,” as Thoreau put it.

Liberty is priceless. There’s no identity worth trading for it.

Deconstructing Judaism, Pt. I

Screen Shot 2018-10-16 at 7.39.18 PM.png

the final solution?

(Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI)

One of the worst clichés in anti-semitic circles is that the Jews won’t tolerate criticism. Why should Jews accept being criticized qua Jews? No other group accepts this—certainly not those most “critical of Jews”, i.e., Muslims and (with respect to white people) the alt-right.

Readers may know me as a Zionist. This is an oversimplification. I am half-Jewish on my father’s side and was raised Jewish. But Judaism is not about about religion or identity for me. It’s just a memento mori.

The second intifada was raging when I got out of high school. Every several weeks there were murdered Jewish schoolchildren and elderly on the front page of the newspapers. Restless, romantic, full of deontological conviction, I decided to drop out of college and join the Israeli army. Obviously, I am not anti-Zionist. But I am not primarily a Zionist, either. In other words, Jewish identity is not my primary conceptual frame. If it were, I’d be poorer, spiritually and intellectually, which is why Israelis sometimes seem to me like poor relations—smug, stingy, and provincial. For an awful lot of them, Jewish identity is an ultimate end—a kind of idol—whereas for me, Zionism is quite contingent. If a vital Israeli interest contributes to making my life in America (or humanity as a whole) less free, then I am dead set against it. There is no cause worth losing your soul.

If this was the 1920s, I might not be Zionist at all, but Israel is a fait accompli. I’ve defended Jews from neo-Nazis not because neo-Nazis are entirely wrong about Jews, but because they’re stupid and monomaniacal. I’ve defended Israel from the pro-Palestine crowd not because Israel is innocent or unobnoxious, but because Palestine is not a human rights cause—it’s a medieval Islamic one. That’s not entirely a bad thing, but I think leftists in the West should be honest about it. Zionism is Israel’s only alternative to sharia, which any non-Muslim people is entitled to avoid.

Not long ago, I published a piece over on Affirmative Right, basically a polemic against the widespread alt-media view that Zionism is uniquely pernicious in U.S. politics. My argument was that America has always been ethnically and politically fractious, and activism on behalf of narrow interests is normal. A wignat reader seized on this, commenting that I was “deconstructing” (white) American identity, and declaring that I would never deconstruct Jewish or Israeli identity in this manner. Well, he was more than a little bit wrong. Over a year ago, I published a five-part critical deconstruction of Jewish identity (under the asinine title, “Make Judaism Great Again”—the Wayback Machine has my back) but it was windy, and lacked a tidy conclusion. In the aftermath of subsequent anti-semitic shootings, I removed it, intending to refine it and republish it later.

Well, later is now. Stay tuned.

 

Fascism is Vaginal

“technically, it’s a perversion”

“Fascism” is an epithet that gets thrown around a lot. But what distinguishes fascism from nationalism, conservatism, militarism, or machismo? The alt-right (today’s fascism) is a mirror image of the woke/SJW phenomenon. But while the SJW phenomenon has to do with resentment stemming inevitably from congenital or immutable misfortunes, the alt-right stems from missed decisions and waylaid opportunities—no one who is independently accomplished has any need for it except, perhaps, as a source of entertainment. In other words, while wokeness is a genuine envy and hatred of others, the alt-right is a sublimation of self-loathing.

First comes initiation, i.e., the red pill: the revelation of a hidden path, the maudlin solipsism of fallenness and unrequited nobility. The next step is manichaeism: a girt-round delusion of war against a preternatural enemy who is everywhere and nowhere, objectified onto some hapless persons, principally Jews. Then comes sadomasochism: the object of his passions now clearly defined, his mind’s vagina now fully Zionist-occupied, the fascist surreptitiously derives pleasure both from victimology, and from fantasies of omnipotence and revenge upon the adversary—a conduit for and projection of all manner of repressed dirtiness, who merits no moral restraint.

Hamstrung by spineless, prosaic scruples such as individual guilt and innocence, the uninitiated—“normies,” liberals, the bourgeoisie, etc.—cannot understand this. Like a clinical pervert or closet-case, the fascist thus inhabits a parallel world of titillation that dare not speak its name. His bad faith is endemic. This is why you hear so much talk about “optics” on the alt-right, whenever the movement periodically catches its fingers in the pearly gates of mainstream revulsion. Like the more flamboyant variety of homosexual, they’re convinced that everyone is latently like them, and can surreptitiously be “turned.”

Jonathan Bowden (an obscure but interesting autodidact involved with the British National Party, whose writings and recorded lectures gained a cult following with the advent of the alt-right) once made the astute observation that the hero of American movies and comics is often a vaguely fascistic sort—tycoon, cowboy, war vet, vigilante—whose energy is misdirected toward democratic aims, e.g., defending the victimized and the disadvantaged, upholding the abstract “rule of law,” etc. But this begs the question whether fascism really is what Bowden thought it was. If strength is an end in itself, then who needs the strong? If “life is an instinct for growth, for survival, for the accumulation of forces,” then indeed, Private Ryan is not worth saving. This is why fascist “heroism” and discipline always devolves into rank criminality; it’s always Kant on the streets and Nietzsche in the sheets.

One of the worst proto-alt-right cliches is that communism is at least as bad as Nazism. This just misses the point entirely. Such things are a matter of substance, not body count. Communism produces one of two types of leader: (1) inquisitors—pure sadists, e.g., Mao; or (2) gangsters, pure criminals, e.g., Stalin. Fascism, on the other hand, produces only one type of leader: the callow, vindictive bully. “My spirit will rise from the grave and the world will know that I was right.” Translation: “You’ll all be sorry when I’m dead!” You’ll never catch communists feeling sorry for themselves like this. Outwardly, they’re way more dishonest—but (not too) deep down, they know exactly what they’re doing.

Communism’s chief antagonist is the bourgeoisie: not so much a class of people as a mode of being, an amorphous set of predilections. Capitalism is a behavior. For example, in Homage to Catalonia, Orwell remarked about arriving in revolutionary Barcelona to learn that tipping had been banned in the hotels. Communism isn’t preoccupied with the enemy’s identity. Its aims do not depend on him. It is domineering in that way; it takes the initiative. In contrast, fascism’s chief antagonist is of course the Jews, and women. In fascist taxonomy, a communistic peasantry, or an inferior race, is just a puppet. But the fascist very viscerally senses that a woman has ideas of her own. This inconsistency exposes the whole basis of the fascist mind-state: the absolute most puerile sense of entitlement and vindictiveness.

Richard Spencer gave an interview to Alex Jones recently. Asked to speak about his background, Spencer said that “I could’ve become a lawyer and made a lot of money,” but instead chose the hard road of thought-criminality. But Spencer is not a hermit, or a crust punk, or a starving artiste. He isn’t risking his freedom or even his safety. He’s a professional Twitterer and civil plaintiff. Clearly, he lives entirely off his parents, and lives well. The source of the anomie and banality he sees everywhere in modern democratic society is himself. Can you honestly think of anyone in the alt-right who isn’t like this?

Here is one of Spencer’s recent tweets:

The video Spencer tweeted is of Trump, bloviating at a rally about his China trade policies, and promising everybody better appliances. Of course, this is phenomenally low-brow. But is the washing machine itself really something to sneeze at? For someone who fetishizes knights, explorers, marble columns and cathedrals, Spencer doesn’t seem to have any comprehension of all the background accoutrements that enabled people to pursue those activities. This is the mentality of someone who doesn’t do his own laundry, if only in the proverbial sense that he doesn’t really do anything.

Here, on the other hand, is someone who does things:

Can Moses be an Englishman? It isn’t really for you or me to say. After all, we didn’t pass SAS selection. I can already hear the alt-right rejoinder that a million African migrants aren’t worth the trouble. Maybe not. But this isn’t about averages, it’s about what’s best and most noble in man. Isn’t that what fascism claims to be all about? For every million African migrants there may, indeed, be one future astrophysicist, or special ops major—but literally no one on the alt-right ever will be. That’s guaranteed.

Achtung Juden

IMG_3562

What ideology unites Antifa and 4Chan, manosphere he-thots and intersectional harpies, tradcaths and neopagans, wignats and hoteps, Dugin and Zizek, peacenik granolas and international arms dealers?

“Well it’s your own damn fault if you’re so hated!” By those clowns? Really? A man with no enemies is a man with no character, and these enemies are not sending their best. Like the Jersey City shooting earlier this month, last night’s machete attack on an ultra-orthodox Hanukkah party in upstate New York appears to have been carried out by a lumpen African-American under the influence of YouTube Wakanda theology.

Now, I’m half-Jewish, and basically a modern, secular person—I have about as much in common with Hasidic Jews as I do with the Denisovans. So it’s as strange to see people who are so different from me being attacked for what little we have in common, as it is startling to see how different the backgrounds of the perpetrators tend to be.

You may recall, for instance, last year’s events at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue. No, not the Purim party. I’m talking about the sabbath service where a lonely old wignat truck driver with an AR mistook the place for a range and did target practice on a dozen or so nursing home inmates in wheel chairs. Update: they didn’t survive. You may also recall the following April, when a homeschooled sperg male nurse took out a Federal Reserve banker at a shul in San Diego, wounding the rabbi in the process, along with an eight-year old girl who runs the porn industry. The perp there seems not to have had any imaginary friends, though he did have the next best thing, i.e., 8Chan anons.

Then there was the 2014 Kansas City JCC shooting, also perpetrated by a wignat, who killed a kid and two adults, all of them gingerbread-baking white Methodists in RealTree camo and ugly Christmas sweaters. At least the 2012 shooter in Toulouse (that’s France, for all you Victor Hugo fans) managed to hit actual members of the tribe, killing three toddlers and wounding five others at a synagogue daycare. Oh, and how about the 2009 DC Holocaust Museum shooting? That one took out a married black father of three, which is not as rare as a unicorn, but should probably require a permit or something. Then there was the Seattle JCC kindergarten shooting in 2006, and the El Al ticket counter shooting in LAX a year or so prior. Oh, and who could forget the 1999 JCC shooting in LA? A real classic, which took the lives of four children, a secretary, and the mailman.

Why do these things keep happening? I’m sure some anthropomorphic little Eric Cartman somewhere would love to fill me in. Yes, the Jews have their fair share of perverts, plutocrats, embezzlers and corrupt politicians. But these pogroms never seem to target those Jews—or any pervs, plutocrats, embezzlers, politicians, etc. So the question is not what the Jews have done to deserve these atrocities. Because if that was the question, they wouldn’t really be atrocities, would they? “Well they’re not, teehee.” Yeah, tell me more about elite pedophile rings there, guy who supports kindergarten shootings.

The reason these things keep happening is because Jews don’t prevent it. And so the real question is, what is to be done to prevent it?

I don’t intend the question as a “silence is violence” callout. Silence can be complicity in the unconscionable, but a lot of unconscionable shit goes on every day, and no one owes it to anyone else to think or feel anything. The solution, then, depends on the Jews. Do we want to live, or don’t we? It’s that simple.

I know that’s sounds trite. I only ask because lots of Jews don’t want to. Don’t get me wrong—I’m not saying that Hitler or Chemelnitsky is coming. Believe it or not—in spite of all these attacks—that’s not the problem. I’m also not talking about Jews who are estranged from their heritage, either. No. I’m talking about Jews who make fellow traveling with some form of anti-semitism a literal component of Judaism, and of yiddishkeit.

Sound far-fetched? These types are quite vocal, and they’re the tip of a huge psychological iceberg. On the left stand the anti-Zionists, who should be irrelevant—clammy, furtive little figures like Philip Weiss, Norman Finkelstein, Israel Shamir, and Gilad Atzmon, who make entire careers and identities out of shame, discomfort and denunciation of an identity they could easily just walk away from instead. Proof that mainstream liberal Judaism essentially fellow-travels with this pathology is the recent, wholesale renunciation of Zionism by Jewish Voice for Peace—whose board members include Tony Kushner, Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein. (It was 1941 when Jabotinsky declared “all those who regard [peace with the Palestinians] as a condition sine qua non for Zionism may as well say ‘non’ and withdraw from Zionism.” Better 78 years late than never, I suppose.) Liberal Zionists like Jeremy Ben Ami and Peter Beinart are actually worse, because they’re pushing from within for the Zionist movement to reflect JVP’s attitudes. Of the Palestinian factions they imagine they’d like to conciliate, each one, including the internationally recognized PLO, has a completely undisavowed and remarkably recent history of deadly attacks on Israeli women, children and elderly. But then, no one in J-Street has to actually live with those consequences (unless J-Street is working with frummies from Monsey I don’t know about.)

As bad as all this is, there’s something far more patently offensive to the intellect about the left anti-Zionists’ mirror image on the right, among the burgeoning ranks of sycophantic, alt-right adjacent Jews desperately flailing to live down every absurd libel and stereotype as if it applied to them personally. (At least having no pride or self-esteem whatsoever suits leftists.) Tech entrepreneur Ron Unz, for example, runs the largest aggregator of anti-Jewish content on the web, where he publishes his own rambling, scarcely readable essays that reprise familial and childhood resentments at great length before eventually getting around to the ostensible topic, which is always how bad his own people are. Self-help charlatan Mike Cernovich similarly grovels for acceptance from Twitter Nazis. Classics professor Paul Gottfried pathetically fawns all over pseudoscientist Kevin MacDonald (and is shocked, shocked to find that liberal journalists associate him with alt-right leaders he actually associates with.) Eccentric inventor Henry Makow writes gushing blurbs for latter-day clerical fascist E. Michael Jones’s self-published screeds; and blog posts with titles like “Anti-Semitism is Legitimate Self Defense.” Would he like somebody to murder him, or what?

One looks for sanity in this febrile atmosphere of ADHD Twitter discourse, of anomie and atomization and dementia, and sees the Jewish civil society commentariat, the ADL, the Atlantic, etc., exuding precisely the fear and panic that the high school bully mentality of anti-semitism veritably lives to elicit. When has official Jewry in America ever prevented an attack on Jews here? When they aren’t pushing constitutionally dubious legislation that makes us look ugly and stupid, their solution to everything is “education”: more words, factoids, arguments, and admonishments against wrongthink; to explain ourselves for the umpteenth time to a balkanized and stupefied public irremediably leery of smug expertise.

In Russia, in 1911, Jabotinsky had a prescient sense of this:

Now they have raised a rumpus over ritual murder, and once again we have taken on the role of prisoners on trial: we press our hands to our hearts, with quivering fingers we leaf through old stacks of supporting documents that no one is interested in, and we swear right and left that we do not consume this drink, that never has a drop of it passed our lips, may the Lord smite me on the spot. . . How much longer will this go on? Tell me, my friends, are you not tired by now of this rigmarole? Isn’t it high time, in response to all of these accusations, rebukes, suspicions, smears, and denunciations—both present and future—to fold our arms over our chests and loudly, clearly, coldly, and calmly put forth the only argument which this public can understand: why don’t you all go to hell?

Who are we, to make excuses to them; who are they to interrogate us? What is the purpose of this mock trial over an entire people where the verdict is known in advance? Our habit of constantly and zealously answering to any rabble has already done us a lot of harm and will do much more. The situation that has been created as a result tragically confirms a well known saying: ‘Qui s’excuse s’accuse.’ We ourselves have acquainted our neighbors with the thought that for every embezzling Jew it is possible to drag the entire ancient people to answer. . . Every accusation causes among us such a commotion that people unwittingly think, ‘Why are they so afraid of everything? Apparently their conscience is not clear.’ Exactly because we are ready at every minute to stand at attention, there develops among others an inescapable view about us, as of some specific thievish tribe. We think that our constant readiness to undergo a search without hesitation and to turn out our pockets will eventually convince mankind of our nobility; look what gentlemen we are—we do not have anything to hide!

This is a terrible mistake. The real gentlemen are those who will not allow anyone for any reason to search their apartment, their pockets or their soul. Only a person under surveillance is ready for a search at every moment. This is the only one inevitable conclusion from our maniac reaction to every reproach—to accept responsibility as a people for every action of a Jew, and to make excuses in front of everybody including hell knows who. I consider this system to be false to its very root.

Old Jabotinsky could’ve saved Franz Kafka a lot of time and ink. But even the State of Israel cannot help us if this remains our mentality—not over there, where it can scarcely protect its own citizens from this kind of attack, and damn sure not here in America. Its leaders are busy fighting corruption charges, and casting belatedly and superfluously about for 1940s anti-semitism; it sends its condolences, as peremptory as any American politician’s. If the body count approaches a dozen, you may get an Israeli cabinet minister at your memorial service. Mazal tov.

So do you want to live, or don’t you? The state of our solidarity, of our situational awareness, of our rectal fortitude, is as sorry as it was in 1932. But though I may have as little in common with Jersey City frummies as I do with a Denisovan, though these things may happen thousands of miles away, every one of these attacks is an attack on my soul. Zionism is as much about spiritual exigencies as it is about practical ones. For over a thousand years, our ancestors were forbidden to own land, enter an honest trade, testify in court, ride a horse, or carry a weapon for self-defense. We were a “protected” class. A crime against us was a property crime. That is why the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was so important: not because it prevented any great proportion of the crimes committed against us by the Germans, but because it vindicated our dignity as human beings. The Israeli army exists as much to defend Israeli territory, lives, and infrastructure, as it does in order for you to know unequivocally that you are a free and equal human being.

I got into a debate not long ago with a couple of law school friends, about a Texas law requiring public contractors to sign a pledge not to boycott Israel. Though not Jewish, my friends are mainstream, pro-Israel conservatives. They defended the law, on the premise that a government contract is not a right; and I opposed it, on free speech grounds. In the course of our conversation, I ranted a bit about lobbyists, about Jewish pushiness and Israeli arrogance and how some principles (e.g., free speech) are higher than my ethnic affinities. I see now that this was a mistake—not because of the facts, but because of my motives. I wasn’t just defending free speech: I was obliquely defending Jews, by melodramatically trying to demonstrate that my loyalties are not conflicted. But my friends didn’t have any doubts about that.

So it doesn’t matter if this or that Jew is a bad person. Are you? Or are you worthy to hold your head up and live? Because if you aren’t, there’s always alt-right Twitter, or left anti-Zionism, or banging on the office doors of senators and police commissioners demanding indifferent protection. Just know that if you seek to validate and defend yourself in this manner, your work will never be done, because you will have handed all your power over to others, when they didn’t even ask for it. Almost no issue in public discourse needs to be about Jews in any fundamental way—not even, e.g., U.S. military aid to Israel, or the phenomenon of anti-semitic shootings. Rather, you need to fundamentally be about yourself, before you can be for others. And an attack on Jews is an attack on you.

So never denounce your own kind. Never second-guess a friend, or an enemy. Fold your arms over your chest, like Jabotinsky said. Be clear, cold, and calm. Don’t panic. Be stationary, be stoic. Exude utter contempt. That’s number one.

Number two is, be prepared to physically defend yourself, and your loved ones. Over the same weekend as the Monsey attack, a gunman stormed a church in rural Texas, and was immediately shot down by a parishioner before he was able to kill anyone else. QED: if Jews weren’t such soft targets, these attacks wouldn’t be happening.

It’s that simple.

 

 

Crocodile Logos

Screen Shot 2019-12-10 at 4.43.27 PM

the god pill is dispensed by social media, as soon as you hit the wall

“Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. If it could be understood it would not answer their purpose. Their security is in their faculty of shedding darkness, like the scuttlefish, thro’ the element in which they move, and making it impenetrable to the eye of a pursuing enemy, and there they will skulk.” —Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp (1810)

“LOL, are you one of these coomers who wants to ban ‘hate speech’ but not porn?”

I don’t want to ban either. But when was the last time porn inspired a shooting? The social and psychological ill-effect of porn has been a lively topic of public discussion for nearly a decade—a discussion, not a debate, because the harms are proven. But until the alt-right got in on it, the issue was how to stop yourself, not about getting the government to do it for you.

I’m not sure porn is as bad as its most stringent detractors say it is—not because the effects aren’t real, but because choice still exists in the matter:

From a philosophical standpoint, pornography, like any other foul use of speech, has no socially redeeming value. But there is great value in having a government that lacks power in criminalizing people’s words, pictures, or thoughts, especially for the ill-defined goals of “community standards” imposed on other people. I’m not your parent, I’m not your priest.

As far as the “culture war”, this is the sort of thing you see pushed by Twitter conservatives, but there is no appetite for it in the real world. (Nothing is impossible for people who don’t have to do the fucking work.) Hard-core antipornites are a hashtag, not a voting block.

But meme magic is real: the above comment was stolen from a Reddit thread about a letter to AG Barr demanding he take action against porn, sent this week by four congressmen in the immediate wake of last weekend’s #BanPorn trending hashtag.

I have kids, okay? The oldest is nearly a teenager. My own formative years were substantially derailed by degeneracy, my own and that of others. So I’m hyper-aware of mass media social engineering, occult symbols—all that shit. And porn is clearly a tool of social engineering, I just don’t think that the harms are any worse than giving people who think like E. Michael Jones the power to ban it—and not just because he brazenly opposes the Bill of Rights in favor of Torquemada’s forceps. (He just told Alex Jones on a podcast interview that speech restrictions on social media are “antithetical to what we believe as Americans.” Presumably, he’s referring to the First Amendment. Yet he frequently, and with a straight face, calls for the reimposition of medieval Church doctrines which consigned Jews to second-class, “protected” status. I should think that would violate the First Amendment, too. Certainly it would be antithetical to what George Washington believed, about the Jews and religious liberty in general. It’s disappointing to have to take this stuff seriously, but as of this week we’re up to our third anti-semitic shooting in little over a year, and that’s just here in America.)

Jones’s thesis and most widely-quoted insight is that “Sexual liberation is a form of political control.” Truism like these can be oversimplified. Determining that you aren’t interested in having a say in what goes on between two consenting adults you don’t know is quite different than blackmailing a gay Senator. And if sexual liberation means the freedom to choose unwisely, it must also mean the freedom not to, which is a bit more than can be said for life under theocracy.

But to the considerable extent that sexual liberation is indeed a form of political control, so is sexual repression. When Jones bangs on about Wilhelm Reich and Theodore Adorno, what he flatly misunderstands is that those guys were not just condemning religion or the traditional family as such. They were also saying, basically, that those institutions contained a great deal of repressed sexual energy, and that fascism was those people’s way of having an orgy (sometimes literally.) Think about it: when the Iranian morality patrol drags an Instagram model by her hair to a police station, are they just repressing the sexual impulses of others, or are they sublimating their own? Are you sure you want people like that deputized?

Jones himself is quite a shill for the Ayatollahs. I realize that sounds jaundiced, but there’s really no better way to describe it: as the paid guest of a regime that has murdered hundreds of American servicemen, he travels to Iran—a country where Christians are consigned to the same second-class “protected” status Jones would like imposed upon Jews here—and appears on its state-run media to denounce the United States wholesale as morally corrupted by Jews. Well, there’s plenty wrong with the United States (and the Jews) but that’s no less aid and comfort than Tokyo Rose gave Hirohito.

Though of course there were various Jewish shrinks and impresarios (among many, many Gentiles) who helped to sell it, the mid-twentieth century was hardly the first time in world history that decadence has broken out. If you’re an acolyte of Jones, you’ll be amazed to discover that it has even happened occasionally without the aid of Jews. Nature is cyclical, not linear, and dark energies are going to get released one way or another. Hawthorne understood this very well. Not every behavior that reason shows to be perverse or destructive is amenable to our complete control, and the controls we do place on them should be as circumspect as possible, if only because easy assurance that we can subdue or eradicate the forces of nature is always a form of hubris, whether espoused by trans-humanists or theocrats.

Jones, for example, is fond of remarking that Islam upholds “the logos of the family.” But a lot of sub-rosa perversion goes on in Muslim countries, and Iran is no exception. Anyone who has had their brush with Muslim culture knows exactly what I’m talking about and how widespread it is. You can blame this all on the west (or the Jews), but everybody knows about the prophet’s pedophilic predilections. But even in modern America, traditional morality can actually disrupt the “logos of the family.” In 1989, in a case Hawthorne would’ve appreciated, the Supreme Court heard a challenge (Michael H. v. Gerald D.) to a California statute granting the presumption of paternity to the husband of the mother. A woman had cheated on her husband; they stayed together, but the biological father of the child she bore wanted visitation rights. Writing for the majority upholding the challenged law, Justice Scalia reasoned that it was supported by cultural norms and longstanding jurisprudence intended to protect the sanctity of marriage and the family. So in the name of protecting family, an infant child was denied, until the age of majority, the right to ever see or meet a biological parent who wanted to be in her life.

If you’re exceptionally miserable with a spouse, should you really have to prove—you, personally, to a judge—that one of you was beaten or cheated on in order to leave? Should you have to hazard pregnancy every time you shtup the missus? Multiply the you in this instance times a hundred million people and that’s how we got contraception and no-fault divorce. How monomaniacal do you have to be to believe that Jews are a necessary condition here? Miller and Roe came after Griswold, not before. But my point with these over-worn examples is that traditional sexual norms are not so cut-and-dry as the tradcath community wants to believe. It has to do with more than just full D-and-E abortions and story time drag queens with prolapsed rectums. And even if it didn’t, the alt-right argument that those things dramatically affect every man, woman and child from sea to shining sea is as obtuse and disconnected from reality as the libertarian argument that you should be okay with having a crack house next door, so long as it doesn’t violate the non-aggression principle. I mean, without too much effort on my part, my kids have never seen a drag queen, and no one in my life has ever had a late-term abortion. While those things are certainly sickening, and result from, and contribute to an aggregate deterioration in public morality, for the most part you still have to go online to feel affected by it.

And this helps illustrate a larger point: though you can pontificate and grandstand and merch-hawk on social media, the simple fact is that the scale of political community in America is so far beyond the traditional agora that resistance on a grand scale is illusory. Call it what you want, blame whomever you like, but that ship has sailed, and the way to find it is not through Congress or your ISP. “Seek not abroad, turn back into thyself, for in the inner man dwells the truth.” You’re online half the day, you don’t have three people you’d be willing to help move a couch, and you’re gonna stop a hundred million strangers from masturbating? Please. We live in times of anomie, depravity, and dissolution, but that isn’t stopping you from worshipping, getting in shape, getting an education, or starting a family. Spending time online in the alt-right, however, may be stopping you.

Don’t believe me? Well…. Porn is harmful, right? It’s addictive, it’s isolating, it detracts from real relationships, sets up unrealistic expectations, and exposes children to obscenity. It turns you into a hamster on a wheel chasing an ever more elusive hit of dopamine. Well guess what? So does social media, in the exact same way. It’s addictive, it’s isolating, it detracts from real relationships, sets up unrealistic expectations, and exposes children to predators and obscenity. It turns you into a hamster on a wheel chasing an ever more elusive hit of dopamine. The harm from porn addiction is a lot like the harm from simple overuse of the internet. And who’s on the internet more than the fucking alt-right? Sluts? Spammers? Grifters? Coomers? A man is known by the company he keeps. “But porn has never been more readily accessible!” That’s right—the problem is the computer, not just the content. The medium is the message. If all porn was removed from it tomorrow, the internet would be nearly as big a degeneracy agonist as it is now with all the anal sex. It destroys critical brain regions. It causes blindness (yes, even without porn.) It breaks up families. It renders higher cognitive functions reptilian, almost by design. The effects are observable.

So if you’re “rejecting degeneracy” or “revolting against the modern world” on Twitter and YT, you may have a problem. Twitter is awash in porn, yet E. Michael Jones posts there multiple times a day to over 17,000 followers. Do you think tradcath/alt-right content would even be on Twitter at all if it wasn’t helping the platform’s business model? “Well, the alt-right is using it to get a good message out.” Did you not read what I just wrote thirty seconds ago about addiction, social isolation, and fucking blindness? Or can’t you remember? No matter what anyone says, social media serves only two purposes: narcissistic aggression, and huckstering. Almost every internet personality with any kind of following is a frivolous grifter to some degree, and the mark they need in order to buy and sell is you.

Notice how Roosh didn’t need Christianity to become JQ-woke? He’d dialed that bit of vindictiveness in already—being a literal e-thot was no impediment, but eventually he hit the wall. Jesus is nothing but a last refuge for this kind of narcissist, and Roosh is no less narcissistic as a Christian. All he did was gauge the wind and stock next products, posing with a vacuous, far-off look of wannabe profundity all the time like some Insta slag having breakfast at the Four Seasons Wailea. Talk about idolatry—would anyone who has an ounce of shame and self-awareness be selfie-sticking a toll road to Damascus? And here we start to see how wonderfully convenient it must be to have recourse to so ready-made a vocation as castigating Jews at every turn. Incidentally, devout seersucker crusader Nick Fuentes is altogether a sly, deranged little Coco Puff packer on the order of Milo Yiannopolous. There is simply no reason to take any of these carnival barkers seriously. “Doctor” Jones is no exception, and in case you don’t believe me, he’s having a Christmas sale, and takes Visa, MasterCard, and American Express. I’m not saying the man shouldn’t make a living, but online marketing isn’t a real job no matter how much you love Jesus. Moral preening on social media is no less a sin of pride than physical preening, but at least Instagram whores have enough modesty not to press the Almighty into their service.

Screen Shot 2019-12-14 at 8.24.37 PM

In the Quran it is written that, when Judgment Day is concluded and the unfaithful are consigned to hell, they will cry out to Satan that he deceived them, and he will reply that, “I had no authority over you, but I called you, and you came.” Choose wisely, frens. Lolcowing Tinder screenshots of fat girls and single-moms is not anti-degeneracy, it requires degeneracy. It’s a chickenshit cope, and the only reason you don’t feel pathetic doing it is because it absolves you of having to face a real interaction—just like porn. “When men can hate without risk, their stupidity is easily convinced, the motives supply themselves.” (Think I can’t use Céline to mock the alt-right? Yeah, keep using Jesus to get retweets.)

St. Augustine wrote about finding his way to God by overcoming profligacy and waywardness. Without hedonism being available to him as an option, there would be no Confessions. There would be no Saint Augustine. Free will is perhaps the most important concept in teleological ethics and Abrahamic theology. Yet for over a millennium under Jewish, Christian and Islamic theocracies, people were for the most part not free to choose any number of things we take for granted today, including sexual profligacy. When people are not free to face their darker nature, they lose the capacity and the perspective to resist it. This is one reason why a millennium of theocracy has now given way to libertinism. And people who aren’t free to face their darker nature need a scapegoat, which the Jews provided to Europe for a thousand years. Yeah I know, they were very very naughty. But gentiles who were similarly naughty did not get scapegoated in this way, and Jews who weren’t did. And this scapegoat is exactly the role the Jews play in the alt-right/tradcath weltanschaung today. Collective responsibility is precisely what Roosh, EMJ and the rest of the alt-right believe in, and it is utterly “antithetical to what we believe as Americans.”

I know, I know: there are lots of wicked Jews on the loose nowadays, and they’re up to all manner of mischief. But the psychological mechanism underlying their importance to you and E. Michael Jones isn’t entirely connected to whether/to what extent this is true. According to the most recent Forbes list, 1/5 of the world’s billionaires are Jewish. (European Gentiles make up nearly 60%, so don’t talk to me about “overrepresentation.”) Does the alt-right focus only 1/5th of it’s animus on the Jews (or 60% on European Gentiles?) Hardly. The ready coherence of narratives like Jones’s would lose a great deal of force without this antagonist, both real and imaginary. For if the Jews are the enemies of all mankind, then mankind is not the enemy of itself, and believers can very cheaply be absolved of a great deal of introspection.

The Church (which in any case began from a schism among the Jews) has gotten a great deal of mileage out of this little loophole. Can it be a coincidence that the Church has seen its sharpest decline in public prestige and moral legitimacy only since the emancipation of the Jews? So thoroughly is the faith predicated on the negation of Judaism that any Jew’s conversion represents its ultimate legitimation. No penitent drunk or gap-toothed Papuan’s baptism could ever serve to vindicate Christianity like the chastened, exhausted collapse of a Hebrew before the smug mercy of his ancestors’ tormentors. Yet without recourse to project inner foreboding upon these recalcitrants—as if into a spittoon—St. Augustine’s advice to “seek not abroad” had finally to be taken, and we don’t much like when the abyss gazes back into us now, do we?

That is why Vatican II was so undermining to the Church. When Jones says “You can have unity in the Church, or good relations with the Jews, but not both,” he’s absolutely right—he just doesn’t understand why. “When men can hate without risk, their stupidity is easily convinced, the motives supply themselves.” And when they can’t, they might actually have to look in the mirror. But if that’s too much for you, you have an alternative in E. Michael Jones—a shrill mountebank whose pathetic career consists in conscripting Christ Jesus into the pride and vanity of moral grandstanding on social media, and hardly has greater social value than pornography. Like the alt-right more broadly, he’s a spiritual crutch for those who will always be stuck among the middling realms of wisdom and understanding. But if that’s really what those types need to keep from fondling themselves, they’re more than welcome to hate me. By my stripes be healed, frens. I don’t claim to speak for God, but at least I’m not asking for your money.

Based Closet Case Goes All-In For America

Nick Fuentes won’t debate me. Not only will he not debate me, he won’t risk having any contact with me whatsoever. Apparently, he doesn’t want to risk getting rolled like he’s been doing to those TPUSA clowns.

See, I have a (not very active) Twitter account that I use solely to troll anti-semites. When I say anti-semites, I don’t mean your grandmother saying “Jew ’em down.” I mean full-retard anti-semitism, which is a monomaniacal form of Dunning-Kruger effect (esoteric Dunning-Kruger, you might call it) that’s starting to become dangerous again thanks in part to a perfusion of unlettered mountebanks on Twitter, who are easy to skewer because their view of history and anthropology is just a lot of sub-literate jews ex machina. I’ve had the pleasure of BTFOing (and being blocked by) numerous alt-right “thought” leaders, including Mike Enoch and Erik Stryker.

But having never gotten around to aiming a single barb at Nick Fuentes, when I went to view his Twitter account amid the recent flurry of media attention surrounding his “Groyper War,” I was surprised to find that he had blocked me. I have fewer than 100 Twitter followers and, as far as I can tell, there are maybe three or four dozen regular readers of this blog. So for someone like Fuentes who’s in the national media spotlight to take precautionary measures against me seemed strange. But activism, after all, is a form of PR. I have a great deal of suspicion for anyone who makes a business out of it—the more vehement they are, the more suspect. Fuentes is clearly a savvy marketer, and like all savvy marketers, his effectiveness depends on the simplicity of his message, and the credulity of his audience. In this regard, he really is no different than Charlie Kirk.

For example, here is Nick debating some (apparently Jewish) little weirdo in a MAGA hat. The subject? Israel. I couldn’t stomach a whole 90 minutes of Fuentes smirking insufferably at this poor braying sperg (and neither should you) but I did watch the first few minutes. Right out the gate, Nick states that Israel’s interests run counter to America’s, because America is interested in defeating ISIS, and Israel is not. Of course, if Nick is referring to the interests of the U.S. government, this is laughable obscurantism, and if he’s referring to the interests of the common American folk, one would think his paleocon isolationism would’ve kicked in to stop him advocating foreign wars, period.

But what’s more revealing is when he goes on to opine that Israel is a pariah state, because its foreign policy is to divide its enemies against one another, and that this has caused a great deal of mideast instability, particularly the Syrian civil war. But does any country that has enemies not have a policy of dividing them? Every country in the mideast has a policy of dividing Syria. Syria has a policy of dividing Syria. That’s how the Assads stay in power when so many of “their people” hate them. The whole Assad-protects-the-Christians meme completely ignores the fact that a fuckton of Syrians legitimately want to kill Assad, not because they hate Christians or because the Israelis goaded them, but because of the very un-Christian things his family has done to them over the decades.

What this leads me to is what has always been creepy and worm-infested about the left anti-war movement of the G.W. aughts, as well as paleocon isolationism and its offshoots in the alt-right. Here’s a heinous (if warmed-over) example of the former:

“Time for a full response from Beijing”? Are you sure it isn’t actually time to light more communists on fire? Because I have no doubt that Galloway, apologist that he is for every form of Muslim violence (when it’s directed against Israel or the west), knows all about China’s “full response” to its Muslim population. Yet the alt-right, which is so opposed to comparatively mild internet censorship here in the west, largely thinks like Galloway when it comes to China’s censorship regime:

How’s that for “cultural Marxism”?

Imagine how little regard this charlatan has for his followers. What Enoch is doing in this tweet is essentially peddling the idea that the CIA spreads freedom. The system conflates freedom with rap music and butt-fucking, and the alt-right buys this straw-man. Meanwhile, every mechanism of social control that’s being put into place in China today is waiting for the West tomorrow.

This is why every social media platform is literally the devil. You’re not “trad” anything on Twitter, okay? “But, but, muh new public square!” Spare me. I’m not telling you to sit on your hands, I’m telling you not to stick them up your ass. If you support these companies with your data, you’re supporting what they do to your society. Yet every alt-right grifter is on these platforms, masturbating self-importantly. In the words of the poet,

Faces along the bar
Cling to their average day:
The lights must never go out,
The music must always play,
All the conventions conspire
To make this fort assume
The furniture of home;
Lest we should see where we are,
Lost in a haunted wood,
Children afraid of the night
Who have never been happy or good.

All these e-“dissidents” want the lights kept on just as badly as Joel Osteen, Howard Stern, and Rage Against the Machine do, even if it means eating a soyburger, sucking a dick, and bombing Tehran. Liberal democracy has created more power, prosperity, security and innovation than all the fascist strongmen the alt-right so longs for, combined, and they’re feeding off of it like pigs in a trough. “I can’t believe I’m doing this, I swear I’m not that kind of girl” is all their activism amounts to. Say what you want about Alex Jones, but if 1776 is a pipe dream, but at least it’s consistent.

Granted, I’m not a big fan of PornHub, or 365 Black, or drag kids on ketamine, but if you think America is so satanic, you might want to ask yourself: is what China does to Muslims (and Christians, BTW) not satanic? Is Iran’s treatment of Christians not satanic? Is Putin, as a man and a leader, not satanic? No? Are you sure

If what you’re really all about is traditional metaphysics, family values, right versus wrong, etc., and you think that denouncing the Jews is the sine qua non of defending those things, then you’re not really defending them at all. Even if the Jews are exceptionally wicked, there’s no necessary connection between Jews and wickedness. Anyone can be wicked.

Besides: none of these tradcaths genuinely wants the kind of mind control by gilded pharisee eunuchs that they pretend to advocate. How do I know? Because according to their whole weltanschauung, a non-Jew is essentially Judaized in proportion with how much he sins. Watching too much porn? You’ve been Jewwed. Got college debt? It’s the Jews, etc. So they’re not really blaming the Jews for rejecting Christ. They’re blaming the Jews for original sin. They don’t actually want to live under the High Church of Sicut Judaeis (their ancestors gladly immigrated to a country where the Church has no official status.) No—they just want to see those screws put into other people.

So it should come as no surprise that there is very convincing evidence that Nick Fuentes is gay. (I mean, evidence other than just his impish, Baby Stewie gayface, which has the disproportional forehead, pointy chin and horizontally long mouth characteristic of so many gay men, e.g. Pete Buttigieg.) It takes an evolved kind of slyness for a gay man to dissimulate as heterosexual, and Fuentes is nothing if not sly. Everybody who’s been to high school has met an over-the-top closet case like this, and the Church has always been a hiding-place for these types. Stentorian anti-semitism suits both the gay penchant for melodrama, and the need for extreme dissociation. The model here is of course Father Coughlin, who was deeply closeted. The subconscious logic is, I may be a faggot, but if I denounce the Jews hard enough I might just get into heaven through the back door. And this is quite beside the point that advertising one’s piety is not only shady and obnoxious, it is literally anti-Christian.

I’m not telling you what to think about Jews, okay? I don’t even think Groyperism is bad overall. In a system where public lying is endemic, with an elite more debauched and venal than any before in history, you’re going to get anti-semitism when 60% of that elite is Jewish. But what I am asking you to do is to consider whether “Jewish” is a real criteria of right and wrong, justice and injustice, reason and unreason—and what psychological purposes it serves to pretend that it is.

The Dreyfus Affair was utterly of the same species as this: the cheap scapegoating of a hapless kike by a coterie of officers invoking patriotism, Catholicism, and Jewish conspiracy—all in order to cover up their own incompetence, and the treason of one of their colleagues. Without Israel running interference for the petrodollar, every one of these tradclowns would be warming his hands over a trashcan fire. But if my whole schtick was to press Jesus Christ into service e-marketing psychological distance to sub-literates on YouTube, I’d be doing a Father Coughlin impersonation, too.