Category Archives: Alt-Rightgeist

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.

you get what you fucking deserve

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 (which is obviously easier than closing your web browser and zipping your fly.) “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

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 reactionary argument (best summarized by Yeats, if I’m not mistaken) connecting Christianity directly to liberalism and degeneracy 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, 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 left 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-child? The Bible says be fruitful and multiply, bro. I’m pretty sure you’re allowed to stop fellating God long enough to accomplish this. And what if God doesn’t even want us kissing his ass all the time? Hymns, candles, liturgies, 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 just 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 this guy 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 Testament 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, curdled, 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.

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 in the current year, of course Jewish plutocrats are involved in ruling class machinations for social control, 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 anti-lockdown protests (~45:10) in terms resembling those used by liberal pundits. What remains of Spencer’s cohort 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” theory is, well…. false. But that’s not what Allsup is referring to. 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 critical of 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 iconoclast/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 alternative 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.

There’s a name for this kind of thing. It’s called gatekeeping. 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?

Over the past year or so, the most apt and erudite alt-right commentary has been from Keith Woods. Yet his worldview also demonstrates 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 conjures nationalism all over the world (the Balkans, the Caucasus, the subcontinent, 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 global financial elites—nothing that destabilizes it is good for them. 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.” For if neoliberalism is the opposite of statism, then neoliberalism 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 definitions by gangsters with air forces, regardless of how much those guys counter-signal the Pentagon.

Accordingly, though he offers no positive vision or definition of “identity” and “tradition,” what Woods will accept as compatible with these concepts 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.” I’m also inclined to favor Erdogan’s taking Turkey in a more independent direction, but the restoration of the Hagia Sofia to a mosque is not a gesture to the West but 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 it is no less vulnerable to modernity and increasingly cheap self-reinvention than anything else 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 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 filthy 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. While his associates keep their money offshore, Putin robs public pensions 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 his 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 and has dredged up bad blood between Slavs that may never fully heal.

This is identity?

Woods cannot even say what this word means for any practical purpose. So while his critique of liberalism is engaging and well-read, harkening back to the finest alt-right content circa 2010-2015, his overall worldview has no principles other than might makes right, so long as the might in question is not shrewd but pretentiously aesthetic or shamelessly domineering. This is mere vindictive, nihilistic opposition to liberalism. It can make no objection (on principal or otherwise) to the IMF-style Chinese takeover of poor East European and Central Asian countries, or the venal thievery of oriental strongmen, which they cover over with fake appeals to national mythology while they send their kids to Switzerland for school and Germany for doctor’s appointments. It cannot defend free inquiry, due process, a single religion to the exclusion of others, nor even religion itself; nor any of the principles that made the West unique. Indeed, it sees individualism and liberty not as principles to be harmonized with communalism and duty, but as slogans to be rejected peremptorily in absolute favor of the opposite slogans. Yet it cannot even decide between populism and autocracy. It’s not a “third position.” It’s not any kind of position.

It’s nothing.

Fascism is Vaginal

technically, it’s a perversion

The active, aggressive, over-reaching man is still a hundred paces nearer to justice than the man who reacts; he simply does not need to place a false and prejudiced interpretation on the object of his attention, like the man who reacts does, has to do.” Nietzsche, Genealogy (1887)

“Fascism” is an epithet that gets thrown around a lot. But what distinguishes fascism from 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 (when the imagined time comes) will merit 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, exchanging coded signals under bridges and in water closets. 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 flamboyant homosexuals, 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 was worse than Nazism. This just misses the point entirely. Such things are a matter of quality, not quantity. 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 sperg. “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. Beneath all their sloganeering, they know exactly what they’re doing.

Communism’s chief antagonist was 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 of the Jews. But the fascist very viscerally senses that, left unchecked, a woman will have ideas of her own. This inconsistency exposes the whole basis of the fascist mind-state: the absolute most puerile sense of entitlement and petty revenge.

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.

Fascism is always like this: a Lord of the Flies-style retinue of the fatherless, the pimple-pocked and the half-educated, led by some demagogue pretender or trust-funder. It makes idols out of allegories and can never decide between Odin and Christ, populism and elitism, teleology and deontology, cynicism and idealism, futurism and traditionalism. In the long-term it cannot innovate or restore, because at root it is always a randy tentacle of the goddess of destruction.

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 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 the security guard, 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 a 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.

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 justifiably 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.

In over a century, nothing about “this system” has changed. The very existence and prominence of an “Anti-Defamation League” proves this definitively. Cringy reflections on personal and familial Jewishness are a staple among media elites. Jewish topical films and literature reflect the most skittish, vindictive psychology. Far from being an outpost of stoicism and contempt, the State of Israel is fully invested in this victimology, and after 70 years it cannot even live up to its mandate to eradicate these pogroms. Its leaders are busy fighting corruption charges, and casting about belatedly for Nazism; it sends its condolences, as peremptory as any American politician’s. If the body count approaches a dozen, you may get a shitty little Israeli cabinet minister at your memorial service, issuing thinly concealed I-told-you-sos. Mazal tov for that.

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 in self-defense. We were a “protected” class. A crime against us was a property crime. And after seventy-two years of Zionism the Jew, and the Jewish Israeli, is every bit the specially protected creature his forbear was in medieval Europe, subject to occasional massacres as a matter of course. Zionism deserves our support for the strides it has made in chiseling out the “new Jewish man” it once promised. But some things never change, and a chutzpah that requires the moral license of past misfortunes is utterly repulsive. It would be better to finally decide between maudlin victimology and contemptuous master morality.

As Christopher Hitchens once said, “It will never be safe or normal to be Jewish, and I hope it never is.” He never said why he hopes this, but here is why: because true nobility is inherent in how we bear misfortune, and castigating reality has nothing to do with it. That’s why the best Jews and Zionists are always the ones who live parallel lives. The ones who “think of it always and speak of it never,” who “dress British and think yiddish.”

And that, little yidden, is my recommendation to you.

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 he-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.” Truisms like these can be wildly oversimplified. Lack of interest in what goes on in private between 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 welled-up 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 a sexually active 17-year old 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, say what you will about the United States (or 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 plenty of 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 this has even occasionally happened 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 well. Not every behavior that reason shows to be perverse or destructive is totally amenable to reason’s dominance, and the controls we place on them should be circumspect, 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 and the way such things are condoned in the Hadith.

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 conceived a child while cheating on her husband; she and her husband stayed together, but the biological father of the child she bore wanted visitation rights, and when the married couple refused, he sued to overturn the law granting the presumption of paternity to the cuckolded husband. 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 or hear about 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 protecting normative sexuality from evil influences is 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 whorehouse 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: change has to come first and foremost from within, not from 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 any longer than it takes to get the point, however, almost certainly is.

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 of porn addiction substantially resembles the harms 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 medium, not 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 he-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 like some Insta slag posting 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 classical metaphysics. 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 to E. Michael Jones et al 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 its animus on Jews (or 60% on European gentiles?) Hardly. Without recourse to this antagonist (real and imagined) Jones’s entire worldview, his religion, crumbles utterly. 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 societal 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 these 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 megalomaniacal 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 time to lite 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 instead of seeking the real thing the alt-right eagerly buys this straw-man and demands dictatorship in its place. When every mechanism of hi-tech social control that’s being put into place in China is installed in the West, the only complaint the alt-right will be able to make on principle is the mulignanos in the TV commercials.

If you support big tech with your data, you’re supporting what they do to your society. Yet every alt-right grifter is intellectually masturbating on these platforms and begging not to be thrown off. There is a poem about this:

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. The USG funnels trillions per year to private contractors for ridiculously cynical boondoggles. It has 150,000+ troops stationed around the world, directly, physically defending dozens of foreign governments. The alt-right has nothing to say about any of this, and everything to say about Israel, because out of $30 trillion in national debt, only $3.8 billion per year promises to up your headcount on Twitter if you bitch about it.

The grift here is simple: it’s a way for IQ-ceilinged and narrow-chested adult adolescents to sperg out, play tough, and show all the prim liberals that they’re really, really mad at daddy. Granted, I’m no 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 not satanic? Is Iran’s treatment of Christians not satanic? Is Putin, as a man and a leader, not satanic? No? Are you sure?

But the JQ is the one shibboleth that really confers admission to the clubhouse of would-be alpha dawgs. And if you enjoy that kind of circle-jerk, then by all means. But if you think you’re all about classical metaphysics, family values, self-reliance, human-scaled communities, etc., and that denouncing the Jews is the sine qua non of all that, then first of all, you’re sub-literate, because the Hebrew tradition is a pillar of classical metaphysics. More importantly, you’re externalizing your own angst and insecurity. 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. Masturbating too much? You’ve been Jewed. Got college debt? It’s the Jews, etc. 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. Anybody 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 them. 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? Your lived experience is your business, and in a system where public lying is endemic, with an elite more debauched and venal than any before in history, we’re going to get anti-semitism when 50% of that elite is Jewish. But secondhand opinion is fake and gay, and what I am asking you to do is to consider whether “Jewish” is a real criteria of right and wrong, 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 groypers and tradclowns would be warming his hands over a trashcan fire. But if my whole schtick was to press Christ Jesus into service e-marketing psychological distance to sub-literates on YouTube, I’d be doing a Father Coughlin impersonation just like Nick Fuentes.

The Two-Pronged Thesis, Illustrated

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

(2) “anti-racism” (CRT, DEI, whatever you want to call it) is a natural complement to the destruction of a free-holding middle class.

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

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

Freedom of Speech

(1) Freedom of Speech: In the original, two white-collared gents are craning their necks to hear a frumpy blue-collar Joe speak his mind, because social status is not the whole measure of human worth. In the revision, two men who apparently sell burner phones in a mall are craning their necks toward a moon-faced woman in a plunging blouse, whose practical utility in the community is as unclear as a LinkedIn profile with a bio that reads “Seeking opportunities.” Superficial characteristics such as the subjects’ ethnicity, gender and/or style are the sole and total measures of their intrinsic worth.

Incidentally, in order to emphasize the lone white male on the bottom right (presumably a bartender or used car salesman) listening to the lady-POC, the artists not only cast him as the best-dressed (i.e., the richest) person in the room, they intuit, in spite of their ideological conditioning, that in order to be the kind of white male who cares what she has to say, he would need to have a rapey neck tattoo. Just as it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism, the browning of America is easier to imagine as a temp-to-hire gig economy than as a workforce with bargaining power.

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

Freedom of Worship

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

Meanwhile, in the revision, there’s no discernible religious or even ethnic diversity, unless the arresting prettiness of the girl in the star-spangled hijab is intended to imply that she’s a convert, or a fair-skinned Bosnian or Levantine, i.e., (in either case) that whiteness, being intrinsically more beautiful than the alternatives, is something to which Muslims, too, can aspire. The co-mingling here of genders at a Muslim prayer service is likewise illusory, a multi-culti fantasy, total bullshit. Though there is a man with a hand on his chin, this is probably just unthoughtful mimicry of the original, because overt skepticism is so unlikely in a Muslim prayer quorum. But supposing he’s a skeptic—in the future this painting imagines and fetishizes, there’s only one religion to be skeptical of (the prayer beads of the partially-visible man in the top right are Muslim, not a Rosary). That’s what is meant here by diversity. Wild, huh?

Screen Shot 2018-11-25 at 1.50.00 PM

Freedom from Want

(3) Freedom from Want: There’s a discernible reduction here (on the left) in freedom from want, with a loaf of bread (or psyllium-husk dry-cake of some kind) replacing the turkey. It’s fair to assume that int he original, nearly everyone at the table is related. In the redux, the man of the house is serving a bunch of people he’s clearly not related to. Why does he have his jacket on in the dining room? Also, no grandma—it appears as though the food was not plentiful enough to include her; perhaps she’s already been dumped in an insurance-bilking hospice. Again, the sole measures of human worth in the revision are superficial: ethnicity, gender, beard-thickness, all in service of the conceit that the revolution has gone ahead and we’re all freely flying our freak flags now. Obviously, bourgeois Anglos can be extremely fake and mercenary—there’s been an unending stream of literature and film about this subject since the 1950s. But this quality is absent from the Rockwell, whereas the redux has the kind of eyeless-smile energy you sense nowadays when you’re out for brunch in some nouveau-cutsie neoliberal uptown. Notice that the revision fails to recapitulate Rockwell’s alignment, i.e., other than the woman with the baby, no one in the update is gazing directly at anyone else—and the baby looks a tad apprehensive, as though he’s just been passed to a stranger. The woman wears an expression like she’s like she’s holding someone else’s baby for the first time. Or perhaps it’s hers, and was only just recently harvested from her Nepalese surrogate.

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

Freedom from Fear

(4) Freedom from Fear: I’ve read somewhere that nearly fifty percent of gay men report having been molested as children—if true, this certainly comports with what I know from gay friends and acquaintances. In any case, the kids on the left have intentionally been deprived of their mother (a mother still being a requirement of being born), so theirs is a qualitatively worse situation than that of the children on the right. It’s only the adults whose lives have ostensibly improved. Of course, the original was entitled “Freedom from Fear”—ask yourself whether kids in 2018 are more likely than their 1943 counterparts to be free to play outside, unsupervised, without fear of being kidnapped, and you’ll immediately apprehend how obscene and delusional is the suggestion that things have either improved or not deteriorated utterly in terms of children’s freedom from fear. Mimicry of Eisenhower-era family values is the great irony of gay marriage, and it strongly underscores how completely artificial the neoliberal brownie-points moralism exemplified in these paintings is—it has no original quality and in its self-loathing envy must plunder from the past it reviles, wearing it like a skin. It is the sad loaf of bread to the juicy roast turkey, the swivel-eyed jazz-hound to the loving matriarch, the cryogenically fertile poofter imitators to the biologically complimentary genuine article.

There’s a movie about precisely the transition this Rockwell-redux is conceptualizing, proposing, and documenting.—it’s called Idiocracy.

Of course Rockwell was both idealistic and nostalgic—I don’t imagine that his work portrayed contemporary reality verbatim. But does the 21st-century redux of The Four Freedoms bear the same degree of symmetry with reality as the original? Of course it does; you only have to look at the world around you and see all the diversity and social change. Does that mean we still have the four freedoms that Rockwell extolled, and suggested we needed to fight for? That they’ve somehow been refined or extended? Do we enjoy the kind of quality of life that Americans enjoyed in 1943?

Of course not.

Reductio ad Iudaeoram

Screen Shot 2018-03-10 at 1.01.20 AM

The world’s foremost problem

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

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

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

Perhaps not incidentally, while Jünger openly disdained the NSDAP, resigning from his WWI veteran’s association when its Jewish members were expelled, Heidegger was an enthusiastic party member. As their contemporary Eric Blair put it, “some ideas are so stupid only intellectuals can believe them.” But while full-retard anti-semitism has certainly seduced its fair share of intellectuals, most of its adherents are pseudo-intellectuals, if not outright sub-literates.

Take, for example, the following pile of garble from Q-anon dupe and Patreon panhandler Chateau Heartiste (you’ll be shocked to discover he’s no Heidegger):

Ted Colt notices,

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

EVERY! FUCKING! TIME!

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

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

Wow. Ted Colt, huh? “Branding,” while bitching about consumerism. “No further than Wikipedia,” indeed. (Isn’t that a Jew-run outfit?)

Anthropologically-speaking, what interests me here is that Chateau’s JQ-woke Aspergers is obviously cribbed without blinking from Kevin MacDonald, the evolutionary psychologist [in]famous for his thesis that Judaism is a “group evolutionary strategy” aimed at subverting Gentile host societies. Now, I’m no fancy-pants evolutionary psychologist, but if by “group evolutionary strategy” we mean anything that involves, you know, not being legally handicapped and regularly massacred for twenty centuries at a stretch everywhere from Malaga to Mosul (plus a millennium or so of cousin marriage, which is evidently quite bad for selection) then the suggestion that Judaism is a “group evolutionary strategy” is ridiculous on its face. I’m happy to hear out any conspiracy theory, but if your culprit is Darwin, then you’re getting a bit ahead of yourself. There’s a difference between recognizing ethnic interests and essentially blaming one ethnicity for everything. MacDonald is altogether a one-trick pony: he locates some instance of a Jew being hypocritical, and declares, “Aha!” His whole Twitter feed, his blog, and a great deal of his actual scholarship, is simply to cherry-pick examples of bad behavior among a single group of people. Anyone can do this. Like MacDonald, many do it full-time. Just look up “whiteness studies” if you don’t believe me.

In particular, MacDonald blames the Hart-Cellars Immigration Act of 1965 on Jewish activism. The proportion of American Jews who even knew about this legislation at the time it was debated and passed was most likely negligible. But in addition to support among the leadership of Reform Jewish civil society, there was also significant lobbying for the bill from Catholic and mainline Protestant organizations. Both groups are still quite busy promoting mass migration. Big Agra has been doing this for decades, certainly well before Jewish investors held any significant stake. That was why Caesar Chavez (ironically) opposed illegal immigration, which he considered scab labor.

So it isn’t that MacDonald’s little oeuvre reveals nothing about Jews, it just doesn’t fully explain what it purports to, e.g., “foreign invaders, trite consumerism, backbreaking debt, endless interventionist wars, and basically anything that destroys the historical and cultural bonds of the majority’s community, neighborhood, town, and nation.” Do you really want to hang all your righteous fury at this world on victimization-by-Jews theory? Have you seen Jews? Can you show me on the doll where they hurt you?

If nothing else, what you might take from MacDonald’s work is that inter-ethnic enmity is a two-way street. But MacDonald’s thesis is the exact inverse of that, so the street is still one-way:

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

….und so weiter. I guess a one-third plurality is a bit less democratic than a full majority. As for boundless honesty, that point can probably best be disputed by Thucydides, or Chaucer, or Shakespeare, or F. Scott Fitzgerald. (Was PT Barnum of Hebrew descent, or just the bearded lady?)

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

Perhaps for this reason, the utility of the JQ-woke shibboleth is not lost on up-and-coming merch-pimps, aspiring alt-media gadflies, and PayPal/Patreon panhandlers. Getting slapped on an ADL hate list is now marketable martyrdom, such that cookie-cutter manifestos and Hitlerian little memoirs of awakening are regularly excreted by non-entities as varied as e.g., Roosh V and Squatting Slav.

The former (like Chateau Heartiste, a self-styled manosphere pick-up artist) writes prolifically (at a seventh-grade reading level) about his disgusting trust-funded sexual encounters on the road in developing countries. Undoubtedly by mawwing the requisite JQ-dribblings, he was able to secure a time slot to hustle his fetid, unedited self-publishings one year at Richard Spencer’s NPI conference. Squatting Slav, meanwhile, hawks hoodies on a satirical pan-Slavic FB meme-page that can claim the minor feat of having gained a few hundred-thousand former-Yugoslav followers, not only despite their own intractable enmities but in spite of the admin’s unabashed Serb-posting. Apparently unaware (or unashamed) of the arming of the Serbs by Israel during the 1990s, and of the singularly barbaric WWII massacres perpetrated against his people by and with the support of the Nazis, even Mr. Squat could not get past the apparent need to clear the air by regurgitating the MacDonald-redux of their theories into a handful of v-log tutorials. You just can’t fully appreciate repetitive jokes about track suits, rakia and pickled tomatoes without being JQ-woke, I guess.

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

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

Of course, Chateau absolutely condones those tactics (when he’s not Q-Anon-tier god-emperor posting, he’s pontificating about assuming the sale) unless the perp is tribal—the latter reference being to Al Franken, who at least targeted grown women. But if this twerp really believes his forever hypothetical 14-year old child would be qualified to give Roy Moore consent, you’ve at least got to commend his intra-Gentile solidarity.

But this is all just grist for the DIY infotainment landfill. As Jünger puts it in The Forest Passage:

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

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