Category Archives: Obscurantism

Deconstructing Zionism, Pt. II

discount handjob

(Part I here)

I am fond of a quote from Orwell, where he observed that “Even a single taboo can have an all-round crippling effect upon the mind, because there is always the danger that any thought which is freely followed up may lead to the forbidden thought.” Assuming that a “crippling effect upon the mind” is something undesirable, this is the best rationale for intellectual freedom that I’ve ever heard.

Of course, taboos will always be with us, and any ideology will tend to narrow the parameters of cognition, behavior, and decency. But Zionism is one of those perennially beleaguered creeds that one can hardly scrutinize without earning its anathema. All cultures work through cognitive frames, but at their best they do not invite this extent of paranoia.

Then again, paranoia is a feature of all sorts of ideologies, some of which pose far greater threats to human freedom than Zionism does. And polemics could just as easily be launched against anti-Zionism, a peculiar ideological commitment centered on the proposition that a nation state with a high human development index and a decent human rights record (within its internationally recognized borders, at least) should be dismantled and abolished. So why single Zionism out for criticism? Well… where no double standards are being imposed, the retort that some sacred cow is being “singled out” by criticism is special pleading. But it is true that I have polemicized about Zionism at least as much as I’ve defended it. Why?

First of all, because Zionism was a big part of my formative years. I lived in Israel for four years in my early twenties and did a stint in the Israeli army. So if I wanted to make a case study of intellectual horse-blinders, Zionism is close at hand. My focusing on the subject no more “singles out” Israel than Ma’ariv or Adi Ashkenazi does. But there is a second reason: because Zionism’s intellectual horse-blinders are perhaps more insidious than others, in that it claims with considerable justification to be liberal.

am love freedoms

There’s no question that Zionism operates on a lot of liberal software, but its mainframe is not only not liberal; it implicitly rejects universal reason. It inculcates an extremely active sympathetic nervous system by strongly suggesting to adherents that Jews (not just e.g., the Mossad, but Jews as a people) have peculiar imperatives that transcend morality—and that if someone accuses you of wrongdoing, chances are you’re being hounded by Amalek. Certainly, the persistence of violent, irrational anti-semitism muddies the waters in favor of this mentality, but if evil is embodied in whoever casts doubt on your arbitrary imperatives, then your concept of the good is totally subjective. There are other ideologies like this—various kinds of fascism, nihilism, postmodernism—but for any of them to earnestly make the astounding claim that they are fundamentally liberal cannot go unchallenged without tacit concurrence.

In my previous post on this topic, I considered and rejected the idea that Israel is an anachronism (racist, colonialist, theocratic, etc.) in a liberalizing world, in favor of the inimical proposition that Israel is in fact a spearhead of global liberalism. This doesn’t mean that Israel is not racist, colonialist, etc., or that it is a force for human freedom. Rather, it means that Israel has become a powerful force for late-stage liberal democracy’s worst excesses, e.g., indefinite rule by emergency powers; repression of ideas in the name of fighting “hate”; innovation in the field of biometrics and mass surveillance; and the cloaking of ruthless self-interest in the language of universalism.

According to Glenn Greenwald in No Place to Hide, intelligence sharing between Israel and the U.S. tends to one-sidedly benefit Israel:

Despite the close relationship between American and Israeli intelligence agencies, the extensive information provided to Israel by the United States produced little in return…. As the NSA complained, the partnership was geared ‘almost totally’ to Israel’s needs.

The same might be said of America’s famous friendship with Israel more generally. It is completely one-sided. I’ve written before that contrary to conventional wisdom, the financial advantage in the relationship is America’s, while Israel takes on the bulk of the military risk. I stand by this admittedly counter-intuitive argument. But in terms of which party is signing off on the other’s values and enabling the other’s behavior, the relationship entirely favors Israel. (In fact, without U.S. protection, Israel would behave very differently.) In a bizarre, recurring spectacle, ranking American politicians effusively pledge fidelity (if not fealty, exactly) to the fatherland of their billionaire donors (who also control the media which determines their electoral prospects.) Where is the analogue for this in Israeli public life? Americans are regularly treated to rapt oratory about the importance of this relationship for America’s values, but those have got to be the most unrequited values in the world—Israel couldn’t care less about them:

Nietzsche said a good fight justifies any cause, and Israel’s national pugnacity is justifiably admired. Even so, justification and relative worthiness to prevail are two different things. America, for example, stands for fundamental decency, whereas Israel stands for the most parochial interests of Jews—which is fair enough, but liable to conflict with fundamental decency in a million different ways. Netanyahu’s tweet (above) is just one illustration. When America falls short of decency, it is betraying itself. The same cannot be said of Israel.

It’s certainly true that Israel offers robust democratic protections to its citizens, that Israeli citizenship confers great advantages on those Palestine Arabs who enjoy it, and that Israel has been compelled to take certain repressive measures against those in the occupied territories, who don’t. But a great deal of Israel’s treatment of Arabs (on both sides of the line) is purely aggressive, and when Israel violates their rights it tends to do so not e.g., as a temporary symptom of an election result, but as a matter of its most intrinsic policies and values. Of course, many accusations against Israel are pure fiction, but a great many are not. I won’t go down the list of Israel’s alleged and not-so-alleged (fast-forward to 1:59) crimes against Arabs. What I’m interested in here is why we do it, because that might explain why Israel can be so entitled and disdainful in its attitude toward Americans.

First things first: Zionism is the proposition that the Jews should enjoy national sovereignty in their historic fatherland. While I’m not convinced that this is a universal moral imperative, I don’t think it’s a bad idea at all—where I depart from Zionism is in its reasons why. Basically, there are two: (1) because it is necessary to ensure the physical safety of Jews; and (2) because it is necessary to ensure the continuation of Jewish culture. 

The first of these reasons is debatable. Jews have physically survived in the diaspora for over 2,000 years; poorly in some places, but quite well in others. It’s true that pogroms still take place, but no fewer (and probably more) take place inside Israel than they do abroad. So it seems to me that the real reason for Zionism (at least in terms of physicality, security, etc.) is not simply to defend Jews from clear and present danger, but to vindicate Jews as self-reliant fighters in spite of traditionally being disarmed and enfeebled. It’s overcompensation arising out of an inferiority complex; nothing could be more obvious. There was a time when this resonated with me (if not exactly in those terms.) But eventually I had to ask myself whether an inferiority complex is something worth hanging onto, and whether vindicating myself as a man has any necessary connection with Jewishness. And it does—just not much.

Clearly, the second reason (to ensure the continuation of Jewish culture) weighs more in favor of Zionism, because of assimilation in the diaspora. As an American mischling, I’m not the best-qualified person to defend this line of reasoning. The most I can say is that I support a Jewish state as an option for people whose Jewishness is more important to them than mine is for me. But can Zionism afford to agree with me there? As the self-proclaimed state of all the Jewish people, Israel must insist that Jews and even half-breeds belong in Israel; ergo they live outside of Israel because of some defect or inadvertence. But if I belong in Israel, that would have to mean that my most intrinsic wellbeing is dependent on Jewishness. I see no problem with that as a religious belief; but as civics, or teleology? It’s hard to see how all but the most obstreperous, shrunken-headed fanatics could entirely believe it—about themselves or anyone else.

On the other hand, it is very easy to see how my most intrinsic wellbeing depends on fundamental decency, ordered liberty, and intellectual freedom. Granted, we don’t entirely have those things in America. But they aren’t subordinate values here. There is no America without them.

Don’t Repeal 230

hur dur its achilles heel is §230

Everyone knows the story by now, but let’s recap for context: sometime during the Obama administration, VP Biden’s shitbag son Hunter was appointed to a handsomely paid position on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas conglomerate, in exchange for access to his father. Biden has always denied knowledge of his son’s business dealings in Ukraine. This week, however, the NY Post presented detailed evidence of Hunter’s influence-peddling, and Joe Biden’s complicity in the scam. Twitter then locked the Post’s account, and both Twitter and Facebook blocked users from sharing the story’s URL.

Everyone knows that in ways both surreptitious and brazen, big tech censors dissenting voices, particularly right-wing ones. But this is a watershed moment, a huge slip of the mask of liberal democratic pretenses. Here was President Trump’s response:

Justice Thomas even got in on the act, releasing a statement this week suggesting that section 230 is being applied too broadly. But Thomas and Trump could not be more wrong here: if you’re against big tech censorship, repealing or adulterating section 230 is a terrible idea.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act indemnifies content-sharing platforms against certain tort claims faced by traditional publishers. The idea is that sites like Twitter and Facebook where users upload content don’t exercise editorial discretion the way newspapers do, and so shouldn’t be held liable for defamation, incitement, and falsehood. But fighting defamation, incitement and falsehood is exactly the rationale these companies hide behind when censoring dissidents. There’s simply no violation of section 230 taking place when Twitter and Facebook engage in censorship.

In fact, Section 230 does not afford big tech any pretext whatsoever for censorship. On the contrary: it incentivizes access to platforms that facilitate speech, and its benefits transcend ideological boundaries and even political cronyism, which is why 4Chan can’t be held liable in U.S. courts for publishing content like shooter manifestos. Repealing it won’t impose legal liability for censorship on big tech. It won’t even disincentivize censorship. On the contrary, it would require greater policing of user content by these platforms, and this increased policing would be carried out by the same actors and with the same biases that are behind the censorship we’re living with today.

Like it or not, with or without section 230 there is literally no theory under the First Amendment that would prompt a court to issue an injunction against a private company censoring user content on social media. There’s no question that big tech censorship is a huge threat to free expression generally, but it isn’t a First Amendment issue. Congress and the courts just aren’t the panacea here. 

we can’t expect God to do all the violence for us Tim

The standard for proving a defamation claim (in the U.S., at least) is likewise precipitous, and if you look at the history of these claims, you’ll see that right-wingers and dissidents have a harder time defending against them than mainstream liberals do. So maybe big tech would prefer to have 230 protection, but they won’t suffer much without it. Internet users will, however, and the first casualties will be dissidents of every stripe, not the heads and commissars of companies like Twitter and Facebook. The minute 230 gets repealed, thousands of websites hosted on Blogspot and WordPress will become far more vulnerable to erasure. Anything that Silicon Valley dislikes ideologically can then be deemed a legal liability and nuked, and no one will be able to point to 230 to accuse big tech of censorship. But while Silicon Valley has a bigger litigation budget than USG, independent content sharing platforms like Minds, Bitchute, LBRY and the Chans will be in danger of folding if they don’t censor even more zealously than Facebook and Twitter, whose monopolies will only become further entrenched. That’s probably why Silicon Valley’s presidential candidate is calling for 230’s repeal just like Trump is. 

And for right-wingers, there’s a deeper issue with the repeal 230 mantra, which is its implication that spending your uncompensated time and cognition forking over huge chunks of your most intimate personal information to bajillion dollar DoD contractors led by mad scientists who are building a detailed psychological profile on you is basically fine, so long as the massive flow of online content through their gates isn’t misused politically, in order to weight the scales in favor of the Democrats. That’s really as far as e.g. Tucker Carlson’s argument against big tech’s inordinate power goes, and you’re not going to get a more trenchant critique than his in the mainstream. So if they were constrained in the slightest to care what the public thinks, the smartest move Silicon Valley could make at this point would be to allow their bought-and-paid for minions in Congress to grandstand by repealing 230. The impassioned publicity from all the litigation this generates would all but ensure that real issues like the death of privacy are never discussed again.

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 an aggressive anti-social disorder, using primary sources—I don’t entirely agree with this notion, but the way he presented it was entertaining. What I disliked about him was his dismissal (by turns high-handed and skittish) of conspiracy theory. Ironically, given his fondness for Carlyle, Moldbuggery turns out to be the opposite of Great Man theory—it’s all de-personified trends and tendencies and undercurrents. Which is fine, except that that isn’t mutually exclusive of “names and addresses” acting in secret (and not so secret) concert. In any case, no honest reader can claim that Moldbug’s attempt to draw a straight-line between Calvinism and NWA is not a great deal more circuitous and fluff-inference laden than Loose Change is.

Precisely nothing in Moldbug is original. It’s all been said before by any number of tenebrously self-conscious would-be criminals fishing their whole lives for excuses why they’re aren’t half the man granddaddy was. The fact that decadence is a human universal found like trace elements in varying degrees of latency or metastasis is a thin straw for such capacious lamentations to be grasping at. Better to think of decadence the way Hemingway described the process of going broke—at first gradual, then all at once. The alternative is to believe, with Moldbug, that George Washington is the ideological progenitor of Ibrahim X. Kendi.

Indeed, Moldbug’s most black-pilling feat by far is his critique of the American Revolution. His case that the Founders were rabble-rousing charlatans, and that King George did nothing wrong, is based on a small and cherry-picked selection of primary sources. Even if he’s right—so what? You don’t have to tell me things are bad, but I’m armed to the teeth here in America. Land is cheap—for the time being, anyway—and I 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. “The spider is curtain-bearer in the palace of Chosros/The Owl sounds relief in the palace of Afrasiab.” 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. How very inspirational. Call me cuckoo for conspiracy puffs, but that’s exactly what Klaus Schwab thinks.

In The Republic, Socrates used the allegory of the ship’s captain to suggest that only the wise should rule. But the unwise (both the shrewd and the misguidedly fervent) are fully capable of overthrowing the wise. Might I suggest the alternative criterion of virtue? 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.

Of course, I’m just sticking wishful gum to the wall here: America is undead, and limiting the franchise, or getting corporate money out of politics or whatever one might think the big cathartic reform is going to be, is never going to happen. (At least Ozymandias wasn’t crawling with maggots.) But where does that leave Moldbug? Forgive my simplicity, but a joint stock corporation is exactly what we have now. At least Andrew Yang spoke in sound bites. But if history teaches us anything, it’s that a yeoman’s republic of limited powers, with a limited franchise, a free-holding citizenry and a Bill of Rights was the only desirable system the world has ever seen.

Conspiracy Tales

Screen Shot 2020-07-29 at 12.24.09 AM

the new normal

(STORY UPDATE, 01/03/2021: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/theres-something-peculiar-about-vandalism-pelosis-house)

The town where I grew up is a hotbed of effete radicalism and low-grade mental illness. I came back in my mid-twenties to finish community college. There’s this hipster coffee shop downtown where I used to do all my homework—I’ll call it Café Tangier. One day I noticed a girl there reading a Hebrew novel. Let’s call her Shirley. We hit it off. She was going to university and working in a mall kiosk with her sister and her sister’s boyfriend—all Israelis.

None of these three were bad people. However, they had a friend who was. We’ll call him Lior. Lior had a friend named Jake. They claimed to be working for some kind of IT start-up, but the two of them were always just down at the Tangier, scoping people out, or hanging around the various student co-ops around town: the Caesar Chavez Co-op, Food Not Bombs House, etc. They gave the impression of a couple of con-men with a traveling act, like there was an invisible mist between them that only the two of them could see.

A cell of would-be ecoterrorists had been uncovered—entrapped, really—at the Tangier by an undercover FBI agent about a year before. At the nearby anarchist co-op (which had a neat little bookstore I would occasionally peruse) there was a flyer on the corkboard denouncing the cafe’s owners for allegedly cooperating with the FBI from the get-go of the case, denouncing Tangier hipsters as sell-outs, and warning people to stay away from the place. But it was a hopping little place, lots of coeds, good music, good conversation.

There were other odd characters around the Tangier, too. One of them looked like Bruce Willis—cue-ball bald, mid-forties, in decent shape (but bedraggled in a way that wasn’t convincing) and constantly at the Tangier as if he had nothing else going on. He had this shady gregariousness about him. I’d watch him befriend impressionable looking loners and overhear him shit-test them by peppering them with the most astounding BS.

Anyway, this Lior and Jake—there was something off about them, too. They couldn’t have been younger than 27. Lior was Israeli, in the States (according to him) since adolescence. Jake was a regular American. Their back story kept changing, not in the sense of glaring inconsistencies, but in the sense that it seemed improvised. We used to go out with Shirley and her sister and the sister’s boyfriend, and these two weasels—this Lior and Jake—would hone in on the youngest, most vulnerable looking girls they could find at the bars. One night, Lior showed up at Shirley’s place with a girl who was obviously a high schooler, painfully shy, homely… The whole thing looked very bad.

Now, if you’re thinking I’m a POS for not intervening, what can I tell you? Degeneracy is a triage situation. It was a boisterous house party and I had my own concerns. If I’d walked in on him fucking her, that might’ve been different.

Anyway, I used to ride my bike around town a lot, and one day I started seeing these flyers all over, on lampposts and bus benches: “We are anarchists. We are everywhere.” There was additional text. All I remember was that it contained some threat of violence, but the grievance wasn’t too clear. This was odd, considering not only that the campus radicals and cat-lady activists around town never threatened anyone, but were always very specific about what they were advocating. But this “We are anarchists” business just looked like a vacuous art project from some out-patient rehab.

One day I was on a foot path beneath a bridge when I got a flat tire. I used to do these road trips in the summer, by bicycle, from the coast up into the Sierras, and I was very proficient with all aspects of bike repair. So I knelt down to patch my tire. Once I had it patched and the glue was drying, I cast my gaze up the path. It ran along a river, but there was a park on the other side. Basically, I’m in the shadow under this bridge, looking up the path, with the river on the left side of my vision, and the park on the right. In the distance, I notice the Bruce Willis-looking guy from the Tangier. He had on a white t-shirt tucked into cargo pants, with this pair of absolutely autistic looking bus station urchins, half his age at most, straggling along behind him. He also had a stack of paper in one hand and a roll of packing tape in the other.

It was mid-morning on a weekday. The park was empty, but I was in the shadow of the bridge, so they couldn’t see me. I watched as this guy directed these two mouth breathers to post flyers on the park benches, and (with no one around to see him) his bearing was just unmistakably military. I went back later to the park, and just as I’d suspected, it was those dumb-fuck “We are anarchists” flyers, all over the playground and picnic tables.

Less than a week later, there was a little kristallnacht along the main downtown drag. Someone smashed up the windows of about a dozen shops late one night and spray-painted a bunch of menacing slogans, “We are anarchists” among them. After that, the city council passed emergency regulations, applied for (and received) federal grants to blanket the downtown in surveillance cameras, and the FBI permanently stationed a squadron of some kind at the local police station.

A month or so later, Occupy Wall Street broke out. Hippy liberalville being what it is, a camp mushroomed up at that park where I’d gotten my flat tire. Meanwhile, Lior was the ringleader of a cadre that broke into and holed up in a vacant storefront across from the county courthouse. He ran their Facebook page, and throughout their “occupation” he was constantly on Facebook posting appeals for food and blankets and for people to join in—a rather odd commitment for someone who was supposedly working full-time at a start-up. His rather benign LARP-sesh was broken up after a week, and four of the participants—all American Apparel shopper college students—got hit with serious federal charges, including “terrorism” shit.

But Lior never faced any consequences.

I didn’t like the guy, nor respect him, but before that I’d at least have greeted him when he saw me. But afterwards? No way. I stayed the fuck away from that dude from then on, and I never went back to Café Tangier.

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 absolute safety and convenience 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—in this case, so that children can be raped. That is the reason. According to his own daughter, the victim here raped dozens 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 its subjects 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.”

Setting aside the fact that the “intelligence community” is known to seed and manipulate these subcultures: 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 with every concern for their power and careers, and no concern for the fairness of the system that will try him. Yet (as always with these essentially staged 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 it has enabled and deigned unworthy of proportionate punishment—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.” There is a great deal of racial insight there that Carlin probably did not intend. 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 really clearly perceives the cynical ways that the deviant and the marginalized are pressed into service in this way by the powers the be. But what the alt-right cannot see is the way this draws their alienation into fruitless hostility with those groups, i.e., on the basis of their characteristics and not their behavior.

A related problem with the alt-right is that it is reactionary rather than affirmative. No one in the alt-right just woke up one morning with a penchant for goose-stepping. Rather, it is felt by these types that, because liberal democracy has betrayed liberty and become authoritarian, that this fire must be fought with the fire of an illiberal authoritarianism. But two wrongs don’t make a right. 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 hypochondria, 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? Police-informant regimes 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 in the form of words and opinions 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

Of course he may be right to surmise 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.”

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

Unfollow, Pt. II

A homeowner fed up with a string of neighborhood burglaries kills a negro who may or may not have been minding his own business, and somehow it’s a mandatory “national conversation.” We’ve seen this show before. Cui bono?

That would be the oligarchs playing an underclass against tax cattle, to separate 60% (and declining) of the population from its most basic survival instincts. It’s MLK meets MK-ultra. But what I mean by this is not that “survival” requires fear of black people. On the contrary. Fear is what this country’s owners are pushing. It’s the instincts that conduce toward liberty and dignity that they’re scheming to deprive us of. They’re just using black people to do it:

Screen Shot 2020-05-08 at 12.38.10 AM

As discussed previously, last month Michiganders fed up with absolute government power stormed the statehouse in Lansing toting ARs. They didn’t really do anything, but State legislators boohooed on Twitter anyway, and the intelligentsia piled on. Over a week after the protest dissipated, the State Rep. pictured above, a Democrat who advocates citizen disarmament, strode into work with an armed (civilian) escort to protect her from “protesters bearing white supremacist symbols.”

The anti-lockdown protests at Lansing began on April 15. Protesters entered the capitol building on April 30. All told, this story was national news for three weeks. You would think that if just one of those protesters was “bearing white supremacist symbols,” the media would’ve found a way to have a field day with it well in advance of May 8, when this slander first surfaced in The Hill. Yet they didn’t. So where did it come from? The Hill attributes it to a local Michigan paper, which claims to have sourced it from video evidence posted by Rep. Anthony to her Facebook page—which contains no such video. And this smear surfaced just three days after a similar one fizzled. The moral of the story is that if you’re white, and armed, and opposed to absolute government power, you’re a Nazi—period. Human dignity is criminalized, starting in the media.

But that’s just the long-term angle. In the short-term, the point is to distract from these corona-powers that are instigating the protests, exactly as the killing of Trayvon Martin was employed to redirect almost immediately after the suppression of Occupy Wall Street (which had apparently outlived its usefulness.) Last week, when reporters asked the masked gunmen guarding that Dallas salon their names they replied, “Duncan Lemp.” See what I’m saying? To the criminal conspiracy that runs this country, Ahmaud Aubrey was a godsend.

However, that homeboy lay dead for over two months before he made the New York Times suggests that nationally, this isn’t news—it’s expertly timed propaganda. Maybe the DA’s initial decision not to indict the McMichaels was baksheesh between good ol’ boys, and maybe it wasn’t. But does similar partiality not go on where blacks are in charge? I don’t want to discount the possibility that the McMichaels are racists or belligerent people who unfairly targeted an innocent man. But how many innocent black victims of white firearms ownership would that make—this week, this month, this year? #JoggingWhileBlack is no more (and definitely much, much less) of a thing than jogging while white is, especially in major metro areas. So just talking about this kind of Bonfire of the Vanities media event with even a modicum of reverence inevitably concedes something to the suspicion it’s meant to cast upon white people who don’t outsource their safety to the government—i.e., “yes, we have impure thoughts, conversations need to be had, inquests need to be made.” Sorry, no. I am not setting foot in that confessional, whose purpose is to stymie the kind of dissent we just saw in Michigan.

The current controlled-libertarian talking point is that McMichael the elder is an ex-cop, so fuck him. I’m not a cop sycophant, but the McMichaels were private persons, acting in a private capacity. If they really did have him on video committing prior break-ins, then they didn’t go to Ahmaud Arbrey, he came to them. What’s more libertarian than protecting your own neighborhood? “But they called white privilege 911!” How’s that working out for them? You’ll notice it’s not a Citizens’ Counsel clamoring for capital charges here—it’s the intelligentsia. If we’re going to oppose overbearing police power, we ought to be consistent.

But the policy-making class doesn’t actually oppose police power. They are the police. The media, academia, the legal and STEM professions, have considerable power to determine what laws you live under. It’s a closed club, and only a modicum of the process takes place democratically. Essentially, this is the class that is sponsoring BLM, for whom BLM is making itself a rationale. If all they wanted was to hamstring the police in accordance with the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, I’d be all for them, but what they want is citizen disarmament. They want to empower (with hate crimes statutes) the very prosecutors they’re denouncing. They want the government to have more and more power to control the lives of strangers. They aren’t anti-police. They are the fucking police.

If you have any idea how difficult it is for a homicide defendant to mount a successful self-defense case, I want you to go ahead and multiply it by this:

“People keep saying, ‘We need to have a conversation about race’,” Morrison told the Daily Telegraph. “This is the conversation. I want to see a cop shoot a white unarmed teenager in the back.” She added: “And I want to see a white man convicted for raping a black woman. Then when you ask me, ‘Is it over?’, I will say yes.”

This breathtaking vindictiveness was excreted by a Nobel-laureate—and it is bottomless, because there are plenty of examples of the things she’s talking about, from the Duke lacrosse incident to Daniel Shaver and Duncan Lemp. If white privilege is to not notice or care about strangers, black privilege is to openly, unashamedly, unappeasably wish them ill. Never mind the fact that per capita, more whites than blacks are shot by police every year in the United States, or that the ratio of black-to-white perpetrators of interracial rape is more than 1000:1. What’s interesting here is what Morrison inadvertently revealed about herself, which is that her highest conceivable aspiration is equality in hell. We see this with blacks who are millionaires, world class athletes, professors emeritus, senators and presidents. As Sartre once said of the Jewish cabinet minister, “he is at once an Excellency, and an untouchable.” Half-baked communism is their only will to power. And when Rep. Sarah Anthony votes to disarm those people who showed up to “protect” her, they’ll blame the white man for that, too.

(On to Part III…. here)

Unfollow, Pt. I

Today America, and the world, have never been less free. Yet, in a way, we’ve never been freer—this COVID lockdown is putting things right into perspective. For instance:

Screen Shot 2020-05-07 at 10.41.03 PM

“A queen practicing self-care.” Do we have monarchy in America? You know…. crowns? Coronas? According to Wikipedia:

The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, and signed into law by then governor Ronald Reagan, the bill was crafted in response to members of the Black Panther Party who were lawfully conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods, in what would later be termed copwatching. They garnered national attention after Black Panthers members, bearing arms, marched upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.

Of course, that’s not what’s going on, above, in that screenshot from the Instagram of one Lenard Larry McKelvey (who is not only royal, but divine.) Rather—in case you’ve been living elsewhere in the solar system—this Michigan legislator is being escorted into the statehouse by armed men because she fears for her life from “armed protesters marauding through the state capitol demanding an end to the coronavirus lockdown.” Here is a snapshot of just a few of these rapscallions:

Screen Shot 2020-05-07 at 10.57.27 PM

Just how were they able to get away with it? Why, the color of their skin, of course:

Screen Shot 2020-05-07 at 10.52.28 PM

One way of testing this hypothesis (don’t tell Mehdi Hasan) would be to look at a control group, like (say) the one in Sacramento that same week. Same demands, same politics, same podunk demographic, but the Californians didn’t even get into the statehouse. They got zip ties from stormtroopers, while their counterparts in Michigan got a field trip.

How to explain this disparity? I’ll tell you how. Common sense gun reform:

Screen Shot 2020-05-07 at 10.49.56 PM

That picture is from the campaign website of Michigan State Rep. Sarah Anthony, the same Rep. Sarah Anthony being escorted by gunmen in the Instagram screenshot above. You see, not unlike assemblyman Don Mulford, Rep. Anthony supports common sense gun reform like they have in California. What would the Black Panthers make of this—from an African queen, no less? Well…. Perhaps they’d think the same thing the NRA thought of the Mulford Act. Playing superficial factions against one another is how the system creates psychological distance so you can go on supporting it. “NRA: Stand and Fight.” Unless you might have to fight the Black Panthers, and then—quick! Outsource that shit to the police, and the FBI, and the National Guard.

Fear is the ultimate slave master. That, and stupidity. For instance, a few weeks back, Gov. Greg Abbot issued an emergency quarantine order that shuttered Texas businesses. One Dallas salon owner, Shelley Luther, decided to defy Gov. Abbot’s order and keep food on the tables of her stylists’ families. She reopened, and before long, Texas authorities arrested her. Texans were outraged by this. Conservatives are mad about it. Ms. Luther and her attorney are mad about it. But do you know who they’re mad at? Not Gov. Abbott. No. They’re mad at some little metro court judge for enforcing the governor’s order:

That right there’s the Tuck. You can’t cuck the Tuck, unless it’s a Republican governor throwing you out of work and onto the dole. In that case, the Tuck will find someone else to blame. That’s how this scam works. If you were a witness at Deputy Tucker’s county jail lineup, he’d have you cover one eye.

My mother’s neighbor is a German who is quite elderly. Regarding coronavirus—the lockdown and the fear and the mass, compulsive rule following—he said, “This is how it began.” It put me in mind of a quote I’m fond of:

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….

That’s Ernst Jünger in The Forest Passage. What does he mean by “the substance of the old Germanic freedom”? What is freedom? How does one find it? And what’s standing in the way?

On to Part II….

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 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, 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 Koran.

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 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 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 it’s animus on 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 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.

An Introduction to Hermeticism

Screen Shot 2018-06-17 at 3.51.00 PM

Bapholment

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

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

“Jim Carey reveals the secrets of sexual alchemy to Norm MacDonald!” Deep in the Plato’s cave of their own assholes, these people have no idea what they look like. “There is a substance that comes from your…..” wherever, the obvious implication (because Christianity “has been altered”) being that, once revealed, the esoteric is the only real insight in scripture. Of course, a narcissistic minion like Jim Carey is not the finest exponent of this thinking, but he’s the perfect product of it.

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

This solipsistic pop-exegesis and schlock number magick is utterly literalistic and narrow, amounting to what is referred to in Judaism as making use of the Crown (as in Pirke Avot, “He who makes use of the Crown shall perish.”) Whatever stultifying nonsense made its way into the Talmud, Hadith, the Pauline epistles, etc., whatever may or may not be encoded in scripture from the Egyptians or the Babylonians or the Pythagorean Hermaphrodites, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the simplicity of faith. “Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” As above, so below is the credo of Babel. All you need to know about the occult is its emphasis on secrecy, on personal attainment, and on refashioning the world as if God’s creation is deficient. May I humbly suggest the following sources instead?:

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

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

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

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

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