Some are finding themselves surprised — shocked! shocked, I tell you — that neither big media nor presumed “conservative” sources like Fox News are playing this video, which shows Leftists celebrating the violence they instigate and Trump rallies and chastising the Right for playing within the rules.
This is not anomalous, but business as usual, because of what news media is: a business.
When civilizations are new, goals are clear. The forests must be cut down, the city built, crops planted and enemies defeated. The task is the action that needs to be taken. But when civilization ages, tasks are administered through proxies or intermediates where the task is to satisfy rules or objectives removed from end results.
For example, a modern citizen may be told to go to a certain location, dig a ditch and put in a concrete platform. He will not know what goes there, or why it is important; there is only the task.
Proxies create the necessity of “playing the game.” This means satisfying the rules and the bosses, not getting the task done. This tends to make people lazy and resentful because there is less of a connection between the immediate act and the reward of having something completed.
This gives rise to the type of people who play the game well. This process selects for people who do not care about the results of their actions, but want the intermediate reward of money and social acclaim. These are naturally manipulators, salesmen and narcissists.
Your average celebrity, politician and bureaucrat all fit into this pattern.
What this means is that news media is there to win the game because the people in it are there to win the game. That means that truth is never the goal; popularity is, specifically by advancing the narrative that everyone out there is a victim and that is why things have not worked out for them.
The only viewpoint that fits the narrative is the Leftist viewpoint, which implies that a lack of equality — not the incompetence and moral baseness of most people — is the problem with life. Fix the lack of equality, and you have Utopia. For Leftists, this is the only moral good.
Leftists view breaking the rules as a necessary sacrifice. Rules, decency, culture, God, family… these are all secondary. Only the ideology matters. For our forward-thinking brains, this is like crack and heroin mixed together. It shuts down all other processing, bringing sweet oblivion to the big questions of existence.
This is why Fox News rarely runs conservative news, and when it does, it slants to the Left. That is where the audience is. Many conservatives are in fact mostly Leftist in outlook, although they would scream if you pointed out that “small government, muh freedumbs, diversity and equality” are not conservative values.
We think of the news as an agency with the purpose of telling us the truth. It is not; the news is there to distract from the truth and instead pitch you a product, which is that you are a victim and all you need is freedom and equality. The news is entertainment.
Thus it is not surprising that you see very little of real life and real thinking mentioned there.
These faux elites react with a prophylactic, psuedo-erudite epistemic closure argument designed to write reactionary sentiment out of any debate. Wise and Venerable scholar of the Cathedral Mark Lilla deploys pity, with all the condescending dislike and disgust that that particular hostile emotion entails below.
The reactionary is anything but a conservative. He is as radical and modern a figure as the revolutionary, someone shipwrecked in the rapidly changing present, and suffering from nostalgia for an idealized past and an apocalyptic fear that history is rushing toward catastrophe. And like the revolutionary his political engagements are motivated by highly developed ideas.
David Brooks, NYT House Conservative (i.e. Quasi-White Step ‘n Fetchit of the Cathedral) capes for the ongoing infliction of “progress” on its defenseless victims below. First he stokes the mordant, pearl-clutching fears of the cuck hivemind.
Reactionaries, whether angry white Trumpians, European nationalists, radical Islamists or left-wing anti-globalists, are loud, self-confident and on the march.
David Brooks, unlike those Conservatives, is no gibbering barbarian. He believes that ratiocination and the honey-sweet tone of reconciliation can still win the day. He must patiently lecture all three Conservatives who still read the New York Times out of that Basket of Deplorables.™ So what could steer such a vast Fifth Column of Philistines to the beckoning banners of Pepe Le Hate Frog Demonique? He offers us up a self-serving explanation below.
Reactionaries come in different stripes but share a similar mentality: There was once a golden age, when people knew their place and lived in harmony. But then that golden age was betrayed by the elites. “The betrayal of elites is the linchpin of every reactionary story,” Lilla writes.
Soon, they believe, a false and decadent consciousness descended upon the land. “Only those who have preserved memories of the old ways see what is happening,” Lilla notes. Only the reactionaries have the wisdom to turn things back to the way they used to be, to “Make America Great Again.”
Perhaps the key to understanding the propaganda at work here is to patiently explain its untruths. It’s not the elites that do us in unless we fault them for sleeping on the job and letting degenrates catamite about on the hallowed grounds of the Haute Culture Country Club. Calling people like Hillary Clinton, who willingly hired, trusted and associated with a woman who voluntarily wed Anthony Weiner elite is not acceptable. Such an affront to the English language requires the presence of pink HTML sarcasm tags.
So the problem an intelligent Reactionary identifes is not the elite. The problem is the people who allow Anthony Weiner to pretend that he is elite. The problem is the mob. Crowdism is the vehicle by which the cathedral of apostates empowers a mob of morons to elect and elevate a trolladytic shlub like Anthony Weiner in return for an unending stream of gimmedats. I personally have no problem with a genuine (“natural”) elite. That sort of a group would reclaim the term as a compliment rather than an insult.
Lilla gets two things correct.
Reactionaries react against Modernism.
Reactionaries are not Conservative.
He gets things correct for the wrong reasons. Reactionaries act against Modernism. We are consequentialist, as opposed to nostalgia-laden. Many Reactionaries miss the extent to which religious faith was treated with respect and local culture was revered in respected in the 1860s. Not many American Southern Reactionaries are out there asking if we can bring back Civil War field medicine. We’d prefer, as a logical choice, that the local surgeon at Huntsville Hospital not have a rusty, old hacksaw and a bottle of Ancient Age in the his medical bag. Even if that was how things got done back in The Golden Age.
We see history as a living and viable discipline that should be dedicated to identifying and understanding what worked in prior human generations. Reactionaries react selectively; not reflexively. We take data from the world around us and examine it. We, not the “Progressives,” are the ones that just flippin’ love science. So based on consequentialist evaluation of what works and what doesn’t, we specifically critique the vast extent to which Modernism and democracy have obviously and completely failed to maintain the clear and indisputible standards of what “Makes America Great.”
As a consequence, Mark Lilla gets another one right as well. His Amerika.org kewpie doll should arrive in the email today. We are not Conservatives. We prefer virtue, with the postive and affirmative manhood that this entails, to Modern Conservatism. Conservatives stand athwart history asking nicely if it would slow down and not swamp their mutual funds or lustily deflower their daughters.
They lack the real guts to fight Leftism because they believe in a weaker form thereof. They secretly wish they could be the Left too. They are the nerds who melt in gratitude from a friendly hug from Michelle Obama. Liberals get this and therefore understand they can work them for anything they want. No Real Conservative would ever rock the boat by actually trying to repeal Obamacare. People (meaning the Leftists) would be scared and upset. Michelle wouldn’t feel like hugging them ever again. Oh No!
So David Brooks is dutifully doing his duty to calm down all of those people. It wouldn’t be dainty if all his liberal friends got worried. Like the trusty black overseer on an antebellum pine tar plantation, David Brooks gets busy stopping all the hootin’ and a hollerin.’ He needs to do that before Massa gets all upset. He fits into an outmoded role from a dark and evil period. It’s as if he came from the malignant heart of darkness found in that America. Is David Brooks the real stereotype of The Blind Reactionary? “The horror!” Said Mr. Kurtz. “The horror!”
And that, in essence, is what we get from the Cuck Faux Elite. We particularly get that from the ones who tell us they are “Conservative” and here to look out for our interests. They look out for us by telling us to tone it down. Just be patient and take your medicine. Don’t be a “Reactionary.” That would be unseemly. Being unseemly is far worse to the Cuck Faux Elite than being dead wrong. The tattermedalion reactionaries don’t like being dead wrong. Particularly the part about being dead. This is why David Brooks is blessedly losing. May his downfall become complete.
This week, the Alt Right fights for its own soul. It worries about how to keep itself from being assimilated like the mainstream conservatives on one hand, and on the other, if it has gone too far.
It should instead worry whether it has chosen the right method of going too far.
The Alt Right has a unique mandate in historical terms: the existing order of Leftism and globalism has spectacularly failed, and people are just barely catching on. The smart ones among us want an end to the immediate Leftist crisis, and to the conditions that have enabled it, namely the collapse of Western Civilization.
For the Alt Right, there are two missions as a result:
Stop the Leftist insanity.
Reverse the decline and fall of Western Civilization.
To achieve this, the Alt Right has to adopt a radical course that rejects the illusions of our time — equality, pluralism, utilitarianism, individualism — and replace them with a goal that rises above mere material and social convenience. That is not an easy task, but looking at those in the Alt Right, it is clear that we are up to it.
We can achieve that goal through the four pillars, which are actually more radical than anything suggested in the Alt Right so far. They combine Alt Right, Identitarian, New Right, Neoreaction and Traditionalist thought:
Nationalism. Exclude all Others; rule by culture. Zero diversity, not even a drop.
Aristocracy. Remove democracy and popularity. Give power and wealth to our best people.
Hierarchy. Reward for performance. No subsidies, welfare, unions or socialism.
Purpose. We find a goal that is not material or humanistic, like “excellence.” Good to the good, and bad to the bad.
These pillars have been mostly ignored by the underground Right because they are simply too extreme.
The White Nationalists want to combine all white ethnic groups and social classes into a single vanilla milkshake with no culture, origins or distinctions. This is just another form of Leftism.
The “civic nationalists” — fools using a term re-defined by the Left — want to make rules and obedience tests in order to make us all obey the right economic and political system. This and “culturism” are the same thing.
The theocrats want us all to simultaneously convert to Jesus or Odin, and forget about the other dimensions of our problem, some of which are in fact material, but can only be fixed by applicable of principle, which is not.
All of them have missed the point: we are trying to restore a golden age in which our civilization is the best because it seeks qualitative improvement in all areas.
We cannot do that with any vestiges of equality, modernity, politics, or other manipulations. We need to break free from all of this nonsense.
Most of these groups who are competing for control of the Alt Right make the same error: they are special interest groups who will achieve one change, but leave the system of modernity in place. Modernity is what got us to this stage. It must depart.
The real problem is egalitarian/individualistic thinking. This consists of individuals demanding their equal share, and in order to achieve that, forming mobs or “Crowds” who use their numbers to demand equality, in the name of the group but with the purpose of the individual. It is selfishness, collectivized.
The Alt Right has made great strides by denying the official narrative and instead pointing to the genetic and biological origins of culture, which refutes the egalitarian theory that a random group of people can be instructed in the same political and economic system and be as great as those who invented it. This is the magic dirt theory.
Against the magic dirt theory, the Alt Right suggests Nationalism: that each nation be defined by its founding ethnic group, and that all others be excluded.
Most people have forgotten what Nationalism means, but they can refresh their memories by recalling that World War Two was a war against Nationalism, or the nations that wanted “Germany for Germans,” and excluded all Others.
Nationalism is the belief that political groups should be constructed around the idea of “nation,” or population group unified by culture, heritage and language.
As such, Nationalist is “rule by culture” where cultural values come before profit motive or popularity, which enables forward-thinking leadership instead. With profit motive, every object and idea and person is for sale, and society leads itself in circles. With leadership, society determines its goals and moves toward them.
The term “nationalism” comes from the term “nation,” which has a different meaning in current politics. Currently, the nations of the world are political constructions made of borders, legal systems and economies, called “nation-states.”
Nationalism is the core of the Alt Right. The “proposition nation,” a creation of liberal democracy — equality plus democracy — has failed, and Nationalists are pointing toward a better order.
The twentieth century consisted mostly of war against Nationalism in the name of liberalism or Leftism, which is the idea of the equality of all people, independent of race, ethnicity and caste/class.
This alone constitutes the line in the sand which separates those who are Modernist zombies from those who will make the next great civilization.
Normies cannot accept Nationalism, because it offends them because it violates equality.
Join us on the dark side. We reject The Enlightenment™ and other ideas of human equality. This is the Rubicon which must be crossed. It is also what defines the Alt Right, and why it is thriving while mainstream conservatism and liberalism die the same death.
Ben Shapiro, whose work is normally quite enjoyable, raises a few points of interest in his new column, but makes a technical error:
The only way to preserve “Western civilization” is by allegiance to European ethnicity. What sort of “Western civilization” must be preserved? Not limited government; not individual responsibility; not equality of rights.
Language can fool us. We know that in logic A->B does not necessarily mean B->A. The most common error in human thinking — seen in reversed cognition, neurosis, superstition, pareidolia and cherry-picking — is to assume B->A. And yet, sadly, Shapiro does it here.
He assume that for us to have limited government, we must explicitly demand it under those terms, forgetting that other methods can achieve it. Limited government is both B and A in his view, when really, it is B and there are many As that can cause it come about.
For example, aristocracy. No government; only leadership. (Government is managerial, where aristocracy approximates the role of military leadership in setting goals and rewarding those who achieve them while clearing non-contributors aside. It does not attempt to manage all people to get to the same result because it is inherently inegalitarian.).
He also assumes that conservatism is not its principles, but the methods used to achieve them. The A is conservative principles; the B is methods. B does not necessarily lead to A, so it is better to uphold principles, and the Alt Right does that with dramatic flair.
In fact, the Alt Right is the resurrection of conservatism from its milquetoast version which was designed to be compatible with democracy and American internationalist (Leftist) policy goals: the core of conservatism is consequentialism, or looking at results to see what has worked best throughout history, and conserving those best principles so that we always have a roadmap when encountering new things.
Let us look at Alt Right ideals:
Genetic basis to culture and thus, nation. History shows this one again and again: people like those who are like them, in part because this is the most efficient way to live because people are acting in the same direction without requiring police, media, government and education to hound them. Why is it surprising that the people most opposed to this theory — called Nationalism — are police, media, government and academia?
Consequently, diversity does not work. We are not “white supremacists” who blame other groups for our own failings, nor anti-Semites. We recognize this: each group acts in its own genetic self-interest, and therefore, no two groups can share the same interest. Diversity always fails, no matter what groups are involved.
Hierarchy not equality. People are not equal on a genetic level, and therefore have widely varying abilities mapped on a “Bell Curve” where most are of only moderate ability. For this reason, we need a strong hierarchy to put those on the far-right seventh of the curve ahead of the rest. Putting those who are most competent in charge guarantees the best results for all and ends the constant internal friction of power struggles.
Reward must come only from performance. Unions, socialism, pacifism, equality and social group style inclusion have a fatal flaw: they reward the worst the same as the best, which creates a disincentive to the best through the added penalty of unrewarded and taxing labor. If the reward goes to the worst as well, the best are taking on additional time, energy and money to do what will not be rewarded; this is a de facto penalty. Subsidize nothing, reward only performance.
These are timeless conservative principles. Edmund Burke would agree with them, as would Plato. They are presented here in a form distilled down from the memery and chaotic ideation of the Alt Right, which it preserves to avoid entryism and also to keep itself internally competitive so that it always produces cutting-edge ideas.
Where mainstream conservatism slept, the Alt Right rose; unlike mainstream conservatives, the Alt Right do not require “politeness” and “sociability” from themselves because they realize that these hamper truth, which is more complex and less pleasant than the euphemisms and talismans required for social interaction. That is the difference: the mainstream conservatives are dominated by socializing and its requirements, where the Alt Right maintains a feral, atavistic and anti-social outlook that allows it to be truth-driven and not led around by the nose by human concerns, emotions, feelings, desires and pretenses.
Let us look at what he feels is non-conservative:
Those who cheer it spring from the so-called alt-right, who have been insisting for months that conservatism is a “failure” and that it must be replaced with an ethnicity-based white solidarity movement, and from the Pat Buchanan paleoconservative wing of the party, which believes that free trade is economic voodoo, immigration from non-European countries is inherently problematic, and isolationism on foreign policy is the best way to protect the country.
The common factor here is Nationalism, or the idea that the presence of only one ethnic group defines the nation.
Not proxies like capitalism, small government, democracy, equality, individual responsibility or other B/methods that Shapiro suggests.
The core of conservatism is nationalism because nationalism produces the best results throughout history. It is not surprising, then, that every Leftist ideal and group is against Nationalism. They fear it because it undoes Leftism.
With nationalism, we do not need the Cathedral — the intersectional elite of government, academia, media and entertainment — because we have culture that can be universally practiced because all of the people are the same. This is why Leftism fears Nationalism, and why conservatism promotes it.
As far as the death of conservatism goes, Shapiro writes an interesting discussion of it, but fails to penetrate into the depths: the Alt Right is conservatism, once you strip away the nonsense required for conservatism to play nice (“bipartisanship,” i.e. compromise and collegiality) with Leftism.
Donald Trump is not the end of conservatism; he is the liberation of it. Whether or not he wins, he has broken the surface tension that says conservatives cannot talk about vital issues like Nationalism and our incompatibility with Leftism. There is nothing more Rightist than that.
In my view, Donald Trump is a good candidate because he intends to win. For him winning does not mean merely attaining a position or public recognition, as it does for Leftists. He wants to make a successful project in terms of its results as a conservative would, and that requires strengthening the country and fixing its problems. In intent, at least, he will settle for nothing less, and thanks to Barack Obama’s precedent-setting abuse of executive orders with the Supreme Court’s approval, he has a legal foundation on which he can override the Left and achieve these things.
But even more, he is the standard-bearer for a new conservative mentality: we will not be bullied anymore. We will speak of the obvious and real. We will mention the unsociable and factual, including logical facts (such as “diversity cannot work because groups have self-interest specific to themselves which clash when more than one group occupies the same space”). We will be honest, forthright and clear.
Conservatism died long ago. Ronald Reagan was its last gasp of agonal breathing. After that, it was the muddle. Conservatism has existed in a state of denial of what it is to be conservative, and instead clings to a few methods that conservatives insist qualifies them as conservative, even though the lie is put to that statement by their failure to achieve conservative results, which is the only measurement conservatism recognizes.
Cheer up, Ben. You are halfway to Alt Right yourself. Now it is time for you to join us on the dark side.
As the media machine struggles to make sense of what is happening, it repeats the old tropes. Conservative and liberal writers have taken to their keyboards to write about how leftism is good, and anything else is bad. They claim the opposite, that they are attacking specific movements, but only non-Leftist movements are attacked.
The Southern Poverty Law Center calls the alt-right “a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that ‘white identity’ is under attack by multicultural forces using ‘political correctness’ and ‘social justice’ to undermine white people and ‘their’ civilization.” Most Americans hadn’t heard about the alt-right until this election, and some not until last month, when Hillary Clinton gave a speech in Reno, Nev., linking Donald Trump to it.
The term was coined in 2008 by Richard Spencer, a white supremacist whose National Policy Institute says it is “dedicated to the heritage, identity and future of people of European descent in the United States, and around the world.” Through his online writings and YouTube channel, Mr. Spencer is a key player in the social-media universe where this core group of Trump supporters get their “news,” from sources with which most people aren’t familiar. A quick scan shows that immigration is not only their most important issue, it’s pretty much their only issue.
“Immigration is a kind of proxy war — and maybe a last stand — for White Americans, who are undergoing a painful recognition that, unless dramatic action is taken, their grandchildren will live in a country that is alien and hostile,” Mr. Spencer wrote in a National Policy Institute column.
The Left bemoans this as identity politics, which means voting according to your tribe’s self-interest. It is acceptable for homosexuals, Jews, African-Americans, Mexicans, Japenese, Muslims, etc. to act in their own self-interest, but not Europeans. Why? Because the goal of Leftism is to destroy the majority culture and replace it with an ideology.
We know this because history shows it to us. The Soviet Union bragged about how diversity was its strength. Rome became increasingly diverse in its final years, as did Athens, by the account of Plato. In each case, the rulers imported new people to shatter the culture, heritage and traditions of the society so that the people could be made a means to the end of that ruler’s power.
That is the decision before us at this time: be not racist, so that our leaders can replace enough of us to have permanent control, or be called racists and say out loud that diversity does not and cannot function as a positive policy, therefore it should be replaced. That means America for its founding group, the Western Europeans.
Across all continents settled by Western Europeans, the elites have had one super-weapon which they use liberally (no pun intended) and that is the epithet ¡RACIST!. Starting even before the Civil War, the elites decided they wanted to replace our people with others, first Southern and Eastern Europeans, and later, other racial groups. This made the job of being an elite leader easier, because no cultural consensus conflicted with the power of the State.
Since WWII, it has been easy — too easy — for the elites, since Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini were all nationalists, or those who believe a nation should be defined by its founding ethnic group only. This opposed the agenda of the ever-expanding Leftist State, and thwarted its power, so it needed to be destroyed.
This agenda was enforced by the social perception that “everybody knows” and “everybody agrees” what is true, and therefore, those who think differently are not just wrong, but wrong because they are bad or stupid and ignorant. This is a fundamentally social method of controlling the thinking of the masses, a type of hive-mind imposed by an appeal to the weakness and pretense of individuals.
Except that now, people are willing to be called ¡RACIST! and ignorant because they realize that this is it: this is our last shot and preventing the takeover of our civilization by the Left.
Next stop, Venezuela. Or Brazil. But it will not be the future we have been told that we have. Nope, all the wealth and technology is slowly going away as social order further disintegrates, and then we have nothing but the type of third-world strongmen we are familiar with from the news, ruling over a banana republic where everyone is corrupt, that never produces anything important ever again.
This is why events like the Donald Trump candidacy, and Brexit, have shaken the establishment to its core, but more importantly, have shocked its supporters, who are counting on riding the coattails of the “right side of history” to personal success, and being thoughtless like people who litter in national parks, care not for the consequences of their actions. Witness history being made:
The first was an almost universal surprise, since it was a truism that Leavers were a tiny handful of fruitcakes. A defeat for Remain was thus unthinkable. In fact there had always been widespread opposition to the EU among voters at all social levels, even though political parties, the media, and most national institutions had treated the idea with contempt and its adherents as eccentric at best. Suddenly the referendum rules meant that Leavers were on television making the case for Brexit nightly and, contrary to their caricature, they seemed quite reasonable. They persuaded some voters to switch to Leave, and Leave voters to be more confident of their own opinions. As the campaign developed, the polls swung towards Leave and many late polls showed the two sides as neck-and-neck. A Leave victory, though by no means inevitable, should have been seen as pretty likely.
In fact the reaction that followed surprise was a set of variations on horror, outrage, indignation, anguish and a desire for revenge. That was on the Remain side; the Leave side was pleased but not extravagantly so. For a while it simply pocketed its unexpected success and watched, bemused, from the wings while Remainers rioted angrily stage-centre. They plainly wanted the referendum result annulled but they were never quite able to explain why. Obviously they couldn’t say simply that they wanted a different result. So they had to invent a series of specious reasons that in their eyes cast doubt on its validity—that the Leave campaign was xenophobic and racist, that its voters (though not Remain voters) had not understood what they were voting for, that it had “told lies” (uniquely so in political campaigns, apparently), and so on and so forth. But the argument advanced with most passion by Remainers and repeated most often in the left-wing press ran as follows: because old uneducated people supporting Leave had outvoted young people with degrees voting Remain, these miserable old geezers had “robbed the young of their future” and, well, it wasn’t right.
We are on a precipice. The past seventy years of conservatism, 227 years of democracy, and thousand years of steadily marching toward egalitarianism have betrayed us; every year, more problems occur and our society is less the beautiful, hopeful, ambitious and excellent place it once was. Instead, we accept inferior substitutes, and are forced by social pressure into denying that oblivion threatens us.
And yet, slowly it dawns on people. This is not just another election, after which things continue as normal. Normal is terrible: our governments are broke, our jobs are slavery, our cities are cesspools and our future is worse. It will be a long, slow, painful slide down to third-world levels of oblivion. And what can we do?
One of the paradoxes—there are so many—of conservative thought over the last decade at least is the unwillingness even to entertain the possibility that America and the West are on a trajectory toward something very bad. On the one hand, conservatives routinely present a litany of ills plaguing the body politic. Illegitimacy. Crime. Massive, expensive, intrusive, out-of-control government. Politically correct McCarthyism. Ever-higher taxes and ever-deteriorating services and infrastructure. Inability to win wars against tribal, sub-Third-World foes. A disastrously awful educational system that churns out kids who don’t know anything and, at the primary and secondary levels, can’t (or won’t) discipline disruptive punks, and at the higher levels saddles students with six figure debts for the privilege. And so on and drearily on. Like that portion of the mass where the priest asks for your private intentions, fill in any dismal fact about American decline that you want and I’ll stipulate it.
Conservatives spend at least several hundred million dollars a year on think-tanks, magazines, conferences, fellowships, and such, complaining about this, that, the other, and everything. And yet these same conservatives are, at root, keepers of the status quo. Oh, sure, they want some things to change. They want their pet ideas adopted—tax deductions for having more babies and the like. Many of them are even good ideas. But are any of them truly fundamental? Do they get to the heart of our problems?
What is the future of post-Enlightenment Western Civilization? If we search our hearts, we know the answer: going out like Rome or Athens, leaving behind a civilization which is thoroughly dysfunctional and produces nothing. We are not choosing which of these relatively inconsequential platforms to adopt, but fighting for survival, starting by reserving the ability to choose to beat down our potential tyrants in the future.
In the EU and the USA, the governments are basically the same: heavy regulations, social welfare programs, Leftist agenda, and a desire to replace their citizens with third-world people or “minority” groups, who always vote Leftist. They never vote right-wing, because it is against their instinct, since it would require admitting that their homelands did it wrong and that is why they are third-world, not because of colonialism or sunspots or whatever they’re claiming this week. And so, with a few statistically-insignificant exceptions, they will never do it.
That is what globalism means, when you distill down the meaning: worldwide trade because the Leftist empire has worldwide control, at least of the first world. Globalism = Leftism. Multiculturalism/diversity is the inevitable result of Leftism as it seeks to gain this global control. All else is noise and fantasy; we either destroy this, or it destroys us.
Jonah Goldberg has a problem with the liberal media. He has just recently become concerned that they have a credibility problem. He has finally figured out they are too liberal to do their assigned job – after over a decade of writing for National Cuckview. His nauseating queefage follows below:
Every election cycle, the GOP nominee is smeared as a racist by the Democrats or the press — or both. Representative John Lewis of Georgia trades in a bit more of his hard-earned moral authority each time he insinuates that the GOP nominee is like George Wallace or wants to bring back Jim Crow, and political columnists relinquish a bit more of their claim to objectivity each time they let his comments pass without condemnation or criticism.
So essentially, Jonah’s vaginal eructation issues stem from the total inability for the MSM to properly use the race card to ru-ru the electoral prospects of a Republican candidate for president. Remember when we were all suppossed to swallow our misgivings and vote like it mattered for Mitt Romney and John McCain? Jonah doesn’t. When he has to eat the ideological crap sandwich for the party, Kameraen, it’s different. Then, the same MSM that indulged in amateur gynecology over Sarah Palin’s pregnancy in 2008 now has a credibility problem.
You see, Jonah and his Cuckservative compatriots, are rabbits. They feed off a different clover patch than the Sandernistas, but they are still the numerous, sub-optimal products of the r-style reproductive strategy gone Supa-Fly. And as rabbits, they cannot stand up to the predators. They get eaten. When Jonah hits the beach and the Great White Shark hits the shallows, his defense against this misfortune is to swim faster than the unfortunate swimmer next to him.
Robert Tracinski displays similar behavior in his efforts to throw The ALt-Right under the #BlackLivesMatter Bus so that they can go back to lapping up the cuck like a good little trained loyal “opposition.” The paragraph cited below is what greasy, congealing cuck truly smells like.
Hey, lefties, we finally found your racists for you. For as long as I can remember, people like me—by which I mean advocates of capitalism and free markets and freedom of speech—have been accused by the left of being secret racists who pine for the gold old days of the antebellum South. Tiresome stuff like this. Then along comes a group of actual, declared racists who really do pine for the antebellum South, and who is one of the main targets of their invective? People like me.
Poor, Little Robert The Rabbit. That big, bad wolf on the Alt-Right is targeting him. Caucasoid, Please! He tells the world the following about the Alt-Right.
The alt-right isn’t part of the intellectual traditions of the American right, nor is it an alternative to anything. It’s just the same old white-sheet set, repackaged with red “Make America Great Again” golf caps. They’re serving as ignorant tools of the left, and they should be exposed as such.
It sucks when people do evil, racist things like stereotype.
So that brings us back around to Jonah Goldberg’s whinging. He, Kevin Williamson and much of the rest of the “respectable” conservative online presence have been playing the race card since the first hand of this season’s electoral campaigns. If the “Trump is racist” storyline is losing potency, its because anyone listening has heard all before. And then again. Repetitively.
There are only so many race cards in the standard 52-card deck. Once your magazine has published “The Father Führer” you’ve played your card. The bridge game is on to the next hand. Jonah, Robert Tracinski, and the rest of the conservatives Amerika has lost with for the past eight years are now fully aware they’ve overbid their hands and are about to get Trumped and lose the rubber.
Soon, mainstream Leftist (Communist) candidate Hillary Clinton will make her speech attacking Donald Trump and the Alternative Right.
Her supporters will cheer even if she reads off the ingredients in a common breakfast cereal; for them, having the “correct” opinion is more important than fact.
What is certain is that Hillarious Clinton will attack a strawman. Her version of the Alternative Right will be that which flatters her audience, which has them as the virtuous independents attacking the evil empire instead of the reality that they are conformists cheering on the ideology which has led the West to failure.
Do we need to even hear her speech? Her fans do not; they care only about the symbol of being correct, and have long ago cast reality aside. If her many ethical and legal violations do not concern them now, it is because they do not care about such things; they only care about their ideology, like all zombies.
This is the nature of Leftism, which creates politics: there is One Right Way which happens to contradict reality, and all who want to be helped by the Leftist gang had better start repeating that narrative like robotic tape recorders. Everyone else is bad of course.
The Right does not pretend that it tolerates difference of opinion. It finds some things that work for the purposes of making a thriving civilization, and sticks by them; the Left advances conjectures about what might make people feel better, and chases a new one every week.
Hillary will not understand (or care about) the appeal of the Alternative Right. It can be summarized this way: our civilization is heading down a path to doom in the pursuit of equality, and we want an option. This means the destruction of all egalitarian ideas, including democracy, class warfare, pluralism and diversity.
We do not need to “justify” these ideas; our ideation is based in a knowledge of what works, as opposed to the feelings-based prevarication of the Left. We know how to make a thriving society; the Left wants to destroy this formula and replace it with one where mediocre, clueless people like Hillary Clinton are important.
There is only one way out of this situation, which is to crush the Left and deport all who adhere to it to Brazil. There, they will enjoy pluralism and diversity. Each side wins.
But in the meantime, we do not want our civilization — and our futures, and those of our children — to follow a historically-proven formula for failure in Leftism. Hillary will do anything she can to obscure this truth and paint it as some kind of emotional tantrum, but we know better. She is dead; we are life.
“I’m sorry but the media is biased. And they’re gonna paint us as haters and racists and all of that but that’s not what this is all about.” said Scott Lacy with the Aryan Renaissance Society.
It is all about whether you can believe in something bigger than yourself. Some call it nihilism to believe only in yourself, following Fred Nietzsche’s formulation, but others call it by what it is: a collapse into self, a narcissism and solipsism, or just individualism taken to its logical conclusion: the Ego comes before all else.
Nationalism is a form of conservatism. Conservatives “conserve” excellence by honoring the methods that have produced the best results over time, instead of formulating an ideology or conjecture about how things should be in order to satiate their inner personal needs. Conservatives exceed the self.
As the West spirals downward into (the usual) Leftist oblivion, it becomes clear to many of us that there are two groups in this society: those who think of nothing but themselves, which we might call “participants,” and those who aspire to something larger — family, excellence, race, God, culture, civilization and ideas — which makes them lose the prison of the self for at least a few moments, and get closer to seeing reality.
Conservatives espouse traditional (or more accurately: eternal) values including the importance of hard work and dedication. Few ask themselves however if this extends to jobs. It should not, mainly because (1) jobs are not actually work in most cases and (2) jobs are the antithesis of what the value of hard work is designed to foster.
In modern Europe and the Americas, everyone — male and female — over the age of majority must attend a job. This means showing up every day from eight to five and being in the office, doing office tasks. Every person gets a cubicle or an office and a computer, maybe a title. They do this until they are sixty-five, then wonder what it meant.
In the average job, very little of actual import is done. This occurs first because most of the assigned activities are pro forma or “make-work,” but more broadly because most business activities are ill-advised or irrelevant, often through the creation of regulatory law.
In this sense, jobs are not “work” per se, or the process of applying oneself to a task. They are the process of attendance, obedience and time-wasting.
This realization leads to the second point, which is that jobs are the antithesis of the “work” described by traditional values. In traditional work, the individual learns how the world works by applying himself or herself to tasks and achieving mastery. It is a method of understanding realism and gaining self-discipline.
Jobs do the opposite. Jobs reward appearance, not actuality, except in a few rare cases. Even in professional fields, the goal is to keep abreast of what others have done and do the same in a certain specific case, and accountability occurs only when one deviates from the commonly accepted practice, even if results are bad. Doctors lose patients, lawyers loses cases, and architects design junk all the time but so long as these are competitive with what others have established as “safe” minimums, no consequences attach.
The constant obsession with staying abreast of standards makes work into an obsession. One must appear to be as devoted as one’s comrades, or be suspected of disloyalty. Further, the worker must demonstrate diligent emulation of public appearance as defined by others, which creates a neurosis of fears about what has not be done as opposed to what needs doing.
In this way, jobs lead away from work, which is results-based. Instead, they present a flight from life itself: an escape from the world of actions and consequences into the purely human world of imitation and social reward. This adds a soul-killing dimension because the acts on which we spend most of our lives are entirely a waste of our time and potential.
Consider it this way: from the years of the early twenties through the mid-sixties, a person spends fifty hours a week, fifty weeks a year, preparing for or attending work. These are the best daylight hours and the most intense moments of their consciousnesses, devoted to something that is both unnecessary and demeaning. They never notice because everyone else is doing it, at least until retirement, where people tend to become aimless and bitter.
If Moses were around today, he would be saying “let my people go” while looking skeptically at a heap of TPS reports.
Michel Houellebecq unveiled the conservative case against jobs in Whatever: jobs ruin our expectation that life will be good, and force us into desperate compensatory measures to feel good, almost all of which lead to destruction of hope for life itself. Jobs make us bitter, alienated and destructive, which mirrors the ressentiment inherent to Leftism, which is why jobs are a creation of the Leftist regulatory state and not the free market, which rewards performance over pro forma activity.
Others have made this case before, such as Louis-Ferdinand Céline, who showed how jobs took over the minds of people and turned them into near-automatons. Indeed, among conservative writers of the early twentieth century, the mind-enslaving specter of “Progress” was seen through the voracious expansion of industry, the collapse of small communities into cities, and the reduction of families into financial units driven by jobs.
People ask, “What would our alternative be?”
The conservative answer is to remove all regulation of the job market and to allow reward to go only to those who can achieve results, which in turn limits labor to the necessary and also radically reduces costs so that people can live on less and be happier. This would lead to less time spent at jobs, because they would be task-driven and not appearance-driven.
In addition, the regulatory state creates a need to keep up with standards to avoid legal liability and government intervention. This directs the focus of management from making things happen to dealing with labor and legal issues. Most managers are not very good at what they do, in part because their real job is to find a way to work with the regulatory state, not get their workers to perform.
If a conservative took over with absolute power, the intermediates between worker and employer like unions, regulations, and legally-defined liabilities would vanish and be handled instead by civil courts. Workers would find themselves as more like contractors, hired to make a certain function happen and rewarded for it. They would have greater pride in their work and most of it would be necessary, as opposed to the current scheme where most of it is not necessary.
Existential concerns would come into play here. When work is not a mandatory time period, but a question of achieving results, people can see the time value of labor and conversely, the monetary value of time. This encourages them to go home, spend time with friends and families and on cultural activities instead of attending extra hours for the sake of appearance.
We need only look at the Dutch model to see how less job means more happiness.
One Dutch woman explicitly states that less time at the job means more liberation and ability to have a positive life. As Macleansreports:
“Every woman in Holland can do whatever she wants with her life,” says Van Haeren, 52, who lives just outside of Rotterdam and rides her bicycle or the train to work three days a week at a police academy, where she counsels students. She has worked part-time her entire career, as have almost all of her friends—married or unmarried, kids or no kids—save one or two who logged more hours out of financial necessity. Van Haeren, who wasn’t married until last year and has no children, says she’s worked part-time “to have time to do things that matter to me, live the way I want. To stay mentally and physically healthy and happy.”
Many women in the Netherlands seem to share similar views, valuing independence over success in the workplace. In 2001, nearly 60 per cent of working Dutch women were employed part-time, compared to just 20 per cent of Canadian women. Today, the number is even higher, hovering around 75 per cent. Some, like Van Haeren, view this as progress, evidence of personal freedom and a commitment to a balanced lifestyle.
The article goes on to show what a world without job mania might look like:
Ellen de Bruin, who patterned her book after Mireille Guiliano’s bestseller French Women Don’t Get Fat, began by defining the stereotypical Dutch woman: naturally beautiful with a no-fuss sense of style, she rides her bike to fetch the groceries, has ample time with her kids and husband, takes art classes in the middle of the week, and spends leisurely afternoons drinking coffee with her friends. She loves to work part-time and does not earn as much as her husband, but she’s fine with that—he takes care of the bills. The book went on to note that Dutch women rank consistently low, compared to those in other Western countries, in terms of representation in top positions in business and government—and rank consistently near the top in terms of happiness and well-being.
When I talk to women who spend half the week doing what they want—playing sports, planting gardens, doing art projects, hanging out with their children, volunteering, and meeting their family friends—I think, yes, that sounds wonderful. I can look around at the busy midweek, midday markets and town squares and picture myself leisurely buying produce or having coffee with friends. In a book released several years ago called Dutch Women Don’t Get Depressed—a parody of French Women Don’t Get Fat—Dutch psychologist Ellen de Bruin explains that key to a Dutch woman’s happiness is her sense of personal freedom and a good work-life balance. But it’s hard to transplant that image to the United States, where our self-esteem is so closely tied to our work.
Conservatives owe it to ourselves to look at the root of tradition, which is reverence for life itself, including the natural environment and the existential need to find excellence and joy in existence. Jobs obliterate this and replace it with Soviet-style grim obedience and grueling time expenditure on the doomed. It is time conservatives got off this chain and began fighting for life itself over the pointless obligation of jobs.
It’s a tough slog being a Republican in DC. Especially, if you are the Washington Post’s Official Republican™. So what does one do to get by? He behaves himself. Wears a sharp bow-tie. He does exactly what The Washington Post’s Official Republican™ is supposed to do.
So how does the bow-tie wearing Official WaPo Republican™ behave? The cucking is eminently predictable. This means he treats other Republicans the way Ramsay Bolton treated his fellow peers. He feeds them to the ravening hounds. Richard Nixon? He has a long shadow…Tsk, Tsk, Tsk. According to Will, Republicans can never be traitors. They can never truly play the Game of Thrones against Liberals. Never mind that the Dems have just all but nominated the real world equivalent of Cersei Lannister in a rigged primary season Tywin would have smiled fondly over. In Willworld, only Republicans have to maintain any code of honor.
And how about that rabble-rouser Ronnie Raygun? He was too risky. As Goerge H. W. Bush put it – “Wouldn’t be prudent.” Reagan of course won two elections and had the Soviet Union teetering on its heels. One would think Will would let bygones get gone. But no, Cucks have got to Cuck.
Will, who has built a highly lucrative career, aided by his special relationship with his sometimes friend, Ronald Reagan, feels highly incensed as if betrayed by his former, special pupil, whom he coached before the Great Debate with Jimmy Carter. Will fears that the Great Communicator has become the Great Disinformer by not adhering to Will’s approved script and will prove no match to the Great Manipulator–Mikhail Gorbachev. So the characteristically unflappable, intellectual guru of the “Far Right,” reacting like a wounded bull seeing the world through his darkly, red-colored glasses, viciously attacks the President.
Will, you see, accused Reagan of not being manly enough when he met with Gorbachev in Iceland to discuss what would later become Perestroika and the end of the Soviet Menace. Like Michael Jackson implying the Fresh Prince of Bel Air had latent homosexual tendencies, George Will was castigating Ronald Reagan over his low testosterone levels in foreign policy.
It would take time before the WaPo needed their Cabana Boy Cuckservative to properly insert dagger in a Republican Party vertebrae, but in the Mid 00’s; Liberalism’s needs again called. Will delivered with a column designed play right into the Democratic Party’s mid-term campaign strategy.
Today, with all three components of the “axis of evil” — Iraq, Iran and North Korea — more dangerous than they were when that phrase was coined in 2002, the country would welcome, and Iraq’s political class needs to hear, as a glimpse into the abyss, presidential words as realistic as those Britain heard on June 4, 1940.
Conservative columnist George Will told PJM he has officially left the Republican Party and urged conservatives not to support presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump even if it leads to a Democratic victory in the 2016 presidential election. Will…had a message for Republican voters. “Make sure he loses. Grit their teeth for four years and win the White House,” Will said during an interview after his speech at a Federalist Society luncheon.
This is classic Cuckservative behavior. Conservatives are supposed to be with them to the bloody, gore-smeared hilt when they nominate Bob Dole. When factions of the party not up to the WaPo Official Republican™ standard nominate a Reagan or a Trump, the knife is sharpened and aimed at the vertebrae. If one of his can’t win the day, than no Republican can win at all.
This sniveling scribe of Cuckservatism leaving the GOP is a positive sign for the GOP. George Will going away is like having a case of colon cancer go into remission. George Will supporting Gary Johnson is essentially what Gary Johnson deserves for being Gary Johnson. Trump should take pride in having George Will show his campaign the well-rounded pair of heels bought off and paid for by The Washington Post. Again Trump has flushed an enemy of Conservative America out into the open. George Will’s will to pettiness is revealed before all in its repulsive, Cuckservative glory.