The Alt-Right’s Settled Debates

Posted on April 25, 2016 by Luke Ford

The Social Pathologist blogs:

Ramsey Paul put up a good video post a few weeks ago. It quite clearly explains the problems with the 1488 crowd and the Alt-Right.

Now some definitions according to me:

1) Dissident Right= All groups not represented by what is known as the mainstream Right. i.e. G.O.P, UK conservative Party, Australian Liberal party etc.
2) 1488= Supporters of the ideology of the Nazi party and its local variants.
3) NRx=NRx
4) Alt Right=?

Now, what I don’t understand from the way the term seems to be used, is the Alt Right:

1) Alt Right = Dissident Right.
2) Alt Right = Dissident Right – NRx
3) Alt Right = Dissident Right – NRx – 1488
4) Alt Right = 1488 by another name?

From what I can see, in common usage amongst the Dissident Right, the term seems to be used interchangeably and without any specificity which I feel is a dangerous habit.  As Ramsey Paul points out, with the increasing mainstream acceptance of the “Alt Right” there seems to be a concerted effort by the 1488 crowd to co-opt that moniker.  In essence what the 1488 crowd are trying to do is associate themselves with the dissident right.

Cognitive misers–i.e. the average man–doesn’t think in terms of concepts, rather, he “thinks” in terms of associations. And what matters for the hearts and minds of the proletariat is not what they think of you rather what they associate with you.  It’s a simple principle of advertising and that’s why when they’re trying to sell you a product the actors in the commercials are always attractive or agreeable. On the other hand when they’re trying to diss a product, the users are always hopeless and unattractive.

Whether the Dissident Right likes it or not, the infusion of quasi Nazi imagery into Alt-Right websites is going to associate the Alt-Right with Nazism. Not by any logical act but simply by the fact of human biology. It’s how our brains work. Advertising 101. Furthermore, the use by the 1488 crowd of dissident Right memes serves to further conflate the the distinction between the two.

Why the 1488 crowd wants to call itself the Alt-Right is up for speculation. I imagine a section of it wants to gain political legitimacy for its ideas by repackaging itself in a form that doesn’t trigger previous associations with Nazism but if that’s the case, it’s doing a very bad job.

My personal view, and it appears to be Ramsey Paul’s as well, is that the the role of the 1488 crowd is to discredit the dissident Right. (Note, when Ramsey uses Alt-Right he uses it in a way that excludes the 1488 crowd.) And I don’t think that this is a conspiracy theory that’s too hard to swallow.

There are some really, really nasty people in the NeoNazi groups which the authorities would be wise to monitor. But there is considerable documentary evidence that many of the groups themselves may actually be heavily influenced by law enforcement officials. Some reading:

Records show Feds used ultra-Right radio host for years.

Neo Nazi Rally was organised by FBI informant.

COINTELPRO

FBI Nazi Bikers Bust FBI Nazi Group

From the FBI’s own website.

“Domestic right-wing terrorist groups often adhere to the principles of racial supremacy and embrace antigovernment, antiregulatory beliefs. Generally, extremist right-wing groups engage in activity that is protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly. Law enforcement becomes involved when the volatile talk of these groups transgresses into unlawful action.

On the national level, formal right-wing hate groups, such as the National Alliance, the World Church of the Creator (WCOTC) and the Aryan Nations, represent a continuing terrorist threat. Although efforts have been made by some extremist groups to reduce openly racist rhetoric in order to appeal to a broader segment of the population and to focus increased attention on antigovernment sentiment, racism-based hatred remains an integral component of these groups’ core orientations.”

Given the Leftward shift of society, and given the Government propensity to weaponise its agencies against its political rivals, and given that the current administration is very hostile to right wing views,  it is highly probably that many of the extremist Alt-Right– in the 1488 sense–are either complete nut-jobs or agents provocateurs. It’s also quite probable that there are attempts afoot to discredit the Dissident Right by association with the 1488 crowd.

THEY NEED TO BE PURGED.

I think it’s a rather sad state of affairs that they’ve even been able to gain admission and illustrates just how poor the state of Rightist thought is at the moment. (Another reason why the Left always wins). As I’ve said before, how can socialism for white people only be considered Right Wing?

The task ahead is to delineate what is Dissident Right and what it is not, and to walk the tight-rope between the Mainstream Right and the Nazi Party.

*****

So what does the Alt-Right agree about?

Blog:

Why Define a Consensus on what’s been Settled?

To move forward with our proper focus, the destiny of Western civilization. To distinguish between the legitimate revisiting of old assumptions and the distracting rehashing of old arguments.

When were those Questions Settled?

Between 2008 and 2013. The great debates on male-female dynamics, race, and the future of our nations shifted into high gear in 2008 at Chateau Heartiste and related blogs. I single out the Chateau because that’s where the passion and the new ideas churned and then fanned out to the broader culture. The July 13, 2013 acquittal of George Zimmerman was a watershed moment for us and it marks the anti-White narrative’s Stalingrad collapse. That date is a fitting marker for when the big questions were internally settled.

What is the Alt-Right’s Baseline Consensus?

The points below are what all but the most radical among the nationalists, manosphere writers, traditionalists, and libertarian neo-reactionaries agree on. Most of these points come across as moderate relative to much of the writing out there, being that they represent an overlap in the sometimes competing visions within the Alt-Right’s big tent.

So here is the Alt-Right consensus:

Blacks. They require assistance in achieving and maintaining a level of civic and material comfort on par with that of other races. Quantity + Equality = Can’t Have Nice Things.

Christianity. It is not an internally settled matter. For some, Christian faith is a non-negotiable foundation of our identity with implications on the afterlife. Others see it as detrimental to our vitality.

Democracy. In its present form, it is the rule by those who control the formation of public opinion and whose interests are not aligned with the interests of the voters. The two-party system in the United States is real, just like pro wrestling.

Family. While the role of extended families varies by culture, the traditional patriarchal model is the only one that provides a healthy environment for raising children.

Immigration. It is harmful to Western nations at present levels, low-skill immigration in particular. Manifest incompatibility between host and guest populations belie the economic- or demography-based arguments in favor of mass immigration.

Institutions. Traditionally conservative or masculine institutions such as the Republican party, the military, large corporations, mainline churches, and professional sports have been coopted by liberalism.

Islam. Don’t let it in.

Jews. As self-identified minorities with an enduring identity, they have acquired — justly or not — a reputation for subverting their host nations. Israel is a model of practical nationalism.

Multiculturalism. Diversity is not our strength. The involuntary comingling of disparate peoples is not “enriching.”

Race. It is a fundamental element of a human being’s identity. The human biodiversity model is predictive on the macro scale.

Religion. A purely materialist philosophy is insufficient as a pillar of a culture or an ethical system. Nobody wants to die over a contract.

Russia. It is not a potential threat to any Western nation beyond her near-abroad European neighbors. An enemy-of-an-enemy is an ally, and our common adversary is U.S.-led globalism.

Sex. The female is attracted to male power, charm, and confidence. She has contempt for male weakness or supplication. The male is attracted to the female’s youth, beauty, and femininity and is repulsed by her physical or moral decay.

USA. Her foreign and domestic policy is controlled by interests whose ambitions are at odds with the welfare of her own citizens, the existential question of Western nations, and geopolitical stability.

Whites. Interracial obligations do not justify self-destructive sacrifice on the part of the White benefactor, nor are they mandated by any notion of historic debt. Charges of racism fail to explain the disparity between the achievements of Whites and others.

Women. They crave male leadership and go batshit without it. Given the power, they will destroy their world, especially from the voting booth. Don’t listen to what she says — watch what she does.

Posted in Alt Right, Nazi | Comments Off on The Alt-Right’s Settled Debates

When Was the Last Time the NYT Mentioned “Anti-Gentilism?”

Posted on April 25, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: Back in 2008 it finally dawned on me that the popular phrases “white guilt” and “Jewish guilt” have functionally opposite meanings:

In other words, in the classic example of Jewish guilt, [Philip Roth’s] Portnoy’s Complaint, Jewish guilt is the opposite of white guilt: Portnoy’s feelings of Jewish guilt stem not from his ancestors being too ethnocentric (as in “white guilt”) but from himself not being ethnocentric enough to please his ancestors. His parents make him feel guilty because he’s individualistically ignoring his racial duty to settle down and propagate the Jewish race.

Orwell’s 1984 emphasizes the difficulties humans have in thinking about phenomena for which they lack names, and the usefulness to power of constricted vocabularies. For example, Orwell explains that in the future The Party will have eradicated all the ideological terms in Thomas Jefferson’s vocabulary and replaced them with one word: “crimethink.”

That got me thinking about the virtual non-existence of the mirror image term to “anti-Semitism:” “anti-Gentilism.”

I used the New York Times’ search engine to discover that the last time the Times ever used the term “anti-Gentilism” was before I was born, in a review of a 1958 novel by the hard-working author Jerome Weidman, The Enemy Camp:

New York Times Book Review

June 15, 1958

“The Education of George Hurst”

The Enemy Camp, By Jerome Weidman, 561 pp. New York: Random House. $4.95

Reviewed by John Brooks

One of the most familiar starting-points of the great American success story is the lower East Side of New York City. From it have come a disproportionate number of our most illustrious citizens in business, finance, entertainment, the arts, science, politics — almost every field imaginable. A compelling aspect of the irresistible old story in this particular setting is that there is so often a special twist. The twist, of course, is the issue of religious prejudice: specifically, anti-Semitism and its opposite, anti-Gentilism.

As this sentence suggests, the existence of “anti-Gentilism” seems logically inevitable, given the much publicized existence of “anti-Semitism.” And yet the phrase hasn’t appeared in the New York Times in 57 years.

“The Enemy Camp,” a Book-of-the-Month Club selection for July, is a large, rich novel about anti-Gentilism, done in broad strokes, full of plot and exaggeration, and infused with considerable passion held in fine restraint. In much of Jerome Weidman’s earlier writing about young men on the make (like his memorable first novel, “I Can Get It for You Wholesale”), his heroes have seemed to be only fleetingly concerned with moral or ethical questions: the reader’s interest in them derived chiefly from their appalling singleness of purpose and the intricate techniques they use to advances themselves. In “The Enemy Camp” the situation is more complex. The hero has been divided into two men — one by nature moral, the other amoral. The clash between the two keeps the pot boiling.

The good boy is George Hurst, adopted from a Houston Street orphanage at the age of 3 by the proprietor of a tailor shop on East Fourth Street, a woman he comes call Aunt Tessie. … The bad boy is Danny Schoor (later Shaw), George’s childhood neighbor, pal and idol. The battle line of the neighborhood is all too clearly drawn: on one side of the street is Gerrity’s saloon, patronized by the Gentiles, the shutzkim — the enemy camp. On the other side, in a world of bagels and lox, live two kinds of Jews: those who, like Aunt Tessie, hate the shutzkim out of nothing less than a sense of mission, and those who, like Danny, make a vocation of currying the enemy’s favor in the interest of getting ahead.

… When Mr. Weidman’s largely bitter tale comes to its provisionally happy end, it is George, the good boy who would not traffic with shutzkim, who is happily married to one of the them and occupying a firm position in a relatively prejudice-free world; while Danny, the unscrupulous shutzkim-lover, is, for all his riches, still an outcast clawing for respectability. Does Mr. Weidman intend this as the final cosmic jest. He leaves it for us to judge.

This seems like a pretty reasonable book review, and it demonstrates that “anti-Gentilism” is a useful term for a public intellectual to have in his conceptual toolkit for describing the world, especially the part of the world centering on New York City.

But June 15, 1958 was the last time “anti-Gentilism” appeared in the New York Times. So I guess not.

Screenshot 2016-04-24 20.00.12

I wonder why this useful term has disappeared down the Memory Hole. Perhaps I’ve forgotten the anti-Semitic pogrom in Gramercy Park on June 16, 1958 staged by readers brandishing copies of the New York Times Book Review. (I think the anti-Semitic mob was led by John Updike. That did happen, right?)

In contrast, the New York Times has used the term “anti-Semitism” 11,059 times since June 16, 1958:

Screenshot 2016-04-24 19.55.28

So, 11,059 to 0 over the last 57+ years.

From Mel Gussow’s 1995 obituary for novelist Weidman in the NYT:

Jerome Weidman, the prolific and popular novelist who wrote ”I Can Get It for You Wholesale” and also won a Pulitzer Prize as the author (with George Abbott) of the Broadway musical ”Fiorello!,” died yesterday at his home in Manhattan. He was 85.

In his two prosperous careers as novelist and playwright, Mr. Weidman often wrote about the rough underside of business and politics — and daily life — in New York, the city in which he was born. His first novel, ”I Can Get It for You Wholesale,” published in 1937 when he was 24, teemed with the life in Manhattan’s garment center, telling about the rise of the ragingly ambitious Harry Bogen. Along with the title character in Budd Schulberg’s ”What Makes Sammy Run?,” Harry became an archetypal figure in American literature: the abrasive young man who would do anything to get ahead.

… The novel made his reputation and became his longest running success. Transformed into a Broadway musical in 1962 (with a score by Harold Rome), it starred Elliott Gould as Harry Bogen, and was the show in which Barbra Streisand made her Broadway debut (as the secretary Miss Marmelstein). …

Mr. Weidman’s first novel became the hallmark of his career, and also a subject of controversy. There were those like Meyer Levin who thought of him, along with Mr. Schulberg, as examples of ”the self-hating period in writing,” as novelists who wrote too negatively about their Jewish backgrounds.

Is the phrase “self-hating” ever used to discourage Gentile artists from criticizing Gentile businessmen? Is Orson Welles denounced as self-hating for parodying William Randolph Hearst in Citizen Kane?

Comments:

* I definitely feel the sentiment, but part of the trouble is that the demographic I think you are concerned about when raising this is non-Jewish white people, right Steve? It’s not Gentiles specifically, and it’s probably not whites although when we talk about anti-White activity that’s 90% the way there. Jews are what, 2% of white people or something like that in the USA? Maybe 3-4% given that the 2% figure from memory applies to all of the USA rather than just the white people.

Anyway, if some guy coincidentally named Cohen writes an article about the unbearable whiteness of X, what do we call it? Is it anti-Gentilism or Anti-Whitism? My guess is that he doesn’t write equivalently hatey articles about the stifling brownness of the kitchen hands of every eatery in the USA, or the horrible blackness of the NBA etc. So to my mind, calling his article anti-White captures the target of his animus pretty well. Is he going to complain “How can I be anti-white, I’m white myself, aren’t I?”? Well, he could do this but he’s just playing semantics. The term is 96%+ of the way there.

OTOH, anti-Gentilism really doesn’t capture this because he doesn’t care if so-called redneck whites are doing poorly because they have to compete in a rigged game with non-white Gentiles, or if all the Ivy League schools have quotas such that 10% of the student body is now white and the other 90% are various non-whites… so long as the Jews are taken care of.

Anti-white Gentilism is of course, more accurate but I think for most purposes anti-white suffices.

* I just don’t think Gentiles have much tribal instinct at baseline, at least when compared to Jews. “Self-hating” doesn’t really resonate with us because we’re all fairly distrustful of each other, and perfectly willing to slit each other’s throats if necessary. Even today you have major “right-wing” figures like Nigel Farage bleating on about how he’s really anti-immigrant categorically and actually prefers Pakis to Poles. Now I’m sure he doesn’t really believe that in his heart but that he would even say it is a testamet to how little racial feeling exists amongst “Europeans,” many of whom find even that categorization to be ridiculous.

* Since white gentiles are the solid majority of the country at about approx. 65% of the population why do you want to encourage the newspaper of record to rally the majority people against minority opponents? (White gentiles who are leftists are not anti-gentiles, they are self-hating.)

The only people who can be anti-gentiles are minorities. Why do you want to fire up the majority against those minorities? Do you not understand the policy reasons for suppressing majority unity expressed in racial animus against others? Or more likely do you just not care?

* We cannot be allowed to feel unity or confidence because it endangers minorities and these minorities reserve the right to actively handicap us. I really don’t think that was the deal we all agreed to back when Jews were given full civil rights. The Duke of Wellington was right about this. It’s a bit late to change it now though. The best the rest of us can do is come to understand institutions like the NYT are playing by the rules you describe and conduct ourselves accordingly.

* From WIKIPEDIA’s description of Irwin Shaw’s The Young Lions:

Christian Diestl is at first a sympathetic German drawn to Nazism by despair for his future but willing to sacrifice Jews if necessary; Noah Ackerman is an American Jew facing discrimination of the American kind; and Michael Whitacre is an American WASP who struggles with his lack of meaning arising from his lack of struggles.

The three have very different wars: Diestl becomes less sympathetic as he willingly sacrifices more and more merely to survive; Ackerman finally overcomes the discrimination of his fellows in the army only to be nearly undone by the horror of the camps; Whitacre, still without meaning in his life, survives them both.

* Whites were tribal for a very long time, except the tribal instinct was redirected into loyalty to the state, organized sports, etc. Anything but loyalty to family, clan and tribe.

Other elements helped as well:

Think how the government created white flight in the name of forced busing and integration. It destroyed a lot of white ethnic enclaves in smaller cities and towns.

You ever notice how all the different non-white ethnics have their own special day in school praising their culture and history and whites have… nothing. Whites are deliberately kept from having pride in their peoples and traditions.

Organized sports plays a very large role in this – because it takes the emotional and bonding energy of whites away from each other and transfers it to a bunch of thuggish black athletes who despise their white fans. And ever notice how it’s always pushed by very wealthy whites, most of whom identify as liberals and globalists.

One of the most important things whites could do is IMO is to stop watching college or professional sports. It’s poison.

As for Farage, he must watch what he says because there are no free speech laws in England, he literally has to praise Muzzies lest he finds himself in front of a judge.

* Yes, two days ago Maher closed the show with an anti-anti-racist tirade about self-hating white liberals. As part of it he also criticized the “doofus dad” anti-white male trope used endlessly in TV and advertising.

He really gets away with a lot:

* I don’t see white guilt and jewish guilt as opposed.

White guilt can be a sense of guilt over the real or imagined crimes against minorities of one’s ancestors.

More commonly I think it is a sense that racial differences exist and being born white was a stroke of luck without doing anything in particular to merit one’s superiority. That’s why white guilt is only really found in the top quarter or so of the socioeconomic spectrum.

Jewish guilt deals with a feeling of displeasing or failing one’s parents or grandparents. That could mean failing to spread their genes after all the effort they put into raising you. It could just as much mean failing at school or work, or some other way of letting your family down.

* Do Jewish people ever feel guilty about what they’re ancestors have done. Do you think white people (Jewish people included) would feel guilty about what their ancestors did if we didn’t have to hear about how awful it was all the time? I doubt it, unless we knew that our ancestors personally hurt other people.

* Steve writes a lot about the hypocrisy of various Jews who support ethno-nationalism for Israel but not for whites in the USA or Europe.

I agree with him that they are wrong and hypocrites. However, it is a strange focus because we are not really talking about too large group, and the vast majority of Jews are either consistently anti-white or consistently pro-white.

Trump v Kasich/Rubio was a pretty good test of whether you are OK with the demographic destruction of white America or not, and Jew-heavy New York gave Trump some of his best numbers, as did Florida. (A vote for Cruz is hard to categorize. He really is better than most Republicans, but he’s also oily about the issue and seems to favor a very large increase in “guest workers” and H1B.)

* I want to point out the reality of a lot of Jewish culture and ritual is about hating Gentiles in some way.

Take Passover. Pesach celebrates when, in Jewish myth, God ‘passed over’ the houses of the Jews on the way to murder the first born sons of all the non Jews in Egypt.

Jews celebrate this. If you’ve celebrated Passover, you’ll know Jews explicitly celebrate all the terrible things God did to the Egyptians. They chant the names of the ten plagues joyously. Jews celebrate the death of non-Jews. It’s not a turn-the-other-cheek kind of religion.

Think about the mindset you’d have doing these rituals year after year. Jews despise Gentiles and don’t mind ripping them off and cheating them.

* One of the things the Millennials (of whom I am not one, being born in the late seventies) get right is that it’s an article of faith that you never trust one source. The whole idea of a paper of record is a little outdated. If the NYT doesn’t talk about anti-gentilism, well, it’s a Jewish-American paper, and you can’t expect them to be unaffected by their biases. There were fewer sources back in the era Steve’s talking about, but you can look at the Post, you can look at right-wing journals of opinion before the neocon takeover, and so on. This isn’t ancient history where you’re stuck with three sources all of whom were favored by some writer three hundred years later to save from the trashpile.

I don’t trust Steve on everything, but he says enough that I find perceptive to find him worth reading, and I think he says the truth, at least as he sees it, anyway. I don’t trust anyone on everything. You read the Nation, the Atlantic, the NYT, National Review, and Unz and Takimag, and you make up your mind.

* You’re right that there are Jews who are anti-Israel and anti-white (most far-lefties) and pro-Israel and not really anti-white at least (Orthodox, some of the neocons like Frum), but most are trying to be pro-Israel while trying to hold onto their liberal beliefs.

But, by and large, the Jewish portion of the conservative intelligentsia (which is really all we can see) has gone against Trump. You haven’t, LOTB hasn’t, Mike Savage hasn’t as far as I know. But the Commentary and National Review crowd are going into hysterics trying to stop the guy, and it just confirms the WN view that Jews are trying to destroy the White race’s champion. Hell, even Ben Shapiro, who has some really funny videos on Youtube demolishing the white privilege concept, hates the guy. Milo’s a halfie.

Which I don’t exactly share–I think the Reform crowd mostly believes in their liberal ideas, outmarries like crazy, and thinks Trump is going to send them to concentration camps in North Dakota. (Which I think is about as likely as Trump taking his name off those buildings and becoming a monk.)

* Sheldon Adelson has been remarkably non-overbearing this primary season. He liked Rubio, his wife likes Cruz, and he’s had nice things to say about Trump.

* The majority’s hate is especially brutal? It is? How so? Go spend a few fun-filled hours on World Star Hip. It’s like faces of death. The worst brutality I see in this country is done by the group that makes up about 3% of the population. Black males between 15 and 30. Here’s a recent sample out of Baltimore public schools.

* Religions are a double-edged sword. They have the power to unify and motivate people. At the same time, they have a certain inflexibility to them that leads to the same mistakes being repeated ad infinitum.

The chutzpah of Jews to try something unimaginably ballsy is a strength and also a weakness. Some ideas are dumb, in the long-run counterproductive, and shouldn’t be tried. PC is one of them. Marxism probably another. My guess is that this tendency to overreach has probably been at the root of a lot of pogroms throughout the centuries. It is dangerous to keep pushing people who by nature, tend to bottle their anger.

The war-making focus of Muslims is both a strength for them and a weakness. In the era of very slow progress of war technology, it was a strength for them. In an era where technology plays such a large part, the focus on war as opposed to economy and science is a weakness. Also a weakness is the urge to attack and strike terror rather than bide their time and wait until they have demographic superiority.

Christians have their weaknesses too. The urge to proselytize to non-whites is a huge weakness. There are others of course.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on When Was the Last Time the NYT Mentioned “Anti-Gentilism?”

The Maidel Menace

Posted on April 25, 2016 by Luke Ford

James: “The Jewess Fetishizers are become their own faction in the Alternative Right.”

Chaim Amalek writes: “The Maidel Menace goes deeper than they know. Some bio-Jewesses are converting to other faiths and passing themselves off as “gentile.” Only, in genetic terms, they remain Jewesses, and in communal terms their children are always to be regarded as Jewish by the Torah Rabbinate. Goy Beware! Also, study the Jewish holiday of Easter, and you will see that such women have an honored role to play in Jewish life.”

James: “Some questions have to be asked: What causes this preference? Is it a problem? If so what can be done to stop it?”

Chaim: “Jewish girls have the same question about Asian women and Jewish men. It even has a name, this subset of the Shiksa Menace: The Yellow Peril.”

James: “I’ve read that part of their group strategy is blending in with the goyim so that they become more difficult to detect and remove though that runs contrary to the common practices of preventing intermarriage. Google wasn’t helping in explaining Jewish Easter.”

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on The Maidel Menace

Neal Gabler’s Money Problems

Posted on April 25, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments at LOTB:

* The great thing about that Atlantic article is how it turns into a humblebrag if you keep reading. First the guy’s all about his economic insecurity, then you learn:

– Thinks were tight for him in NYC because he and his wife put their two daughters in private school to avoid “bad” public schools.

– Then he moved to East Hampton, where the public schools were “good”.

– One of his daughters became a Rhodes Scholar, went to Harvard, then medical school. Or something like that.

– He sold a screenplay that was made into a movie by Martin Scorsese.

Other than that, he’s just like you, ya poor bastard!

* he author is so poor that his parents had to pay for his daughter’s tuition at Stanford (!!!):

“In the end, my parents wound up covering most of the cost of the girls’ educations.”

I have little sympathy for writers who complain about their poverty. They are actually complaining about the fact that they are unsuccessful in their chosen field. It is a standard trope, recycled every few years. There is a reason why Woody Allen, Philip Roth, John McPhee, etc, etc, do not complain about money, it is because they are successful.

In Prolistan, where I was raised, there was a simple and straightforward admonishment: Get a job!

* You asked in another thread we had, why I consider economists to be leftist globalist apologists. It’s for a number of reasons:

First they are generally extremely supportive of free movement of labor, which is generally their way of underhandly supporting the destruction of borders and sovereignty but doing it under the cover of economics, BUT they are doing it for lefty cultural reasons primarily and not economic. You give legitimacy to the ideas and sell them to right thinking practical people with economics. That’s the whole raison d’être of magazines like “The Economist”. To make the bobo Wall Street class feel good about their work in promoting policies which are otherwise destructive to our domestic economy.

Second, on policies of the welfare state they are generally supportive of various handout programs, but again under the cover of economic stimulus or some other model related gobbledygook. In reality when you push them into a corner that stimulus is a failure or what if it is net negative they default to the moral argument that social spending programs are good. Actually, you need those programs to run a globalist trade program where one trade partner runs massive deficits, since only the government has a credit card rating good enough to charge two decades or three decades worth of stuff to the national tab and prevent an implosion of the lower classes whose livelihoods were destroyed.

Leftism and globalism go hand in hand, it’s pretty well documented in this part of the Internet. It’s only a coincidence that pure laissez-fairie capitalism also supports globalist ideas. You can’t have Globalism without heavy handed government no more than any other program that is highly antithetical to human nature.

* To be fair… why would I even need to worry about keeping 400-2000$ cash on hand anyways? I access to multiple lines of credit totally a little over 30,000 in borrowable cash (with the majority of it at a 3% interest rate and the remainder at a reasonable 6%) and if for some reason I couldn’t use that I pull cash from my credit card for an emergency and go to the bank to consolidate (i.e. get a loan at a better rate).

What is the point in me keeping 2000$ cash around, when I could put that cash against my existing debt and pay less in interest… I still have the liquidity in the case of an emergency.

* I have not read the article, but I did hear an interview with Gabler on NPR. At one point he said, “If someone saw me on the street, they wouldn’t think I’m poor, and frankly, they wouldn’t think I’m poor if they saw my 1040.”

He mismanaged his money, and I have very little sympathy for someone who lives beyond their means. I make jack shit, but I can come up with $500 or $2000 at a moment’s notice. It’s mind-boggling that people do not make an effort to save in case of an emergency.

* No matter how much you make or have you can still blow through it faster. Studies show that people actually get a “high” from spending money. But, in my experience, it ultimately causes stress and clutter. Happiness comes from simplicity and self-control and personal achievements. Not from blowing cash on the upper middle class version of “bling”.

You should pay yourself a small salary and set the rest aside. The salary should be low enough that you have to keep a budget. If you don’t then you lose perspective and impulse control. Check out all the athletes and celebrities who’ve made insane amounts of money then end up bankrupt with insane amounts of debt.

Posted in Economics | Comments Off on Neal Gabler’s Money Problems

The Reactionary Mind

Posted on April 25, 2016 by Luke Ford

In the New York Times Sunday, Ross Douthat says Neo-Reaction aka the Alt Right has good points to make.

Twitter: “Shorter @DouthatNYT: I’m not a racist. Racism is bad. Don’t be a racist or anti-Jewish. Nobody likes a racist. Neoreaction has good ideas.”

Here is one of the NYT comments:

* If I’m reading him right, Ross suggests that we make room for reactionary thought as an aesthetic curiosity, without sincerely entertaining any of its propositions.

A couple of years ago, I felt the same way. I began cruising neoreactionary (a.k.a. “alt-right”) blogs mostly out of boredom. I’m fascinated by novel, counterintuitive arguments — the more bizarre and offensive, the better — and enjoy analyzing them as texts. A lifelong-liberal Manhattanite, I never thought I’d become hooked.

But I did. Today, I post alt-right material under a widely recognized pseudonym and even maintain a trollish pro-Trump twitter account. The “strange crew of online autodidacts” who compose the alt-right include some genuinely sharp, persuasive thinkers; anyone who rejects epistemic closure ought to give them a read. Try Mencius Moldbug, Gregory Hood at Radix, Cochran and Harpending at WestHunt, and “Pleasureman” at the irreverent, intelligent trollforum My Posting Career.

I agree with Ross that “ideas can’t be permanently repressed when something in them still seems true”…but nor can they be engaged merely as motley novelties (as he proposes). Curious minds should explore the alt-right, but beware: ideas that seem true sometimes are, and apprehending those truths changes you.

COMMENTS TO STEVE SAILER:

* The left makes everything about race while the right pretends that the left isn’t making everything about race.

* The reactionary is doomed because he recognizes threats to his society so much earlier than anyone else that he can’t motivate others to help stop them.

[Lawrence] Auster’s Formulation:

A traditionalist (or a reactionary) recognizes a threat to his society the moment it appears.

A conservative recognizes the threat when it has half-destroyed the society.

A liberal only recognizes the threat after it has completely destroyed the society, or, alternatively, he never recognizes it at all.

* In order to have a non-suicidal democracy we need basic voter competency tests, limits on contributions, including to to “PAC’s,” and women must not be allowed to vote. Women’s nurturing instinct propels them to vote to let the hungry masses in. When invading armies conquered foreign peoples, it wasn’t the women who were killed, it was the men (women were taken and raped). Is there any wonder why men are naturally more opposed to immigration?

* It is excessively odd that people are focusing so much on Moldbug. I can understand the technocrats at Vox latching onto that sort of thing, but Douthat should know better.

I’d say our very own Steve Sailer is a much better candidate for the centre of a truly alternative right than Moldbug. People rally around things like ancestry and religion, not technical critiques of democracy.

* Reaction is like setting up a chair on the footpath outside one’s house to drink beer in the afternoon sun.

You’ll get abuse from hooligans in their V8s, stares from liberals in their Golf diesels, toots from like minded. Some passers by say hello and want a chat, others remark on what a disgrace one is making of the street. People will ask the mrs is her old man ok, mentally? Others think him eccentric, yet others think him feigning eccentricity in order to garner attention.

The fact is: it’s a sunny day, public holiday for some bizarre antiquated ceremony that no one understands but everyone argues over ownership of the true meaning (ANZAC), it’s Autumnal cold on the deck and one really couldn’t give a rat’s arse what anyone thinks; reality says sit in the sun, which, due to the season change, is now only on the footpath and enjoy yourself as we all go to hell together.

* It would be an enormous help if the Right drop the anger, stop the jeering, realize that we’re all in this together, start stressing what it is for, rather than against, and push for those Surveys Of Western Civ. undergrad requirements to come back into higher ed.
The Western Heritage is both rich and enriching but the memory will die with the older generations if not transmitted- don’t blame the Millennials if they sound like illiterate barbarians; God knows I was clueless concerning my cultural inheritance until I “had” to undergo instruction in it.
If a Black slave lady will now grace our $20 bill, surely a Republican Congress can force a Western Civ. survey requirement on institutions participating in the Student Loan Program.
And if the Republican Congress can’t do that, what are they good for?

* I get the sense that Douthat and Michael B Dougherty came dangerously close to being accused of Trumpsplaining so they had to make a hasty anti Trump turn so as to avoid being thrown out of polite society. The joke about killing Trump probably bought Douthat enough street cred to get away with writing this column.

It’s nice that he wrote about it but I found the timid and roundabout style kind of annoying.

* In other words, how can we appease those with right-wing instincts while ensuring that white dispossession continues uninterrupted.

* Peter Brimelow has said that Auster’s [1989] “The Path to National Suicide” influenced his own thinking greatly.

* “Is there a way to make room for the reactionary mind in our intellectual life, though, without making room for racialist obsessions and fantasies of enlightened despotism?”

Is not the avoidance even of any consideration that race may have some tangible consequences in human affairs a kind of obsession? And it seems that the Republican Party endorsed neo-conservative policy of military intervention around the world could be characterized – at best – as “enlightened despotism.”

* Douthat must have missed the Liberal revival of Carl Schmitt. I can’t tell you how many hardcore radical Leftist academics these days are making their way through his corpus….

* Before the scales fell from my eyes and I came here (thanks CNN–was it?–for those bleached photos of Trayvon’s face) I commented extensively in the leftist blogosphere. My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that conservatives in general, and e.g. Sailer, Derbyshire here in particular, have a much better sense of humor than leftoids.

Leftists don’t laugh much. They’re too busy tsk tsking and shaking their heads. Conservatives write with (at the very least) a sense of amused, grim irony–though that may come from their being embattled underdogs.

Douthat’s so-called “Reactionaries” are just better all-round intellectuals. They know and can do Math, plus, they speak the unspeakable and that’s always fun.

I just can’t shake the feeling that Liberalism is a Religion and in so far as it functions through a political party it actually violates the constitutional ban on a State imposed religion but cleverly avoids censure because it subscribes to no particular set of accepted, orthodox dogma. Yet it does practice excommunication, worships certain alleged truths which it holds sacrosanct and beyond challenge, prohibits certain thoughts and speech as anathema and so forth. The crowning irony is that most Liberals, who either ignore or mock organized churches, are fundamentalist in outlook and behavior–intolerant of intolerance I believe they call it.

* John Cleese on London:

The comic was asked what he thought about British culture and the recent London riots during an interview on 7.30, a television show in Australia, where he is currently on a stand-up tour.
He replied: ‘I’m not sure what’s going on in Britain. Or, let me say this – I don’t know what’s going on in London, because London is no longer an English city.
‘That’s how we got the Olympics.
‘They said we were the most cosmopolitan city on Earth. But it doesn’t feel English.
‘I had a Californian friend come over two months ago, walk down the King’s Road and say, “Where are all the English people?”
‘I mean, I love having different cultures around. But when the parent culture kind of dissipates, you’re left thinking, “Well, what’s going on?

* There’s stuff from France, like Les Filles Au Moyen Age but in the English-speaking world the reactionaries have to settle for reading hidden meanings into Batman movies and Japanese cartoons.

* He’s hamstrung because if he gave a more honest assessment of the “Neo-Reaction” or “Alt-Right”, he would be quickly out of a job.

The reader commentators think Douthat is talking about Ted Cruz and National Review.

* I wonder if he would characterize NYT as offering pretentious justification for Jewish chauvinism and Zionist imperialism. Or for black thuggery and criminality. Didn’t NYT fan anti-white flames in Ferguson and Baltimore?
Oh no, cucky Douthat only reserves harsh dismissive words for white interests. So, if white males are pissed at how PC dumps on them, they are wallowing in ‘white male chauvinism’. And Trump supporters are into ‘Trump worship’.
In fact, support for Trump among Alt Right types is actually far more cynical than the kind of mindless worship you see among Sanders and Hillary supporters. Alt Right doesn’t trust Trump. They figure he’s just another shark. But they like what he’s doing as wrecker of the phony GOP.

“Our intelligentsia obviously does have a conservative wing, mostly clustered in think tanks rather than on campuses.”

No, they are cuckservative puppets of Neocon donors. They might as well be called Shrink Tanks. We remember what happened to Jason Richwine at the behest of Jennifer Rubin. In fact, lots of Neocons voted for Obama, but they still get to call the shots in the GOP. Anne Appelbaum has been a war-monger, and McCain was the ultimate neocon warmonger. But she went with Obama but still has the gall of posing as a ‘conservative’.

“Such deep critiques of our society abound in academia; they’re just almost all on the left.”

‘Deep’ critiques of society on the ‘left’? So, yapping endlessly about ‘racism’, ‘sexism’, ‘white male privilege’, ‘homophobia’, and ‘evil Russia’ constitutes ‘deep critique’? Really?
Deep leftist critique once did exist, but name one ‘deep’ thinker on the ‘left’ today?
Even the New York Review of Books that once had some interesting think pieces mostly dishes out Soros-ian crap nowadays.
Film criticism about THE SEARCHERS ends with ‘Wayne was racist’.
What is this Douther clown talking about?

Now, there are first-rate historians still working in the media. A lot of Liberal historians know their material and write interesting books. But as theorists and intellectuals, what original insight have they offered about humanity in the past 30 yrs? Give me one deep ‘leftist’ insight?
And what of social scientists who just dish out the same old same old?
Chetty and Assmugly don’t cut it.

“Which is, in a sense, entirely understandable: Those politics were frequently racist and anti-Semitic, the reactionary style gave aid and comfort not only to fascism but to Hitler, and in the American context the closest thing to a reactionary order was the slave-owning aristocracy of the South.”

Oh, what ‘deep’ thinking!!
An idea is wrong cuz it’s ‘racist’. But what does that mean today? And ‘anti-semitic’? So what if some people see Jews as a negative influence? It’s perfectly okay for Jews to declare entire peoples — Russians, Wasps, Germans, French, Hungarians, Poles, Iranians, Chinese, etc — as their enemy. So, by what crazy law must we all love Jews?
If Jews love us, we should love them. If they hate us, we should hate them back.

And oh, some gave comfort to Hitler. Well, many more on the left gave comfort to Stalin and Mao. But that never stopped the leftist takeover of the academia(that eventually turned into a silly joke once communism fell and the new ‘leftism’ turned into silly inane stuff like freaking out over Halloween costumes and banning even Vagina Monologue as a women’s college… cuz it might offend trannies. That is ‘leftism’? I have too much respect for real leftism to deign such as leftism.)
Oh, the ‘slave-owning aristocracy of the South’. Never mind that Southern slavery was facilitated by the capitalist enterprise of the North. Never mind the Eastern Brahmins were, in their own, way conservative and reactionary as well as reformist. Eastern Brahmins had very austere cultural standards at odds with rapid changes in NY and LA.

And if ‘reaction’ must be associated with southern slavery, shouldn’t northern ‘progressivism’ be tied to ‘genocide’ of Indians, expansion of American imperialism to Cuba and Philippines?
And what about Nakba facilitated by Democrat Truman and pushed by ‘liberal’ Zionists and even by communist Jews who obviously didn’t care about the fate of Palestinians who got it as bad or worse than Indians under Andrew Jackson?
And when Stalin turned all those Ukrainians into slaves, who were cheering in America? the Left or the right? But cucky boy Douther better not mention such stuff cuz he’ll be booted by both Neocons and NYT. What courage!

“But while reactionary thought is prone to real wickedness, it also contains real insights.”

Yabba dabba. We don’t need to no stinking reaction. Reaction is for crusty old folks.
It’s about people with no vision, no will to act. They just watch others do stuff and then sigh and complain. Or, it is for people who prefer style over substance. I don’t need no stinking style.

There is only the Truth. Truth is neither left nor right, progressive or reactionary. It just is. For example, an anus is NOT a sex organ. That is the truth. A man who puts on a dress is NOT a woman. Black Lives Matter is based on lies. Jewish cult of ‘white privilege’ is to mask and hide Jewish privilege. US has been the aggressor in Ukraine because Jews control US foreign policy. All these truths are buried by NYT, but cuck boy Douther would rather bitch about Hitler!!!

What Douther fails to understand is that the biggest closet-rightists are actually Jews. Jews use Liberalism as a tool to serve Jewish identity, power, history, and territory.
For Jews, Liberalism is a tool, a weapon, not a principle. It’s like the Jewish Jonathan Haidt pretending that it’s more taboo to badmouth Muslims than Jews. Is he kidding? Sure, there are some segments of the academia where it’s fair game to attack Israel, but it’s never ever okay to criticize Jews as Jews. One must make sure that one loves Jews and is only critical of Israel’s West Bank policy. But it’s fair game in much of America to bash Muslims as a group. Besides, how many so-called ‘leftists’ vocally objected to Hillary and Obama’s policies that brought so much death and destruction to the Middle East? Can anyone imagine US foreign policy doing to Israel what it has done to Iran(economic ruin), Libya(hellh0le), and Syria(a total mess).
Notice that everything that Jews push on EU and white America are never stuff they would push on Israel. Notice that Jews yammer endlessly about ‘white privilege’ but throw fits if someone mentions Jewish privilege.

Idea such as reaction and neoreaction are all bogus.
There is only the Core Formula. And Jews mastered this formula better than others.

Consider the Moses story in TEN COMMANDMENTS. Moses is a Jew kid born to a Jewish mother but he’s raised by an Egyptian ‘mother’. He thinks he’s an Egyptian kid. He can have all the privilege in the world. He can have good times as an Egyptian. But upon discovering that his mother is really Jewish, he has a change of heart. He can choose Egyptianness and privilege or Jewishness and slavery. He opts for the latter because he realizes his real mother is Jewish and her blood runs in his veins.
So, he chooses identity over materiality. For him, it’s better to be Jewish slave than a rich Egyptian cuz blood and identity come first. To reject his Jewishness for Egyptian privilege would be a betrayal of his mother and ancestors.
Jews have had such mindset for 1000s of yrs, even in exile. So, they survived as a race and culture. Jews are Jews not only by faith but by blood. It is about blood identity.
It is not a matter of faith that makes Moses change his mind. It is a matter of blood. His parents are Jewish. That’s what matters. (Those who honor and respect Jewish people cannot overlook this fact of Jewishness. It has been a blood identity.)

In contrast, look at all the lowlife white cuck traitors. They will give up whiteness, identity, heritage, tribe, lineage, and etc just to gain privilege as globalists. They choose materiality over identity. They will sell their mothers and fathers down the river just to have the good life as deracinated globalist cucks. Douther is of this ilk as he spits on white identitarians as ‘racists’ and ‘trump worshipers’. Edward Cullen ought to bite his ass, but why bother? Douther is a bloodless race traitor cuck who sold out to globalists. He is too ‘intellectual’, ‘sophisticated’, and ‘cosmopolitan’ to OBSESS about tangible stuff like race, blood, and territory. That is for mouth-breathing ‘racist’ white ‘male chauvinists’.
Never mind that the Liberal Jews who work at the NYT believe in the Jewish race, Jewish memory, and Jewish territory. They not only believe in the sanctity of Israel but do everything in their power to turn entire city blocks into Jewtopias of power and privilege. Jews survived with such mind-set for 1000s of yrs, and we are supposed to honor them for it. But it’s somehow wrong for non-Jews to have a similar mindset?

Jews didn’t only have the Power of Identity, as in the case of Moses who chose his true identity even in slavery than privilege in freedom and riches. (At least in the movie which is more fun.)
Jews also have the power of spirituality but in the form of Covenant. Christian spirituality is eventually deracinating and generic because Jesus was about all people worshiping in Him and going to Heaven. Jesus also divorced spirituality from the flesh. By sacrificing His flesh, He offered mankind a way to abandon the power of tribe and blood and reach Heaven by spiritual faith alone. So, it didn’t matter who your ancestors were. If you just believed in Jesus, you were cleansed and could be with God.

In contrast, Jews believed in a special Covenant between God and themselves. Jews needed such a Covenant to maintain their unique identity. If Jews believed in one and only true God whose plan was same for all peoples, there would be nothing spiritually special about being Jewish. But through the Covenant through Abraham, Jewish identity became special. Sure, there is only one God for all mankind, but God has a special Covenant with the Jews.
And the Jewish Covenant fused flesh and spirituality. God blessed the Jewish pud to produce Jewish kids whose puds would be sliced and blessed to produce more Jewish little ones. So the Jewish race survived. To be born Jewish was spiritual in and of itself through the Covenant. Being Jewish preceded believing Jewish.

So, if gentiles wanna learn something from Jews, they need to reject or revise Christianity and have their own Covenant with God. If it’s good enough for Jews, why not for other peoples? If Jews can have a special Covenant with God, other peoples can have it too. All they need is for someone to come forth as prophet and talk with God and return with the divine truth for their people. It’s like there’s only one Sun but each nation has its own relation with the Sun. So, each people need a special Covenant with God or some cosmic power.

Third, Jews developed an idea of a sacred homeland. Not just a piece of real estate, but the Holy Land given to them by God, the land where their ancient folks once lived and where their bones are buried. This is why even secular Jews demanded that the Jewish homeland be founded in the Holy Land and not in some nice quiet empty territory with far less political trouble. In order for a people to cling and fight and die for their land, they must believe that their land is holy to them. It’s like the Exodus song where Andy Williams says ‘God gave this land to me’. All peoples must formulate a Holy-Landism for their own nation. Otherwise, it will just become another piece of globalist real estate. So, if Jews say ‘your land should be open to all’, just sing the Exodus song and say ‘we have a special covenant with God and God gave this land to us like God gave you guys Israel’.

Fourth, Jewishness isn’t possible without history. Old Testament reads like a history book. And it offers a vision of the world through Judeo-centric eyes.
So, every people must have a history controlled by themselves. Imagine how Jews would think of themselves if they relied on ‘ant-semites’ to tell them about the meaning of their history. If Jews relied on people like Kevin MacDonald to explain the history of Jews, they would be filled with guilt, shame, and loss of confidence.
Sadly, white gentiles rely on Jewish Macdonadowiczs who’ve reduced white history into a narrative of ‘historical sins’ that can only be redeemed by whites cucking out to other races.

This is the source of Jewish power. It is the Core Formula. And it is something shared by both Neocons and Liberal Zionists.
So, all such labels as ‘liberalism’, ‘conservatism’, ‘progressivism’, ‘libertarianism’, and ‘reaction’ are for the suckers, the birds.

There is only the Truth and there is only the Formula. Jews came up with a powerful formula. All peoples who seek to survive must follow this formula.

Abraham: Covenant between God and our tribe. Unity of flesh and spirituality.

Moses: Identity over Materiality.

The Jewish Kings: defense of homeland.

The Rabbis: preservation of memory and history from Jewish perspective.

All else is gravy.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on The Reactionary Mind