Tag: philosophy

NRx and AltRight

Although a few people have attempted to shoehorn me into the “Dark Enlightenment” or classify me as a “Neoreactionary”, I’ve never considered myself part of NRx like I do the AltRight. That’s mostly because I don’t think NRx exists in the same material manner that the AltRight clearly does, and also because I find its preference for elevated Akademiesprache to be obscurantist faggotry, to put it in AltRight terms. And frankly, Butch Leghorn’s attempt to delineate the essential differences between the two doesn’t appear to be particularly meaningful, as he attempts to do so primarily on the basis of social class.

NRx is Middle Class

According to Curt’s table, NRx is middle class. Some might take offense and argue that it is upper-middle class. Sure, the leaders of NRx are likely upper-middle class, but the average NRxer is solidly middle class. Software engineering is a middle class profession. People who run teams of middle class professionals are upper-middle class (CTOs, CIOs, CEOs, Directors, etc). The middle class is not a salary range: it is an ability range. The middle class are those who have the ability to engage in the system of production. This is why the middle class seeks liberty: because given freedom to choose their means of production, they will choose and perform, because they can. As an aside, this is why working classes are less interested in liberty, because they simply can’t capitalize on it within the system of production to nearly the level of the middle class. And the lower and under classes have zero interest in liberty, because they are completely unable to capitalize within the system of production; they desire security, not liberty (and that’s what self-interested politicians trade them in return for votes).

We can argue about the parameters of classes, and we should. We should define them. We need to understand their roles and to define the behaviors that makes one a ‘good’ member of any class, because these behaviors and actors do exist in every class. We just need to incentivize them properly, which is why we must define and understand them.

The middle class has certain behaviors which make them middle class. They follow norms of propriety. I was right when I wrote that NRx is Right Brahmin Signalling. From the SJW encyclopedia: “Brahmin is a varna (caste) in Hinduism specialising as priests, teachers (acharya) and protectors of sacred learning across generations”. NRx is a group of teachers and priests, solidly middle class and exhibiting middle class mores and norms, such as the prohibition on ridicule, mockery, libel and slander.

AltRight is Working Class

The working classes do not share the middle class values and prohibitions on ridicule, mockery, libel and slander. I have seen very clearly the revulsion of NRx to the coarse meming of the AltRight. The NRx aspersions about ‘populism’ of the AltRight. This is simply the middle class reaction to working class norms.

The thing is: the middle class needs the working class. They will do the jobs that the middle class just won’t do. Say, for example, openly attack with vitriolic hostility the enemies of Western Civilization using Pepe and Le Happy Merchant memes. Or say, engage in ‘high energy’ physical activities which raise the cost of the status quo on the controlling elite. Once the cost of the status quo is high enough, then that controlling elite will accede to the demands of the Right. Who will formulate these demands? Ultimately, the aristocratic class will, with large input from the scholarly classes. Who will implement these demands at the local levels? Obviously, the people who organize all production, the middle class, under the direction of the upper middle class, with the ‘real’ work being done by the working classes at the direction of the middle class.

This strikes me as a failure to grasp the AltRight, much as various attempts by everyone from NPR to NRO have failed, albeit a considerably more friendly failure. Actually, to be fair, it’s considerably better than NPR managed, as NPR somehow managed to get itself so confused that it declared Milo and Allum to be the joint leaders of the AltRight, which was certainly a surprise to both of them as well as everyone else.

While Butch is correct to observe that AltRight is not beholden to conventional middle class concerns about niceness and etiquette and public approval from the authorities and goodthinkers, he fails to observe that the AltRight is, despite its exuberant vulgarity, every bit as intellectually formidable as NRx. Indeed, even the mainstream media has felt the need to warn the unsuspecting and the uninformed not to underestimate us simply because we utilize frog memes and some of the most appallingly crude forms of rhetoric.

I have nothing against NRx, and indeed, consider them to be more or less allies, but the idea that we need them in order to formulate a moral license to defend our nations or Western civilization is simply not the case. Butch himself says that “NRx will become an integral part in granting this moral license or it will fade into irrelevancy”, which is why I expect that the compatible elements of NRx will eventually be subsumed by the AltRight, while the incompatible elements – and I have no idea which elements are compatible and which are not – will become increasingly irrelevant over time.

The AltRight has high energy, it has enthusiasm, it has talent, it has brains, and most importantly, it has courage. It understands that it has very little, if anything, to lose, because if the West fails, the future is favelas as far as the eye can see. We have no need of delicate middle-class intellectuals to do our thinking for us because they daren’t soil their uncalloused hands with the necessary dirty work.

To paraphrase #GamerGate, stop pontificating, shut up, and meme.

Rejecting the Alt-RINOs

Lawrence Murray is alert to the problem of entryism that sank the Tea Party, and provides a useful guide to distinguishing between the genuine Alt-Right and the Alt-Right In Name Onlys:

Civic nationalists

No. NO! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Civic nationalism is magic dirt nationalism. It’s the idea that anyone anywhere can be shoved into the blast furnace of America and made into an American. There’s just something about being here that makes you belong here. I mean after all, we’re a nation of immigrants right (no reference as to where most of them came from before the last few decades)? Please invade us, just make sure you adopt our language and love of voting and mindless consumption. Race and religion don’t real; it’s being a good citizen that matters!

When this country becomes “minority-majority” in the 2040s, as it currently is for children under five, it will not be recognizable as a country founded by British people and then populated by waves of pan-European immigration from 1790-1965. The United States will change radically as a result of the third demographic transition. What could be less conservative or nationalistic than letting your people be bred out of existence by foreigners?

Civic nationalists are most certainly not Alt-Right. Nothing they advocate will end the downward trajectory of the United States from a White majoritarian republic (the historical American nation) to a third world shopping mall (Weimerica). It will just make them feel better about their mystery meat grandchildren since at least they wave the flag and speak some variant of English.

The Alt-Right supports ethno-nationalism, not slow death.

Constitutionalists

These are a kind of civic nationalist, I would argue, except even more into legalism and “muh ideas” than they are about an actual identity. They have a paper fetishism for the Constitution and the US legal system, even when it works against them. For example, the (((Supreme Court))), or the Sanhedrin as I call it, currently has three Jews and five Catholics. Justice Antonin Scalia (pbuh) once suggested that there should be more Protestants on the bench, since America has a lot of Protestants and they are totally unrepresented in one of the most powerful organs of the federal government. Obama’s proposed nominee is (((Merrick Garland))), “a white guy, but he’s a really outstanding jurist.” Thankfully he’s being stonewalled by Cuckgressional Republicans, who are doing something useful for once.

For Constitutionalists, not identity, but legal documents are the source of the nation. Tell me how that works out for you when this happens, because the Constitution has glaringly failed to defend the liberty of our posterity.

Now, The Right Stuff may be less than entirely enthusiastic about me, given my Indian and Aztec ancestry as well as my doubts about the prospects for pan-white nationalism in Europe, and I have no problem with those who observe that my identity as a Red reservationist intrinsically disqualifies me as a leader, or even a member, of the Alt-Right. As my longtime readers know, I have zero interest in leadership or belonging to any group; I may be the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil, and my Vile Faceless Minions may happen to mindlessly obey me, but that is simply the natural order of things and an incidental consequence of my contemplations. Although some might very much like to put themselves forward as “leaders” of the Alt-Right – particularly the Dick Armeys and Dana Loesches of the world – I think the Alt-Right would do very well to learn from GamerGate and adopt the leaderless strategy that proved so effective in denying the mainstream media the opportunity to “behead the snake”.

As to whether I am a legitimate member of the Alt-Right or not, I will merely observe that the movement is already utilizing words and concepts of my coinage, including in this very article.

The only thing I would add to Murray’s article is that while I understand the need to focus on, and underline, the integral white nationalist element of the Alt-Right, even in this very article it implies the larger aspect of the general pro-nationalism that I believe is vital to the ultimate success of the Alt-Right. I don’t say this because I am as eager to call myself Alt-Right as an immigrant is to call himself as American as anyone else, but for strategic reasons.

If Alt-Right is solely synonymous with Alt-White, it will be readily replaced as the other nationalists, potential allies from Zionists to Chinese, Swedish, and Igbo nationalists, reject the brand and the movement in favor of something that has room for their nationalism. That is why I favor the broader Alt-Right perspective, not one that permits Civic Nationalists, Constitutionalists, Free Marketeers, or Israel-First “Americans”, but one that is as willing to say that China belongs to the Han, Israel belongs to the Jews, and Germany belongs to the Germans as it is willing to declare that America belongs to the Posterity of the Founding Fathers. Hence the 16 points that I proposed the other day.

The best rhetoric is always rooted firmly in truth. Nationalism is not only not supremacism, it is more firmly rooted in historical and scientific fact, and it is a considerably more effective ideology with much better prospects for long-term success.

What the Alt Right is

In the interest of developing a core Alt Right philosophy upon which others can build.

  1. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.
  2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk’s 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.
  3. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.
  4. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.
  5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
  6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.
  7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.
  8. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.
  9. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.
  10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
  11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
  12. The Alt Right doesn’t care what you think of it.
  13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
  14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.
  15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.
  16. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.
TL;DR: The Alt Right is a Western ideology that believes in science, history, reality, and the right of a genetic nation to exist and govern itself in its own interests.

The patron saint of conservatives, Russell Kirk, wrote: “The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal.”

This is no longer true, assuming it ever was. The great line of demarcation in modern politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic heritage. The Alt Right understands that the former will always lose to the latter in the end, because the former is subject to change.

The 16 Points in other languages:

That’s not how it works

I frequently – by which I mean several times a week – get emails from people who have a great idea how I can do something. Let me put this as politely and patiently as I can.


Don’t talk to me about it. Do it yourself.

I already have far more ideas at hand than I can possibly address in a full lifetime. Moreover, I am considerably more interested in my ideas than in your ideas. I am extraordinarily busy and I usually work until 4 AM, seven days a week. If I did not exercise regularly and have Spacebunny keeping a careful eye on my diet and my general health, I’d probably be in worse physical condition than the average SJW.

Contacting people like me and Mike Cernovich about “a great idea” is really nothing more than laziness on your part. Do it yourself. If you don’t have the means, then find some allies and acquire them. I’m always happy to look for ways to help out those who are already doing something, but I have zero interest in wasting a single nanosecond listening to do-nothing, pie-in-the-sky idea-makers.

If you want to work with us, that’s great! We have a constant and growing need for volunteers, as our volunteers tend to eventually branch out and start doing things on their own, which is something we encourage. We need proofreaders. We need assistant editors. We need people who can layout PDFs and covers. We need someone with a great voice, an English accent, and a masochistic mindset to narrate the Selenoth ebooks. I could use a good co-author or three, as well as lead authors for two or three new Castalia series I have in mind. DevGame is always looking for more good game artists.

What we don’t need is ideas that serve someone else’s agenda, even if it happens to be in sync with ours. But don’t take this the wrong way. I’m not saying those ideas are bad, I’m saying that if you have the idea, then you have, within yourself, the seed of what is required to make it a reality. So, make it happen, don’t rely upon me or anyone else to make it happen.

Heat Street debate: marital rape

My latest debate with Louise Mensch of Heat Street is on the subject of marital rape, concerning which my view that it is an oxymoron has been declared controversial in certain circles:

Louise Mensch: Do you agree that there’s no such thing as rape within marriage?

Vox Day: Yeah, I think it’s quite obvious that it’s not even possible for there to be anything that we describe as rape within marriage. I find it remarkable that someone would try and claim that it is beyond debate when this new concept of marital rape is not only very, very new but is in fact not even applicable to most of the human race. It’s very clear, for example, in India it’s part of the written law that it’s not possible, for even if force is involved, there cannot be rape between a man and a woman. In China the law is the same.

LM: Mm-hmm (affirmative) but there’s a difference between saying what the law is and saying what is morally right. You would agree that just because somebody says something is a law doesn’t make it so. Let’s just start with that basic principle.

Vox: There’s huge difference between morality and legality. I’d be the first to agree with that. The fact of the matter is that the concept of marital rape hangs on consent and because marriage is and has always granted consent, the act of marriage is a granting of consent, therefore it’s not possible for the consent to be withdrawn and then for rape to happen. In fact, the concept of marital rape is created by the cultural Marxists in an attempt to destroy the family and to destroy the institution of marriage.

LM: I’m going to say that that’s patent nonsense. If you consent to something once it doesn’t mean that you’ve given a blanket consent to it forever. We agree on the definition of rape – that rape is when one party forces sex on the other without their consent?

Vox: Yes.

LM: Good. We go that far. Your argument then hinges on the statement that to get married is to give an all-time consent forever to sex with your spouse?

Vox: Exactly. It’s no different than when you join the army. You only have to join the army once. You don’t get the choice to consent to obey orders every single time an order is given. In certain arrangements, and marriage is one of them, the agreement is a lasting one, and that’s why it’s something that should not be entered into lightly.

I find it both amusing and mildly disconcerting that a view which is consistent with the entire legal and philosophical history of the human race is suddenly supposed to be unimaginable. I mean, precisely how ignorant, precisely how brainwashed, does one have to be in order to be completely unable to imagine that which is not only recent history, but is still the law for most of the human race?

This would be why

From Wikipedia Talk: Vox Day

In what sense is Vox Day a philosopher? The article only lists some half-baked (and eminently controversial) positions on race. It does not appear that he has been published in any academic journals or contributed anything to the philosophical discourse.
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.232.78.130 (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Concur; removed. The “philosophical views” section was a political views section, so I’ve also renamed that accordingly
– David Gerard (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Meh. I think it could be included due to his publication of The Irrational Atheist, which is a philosophical work. Kelly hi! 11:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe his work on Social Justice Warriors was the #1 seller in political philosophy for quite some time.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:C902:479A:ED91:3D5B:56A6:2252 (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Per the section immediately below this one, you can get #1 in an Amazon section with literally three sales. It’s not evidence of any sort of notability
– David Gerard (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It’s not evidence of notability, unless, of course, the category happens to be the one that contains every philosopher from Aristotle to Machiavelli and Rousseau. It’s been a year since SJWAL first became the #1 bestseller in Political Philosophy. And do you know what, it still is!

This usefully demonstrates, by the way, why you can never take anything an SJW says at face value. Even when he tells the absolute literal truth, he is often doing so in a deceptive manner to cloak an obvious falsehood. For example, it is absolutely true that one “can get #1 in an Amazon section with literally three sales”, at least as long as that category is Books > Medical Books > Psychology > Movements > Transpersonal, where a bestseller only needs to hit #70,000 on Amazon to reach #1.

On the other hand, to hit #1 in Romance, you need to hit #3 overall. So, Mr. Gerard’s statement is clearly false, as a #1 Amazon category bestseller may, or may not, be evidence of notability. It depends upon the category. So, does the Political Philosophy category suffice to establish notability? One would presume so, particularly if one is attempting to determine whether the author is a philosopher or not.

The SJW will not hesitate to substitute the general for the particular, or the particular for the general, depending upon what he is trying to prove or disprove. It’s a standard trick upon which they rely heavily. Don’t fall for it.

Mailvox: the philosophy of failure

HD would like to avoid wallowing in disappointment and failure:

Will Wheaton’s latest post at his blog illustrates why I read your blog way more than I read his. It seems that every one of his blog posts is about him and his “woe-is-me” life stories. Whereas, at Vox Populi there is no Vox Day crying about how he can’t do anything, get acting jobs, or anything about his “woe-is-me.” In short, Wheaton’s blog is really just solely about him and your blog is about what’s happening in the United States and the world and not about Vox Day.

In regards to Wheaton’s latest blog post about not getting acting jobs, I’m fairly confident it is because he is a prima Donna and is probably a very high maintenance person to work with.

I get the feeling if I hired Will Wheaton for a speaking engagement I would have to hold his hand throughout the entire process, acquiescing to his demands to placate him. Whereas, if I hired you, I wouldn’t have to worry about you much. I suspect it would consist of making the arrangements in a straightforward manner with you and having you show up to do your part with little worry on my part.

Personally, I’m trying to escape the category that Will Wheaton is in. In my younger days I was that person who was that prima Donna, high a maintenance person to be friends with and be around, and now don’t have too many friends to speak of now. But I’m putting myself on a course to change that.

I appreciate the blog posts you have done about failure and writing. They’ve helped to put some things in perspective and have gotten me to think more about the course of my life.

I had no idea what he was talking about; I didn’t even know Wil Wheaton had a blog. But I found the post to which HD was referring and here is a brief summary of Wheaton’s complaints:

  • We can’t seem to get our careers back where we want them. We’re both having the same frustrations and hitting the same closed doors 
  • I couldn’t even get an audition. It’s really frustrating, and if I’m being honest, it’s depressing as fuck.
  • I go back and forth between giving up entirely on having on-camera work, and focusing on writing and voice acting, and working as hard as I can to get back in front of the camera
  • Everything I’ve been doing the last several years just isn’t working.
It’s rather amusing to read this sort of whining, considering that I saw an episode of one of the most popular television shows in America, The Big Bang Theory, last night, and not only Wheaton, but even his podcast, was heavily featured. He can’t figure out how to take advantage of that?

Now, I don’t know if he actually has a podcast or not, but Wheaton gets far more free exposure from his modestly successful acting career than any other blogger, podcaster, or writer on the Internet. Due to that free exposure, his writing and ancillary activities get far more attention than anyone not named “Bill Simmons”. Can you even imagine Stefan Molyneux or Mike Cernovich crying about that sort of thing? I know there are still some people who are dubious about the socio-sexual hierarchy and all, but this sort of thing demonstrates how even very high levels of success and fame are not capable of filling the endless hunger for approval in some men.

Can you even imagine how Wheaton going to react once he figures out that he’s not being published because he’s got any literary talent, or has anything interesting to say, but because he’s a moderately famous actor? Does he really not realize that many people, like John Scalzi, are only “friends” with him because he happens to be of use to them at the moment?

He must, on some level, as that partially explains why he’s so desperate for more success and fame. Wheaton is afraid that if he can’t maintain his status, everyone is going to consider him to be a fraud and abandon him. But who cares if fair-weather friends abandon you? They were never worth anything from the start. Only those who stand by you in times of difficulty matter. And once you have accomplished something, no one can take that away from you.

Life is a challenge. It is a constant series of challenges. But what makes us feel successful is rising to meet those challenges and surmounting them. If life knocks you down and no one deigns to give you a hand up, then push yourself back to your own damn feet. If no one wants to take you by the hand and guide you along the easy path while telling you how wonderful you are, then carve out your own way, even if doing so is laborious and difficult. Trust me, it will be much more rewarding in the end.

You never know what challenge life will send at you next. Last night, I had the distinct pleasure of practicing with my eldest son’s new team; my veteran’s team doesn’t start until next week, and at this time of year, every team is happy to have an additional practice body. Despite my being twenty years older than everyone, it went pretty well, as I not only scored the first goal in the scrimmage but was even asked to play with them in their first team’s first friendly. Score one for the old guys!

But that’s not why I was so pleased about the practice. What made me happy, what was genuinely heart-warming, was seeing my son take the field for the first time in 21 months, run at the front of the pack during the warm-up laps, and participate in the drills and the scrimmage like the healthy young man that he is. Brainstormers know what I’m talking about. And here is the thing. During those hellish 21 months, he never once complained about the pain, whined about being unable to play with his team, or cried about how unfair it all was. He just soldiered on, did what he had to do to get better, and now, almost two years later, he’s back on the field again.

He’s never going to play professionally. Given the disruption in his development at a fairly critical stage, he may not even be able to play for our club’s first team like some of his former teammates are already doing. But he already feels like more of a success than Wil Wheaton ever will, because he has conquered a long and difficult challenge through faith, courage, and willpower. And I would not be more proud of him if he was signed by AC Milan tomorrow.

Do you want to stop being a prima donna? Do you want to stop being a self-pitying, high-maintenance person that no one likes to listen to or be around? Do you want to stop navel-gazing and start accomplishing something that will let you know what success feels like? Then stop thinking about what others can do for you and start thinking about what you can do for yourself and for others. The world existed before you. It will exist after you. Don’t waste whatever time you have by dwelling on your disappointments and feeling sorry for yourself.

And don’t ever worry about what other people think about you, because 99 times out of 100, they’re not thinking about you at all.

Fail faster. Then pick yourself up and move onto the next challenge. As every gamer knows, if no one is shooting at you, you’re not going in the right direction.

Conservatism in ruins

Andrew Klavan’s first thoughts on rebuilding conservatism:

The conservative movement has collapsed and is in ruins. Its vehicle for political expression, the Republican Party, is now in the hands of an authoritarian nationalist who has never read the Constitution and does not believe in free expression, free trade or the separation of powers. Its central vehicle for expression in the news media is in disarray as Fox News becomes embroiled in scandal. Even its defenders on talk radio and in the blogosphere are severely at odds as they are forced to choose whether to defend Trump as the lesser of two evils or to stand fast with the founding fathers against both terrible sides.

The conservative movement has collapsed and lies in ruins. And it has done so due to the deceit and dishonesty of conservative commentators like Andrew Klavan, who apparently feel the need to make provably false statements about everyone from Donald Trump to the Founding Fathers.

Let’s look at the three false statements in this one diagnostic paragraph alone:

  1. Donald Trump is not an authoritarian.
  2. Fox News has never been a central vehicle for expressing conservative views. It has, rather, pushed neoconnery as nominal conservatism while serving as a politically moderate alternative to the hard progressivism of the ABCNNBCBS cabal.
  3. The Founding Fathers believed in trade protectionism and a white America. Whether he gives a damn about the US Constitution or not, Donald Trump has as much or more in common with the Founding Fathers as the conservative movement does. The Constitution exists only to safeguard the unalienable rights of white Americans who are the posterity of the Founding Fathers, that is its sole purpose.
Now let’s look at Klavan’s proposal for rebuilding conservatism, which strangely enough, he provides without ever considering just why the movement is in ruins.

1. There is no substitute for victory. A political philosophy should be an outgrowth of moral values but it is not a moral value in itself. Its purpose is not to be good; its purpose is to be as good as it can be and still win power. A Christian may count it a victory when he is devoured by lions for his faith, but a conservative who is repeatedly devoured by the opposition in elections is just a self-satisfied schmuck. I am completely opposed to those — like Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam — who essentially argue  that conservatives must win by becoming watered-down liberals. But clearly, the methods by which we have been selling our philosophy to the voters have not just failed but failed utterly, and we should rethink them.

True enough, and yet Klavan observably knows so little about the history of conservatism in America that he doesn’t understand that conservatives have never had a philosophy proper. He obviously hasn’t read Russell Kirk, anyhow. That’s why they can’t sell conservatism to anyone anymore; it doesn’t even exist as a coherent self-contained philosophy. Conservatives have never been much more than philosophical parasites on the Left. Klavan should read Cuckservative; if nothing else it would bring him up to speed on the intellectual inadequacies of conservatism.

2. Win what minority types we can with the truth. The opposition likes to point out that too many conservatives are white men. They’re right — but only because blacks and women have been successfully sold a destructive bill of goods in leftist racialism and feminism. The facts are: black people are not oppressed by the police, women are not underpaid for the same work, white privilege is a destructive and racist myth, and true freedom means people you don’t like are going to say things you disagree with in ways you find offensive. These are hard sayings but they need to be said, and they don’t need to be said by conservatives to other conservatives, they need to be said by conservatives to blacks, women and sexual off-beats of all stripes. The Democrats have co-opted these people with destructive lies that make their lives worse. We can’t win them back by jumping on that bandwagon. We need to proudly, unapologetically (and politely) tell it like it is — to them, in their neighborhoods and organizations. We won’t win a lot of them. Not at first. But facts have a way of getting through over time — if you speak them courageously without being a jackass about it.

This is remarkable. And it’s a tactic doomed to failure; conservatives like Klavan can’t win anyone with the truth for the obvious reason that they don’t know the truth. They religiously subscribe to the idiotic lie of the Proposition Nation and they attempt to win over minorities that will never, ever, be won over in significant percentages by the alien ideals of 18th century whites. Klavan can’t explain historical anomalies that puncture his precious Ellis Island myth like the 1790 Naturalization Act, which means he can’t tell it like it is because he doesn’t actually know what it is.

The alternative is that he does know what it is and he is knowingly deceiving his fellow conservatives. But I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is merely ignorant.

3. Fight the culture wars in the culture. The culture wars are problematical because too often conservatives come across as anti-freedom or bigoted. That makes victory tough. I feel passionately about some cultural issues and indifferent to others, but I believe all of them should be fought on a cultural and informational level rather than a political one. For instance, I believe that abortion is the taking of a human life and that government therefore has a right to forbid it. But just speaking bluntly and honestly, I don’t think I can win that fight in the political arena right now. Happily, the truth may do what politics cannot. The truth is on my side and the more the truth gets out about what abortion looks like, how it’s done, and who the people who support it are, the more the public will know that it is unacceptable. Then we can win politically. As for sex issues, I confess I care not at all about other people’s sexuality (I’m so deeply immersed in my own), but I do care very deeply about religious liberty and the freedom not to participate in what you abhor. That’s a fight we can win and we should argue it everywhere as a freedom issue.

Correct concept, inept execution. Winning the culture war is NOT getting the truth out. It is rhetorically convincing others what the truth is. This is why the arts are the most vitally important battleground in the cultural war.

4. Some class occasionally would be nice. Conservatives have been all but banned from universities, the news media and show business. In response, we formed our own media in blogs, talk radio and Fox. Those are great venues for informing our own, but we could use some outreach to open-minded Democrats. I’ve wasted too much breath trying to convince conservatives that art is good and can change the world over time. They just won’t believe me. But could we maybe agree that screaming at people and calling them evil and talking like a belligerent loudmouth know-it-all is not always the best way to bring them over to your side? No, huh. Well, it was just a thought.

For fuck’s sake. He’s another hapless tone policeman. This is why the Alt Right is going to win; because we don’t give a quantum of a damn about “class”. Someone once told me the important thing was “to win with grace and style”. No, the important thing is to win, even if you have to get bloody and dirty in the process. Klavan, like a good conservative, is far more interested in going down to noble defeat and surrendering while wearing a nice clean uniform than he is with winning.

It very much looks to me right now as if Trump is going to lose this election on pure incompetence and mean spirit. That might actually make it easier for conservatives to regroup in the ruins of the Republican Party. If he wins, we may need a new party of our own. But whichever way things go, I think we need to open a discussion about how conservatives can not only remain conservative but also win elections in modern America.

Is he even watching the political conventions? This sort of wishful thinking is why no one should bother paying any attention to a cuckservative like Klavan now or in the future. Conservatism is dying. Its diseased remnants are flocking to the progressives, as we always knew they would. And we watch them go with dry eyes and a grim smile, because we don’t need a bunch of useless cucks and moderates who were always happier shooting at their own side than the enemy.

I have never been a conservative. I will never be a conservative. I am delighted to see the conservative movement crumbling into dust. Conservatives conserve nothing, accomplish nothing, and stand for nothing. They will not defend the Church, they will not defend America, and they will not defend the West.

The Alt Right will. Join us, if you have the steel.

The importance of rhetoric

James Carville explains, in an email released by Wikileaks as part of the #DNCleaks in a note of unknown provenance:

Ideologies aren’t all that important. What’s important is psychology.

The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have to do is lay out enough silage and they come running. That’s why I became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.

Eighty percent of the people who call themselves Democrats don’t have a clue as to political reality.

What amazes me is that you could take a group of people who are hard workers and convince them that they should support social programs that were the exact opposite of their own personal convictions.
– James Carville, Clinton strategist

What Carville is talking about is rhetoric. 80 percent of the people are limited to rhetoric; per Aristotle, they cannot be convinced by information. They can only be moved by an appeal to their emotions or appetites.

UPDATE: The Carville note appears to be a fake being passed around under cover of the DNCleaks; I thought it was a little strange that the wily Carville would come right out and say that. But whether he said it or not, it is true, moreover, it is true of Republicans as well. It is true of everyone and it has been true since Aristotle’s day. Most people simply don’t speak or think in terms of dialectic.

As for those who think Hillary Clinton is a shoe-in due to demographics, note that the DNC doesn’t believe so. And this is a genuine day one DNCleak.


“HRC will go into gen election as vulnerable candidate. Clinton Foundation quid-pro-quo worries are lingering, will be exploited in general.”

Translation: she sold out the USA while Secretary of State.