The r/K perspective

Anonymous Conservative is dubious that the anti-Alt-Right campaign will have legs:

Now Hillary is calling attention to the most K-selected corner of the internet, at the very moment that the nation is increasingly turning K. Turning more people into Stefan Molyneux fans, or exposing more people to Castalia House Publishing, just as the nation is turning K, is not going to help Hillary. I think it a good sign that her persuasion specialists are so blinded by the rabbit-like psychology of the r-strategy that they are so completely out of touch with both the nation and reality.

Even better, it is a process that is accelerating. What they don’t realize is that as the nation’s rejection of them drives them more leftward, the psychologies of the nation are undergoing the natural shift toward K that was programmed in by nature. That is making the left vastly more repellant to everyone, the alt-right much more attractive, and leaves the left ever less able to understand the reality they need to understand to succeed. The political polarization created as the extreme left splits farther from the norm due to panic and the rest of the nation heads farther right on a K-shift, do not bode well for leftism’s ascent.

My guess is they will abandon this effort quickly, as soon as they realize that the nation has a large swath within it that will think this alt-right movement espouses a lot of commonsense things they find attractive, and the colorful personalities are very appealing. The alt-right hasn’t gotten this far for nothing.

Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Team Clinton was already rethinking the wisdom of this approach given the Alt-Right’s gleeful reaction to the news that they’d be coming under media assault. After all, we all know how the anti-GamerGate campaign worked out for Gawker.


The Narrative shifts

Let us all share a moment of silence for the previous “the Alt-Right is a small group of irrelevant teenagers in their parent’s basements” Narrative. Hillary Clinton is running as the American Angela Merkel.

Hillary Clinton will deliver a speech Thursday linking Donald Trump to the “extremism” of the “alt-right” movement. Clinton’s campaign announced Tuesday morning that her Reno, Nev., speech would focus on Trump and his aides’ “embrace of the disturbing ‘alt-right’ political philosophy.”

“This ‘alt-right’ brand is embracing extremism and presenting a divisive and dystopian view of America which should concern all Americans, regardless of party,” her campaign said.

The alternative right, or so-called alt-right, movement has generally been comprised as those opposed to multiculturalism and immigration, according to The Washington Post, and has gained mainstream attention during this year’s presidential campaign as Trump seeks to maximize support among white voters.

Notice how, in nine months, the Alt-Right has scared the Democrats more than the entire conservative movement has since Ronald Reagan left office. This is for several reasons:

  1. The Alt-Right is already a potent force embedded in rising political parties in Europe.
  2. Multiculturalism and immigration are winning issues for the first party to embrace white American identity politics. Throw in gun rights, tax cuts, debt write-offs, and a credible anti-war stance, and you’ve suddenly got a party that is playing for keeps on the national stage. 
  3. The Alt-Right does not consist of professional politicians more interested in their Washington careers than their nations.
  4. The Alt-Right is not a Potemkin opposition, it is a genuine one.

How PACs murdered the Tea Party

Keep the demise of the Tea Party in mind as the Alt-Right grows in popularity. Many, if not most, of these PACs are little more than scams with a political brand.

The Tea Party movement is pretty much dead now, but it didn’t die a natural death. It was murdered—and it was an inside job. In a half decade, the spontaneous uprising that shook official Washington degenerated into a form of pyramid scheme that transferred tens of millions of dollars from rural, poorer Southerners and Midwesterners to bicoastal political operatives.

What began as an organic, policy-driven grass-roots movement was drained of its vitality and resources by national political action committees that dunned the movement’s true believers endlessly for money to support its candidates and causes. The PACs used that money first to enrich themselves and their vendors and then deployed most of the rest to search for more “prospects.” In Tea Party world, that meant mostly older, technologically unsavvy people willing to divulge personal information through “petitions”—which only made them prey to further attempts to lighten their wallets for what they believed was a good cause. While the solicitations continue, the audience has greatly diminished because of a lack of policy results and changing political winds.

I was an employee at one of the firms that ran these operations. But nothing that follows is proprietary or gleaned directly from my employment. The evidence of the scheming is all there in the public record, available for anyone willing to look…. According to Federal Election Commission reports between 80 to 90 percent, and sometimes all the money these PACs get is swallowed in fees and poured into more prospecting. For example, conservative activist Larry Ward created Constitutional Rights PAC. He also runs Political Media, a communications firm. The New York Times reviewed Constitutional Rights’ filings and found: “Mr. Ward’s PAC spends every dollar it gets on consultants, mailings and fund-raising—making no donations to candidates.” Ward justified the arrangement by saying Political Media discounts solicitations on behalf of Constitutional Rights.

Let that sink in. Ward takes his PAC’s money and redistributes it to his company and other vendors for more messaging and solicitations, but suggests critics should rest easy since the PAC gets a discount on Political Media’s normal rate. Constitutional Rights PAC may be extreme but it’s hardly an outlier.

POLITICO last year reviewed the activity of 33 conservative PACs for the 2014 cycle. Combined, they raked in $43 million dollars, according to the POLITICO report. Of that, $39.5 million went to overhead including $6 million to entities owned by PAC operators; candidates got $3 million. Another report analyzed 17 conservative PACs from the 2014 midterm. It came up with different numbers than POLITICO, finding that the bottom 10 PACs in terms of the ratio of spending to actual candidate support received $54,318,498 and spent only $3,621,896 supporting candidates.

Don’t even think about supporting any big-money Alt-Right PACs that come into being in the next 2-5 years. If the real Alt-Right figures want your support, we’ll not only request it directly, but we’ll do so for specific purposes and projects whose progress you can track for yourself. We don’t play the “overhead” game.


Conservatives don’t get it

I genuinely like Ross Douthat. He is generally honest, and he genuinely tries to make sense of what is going on, most of the time, even though he reliably fails to understand what is happening on the right side of the political spectrum or why the Alt-Right exists.

Then finally, among men who were promised pliant centerfolds and ended up single with only high-speed internet to comfort them, the men’s sexual revolution has curdled into a toxic subculture, resentful of female empowerment in all its forms.

This is where you find Trump’s strongest (and, yes, strangest) fans. He’s become the Daddy Alpha for every alpha-aspiring beta male, whose mix of moral liberation and misogyny keeps the Ring-a-Ding-Ding dream alive.

There aren’t nearly enough of these fans to win him the election. Steinem’s revolution (Clintonian complications and all) should easily beat Hef’s at the ballot box this year.

But the cultural conflict between these two post-revolutionary styles — between frat guys and feminist bluestockings, Gamergaters and the diversity police, alt-right provocateurs and “woke” dudebros, the mouthbreathers who poured hate on the all-female “Ghostbusters” and the tastemakers who pretended it was good — is likely here to stay. With time and Christianity’s further decline, it could eclipse older culture war battles; in the pop culture landscape, it already does.

Ten years ago, liberals pined for a post-religious right, a different culture war.

Be careful what you wish for.

Douthat simply doesn’t understand that the Alt-Right is not the 60’s counter to feminism, we are the nationalist reaction to conservatism’s failure. The issues that absorb him are sideshows. The Alt-Right is on the rise across the West because Douthat, and the conservatism he represents as the New York Times‘s token conservative, completely failed to conserve the nation.

They will call us fascists. They will call us racists. They will call us Nazis. They will call us sexists. They will call us anti-semitic. They will call us ultra-nationalists. They will call us white supremacists.

And whether those charges are true or not, we don’t care. Because we prefer to live in Western civilization, among civilized Western people.



The conservative void

Conservatism, by definition, is unprincipled, anti-ideological pose that relies on rhetoric rather than dialectic. It was literally defined that way by the man who articulated American conservatism, Russell Kirk:

Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata. So far as it is possible to determine what conservatives believe, the first principles of the conservative persuasion are derived from what leading conservative writers and public men have professed during the past two centuries. After some introductory remarks on this general theme, I will proceed to list ten such conservative principles.

Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.

The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

Translation: Conservatism is FEELZ.

Doesn’t that explain a great deal about both the conservative failure of the last 60 years as well as their inept, rhetorical, fainting-couch responses to the rise of the Alt-Right?

The amusing thing is that they consider themselves “the hard-headed realists”, but they don’t even have an ideological foundation. Their intellectual movement isn’t even built on sand! It’s built on “a state of mind”, something that is intrinsically malleable and subject to emotional manipulation.

Say what you will about National Socialism, but at least it was an ethos! Conservatism is intellectual nihilism, it is an ideological void.

If you are of the Right, stop calling yourself a conservative. It’s absurd. Not only has conservatism failed to conserve anything, it was as doomed from the start as the atheists attempting to fight a religious war without a religion.

One can’t win a gunfight without a gun, and one can’t win a cultural war without an ideology.

Jerry Pournelle, for one, understands this.

Conservatism isn’t an ideology; Russell Kirk called his book “The Conservative Mind”, and when specifics were demanded he wrote a book for his times, A Program For Conservatives; not an ideology.


Damage control desperation

Even the UK media is going to almost unprecedented lengths to convince you not to believe the evidence of your lying eyes:

A person who was filmed in a video that has been seized upon by right-wing groups to suggest Hillary Clinton ‘had a seizure’ on camera has hit back at the outlandish claims. Lisa Lerer, a reporter covering Clinton’s campaign for the Associated Press, was on hand for the latest moment conspiracy theorists have latched onto in an attempt to discredit the Democratic nominee.

In the video, which was shot on June 10 at a muffin shop in Washington DC, Lerer was one of the reporters who ‘shouted’ questions at Clinton about a meeting she had recently had with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. In Lerer’s words, Clinton: ‘perhaps eager to avoid answering or maybe just taken aback by our volume [she] responded with an exaggerated motion, shaking her head vigorously for a few seconds.’

Right. Look at Lerer’s face. That is the face of someone reacting to seeing something go very wrong. Moreover, the suggested excuse doesn’t explain why Hillary imitated the involuntary motion, then made an otherwise inexplicable comment about the chai. There are three obvious indicators besides the involuntary movement itself:

  1. The horrified reaction of Lerer.
  2. The immediate conscious imitation of the movement
  3. The comment about the chai, intended to excuse the involuntary movement.

Watch the video. There is no way that is a response with an exaggerated motion. But the media’s attempt to cover up Hillary’s observable health issues is even more feeble than this.

Hannity also referenced an old picture that was wrongly circulated by right-wing websites recently that showed the Democratic nominee slipping while walking up a flight of stairs. A host of anti-Clinton blogs and websites falsely presented the image as proof the 68-year-old candidate is in poor health.

However, the picture that they claimed to be new, was taken at the top of a staircase in South Carolina on February 24.

Right-wing blog American Mirror started its conspiracy-theorizing post by stating Clinton’s health should be ‘a major issue of the 2016 campaign’.

It then went on to wrongly say the photograph in question is, ‘the latest evidence’, to support its conspiracy – despite the picture being almost seven months old. The blog post was then shared by the Drudge Report, a more well-known right-wing website, along with the headline: ‘Hillary conquers the stairs’.

What does “wrongly circulated” even mean? It doesn’t matter whether the picture was taken in February or taken today, the woman is 68 years old, observably has something wrong with her, is known to have suffered a serious head injury, and can’t even walk up the stairs without help.

The more the media attempts to play Narrative Police with regards to Hillary Clinton’s health, the more it is obvious that they know there is something serious to hide. Ask yourself this question: why is the global media attempting to run interference for Hillary’s health issues when a simple release of her medical records could easily and conclusively address them?


Murdered DNC staffer may have been whistleblower

Curiouser and curiouser:

On Tuesday Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward for information on the murder of DNC staffer Seth rich.

Now this…
Julian Assange suggested on Tuesday that Seth Rich was a Wikileaks informant.
Via Mike Cernovich:

Was Seth Rich, the source of #DNCleaks, murdered? https://t.co/bKwYQJcmQp
— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) August 10, 2016

Julian Assange seems to suggests on Dutch television program Nieuwsuur that Seth Rich was the source for the Wikileaks-exposed DNC emails and was murdered.

From the video:

Julian Assange: Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. As a 27 year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington.


Reporter: That was just a robbery, I believe. Wasn’t it?


Julian Assange: No. There’s no finding. So… I’m suggesting that our sources take risks.

If Rich is confirmed as the Wikileaks whistleblower, it’s going to cast further suspicion on Team Clinton. Not that anyone trusts the FBI’s ability to investigate anymore after they whitewashed the affair of the Secretary of State’s private server and deleted emails.


The end of Jewish rule

Identity politics finally catches up to a 44-year practitioner of it.

A Somali activist has unseated one of the Minnesota Legislature’s longest-serving members in a Democratic primary.

Ilhan Omar defeated 22-term Rep. Phyllis Kahn in Tuesday’s DFL nominating contest. Omar’s victory in the heavily Democratic Minneapolis district makes it likely she’ll be the first Somali-American lawmaker in the nation after the November election.

The district spans the University of Minnesota and is home to a large population of immigrants from Somalia and other East African countries. Omar argued the district needs a fresher face that better represents the diversity and needs of the area.

Omar is a political activist and former aide to the Minneapolis City Council.

Kahn has spent 44 years in the Legislature.

This is a microcosm of what is gradually taking shape in the United States. It’s also why the Learned Elders of Wye have been actively trying to figure out where to jump ship next, as their ability to influence US politics rapidly wanes. Apparently Jewish strategists never thought through the obvious long-term consequences of their 60’s-era “diversity is good for the Jews” strategy in the United States, most likely because it was originally formulated in highly altruistic, highly homogeneous Europe, where it was an effective strategy right up until it really wasn’t.

However, now that low-altruism minorities are approaching 50 percent of the US electorate, identity politics are permanently replacing ideological politics, and a Jew like Khan is never going to be elected in any district where Somalis, or Arabs, or Indians, or Chinese are the majority. And they’re also increasingly unlikely to be elected in black-, white-, or Hispanic-dominated districts.

Further complicating matters is the fact that the rise of Donald Trump and American nationalism means the “hello, fellow white people” schtick is not to work much longer, particularly now that the inordinately Jewish “conservative media” has unmasked itself as globalist rather than pro-American, and viciously opposed to any America First nationalist ideology.

So, setting up Pedro, Peng, Pasha and Prodosh to fight Paul for the benefit of Peter has, over time, put Peter in a no-win situation. If Pedro and company win, Peter is permanently excluded from power and may even be actively persecuted by the rainbow coalition he helped build. And if a newly self-interested Paul wins, he’s no longer likely to listen to Peter or pay any attention to Peter’s interests.

This leaves Peter with three options. Try to shut down democracy, accept the gradual decline of power, wealth, and influence, or leave.

This isn’t a matter for debate, nor will crying Holocaust or engaging in philo-semitic virtue-signaling make any difference here here. It’s simple demographic math combined with an observation of historical group voting patterns. US whites are willing to vote outside their identity. US non-whites strongly prefer to do as the Jews do and vote their identity.

It’s interesting, is it not, that the vaunted Askenazi IQ advantage appears to be failing them even as the average US IQ declines significantly. It tends to strongly suggest that whatever the historical basis of Jewish success in the United States was, it was not superior average intelligence.

To return to the Minnesota district, it would be fascinating if Omar unexpectedly loses the election, as a defeat would indicate that even hard-core liberal whites are starting to prefer identity politics to ideology.

UPDATE: Further evidence that identity politics are on the rise; the Asians are beginning to flex their political muscle.

24-year-old Fue Lee, who was born in a refugee camp in Thailand and currently works in the office of Secretary of State Steve Simon. He defeated 10-term incumbent Rep. Joe Mullery, DFL-Minneapolis. Both upsets came in heavily DFL districts, which means they are virtually assured of victory in November. Their victories illustrated the ascendance of minority populations in the DFL, as new immigrants and African-Americans demand a higher profile and a seat at the table of the party they call home.

As I’ve said before, Republicans must become the White Party – or if you prefer, the American Party – if they are to survive. White Democrats and Jews are all but finished, outside of the places where they are the majority.


Hillary’s handler

Mike Cernovich asks the crucial question: who is this man and why does he keep closer to Hillary than the Secret Service?

Michael Jackson, Prince, and Elvis would travel with a personal doctor who could administer needed life-saving drugs and attention during a crisis. Remember when you thought famous people like Michael Jackson and Elvis had good medical care? What’s Clinton on?

Hillary appears to travel with her own Michael Jackson/Elvis style doctor. Who is he?

We saw this first “doctor” or handler during Hillary’s recent freeze-up. You can see Hillary’s handler, who at first glance would not be considered the alpha male of the group, reassure Hillary, speak to her using hypnotic language, and then move the Secret Service Agents out of the way. This handler is not an ordinary SS agent.

Reactions to the first video were similar. This is a weird situation, and clearly the handler is not ordinary Secret Service.

Hillary’s handler is part of her inner circle.

Huma Abedin is the only person closer to Hillary than this man who handles her, pictured on the left.

The Ralph Retort has more, noticing that the man carries a device that appears to be a delivery system for an anti-seizure drug called Diazepam.

Twitter detectives found a new picture of Hillary’s handler — a mysterious man with what looks like a medical lapel-pin that follows Clinton everywhere she goes, helps her up stairs, and calms her down when she’s seizing up because of stress.

Knowing what we know now, and looking at the above video, it looks like after Hillary seized up like a deer in headlights, the medic tries to calm her down, but was having problems because the Secret Service members on stage were freaking her out.

The medic must have realized he wasn’t going to calm her down until Secret Service got off stage, so he went up to each of them individually, telling them to go away.

Now, check at 18 seconds. It looks like a different Secret Service guy pulls out a syringe out of his jacket, and was getting ready to inject her if the seizure got worse. It seems like stress can cause Hillary Clinton to have seizures, which is why her medic ordered all the Secret Service to get off the stage, in order to calm her down and end the seizure she was having.

All of this leads to the obvious question: is Hillary literally unfit for office? Because it certainly looks that way.