David Deutsch, the quantum computer scientist, has his own definition of reality, similar to Phillip Dick’s, but I prefer his. “Reality is anything that kicks back.”I live in a somewhat white lower middle-class suburb, adjacent to a wealthier white suburb. Drive through my neighborhood and you’ll see mostly Trump signs, some colorful, featuring Trump holding up his fist after getting shot, etc. Then a handful of Harris signs, usually staked in organic garden patches or adjacent to Ukraine flag displays.Go to the rich white neighborhood and it’s three to one Harris to Trump, and there are a lot of ridiculous signs. “Grab Him by the Ballot!” etc. Driving around there, I couldn’t help but think of that Deutsch quote, and that, “These are people who haven’t been kicked in a while.” They go to work, come home, watch MSNBC. The last twenty or thirty years haven’t happened to them. If they were just entering the workforce, they would see how antiwhite it is, and experiencing the humiliation of current HR dogma would sicken and probably terrify them. But again, no kicking…A lot of them are probably going to die of old age before they get kicked, but their children and grandchildren are going to get stomped. It won’t just be kicking, but the boot that Orwell talked about, since it’s natural for people who don’t know how to fight invite further violence once they don’t respond to the initial assault. There are a lot of completely deinstinctualized, deracinated whites out there.It’s impossible, futile for me to try to explain anything to them or their parents. I frankly hate them, the old progressive whites, much more than I could ever hate anyone else.Even the “conservatives” voting for Trump don’t understand how bad it’s going to get. They’ve never lived in anything but a white majority neighborhood in a majority white country. That’s something both the whites in my working class neighborhood and the whites in the adjacent booshie boomer neighborhood don’t realize. Ideology is a luxury, an artefact. The tool they’re relying on is completely useless to address the current problem.We’re entering the ”headcount” era of politics. All those Blacks For Trump (and most of those Hispanics) that you see online are going to disappear on November Fifth. Asians (North and Subcontinent) follow authority and power and will split mostly for Harris. South Asians will go mostly for Harris because they are mostly poor and dumb.Trump may win, and he may slow the decay. I frankly hope he does, but our main problem remains, as you put it, the 20 percent of whites who simply cannot deal with reality. Think of that white guy who got on TV after his son was killed by a Haitian who said he wished his son had been killed by a sixty year-old white man. How in God’s name do you fix that? House slaves in the antebellum era who called their masters “boss” didn’t have their brains that scrambled, their loyalties that crossed.

Progressivism isn’t a mystery. Examine the statistics from the past century: Progressivism is the socio-political expression of ever-increasing collective female power. It isn’t just that, but it is mostly that.Who dominates your institutions? Blacks? No. Jews? Nupe. Women run your institutions and call all the shots. Pretending the problem is Something Else is, well, conservatism.‘As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them’. (Isaiah 3:12)That was written almost 3 thousand years ago. Ain’t nothing changed. The problem has only gotten worse, to the point where what Isaiah wrote now is destroying your nations, and Western civilization to boot.

The main problem with progressivism is that it claims to know what the future is going to be and that they are making progress toward it. That is plain silly. No one in 1850 could predict the world of 1950. Marxism pushed science-y sounding theories of late-stage this and early-stage that which is just made up gobbledygook. None of the Marxist predictions came true. Anyone who tells you they know what the world will be like in 2070 is blowing smoke.

Colorblind civic nationalism is a hothouse flower. People could pretend that it would grow in the wild as long as the West was 80-90% white. As whites fall as a percent of the population, colorblind civic nationalism – Western conservatism – will fall with it. You already see it happening, and its fall will only accelerate. Rufo thinks and acts like a child. As whites become a minority, it will be time to put away childish things.

Maybe that asshole neocon for Fox Brett Baier inadvertently crushed the dems hope in November. Harris has the worst, idiotic staff ever.

This week has given us a great example of one of modern conservatism’s bigest achilles heels. In the wake of Barry O’s “the brothers ain’t lining up behind Kamala!” gaffe, Con Inc. has tripped over itself to highlight blacks who are outraged by this and will now vote for Trump.Blech! Approximately 90% of them are still going to vote for Harris. And more importantly, they’re not our people. But the conservatives tuck themselves in at night fearful that somewhere, some negro or leftist is accusing them of racism.With all that attention devoted to solving a patently intractable problem, conservatives have nothing useful left to offer.

Conservatism as a political movement is just a fraud…Politicians who actually fix anything are despised by both parties and gotten rid of, like President Harding and George Wallace…..

“Conservativism in America was just slow progressivism,…”Yep, but this insight is nothing new. The question is, *why*?I’ve thought about this in and off—between my relapses into traditional conservative thought. Let me see if I can explain my current thinking through some examples.If “conservatism” can be broadly defined as trying to maintain age old values, which we believe to be timeless as well as beneficial, what (conservative) societies/groupings can we point to as exemplars of the concept. I immediately look to groups like the Amish or the Hasidic “tribe”. Obviously there are other examples here and around the world, but these two will do.The Amish *and* the Hasidic boil off their malcontents—that is to say, their progressives. They reject and shun them. Meanwhile, they self identify and remain isolated from the outside world through dress, mannerism, and extreme ethnocentrism. They have mastered “being in the world, but not of it”. Of course, they had great help from the surrounding society over centuries of isolation, if not outright repression/ostracism.I think there is a lesson here for us. We can’t have it both ways. We’ve tried winning over (converting) the increasing proportion of malcontents (progressives) for going on a century now. It seems, for White DR’s anyway, only a well defined *homeland*—from where the inevitable malcontents (spiteful mutants and non-Whites?) can be expelled—is the answer. Otherwise, we are doomed to extinction as ideas, no matter how correct, will not prevail over biology.How to obtain such is the question.

The world that you said where we are headed we entered into a long time ago. The leaders in the 20s I think understood that we were a multi-ethnic society but more or less a tri-racial society. They were correct in shutting the border and stopping the immigration that had moved from solely Northern European into including Southern and Eastern European. Now, the third race was by virtue of that group seeing themselves as their own civilization that was more ancient and better than all other civilizations by virtue of their chauvanistic and ethno-centric/supremacist covenant with their God.However, between the WWII imperialists and the POS Ellis Island race’s ascendancy into the heights of financial and political power and influence that project was scuttled with Hart/Cellar. Had the 20s moratorium and the attendant and until then successfully implemented project of assimilation of the European race into a new a singlely identified ethnos gone on for a solid century America would still be. Not only would it still be, we would already be mining comets, sending robotic machines to mine our solar system for resources and have built a civilization that finally far surpassed Rome in glory.That is not to be. As of 1965, we became a multi-ethnic and multi-racial society. We were no longer a Western/Anglo-Saxon rights based heirarchical order. We were pretending to be but we weren’t. “Conservatism”, was all about pretending to be in the interests of the Cold War Imperialism of proving to the Third World that we were better and more open egalitarians than the Soviet version of egalitarianism.What is happening now is that the lid has blown off of the pot of the multi-racial/ethnic society. The former majority is deracinated and cowed. So the emergent racial groups are allying to push them over the cliff. At the top is an oligarchy that has too many eye-raising contradictions to contain.At once they hate the nation state and are demolishing it, yet forcing even the most anti-state of the oligarchs to go and stare at memorials under the watch of priests and foreign agents posing as journalists. They all scramble to be the most ardent supporter of funding and arming the one nation state that must be allowed to fight tooth and nail for ethnic cleansing and territorial expansion. Yet, legally and illegally our border is dissolved.You have a longstanding racial spoils system that is now unmasked as a racial caste system that is putting the former majority at the bottom and setting them up for total dispossession, second class “citizenship”, and rhetorically setting the stage for their mass genocide.I frankly think none of us should care about the other groups. Our concern should be the future for ourselves and our children and grand children. Our job is not to wait for saviors, but to be your and Our own savior in the sane and prudent way that the Fates provide for you to be. Embrace that fate. Embrace and lose your shame. Be unashamed to be determined that Our race and ethnic group will be the one that has sovereignty and self determination in Our homeland and that someday our posterity will reclaim it all. No doubt some of you will be or your posterity will be some of the ones who will speak publicly with courage and conviction and assertively on behalf of Our Nation and lead us to self determination. The path will go through an attempt to keep the lid on through massive tyrannical repression.I don’t think that is going to work as too many genies have been loosed from the lamp. We are going to have to go through that attempt. We are going to have to hold the moral high ground while not yielding and forfeiting our identity and thus our future. On the contrary, through it we must forge our positive identity and act in ways that bolster and affirm it.We are in the crucible now. Our ancestors serve as great examples. We too must now take our place as the ones in our 8000+ year lineage who had their backs to the wall and forged themselves in Fate’s crucible as Iron!Have a great weekend everyone!

What comes after conservatism? Maybe I’m taking too many black pills, but my guess is something like Mad Max and the Thirty Years’ War.

Excellent podcast!Yes, the Progressive Project is dying if not already dead. It seems the opposite due to madness such as compelled transgenderism, which is just a Hail Mary to keep the project alive. It was simultaneously telling and hilarious when Fox hired cross-dressed Bruce Jenner to prove who the real transphobes are. We are on the cusp of pure tribalism due to Progressivism’s even more insane project, demographic change. You even can argue, and sort of did, that National Populism or Trumpism is the actual last gasp of the Progressive Project before it yields to the inevitable racial head count demographic change yields. The racial and ethnic sorting will accelerate even as busses drop off Haitians in Appalachia.Again, well done.

conservatism cannot survive because the following are hostile to it: 1) huge mass societies2) diversity3) hos running wild (women’s rights/suffrage)4) capitalism; never was a friend of anything traditional herding people is like herding cats. everybodys got their goddamn stupid opinion and is ready to backstab. There’s a reason Power always eventually washes its hands of the people and just gets theirs. It’s not right, but there is a reason. People are no damn good and conflict, struggle, and suffering are the essence of life.

As the Z-Man rightly points out, the reason Conservatism always “loses” is that they are in fact liberals who just protest a bit before accepting the liberal changes.The reason this is so is because the foundational basis of Conservatism is exactly the same as that of Liberalism: Individualism.All of the things that supposed Conservatives oppose are based on individual rights.Whether it be civil rights or transexual rights all of the arguments go back to a moral analysis that fundamentally says that individuals own their own bodies and minds and therefore should have maximum freedom in respect to those so long as that freedom does not infringe on the rights of another person. This also is foundational to Libertariansim.How can a Conservative make an honest argument against civil Rights or transexual rights as an individualist.He can’t.This is why the “right wing” for lack of a better term needs a revolution in thought.That revolution is the acceptance of “socialism”. Here I am defining socialism not in economic terms but as a philosophical starting point of moral reasoning.As a socialist in this sense I accept both the existance and the rights of a “group”, or more pertenantly an ethnic group.With this foundation you have the ability not to argue for individual rights but to chart the course of your group.This is a solid foundation for nationalism and traditional values. With this foundation you can argue against the civil rights of minorities and sexual/social deviants.With this foundation you can argue for laws against so called “victimless crimes” such as pornography and drug use.Visualize this type of socialism as a bundle of sticks which are easily snapped one by one but which when held together can not be snapped even by a strong man.

Regarding you discussion of why did slavery begin to fall out of favor in the early 19th century, I asked myself “what other things did this correlate to at the time?” What I came up with is industrialization and the movement of populations from the agricultural areas to the cities. Industrialization began in Britain and later expanded to other nations like the North of the United States. Cities and slavery are not a neat match. As I recall, even the ancient Romans pointed out how slavery in Rome (mostly made up of people from conquered places of the empire) negatively impacted the ability of free Romans to earn a living. So, it seems to be that economics allowed — even required — the abandonment of slavery. Naturally, we all want to be seen as the good guys in any narrative, so we made a virtue out of necessity … and the abolitionist movement of progressivism flourished. I mean, could you imagine putting up a slave or two in your urban or suburban home even if you liked the idea of slavery? Sure, the very wealthy might be able to afford it, but it’s far easier (not to mention safer) to hire someone at a living wage from the next neighborhood over than risk rioters burning down your factory and home.

Let’s not kid ourselves, all our friends on the right who opine on the internet most likely will sell out for the right price. Most will rationalize their cuckery but this happens way too often. If you believe you will not change if suddenly a big donor comes into your life then I really don’t trust you. RamzPaul half way admits it when he talks about russian influence. Buckley sets the modern example.

I started thinking about today’s topic from the basis of Ostei’s question about a replacement political dyad, and it is a more useful starting point. The question requires a different perspective.The dyad from the French Revolution was based on the fractured identity of the ruling class between Monarchists and Revolutionaries. The old American dyad is the split between brain hemispheres with one being feminine and the other being masculine, which connects back to the French Revolution due to how the masculine conservative right sided with the Monarchist identity while the feminine liberal left sided with the Revolutionary identity.The American ruling class identity was transformed from one based on the Constitutional Republic to one based on a Progressive Empire by Lincoln and the Republican Party. Calling the party of Progressive Empire “Republican” is a great bit of Machiavellian-style manipulation. Paleocons were the true holdouts for the Constitutional Republic identity and were defeated before they were born.A stable polity has a single identity* within the ruling class which is managed by a priest class and administered by the natural population split between the masculine right and feminine left. The *exception is when that single identity is inherently unstable like Progressive Empire. The archetype of the masculine right is Warrior-Priest while the archetype of feminine left is more like Nurturing Healer. The masculine side of the Progressive Empire became Cold War Hawks in keeping with their archetype while the feminine left took on the task of healing society via Civil Rights, both within the greater context of the Progressive Empire identity.A populist movement occurs when the ruling class identity does not overlap with the identity of the population they rule over, which is why the ruling class always closes ranks against populists movements and suppresses them because they are external threats to the ruling class on the basis of identity. This is the most recent American dyad and Western political realignment, and it signals a destabilized polity when the populist movement is not co-opted or crushed.The American story is more complicated because it involves the corruption of the left and right archetypes. The masculine right corrupts along psychopathic lines e.g. free trade, open borders to depress labor, finking on voters for donor cash, wars of choice and supremacy. The feminine left corrupts along narcissistic lines as the Devouring Mother or the Handmaiden of Lucifer. The Nanny State and managerialism are examples of the former while open borders and minority politics are more the latter. The Bolsheviks et al. supercharged the corruption of the feminine left in the name of a Communist Empire while the Zionists supercharged the corruption of the masculine right in the name of a Zionist Empire after the two groups were invited into the ruling class. The Communist Empire aligns with a Progressive Empire to the point where it did not constitute an entirely new identity. The Zionist Empire does constitute a second identity within the ruling class even though it gave the Cold War Hawks a new organizational purpose. This is where the new American ruling class dyad of Communist-Progressive vs. Zionist comes in while being nested within the ruling class vs. populist dyad.The inherent and inescapable problem of an unassimilated minority within the ruling class is it introduces new identities into the ruling class which destabilizes it until one reigns supreme by expelling all others. This problem can be suppressed during good times if the dominant identity is energetic and confident which is why the minority identity always undermines the majority identity. Nietzsche’s “will to power” of the minority identity demands it. The masculine right of the ruling class lost its organizational purpose to “The End of History” and its confidence to the Devouring Mother which made it easy prey for the new minority identity.After Conservatism has already been answered by Zionist Empire. After the Zionist Empire, the question of a new ethos for the masculine right will be answered when a new identity removes all that came before and the masculine archetype finds its role within the new identity.

The death of conservatism is all well and good (may conservatism spend eternity in front of a firing squad!), but it’s the future of traditionalism that most interests me.

Good podcast Z. I think you underestimate how informative your podcasts are, the technical snafoos we can live with, its the quality content we are looking for, you have it.

One interesting thing about the book I mentioned yesterday is that the author, if I’m not misunderstanding him, seems to be saying that these ‘modernizing’ Scottish thinkers were, in no small part, reacting against the hardline Calvinism of the Presbyterian Kirk of the time.This jibes with Quigley’s discussion of an historical dialectic of sorts, succeeding generations rejecting and reacting against the worldviews of previous ones.Particularly, the notion of human nature as good instead of evil— the softness we’ve yet to reject today. Why not? We’re still comfortable. It hasn’t materially failed us yet, although the pace has slowed and the signs of impending failure are there. I mean, when the promise is something as wild-eyed as transhumanism— of transcending the world and nature itself— you know they’re grasping at straws.I don’t think human nature is evil, but I do think it’s fallen, as is the world, and they both should be approached with caution rather than naivety or contempt.

It’s good that you (Z) pointed out that the antebellum South was hierarchical, beyond having slavery. It was an oligarchy. I appreciate hierarchy. It’s necessary, as you said. But there were a lot of poor whites in the South who were effectively shut out from rising very high. I have sympathy for the Confederacy, as well as sympathy for the North. It was much more complex than many people recognize. For example, Lincoln is bashed, maybe rightly, for suspending habeas corpus, but Jefferson Davis did that also during the war.You don’t hear much about them, but there were men with good will, both North and South, who tried hard to avoid the terrible war that came. Their voices were drowned out by more strident voices, North and South. I admire the poor whites of the South who fought for the Confederacy, who objected to being invaded, and I also admire the Rebel aristocrats who wanted to save their civilization, and the Northerners who fought for their way of life. The Union wasn’t just a hollow phrase to them.It seems that blacks and whites were a lot better off under Segregation. Crime rates, family structure, and educational success make this pretty clear. A hierarchy with a Christian moral basis, and certain other foundations, can work very well. Black slavery really was a very tough issue to deal with, though, before the Civil War.

But conservatism has failed in the UK too. I’m sure it’s the same on the Continent. They are traditional Nations with long traditions.

the breathlessly prolific podcaster calling zimself Jim Burton interviewed that guy Tucker interviewed about the ww2. At about 10 min the “historian” (I don’t think he is a historian in the way we thinking , but more like a passionate. D very smart amateur) gives the best summary about why we should be skeptical abouttt the ww2 mythology.he then takes veers to some French philosopher some or other who talked about the need for blood sacrifice to unite a fractured people in a common crime; something the author insisted was necessary for until Christ’s sacrifice.the guest implies that this is exactly what ww2 was, a blood sacrifice of krauts and nips to unite a western people that had lost its faith and reverted while perhaps not paganism but to a secularism that nonetheless needed once again a sacrifice.i had heard of this author the first mentioned long ago but my point is that conservatism may be necessary in this type of “country” if it is built on these phony myths. I think Mr man’s allusion to the radical liberal founding of the us is in line with this too. Consetivism is either part of the moving train of liberalism or its operating within a phony myth like ww2

Zman..IF it is true what you say… give us the new term for the new Ideology that replaces that awful conservative dogma.

But America wasn’t founded as a Radical Experiment, Americans were settlers who found themselves betrayed to London Bankers and the East India company, who settled on a form of government that was 2000 years old when they examined and applied this solution, to choose a Republic over King Washington was also the best solution, because as much as they distrusted and came to despise London they didn’t trust each other either.Not that dissenters offer any solutions other than “race realism.” Ok. After we kick out the Jews and re-impose Sundowner laws and Jim Crow… what then about our fellow white peoples who wish to exploit us?as if we and our land are not the object?