Men of the West

It’s good to see some of the Dread Ilk branching out and transforming the Alt-West from an abstract philosophical identity into material action. They’ve got a whole site full of material already, so I’ll let their introductory post, Welcome to the Hard Right, speak for itself:

“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”
– H.L. Mencken

What is civilization?  It is expectation.  It is shared protocol.  It isn’t so much about what thing is done but how one does that thing.  The savage shows up at the local Wal-Mart in pajamas.  The civilized man shows up dressed within the socially acceptable norms.

Aha!  But what if pajamas are within the social norms?  Then you’re in a civilization of savages.   See, we have this notion that civilization is related to what we think of as civilized, but that is a lie.  The cannibals of the darkest jungle are a civilization.  But they are not civilized.

These are different concepts.  Most all of us come from some civilization, but to be considered civilized, you must abide by the protocols of the civilization you are currently inhabiting.

And make no mistake.  All civilizations are not equal.  Equality does not exist on this earth.  For example, you may admire the pygmies of New Guinea, but they haven’t launched a space program, have they?  They have produced no great works of art, have they?  Can you name their great composers?

Now that’s some good rhetoric right there. The Hard Right. It’s good, in that it is less abstract than Alt-West, less frightening than the Mil-Right, and less branded than the Alt-Right. As to what it is, well, you’ll have to read Men of the West and find out.

The dam is breaking

And the Trumpslide I’d predicted before the conventions now looms:

According to former Jimmy Carter pollster Pat Caddell, Hillary Clinton is hemorrhaging support as a result of the FBI announcement and we could see a repeat of the 1980 election when anti-establishment candidate Ronald Reagan won in a landslide.

Caddell drew comparisons to the 1980 presidential race, which was close right up until the final days before the electorate abandoned Carter and rallied around the anti-establishment candidate, leading to Reagan taking victory in a landslide.

Caddell noted that Carter’s entire campaign had been built around portraying Reagan as unqualified and “dangerous,” in a similar vein to how Clinton has demonized Trump. Caddell explained that the polling between Reagan and Carter was close up until the final weekend when “the dam broke” and Reagan shot ahead by ten points.

Stating that he had been looking at the data regarding unfavorability ratings for both Clinton and Trump, Caddell noted that since Friday, large numbers of voters had been structurally “moving against the status quo – the incumbent who is essentially Hillary Clinton.”

Interestingly enough, Drudge is now reporting that Hillary Clinton’s unfavorability rating has hit record highs and now exceeds Donald Trump’s. She has been such a historically horrible candidate that the net result of all her campaign spending was to lose 9 points of favorability since May 2015.

Sixty percent of voters view Hillary Clinton unfavorably, according to a ABC News/Washington Post poll released Monday morning, the highest level of unpopularity yet for the Democratic presidential nominee.

The difference, of course, is that plenty of people are going to vote for Trump despite their dislike of his bombastic personality. No white people who aren’t drinking the Clinton Kool-Aid are going to vote for Hillary.

Meanwhile the early voting numbers look positive for the Trump campaign:

Trump communications advisor Jason Miller said on Breitbart News Sunday that Donald Trump has thousands of more early votes racked up than Mitt Romney did during this point in the 2012 election, giving them more momentum heading into the final week of the 2016 presidential election. “I want to give you a couple of early voting, absentee voting successes we’ve seen,” Miller told SiriusXM host Matthew Boyle. “We can talk about polls… But let me tell you about real votes coming in now in Florida. Republican numbers at this point are a combination of absentee voting and early voting. Republican numbers are up seven percent, and Democrat numbers are down ten percent. So, what does that mean?”

If the rest of the election follows that pattern, a 17-point turnaround means a Trumpslide.

Cheetos McCuck on the Alt-Right

Poor old Glenn Beck has absolutely no idea what is coming for him or how thoroughly his feeble cuckservatism has rendered itself irrelevant:

There are words that you may not have ever heard before or heard sparingly. But now all of a sudden, they are everywhere. And other terms and ideas that were not a conservative driving force — for instance, trade barriers. That’s not conservative. How come trade barriers are now suddenly so huge? There are ideas that were never conservative, but most of us just go, “Huh. I must have missed something. All of a sudden, this is everywhere. I don’t know what that is.” The way they’re describing things with new spins, the ideas might sound really good. We just dismiss and support them or accept them. If you repost (phonetic), one of the easiest wonders to know, you are now entering the world of the alt-right is the cuckservative. That word was nowhere. What the hell is a cuckservative? Right? How many times have you thought of that?

STU: This is a weird segment, man. We started out with masturbation shows, and now we’re on to cuckservatives.

GLENN: Right. This is an easy sign to see that the writer has either been deeply influenced without his knowledge or is a member of the alt-right.

PAT: What is a cuckservative? I don’t know what that is.

STU: Yeah. Cuckold.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: It’s — eh. I mean, it’s not really stuff we can really talk about. But it’s basically — it started out as a racist slur, essentially.


STU: Saying that you don’t — you care so little, you’re giving up your wife to black people, is essentially the accusation. And when you are —

PAT: Oh, we’ve been cuckolded?

GLENN: Yes, yes.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: But notice it has its roots in racism.

STU: Of course.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So cuckservative is a cuckold and conservative put together.

PAT: Oh.

GLENN: This is a word specifically designed by the alt-right. So when you see that word, warning. That should be a warning sign. But most people are just like, “Yeah, I like that word, or what is that that word?” They either dismiss, it or they adopt it. Do not adopt it.

Cheetos McCuck doesn’t understand the Alt-Right, he doesn’t understand that the conservative movement is moribund, if not completely dead, and he doesn’t understand that he can see what a cuckservative is by looking in the bloody mirror.

Look at these morons still trying to make hay out of being less racist than thou at a time when, as per Alt-Right expectations, white identity in America and nationalism in Europe is aggressively on the rise. And yet, they are STILL more determined to fight the Alt-Right than the globalist enemy that has repeatedly and thoroughly vanquished them.

At least he got this part right: It is causing the alt-right to — to have a fan base because they’re the only ones saying, “We have to stop this.”

That’s why conservatives and cuckservatives alike are useless. Conservatives are too in love with their hypothetical propositions to be able to take a stand and cuckservatives are, above all, determined to avoid being called racist. Neither is in any shape to oppose the Alt-Right. They’ll roll over for us even faster than they do for the globalists. As David French has demonstrated, all it takes is a few Pepe and oven memes to send them running away crying for help from the Left.

Glenn, if you want your listeners to know what a cuckservative is, you should probably have them read the definitive book on the subject, CUCKSERVATIVE: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America. As a bonus, they’ll also understand why they find it increasingly hard to take anything you say seriously these days.

We as conservatives are for global trade. We are for — we’re not isolationists. We are not our country is better and your country sucks, so we should be able to destroy you. We should be proud of what we have, just like I’m proud of my country — my family. But that doesn’t make my family better than your family.

Globalist is now a term to describe anyone. Notice anyone who is for free trade, is now a globalist. People who were deep — deeply respected intellectual conservatives. Krauthammer, George Will, they’re now cuckservatives and globalists? Jonah Goldberg is now a globalist. I am now a globalist. That word is being thrown around everywhere. But it’s thrown around by people who are in the alt-right.

That’s because free trade IS globalism, you gurning, Cheetos-dusted equalitarian cuck. Free trade REQUIRES the free movement of people who aren’t any better or any different than anyone else and the total destruction of nations and national sovereignty to function.

MAGA Mindset on audio – FREE

Stefan and Mike have decided to release the audiobook for free on YouTube before the election. Spread the word!

To support Mike’s efforts, and for future reference, you can also buy the paperback. In other Castalia-related news, we’re pleased to be able to say that books from both our Dragon-winners, John C. Wright and Nick Cole, are now available in hardcover and paperback.

John C. Wright

Nick Cole
I’m going with all three hardcovers myself; they will look fantastic on the bookshelves. Other Castalia books that will be out in print before Christmas include: The Nine Laws by Ivan Throne, The Missionaries by Owen Stanley, Back From the Dead by Rolf Nelson, and The Eden Plague by David Van Dyke.

UPDATE: In considerably less happy Castalia news, Jerry Pournelle’s wife Roberta suffered a stroke on Saturday night. Please pray for her and Jerry.

Immigration and the rise of white identity

Given the long track record of left-liberal policies producing the exact opposite of the result expected, it should come as no surprise that social scientists are discovering that, far from eliminating racism, an increasingly diverse society is creating a cohesive trans-ethnic white identity in the United States:

In a study of white Americans’ attitudes and candidate preferences, we found that Trump’s success reflects the rise of “white identity politics”—an attempt to protect the collective interests of white voters via the ballot box. Whereas racial prejudice refers to animosity toward other racial groups, white identity reflects a sense of connection to fellow white Americans.

We’re not the first to tie Trump’s candidacy to white identity politics. But our data provide some of the clearest evidence that ongoing demographic changes in the United States are increasing white racial identity. White identity, in turn, is pushing white Americans to support Trump.

When we talk about white identity, we’re not referring to the alt-right fringe, the white nationalist movement or others who espouse racist beliefs. Rather, we’re talking about everyday white Americans who, perhaps for the first time, are racially conscious.

The concept of “garden variety” white racial identity stands in contrast to conventional wisdom. In the last three decades of scholarship on whiteness as a race, the prevailing view has been that most whites fail to notice their own whiteness. In a society dominated by white people, whiteness simply fades into the background. Just as fish fail to notice the water around them, whites are unlikely to think about how they are members of a distinct group.

Our research shows that the era of “white invisibility” is coming to a close.Endorsement of white identity politics was highest in heavily Hispanic neighborhoods and was strongly correlated with white racial identity. These results suggest that America’s growing ethnic diversity is creating a politicized form of white identity that has clear repercussions for future elections….

Why does it matter that whites’ politics are driven by concerns about the interests of their racial group? It suggests that racial bias increasingly reflects attention to the welfare of one’s own group rather than animus toward other groups. These collective concerns are only going to become more pronounced as the nation becomes more diverse.

Recent research in social psychology suggests that when whites engage in discrimination based on their perceived collective interests, it’s hard to convince them that such discrimination is wrong. After all, doesn’t every group have a right to prioritize its own members? We believe our results portend increasing difficulty in achieving the democratic aim of getting race out of American politics.

Once more, we see that the Alt-Right perspective is supported by science, logic, and history. It’s conceptual models are predictive. The conservative perspective is not, and its conceptual models reliably fail to correctly predict future events, except occasionally disaster for the left-liberal models, which is rather like trying to take credit for predicting that gravity will still be operative tomorrow.

That is why Point 8 was included in the 16 Points of the Alt-Right.

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.

Any movement that aligns itself with science, history, and correctly applied logic is much more likely to take positions that will eventually prove popular, even if they are initially despised, because events are always going to move in ways that favor their interpretations. This is why the Alt-Right is on the rise along with the development of white political identity in the USA. The only way to get race out of American politics is to deny the other races the ability to participate in the political process.

Also notice that it shows my interpretation of white identity as an American phenomenon appears to be correct, as Europeans are not facing anywhere near the same level of racial pressure, particularly not in a political sense. Here in Europe, the pressure is cultural and religious in nature, so I expect a cultural Christian identity to gradually arise in the lands that were once collectively known as Christendom.

The two-bullet theory

Scott Adams presents his two-bullet theory to explain why Comey first covered for Hillary, then exposed her:

My movie says Comey had good evidence against Clinton during the initial investigation but made a judgement call to leave the decision to the American public. For reasons of conscience, and acting as a patriot, Comey explained in clear language to the public exactly what evidence the FBI found against Clinton. The evidence looked daming because it was. Under this interpretation, Comey took a bullet to his reputation for the sake of the Republic. He didn’t want the FBI to steal this important decision away from the people, but at the same time he couldn’t let the people decide blind. So he divulged the evidence and stepped away, like the action hero who doesn’t look back at the explosion.

In the second act of this movie, Comey learns that the Weiner laptop had emails that were so damning it would be a crime against the public to allow them to vote without first seeing a big red flag. And a flag was the best he could do because it was too early in the investigation to leak out bits and pieces of the evidence. That would violate Clinton’s rights.

But Comey couldn’t easily raise a red flag to warn the public because it was against FBI policy to announce a criminal investigation about a candidate so close to election day. So Comey had a choice of either taking another bullet for the Republic or screwing the very country that he has spent his career protecting.

In this movie, Comey did the hero thing. He alerted the public to the fact that the FBI found DISQUALIFYING information on the Weiner laptop. And he took a second bullet to his reputation.

How do I know the new emails are that bad?

I start by assuming Comey is the same man now as the one who was carefully vetted before being hired to protect the integrity of one of our most important institutions. And even Comey’s critics concede he’s smart.


The way you know the new emails are disqualifying for Clinton is because otherwise our hero would have privately informed Congress and honored the tradition of not influencing elections. Comey is smart enough to know his options. And unless he suddenly turned rotten at his current age, he’s got the character to jump in front of a second bullet for the Republic.

According to this movie, no matter who gets elected, we’ll eventually learn of something disqualifying in the Weiner emails.

And we can’t say we weren’t warned. Comey took two bullets to do it.

While I agree with Scott’s conclusion that the emails have to be THAT bad in order to justify Comey’s change of heart, I don’t agree with his twice-heroic interpretation of Comey’s actions. Comey strikes me more as someone who did the dirty the first time around, felt guilty about having failed in his duty, and when given the opportunity to do the right thing and redeem himself, leaped at the chance.

The fact that we have word of an internal rebellion at the FBI and his wife’s initial disappointment in him tends to support this theory. The good news about the redemption theory is that having failed once, and having personally experienced the negative consequences of that failure, I expect Comey is much more likely to hold firm under fire this time around, especially given that he knows he will have the support of those around him. He’s going to need it, too, because he is already coming under tremendous fire from some very powerful people.

Besides, if we’re talking about movies, the Redemption motif is stronger than the Machiavellian Hero story.

Behind the revived FBI investigation

Andrew Napolitano provides some useful background for the recent revival of the investigation that has now unearthed some 650,000 emails, some of which appear to be related to Hillary’s apparent malfeasance as Secretary of State.

When Clinton herself was interviewed on July 2 — for only four hours, during which the interviewers seemed to some in the bureau to lack aggression, passion and determination — some FBI agents privately came to the same conclusion as their former boss: The case was going sideways.

A few determined agents were frustrated by Clinton’s professed lack of memory during her interview and her oblique reference to a recent head injury she had suffered as the probable cause of that. They sought to obtain her medical records to verify the gravity of her injury and to determine whether she had been truthful with them. They prepared the paperwork to obtain the records, only to have their request denied by Director Comey himself on July 4.

Then some agents did the unthinkable; they reached out to colleagues in the intelligence community and asked them to obtain Clinton’s medical records so they could show them to Comey. We know that the National Security Agency can access anything that is stored digitally, including medical records. These communications took place late on July 4.

When Comey learned of these efforts, he headed them off the next morning with his now infamous news conference, in which he announced that Clinton would not be indicted because the FBI had determined that her behavior, though extremely careless, was not reckless, which is the legal standard in espionage cases. He then proceeded to recount the evidence against her. He did this, no doubt, to head off the agents who had sought the Clinton medical records, whom he suspected would leak evidence against her.

Three months later — and just weeks before Clinton will probably be elected president — we have learned that President Barack Obama regularly communicated with Clinton via her personal email servers about matters that the White House considered classified. That means that he lied when he told CBS News that he learned of the Clinton servers when the rest of us did.

We also learned this week that Andrew McCabe, Giacalone’s successor as head of the FBI Washington field office and presently the No. 3 person in the FBI, is married to a woman to whom the Clinton money machine in Virginia funneled about $675,000 in lawful campaign funds for a failed 2015 run for the Virginia Senate. Comey apparently saw no conflict or appearance of impropriety in having the person in charge of the Clinton investigation in such an ethically challenged space.

It seems that Comey now understands that the corrupted officials at the FBI and the Justice Department can’t keep the lid on their rebellious underlings any longer. Everyone at the FBI knows Hillary Clinton is corrupt, they’ve known it for years. But the hard evidence and the permission required to gather it has, historically, been lacking.

Perhaps it will finally see the light of day, as the FBI has now obtained a warrant to go through the emails not directly related to the Weiner case.

Things are getting crazy.

UPDATE: Kee-rikey… if this is true and the details are leaked to the Democratic Party elders, she will be forced to stand down whether she is willing to do so or not.

Gab, the ADL, and the Alt-Right Gecko

A single phrase suffices to demonstrate why #Gab will outcompete #Twitter. And why I am on the former rather than the latter.

“The ADL can shove it.”

Imagine a world without fear. Imaging speaking without self-censorship and cowering before the thought police. #SpeakFreely

For thus spake Andrew Torba:

Our logo is a frog. Gabby is not Pepe and never will be. This is why we chose a frog:

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh and say to him, ‘This is what the Lord says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me.  If you refuse to let them go, I will send a plague of frogs on your whole country.  The Nile will teem with frogs. They will come up into your palace and your bedroom and onto your bed, into the houses of your officials and on your people, and into your ovens and kneading troughs.  The frogs will come up on you and your people and all your officials.’”

But it’s clearly not Pepe lol. Also Pepe is not a symbol of “hate speech.” The ADL can shove it. He’s a cartoon frog. If I slap a Nazi symbol on the McDonald’s logo, is it now a hate symbol? (No) So how does this logic work for Pepe? Because the media told you so?

He’s right. Gabby is not Pepe and is not Alt-Right. The ADL would do much better to turn their attention to Gramsky, the GEICO gecko, who is not only green, but is clearly an Alt-Right revolutionary.

Not only that, but Gramsky is also an avid supporter of Donald Trump. VFM on Twitter, you know what to do.

NFL Week 8

This is the weekly open NFL thread. Meanwhile, NFL ratings continue to decline, but everyone even remotely associated with the NFL claims it has nothing – NOTHING – to do with the political antics of the players.

After seven weeks, the NFL has a problem. Whether the league wants it acknowledge it publicly or privately or will try to minimize it with damage-control doublespeak (“we don’t have fewer viewers, the same viewers are viewing less“), the NFL has a problem.

Ratings are down, every week in nearly every broadcasting window.

Speaking only for myself, I think my declining interest in the game is primarily due to instant replay. Between all the ticky-tack penalties and how long it takes to review every score and every turnover, I find that these days, I just don’t have much interest in watching if the Vikings aren’t playing.

If I ran the league, I’d keep instant replay and allow it to be used on one challenge per game by each coach. Any call or non-call by the officials would be reviewable. That way, only the most absolutely vital plays would ever be reviewed.

There are also too many games being televised. 12 PM, 3 PM, and Monday Night Football, plus two games on Thanksgiving, are sufficient. And a 14-game season would be to the benefit of the players’ bodies, and likely, to the quality of the play as well. The NFL needs to understand that sometimes, less is more.