Either Way My Job is the Same

Vox Day writes in The Black Art of the Deal:

Remember, the usual Trump method is one step back, two steps forward. If this pattern prevails, the next two steps forward should be magnificent. Don’t count the man out until he is actually out. That’s not mindless optimism talking, but rather, the voice of an experience recalling how this game has played out before.

Trump can probably survive caving on DACA if he actually gets the Big Beautiful Wall built. But if he thinks he can play the conventional Republican game of “hey, we got a bipartisan deal” in lieu of delivering on his primary campaign promises, he is going to be surprised at how fast his support melts away.

For the sake of argument I’ll assume Vox is right, and “The Black Art of the Deal” is played one step back and then two steps forward. The assumption here is that leaving DACA in place is the step back, and building the wall is two steps forward. “The Deal” is “Immigration Enforcement”.

But what if “The Deal” was “Trump’s Aggrandizement via Election”? Then the one step back was lying to Americans, and Trump’s two steps forward are embrace and praise from the establishment.

Advertisements

Like NPR for Sane People

I think I’ve mentioned this before, but I read somewhere an opinion which stated that audio, video, and transmission technology (the New Media) has progressed to the point where we are reverting from a literary traditions to an oral tradition. Reverting sounds bad; let’s call it reclaiming. I am one of those who gets a great deal of his information from podcasts, audiobooks, and YouTube videos.

One of the podcasts I’ve worked into my rotation is that of Aaron Renn, the Urbanophile. Some of you may have heard of him before. His podcasts are pretty short at around 20 minutes (just long enough for endcap commercials), and he covers a wide variety of topics which loosely center on city life; often on Mid-American cities like Chicago and Indianapolis.

One of his episodes from 2015 was an interview of his father (an Indianan) about the GOP and Donald Trump. So that was well before the election. Renn’s father had the best summary of why Trump was elected and why they rejected the GOP establishment. I’m going to spoil it. Here it is: Trump isn’t a wuss, and the GOP are. (You should still listen to the rest of the episode. It’s entertaining and there’s a nice back-in-the-day story. I like those.

I’ve read and heard a lot of explanations; from Scott Adam’s “Master Persuader” theory to Jordan Peterson’s “agent of chaos” theory to Zman’s “Destroyer of Worlds” theme…all some rather esoteric and wacky stuff. But Mr. Renn is exactly right, and that’s why even the “grab them by the pussy” tape didn’t shake off Trump’s supporters. It’s that simple.

Anyways, check out the podcast. I enjoy it; it’s like an NPR program for sane people.

Eloi, Eloi

Several years ago–I think at least five–I left a comment on one of Vox Day’s posts[1] to the effect that contemporary whites are weak. He commented back that my estimate was ridiculous and that whites had been the most lethal force on Earth. Well, so what? That was then, this is now.

My observations are based upon my school experiences in minority-majority schools, and, later, a 14-year period living in a neighborhood (and later whole city) as it transitioned from a white-majority suburb to one of a minority-majority. Younger but larger white students in a minority-majority school have the benefit of a better perspective on how blacks see whites. As a tall sixth grader, I had to fight a lot of black seventh and eighth graders (some of whom should have been aged into high school), much less as a tall seventh grader, and none as a eighth grader.

A typical fight starts when three to six blacks surround a white kid, and then begin to taunt him. There was no provocation to the harassment but the perception of weakness. Then the harassment turns to nudges, and nudges to pushes, and then from push to an actual punch from one of them; usually from someone on the side.

The white kid had two options:

  1. Run, and hope you don’t get tripped because black kids thought white kids on the ground were meant for kicking.
  2. Fight, and hope you don’t get knocked down because black kids thought white kids on the ground were meant for kicking.

If you chose option two, then the key to survival (aside from avoiding the ground) was to figure out which one of the black kids was the most likely to punch you (not always an easy task), and punch him first, and don’t stop punching him until a teacher comes to break it up. In my case, the middle school teachers would go get a school cop because that’s the kind of thing you have at minority-majority middle schools; so there’s an extra 30 seconds of punches that need to be thrown for the bureaucratic delay.

When the teacher or cop showed up, it was in-school suspension for the main combatants. They did not care who started it, or who defended himself. More disgustingly, they never let on to have grasped the pattern of multiple blacks jumping one white kid even though the same event occurred to some white boy at least once a week. We were all merely “troublemakers”. Justice played no role whatsoever. Street justice was absent too. White kids never stood up for one another. The white defense was that of the deer: Keep an eye out, move away when you see the predators approach, and tough luck for the stragglers.

I was lucky to be tall and by temperament happy to hurt my opponents. More: I had been blessed to have a father who taught me by discipline that–among other things–pain is fleeting, and that sometimes the act is worth the whipping (belts don’t spank). But even before my childhood that form of pedagogy had been foresworn by the vast majority of white Americans by either permissiveness, or divorce, or both. Today whites tell each other that spanking children is evil because it makes them violent and antisocial, and that divorce is really better for the children.

The bullying I described from my student days is what we’re seeing today.  Except that instead of a location in a Fort Worth middle school in the bad part of town, it has grown with the children to places like Missouri University and Evergreen State. Everybody knows whites are weak and cowardly, and everybody believes it is acceptable to beat on them because of those facts; even other whites and even the authorities.

Last night I listened to a Joe Rogan podcast with Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein. For three hours they talked about the dangers of racism and identity politics. Every bit of it was about the danger of past white racists, and white identity politics. They did not make even one half-feinted nod towards the rampant and current racism of blacks towards whites. And why should they? You might get in a fight if you make the black kids angry, but white supremacists are pussies.


[1] I have tried several times to find my comment and that post, but I cannot. 

Choose the Battlefield Wisely

The answer–the right warfare against Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Feminists, Democrats–is to put Christ first. The wrong answer is to put anything else first. I said that these groups are against:

  1. Christians
  2. Whites
  3. Men
  4. America (in combination of 1-3)

and that is true. But there are several reasons not to put energy into pro-white movements, or even pro-male movements. The first and most important reason is that Christ is king and lord of all. We are to serve Him in all things we do, and (amazingly, I think) Christ has provided ways for us to serve Him first in all things we do.

The second reason is that we should never let the enemy choose the terrain of the battles; especially when our combatants are so outnumbered. That is when choice of terrain is most vital for victory. So we rightly should counter invasions on whiteness or manhood with counterattacks from Christ; not because we don’t care about whites or men, but because we need to attack from a position of strength. Nothing is stronger than Christ, whose victory is assured. Not only that, but they neither believe nor understand their own motivations and their own spiritual state–or even nature. This makes an attack launched from a Christ-centered force powerful because it is their weak spot.

So what does this look like in practice? That means to put Christians first for Christian reasons. This is something we have taken for granted. The strength of early America wasn’t “Americanism”. The goodness and truth of the founding documents, to the extent that they are good and true,  don’t make appeal to their own goodness, but to the goodness of God and His natural order. The rights of freedom of speech[1], association, etc. are not predicated on either blood or soil, but on the belief that they are God-given.

So, for example: We should counter pagan attacks on Hobby Lobby, Chick-Fil-A, Catholic hospitals, bakers, and florists not on the defensive grounds of freedom of speech, nor freedom of association, nor freedom of religion, nor the whiteness of the staff; but on the counter-offensive terms that they are brothers and sisters in Christ who are upholding the God-ordained natural order. We don’t “pray those poor people are ok” (though we do pray for them), we make it our business to help them be victorious even at our own cost, and that we offer up those sacrifices for Christ’s glory. We do not offer them for freedom of speech or even religion.

This doesn’t mean we “forget” that we are American, our political traditions, or forget our ethnicity. It means we put them into submission into their rightful place, and by so doing make them worthy. It means we volunteer to suffer in the earthly and unworthy things–whether it is money, glory, status, or even blood–as Christ volunteered to suffer all those things for us so that we could inherit eternal riches and glory, and that we do so for the same reasons.


[1] I do believe these freedoms are real, God-given, and should be protected by a just and wise government. Perhaps I’ll write about that in another post.

Stop Being Distracted

Taken (only slightly edited) from several comments on Dalrock’s post, “First They Came for the Bald Men”.


The movement of which Antifa, commies, Democrats, etc. all belong isn’t anymore essentially Left than its opponents are Nazis. The essence of the movement to which these groups belong–what they have in common–is a hatred of three things:

1) Christianity
2) Men
3) Whites

The order of hatred depends on with which faction of the movement one deals, but the three are essential. For example: Feminism hates men first, then Christianity, then whites. Black Lives Matter orders it Whites, Christianity, then men, I think. Sometimes, as in the case of Antifa, more than one plank is of equal weight. Antifa hates America as a whole because it recognizes that America is fundamentally a work of white Christian men.

It’s not autonomous vs. totalitarian, nor is it globalists vs. nationalists, nor is it politically correct speech vs. free speech. They are not FOR anything in particular. They exist to be AGAINST things. Specifically, they are against

1) Christianity
2) Men
3) Whites

Some are fine–and even for–capitalism in China, India, wherever–as long as the benefits are not for Christian white men. They love to welcome Muslim mid-easterners, but the Christian mid-easterners are served right to be killed and exiled. There is no rhyme or reason to these affiliated groups except what they are against. Leftism has nothing to do with this movement.

They don’t know or care what Left means.
They don’t know or care what Nazi means.
They don’t know or care what Globalism means.
They don’t know or care what Right means.
They don’t know or care what Fascist means.
They don’t know or care what Nationalism means.
They don’t know or care what Communist means.

The words, to them, contain no meaning whatsoever. Those things are just words that dead white oppressors made up to separate the real people of color from each other and their belongings. They appropriate and use these terms as various forms of subversive weaponry: dog whistles, cloaks, and diversions.

Most people, people who describe themselves as Conservative, or even merely “normal” just don’t accept what they actually see. And the self-styled Conservative press are trained to look for ideological underpinnings and try to perceive the “end game”. There aren’t any. It’s just envy and hatred. The average American refuses to believe that and so they theorize imaginary ideologies and end games for BLM, Antifa, Feminists, and so forth.

Envy and hate aren’t ideological points. They are of the spiritual realm. It’s a spiritual war; not an ideological war, nor an ethnic war.

Making Good Use of Your Possessions

I’ve received some inquiries on the Caldo status. We’re hours away from Houston and rather enjoying the late summer rains. But here’s two bits of info around Harvey that some of you might appreciate.

First, the Home School Legal Defense Association is accepting donations to help specifically homeschool families who have suffered from hurricane Harvey. HSLDA does good work in general, and I trust them to use donations with prudence.

Second,

A Churlish Defense

I originally posted this as a comment under Scott’s post “The Christo-Rational-Consensus Approach” at his recently revived blog, American Dad Web.  I think it’s coherent enough to stand as a post on its own; though I’m often my own worst critic.


Because we are mostly the sociological descendants of Anglo-Saxons, here’s something to think about:

Before the Norman Conquest of England, the accepted premise was that the land was owned by the people; more specifically by the person who was on it; whether male or female. A king rules over the people, but he doesn’t rule their lands directly. With William the Conqueror comes the French idea that the land belongs to the king, and that the people belong to the land. That is very different. So, for example, peasants couldn’t just up and move to another lord’s land because they belong to a defined space. But a king (as ruler of the land) could give peasants to another land, or his peasants could be another king’s by that second’s conquer of the land. Really, a peasant wasn’t of the king. He was of the land. Kings though are not tied to a land. They are something else; something above. Hence: Rigid class structures. That’s a problem because it fundamentally divides the people from its leader.

Nation states are an attempt to correct that. It says that the people and the nobility (the leaders, regardless of nomenclature) both belong to the land. That’s why Marx saw nation states as an obstruction to class struggle; because it gave an excuse to unite the leaders and the people. Marx saw that the actions of the nobility often belie their true allegiance: Like everyone they are prone to be allegiant to themselves first and to make common cause with other wealthy and privileged people from other nations, rather than with their own native peoples. Technology matters too: Marx lived in the time when the ship and the train raised the ability of the commoner to move across borders just like the nobles did.

Like Marx, I think nation states are a less-than-stable idea. Unlike Marx, I think that the problem is more fundamental than that of classes. I believe “class warfare” is a symptom of the sickness which places people under land instead of over it; of saying that people belong to a land instead of to a family and by extension to a nation of people–and that land belongs to them each, individually.

There’s a lot more that can be said about this. For example: In pre-feudal England, each free man (which were the great majority, only slaves weren’t free men) was required to own a spear and was subject to be summoned for war; usually on a rotation. Which makes sense: It’s your land, you defend it. Feudalism led directly to professional mercenary armies that worked anywhere and everywhere for the highest bidder while the inhabitants of the lands in contest got burned, pillaged, and raped–because it wasn’t the peasants place to fight.

Again, there are a lot of things to look at. Feudalism is like a softer Sparta where the 10% of Spartans ruled (brutally) over 90% Helots. Anglo-Saxon England was analogous to Athens. Early America was also in the vein of Athens (e.g. 2nd Amendment of weapons and militias), but we are rapidly moving towards a more feudal and Spartan model (e.g., civilians thanking warriors for their service of invading countries to the sole benefit of the leaders) instead of actually picking up a weapon and defending what they own.

Marx was a wicked and short-sighted man who weaponized envy on a multinational and multigenerational scale, but nation states don’t set the world in order, either.

My Impetus for The WAN Group: The Gideons and David Suchet

I’m a sucker for British murder mysteries. In fact I will put up with a lot of dreck to get to the end and watch a detective give a fifteen minute explanation of how he solved the crime before arresting the criminal; who almost always goes into custody without a struggle, cuffs, or even argument. Streaming video allows one to binge-watch and therefore follow a show’s descent into PC/SJW madness–the dreck I mentioned.

One show which somewhat bucked that trend was Poirot. While every other British program was scrubbing Christianity from its scripts, Poirot pushed forward its title character’s Roman Catholicism. It turns out that in 1986 David Suchet, in a a hotel room, read St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans; probably from a Bible put there by The Gideons.[1] He started to become a Christian, and in 2007 was finally confirmed into the Church of England. Suchet so assumed the role of Poirot in the minds of its audience that its producers felt him indispensable. He used that leverage to have the writers include scenes such as Poirot reciting the Rosary, and arguing with himself about his personal judgments versus the pronouncements of the Roman Catholic Church.

We need more of that. We need men with a plan to sow improbable seeds, such as The Gideons. We need men with the nerve to use whatever power they have, in whatever sphere they inhabit, to bring Christ into the scene.

A lesser, but also important, point: I put it to you that this is more difficult for those who are conservative than for those not. Those depictions of Poirot practicing his faith aren’t in the books. Portraying them isn’t the traditional thing to do, and those who hate Christ and faith and hope and love are quick to use the conservative’s unease at bucking tradition, and convince them to surrender the high ground.


[1] Most reports say it was a Gideon’s Bible. One article I read wrote that Suchet had to call a store to get a Bible; like ordering porn. I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised if an actor falls prey to embellishment now and again. But even in that telling Suchet said he went looking for a Gideon’s Bible before making a call. 

A Draft of a Manual to War Against the Necropolis

I wrote earlier that I would write some thoughts on how one goes about living and moving in Babylon, the Necropolis. Here is the first draft of what I hope to become a fully-realized manual, or even possibly an organization.

  1. Men going into problem churches, or church-related problems, in elite teams of two or more. These men are armed with scripture and resources provided by other members. They should also travel with arms against physical foes. Jesus said:

35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

When Jesus had first sent out the disciples he sent them out in twos:

10 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go.And he said to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest. Go your way; behold, I am sending you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. Carry no moneybag, no knapsack, no sandals, and greet no one on the road.

“But now…” Jesus said, and has the state of things from that time–that now–changed? I don’t believe it has. I believe He meant from that moment going forward. I want to be clear that weapons are for defense on the way to the mission; not to accomplish the mission. The battle is not against flesh and blood, but we have to survive highwaymen and murderers to arrive at the spiritual battles to fight them. I would go so far as to say that any man who is not physically armed had better have an excellent reason.

I also note that the scheme of sending them out in groups has not changed. Jesus doesn’t send out individual heroes. I am strongly against the idea of “bootstrapping” a correction of a church.

We need an elite group of men who both drink the living waters, and who keep sharp eyes on their surroundings.

2. We need a resource for men searching for a church home. It is no longer enough to look at a church sign and determine what they practice. Churches of the Southern Baptist Convention, for example, say as a matter of faith and doctrine that they believe in families and churches led by men. In practice though, they vary. You will find among them Sunday School classes, and worship services, and Bible studies led by women.

As another example: Many believe that there are no churches which teach head-coverings by example. That’s not true. You can find some Anglicans who do (Even in America!), as well as some Pentecostals, and I believe some Lutheran as well. I’m sure I’m missing some.

Another example: The Biblical instruction for choosing elders/priests/bishops and deacons is the husband of one wife, and a father of children who are well-behaved believers. Is this true of the First Baptist Church of Podunk? Does he have a whore-mongering son? Does the pastor of Grace-filled Calvary Chapel have children in another state whom he does not see?

The point of this…database…would be to provide a catalog of churches which shows who they really are, and thus hold them accountable to the Scriptures, and force them to make a defense of themselves–to show themselves approved.

Feel free to criticize, suggest, or otherwise improve upon this barest of beginnings.