We do Not Believe You

The below is really nothing more than a diary entry of sorts. A snapshot in time of things many around me see. If you observe the world with discernment, there is nothing here for you, just a restatement of what you know. If you are confused about the world, this article is not a polemic intended to convince you. This is just a snapshot of what I see, others too.


Yesterday, July 27, 2021, the United States Congress began hearings related to the events of January 6, 2021. The initial hearing included testimony by four, I believe four, police officers and not a small bit of crying by members of congress and the officers themselves.

January 6th (1/6 as it has been labeled to place it in a properly 'ominous' category) was an “assault on the sacred and holy institutions of Democracy” we have been told, many times. It was an “insurrection” we have been ad are increasingly told.

To a reasonable observer, we saw something in between soccer hooligans in Britain and the riots and looting in the summer of 2020, and frankly, it was objectively much closer to soccer hooligans than rioters and looters burning cities.

But those statements are polemic. There is a reason that soccer fans are so rowdy, there are reasons that people burned, looted, destroyed, and killed people in the summer of 2020 and there are reasons that the events of January 6th happened.

Don't get the next paragraph twisted alert

I am intellectually honest enough to say that the people involved in riots last year had justifications. The people that marched through the Capitol building had justifications. Not all of the justifications of either group were or are always based upon the complete truth, sometimes each group got many things very wrong. Sometimes they were deceived and spun up by grifters, agitators, and very likely by people within our own government.

I am not making an analogy between the riots and January 6th. I am saying that I am honest enough to know that even though I think almost all of the reasons that people held to be true that drove them into the streets with bricks and matches last year were perversions of something that held some truth. It is curious, and disturbing that nobody wants to give those that entered the Capitol the same benefit of the doubt.

Just this week, crowds in France surrounded their president's house and when they were not heard, brought on tractors hauling tanks of liquid excrement and sprayed his residence. Not an insurrection it seems.

In France the government stopped getting in the way of mobs that were angry, they stopped that about 1791, which did not turn out very well. The French get riled up every year and take to the streets about something. They have justification, I usually do not agree with them but the French government has come to the conclusion that they have to blow off the steam of their frustration. It is either that or kill them all, which often ends poorly.

We know what nations kill and imprison protestors and mobs of people that are angry, China. We remember Tiananmen square, they literally machine-gunned hundreds and then rewrote the history of the event. They exercised more patience with the Hong Kong protests, they simply placed people on a list and made them disappear over time. Never go full China, and yet, what are we about to do?

Therefore, some of us look at the January 6th commission and see a pretty dangerous thing occurring. We do not believe the testimony of the “brave” officers that came forward to cry. We do not believe that January 6th was more terrifying than deployment to Iraq (unless the person sat comfortably on some FOB at a desk, in a bunker).

We know there are video cameras everywhere in D.C. and that in the crowd there were thousands of more recordings of things. If this commission wanted to get to the truth of the matter, there is enough video to start that process. Why has the public not seen this video? Why does the DOJ only release small bits, often out of context with the other things going on?

The “lived experience” and testimony of four guys, most of which have said some pretty partisan things online, is not evidence, not when there is real evidence available.

We do not believe you; we do not believe you are seeking truth. We do not believe you have good intentions.

An intellectually honest and decent person can know something is both wrong, and that there are reasons that people believe it.

I think folks that want to burn, loot and kill because they believe they are oppressed are immoral. I also know there are reasons (yes, they have liars in their ears) but some of them, for reasons, (sometimes their fault sometimes not) cannot get jobs, our system is not perfect and can always be improved (the right way).

Leftists that are now salivating about the fact that those “disgusting MAGA people” are going to “get theirs” ought to try and be a little intellectually honest too. Yes, those people were told some lies and deceived….but why did they believe them, what is true that made them susceptible.

What about our system that is so corrupt, illegitimate, and flawed that makes people want to burn cities and march through the Capitol? We need a commission for that.

Curtis Yarvin

Before two days ago I had never heard of Curtis Yarvin, nor of his prior pseudonym. I have never read anything he has written. I thought that I kept up with the current flow of political ideas, undoubtedly I have run across people influenced by Yarvin (more on that below), but never him.

H/T to @realmajordan, a couple of hours on chat, dissecting Yarvin's words we were able to find them literally everywhere on 'influencer' Twitter.

It is odd then, to me at least, that I have written things that sound much like his criticism of modernity and postmodernity. A piece on Locke and one on the absurdity of western political philosophy after Kant are two examples. According to Wikipedia, Yarvin moved from paleolibertariansim and against democracy after reading Hoppe. I walked a similar path, I came out of the ‘90s as a paleoconservative and then found Hoppe and his arguments comported with my observations. However, our view essentially ends with a common criticism of what the system has become. I disagree with his solutions. (spoiler alert he has not written all of it yet, you have to read between the lines to see it, he provides numerous breadcrumbs.)

Yarvin is a gifted writer. He uses literary references to drive home points that he does not write directly. People can come away from his writing with separate meanings. There is a school of thought and a method for that, Leo Strauss taught it, Yarvin is a master. But he is more than a gifted writer, he is a genius. If the Dunning-Kruger effect is real, he is sufficiently more intelligent than me that I can spot it. He is much smarter than most of his followers and detractors too I learned over the last couple of days, many of them do not recognize it. Yarvin is not a conservative, not in the least. He is part nihilist, wholly a rightist for lack of another term, but not a conservative. He seeks to replace and build, not preserve.

Many leftists know who Yarvin is, or at least a caricature they have created and reference often in a pantheon of boogeymen that scare them. If you are such a person and have stumbled here believing you will find meat to tweet hear this. Yarvin is a natural and expected counterreaction to the absurdity, idiocy and ultimately the authoritarianism you support. I cannot help you understand that statement if you do not already, but have a go at this.

Most normal folks on the right, and apparently even people that believe they have their finger on the pulse of ideas probably do not know of him. But he is there, particularly when you look. Some of your favorite young social media influencers (Claremont Lincoln fellows) parrot his words, sometimes subtly, at other times directly. Major conservative publications echo his words, even Chronicles.

He is no more and no less a boogeyman than intellectuals on the left who argue that looting is reparations or that Marxism, if we try it just one more time, will really work out and would never result in millions of people dying like all those other times. If idiots on the left that support that outcome, it is intellectually impossible to deny that Marxism is authoritarianism, and are afraid of a counter-reaction they ought to look hard in the mirror to understand why neo-reactionism has become palatable.

Why have I written this? Am I afraid that because I have written things for years that sound like his criticisms without ever encountering him that I might be labeled a follower? No. I say and write many things that someone somewhere will not like. I am not hard to find, these are just words and ideas. Am I telling people on the right not to listen to one of the only guys offering a real solution (even if it is one I do not like?) No. I would not have told the Carlists to reject Franco in 1936, considering the Communists would otherwise kill them and they had no other options.

I suppose my point is that we really screwed things up, and some people are intent on completing the job. Absurd notions of justice without truth and equality where it does not exist in the free market, those ideas have consequences. Those ideologies are dangerous and authoritarian and they were bound to create a reaction. My grief is not just with the left, the right did its part too. Holding power so often but never conserving much of anything or ever working to enhance permanent things. There is plenty of blame to go around.

We are in the midst of a great paradigm shift. Everything is going to change whether we want it or not. The days of moderate-liberals and prissy-cons (like The American Conservative and David French) are over. The tide has shifted and poles are forming, and each extreme cries louder each day for action.

Making the Southern Tradition Relevant

Summary: There is a void in conservatism that will eventually be filled by dangerous ideologies. The Southern tradition already has the answers that the alt-right and populists seek, but we have not packaged these in a way that they can absorb and use. If we seek to preserve Southern traditions we must seize this moment to present a practical political theory for contemporary use. This will require that we change some things that we have done, that we expand our horizons, and that we start new efforts; all of that must begin by developing a comprehensive strategy that we can operationalize.


The Abbeville Institute began with a noble goal, to “preserve the history and culture of the American South. Our efforts are to view the South’s history through an academic lens to help others understand the rich traditions and culture that was born here.” Yet, if we are honest, has the organization done much more than preserve history? Is it practically anything more than a historical society? Has it preserved culture?

It does great work reaching a number of young folks each year and it provides bread and meat for a dwindling remnant, but is this alone enough?

The answer, the honest answer is that it certainly has not preserved culture in a meaningful way. In fact, it has a difficult time preserving history, its presentations are often forced to cover topics and foundational matters that ought to be common knowledge to a high school student.

These are harsh words, they ought not to be taken as coming from the wrong place. The Abbeville Institute and similar efforts are good works, engaged in by people with sincere and well-placed principles. It is work done in an environment where every possible variable is set against the effort. The criticism herein is not directed at people or previous efforts. The intent is to ask what it would mean to preserve history and culture, perhaps in such a way that our traditions and the rich intellectual heritage of Southern thinkers might offer practical solutions to contemporary problems.

If our traditions have no practical contemporary use, what good are they in preserving? We know they have practical contemporary use; therefore, we must evaluate what we are doing.

The United States now sits at the ledge of a precipice. A long train of abuses, sloth, absurdity, and ignorance have left Americans without a compass, in terms of political theory. Conservatism has conserved and preserved nothing since WWII, and many are beginning to realize this. Young folks are searching for answers, they in many ways agree with those on the radical left; neoliberalism combined with corporatism, centralization, and cronyism has utterly failed. The left seeks answers in classical and cultural Marxism. Some elements of a rising young conservative movement are seeking answers in the Fourth Way, they have found the writings of Alexander Dugin and even Theodore Kaczynski. We might assume that if they have slipped that far there is no hope of reaching them. That is a flawed assumption.

Ironically, at the base of the criticism of the new young right, we find words very similar to those written in 1930 by the “twelve Southerners”. Their reading of Kaczynski sounds true to them because they see a criticism of post-modernism that Wendell Berry and many agrarians wrote of industrialization. There is truth in the base criticism, that they have found solace in a mad man is perhaps our fault for not offering an alternative that they could understand. The same can be said of their growing admiration for Dugin, he frames the original problem in a way that is foundationally true, then presents a political theory solution that ultimately is very dangerous.

In our tradition, our thinkers warned of what would become of us if particular trends flowed to their natural conclusions. Our writers spoke out at numerous points across our history highlighting what was good and wholesome of tradition and dangerous in idealism. Our traditions are rich with warnings and prescriptions. However, we have been increasingly incapable of packaging the medicine in a way that can be easily digested.

If we want to preserve Southern tradition, culture and history we must first admit a hard truth. There is no more “South”, not in practical terms. There is no more of a South in existence today than there is a Scotland that remotely resembles the land and people my family left in 1705. We are talking more than mere subtle changes over time, everything that the South was has been paved over and replaced. Ultimately, we adopted every single tenet of the evil Yankee empire we often rail against. We are them.

One can argue with the above claim because perhaps their little pocket of the world fits with their conception of “the South” or perhaps because many of us retain some distinctive traits – those traits and peculiarities alone do not make us Southern. The entire south has gone in for commercialism, banal entertainment, and popular religion that increasingly approaches heresy. Politically we are little different than the rest of the country on things that matter, when we vote it is not for traditions or values that one might attach to the ideal of our tradition. One might try to argue that the South exists, but it is nothing more than a geographic region at this point with a few folks here and there that resemble Southerners.

Take Greenville, SC as an example. Once merely a large town, surrounded by farms and small towns, part of the textile mill boon but very Southern, there existed once even a distinct dialect amongst a certain class. Look at the area closely today. Numerous major neocalvinst, emergent, seeker-sensitive mega-churches flourish in Greenville – these teach and act in ways utterly contrary to historic Christianity, but thousands in the city attend places their ancestors would not only not recognize, but would rebuke as apostasy. Subdivisions abound, each little micro-mansion, and even less ostentatious abode, display all of the trappings of inhabitants that have sold their souls to the consumer schemes of buy, buy, buy. The frequent sightings of large trucks in driveways may give one temporary pause and the sense that real Southerners live there but that would be an illusion. Downtown Greenville has become a complete synthesis of this new hipster/bubba class, they flock there, like any major city, looking and acting only slightly different than perhaps their peers in Cincinnati, or Syracuse.

If we are to hope to preserve the Southern tradition, we must therefore expand our reach beyond people that we believe are still actually Southerners capable of understanding our words. Just as Southern music, art, and literature impacted almost everything of what came to be called American, we should also rejoice in the fact that our traditions of political thought have also diffused far and wide. The young and restless young right would not so easily see the valid base criticisms presented by their new heroes if something of the Southern tradition had not already informed them that those criticism are true.

We have always been the true resistance to the centralizers, those that would do much harm in an effort to do a little good. None of our traditions caused any of the problems we now face; problems that cause some to look for authoritarian solutions in either Marxism or Duginism.

The Way Ahead

If we are to practically preserve Southern culture we cannot merely be about speaking to the choir. Gray-headed white men are not going to fix things. We need a new organization with a new purpose, less historical, more practical theory-oriented.

(**there is and always will be a place for a “Historical Society”, the Abbeville Institute and others can fulfill that role. But if we are frank, in its current incarnation, the AI will never reach a broad audience, it will never truly preserve our culture for any but a small remnant. It has a role in the way ahead, but the grunt work must be done by something new.)

There is a tremendous void in the populism of MAGA, it is and was rudderless, based upon words of hope but lacked principles. It lacked a conservative political theory. Also, as mentioned above, the youngsters, what some have called the alt-right (a term that is less applicable now as many more mainstream voices are finding a home there), as Paul Gottfried remarked a few years ago suffered from an ideological void. They are filling that void with dangerous thinkers.

We need to fill that void with a practical conservative political philosophy that is true to our traditions. We have men and women with the talent and credentials to do this. Our traditions and the intellectuals of our history provide a template. We need merely to put it in words and a format that can be readily consumed by those in need.

There are others, intellectuals with ideas contrary to our traditions and conceptualization of history, the founding, and of principles that see the voids I describe above. The West Coast Straussians and their numerous organizations and outlets are already courting both the populists and the alt-right. We are, as we have been for years, at a tremendous disadvantage in terms of institutional support and reach compared to the Straussians, but if we do not saddle up now, if we do not carry the banner of traditionalism into the fray, nothing of who we were or any of our ideas will have any chance. Some paleoconservatives now suggest we ally with the Straussians – but how can we ally with men that are opposed to almost everything we believe, the foundational items at least?

We Must Act

As a first step, we must conceive of strategies to enter the fray. It is not my intent here to lay out a complete plan, the problem is too complex for such in this treatment. At a minimum, we need a strategy meeting that brings together folks with multiple skills (operational design, strategy, marketing, philosophy, history, communications, to name a few). Out of such a meeting, we should arrive at a phased operational approach that consists of numerous lines of effort, all building toward an objective of presenting a practical political philosophy based upon the very best of the Southern tradition as an alternative to the trash now presented to the masses.

I call therefore upon the graybeards of our movement, to send out the call for such a meeting, not a mere lunch or dinner, this will require a few days, whiteboards, sweat, arguing, and in some cases abandonment of presuppositions. We face what we called in the Army a Wicked Problem, the solution(s) will require work, just to formulate the strategy at the beginning; and ultimately that will be the easy part.

(strategy first then operationalize the strategy – all the nasty and nitty-gritty details will emerge once lines of efforts are developed)

Principles First

On the periphery of public discourse, off in a dusty corner, in recent weeks a quiet and often ignored conversation has occurred. ‘Conversation’ is perhaps an overstatement, mostly it has been just a few of relatively close views of history discussing amongst themselves, or perhaps past one another, how to dialogue with a group that has a very different outlook. Why does this matter? Most people, even if they read the various post and articles that I am referencing, do not really understand, and if they do, they simply do not care.

It is as simple as this, there is a scramble within ‘conservatism’ to fill a massive void. What and who wins that scramble will define what opposition, insofar as it might ever again appear, exists in our solidifying uniparty oligarchical system.

Tyranny is on the menu. Most recognize the threat of Marxism, but there are other ideas in the water. A form of Maoist-capitalism is a menu option, so is a form of nationalism fascism/socialism (Duganism) – just under the surface. All three of these would serve a uniparty oligarchy well. What will oppose these ideas that are taking root in various ways? What can? Nationalist populism alone is certainly incapable. There are groups that recognize this.

Conservatism in America has failed to provide solutions to every problem since 1960, perhaps since 1929 or prior. It is inarguable that particularly over the last forty years, “conservatism” has conserved nothing, has won nothing that defended permanent things, and has stood for nothing other than flaccid resistance. I am not speaking here of individuals, or even some ideas, I rather mean the movement in the aggregate. Most that are honest see this now.

Here is the fundamental question. Can we build an oppositional philosophy based upon thinkers that believe Abraham Lincoln is a paragon of virtue?  Most Americans grew up believing Lincoln was close to sainthood, and few have ever really examined his actual words and his actions. This fundamental ignorance was by design.

In short – Lincoln started a war, not to emancipate slaves (his own words), made war on states (the right of the Federal government to do that was not held ubiquitously), suspended rights, violated the constitution, and arrested opponents in the North, and ultimately on 1 January 1863, dismantled an economic system, with no plan to address the void, that ensured a region would be impoverished for a generation, or more, and blacks would endure economic servitude for another 100 years. Lincoln began a war without a plan to put things back together, his goal, (his words) was to maintain the union (central power) regardless of the costs. There was nothing moral, rational nor reasonable about Lincoln’s actions. He is not an example for conservatives or of conservatism.

So, what of these small conversations held in dusty corners. Paul Gottfried published a piece in Chronicles recently, Clearing Up the Confusion on Leo Strauss. To the initiated, this was nothing short of an olive branch. Pedro Gonzalez, the editor of Chronicles, followed up, “Gottfried, like myself, thinks an alliance between paleos and populist-aligned Straussians is possible.” A day later, Chronicles published a review of Michael Anton’s The Stakes, going so far as to call Anton a “Paleo fellow traveller”.

It seems Gottfried and Gonzalez are in agreement with many of us, we face an existential crisis. I wrote a piece at The Calhoun Institute discussing this. The Straussians have a much bigger voice than true paleos, we do face an existential crisis, tyranny is on the rise. We need allies.

But in classic form, Brion McClanahan points out the danger of the ideology of Claremont, Hillsdale and the West Coast Strasussians (Jaffites).

“Conservatives like Anton consistently choose longtime heroes of the left, like Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr. This is a calculated move, but one that will never have the desired effect. These conservatives believe that if they can somehow convince enough Americans, left and right, to view “equality as a conservative principle,” as Harry V. Jaffa wrote in 1975, or Martin Luther King, Jr. as a conservative (as Anton suggests in his book The Stakes), then Americans will come to embrace them as sober revolutionaries in a common American enlightenment.”

What Brion did not say explicitly, but has, as did those in his intellectual genealogy before have said innumerable times is this. It would be better to stand on true conservative principles, those that protect and enhance permanent things. In the times, near and far where conservatism failed to provide answers to problems, we would be better served by seeking to know where we abandoned our principles, rather than adopting and attempting to usurp men that ‘solved’ the problem in ways contrary to our principles. (read The Conservative Mind)

We cannot move forward, in this existential crisis harkening back to men that did not act from the principles we hold dear as examples. Only folly and tyranny can follow such a mistake. Indeed, which way Western man?


Postscript: Criticism of Lincoln quite often falls on deaf ears, "he ended slavery, slavery is bad and without Lincoln, there would be no United States as we know it" is the retort.

By what authority and at what cost?  These are valid questions, too complex for treatment here. Slavery being such an inefficient and nasty business, there were many in the south that would have replaced it long before 1860, if there was a workable solution, one that the banks and industrial interests in the North, that became rich off the slave trade and slave labor, were willing to consider. The question is and was much more complex than we paint it generally. But by what authority did Lincoln do what he did, to upset the economy, a region, the lives of blacks, and the very meaning of the federal compact? At what cost, surely considering the lives lost and the generations-long economic cost there were other options?  But it was never about slavery, not at least about ending it or being concerned with the welfare of former slaves - it was all about his (Lincoln's) conception of what the Federal government was, something that was at odds with men more brilliant than he before and after his term in office.

It is valid to call into question a man that 'conservatives' since WWII have championed. We need a new way forward, one that begins and ends with principles.

Which Way Western Man?

I sit, happily ensconced on my balcony overlooking my little piece of the world on a beautiful Friday morning, I am reminded of two things. Social media was a terrible mistake and enormous changes are afoot, just under the surface in terms of political alignment.

Most do not sense the developing realignment. Others know something is changing but do not understand it. Of the latter, many of those are angry, confused, and scrambling to find their people, a place to fit in. The talk of change is not new, it has been with us since Obama was elected, it did not arise as a reaction to Obama per se, but rather to the mechanism that enabled him to be elected at all. The populism that fueled MAGA and elected trump only increased these conversations. Discussions are held in the virtual dark and smokey corners of a tavern not unlike perhaps The Green Dragon of the Inklings or City Tavern in Philadelphia. We mere mortals, not invited to sit and have a stout and cigar and parley in this developing theme, can catch glimpses of the proceedings in some long-form articles and, if you are astute, in snippets on social media.

TL:DR  You on the alt-right have many valid criticisms of the system and of conservatism. Just be careful which snake-oil salesmen you buy your philosophy and ideology from. Those Straussians that court you so hard are wrong and dangerous. Look back to paleo-conservative thinkers.  

There are, of course, competing camps of intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals, disaffected souls now refugees from neoliberalism and neoconservatism. Many never fit into either category, sitting just outside the fire waiting for the inevitable failure of both. Of those we might call ‘rightists’ (and this term is problematic at best), we find West Coast Straussians (Jaffites), Federal Vision Reformed thinkers, a particular brand of Catholic Traditionalists, and others. These were the vanguard, those that subtly talked of a realignment, the absolute need for such, and dispensing with many of the flaws of commercialized neoconservatism. But these smokey ideas, from pompous men, were never going to appeal broadly, and perhaps they knew as much.

There was another trend on the ‘right’, it began near the end of the 1990s and accelerated after 9/11. libertarians and young paleoconservatives, disaffected by the utter routing of paleo-conservatism by the Jaffites, the rise of neoconservatives, and the wars of empire drifted off into an intellectual void. In that void they found the writings of Theodore Kaczynski and then of Hegel, Nietzsche and Heidegger. Eventually, they found Alexander Dugin. The alt-right, born of disaffected young traditionalists that came to disdain the government as it stood and the system that enabled it, is not and never was just childish Groypers – their memes had thought and deep meaning behind them; secret knowledge they knew was there.

The United States is ruled by an oligarchy. A partnership between corporations, political interests, and institutions (both within and outside the government). The young alt-right recognizes this, the folks above that have called for a realignment recognize it. There are groups on the ‘left’ that recognize it. The oligarchy is not per se ideological, we make a mistake assuming that. It exists for power and operates to maintain power. The ideologies that individual members and groups within that class espouse are merely designed to keep power. To appease the plebes, to secure support, and to maintain position. The intellectuals that have long called for a realignment know this, to them the alt-right is a vehicle to influence the oligarchy, to obtain a seat at the table. These intellectuals believe they are ultimately so smart they can influence the outcome and control their tools.

I watched one of the minor front-men of this school reveal parts of the realignment last evening on Tim Pool’s podcast (now deleted). It met with the expected pushback, but I suspect this is by design. Throw out the idea and let it percolate.

There are three paths forward on the table at present, none of which align with traditional left-right dichotomy. The real battle is being fought to both shape these and to present them to us for purchase.

If a traditionalist of the paleoconservative persuasion offers the black pill it is merely because the fact is of all the options on the table, none of them offer either conservatism, liberty or truly protect tradition. But this seems defeatist to those that are confused.

And many are confused at present. Many fell for the populist promises of Trump and are now realizing that none of it was true, it was never about any of the fundamental stuff promised. In the end, it was more dystopian and brought on more massive government than at most any point in our history. They resist the black pill, and by that, I mean grim reality. They acknowledge the oligarchy, that institutions are captured and complicit and that politics has simply not worked. They spent so much of last year being apologists for what they knew in their hearts was wrong. It is hard to come to terms with this. (One such chap refused to dialogue and blocked me for pointing this out.)

These are the exact sorts that the intellectual class above needs, it is to these they will offer hope in the form of solutions hitherto unimaginable. These unwitting, confused, and lost souls, when joined with the ideological fire of the alt-right and fueled by real intellectual propellant in the form of new way (fourth way) thinking as offered by Alexander Dugin has the makings of a realignment. The combined weight of affable social media personalities (many of which are constructs), midwit sycophants that follow and boost them, a detailed political philosophy, and perhaps a ‘hero-savior’ political personality is enough to carry the masses. This has the potential of a solution, a way to recapture institutions, to get corporations on board and to grab the attention of the oligarchy. It is a ‘solution’, it appears better than “defeatism” and some recommendation that we engaged in a generational struggle….but it is dangerous.


Edit:

@realmajordan wisely points out that the mutations and permutations of disaffected libertarians and paleoconservatives into what has become the alt-right (a splinter, not all) was much more complex than depicted above. Indeed it was. There was the anti-war movement, Ron Paul's support, and the Tea Party. The establishment crushed or usurped those movements, but the angst of the core remained. Not the ordinary voter, but the young adult that began to see it all as rigged.

There was a divorce of sorts and some went on to support Occupy Wall Street - many that supported Ron Paul could easily get on board with that, the core principles are the same. Afterward, some of those went on to become Bernie supporters and when the establishment crushed Bernie populism twice (and Bernie took his 30 silver and said nothing) many came back to the alt-right and often brought Bernie supporters with them. Groypers welcomed them back with subtle memes.

As for the interview I mentioned above; It is not surprising that Tim Pool, a former OWS guy would host Darren Beattie, a West Coast Straussian as Beattie revealed some of the big ideas floating around to 'solve' our dilemmas. It all fits. The criticism (often valid), comes from the same place for all of the disparate groups that will soon synthesize into a fourth-way opposition. Those Straussians are a crafty lot, never willing to be left on the sidelines.

It is easy to lose the theme, the forest, for the trees. The theme is there developed a young cohort that saw the system for what it is and tried and lost on many occasions to use the system to fix it. They are ready for something more out of the box now. They are ready for a big idea, and some people that believe themselves very smart have just such an idea.

Existential Moment in our Color Revolution

spider

Something about the Revolver News story implicating FBI involvement in the events of 1/6 in DC has troubled me deeply. Deeper than my realization last April that we were observing color revolution methodology being used on Americans inside the United States.

There is much we cannot know, we can only observe and speculate, and I will try here to merely observe and ask questions and leave out speculation. I am also not impugning either Tucker Carlson or Darren Beatle. I cannot know what I do not know about their intentions. But two significant questions immediately come to mind.

Color Revolution-  is a type of systemic political corruption in which private interests, often aligned with government officials, significantly influence a state's decision-making processes, subverting the rule of law and fundamentally altering both the balance of power and the ability of real opposition to compete politically. Propaganda, psychological operations, and controlled media are generally utilized. (more)

First, Darren Beattie was the first person I am aware of, that got traction with an audience, to come out last year with an observation that we were undergoing a color revolution. He was certainly not the first, his articles on the subject were about six months behind the first indicators, but he was the first to get national attention. He appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show and outlined his observations.

If one believes that it is true that color revolution methodology was in play, then it logically follows that the implications of that are enormous. Almost nothing else matters. A complex campaign, operating at the scale implied means state actor involvement, it means significant portions of the government are involved and major institutions (like media) are also involved in some way. If one looks at all the dots, sees the connection, and then sees the methodology being applied in almost doctrinal precision, it is impossible to come away with anything more than a sense of shock and awe. None of the small details matter beyond supporting and building the narrative that this was occurring and occurred.

Yet, soon after Beatie made the rounds and Twitter focused on the subject for a bit, with instant experts in geopolitics and color revolutions pontificating, it all went away. He essentially stopped talking about the elephant in the room. [see 1 below]

Second, and do not take me wrong I enjoy Tucker’s presentations, if we go back and survey all of the fantastical stories he has covered in the last 20 months (strange finance paths, riots, corruption, lies, fraud, etc.) and throw in the fact that Beattie was on his show last year talking about how all the dots connect (color revolution) it is more than curious that Carlson never actually makes the connection. Each night he presents a very entertaining segment that deals with one matter, one issue, he often seems shocked and aghast, and outraged. But should he be?  If one really understands the methodology of state capture, should one be shocked by the details?

So, I was particularly stunned watching Beattie and Carlson talk about 1/6 and the accusations that the FBI was doing something behind the scenes and probably had some foreknowledge. It takes active denial to not admit that the FBI has done similar things for a long time (not at this scale, but the same methods - infiltrate a group with compromised people, encourage the group to go forward with bad plans). Any honest person knows that. Carlson knows what Beattie said last year about color revolutions.

Why did these two men sit and talk, Carlson looking shocked, about 1/6 when they had both already talked about the metanarrative?  It was odd and disturbing.

To be fair, one can make the argument that Tucker has corporate masters. Beattie maybe believes the full truth is too much for ordinary Americans to swallow. You can make that argument and I cannot dispel it.

You could also make the argument that this looks a lot like a limited hangout. We cannot know the purpose, perhaps it is to release obvious information in such a way that it can be debunked, that is a traditional usage. Maybe it is intended to spin up many Americans and call them to injudicious action, an action that can be easily crushed and then used as justification for more draconian laws.

What is obvious is that Carlson’s and Beattie’s suggested solution, a Church 2.0 committee is unworkable and naive (argument here). That being said, in their defense, what other choice, short of foolish kinetics, do we have? It is a sticky problem, and there is no real solution, we are in the web, every action merely entraps us more.

Limited hangout: "spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further."

In another interview on another outlet Beattie said until this is resolved, nothing else matters, all of politics will simply be performative. In that, he is absolutely correct. If we have undergone a color revolution, if significant portions of the government played a key role and the media supported it, nothing else matters or will matter. Not elections, Congressional hearings, Supreme Court decisions – none of it. If this happened, and if elements within the national security apparatus conspired and acted to incite violence as a culminating event to the color revolution – nothing else matters until those responsible are rooted out.

The problem is, in the consolidation phase of a color revolution, after most of the population did not even realize what was happening it is nearly impossible to turn the tide. That is the reality we face. We are in the web, we walked straight into a L-shaped ambush.

Our moment of existential choice has passed I am afraid.

[1] Let's circle back to that brief moment last year on Twitter and in the news cycle where folks talked about "color revolution".  As mentioned above it came into the conversation after Darren Beattie published a piece on Revolver and went on the talk news circuit, specifically Tucker Carlson. I recall waking up the next day to amazement that my little blog was getting so much search traffic, specifically to color revolution articles I had previously written. Prior to that, it was a mere trickle.

On Twitter, there were numerous instant 'experts', many that had never heard the term before or perhaps only in passing. Few really understood the full methodology and all the tools in the kit bag. Almost all of the folks that latched on to the subject were Trump supporters. They mistook the implications and thought this was all just about 'libs and MAGA' and some plan to 'get Trump'. Invariably, the fact-checkers soon weighed in, debunking the possibility that such a thing could be happening here "look how outrageous these Trump people are". Soon, talk of color revolutions died out, people went on to new shiny topics, abandoning the metanarrative.

Of course what happened and is still happening was never really about Trump. Either he was too incompetent to see that many of his decisions and policies enabled the event (CR), or he was part of it, there is no other reasonable explanation. He was a dupe or a tool, take your pick, but either way, the color revolution would never have succeeded without key actions by him.

This brings us to ask the question...was the public talk of a color revolution part of a limited hangout, intended to give bad meat to the masses to run with and make fools of themselves with, something later debunked by the media? There were people talking about it and highlighting the use of methodology, long before Beattie. Eventually, this truth was going to come out. Was the flash in the pan an effort to get in front of that and let it burn out in foolish misunderstanding?

I cannot say, but it seems odd, particularly considering that Beattie essentially abandoned the topic soon after.

 

 

I Have a Bad Feeling About This…

What a difference a year makes! With what appears to be a sudden ‘turn of the narrative’ many believe there is hope, perhaps the storm of stupid is about to break. Maybe, maybe not. But that is not my point here.

A year ago I was:

  • Saying out loud that Donald Trump was not innocent in what was happening (not as big a fool as he would need to be to allow 2020 to manifest, he was part of it) – that made me so many friends…
  • Arguing daily with a fellow I grew up with, now a Methodist ‘minister’ an advocate of existentialism, concerning to his position that what I was seeing with my own eyes relative to the virus, lockdowns, and riots was not reality…
  • Arguing that if one wants to fight hate, you do not do so by supporting a racist and ethnically gnostic organization like BLM, and you do not support violence and destruction, not only do you not support it, you do not tolerate it...
  • Politely disagreeing with a Presbyterian minister who claimed what was going on was just a temporary phase, ‘nothing to be concerned with’…
  • Writing early in the year that everything happening pointed to color revolution methodology being in play…
  • Arguing almost daily with an old friend, that is a friend no more, that I actually do believe in science, as in the scientific method and scientific inquiry, but I do not believe in scientism and I do not submit to brazen appeals to authority…
  • Stating over and over that there was something fishy about the Biden campaign, from the ‘we cannot count people standing in a gymnasium' (Iowa caucus) to him never even campaigning and yet "getting more votes than anyone in history"…
  • Telling people I love that they ought to be smart with their money, pay off debt and save up some things like food…
  • Pointing out there were tons of reasons to suspect the virus was engineered in a lab in Wuhan...
  • Saying all year that all those riots were controlled and being used for political ends and worse, an actual color revolution, and that BLM was a trash organization based upon pseudo-academic work – odd how they all just stopped in late October and even UNC has pulled back from that 1619 fiction writer.

What is going on now…. Well, only a fool or a liar can:

  • Deny at this point that a lot of funny business went on in the election, at a scale and a level of complication never seen…
  • Think that locking down the country and causing all that harm was moral or right...
  • Believe that face diapers ever made any sense…
  • Not see that all of the establishment experts lied, in concert…
  • Deny that the media and social media colluded in the lie and the suppression of information.

Every day, in small bits and sometimes massive torrents, the truth is unveiled. But why? Many celebrate the downfall of Fauci, Gates, and others and the growing evidence that everything we were told we must believe about 2020 was a lie. I am not positive this is all going to play out as some believe - with a happy ending.

I am not sure this is not all more machinations in a big game, something is afoot – You can just call me jaded and cynical at this point, but, well we will just see. I think I am right.

Three Dictators Walk Into a Bar…

The title implies a joke, but the joke here is the formerly solid publication The American Conservative (TAC). MJ (@realmajordan) emailed me the following article, American Nationalists, perhaps as a half-joke to get a rise out of me.

What a sad destination TAC has arrived at, after years of prissy-con pieces and mid-witted stone-throwing we arrive finally at this, their solution to our ills, one they attempt to paint as consistent with authentic American conservatism.

This article is intellectually dishonest in its portrayal of history and at times outright inaccurate. I have no inclination to dispute it line by line here. It is also very Straussian. I have previously laid out my arguments against this sort of historical revisionism and bad ideology. (see Centralization and the New American Order, Providence and the Straussian Narrative, and Jaffite historical Agenda)

But don’t just trust me, who am I? Let’s play a mental exercise, shall we? Twice in the 20th Century, two separate nations tried to solve the problems of economic disparity, turmoil, and growing Marxist ambitions through nationalist solutions.

The first is the oft over-referenced Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Many often ponder, how did Hitler rise to power, these discussions often miss the mark that some dictator was destined to take power in Germany in the cultural and economic shape it was in. That Hitler won out is a mere fact of history. The question as to why ‘conservatives’ in Germany saw him as less of a threat than a bloody Marxist is not hard to understand once we detach ourselves from who the Nazis actually were (vice what they said in speeches). The real problem with Germany was the bulk of the population had abandoned the way of thinking that had been a foundation of Western Civilization. Existentialism, Nihilism, Naturalism, and ‘Scienceism’ had replaced common sense, common-good, and ultimate truth for most. The Nazis could make the trains run on time, fewer people were going to starve under a fascist regime than a communist one but at the end of the day, without a moral foundation in the populace to parse what is right and wrong based upon unmovable principles, it is no surprise that Germany went the path it did.

Spain faced the same choice. A dictator was coming, one way or the other, whether it eventually manifested as a politburo and decades of poverty and starvation as a Soviet puppet, or in the form of a man like Franco, they had a hard choice to make. Given the reality on the ground in 1933-1936, it is easily arguable that Franco saved Spain. It was never pretty, his regime was not perfect and many bad things occurred – but that was going to happen in either event. But Spain is a one-off, a situation that cannot be replicated and serves no purpose as a beacon of hope. Behind Franco were people that knew ultimate truth and were firmly grounded in the traditions that have glued the West together. Without the Carlists and others, Spain might have resorted to Nazi solutions to deal with political rival groups. Their civil war was bloody and the reconciliation took time, but there were restrainers in place.

America is much more like Germany in the 1930s than Spain. All of the absurd philosophical concepts that polluted the minds of Germans are here, we have even more advanced forms of absurd thinking at our disposal.  The German churches failed, with a few rare exceptions, our churches are no better. Our entire communitarian megachurch movement was kickstarted by Peter Drucker, a Nazi-phile that thought the Nazis would have been alright if they were moral, he envisioned using the American church to bring that here. We are also just about as bad as the Germans at picking politicians, if a guy has charisma and says some things we like many will not even look at what he actually does.

No TAC, this Straussian nationalism you propose is not authentic conservatism and it is just as dangerous as the ideas of the mouth-foaming Marxist. I will have none of it. Authentic conservatism, in the lineage of Kirk back to Calhoun and others already has the answers you seek. I wonder what Paul Gottfried thinks of what you have become.

China, the Election, and the Color Revolution

It was, perhaps, a forgone conclusion that China would rise to the status of peer-competitor with the US. It was not a foregone conclusion that Americans and American institutions would aid that rise.

China has a long history and memory. It enjoys almost an almost homogeneous ethnic population. It has industrious people and they are many. It enjoys access to numerous resources. Over the last decade-plus, its geopolitical efforts have ensured access to ports, markets, and additional resources. (see previous summary of why China knows it is destined to greatness).

We learn just this week that a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Eric Swalwell, apparently received funding and had carried on an intimate relationship with a Chinese spy. Swalwell was of course one of the key members of the chorus that sang tales of Russia and Ukrainian collusion for nearly four-years. This is not unique to Swalwell, Feinstein had a Chinese spy on her staff for years. The Swalwell incident is, however, more pronounced. A young attractive female shows up with money and sex, Swalwell in his capacity on the Intelligence Committee received numerous briefings on counter-intelligence. A guy with a melon head and crooked mouth ought to have noticed a honey-pot when it tried to seduce him.  Any intelligent person with knowledge of sources and methods would have. Swalwell was briefed, many times; he knew better.

Yet, it is not just Swalwell. We might attribute his collusion with foreign enemies as merely the failings of weak moral character – the old “cannot keep it in one’s pants defense”; maybe.

We have now video proof that Chinese inside the party apparatus claim openly that the reach of the CCP into the bastions of power in the US is wide-reaching, intentional, and integral to China's long game. John Zimrak points out:

The speaker is not some fevered crank, or even a Chinese dissident embittered by the totalitarian government’s religious repression, forced abortions, and concentration camps. No, it’s Di Dongsheng, Vice Dean of the School of International Relations, Renmin University of China. He serves as Vice Director and Secretary of the Center for Foreign Strategic Studies of China.

Those are bold words, spoken openly to an audience that is apparently in the know. Americans that have made the same claim about China and its involvement, schemes, nefarious activities, and hegemonic goals have been labeled over the years as “conspiracy theorist” by our own media and geopolitical and intelligence ‘experts’. When we pull the onion back and begin to breathe in the full scope of the vast web of money, influence, and cooperation between institutions, corporations, and many within our government that seek personal gain we begin to understand why ‘elites’ in the US deny these facts and ‘elites’ in China know it as an open secret.

Zimrak goes further, asserting “that in every way, the COVID crisis has proven to be a massively successful biowarfare attack against the United States (and other countries) by China.” Many others have made that argument, all denounced or relegated to the corner and silenced. I have argued the same thing since April (our response was scripted by Alinsky, the gain of function element, and COVIDs role in the Color Revolution).

None of this seems unrelated. Darren J. Beattie, Ph.D. Is the man that deserves the most credit for placing the term ‘Color Revolution’ into the common vernacular in 2020. He was not the first to write about what was going on or to see the connections of trees to the forest, but he wrote a series of articles that gained traction and occupied some time on news outlets discussing the concept. Oddly enough, now that we are in the final stages of what we must now clearly describe as a color revolution (see an explanation of the term here) Beattie has made recent statements effectively denouncing those that point to China as having any relevance. Beattie must know that all previous color revolutions have been carried out through a combination of elements external and internal to the target nation.

Beattie did not respond to efforts to ask clarifying questions on his recent statements. It is, however, disconcerting that the one man that is now known as the ‘expert’ on the subject by most that only heard the term a couple of months ago would say things, even if nuanced, that would dissuade the masses from seeing 2020 as it truly is.

We have seen the capture of fake ID’s inbound to the US from China in July (link), 10,800 assault weapons parts from china seized (link), and 28 million in gold bars smuggled in from China in Aug (link) just the things we have caught and seen are enough to make one notice rising smoke.

In 2020 we witnessed that journalism in the main is dead and cold, left as an empty carcass capable only of disseminating disinformation and feverishly working to suppress the truth. Most of the media says nothing of China other than to 'debunk' legitimate stories and concerns. Why? How far do the effects of money and Chinese influence operations go?

Color Revolutions always center on elections, disputed results, and a culminating event. In the initial stages, the focus is on fear, confusion, disinformation, and chaos. The culminating event is always an attempt to hijack the narrative and then seize control, under the color of law and the promise of a return to normalcy.

No honest American, that has seen with their own eyes the events of 2020 unfold, can say with certitude that we are not in the midst of a color revolution. No honest American, seeing all the connection to, subtle involvement by and benefit by China can say with certainty that they are not involved.

The Great Reset: How We Got Here

Herein is a collection of videos and resources that assist in explaining how we arrived in 2020 at the point that we were susceptible to a Color Revolution, poised on the verge of a Civil War and many now clamor for a Great Reset. Many otherwise intelligent people have been deceived, confused and absolutely wrong this year, never seeing the forest for the trees, unable to see that all of the troubles, chaos, and issues were related and all pushed us toward the 'need' for a draconian solution.

Analysis of current trajectory toward a Great Reset

Ten part series that details much of the organized effort by communitarians, communist, socialist, and their allies progressives to move the West and the world toward a naturalistic, centralized, and ultimately authoritarian system. 

This is a must-see, Yuri Bezmenov was a KGB propagandist and defector. He lays out in this video the methods used by international communism, to subvert and supplant governments in the West.

Do you remember those 'crazy' Birchers? It seems they too were not wrong.

The following is a promotional/propaganda video from the World Economic Forum. They are not even hiding their goals anymore. All of those 'conspiracy theorists' that called out Davos and the Bilderberg Group were not wrong about at least this portion of their agenda.

Speaking of conspiracy guys - here is one that called out the plan and objectives of the globalist for thirty years (with shocking accuracy). This loud, obnoxious, and over the top guy got many of the players, events, and circumstances of 2020 right, the folks he has called out are saying the quiet parts out loud now.

 

Jones is whack-a-doodle, easily deceived and often wrong...but the video below gets a lot right.

Christians ought not worry, this was all prophesized. You ought to take an honest look at your church, your heart and your own discernment. Almost all of the major denominations proved themselves to be tragically flawed in 2020, falling for pieces and parts of the deception that has brought us here. If your pastor twisted scripture to tell you that a communist and racist organization was worthy of support (BLM) or that this was all just a moment and that trusting the authorities was wise, then they failed to lead.

Stop listening to those flawed and often false preachers, they were deceived this year and deceived their flocks!

Perhaps also, if you see this all now as the manifestation of Biblical prophecy, I would suggest you not jump too fast on the hope of a rapture in the near future. What if all this plays out slowly, and we and subsequent generations live through the emergence of an all-powerful government? What if it takes a hundred years for this to fully play out? We were promised persecution (hated for his namesake) for being true followers, not prosperity. We still live in this world, we still have responsibilities.

What is going to be will be. Politics cannot stop this all, if God wills it we perhaps could slow it down, delay it for a few generations. Evil is on a timeline, it knows its time is limited. It has polluted all of the institutions we are supposed to be able to trust (media, education, religion, and government). A vast swath of our population lives each day under a polluted worldview. Many wolves wear sheep's clothing in places we expect otherwise. The very best we can do now is to take care of our own.