2,248 words
No man, for any considerable period, can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true.
— Nathaniel Hawthorne
Ever since I was a young buck, observing American politics from afar, watching with great intensity this greatest theatrical show on the planet, I’ve been flabbergasted by the popularity of men like Tucker Carlson and Ann Coulter. Here were these people who don’t seem all that different from the rest of the Republican cuck and pony show, but for some reason, American conservatives think they’re the bee’s knees. A full-cheeked cheeky bugger and an unpatrolled mannish conservathot? Harrumph! And yet, I found myself proclaiming quite vociferously that America didn’t deserve Tucker not five days ago on twitter dot com. I proclaimed something quite similar to that with regard to Ann Coulter. Many of my fellow travelers on the North American continent assure me that Tucker Carlson and Ann Coulter are, if not secretly based, then at the very least secretly us-adjacent. After all, didn’t Ann appear on a Stefan Molyneux podcast all those years ago? And Tucker’s been working tirelessly to expose and delegitimize the tired old cuckservative GDP and Israel narrative, giving backhanded shoutouts to the groypers and throwing jabs at Dan Crenshaw and Ben Shapiro.
The story is that Tucker and Ann, and others like them, are purposefully misrepresenting their true views. This is commonly referred to as “hiding their power level.” They do this through a method of dissimulation known as “tactical cucking,” so as to keep their bully pulpits and avoid being canceled, turned out by the Outer Party, also known as Conservative Inc. And indeed, this may be the case. There are some interesting tapes of Tucker in the mid-2000s which show us that he’s at the very least deeply redpilled on the woman question. Ann Coulter’s basedness bona fides are less glowing. She mentions in her Molyneux interview that she’s in favor of reparations and affirmative action for blacks, but not everyone else. She has retweeted a link to Counter-Currents before, though, so make of that what you will.
In any case, Ann’s schtick seems to be “thus far and no further” and “halt immigration until we can assimilate the ones already here,” themselves literal Nazi positions in the current year, which appears to me to be woefully inadequate and at odds with observed reality. I trust the Counter-Currents reader, being a cut above the usual internet rabble, will be able to figure out the falseness of that proposition on his own. Tucker’s position is more nuanced and advanced than Ann’s. He appears to believe that racial and gender wokeness is meant to create divisions between the working class in order to facilitate their exploitation by the moneyed classes. Here I am reminded of a scene in It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia where the immoral and corrupt Frank Reynolds is trying to incite a garbage strike. He walks in, all stereotypes from an 80s business drama, insulting the union rep for being educated while the garbagemen are salt of the earth and working-class, to no avail. But then his clueless daughter Dee walks in, made up in brownface as journalist Martina Martinez, managing to rile up the brown and black garbagemen just by calling the white union rep white boy and then screaming about being raped. Tucker here is the old man, trying to downplay the racial angle.
“Guys, it’s class, not race.” is also the schtick of the so-called dirtbag left, which some on our own side have thought about recruiting to at least a coalition. The difference is, of course, that unlike Tucker’s understanding of class divisions (which pits the middle and working class vs. the elites and a lumpenproletariat), the dirtbag left would be overjoyed to grind down the middle class into dust, with the tacit assistance of the elite and lumpenproletariat, while using the white working class as rhetorical cover against accusations of wokeness. At least Tucker’s class analysis makes sense. And indeed, reality looks like a racial conflict unfolding because of a preexisting class conflict, which is to say, nonwhite lumpenproles being used as a cudgel against working and middle-class Americans by the managerial elite. Or in other words, Mencius Modlbug’s old BHD vs. OV conflict. It’s as good a class analysis as I’ve seen. Moldbug, of course, has his own problems. He’s strangely silent about the ethnic makeup of the Brahmin caste, out of cowardice or mendacity (and his physiognomy suggests cowardice), but I think we can work with that basic model.
Carlson’s model, however, doesn’t allow for even the idea that the Brahmin caste (some of whom may or may not be Jews acting as Jews) are actively stoking the racial resentment of (brown) Helots and (black) Dalits against (white) Vaishyas in order to get one over on (white) Optimates. It’s evil, non-racial elites (but he puts the Jewish Paul Singer front and center) that are destroying the (mostly white) working and middle classes, for their own benefits, unlike responsible elites, such as the (white and decisively J-woke) Henry Ford. Oooh, I see what you did there. Clever boy, Tucker!
Here I want to draw your attention to something the great Theodore Dalrymple said in an interview with FrontPageMagazine:
Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse, when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to cooperate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.
With that passage of text in context, I ask you to reflect.
What is more humiliating? Acknowledging that Soviet industry is far superior to the decadent capitalist West, or affirming that feral mobs of sub-Saharan savages rampaging through the great cities of Europe and North America in honor of a drug-addled, fat criminal who blew a gasket while being arrested is actually a good and honorable thing? Is it more humiliating to put up, like Havel’s greengrocer, a sign proclaiming that the workers of the world should unite, or to suffer through struggle sessions of checking your privilege and being lectured by ugly women of color about how you, the overworked, underpaid, and hated white man have it all made?
I’ve spoken at length with the old commie workers and managers. They have a sense of humor about the late 80s, when everything became first shambolic, then went violently tits-up and they had to keep the dying communist economies going with (communist-made) duct tape, elbow grease, and sheer willpower. When the story of our time is written, I doubt people are going to have a sense of humor about the woke commissars, obese black women, and state-sponsored homosexuality. In fact, I suspect it’s going to be treated like the Prague Spring, or the crackdown on Polish and Hungarian nationalism. Just like speaking Russian in the streets of Warsaw and Budapest is a good way to get your ass kicked today, I suspect that using woke vocabulary in the future will lead to some serious beatdowns.
But back to the subject at hand. Are Tucker and Ann secretly redpilled? I don’t know. But ultimately, it doesn’t matter. Even if they are, just like the vegan wearing a fake leather jacket, they’re perpetuating the culture of cuckery, mendacity, and wokeness by not challenging it openly. Sure, their lives might get more difficult, but there’s a limit to the amount of cancellation the woke mob can inflict on a well-established public person, as the example of Michelle Malkin shows. Michelle openly consorts with groypers and she’s still standing. Still standing is good enough for me. Still standing means still winning in the game of guerrilla intellectualism. Counter-Currents has caught the full blast of deplatforming, especially the really nasty financial type, but we’re still standing. I won’t ask what Tucker and Ann are afraid of. I know exactly what they’re afraid of. The thing is, that thing is not that scary after all.
This brings me, at long last, to the real problem with Ann and Tucker and everyone else who thinks they can wear one face to the multitude and another one to himself — you eventually forget which one is real. Human beings are strange creatures who are capable of thought, and yet doing matters far more than thinking; and furthermore, doing forms thinking. The philosopher-king was a king before he was a philosopher and the warrior-poet was a warrior before he became a poet. One can only conclude that kingship leads to philosophy (or more accurately, wisdom) and that war leads to poetry (or more accurately, a direct link to the numinous). But mendacity and cowardice only ever led to ruin, sin, and a well-founded hatred of the self. To conceive of oneself as a powerless cur cowering under the all-crushing boot of wokeness might be accurate, but it is destructive of the self. It kills a man’s sense of honor and integrity.
For this reason, I cannot in good conscience recommend that you be secretly based and publicly woke. There are people on the Internet, even people I respect and admire (ahem, BAP, ahem) who will counsel you to do this. You’re welcome to try. I must admit I never had a choice in the matter. My redpilling was a public process, and my facedox were fairly easy to obtain even before I started appearing on a weekly livestream with Fullmoon Ancestry and Greg Johnson (hey, a brother gotta shamelessly shill). I am, as Bronze Age Pervert would put it, a “facefag.” The local Antifa have had my name and address for ages, and I’ve been on their shitlist since at least 2012. I live 50 meters from their local headquarters. They’re too chickenshit to even touch my car, even though they have my license plate number, too!
I’m not calling on you to stand for white nationalism — or any other Dissident Rightist ideology or precept — under your Christian names, with your faces, job descriptions, or addresses in the public eye. Our esteemed editor Dr. Greg Johnson is very right when he says that everyone should determine his own level of involvement. If you don’t want your face out there, with the label “white supremacist” attached to it, don’t hold these views in public. There will be consequences, not only economic. Today, people are losing their jobs over demonstrating in-group preference while white. Tomorrow, the state might get in on the fun of hunting Nazis. Be advised that you could be arrested for your views at some later date. All I’m going to say is that the psyche follows behavior. “Performatively woke while secretly based” will soon morph into “performatively woke while secretly cucked,” and ultimately, probably into “full-blown woke and gatekeeping against the based” as we’re observing with the weaker-willed and lower-IQ BAPists on Twitter.
There is a steep and severe price to be paid for being publicly based. But there’s also a steep price to be paid for wearing one face to the world and another to the infinitesimally small (by comparison) space where you’re free to be the evil racist your coworkers suspect you to be. Ultimately, there is no magic formula that will keep you sane and based at the same time. Each of us has to make the decision, within the parameters of choice we’ve been dealt, and insofar as one’s choice has meaning. More often than not, man is a plaything of crueler gods than we’d like to imagine, older than we consider possible, monsters of survival in the context of a cutthroat struggle for status in a complex and sprawling hierarchy, entities which the puny conscious mind foolishly believes it can control. Self-deception begins with a performative lie, with smiling and nodding while the powerskirt hens in HR lecture you about toxic masculinity, of silently affirming that yes, indeed, you as a white man are uniquely guilty for her obesity while Brobdingnagian Shaniqua showers racialized invective all over you in guttural ebonics.
Lies disfigure the liar, which is why woke insists on having us repeat them. No matter how manly your physique is, even if you get retweeted by BAP on handsome Thursday, you become Dalrymple’s emasculated liar, easy to control, in some ways evil himself, a blind weapon in the hands of woke, a mameluke, a eunuch slave soldier, at best, not repeating anything more dangerous than Tucker and Ann, at worst, a willing executioner of bolder men who’d otherwise be your friends.
If you want to support our work, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every Friday.
Don’t forget to sign up for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.
34 Comments
If Tucker did what the author suggests, he’d be fired and forgotten about.
You move the Overton Window by standing at its rightmost edge, not by LARPing far outside of it, Heimbach-style.
Tucker is the only voice in American media speaking for any sort of implicitly white interests. If we lost him, we’d simply have nothing.
I don’t watch TV, so I find the evolution of Tucker Carlson interesting, but also problematic. I’m old enough to recall him from the 90s. I despised him (I was already long racially awakened; a subscriber to Instauration, and a very early one to American Renaissance). At some point 20+ years ago Carlson published a dishonest editorial in the Wall Street Journal denouncing immigration reduction, at least for any sort of eugenic or racial preservationist reasons.
Eureka! Interrupting myself, a 60 second search found it:
https://americasvoice.org/content/the_intellectual_roots_of_nativism/
I DEFY any of you RACE LIBERALS (at CC?!) slobbering over Tucker Carlson to read this short, smarmy article (wanting to keep America American is … {shiver} … “nativism”) from 1997 and tell me it wasn’t written by a pure, anti-white-America-preservati0nist neocon (or maybe a “bleeding heart libertarian”, or especially race-cucked evangelical or Catholic).
Just read it, and feel a blast from the past showing exactly why America did nothing in the face of a new barbarian invasion, whose effects are now being felt in the toppling of statuary, and aggressive New Conquistador marches across our nation making sure we the indigenous recognize our new masters. Dan Stein, denounced then (and probably now, too) by Nazi idiots for being Jewish, is articulating the real case for immigration reduction, while “true Aryan” Cuckarlson is speaking like a Kristol or Podhoretz clone.
And that wasn’t the only time Cuckarlson trotted out the old eugenics scare to agitate the Christians.
OTOH, to imply that Ann Coulter is not courageous is ridiculously unfair. She has been a leading voice both naming black supremacism, and calling for an immigration invasion moratorium. She wrote “Adios America”, which is quite implicitly, if not wholly and explicitly, nationalist. It is unreasonable to expect her to go full white nationalist. Maybe she isn’t a white nationalist, but simply what I pretended to be for many decades (and still do depending on the context): an honest conservative who cares about conservatism and understands that immigration-driven, changing electoral dynamics doom the GOP (and therefore conservatism). I have been saying for 30+ years, if you want low taxes long term, you’d better halt immigration. That I want to end immigration for racial survival reasons, too, doesn’t mean a low tax conservative would be wrong to join me. And ultimately, all that matters is halting the invasion, not the reasons which ultimately led to our doing so.
I also don’t watch TV, and only know Tucker from what people write about him. That said, I would just quibble with you point holding him to what he said in the late 90s/early 2000s. I was reading Commentary, First Things (gag), and National Review (I was born in the mid eighties, to get a sense of my age), and I would have wholeheartedly stated all those things that he said. I think Tucker has probably become more red pilled as the situation has evolved, gotten out of control.
Cuckarlson may have improved over time, though my experience is that race is visceral: either you get it and quickly, or you never will. Maybe’s he’s better today – or maybe … he is truly opposing mass immigration because he thinks American citizens are getting economically shafted (correct), and he is worried about Marxist revolution if we don’t reduce wealth and income inequality (correct) – and he recognizes that the most conservative way to do so is via stopping the c0nstant introduction of new bodies (job competitors) into the labor force from outside the nation via immigration (correct). Or maybe he’s just worried about the electoral consequences (dooming the GOP and conservatism) of NOT stopping the invasion (again, correct).
I doubt, however, that he has seen the light on race. The smarmy neocon who wrote that 1997 article was not stupid or ill-informed; he just wasn’t someone who either cared about White America, or could handle inegalitarian, or any type of biological, realities. People like him did a lot of damage to the small number of true conservatives and nationalists fighting for our people back in the 1980s-2000s. Dissension about immigration among the ranks of self-styled “conservatives” was a big reason why nothing was ever done to halt the invasion. I know. I was born at the start of the 1960s, and have been awakened since the mid-70s. I saw the tail-end of the Old White America (even if I had to suffer growing up under mandatory racial integration at school), and have lived through the whole (and ongoing and accelerating) revolutionary transformation of my country. Without the Cuckarlsons, whether neocon, evangelical, or libertarian, running interference within the GOP against moderate nationalists like John Tanton, Dan Stein and Pat Buchanan (let alone the harder variety like Sam Francis, Jared Taylor, etc), we would have halted the invasion long ago – and saved America.
On an unrelated note, it might interest you to know that First Things has actually gotten much better ideologically since the 90s. It still virtue signals to the race Left on occasion (eg, that mendacious piece last year defaming Sam Francis by some Cuckhristian named Matthew Rose), but it is willing to reconsider certain topics (eg, immigration) that were verboten under Neuhaus in the 90s.
They are red-pilled but they both also want to change something and they both are in the position to influence directly the political scene. They are actors on it, not just spectators and commentators.
If you want to change something it is mandatory that you aim first at the smallest/easiest change possible (which serves your overall/long term/ plan). Otherwise you ask to be opposed with whole force that the opposition is capable.
Their minimalist, gradual, approach is the best for their situations We on net can talk about the grand plan-scheme because we are mere spectators, we can’t cause any real change in how this play is played.
Much sound sense here. We should all seek to advance our beliefs as best we can, which, in the short term, means red-pilling as many of our fellow whites as we can. Tucker Carlson and Ann Coulter both do that as best they can. It makes absolutely no sense to give up a platform on Fox News where you can tell some of the truth to millions who would not otherwise hear it, to preach on the internet to a relative handful of the converted, who know the truth already.
Only liberals can go on television and show what they really are, all non liberals will be quickly removed because if they speak the truth , they will be perceived as anti semitic.
I understand the point being made here, but remember, Tucker Carlson replaced Bill O’Reilly’s spot on Fox News, and Bill O’Reilly is the quintessential classically liberal conservative Boomer. Tucker tiptoes into dog-whistling territory whenever he talks about the middle class and protecting american jobs. Bill O’Reilly shilled for big business and Israel.
Michelle Malkin is great. But she doesn’t have the most watched news program on TV. She’s largely forgotten by most right-of-Center people, other than the 5-10% of us, give or take, who are dissidents and spend our time on the internet.
I will say this, however…Tucker could probably give a lot of Fox News viewers a reason to spend more time on the internet if he’d start his own internet show and resign from Fox News. If he did that, and moved further right, he’d have an even bigger impact than he already does .
Lyrically brilliant essay. All pundits of real inspiration hide their power level to a large degree because they are spokesmen for their demographic of origin or adoptive choice in some cases. They temper their public expression to move things incrementally in the proper direction for their constituencies. For example, neocons if they could act with impunity(they almost could for a while) would have us invade Iran and devise the most hideous torments for the people there. Patrick Buchanan would close the borders, bring home the troops and declare the pope president, etc. we are all loyal to decaying degrees to our widening family tribe circles, and even within our own families as we jockey for position of honor. We all wear masks all the time to everyone. It’s basic to the human condition.
Politicians on the other hand are like antennae which detect voter sentiment and the will of donor interests, although I presume they must have some ideological underpinnings, the conservatives probably more than the liberals among whites. The most successful are the ones most skilled at discerning and appealing to these political forces for their context of time and place. Their loyalty is self promotion though, for the most part.
I think I know what technology it sprung from, so I can guess when it would have been devised. Tell me in a 5 letter word if you know! Explorations are ongoing. Unless they have vast private technologies we know nothing of! “They could do things mortals might not see the possibility of.” I am just surprised no one else finds it interesting or appears to have any curiosity.
Ya know that power of the maiar and certain high elves I told you guys about in Tolkien? That’s what that symbolizes too. Y’all tell me something now.
5 letter word = satan? (or demon)
If so… it would be an almost scary synchronicity ! I have only these days come across the interpretation of political leadership success as connected to “demonic” inspiration. I find very interesting that you point out the antenna-aspect of politicians
… long story short, I came across a book-pdf on the internet pointing out that Hitler is essentially a phenomenon of spiritistic evocation. Hence the charisma, hence the ability to feel the crowd.
To my shame, I have never seen this aspect of politics. Now it seems obvious to me (there are also important aspects of group soul… strange phenomena that are rarely talked about… ! ) .
Slan too!?
“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small”
Mr. Jeelvy seems to have missed the corollary to this (true) statement:
“Political incorrectness is Nationalist propaganda writ small” (emphasis on “writ small”)
The assumption that paying the bare minimum lip-sevice to multiracialists is going to somehow make you “un-believe” everything you know to be true is as erroneous as the notion that the subversive neocons paying lip-service to whites is going to turn them to our side.
But if lip-service to political correctness didn’t corrupt the country, what did? The trend of political correctness withered discourse because the conservatives, while paying lip-service to it, never proceeded to inject Nationalist (as we think of it) discourse on top of the lip-service and did not push boundaries (back) to the right; they never took an active role in combating it and employed a passive, minimalist response. But people like Tucker Carlson and Ann Coulter DO inject Nationalist ideals and push the envelope of discourse to the right, which does not give ground to marxists but instead secures more for the likes of Counter-Currents fans to make public inroads. I’m not denouncing those who do go public with the full broadcast of White Nationalist ideas because they have a great role to play, but a mixed, layered approach to changing the Overton window is significantly more effective than pure, blunt honesty, and our enemies have proven it.
There’s a difference between giving lip service to what power supports and giving lip service to what power opposes. We are social beings and we know where the wind blows.
Also, I am not certain that man cannot unknow what he knows to be true. See my essay on ramzpaul and the purple pill for more details.
Oh, I understand full well that a redpilled person can get re-brainwashed, and I’ve read your Ramzpaul essay before and found it very interesting. On that note you may want to look into the Chinese tactics for manipulating POW’s in the Korean War (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1272180537541656577.html).
Back on-topic, there is no approach that is going to drop defections to zero, so I don’t think the existence of defectors invalidates the approach. We’ve cycled through so many grifters and e-celebs who break as the pressure turns up, and no advice or tactic is going to stop that cycle.
I will agree that people should not be “publicly woke” because anything that gets called “woke” is FAR more than the bare minimum for social acceptability, even in college. Every year in America you can get away with saying more and more in general social circles without rejection. Many people put on the “Oh I’m just a right-leaning libertarian” act, while just-so-happening to know a lot about population genetics and anthropology, and I don’t think it cucks them out. After all, don’t most White Nationalists become so by degrees over time? And it isn’t that soul crushing when you can go online at any point and just start mouthing off about the JQ, holocoasters, and FBI crime stats and find others who agree. It seems to me that the best solution to the defection problems you describe is a greater emphasis on networking and in-movement bonding, preferably IRL and in private to the extent that it’s possible, which you’ve stated elsewhere as being important.
But I am strongly against any stance taken against tactful activity. Your essay above does not extrapolate on a better approach for those in the position of Coulter or Carlson, and comes off as hollow. Take the fellow who made a joke about George Floyd being drug free for a whole month. Did you see the replies to him? All these whites who followed him broke ranks and threw him under the bus because he played his cards too loose, thereby cementing themselves even further against us, while pro-Whites got nothing out of it. By contrast, Tucker’s audience, by being retained, is much warmer and much more agreeable to pro-white ideas, even if they don’t know the ideas are pro-white. Example: (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tucker-carlson-preaches-against-moral-decay-of-onlyfans-webcam-site-our-daughters-are-selling-themselves-for-food-and-rent/ar-BB15mvLo)
It lets us get more of the implicitly pro-white stuff popularized now while guys like you work out the long-term game-plan for explicitly pro-white political gains.
You raise great points. I will retort that a lot of the guys pretending to be right-wing libertarians started acting exactly like right-wing libertarians under pressure, specifically during the corona pandemic. I myself have found myself defaulting to libertarian and vanilla NRx views under pressure, even though I should have known better. Response heuristics are not driven by deep beliefs, but by repeated behavior and public behavior, I’d wager, is more impactful than private behavior on the formation of such heuristics.
Behavior under pressure, when the rubber hits the road as the yankee says, is what counts in the long run.
“Self-deception begins with a performative lie, with smiling and nodding while the powerskirt hens in HR lecture you about toxic masculinity, of silently affirming that yes, indeed, you as a white man are uniquely guilty for her obesity while Brobdingnagian Shaniqua showers racialized invective all over you in guttural ebonics.”
Great stuff! … I’m just a White working class boy, but I do think the refusal to give an inch only hastens to push the Overton window in our direction. It’s like a group of people standing around a pool on a cold winters day. Once one or two jump in, the rest will follow suit. They just have to be shown the way.
On being “Performatively woke while secretly based,” I’ve seen no end of advice on the internet for this stance. Especially, I see advice directed to college students telling them to keep their heads down in school, write the papers their professors want to see, and get out with their degree. I have also seen this advice directed at professionals making their living in a corporate context. All of this comes with a terrible price, as recounted in this essay. My advice: if caught in a situation like this, don’t perform. Remain silent. Use the ambiguity of silence to retain your dignity. Of course, the woke mob already knows this, and that is why they say that silence is violence. But in these awkward academic and corporate environments, everything is so fake and artificial that silence often feels like a breath of fresh air.
What, Tucker is supposed to talk like Greg Johnson? Does anyone remember what happened to Tuck’s wife when she was home alone one evening in Nov. 2018?
Re “The philosopher-king was a king before he was a philosopher” :
Plato did indeed suggest that option but he also gave an alternative: philosophers must become kings. I’ve always been amused by the image of a sage who just wanted to spend his time contemplating the eternal archetypes or solving tricky geometrical problems being dragged kicking and screaming to 10 Downing Street but then reluctantly accepting that his duty was to serve the needs of the people.
The idea of the king becoming wise through ruling comes from Nassim Taleb, rather than Plato. It is certainly better borne out by history than philosophers becoming good kings. In fact, rule-by-philosopher sounds very much like managerialism or bureaucracy to me.
I’m sure you are right about modern philosopher types but I suspect that many an old-time Greek or Roman “lover-of-wisdom” may have been more like our idea of an Indian sanyasi-cum-Brahmin scholar.
Plotinus tried to interest the Emperor Gallienus in building a ‘City of Philosophers’, whose inhabitants would live under the constitution set out in Plato’s Laws.
Back in the day when The Church kicked butt there were men like philosopher Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464) who was also a hard-working and effective reformer and administrator.
They were both “mystics”. Could that be the missing ingredient? Now if you could only persuade Greg Johnson to take up meditation . . .
I forgot to mention that Greg Johnson is the obvious exception and he should be immediately made Emperor of America.
Time for a Nationalist Party. Maybe Ann Coulter as chairwoman…
Ann Coulter is witty, waspish and has a huge following. I suspect she may never endorse national socialism but she gets much right and argues cogently.
One could say much the same of the UK figures Melanie Phillips, Peter Hitchens and the soon-to-be-immolated television historian David Starkey.
These figures are despised by the woke left who realise they are a threat, for they expose some if not all of the lies and nonsense of BLM, and they have the ear of the man in the street.
Let’s not make the error of attacking these people: we can leave that to our enemies on the far left.
Spot on, we really should not be purity spiraling against Ann Coulter or Tucker Carlson, who have both displayed courage and spoken truth to power (unfortunately President Trump hasn’t listened to them, but that’s his fault, not theirs).
Let’s consult the Book of Esther, which is a foundation stone of Jewish political practice to this day, and also of the Festival of Purim.
Vashti, the queen of King Ahasuerus, is proud and uncompromising, and so he divorces her. The Jew Mordecai helps the Jewess Esther to elevate herself to be the new queen. Ether and Mordecai win favor and earn the trust of the king. The story ends with the king, acting at the suggestions of Esther, having Haman the enemy of the Jews hanged, and with the Jews massacring Haman’s agents and supporters. Mordecai becomes the king’s second-in-charge and he is able to benefit the Jews and their descendants.
In this Godless Bible story, the gentile king is a mere puppet of whoever knows how to flatter and please him. Apart from that, we see clear opposed pairs and opposite fates. Vashti the goy is divorced, Esther the Jewess is enthroned. Haman the goy is hanged; Mordecai the Jew gains the power to decide which race will prosper and which will not. The Jews are victorious; their enemies are massacred. In sum, Jewish courtier skills chased goyish pride out of the arena, with devastating consequences.
As Whites, we like frankness, straight dealing, self-respect and so on. But according to the Bible the way of the court Jew wins. Court Jews have confirmed this in practice for thousands of years.
In the court of President Trump, daddy’s precious daughter (a converted Jewess) is held to be all-wonderful, her husband (a well-connected Jew) is entitled to access to the oval office, and whoever does not flatter and please the Donald is cast out. If Donald Trump has a governing philosophy beyond that, it is vague. (Maybe as vague as the answer to the question, what race did King Ahasuerus feel himself to be a part of and loyal to?)
President Trump’s failure to protect American Whites from the ongoing brown invasion supported by the Jews puts White courtiers who want to flatter President Trump and so retain influence but who also want Whites to thrive on the horns of a dilemma.
Ann Coulter, the author of In Trump We Trust, used to be a part of the extended court of President Trump, speaking mostly for the interests of Whites. But she was cut off from access when she kept insisting that Donald Trump keep his promise to build a mighty wall, a promise she regards as vital for the survival of her nation.
It is not obvious that Ann Coulter was wrong to try to have it both ways as long as she could, flattering the President and retaining influence but also speaking loudly and forcefully to a man who was not listening to gentle suggestions unless they came from Jews.
Now Tucker Carlson is on the horns of a similar dilemma.
According to the essay Self-Deception, the right resolution of the dilemma is simple and obvious. Tucker Carlson should let frankness and forthrightness be his guides.
I am not confident that the triumph of the court Jews and the exclusion of any Whites who speak for Whites from White House influence will be short-term and limited to the personal comfort and career prospects of Tucker Carlson.
I am not comfortable with the consequences of a scaled-up Book of Esther applied to America.
Instead of demanding that modern-day Vashtis and Hamans put everything right by being more fearless and forthright, perhaps we should try to change our mental frame.
We need to think more about ordering our affairs so that individual white courtiers are not placed in impossible positions like this, out-matched by an ethnic-racial lobby, and caught between demanding the minimum requirements of White survival and the humiliating requirement to flatter rulers who are willing to betray Whites in matters of the deepest consequence in return for the most superficial inducements.
The point of optics cucking should be to get yourself into a position of influence or power and then go full 1488 with no apologies when you’re as high as you can go. Tucker has done as much good as he can possible do with his civnat spiel. It’s time for him to name the Jew, get fired, and go independent. He won’t though because he really is a civnat cuck, not just pretending to be one.
You write
“I’ve been flabbergasted by the popularity of men like Tucker Carlson and Ann Coulter.”
I assume you have not made a mistake here and that you intend to insult Ann Coulter’s looks. She is not a man; she is a gorgeous woman. Yes, she is tall, so what?
I am 64 and she is 59. So what. She is still gorgeous and better looking than most women 30 years younger than she is.
There is another third path, the path of the spy. I look at it as a game of espionage, and find amusement in it. If we’re going to be treated as public enemy #1 we might as well comport ourselves like badasses.
I don’t know about Warsaw, but in Budapest, no.
I come to CC on Saturdays just to get my weekly dose of disaster tourism.
For Warsaw that might’ve been the case in the 90’s, but nowadays people are getting used to the sound of russian/ukrainian.
They’re doing what the left has been doing for decades. They’re hiding their more radical views.
Do you really think the left in the 1980s actually promoted child genital mutilation and gay marriage? Of course not. They’d have been shut down entirely. Very few of them were even prepared to promote tolerance of homosexuality in the 1980s. I know. I was there.
In the 1990s they started pushing for the acceptance for homos, then in the noughties gay marriage, and now forcing “sex changes” on kids.
Neither Carlson nor Coulter are pretending to be “woke”. Coulter in particular is less politically correct now than she was a decade or so ago (although that may be because the culture has moved in an even more loony left direction). The question is whether they can shift things in our direction. But for either to espouse the views here means being shut down.
You attack where you can.
Time will tell.
I like both Tucker and Anne and I understand that people shift their views and opinions throughout their lives, as experience dictates.
I think that their cucking is strategic and yes, their coming out of the conservative inc would bring a deluge of numbers to our side (normies, at least), but the overton window shifts slowly in the public eye, though much quicker in the privacy of our minds.
Prejudiced people are more likely to still be in the civnat camp and postjudiced people should have both feet firmly planted in the redpill side of the border of race relations.
At some point, even Tucker and Anne are going to have to say “I can’t do this anymore and to hell with the subterfuge”. Hopefully well before the boot of globohomo is stamping its engraved XOXO on their faces.