Monday, February 27, 2017

- The Upside Of Mass Hysteria

I got up really early this morning, and it’s become my habit on these days to go back and correct at least a few of my gazillion spelling and punctuation errors in my last few posts.

But rereading and correcting my stuff today, got me thinking about things. What an utterly weird moment in American history this is.

The American left has spent the last decade struggling to get the boot of government onto the necks of people they disagree with. And when those people looked up at the boot and told them they didn’t like it, by peacefully electing someone who promised to remove it, they instantly accused them of being the kind of people who want to put the boot of government onto the necks of Americans.

When in all of human history has mass delusion and emotional projection, played such an important role in such a broad swath of human events?

And at exactly the same moment, the most socially ascendant political movement in the US (maybe in the entire western world) is being run by precisely no-one. When asked if they are the leaders, the very first thing it’s various shapers and architects say is “Absolutely not”. And then they continue to do what they do, all the while trying very hard to avoid any individual notoriety.

This same utterly leaderless yet still socially ascendant movement, is then accused by its opponents of being a prospective tyranny, when the only actual political changes that it’s ‘leaders’ are asking for, is to please close the door and leave us all alone.

For this their opponents call them of being Nazis and pedophiles, use violence against them, hold riots, set fires, break windows, and make it socially acceptable to ‘punch them in the face’. And the members of our “News” media takes the oppositions seriously, while doing their very best to help demonize this leaderless, socially ascendant movement.

This is a movement that everyone disavows and that no one belongs to, that is still changing everything that American (and western) politics is all about. It’s actually run by a bunch of modest and soft spoken middle aged men and senior citizens, all in modest suburban homes, who spend their days staring into glowing screens and pecking at keyboards. But to their opponents, they are describes as polishing their jackboots, frog marching around the family room and gazing into the mirror at themselves while holding their combs under their nose like Charlie Chaplin.

The left hates them. The old right hates them. The press hates them. The Neo-cons hate them. The lobbyists, bureaucrats, and the ‘deep state’ all hate them. The government dependent clients of the left all hate them. And they are still the ones who are accused of promoting hate.

Honestly, it’s surreal. No one in Hollywood has this much imagination. And though Hollywood is where the movement’s greatest and most vocal critics come from, and they are all treated like the greatest thinkers of our age, they can’t even get their own award show right.

What a world. I feel lucky and blessed to be present to witness it. And I can’t wait to see what happens next.

Sunday, February 26, 2017

- How To Find The Real Alt-Right

How do I find out about the alt-right? What does the alt-right want? What does the alt-right stand for? All valid questions. It’s time to start getting you some answers.

The Democrats have chosen a machine politician as their new party leader. And because they have, they’re probably going to lose their most devout base. These are that gang of listless and empty-headed zealots you see out there burning cars, screaming at police, and getting ridiculed in split screen by Tucker Carlson. Those people will either fracture the party and do something on their own, or they’ll increase their dosage, spend more time with their therapists, and forget to vote on election day. But this casts our situation on the political right in a new and interesting light for me.

We’ve have a fracturing of our own ongoing, but we chose the outsider as the leader. This turned out to be the right move in the short term, but it could still go either way in the long term. And it’s time to start thinking about how we position ourselves to reunify the right and make ourselves stronger, instead of fracturing further and allowing the left a fresh inroad. We need a merger. And mergers are something I know a little about. But for that to happen, you need to start looking at what the alt-right really is.

Steve Bannon was cheered at CPAC but Richard spencer was shunned. Both of them have been accused of being a part of the dreaded Alt-Right. You probably don’t know all that much about what the alt-right is, but it’s a lot more than what you’ll ever read on twitter. And though you might have tried to find out about it, the problem there is that in order to avoid being discredited by the coastal media through Alinsky-ite tactics, the alt-right is an explicitly leaderless movement, so they think a lot of things.

You’ve seen these blowups already I’m sure. On the alt-right we see it as a game of media whack a mole. As soon as someone starts to make serious mainstream inroads, their reputation is trashed over some little incident that’s heavily spun and blown way out of proportion.

First is was Richard Spencer. (actually … the very first was probably John Derbyshire, or maybe even Peter Brimelow) Richard's NPI conference featured “roman salutes” from a few of it’s members. The media lambasted Richard for this even though he didn’t actually do the salute. And as a result, he’s still trying to cobble his public image back together. Richard has since been falsely branded ‘a Nazi’ and the left has declared open season on punching him.

Then more recently there was the explosion of Milo Yiannopolous, the outspoken gay provocateur and free speech advocate who’s scheduled speaking engagement at Berkeley caused a riot. Somewhere in his past he said some things which were very loosely interpreted by the mainstream press as being in favor of pedophilia, and in the process lost his CPAC speaking gig and a lucrative book deal.

Ask them and both of these men will tell you that they are very much NOT the leader’s of the alt-right. So how do you learn about a movement when the media makes it impossible for anyone to stand up as it’s leader without having their career destroyed for their trouble?

I’ve moved in these circles for a while now, so I’d like to clear it up for you a little. These are the people and places you should go to, if you want to understand the alt-right and what it “really” wants for America, instead of the frog marching caricature of it, offered up by the Mainstream press.

The first place you should go to read about the alt right is here. Vox Day is very explicitly NOT the leader of the alt-right, but he’s one of the more influential voices. He was involved in the Gamergate movement, which was the very first push back against the social justice warriors, that actually succeeded on a large scale, and in that regard is something like the architect of the movement’s unstructured structure. Vox’s rules have been largely embraced by the bulk of the movement, and he’s extremely well spoken and well read. And as a devout Christian, he offers an excellent perspective on the explicitly pro-Christian version of the alt-right’s views.

The second place you should go is the Amren website and Youtube channel, to learn all you can about the godfather of the Alt-right, Jared Taylor. Jared has confronted the issues of concern to the alt-right for longer than anyone, and has done so with more grace and courage than most of us could muster on any topic. He continues to be the movement’s most prolific and well spoken advocate. Richard Spencer may have coined the term alt-right, but Jared Taylor invented the movement that adopted it. And I’ve met no one in the alt-right who wouldn’t defer to his encyclopedic knowledge and expertise.

He’s been at this a very long time so you might have heard of Jared over the years from the usual media suspects. But the real Jared is a very different man than what you’ve been told in the press, and he’s conveying a very different message. His policy ambitions are very modest, he explicitly rejects the use of violence of any kind (except in personal self-defense), and has no ambitions to empower the state to do anything to anyone, that they wouldn’t otherwise be willing to do on their own.

There are no boxcars in Jared’s future, and no camps and ovens. All he’s really advocating is a temporary (albeit longish term) cessation of immigration, and the freedom of all Americans to associate with whom they chose in the manner they chose to. For this the media has been lying about him for more than a decade, but even that he takes far better than almost anybody. If you’re only going to listen to one person to figure out what the alt-right is about in America, then Jared Taylor is the guy it should be.

Peter Brimelow runs the website Vdare.com where he publishes a variety of thoughtful writers from the alt-right. Among his better known contributors are Ann Coulter, John Debyshire, and Paul Kersey, all of whom are worth your time. Ann you know of course, and you probably remember john Derbyshire when he was unceremoniously defenestrated from National Review, for failing to toe the party line on the overt anti-white racism in the mainstream press.

Then there is Unz.com, home of the inimitable quant blogger Steve Sailer. Though his interests wander far afield from politics, you should read everything Steve writes. On the quant blogger side I’d also strongly recommend you have a look at the audacious Epigone. From them you can read about the data the Alt-right is looking at and make decisions about it for yourself. Unz also publishes the writing of Robert Weissberg who’s criticism on academia shouldn’t be missed.

There is also Takimag.com and the group blog ace of spades HQ, all of which can offer a very clear eyed and alt-right perspective on the events of the day. Often with very entertaining consequences. They may not be explicitly promoting the alt-right concept, but their writing is very alt-like and like myself, they probably represent a good sampling of what the alt-right audience for the rest of the people I’ve mentioned are thinking.

Then we move over to Youtube. Video is a great format, but where the alt-right is concerned, it’s also the format of choice for those who want to co-opt the movement and make it serve their personal goals. Milo and Richard Spencer both have a meaningful Youtube presence. So you have to take the video contributors with a grain of salt. And excluding Milo and Richard, there are a few other names you should know.

With that said, RamZPaul is in my opinion, the easiest of the alt-right contributors to watch. His videos are short, they stick to the point, and are often funny in a ‘midwestern nice’ sort of way. His channel is the alt-right reduced to pleasant, informative, and entertaining sound bites.

Stefan Molyneaux runs a channel which is more like Alt-right talk radio. He’s extremely informative and has a wide cross section of interviews of the names above listed. If the alt-right ever launches it’s own media platforms to get away from the slander and misrepresentation of the mainstream press, Stefan will no doubt play a big part in it. He’s open minded, fair, and offers less artificial spin than anything you get from your cable box.

Red Ice radio and Red Ice TV are both widely available on Youtube. They are produced in Sweden so it isn’t an exclusively American venue, but it gives you a good eye toward the international component of the cultural changes that the western world is experiencing, and often covers explicitly American concerns. All of it very much anti-globalist.

Then there is Gavin McInnes , the Scottish born Canadian media personality who is tough to squeeze into a box. It’s so tough that he can’t be found in a single location on youtube, and though he has his own channel, you’re probably going to have more luck finding him on Rebel Media, a Canadian focused Alt-right channel.

Gavin was a Fox News Contributor and one of the founders of Vice media, but was ‘asked to depart’. I’ve met Gavin a few times and spoken to him at length. He was the NYU speaker responsible for giving us all Triggly-Prof, and I see him as a kind of merry troublemaker, more interested in having a good time laughing at the idiots of the left, than explicitly making a point. Still, he offers a very alt-right-ish perspective. Of everyone I’ve mentioned, I think he might be the one who is most likely to have a mainstream media blowup in his near future.

There are a wide variety of other alt-right contributors as well, all with their own sometimes large following. These include people like Mike Cernovich, Sargon of Akkad, and a big long list of others that you can find by punching the words Alt-right into a Youtube search. They may feel differently about it, but I see these guys as riding the elephant rather than telling it where to go, much like myself. But by all means watch their videos and decide for yourself.

For me, the list above constitutes a pretty good look at the people who are generating the ideas that drive the movement rather than making the most of it for self promotion. They are the distributed brains of the alt-right, and aren’t going anywhere no matter what the media says about them.

The merge of the alt-right and classic conservatism is obviously going to take some time, and it won’t be seamless. It will involve a cross section of positions from both groups. But we’re at the point now where you shouldn’t be dismissing the alt-right out of hand. You should at least know what aspects of their philosophy and thinking you agree with and which you don’t. These are the guys you should be reading, if you want to figure that out.

The alt-right is not a twitter feed, or a cartoon frog. It’s not David Duke and some psycho sitting in a basement dreaming of camps and ovens. It’s serious men with a serious vision for the future of America. And it’s in all our interests to start giving it the serious look it deserves, even if the mainstream press won’t.

Saturday, February 25, 2017

- A Modest Confession

I’ve often said that I don’t envy people very much, and that’s true as far as it goes. I’m never possessed of so much envy that it makes me angry at the person who is the object of my envy. But there are circumstances that others have found themselves in that I do envy, a little.

No one’s life is perfect, no one knows that better than me. But there is often a little bip here and a setting there that I have looked and said “Gee I wish I could do something like that.” But on those rare occasions where I went to the trouble of trying to get into an equivalent situation of my own, I got into the details of it and realized that they were probably paying costs for their circumstance that I never knew about. And that inevitably meant that for me, it probably wasn’t worth the trouble after all.

But, if that qualifies as envy then so be it. And I have a confession to make on precisely that score. Until just a few days ago I actively envied John Derbyshire. (I know you're chuckling right now John, but I mean it.)

There are things about John’s modest life as a semi-retired scribbler that I find very appealing. He lives a life of the mind, which I suspect was always the area where he was most comfortable. He works on his own schedule, saying only things he believes. His soul is not for sale or even lease. He reads, and learns, and then opines on his learning, and people PAY him to do that. What an idyllic little existence that sounds like.

Sure, it’s a modest living, which is supplanted in John’s case by other income sources. And it’s been made slightly more modest these days, thanks to the honesty and realism of his positions and the contempt that most mainstream sources hold for such things. But it always struck me as a nice, intellectually and morally consistent way to add a few tiny shekels to the till by doing something he would almost certainly be doing for free anyway. It truly does seem enviable.

I could talk about a mild envy of his personal life too without violating any confidence. He lives in a pleasant home with his lovely and charming wife and dog. He has a son in whom he can and does take much pride, and a beautiful and clever (if somewhat ungrounded) daughter who may vex him occasionally, but who he otherwise utterly adores. His situation occasionally reminds me of that song from one of the very few musicals I can tolerate, 1776 – the song about the ‘cool cool considerate men’. All very enviable if you ask me.

So the other day I was thinking about John and his comparatively well ordered and more or less happy life. And that little devil with his talk of envy hopped up onto my shoulder and said:

“Hey you know… you’ve been writing this garbage blog for a decade. Now you and I know that it’s mostly witless charmless dreck, but your readership is rising again so maybe you’re still fooling someone out there. And I have to admit, after several thousands posts, one or two are not completely insufferable and insipid. Maybe you should try to dip a tiny toe into the water of actually getting paid to do it. You never know. Maybe if you’re a little more careful about things you can turn it into the kind of modest and compromise free supplement that your friend John has.”

Thus spoke the devil.

The relative modesty of this ambition made it seem more reasonable to me, and that’s when I made my big mistake. I foolishly listened to this voice, and began looking into blog monetization.

This blog is on blogger.com, which is a Google product. Google has a complementary product called adsense, and they make it very easy to apply for ad coverage on your blog. That sort of thing never leads to much money but I wasn’t looking for much and it was so easy, I thought I’d dip a toe. I applied, and within just a few hours I was unceremoniously rejected. Their reason: “Not enough original content.”

The ideas here may be crap. They may be the thoughtless ranting’s of a middle aged man upset about the way the world has changed around him. They may factually incorrect, and you may adamantly disagree with them. But they are all original. True I post other people’s videos and partially excerpt the work of others as hyperlinks, but I always cite sources, and virtually always include my own commentary on the original. So this specific reason for rejection puzzled me.

So I poked around a little in the adsense help forum and eventually got into a conversation with a very helpful ‘expert’, who explained what the real reason probably is. He/She (it was never made clear) explained that Adsense prefers blogs which are suited to the sensibilities of 8 year olds. Even the mention of sex, porn, or rape will disqualify you. Just the use of profanity and the single word F*** will result in accounts being turned off and monies being confiscated. And this, [s]he said, is probably what was really going on.

Oh. OK said I. That I can get. I’m not advocating for or posting examples of porn or rape, and in truth I’m not personally in favor of either. I’m in favor of sex as are most of us, but this is hardly penthouse forum. But the very helpful expert gave me the impression that just recognizing the existence of these topics and having an adult conversation about them is enough to disqualify you from adsense coverage.

To this I basically shrugged, thanked the ‘expert’ for explaining the rules, and resigned myself to this being a commercial channel that was closed to me. Fair enough. But then another expert chimed in with a much more disheartening criticism. This other ‘expert’ said that my blog was ‘a copyright infringement nightmare’.

I don’t know much about copyright law. Honestly, I don’t know anything really. I always assumed that if I just say that Joe Blow said X and linked the place where he said it, I was covered. I do occasionally rip off slightly bigger ideas from friends (John is one notable example) but I jokingly credit those as well. To my knowledge I have never openly stolen someone else’s idea or description of an idea, or un-accredit prose and claimed it was my own, which is what I thought copyrights are about.

But it wasn't the accusation of doing something I find ‘wrong’ that bothered me. What bothered me was that I’ve now come to believe that I really have been very amateurish about all this. And though I’m not sure, I think the world where you are paid to write things or say things, might be just as heavily regulated as the finance business. Or even if it isn’t regulated precisely, there are very complicated commercial rules that must be adhered to, which I never understood or even thought about.

There are lots of rules that the amateurs know in finance, and I’m afraid they have corollaries in publishing. Don’t insider trade. Don’t exceed your margins. Everyone knows these. But then there is a layer that only we insiders know. Don’t ‘front run’. Don’t ‘bang the close’. Those things don’t always have clear definitions (though we all know them when we see them) and I’m afraid that publishing world has rules similar to these that I’ve been breaking all along. If you don’t want to monetize your words that’s one thing, and the economic rules will let you slide. No one is going to come after me when there isn’t any money involved. But if you do want to, you have to know and adhere to all of them.

Which then also means that inevitably you have to make a choice between making money at something, and doing it to make a cultural or political point. Maybe it’s just a process issue, where if I link a youtube video instead of assuming the original commercial poster has already addressed the fair use issue, I’d be fine. But it does all make me wonder what precisely is on the minds of all the guys at National Review who are trying to both things. I’ve always given them the benefit of the doubt, but now I wonder if they aren’t on the inside of the media bubble surrounded by hostile lawyers always looking for a twitch from them. that kind of thing has got to make a difference in what you say.

Anyway the conclusion I’ve come to is that if I’m going to keep doing this, and it seems like I am, then I’m going to have to keep doing it for free, because according to the commercial rules of publishing, that’s probably exactly what it’s worth.

Friday, February 24, 2017

- The Latest Thing In Body Armor

Researchers at North Carolina State have developed a metallic foam that has shown really impressive properties when it comes to the potential for new, ultra-light weight body armor.

Kevlar is nice, and pretty light, but to make a Kevlar vest really work you have to add steel plates to it, and that's heavy. Sometimes very heavy. But this stuff is a fraction of the weight of plate steel, and early testing makes it seem like it can stop bullets better. In combat, that means more bullets, more water, or more of whatever it is you actually need to do the job done.

Very Exciting.

- Bridge & Tunnel Of Love

In manhattan, the folks from the outer boroughs and NJ are referred to as the "Bridge and Tunnel" people. This lovely story is from Brooklyn:

Breakdancers pummel commuter refusing to make space for performance on Brooklyn train

One more reason to avoid the Subway.

- Media Hysteria

Sean Spicer called a 'gaggle' news briefing and hand picked the attendees, excluding CNN the NYTimes and Politico. Time magazine then refused to attend. Spice had a story about 'space' and it's technically correct. But the story is being talked up like it's the end of the Constitution.

The fake news issue, I've discussed before. It's the artificial negative framing of the stories which is at issue for Trump, and the media is blatantly and obvious guilty of this. "Asteroid to Strike Earth" is fine, "Women and Minorities hardest hit" is Fake. Pretty straight forward if you ask me.

CNN has already said that they're just "reporting facts the Whitehouse doesn't like". You would imagine that people who work with words for a living would generally understand them better, but apparently that isn't so. Still, this is where we are.

For entertainment purposes, I like the idea of Trump simply excluding those news agencies that clearly have no intention of treating him or his team fairly. But I honestly don't think this sort of tactic will help much. No one puts baby in the corner, as they say. And CNN doesn't need access to the President or his Press Secretary to make up their version of the news. And I don't imagine being treated like the bad kid is going to make them stop. I know it never did for me when I was a bad kid.

The pressure on the press should really be coming from us. The people who consume the news. But ironically, I know MORE people who watch CNN now in order to see their spin than I did before. And fairness is off the table for them. They're too invested in the idea of themselves as important.

Now obviously I'm no expert in how to handle an angry and openly hostile press, but I think it would be more effective to make them invisible. Let them attend the briefings but simply don't see them. They'll cry, stamp their feet, and hold their breath. But you know how kids are. And when they're hysterical, you just have to wait it out.

- Let's Talk About The Jews

I go on and on about fallacious accusations of Racism and Sexism by the left and recently complained about Jonah Goldberg's and NAtional Review's water carrying for them. But if there is a topic among our soft spoken "allies" on the right that's even more out of bounds than those, it's Anti-Semistism. So why can't we talk about it?

The thinkers of the Alt-Right stay away from "The Jewish Question" more often than not, because those that tread this dangerous ground seem to mysteriously have their careers in media explode. But why can't we have a serious discussion about the role of Jews in American society? What's so special about them that their contributions as a group can't be discussed politely, and with an eye toward facts rather than emotion?

I've lived and worked surrounded by Jews all my life. I think I understand them as well as any non-Jew could. I've been proud to call a great many of them my friends, in several cases, my closest friends. They have been my most fair employers, my most trusted employees, and as a kid, in a story that means something to my family, I have been subjected to and delivered actual physical violence on their behalf. So why can't we have this conversation?

If you haven't guessed, I'd come down on the pro-Jew side, though not without recognizing the differences in Jewish culture and how it deviates from my own Anglo-Norman Irish traditions. But that doesn't change the fact that I find it very off putting that it isn't a suitable subject for reasoned discussion.

Seriously guys - I'd like to hear your views on this. I'm happy to talk about the contribution of my people. So why can't we talk about the Jews?

%%%%%%%SMALL UPDATE%%%%%%%%

If it wasn't perfectly clear, I think I know how an honest debate of the net net of civilized contribution will play out regarding "The Jews" and I'd like to hear it. How about a debate between David Duke and Dennis Prager? Mr. Prager like the kind of guy who has the self confidence to get on that stage.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

- The Case For Alt-Incrementalism Part: 2

Just one more quick addition regarding this really great post which got pushed down the queue by someone else's really great post from another blog.

The role of Academia can't be understated here. I don't think most people appreciate just how serious the problem is there. Everyone gets that the internal problems in academia are huge - just look at Triggly-prof. But I don't think they truly appreciate how easily that kind of thinking flows down to the rest of the culture, particularly to the liberal media.

Liberals by nature, are followers not leaders. To be a dissident you need to have a measure of independence and courage. It's not an easy thing to look at a loud angry mob and say "you're all wrong" and I'm right. If you think about that a little you'll see that the 'leaders' that rise on the liberal side more often than not, are much more cynical than the liberal rank and file. They're opportunists who use liberal emotional reasoning to transform their own positions into whatever they have to, in order to gain power (not unlike a recent presidential candidate).

But the true believers, they're screaming for someone to follow. They crave leadership and only feel their most comfortable when they're part of a big crowd. That's why they believe in the rule of the mob. The mob is big and loud and angry, so the mob must be right.

In academia, it's the same thing only more so. If they were really experts in their fields they'd be out in the private sector, but they lack the risk tolerance for that. They prefer a world where being wrong has fewer consequences, like a nice cushy tenured professorship.

But they are still thought of by the liberal followers in the media as being 'the smart ones' none the less. If they want an expert to interview they've learned not to go to private sector executives. They're busy, have their own goals, and might be reluctant for commercial reasons to talk up a big political storm only to bring down the commercial wrath of whoever disagrees with them. But the private sector always (ALWAYS) knows more than academia, because if they do it wrong there is a big price to pay. That refines your thinking and makes you a better decision maker.

So the best minds the media has ready access to are all in academia. But if the right were to replace some portion of our present pool of academics with more serious thinkers who lean right, then that's at least part of who the Media would be talking to when they want new expertise. This is what Milton Friedman meant when he talked about the how “We are all a product of the thinking of the day”.

Change that, change the political cross section of academia, and I think the media will fall back in line very quickly.

- Jonah Goldberg's Leftist Appeasement

In regard to the Milo dis-invitation from CPAC, and his tendency to use identity politics as cover to say things that are ‘racist’ and ‘ant-Semitic’, Jonah Goldberg yesterday wrote:

These are the kinds of arguments a coalition accepts when it has lost its moral moorings and cares only about “winning.”

We didn’t lose our moral moorings Jonah, we threw away the words we use to describe them when it became clear that those words had lost their meaning. When you say racist you mean one thing, and when liberals say it (and they say it a lot more than you so they are the ones who define it’s common meaning) it means something else entirely. For some reason, you simply refuse to see that your audience thinks you mean something completely different than I think you intend.

When a liberal calls something racist, they mean white or conservative, depending on whom they say it to. The charges of racism and sexism have continually morphed from an indictment of acts, to an indictment of intentions, to a steady state phenomenon possessed by all white people who refuse to prostrate themselves before the altar of liberalism. Even a liberal can be a racist now if he won’t ‘declare his privilege’ up front like the defendant in a perverse kangaroo court. And when you lob that accusation, particularly when you do so without specifics cited, you do nothing but accidentally carry their water for them.

This is very disturbing to me because I’m a great admirer of your writing and more broadly, your thinking. I believe you’re a highly intelligent man with a genuine wit – a potentially devastating combination in the culture war. But to me when you complain of racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism, I don’t get the message I think you mean to send. I get the one that liberals intend for those words – just like everyone else does.

Culture is upstream of politics right Jonah? Well you’re much further down stream than you think. You’re down here in the lowlands with the swamps and the bayous, and the animals down here can be nasty and poisonous. This is no clear mountain spring or babbling brook anymore. The left has pushed all of us into a political world of personal attack, personal invective, and personal assassination of character.

But you keep acting like you can take the high road and persuade through reason and rationality. That isn’t what persuades Americans anymore. We gave up on it when our Academics gave up thinking for feeling, and chose indoctrination over the free exchange of ideas. Milton Friedman, who has long been a hero of mine, in “Free to choose said: “We are all a product of the thinking of the day”. Well what are our academics thinking now Jonah? And when you look right and talk about 'racism' 'sexism' and 'anti-semitism', what exactly are you really saying?

I get the impression that you think you’re writing to some future audience instead of your readers for today. You’re complaining about ‘Racism” for the readers of 2060 who you imagine will look back on your work and praise your wisdom for keeping your wits about you while all around are losing theirs. They’ll see you as a beacon of sanity in an insane time. But to detach yourself from your audience that way… is to detach yourself from your audience. Instead of making America better now, you are leaving the field. And if you’re leaving the field, why should I bother reading you?

And forgive me Jonah, but I don’t think the future you imagine is ever going to happen unless we engage in the arguments of today. The academic world needs to be changed. And it isn’t going to change so long as the self appointed paragons of conservative thinking refuse to change it because they’re worried about their audience of the future. In that regard and as offensive as you find him, Milo got it right and you are getting it very, very wrong.

With regard to anti-Semitism, I’m not anti-Semitic. I have thousands of posts here, millions of words, and I defy you or anyone else to find something I’ve said that meets that criteria, that wasn’t an extremely obvious joke. Humor in my mind can be offensive, but it has to be funny enough to be clear otherwise you can give genuine offense and do more damage than you intend. A great number of the alt-right 4channers and Milo himself, may not be very funny, and I’m not thrilled about that personally. But the serious thinkers of the alt-right have no antipathy for the Jews. And beyond some online nastiness, there is no “there”, there in the alt-right.

So please – recognize that the world of today is different than you would prefer. Recognize that the common meaning of the words you use has changed. Recognize that the rules of cultural engagement have been changed by the left. And if you can’t accept and embrace that fact, at least stop beating us on the head for it.

There is something to be said for positive cultural outcomes, even if you don’t like the means by which they’re made. Call it cultural sausage making. You’re going to eat the sausage if you live in this culture, so if you won’t help stir, then at least get out of the kitchen and leave the hard work to others.

I’m convinced that the changes the alt-right seeks will lead to a better, safer, more stable and less confrontational world for everyone, than the one we live in now. And by everyone I mean black, white, red, brown, Jew, Gentile, and Muslim. But for right now, today, I’m convinced that emotional shock, emotional attack, and emotional appeal is the only thing that can push back on modern leftism with any effectiveness. They’ve stopped listening to reason, so giving them more of it only feeds the alligator.

And look, I know I'm an amateur. I know I don't write as well as you professionals and that you can slice and dice this to take me apart if you want to. But I also know enough about communication to know when my broader message is getting across and when it isn't. And I think it would be a wonderful thing if you NR folks would begin to at least try to do the same.