Socialism will usher in a new era in this country. The great wealth of the United States will for the first time be for the benefit of all the people.

Program of the Communist Party USA


Twenty-one years ago I was having coffee in Washington, DC, with former British MP John Browne, Newsmax chief editor Missy Kelly, and Col. Stanislav Lunev, a GRU defector to the United States. John was waxing eloquent on the idea that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan had saved the West from socialism. As Missy showed interest in John’s thesis, Lunev leaned over and whispered in my ear, “I don’t understand this.” Lunev then added, “America is the Marxist paradise. Russia is dog-eat-dog capitalism.”

Along the same lines, Clare Berlinski recently made the point that the USSR “could be” defined as a “far-right, authoritarian regime.” But that’s going too far. In my Origins of the Fourth World War, I suggested there is no political right whatsoever; that everyone is now on the left.

How can I justify this?

The leading ideal of our time, embraced from east to west, is leftist. It doesn’t matter if this ideal finds expression in an authoritarian government or a democracy. America is on the left because everything here is done in the name of “the people.”

Who are “the people,” in this context? They are those who are portrayed as “less than equal,” who must be given a leg up, who must be made equal. And why must they be made equal? Because socialism is the coming religion — a secular religion — where man’s salvation is accomplished by political leveling.

Look at what children are being taught in school. Egalitarian indoctrination is everywhere. Socialism has hijacked the education system. As a result, you cannot talk about the weather without risking an earful on climate change from a college student.

Our taxes cannot begin to cover the expenses resulting from socialism’s growing list of demands. We are gradually going broke, and with the economic panic resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, financial collapse is now inevitable.

The free market is only free for the moment. Once the markets flatline, the usual suspects will blame capitalism for “failing.” It takes very little imagination to envision what follows. Disastrous government intervention, followed by shortages, followed by rationing, followed by worse shortages. The United States military won’t be funded after our leftists take power. Once America is disarmed, everyone will see the nuclear missiles in Russia and China as supporting the socialist agenda. Given the irresistible power of those missiles, how could Socialism be repealed? How could the United States regain its sovereignty?

As a side note: Perhaps it is an exaggeration to say “everyone” is on the left. I’m not on the left. I assume that my readers aren’t on the left. But practically speaking, what can we do? We are stuck with a society where the leading institutions are dominated by leftists.

Socialism is a religion. It is not a pretense because people do believe in it. Even if all leftist regimes turn out, in practice, to create an authoritarian order, it does not make leftists into “right wingers.” They are still worshippers of a leftist ideal: Namely, that all men should be brothers; that the world should be as one; that there is no heaven, so we must try and build a perfect world here on earth. These are the ideals that make the left dangerous, that lead to “the immanentizing of the gnostic eschaton.”

Socialism is a dangerous creed because the socialists are obliged to fill God’s office. They must rescue man from the destitution of his condition in the capitalist “state of nature.” It is a grandiose mission that requires real power. And the greatest power available to man is state power. Thus, the socialists have amended their egalitarianism in principle — preferring the formula, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” This ideological refinement avoids the paradox of a left-wing hierarchy. Inequality may be allowed for the greater good.

It is a mistake to say that authoritarianism is strictly a right-wing phenomenon. Clare Berlinski is confusing herself when she suggests that the USSR was a right wing polity. The Soviet ideal was leftist. Whatever hierarchy they built, in practice, turned out to be an inversion of aristocracy — with the worst criminals and psychopaths in the highest offices. This is Russia’s ruling principle to this day.

In fact, some theorists have claimed that fascism is also a phenomenon of the left. It is collectivist in the same sense as communism. It is revolutionary, guaranteeing that envious mediocrities — like Himmler or Goebbels — will govern in the shadow of a Hitler. Look how closely this follows the Soviet model, where Stalin, with his freakish retinue of dwarves and misfits, carried on a paranoid campaign against society itself. In contrast to this, Aristocracy is an ideal — in principle — where the very best people ought to hold rank, where the good and the noble are asked to lead, protect and defend the community. However poorly this ideal has been practiced, it never sank to the level of Lenin’s dictatorship of the lumpen proletariat, or the gangland police state of Kang Sheng.

The noble man allows freedom to others because he is noble. The ignoble man lives in fear that others, discovering his wicked intentions, will denounce him — because he is, indeed, a villain.

Freedom is also about checks and balances, which the left and the fascists abhor. The inferior man can govern only by criminal means. He could not survive in a proper constitutional setting. He who is sinister by nature opposes checks and balances out of paranoia. He opposes the aristocratic veto on envy, on the mob, on the lower instincts. He suspects a plot against himself and will not stand for it.

We find many related lessons in the history of the ancient Roman Republic, with plebeians vying against patricians. Only we find the plebeians had more sense than today’s “Democrats.” What evolved in Rome was a relatively balanced constitution, generally thought to be one of the most effective and unique forms of government in all history. By no means was it utopian, or something above reproach. It was something far more significant. It was durable and sensible, and produced a competent collective leadership — in the conscript fathers of the Roman Senate. This was a governing body that united Italy and conquered the Mediterranean. Harking back to the Rape of Lucretia, it’s ideal was liberty (that is, aristocratic liberty, not proletarian liberty).

One might similarly praise the British system of government after the Glorious Revolution — despite its corruption and venality and all the wickedness of its imperialism. But again, there was an aristocracy back then. It allowed for the steady moral improvement of society. It also evolved toward liberty.

There was never a perfect time — an ideal yesterday. But there were centuries of improvement and growth. Now we’ve had a century of decadence and decline. You ask when this began? One should give a different date for Britain than for America. Would 1911 suffice for Britain? (If my memory can be trusted, in 1911 the House of Lords lost its veto power).

When we get to the theory that “all men are created equal,” we are removing the mainspring of constitutional government. The door is open to leveling. How can you have a real system of checks and balances when you have eliminated the classical Aristocratic basis for it? If all men belong to one order of society, what happens to our concept of rank? — of conscript fathers? — of motherhood and fatherhood? — of family? — of authority itself? One is left with a bureaucrat — a nobody invested with absolute power, enviously disposed toward his superiors.

The leveling wind of egalitarianism leads to other pathologies as well. It not only takes away class. It attempts to do away with tribe. It attempts to do away with sexual differences. This may be suitable to individualists — who freakishly persevere in developing their unique individuality outside the limitations of tribe. But most people cannot exist as atoms — that is, as solitary individuals. They find it to be an unbearable burden. Alas, thinking is the most dreadful drudgery!

And then, under the egalitarian flag, you have the problem of parties competing to give “the people” more and more “things,” basing their power on an unchecked welfare state consumerism. Bankruptcy is only a matter of a war, a market collapse, or a pandemic.

When I say the political right no longer exists, that everyone is on the left, I am saying that the representative class of the right — the iron spine of every organic constitution — is gone. The very idea of a proper ruling class has been delegitimized. The political right is now an ersatz right. It is a self-misunderstood collective whose conservatism is underlaid with leftist presuppositions. That is why they inevitably give in to the far left. If you share the premises of the left, you will not be able to hold out against the left’s arguments. And this is what we are routinely treated to. This is what we have all witnessed.

It’s important to add that a system of checks and balances, within a constitution, entirely depends on real class distinctions. Once you do away with aristocracy as a construct, you will be stuck with an egalitarian oligarchy — the most degenerate form of oligarchy. It is a regime where “all men are created equal,” with no social standpoint from which to check the licentious urges of the people — with no argument for stopping the people from devouring their own seed corn.

To make this case to an educated person is not so difficult. Given a materialist plebeianism, with all its misunderstandings, a clever person keeps quiet. As H.L. Mencken once wrote, “Democracy is the system where the people get what they want, and get it good and hard.”

What we call the “right” (today) is merely a mix of nationalist/traditionalist/Christian sentiments standing on principles of plebeian supremacy. What we call the left is also built on plebeian supremacy, but opposed to tribal and religious folkways. One might say our traditional folkways are in an advanced state of decay and/or disintegration.

After this long explanation many readers will disagree, clinging to the idea that there really is a political right, because common usage acknowledges there is. But I would offer one more argument, if I may. Language is important, and we must always fight to preserve it from the machinations of political subversives. As an example of such corruption, the word “marriage” was recently redefined by the Supreme Court; whereas through all history heretofore marriage meant the union of man and woman, it now has no such meaning. If a supposedly conservative Supreme Court can redefine marriage, and nobody hangs them as traitors to God and country, then the right has no real existence at all. The scandal is laid bare, though almost no one is scandalized.

When language is politically debauched, especially by the left, it makes the rotting carcass of the body politic smell ever riper. What then, if the so-called political right, does exactly the same thing as the left? — Debauching language by accepting the redefinition an essential word, without a peep!

The communist party has a saying: “Today’s left is tomorrow’s center, today’s center is tomorrow’s right, etc.” And this goes to the heart of it. The political spectrum has been steadily moving to the left for a hundred years. This was aptly demonstrated by Tim Groseclose in a book titled Left Turn. He proves — with remarkable dexterity — that the majority Democrat congress in 1980 was considerably to the right of the Republican Congress of 1999. He uses objective criteria, so there can be no arguing the point.

Of course, rank order has not entirely disappeared. It fades by inches, more senile and decrepit, decade after decade. The leveling is steady and continuous. Socialism holds us in a death-grip. It can be slowed but never stopped. Trump is not to the right of Ronald Reagan. He is to the left of Reagan. The same is true of all Tory PMs after Thatcher. Leftward, leftward, always leftward. All enemies to the right. The outstanding individual who appears, against all odds, to slow the march leftward, is an exception to the rule. One person can momentarily stop the process, but one person does not an aristocracy make.

52 thoughts on “The Triumph of Inversion

  1. What practical steps, if any at all, can be taken to rebuild a genuine right-wing in the United States?

  2. Jeff, not sure if you can comment, in regards to the Covid 19, the South Koreans Government has put out a statement that 91 of their patients who were deemed as cured have now been tested postive with Covid 19 again and they are warning that the Covid 19 virus has the capability to reactivate itself

    Just wanting to ask about Stanislav Lunev, how much does he know about the joint invasion of the US and Canada which will be carried out jointly between the Chinese PLA and Russian Army when I mentioned this to a few Asian based Facebook groups in the US, there were people who basically doubted Stanislav Lunev and at least 1 person who ran a Hong Kong expat facebook group based in the US told me she was kicking me out of their group because they disagree with what Stanislav Lunev says

    1. Lunev was deputy chief of the GRU in Washington. He spoke fluent Mandarin, served in China with GRU, and worked with top Russian generals. He knew basic war plans. Why would he not be authoritative on this subject?

  3. The process has been massive enough to finally overwhelm us, but slow enough to keep us asleep, at the same time. Gradualism is indeed a psychological weapon second to none.

  4. Jeff, as you have discussed numerous times, the long-march has been wildly successful beyond their wildest dreams. Since the majority of policies and academia of the US and West are leftist leaning, why would China/Russia need to attack us—just let the process continue…for the communizing work is already nearly finished throughout culture and even much of the church (as Christian businessman/speaker Lance Wallnau talks about, the 7 mountains of the west are for the most part completely taken over). if they actually do attack us militarily or economically or with a bio-weapon, this does not happen instantaneously—there would be indicators and warning drums where the living Paul Reveres will be able to connect the dots and raise the alarm bells. What is to be gained by active war threats except to awaken the souls of patriotic Americans that everything that was warned about was really true? Should we be expecting another 9-11 bolt out of the blue?

    1. Arnold Fishman,

      Reading your comment, what immediately came to my mind was Yuri Bezmenov’s fairly cynical, but informed, elaborations about the cardinal difference between Western “progressives” and Eastern, good old “conservative” Stalinists ( For the Stalinists (and they all are), the leftists in the West, with few exceptions probably, are mere useful idiots. And here is a quote from that interview.

      Q: “And yet, these people who have been programmed and, as you say, in place and who are favourable to an opening with the Soviet concept: these are the very people who would be marked for extermination in this country?”

      A: “Most of them, yes. Simply because the psychological shock when they will see in future what the ‘beautiful society of equality and social justice’ means in practice, obviously they will revolt. They will be very unhappy, frustrated people. And the Marxist-Leninist regime does not tolerate these people. Obviously, they will join the links of dissenters, dissidents. Unlike in present United States, there will be no place for dissent in future Marxist-Leninist America. Here you can get popular like Daniel Ellsberg and filthy rich like Jane Fonda for being ‘dissident’, for criticising your Pentagon. In future, these people will be simply squashed like cock-croaches; nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful, noble ideas of equality! This they don’t understand, and it will be greatest shock for them, of course.”

      1. In the case of America, the Chinese want the land. The people in that land are to be exterminated, according to Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian.

  5. In the US we currently have a situation where 45% of the people tend to be very leftist in political attitude, and 45% are relatively conservative in political attitude. The remaining 10% tend to be those that waver between the two other political attitudes, and depending on how they are being affected, depends on how they vote.
    In 2016, that 10% group went with Trump, which did not give him the popular vote, but it did give him the Electoral College, which saved the country from total ruin under Hellary.
    With the current crisis because of the Wuhan flu, if Trump gets the country back up and running again, he’ll be re-elected. If not, we have an extremely serious situation that could lead to a civil war.
    If a civil war happens, it could open the door to external intervention by the Communist countries that have been waiting for such a weakness in order to invade.
    Even with the blurring of the ideological lines between the left (which is becoming more openly known as Communism), and the right which still represents a traditional Constitutional ideology, there is still a chance to save the country.
    The “tards” in Kalifornia are starting to wake up, and in not so nice a manner now that they are finding out that they cannot easily by a gun and ammunition, which has them incensed. It could be that there are some hidden blessings in the Wuhan flu.

      1. Happy Easter to you and your family Jeff.
        The Christian community needs to unite, put all their differences aside and realize that if we do not unite, we will fall as a divided country and people.
        Let us stand together and defeat all the enemies of God.

  6. This is not looking very good is it. The summer ahead is looking scarier than we could
    have believed just a short while ago. Even the Texas panhandle is buying in to this pandemic bologna. No man is an island, all must face the darkness coming. It is my hope that at least we can get churches back to being “essential”

    1. It would be easy for the churches to get back to normal services again, as people could wear masks, not greet each other with hugs/handshakes etc., and screen people before they came in. If they are coughing and sneezing frequently, they cannot enter, even if it is because of allergies. Have everyone use hand sanitizer before they entered the church. That would allow for there to be little chance of passing anything on to others.

  7. Your scenario of China/Russia against America/Canada may or may not be true or materialize. However, in such a big perspective look at our world, you seem to overlook one very important factor. Our own psychopaths, that have been forging our money for centuries. They are the CREATORS of communism and have been openly talking about world government, NWO, globalism, or whatever you want to call it. The top of these money printers are mostly Zionists and of Jewish extraction. Anyone with such a global agenda, implementing it with stealth and subversion (cultural Marxism), must be counted as the biggest psychopaths of all. Since I haven’t seen you factor them into your scenarios, particularly in the interview with Mike Adams, I would like to ask you directly what your position is regarding these money counterfeiters and their globalism plans, that seem to have advanced into the end game now.

    1. These Jewish conspiracy lies is clearly Russian communist deception of KGB, a criminal scheme that is being very actively spread among the people on the Internet and many accepted this lie as the truth [besides the Freemasonic “conspiracy”, which comes from the same exact KGB workshop – the “New World Order”, yes, conveniently leaving out the full meaning, which is “New World Communist Order”]. When we also look at this problem from the logical standpoint, it is absolutely essential to observe that if any of the founders of communism dared to introduce any religious aspect into any communist ideological teaching, such person would have been promptly liquidated and his “poison” erased once and for all by the always watchful Party ideologues. There is no chance that anything Jewish or other the church would, therefore, be as the founding ideological doctrine of communism, because communism openly rejects God as such and is completely atheistic philosophy (if you can call this evil criminal satanic ideology a philosophy at all..).

      Control questions: Your mobile phone (with authentic hardware source codes, surround microphones, online cameras, GPS navigation) was made in Israel or in Communist China? Will the 5-G backbone networks be built by Israeli companies or Chinese companies?
      Do you know the name of the Chinese secret service? No? How is it that you don’t know GUOANBU when it’s the world’s largest secret service?

      Russia and China with COVID-19 have solved multiple issues at once:
      – the economic weakening of the West
      – creating a picture of the inability of Western governments and democratic institutions
      – opposition in Hong Kong
      – to limit New Year’s celebrations in China so as not to overshadow the celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the founding of Communist China, held in October 2019
      – the canceled Olympic Games 2020, the European Football Championship, etc. make it possible to keep the Russian and Chinese populations hostile to the outside world, as Jeff correctly wrote in the article „ Unexpected Tidbits from a Russian Military Defector
      – prevent commemoration actions of the 10th anniversary of the assassination of a Polish plane in Smolensk, 10 April 2010 and the 80th anniversary of the Katyn massacre, 1940.
      – and of course, preparing for the ultimate destruction the West by the Soviet/Russian-Chinese “one clenched fist”

  8. That doesn’t disappoint me at all. But one doesn’t need to be an anti-Semite to object to having one’s money stolen by forgers, whoever they are. Even more so, when they use their ill-gotten wealth to subvert our culture and push world government. That alone is the point here.

  9. I didn’t say that. Was just wondering why the most notorious and obvious mobsters are getting a pass. They have been flying under the people’s radar long enough. Why should that continue? It’s time for them to get some sunshine.

    1. I’m not a District Attorney or FBI official trained in catching white collar criminals. My study is related to national security and the threat from Russia, China and the communists. These are the biggest criminal regimes with the highest body counts, and their missiles are pointed at my country. — So you will excuse my sense of urgency, and my lack of enthusiasm for your antisemitism. Now it’s time for you to shove off and stop wasting my time.

  10. As you wish. This is the last message. You had three chances to address the problem, and you evaded it each time. No answer is also an answer, which confirms what they say about you.

  11. Ahh yes, the outstanding prophet J. R. Nyquist is the lone voice of truth in this rigid and uncompromising universe. Because humanity is finding a new understanding of family and marriage, the conservative right no longer exists. Because the extent of the modern human experience has reached beyond the traditionally understood paradigm, society will be destroyed from within. These are the thoughts of a close-minded man who accepts that the sole purpose of life is to suffer. If we are not suffering then we are not living. If we are not letting our worst fears drive every decision we make, then we are weak. Any trust we put in man is misplaced and will be our doom.

    Your self-admiration has come to an unimpressive hilt. Don’t let your new readers go to your head.

    1. I just want my country to be defended against its enemies. That has always been my purpose in writing. Many of the things you believe hinder the defense of our country. Why do you refuse to see that Communist China and its allies are a serious threat? You make fun of me, of course, but your rhetoric always avoids the issue of defense. All those beliefs you have, which undermine our morality, which undermine our spirit, also undermine our chances for survival. Your nihilism subtly agrees with the nihilistic motive underlying our enemy’s destructive plans. That is what most disturbs me about you. Make fun of me all you want, but the spirit you mock is the spirit that seeks your preservation. What then does your mockery signify? It signifies the foolishness of one who courts his own destruction. You are full of arrogant reproaches, and you are typical of many young people today. I read your words and doubt we will survive. You call me “close-minded.” Am I really? Is concern for our future “close-minded”? What future does your “open-mindedness” promise? You flatter yourself for traits you do not really possess, and rate foolishness as a virtue.

      1. Jeff Nyquist is not the only voice. To his credit, he continues to speak out when lesser mortals, like myself, find ourselves silenced by people who don’t believe us.

        When looking at Jeremiah, he warned people for over 20 years to repent, otherwise the Chaldeans would come. There were times he was discouraged and wanted to stop, because almost no one was listening to him. They didn’t believe the Chaldeans were coming. But finally, the Chaldeans came, destroyed Jerusalem and the temple just as Jeremiah predicted.

        Jeff, I and others like us, don’t have special revelation from God like Jeremiah had, all we have are clues from trends in the world, information about plans from enemies, historical records that inform us about human nature; taking them all together can make inferences about what we expect to happen if trends aren’t changed. I have some information that Jeff doesn’t have, Jeff has much information that I don’t have, but the information that we each has points to the same result—war unless we change our trajectory. It may be too late. Both of us want to prevent war, that may not be in our individual power to prevent.

  12. Jeff. Regarding your exchange with Casey Phyle, without taking either side, may I offer an observation. Mr. Phyle’s remarks reflect what might be called “sentiments of mere inquiry” amongst a consequential number of people, in a wide scope of variance. Some are antisemitic, most, I believe, are not. Among the observations that many people note: Marx was Jewish. Jewish partisans played a very outsized role in both the Bolshevik revolution, and the Red Terrors that followed. Jewish Americans are disproportionately involved in much of the pernicious cultural changes and policies that you cite. I would caution Mr. Phyle that even if all the above is true, nevertheless, it must be said that the vast majority of Americans who identify as Jewish play zero part in any of this, at least no more so than Mr. Phyle himself. Nevertheless, I believe his main point deserves inquiry… That no group, even if it comprises Jewish people, is beyond reproach or questioning of actions or motives, and that such inquiring is not automatically antisemitic. There are antisemitic in this world, and we should be careful not to allow the censorious teeth of this charge dissolve as it has in the case of the overly used charge of racism.

    1. I have done some studying in this area and do not agree with Mr. Phyle’s “analysis” of the crisis of modernity. His accusation regarding my allegiance and motives deserves a special comment. If I do not agree with his thinking, I am said to be an active agent of an evil Jewish conspiracy. If you think this is an even remotely reasonable proposition, then you are a crackpot; for I am personally in a position to know my own situation, and I am not an agent of Jewish interests. The very fact that Mr. Phyle ends up branding me as Jewish agent for disagreeing with him ought to give you pause. Is he not paranoid? Also, he began his argument with an implied threat. If I disagree, I am set down as a mortal enemy. And that might one day prove dangerous for me. Of course, he will have to get in line behind the communists — if he wants me liquidated. You see, I know his code language. I have met with his kind before. Nothing here is unfamiliar. He hates Jews. He thinks the agents of the Jewish conspiracy should hang. In the end, he implies that I should also hang. Also, I am to be publicly vilified by the antisemites. I have endured the abuse of these people before. Their arguments, though plausible on some points, seek to dehumanize the Jews. I want no part in this, and wish they would stop pushing me to agree with something that runs contrary to my nature.

      1. I said I will not write again, and I wouldn’t have, but you make accusations against me and distort what I said. First, I’m not an anti-Semite at all. There are many decent Jews in the world that are totally civilized and not involved in the fake money racket. I made it clear to you that my beef is with the money counterfeiters. Whether they are Jews or not is actually immaterial. I’m not anti-Semitic but very much anti-plunderers. They steal our wealth with their fake money. Yet you ignored that main point and kept hacking around your ridiculous anti-Semitism point, although I didn’t even say anything anti-Semitic. I merely pointed out that most of the money forgers are of Jewish extraction; nothing more. Merely characterizing them properly gives you license to immediately put me down as anti-Semitic, while stubbornly evading the main point? What are you, ADL or SPLC? Are you dodging fake money because it’s your Achilles Heel? Plundering the population with fake money is indeed so colossally evil, that it’s virtually impossible to defend… once an open discussion starts. That has never happened. It appears you just don’t want to be the guy who gets that ball rolling. So, you make it go away by hanging everything on that convenient anti-Semitism nail.

      2. You are constantly relying on antisemitic tropes. And you are a poor liar. It is misleading for you to say “there are many decent Jews,” yet hold up themes that form the core of your antisemitic obsession. It is exasperating to read your denials when anyone who has read antisemitic books can clearly see the implications and associations that follow from your assertions. For example, you suggest I am an ADL or SPLC agent. That kind of suggestion is directly out of the antisemitic playbook. So don’t act all hurt that I called you an antisemite. If you aren’t one, then nobody is. You don’t like Jews, otherwise you would not have asked if I am a Jewish agent. Right? People who are unfamiliar with the antisemitic obsession would be baffled by such a question. — “Are you ADL?” But it unmasks you completely. You see all Jewish organizations as the enemy. That is antisemitism. Sorry. You gave me your opinion and I gave mine. Your thinking and your interpretation of the facts have long been associated with antisemitism. This is something you ought to know, but you apparently do not know it. Now please keep your word and leave me in peace.

  13. Hi Jeff Thanks for the article and insight you have, most interesting. I am from South Africa and can see how this applies here in many of your paragraphs. Would you have any objections if I submitted your article to some of our newspapers?

    1. Please submit whatever you like. One of my dearest friends is a South African. Sadly, the destruction of your country continues — with no end in sight.

  14. Jeff, is it ok if I contacted you on skype sometime during the week and also I have some new information in regards to Hong Kong and also a update in regards to Covid 19 from New Zealand, during the weekend there were another 3 deaths and they were mostly elderly people, the New Zealand Government is now planning to extend the lockdown into May

  15. Honestly, I appreciate everyone in the past who has made the security of America a point of interest over the centuries. America has historically been so secure that we have already nuked a densely populated metropolitan area (a global first and only so far). America has been so secure in fact, that we have compromised our country’s future by expanding its military and economic might beyond practical limits. We have military bases around the globe that serve no peaceful purpose. We are in financial debt to our enemies. We have a society directly dependent on profit, which has dried up in record time during this crisis. We are a failed empire that can no longer maintain our stranglehold on the world, yet you still believe a stranglehold is necessary to survive. We can’t loosen our grip in other nations or else Communism will take hold. We can’t truly focus on America or we will turn our backs on our enemies. We must be diligent in naming and facing the enemy, lest we become them. The obsession with national security and domination shared by men like you is what got us to this point. By insisting on constantly being the hero you turn yourself into the villain. You say men like me are weak and cowardly because we are not interested in fighting. I say men like you are the reason there’s even a fight at all; your close-mindedness only finds solutions in violence. You’re the type to preemptively attack someone you see as a threat, I’m the type to defend myself once attacked. Which type is responsible for more suffering throughout history?

    1. I do not advocate violence. When? Having strong deterrent is not advocating violence. I advocate deterring violence. Want of vigilance encourages aggression. I have never advocated invading other countries. I advocate defense.

      1. You advocate defense, as has every warmonger in history. But as always, enough defense is never enough. When has America’s rabid defense served it well in the past 80 years? I suggest that refined defense is more effective than mass defense, and you call me weak. You admonish past politicians for not doing the right thing regarding defense even though we’ve outspent all of our enemies combined. What is the right thing if not what has created this wonderful life you adamantly defend? Politicians in the past have perpetually placated men like you who demand we shore up our defenses. I have watched private military contractors get immeasurably rich my whole life, all at the expense of taxpayers. How can you, with a straight face, claim that you don’t condone violence when the United States is responsible for the most military sanctioned death and destruction of any national counterpart in modern history? And on top of this you demand we increase our defenses (which inevitably end up waging war in other places). Don’t you see the paradox here? You do not advocate for peace, and you dismiss those who do as naive or evil. As an expert on history you really seem to ignore the fact that others across the globe could see America’s history as evil, and be justified in doing so. Ignoring this does not make it less real.

  16. Just thought I’d leave a comment on your larger thesis since this stuff started (namely, that this was a deliberate release by the ChiComs), though not a comment necessarily aimed at this particular article:

    Note that not long after the hysteria over the Wuhan Flu kicked off, Russia began an oil war with Saudi Arabia that contributed to a massive dip in the stock market and will likely lead to mass damage to our own oil industry (which was already suffering due to the nature of the business these past few years, based on what I’ve been told by a client who runs a corrosion control company for oil & gas companies in Texas). In fact, their much heralded deal with OPEC that just recently occurred only resulted in reaching an agreement that was, conveniently, just a short cut below what was actually needed to stop an oil collapse. Goldman Sachs expects prices to continue their drop as storage capacity reaches its maximum.

    How convenient that Russia and the Saudis would blow up our oil industry right as the Covid19 crisis started.

    1. a perfect sextet of storms: we are consumed by a undefinite timetable of a virus that many experts believe we overreacted to or at least poorly reacted to due partially to dependence on the Chinese-global-supply-chain-complex due to our own foolish greed; an economic crisis created by said overreaction; the international oil clique collapsing the price of oil and bringing about our own collapse of our own alternative oil productions; the US debt spiralling beyond any sense of reasonableness and moderation; the national pushing toward social control with enforced vaccinations and the push for the digital dollar; and our military readiness being diminished. Again, time for serious prayer for God’s intervention—a time to read Psalm 46 and to draw near to Him.

    2. It does seem obvious that Russia and Saudi Arabia are working to crush our energy independence. This was the perfect moment to use oil as a weapon. Golitsyn warned in his 1984 book, “Beware the economic weapons of the bloc, oil and food.” He is right again.

  17. Perfectly put. This absolute frame of reference that allows someone to perceive actual moral changes along the decades is the point miserably missed everyday by whomever proclaims himself to be a right-winger. The Buckley’s rightwardmost viable candidate is more and more to the left, and less and less viable.
    This makes me think about the situation of my country, Brazil, and its “intelligentsia”. I am a student of the Olavo de Carvalho’s courses – from whom I knew your work. He tried for decades to alert his disciples about this phenomena you describe, but, for you to know – take this as an aristocratic social experiment – how deeply this is rooted in best people minds: now he has about 5.000 students on his online courses; having begun officialy on 2009 – he had more discreet circles of apprendices before that, we can assume he educated some 20.000. Most of these are people who profess the Catholic Faith, study the classics, ancient languages, occidental literature, or other significant and life-embracing matter with a great and capable teacher. I have hardly found even in this kind of social circle, anyone free from this terrible handicap. They consume high literature and today’s mainstream, comercial garbage as if they were things of the same level. Very few perceive the difference and put it into practice.
    This denounces an absence of the concept of hierarchy that date way back 1911 – though I know you didn’t put this date on this. Don’t know when to put it exactly, but there is no religion without such concept. We are for centuries now a civilization without a – decent – religion. And that is a curse.
    Today, Christianity and the Western Culture are so strange to our contemporaries as are the Chinese or the Mohammedan Culture – ironically, perhaps even more.
    Great blog.
    Kind regards

    1. We can hardly appreciate the gulf that separates our traditions from the dominant spirit of leveling that prevails today. Thanks for commenting.

  18. What is your opinion of Russell Kirk? Do you think he was a “true” conservative?

    1. Very interesting post. This leads me to ask a preliminary question. What is a “true” conservative? In the 1980s, when I subscribed to National Review, it came with a free subscription to The University Bookman, edited by Russell Kirk. As time passed I largely ignored the articles in National Review — but devoured The University Bookman. I have long since thrown away the old magazines, but kept the little Bookman issues. Was Kirk a “conservative”? Insofar as conservatism is not an ideology, but a belief in a slow and sensible political approach, he was a conservative. Of course! He was an admirer of Edmund Burke, and so am I. The problem with the conservative thought of the 1950s -1980s, was its lack of foresight, it’s want of “immoral imagination.” Nietzsche said about the conservatives that they were not free, like a crab, to go backward; but compelled to move further and further into decadence. And Nietzsche was right. The conservatives have marched forward into decadence, their conservatism proving time again to be an hypocrisy. Nietzsche also said, a thing should not be judged by what it appears to be today, but by what it is becoming. Conservatism was becoming something false, step by step. And this is decisive for us. There are many deep insights in Burke and in Russell Kirk. Burke was deeper than all our thinkers of the last 200 years put together. He had an astonishing power of imagination. Kirk did not possess Burke’s qualities, yet he appreciated them. Kirk could not see what would come after Reagan. He seemed to have no sense of what America and the conservatives were becoming, and what that would mean for the future. The imagination required for the times was beyond him, and he did not wish to face the dark truths that were becoming visible during Reagan’s presidency. Perhaps he saw and simply turned away. I don’t know. The one thing amounts to the other. I would not blame him for this. It is the way things were, and the way things had to be, and the reason we ended up where we are now. There is something of psychological inevitability in it — of momentum and lack of momentum. The changes that are coming to us now, as tragic as they will be, are inescapable correctives. They are not the correctives man applies to man. They are the correctives of Providence. Society exists and thrives within certain limits, in accordance with a balance of elements. When society loses its equilibrium, because of too much wealth, or the wrong kind of knowledge under the wrong ideas, a corrective calamity occurs. It is the same with thunder storms in nature. Energy must be discharged at times, to rectify a balance. The conservative philosophy is good, and largely understands this truth, but it does not know what to do during a storm in which all the normal rules have been suspended. Therefore, Kirk is an important writer; but he did not possess all the answers needed for a moment such as ours. Sadly, we are on our own. We must feel our way, relying on a wider number of thinkers, from ancient and modern times, which may include insights from persons Kirk would have scorned; but also we will return to Kirk’s insights. We will rediscover him.

      1. “And Nietzsche was right. The conservatives have marched forward into decadence, their conservatism proving time again to be an hypocrisy. Nietzsche also said, a thing should not be judged by what it appears to be today, but by what it is becoming. Conservatism was becoming something false, step by step.”

        Just look at this nonsense occuring in many states right now that due to the virus–extremely liberal judges or governors are giving orders to release convicted hard core criminals out of fear that they might spread the deadly infection within the prison halls. This just happened last month in Florida and the next day, the prisoner kills someone. This is insane and inversion of all normal wisdom and prudence but a complete collapse of normal ordering of society.

  19. Ee your argument with Casey Phyle below. Concentrating all your energy on that anti-Semitism thing and avoiding the big question of fake money doesn’t look good for you. Makes you appear scared to even mention it. For argument’s sake, even if he were an anti-Semite, which he denies, why don’t you respond to his fake money point, that arguably is the single biggest problem in our civilization today.

    1. I do not agree that fake money is the biggest problem in our civilization today. It is epiphenomenal. Let’s focus on the root reasons for it — hedonism, socialism, and the collapse of intellectual and moral integrity, which is everywhere in evidence.

    2. Russian troll, there are hundreds of thousands of unpunished criminals in Russia and China and you only care about fake money!?

      So once again, for Russian and Chinese trolls:

      These Jewish conspiracy lies is clearly Russian communist deception of KGB, a criminal scheme that is being very actively spread among the people on the Internet and many accepted this lie as the truth [besides the Freemasonic “conspiracy”, which comes from the same exact KGB workshop – the “New World Order”, yes, conveniently leaving out the full meaning, which is “New World Communist Order”]. When we also look at this problem from the logical standpoint, it is absolutely essential to observe that if any of the founders of communism dared to introduce any religious aspect into any communist ideological teaching, such person would have been promptly liquidated and his “poison” erased once and for all by the always watchful Party ideologues. There is no chance that anything Jewish or other the church would, therefore, be as the founding ideological doctrine of communism, because communism openly rejects God as such and is completely atheistic philosophy (if you can call this evil criminal satanic ideology a philosophy at all..).

  20. Jeff, I am very interested in your writings. I live in Canada. I am surrounded by friends and family that will gladly welcome communism if it means getting rid of Trump. I am a Trump supporter, but I mostly have to keep that a secret. My question to you is am I foolish to be investing in the stock market right now? If there is a communist takeover of north america, what will happen to US/Canadian stocks?

    1. I cannot give you stock advice. It seems like an unsafe proposition unless it’s defense-related or companies that make toilet paper. (I am joking)

Comments are now closed.