Why the Libs Can't Save You From What's Coming

Put not your trust in libtards, in whom there is no help.

Gay Space Fascism—the concept of which I recently introduced at some length in a piece entitled “Iron Sky: Peter Thiel and the Rise of Gay Space Fascism”—is here to stay. Not only that, for all intents and purposes, it is now officially power (the only real obstacle left for it currently being the person of one Donald John Trump, and he won’t be there forever, will he?).

But before we go too much further, I think it may behoove us to lay down a few ground rules and get some basic concepts under our belt before everyone gets confused.

I do not believe Gay Space Fascism, which from here on out we will be primarily referred to simply as “GSF” and its network of adherents as “Thieloids,” can be defeated in the short term, and, to be honest, the medium term isn’t looking great either. There is simply no force currently active in the Western Hemisphere that has any real chance of rivaling it at present. This is the harsh reality of the situation, bleak as it may seem to some.

Thus, my purpose in writing this Substack is not so much to “take down GSF” or “take down Thiel,” etc., or even to really recommend any particular course of action in this regard (at least not yet), but rather to simply work toward better and more clearly describing reality as it exists right now

In such times as ours, the truth is really all you have. A clear mind full of clear thoughts is our weapon of choice, if for no other reason than because it is all we have.

In this way, I intend for this substack to serve primarily as a spiritual exercise for myself, with any any readers being merely an added bonus. In this regard, one must “take no thought of the harvest, only of proper sowing,” I think.

All this being said, it’s time to get down to business and start off describing a bit of our present reality:

The Libs are Done, Probably for Good

That’s right, the calvary aren’t coming to save you this (assuming you even want them to).

There is going to be no rebound, no bounce back, and no redemption for ‘sanity’ and the ‘rules-based’ libtard world order.

You are not a suave urban guerrilla in the French resistance waiting for D-Day; you are not a latter-day Albert Camus waxing existential about the coming plague of fascism (à la

Damir Marusic

etc.) This isn’t Casablanca, and you’re not Humphrey Bogart, and this time the Avengers aren’t going to stop Thanos from destroying Gotham City and getting the adamantium stones (or whatever it is exactly they did in that movie).

This is not yet another episode of mythologized liberal history where the bogeymen of hatred, intolerance, and bigotry will rise up from their chthonic prisons only to once again be beaten back down by the collective “better angels of our nature” after a group of plucky and diverse rebels learns to finally overcome their differences and summon Captain Planet for the win.

No, not this time. This time is different; this time it’s Joever. For Good.

2024 was not a regular election, its results will not merely be some hurt feelings and a few technocrat policy adjustments at the margins. No, this time is actually different. What is currently going on in the United States is the most significant right-wing revolution we have witnessed on the world stage since 1979. It is also likely to go down as one of the most significant elections in American history alongside those of 1800, 1860, and 1932.

The American system is changing, nay, it has already changed, in fundamental ways, and these changes, in a deep and abiding sense, will never be undone.

The reasons for this are long and complex and span many different disciplines and fields of study, but I think it’s worth it to go over some of the more straightforward ones.

The Democratic Establishment is Doomed

This is the most obvious part of the explanation, but it goes much deeper than is usually understood. Most people now understand, correctly, that Joe Biden’s refusal to step aside and allow a primary process to play out while denying the reality of his transparent physical and mental decay, a fact that millions of Americans could easily observe every time he stepped in front of a camera or tried to make even the simplest statement, was a blunder. Furthermore, they also realize that Harris was an all-around bad candidate, that much of the Democratic leadership is corrupt and decrepit, and that the party’s demented social agenda was allowed to go too far, too fast.

One might agree on all these points and still argue that, while certainly not ideal, the party is likely to retool in the coming years; it will then seek to moderate on certain hot-button issues and then ride the inevitable tidal wave of anti-Trump sentiment to success in the mid-terms and then on to a likely victory in 2028 against J.D. Vance, who will be tarred with his association with Trump. After all, Trump’s victory, while wide, was also relatively narrow by historic standards, and it stands to reason that this small chasm can be bridged once again with a bit of elbow grease and some decent luck. Hence any worries about GSF are likely an overreaction to temporary realities; *insert cliche on American democracy being inherently self-correcting or the founders building better than they knew, etc.*

This is the story many are telling themselves right now. The only problem?

It’s bullshit. And it’s bullshit that fundamentally misunderstands reality.

The reality is that the Democratic Party, and the ideology of progressive liberalism that has ensouled it for over 100 years, is dying. The material pillars of its former strength are rapidly decaying, its fundamental principles are at fatal and irreconcilable contradiction with one another, and, most importantly of all, the mythological narrative on which its adherents rely to give meaning to their lives is now in tatters.

Modern Communication Technology’s Inherent Incompatibility with Progressivism

The intellectual roots of modern progressivism go back to at least the 18th (if not the 17th) century, but detailed intellectual genealogies tend to run a bit on the boring side, and if you like being bored, there are plenty of other authors who are more than happy to oblige you on that front. Suffice to say, though, that while progressivism’s intellectual roots are relatively deep, the organism, as we know it today, is a result of both the age of print and the age of television. Two technological mediums in which it thrived, the first of which it developed in utero, and the second of which saw it reach the height of its powers.

By the age of television, I include here, of course, the age of the early internet, during which the system itself had still not fully matured. This includes the Obama era.

Obama, contrary to the self-congratulatory delusions of the liberal pundits of his time, was not the first internet president but rather the last president of the age of print and television. Television, in practice, is not so much a technology that supersedes print but rather one that perfectly complements it. A technology that actually helped the age of print extend its reign for another century, in the process beating back the threat posed by radio. Itself a technological medium that, like the internet, is inherently right-wing.

The age of print and television was the age of liberalism; the three went together flawlessly and functioned at a high level for decades. Liberal institutions (primarily the trifecta of academia, media, and government bureaucracies) could efficiently communicate to Americans of all classes all they needed to know via print and television journalism (whose expertise and professionalism were rarely questioned). For the plebs, there was Peter Jennings and the headlines of the local paper, the headlines of which they would pass over on their way to the sports section and the funnies. For the upper middle class elite (and those who aspired to one day become upper middle class elites), there was the New York Times and its cadre of sister publications.

This system rendered outright censorship unnecessary as all communication (with the notable exception later on of talk radio) was forced to be funneled through a series of liberal gatekeepers. This included, for the most part, even the supposed enemies of the liberal establishment: conservatives (who, by and large, were also liberals themselves).

Americans were thus never exposed to any other serious viewpoints outside the liberal consensus, save for the occasional rantings of homeless schizophrenics or the condemnations of manic street preachers of questionable sobriety.

The literate could, of course, find and consume forbidden fruit if they were determined enough. After all, there was a time not that long ago when one could stumble across the works of many right-wing (and in many cases explicitly fascist) books at left-wing bookstores! The works of Evola were frequently of interest to clueless hippies, for instance, due to his writings on tantric sex, among other things. But this type literature had exactly zero influence outside of a handful of eccentrics.

What simple and carefree times those were!

Starting about a decade ago, however, this system began rapidly decaying, as these things tend to go: slowly at first, then all at once.

This decay then ushered in the era of authoritarian progressivism, the age of “the resistance,” George Floyd, and so-called “cancel culture.” It was the liberal immune system in action, its activated antibodies rushing to and fro desperately trying to put out what seemed to it like a series of endless fires, a constant state of emergency that slowly but surely exhausted even its most dedicated adherents.

But the libs never had a chance. Sure, if things had gone differently, say if Butler, Pennsylvania’s own pimple-faced assassin’s guild novice had put in a bit more practice at the range, we might be having a very different conversation right now. However, even after catching a lucky break like that, the system's inherent issues would still remain. It would have been only a matter of time before the same thing happened again.

As the real issue for modern liberalism is not so much that it is battling against the resurrected spirit of a new Nazism so much as it was fighting and losing a battle against the internet itself.

A force that it neither understood nor possessed the capabilities to tame in any meaningful way. Hence the flaccid and farcical attempts at '“disinformation” crackdowns and other forms of ham-fisted pseudo-censorship. Endeavors that were pursued with the intensity of a dying man interrogating his apothecary for their last miracle elixirs.

The internet is having its way with Anglo liberalism in the same way that the printing press once had its way with the Holy Roman Empire.

[Pictured Above: the Libs Contemplating their Future]

The reasons for this are complex and multifaceted, and one could easily write several books just on this topic, but the easiest way to understand it is to focus on just one particular aspect. In this case: podcasts.

Of course, the decision by Trump and, belatedly, by Kamala Harris to make podcast appearances a major part of their respective campaign strategies highlighted both the wide impact such new mediums now have as well as the almost complete obsolescence of the old media universe, long the undisputed domain of ideological liberalism.

Furthermore, it was also obvious that Trump performed far better than Harris in this medium. Part of this certainly can merely be attributed to Trump’s unmatched natural charisma and comedic timing as well as to Harris’ remarkable anti-charisma and general phoniness.

However, liberalism’s issues with podcasts and the modern internet on which they flourish go much deeper than an unfavorable stylistic matchup. It even goes deeper than the tendency of almost all professional liberals to speak in what can only be described as a kind of “PR talk.” A technique that served them well in the age of 90-second TV hits and press conferences with fellow PMC journalists but makes them sound phony and insufferable in an age of three-hour podcast interviews.

Still, at this point it likely won’t matter much if the DNC managed to pull off the small miracle of finding someone in their ranks that was genuinely charismatic and was able to have conversations longer than 90 seconds without descending into PR talk.

The deeper problem liberals have is that, to be blunt, their ideas aren’t very good. There are few serious liberal philosophers, and certainly none in the past 120 years or so (Isaiah Berlin and Karl Popper obviously don’t count), and this is not an accident. The ideas of progressive liberalism can be quite effective rhetorically as emotional pleas, or better yet, as forms of emotional blackmail, but these flowers tend to wilt when exposed to too much sunlight. Hence why they thrived in the era of the two-minute television appearance and the heavily controlled environment of liberal prestige publications, a place where all trains of thought are carefully stopped well before being allowed to arrive at any unpleasant or awkward conclusions.

For instance, it is one thing to argue in favor of child sex changes during a two- or three-minute appearance on NPR or MSNBC; it’s quite another to try and do the same thing during a three-hour session on Joe Rogan, and that’s the rub. A problem that will bedevil liberals going forward on a host of their favorite issues for the foreseeable future.

Simply put, communication technologies created by the modern internet allow for the ideas of progressive liberalism to be exposed to intellectual pressures and scrutinies that they were simply never designed to bear.

Add this reality to the collapse that liberal mythology’s all-important “Arc of History” is currently suffering (something I touched upon briefly in my aforementioned primer on GSF), and you have a picture that looks truly bleak for the entire liberal project.

Of course this doesn’t mean that the Democratic Party will never win another election, or even another presidential election. Surely both will happen, and even potentially in the near future, especially if MAGA and the Thieldoids suffer a run of particularly bad luck.

However, whatever Democratic party emerges from the ruins won’t be the same thing. And If and when the libs ever do finally rally to take back the White House, their champion will likely find themselves cast as a latter-day Julian the Apostate, trying desperately to revive an age that has already passed into history. And whose oracles, such as they are, will tell them the same thing they told Julian:

“Tell the emperor that the Daidalic hall has fallen.
No longer does Phoebus have his chamber, nor mantic laurel,
nor prophetic spring, and the speaking water has been silenced.”