Fash The Nation Week 18

I had the unique honor and privilege of being a guest co-host of Fash The Nation, a weekly podcast featuring McFeels & Halberstram from TheRightStuff.biz. You may recall I recently had Jazzhands McFeels as a guest co-host on my show recently. It was a funny and unapologetically racist fash fest lasting for two hours, and I think you’ll enjoy it.

Their description and the SoundCloud embed follows below.

Fash The Nation Week 18

Fash The Nation Week 18

Shitlord News (WASHINGTON, D.C.) – It’s going to be another full week as we’re joined by Chris Cantwell of Radical Agenda to discuss the latest surge in the polls for Donald Trump, even as mein fuhrer made Muslims a target this week and later called out Schlomo on Morning Joe. Later we’ll move on to the Europa Report, followed by an in depth analysis on domestic issues, such as Jews being okay’ed to get into heaven by the Catholic Church and other triggering stories like a 46 year old tranny named Stefonknee who abandons his wife and 7 children to become a 6 year-old girl. It’s all ahead on Fash the Nation.

00:00 Intro

2:00 Trump Poll Surge

5:00 Down-Ballot Races

7:00 Christie Too Fat for the White House

10:30 #BanKebab Analysis

28:00 British Government to Deport Orphaned White Girl

30:00 Trump Calls Out Schlomo on Morning Joe

44:00 Dindus Dismay When WH Disqualification Effort Fails

47:00 It’s Gonna Happen! It’s Happening!

54:00 Trump Gets Zucked

57:30 Europa Report

1:04:30 GOP Convention/Party Outlook

1:15:00 Hillary Too Big to Jail

1:20:00 Norway to Pay Refugees to Leave

1:22:00 Climate Pact Full of African Rent-Seeking

1:24:00 Don’t Feed the Africans

1:34:00 Trending Transgressions: Stef-on-knee

1:39:00 Dindu Who Authors “How to Date White Women” Book Accused of Domestic Abuse

1:42:30 Catholic Church Affirms Jews Are Welcome in Heaven

1:49:00 Coyote Operations “Spoofs” CBP SUV, Gets Busted

1:52:30 Trump Breaks White Supreme-ist Internet

2:01:00 Outro: Morrakiu – “What Would Jeffrey Tucker Do?”

Jeb Deathbed Meme Credit: Tharru




This production is made possible by donors like you, you can also help by shopping through my Amazon affiliate link. Without that support, this site will cease to exist.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!


  • IRONMANAustralia

    I’m offended by this program.

    I’m fifteen minutes in and nobody has used the word “nigger” or “kike” once so far.


  • lowell houser

    Cantwell, you keep talking about the “eventual” need for bloodshed to overthrow the state. Well, Hillary will just move “eventually” to 2018ish.

    • Richard Chiu

      How is she going to postpone the need for bloodshed?

  • Richard Chiu

    Generally speaking, I have to draw some distinctions among several different meanings of “racism” which ‘liberals’ (that is, Marxists who have appropriated the name for the Christian virtue of generosity to make their own program of bottomless envy, theft, rapine, and murder sound more respectable) intentionally conflate to avoid rational analysis of their position.

    First, and most originally correct, “racism” means the ideology that race is the most significant determinant of an individual human’s worth. It descended from racialism, the more or less scientific theory that races existed and exhibited significant variations in average intelligence and other phenotype traits related to survival and social capability which were heavily influenced by genetic inheritance. In the aftermath of WWII, “racism” became overtly associated with Hitler’s programs of eugenics and genocide, themselves a development following social theories originally developed in America among the political ‘left’ (i.e. Democrats and the new Progressive Party, both leaning towards Marxism, the latter much more heavily). It thus became a term of heavy political opprobrium (also pretty well wiping out racialism as a respectable branch of scientific inquiry).

    Unfortunately for the political left, this potentially extremely denigrating term could only reasonably be applied to themselves, and so they responded the way Marxists always respond when clear terminology puts them at a political disadvantage, they sought to redefine the terms in question (which is why they called themselves “Progressives” and later “liberals”). The most significant alternate meaning of “racism” invented in this process was applied to identifying the natural instinct all humans share to value their own kinship group and culture in which they were raised. This was used to indoctrinate whites into believing that any feeling and especially display of affection for their own kinship and cultural group was ‘racism’ (and, just to be a bit racialist here, I think whites are probably the only race that even could fall for this in any significant degree, but it is also true they were the only racial group seriously targeted), and thus indistinguishable from the crimes of the Nazis. This meaning is etymologically incorrect because this instinctive response is not and cannot be an “ism”, an ideology easily identified and defined by a salient concept. Any such “ism” must be taught and have ideological elements, applying it to a universal instinct is sheer nonsense. Nevertheless, the left has been so successful in this redefinition that it is the only sense in which the term can be usefully employed without additional explication. Thus I commonly say that all races are racist, and it is only whites who ever feel bad about themselves because of sharing this universal human instinct.

    The third definition which has come to pass and has certain significance to our society’s development is the definition of “racism” as any resistance to the actually racist program of instituting direct, unabashedly racial preferences both in government and in all significant aspects of cultural institutions. All manner of direct applications of institutional racism against individuals (like Affirmative Action, Racial Sensitivity Training, and a host of other such racist-in-the-original-sense nonsense which tend to bother Asians as much or more than they bother whites) as well as a more pervasive attitude of cultural denigration of anything produced by “dead white men” (which doesn’t really directly inconvenience individual Asians as much as it grinds down white people) are defended on the grounds that it is “racist” in this third sense to opposed them even if the person opposing them is not white.

    This third sense has special significance because it is so obviously the exact opposite of what the term “racism” originally meant. This makes it a crucial battleground for two (intertwined) reasons. One is that a great many people who subscribe to the use of reason cannot accept this development, using a word to mean the precise opposite of the original meaning while the original meaning is still current and the source of all the sentimental associations of the word. Any discussion of racism at all becomes too obliviously incoherent once you use “racism” to mean any opposition to an overtly racist argument or assertion. The second reason it is crucial is because holding two absolutely contradictory premises at once and pretending that they can be reconciled is the basis of what Orwell called “doublethink”, a crucially important mindset for Marxists because it makes reason in the ordinary sense impossible since one can easily use the rules of logical inference to derive any result, no matter how insane or even meaningless, once one overtly and explicitly accepts directly contradictory premises. In ordinary logical reasoning, this is restricted to falsifying an assertion by accepting it as a hypothesis and showing a contradiction can be produced. In Marxist reasoning, it is sought as a means of ensuring that a complex logical justification can be made to achieve particular insane results, as well as ensuring that ‘unauthorized’ persons are incapable of meaningful independent reasoning because their premises can always justify either result in any question and thus they remain dependent on ‘authorities’ to tell them which result is correct.

    These opposite reasons for Marxists and rational thinkers to regard the third definition of “racism” as a critical development which rational thinkers must oppose at all costs even as Marxists seek to impose it at any cost are of course based on the clear logical consequence of accepting a premise which is fatal to all further attempts to settle any question by reason. Of course, it is not the only fundamental contradiction which Marxism has brought to a decisive point in contemporary political discourse. The redefinition of “science” to mean uncritical acceptance of officially sanctioned dogmas almost succeeded, in fact appeared to have actually succeeded for a time, without generating nearly as much public controversy. There are too many other examples to count. But we are for the moment discussing racism.

    I have no tolerance whatsoever for racism in the first sense and only a very limited interest in racialism (which I supposed now goes by “race realism” or some such). Even if we really could make certain categorical distinctions between individuals based on scientific racialism (such as IQ, athletic ability, fecundity, criminality, or whatever), it would still be both scientifically and culturally necessary to continue to measure those attributes on an individual basis. You can never say “the science is settled” and stop collecting evidence, that’s not how science works. So you’d need to continue to measure individual characteristics just for scientific purposes even if no sub-Saharan black, for instance, ever had an IQ higher than any Northern European white. For the science to remain science, you have to keep taking the measurements. For any social policy to be rationally based on that science, you’d need the science to remain current. Any imposed social policy has to be justified by benefits (whether or not you think social policies can be justified at all is another matter). And there benefits of using the results of ability tests directly will invariably be greater at less overhead cost than using them to support a scientific theory which supports a generalization on which you base your social policy. There is also the fact that it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that racial influences on abilities are not absolute, and there are, for example, sub-Saharan blacks who have IQ’s higher than at least some Northern European whites, as well as some white men who can jump.

    It is obvious that genetic potential must influence phenotype expression in a strong degree if any of our significant biological theories are remotely correct. Racialism (race realism, whatever) must be made a respectable area of scientific inquiry if civilization is to continue to pursue science in any significant degree. But I don’t see our civilization continuing at all, let alone continuing to pursue valid scientific inquiry to any significant degree. The “dismal science” is telling us some dismal things about how much further our current economy can endure, and what is going to happen when it fails. If a sudden flourishing of racialist science could produce actionable results in time to implement policies which could reverse the current economic and historical trends, I would endorse them fully. But they can’t be produced in time or have any meaningful effect on what happens next even if the political will could be found to act on them.

    And the only meaningful action they could recommend is firm application of the principle of individualism, treating individuals according to their own actions, regardless of what theories we accept about what produced those actions in that individual. It doesn’t really matter why someone commits a crime or produces a good, as long as we are correctly identifying the crimes and goods in question, the answer of our social policy must be to punish the criminal and reward the producer.

    So while I unapologetically endorse and commend “racism” in the third sense of absolutely opposing and rejecting all institutional racial preferences, regardless of ’emergencies’ or ‘tragedies’ of any kind, I have only incidental interest in “racism” in the second sense (of white people being allowed and encouraged to express their instinctive affection and preference for their own kinship and culture or origin), and latent/dormant interest in racialist science. What is for me more important is clear recognition that the term “racism” has been turned first 90 and then 180 degrees away from the original meaning.

    Because as terrible as it would be for us to continue to tolerate the current imposition of institutional racial preferences, it is not as utterly fatal to our very ability to reason as being made to accept the redefinition of “racism” as opposition to the institution of actual racism (anti-white or not).

    Also, I just have to add, Islam is NOT A RACE!

    • Alex Graf

      IMHO, racism properly defined is the advocacy or implementation of a legal/political system that eschews the values of individual justice and replaces it with a system based on racial group identity (i.e. “social justice”).

      Everything outside of a legal/political system, incl. expressing an antipathy to some racial or ethnic group etc., has nothing to do with an actual racism.

      • Richard Chiu

        Well, technically I have to disagree that an ideology has to be implemented legally or politically before it counts. But certainly it has to be possible to be thus implemented before I bother to worry about it.

  • UsedtobeaSuitBoi

    I signed the counter petition regarding Trump.