Anna Khachiyan
Thisinterview was conducted by Giles Hoffmann and has been edited for brevity andclarity.
Anna Khachiyan and Dasha Nekrasovastarted the Red ScarePodcast in 2018. It is now a successfulprogram (so far achieving over 12 000 subscribers) in which “the ladies”loosely and discursively ramble about American culture, fresh political news,some philosophical thoughts, the rare teleological concern, and (obviously)their feelings. This alone is scarcely interesting though. So why do Anna andDasha concern us?
Well partly because some of their episodes are dedicated tointerviews of anti-establishment figures.
Though each guest varies in theirdegree of fringe-cum-mainstream status – with some putatively on right andothers donning traditionally leftists’ laurels – they together form a curry ofrevolutionary longing. The most notable among them are: Slavoj Žizek, GlennGreenwald and Adam Curtis (left); and Steven Bannon, Alex Jones, and CurtisYarvin (right). Do not be surprised if the Führer der Frösche himself (“yes. henlo”) will soon be a guest.
For hosting these pariahs andcommitting other blasphemies, such as their liberal usage ofless-than-offensive taboo-words, the ladies are often diminished to attention seekersby the mainstream media, who mendaciously characterize them as only“provocateurs” or “trolls” or “nihilists”. But this deliberately dismissivedepiction is hardly true.
The ladies are oppositely amplifyingimmoderate voices of subversion, and consistently give their platform to whomeveris willing to puncture holes in the ship’s hull. Yes, to some degree, the girlsonly want what we want: to see the foundering of this gay cruise liner.
If my impression of them is accurate, then Anna and Dashaare just merchants of fringe. Bravo lesfilles!
But that is not all; there is somethingnew fermenting here. The girls, who at first might have been just haphazardlyhelping themselves to any dissident in cultural buffet, are now giving ourcroaks and our ribbits a megaphone. Just look at what Anna shares online. Theyfound a heat source and they want to cozy up! So please be kind…shift over…makesome room around our fire.
And I admit: I speak this amicably onlyin hindsight, after asking pointed questions, since I was first concerned thatthis conversation would be little else but interview parasitism. Anna, amongother things, is an interviewer; this interview, then, would only be turningthe knife back into the assailant – of questioning the questioner. I wasafraid I had reached my low only after three issues…becoming a blood-quenched mosquito(me) on the hindlegs of a ravenous hyena (Anna). But I had crudelyunderestimated the woman!
Anna is far more intelligent than howyou might believe at first when hearing her voice, the nightmarish emanationsof a trailer-park-yenta. I furthermore think she is here in good faith, becauseshe has come to us, not on the condition of taming our spirit or softening ourviews, but as a genuine opportunist – like a truffle hunting sow orbitch,she has a nose for the good stuff!
She was also willing to meet in person.And we auspiciously got together inside the Trump Tower at 5th and 56th, in thecafe. I was surprised to see she had brought her son, a cute boy who waskicking to get out of his stroller, suckling on a red silicon-nipple, andwearing a T-shirt that displayed the text, “My other Mommy is The State”. Ifound out very early that the suggestive location wasn’t chosen for my purposesbut so that Anna could scurry off to the restroom for “mirror-pics” to show that“mothers can still be thirst traps.”
Between the her regular disappearances, here are the fruitsof our conversation:
INTERVIEWER
You are currently writing a piece for thenext issue of The Asylum (unless I come on too confrontational in thisinterview…you’ll see later). What is the gist of this article? Give us a littletease.
ANNA
I’ll have to save this question for last since(a) hopefully some of my thoughts will be fleshed out in greater detail in thecourse of this interview and (b) I’m a naturally superstitious person whodoesn’t like to blow up my spot or “jinx” myself before I’ve fully committed toa particular line of thinking. In a nutshell, I’m interested in “exploring thelink” between leftism as a metaphor and narcissism as a metaphor because it’svery clear that “economic explanations” of the culture war don’t even comeclose to getting the bigger picture. My feeling is we’ve moved from “theculture of narcissism” to a borderline society.
INTERVIEWER
I believe that Mark Fisher, David FosterWallace, and Anthony Bourdain represent one trinity of liberal-postmodernism:as the academic, the writer, and the explorer. All three committed suicide with severedepression. Why do you think that none of their philosophy could come to theirrescue?
ANNA
What makes you think their philosophydidn’t come to their rescue? Perhaps it was following their philosophy to itslogical conclusion that led them to take such drastic measures. MaybeI’m giving them too much credit here, and their crisis of faith wasbrought on by an inability and/or unwillingness to confront reality in thefirst place? In a way, a guy like Fisher was lucky because he was sparedfrom seeing the worst of his predictions come true. Then again, had he justheld on a few more years, he would’ve been a Substack Millionaire.
INTERVIEWER
Why do you engage with the frogs at all,when they are typically (accurately) considered: racists and anti-Semites,misogynists, hom*ophobes, etc? Do you suffer from the Ashki trait whereby yougravitate towards brilliance even if it means self-negation?
ANNA
Why not? It’s a free country.
In general, I would caution againstreading into things in any way that indulges your appetite for paranoidthinking and conspiracy theories. I’ve always subscribed to the philosophy thatthe best explanation is often the simplest one. I engage with them for the samereason I engage with anyone: I’m interested in what they have to say and thinkthey’re funny. Hitting this new low happened organically and was totallyunpremeditated, which is why it took me so long. Though looking back now, thebrighter, less retarded ones do seem to lack the existential poverty anddesperate, animal fear of one’s own psyche that is the trademark of the onlineleft. Speaking from experience, that usually also means they’re more pleasantand well-adjusted people in private.
INTERVIEWER
“Women are spiritual Leftists.” What doesthis mean to you? It is an interesting point, because it connects a biologicalclassification (“women”) with a political orientation (“Leftists”).
Can you think of other bio-politicalassociations? You’ve referenced Steve Sailor’s work, so I’m sure you can thinkof others.
ANNA
A lot to unpack here.
To begin with, I should probably clarifywhat I mean by “spiritual leftism.” It seems to me that “spiritual leftism,”“the culture of narcissism,” “the feminization of society” are just differentways of saying the same thing: that in recent lifetimes there’s been a moveaway from civilization building to the management and administering of itsdecline. And that this turn of events was justified after the fact by variousmoral pleas to progressive values like “achieving equality” and “the need formore empathy.”
So when I say women are spiritualleftists, all I mean by that is they relate to the world through a collectivistand moralistic framework. You bring up Steve Sailer. As Sailer points out,women “tend toward conformism,” “aren’t comfortable with … diversity amongwomen,” and “take it personally when other women aren’t like them.” I’m sureboth women and misogynists would find this description equally unflattering, thoughfor opposite reasons. I see it less as a value judgment than as a statement offact. This is as it should be. Women are spiritual leftists, and the ones whoaren’t have something off about them.
Naturally, whenever I mention leftism, I’maccused of being overly dogmatic or too invested in certain hair-splittingdebates coming out of some “internet bubble” or “online ghetto” that I’vebacked myself into. Just as whenever I mention narcissism, I must be guilty of“projection.” The confusion is understandable, but it misses the point. When Iuse terms like “leftism” and “narcissism,” I’m using them metaphorically toread the culture through its representative cultural type, or what Zizek claimsMarxism called the “socially mandatory character.” (The precise link betweennarcissistic personality and traditionally leftist forms of political activity,like “organizing” and activism has been examined at length by two of myfavorite authors, Christopher Lasch and The Last Psychiatrist, and I won’trehash it here.)
Although I haven’t read much Marx, I’mvaguely familiar with the Marxist theory of “false consciousness.”Interestingly, the form of false consciousness that’s won out today isn’t thesort that disempowers you from properly identifying with the true nature ofyour socioeconomic station, but instead the sort that empowers you tooveridentify with your socioeconomic station, or worse, that of others, as ameans of keeping you from properly acknowledging other possible sources foryour political discontent.
It’s late and I’m tired so I’m glad Icould find a clean segue back to women. What is “the feminization of society”other than a metaphor for the thinning of responsibility? As it were, my beefwith the rightwingers is that they place too much blame for this state ofaffairs on literal women. This is unfair and unmanly! Responsibility evasionbeing a “female trait” may also help explain why so many men suddenly want tobe women these days.
To make a long story short, what I’msaying is that all of this could’ve been avoided by not granting women accessto equal rights in the first place. But since that’s all in the past andfantasizing about RETVRN is a LARP, we have to deal with things as they arenow. So I guess it’s back to “toppling sacred cows” and “speaking truth topower” by calling women fat on the internet.
INTERVIEWER
At the time of writing this, whileglancing at your feed, I saw retweeted in almost consecutive order: 2CB,malmesburyman, Just Loki, Dr. Braddock, Tucker Carlson…one or two insignificantothers…and then BAP, Breast Milk Enjoyer, etc…
This is not the timeline of a “dirtbagleftist” (something we’ll get to later).
It instead suggests a couple things,namely:
(1) That you are going through a political transformation;that you are becoming radicalized. (How much time before the Red ScarePodcast is replaced by the Red-White-Black Scare Podcast?)
(2) Mere shtetl-opportunism, made with the calculatingobservation that we are the future and therefore you’d rather ingratiateyourself early – such that you can become BAP’s Eva Braun now instead ofbecoming Breast Milk Enjoyer’s Elisabeth Fritzl later.
ANNA
I have to say I can’t relate to anyone whoclaims to have been “radicalized” by some or other “pipeline.” My politics havebeen the same since I first became aware of politics. Make of that what youwill.
INTERVIEWER
Leftism is often used as an umbrella termfor any political project that has the aim of promoting equality or reducingthe natural consequences of immutable difference. What then is dirtbag leftismwhen compared to traditional leftism but the same ideology with the same goals,only distinguished by some surface-level provocation of social-justice causes,which do not even promote equality and often even heighten division? In thatrespect the dirtbag left could be considered even better at achievingthe Marxist end state, since they do not lose sight of the biggerpicture.
Do you still consider yourself part of thedirtbag left?
ANNA
I’ve never considered myself part of thedirtbag left. And I’ve said as much ever since a friend of mine coined the termsix going on seven years ago now. To tell you the truth, this has less to dowith my disgust for their political and ideological program than with myindifference at the idea of belonging to any kind of partisan club. I’m surethere are plenty of people out there who are under the impression that I’m adirtbag leftist or at least guilty by association. They’re entitled to theiropinion, but it’s not my problem.
INTERVIEWER
Beyond “having fun” or cracking jokes onthis or that – what is it that you actually believe in?
This isn’t necessarily a politicalquestion, and I’d prefer to avoid making this about American domestic affairsand its attendant culture. In the same vein, let’s also bracket nebulouspolitical-science terminology such “neoliberalism” and anything that has to dowith systems or abstractions.
What I am asking in simpler language is:when you look around you, on the street, in the stores, in your life– what do you think is good and what do you think is bad?
ANNA
In this house we believe that loyalty isthe purest, most timeless virtue. Unfortunately, current generations have madea mockery out of it and turned it into a dog-and-pony show. The left openlyflouts “values” and “traditions” except to invoke them periodically as a matterof convenience. And the right arguably does worse by making a display out ofpretending to “honor” them. All of this is anyway beside the point since manyif not most of us lack the receptors to begin to comprehend what things likehonor and loyalty even mean.
Something else I believe is that ethicscan only come from looking at the world as it is rather than as you think itshould be. Working backwards from sentimental abstract ideals like “humanrights” and “social justice” leads at best to a doubling down on existingperversions and pathologies and at worst to people inventing new problems sothey can take credit for the solutions.
But that’s just me spitballing off the topof my head, as this is a big and important question, and it’s pointless to talkabout what “you believe in” in lieu of actually living by those beliefs.
INTERVIEWER
The question that naturally follows isthen: what is the point of the Red Scare Podcast, other than toentertain others or fend off personal boredom. I hope it isn’t only as aplatform for cultural criticism, since it then becomes indistinguishable fromthe lox-and-bagel-house gossip which is somehow that unique combination ofneurosis and moralism.
ANNA
Obviously, the point is for me to continueto afford designer clothes and organic diapers. I don’t view what we do as strictlycultural criticism though that’s definitely part of it; there have been somedownright absurdist, artistic, even psychedelic moments like “The Zoo” episodeor Dasha’s Catholic reveries or the time I accidentally forgot to sync theintro/outro music to the voice track and ended up keeping it by popular demand.All jokes aside, what’s wrong with entertaining people? Does everything have tohave a mission? I die a little inside every time some wretched soul breaks outthe tiny violin for our “political incoherence,” as if that’s a bad thing. “Thediscourse” is such a drag. I’m just happy if we succeed in making people laugh.If it also happens to make them think, that’s icing on the cake.
INTERVIEWER
I’m now going to address the supposed“anon problem” which you and Dasha were vapouring about most recently. (Youknew this was coming). Your main contention was that anonymity is a literarystyle acceptable for writing posts, but once the author goes ontotelevision, he ought to present himself naked. You accuse all those who enterthe mainstream while keeping their disguise as cowards and narcissists.
Why the medium in which information isspread should matter is an odd place to draw a line. It is also puzzling whysuccess, through promulgating ideas into the mainstream, is the point at whichthe dissident should surrender his only defense. Neither the medium, nor thepublic stage should matter to the writer.
Instead what matters is how threateningthe author is to the legitimacy of the people who have suppressive and punitivepowers – what is sometimes grouped together ominously as “the regime”. There isa reason why there are leftists such as Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden, andJulian Assange who have had to genuinely attempt escaping from the regime’scrosshairs, and why Dasha’s main insecurity is jeopardizing her Hollywoodprospects.
You even make such an admission ofconstraint or moderation, and perhaps overall impotence, since in your words,“I have mouths to feed”.
This exact point illustrates how theliberal use of the terms “retard” and “gay” do not in reality violate anytaboos, while simultaneously earning cheap points of appearing irreverent. Aswell as in content, in language you do not even symbolically threatenthe regime. But do not lose hope! I will extend an olive branch (and somerope):
There is one ineffable word thatdemonstrates complete non-compliance and ignites the conscience of theover-socialized whenever it is uttered. Say it here. Please, Anna. Capitalizethe “N”. Use the hard “r”. Harder, Anna! HARDER!
ANNA
First off, thank you for doing yourresearch and listening to one whole episode of the podcast. I can only imaginehow difficult it must’ve been for you as a man to sit through nearly two hoursof Women Talking. Secondly, is this an interview or a sh*t test?
In all fairness to the anons in question,they did present themselves naked, just with their voices altered andfaces blurred, like they were auditioning for a sexy witness protectionprogram. And in our defense, we were really drunk and it was a pretty mildroast. That being said, there’s a fine line between protecting yourselfin service of fulfilling some higher destiny and flattering yourself that “yourvoice matters” in the grand scheme of things, and it cuts both ways. I’m nottrying to be a longhouse moralizer telling men to “check their privilege” orcurb their ambition. In any case, it’s not up to me. Every man must do thatsearching and fearless moral inventory for himself.
My only comment is: if you choose the pathof anonymity, you have to be willing to accept its natural limits, such asoperating mostly on the margins or “facefa*gs” stealing your ideas andpopularizing them with the normies. Much like if you choose the alternate path,you have to be willing to tolerate certain aspects of the job as occupationalhazards. This is why I have so little patience for bluechecks who spend all oftheir time complaining about “death threats” and “white supremacy” and doxxing80-follower groyper accounts. Overall, as I said in that segment, I’m adefender of anonymity both in principle and in practice. Go ahead, call me aroastie, I’ll still cosign that garbage.
INTERVIEWER
Something else I wish to contest you on:the significance of BAP.
Whether because of misunderstanding or bydeceit, there have been some commentators on /our side/ who reduce BAP to hislanguage, the wellspring of contagious buzzwords and unique catchphrases, whichhave successfully pollinated the online right. Some dissident-right aspirantsin particular seem to hope that by diluting his core message into onlysomething literary or artistic, or by ignoring altogether, they can disavow hisideas while celebrating their expression as “funny” or “disruptive”. Alex Perezwent so far as formulizing this stupid line of thought into a piece for theinaugural print-issue of IM1776 (centerfold too), in which he wrote:
Saywhat you will about Bronze Age Pervert, but he’s created a style all his own,which is at times infuriating and repellant, but there’s still an energy and aplayfulness to his work that many writers would do well to emulate. BAM iscertainly a ‘blackpilled text’, but the driving force behind the book is notthe content, but the aforementioned chaotic energy that permeates it, which iswhat young writers should be taking away from it. What a book saysstylistically and aesthetically is often of greater import than whateverthematic point of view it’s trying — and often failing — to propagate.
I am not alone in my suspicion that these softcondemnations are made for the purpose of queer flagging to more“respectable” sources of influence. REN wrote about this recently. But don’tworry: I don’t place you within this sycophantic faction.
Although…you have made some comments thathave led me to question your understanding of what’s really going on over here.In the same podcast episode (Oy Ye!), the two of you express wonder atwhy the frogs concern themselves obsessively with weightlifting and UV bathing.You ask if this is only to impress women like you and Dasha (…as if anyonewould even want Cousin Greg’s leftovers).
Well, this precisely overlooks one ofBAP’s central points: the body is supreme. It is our portal to understandingnature. Politics is totally useless in a world of physical degeneration.
Indeed, our writing may be fun, but that’sbecause writing should be if you have any respect for your audience. Butour writing is not limited to amusem*nt. You have to ask yourself why we careabout biology so much, and all that follows from it, whether it be: eugenics,race, sex, hormones, pharma, agriculture and husbandry…matters of health;concerns of blood and soil.
Are you ready for that truth? Couldyou put your name behind that project? Until then, I’m not sure anyone willtake you seriously when you mock them for veiling themselves with pennames.
ANNA
Don’t take this the wrong way, but I thinkyou’ve got it backwards. You’re giving the haters and losers too much credit.They’re not worried about dirtying their hands with the content of his message,though that’s what they want you to believe (and would also like to tellthemselves). What really keeps them up at night is the knowledge that they cannever live up to his level of popularity and influence. Their efforts tomaintain a respectable distance with his project are an attempt to get ahead ofjust such low and petty accusations of envy, to give off the impression thatactually they’re good sports and “serious intellectuals” who aren’t at allcoping and seething, because of course they’re smart enough to know there’snothing respectable about that.
So while I personally don’t keep up withall the BAP struggle sessions, I hope that settles the question of where Istand because I’m running out of steam.
INTERVIEWER
Speaking of health: since having a boy (Ihope we are invited to the bar mitzvah), have you developed any greaterattention to what is in the home? Are you spending more time at health foodstores? Have you tested him for autism yet?
ANNA
Yes and no. On one hand, I’m prettycareful about reading labels, “shopping local,” buying organic, that sort ofthing. On the other hand, I try not to drive myself crazy or beat myself up.It’s not the microplastics and xenoestrogens that will kill you, it’s thestress. I’m intuitively not too worried about my son. He’s handsome, has agreat personality and maintains eye contact. Plus he’s an Aries, the sign ofmany great directors and dictators. The worst thing you can do as a parentwithin the realm of acceptability is transfer your guilt and anxiety onto yourchild.
