Order the latest print issue here
All print issues here
asylummagazine@protonmail.com
GO MAKE PORN
Cosmo Senex
The most common lament on the right concerns the sources of funding. Political consultant Jeff Roe, a morbidly obese perennial loser, recently appealed to conservative donors that to save Ron DeSantis in Iowa, he needed an immediate cash infusion of $50 million. What is outrageous is that had DeSantis not prematurely collapsed, he could have achieved such a goal, despite the fact that his candidacy even then had a near-zero probability of success.
Of course, non-longhouse artists look at that number and whine that this dumb money could literally transform society if it were invested in them. If those artists read our Man’s World article on dissident artist failures, they would understand that they will never see money from such sources.
This of course begs the question: from where then, Cosmo Senex, shall funding come? Artists should not spend too much time worrying about raising money — not that they should be totally ignorant of the business, but they usually lack financial competency by disposition. The answer is for those adjacent to the arts – the businessmen-cum-dilettantes – to handle raising capital. This article is mostly addressed to them: the impresarios.
Most savvy businessmen are too intelligent (read: risk averse) to spoil their fortunes on the haphazard guesswork of what is cool, good, and profitable in the arts. This is not a slight against normie businessmen — nobody really knows how to valuate and bet on art. This is due in part to the fact that in our G.A.E. regime, piss-poor art can be carpet-bombed into popularity with expensive marketing campaigns. It reduces short-term financial risk, but, even then, there is still no guarantee of a return. As such, normie businessmen wisely avoid this incoherent model as it produces inordinate amounts of financially risky art that is not cool and good, but demonstrably fake and gay. The extent to which they spend on the arts is on consumption and on donations to regime institutions (theaters, museums, etc.) in exchange for social cachet. Their transactional relationship with the arts helps our enemies. This reality is also unchangeable.
It is therefore necessary to recruit and train a different breed of businessmen to whom making money is of secondary concern. Whatever you might think about Andrew Tate’s content, it’s worthwhile to consider his example. Why? Because immoral funding sources should underwrite non-longhouse art. No? Let’s consider the sordid history of the arts through the 20th century to present day in a brief-yet-demonstrative accounting of standard practices.
The beloved long-time CEO of Warner Bros, Steve Ross, started as your average ambitious kid who knew the easiest way to financial success was to marry the daughter of a successful businessman. In his case, it was the owner of funeral homes. Ross’ idea was to expand the family business to car services and parking lots. To guarantee success, Ross cut deals with famed New York mobsters to exterminate competition. Having amassed an even bigger fortune, he eventually bought Warner Bros from the retiring Jack Warner, who had become the sole chief by basically killing and exiling his own brothers from the studio (which they had collectively founded). Within a decade after acquiring Warner Bros, Ross divorced the wife whose family had given him everything. He then coalesced more power through other marriages and did what he enjoyed most: exploiting all of the beauty Hollywood had to offer, if you catch the drift.
Most are quite certain of the mafia support enjoyed by Frank Sinatra (along with every other Italian crooner of the era). There are countless other examples, such as Jean Harlow, who secured roles because of cash infusions into Columbia Pictures by boyfriend mobster Abner Zwillman.
The world’s most popular musical genre, rap music, subsisted on over a decade of seed investments from the Bloods and Crips gangs. Even after they were made (somewhat) legit by the record companies, new rap artists have always made payments for studio time and marketing with “street cash.”
Other artists who greatly benefited from relationships with drug dealers and murderers include painter Jackson Pollack, who partnered with the CIA to launder money to assets ‘round the globe.
Postwar artists were also renowned for their proclivity to steal the work of others. The songs on Led Zeppelin’s first two albums are not theirs — they were stolen. Atlantic Records was complicit in this theft. Frank Ocean stole the instrumental tracks from bands like Coldplay and the Eagles, wrote new lyrics for them, then released it as a free mixtape all without permission to use that intellectual property. Corporate brands then flocked to Ocean.
How many authors, if they check the right identity boxes, are artificially pumped up by their publishers and NGOs who buy-back their books to boost the Nielsen Bookscan so they show up on the best-sellers lists? All of them? Is this “honest” business?
Are we supposed to believe Klaw and Erlanger’s female talent were NOT, by contemporary standards, trafficked? Do you think any of these artists or businessmen gave a shit or regretted what they did to get to the top of their fields? Or who paid their way? Why then are our aspiring impresarios attempting a clean solution for the lack of funding for our artists? In their day, who were the Medici but a shameful cabal engaged in deplorable acts of usury?
Undoubtedly the reader has harkened back to the old adage about what lies behind every great fortune. However, one may not need to commit the crime themself. Moreover, tens of millions of dollars are not necessary to move things forward in a meaningful way. We shall address the requisite seed capital first, which should primarily be directed towards the high arts: novels, poetry, classical music composition, painting, sculpting, and theatre, plus their digital analogues.
This is not to say that cinema is not capable of being high art, but it is cost prohibitive. Cinema is also highly susceptible to the influence of the high arts, as most of it is technically derivative of written literature. Aside from the cheaper buy-in, investing in the high arts forces downward cultural pressure on the other artistic mediums and media. A related example exists in the fashion industry: the styles found on the runway at Paris Fashion Week in 2023 end up on the rack of TJ Maxx by 2028.
As Hollywood cycles out of wokeness and back to being governed by ruthless sex and profit fiends, there will be greater consideration for stories birthed out of what is known as the Dissident Right. Before this happens though, our culture requires a scandalized high art movement that film auteurs may draw inspiration from. These underlying works, at the annual cost of a paltry few hundred thousand dollars divided amongst the right artists, must exist first.
Admirable work has been done in curating a scene from which masterpieces may spring forth. The next step is for our impresarios to recruit businessmen, or to become such men themselves.
He won’t do this because he is a presumably moral person, but L0mez, who runs the Passage Prize, should seize the opportunity to poach Andrew Tate’s sex workers and set up shop with better conditions. If not poaching “talent” from Tate, there is no reason someone could not set up a similar business. Instead of blowing the money on sports cars, hundreds of thousands could be diverted to Passage Prize artists.
Perhaps the more technically savvy can create a legion of AI girlfriends to extract funds from the incels. Or perhaps create deepfake pornographic parodies of conservative female commentators (Hallo Eva). Like Sam Bankman-Fried, the right amount of cynical disdain for the customers can produce a product that could be financially transformative.
All that to say, the money in the sex industry is probably the easiest to make because it only takes a moderately competent (albeit unscrupulous) businessman. Any idiot can make it in the sex business — but most simply won’t touch it. Leonid Radvinsky, owner of OnlyFans, is now worth $2.1 billion. If you won’t get it, someone else will.
It was recently revealed that Nate Fischer of NewFoundingOrg, who is attempting to build parallel institutions to compete against woke capital, also part-owns an ammo manufacturing business. While commendable, he is stopping short of massive revenues by focusing on the American market. He should be attempting to secure international clients in places like Africa and Ukraine. Circumventing the Conventional Arms Transfer Policy roadblocks and obtaining a direct commercial sales license should not be particularly difficult for an enterprising impresario. Fischer apparently has two contracts with the US Department of Justice totaling a measly $78,000 per year. Selling to a CIA-approved butcher like Joseph Kony or the Azov NAZIs could add a zero or two to that number.
Open your browser and search images for a real estate mogul named David Frankens. Do you think (physiognomy check) you’re dumber than this guy? No, he just happened to be the one with the balls to sell real estate to the CCP – much to the chagrin of faggoty TPUSA Republicans who would never “sell out to the enemy.” Look for revenue streams nobody is willing to touch, and grab them by the balls. Learning some Spanish might be helpful.
Remember, the businessman who nets millions per year because he owns 40 car washes is too smart to risk capital on unpredictable artistic endeavors. He also lacks any interest except to stream idiotic Marvel slop with his retarded children. More importantly, he does not aspire towards a lasting legacy. At a higher level, guys like Thiel or Musk may say they are concerned with legacy, but neither could quote a single line from a Shakespeare sonnet, or Dickens, or mark the differences between a Rubens or Turner. Musk laughs at dick jokes on X. He is too spergy to appreciate La Boheme. These autistic tech creeps are as incorrigible as the fly-fishing Boomer in Montana who is shoveling heaps of cash over to the GOP. Stop fucking around with them.
However, degenerates like Andrew Tate are concerned with legacy. One may could hope then that our impresarios could develop a relationship with, and earn the trust of, people in the sex industry. Playing on their egos and desire for legitimacy/acceptance amongst the normies, contributions to the high arts may be solicited. This can take the form of dedications, awards, and other credentialing that is not dissimilar to the inception of the MTV Music Awards (which started out as a satire) or the Pulitzer Prize (which posthumously gave legitimacy to Pulitzer’s legacy of yellow journalism). This however is less likely to succeed, because someone like Radvinsky is better served (read: legal scrutiny staved off) by throwing money at regime-approved NGOs. Ideally, our impresarios accrue wealth themselves. Soliciting from businessmen in the sex industry (or other dubious ventures) is the next best option. A symphony or novel dedicated to a benefactor is not something that even governments can posthumously take away. Yachts and sports cars, which are seized by governments all the time, do nothing to preserve one’s legacy.
These suggestions are NOT offered in jest — it is a deadly serious matter. Courage is probably the virtue in the shortest supply in West these days, most notably from our politicians, but also from the impresarios who fear taking on the maximal amount of sin they can bear, and bearing it.
A final warning: Michael Anton wrote in IM1776 that it was strange that the 1960s did not produce a masterpiece in fiction literature like those of previous eras. Consider the fact that at that time, during the blooming of postmodernist art, there was zero funding/promotion for non-postmodern artists. With exception of Hollywood (which was bankrolled/produced by the beneficiaries of criminal enterprises), the 1960s passed having produced no lasting non-postmodern high art masterpieces reflective of those times. Today, there are some on our side who excitedly proclaim non-longhouse art is nascent and primed to bloom. We must caution against this optimism. Without those taking on the impresario role and behaving like the titans of Old Hollywood or Renaissance Florence, our artistic movement is doomed. Impresarios must act now before the aesthetic spirit born in 2015 is lost forever.
The world is moving on.
The most common lament on the right concerns the sources of funding. Political consultant Jeff Roe, a morbidly obese perennial loser, recently appealed to conservative donors that to save Ron DeSantis in Iowa, he needed an immediate cash infusion of $50 million. What is outrageous is that had DeSantis not prematurely collapsed, he could have achieved such a goal, despite the fact that his candidacy even then had a near-zero probability of success.
Of course, non-longhouse artists look at that number and whine that this dumb money could literally transform society if it were invested in them. If those artists read our Man’s World article on dissident artist failures, they would understand that they will never see money from such sources.
This of course begs the question: from where then, Cosmo Senex, shall funding come? Artists should not spend too much time worrying about raising money — not that they should be totally ignorant of the business, but they usually lack financial competency by disposition. The answer is for those adjacent to the arts – the businessmen-cum-dilettantes – to handle raising capital. This article is mostly addressed to them: the impresarios.
Most savvy businessmen are too intelligent (read: risk averse) to spoil their fortunes on the haphazard guesswork of what is cool, good, and profitable in the arts. This is not a slight against normie businessmen — nobody really knows how to valuate and bet on art. This is due in part to the fact that in our G.A.E. regime, piss-poor art can be carpet-bombed into popularity with expensive marketing campaigns. It reduces short-term financial risk, but, even then, there is still no guarantee of a return. As such, normie businessmen wisely avoid this incoherent model as it produces inordinate amounts of financially risky art that is not cool and good, but demonstrably fake and gay. The extent to which they spend on the arts is on consumption and on donations to regime institutions (theaters, museums, etc.) in exchange for social cachet. Their transactional relationship with the arts helps our enemies. This reality is also unchangeable.
It is therefore necessary to recruit and train a different breed of businessmen to whom making money is of secondary concern. Whatever you might think about Andrew Tate’s content, it’s worthwhile to consider his example. Why? Because immoral funding sources should underwrite non-longhouse art. No? Let’s consider the sordid history of the arts through the 20th century to present day in a brief-yet-demonstrative accounting of standard practices.
The beloved long-time CEO of Warner Bros, Steve Ross, started as your average ambitious kid who knew the easiest way to financial success was to marry the daughter of a successful businessman. In his case, it was the owner of funeral homes. Ross’ idea was to expand the family business to car services and parking lots. To guarantee success, Ross cut deals with famed New York mobsters to exterminate competition. Having amassed an even bigger fortune, he eventually bought Warner Bros from the retiring Jack Warner, who had become the sole chief by basically killing and exiling his own brothers from the studio (which they had collectively founded). Within a decade after acquiring Warner Bros, Ross divorced the wife whose family had given him everything. He then coalesced more power through other marriages and did what he enjoyed most: exploiting all of the beauty Hollywood had to offer, if you catch the drift.
Most are quite certain of the mafia support enjoyed by Frank Sinatra (along with every other Italian crooner of the era). There are countless other examples, such as Jean Harlow, who secured roles because of cash infusions into Columbia Pictures by boyfriend mobster Abner Zwillman.
The world’s most popular musical genre, rap music, subsisted on over a decade of seed investments from the Bloods and Crips gangs. Even after they were made (somewhat) legit by the record companies, new rap artists have always made payments for studio time and marketing with “street cash.”
Other artists who greatly benefited from relationships with drug dealers and murderers include painter Jackson Pollack, who partnered with the CIA to launder money to assets ‘round the globe.
Postwar artists were also renowned for their proclivity to steal the work of others. The songs on Led Zeppelin’s first two albums are not theirs — they were stolen. Atlantic Records was complicit in this theft. Frank Ocean stole the instrumental tracks from bands like Coldplay and the Eagles, wrote new lyrics for them, then released it as a free mixtape all without permission to use that intellectual property. Corporate brands then flocked to Ocean.
How many authors, if they check the right identity boxes, are artificially pumped up by their publishers and NGOs who buy-back their books to boost the Nielsen Bookscan so they show up on the best-sellers lists? All of them? Is this “honest” business?
Are we supposed to believe Klaw and Erlanger’s female talent were NOT, by contemporary standards, trafficked? Do you think any of these artists or businessmen gave a shit or regretted what they did to get to the top of their fields? Or who paid their way? Why then are our aspiring impresarios attempting a clean solution for the lack of funding for our artists? In their day, who were the Medici but a shameful cabal engaged in deplorable acts of usury?
Undoubtedly the reader has harkened back to the old adage about what lies behind every great fortune. However, one may not need to commit the crime themself. Moreover, tens of millions of dollars are not necessary to move things forward in a meaningful way. We shall address the requisite seed capital first, which should primarily be directed towards the high arts: novels, poetry, classical music composition, painting, sculpting, and theatre, plus their digital analogues.
This is not to say that cinema is not capable of being high art, but it is cost prohibitive. Cinema is also highly susceptible to the influence of the high arts, as most of it is technically derivative of written literature. Aside from the cheaper buy-in, investing in the high arts forces downward cultural pressure on the other artistic mediums and media. A related example exists in the fashion industry: the styles found on the runway at Paris Fashion Week in 2023 end up on the rack of TJ Maxx by 2028.
As Hollywood cycles out of wokeness and back to being governed by ruthless sex and profit fiends, there will be greater consideration for stories birthed out of what is known as the Dissident Right. Before this happens though, our culture requires a scandalized high art movement that film auteurs may draw inspiration from. These underlying works, at the annual cost of a paltry few hundred thousand dollars divided amongst the right artists, must exist first.
Admirable work has been done in curating a scene from which masterpieces may spring forth. The next step is for our impresarios to recruit businessmen, or to become such men themselves.
He won’t do this because he is a presumably moral person, but L0mez, who runs the Passage Prize, should seize the opportunity to poach Andrew Tate’s sex workers and set up shop with better conditions. If not poaching “talent” from Tate, there is no reason someone could not set up a similar business. Instead of blowing the money on sports cars, hundreds of thousands could be diverted to Passage Prize artists.
Perhaps the more technically savvy can create a legion of AI girlfriends to extract funds from the incels. Or perhaps create deepfake pornographic parodies of conservative female commentators (Hallo Eva). Like Sam Bankman-Fried, the right amount of cynical disdain for the customers can produce a product that could be financially transformative.
All that to say, the money in the sex industry is probably the easiest to make because it only takes a moderately competent (albeit unscrupulous) businessman. Any idiot can make it in the sex business — but most simply won’t touch it. Leonid Radvinsky, owner of OnlyFans, is now worth $2.1 billion. If you won’t get it, someone else will.
It was recently revealed that Nate Fischer of NewFoundingOrg, who is attempting to build parallel institutions to compete against woke capital, also part-owns an ammo manufacturing business. While commendable, he is stopping short of massive revenues by focusing on the American market. He should be attempting to secure international clients in places like Africa and Ukraine. Circumventing the Conventional Arms Transfer Policy roadblocks and obtaining a direct commercial sales license should not be particularly difficult for an enterprising impresario. Fischer apparently has two contracts with the US Department of Justice totaling a measly $78,000 per year. Selling to a CIA-approved butcher like Joseph Kony or the Azov NAZIs could add a zero or two to that number.
Open your browser and search images for a real estate mogul named David Frankens. Do you think (physiognomy check) you’re dumber than this guy? No, he just happened to be the one with the balls to sell real estate to the CCP – much to the chagrin of faggoty TPUSA Republicans who would never “sell out to the enemy.” Look for revenue streams nobody is willing to touch, and grab them by the balls. Learning some Spanish might be helpful.
Remember, the businessman who nets millions per year because he owns 40 car washes is too smart to risk capital on unpredictable artistic endeavors. He also lacks any interest except to stream idiotic Marvel slop with his retarded children. More importantly, he does not aspire towards a lasting legacy. At a higher level, guys like Thiel or Musk may say they are concerned with legacy, but neither could quote a single line from a Shakespeare sonnet, or Dickens, or mark the differences between a Rubens or Turner. Musk laughs at dick jokes on X. He is too spergy to appreciate La Boheme. These autistic tech creeps are as incorrigible as the fly-fishing Boomer in Montana who is shoveling heaps of cash over to the GOP. Stop fucking around with them.
However, degenerates like Andrew Tate are concerned with legacy. One may could hope then that our impresarios could develop a relationship with, and earn the trust of, people in the sex industry. Playing on their egos and desire for legitimacy/acceptance amongst the normies, contributions to the high arts may be solicited. This can take the form of dedications, awards, and other credentialing that is not dissimilar to the inception of the MTV Music Awards (which started out as a satire) or the Pulitzer Prize (which posthumously gave legitimacy to Pulitzer’s legacy of yellow journalism). This however is less likely to succeed, because someone like Radvinsky is better served (read: legal scrutiny staved off) by throwing money at regime-approved NGOs. Ideally, our impresarios accrue wealth themselves. Soliciting from businessmen in the sex industry (or other dubious ventures) is the next best option. A symphony or novel dedicated to a benefactor is not something that even governments can posthumously take away. Yachts and sports cars, which are seized by governments all the time, do nothing to preserve one’s legacy.
These suggestions are NOT offered in jest — it is a deadly serious matter. Courage is probably the virtue in the shortest supply in West these days, most notably from our politicians, but also from the impresarios who fear taking on the maximal amount of sin they can bear, and bearing it.
A final warning: Michael Anton wrote in IM1776 that it was strange that the 1960s did not produce a masterpiece in fiction literature like those of previous eras. Consider the fact that at that time, during the blooming of postmodernist art, there was zero funding/promotion for non-postmodern artists. With exception of Hollywood (which was bankrolled/produced by the beneficiaries of criminal enterprises), the 1960s passed having produced no lasting non-postmodern high art masterpieces reflective of those times. Today, there are some on our side who excitedly proclaim non-longhouse art is nascent and primed to bloom. We must caution against this optimism. Without those taking on the impresario role and behaving like the titans of Old Hollywood or Renaissance Florence, our artistic movement is doomed. Impresarios must act now before the aesthetic spirit born in 2015 is lost forever.
The world is moving on.
BUY VOLUME II ISSUE VI
ORDER HERE