King of Dogs: Life is the training ground for death

“King of Dogs: Life is the training ground for death” by one of my hunting pack is now on Audible.

…There were more heated voices from the alleys up there, but no eruption yet. After a quiet moment with his ear cocked to the road, Grayson cleared his throat.

“In the frigid north, before the domestication of dogs, men hunted and patrolled their territory in pairs or alone because the limited caloric resources couldn’t support large tribes. Women needed to stay put with the kids. The necessarily small squad size limited men’s travel. They couldn’t haul much. It restricted when and how they could fight. They were pressed deep into tougher land. If you’re the sort who believes in evolution, this would be maybe fourteen thousand years ago.

And then the mystery arrives:

These solo operators of the north all the sudden begin to domesticate wolves. Now they’re going out to face the unknown with a true gang who will kill or die for their master, their alpha. They can haul, they can fight, they’ve got warmth in the blizzard. Dogs are an early warning measure, so security improves. This allows the northerners to survive and eventually thrive. Western man owes his existence to dogs. In my particular worldview it’s neither contradiction nor exaggeration to say that dogs are a direct gift from God. That’s why we don’t kill dogs.”

Munson considered this for a moment. He lit a cigarette. The voices up the road grew pitched…

Our respect for dogs as evolutionary catalyst for individual integrity drew Andrew Edwards and I together some years ago when he was going through a personal crisis. Although not directly related to that crisis, he had been unable to finish a novel that he’d been working on for years. In part, as a way of healing, I encouraged him to complete it. The result is “King of Dogs: Life is the training ground for death”.

It begins with a promise the protagonist, Grayson, makes to a comrade, Jack, dying in a VA hospital. Grayson’s own life is a vacuum of meaning after a personal tragedy. And now his closest friend is dying. But in that death, his friend gives Grayson a final gift. He gives Grayson’s life meaning in the form of “A Righteous Mission”:

During the collapse of the American Empire, take charge of delivering Jack’s unseasoned brother and pregnant sister-in-law, out of harms way in Moab Utah, to safe place.

As any true warrior knows, war is Hell because it deprives future generations of what the hymn refers to when it says “There Is Power In The Blood”. Christ lies dying in the VA hospital. His Blood lives inside Jack’s sister-in-law.

Although tragedy has deprived Grayson of his own son, there is still that Righteous Mission… the unborn child.


If you prefer print, paperback and Kindle editions are available. The Kindle version is free for Kindle Unlimited subscribers.


Men who served in the military I know are preparing for the collapse, not by joining militias, but by doing what King of Dogs would indicate is the wiser move for people whose leadership has been compromised down to even the level of the Chamber of Commerce:

Have an isolated place, invisible to aerial surveillance, with a self-contained place to take your family for a few months. You just have to be aware that the Chamber of Commerce will have guys that will gladly identify you as a threat, so you won’t have much time to “bug out” after you’ve detected your town being scouted for genocide by a roving paramilitary gang, and you’d better not telegraph your departure to “The Town Fathers”.

I have little doubt that the Feds will be supporting this genocide of The Nation of Settlers.


“The confounding thing is not that the Living World wants only strength from a man and nothing more, he thought. But rather that to live in a world so beautiful requires so much strength.”
– King of Dogs


What caused the sudden reversal in public opinion around 1995?


A change like that is difficult to explain without some sort of subversion. Perhaps a change in the wording of the Gallup questionnaire? A media campaign of portraying immigration reduction as outside the Overton Window?

I suspect it had something to do with what Peter Brimelow says is was final coup de grace against the paleocons by the neocons in reaction to his 1996 book, Alien Nation. According to Brimelow the neocon revolution started purging immigration restrictionists during the Reagan administration leading to the 1986 amnesty (the huge spike in the immigration rate graph). The neocons promised the US public that the US government would thereafter enforce immigration laws (just as the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act promised that there would be no revolutionary changes in the demography of the US as a result.) It didn’t and people were getting riled up in both parties in reaction.
The necons then purged The National Review in reaction to Brimelow’s book.

Whatever is driving the neocons utterly insane “Invade the world, Invite the world, In hoc to the world” obsession seems to be of a piece with JFK’s book “A Nation of Immigrants” which was actually written by the ADL. The only story that makes sense to me is the one Kevin MacDonald wrote about in “Culture of Critique”: Paranoia among Jewish leaders after WW II led to an obsession with eradicating any remnant of ethnic identity in the US.


I date the origin of the grand alliance between the cheap labour lobby and the grievance/great replacement partisans to 1984-04-03, when the Wall Street Journal published its famous (or notorious, based upon your view) editorial “In Praise of Huddled Masses”. (It is extraordinarily difficult to find an original copy of this on-line; this copy was posted by The piece is a lot longer than I remember it having been. What stuck in my mind (and craw) was the “money paragraph”. I’ll include the next one as a bonus.

If Washington still wants to “do something” about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders. Perhaps this policy is overly ambitious in today’s world, but the U.S. became the world’s envy by trumpeting precisely this kind of heresy. Our greatest heresy is that we believe in people as the great resource of our land. Those who would live in freedom have voted over the centuries with their feet. Wherever the state abused its people, beginning with the Puritan pilgrims and continuing today in places like Ho Chi Minh City and Managua, they’ve aimed for our shores. They—we—have astonished the world with the country’s success.

The nativist patriots scream for “control of the borders.” It is nonsense to believe that this unenforceable legislation will provide any such thing. Does anyone want to “control the borders” at the moral expense of a 2,000-mile Berlin Wall with minefields, dogs and machine-gun towers? Those who mouth this slogan forget what America means. They want those of us already safely ensconced to erect giant signs warning: Keep Out, Private Property.

This editorial was posted to oppose what was then called the “Simpson-Mazzoli bill”, an immigration reform act which the Journal as “in fact, and anti-immigration bill”, which “President Reagan would be wise to veto it as antithetical to the national self-confidence his administration has done so much to renew.” In the event, the bill died in 1984, but after the election it was back in a revised form in the 99th Congress in 1985, where it passed both houses and was signed into law by President Reagan on 1986-11-06 as the “Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986”, which, with splendid irony, was the first grand amnesty and opened the floodgates of immigration even wider than the disastrous Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

The WSJ was right about the 1986 act being “unenforceable”: the amnesty worked all right, but all of the enforcement provisions were quickly gutted or de-funded, with the obvious consequences. This has set the pattern for all of the “comprehensive immigration reform” scams over subsequent decades.


Historically, the young US did have effectively open borders. It was difficult & expensive for people to reach the US, and once they got there, the only options were work or starve.

It is the combination of open borders (which is what the US has today, practically-speaking) with very generous social give-aways to the immigrants that is unsupportable. Open Borders AND the elimination of social safety nets & special exceptions to the laws for those who walked in (such as no need for the clot shots imposed on citizens) – now there is a program that might work!


Here is Milton Friedman in a 2006 E-mail [PDF]:

Immigration is a particularly difficult subject. There is no doubt that free and open immigration is the right policy in a libertarian state, but in a welfare state it is a different story: the supply of immigrants will become infinite. Your proposal that someone only be able to come for employment is a good one but it would not solve the problem completely. The real hitch is in denying social benefits to the immigrants who are here. That is very hard to do, much harder than you would think as we have found out in California. But nonetheless, we clearly want to move in the direction that you are talking about so this is a question of nitpicking, not of serious objection.


It is no exaggeration to say that when Ron Paul parroted this “Berlin Wall” line during a Presidential debate he killed the libertarian movement in the US. It was then left to Trump to pick up the $1000 bill lying on the sidewalk*. Having worked on both of Ron Paul’s campaigns, when I heard him say that, I started seriously considering the possibility of a Maoist influence was behind much of the utter “open borders” insanity – including the Mises Institute, Reason Magazine and much of what was going on with the Jewish leadership.

It may seem a “crazy conspiracy theory” to suspect such a long-game that exploits the weaknesses in the structure of the West – JudeoChristian, Individualist and Capitalist – but the utter absurdity and betrayal by Ron Paul of the founding principles of liberty** for the high purpose of committing political suicide live on national TV demands serious consideration of such theories.

*Trump’s victory was on the strength of “build the wall” as much as “drain the swamp” – and these were highly enthusiastic rallies by the remnant of The Nation of Settlers who were all ready to soak the soil with their own blood if only they could, after so many decades of high treason, believe the US might be salvaged. They’re still willing to die by the tens of millions but now it looks like it may turn out to be something more like the French Revolution killing everyone from the top all they way down to the employers who hired immigrants.

**People really can’t get it through their heads that consent of the governed has something to do with “liberty” and that the people did not consent to the increase in the “voting shares issued” to the kinds of people who then vote for further increase in the “voting shares issued”. Milton Friedman was an optimist when he ignored this founding fact of any remotely reasonable attempt to form what Spooner would call a legitimate government as a mutual insurance company.


In something of a synchronicity, earlier today I posted here a reference to “Cormac McCarthy’s last novel” with the word “last” carefully chosen to be ambiguous since he was quite elderly but I thought hopefully might write another. I also posted, today, something about King of Dogs at the Cormack McCarthy reddit sub and all of the “resonances”. Then while doing yard work, I listened to some of King of Dogs again and ran across to something that struck me as more than mere “resonance”. So I returned to add that to my post at the Cormac McCarthy reddit only to discover everyone was in an uproar because his death had just been announced.


Mr Edwards provides intergenerational insights rarely available outside the rarified worldview we share:

1 Like