Amerika

Author Archive

Anatomy Of A Media Spin

Saturday, October 21st, 2017

A wise man once said to me that all music was rhythm. Notes are different frequencies, and we require a rhythm to recognize a melody, often. But the real rhythm, he opined, was the effect of change in songs, like a contrast or landscape. If events occur in the right order, with the right timing, they have vast emotional effect, which is what listeners want.

Media shows the same kind of cleverness about timing. The time scale stretches between the time people become aware than an event has occurred and the onset of the memory hole, usually about two weeks (which corresponds to the length of time between paychecks, which is all the planning that most people can handle).

The rush to splash a story across the pages and screens begins as a mania to capture the narrative, or to provide a “spin” or “angle” on the story that explains it as being consistent with the values that media expresses. Those, naturally, are the ones that flatter the largest number of people and their pretense of being right despite being unimportant.

We can see the anatomy of a media spin in the case of Clément Méric. The media rushed a story out explaining him as an innocent victim, which successfully “raised awareness” or as the rest of us call it, generated outrage. Then media sources deepened the story by adding more detail and human interest. At this point, the narrative was strong, and only after two weeks later was it debunked.

Clément died on June 5, 2013. The only objective facts established were that Méric, a far-Left agitator, had clashed with one or more far-Right individuals, and had died shortly thereafter. Here is known neo-Communist mouthpiece The British Broadcasting Corporation writing three days later with the initial spin, which is that Right-wingers deliberately instigated violence when they attacked the innocent Antifa with weapons:

The French government is to take steps to break up a far-right group allegedly linked to the death of a left-wing activist.

…He was badly beaten in a clash between far-right and anti-fascist activists in Paris on Wednesday, and later died.

…”A friend of Clement Meric said he saw [the accused] with a knuckle-duster, while another witness at the scene referred to a ‘shiny object’ in his hands.”

Two sets of knuckle-dusters had been found at his home, the prosecutor added.

Here we have set up the narrative neatly: first, the far-Right group is considered guilty, because The Government — on the Left, they see Government as a holy relic — is breaking up that group. Next, there was a “clash,” which implies planned political activity. Finally, there is the weapon, proof of premeditation.

Then there is the usual enforcement of agenda:

The government has vowed to crackdown on fascist groups.

Mr Valls said: “Sadly such movements are resurging… racists, anti-Semites and homophobes”.

This comes at the end of the article, and we have gone from relatively neutral language (“far-Right”) to explicitly Leftist language (“racists,” “fascist,” “anti-Semites,” “homophobes”).

For the average person, this capture of the narrative translates to this: the usual agenda is working fine, there are just a few hateful little people who are obstructing our worker’s Utopia, so go back to work and go back to sleep, everything will be fine once they break up that far-Right group of homophobes. You support that, don’t you? Good. I knew we could count on you to do the right thing.

Eighteen days later, we got more detail, and the case became more nuanced, as it always does with the truth, which is simpler than the blocky mental categories that humans prefer because they are easier to understand.

First we get the recap:

…As originally reported, the skinheads left the sale, “fetched reinforcements” and waited outside for Méric and his friends to reappear. Méric died after he was hit at least once in the head.

Early reports suggested that the man who hit Méric, Esteban Morillo, had been wearing brass knuckles.

And then the debunking:

The killing of a teenage anti-fascist militant after an altercation with far-right skinheads in early June prompted fears of a resurgence of far-right violence. But the evidence suggests the leftists may have been the aggressors.

…But according to French broadcaster RTL, which has seen the footage taken by a nearby camera belonging to Paris’s RATP public transport network, Méric and his group may well have been the ones to have struck first, confirming claims by far right groups that Morillo had been attacked, and not vice-versa.

According to RTL, it was Méric and his group who waited outside the sale, and it was he who threw the first punch.

Not only that, but the narrative is running in an entirely different direction:

But the investigating judge dismissed the suggestion that Morillo and his gang had purposefully targeted Méric, ruling that he should be investigated instead for manslaughter.

And according to weekly news magazine Le Point, investigators who confiscated computers from “Antifa” militants associated with Méric found photos of Morillo and his girlfriend Katia, annotated with the comment: “We need to identify these people.”

But the narrative spin has already done its work:

In the aftermath of Méric’s death, there was an outpouring of public sympathy for Méric amid fears of a resurgence of far-right militancy in France.

Leftists behave like insects, moving mechanically toward their objective constantly because they have no other existence than to consume. Unlike the Right, which is based on customs, the Left anchors itself in the idea of having a “better new way” of doing things and that this way is morally correct.

That in turn means that Leftists, who have seen the morally right way forward that everyone else denies, are not just smarter than the rest of us — in their view — but are good people because they have the right ideas. Never mind that ideology is a cop-out, since it is easier to agitate for “the right thing” in one area than to do it, every day, in every area of life.

This monomaniacal obsession allows them to turn any event into a platform for advancing their ideology. Where a Rightist might ask, “What actually happened?” the Leftist simply wonders, “How do I use this event to smash my enemies so that I can be more powerful?” Think of a swarm of locusts.

Four years later, most people will remember Clément Méric as a martyr killed by evil far-Right skinheads because that is how the media reported it, then doubled-down and deepened the story, while the greater range of detail — hidden by complicit Leftists in media, government and any private firms involved — came out too late for people to remember the story and assimilate the detail.

Now let us look at a contemporary example of media narrative capture:

Three supporters of white supremacist Richard Spencer have been arrested for the attempted murder of protesters near a Thursday event in Gainesville, Florida, city police announced in a statement. Colton Fears, William Fears, and Tyler Tenbrink were apprehended at 9 p.m. Thursday; William Fears is 30 years old and the others are 28. All three are residents of Texas. From the Gainesville PD statement:

Shortly before 5:30pm, it was reported that a silver Jeep stopped to argue with a group of protesters and began threatening, offering Nazi salutes and shouting chants about Hitler to the group that was near the bus stop. During the altercation, Tenbrink produced a handgun while the Fears brothers encouraged him to shoot at the victims. Tenbrink fired a single shot at the group which thankfully missed the group and struck a nearby building.

That makes it sound like a group of Right-wingers, out looking for a fight, drove around until they found some protestors to argue with and then opened fire.

At least, this is the spin adopted by the City of Gainesville and the mass media, but the hints are already appearing that there is more to this case than the spin:

Individual arrest reports say that one of the protesters involved in the altercation struck the Jeep with a baton before the shot was fired.

Once we get to this level, we see the more likely truth: a group in a silver Jeep was accosted by protestors, verbally defended themselves, and when the crowd began hitting the car with metal poles, opened fire in defense of their property.

This comes on the heels of the death of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, which her parents say was caused by a heart attack, not a car crash as the official narrative would have it.

But look how cagily the media reported it:

The authorities said Ms. Heyer, 32, was killed when a car driven by a man from Ohio plowed into the crowd.

Every shady salesman, corrupt lawyer or sleazy ex-boyfriend knows this trick: hide behind the literal meaning of words while clearly implying something else. She was killed “when” a car crashed, which implies causality, but actually, the word is being used literally to mean “at roughly the same time,” as in, “she was killed at 6:30 PM” and not “she was killed when he stabbed her.”

In all three cases, the spin is set up the same way: use implication, then deepen the story with generally irrelevant detail and “human interest” style reporting, and finally, fade away and never mention it again as it goes into the memory hole.

European Genetics Reveal The Differences Between European Ethnic Groups

Saturday, October 21st, 2017

If you listen to the egalitarian narrative, you will believe that we are all the same and the only difference between us is that some groups were oppressed and others were not. The only possible reason for this, we are led to believe, is that some groups are mean and others are nice, so the former oppressed the latter.

This nonsense lasted for centuries and when it finally failed as the presidency of Barack Obama and the chancellorship of Andrea Merkel failed in unison, the backlash was intense: all of us of one race are supposed to join up together, fight off the others, and live in some kind of Utopia.

This is merely a restatement of the egalitarian narrative that controls for race, but it does not address ethnicity, or the ethnic groups within those races, including hybrids.

The above map expands upon traditional knowledge and a body of genetic knowledge which shows us that the different European ethnic groups are both highly distinctive, and less separated when placed in clusters like Northern/Western, Eastern and Southern/Irish Europeans.

Here is another map, from GNXP in 2008:

Even more, notice how this corresponds to a European tribal map which shows the national identity of each regional entity:

It is not PC to notice this, nor is it “far-Right friendly” for most values of far-Right, but Europe is divided into many ethnic groups, although similar groups may cluster.

For this reason, “white nationalism” will never work, because we are not only divided into different ethnic groups, but are divided by caste, and people see no reason to engage in ethno-Bolshevism to make us all equal-within-a-race.

In the meantime, the mainstream press is reworking Lewontin’s Fallacy in order to deny the existence of race and presumably, ethnicity. To follow their narrative, they are always trying to deny race:

The researchers pinpointed eight genetic variants in four narrow regions of the human genome that strongly influence pigmentation — some making skin darker, and others making it lighter.

…The widespread distribution of these genes and their persistence over millenniums show that the old color lines are essentially meaningless, the scientists said. The research “dispels a biological concept of race,” Dr. Tishkoff said.

…A variant for light skin — found in both Europeans and the San hunter-gatherers of Botswana — arose roughly 900,000 years ago, for example.

However, unfortunately for them, race is not skin color; it involves clusters of traits which are coded for by multiple genes each. As a result, race consists of a genetic profile, as opposed to a single gene, as is argued in Lewontin’s Fallacy:

This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors.

Lewontin’s Fallacy argues that if race is not coded by a single gene, it does not exist. This constitutes a strawman, since the common sense definition of race is that different groups have different traits, which are measured as spectra based on an ideal that consists of a cluster of traits, rather than a single trait.

The same is true of ethnicity. We can say that we are all European, White, Caucasian, or otherwise similarly related, but the fact that we have identifiably different networks of traits means that race subdivides, and we have to look at ethnicity as well. This is complicated by the fact that the word “race” is used to refer to both root race (African, Asian, Caucasian, Australid) and ethnic group.

The new argument, advanced by The New York Times, is that because there are multiple genes for skin color, there is not a single gene for race, therefore — the “magic therefore” — race does not exist.

In actuality, race and ethnicity are terms that humans use to describe clusters of traits. The clusters exist, no matter how much we play around with the symbols we use for them. We can see continuity in ethnic groups that cross time, space and nation-state identity. For example, ancient Greeks and Romans, much like the Tarim basin mummies, resemble today’s Western Europeans.

In modern Europe, we can see how not just race is important, but also ethnicity, because ethnic groups are not just divisions of a race, but also hybrids between races and cases of trace admixture:

The proof of this is that we can observe Europeans and discern different tribes because they have different collections of traits that go with each. While this is taboo for now, it means in the long term that people will organize themselves around not just race but ethnic group, looking for genetic commonality instead of hoping that ideology and profit motive unite us.

Instead Of Accusing Leftists Of Racism, Point Out Their Agenda: Vampiric Parasitism

Friday, October 20th, 2017

Every now and then, the Left accidentally tell you exactly what they are thinking and what their motives are. Although the University of Pennsylvania has not actually fired her, Stephanie McKellop got in some hot water for speaking the pure Leftist reality-doctrine:

In the Leftist view, equality is the goal, and so anyone who is doing better than mediocre needs to have their wealth and power transferred to those below the mediocre line. That way, everyone will be the same, and each person’s ego will be satisfied that no one has gotten ahead of them.

Through that lens, it is acceptable to — as McKellop argues — discriminate against whites. But, from a conservative perspective, no one is discriminating; they are self-sorting. Conservatives do not concern themselves with racism, classism, sexism, homophoia and other Left-terms at all because we know that people sort themselves out by flocking like to like, and so every group will exclude someone else.

This is why DR3 is a loser strategy for conservatives; any conservative who uses the term “racism” to express a concern for forcing everyone to like one another is in fact a cordycepted crypto-Leftist (including neoconservatives, lolberts, classical liberals, RINOs, cucks, SWPLs and Buckley conservatives).

To McKellop, non-whites can never be racist because whites are above-mediocre, therefore should perpetually be punished by taking the fruits of their labors to redistribute. In her mind, this can and should go on indefinitely. That shows us her real motivation: while she speaks about ending racism, what she really wants is to keep the benefits chain going.

An honest person concerned about, say, African-American issues will argue for African independence. Same with an honest feminist, homosexual, transgender, other minority group or minority religion. Instead they want to maintain the wealth transfer, which means they must simultaneously try to subjugate us and demand funding from us.

Even if they simply wanted to conquer us and wipe us out, that would be more honest. After all, every ethnic group has its own self-interest, and that includes displacing any possible competition. But for SWPL Leftists like Stephanie McKellop, they want something else entirely: vampiric parasitism. They want to make us into livestock for them to milk and fleece forevermore.

Many people disagree with the assessment that the core of Leftism is individualism, but demands for parasitism always are individualistic, favoring the needs of the individual over the group, nature and society as an organic whole. However, this individualism only makes sense to people who secretly suspect that they are weak, since anyone strong simply goes out and makes something better for themselves.

This means that the agenda of Leftism has been to leech off of us all along. They are merely parasites. All of their high-minded talk about morality and justice is just the cover story for a bunch of common grifters who want to find a sucker, get their hooks into him good, and drain just enough of his lifeblood every day that he will never wake up and be a threat to them again.

Entering The Age Of White Civil Rights, The New Counterculture Has To Decide If The Medium Is The Message

Friday, October 20th, 2017

It is no secret that the tables have turned, and former counterculture is now the Establishment, opposed by those who understood what the prior Establishment claimed to represent but never could quite achieve. The real question now is whether the new counterculture aims to become the next Establishment, which is any type of old dogma weakly defending itself, or to be something better.

This cycle of home team versus away team creates the sportsball nature of politics. Everyone sticks with their team because it fits their individual identities. Home team argues that they are winners, where away team portrays themselves as underdogs gunning for an upset. The people who think life is good “as is” join the home team, and people who are dissatisfied join the away team.

More than Left-versus-Right, this creates the seesaw nature of modern politics. When one side gets in power, it begins dismantling what the other side did, and then the process repeats again. Every few decades there is a fundamental power shift, usually provoked by an enemy which seems allied with either the Establishment or counterculture, and that puts the corresponding party out of favor.

In our case, the most recent enemy after the Soviets has been the globalists, who take a toxic mixture of Leftist ambitions and capitalist funding, amplify it through Keynesian tax-borrow-and-spend policies, and enforce it with the notions of “freedom,” “justice” and “equality” that sound like they should be good things, and so people are afraid to oppose them.

Domestic parties that support similar ideas, mainly the mating of egalitarian sentiments with culture-destroying international business, have suffered a bit of a hit as a result. When they were the counterculture, they promised the opposite of what now that they are finally fully in power, they have delivered.

In addition, their approach has taken on a decidedly Soviet character. Their neo-Communism consists of the same drive toward mass equality, similar attitudes toward censorship and declaring dissidents to be unperson, and a strikingly similar result: a mass culture of workers, living in small apartments, owning little and with no future prospect of escape, in this case because they are taxed to provide for a growing and hostile underclass.

Enter the Alt Right, which could be described as “traditional conservatism” in that it embraces aspects of the Right that were discarded by the mainstream Right in order to be able to compromise with the Left as it won the culture war and consequently, political dominance only occasionally interrupted by a moderate conservative like Ronald Reagan.

In particular, the Alt Right endorses nationalism, which is the recognition that diverse or multicultural nation-states lead to the destruction of the founding group, which in the case of Western Civilization is Western European people. Without this group, there cannot be Western Civilization, although mainstream conservatives would be happy with a mixed-race group upholding its Constitution, capitalism and Christianity.

The Alt Right also endorses a strong social conservatism, in defiance of the trend of the mainstream Right to be more libertarian or “classical liberal,” in response to the disaster of sexual liberation and divorce that has blighted the family and ruined the chances for happiness for many young men. It also seeks to differentiate itself from white nationalism, a movement which focused too much on race alone and ignored the bigger problem which is the real target of the Alt Right, namely the collapse of Western Civilization and our need to restore Western Civilization in order to survive.

Recognizing the success of the Left, the Alt Right sought a simpler goal than the political intrigues of the mainstream Right or underground Right like white nationalism. It sought to create a cultural wave of cynicism toward equality, and in the void created by that doubt, insert the idea of a redesigned and revitalized Western Civilization which would end white genocide and the ongoing consumption of our natural world.

Now that the Alt Right is the new counterculture, or the underdog confronting a calcified Establishment with new ideas that it claims will lead to a better way of life, it has to decide whether it will continue the cycle of in-power versus out-of-power, or if it will entirely upend the paradigm.

Upending the paradigm looks like this: we escape ideology entirely, and instead of imposing human order on the world, we study its order and learn to impose it on ourselves. Darwinistic adaptation instead of humanism. Tradition instead of individualism. In other words, we get over ourselves, transcend our fears, and accept life as not just logical but beautiful, optimal and glorious.

The Alt Right is coming to this place. It is not a political revolution, and not just a cultural one, but a philosophical upending of all that we have considered sacred for the 228 years since the French Revolution. It is the end of mass culture, mass politics and utilitarianism; it is the rise of realism, futurism and sanity.

Only one question remains: what path does the Alt Right choose toward cultural dominance?

Two options exist. First, we could follow the usual pattern and try to get as many warm bodies as possible. Second, we could aim instead for the head, and target the one-in-twenty people who are the natural leaders of humanity. These are the people in any office who always know what to do, understand the core of their tasks more than anyone else, or just can find a path where everyone else falters.

The warm bodies option appeals most to us because it was the way to succeed in the era we have just come out of, The Age of Ideology. In that time — defined by the individualism that says what a person wants is more important than culture, nature or reality — whoever accumulated the largest mass culture movement won. But faith in democracy has shifted; people want results, not the warm feeling of participation.

In our new era, The Age of Organicism, hierarchy and standards have returned. These two go hand-in-hand because standards mean that each individual meets those to a differing degree, which creates rank not based on money and popularity, but ability to fulfill the needs and goals of culture. Organicism refers to the preference for innate tendencies like ethnic, cultural and religious identity as a replacement for the ideology, or motivation of the masses, preferred during The Age of Ideology.

If the Alt Right is the new counterculture but does not want to end up being the new Establishment, it must break free from the methods of the past entirely, which corresponds to an understanding of what the famous utterance by Marshall McLuhan that “the medium is the message” means; much like understanding that demography is destiny, it apprehends that changing behavior is more important than ideology:

McLuhan tells us that a “message” is, “the change of scale or pace or pattern” that a new invention or innovation “introduces into human affairs.” (McLuhan 8) Note that it is not the content or use of the innovation, but the change in inter-personal dynamics that the innovation brings with it. Thus, the message of theatrical production is not the musical or the play being produced, but perhaps the change in tourism that the production may encourage. In the case of a specific theatrical production, its message may be a change in attitude or action on the part of the audience that results from the medium of the play itself, which is quite distinct from the medium of theatrical production in general. Similarly, the message of a newscast are not the news stories themselves, but a change in the public attitude towards crime, or the creation of a climate of fear. A McLuhan message always tells us to look beyond the obvious and seek the non-obvious changes or effects that are enabled, enhanced, accelerated or extended by the new thing.

McLuhan defines medium for us as well. Right at the beginning of Understanding Media, he tells us that a medium is “any extension of ourselves.” Classically, he suggests that a hammer extends our arm and that the wheel extends our legs and feet. Each enables us to do more than our bodies could do on their own. Similarly, the medium of language extends our thoughts from within our mind out to others. Indeed, since our thoughts are the result of our individual sensory experience, speech is an “outering” of our senses – we could consider it as a form of reversing senses – whereas usually our senses bring the world into our minds, speech takes our sensorially-shaped minds out to the world.

But McLuhan always thought of a medium in the sense of a growing medium, like the fertile potting soil into which a seed is planted, or the agar in a Petri dish. In other words, a medium – this extension of our body or senses or mind – is anything from which a change emerges. And since some sort of change emerges from everything we conceive or create, all of our inventions, innovations, ideas and ideals are McLuhan media.

In other words, message is change and medium is what changes behavior, usually as a labor-saving device.

For the Alt Right, the medium is politics as an expression of hierarchy; that is, we listen to what is the most accurate depiction of reality, recognizing that only the top 2-5% of our population will “get it.” This conveys the message of traditional society: social order, above all else, represented by values, customs, ethnic identity, standards, hierarchy, principles, caste and norms.

We want social order back. We want to restore Western Civilization. But we cannot do that through the medium of mass politics because mass politics inverts signal and noise by choosing popular semi-truths over unpopular complex ones, which most people cannot understand and consequently, discard because they consider it insane or stupid.

The medium distorts the message, and this was the longstanding contribution of The Age of Ideology. By translating an idea into something that a mass culture can understand, we are forced to twist it until it no longer resembles itself, but is most like everything else, because everything else is attuned to the simple fact of what the crowd can understand and what it likes to think is true (once called “pretense”).

This fits with an ancient idea, derived from Plato and represented in the Bible, that only a small number of people make all the important changes in our world, while everyone else basically creates chaos through their individualistic behavior:

As the word masses is commonly used, it suggests agglomerations of poor and underprivileged people, laboring people, proletarians, and it means nothing like that; it means simply the majority. The mass man is one who has neither the force of intellect to apprehend the principles issuing in what we know as the humane life, nor the force of character to adhere to those principles steadily and strictly as laws of conduct; and because such people make up the great and overwhelming majority of mankind, they are called collectively the masses. The line of differentiation between the masses and the Remnant is set invariably by quality, not by circumstance. The Remnant are those who by force of intellect are able to apprehend these principles, and by force of character are able, at least measurably, to cleave to them. The masses are those who are unable to do either.

…Plato lived into the administration of Eubulus, when Athens was at the peak of its jazz-and-paper era, and he speaks of the Athenian masses with all Isaiah’s fervency, even comparing them to a herd of ravenous wild beasts. Curiously, too, he applies Isaiah’s own word remnant to the worthier portion of Athenian society; “there is but a very small remnant,” he says, of those who possess a saving force of intellect and force of character — too small, preciously as to Judea, to be of any avail against the ignorant and vicious preponderance of the masses.

…In the 18th century, however, certain European philosophers spread the notion that the mass man, in his natural state, is not at all the kind of person that earlier authorities made him out to be, but on the contrary, that he is a worthy object of interest. His untowardness is the effect of environment, an effect for which “society” is somehow responsible. If only his environment permitted him to live according to his lights, he would undoubtedly show himself to be quite a fellow; and the best way to secure a more favorable environment for him would be to let him arrange it for himself. The French Revolution acted powerfully as a springboard for this idea, projecting its influence in all directions throughout Europe.

The Age of Ideology was the age of domination by the masses; The Age of Organicism will be dominated again by the Remnant through the principle of hierarchy, by which we place those who have “force of intellect” and in parallel also “force of character” above the rest, and entrust them with wealth and power, because they will conserve it — keep it out of the hands of the insane — and use it well.

From elsewhere in The Republic:

When discord arose, then the two races were drawn different ways: the iron and brass fell to acquiring money and land and houses and gold and silver; but the gold and silver races, not wanting money but having the true riches in their own nature, inclined towards virtue and the ancient order of things. There was a battle between them, and at last they agreed to distribute their land and houses among individual owners; and they enslaved their friends and maintainers, whom they had formerly protected in the condition of freemen, and made of them subjects and servants; and they themselves were engaged in war and in keeping a watch against them.

The “true riches in their own nature, inclined towards virtue and the ancient order of things” is what we need. Mass culture has ruined Western Civilization, even though this decline had its origins far earlier when corrupt merchants began using lesser aristocrats and fallen churchmen as a weapon against the kings. The goal was always to seize wealth and power from those who would not abuse it.

The Florida demonstration constitutes a victory for the Alt Right. The Alt Right went in saying that the masses are delusional, that they hate any ideas they cannot control, and that they are violent Communists who use diversity as a weapon to destroy white people. Antifa and other Leftists promptly showed up and proved the Alt Right correct, for the third or fourth time in a row.

America and Europe are looking at this and thinking, “Holy mackerel. We let these people — the Left — rule us?” Not surprisingly, a wave of populist victories in Britain, America, Hungary, Germany, Austria, Poland and The Czech Republic are showing us that people are in fact rejecting the Leftist idea in its ultimate form as globalism.

Globalism expresses the single idea that the Left really has — human equality, which is the individualism legitimized during The Enlightenment™ — by removing any borders and standards imposed on human behavior. It creates the one worldwide mass culture, unified by consumerism and socialism, which like the French Revolutionaries which are its ideological ancestor, demands more for the individual from society and in the name of equality.

Most people find it hard to reject the idea of equality. Like pacifism, it seems to make sense when you take it for granted that civilization will always be there, and that your immediate need to transact business and socialize is more important than goals above the individual, like values, philosophy, heritage and purpose. But when “equality” reveals itself to be a path to neo-Communism, censorship, third world levels of disorder, constant ethnic violence, corrupt governments, and racial replacement by foreign populations, people oppose it; even more, they have realized that the roots of globalism were formed of democracy and equality and proceeded inexorably from that seed, eventually flowering into its final form, which suspicious resembled Communism with consumerism.

But to the Alt Right, equality is a false god that replaces the need to strive for virtue. Egalitarians of course will insist that equality is the only virtue, which is a popular message because it is easier to be politically correct in one area than to be morally upright in every area of life.

How a message of virtue became contorted into a message of upholding only one presumed virtue shows us the medium as the message. When we simplify for the herd, corruption and inversion of the message occurs, and that always reverts to the most base instincts of humanity. Those boil down to a desire for “anarchy with grocery stores” and free stuff paid for by other people, as propelled the French Revolution.

In Florida, the Alt Right triumphed. It has revealed its enemies to be the Establishment. Its strength is rising, and at this point, the only enemy that can defeat it is the Alt Right itself, if it does not heed the lessons of history and focuses on pandering to the lowest common denominator instead of looking toward informing, inspiring and revitalizing the Remnant.

Swarms: The Intermediate Post-Democratic And Pre-Hierarchical / Tribal Reality

Friday, October 20th, 2017

In this stage of technology and social organization, many seek a holy grail of sorts in the idea of the swarm. A swarm consists of small autonomous objects that coordinate with each other without having to use a centralized authority to pass messages.

For example, a drone swarm is dropped on a target with a general idea, like taking out anti-aircraft weaponry, but then collaborates improvisationally to determine what to do. There are no formal leaders per se except for those who sent the swarm out in the first place.

In this way, swarms resemble what most of us think of when we hear the word swarm: insects. A swarm of bees act for their queen, but take on roles in an ad hoc manner when in the field; a swarm of locusts just eats everything in sight. We might say that swarms are semiconscious.

Our brains use a technique like swarming which has an analog to threading in computer science. Many ideas present themselves, and only those which are compatible with one another are selected, and that general type is compared to what is perceived externally. This presents the most internally consistent and most realistic options.

Democracy avoids the swarm by instead creating something more like a yeast bloom. In this, many equal organisms participate only in what rewards their immediate nutritional needs. They are thus both individualistic to the point of being oblivious to larger reality, and acting as a collective, where each individual does the will of the group so that the individual gets his own reward.

The “yeast bloom” approach fails because it is linear and invariant. As long as there is food, there will be more yeast, until at some point there is no more food, and then all of the yeast die. If you wonder why our society tends toward extremes in reasoning, it may be this basic model: we are either thriving or about to suddenly die, and people are trying to guess which.

If we designed a society around a swarm, it would consist of people who were basically autonomous but responsive to a hierarchy, or multiple levels of authority. At the bottom level, there are cells of a few units, with a leader, and those leaders report to someone above them, who reports to someone further above, eventually reaching a command and control level. That is where humans are different.

We need kings, and leaders beneath them, but in place of some universal overlord of all, we have principles, cultures, religion and basic belief. We are fully of the swarm, in that our overlord was set by our mission when deployed, and this task of adaptation to our environment has produced evident principles over the centuries. We know the basics, but no one but our leaders can understand them.

Swarms can re-orient after loss by identifying local leaders and having those select the leaders above them. In contrast to mass voting, this consists of recognition of evident traits in those leaders, which is not a matter of preference but of analysis. People follow those who are able to lead.

If the 20th century had a metaphor, it was the assembly line which produced identical parts. As we venture into the 21st, it has become clear that the problem with identical parts is that they are unable to achieve the flexible response that is needed for changing conditions, so we are transitioning to swarm-based thinking.

As democracy collapses, the idea of equality — including “one person, one vote” and the idea that all people should be treated the same way despite unequal contributions — will itself become distrusted, leading to the recognition that we need leaders. The balkanization that happens when formerly-diverse republics fragment will transfer focus to local leaders, and those by recognizing that they need more, will then re-form the constituent societies of our former state, but do so separately, preserving the swarm.

For a swarm to work, all of the units must be highly compatible and able to both understand the signals sent by others, and act according to values or principles shared by the others. This requires a greater compatibility than ideology or economics can provide, and so the unity will occur at the level of genetics, so that there can be no errors in transmission as occur with education.

While many think of insects when the term “swarm” is mentioned, our actual future is like a group of drones dropped over a battlefield. They separate, then group up in small clusters, then take on specialized roles with some commanding, some observing, some acting and some helping the others. This provides maximum efficiency and flexibility.

To modern people, swarms seem paradoxical because they are individuals acting together for something more than self-interest or shared interests; they are acting toward the principles for which the swarm was deployed. Culture, heritage and values rule over the hand-to-mouth logic of purely economic or ideological living.

As the age of ideology fades, our human future will look more like this swarm, and less like a horde of insects or yeast, ravenous to the point of being suicidal, unleashed on an environment that they will consume, then move on to another, never reflecting on the choices or possibilities available to them.

Through doing this, we will come to understand ourselves better as individuals. Like drones in a swarm, we will each take on generally specialized roles (watcher, leader, fixer, helper, worker, warrior) and understand ourselves in this context so that if we do it well, we will feel good about ourselves, instead of comparing ourselves to some idealized person who wins everything at once.

From the perspective of this future, we will see the years of the age of ideology as having been as chaotic and disorienting as they have been. But without that burden holding us back, like a chronic infection, we will be able to take on more ambitious projects without our human linearity and individualism getting in the way.

Leftist Press Takes Comments Out Of Context In Order To Persecute Marc Faber

Thursday, October 19th, 2017

As many of you know, the guillotine squads went after their latest victim, Marc Faber, an investor and writer who — perhaps strategically — rejected a few of the illusions taken as faith that power the post-Enlightenment™ world. This will either destroy him or make him more famous than before for having been able to repel The Establishment and its ideological conformity.

Apparently, he spoke a forbidden truth about history:

Just hours after Marc Faber was ousted from three corporate boards for racist comments in his newsletter, organizers of a wealth conference next month in Singapore decided to keep the veteran investor as a keynote speaker.

…“The comments might be considered racist, but we can’t ignore his life work, experience and knowledge,” Talpsepp said in the email. “In the stock markets, there is no racism at all, as all trades are anonymous. You will never know with whom you are making trades. Sometimes you trade against a computer, sometimes against white, black and Asian people. It does not matter. What is important is the knowledge.”

…Talpsepp defended Faber’s comments: “He is a statistical guy and this is where his comments come from. He looks at the GDP of Zimbabwe and compares this with the GDP of the United States. But the United States has always been multicultural and some white people in America have used black labor against their will for centuries.”

We are all familiar with this drill: person with something that we can take says something against the narrative of our time, so we humiliate them publicly, remove their power and take their stuff. Then we conclude that, because we have banished the symbols of someone knowing better than our narrative, the narrative is safe and therefore we are safe in continuing our behavior as it was.

You can see the same thing in a monkey troupe if an individual finds a fruit that no one else noticed. There is much screeching, and then monkeys come over to demand “their” share, and when it is not given, they gang up on the monkey who found the fruit, beat him up and take it. Even alpha monkeys cannot resist the numbers of the crowd. You can beat the first ten, but then it is the deluge.

So what were the controversial comments? If we read the full document that he issues through his Gloom Boom Doom consulting firm, we can see that he makes a number of controversial-but-accurate comments, starting with a critique of conservative missteps in the West:

But that fact seems to escape righteous socialists such as New York City mayor Bill de Blasio, who, unlike de Soto, believes that (according to an interview that appeared in New York magazine on September 4, 2017) “the biggest obstacle to progress is the idea of private property. He spoke of a ‘socialistic impulse,’ and seemed to favor the idea of turning the Big Apple into Venezuela.”

…he gets at least one point right when he says: “I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs.” (People with socialistic impulses would probably love “things to be planned in accordance to their needs” by someone like Stalin, Mao Zedong, Hitler, or Kim Jong-un.)

…Today’s politically correct society prefers to waste its time with tearing down important historical monuments that are a reminder of our history, even if it was not always glorious. (George Orwell: “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”) Important issues, such as how we are going to resolve the problem of excessive debts and enormous unfunded pension fund liabilities, etc., are ignored or neglected. Westerners prefer nowadays “not to give to society but for society to give to them”, and they ardently wish for freedom from any responsibility (Edward Gibbon).

I don’t want to enter into a serious discussion about the tearing down of monuments of historical personalities, but I cannot omit mentioning how the liberal hypocrites condemned the Taliban when they blew up the world’s two largest standing Buddhas (one of them 165 feet high), situated at the foot of the Hindu Kush mountains of central Afghanistan, in 2001. But the very same people are now disturbed by statues of honourable people whose only crime was to defend what all societies had done for more than 5,000 years: keep a part of the population enslaved. And thank God white people populated America, and not the blacks. Otherwise, the US would look like Zimbabwe, which it might look like one day anyway, but at least America enjoyed 200 years in the economic and political sun under a white majority. I am not a racist, but the reality — no matter how politically incorrect — needs to be spelled out as well. (And let’s not forget that the African tribal heads were more than happy to sell their own slaves to white, black, and Arab slave dealers.)

There is quite a bit to unpack there, but let us start with his actual topic: some methods work for civilization, and some do not, and each of us has a “socialistic impulse” by which we desire paternalistic society, but this leads to movements like the Taliban, Communism, National Socialism, or African tribal heads who are willing to sell slaves.

He equates this socialistic impulse with “freedom from any responsibility” and a desire for “things to be planned in accordance to their needs,” and points out earlier in the article (not quoted above) that this is the path by which societies commit suicide. Planned societies do not work; societies based on responsibility, or having everyone contribute and raising the best contributors above the rest, work well, and that is the point of the article: to relate investment strategy to the rise and fall of civilizations.

The title of the article, in case you were wondering, is “Free Markets And Capitalism Versus Socialism.”

After condemning Hitler, blasting the destruction of Buddhas, and then pointing out that destroying history is part of this “socialistic impulse” and a sign of decline, thus related to the topic of the newsletter, which is a gloomy outlook on the various booms and bubbles of our managed economy, Faber then compares two societies: Zimbabwe and America.

He takes pains to point out that he is not a racist, and gives no reasons why there are disparate results, and this is what upsets the Left the most; he has, more than violating the race taboo, violated the equality taboo. In Leftist logic, Zimbabwe is an impoverished high-crime typical third world nation by either (1) chance or (2) the Guns, Germs and Steel theory that Europeans just stumbled on wealth and technical innovation that they did not deserve. Faber violated taboo by not affirming the narrative of equality.

But since he does not give us a reason in another direction, such as comparing IQ figures or MAOA-L genes, he is simply stating history here. Much like those planned economies failed, indicating a bad method, something about the white majority method worked while the African majority method does not. Naturally the Left will see this as racist, but Faber is stating bald facts without cruelty.

Perhaps that needs to be understood in context; the article begins by analyzing the suicides of farmers in India, where the tax requirements for a planned society are destroying individual farmers. He then points out that, generally, third world countries adopt this paternalistic form of society, and that the West succeeded where it broke free from that mental trope.

Now let us return to his actual point, which is to criticize that white majority for having adopted the strategies common to the third world societies:

Two of my readers recently sent me articles that showed how ridiculous our regulatory system has become in the West.

In one instance, a six-year-old girl who was selling orange juice on a London street corner was fined $50. In another, a county in California decreed that schoolchildren who were cutting the grass of their neighbours’ lawns needed a licence.

I find it very commendable when young children try to be entrepreneurs instead of relying on handouts from the government, begging on the streets, taking illicit drugs, or attending courses on political correctness.

When we read Faber’s comments in context, suddenly we see that they are not “racist” and more a comparison of methodologies. But again, that probably offends the Left more, since it contradicts their socialistic impulse and desire for a planned society by pointing out the bald truth: planned societies do not work, whether in the third world or here.

And if we read that point in context, we see that Faber is asserting the exact opposite of a racist claim. He believes Zimbabwe could, if it adopted the original Western method instead of the planned economy method, become a success because what is holding its people back is not their race, but their choice of economic and social system.

Another day, another outrage by people with nothing better to do because they have no purpose in life. Leftists are only one variant of those; our entire society, held captive by jobs and television, seems to have lost its ability to be honest and forthright and work toward solutions. When people give up that thoroughly, no wonder they lash out in blind ignorant rage at the truth-tellers.

Entropy And Heat Death

Thursday, October 19th, 2017

Human convention and social lore hold that we must always be vigilant for external threats: monsters from beyond, invading tyrants, alien invasion, nuclear war or world financial catastrophe.

As always with humanity, the vivid threats deflect from the prosaic reality that the threat is within. The brutal truth tells us that most human efforts fail because the people involved give in to an impulse — greed, lust, self-importance, convenience — and lose sight of the purpose, thus become agents not of their own goal but of their own misleading desires.

This shows us that while the conventional is not incorrect, it is also not the full story. Threats occur from both outside and inside our walls, but the ones inside are more likely, statistically, to carry us away or at least prepare us to fall to the external threats. We self-destruct more than experience conquest.

Perhaps the most challenging and most typical circumstances are those between two extremes. We are oblivious to some facet of reality, so a parasite or enemy takes advantage of it, defeating us through our insistence on paying attention to something other than the task at hand and the rules of nature, logic, mathematics, information or the divine.

Focus requires constant re-investment of energy in something that is invisible. If you are working, and produce objects, even if they are useless, everyone in the crowd can say you are doing your part. If you are investing time and energy in avoiding change or decay to the present tense, then most people have no use for that, because they do not realize that without your work, decay would win.

When we are athletes, soldiers, musicians or other high-performance roles, it is understood that daily effort must be spent to avoid losing ground one has won in terms of ability. But for civilization itself? No such thing is permissible to expend, because the rest of them will not understand, and upon seeing you do nothing they recognize as necessary, will begin doing nothing.

Thus it is that human populations become vulnerable to entropy, or the process by which too many possible directions make choices difficult if not impossible:

Entropy, the measure of a system’s thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work. Because work is obtained from ordered molecular motion, the amount of entropy is also a measure of the molecular disorder, or randomness, of a system. The concept of entropy provides deep insight into the direction of spontaneous change for many everyday phenomena.

We have to look critically to see how this works: thermal energy (potential) per unit, measured in temperature, refers to the advantage to any choice in terms of heat. When a choice offers wide variance, or inequality, then some choices return a huge amount of energy, and others return less. When they are made equal, every choice returns the same, and so the process of choosing itself breaks down, and with it, the incentive to do anything.

This quickly leads to a condition known as heat death, where the lack of potential advantage to any particular choice makes the selection of options random, since any is as good as any other. Heat death causes complex systems to break down from a lack of purpose to any given choice:

For any system to be capable of producing useful work, there needs to be disequilibrium, a difference in potential. For a mill-race to turn a water-wheel, the water must flow downhill over the wheel. If the water on one side of the wheel is at the same level as on the other — that is, the parts of the system are at equilibrium — then nothing will happen. When the potential gradient inside a flashlight battery reaches zero, the battery is dead.

Without that disequilibrium, where one choice wins bigger than another, no motion happens and energy dissipates through a lack of ability to keep it in motion. An acceleration in entropy eventually begets heat death, much as when a society looks inward and stops having a purpose related to the external world, all choices become about the same.

Look at our world. You can take just about any job, and some will earn you more money than others, but you will still be there for most of your life, dealing with similar problems. You can live anywhere, but eventually some idiot will destroy that place, combining your school system with that of the poor kids across the tracks, building shopping malls and apartments, running in new freeways.

It all becomes the same in the bigger measurement of things, which we refer to as “existential.” If we have some purpose, our actions are not random, but designed to end up fulfilling that purpose, therefore converge on a few basic notions, which reduces entropy. With purpose, each action is ranked by how well it succeeds, which creates the inequality necessary to avoid heat death.

When thinking about such things, we translate them into temperature, but really, they reflect differences in information — patterns, essentially — associated with each choice. Thermodynamics provides a way of understanding the world through its underlying mathematics, as expressed in patterns, that shows us the order of life in a way that material existence never could.

In other words, we can measure entropy by the amount of variation between reality and our actions. The more we are realistic, the less chaos we introduce and thus, the farther from heat death we are; the more we are humanistic, or focused on individualism and its extension into the social group and process of socializing, the farther we are from purpose, and the more entropy we retain.

Our modern — from the age of ideology, or egalitarian — society seems to be designed around entropy-as-a-virtue. This makes sense, because the more entropy there is, the less any individual is likely to suffer consequences for his actions. Heat death is his ideal because when no action has consequences, any action is permissible, and in this energyless disorder, the individual feels he is safe from social judgment or Darwinistic consequences.

The non-modern style of acting toward purpose at first seems inefficient because there is always a shorter path to material reward, comfort, convenience and the mental stability that arises from a lack of social threats. But in the mathematics of the universe, the modern style brings nothing but a grey void, while from the non-modern style, infinite colors emerge, but they reflect order, and not the chaos of individuals expressing themselves to a sky they believe is empty in a universe where no purpose can be discovered.

We Reach Peak SJW As Equality Includes Obesity

Wednesday, October 18th, 2017

Very few realize that the modern “social justice” movement has its roots centuries ago, in the French Revolution or The Enlightenment™ and The Renaissance™ before it. The idea is simple: do not focus on external order (society, God/gods, nature, logic) but instead look at the individual and its desires.

This came to a demi-peak in the “Me Generation,” otherwise known as the [expletive deleted] Baby Boomers, who insisted that only what flattered them as individuals was true, and they would act on that, and ignore the rest of reality. This of course causes isolation and paranoia because most of the world is filtered out, and so random events can occur without being anticipated, at any time.

But the Leftists got their hooks into the West after the 1960s, brought on mainly by how boring and corporate the 1950s were, causing anyone with spirit to revolt against our commercialized, democratized, and simplified mass culture. Unfortunately, as is almost always the case, the Revolution was a case of the cure being worse than the disease, as often happens.

And so for Generation X and others, we grew up in a time where adults insisted on what obviously was not true and denied what obviously was. Even to a child, this signals hopelessness: your civilization has opted to commit suicide, rather than looking deeply enough to see its actual problems, even though those are not that complicated. We were abandoned children.

The generation after us, the Millennials, they grew up believing the lies because they had never seen anything different. They never knew a time when people were honest, had culture, and managed to stay married without divorce or stay in love without a bribe. They had never seen pre-multicultural America, a place of trust and easy normal socialization, and were entirely lost and thus dependent on what their 1960s-style instructors told them.

Eventually, these cordycepted toxoplasma zombies gained enough power to elect a president, and then they assumed Utopia was near; it turned out that all their ideas failed, and so instead, we entered dystopia. But before that became apparent, because most people are incapable of analysis or thought beyond one level deep, we would see “peak Leftism” or “peak SJW” as the long tail whipped around. Witness the genius of obesity as a human right:

Following online backlash, Google is removing a planned feature in Maps that shows you how many calories you’d burn when in walking mode. Google’s attempt to promote a healthy lifestyle caused a number of people to lambast the feature on Twitter, claiming it would “shame” and even “trigger” those with eating disorders. Engadget reports:

Taking note of the negative reaction, Google is now dumping the experiment. It confirmed to Engadget that the update was briefly tested on iOS, and has been abandoned based on user feedback. As The Hill’s Taylor Lorenz noted in her tweets, there was no way to turn off the feature. Lorenz also claimed that using pink cupcakes as the unit of measurement was “lowkey aimed at women.” Others pointed out that Maps wasn’t the appropriate place for the update. After all, there are plenty of fitness and calorie counting apps that keep track of your activity and consumption — again emphasizing how misplaced the feature was.

The point of equality, although egalitarians will not tell you this, is to save the individual from being judged wrong for their opinions. Each of us tries to understand the world, and acts on our mental image of it, and when we screw up, it means that we were too neurotic, delusional, dysfunctional or otherwise less-than-superior to handle that simple task. Sneers and scorn rise like locusts from a field of dead corn.

As a result, egalitarians try a simple formula, which might be said to be “good = bad” or at least that good and bad are arbitrary, relativistic and irrelevant, so we might as well approve of everyone at the same social level. Their great fear is losing social position by being inept, and so they have banished judgment for ineptitude, at least in the public forums where it once kept our leaders competent.

We can extend this to any choice by the individual. No one should lose social status, or be punished, or be made to feel bad, for any choice. Being obese, on drugs, metrosexual, incompetent or anything else is just an arbitrary choice, you see, because everything is relative. It is not that we have a purpose, or a world to which we can objectively derive adaptive strategies, but a question of what the individual wants.

If you wanted greater proof that egalitarianism is individualism, and collectivism is merely a shield for the individual to use others to advance his own agenda, it cannot be found than in this great panic over criticism of obesity. Not even criticism; Google simply wanted to help us all stay fit. Maybe now they are reconsidering the monster they have been supporting.

Ethnography of Civilization Collapse

Wednesday, October 18th, 2017

Tendentious bashers such as myself have a habit of reminding you that history runs in cycles, and if a civilization does not restart its cycle by restoring traditional society, it goes off into third world style subsistence living because of a lack of social order, and ends up a mixed-race shadow of its former self.

The “mixed-race” part is crucial because, throughout history, bad leaders have used diversity as a means of shoring up their own power. When they need support, they can count on those people who depend on them, namely the various different types of minorities who are allied against the majority, whose interest does not reflect their own.

When you encounter a failed civilization, you will find shorter and weaker people, generally without much intelligence but weighted toward the verbal and not the spatial, with mystical traditions based on primitive symbols, who are fundamentally comfortable living in a society where corruption takes a third off every deal and nothing ever gets done, or done right.

Third world people are individualists, and to them, the burden of struggling to have social order is too much relative to how they want to enjoy life, which is just not worrying too much. Very carefree individuals in these parts, and they seem very happy, but they never produce anything of greatness. Their society demands little of them, so they spend most of their time on themselves.

We can tell that this is the case by looking at a civilization that faded away long ago:

Researchers from the University of Tuebingen and the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, both in Germany, have decoded the genome of ancient Egyptians for the first time, with unexpected results.

Publishing its findings in Nature Communications, the study concluded that preserved remains found in Abusir-el Meleq, Middle Egypt, were closest genetic relatives of Neolithic and Bronze Age populations from the Near East, Anatolia and Eastern Mediterranean Europeans.

Modern Egyptians, by comparison, share much more DNA with sub-Saharan populations.

In other words, ancient remains showed genetic consistency; modern genetics show the influence of diversity. This society became more diverse as it failed, and it does not necessarily matter what the diversity was, only that the genetic consistency of a network of traits was broken up and replaced by a more chaotic, less competent biological compromise.

This applies to ethnic groups as well. Mixed-ethnic states, especially those with hybridization, even trace hybridization, tend to perform less well than homogeneous nations. Most likely, when places like Egypt become diverse, it is through trace admixture; few people will marry and mate with the Other, but someone who is only an eighth other they can accept, until those are the only option and the original ethnic group is long gone.

When people talk about diversity, they often attempt to discuss it through “problems”: how to manage crime, how to indoctrinate the newcomers in our Constitution, how to assimilate them, why to make them equally accepted so they will not riot. But there is only one real problem, which is the replacement of the founding ethnic group and, with it, a loss of whatever traits it had that allowed the society to succeed in the first place.

Marginal Groups Attract Marginal People

Wednesday, October 18th, 2017

Another high-profile “Nazi” has defected, mainly because this happens every few years, with the Nazi in question discovering that he is gay, Jewish, part-black or some other “contradictory” aspect that fascinates the Left who truly believe that if you oppose something, you must secretly love it. Never mind that this describes their relationship to power, not how the rest of us work.

In this case, the subject in question really won the lottery. He was not only gay, but part-Jewish, and so he has a get-out-of-jail-free card of unprecedented magnitude. In short, by revealing those details, he was able to erase his Nazi past in a minute and make himself a pet of the ruling elites, who are always Leftist unless they are actually good.

The media adore these sorts of stories:

A prominent neo-Nazi and former organiser of the National Front has given up his far-right views as well as revealed he is gay and has Jewish heritage.

Kevin Wilshaw was a high-profile figure of the National Front in the 1980s and was speaking at extreme right events as recently as this year.

Luckily, our journalists-in-chief are too simple-minded to realize that not just is this not unusual, it is the norm, and fits in with a pattern of anti-social and dysfunctional behavior by white nationalists. Extremist philosophies attract those who only feel accepted when they think their aberrant behavior will not be seen as abnormal.

Consider the case of Frank Collin, née Cohen:

Frank Joseph Collin is most often associated in the public mind as the neo-Nazi who threatened in 1977 to march and rally in Skokie, a predominately Jewish suburb of Chicago.

…The infamous Frank Joseph Collin (the half-Jewish, ex-neo-Nazi, and convicted pederast) is now also a witch.

The Illinois Corrections Department released Collin after three years, a “minimum time served,” from his 1980 conviction of sexually molesting young boys. Since 1983 Collin has established himself as a published author, editor, and anti-science proponent.

But the list goes on. There’s Frazier Glenn Cross, Jr., who shot up a Jewish community center, killing three people — none of whom were Jewish — after falling out with his former comrades because he admitted he was a police informer.

An uncomfortable overlap with drugs, police informers, pedophilia and domestic abuse seems to chase the far-Right around because when you recruit from the most disaffected members of society, you also get some seriously unstable people who look at the movement and think, “Well, no one will notice my weirdness there.”

The only way to beat this is to go legit and have a movement that only advocates policy-level changes, such as abolishing diversity and repatriating those who are not Western European, and does not get into extremist symbolism, violence fetishism or other dysfunctional behaviors.

We fear becoming a mainstream party on the farthest reaches of the Right because every mainstream party has quickly shifted Leftward. That happens when you try to recruit a mass audience, but not when you target the sensible few. It is possible to be mainstream without being corrupted, although you will never be as mainstream as the true McCheeseburger parties which spin scapegoat/victimhood fables for fools.

As the Alt Right rises, it is making the decision to avoid the mistakes of white nationalism, including its over-reliance on the alienated which resulted in it becoming a warm and welcoming host for the mentally unstable. Our future lies in having real ideas, working toward them, and ignoring the human chaos that blights every underground movement.

Recommended Reading