Amerika

Archive for the ‘Lifestyle’ Category

The Alternative Of Real Ecology by Kveldulf Gunnar Larsson (2016)

Monday, December 11th, 2017


The Alternative of Real Ecology
by Kveldulf Gunnar Larsson
Solitude Books, 274 pages, 2016. $16

When contemplating the environmental crisis dawning over our world, the thinking individual faces a grim choice: to admit the truth is to call for the taboo, such as fewer people, but to fail to admit the truth is to dedicate oneself to endless compensatory behaviors that will never fix the problem. This is why nothing has been done despite most in the West wanting a solution for decades.

The Alternative of Real Ecology offers a solution in the form of descending into the fullness of admitting the truth about the collision between humanity and our environment. Human needs are in conflict with the needs of natural ecosystems, and this is a zero-sum game, which means that anything we give to humans, we take from nature. At this point the debate takes on a mature outlook: we must talk about the appropriate number of humans on the planet in order for enough of nature to thrive that our planetary ecosystem can function without losing species.

That recognition admits two types of response. Either we as a species change what we are doing, which is impossible under liberal democratic political systems, or individuals are left with the question of how to address the environmental crisis through individual choices, knowing that the vast majority of humans will not do the same. This book uses a discussion of the latter to explore the changes that would have to be made in the former scenario.

Uncontrolled human breeding demands more space for growing food, housing, and recreation; unless the population growth is controlled the loss of habitat will increase. “Humans have the right to breed and grow food.” Yes they do, and therefore the biodiversity will be exterminated. They can breed as much as they want and eat/throw away a much food as they want. In other words: “Humans can take away as much natural habitat as they see fit.” (231)

In noting this, this book follows up on the ideas of Pentti Linkola and Theodore Kacyznski, who noted that only non-democratic solutions are serious. If we want to preserve nature, we have to limit the amount of land used by humanity, probably to a quarter or third of the available land, and to do that, we need a political system that is not based on individual rights which cause a tragedy of the commons as each person exploits the maximum amount of resources (which increased land use) possible.

The style of The Alternative of Real Ecology might put people off at first, but win them over as the pages turn. Somewhere between a Socratic dialogue and a notebook of ideas, the text flows like a conversation between quotations representing either common arguments against environmentalism or statements by public figures, and the rebuttals of the author. A mood of negation of pervades the text as it points out hollow platitudes and nonsensical objections to the obvious.

At its core, this book suggests that normal (modern) human life and environmental survival are opposites, and so humans must become “inhuman” or conditioned to assign no additional weight to human preferences. In this mindset, we are able to separate what we need from what we want; at that point, the solutions to overpopulation, overconsumption and other human ills become obvious. The author sets a mindset of “no contribution” more as a thought experiment and baseline than recommendation, but comparison to it reveals how impoverished our “green” actions have been.

One cannot deny his humanity and stay human (that’s logical) and therefore one must become inhuman to deny his humanity. This is where Real Ecology comes into the picture.

…The priority of Real Ecology is Nature and the duty to point out that it will be destroyed. Not how much the existence of humans will be miserable. It is not the duty of Real Ecology to stop the ecocide. That’s impossible. It’s there to stop destroying Nature by one person at a time: the inner change and non-contribution. (92)

By forcing the issue and pointing out that, without radical species-wide change, ecocide is inevitable, The Alternative of Real Ecology enacts a certain kind of inner change in the human being, which is the framing of the environmental issue in appropriately binary terms. Either the human species gets its act together in a large way and reduces its land use, or we watch the inevitable tragedy.

In this way, the book acts like any form of radical realism. It identifies causes, and looks to their effects, and illustrates for us the choices we have regarding the inevitability of those effects. Its “inhuman” outlook separates us from illusion, and opens the dialogue to a results-oriented conception of environmentalism. In turn, this pushes the human dialogue on the environment past the socially-acceptable to the realistic.

Of the two solutions it identifies — inner change and non-contribution — the former proves the most interesting in that it is a fulfillment of the deep ecology notion of re-designing human life to fit within our natural environment, instead of making the environment subject to human whims, to be shaped in order to serve what our herd think believes is what we need. Larsson makes the whole book an exercise in understanding the depth of this reorganization of our minds and desires, both in nuance of the big points and associated details, forming a list of often-forgotten important environmental concerns.

However, he remains suitably bleak, pointing out that the bottom line cannot be adulterated: we have too many humans and each of them, if they can, will live a high-resource industrialized lifestyle; implicated in this also is the notion that our social mobility causes us to compete through money and possessions, which further drives the consumerist mania that is consuming our environment.

Real Ecology doesn’t deal with solutions. No matter how unpopular or controversial, they are ‘solutions’ and their presentation is all it takes 1) non-realistic: the sudden disappearance/vanishing of the human species. That’s not possible to achieve, so only a theory, 2) partly realistic: suicide. To sacrifice yourself for Nature, and 3) realistic: not having children. The non-contribution. Rather than promoting (Real Ecology doesn’t promote them) these ‘solutions,’ it’s better to present the realistic ones: non-contribution and inner change. Real Ecology will not promote a fantasy, theoretical solution, non-realistic ideas. That’s what realism (real) is about. (111)

It remains unclear how literal this is, since the Darwinian effect of the environmentally-conscious not having children is that environmental consciousness as a trait disappears from the human species. The inner change, however, is wrought in this book through many clever mental puzzles of the variety above, in which a distinction is made between arbitrary but true propositions that are thus unproven or irrelevant, and ultimate solutions which are too extreme. By shifting the Overton window of ecology in this way, Larsson channels our own instinct to look for a moderate center point, which is a change in attitudes toward things previously considered to be universal goods, like the economy or human rights.

This book challenges the reader with surly, often malevolently defeatist thought-problems of this nature. Its largest point is that ecocide is not a forgivable sin, and that for as much as it rages about how no solution can be found, clearly the basis of a solution — fewer people, less consumption, more social order — informs our thinking not about environmental issues per se but general issues, with us naturally wanting to ask, “Will this improve or worsen the condition of our world?”

Printed on recycled paper, The Alternative of Real Ecology taunts and mocks us for our impotence on this issue and seeks to re-frame the environmental question as the question of what type of civilization we will choose for our future, knowing that ecocide not just terminates us, but rebukes the gift of life and will make us guilt-ridden and self-hating. A quick read, it is emotionally provocative and thought-provoking as a result of that, pleasantly separating it from the self-help nature of most “green” books.

Right Wing Folk / Rock Duo Lilou & John Record Patriot Child (2018)

Friday, December 8th, 2017

Right-wing music innovators Lilou & John recently unleashed their third album, Patriot Child, in which they take their music from angrily sentimental folk music to a hybrid of rock, punk, and heavy metal. As part of the Right-wing cultural wave, this duo are creating music to express the agonies and triumphs of the turning of the tide.

Having followed the growth of this band for some time, Amerika reached out to them for information about the upcoming album, which will be released on January 1, 2018, and to explore the motivations behind this group swimming against the current:

I just finally managed to accept that you guys are like a cross between Bob Seeger and Roky Erickson with an anti-modern, Right-leaning twist, and now you have gone and changed styles. How would you describe the style on the new album, and how does it bring out your personality and what you want to convey?
 
John: Thanks for that description, Brett! We are constantly evolving, thanks to Lilou. The producer calls the new genre “garage punk rock” but we frankly don’t know what to call it. It will be a bit of a crossover just like Dissidentica. Lilou always wants to explore new ways of expression and she has taught me how fun it can be.

I started to listen to Stiff Little Fingers, Cockney Rejects and Blitz when I was in my teens, and Motörhead has always been one of my favorite bands of all time. Therefore it seemed natural for me to make a right wing punk rock album. I have always been very angry and this album is a great way to get it out of my system and protest against all the shit people are forced to put up with just so the oligarchs can feed their offspring and the petty bourgeoisie can have their “outdoors-indoors luxury barbecue with finger buffet” in peace. 

The album also reflects the fact that we are not a political band. Everything we do is very personal. Many of our songs are written in defense of freedom of speech simply because we are fed up by virtue signaling and the infamous Swedish Opinion Corridor. The bottom line of everything is that no ideology or religion can triumph art, science and logic reason and we combine many left and right elements in our everyday life and music. We believe that the only place to be is outside of the box of conformity, whatever political color that conformity may have.

Thus, the music is very revolutionary and rebellious. The funny thing is that if you rebel and revolt against the system today the ruling classes will label you “right wing’ no matter what you think. Therefore many people on the right wing think we are quite the odd couple, but they also realize that we share the same interest in getting rid of political correctness and that we are not afraid of being seen fraternizing with “Nazis.” As Mel Brooks put it: “I know where I stand, do you know where you stand?”

We have also gotten much credit for the lyrics on our last album that span from Zionism to the defense of Political Incorrectness, and there were even National Socialists who gave us credit for the courage to record “Next Year in Jerusalem” even though we knew some of our fans would not like it. We say what we think and we record the songs we want to record and it seems people like the honesty. We do not pretend to be something we are not. That is probably why we do not get along with the music industry.

On this album we have taken the lyrics a step further and pushed it in a more radical direction. We write about things such as the Identitarian movement, the Charlottesville ambush and Soy Boy Russophobia, and that is yet another reason why we wanted a much harder sound on this album compared to our first two albums. It should be angry but at the same time we wanted to keep our originality. We want it to be a completely new sound and a new approach.

I am split between experimental and traditional when it comes to the kind of music I want to create, and Lilou never wants to do the same thing twice. It bores her to death. She is our creative engine that makes sure everything is top notch. I just add my anger and a desire to provoke the virtue signaling petty bourgeoisie because I hate their cowardice.
 
You made the choice to go with female vocals on this work, but these are unlike anything the rest of us have ever heard. How did Lilou achieve this unique sound, and what do you think it communicates when placed inside of such loud and stripped-down music?
 
John: I fell in love the first time I ever heard Lilou speak to me on the phone. After that I heard her sing and it only made my love deeper. I would say she sings in a very old right wing tradition of hard working women that dates back long before the industrial age. She is the only person I know who can outmatch an electric guitar even without a microphone and still make it sound good. I personally hope it can show people there is an older, much more genuine female ”gender role” (even if I hate that expression) that goes back to the viking women who did not suffer from any kind of petty bourgeoisie virtue signaling whatsoever. Zarah Leander perhaps had a similar voice but I think Lilou is more versatile and pissed off ha ha.

Today the music industry is focused on profit only so they need singers and musicians without personality to make global hits. They need people who are spooned from birth by the powers that be and thereby suffer from a total lack of identity. Otherwise they cannot sell the stuff they produce on the open market, since globalist extreme-short-term capitalism requires one global coca-colonized culture.

Lilou on the contrary is certainly not an angel with a cute fragile voice they can sell to the highest bidder. She had to fend for herself as a kid and thereby learned to make it through life on her own. She is the toughest woman I have ever met. Feminism and such things…if she got a job because of affirmative action she would take it as a personal insult. To her that would mean that the employer thought she was useless and needed a helping hand just because she is a woman. Unlike the feminists who dominate the music industry of today she is proud of her sex and perhaps even more than me she understands the complementary natures of men and women. I think those are the answers to her unique vocal style. She is a viking woman: 100% wife, 100% mother, 100% singer, 100% fearless.

Lilou: I think in general the right wing movement needs more women to step up. Women have an extremely important role to play since men often think bigger whereas women think about what is realistic. Men build empires, women make sure they do not build them too fast or in bad locations.

New York Magazine recently referred to Sweden as the “Western European capital of the Alt Right.” Why is Sweden emerging as a hotspot for right wing activity?
 
John: Sweden is a social experiment like nothing else. The whole country reminds of a stunt from Jackass where you try to do something that potentially can kill the whole film crew and you attack your co-workers if they have any objections. This has resulted in a catastrophic development of society and a situation that is extremely unstable.

However, the oppression of free speech has led to a huge increase in the number of dissidents. Many thousands of people have lost everything after corporate media witch burnings. They have no jobs because they have protested against the new left policy of “tolerance.” Families have been ripped apart and mothers, fathers and children have been stigmatized as untouchables, they have become the modern day lepers. And just like the lepers of old, the dissidents of Sweden have absolutely nothing left to lose. Many of those people have come to realize that they might as well fight back. They have hit rock bottom and such people are formidable warriors. That is what you see happening in Sweden.

Nobody wants to be that last rat that abandons the sinking ship. Nobody wants to be that sucker who failed to see the coming of the revolution in time and forever be branded as a traitor. Sweden is the most extreme example of left wing politics and therefore it is natural for Sweden to be one of the countries where the resistance is strongest and most organized.

Even if we are not Alt Right ourselves we have no problems working together with them. Much of what we do suit their needs and their support is invaluable for us to grow. We only wish that more mainstream Conservatives would soldier up and start working for a new cultural wave, but I guess they are afraid that we will turn out to be yet another Jew-bashing band, or perhaps they have understood that we think the real problem in today’s society is petty bourgeoisie virtue signaling in combination with the Anglo-American oligarchy of global commerce, and feel guilty after hearing our lyrics?
 
Despite initial media hostility, it seems like your music and websites are reaching more people. What do you think is responsible for this? To borrow a term from the Left, are you “raising awareness”?

John: You are absolutely right that the times they are a-changing and perhaps we are raising awareness that alternative media is just as good as (or even better than) corporate media for promotion. In the beginning there were people who warned us for podcasts and news sites of certain political colors but we have proved them all wrong.

We try to create a combination of great looking artwork, high quality productions, strong lyrics, genuine vocals, catchy melodies and rhythm to create the right beat. That seems to have appealed to Nationalists, Conservatives and Libertarians, but also Liberals, Socialists and all kinds of people who just like good music. We just need more reviews and more radio airtime so people know we exist.

Today we are one of the most famous politically incorrect Swedish rock/pop bands and we have grown rapidly in just a year. We are currently heading into Russia and hopefully this interview will make more Americans interested in our music too. We think of our music as a global revolution and as long as we work together as a village of writers, debaters, philosophers, musicians, singers, authors and politicians we are unstoppable.

Lilou: I wanted to do something totally new, something that has not been done before. I had an idea that we could merge contemporary pop and rock music with right wing lyrics and song style to create something nobody had heard before. Personally I believe many right wing bands have been stuck in the 80s for too long. We want music that can appeal to a huge number of people and become global hits. Therefore we must think in a new way and I believe people are beginning to realize that. We are also attracting a growing number of female fans: teenagers, adults and seniors. I think that is quite uncommon for right wing music historically.

I also think that the right wing needs stars and celebrities. And even though we are far from it (we are too fat, old and lazy to become stars ha ha) our music and approach make us into perhaps some of the first right wing pop and rock idols. In Sweden we have seen quite a few people writing that we are “their” rock band and that the left wing artists are becoming obsolete. We just need more bands to step up and release modern music that can actually compete with the bands of the music industry.

Can you tell us about recording the album, how you did it and what you had to do to achieve these unique sounds, and when the album will be out, and where customers worldwide can purchase it?

Lilou: When we record an album we try to be prepared long ahead, but a few weeks before the session we always change some major thing anyway. This time we have replaced an entire song because it does not fit into the style we want to achieve. We plan for an EP of five songs since EPs will probably replace LPs as the new standard format. Furthermore, it gives us the chance to release albums more often and we can focus on higher quality on a small number of songs each time.

I have put much time into the artwork, everything I do has to have the right feel to it. We never want to rush anything and therefore we set the release date to January 1. That way we have enough time to hopefully record at least a few music videos before the release. Somehow we always find ourselves stressed out in the end anyway.

It is always good to listen to the demo songs a few hundred times to get new ideas and change what needs to be changed. The final sound is a product of slow, organic growth, from the first few words John scratches down and the first melody I come up with all the way to the guitars, the bass and the drums.

John: Our formula is rather “primordialistic” in a way. When we started playing together we asked ourselves: If the cavemen had electric guitars, what kind of music would they play? Probably music based on rhythm, quite simplistic, with heavy bass guitar and expressive vocals. They would probably use the instruments to create a music landscape for the singer to explore with his or her voice.

It was Lilou who thought we should release our next album on January 1, 2018. That way the release will mark the beginning of a new year of revolt. We are currently talking to a bunch of retailers online, mainly right wing e-shops who might be interested in selling the music. That way we support the people who support us. Of course we can be found on Spotify, Bandcamp, iTunes etc too, where our first two albums are already for sale. We are thinking about physical copies, and we have a physical copy of our first two albums on one CD for sale online. 

That said, if anyone in North America would be interested in selling our music, they are most welcome to contact us. We are grateful for everyone that wants to support us. We want to thank you and Amerika.com for giving us this opportunity. You need us to win the culture war and we need you to get anywhere at all.

Thanks to you for taking the time to do this interview! In anticipation of the new album, here is a short manifesto written by the band to explain their unique outlook on the world.

PATRIOT CHILD: THE MANIFESTO

“Doesn’t everyone want their parents dead?”
-David, Promotheus

We are Lilou & John, the primordialist helter skelter rock band from Sweden.

We started out with one idea: To record music that explored the ideological changes taking place all over the modern world – the global shift from corporate media Consumerism to independent media Identitarianism. We have seen it happen in Europe, Russia and America as well as India, The Middle East and Japan, a new way of looking at life that does not ask the question “how can I pursuit my career” but “how do I find my roots?”

We wanted to write our own story about the great father-killings of our generation, the story about the Identitarian children that refused to obey their Consumerist parents and decided to walk their own way.

Psychotic Snowflake Anthem is the story about corporate media and the Russophobic propaganda war against independent media. Petrodollar Wars is the second part of the same story, the financial empires, the deep state and corporate media support for the military-industrial complex and Imperialist-Consumerist wars while pretending to protest. In Enemy of the Matrix we hear the primordial voice of cultural self-awareness that has survived the corporate media purges and is awakening across the world. Generation Identity is the story of that voice spreading to the youth who will no longer keep quiet. Finally, Patriot Child is the revolutionary anthem that sums up the whole point of the album. 

Without A Quest, Art And Civilization Decline

Friday, November 17th, 2017

When you venture to your bookstore or library, you will be confronted by a ubiquitous but useless fixture of our contemporary landscape, the modern novel. Unlike regular novels, these are of a vintage in the last thirty years and focus not on inner development of characters, but on finding ways to use introspection to rationalize decay as victor.

One of the things that bothers me about the modern novel is the loss — the perversion, really — of the hero narrative. Classic literature centers around protagonists who are trying to transcend the baser aspects of themselves and fears that cripple their inner abilities; called “the fatal flaw,” these stumbling blocks thwart the heroes as they are trying to overcome obstacles and triumph. In classic literature, people undertake difficult tasks and in doing so, learn about themselves and opt to change themselves so that their flaws no longer hold them back from doing what is right and necessary.

In contrast, modern literature consists of stories of “heroes” whose biggest obstacle is themselves but instead of trying to conquer their weaknesses, they embrace them and that is considered heroic and a victory. The modern novel is all about embracing and celebrating one’s dysfunction or fatal flaw. Nothing to overcome here except self-criticism, the biggest boogeyman of all for a modern protagonist. At the end of these stories, the protagonists are unchanged, but have found a way to “accept” or “celebrate” their dysfunctional lives after spending most of the book navel-gazing.

The thematic arc of classic literature and the hero’s quest implies that there are standards and that success comes from overcoming our fears and becoming better people so that we can rise to those standards and not just be good, but get the most out of life. This is at odds with the Leftist/Liberal narrative that demands that there are no standards other than what we personally define and that there is nothing to overcome except our lack of acceptance of who we are. Because of the classic novel’s implication that there are standards that are defined outside of one’s self, it is necessarily viewed as oppressive and must be eliminated. The modern novel hates the classic novel.

We might see these modern stories as parables of “dysfunction as virtue” in which characters, instead of undergoing internal change, re-configure their external selves — sort of like interior decorating, but for the public personality, much as hipsters excel at — and then rationalize their inner confusion, immorality and decay as a sign of “depth” or tolerance. Almost all of these stories resemble rambling narratives of the fears and neuroses of the protagonist, then suddenly reach a point where it becomes clear that despite all of the exterior change in the life of that protagonist, nothing inner will change. The books then bash out a few homilies and repeat some trendy notions from self-help books, pop science and politics, and end.

As our publishing industry cranks out these modern rationalizations ad infinitum, producing endless next-big-things but no classics, it becomes clear that this approach to storytelling reflects a deeper philosophical divide. In modern society where everyone is equal, inner change is not just unnecessary, but risky. However, finding a way to rationalize your dysfunction as virtue and explain it as a quirky, interesting and nobly self-sacrifical lifestyle choice always goes over well with the people at your local organic brew pub.

The comparison of the modern novel to the crazed, nonsensical babblings of the left provides further insight. In both cases, the inner life of human beings is denied, and replaced with the notion that exterior re-configuration provides a greater meaning than learning to overcome our failings and become qualitatively better people. New quantities, or a changing of the surface behaviors and objects surrounding the individual, are preferred to improving the parts of the self that we are afraid to inspect, because in them lurk existential terrors and difficult moral, intellectual and historical questions.

Modern novels have never made anyone get closer to self-actualization, understanding of their world, or appreciation of the inner beauty of life itself. Like the products on store shelves or Hollywood movies, they are dramas of narcissism and attention-getting, designed to avoid and distract from the need to use some kind of self-discipline to make ourselves better people. Not surprisingly, the Left adopts a similar outlook, because when your goal is equality, the last thing you want to is to look at where we are fundamentally unequal.

11/8/16 (2017)

Monday, November 6th, 2017

In every Netflix queue, somewhere a documentary appears and in weak moments, one is tempted to watch it. Such was the case with 11/8/16, the second project of this nature from its director, which set sixteen directors to work following individuals on the morning of the election which transferred power to Donald J. Trump.

If this documentary has a theme, it consists of two parts: first, that “a five minute conversation with the average voter” will shock and horrify anyone expecting logic or sense, and second, that America is so fundamentally divided and its identity politics have become so narcissistic that there is no way that the center can hold. This nation-state is coming apart.

The various camera streams follow a Sikh cab driver in New York, an independent businessman in Massachusetts, a politically-active Mormon lady in Utah, a squeaky low-testosterone Irish union leader, a political consultant for the Clinton campaign and an editor at the Los Angeles Times, among others. Each of these reveal entirely polarizing views that are part of their personal identities, to the point that giving up those views would lead to existential distress.

More intensely, the cameras reveal how few of these views are based in fact, and how much self-interest comes into play, which sets the varying groups against each other. The Leftists who make their money in Leftist businesses oppose any power to anyone else; the construction union seems to care only about what government projects will bring it money; the small businessman is interested in his bottom line.

This is where the five-minute conversation with the average voter is most poignant: there is a lack of awareness of any larger issues, or any future past the immediate, that makes one see why democracy destroys civilizations. No one is watching the world ahead, but instead they are reacting to a self-referential system, trying to make what already exists work in the short term, instead of redesigning it for the long term.

As with most documentaries, this one is boring and maudlin, mainly because the density of information is quite low as we watch Americans have relatively unscripted conversations about issues they have no hope of understanding. But it reveals the basis of identity politics in America, which is not so much the group, but the benefit to the individual from acts that benefit the group.

While you might fall asleep watching this, memorable moments of clash between cultures and worlds show us the future of America, which is not unity nor strength through disunity, but fragmentation into groups which want to support themselves and are willing to do so at the expense of all others.

In this, finally, we see some honesty about the prospects of democracy: where each vote represents self-interest, people become more self-interested, and then form little gangs of those like them to enforce this self-interest against other groups. This film about a contentious election serves to reveal the source of the contention that culminated in the election more than any sense of group participation.

Through that we see that America has finished itself off the way ancient Greece and Rome did, which is by creating an emphasis on individualism that works through a self-referential system, with the needs of the many steadily driving any conversation about reality out the window. The runaway train chases a phantom, and no one will be paying attention when it runs off the rails.

Bullet To The Head (2012)

Tuesday, October 17th, 2017

At a time when Hollywood, who gambled on the culture war and lost, is in free-fall under the assault from a world where movies are abundant and therefore we do not need to save up our pennies to see the latest vapid blockbuster, it is interesting to revisit a film that subtly tackled the fundamental inversion of our thinking.

Most writing for the past fifty years or so has focused on the “workshop school” of writing, which is a method in which it is presumed that setting motivates the character, and inner character — what literature is famous for: the change in behavior based on moral and intellectual learning in response to the shifting events of the story — is ignored, because it is presumed that all people are equal. Workshop style writing is perfect for an egalitarian age in which we assume that all people respond to the same material incentives and threats.

The method gets its name from the habit of presenting it in workshops, or classes where students work through a piece from beginning to end, and uses the fundamental question, “How would you feel in this situation?” By writing from the outside-in, these stories are able to focus on novelty of setting, dramatic human behavior, lusts and other material demands, and a simple narrative that anyone from any culture can understand because the humans in it are generic and have no souls.

Bullet To The Head takes the opposite approach: instead of settings being what motivates them, people are what they are, and they do not fundamentally change. This theme guides the story of a hit man and a cop, each of whom have had a partner killed by the same shadowy deep state in New Orleans government, who embark on a mission of retaliation.

Each person is defined by who they are and their choices are explained through that. At one point, Stallone’s character James Bonomo’s daughter explains that he grew up on the streets, and has known nothing but violence. His new partner, Detective Taylor Kwon, explains his actions many times by saying, “I’m a cop.” The bad guy, Robert Nkomo Morel, states that he does not trust anyone who is motivated by anything other than money. This noir view of the world does not allow us to “like” characters, only appreciate them.

In our conventional thinking, the opposite would be true. We would assume that everyone was the same, that we could instruct them in what to value and how to behave, and that they would react to the situation around them on the basis of this programming. However, throughout this movie, the programming is shown to fail. All the officials are corrupt. People do only what is convenient. The one bad guy motivated by more than money turns out to be a deranged killer who enjoys his work and sees himself as a kind of hero for the underworld.

This leads us to wonder, subtly, how true our modern programming is. Can we shape people with laws, economic incentives, propaganda, media, education, training and social influences, or are people just made how they are, with a limited range of understanding and function, and they will gravitate toward that no matter what we do? Bullet to the Head suggests the latter through a simple parable and well-known story, with lots of action and the obligatory headshots, but gives us enough to think about to be worth watching.

Dot-Com 3.0 Bust Goes Mainstream As People Pull Away From Silicon Valley Services

Wednesday, September 13th, 2017

As mentioned here before, the Dot-Com 3.0 boom — the years after the iPhone when social media took over — is heading straight for collapse, even as efforts are being made to fight that inevitable end.

The recurring problem that Dot-Com 3.0 faces is tied up with SJWs: our new media overlords have cultivated an audience who fanatically uses their product, but this is not a particularly relevant or effective audience, being made up mostly of obese blue-haired baristas, financially insolvent food service workers, committed Leftist basement-dwellers and angry minorities.

Everyone else is gradually fleeing these services as they become increasingly toxic. In the meantime, in order to curry favor with their audience of SJWs, these giant internet corporations have become manipulative and are starting to resemble Soviet-style indoctrination in their relentless advance of narrative, leading to a growing movement to nationalize them as utilities to neutralize their bias:

The new spotlight on these companies doesn’t come out of nowhere. They sit, substantively, at the heart of the biggest and most pressing issues facing the United States, and often stand on the less popular side of those: automation and inequality, trust in public life, privacy and security. They make the case that growth and transformation are public goods — but the public may not agree.

The tech industry has also benefited for years from its enemies, who it cast — often accurately — as Luddites who genuinely didn’t understand the series of tubes they were ranting about, or protectionist industries that didn’t want the best for consumers. That, too, is over. Opportunists and ideologues have assembled the beginnings of a real coalition against these companies, with a policy core consisting of refugees from Google boss Eric Schmidt’s least favorite think tank unit. Nationalists, accurately, see a consolidation of power over speech and ideas by social liberals and globalists; the left, accurately, sees consolidated corporate power.

This distrust of Silicon Valley is expressed in a recent poll which found that 52% of respondents believe that Google’s search results are biased, and 65% do not want to be tracked. At the same time, Spain has fined Facebook for privacy violations in how it collects data on users.

In the meantime, others have discovered that Silicon Valley has been inflating its usage figures — sort of like a fake Nielsen rating showing more watchers than were actually there — to the point of absurdity, and they have been doing this for years in order to evade one crucial report that showed, two years into the reign of the iPhone and mobile computing, that display ads on social media were worthless.

Silicon Valley has been dodging that one for some time, and their solution has been to cultivate a fanatical audience of SJWs instead of a broader audience of normal people. That in turn has helped enforce a split: on the internet, you are either a fanatical Leftist or someone who is skeptical of the internet. That skepticism has fueled questioning about the value of social media and internet use as an activity, especially since it represents to this generation what daytime television did to the 1980s: people with no purpose, not much hope, and very little else to do.

It is possible that the “always on” nature of social media is making us miserable:

But in 2012, when the proportion of Americans who own smartphones surpassed 50 percent, she noticed abrupt changes in teen behavior and emotional states.

…Among other things, teens are: not hanging out as much with friends, in no rush to drive, dating less, having less sex, and getting less sleep. Most alarming, despite their continual connectivity, they are lonely. And rates of teen depression and suicide have skyrocketed since 2011.

…“Much of this deterioration can be traced to their phones. It’s not just the technology, I should stress, it’s really the social media, which is the most common risk they are facing.”

One factor in this is that social media is driven by Fear Of Missing Out (FOMO) which causes people to obsessively tune in many times throughout the day and night, with many users taking their phone to bed in order to consume more media. This leads to an inability to ever detach from the narrative, which means they are not at rest even when sleeping, and a lack of sleep, which increases delusionality, hallucinations and psychotic behavior:

The primary outcome measures were for insomnia, paranoia, and hallucinatory experiences

…Compared with usual practice, the sleep intervention at 10 weeks reduced insomnia (adjusted difference 4·78, 95% CI 4·29 to 5·26, Cohen’s d=1·11; p<0·0001), paranoia (−2·22, −2·98 to −1·45, Cohen's d=0·19; p<0·0001), and hallucinations (−1·58, −1·98 to −1·18, Cohen's d=0·24; p<0·0001). ...It provides strong evidence that insomnia is a causal factor in the occurrence of psychotic experiences and other mental health problems.

Paranoia might be understood as “inverse solipsism,” meaning that it assumes a focus on the individual by wide-ranging external forces. Both posit the individual as the center of all activity, or origin of all meaning, and as such, the individual assumes that any activity out there is directed at them, in a mild form of one of the symptoms of schizophrenia.

Social media can induce this by compelling the individual to constantly interact with a symbolic representation of the world, and this token quickly obfuscates actual reality, which is both wider and less clear-cut and therefore, more ambiguous and threatening. As one writer found, this creates a pathology like addiction:

The landscape of my days has come to resemble my computer screen. The constant stream of pings and swooshes is a nonstop cry for my attention, and on top of that, everything can be clicked on, read, responded to, and Googled instantaneously. I sense a constant agitation when I’m doing something, as if there is something else out there, beckoning—demanding—my attention. And nothing needs to be deferred. It’s all one gratifying tap of the finger away.

…I am a writer by profession, and about a year ago I found myself unable to produce. I attributed my paralysis to writer’s block, freighted with psychological meaning, when in fact what I suffered from was a frightening inability to remain focused long enough to construct a single sentence.

…My therapy, of my own devising, consists of serial mono-tasking with a big dose of mindful intent, or intentional mindfulness—which is really just good, old-fashioned paying attention.

Living a virtual life means that the real life is ignored, which is why so many people seem to live in neckbeard nests where the computer is the only functional object, a gleaming device of firm lines surrounded by the more detailed organic forms of crumpled clothing, discarded wrappers, cigarette butts, detritus and dirt.

Social media requires people buy into that online life, and while many normal people use it periodically, its compulsive users — mostly SJWs — have become its focus. For those it becomes compulsive, with them fearing to go more than a few moments without checking for updates. Facebook, Google, et al. have figured that if they cannot have everyone use their service, they want to cultivate the largest fanatical audience that they can, which is why politics, lifestyle and social media use converge.

In a broader sense, Dot-Com 3.0 mindlock reflects the conditions of modernity, which are defined by control. The individual demands to control nature, especially the nature within, by asserting his individuality through equality; this creates a herd which must be taught to boo the enemy and cheer the good guys; that in turn makes the individualists enforce those boos and cheers on each other, causing a spiral where the society gradually eliminates any notice of reality and focuses exclusively on symbols.

The cart goes before the horse, the tail wags the dog, the world is turned upside-down. While we chase the One True Ring of power and control, we sleepwalk into a Brave New World style society based on what people want, instead of their suppression. Democracy, equality, pluralism and tolerance encourage us to be as weird as we want to be, and we slowly drift farther from reality, becoming more miserable as we do so, until the end seems like a good thing.

Social media just tapped into our mania for control through symbolism. If you replace the complex knowledge of the world as whole with a single interface of symbols that claim to control it all, people — or at least some types of people — become addicted. This addiction creates a hive mind for the purpose of excluding anything but what it wants to believe, and reality is pushed far away.

At this point, the populist wave has brought a backlash against unreality, and the unrelenting defense of unreality from the social media crowd is what is pushing Dot-Com 3.0 into collapse. The audience they need, the normal middle class, is fleeing, and the legbeards and blue-hairs are taking over at the same time regulators close in and investors shy away. The carnage will be delicious.

Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970)

Tuesday, August 22nd, 2017

Presaging compupocalypse films like War Games and Hackers, and possibly prescient about the problem of Silicon Valley, Colossus: The Forbin Project revealed to us the problem of too much logic, following in the lines of Frankenstein, the only book mentioned in the film. The questions it raises remain relevant to us today.

Dr. Charles Forbin, a brilliant scientist, creates a massive computer which can teach itself through heuristics, making it nearly self-aware. Designed to be so logical and omniscient that it would prevent attacks on the United States, this machine is given control of the American nuclear stockpile and access to television, radio, and telephone signals.

It quickly detects that the Soviets have made a similar machine and interfaces with that machine, forming one giant digital brain that quickly asserts control, aided by video cameras and its ability to process public information and make conclusions from it, determined to save humanity from nuclear war. But the humans will not like its methods.

Presaging other omniscient computer overlords from books like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and later television programs like Person of Interest, Colossus: The Forbin Project plays into our fears of being illogical in a world where some of that illogicality is not only necessary, but pleasurable. If we did everything right according to a genius calculator, we might have fewer problems… but also might lose our souls.

The film starts slowly, which usually indicates an unfinished ending because it never gets to the meat of the story, and for book-readers, that might well be the case. We want to learn more about this machine and what it knows. That does not translate well to the screen, however, and so the screenwriters did their best to make an interesting film where half of the dialogue is between a digital voice and increasingly irate scientists.

Where this film triumphs is in the character of the computer: literal, logical, and relentless. Revealed to us through teletypes and computer screens for the most part, the machine develops the rudiments of a personality, which drives the story along like a mystery. Aided by some truly magnificent sets, excellent acting and many subtleties in the human characters, the movie picks up the pace and becomes engrossing.

As we stagger into the twenty-first century with a similar battle where logicality seems too unrealistic, and yet human illogicality is too animalistic, this movie raises questions that will return repeatedly in the future. It may be possible, it hints, to be too logical, and the end result of that will be a type of existence we will find appalling.

While the headlines are full of attempts by Google, climate change scientists and the media trying to force us to do what is “right” even though it is clearly wrong in the bigger picture, the staggeringly brilliant and unrelenting machine from Colossus: The Forbin Project may well be a metaphor for our time and the challenge to us to exceed it.

American Anarchist (2016)

Friday, June 23rd, 2017

“I am happiest where I do not belong, where I am an outsider looking in.” William Powell, who wrote The Anarchist Cookbook in 1969 at age 19, reflects on his life in this lengthy documentary which seems almost like a therapy session trying to make him take responsibility for his words.

While many of us have doubts that publishing information about how to construct weapons of warfare is in any way a bad thing, The Anarchist Cookbook is more than a list of recipes. It is also a screed against the government, society and humanity in general. It is only fitting that its author was a complete outsider.

Director Charlie Siskel (nephew of Gene Siskel of movie review fame) takes us through the prerequisites for alienation: a Western European father who married a Southern European woman, life in England until a sudden move brought him back to the states, an unsteady relationship with his family and finally, a world coming apart in the late 1960s. He refers to it as an apocalyptic time.

The uncontroversial facts come out through interviews, family pictures and films, and montages of the era. A troubled but wealthy child who had been expelled from his private school for marijuana and vodka consumption, Powell moved to New York in his teens, got a job at a bookstore known for selling controversial works, then went into the massive New York Public Library at night to research what would become The Anarchist Cookbook. He cobbled together military manuals and previous works on subversion and sabotage into a giant list of everything one might need to overthrow the government, as he encourages people to do in the book.

Siskel probes Powell repeatedly on variations of the question with which the movie begins, which is essentially whether he feels culpability. Powell offers an interesting response. Although he claims the agency was with others, he expresses remorse for writing the book and what it has caused, but not regret. Indeed, we get the impression that he would do it again if he could.

What comes out in his words is that Powell is not so different from the people, like the Columbine shooters, who used his book: he wanted revenge on the world, and once he had sent the book into the world, he wanted a normal life with no responsibility to the rest of society except what he got paid for with his educational NGO.

The portrait that comes across in the documentary is of a man who has no connection to his world. Having married an Asian wife, he moved away from the United States and claimed to be uncomfortable there, living instead in rural France when not in Africa or Asia with his organization. (Powell died in 2016, about a month after the film finished shooting, although his voice in it is comprised of interviews done during a single week in 2015.)

Although not a sociopath, he seems detached, but likeable for his ready wit and insight. After all, this is the man who invented the term cuck when he wrote: “There is no place for emotionally or politically cuckolded people in the society I speak of. Survival of the fittest.”

If you think that makes him potentially a right-winger, he addressed that as well: “There is no justice left in the system. The only real justice is that which the individual creates for himself, and the individual is helpless without a gun. This may sound like the dogma expounded by radical right-wing groups, like the Minute Men. It is.” Elsewhere he opines: “Allow your love of freedom to overcome the false values placed on human life. For the only method to communicate with the enemy is to speak on his own level, using his own terms. Freedom is based on respect, and respect is earned by the spilling of blood.”

In interviews subsequent to the publication of the book, but not in the movie, he identified a fear of the draft and the war in Vietnam as a motivating force at the time he wrote the book. His Leftist credentials are solid however: like too many conservatives, he speaks in French Revolution language about the importance of freedom and the individual choosing what is true for himself.

American Anarchist, tightly edited and with an unobtrusive but powerful soundtrack, looks deep into William Powell and pulls away an image of a man who was more like the society he detested than he wanted to admit. Detached, morally neutral — it seems as if he wrote the book to be a hit because it was what the times called for — and seemingly completely unaware of himself, he resembles the loose cannon of the book itself.

While this movie references the events of forty-five years ago, it also brings up timely reminders. Sociopaths stalk the streets, the youth are (still, tediously) restless, and it seems like the world is heading to the end. Indirectly, American Anarchist offers us a moral parable of the accountability we face for our actions, even if only sentimentally and much removed from the events they help trigger.

Visions Of The Coming Purge

Thursday, June 22nd, 2017

In his dimly lit attic workroom, the inventor tightened the final screw, and flipped the power switch. The robot lit up and awoke, taking in his surroundings with an unchanging gaze that shone aggression through bright red eyes.

“Who are you?” His maker stood in front of the robot with stern anticipation, his eagerness to see the fruits of his life’s labour still held in check by lingering sceptical doubts.

The robot quickly turned its head and took in the form of the man before him.  “I AM SODOMOTRON.”  The voice was loud, monotone, and clouded in a raspy distortion that seemed to give the crudely computer generated sound an organic feeling. “WHO ARE YOU?”

This was new.  None of the previous failed prototypes had posed its own question so soon after awakening.  Could this be a sign that he’d succeeded?  The maker tried restraining his joy at his promising creation’s animation, knowing that the true test of the robot had yet to come.  But the attempt was futile, and his face beamed out a wild jubilant desire for the manifestation of his greatest dream.  

“I–I am your maker,” he said. The moment of truth lay ahead.

Sodomotron glared motionlessly, his prominent inflected brow seeming to exude pure disgust at the weakness of the squishy, quivering, flesh bag in his way.  The light from those eyes was unpleasant, and filled the man’s vision to the edges with red, as if becoming drenched in blood, but he forced himself to stare directly back into them, straining to show no sign of self-doubt or fear. 

The sound of a short hydraulic twitch originating in the robot’s lower structure caused his heart to jump and rail against its cage of ribs, but his overriding drive to live to see the metal beast unleashed upon the world, to know that it would make the world a better place was the anchor with which he forced himself calm.  Finally, the voice once again bellowed, this time at a subtly lowered tone, “ABOVE WEAKNESS THRESHOLD.”

Dual relief washed over the man.  He would be spared, he would remain unviolated.  But more important than that, he had looked into the eyes of the beast and therein gained an inexplicable confidence in the soundness of his creation.  He’d done it.  His dream had become real.

For years, the inventor had observed that in human society, the natural predators became the prey and so a mouse-like ineptitude had prevailed in all that humanity did. Evil and stupidity always won, usually on the backs of vast popularity by people who were as casual with the truth as they were with their paychecks, and anything good or honest was smashed down to the roars of pleasure by the jubilant crowd. The only solution was a mass purge of the weak, and in this instrument of terror, the inventor felt he may have created the true salvation of his race.

He addressed the mechanical embodiment of domination.  “Sodomotron!”  The maker’s eye’s glowed back red light as little embers, scorching away any remaining doubt.  “What is your purpose?”

Waiting no longer, the robot arose to its full towering height, rapidly thudded across the room and crashed through the door.  Not pausing to look back, it rumbled one last time in a bowel-loosening timbre:

“I AM SODOMOTRON.  I SODOMIZE THE WEAK.”

Right-Wing Music Site Belzebubbles Brings Cultural Shift To Music

Tuesday, June 13th, 2017

If the postwar Right experienced a “Eureka!” moment, it was that political power cannot be changed directly. It must be supported by a cultural wave, as was massively successful for the Left in postwar years, and it has to spread through something other than politics, such as art, literature, architecture, philosophy, academia and music.

The musicians behind folk rock duo Lilou & John have homed in on the latter and given it a podium: a Right-Wing music site named Belzebubbles which aims to support the rising realist Right-wing cultural wave by bringing together bands from many different genres who are united by their non-Leftist perspective. We were fortunate to get in a few words with Lilou and John about this new project.

You seem to know quite a bit about music and its history. How did you know you wanted to be a musician, and what path did you take to get there?

Lilou: Well, I used to write songs when I was a child but my father was a cheap bastard and wouldn’t let me take singing classes. I have always sung, though, in the shower and while cooking, but I thought my voice was too low-pitched for anyone to enjoy. But John said it reminded him of Zarah Leander and old singing traditions, which boosted my confidence. John says he’s happy I didn’t go to those singing classes or they would have ruined my rough voice and made me sound like Beyoncé.

John: I have performed a number of times with an acoustic guitar since I was 14 and came second in the school’s annual talent show with a song about alcoholism (!). In those days I dreamed of having my own metal band and I used to rip apart old music cassettes and use the tape as a wig to look like Paul Stanley and Blackie Lawless and cover my blond hair. Mom bought me a guitar and forced me to practice, but the classes was boring so I almost gave up the whole thing, lucky us I didn’t. I have written lyrics for most of my life, though, and Lilou thought we could use it. I have always been a nerd and I love analyzing music to the point where it’s all philosophy so a music blog is a good thing for me. 

What inspired you to start Belzebubbles, and what type of audience do you hope to attract there?

John: Right wing bands are seldom welcome in mainstream media and only a few right wing news and opinion sites support them. It’s a shame, because Right wing bands are important. It was Woodstock that made the Left wing big, you need a new culture to accompany the politicians if they are to succeed in the long run. Justin Bieber is never going to come out as an Conservative or Nationalist, we can all stop dreaming right now, and support our own bands instead. The problem is that many mainstream Conservatives seem to think country and military marches are enough, but there are metal bands, punk bands, pop bands, electronica bands, all coming from the political right wing, from Classical Liberals to Alt-Right, and we wanted to give them somewhere to promote their music. Hopefully, radio stations, podcasts, news sites, everyone will one day think of Belzebubbles as a “library” where they can find great music for their own production. 

Lilou: The name “Belzebubbles” came to me from nowhere, basically. In those days, 2005 or something, I put together the words Belzebub and “bubblan” which is Swedish for “bubble,” and I liked the way light and dark co-existed in the new word “Belzebubblan.” I thought that one day I would use it for something big, and when we started our blog in January 2017 that later was transformed into the right wing music blog Belzebubbles, we used the English translation and it seems people like it.

Why do you think such a thing is needed now, and what is responsible for the change in political/social climate that makes this music come up from the underground?

The political movements have gained momentum, but the culture is still Red like Lenin’s underwear. People like yourself, Swedish newspaper editor Vávra Suk and social philosopher Joakim “Oskorei” Andersen have understood what is needed, and hopefully more people will follow. It is also important to reach out to the youth, and they listen to music. They don’t read a three thousand word article on Infowars, they want something quick they can relate to in their everyday life.

What do bands get in exchange for working with you? What sort of content do you anticipate having on the site in the future?

They get a positive review — we only cover good bands — and, if they want, an interview. We link to the articles on Twitter and Gab and encourage people to buy their music. We welcome all genres and in the future we hope to attract more and more bands from all over the world who are sick and tired of left wing ga-ga. Furthermore, they can use quotes from our review for their own promotion and they get a chance to give their fans a deeper insight into who they are as a band. Our own network is growing by the day and we mention Belzebubbles to basically everybody which means the bands get more attention. As far as we know, Belzebubbles is also the first music blog of its kind ever, and the bands we cover are the first ones out. One of our goals is to collaborate with other blogs, festivals and music supervisors etc in the future. 

Can you explain your concept of “R3C” music and how it is different than what has existed before?

”R3C” is short for Right Wing Music / Conservative Counter Culture. We used to call it “RiWi/CCC” when we started but that acronym was too long and clumsy. R3C is basically music that is outside of the box of political correctness. National Socialists have promoted their bands for years while International Socialists run the rest of the show. There are a few exceptions, like Scottish covert-Nationalist band Runrig, metal bands like Amon Amarth and some country artists, but on the whole there is little room in MSM for anti-Establishment bands today. What we believe is the new thing about R3C is that the productions are often slightly rough, maintaining the originality of what makes the artist unique. The voices express emotions and sincerity instead of superfluous drama. Back to the origins of music if you may. We want everybody to start using the term R3C for this kind of music, let The New York Times know the times they are a-changing.

Do you draw lines on the Right, for example, would Libertarian and National Socialist bands both be accepted?

As long as the bands match our criteria: they are not welcome anywhere else and they do their own thing instead of copy-catting Rihanna, we will take them under consideration. We will also write about bands that already have a following, but are too far-right for MSM and make good music that touches your heart or brain. If we come across a fabulous song written by a Classical Liberal or National Socialist, we’re gonna write about it. If you deny facts such as the Holocaust or The Islamization of Europe, however, we might think you’re a bit too weird and refuse your submission for that reason. We welcome all kinds of people, however, we will not cover music with racist lyrics, national socialists making a song about general immigration issues would be fine, but no lyrics about inferior races etc.

Do you fear reprisal or professional consequences for your public activity, or have they already happened?

We have already been discriminated against by Swedish national radio because of our political views. We seem to be keeping our jobs, though, which is a rare thing in Sweden when you criticize the system. We have lost one producer and several drummers along the way because they were scared of us not being politically correct enough. Our current producer wishes to remain anonymous due to fear of reprisals from politically correct organizations and media. We understand him, Sweden is not famous for allowing non-left-wing opinions and people have been killed for less. 

“Payback Day” is an intense song that seems to tell an autobiographical story, and it is the center piece on Dissidentica, the new album from your right-wing folk duo Lilou & John. Can you tell us more about that?

“Payback Day” is a song to all the millions of Conservatives, Identitarians, Alt-Righters, Classical Liberals and Nationalists who are being called “Nazis” by fake news media just for not bending over. The lyrics are very personal and describes the anger that builds up inside you when you are treated as a second class citizen by the Establishment. The title “Payback Day” refers to the day when society breaks down under pressure from ISIS and Immigration, and people have had enough of mass suicide politics. The left wing rely on oppression of free speech and it seems they have thrown too many people to the wolves, the outcasts soon will have a superiority in numbers. We want the song to be a right wing equivalent of “The Internationale.” A new Marseillaise for an English speaking audience, aux armes citoyens. Rise or die. The ruling classes are cowards who will run away as soon as the tide turns. They hope it will soon be over… Boy, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Denmark’s hard immigration policy is a raindrop compared to what will come. You don’t invite ISIS and believe there will be “peace in our time.” And there will be a day when people will seek revenge for the bombings and rapes and I’m glad I’m not a left winger anymore for they will have a rough 75 years ahead. And, yeah, we used a backbeat acoustic guitar to make it catchy. 

How has Lilou & John been received, and have you been encountering other R3C bands in the wild?

Our debut album 100 Faces was well received among rockers and hip hoppers and is still being played by radio stations in several countries. Our second album Dissidentica has been supported and reviewed by right wing sites and news papers in Sweden and the US. We have connected with a number of bands, many of which can be found on Belzebubbles, and a couple of bands we have yet to write about. Things are not going fast enough, though, as we are a married couple with full time jobs and kids and we need some spare time once in a while. 

Can you describe your personal political outlook, how it was shaped and what you overcame to get there?

John: I like to describe myself as a “Jacobin Conservative” politically, part Identitarian Conservative, part Alt-Right Nationalist and part Classical Liberal. I started out as Communist for the same reason as everyone else: I wanted to be popular and being a Communist is the easiest way of building a career in Sweden, sadly. Lilou made me see the light just by asking me to explain what I meant when I talked about “white privilege” and “male superiority.” I have lost a number of friends and colleagues in the process but I won myself.

Lilou: I’ve never been interested in politics, I’m more into people and logic (meaning the machinery behind the politics). John, however, says I’m the biggest fascist he’s ever met, ha ha. I just don’t accept that any power beyond me decides what I should think or feel. 

If people are interested in what you are doing, how do they participate in Belzebubbles and follow your work in Lilou & John?

They support the musicians or submit their music on http://www.belzebubbles.com/ and they check us out on http://www.liloujohn.com/. We can also be found on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and Gab. Please contact us or spread the word. Furthermore, everybody should skip the “oh this world is going to hell” and instead start thinking “we will transform this rotten borough into something new and better, and we’re on the winning side.” People should start promoting good bands, authors, artists coming from the right wing. Tell your friends about R3C and if you’re into this new kind of cultural movement, be proud of it.

Recommended Reading