Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

LD50 Gallery Debunks Its Attackers With Diagnosis Of Their Instability

Tuesday, February 21st, 2017

The London art gallery that hosted Neoreaction and Alt Right exhibits and is now under attack from deranged and angry Leftists, has posted a statement in which is diagnoses the unstable psychology of its attackers and reveals the importance of those exhibits in the first place:

We feel that the exceptionally aggressive, militant and hyperbolic reaction this has provoked vindicates our suspicion that at some point, as a society, we have drifted into a cultural echo chamber. A position on the left has become the only permissible orientation for cultural practitioners and apparently any who dare eschew this constraint are now publicly vilified, delegitimated and intimidated with menaces.

The attacks against us have come from a position of ignorance, fuelled by emotions that have ratchetted up a group dynamic that has, intentionally, obviated the possibility of rational interpretation.

Our position has always been that the role of art is to provide a vehicle for the free exploration of ideas, even and perhaps especially where these are challenging, controversial or indeed distasteful for some individuals to contemplate. We had thought that if it was to be found in any discipline, then art should have exemplified this willingness to discuss new ideas, but it has just become apparent to us that this sphere now (and perhaps for the last few years) stands precisely for the opposite of this.

The internet is achieving its promise of accelerating time to the point of collapse. What we are experiencing now is how history writes itself, how fears and ignorance come to dominate people’s minds, effacing the possibility of truth; how, in fact, a lie becomes a truth for the next person, how that new person uses this as the basis of another misinformed opinion to generate a further specious version of the truth and so on and so forth. As a result of this we are able to witness in real time how reality empties itself out, reconstellating in a structure of fears and lies that grows bigger and stronger to the point there is no return, and we are now inhabiting those new truths/ or so called “post truths”.

As an art gallery we try to explore contemporary discourse through a series of exhibitions and open discussions, by looking at our programme one can learn how diverse and enriching these have been over the last 2 years. In recent months we found ourselves increasingly interested in the political ruptures in the west: America and closely observed events there throughout the extraordinary and dramatic election cycle. This informed our last exhibition and our series of talks that were framed around the alt-right and NRx discourses. We presented a very liberal audience with a speaker knowledgeable of that sphere creating in that way a dialogue between two different and contrasting ideologies and the possibility for discussion between the speaker and amongst ourselves. In our exhibition we explored themes of memetics, the occult, male frustration, kek, artificial intelligence, algorithms..etc which are some of the topics currently faced by our generation.

Should you desire more information/justifications about our enterprise, please contact us on or DM on twitter @kantbot2000

As usual, the Left is demonstrating intolerance not of opposition to them, but of any deviation from the groupthink. This is how civilizations destroy themselves: they bind themselves to illusions and punish those who notice, so everyone — wanting to personally succeed — affirms the groupthink and thus obstructs themselves from recognizing the decay and acting to fix it.

End days of Rome and Athens type stuff, in other words. We are humans among the ruins indeed, ruled by both an illusory ideology of equality and the consequent unleashing of commercial forces that has sapped our society of sincerity. When anyone mentions this, they are attacked, and this is why LD50 Gallery is under assault by these neurotic, selfish, pretentious people.

Divorce Creates Intense Solipsism

Tuesday, February 21st, 2017

Those who follow this blog know that its fundamental argument is that civilizations die by hubris, which we call “individualism” in a modern context: the pathology of the individual which considers itself more important than reality.

Hubris is a form of the cognitive bias we call “solipsism” which occurs when people think the world either exists for them, or is a subset of their own minds. In order to deny reality, one must be solipsistic.

Solipsism spreads like a virus because once one person gets away with it, others realize they are at a disadvantage by acting toward a purpose larger than the individual. They give up and choose a self-centered life as well.

A trap emerges but most people tragically do not realize it until their later years. Living for oneself is a path to emptiness because meaning is found in the connection between self and reality, including but not limited to others. Living for principles and purpose such as is synthesized in the transcendentals like “the good, the beautiful and the true” creates meaning; egoism destroys it.

One writer pointed out how solipsism creates emptiness and a type of low-grade but fanatical sociopathy through his essay on why never date a woman from a broken family:

I have seen too many men have their heads handed to them, regardless of all this daydreaming about compatibility, equality, success, adventures, whatever. It all goes right out the window when Herself gets pregnant, and suddenly she is the center of the universe, those are HER children, and a guy can attend as many parenting classes and change as many diapers as he is humanly capable of doing, but she is from that time on looking for something she never had, something she has spent her childhood longing for and rationalizing away why her mother did whatever it was she did to deny to her, something that doesn’t exist: The Perfect Father. And she will keep right on looking, using “her” children as bait to try and trap one, man after man after man.

And I have seen very, very few exceptions to this formula for guaranteed heartbreak, summary dismissal and a future of painful and impoverishing litigation for too many good and decent men: women without fathers seem utterly incapable either of allowing any man to parent children in his own manly way, or of searching their own souls deeply enough to recognize that children are both distinct human beings and future adults, rather than their own personal property, pets and projects of empowerment.

The virus of self-centeredness causes people to be unable to understand others as real, since for the self-centered person, everything that exists in the world is there to serve a purpose for the self alone, and is only useful as a means-to-an-end. This makes them manipulative, controlling and most of all, willing to destroy others for their own convenience.

Every aspect of modern society bears the stamp of this solipsism which, if not actual metaphysical evil, certainly acts like it.

Why The Left Adores Pacifism

Monday, February 20th, 2017

Robert Stacy McCain observes the loser psychology of the Left:

Feminists refuse to confront the reality that there are evil forces in the world which wish us harm.

…Feminists can denounce the president as a “fascist,” and suffer no harm, but what would become of these fools if America was not protected by brave troops obedient to our Commander in Chief?

The Left makes zero sense until you understand them as individualists. They want to be free from any risk in decision-making, of the Darwinian kind including a loss of social status, while they are still able to enjoy the benefits of society, and are empowered to game the system by being able to make public, symbolic gestures of goodness that obscure the moral level of their other acts.

They hide this philosophy in egalitarianism because the plural of “I can do anything I want” is “we can do anything we want” and this type of collectivized individualism compels all of the members of the gang to defend each other, and so is the most effective method of building a cult-like revolutionary movement within a thriving society.

It makes sense to note this: Leftists do not create civilizations; they attach to them, or rise up within them, and then act as all parasites do. They siphon off nutrition and as they get more numerous, clog the internal motion necessary for homeostasis and gradually weaken and then kill the civilization. Leftists want you to see them as independent; a better comparison is the mosquito or cholera.

The thing about parasites is that if the host dies, all they need is another host nearby. For this reason, it is important for Leftists to encourage the host civilization to embark on any wars it cannot win. Once it is conquered, the Leftists will be there to collaborate with the enemy in exchange for a position in the enemy where they can continue their parasitism.

One reason that theories about The Rich™, The Masons™ or The Jews™ taking over our civilization are silly is that these theories are designed to conceal the actual parasite, which is the Leftist. Maybe the others are also parasites… evidence suggests they are varied, like any other human group. But what they do pales in comparison to the damage Leftism does.

A parasite needs to be like a good snake oil salesman or celebrity. It must constantly draw attention to itself in a way that displays its moral goodness through symbolic acts, because these are a cover for its immoral acts like parasitism itself. Think of it like a businessman: it is more efficient to give 10% a year than spend 20% of every deal ensuring it is ethical and constructive.

This “virtue signaling” is the hallmark of the Leftist and shows us that their ideology is not a philosophy but a pathology. They have zero interest in whether their words are true; what matters is — like the salesman, again — how their words are perceived by others in terms of making the Leftist look good.

If you wonder why Leftist politicians can approve obviously insane and non-working policies and laws, here is your answer. They do not care whether the policy works; in fact, it serves them better if it does not, and creates more social chaos which in turn engenders more unhappy, neurotic and rootless people that can be recruited into the Leftist gang.

Pacifism appeals to the Left because it is part of their stable of “reality is not reality” thinking. Leftists realize they do not have to be radical innovators in order to look like profound inventors, which they do by acting out the script of an inventor.

The inventor is remember by the group for having essentially said “reality is not reality” in a specific area; the way everyone was thinking about a problem was wrong, and some guy beat it, so it turns out that what most people think of reality is not reality… in that specific area. Leftists want this power more generally, and so they act out the script of claiming most people are wrong in order to appear to be radical innovators.

Conventional knowledge, common sense, logical fact and history hold that the best way to achieve peace is to have a deterrent to aggression. If you can cost the enemy more than he can likely gain, and create uncertainty that he can win, then you are as safe from him as you can be. If you declare pacifism, he will roll in and conquer you, at which point the parasites transfer to him.

Conquerors like the Romans and Genghis Khan experienced this in their own adventures. Whenever they conquered a state or city, there were people there waiting to be of service to the new regime. These people had been highly powerful before and so, it stood to reason, they were competent. Instead they were often parasites, which increased the viral load for Rome while healing some of its territories.

The “reality is not reality” approach of the Leftist recognizes the truth of the need for a military. In fact, if Leftists consistently oppose something, it is a good idea to reconsider it as it usually will be something good. Leftists want to virtue signal their independence from need and their moral supremacy, and humans — especially women — respond to pacifism as if it were good.

In reality, this “good” is just rationalization of a problem to the point of explaining it away. No hippie ever had a good answer for what would happen if the Soviets charged through the American heartland. But, a good salesman makes people feel better by explaining away actual problems so that instead the victims of his con focus on what he wants them to see, which is his virtue.

Feminism — entirely a subset of Leftism — opposes the military because it wants to weaken the nation around it and conquer that nation for its own purposes. Like any other viral thought, feminism “seems” intelligent, good, moral, etc. but turns out to be a deception. Its pacifism is a ruse to the end of that deception, and can safely be considered insane like the rest of feminism.

We Are What You Fear

Monday, February 20th, 2017

Writing about politics for several decades has convinced me that people from different “tribes” — a mixture of ethnicity, caste/class, religion, politics/philosophy and social rank (alpha, beta, omega) — really do not understand each other. Each tribe knows itself and, because its normal opinions shock others, its members isolate into “bubbles” where they experience only similar opinions.

This is why the Left has utterly no clue about who the people of the Right are. They have stereotypes: inbred farmers, the Klan, angry Christians, Hitler, the Confederates, maybe even those people who live at the end of the cul-de-sac in the suburbs. But those are surface descriptions. They do not actually know these people, nor do they care to.

For this reason, it always shocks them when we turn out to be educated or “educable” (my term for those who could accomplish a college degree or run their own successful business, whether they chose to or not) and normal. This ruins their narrative that we chose our ideas because we are dysfunctional; instead, it reveals that our ideas were logical responses to the situation we see before us.

Leftists start calling names when their narrative is interrupted, which is why the usual neurotics are attacking LD50 Gallery by calling anyone involved a “fascist”:

After some digging, it turned out that the gallery had, on the down-low, actually hosted a “neo-reactionary” conference as well, though not a particularly well advertised one. Or as one of the speakers wrote, “behind a veil of secrecy to prevent the usual suspects (Leftists and other neurotics) from attacking”.

Those are the words of Brett Stevens, a fascist who has in the past praised Anders Behring Breivik, the far right terrorist who killed 77 people in Norway in 2011.

…In case you’re unconvinced, one of the few place to offer any support for LD50, was a right wing website that, as part of it’s mission statement, suggests we “repatriate the non-indigenous”.

As obvious historical illiterates, these neurotics have no idea what “fascism” actually is, nor do they care. They want a term for an enemy that is so bad that it is OK to destroy them, harm their families, enjoy torturing them, dehumanize them and exterminate them. This is not an analysis; it is a category for extermination.

They cannot accept the fact that their narrative and ideology have failed to convince people. They must pretend to be shocked at this because they base their identities, or personal sense of self-worth, on the idea that they are “right” and the rest of us are “wrong” and therefore their purpose and truthfulness is greater than ours.

This reveals the basis of Leftism in individualism or hubris. They really do not care whether or not what they say is true. What they care about is that it be treated as true, so they get what they (personally) want, and they have formed a collective of individualists like a union, gang or cult to demand this from the larger society around them.

Leftists use a method of passive aggression leading to circular reasoning by which they demand that you accept their assumptions as gospel truth, and then react as if they have been victimized when you refuse to accept the insanity.

In this way, Leftists create a psychology where they are always correct and the rest of us are always wrong, therefore the only solution is for us to accept the greater morality of the Leftist position and roll over on our own. This only works if we accept the fundamentally social morality of the Left, which is that including everyone is more important than getting to the correct answer.

The Left thus resembles an abusive relationship in which the rest of us are always wrong, the Left is always right, and they use this imagined justification to essentially steal from us to fund their own projects, which coincidentally result in enriching Leftists with wealth and power. Their goal is to seize control from those who naturally should wield it and transfer it to themselves, through the ruse of altruism.

What is shocking the Left (this week) is that the victims are no longer rolling over for the parasites. In fact, something bigger has happened: the victims have recognized that the parasite is a parasite, not a logical participant, and they are no longer listening. The same force that kept them “cucked” for years caused them to suddenly snap and polarize to the opposite direction.

For example, we can look at the lamentations of the insane that they are not treated as sane people in American politics anymore:

Democrats’ frustration spilled over after one member noticed a Republican House member wearing headphones plugged into his phone during the debate.

“What could possibly be more important right now?” Abbie Finkenauer of Dubuque shouted. “Get off your phone and pay attention.”

Shannon Wurzer, a Republican teacher from northeast Iowa, said she was shocked when she saw the party she supports refusing to consider any of the amendments.

“They weren’t giving an inch. It didn’t seem like the Republicans were even listening,” she said. “It was all their way. And that’s not what we’re used to in Iowa.”

Notice the passive aggression in the above. These Leftists — some of whom claim to be Republicans, who claim to be conservative sometimes — are upset that the previous order in which everyone rolled over for them has been disrupted. Republicans are no longer listening to them because the Republican base has realized that Leftists are insane, and you cannot negotiate with insane.

Much of this comes from the interweaving of HBD, Nietzsche and deep ecology in the Alt Right: we stopped seeing ideology as philosophy, and started seeing it as pathology, or in other words a symbolic expression of the needs of the individual. Leftists justify themselves more than they assert positive future options. They are at heart, simply neurotics.

For this reason a cultural shift is going on in the world. We have seen through the veil and realized that behind Leftism, no matter what degree, lies only insanity. Any idea that begins with the assumption that all people are equal will lead to complete breakdown of sanity, logic and pragmatism.

It also acts on our people like an addiction. This is why it is important to discard scapegoats and intermediaries — the Rich,™ the Jews,™ the Government and the Deep State — those are symptoms of the basic fact that We The People are in charge, and mob rule always produces dysfunctions of that nature. The real error was equality as articulated during The Enlightenment.™

Everything else has followed from that basic assumption. When people surmise that individualism is true, this leads to a condition called “Crowdism” that collectivizes that individualism and results in mass insanity as people are forced to accept mob rule as if it were reality. If we do not destroy equality, we will repeat the same historical pattern of failure.

These people are not realistic. They are not good. Their leaders are a few self-enriching cynics, ruling over neurotic true believers and a huge crowd of useful idiots who just want to have happy social feelings by being “good” through a few symbolic acts, which is much easier than actually being good in all that one does.

You can see the insanity on full display through the Leftist jihad against non-Leftist speech which leads to hilarity like the following:

And this just in— Editor Peter Brimelow’s alma mater, Stanford’s Graduate School Of Business, just cancelled a debate between Brimelow and Tim Kane of the Hoover Institution to be held by the Stanford chapter of the Adam Smith Society, citing the destruction of Berkeley as the reason they’ve been scared off.

Get this: the Left has canceled a debate by a Rightist because the Left is afraid that it will become triggered and riot, despite that having absolutely zero to do with the Rightist. It is like an alcoholic demanding that his community ban wine because otherwise he will drink it all and burn down a barn.

We are what they fear because we refuse to accept their narrative as “good.” This is the first step, and most important, in delousing oneself from Leftists. Their entire philosophy is based on the idea that individualism and equality are good. In reality, those destroy civilizations, and our goal is to avoid being destroyed, so we must fight back… in self-defense… by any means necessary.

We have reached peak insanity with the Left and it is clear that we can no longer walk down the same path holding hands, Right and Left. We need separate nations. Since Leftists already have most of the world, it makes sense to repatriate themselves elsewhere, and return our societies to the ethnic groups and philosophies that last ruled them well. End the Left. They are a disease.

Black Nationalism As Independence From All Other Ethnic Groups

Monday, February 20th, 2017

Nationalism was restyled as “racism” by Leftists who wanted ideology to replace culture, family, religion, heritage and morality. This leaves us in a time where most people believe that nationalism is about one race being superior to others.

In reality, Nationalism means that each ethnic group needs command of itself so that it can direct its future, establish its own laws and cultural standards, and work for the benefit of its people. This contrasts the modern idea that sees people as a means to political and economic ends, and wants to standardize them for convenience of control.

One African-descended writer recently expressed Nationalism as independence from all other tribes, even in thought:

The day I know the black man is free, is when we can write and speak for ourselves without inciting unnecessary hate or love for that matter, for whiteness. The day we feel our words hold power all on their own without a single reference, positive or negative, about whiteness. Kind of like the same maturity required to go on a date without talking about your ex. You’ve written a lot of word to in essence say you don’t care about what white people think or say about whatever the show is going to be about. But in writing it at all you already show just the opposite.

…You are not doing us a favor by insisting that all of the black experience for over 1.5billion people all over the world who have a darker skin tone, can be reduced to one moment in our history 200 years ago. A moment that by perpetuating endlessly, you and others like yourself, imprison us to. You cant say you don’t care about something when it’s all you talk about. We don’t need you or shows like this attempting to defend us or claiming to speak or write on all our behalf. We are not a hive mind and we are not all stricken by this black slavery PTSD thing that leaves you triggered and shooting articles from the hip at every thing white people do or say about one arguable poorly conceived title.

No ethnic group really exists when it must define itself in terms of other groups, but diversity forces this on all groups because of the question of whether to accept assimilation into a beige-grey cultureless race and reap the benefits of the economic and political system, or resist it and be outsiders much like Black Panthers, La Raza, Kahanists and White Power groups have been in democratic societies.

In this sense Nationalism is independence for the group from the dominant trend toward entropy that occurs through miscegenation, cultural dissolution through ideology, and other “right” ideas that humans idealize because they emphasize individualism. Nationalism rejects individualism and replaces it with the idea of shared purpose and meaning, but it cannot do that in the presence of Others.

For this reason, all who are Nationalist are joined in the same fight, even if they are from groups that consider themselves enemies or if they are accepting of some groups (“model minorities”). The problem is not the other groups; the problem is diversity. Very few can wrap their head around that argument, but more can do it now that over two decades ago when I was first writing about it.

Deranged Leftists Attack LD50 Gallery For Insufficient Conformity

Monday, February 20th, 2017

Goony neurotics are again forming in swarms to attack the symbolic enemy, thus hoping to clarify their own thinking despite having no idea of what positive goals they actually desire. This time, they are attacking LD50 gallery by arguing for censorship and violence as have been Leftist habits since the French and Russian Revolutions:

This week a tremor of disgust passed through a large community of London artists who realised that they have shown at, collaborated with or visited a Dalston project space, LD50, that was at the same time, and within a single framework, programming a series of ‘artistic’ talks on ethnic nationalism and race biology. The artists concerned had been unwittingly conscripted into the rebranding operation of a fascist ideology whose ‘evolution’ in relation to Nazi race theory bears roughly the same fucking relationship to the evolution of a bad odour from the general vicinity of Winston Churchill. Whether it would be more correct to say that fascism had grown up within this art scene, or that the art had merely been reduced to a decorative detail in the larger fresco of fascist ‘normalisation’, has nothing to do with our immediate practical situation and is in the last instance besides the point. The point now is, How do we stop this from ever happening again? Or in slightly more words it is: once we have made practically certain that the LD50 gallery is closed permanently and that the people who live in its vicinity know exactly what it was doing – once this has been achieved, how do we reconceive our own art to ensure that it never again serves as a conveniently indeterminate incubator for those who would gladly destroy us, our friends and neighbours and comrades, along with any latent possibility of a genuinely open and revolutionary culture or emancipated society?

Leftists have been attacking LD50 gallery and attempting to force it to shut down for the crime of exploring Neoreaction and Alt Right thought through modern-art style exhibits and art pieces.

In the above article, Leftists call for forcing everyone to obey the same standard of thought — Leftist — and to that end, eliminating dissidents or merely non-conformists like the LD50 Gallery. Today they come for the dissidents, but tomorrow, they will come for you for the crime of displaying insufficient enthusiasm for the New People’s Republic. Fear them, and support LD50 in bucking this trend.

Interview With The Mods Of /r/RedEnsign

Sunday, February 19th, 2017

If the human species is to survive, it will happen because advanced civilization survives; if advanced civilization is to survive, it is because strong-willed people make exceptional commitments to push back the delusional herd and assert sanity, reality, health and qualitative improvement.

Speaking of those pushing back against a far larger horde, the Communist indoctrination camp that is Reddit, a social media site for meek and resentful people, has seen infiltration by normal users who happen to be Right-leaning. One such group founded /r/RedEnsign, a channel/subforum (or “subreddit”) of that Jacobin social media site which aims to red pill people about the benefits of conservatism and traditionalism in Red Canada.

We were fortunate to get a few words in with the moderators of this dissident guild…

What is /r/RedEnsign, who is your target audience, and why should they go there?

DarthPun: Thanks for giving us this opportunity.

I originally conceived r/RedEnsign as a place for showcasing Canadian culture, which rarely has a platform in modern society, as well as a forum to discuss Canadian right wing politics with a particular traditionalist and nationalist inclination. Unfortunately, a lot of the cultural aspects of the early sub have become less prevalent over time, but there is more political discussion, generally based upon discussing recent news, than ever before.

The target audience for the sub is all Canadians and outsiders who are sympathetic to our cause and want a place where they can discuss Canadian politics and culture. I suppose by virtue of the general usership of Reddit we have a younger demographic than a typical politics forum or news website, however we have yet to perform any sort of sub census to confirm that.

I believe one of r/RedEnsign’s biggest draws is its uniqueness. There simply isn’t a platform elsewhere on the internet (as far as anyone has told me, anyways) that focuses on Traditionalism and Nationalism within a specific Canadian context. We are an up-and-coming platform that has already surpassed better established left wing Canadian subs. I think there is a lot of promise here and people should come to enjoy our hearty discussion and our particular brand of politics.

critfist: As my compatriot has already summed up, /r/RedEnsign has become a place for traditionalists, nationalists, conservatives, and alt right members to discuss recent news with weekly discussions on current events. If it becomes more active and popular I think it could become more of what it was originally supposed to be, a place for Canadian culture from a conservative and traditionalist standpoint.

The target audience is a wide net politically, with social conservatives, liberal conservatives, traditionalists, alt right, paleoconservatives and anyone whose fed up with liberal politics. Demographically, as /u/Darthpun said, isn’t as diverse. With the Reddit makeup being majority 18-25 men we can only a sum it’s the same for /r/RedEnsign.

People should come here over other forums because the unique platform of Reddit allows for an unprecedented level of communication between the users and moderators, it also allows for the organic growth of communities and cooperation between other forums.

Are there unique challenges to being a Canadian conservative, given Canada’s reputation for being highly liberal? How much support do you think there is in Canada for something more like a traditionalist/nationalist outlook, and from what segments of society does it come?

DarthPun: Certainly. Although the situation is different outside of the cities, within big urban centres such as Toronto holding right-wing views among most social circles is highly taboo. Discussion of right wing topics among most company is simply not done. This is exasperated by all of our news stations and almost all of our newspapers having a definite leftist bent. They are happy to give people who openly hate white people like Yusra Khogali air time as if her views are legitimate, but won’t dare to entertain even the most moderate critic of abortion.

This no-platforming is particularly prevalent in terms of criticism of mass immigration and multiculturalism. Unlike the United States, multiculturalism is a legally enshrined national value in Canada, much like it is in Sweden. Criticising multiculturalism and the mass immigration that comes with it is seen as an attack on the very fabric of Canadian culture. The government over the last 40 years has done a very good job of reinventing what it means to be Canadian like that.

There is a certain undercurrent pushing toward nationalism and traditionalism in this country which I believe will break the surface soon. There are many factors in this, but one is certainly the increasing alienation of people who might be termed “ethnic Canadians”. These are the people who could never be considered children of immigration as their families were some of the original settlers. They find themselves progressively marginalised by society through the government and shifting demographic trends. It is becoming difficult for people to ignore crudities like the government giving a race relations award to a woman, the aforementioned Yusra Khogali, who has stated that white people are genetic mistakes or the increasing push for “diversity” in the private sector, post-secondary institutions and government, which I as a government contractor have personally felt.

I believe Canadians, particularly young Canadians who are just coming into life as an adult in this environment, are starting to feel like the country that 10 generations of their family worked to build is being pulled out from beneath them. These people are naturally going to look towards their country’s past, and thus to nationalism and traditionalism.

critfist: Being a conservative has some unique challenges on Canada.

Canada, unlike most nations, has had a government-run focus on eliminating nationalists from the mainstream, especially ethnic nationalists. With decades of programs, media and laws encouraging or enforcing multiculturalism in Canada. This has led to the only real right wing voice in Canada being fiscal conservatives and Christian conservatives.

I think there is a lot of support for more traditional/nationalist ideals in Canada, but that support is being retarded by the lack of platform for those individuals and the generally negative attitude towards the right wing in Canada. This discourages individuals from not only expressing their views but also discourages political organization of said individuals.

I think the majority of support will come from the so called “old stock” Canadians, that is, Canadians who have lived in or immigrated to Canada before 1950. The second group of support are the “middle Canadians.” These people are migrants who came to Canada after WW2 and before the Multiculturalism was put into the charter of right and freedoms in 1982. Most of them are ethnic Germans, Italians and Eastern Europeans.

The reason why I believe they’ll be major supporters is because they have the unfortunate position of being the “middle children” (hence the name) of the Canadian citizenry. They fought hard to make a living in Canada but where essentially dropped by the government in favor of the “new Canadians.” (mostly from SE Asia, India.) They were the first of this trend of immigration to figure out that the government only wanted them because they could act as cheap labor and garner votes. This has caused a real bitterness among middle Canadians that I think is beginning to bubble up with the rise of new political movements like the alt right.

How did you arrive at your current political views, and what did other viewpoints fail to achieve that caused you to pass them by? Do you think conservatism is an ideology, and its traditionalism something different?

DarthPun: Without delving too much into my life story, my views largely grew out of childhood experiences and my father’s traditional conservative politics. I grew up in hyper-diverse Toronto, which at times was a really bad place to be a white kid.

Multicultural policy has led to a deeply divided city and ironically more exclusion than inclusion due to cultural chauvinism essentially promoted by the state. Going to Toronto public schools where white Canadians composed sometimes as little as 2% of the student body my entire primary education and then attending a school with the complete reverse demographics was a real eye opener on the realities of diversity and multiculturalism. I also took a lot from my father’s very typical centre-conservative beliefs as well as an appreciation for history and learning which I carry to this day. I certainly got my sense of traditionalism from my extended family who are all rural folk and have lived on the same land for sometimes hundreds of years. There are many ancient Canadian traditions still practiced in my family that other urban Canadians have long forgotten.

To put things simply, where all other ideologies have fallen short for me is a lack of legacy proving their worth. all other political ideologies have failed at one point or another. Nationalism and Tradition have been proven successful. Another big pull to me towards Nationalism and Traditionalism is the fall of the Roman Empire. The cause of Rome’s fall is essentially due to their move away from nationalism and tradition. These are values that are tried and true and I think it is foolish of us to try and move away from them.

critfist: I used to be your average center-left Canadian citizen, someone happy with multiculturalism and willing to be another cog in the wheel of liberal government. But something changed right around the 2015 election, as I began to talk to larger and larger groups of liberals and globalists in Canada because of the Internet, and the topics began to become increasingly political, topics like multiculturalism, diversity and identity started to be commonplace.

It was by reading those and by talking to others that I had an epiphany. All these globalists and pro diversity citizens didn’t care about my identity. They cared for others, they cared for Arab, Chinese and Indian culture, but my own? No. My culture, my people and its traditions were seen as roadblocks to the future, tiny angry voices desperately trying to prevent “progress.” It was at this point I could no longer support a group that wished for the end of my people and it’s culture, so I abandoned leftism and joined forums like this one.

Other ideologues of the leftist spectrum were similar, communists and anarchists had no will or desire to protect my people or culture. On the right wing spectrum I was considering the alt right label, but the focus on white nationalism (international, diverse) rather than ethnic nationalism (regional, focused) was off-putting. I want to associate more with groups that support my peoples above others and nationalist/traditionalism was a better fit.

Conservatism is an ideology, but it’s one that is seldom understood. Due to the influence and voice of American politics we began to accept that liberals with a social conservative slant were true conservatives. A true conservative something closer to a traditionalist, think “High Tories”) isn’t crutched by liberal ideology, ideologies like universal human rights, social diversity and unrestricted market. In other words, Conservatism is an ideology, but it’s overshadowed by the modern idea of “Conservatism,” which in reality is just liberalism.

Traditionalism is different from conservatism, since while conservatism is more focused on the protection of the status quo in society, traditionalists seek to learn from the mistakes of the past and to apply those lessons to modern times. Like /u/Darthpun stated, the Roman Empire collapsed due to decadence and degeneration, a traditionalist looks at this collapse and tries to prevent such a fall from happening again by learning from the past.

What is an ideology? Is conservatism an ideology, or something of a different form? And does traditionalism take an even different form from that? Are there any principles we can derive from the progression from ideology to these different forms, if that is the case?

DarthPun: I believe conservatism isn’t so much of an ideology in and of itself. It is more of a label to put on certain right-wing ideologies. In my opinion the views and ideals under the conservative umbrella are simply too diverse to form a single coherent ideology. Beyond the express purpose to “conserve” and resist change, many conservative ideologies have little to do with each other. Perhaps at one point it could have been boiled down to a single line of thought, but in the modern age it has come to encompass too many ideas to be considered a proper ideology.

Traditionalism takes a different a different approach than conservatism, but in many ways a complimentary one. While conservatism seeks to protect and preserve, for me traditionalism is about seeking to reinforce and reinstitute traditional values. I suppose in some ways broad conservatism could be considered a more passive traditionalism.

How do you feel your views relate to nearby or possibly imposter (crypto-Leftist) movements like human biodiversity (HBD), the alt right, neoreaction, Christian reaction, the new right, and white nationalism?

DarthPun: I see other right wing ideologies as temporary allies. We all have different end goals, but for the time being we are on the same direction so it is in all our best interest’s to work together. I see us at the beginning of a new right wing revival in the West. The quickest way to smother this new movement and reduce our gains to dust would be the spread of infighting among the right. A time will come when we will all want to take separate paths, but that time has not yet come, so for now we walk the road together.

criftist: I often hear that in liberal ideology the “the marketplace of ideas” is the cornerstone of equality liberalism. That each idea is competing for minds in a space organized by the liberals. However, it is my belief that this “marketplace” more closely resembles a war zone, ideals do not calmly and casually enter the human consciousness.

Ideals are not beauty, our mind does not readily accept it like it accepts a lover or a sunset, ideals are part of someone, they make up their reality and being. When ideals are brought before us we fight them, studies have even shown how when our ideologies are challenged our brain reacts in the same way as if we were in danger, our eyes dilate, our breath quickens, our cheeks flush and we get filled with rage. It is by all accounts, a fight, a fight of one ideology against another.

To this end I do not see other “right wing” groups like the alt right, neoreaction, new right, etc. As enemies , I see them as weapons. New weapons in the war of ideologies being waged between the two dominant ideologies on earth, Conservatism/traditionalism and Liberalism. Sure, they are not quite as “pure” as old conservatism/traditionalism but they are fighting the same battles, and in some cases are making gains every month.

If you were given absolute power in Canada, what would it look like in five years? Would it have the same political system, lifestyle and concept of itself as a nation?

DarthPun: I think my ideal Canada in five years would look different from the Canada of today, but would be familiar in some ways to those who lived the Canada of yesteryear. This is not to say I advocate a regression back to the postwar years, I see a bright future for a Canada grounded both in tradition but that is still recognizable as a modern country.

I quite like our Westminster Parliament and I truly do think it is an excellent system. I think changes to the actual organisation of government would be minimal, I would however like to see a major change in who could vote. I believe that our country would be best off if voting rights were restricted to one vote per child bearing married couple. I believe our current electorate is highly irresponsible and immature, bestowing sole voting rights to the family would ensure that the electorate has a certain level of maturity and responsibility, not to mention actually having a child would force voters to think wisely about future consequences. As a side, this would also encourage an increase in the birth rate.

Lifestyle would be different than modern Canada. It would be more community and family oriented than today’s society. I would like to see a return to the days of a strong local community. There would be a return of the tradition in everyday life. This would mostly be propagated through community centres and schools. I would also like to see nine months national service after High School implemented for both of the sexes. By national service I mean not necessarily only military, but also community work and labour. This would further instill national values and tradition.

I believe the first order of business would be to do away with this fracturing multiculturalism nonsense. To quote Abraham Lincoln and the Holy Bible, “A house divided upon itself cannot stand”. The fact of the matter is for us to be a stable and cohesive nation moving into the future. This would require that all persons residing within the country to integrate fully and completely. Those unable to integrate would be asked kindly to leave. This of course leads us into the tricky situation of Quebec. If only the British and Anglicised them in the 1750’s this wouldn’t be a problem, but alas they did not. Quebec has been a good friend, but a highly tumultuous one at times, not to mention that the dual society policy was the foundation of multiculturalism policy. I’m afraid to say Quebec would have to leave Confederation, but remain a loyal ally. I would also like to see first nations reserves become independent microstates, or perhaps amalgamated into one or two larger states.

In terms of economic policy I would like to see an decreased reliance on imports, particularly manufactured goods, through tariffs and quotas. I would also like to see Canada refine it’s own gasoline. Unlike u/critfist I believe complete autarky is not ideal simply based on the theory of comparative advantage. We still have things to gain from a certain level of international trade. I would also like to see a move away from fiat currency, perhaps to a dollar directly backed by a combination of gold and financial assets.

Do you think it is (a) possible and (b) wise to demand this? The first part asks if it is realistically possible that people from the third world, Asia, and Israel can integrate with an Anglo society; as a subset of this, we should ask if even European outliers (Southern, Irish, Eastern) can integrate with Anglo society. The second part asks if this is a good idea. To Anglicize someone is to bring them into the bloodline, which then changes it. Is this not just multiculturalism/miscegenation by another name?

DarthPun: I think it is possible. It would require the removal of many people who are simply unable to integrate. This likely compose the entirety of Canada’s third world population. I believe forming a single cohesive culture within the nation is necessary for its continued survival.

Certainly not. Multiculturalism requires multiple cultures living within one nation. I would want only one. In regards to racial purity, absolute purity is nearly unachievable. Even the Anglos in Canada are mixed to an extent, generally with other British and Germanic peoples. In my Canada that wouldn’t change. I am not asking for admixture of Africans or Asians, only the continued integration of people who have been demonstrated to be able to integrat into Canadian society, namely Europeans.

And you do not draw a distinction between Western Europeans, Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans?

DarthPun: My distinction would be based on ability to seamlessly integrate into society. I suspect with the right kind of data available a fairly hard line could be drawn on who to include and who not to.

critfist: If I had absolute power Canada would look radically different from present Canada.

Economically. I reject the liberal idea of the free market and the neocon idea that a controlled market is leftist. A controlled state capitalist economically would be able to gear Canada towards the ultimate goal of autarky, (or as close to it as possible) with Canada being one of the few nations to have it as a possibility due to our vast resources.

Political system. This is a tricky one, since while the Westminster system keeps us in contact with our sovereign (god bless her) it also attaches us to an increasingly liberal nation and monarchy. I can’t see things getting much better in the future in that regard. A compromise might be the creation of an individual Canadian monarchy (rather than a union like it is now) which would allow us to retain our current system while keeping our traditions safe.

Lifestyle. The lifestyle in Canada would change as well. There would be tiers of citizenship, with Anglo Canadians being at the top with the most benefits, (such as being allowed to be in the military and hold executive office) next is European Canadians (who’d be able to vote and hold political offices) and at the bottom of the ladder is Non-European Canadians (who cannot vote, hold office, etc.) First Nations would get their own citizenship which would give them non European rights except within their native bands where they elect chiefs and take up leadership roles.

Anglo Canadians would be required to take part in military training similar to the nations of Switzerland and Israel with training, several years of service and rights to free education and services afterwards and a place in the reserves.

concept of itself as a nation

The concept would change. Quebec would have to leave Canada. Quebec is the linchpin in multicultural Canada. Our leaders made a deal with the devil in act of ’82. They decided that in order to eliminate Quebecois nationalism they’d have to tear the fabric that sewed Canada together and take away our ethnic identities by making them worthless. To prevent this from ever happening again Quebec would have to be sundered from the confederation.

Canada faces a unique challenge in dealing with the United States. How do you think these two nations are different, where are they the same, and what would you hope for in the future in the United States?

DarthPun: We have many differences with the Americans. Our history is quite different, sometimes even conflicting. We probably aren’t as dissimilar culturally as we once were, but there is still a perceivable difference. Our government, beyond also being a democracy, is quite different from America’s as well. We however do have many similarities. We are both settler colonial nations composed of primarily European peoples. I would like to see a future where we can work together while keeping an arms distance to maintain our separate cultures. We have had a pretty good history of working together over the last one hundred or so years and I would like to see that persist.

critfist: Canada and the US are (“were”) different on a philosophical level. In the 18th century the borders between Canada and America were virtually non existent. With people freely going between the two areas, after all, we were all part of one very large colony on North America. The only true distinction culturally at the time was the Quebecois, who formed a distinct group (and the largest group) in Canada. What happened during the American revolution however was a split between the British people’s of the colony. A split between the more extremist liberals seeking independence and the conservatives who sought to remain with the British crown. Most of America chose the liberal route, with internal resistance being their largest roadblock, in Canada however there was an almost unanimous support for the British Crown, even the Quebecois preferred the stability of being a British subject than the radicalism of the Americans. In this way, Canada can be said to have been created as a conservative answer to the US, a nation built of conservative and traditional values with the British crown as its head of state.

This leads to your second question, their similarities. You see, at the end of the American revolution tens of thousands of American loyalists left America, some went to Britain, others to the Caribbean, but most went to Canada, with the majority of those people going to southern Ontario and Quebec. At the time only a few scant British settlements were in the area, so the influx of American settlers swelled the English speaking population tremendously. This emigration to Canada effected our nation tremendously, since while those Americans were loyalists to the crown, they still held a significant amount of liberal and American ideals, such as how we see justice, work ethic, freedom of speech and movement, etc. These attitudes made Canada similar to America in many ways, and to outsiders it made them almost identical, hence the modern confusion at our similarities.

For a future with America I can only hope for one option, the eventual destruction or balkanization of it. You see, it’s my opinion that American liberal influence culturally, economically and politically is what has been driving Canada into our current post-national/globalist predicament, and that only through its collapse can Canada hope to have an independent ideological base from America.

Why do you think it is that we are seeing conservative revolutions in mainland Europe, the UK, the Philippines and the United States at this point in history? What does this suggest to you will be the next wave of change, and will it be cultural, social, political or something else?

DarthPun: I think people are seeing that the globalist policies of the West propagated after WWII simply aren’t working for the common man anymore. The only people who really are benefiting from it are the extremely wealthy and the government, not normal, hardworking people, so naturally they are using their political might to struggle against it.

We are can clearly see the rise of a strong new political right throughout the world, but this isn’t necessarily unusual. What makes this time different is it is bringing up new (or maybe very old) cultural, social, and economic attitudes which have been taboo since the second war. So in a sense, all of the political platforms of the right are being reborn, even ones which have been outside of the Overton window for decades now.

It’s a very exciting time to be part of this new right. I think we are in the midst of the policies of the last century dying and are getting a glimpse of what a real 21st century political landscape will look like.

critfist: In modern times we are experiencing an economic crisis of massive proportions. Debt of nations has never been higher, every year more and more jobs become obsolete or automated, industries which made the bread and butter of region for generations have been outsourced to developing nations, and even the next generation has little to be optimistic about when they’re pressured to gain degrees from glorified diploma mills and get into massive debt that will haunt them for decades. As what has always happened in history, economic crisis has been the sparking point of revolution. The Russian revolution, the French revolution, the American revolution, what they all have in common is economic struggles that lead to people who want to bring down the establishment that is causing this. In our case it is the liberal establishment that must be brought down.

The next wave of change will be a cultural change first and foremost. In Europe and the Americas we have been taught (ie Brainwashed) to accept liberalism and migrants with all our hearts and that concepts like nationalism are evil. After the success of the conservatives this brainwashing will reverse itself, people will begin to realize the truth of their situation, their minds no longer filled with the constant stream of liberal outcry that once assaulted it from all sides. It will be the job of the new governments to help facilitate this cultural change.

In your view, what can people do to advance the cause of conservatism and traditionalism in Canada?

DarthPun: Spread the word. A surprising number of people are receptive to these ideas, they just need to have someone present them. Further, talking about conservatism and traditionalism helps break down social stigma about them.
Another mode of spreading the word that we have been doing as of late on r/RedEnsign is poster campaigns. Posters have remarkable utility. They can make your movement seem much larger and all encompassing than it might be in reality. Marxists know this, that’s why you see so many of their posters around.

critfist: As /u/DarthPun said, the best way to spread these views is to simply be vocal. Millions of Canadians hold views similar to our own, but through societal pressures and Isolation, these views are kept from the mainstream. Because of these those millions of people feel like they are alone in what they believe. They remain silent, nod like their supposed to to liberalism, and, without help, eventually succumb to liberalism from outside pressures. Letting these people know that they are not alone, that we can be a unified voice can keep these people from succumbing to pressure. They can find people who support them, talk, laugh and discuss. They no longer have to face to discrimination they once received for their beliefs.

And in that way we can cause tremendous growth to our movement. Just look at /r/The_Donald as an example, before the election I would have never thought that the mostly leftist website could’ve have such a vast amount of supporters for a more right wing candidate.

The Power of Grosser Than Gross

Saturday, February 18th, 2017

So back in the Jurassic Era my dear parents got to live the dream for at least one week during the Summer. It was the week my scout troop went to Summer Camp and my parents got to banish me off to the wilderness just like they spent fifty-one weeks of the year fervently wanting to. So out in the mosquito woods I would go, and peace and sanity would pleasantly waft down in my absence.

Meanwhile, out between the trees, a bunch of obnoxious young boys would wait for the adult leadership to go to sleep for the night and then re-stoke the embers of the campfire. Late into the night, we would show how ridiculous 13 year old boys can get when they are being manly. One common form of this was the old game of Grosser Than Gross.

This involved one guy asking “So what’s grosser than gross?” Each person then had to answer with a suitably disgusting replay or not be manly. It started out fairly lame. “Finding out your lemonade is dog-piss.” “The black flecks in your Wheaties are insect worms.” Then it would escalate until we were talking about the crying, homesick abortion crawling its way back up your mama’s leg.*

It was tacky and disgusting. So why do it? You do it for the same reason people do terrorism. It works like hell. This begs the question “Works like hell at what?” It confers a twisted form of status and power. If you can shock the crap out of people, you can get your way. We see this frequently in two places: entertainment and political activism.

In February of 1973, the rock group Alice Cooper pushed the Grosser than Gross Nuke Button. Their album Billion Doallar Babies truly attempted to exploit the disgusting to acquire attention. The Gibson Guitars website describes the game below.

Listening to Billion Dollar Babies today, it’s hard to imagine that in their formative stages Alice Cooper were regarded by some as a mere novelty act. An intensely collaborative unit, the group quickly became adept at churning out radio-ready rock anthems and, in keeping with their shock-rock reputation, theatrical dirges. Songs such as “More Mr. Nice Guy,” “Elected,” and “Raped and Freezin’” showcased Bruce’s mastery of the elegantly simple guitar riff, while Buxton contributed an abundance of “angry hornet” leads (Dunaway’s words).

While the musicianship was excellent and the ear-pollution first rate, this wasn’t what sold the record. That happened via the culmination of what Alice Cooper did for attention. The track “I Love The Dead” would be banned throughout sane humanity. Therefore, the kids loved it and wanted the album for Christmas. This distilled and weaponized grossness, not having an absolute Bass Guitar Ninja playing musical Point Guard for their band, enabled them all to afford mansions up on Mulholland Drive.

Politics flows downstream from entertainment and culture. It also engineers after others pioneer. Grossness has been socially and politically weaponized so that utter mediocrities demand attention for their causes. Third Wave Feminism has added absolutely revolting exhibitionism to their toolbox of political activism. The execrable Lena Dunham predictably leads the way in this category. She campaigns against fat-shaming by doing nude sex scenes that are lied about below.

But the mere sight of all that flab swinging free as Hannah loafed pantsless around her apartment on a lazy Sunday afternoon, or as she heaved out of bed after sex twinged a visceral reaction deep within. Oh, and the sex. There was a lot of sex. Bad sex, good sex…but mostly bad sex, often featuring civilian bodies. It was wonderful to see. Why the reaction? Because it was me. It was all of us

It takes a special sort of porn stud to do a shoot with The Dunham Horror. Perhaps it requires the sort of porn stud who has to where bulletproof-thick glasses to his local DMV. Otherwise, he would never emerge from the bureaucratic coils with a legal privilege to operate a motor vehicle. And does he get the Purple Heart he deserves? Um, nope…

“Just the fact that so much of the sex was bad was revolutionary,” says executive producer Jenni Konner. “That is just not something people do [on TV] and that’s something that young women feel all the time, so when we were shooting the pilot, having the sex be unsatisfying for Hannah felt relatable.” Her favourite excruciating scene? “I loved the way we opened the second episode of the show ever, which was Adam just pounding on Hannah. It was like a weird foreign film with bad sex.” Konner laughs. “And it really was shocking and weird and she’s kind of going, uhh uhh, like bad faking-it sounds.”

And if bad sex doesn’t overwhelm your ability to exist, we have worse execrations than Lena Dunham. Yoga meets feminism meets….#Freebleeding. Do not shame the tampon. We have Yoga of The Red Dawn

I am a woman, therefore, I bleed. It’s messy, it’s painful, it’s terrible, & it’s beautiful. And yet, you wouldn’t know. Because I hide it.

And once you concede that these people are Grosser Than Gross to the infinite power, you concede them the microphone unless standards get enforced in your area. Grossness has to be mocked. It has to be put to shame and killed with fire. It’s condign that the “Grosser Than Gross” winner at Scout Camp sometimes had to win a fist fight afterwards. Nobody should have to put up with that crap. Nobody should have to cede any sort of social cachet or power to the utterly revolting. Perhaps ironically, the true antidote to weaponized grossness is The Alice Cooper Solution.

* — Nothing expresses the scouting spirit like an All-American fist fight at camp.

Brett Stevens Live On The Philosophy Of Power And L0de Radio Hour Podcasts Tonight

Saturday, February 18th, 2017

Just a quick note: tonight at 7 PM EST I will be participating on James Theodore Stillwell III’s The Philosophy Of Power podcast on the topic of nihilism and my first book, Nihilism: A Philosophy Based In Nothingness And Eternity.

Three hours after that, at 10 PM EST, I will be one of the guests on l0de Radio Hour, a decade-plus-running radio show based on trolling, subversion, confusion, chaos and dissent from any identifiable dominant paradigms.

See you out there on the airwaves!

Why The Bible Endorses Nationalism

Saturday, February 18th, 2017

6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;

8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.

9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

10 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

11 Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy.

12 Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:

13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.

Numbers 25:6-13

It is harder to find a clearer statement against miscegenation. When the tribes are mixed, they lose what makes them unique, and what replaces them is a beige-grey cultureless race that loses out on the specialized traits that made each tribe powerful. As a result, it reduces the beauty in the world and increases ugliness.

No wonder a just and genius God might be wrathful against that.

The Leftists changed the history books to claim that Nationalism arose in the 19th century, when in fact it has been the default state of humankind since the dawn of time. That occurs for a simple reason: tribalism works. It is more efficient to have similar people moving toward the same purpose according to the same principles, than to have to debate each detail of the process.

Even more, tribalism allows a group to break away and develop itself more than others, thus rise to greater heights. Without tribalism, the most productive human groups in all races would not exist. Violating that would incur the wrath of an intelligent god as well.

As the fog of equality is removed from our eyes, people are moving away from the thinking that the individual is the center of the universe, and moving closer to the idea that our success is determined as much by context as ourselves.