Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘censorship’

You Can Have Any Right You Are Willing To Kill For

Friday, October 6th, 2017

Black Lives Matter can really amuse me sometimes. They cut through the nauseating social pretenses of the Jonathan Chaits and Lindsey Grahamaphrodites around the world with a double-edge bastard sword. Here they address the quaint honkey custom of the First Amendment.

Students affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement crashed an event at the College of William & Mary, rushed the stage, and prevented the invited guest—the American Civil Liberties Union’s Claire Gastañaga, a W & M alum—from speaking. Ironically, Gastañaga had intended to speak on the subject, “Students and the First Amendment.”

And it gets more amusing. Senora Gastanaga then attempted to pat them on their cute little Malcom X heads and patronize them. Because of her arrogant presumption that she had rights, she choose poorly.

At first, she attempted to spin the demonstration as a welcome example of the kind of thing she had come to campus to discuss, commenting “Good, I like this,” as they lined up and raised their signs. “I’m going to talk to you about knowing your rights, and protests and demonstrations, which this illustrates very well. Then I’m going to respond to questions from the moderators, and then questions from the audience.” It was the last remark she was able to make before protesters drowned her out with cries of, “ACLU, you protect Hitler, too.” They also chanted, “the oppressed are not impressed,” “shame, shame, shame, shame,” (an ode to the Faith Militant’s treatment of Cersei Lannister in Game of Thrones, though why anyone would want to be associated with the religious fanatics in that particular conflict is beyond me), “blood on your hands,” “the revolution will not uphold the Constitution,” and, uh, “liberalism is white supremacy.” This went on for nearly 20 minutes.

Others around the blogosphere tried to defend our precious narrative. Rick Moran cucks quite cuckingly over at American Thinker.

The forces of tyranny on college campuses are becoming louder and more incoherent and have now reached the point where they are attacking those in the establishment who support them.

Witness what happened at William and Mary College when a speaker from the ACLU tried to address a gathering on the subject of free speech. BLM is completely oblivious to the irony. This makes the BLM people not only ignorant, but also a threat to liberty. Of course, BLM isn’t the only radical group looking to destroy the traditional concepts that underlie free expression. Antifa and its affiliates, student groups of all races, even “mainstream” leftist groups are all insisting that speech they don’t agree with be suppressed. There is no rational justification for suppressing free speech, so these groups use irrational reasons to defend their actions.

There is nothing incoherent. BLM told the ACLU to shut up and accept their demotion. The ACLU heifer still ran her yap. BLM reared back, applied the pimp slap. “I’m Rick James, bitch!” They explained. I mean what else did the five fingers say to the face?

So once the ACLU has taken Bill Clinton’s advise and gotten some ice for that, we should now discuss students and the first amendment. Do you know when you have a first amendment right in Amerika? There are four occasions.

  1. You are surrounded by law-abiding individuals who actually accept their socialization into our current managerial state. They will voluntarily allow you to say things they may or may not like without brutalizing you.
  2. You are Chuck Norris.
  3. You come armed well enough to not have to be Chuck Norris.
  4. The State enforces on whomever would like to forcibly shut you up.

So neither one nor four happened at The College of William and Mary in Virginia. If they consistently don’t happen, then you either become a hard, hard man or fornicate and forget whatever right you have some delusional belief in from your High School Civics Class. “The Revolution will not uphold the Constitution.” Not much will. Absent a determined willingness from the state and the voluntary acceptance of a vast majority of the population, a constitution is a rather expensive pile of toilet paper.

Next, we get “Liberalism is white supremacy.” Perhaps compared to Senator Lindsey Grahamaphrodite it truly is. But still, it really should clarify things. BLM is not just Mau-Mauing the contemporary version of Leftist Flak-Catcher. They think that Barack Obama’s Presidency signified their ownership of American Leftism. They are convinced that if America is truly racist, they are truly entitled to make those crackas dig the ditch before the machine guns fire.

It’s a little late in the game to patiently explain that anything built on their backs was built with our brains. They are not listening because you cannot make them listen. Paul Mirengoff sounds rather like a mouse who hasn’t belled any cats lately below.

College students, like the rest of us, can believe and spout whatever idiotic propositions — e.g. “liberalism is white supremacy” — capture their fancy. But they cannot be allowed to shutdown speakers — either liberal or conservative — who hold differing views. William & Mary is a state school. It likely will be under pressure to respond to the outrageous treatment of the ACLU speaker with more than just slaps on the wrist. But that doesn’t mean it will so respond. This is a good test case. We’ll be watching closely..

Yep. And according to Hillaire Belloc, they are not the only ones watching.

We sit by and watch the barbarian. We tolerate him in the long stretches of peace, we are not afraid. We are tickled by his irreverence; his comic inversion of our old certitudes and our fixed creed refreshes us; we laugh. But as we laugh we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond, and on these faces there are no smiles.

They are watching indeed. They will take from you any right that you would not shoot to kill in order to defend.

How The Left Will Remove The Right From The Internet Using American Law

Thursday, October 5th, 2017

We know they want to censor us and eventually, jail or medicate and then execute us. We know this because history repeats itself and the Left uses the same methods of dealing with not just the right, but all who fail to join the snowball of lost souls who form the Leftist herd. If you do not affirmatively agree with the Left, it sees you as an enemy, and you can expect open pit executions or an analogue thereof.

To the Leftist, there is only one right path, and its arbitrary and conjectural nature makes it even more unstable. “If only we were all equal…” begins the quest to suppress reality and replace it with a human order. However, this in turn makes the Left unstable, and so they view anyone who does not agree with them as a potential threat, or even a real threat, and that can be solved only one way: by murder.

The Left has conspired behind the scenes to invent a way for it to remove non-Leftist information from the internet, and by combining its war against piracy with its war against non-conforming thought, it has found a way to censor the internet, namely by removing any domains which publish controversial information, as a US judge just confirmed:

In addition to millions of dollars in damages, ACS also requested third-party Internet intermediaries to take action against the site. While the request is rather unprecedented for the US, as it includes search engine and ISP blocking, Magistrate Judge John Anderson has included these measures in his recommendations. Judge Anderson agrees that Sci-Hub is guilty of copyright and trademark infringement. In addition to $4,800,000 in statutory damages, he recommends a broad injunction that would require search engines, ISPs, domain registrars and other services to block Sci-Hub’s domain names. If the U.S. District Court Judge adopts this recommendation, it would mean that Internet providers such as Comcast could be ordered to block users from accessing Sci-Hub.

This motion has been incoming for some time since the Leftists recognized years ago that an uncontrolled internet represented a liability to their pretense of popular support, and so they have been agitating for regulation of content providers at the highest level, while transferring the bulk of content to private sources like social media companies:

It’s make or break for the internet as we know it. Unless Congress acts this summer, the Obama administration will end U.S. protection of the internet, handing authoritarian regimes the power they have long sought to censor the web globally, including in the U.S.

Ironically, the “authoritarian regime” in question turned out to be the United States, which has been captured by Leftists, and in doing so, both debunks the idea that limited democracy can succeed, and motivates itself to remove any threats to democracy, equality and pluralism, which requires erasing the internet domains of sources which provide troubling information.

Free Speech Reddit Alternative Voat Is Under Assault By Leftist DDOS Attacks

Tuesday, October 3rd, 2017

Designed as a free-speech alternative to Leftist crowdmind Reddit, Voat.co uses a similar links list and voting system to Reddit but has more restrictions on abuse. Currently, the site is under coordinated DDOS and other attacks, presumably by Leftists who want to “no platform” (preemptively censor) it:

Edit 2:

This attack is relentless and dynamic. They have found holes in our system and hit us where we never expected. This has forced us to reconfigure our network and site behavior to prevent repeat attacks.

Voat has been put into “lockdown” mode so things like thumbnail generation are disabled.

Edit:

These guys are actually fairly creative. We might have a worthy opponent here. Buckle up Voat.

One of the reasons yesterday’s attempt at rolling forward the port code failed was that Voat was being sent DDOS style requests in very large numbers. See yesterdays announcement about this topic:

And it’s buried somewhere underneath hundreds of cryptic error messages and seemingly impossible outcomes.

I will have to provide details later but the summary is:

Today when we attempted to roll out the port code base, everything and anything that could have possibly gone wrong did.

I can only laugh looking back at today, it was that bad.

We were forced to do a full rollback and currently Voat is running its legacy code base with some patchwork to deal with irreversible database changes.

Voat had to do a full retreat. We will regroup and come back to fight another day.

I’m sorry everyone, this was all my fault. I should have had a rollback version of the current software ready and I didn’t, I had to write it on the fly. I deserve the shame associated with this lack of foresight.

Voat is at a stage now that the code can somewhat deal with this without capitulating. Usually these attacks only last 10-12 hours, but this current run has been longer in duration than normal so we are now informing the community that we are actually being maliciously targeted.

Below are some interesting graphs showing some stat data:

I’ll provide more info when we have it, but PG.

Until then, enjoy having your bits closely inspected. Please don’t be shy about it either, just go with it. This includes the ladies as well… ;)

That last paragraph was not creepy neckbeard fodder or anything, but the point is that powerful enemies continue to target free speech platforms that are associated with the Right, however tangentially and through a tangled web of anime, self-pleasuring and chicken tenders.

Dot-Com 3.0 Empires Revealed To Be Inept And Declining

Tuesday, October 3rd, 2017

The personal computer age really kicked off in the mid-1980s when the machine became both affordable and effective for everyday tasks with the rise of programs like WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3 and dBase. In 1987, the internet opened up to commercial use, but it was only in the early 1990s when graphical operating systems became fast and complete enough that it started to take off.

In the mid 1990s, the Dot-Com 1.0 boom/bust bubble began, with a few salty entrepreneurs launching websites of a dubious nature with no real business model. It was unclear where the money would come from, other than selling tshirts and mugs. In the late 1990s, Google standardized the search engine and advertising format, and shortly afterward, the Dot-Com 1.0 bubble burst.

After a few years of digital recession, the market kicked back into play with Dot-Com 2.0, which introduced the idea of web applications instead of sites, meaning that just about everything was executed through interpreted languages and web sites acted more like programs on your home computer. This revolution fizzled more than busted, but was lagging by the mid-2000s.

In 2007, the Dot-Com 3.0 revolution launched with Web 2.0 application-style sites mated to new mobile technology and social media, introducing a new approach: content was no longer as important as interaction with other people. For the last decade, this market has been kicking around and has produced a few huge winners while everyone else follows their lead.

It owes its longevity to a simple reason: it controls the narrative. Like big media before it, the Dot-Com 3.0 world quickly took over how most people find news and as a result shapes their understand of the issues. As a result, the bursting of the Dot-Com 3.0 bubble has lagged but, as tech companies reveal their alliance with globalist interests, people no longer see the internet as a Wild West where the truth can be found, but another “managed garden” for giant monopolistic corporations.

Now the quest appears to take down these large monopolies, and simultaneously, to figure out what will replace them. For the latter, some have proposed nationalizing social media and search so that they are treated like utilities, while others hope for new market-based solutions. But for the former, competition is heating up.

Leaping into the fray comes a new breed of critic with a new approach to criticism:

“I think people are understanding just how poorly structured these institutions are, how sloppily they were built,” Lynn tells The Hill. “It’s not just a matter of the fact that these people have too much power, it’s also that they are sloppy in the use of their power.”

…“Perhaps the most pressing thing of all is that Google, Facebook and to certain degrees also Amazon have captured the flow of information and ideas between citizen and citizen,” Lynn said.

“Our ability to communicate freely with one another in this country, which is the primary basis for being able to protect our democracy, is now threatened in very real ways today,” he added. “This is not a theoretical threat; this is a threat that exists today.”

When our communications occur in private spaces, they can be regulated by the companies that own those spaces, which is why many are calling for the nationalization of social media. But what about when Google deprecates conservative search results or outright blocks them? What happens if Amazon starts removing Right-wing books? We know they want to, so it is only a matter of time until they do.

These large companies admit they have such filters in place. The only problem is that, while they are excellent at removing conservative and un-PC search results, they are less adept at filtering out mostly contrafactual and speculative “news” which has a negative effect when most people rely on social media for news:

In the crucial early hours after the Las Vegas mass shooting, it happened again: Hoaxes, completely unverified rumors, failed witch hunts, and blatant falsehoods spread across the internet. But they did not do so by themselves: They used the infrastructure that Google and Facebook and YouTube have built to achieve wide distribution. These companies are the most powerful information gatekeepers that the world has ever known, and yet they refuse to take responsibility for their active role in damaging the quality of information reaching the public.

Criticizing their search results will only give these companies more leeway to filter out sites that disagree with the mainstream narrative, and soon the internet will be as controlled as television was back in the 1960s when you had three VHF channels and another two fuzzy UHF ones to give you a viewport on the world.

A War Over Online Spaces Emerges

Friday, September 29th, 2017

As it becomes clear that Leftists and Rightists want entirely different types of societies, the culture wars are heating up as they have not since the 1970s. The Left has fired the first shot by invoking the dying nu-internet industry to attack non-Leftist expression as a means of perpetuating the Leftist monopoly over intellectual discourse in America.

However, both parties agree on one thing: online spaces are vital not just for command and control, but so that people can participate in a movement despite being geologically disparate:

According to researchers, the key to hooking new recruits into any movement, and to getting them increasingly involved over time, is to simply give them activities to participate in. This often precedes any deep ideological commitment on the recruits’ part and, especially early on, is more about offering them a sense of meaning and community than anything else.

People do not need to analyze ideology or philosophy. All they need is a gut feeling, and a liking for the people they encounter, and they will drift toward this new social group. At that point, they can absorb enough of the conversation to understand and be able to answer back with the responses to certain common questions, so that they feel mastery over their new belief system.

Naturally, the Left wants to prevent this from happening. In their view, they want to use fear of being excluded as a weapon, and to imply that “everyone agrees” on certain Leftist ideas, so that people are not drawn by positive ambition to the group, but kept in it out of fear of being excluded, because that makes one an enemy of the group, and all friends and opportunities are lost.

In this way, Crowdist agendas such as those of the Left resemble a cult, gang, clique or abusive relationship.

Following up on that idea, the Left is preparing to remove any online spaces where Rightist thought can be discussed with impunity:

A new study by researchers at Emory University, Georgia Institute of Technology and the University of Michigan suggests that the most effective anti-hate tactic may be what amounts to a nuclear option: identifying and shutting down the spaces where hateful speech occurs, rather than targeting bad actors individually or in groups.

…Some users who had posted offensive material on the forums that were shut down stopped using Reddit entirely. Of those who continued to use the site, many migrated to other forums, but they did not bring significant amounts of toxic speech with them, and the forums they moved to did not become more hateful as a result of their presence. Over all, the users who stayed on Reddit after the bans took effect decreased their use of hate speech by more than 80 percent.

…“They didn’t ban people,” he said. “They didn’t ban words. They banned the spaces where those words were likely to be written down.”

We have heard this one before. It is the Left’s “no platform” agenda from the 1970s and 1980s, when Antifa protested any venue that allowed a forum for Right-of-center bands, figuring that if people heard Right-wing ideas, they would be seduced and infected and come over to the dark side. In their view, it is like ideological inter-racial porn: people will just be unable to stop themselves from being attracted to it.

This decision by the Left is fortunate, in that by driving Right-wingers from mainstream platforms, the Left is forcing the creation of an alternate internet. At first this will be run through darknets and other invisible means, but eventually, alternate infrastructure and free speech hosting will emerge, which when put together, will be like an internet invisible to normal people, but easily turned on when someone wants to be drawn to the dark side.

Even better, the Left has enforced the idea that Right and Left cannot coexist because we want different societies. In the Leftist world, Right-wing ideas are so taboo that they cannot be tolerated at all, and in the Right-wing world, Leftist ideas are so laughably out of touch and irrelevant that there is no point bothering to keep them around.

In this way, the online war is bound to further the ideological split among Americans and Europeans. The Left wants equality, the Right wants quality. There can be no middle ground, and as we separate online, we prepare to separate in real life.

They Are Afraid: The Establishment Hits Out With New Bans On Alternative Right, Billy Roper and VDARE

Sunday, August 20th, 2017

As of this morning, Alternative Right has been removed, presumably by its corporate overlords at Google-Alphabet. Simultaneously, Billy Roper has had his accounts removed at Reddit and Twitter, all on the “interpretive logic” of violating the terms of service or content policy (1990s term: acceptable use policy).

In fact, this is part of a wider pattern of mainstream media — including social media, which has now bought into the industry — censorship of Right-wing and white-wing thinkers since what I have called the Alt Right’s victory at Charlottesville. I call this a victory because it forced the Left to admit solidarity with Antifa, and despite media wailing about neo-Nazis and “car terrorism,” this is media hype and will be dead in two weeks, while the message the Alt Right sent will remain: you will not erase us; we have a right to a history, culture, heritage, values, symbols and most of all, to act in self-interest for our self-determination as well. And we owe you nothing.

For the Left, Civil Rights is yet another gambit designed to achieve “equality,” which means caste revolt, so that the lower classes (proles) prevail over anyone who knows better (natural leaders of intelligence above 125 IQ points) with the aid of the middle classes (115-120ish). This inverts society, so that whatever is dumb and popular with the proles wins out over everything else, and while people are chasing these trends, civilization decays, as happened between the French Revolution in 1789 and the defeat of National Socialism in 1945. Since that time, we have been children of the grave, knowing that we are living in a moribund ruin but unable to stop it because, hey, it’s popular.

At Charlottesville, Civil Rights lost its veneer of being “good.” It used to be assumed that class warfare and racial equality were always good, but now, we see people protesting these things because they are doing the exact opposite of what they are intended to do, but since it is happening to white people — a majority who must be overthrown for equality to happen — no one has paid much attention. Until now, that is. And now, the Civil Rights and Equality Agenda (CREA) is being seen for what it is: warfare against those who built this society so that those who could not build it can take it over, like a cuckoo laying her egg in the nest of another type of bird. These are parasites, whether they mean to be or not, and whether they are good or not, and Western Civilization is destroyed but wants to rise again, and for it to do that, it must get rid of both these parasites and its own endogenous screwups and predators.

The Left is in full-panic over Charlottesville because they know that while they can spin the “car terrorism” meme for some time, only the media indoctrinated will believe it once they see the video of Antifa attacking the car before the incident, and when the indictment comes out, it is going to be revealed that this was not a deliberate attack, but an attempt to escape by someone who was not mentally all there. At that point, the Left knows that people will shift their views to be against the Left and its defense of parasitism. People have put up with it for decades, but now they see that it is a path to USSR-style doom, and they want out. That is what scares the Left, and is why they are deleting accounts.

President Trump out-maneuvered the press by blaming both sides, which meant that he blamed Antifa as well, which ruined the press narrative that peaceful Leftist protestors had been “attacked” by the Alt Right, and validated what the videos showed, which was police officers corralling the Alt Right into the waiting Antifa, who then attacked. So, from the average American view, we have the fact that the Alt Right tolerated some neo-Nazis the same way they tolerated Alt Lite, libertarian, Proud Boys, etc. among them, but on the other side, we have the Left showing up with bats, bottles of urine, bricks and pepper spray to attack the Alt Right. That makes the Alt-Right possibly not all good, but the Left is looking increasingly all-bad.

This resonates with everyday white Americans who are tired of double standards and a one-sided Establishment narrative to the point that they are willing to excuse the Alt Right for being the underdog in this fight, but oppose the Establishment for its decades of hypocrisy:

But the president’s words sat just fine with LaMothe. “I think when he called for the unity of the country, that should have been what was pounded on,” LaMothe said in between taking a drag on his cigarette. By pounded on, LaMothe meant respected. He loves Trump and says the president never gets a fair shake from the media.

He says he hates the idea of neo-Nazis and recalls when growing up, he had friends who were black. But now he thinks the white guys he saw on his TV marching in Charlottesville have some reasonable arguments.

“This is a different white supremacy movement than before, because I don’t think whites are saying, ‘Well, we’re better.’ They’re saying why can’t we be treated all as equal?”

LaMothe thinks affirmative action programs should be scrapped. He also thinks neo-Nazis who sparked mayhem in Charlottesville are no worse than a lot of activist groups on the left. “I didn’t hear anything from Barack Obama about Black Lives Matter and that was another hate group,” he says.

In the meantime, after seeing the same masked rioters destroy the streets of Hamburg during the G20 conference, burn and vandalize London in 2011, and savage Portland and Berkeley — looking more like the LA Riots of 1992 than the peaceful anarchist gathering the Left claimed it was — people are having a different view of Antifa, which is more fair and realistic than the sunny gloss offered by the mainstream media:

After left-wing protesters marched through downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota in response to last weekend’s demonstrations in Charlottesville, Virginia, they hoisted the flag of the violent left-wing group “Antifa,” raising it in front of the county’s government center.

…Antifa, meaning “anti-fascist,” has been responsible for several destructive riots and protests, including one in February where members of the group set fires, threw fireworks, attacked the crowd, and damaged property in order to stop Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking at the University of California, Berkeley.

Antifa also vandalized stores, broke windows and rioted during President Donald Trump’s inauguration, before being met with armed law enforcement officers.

Even more, it is clear to people out there who is winning. You do not have the world’s largest corporations, governments, and media establishment uniting to declare a group terrorist, drop it from industry standard services and censor it unless that tiny group is not just threatening them directly, but threatening to win popular appeal from those who are sick of these parasites using us and doing nothing for us. We can live without Google, Paypal, Twitter, Reddit, Facebook and the Left. We cannot live without our people, and we are being taxed to death to pay for others who now we see intend to destroy us.

They do not, as they claimed for all those years, just want to coexist with us and be treated fairly. They want to dominate us, take over our countries, destroy us genetically — some call this genocide — and do it by treating us unfairly all while claiming that they are the victim. Diversity is dead. Equality is dead. The remaining mentally alert people in America and Europe have realized that there is a new “one drop” rule: one drop of equality, socialism, diversity or pluralism means that your civilization collapses. It takes two centuries, in which time all sorts of predatory people will profit from you, but it is your death warrant. We want off the death train to nowheresville.

For the last seventy years, they have pushed diversity on us as the right thing to do; the way to avoid Nazis and the KKK; the way to finally have good “race relations”; and more recently, a way of paying for the huge pensions and benefits gap created when the more-numerous Baby Boomers are replaced by the less-numerous Gen X and Millennials. Now people have seen through the lies, and the Establishment is in full panic, so they are censoring us. While they do that, they reveal their fundamental intention toward unfairness and inequality, and since they have shown us their moral emptiness, we no longer trust them, and we are fighting to escape their clutches.

It’s Not The Optics

Monday, August 14th, 2017

As the dust settles in Charlottesville, the Alt Right finds itself again wondering about its future direction. While the event was clearly a great victory in that it raised awareness of the rising Right and drove people away from the middle, it also brought a mentally disturbed person in a car driving into another vehicle, which then pulped some counter-protesters.

More importantly, it raised questions about what the Alt Right actually is. Is it, to use the words of Hunter Wallace, simply white nationalism 2.0? Or does the Alt Right have a life of its own, as posited here many times before in gory detail, as a rising conservative entity which includes the natural tribalism of conservatives alongside other elements of a more realistic Right?

Some have criticized the display of neo-Nazi symbols, salutes and regalia among the protesters. Some, adopting the rhetoric of mainstream politics, have argued that “the optics” are bad, namely that it is hurting the Alt Right to be seen as accepting neo-Nazis and White Nationalists among its ranks. Others have claimed the opposite, which is that a revitalized and unapologetic far-Right is more effective than hiding behind egalitarian sentiments as our RINO/cuckservative mainstream Right politicians have done for decades.

Another point of view may have more relevance. It is not the optics that make neo-Nazism and White Nationalism 2.0 a bad bet for the Alt Right. It is that taking that direction leads us away from where we want to go, and makes us distill our relatively complex beliefs into something else which is both simplistic and unstable.

In other words, it’s not the optics; it’s the failure. The Alt Right was formed to be an alternative to mainstream conservative politics that abandoned crucial issues like nationalism, anti-socialism, maintenance of social order and avoiding becoming tools of a globalist regime hell-bent on installing liberal democracy and consumerism worldwide.

Naturally, this put the Alt Right in a difficult place, because the only people willing to talk about nationalism and race have been underground sources which are evenly divided between the VDARE/AmRen race realists, and “ethno-Bolshevists” such as the neo-Nazi and white nationalist wing who want to make all whites equal by uniting them against other groups.

Many of us avoid mention of Nazis and the Holocaust because we see them as an attempt to fix modernity by using modern methods. Modernity is mass culture, brought about by the notion of equality, and to try to mobilize people in masses requires telling them partial truths and deceiving them. While this is effective, it also loses control of itself, as the Nazis did before winding down in a chaos of death and destruction.

For those of us who are oriented toward the future, the last thing we want is open violence, warfare and murder. We prefer the idea of reclaiming authority in our lands, repatriating the Other and then soft purging the stupid, weak, criminal and Leftist among us. They can be relocated to Brazil or Dubai and be perfectly happy in countries that are closer to their ideals.

Modernistic philosophies — including Nazism and its modern derivates in neo-Nazism and white nationalism — are utilitarian at their core. To them, people are the means to an end that is an ideology, and this ideology consists of re-shaping our human world around the type of simple concepts that motivate masses of people. That is the tail wagging the dog: instead of doing what is right, we do what is popular, and it is not surprising that this always ends poorly.

While Hitler salutes and swastika flags are highly effective, mainly because the media flocks to them in order to emphasize its agenda that anyone who deviates from diversity is a Nazi, they are also unnecessary. Being a neo-Nazi now is like flying a Vietcong flag in 1968 in that it provokes panic and notoriety, which to someone who wants to manipulate mass politics feels like winning.

The Alt Right does not need that, however. Its basic ideas — nationalism, hierarchy, order, purpose — are anathema to the modern mentality and will trigger people even more when spoken by responsible men wearing suits. We are what happens when the liberal democratic order collapses, and if we are to be the next stage in human history, we must be people who have a better plan and are balanced, sober, sane and realistic enough to put it into motion without kicking off WWIII, genocides or other unnecessary and ugly consequences.

This requires that we get rid of the somewhat adolescent fascination with neo-Nazism and white nationalism. We are nationalists but nationalism is only one facet of a more complex view. In addition, there are reasons to oppose national socialism, white supremacy and white nationalism:

  1. Too limited. Talking about race alone leaves a giant void. Our society obviously got to this failed point through some kind of internal crisis — civilizations die by suicide rather than murder — and so, it needs to be fixed. Even complete political systems like National Socialism left huge voids where action was needed, and they do not escape the problem of modernity, which is mass culture that requires manipulation to achieve even simple things. Even if these were to fix problems with modernity, those would be temporary patches and not oriented toward providing a better future outside of the nightmare that modernity has been.
  2. Too scapegoaty. When you assign blame to any group but yourselves, you do not take agency for your own complicity in allowing these events to transpire. Blaming the Jews, the rich, or even international finance misses the point: when people vote, they vote for what is popular, which is as much the opposite of what is true as quality is the opposite of quantity. These simplifications and victimhood narratives are needed to mobilize people around a simple idea, but the notion that mobilizing people around simple ideas is somehow “good” goes against common sense. We need realism, not false symbols. Scapegoating leads to our self-defeat when we fight the wrong problems and enemies, and necessarily leave the real problems intact.
  3. Too modern. Modernism is based on the idea that people are objects on a factory line. They come in equal, are stamped with knowledge of right and wrong, then give facts to operate on, and after that are interchangeable parts. In this view, they can be “perfected” through outside force, known as control, which limits the methods they can use by making them equal and therefore, putting the onus on them to demonstrate allegiance and thus rise above the herd. Modernism is mental manipulation in order to create the mass culture that allows for mobilization of the herd. It occurs because of a lack of social hierarchy, which allows those who care the least about the consequences of their actions to thrive, because it is always more efficient to not-care than to care.
  4. Too punitive. Rage, we can understand. Outrage, even. Hurt feelings, certainly. But life is not won through emotions but through their suppression. Perhaps there are many people out there who have done wrong and deserve to die. On the other hand, something went wrong that allowed them to do what they do, because their natures have never changed. The solution is to establish order that rewards the good and penalizes the bad — “good to the good, bad to the bad” as Plato wrote — and thus deprive bad people of their power. Punishing people however makes us slaves to them, in that we need their suffering to feel complete, which makes us essentially reliant upon them.
  5. Too simplified. Our crisis is that civilization is dying. This means that we need to rediscover our virtue and systematically fix every aspect of civilization and ourselves using this as a guide. Our action must be from inside to out; as in athletics or any other discipline, the mental game is a prerequisite to achievement in the physical world. At that point, we need to restore an organic civilization which does not require authoritarian leadership, secret police, censorship, or any of the other methods that modern societies use to control people. We can sort people, sending away the bad and keeping the good, and we can reward the good and punish the bad, but we cannot force the world to fit our mental model. We can only work with what is there.
  6. Too emo. Neo-Nazis and sometimes actual Nazis are disturbing for their willingness to be cruel. We want pure hearts, not twisted and darkened ones; as Nietzsche warned, if you look into the abyss, the abyss looks into you, and to hate something fanatically is to become in part what you hate, just in a different form. It is like inviting it into you. We need a cold, logical and positive outlook on our world where we see its potential and develop it while beating back its pitfalls. This means that we will exclude others without mercy, but it does not mean we will make ourselves into monsters.

One of my writings from 2004, summarizing my experience during tumultuous 1990s pro-nationalist but not white nationalist activism, summarizes these views in a more informal mode.

We are in the midst of a fashwave. Samuel Huntington noted this years ago, and thinkers from Plato to de Tocqueville have noted what happens when democracy fails, and what we are seeing now is people becoming tired of tolerance, equality, diversity and democracy because these programs have trashed the West. Tolerance means that the people who are doing the right thing see whatever they do undone by social chaos; equality means that the productive become slave labor to provide for the unproductive; diversity means that no social standards or culture can be had, and endless racial, ethnic and religious tensions roil our societies; democracy guarantees that whatever is popular wins out over what is true, accurate, realistic, sensible, intelligent, long term oriented or common sense. All of these things have failed, with the combination of Barack Obama essentially gutting the American economy in a backdrop of race riots while Europe burned from uncontrolled immigration being the coda to faith in liberal democracy and its related philosophy.

This fashwave is cultural, not political. It does not mean that people want fascism or any of the belief systems that, while unfairly maligned, also failed for their own reasons during the middle of the last century. We do not want to participate in genocides, total war, complete mobilization, secret police, censorship, Kristallnacht and other stupidities of a bygone time. Those were emotional and out of control reactions to the symptoms of a deeper problem; we want to target the deeper problem, which is that no one in the West desires virtue anymore, so we are bringing it back through intolerance of lies and demands for a higher standard. That is what a fashwave looks like. It may flirt with fascist or national socialist imagery, but in reality, it has more in common with the founding of the Roman Empire or the rebirth of Germany after both its occupying forces and intermediate imperial overlords failed. We see that our civilization collapsed years if not centuries ago, and we want to rebirth it from their most fascist act that is possible, which is self-discipline and suppression of the ego so that we can be unfettered realists who see the world as it is, and find an order within that in which we can thrive, pushing the best upwards so that we have a hierarchy that administers this because we know that mass culture will not.

Stephen Clay McGehee writes of what our actual task is in all non-centrist Right wing activity through his concept of the Civil Right:

When we speak of “the Right”, we speak of cultural matters rather than strictly political matters. Politics follows culture, and there is much overlap, but culture always precedes politics. Those who try to take a shortcut by changing politics without first changing the culture are certain to fail in the long term. Our focus here is on the traditionalist culture of the Right.

Our objective is to reach “The Middle” – those who do not strongly identify with the Left or the Right. We want to reach those who simply want a better life for their families and their descendants than the degenerate culture that has become the norm.

Where did the terms Left and Right come from?

In the assemblies of pre-Revolution France, those who supported aristocracy, an orderly society, and the king sat on the right, while those who supported the revolution, republicanism, and socialism sat on the left. In general, that still holds true today.

The French Revolution that began in 1789 marked the beginning of a new era that put Western civilization on a steady downward path. Those wanting to conserve what came before then have adopted the label, “1788 Conservative”. The Civil Right is, in part, about being a 1788 Conservative.

Western civilization is broken. It doesn’t just need a little tweaking over here and something patched up over there. It needs to be rebuilt as a complete restoration project. The Right is focused on putting us back on the right path: to re-create the best of Western civilization while learning from the mistakes of the past.

We do not need the swastika; yes, it is an ancient Indo-European symbol and should not be demonized, but that is a task for the future. For now, we need to focus on reality and how to create a stable situation that can end the bad and nurture the development of the good, at the same time we achieve the inner discipline and concentration necessary to mature our fashwave into a sea change of people converting to the desire for virtue, balance, order, harmony, excellence, goodness, truthfulness and beauty.

Flags, symbols and salutes come secondary to our actual strength, which is that our ideas themselves are divisive. People either decide to cling to the decaying ruin that took the place of the West, or they accept that what we offer are timeless ideas that have been the basis of every ascendant society throughout history. If we wanted to summarize the Alt Right, we could present it in this way, knowing that our ideas speak for themselves:

  1. Nationalism. Nations consist of their founding ethnic group, and not other ethnic groups, races or even hybrids. Germany for Germans. In America, this means the founding Western European group.
  2. Realism. Politics by feelings, “rights,” altruism, compassion, empathy, herd morality or other emotions mislead us, because all that matters is the results of our actions, not our intentions or our choice of “safe” methods. Everything in life is ends-over-means because it is more important to achieve your goal than to try the right way.
  3. Hierarchy. This consists of two parts, an aristocracy of our best people who will be entrusted with money and power, and a caste system where those with greater intelligence have more social influence than whatever the prole herd is fascinated by at the moment, such as trends, panics, manias, fads or other human stampedes. This was the real lesson from the Great Depression: if you let the herd invest, they will bring you to ruin. The same is true of politics, culture, consumerism and any other area.
  4. Social order. We need culture, moral standards, values, customs, habits, calendar, faith, cuisine and heritage. Together with purpose, or a sense of our society having an ongoing and immutable role in the order of nature, these constitute our identity, and this is more important than wealth or power. We must be able to act as an organic whole before we can achieve anything.

Civil War 2.0 is here. There are those who want out of the dying system, and others who do not. By espousing the ideas above — essentially, what is considered normal in a healthy time no matter what $current_year is — we “trigger” those who oppose us because they want decay, chaos, disorder and dysfunction in order to mask their own deviant or pointless behavior. There is no compromise between these extremes. The Left, as the party of egalitarianism, will never give in and allow health to prevail. For them, this is the endgame where they destroy everything and then rule in third world disorganization forevermore.

At this point, the Leftists are already so triggered by the fact that we are dissenters that they are engaging in authoritarian and apocalyptic behavior:

At that point the police had completely lost control of the city. The State of Emergency order means that any public gathering is de facto illegal, but antifa are still allowed to roam freely bearing weapons and attacking people. This chaos ultimately led directly to the vehicular incident that killed a woman and badly injured more than a dozen others.

My conclusions are that police wanted this to happen. It’s clear that VSP had specific orders to drive us out of the park to the south, into the teeth of violent armed antifa counter-protesters.

Police could have easily separated the barricades and removed all rally participants to the north, away from antifa and into empty streets fully controlled by law enforcement. We were driven into a hostile situation intentionally. It’s impossible not to believe that the authorities issuing these orders knew exactly what would happen and that they wanted rally attendees to be harmed and possibly killed.

Even the lefty The New York Times admitted that the violence was the result of police activity, essentially agreeing with Pax Dickinson and Scott Greer of Daily Caller in their assessment that the powers that be wanted this to end as a bloodbath:

And at City Hall, a planned news conference by Jason Kessler, the white nationalist who organized Saturday’s rally, came to an abrupt end when a man wearing a plaid shirt punched him.

…But others, including Mr. Kessler and Ms. Caine-Conley, openly wondered if the violence could have been prevented.

“There was no police presence,” Ms. Caine-Conley said. “We were watching people punch each other; people were bleeding all the while police were inside of barricades at the park, watching. It was essentially just brawling on the street and community members trying to protect each other.”

Right now, our governments are divided. There are a few hopeful figures like Nigel Farage and Donald Trump who are attempting to stop the bleeding and point our nations back toward sanity, but all of those who are profiting from their franchises within a bloated system, including the unionized police, are attempting to prevent the rise of that which ends their happy little Ponzi scheme based on government dollars and being elected by a clueless lumpenproletariat who wants nothing more than additional benefits. This is why Trump condemned all people participating in violence instead of blaming the Alt Right:

Speaking on Saturday from his golf resort in Bedminster, New Jersey, the president criticized groups on “many sides” for violence that occurred at a planned rally in Charlottesville, Virginia by white supremacists that led to the death of a counter-protester.

Trump’s comments sparked immediate backlash from both sides, as many congressional Republicans called on the president to issue a more forceful response denouncing white supremacy.

Since Antifa initiated the violence, his statement was correct. The police, Antifa and possibly some members of the Alt Right or those who showed up to participate in the chaos like the driver of the death car that plowed into another vehicle and injured or killed twenty people, are all parties that deserve criticism. The vast majority of the Alt Right did nothing of the sort.

As Everitt Foster and I opined some time ago, the Alt Right needs to choose a direction that is future-oriented and provides positive real-world results in parallel with more long-term goals such as nationalism, aristocracy, social order and some kind of transcendental faith.

We are surrounded not so much by enemies, but by sleeping people who are living in a dream and hoping that despite all logic, modern society will turn out to be survivable. Among them, there are some who are infected with the mental virus of egalitarianism, and they are actively toxic, but the rest are simply sleepwalking and need to only be dissuaded from believing in the Left for it to fall.

For us, Charlottesville was a success. It further put us on the map and differentiated us from being merely a pro-Trump group. At the same time, it revealed the cracks in our fragile coalition. Our goal is to restore Western Civilization, not re-live the past out of an emotional response to how bad the present is. When we stay faithful to that goal, we win.

As Diversity Fails, Europe Intensifies Censorship While America Backs Off

Monday, June 19th, 2017

Someone ran over some Muslims in England yesterday. The Muslims, sensitive to optics and public relations moments, quickly made a big show of being peaceful despite having been attacked in front of a mosque known for its extremist sentiments. They know the voters are stupid and plan to take them for the fools they are and use them as useful idiots in their war against non-Muslim civilization.

In the meantime, the circus ringmasters of the useful idiot herd started up with the sentimental and strong statements designed to pacify the sheep for another good fleecing in the next election. That included applying anesthesia in the form of action to conceal the problem, so that the voters can go back to sleep in the blaze of glory that is themselves:

It was the latest in a series of statements from Ms May that suggest she believes recent attacks have strengthened the case for her widely-criticised plans to regulate the online world.

Those plans include launching a massive crackdown on internet security so messages on apps such as WhatsApp can be accessed more easily by authorities, and censorship of what can be published online.

England has experienced three Muslim terrorist attacks in a row and one white guy hitting a few people with a van. This shows that whatever the UK is doing is not working, but admitting that requires the voters to admit they were wrong, which means they were manipulated, which means they have lost. So what will they do?

Like all primates, they will double down. To reverse course is to admit error, and especially at the lower end of the IQ curve, people hate to do that. Instead of looking at the issue of terrorism and diversity, which really is a single issue when you think about it, they will focus on the best way to sprinkle gold dust on the disaster and proclaim themselves strong, independent voters who don’t need no logic.

In the meantime, as if in concert, Google and the other big internet monopolists are planning to increase censorship on their services:

Google and YouTube will:

  • Use “more engineering resources to apply our most advanced machine learning research to train new ‘content classifiers’ to help us more quickly identify and remove such content.”
  • Expand YouTube’s Trusted Flagger program by adding 50 independent, “expert” non-governmental organizations to the 63 groups already part of it. Google will offer grants to fund the groups.
  • Take a “tougher stance on videos that do not clearly violate our policies — for example, videos that contain inflammatory religious or supremacist content.” Such videos will “appear behind a warning” and will not be “monetized, recommended or eligible for comments or user endorsements.”
  • Expand YouTube’s efforts in counter-radicalization. “We are working with Jigsaw to implement the ‘redirect method’ more broadly across Europe. This promising approach harnesses the power of targeted online advertising to reach potential Isis recruits, and redirects them towards anti-terrorist videos that can change their minds about joining.” A Google spokeswoman said Jigsaw’s “redirect method” is already in use in the US.

Google, Facebook, Twitter and Reddit have all stepped up their censorship policies of late. They claim they intend to crack down on terrorism, and maybe they will. But as the bolded words above indicate, their real target is to crack down on any Right-wing speech by declaring that it is supremacist, extremist or otherwise anti-social. They have been doing this for years.

They are doing this because the EU has demanded this crackdown on anti-diversity speech after events like the Cologne rapefest of New Years’ Eve, or subsequent terror attacks. The EU is becoming unstable because people share anti-immigrant and anti-diversity sentiment on social media, and so they are demanding (yet again) that social media censor its users.

No social media will escape this, because the EU will fine or block these social media services within its borders if they do not comply, forcing them to comply with its censorship or lose huge chunks of income.

In EU states, people are regularly arrested for posting anti-diversity messages, but this makes the EU states look bad, so instead they are using their broad regulatory powers to force the social media services to comply.

This enables the EU to cover up how badly its policies are failing. The voters really just want to go back to sleep, and if they stop seeing alarming messages, they will bed down in the paddock for a good rest before another day of grazing and dodging sheepdogs. But the broader concern is that speech laws are being taken into the realm of health and safety laws, where they are invisible.

On the other hand, in American the Supreme Court took a strong stand for freedom of speech, mainly because it can since the real censorship these days is being done in de facto public spaces like social media that are nonetheless owned by private parties, thus not regulated by the First Amendment:

In his opinion on the case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.'”

Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a separate opinion, echoed Alito’s sentiments. “A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional,'” Kennedy wrote, continuing to say, “A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all.”

“The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society,” he concluded.

The best decisions are those which change nothing but grab headlines, and the Supreme Court has done that. The United States has strengthened free speech in public, perhaps, but not necessarily on private college campuses or private services like Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Netflix and Skype.

EU governments are experts at the shakedown. All they need is one law that says they can suspend, fine, or stop your service and the entire market of the EU is shut down to your company. Using this tool, they will invisibly force these companies to censor content, so that while technically we have free speech, in the places where people talk, nothing of the sort will exist.

Breitbart Fires Writer Katie McHugh For Stating Truth About Diversity, But She Does Not Back Down

Tuesday, June 6th, 2017

Apparently it is offensive to state the truth: when attacked by Muslims who live in your country, it is safe to conclude that had those Muslims not been living in your country, the attack would not have happened.

Leftists, including most conservatives, do not want to acknowledge the obvious, which is that it is much easier to defend against foreign invasions than guerrilla terrorism arising on your own streets. The proliferation of spy programs, laws, undercover agents and paid informants tells us that as the West balkanizes, we are having trouble keeping our own diverse citizens from attacking each other.

Breitbart news editor Katie McHugh dared to allude to this uncomfortable truth in a tweet, and Breitbart editors — reversing their previous conservative position in defense of the ability to speak, think and write without fear of political retaliation — promptly fired her. Not to be bowed, McHugh stickied the tweet and appealed for aid from her readers.

As with all political purges, this one exists to hide the fact that a state policy which is necessary for the ideology of that state, but not the welfare of its people, is failing. Diversity never works and always produces conflict, as conservative writers such as Ann Coulter have noticed.

It is not racially discriminatory to say that any diversity does not work, because to say this does not target a specific group as the reason for the failure of diversity, as angry bigots tend to do; instead it points out that diversity itself is the source of the failure of diversity. Nor is it cruel or unreasonable, because unrealistic policies cause mass misery and governments kill to hide this fact, as we saw in the last century.

In the West, we need a vast mass maturation so that we can discuss this and other controversial topics. The controversy does not mean that these topics are somehow in contention, only that up to half of our population is in resistance to accepting the possibility that they are wrong. In the meantime, we all suffer for their pretense of moral superiority.

Leftists Disturbed By Pluralism, Demand Ideological Uniformity

Friday, May 26th, 2017

Let us revisit the idea of pluralism:

a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain and develop their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization

It comes from the root of the word plural, as in “E Pluribus Unum,” or “out of many, one.” Except that pluralism does not involve that oneness. Instead, there is just the many, at least until we blend them all into a uniform brown with the exact same opinions, habits and preferences, but at that point individuality and culture are deader than Jimmy Hoffa.

In a debate, pluralism means “agree to disagree.” In a society, it means that many different groups coexist. In philosophy, it means among other things that many inconsistent things can be true at the same time. In a social group, it means that not everyone has the same opinion, and this is where the Left is suddenly freaking out about it:

Spencer sought to garner sympathy by arguing that he is a model gym user — he should be allowed to spread hate and stoke racist, misogynist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and other bigoted forms of violence, and organize torchlit nighttime rallies that conjure up images of similar rallies staged by the Klan — all without facing consequences for his actions when off the job, so to speak. Spencer wants us to believe that when he is not publicly exclaiming the superiority of the white, Christian male and asserting that this country belongs to such men, he should be allowed to mingle in polite, ethnically diverse society.

She clearly has no idea what pluralism — an ideal of the Left — means. In a pluralistic society, no opinions are taboo. Communists rub shoulders with Nazis, and Christians talk to atheists while Darwinists talk to Lamarckians. It is a nonsensical ideal because every belief system seeks to have a space for itself, which requires excluding others.

The Left used pluralism as a weapon against the majority in the West. They claimed that we could coexist with their views. Now that they have the upper hand, they want to exclude any views which are not Leftist. It is time that we simply called this farce for what it is, and admitted that both pluralism and egalitarianism (Leftism) are lies, and anyone who supports either has committed themselves to lying.

Recommended Reading