Posts Tagged ‘reddit’

Reddit Affirms SJW Double Standard: Doxing For Me, But Not For Thee

Tuesday, March 21st, 2017

The site admins would not answer that question.

The long and the short of it: it is perfectly OK for the SPLC, ADL and mainstream media to report the names of people such as the user known as “Jew Goldstein,” the user who triggered journalist Kurt Eichwald with a flashing GIF image, but when someone uses the same sources and makes a list of SJWs, it is taboo.

Leftists always lie. By accepting an ideology based on a lie, equality, they have committed themselves to being in denial of actual reality in favor of this collective consensual social hallucination upon which the ideal of universalism rests.

They continue lying whenever given power. This is why as their power fails, the most important task is to physically remove them to other parts of the earth and exclude them from our world forever. They are mental zombies, a vitriolic plague on all that is good.

Reddit Told /r/AltRight Mods That WeSearchr Links Were Okay, Then Betrayed Them

Friday, March 10th, 2017

The question remains as to whether Reddit banned /r/AltRight (and unrelated sub /r/AlternativeRight) over the topic — Right-wing politics — or the behavior of the moderators in that sub. Reddit admins insist on the latter, but it is increasingly looking like the former, as an older message reveals (backup):

I was mindin my own business when i came across this post on raltright. Anyway, it got me thinking, “Isn’t this post violating the reddit rules on doxxing in the most transparent way?” so I reported it to the admins because I’m a good concerned citizen. Anyways, I got this response. I asked a few hours later to check up on the reddit cops and got this response so there ya go. They forgot to update the rules page so im asking you all to spread this story so people know the real rules until it’s updated, posting bounties on people that you want the personal information of isn’t a reddit crime any more

In other words, when informed of the fact that /r/AltRight had posted a WeSearchr link, Reddit admins responded with:

We reviewed the post in question and found that it does not go against site guidelines.

Only a few days later, they reversed their opinion and banned /r/AltRight for “a violation of our content policy, specifically, the proliferation of personal and confidential information.” In other words, the exact opposite of what they had originally told the /r/AltRight moderators and other users.

This confirms that the ban was for political reasons. Now consider /r/AlternativeRight, a subreddit that existed for several years before the banning of /r/AltRight, and which was banned at the same time despite having a different moderation team. This was banned with no reason given, but was not home to the same WeSearchr link that caused the /r/AltRight surprise ban.

At this point, the proof of politically-oriented censorship on Reddit has become evident. The usual apologists will talk about private sites and property rights, but the fact is that like other social media sites, Reddit is requesting the trust of a community, and does not deserve it because of these Court Of Star Chamber style bans.

The mods of /r/AltRight, as far as they knew, were obeying Reddit rules… until Reddit changed the rules, which meant that the rules were not the reason for the ban, but a pretext or excuse. This makes Reddit appear every bit as untrustworthy as other social media sites like Twitter and Facebook, and makes it apparent that perhaps humanity would be better off without these sites.

Reddit Admins Claim /r/AltRight Ban Was Not Political

Thursday, March 9th, 2017

Over at social media site Reddit, the admins are claiming that the recent ban of the Alt Right community there was not motivated by politics, and not sudden, in contrast to what appears to be the case:

We reached out to AltRight several times to attempt to cure the issues that we saw there. In the end, it was clear that they would not be willing to operate that community in compliance with Reddit’s rules, and so we were left with a choice: allow that community to ignore the rules, or admit that we had irreconcilable differences. There really wasn’t much disagreement about the eventual outcome.

In contrast, here is what the /r/AltRight mods said just a few weeks ago:

As one of the moderators at the subreddit, I would say we are pretty vigilant about trying to abide by Reddit’s terms of service by removing “hate” speech such as slurs or taking down material that is proliferating personal information of people i.e. “doxing.” In fact, we were purposely hyper-vigilant by having absurd warnings like NSFW tags on posts and an age restriction warning on the subreddit just to inform readers that they were entering a “dangerous” part of the internet.

The only incidence where our subreddit may have violated these terms of service was promoting the WeSearchr bounty that was looking to bring justice to the masked man who assaulted Richard Spencer, President of the National Policy Institute and Editor of Radix Journal and AltRight.com. This would not be the first time someone has been removed from a social media platform for promoting WeSearchr. I should know because I was banned from Twitter for promoting that exact WeSearchr bounty. Twitter informed me I was taking part in “targeted harassment” and then had my appeal denied. Apparently, trying to identify a criminal is now considered “doxing” but I digress.

Only one of these can be true. Either Reddit is incorrect, or the /r/AltRight guys are. And if Reddit is incorrect and is asserting that incorrect view now, then the political bias of Reddit is beyond question.

Since most of social media seems to be enforcing political correctness at this point in order to create the impression that “everyone agrees” on Leftist values, Reddit would be an anomaly if it did not enforce political censorship, but the Reddit guys seem to want to hold up that free speech banner so they can be cool like Julian Assange, Aaron Schwartz and other anarcho-libertarian hacker guys.

However, that all fades if there was no actual dialogue and no unresolved problems, but a sudden ban on a pretext. That looks less like violation of the rules, and more like a censor waiting to pounce, and eliminating a thriving community as a result. If that is the case, Reddit loses its free speech mantle and will have to admit that it is a safe space for Leftists, which then limits its wider audience and threatens to send it, like Twitter, Starbucks and Target, into a decline as Middle America abandons them.

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.

Cherry-Picking Is The Confirmation Bias Behind The Lügenpresse

Monday, February 13th, 2017

You know the story: a big event happens and the press interviews someone. He gives a clear statement, only to find that in the final article, one line has been taken out of context in order to prove the thesis of the person writing the article.

Luckily, sometimes we catch them in the act.

Recently WIRED‘s Emma Grey Ellis [email her] reached out to an Amerika operative with questions about a free speech Antifa channel run on internet effete basement NEET echo chamber Reddit. She used a single quotation in an article about Antifa:

Meanwhile, the Meme War has metastasized to Reddit at large: “/r/antifa was never an antifascist subreddit,” IamSeth says. “It is a honeypot run by members of the Ku Klux Klan.” (I wasn’t able to confirm the Klan connection, but when I reached out to the /r/antifa mods, an individual who goes by diversity_is_racism denied the honeypot claim, but said he or she thinks Richard Spencer is “a good guy.”)

In the spirit of transparency, which means telling the whole story and is the opposite of cherry-picking, we present to you the whole interview here, with messages from Emma Grey Ellis in bold and messages from us in regular text:

Why not moderate a subreddit with a name that aligns with your own views? Doesn’t calling it /r/antifa make the page a bit of a honeytrap?

Why not moderate a subreddit with a name that aligns with your own views?

I do, /r/new_right

I also moderate a number of others that are dedicated to free speech.

Doesn’t calling it /r/antifa make the page a bit of a honeytrap?

Whoof, the begging-the-question fallacy in real life. The answer: no. I do not intend to use this sub to advance an agenda.

People want to fight it out. Antifa is a hot topic, and I have some sympathies with them. I would like people to fight it out in a place where all opinions can be heard, instead of create another Leftist echo chamber here on Reddit.

Do you identify as Antifa?


I don’t, I actually was relatively unfamiliar with the movement until quite recently.

I can understand wanting to avoid echo chambers. Do you consider the new right and antifa to be fundamentally adversarial?

As in, is it the new right’s task to push back against antifa, and vice versa?

Not really, if we go by sheer differences of opinion. The New Right is not geared toward a modern state at all, so has no use for fascism. It is however opposed to Leftism, especially of the extreme form usually adopted by antifa members even if it is not strictly part of antifa. In theory, you could be a Republican antifa; in reality, that never happens because all of the antifa movement appears to be intersectional anarchist and Communist. The New Right has elements of anarchism and socialism in it, so there is some overlap, but generally we are traditionalist/reactionaries who want a society of a non-modern type.

For that reason, I would say we are not directly opposed… but we would need to live in different nations. As far as the New Right pushing back against antifa, we tend to view them as just another variety of Leftist, not far removed from Democrats (for example) except in methods. Antifa are sort of like Leftist skinheads — they share a lot with the SHARP movement, for example — who enjoy violence, destruction and shattering lives of their perceived enemies. As Andrew Breitbart among others pointed out, however, mainstream Democrats enjoy doing that too, but prefer subtler methods than street violence. So the situation is more nuanced and interesting than “these two groups are enemies.”


Understood. How do you react to this group rallying around the Richard Spencer punch moment? Spencer doesn’t seem to really stand for fascism, per se, but rather a pro-male, pro-white, pro-straight, pro-American/Western European agenda.

From my time moderating /r/antifa, I have realized that antifa supporters do not have a problem with violence, and they have no problem supporting violent anarchists and Communists. Although these movements are particularly prone to certain types of violence — bomb-throwing anarchists, gulags, dawn executions in Lubyanka prison and the like come to mind — I do not think we can backward-infer ideology from the presence of violence itself, as Tim McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, Anders Breivik and Dylann Roof remind us. But, it does not surprise me that antifa cheered the sucker punch of Richard Spencer, mainly because he is a real threat to their ideology just by existing.
I also learned that those on the Left have no idea what fascism is. Fascism is a specific political concept; Leftists use the term to mean authoritarian, totalitarian or just any strong authority that limits individual self-expression, even if just by context (e.g. you cannot spray paint on this specific wall). Spencer strikes me as classic Alt Right, and as one of the inventors of the term — alongside Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki — he would know. Here’s a good introduction to the Alt Right:

Introduction To The Alt Right

In my view, the Alt Right is trying to break away from (1) Republicans and (2) the 1488 white nationalist types. Both groups have failed and the Alt Right wants something new. I have just learned that Reddit’s altright sub, /r/altright, has been banned by Reddit — wow, interesting. Anyway, it seems to me that the Alt Right is a satire/cynical cultural movement against Leftism in general, and it embraces nationalism and the salvation of Western Civilization among other things. In my view, it is re-living the tension of Weimar Germany, and is about to figure out that National Socialism is a big screwup because it is still a modern-style government, and will converge on the same problems we have now even if it vociferously protests them and delays them for a short while. The better movement was volkisch conservatism, but that might be too much of a conceptual leap for people today. The point I want to make here is that there is tension both ways; the Alt Right is resisting both Republican cucks and Hitlarping spergs from the White Nationalist movement. Neo-Nazism is a simplified, mainstreamed version of National Socialism, so it takes the problems of National Socialism, which we might refer to as ideological accelerationism or a tendency toward highly symbolic acts like the Holocaust, and adds to them the problems of modern bureaucratic society… while losing the coherence of actual nationalism, which is basically the idea that a nation is defined by its founding ethnic group, and you cannot have the “proposition nation” that America’s Republicans want. But similarly, you cannot have the race-nation that white nationalists want; a Nationalist understands “Germany for Germans, Israel for Jews, Nigeria for Nigerians” but does not grok “America for whites.” The Alt Right hates the concept of equality, which is sort of an exploded narcissism/individualism, and detests other Republican notions like theocracy, democracy, bipartisanship and the like. It also finds the White Nationalists to be a kind of ideology in themselves, which is why it has resisted them, despite some White Nationalists like the Right Stuff or the Daily Stormer trying to make inroads. So if you look at things in the big picture, Spencer is a good guy who is advancing an actual Right-wing cause — back toward pre French Revolutionary types of society — while casting aside the really psychotic stuff that White Nationalists would do. He has said he does not mind Jews, homosexuals and mixed-race people, and he frequently tells people other races that they should be nationalist for their own people. This is the kind of level-headed voice on the Right that benefits everyone. Ironically, if the antifa strike him down they will get something worse which will also be more popular because it will tap into suppressed rage. In this way, Spencer stands against what people mean when they say “fascism,” which is strong power wielded for ideological purposes with the intention of hurting or eliminating biological impurities within our society.

Antifa, however, is like the Alt Right in one really important way: the movement is ill-defined. They don’t like fascists, great, but what does fascism mean? Very few of them can define it clearly. They are fans of Leftist ideology exclusively, on a scale from anarchism through Communism, and often support the same methods they decry when Right-wing groups use them. But I think there is something there, something to be expressed, which is probably more like libertarian or classical liberal than Communist, and tensions within the movement are keeping this from being expressed. As society inevitably balkanizes, I think antifa will come into their own and express their beliefs in a clarified state at about the same time the Alt Right does the same for its beliefs. We live in interesting times…


Thanks for this, I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate on your viewpoints this way.

Tell me, is there a way that I could identify you other than your username here? First name, initials, a general location?

Four screen shots pasted together:

The lügenpresse represents the inverted thinking created by socializing among humans: instead of looking for a theory that fits the evidence, we look for evidence that fits the theory, since our goal is merely to convince other people that we are right.

If the Alt Right has a legacy outside the Right, it is that it applied Human Biodiversity (HBD) and Tom Wolfe/William S. Burroughs styled principles of the viral nature of language to reveal that (almost) all human actions are signaling, or using tokens like words to create convincing mental images in order to con others into handing over real-world goods: sex, wealth, power and status.

When lügenpresse reporters are conducting interviews, for example, they are looking for only one thing: some data that they can excerpt to make it look like it supports their conclusion.

Witness the actual “a good guy” quote:

So if you look at things in the big picture, Spencer is a good guy who is advancing an actual Right-wing cause — back toward pre French Revolutionary types of society — while casting aside the really psychotic stuff that White Nationalists would do. He has said he does not mind Jews, homosexuals and mixed-race people, and he frequently tells people other races that they should be nationalist for their own people. This is the kind of level-headed voice on the Right that benefits everyone.

The original meaning is this: he is one of the good guys on the Right, as opposed to the psychotic ones.

Instead, this became taken out of context as a means of attacking us.

Lügenpresse, this is why no one trusts you.

Reddit Blames Content Censorship On Form

Wednesday, February 8th, 2017

Every message has content and form. Content is what it communicates, and form is how it communicates. A message can have perfectly good content, but be expressed in a form — for example, obscenities and epithets — that renders it into spam for most audiences.

When a social media site censors user-submitted data, the question is whether they are objecting to content or form. Consider these two messages:

  • “Multiple racial groups cannot coexist in the same society without destroying it.”
  • (string of racial epithets, obscenities, pejoratives and attacks)

Maybe they express the same idea, if we distill it to its absolute core. Maybe both are relevant. But it is more understandable if the latter is removed because it is closer to graffiti, linguistic vandalism or spam. This is not categorical so much as a question of its direction and intent. Does it aim to communicate, or to hammer people with a viewpoint in a form designed to provoke them?

Reddit claims that it removed the subreddit (sort of like a hashtag) “/r/altright” on the basis of form, as as co-founder Alexis Ohanian argued recently:

This is our trust and safety team enforcing a violation of our content policy regarding personal information—doxxing is the shorthand for it—but basically, these communities continue to violate our policy, and we shut them down.

However, Reddit banned three subreddits: /r/altright, /r/alternativeright and /r/identitarian. These were not engaged in the same behavior, but did share the same topic. This proves that Reddit was not censoring for aberrant behavior, but for content which did not fit within the narrative that Reddit is advancing.

In other words, Reddit admins disagreed with the content, not the form, and as a result used a claim of a violation — doxxing, which normally means revealing the identity of a user on the site, which did not happen here — to remove ideological non-conformists. They are doing this in order to provide a “safe space” for users to feel unchallenged, as if they were in a shopping mall or other commercial establishment.

The thing is… that model will not work. People need open spaces for interaction, and that interaction will sometimes be contentious. Debate and discourse originate not in conformity, but in people probing multiple different approaches and then bringing them together to create accurate portrayals of reality for as many aspects of it as are possible at this time. Over many interactions, this view gradually clarifies to a greater degree, but that requires the ability to dissent from whatever the dominant group opinion is at the time.

Social media has been unable to provide this space because social media is centralized. One corporation, such as Facebook, “owns” the space of interaction and censors it to create the type of inoffensive shopping experience that it is believed consumers want. However, that approach is incompatible with the internet, which is based on groups separating by perspective to clarify those views.

This is why social media is dying:

A new report has revealed that out of the total 66 ads that aired during Super Bowl LI, only 30 of them included a hashtag – while 41 percent displayed the firm’s URL.

The shift was a new strategy for corporations to bring more traffic to their websites, rather than just gaining popularity on social media – with just five mentioning a Twitter handle, and four a Facebook page.

Centralized media does not work because it tries to be like a publication, where strict editing is enforced, when it is more like the local pub. At your local, people debate hot topics and it grows contentious, which causes some to separate out into their own groups. The old internet, where people visited many sites for different outlooks, functioned by this principle.

However, profit demands getting as many warm bodies as possible into a single place at the same time. To make that happen, social media companies have dedicated billions toward removing any viewpoints which might conflict with the perception of harmony, agreement and safe shopping. That approach has died because social media companies, under the guise of removing objectionable form, removed merely controversial content.

People on the internet do not want the managed experience that they might expect in a regulated social space like a shopping mall. They want the interaction that a pub provides, and that can only happen when we redecentralize the internet and get away from the 6-10 really large sites that control most of the traffic, and have a fiscal interest in making it as bland and inoffensive (but salacious) as possible.

Reddit Confirms That Recent Bans Were Ideological In Nature, Not For Misbehavior

Thursday, February 2nd, 2017

And there you have it, folks: for years Reddit has claimed that its bans of various non-Leftist groups were prompted by misbehavior of those groups. It turns out that this is not true at all. The proof can be found in the fact that along with /r/altright, Reddit also banned /r/AlternativeRight, a much smaller group which did not share the same traffic as the other group.

This means that instead of their claim that /r/altright was banned because it was engaged in “doxxing,” or revealing information about users — in this case, not about a Reddit user but an Antifa who sucker-punched Richard Spencer via crowd-funded research group WeSearchr — Reddit actually banned these groups for political reasons.

That means that Reddit’s actions are straight-up censorship, and nothing else. As public spaces have moved from the real world to the virtual, many areas of important public discussion, like /r/altright, are owned by private companies. Users have no rights here and these companies, feeling their power slipping, are turning to censorship to enforce the narrative that they feel makes them relevant.

At this point, the only solution for anyone who is not a crazy Leftist Antifa is to find healthier places to be, such as free speech social media.

Reddit Doubles Down On Censorship, Bans /r/altright For Undisclosed Reasons

Wednesday, February 1st, 2017

In response to a rising “populist” realist movement around the world, old media and new media alike are uniting to squeeze out those counter-narrative opinions. In the mainstream media, they call it fake news; on social media, apparently, they ban it for either no reason or for a false reason.

Hamster hive echo chamber Reddit banned /r/altright tonight. No reason was given, and is the norm on Reddit, since the evidence is hidden and the admins will not speak of it, the real reason is a matter of conjecture. At least one source noted however that posting of links from WeSearchr seeking the Antifa who sucker-punched Richard Spencer may have precipitated the banning.

Reddit generally insists that it does not ban for topic matter, and that subs are being punished for specific behavior that went on in them. Clearly this was true in some cases, such as the infamous “Coontown” which should have known it was on Double Secret Probation with that name. But here, the case is not so clear, and by refusing to tell, the admins are undermining confidence in a service which already lacks it.

Most likely, they are simply seeking what every business does: an illusion of safety. Social media is the shopping mall of the 1990s where the kids and lonely people hang out. Those people get scared off by crime and dangerous people, and for most people, Nazis are dangerous people. In addition, Reddit cultivates its audience among low-testosterone white males, and these tend to cry when confronted with off-narrative information.

In the meantime, the former /r/altright users are gathering on VOAT, prompting a question that will divide our audience here: should the Alt Right attempt to gain mention in the mainstream media, or go around it and set up its own media, knowing that it has then set up a citadel which can in turn be conquered?

Alt Right AMA Postmortem

Friday, December 23rd, 2016

The “Ask Me Anything” AMA session on Reddit last night went quite well, thanks to the /r/altright moderation team and all of those who participated. Many longtime supporters and friends as well as new acquaintances showed up to make it possible.

Of course, the whole thing almost failed when it became apparent that Reddit has banned my original account for posting the following message:

This caused Reddit admins, who generally lean far-left, to suspend the account despite it not having violated their content policy under any reasonable interpretation. The information posted was public information about public regulatory agencies and employers, as one does when a group wants to complain about the behavior of a public figure like Tanya N. Gersh, who orchestrated a witch hunt against Sherry Spencer.

My response to Reddit is as follows:

Specifically, I wrote a counter-argument here:

Hi there,

I feel this is in error:

> Your account has been permanently suspended from Reddit for attempting to organize a witch hunt.

Tanya N. Gersh is a public figure who made public statements against Richard Spencer’s mother, and I posted public sources to the regulatory committees that oversee her licensing as a realtor, a role she abused when she attempted to extort money from Sherry Spencer. This is the opposite of a witch hunt; it is accountability for someone who did organize a witch hunt. Nothing but public sources were posted, and posting these is not in violation of Reddit’s rules.

I request that you reconsider. I will consider failure to lift this ban a proof of ideological bias by admins because there is no other credible explanation for using an anti-witch hunt rule to ban people who are defending an innocent woman against a witch hunt by using the regulatory mechanisms set up by our government for exactly this purpose.

Thank you,

Brett

There is really no way to read this except as politically-motivated censorship on the part of Reddit, which could explain the troubles they are having in finding funding. Reddit is an improvement over Facebook and Twitter because its software rewards posting links and discussion more than chatter and ego-drama, but it was quickly taken over by the Leftist herd of SJWs when it became popular because they are drawn to the ability to mass “down-vote” stories that contradict their narrative, and the type of people Reddit is able to hire to keep watch on the site tend to be lower-paid Silicon Valley workers who are single and lonely and therefore lean Left. Based on what I have seen, the “down-vote” button and the need to have paid babysitters are the big flaws of this site, which has had problems with censorship in the past.

In fact, this was a running joke on free speech site Gab, a reference to Reddit’s CEO editing messages that criticized him.

Upon consideration, this seems to be a problem with all social media and all governments: if they organize in defense of the weaker, they end up penalizing anyone who has something to lose in an attempt to protect others from uncomfortable truths. In America, for example, the great equalizer is the lawsuit, where if someone has more money than you and you can find a reason to attack him, you can essentially extort cash from him with the threat of a lawsuit. On social media, small percentages of the user base can organize into angry mobs that then force censorship on those who are stronger and therefore post more realistic material, which the angry mob knows it can get removed by acting as if it is the victim.

If anyone is the victim in this case, it would be Sherry Spencer and myself, as Mrs. Spencer was the target of a real-estate extortion scam closely tied with Leftist political groups, and my account was targeted by Reddit for posting counter-narrative material. It will be interesting to see how Reddit responds to the request for reconsideration.

In the meantime, you can read the AMA offsite if you do not want to give Reddit the clicks, or view it on Reddit. Some interesting questions and answers that came out of it:

What are your thoughts about Donald Trump?

Donald Trump represents (1) a cultural revolution against the idea that white people cannot have self-interest and (2) a reversal of direction in the West from ideology toward practical concerns, or time-proven results in the conservative tradition.

I see DJT as a moderate, ultimately, but also a businessman, which means that he measures his successes in terms of how well his projects turn out, not just the theater of public opinion as Leftists do. People elected him because he pointed out the obvious crises of America — big government, diversity, immigration, red tape — and showed how people were suffering on a day-to-day basis because of these. If he acts to reduce these problems, especially BUILD THAT WALL, he will be a success bigger than Reagan. If he does not, he will quickly exit stage left.
My hope for Donald Trump is a reversal of affirmative action, civil rights and anti-discrimination law through an act of Congress, in addition to what he has promised above. These laws mean that if a non-white person wants a job, apartment, sale or home and a white person wants the same, the non-white person always gets it because the seller/employer can be sued for millions of dollars if they do not give it to the non-white. Diversity is killing America, and its forefront is this triad of laws.

In addition, DJT can do some great things for Europe. He is against American ideological intervention in Europe, which frees up Europe to have non-Leftist opinions again. He will make them pay for their own defense, which means that their socialist-style social welfare programs will no longer be affordable. He has started a cultural wave away from the appearance-based Leftist ideology and toward practical realism.
There is much to like about DJT, but I think it is a mistake to see him as a rightist or alt-righter. He simply wants to make this country functional again, but there will be ripple effects from this worldwide that the alt right can seize upon and use to further our message and objectives.

On Nihilism:

On the topic of Nihilism, and I plan to buy your book on the subject, do you see Nihilism as a starting point for reevaluating ones values where one throws out everything they thought they knew, and starts over? Or, Nihilism as a life philosophy where nothing matters?

Great question. Nihilism as I see it is radical skepticism toward humanity, both as individuals and as mobs, which are ultimately individualist because every person in the mob wants to use the mob as their personal army to achieve social acceptance without having to contribute toward a positive direction for society. For this reason, I see nihilism as a clearing out of all the insanity of the Leftist years and The Enlightenment.™
From that space of zero belief in humanity, it is possible to notice nature and the pattern order of reality, and from that to understand what was common knowledge 2,000 years ago, including the divinity inherent to life and the necessity of sane and normal practices like patriarchy, nationalism, reverence and warlike aggression.

On the future:

What do you think is in store for 2017 for the alt right? Where do you think we should focus our energies?

2017 is the year when Donald Trump begins to change American law, but more importantly, he has changed the playing field by refuting the accusation of “racism.”

This campaign was interesting. The Left was accustomed to using its magic word “racist” to make white people stop advocating for their own interests; when they used it on Trump and his followers, they shrugged and said, “If you say so.” This broke the power of the Left.

In addition, we are seeing a wave across the West, including USA and Europe, where people are realizing that Leftist policies have failed, and that we have to change direction if we do not want to be dragged to certain destruction by these policies.

For this reason, I suggest we start with “baby steps” by removing the laws in our way. I mention the triad of affirmative action, civil rights and anti-discrimination laws as a starting point; if we restore freedom of association, the normal functional people are going to break away and leave the freaky rainbow nation of deracinated people of all races and the “beige horizon” mixed race people to their own fate. We need to be able to break free and pursue our own goals, and that requires getting rid of 70 years of Leftist rules designed to stop us from breaking away from the herd and living sane lives on our own. That would be my first point of focus.

On “physical removal”:

What are your opinions on physical removal?

Physical removal is necessary.

I favor gentle kinds of physical removal: reparations only with repatriation for non Western European people in North America, and removal of laws that protect people from their bad decisions, with the idea that eventually it will be time to exile career Leftists — who are, by the criminal nature of Leftism, also criminals — to Brazil.

So, helicopter rides… with gentle landings, far away, and those Leftists become someone else’s problem.

On the alt right:

What do you think is the alt-right’s weakest link right now? What part of our platform is being neglected that we need to reinvigorate going into the Trump administration?

The weakest link on the alt right is that there is confusion about what the alt right is. For a short definition, the alt right is the original Right that is not restrained by political correctness, and so can tell the truth about homogeneity being the best option for society, that equality is nonsense, that democracy is toxic and that diversity is a path to doom.

As far as the neglected parts of our platform, the biggest one is freedom of association. All of us need to put pressure on Donald Trump to remove toxic civil rights laws so that we can have freedom of association again and begin building our community.

On homosexuality:

What is your opinion on homosexuals and bisexuals being in the alt right movement, such as Greg Johnson, James O’Meara or (previously) Jack Donovan?

Homosexuality is a complex topic. First, they occur among our people; second, they tend to die young, suggesting that they are genetically different than the mainstream. Finally, homosexuals are a group in which a great deal of talent rests.

Some say we should not tolerate them, others advocate for equal tolerance. My eyes grow red and my teeth gnash at the mention of anything “equal,” so you can guess what my response will be, which is to take a middle path.

I say bring back the closet. Let gay people be quietly gay, as the gentlemen you mention above tend to want to. If you target them, they will pretend to be heterosexual and will take on heterosexual families, which will spread those genes for early death and create fractured families; no one can fully love a wife if he wants boyfriend. If you norm them, you expose our people to behavior they do not need to see, especially when young. So take a middle path: let there be gay bars and theaters, let gay people do their thing… so long as they keep it quiet and do not work against our interests.

Beyond that, I do not think about it much. I enjoy the writings of all three of the gentlemen you mentioned and think they are a credit to our movement.

On Anders Breivik:

Lately, I’ve seen a lot of people hating on Breivik and completely mis-characterizing him. Care to give your thoughts?

Anders Breivik is a hero. Instead of shooting minorities, he took the fight to the people responsible, which is white Leftists. He informed them that the choice to be a Leftist was not without consequences, which is why they are terrified of him. He did not fight their proxies — the human shields they create in minorities, women, gays, trans, etc. — but fought them directly. What an intellect, and what a man!

On anarchism:

What is your ideal form of government?

No government!

Conservatives are anarchists. We dislike government, but do not mind “authority,” or strong leaders. What we reject is the idea that there should be some bureaucracy to manage us and save us from ourselves. Let Darwin do his blessed work, and each person face the results of his own actions, including early death if that is the case.

In place of government, I prefer strong culture; nationalism allows this. That way, instead of trying to have an incorruptible police officer for every citizen, we let citizens enforce social standards on one another. This is both less “fascist” and less permissive than modernity. To keep that together, we need military leaders like kings and aristocrats to handle defense, cultural activities and giving us an example to follow.

On capitalism:

Marxist or Capitalist?

Strongly capitalist, with the caveat that capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. It cannot exist in a vacuum; we need other forces to regulate it, like strong national culture, a caste system so that the “consumers” who define the market are our smartest and not our lowest common denominator, and powerful leaders like aristocrats and kings. Marxism and socialism simply fail whenever they are tried, and they leave behind zombified people who seem to depend on others to tell them what to do, which over multiple generations becomes a genetic trait of the aggregate population. These ideologies are best avoided in any and every form.

One important distinction here is that while any set of political beliefs may be seen as an ideology, the basis of Leftism is ideology itself, or thinking about what “should” be instead of what is. Conservatism consists of time-proven actions that lead to successes above the norm; Leftism is entirely conjectural, and consists of our human intent — what we wish were true — applied with force as a kind of groupthink, mob rule, hive mind, cult and gang. Naturally this destroys societies, and Marxism is just one variation of this that includes the idea of the State subsidizing its citizens.

And a reading list:

As a nationalist, what do you consider to be required reading for us of that mindset?

Great to see you here! Basic nationalist reading:

  1. Guillaume Faye, Archeofuturism: European Visions of the Post-Catastrophic Age. An insight into how we get past this era in history.
  2. Julius Evola, Men Among The Ruins. Why modern society does not meet our needs, and how to have a spiritual nationalism that saves us from ourselves.
  3. Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State. One of the first modern arguments for nationalism for its own sake, Herzl saw diversity as the cause of racism and pointed out that the only solution was to end diversity.
  4. Malcolm X, The Autobiography of Malcolm X: As Told to Alex Haley. The common sense and far-reaching argument for nationalism: without it, we have nothing in common, and it makes us hateful.
  5. Marcus Garvey, Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey. A sensible view into how each group walks its own path, and has to bypass competition within the diverse state to find its own destiny.
  6. Tom Sunic, Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right. A theoretical approach to thinking our way outside of the world in which we live, a Left-leaning internationalist regime.
  7. Billy Roper, The Big Picture. This one is new, and is a practical argument for nationalism and how to introduce normal people to it.

On top of those, a general background in history, literature and philosophy. For those wanting to enter the latter, Will Durant’s The Story of Philosophy is a good toe-dipping-into-the-water entry point.

This was an invigorating question and answer session and other right-wing figures should consider doing the same to establish a quick summary of your viewpoints.

Why Twitter Is Failing

Thursday, December 22nd, 2016

The cabal of media companies that now control the web are hated because they replaced an open standard with a closed one and are using that to manipulate us. Google, Apple, Twitter, Amazon, Facebook and Reddit have all come under fire for censorship, which has caused some people to speak the sophomoric maxim that they are not censoring anything, because they are private companies.

A more accurate analysis is that these companies, by replacing an open net, have taken it over and now want to “curate” the experience to both (1) remove controversial ideas and (2) turn us into good media sheep like the legacy media empire they replaced. As one writer observes:

In 2014, I was pardoned and released from a prison in Tehran where I spent six years over my web activism. Before I was imprisoned in 2008, all the hype and rage on the internet was found on blogs.

Blogs were the best thing that had ever happened on the internet. They democratized writing and publishing — at least in many parts of the world…All that was made possible because of a brilliant and powerful, but simple and modest innovation: hyperlinks.

The World Wide Web was founded on the links, and without links, there won’t be a web. Without links the experience of being on the internet will become one of a centralized, linear, passive, inward-looking and homogeneous kind. This is happening already, and despite Zuckerberg’s sermon, it is largely Facebook and Instagram who are to be blame for the demise of links, and thereby the death of the open web and all its potentials for a more peaceful world.

Zuckerberg killed links (and the web) because he has created a space that is more like the future of television rather than the internet. Unlike what he preaches, Facebook has divided us into small personal bubbles of comfort.

This is the difference between the open web and the corporate web. On the open web, there are many information providers and you go visit them. The downside is that these sites are not uniform and may not all load quickly. On the corporate web, Google and Facebook show you what they want you to see, ideally while remaining on one of their sites like YouTube or Instagram.

What this means is that these companies are no longer private entities, but have taken over a public space, and are now censoring it for their own benefit. This includes removal of controversial ideas, often by sneaky methods:

Why is this important? The forces that be have realized that government is too easily criticized, and are aiming for another form of opinion control. When they talk about “fake news,” they mean any information outside of this approved arena. When they shadowban accounts, they mean that deviating information threatens their bottom line and cannot be tolerated.

They do all of this while promising to beat back big corporations and liberate you from horrible conservatives.

Perhaps the lasting lesson is that salespeople lie, and that this tendency couples with the eternal human tendency toward attention fixation that causes us to, when made aware of our bad behavior, accuse those who have noticed this bad behavior of the same behavior. This is why the anti-censors are censors and the liberators are enslavers, every time.

As a long-term strategy, this will not work among the people who have any experience of life. This is why the high-end consumers and natural leaders of society have mostly abandoned these platforms. That means that they are left with the audience of people with little purpose in life, minimal influence, and low income.

That in turn might explain this: