Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘richard spencer’

Reminder: “Science” Is Often Fake, And Diversity Never Works

Sunday, September 3rd, 2017

For years, Leftists relied on Stephen Jay Gould’s assertion that the races were all equal because, in Gould’s writing, he claimed that earlier skull measurements were incorrect and that these alterations were motivated by “racism.”

As it turned out, we found out in 2011 that Gould was so wrong as to stretch credulity, causing us to think that as usual, “the Leftist cries out as he strikes you,” or accuses you of exactly what he is doing:

In a 1981 book, “The Mismeasure of Man,” the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that Morton, believing that brain size was a measure of intelligence, had subconsciously manipulated the brain volumes of European, Asian and African skulls to favor his bias that Europeans had larger brains and Africans smaller ones.

…But now physical anthropologists at the University of Pennsylvania, which owns Morton’s collection, have remeasured the skulls, and in an article that does little to burnish Dr. Gould’s reputation as a scholar, they conclude that almost every detail of his analysis is wrong.

…But the Penn team finds Morton’s results were neither fudged nor influenced by his convictions. They identified and remeasured half of the skulls used in his reports, finding that in only 2 percent of cases did Morton’s measurements differ significantly from their own. These errors either were random or gave a larger than accurate volume to African skulls, the reverse of the bias that Dr. Gould imputed to Morton.

…But Dr. Gould himself omitted subgroups in his own reanalysis, and made various errors in his calculations. When these are corrected, the differences between the racial categories recognized by Morton are as he assigned them. “Ironically, Gould’s own analysis of Morton is likely the stronger example of a bias influencing results,” the Pennsylvania team writes.

It is important to realize how pervasive the mental virus of egalitarianism is by looking at cases like the above. Assumptions about systematic racism and unconscious bias were made, revealing the opposite truth: the bias was not there, and the results were the opposite of what was asserted.

When we say that we are egalitarian, we are buying into the caste revolt that has catastrophically ruined the West over the past couple centuries. In order for the proles to seize control, they have to argue that there is nothing different about a king or high IQ person from anyone else, and therefore anyone can rule, and to make that fair, we will all choose whoever that is.

As a necessary side-effect of this, we have to stop noticing differences and adopt the unconscious bias that says that, since all people are equal, different outcomes are the result of chance or “oppression” instead of a difference in ability. This society would have you look at someone with wealth and assume that he has no different abilities from someone who is poor.

Maybe in some cases that is true, but in the vast majority of cases, those who are more intelligent and capable rise above the rest. That outraged us, so we started offering workarounds: education that rewards the obedient instead of the intellectually capable, jobs that reward hours doing nonsense paperwork instead of results, government that chooses what is popular over what is true.

This causes a tension common to failing societies: what “everyone” agrees is true, is in fact not true, and since there is no reward and great risk in speaking what is true, society becomes dedicated to lies. The converse of that is that it must suppress notice of what is actually true, and by doing that, it creates an industry built around sustaining the lies.

Consider that, much as in the French Revolution people were required to pretend that peasants were equal to kings and not laugh at that, in our current day, we are still struggling with the ability to admit differences between social classes, races, ethnic groups, sexes and family lines:

There are three areas where ideology has impinged on biology, trying its best to distort data: differences between human ethnic groups (“races”), between human males and females, and the study of evolutionary psychology.

…The ideologues’ problem with all these areas is the same: were biology to show, for example, that there are genetic differences between sexes, ethnic groups, or cultures, that could be used to justify racism, sexism, and exceptionalism. And indeed, this has happened in the past: all of us know the sordid history of assuming biology translates directly into human rights, which led to eugenics, racism, the denigration of and lack of opportunity for women, and so on.

It is even more damaging than that: if we reveal that, like Stephen Jay Gould’s research, biology is true and ideology was based on lines, then we know it is time to throw out ideology, or what the authors of the above piece refer to as “ought” instead of “is” based thinking. That which is unrealistic is emotional or social in origin, and that means it puts us at a disadvantage for following an illusion.

This is the core of the struggle between the rising dissident Right and modern society: modern society is based on egalitarianism, which is an “ought”-based notion, where the Right is based on what “is,” and then improving that by selecting the best possible option. If diversity does not work, multiculturalism must go, replaced by the better option of benevolent nationalism.

That in turn threatens Leftism itself because the core of their ideology is based on the priestlike ability to grand redemption from “wrongs” that led to inequality, but if inequality is natural and equality is not, then there is no need for redemption:

Here we see redemptive liberalism’s great ingenuity: It seized proprietorship over innocence itself. It took on the power to grant or deny moral legitimacy across society. Liberals were free of the past while conservatives longed to resurrect it, bigotry and all. What else could “Make America Great Again” mean? In this way redemptive liberalism reshaped the moral culture of the entire Western world with sweeping idealisms like “diversity,” which are as common today in Europe as in America.

So today there is sweetness at the news of racism because it sets off the hunt for innocence and power. Racism and bigotry generally are the great driving engines of modern American liberalism. Even a remote hint of racism can trigger a kind of moral entrepreneurism.

…The great problem for conservatives is that they lack the moral glibness to compete with liberalism’s “innocence.” But today there are signs of what I have called race fatigue. People are becoming openly cynical toward the left’s moral muscling with racism. Add to this liberalism’s monumental failure to come even close to realizing any of its beautiful idealisms, and the makings of a new conservative mandate become clearer. As idealism was the left’s political edge, shouldn’t realism now be the right’s?

This shows us an even greater split, as noted by Samuel Huntington, which is that Leftism is inherently universalistic, or based on what humans have in common, but that is a social construct because people are increasingly concerned with what makes them and their specific local group united instead.

For that reason, identity politics is rising because as Mr. Steele notes above, Leftism has failed to “come even close to realizing any of its beautiful idealisms.” People are fleeing the Left, and turning instead to what they have in common with others that is exclusive of other groups, which causes a rise in identitarianism alongside a simultaneous rejection of universalism, or the notion that we are all the same and therefore, the largest unit within civilization is the individual:

Recent surveys suggest that roughly 47 percent of Republicans are what you might call conservative universalists and maybe 40 percent are what you might call conservative white identitarians. White universalists believe in conservative principles and think they apply to all people and their white identity is not particularly salient to them. White identitarians are conservative, but their white identity is quite important to them, sometimes even more important than their conservatism.

These white identitarians have taken the multicultural worldview taught in schools, universities and the culture and, rightly or wrongly, have applied it to themselves. As Marxism saw history through the lens of class conflict, multiculturalism sees history through the lens of racial conflict and group oppression.

…I’d love to see more research on the relationship between white identity politics and simple racism. There’s clear overlap, but I suspect they’re not quite the same thing. Racism is about feeling others are inferior. White identitarianism is about feeling downtrodden and aggrieved yourself.

The latter sentence is not quite true: white identitarianism is not just white, but focuses on ethnic groups within the European races, and is not based on feeling aggrieved so much as realizing that, if universalism (egalitarianism) is wrong, then no one else will represent the interests of a group that they do not belong to.

For members of a definable ethnic group, this means that they alone must stand up for their own interests, have their own country, ethnic self-determination or control of their future, impose their own standards and laws, defend their language and practice, maintain their genetic heritage, and do so in full knowledge that every other group is representing its own interests, which are contrary to their own.

The Left has acknowledged this, mainly by calling anyone who stands up for their ethnic interests and is also white or whitish a “white supremacist” which equates acting in self-interest while white with wanting whites to rule the world and subjugate other races:

It’s easy to focus on the angry white men in paramilitary gear who looked like they were mobilizing for a race war in the Virginia college town. But it’s the ordinary people — the voters who elected a reality TV star with a record of making racially insensitive comments, the people who move out of the neighborhood when people of color move in, the family members who ignore a relative’s anti-Semitism — who give these type of men room to operate, they say.

That was the twisted formula that made the Holocaust and Rwanda possible and allowed Jim Crow segregation to survive: Nice people looked the other way while those with an appetite for violence did the dirty work, says Mark Naison, a political activist and history professor at Fordham University in New York City.

Never mind that “nice people looking the other way” is what enables Antifa to rampage across the land while Leftists destroy vital institutions, tear down statues, censor free speech and engage in other totalitarian practices that fit within the gulags, censorship, guillotines and secret police heritage of Leftism that goes back to the French Revolution in 1789.

The Leftist argument that white self-interest is “supremacist” only if we make the assumption that multiculturalism is a permanent state, and one group wanting to be in control of itself somehow deprives other groups of something that only that group can provide, like welfare benefits and entitlements. That order has already died, although the death scene is taking some time to play out on stage.

As much as it aggrieves the Left and Leftist minorities, whites are going their own way. They do not want to be part of the multicultural tapestry of failure any longer. They are tired of being the group which is worked into the ground to pay for taxes that support a permanent minority underclass while whites face higher victimization at the hands of other groups.

Historical guilt only goes so far. Like the bad science, it was based on lies, and so now people have thrown out the entire argument. They do not want to “just get along”; they want to just get away from what is obviously another crazy ideology which is going to plunge everyone into disaster, much like Communism and National Socialism did.

This much has been apparent for some time. People trust results, but are less trustful of ideology, and so were resistant to the Tower of Babel agenda until the 1960s, when the combination of WWII anti-racism and a desire to out-compete the Soviets by offering more freedom and social benefits to living here converted the West into a Leftist ideological regime which then expanded after the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. With its competition gone, the Western capitalist-Leftist hybrid could triumph over the socialist-Leftist variety.

However, since the 1860s, Americans have been wary of the “one big happy” approach that was used to federalize the independent states so that the USA could unite behind an ideological agenda, and at that point, the Americans hit on the French Revolutionary ideal of equality for workers across the globe, and spun that into an anti-slavery narrative that surpassed previous abolitionist efforts in its dogmatic ferocity.

This agenda reached its full power with the defeat of the last ostensibly Right-leaning powers in WWII, and accelerated after the fall of the Soviets, causing an intensification of things whites had noticed about their homelands — constant ethnic violence, higher crime, loss of social trust, abolition of values and standards, and the dumbing-down of almost everything — since diversity became state policy in the 1940s.

As the 1990s approached with a post-Reagan Leftist narrative diversity and immigration, conservatives wanted to speak out, but felt they could not, and they were proven right by the ongoing destruction of careers for having said the wrong thing. The first incident to really make this popular was the crucifixion of Jimmy “The Greek” Synder in 1988, which shattered his career and left him to die, penniless and alone, eight years later.

Leftists had realized, during the Reagan years, that they could use diversity as a weapon. Given the choice, white people tended to vote for conservatives who would then interrupt the cozy arrangement that liberals had with industry. The only solution was to replace white people by using immigration, legal and illegal alike, as well as accelerated affirmative action to replace whites in positions of power.

At this point, a curious inversion began to happen. Previous diversity theory had held that whichever group was dominant was the only group that could be “racist”; newer thinkers began to realize that, with government behind an ideology, it could use diversity to replace the dominant group through forced interaction, outbreeding and civil rights and affirmative action style employment, education and quota programs in position of authority.

As a result, white people began to think the unthinkable… the despite being the historical majority, they might be entitled to have an identity and act in defense of it, too. This helped united the disparate elements of anti-modern thinking — social conservatives, human biodiversity, men’s rights, the New Right, libertarians, monarchists, traditionalists, and the Old Right — into a common movement based around the defense of the rights of the majority against the historical narrative of guilt and oppression.

These movements rediscovered the nationalism of the 1900s through 1940s, and now began to express it as a right to nationalism for all peoples which thwarted the modern agenda of globalism and diversity, or merging all peoples inevitably into one grey race that, lacking culture and identity of its own, would dependent on Soviet-style Leftist government for its sense of purpose:

But the reasoning behind the linking of the two symbols – white supremacy and Zionism – is far from torturous. The two are not strange bedfellows, but rather natural allies. Both represent a desire to establish and maintain a homogeneous society that posits itself as superior, more advanced, more civilised than the “others” who are, unfortunately, within its midst, a “demographic threat” to be contained through border walls and stricter immigration law. American fascism, then, is holding up a mirror to Zionism.

…Spencer explained that, logically, Zionists should “respect” his views: “… an Israeli citizen, someone who understands your identity, who has a sense of nationhood and peoplehood, and the history and experience of the Jewish people, you should respect someone like me, who has analogous feelings about whites. You could say that I am a white Zionist – in the sense that I care about my people, I want us to have a secure homeland for us and ourselves. Just like you want a secure homeland in Israel”.

…”Do you really want radical inclusion into the State of Israel?” Spencer replied. “Jews exist precisely because you did not assimilate to the gentiles… I respect that about you. I want my people to have that same sense of themselves.” Rosenberg was left speechless, unable to effectively rebuke Spencer.

For too long, we have been taught a fake narrative of diversity along with fake science because both are needed to support the illusion that “equality” is desirable, functional and will lead to good things. It has failed, leaving us with a corrupt and tyrannical government, a shattered economy, social unrest and a people who are blighted by promiscuity, obesity, moral incontinence and the narcissism that is found in the intersection of hipsterism, special snowflake syndrome, and the victim narrative. The nationalist ideal is rising because the internationalist, globalist, diversity and multicultural ideal has been implemented and it is a disaster.

Diversity has already died, just like Stephen Jay Gould’s theory that all humans are the same in abilities. More importantly, the notion that we can exist without acting in our own self-interest as organic groups has died, and with it, the Leftist ideal of one world population has collapsed. Now we are fighting over how to make the transition without committing the errors of the past.

Future Alt Right Lawsuits May Devastate Cities

Sunday, September 3rd, 2017

The University of Florida denied Richard Spencer permission to hold an event at its campus, citing security concerns. According to the university, safety was the reason as it always is when denying “dangerous” groups permission to speak:

The Gainesville, Fla., university said on Wednesday it would deny a request by Spencer to rent event space on campus for his speech. In a statement, UF president W. Kent Fuchs cited safety concerns for the decision.

Online groups had threatened violent clashes on campus similar to the protests in Charlottesville, Va. that resulted in one woman’s death when she was struck by a car allegedly driven by a white nationalist. Fuchs said while he found Spencer’s beliefs “repugnant,” that had nothing to do with the university’s decision.

…”However, the First Amendment does not require a public institution to risk imminent violence to students and others,” Fuchs said. “The likelihood of violence and potential injury – not the words or ideas – has caused us to take this action.”

In a sense, Spencer holds universities hostage because he has a right to speak at publicly-funded institutions, but his presence brings out the Leftist groups that then create violence. Any place where he shows up, guaranteed mayhem and chaos will soon follow. In this sense, he can retaliate against any Left-leaning city by simply coming to speak there, and leaving as the place burns. This is an intelligent strategy as it raises the cost of being Leftist for cities, universities and other public institutions.

For now, perhaps, the “safety” excuse will hold, but in future lawsuits, Spencer and others will be able to destroy this excuse by pointing out that the difference between having violence and having zero violence depends on one single factor: anonymity. When Antifa are unmasked, no violence occurs; when they are allowed to keep their masks on, they tend to loot, vandalize and deposit filth.

A good approach might be for people who are injured in violence resulting from Leftist clashes to sue the institution at which this happened, pointing out that such an institution is negligent for not removing the masks from Antifa and other Leftist groups known to use violence against the Alt Right.

That way, not only are the constitutional rights of the Right protected, but the people near that institution do not suffer personal and property damage from the Leftist mob. As more lawyers come onboard the Alt Right, it is likely that high-cost lawsuits will force these institutions to unmask Antifa and allow the Alt Right to speak.

What Is The Alt Right?

Tuesday, July 18th, 2017

Despite much writing on the topic, most are confused about what the Alt Right actually is. Most simply follow the mainstream media line that the Alt Right is a revival of white nationalism or national socialism.

However, the Alt Right is actually more nuanced than that, combining elements of traditionalism, the European New Right, extreme libertarianism, human biodiversity, men’s rights, anti-modernism, deep ecology, monarchism, nationalism and the Old Right into what is more a series of discussion points as part of a cultural wave that distrusts globalism and its handmaiden, the string of ideologies emerging from “equality.”

It was formed to get away from both the Republican-In-Name-Only (RINO) “cuckservatives” and the antisocial white nationalists. Let us recap why ordinary and successful people mostly avoided white nationalism, as written elegantly and comprehensively by Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent in his penetrating postmortem of white nationalism:

White Nationalism 1.0 was a much smaller movement and disproportionately attracted an audience of edge cases. These people are extreme non-conformists and expressive individualists. This stratum of the population is always found at the fringes of society and have a personality type that is resistant to social conditioning. The same characteristic that initially opened their minds to our message holds back the larger social movement when they reach a critical mass.

There are legions of these ornery people out there who are naturally disagreeable and incapable of finding common ground and working with others to advance a common purpose. They are a familiar figure in all marginalized extremist movements. The low trust, anonymous nature of online messageboards is the perfect breeding ground for their worst tendencies.

…Their message and presentation was stupid, vicious, crazy or ugly. It was easier for the opposition to brand these people with stereotypes and marginalize them. They responded to their rejection by seeing themselves as part of a chosen few.

This is an excellent introduction to why white nationalism drove people away; in addition, as Wallace notes, it was too narrow and had no comprehensive plan for making life better for normal, healthy people. It also focused on being underground politics when it needed to find a presence in culture, including the arts, which it could not do as doctrinaire dogma for life-dropouts.

Starting in the late 1990s, I began writing what I saw as a successor to white nationalism: a movement based on the nationalist idea of the organic society in which people lived for existential greatness instead of materialism, which extended to a type of relaxed but comprehensive roots conservatism. The basis of this was strict realism paired with a question of “what is the best life” for our people.

These ideas developed through an older website and more recently, CORRUPT, a website which featured the Alt Right blend of nationalism, anti-modernism, anti-globalism, transcendental focus and awareness of Austrian economics.

As time went on, these ideas spread through the thoughtful — not necessarily “educated,” as this is not something worth blindly trusting, and many of our best dropped out of high school — wing of the Right and other dissident movements. Eventually, it made its way to many smaller movements who carried on its essential ideas:

First, we don’t think it is useful to have organizations that you can “join.” The internet attracts people who are either using it to get something done, or are hanging out using it to entertain themselves. We don’t want any of the latter, because they will “join” and then do nothing, assuming that having “liked” us means they are being armchair activists. We want those people to go away. The former group, who are here for information, do not need to “join” anything, but need to find some answers.

This leads to the second point: you don’t need to “join” us, but to take our ideas, and join other real-world organizations. Infiltrate the Democratic party, or the local Chamber of Commerce. Show up to technical meetings and inject some ideas. Both the future and the past of National Socialism are built on the independent action of strong people. Be that type of person. You don’t do that by “joining” some internet page. In fact, feeling like all you need to do is join a page makes you more inclined to think your job is done, and to go purchase doughnuts and beer and then go home to watch television.

Here’s a brief list of things you can do to be effective in spreading National Socialism:

  1. Succeed in school and at work. Become a leader that people respect by being successful.
  2. Be active in your community. Get known for your good deeds and wisdom. People will follow you.
  3. Unite people around culture and values. Without being political, you can support classical music, the arts, and traditions in your homeland.
  4. Act independently of others and flaunt it. The biggest political force is conformity. Do what’s right, and laugh at the herd.

This followed a more varied platform that escaped the narrow focus of white nationalism:

Our platform is as follows, and applies to every nation on earth:

  1. Exclude all but the indigenous. Each nation has a founding ethnic group with accompanying culture, religion, language and customs. We will grant citizenship only to full-blooded members of that group.
  2. End all socialist programs. Any program that involves reward before showing results of labor is banned.
  3. Return of Nazi environmental law. In every area except cities, most of the land must be natural and untouched; all freeways must be sheathed in woodland; protection for natural species; limits on size and number of cities.
  4. Support for small business. Give tax breaks, aid and protection to small businesses. Low taxes for all businesses.
  5. Return freedom of association. No person should be forced to hire, sell to, rent to, or even talk to another. This allows government to stop regulating behaviors like deviance and drug use, which can be cured by cultural means, namely ostracization.
  6. Restore the monarchy. As Schopenhauer says, we should take the noblest and most intelligent and breed them to produce a natural elite. This is the best form of government.
  7. Send undesirables elsewhere. Our goal is to protect the good people, not universal rights for all, including the broken. The retarded, criminal, perverse and sociopathic should be sent elsewhere. Their rights do not surpass those of ordinary citizens.
  8. Reduce taxes and size of government. Government is there to protect culture, genetics and environment (blood and soil) not to tell us how to live. Reduce all programs but those.
  9. Support system. Use the power of the taxpayer base to buy job insurance, life insurance and healthcare for citizens and sell to them at these reduced prices.
  10. A new work ethic. The old work ethic is “show us how obedient you are by being here all the time.” The new one will be: show us results, and we don’t care how you did it. Go home and spend time with your family.

Most people are accustomed to the idea that if something needs to be done, government forms a new branch and then sends bureaucrats to make it happen. That doesn’t work! Instead, we use indirect methods because they are less intrusive and work better.

This site is just an example; others spread these terms on further, where uniting with other influences, they produced the brew that is the Alt Right today. There were Nazis endorsing nationalism for both Israel and Europe simultaneously; Neoreactionaries espousing a hyper-libertarianism that rejected democracy; and rumblings about how “equality” always meant Robin Hood programs that impoverished everyone.

Finally, Paul Gottfried — a great writer, entirely worth reading — spoke of the need for an “alternative” to the mainstream Right and underground antisocial Right, and a group at Alternative Right magazine (which since has split into a new version of itself and AltRight.com) began writing about the need for this new idea.

Now, these ideas are reaching mainstream publications:

Yesterday’s African nationalists argued, reasonably, that you cannot develop an African civilization if your center of political authority is still in Europe.

Today’s Western nationalists argue, also plausibly, that many European distinctives are unlikely to survive if nation-states are weak, mass immigration constant, Christianity and Judaism replaced by indifferentism and Islam.

…Nor do I have much confidence that the present burst of European nationalism is more than a spasm, a reflex — not when religious practice is so weak, patriotism so attenuated, the continent’s birthrate so staggeringly low.

Our job is to avoid being that mere spasm. We have to rise above what we have been, and become what we were born to be, as Richard Spencer reminds us. A spasm is formed of a reaction to what has already been done, and a desire to remove some bads in the hope that only goods remain. A long-standing movement is formed by having an idea of what we want, knowing what is coming, and designing a plan to protect our people.

If the Alt Right has a unifying idea, it is that Western Civilization is worth preserving and because it has fallen, that we must rebirth it. No civilization can exist without its people, and without genetically Western European people, there is no Western Civilization. But now, they are confused and lost, and need a guide not just away from lies, but to a place of greatness and virtue.

#SpencerGate Fails To Be Convincing

Monday, July 10th, 2017

Some clever person did a bunch of research and looked into Richard Spencer’s background, but also made the accusation that Richard Spencer has Jewish ancestors:

Sherry Spencer’s father, being Richard Spencer’s grandfather on his mom’s side, is Richard Dickenhorst (1923-2002). And his mother, being Richard Spencer’s great-grandmother, was Birdie M E Eckstein (1893-1972) – Jewish! Her father, being Richard Spencer’s great-great-grandfather, was August S. Eckstein (1859-1929) – also Jewish!

It is not really reliable to infer from last names alone that Spencer has a Jewish ancestor, especially since no one in his family looks Jewish. Here are his parents, who are cute in that way that couples get when they have seemingly opposite personalities but work well together. Note the open smile from the mother, and kill-you-or-eat-you death stare from the dad.

On to the last name Eckstein, which means “cornerstone” in German and is explained by Ancestry.com — as cited in the article — as follows:

German: from Middle High German ecke “corner” + stein “stone,” hence a metonymic occupational name for a stonemason or bricklayer, or a topographic name for someone who lived near a rocky outcrop. Jewish (Ashkenazic): ornamental name from German “cornerstone.”

In other words, this name could imply Jewishness… but just as equally could simply be a German family name. When the Ashkenazim split off from other diaspora Jewish groups, they cut themselves down to a little over three hundred individuals and began a long path through Eastern Europe into Germany, where many adopted the “ornamental” names that most of recognize as Jewish: Rosenthal, Steinberg, Kauffmann, Goldberg, and so on. Some of these described occupations, and others were pleasant-sounding names that covered up the original Middle Eastern origin names. But that does not mean that only Jews took these ornamental names, or that there was not overlap with occupational names, such as might belong to a stonemason.

More research would be needed if one found this issue difficult. It seems more likely to me that Spencer has risen above the rest as a leader, and so he is getting criticism from those who either want to take his place, think they should have been in his place, or want to destroy anyone who does not share their ideology, which is in people of this type usually accelerationism plus preparations for an apocalyptic final race war.

People like Spencer and other higher-IQ thought leaders on the Right tend to instead look at our current situation as one might a corporation hovering near bankruptcy: bad decisions were made, so we need to un-do those and start instead doing what made the company successful in the past, but improve it so that it can be reborn as even more powerful than before. Even if Spencer were 100% Jewish and wearing a rainbow kippah, if he can push our people in that direction, he is someone we should listen to.

A Simplified, Forward Vision For the Alt Right: Lord of the Rings + Spaceships

Monday, July 10th, 2017

The Alt Right has stumbled lately through a loss of momentum. Much of this comes as its vision becomes blurred after achieving immediate objectives like public acceptance and support of nationalist candidates such as Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen.

More of it comes through the nature of conservative movements as “big tents.” People come to the Alt Right from libertarianism, conservatism, nationalism or even Leftism. It tries to accommodate them all, and in the process, runs the risk of being diluted and becoming a version of its own influences through a sort of “reverse assimilation.”

To unite these groups, the Alt Right needs a clear, simple and visual direction. We need to know where we are headed; are we merely Republicans who dislike diversity? Or Knights Templar returned to bring transhumanism to the stars? Our enemies think we are re-warmed Nazis and Klan members; most people see us as trolls. In the midst of this confusion, the Alt Right floats adrift.

Perhaps we should look into what all white people, in their innermost selves, crave. And in a gesture that is uncommon here at Amerika, perhaps we should use visual indicators of the first order, namely ((( movies ))) which have captured the imagination of the greatest number of white people over the past few decades.

The first obviously would be Lord of the Rings. These three movies together form a story arc that can be summarized as “different races join together for a vast race war that culminates in the restoration of the monarchy.” It is hard to get more un-PC than that, but when your races are Elves, Hobbits and Men, it becomes easier to slip it past the censors.

Another epic film series, although only the first movie is good, is Star Wars. In this film — which came out at the peak of the Cold War — a rag-tag band of misfits battle an imperial force that resembles a hybrid between the Soviets, Romans and Nazis. It was interesting in that it combined Buddhist mysticism with Tom Clancy-styled political fiction and pulp sci-fi of the first order.

In its heart, the Alt Right wants Lord of the Rings with spaceships. We might visualize this as the world that J.R.R. Tolkien created, fused with the imaginative space conflict of George Lucas. Or, to make it more abstract, we want the sense of order from Tolkien, and the feeling of purpose from Star Wars.

These two seem a bit at odds, but there is more than meets the eye.

  1. Aristocracy. Carrie Fisher’s Princess Leia is in fact royalty, and signs of other noble houses appear in subsequent movies. Similarly, in Tolkien we have not just kings, but lords, stewards, and other features of a healthy aristocracy.
  2. Caste. Bilbo and Frodo Baggins are not just hobbits, but landowners, which is why Samwise Gamgee is “my gardener” to Frodo. In the Star Wars universe, Luke’s freeholding aunt and uncle appear to be a different caste from those in the town.
  3. Virtue. The good parts, opposed to the evil parts, of both of these societies are very much virtue cultures where doing the right thing is more important than survival.
  4. Religion. Surprisingly, the religious angle is less strong in Tolkien, but very present, with a theology involving an afterlife and reincarnation. In Star Wars, characters are able to exert their will physically by joining with a metaphysical “Force.”
  5. Darwinism. Neither of these worlds involve any socialism, subsidy state, entitlements, benefits or even much intrusion of government. Star Wars resembles Heinlein’s libertarian universe, but with culture instead of personal appetites at its core, and Lord of the Rings is a feudal, pre-government society.

What sort of belief systems influenced the creators of these works? As it turns out, Tolkien left us some clues:

Tolkien was, in his choleric way, giving voice to his deepest convictions regarding the ideal form of human society—albeit fleeting voice. The text of his sole anarcho-monarchist manifesto, such as it is, comes from a letter he wrote to his son Christopher in 1943 (forgive me for quoting at such length):

My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs)—or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate real of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could go back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so to refer to people . . . .

And anyway, he continues, “the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men”:

Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. At least it is done only to a small group of men who know who their master is. The mediaevals were only too right in taking nolo episcopari [“I do not want to be bishop” – Ed.] as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop.

Grant me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you dare call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers. And so on down the line. But, of course, the fatal weakness of all that—after all only the fatal weakness of all good natural things in a bad corrupt unnatural world—is that it works and has only worked when all the world is messing along in the same good old inefficient human way . . . .

There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal.

…since our perpetual electoral cycle is now largely a matter of product recognition, advertising, and marketing strategies, we must be content often to vote for persons willing to lie to us with some regularity or, if not that, at least to speak to us evasively and insincerely. In a better, purer world—the world that cannot be—ambition would be an absolute disqualification for political authority.

I include the final paragraph fragment from author David Bentley Hart because it explains Tolkien’s perspective so well. In the above we have a few vital ideas: a desire for no government and control (a term left undefined), support for absolute monarchy, a belief that those who seek power are corrupt, and an anarcho-primitivism that desires an inefficient form of human civilization.

These are interesting to fit together because they work well together. Under a monarchy, citizens arguably have the most flexibility to determine how they spend their time, which probably serves better than enumerated rights and freedoms as a signifier of the good life. There are no rules and regulations, only “use your best judgment” delegated to people whose ancestors were wiser and gentler than the rest. While there are also no free stuff social benefits to save people from themselves, on the flip side, taxes are lower and there is almost no red tape, paperwork and the like. Most of the miserable events of modern society are simply missing.

Now let us take a peek at what George Lucas believed:

Lucas was born and raised in a strongly Methodist family. After inserting religious themes into Star Wars he would eventually come to identify strongly with the Eastern religious philosophies he studied and incorporated into his movies, which were a major inspiration for “the Force.” Lucas eventually came to state that his religion was “Buddhist Methodist.”

…Lucas’s Protestant family background has always been evident to those who have analyzed his films. Lucas has a clearly defined belief in God, and good and evil; Lucas has been described by some as a pantheist. Lucas is a friend of Joseph Campbell, from whom he has derived much of his philosophy. Discussing the development of the idea of the Force, Lucas said: “The Force evolved out of various developments of character and plot. I wanted a concept of religion based on the premise that there is a God and there is good and evil. I began to distill the essence of all religions into what I thought was a basic idea common to all religions and common to primitive thinking. I wanted to develop something that was nondenominational but still had a kind of religious reality. I believe in God and I believe in right and wrong. I also believe that there are basic tenets which through history have developed into certainties, such as ‘thou shalt not kill.’ I don’t want to hurt other people. ‘Do unto others…’ is the philosophy that permeates my work.” [Source: Ryder Windham. Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace Scrapbook. Random House (1999), pg. 11.]

George also recalled a period of existential anguish when he was six. ‘It centered around God,’ he recalled. ‘What is God? But more than that, what is reality? What is this? It’s as if you reach a point and suddenly you say, “Wait a second, what is the world? What are we? What am I? How do I function in this, and what’s going on here?” [Source: John Baxter, Mythmaker: The Life and Work of George Lucas, Avon Books: New York, NY (1999), p.22]

Jean Renoir said that every artist has only one story. If that is true, then what is Lucas’s? It’s a question he’s always been unwilling to answer. If pressed, he disclaims any personal vision, referring back to the body of myth, the thirty-two basic plot situations enumerated by Joseph Campbell in The Hero with a Thousand Faces, or the accumulation of racial memory evoked by Carl Gustav Jung. ‘I took off from the folk side of things,’ he told the New York Times, looking back on Star Wars from the perspective of a quarter-century, ‘and tried to stay with universal themes apart from violence and sex, which are the only other two universal themes that seem to work around the world. My films aren’t that violent or sexy. Instead, I’m dealing with the need for humans to have friendships, to be compassionate, to band together to help each other and to join together against what is negative.’ Except it was precisely these aspects of earlier Star Wars adventures that critics found lacking in The Phantom Menace. [Source: John Baxter, Mythmaker: The Life and Work of George Lucas, Avon Books: New York, NY (1999), p.403-404]

This gives us some insight into the purpose behind Star Wars: like classical civilization, it was a quest to put things in balance and to live according to a principle of achieving the good, and fighting the bad. While on the surface “The Force” is quite hippie, underneath the skin it is a doctrine of war.

How could we fuse these two similar-but-different worlds? We may not have to. As Richard Spencer has said on several occasions, we do not need to know our exact endpoint, only the direction we want to take, and we can achieve it gradually as we get closer to realizing it. This is how most projects or quests in life turn out: starting as general ideas, and moving to the specific over time.

What is most important about this realization — Lord of the Rings plus spaceships — is that it explicitly rejects modernity without making the mistake that most people do of confusing modernity with technology. Modernity is the time that came out of The Renaissance™: a time based on human individuals, not natural or divine order, as the ancient civilizations of The Odyssey, Beowulf and even the Middle Ages had been. Something in all of us Caucasian-types yearns for that kind of significance and meaning, although we have not yet connected this to our dislike of paperwork, obsequy, boxy architecture, ideology, rules, regulations and jobs that sap our souls.

The Alt Right needs a way to unite itself and a purpose. Leftism is the idea of equality; conservatism is the idea of order, but it is more of a gut instinct or folkway than a procedural belief system like ideology, so that is then open to interpretation, which means that everybody’s got an opinion and they loosely ally while fighting it out.

One of the elusive secrets of human populations is that the only way to unify a group is to stop fighting it out and give them a vision they can share as something to move forward to. Conservatives work well with ideas that emphasize order based on what has worked in the past, which is the “conserve” part of conservatism and conservationism alike.

However, in order to know which working methods to choose, they rely on a goal of qualitative improvement of all things in life, like a gardener tweaking his plots or a mother raising children. This requires us to have a forward goal that says we can improve the quality of existence not just materially but in our spirits as well, and that requires a grand goal instead of the politics-as-usual bickering over “issues” that rely on modern or Leftist methods to “fix” eternal problems.

When we look at the past, we see a method that worked better, but unlike modern ideology or religion it was not centered around a “big idea,” but instead a handful of bits of knowledge that are needed to make a civilization function. We abandoned that knowledge, and our technology — which was nascent but setting the groundwork needed for future development — grew, so that now we have a vast and powerful human dominion over Earth and are finding ourselves asking, “But what is the purpose?”

It does not take a huge amount of wealth, power and technology to have grocery stores, libraries and basic health care. If we were going to be sensible about our extra wealth and energy, we might put it into exploring the stars so that we can escape the limits imposed on us by time. But here, the story gets interesting, because the two threads of ancient kingdoms and hyper-modern spaceships come together.

We are not going to be exploring the stars in our present state of mind or degree of organization to our civilization. We are, quite simply, not ready, both on a personal level where people can barely control their own desires, and on a social level, where the pleasure-seeking behavior of the multitudes has created cruel and manipulative leaders who steer the mass culture with mentally convenient ideas that always turn out to be lies, or at least extremely partial truths.

For us to get to the stars, we have to fix ourselves, and that begins with fixing our social order so that it rewards good behavior and banishes bad, which in turn will allow natural selection to work on making us (again) as fit, intelligent and wise as our ancestors. At that point, we can contemplate exploring the stars, and so realize a vision deeply embedded in the hopes of each of us.

Why Are People Prone To Destructive Behavior?

Saturday, June 24th, 2017

Throughout human history, the cycle repeats: a few innovators create something good, then the herd arrives, then the good thing becomes the same old thing, and then it becomes a ruin and “no one” knows why.

Like most cycles, this one repeats because the behavior that causes it is the same, sort of like how one might regularly trip over the shoes left outside the door the night before because that was a convenient place to take them off. Humans exhibit the same behavior time and again.

What is important about this is that the behavior is unintentional, meaning that its results were not intended or even considered by the participants. They did what made sense, and ended up at bad results nonetheless, but for some reason, cannot learn from the experience so repeat it pathologically.

If we dig down a bit, we can see that the problem is individualism, or the tendency to put self first before concerns for the right type of order and social structure in an organization. To defend this choice, individuals glom together into collectives to force the group to tolerate each of them or face their collective wrath.

In ancient times, individualism was seen as hubris. The ancients saw the world as having an intangible order of rightness, balance, beauty and truth. This was not truth in our modern sense of isolated facts, but truth in that it was an accurate representation of intuition and order of nature united through a type of creative imagination that “saw” the world in metaphorical terms.

Hubris was the violation of this order, which was not categorical in our modern sense of giving every object a single category identity and then filtering with a yes/no type of thought process. To the ancients, everything had its place, and when all was in balance, life itself could not be altered as in Utopian fantasies, but it could be gradually qualitatively improved.

For this reason, the ancients never changed the fundamental form of human civilization, which involves an aristocracy, caste system, ritual customs, strong symbolism, and a type of vision of reality that we might describe as “hallucinogenic” and “mystical” today. For the ancients, the world was alive, and we humans were just actors in a bigger drama that we could not possibly understand.

Individualism inverted all of that, by saying (per The Enlightenment™) that the order of the universe was the human being, and that what mattered was the material safety and comfort of the individual, and not having any things above the individual — heritage, culture, kings, gods — for which the individual must sacrifice. The ego won out in the battle of parts of our personalities.

But now, others are speaking out about the corrupting and destroying role of individualism in human affairs:

I see the curse of extreme individualism in so many areas. There is the fact that so many people who have been converted to our ideas prefer to remain anonymous, disorganized and inactive. There is the fact that the overwhelming majority of our people are so sunk in extreme individualism that they don’t care about our heritage or the fate of future generations – the most extreme example being the millions of women who have aborted their own children…More broadly, the American family and civic organizations in general have crumbled as a result of the triumph of expressive individualism in our culture since the 1960s.

Alexis de Tocqueville, the author of Democracy in America, once observed that the extreme individualism fostered by liberal democracy leads to extreme conformity. In liberal democracies, the common man doesn’t want to be on the wrong side of Public Opinion, which is his Almighty God.

And others have incorporated it into the anti-individualism position of the Alt Right:

The alt-right is against the free market and cares little for the constitution. Spencer opposes individualism and supports a version of the European Union, but has also expressed admiration towards the Soviet Union for protecting Russians against Western liberal democracy.

They are correct. The individual is the only God that modernity will accept. From the idea of equality, which states that all must be included and treated the same despite the wide variation in their contributions and sanity, to the notion from The Renaissance™ and The Enlightenment™ which states that man is the measure of all things and the human form — not content — is idealized, this era was defined by its worship of the individual. It has ended, as selfish things always do, in a cloud of debt, failure, corruption, insanity, selfishness and neurosis.

How to escape individualism? One can only escape a bad goal by finding another goal, because the state of having no goal always results in default human behaviors. One must desire something else, such as the desire to become good:

The mainstream modern assumptions are that the aim of life is hedonic: enhancing happiness, diminishing suffering – the main moral imperative is unselfishness, sharing.

…So perhaps the most valuable thing that could be done nowadays is to strive for sanctity, in oneself I mean.

…The world does not really need more people to ‘do good’, but for some people to become good.

This is consistent with the vision of the ancients, namely the observation that humans during a Golden Age were motivated by virtue instead of materiality, as chronicled by Plato:

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

Individualism is materialism. By training our minds on what we are now, and fearing its loss, we become defensive toward the world and thus try to control it, which in turn controls us because it makes us beholden and obedient to certain illusions. A better perspective is to fit the individual into a natural order, and to take delight in that role, because when we are where we belong, we not only do no harm but have our only chance for real excellence. Better to be an excellent janitor than an inept stockbroker or general!

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.

Richard Spencer Defeats The Establishment And Antifa In One Blow

Thursday, April 20th, 2017

Richard Spencer spoke at Auburn University and advanced the Alt Right cause by pushing back the Left, and in doing so, causing the university and its police to become accountable, at which point they acted in self-interest by disabling Antifa by removing their masks.

This was a complete victory for the Right.

First, Spencer and his supporters cucked the university by forcing it to let him speak, which in turn compelled the university to act against instead of with the Communist protest groups, including antifa, “anarchists” and other thinly-disguised Reds:

Reiterating his key talking points, Spencer denounced diversity as “a way of bringing to an end a nation and a culture” defined by white people.

“There would be no history without us,” he said, prompting shouts from the crowd. “The alt-right is really about putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.”

…Spencer, 38, director of the white nationalist think tank National Policy Institute, has been a target for his radical beliefs. He has advocated a “peaceful ethnic cleansing,” where people who are not of European descent voluntarily leave the United States.

Bonus points if he upgrades that to “people who are not of Western European descent voluntarily leave the United States,” presumably as the welfare state and racial subsidy programs like Affirmative Action, Civil Rights and HUD are cut.

Here’s his speech:

The importance of this event, in addition to the content of his speech, is that he forced back the usual way of doing things, which is for the Establishment to favor its Leftists pets, the antifa who scare normal people into cucking and supporting whatever Leftism, Inc. is banging the tin drum for during that fiscal quarter.

For example, contrast what happened in Berkeley with what happened in Auburn:

According to Southern, the Berkeley police disarmed the free speech marchers while allowing the black-clad Antifa domestic terrorists to use M-80 explosives, pepper spray and teargas. As soon as Antifa became violent, the Berkeley police stood down and retreated away from the melee, leaving the free speech marchers dangerously exposed.

Part of the reason for this was that Berkeley police were not actually involved in the demonstration. For them, it was another public event, so the right thing to do was to obey union rules and retreat whenever it sounded like an officer might be in danger.

In Auburn, instead, Spencer forced the establishment to take responsibility for its actions. This created an incentive for the university to desire order, since it could not simply externalize chaos onto society at large, and so officers did the sanest thing ever, which was to remove Antifa masks and so make them behave because they were no longer anonymous:

This was necessary because the school had canceled the event because of threats of violence, and once forced by a federal court order to allow the event, they realized that if they did not denature Antifa, they would have violent riots just like in Berkeley. Police adapted:

A supporter of Spencer, a white nationalist leader who is planning a rally at Auburn on Tuesday, filed a motion in court Tuesday seeking an injunction to force the University to allow him to speak. The court on Tuesday granted that motion, attorneys for the plaintiff and the University told The Plainsman.

The motion was filed in U.S. Federal District Court in Montgomery by Cameron Padgett — a Spencer supporter who said he booked Foy Hall for Spencer’s speech — and his attorney.

…”This afternoon, a federal judge ruled that Auburn must allow Spencer to speak in the Foy Auditorium tonight,” they said in their letter. “It is now more important than ever that we respond in a way that is peaceful, respectful, and maintains civil discourse. We are aware that various campus groups have planned events for this evening. Please know that additional security measures are being taken by the Auburn Police Division to uphold the safety of our community.”

Had police demanded this as a matter of course, they might have been accused of discrimination against the Left. But now that the issue had been raised, and then made secondary to a Constitutional need to allow the event to go on, police had to ensure the safety of the event, which required disarming Antifa.

This shows a pattern for us on the Right. Instead of taking on the responsibility for preventing violence, we need to externalize it to the community, and with them finding their backs to the wall, they will respond by unmasking Antifa and Black Bloc types, which has been seen to prevent the violence.

Violence in Berkeley, California, for example broke out because police allowed a large group of black-clad, masked people to gather with primitive weapons in public, and then retreated when firecrackers were thrown. This ensured violence.

On the other extreme, the police in Auburn showed how easy it is to prevent this violence. Mobs act as they do because individuals are anonymous in them, and are empowered by the mob to act out their own pathologies, knowing that the mob will defend them. Remove anonymity and the violence decreases.

In the meantime, America’s public universities and cities now have an Alt Right problem: there is law on the record that says that speeches cannot be canceled simply because of the threat of violence, and we now know of a working method for ensuring the violence does not break out.

For those reasons, public venues no longer have a case for blocking the Alt Right. As America spirals downward into disorder and hatred, these events will become more contentious, but now we have a model for making them work, which defeats Antifa in their aim of “no platforming” the Alt Right.

Tanya Gersh Lies About Her Actions That Caused The “Trollstorm”

Thursday, April 20th, 2017

In perpetually-clueless The Guardian, Montana realtor Tanya Gersh — best known for her attempt to extort money from Richard Spencer’s mother — whines about how she has been made accountable:

The post on the Daily Stormer last December claimed I had been trying to extort and threaten the mother of Richard Spencer, a white nationalist whose family has a vacation home in our town. It had a photograph of me and contact information: phone numbers, email addresses, and links to social media profiles for me, my husband, my friends, my colleagues. It had my son’s Twitter handle. He is 12 years old.

…Do we tell our children that we’re running in the middle of the night because we’re Jewish?

There are too many lies so far, so we are going to stop there. First and foremost: are you running because you are Jewish, or because you committed the Federal crime of extortion in collusion with a Leftist terror group?

Here is the vital quotation from Richard Spencer’s mother:

On November 22, Gersh and I spoke on the phone. She relayed to me that if I did not sell my building, 200 protesters and national media would show up outside — which would drive down the property value — until I complied.

Tanya Gersh does not refute this statement anywhere. By doing so, she admits it is true. She spins it slightly different, but never refutes it.

However, she wants to shift the blame to anti-Semitism — admittedly a component of The Daily Stormer — instead of her own actions.

Jewish people may be as self-destructive as whites, which makes sense since Jewish people are just white people with an additional 2-5% of Semitic DNA.

Gersh, by denying the actual complaint and blaming anti-Semitism, is weakening every case of outrage at actual anti-Semitism. She broke the law. Deflecting from that will make people very angry. This is how Holocausts happen, just like the 40% participation in the Communist Party by 2% of the general population made it all too easy for people to buy into the anti-Semitism and go along with the raging mob.

Then, with no warning, Sherry Spencer published a post on Medium attacking me and telling a twisted version of our interactions.

Gersh seems to forget her own statements:

“She (Sherry) is profiting off of the people of the local community, all the while having facilitated Richard’s work spreading hate by letting him live and use her home address for his organization.”

She contradicts herself and in doing so, proves that her statements in The Guardian are lies.

That being said, Amerika stands against anti-Semitism. Jews act in self-interest like every other group, and the solution as Theodor Herzl said is nationalism, or relocation of Jews to a land of their own where they are safe. (The last part is crucial; they are not “safe” while Palestinians, Syrians and others are raging around with homemade missiles and suicide attacks.)

We also do not take the position of The Daily Stormer, although we do not support the lawsuit against them either. The correct response to abusive and criminal realtors like Tanya Gersh is to submit a complaint to the regulatory board. Note: she has not been prosecuted for her extortion attempt.

Instead of acknowledging her own failings, Ms. Gersh and those who support her have embarked upon a disastrous lawsuit which can only end badly:

Andrew Anglin, publisher of far-right site Daily Stormer, has been sued in Federal Court today for $300,000, stemming from his reporting about Tanya Gersh, a Montana real estate agent who he accused of attempting to extort Richard Spencer’s mother into selling a Whitefish, Montana property. In the lawsuit, Anglin is accused of creating a “troll storm” against Gersh that caused her emotional distress and anxiety.

…The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Missoula Division, seeks compensatory and punitive damages. It accuses Anglin of invading Gersh’s privacy and intentionally inflicting emotional distress. It also outlines how his campaign violated the Montana Anti-Intimidation Act.

If the courts approve of this suit, they are going to open the door to infinite frivolous lawsuits by people enraged at their clashes with others. After all, what did Gersh lose? She received threatening messages by phone, email and social media. She lost her job, but then again, she also committed a crime, so Gersh losing her real estate license or job is hardly Anglin’s fault. It is Gersh’s fault.

On the other hand, if the court refuses this case, they may open the door to more online harassment. Then again, one wonders if that cat can be put back in the bag, since too many people rely on online information as “true” and not enough realize that it is the new daytime television, i.e. of dubious truth value at best.

In the bigger picture, however, the truth is plain: Gersh is not a good actor here; in fact, she is committing what can only be viewed as extortion. American courts are unwilling to raise this case because they fear violating political correctness.

At Amerika, we both reject trollstorms and think Tanya Gersh belongs in jail. Sherry Spencer did not deserve this attack, which leveraged the threat of Leftist rioters against her, and Richard Spencer should be able to speak his mind without all of these puny, parasitic people attacking him.

All of this is more evidence that America the nation ended years ago. There was a chance for a nation here, but instead, we divided it up into special interest groups, and now they are warring it out in court, essentially passing the costs on to the rest of us. As Roosh V elaborates:

As for prudent measures to protect yourself, I recommend not criticizing or speaking against individual Jews in the United States, who can reach out to multiple organizations with deep pockets. Jews are a privileged group that can not be criticized like heterosexual men or white people can by the media or organizations like the SPLC, which came after me in 2012. This lawsuit proves that even a middle class Jewish woman in the middle of Montana has the full backing of the powerful Jewish lobby—with tens of millions of dollars in the bank—to attack her enemies.

He’s right, but we should elaborate on this: Jews are only one of the many special interests dividing America. GMO foods, elderly pensions, women, military contractors, Hispanics, the pharmaceutical industry, minority races, minority religions and mothers against drunk driving all have their advocacy groups, donors and lobbyists. This is how democracy always ends, as a de facto oligarchy that becomes so chaotic it culminates in tyranny.

In the meantime, the actual problem remains unaddressed. Sherry Spencer should not have been persecuted for her son’s beliefs. Tanya Gersh (and others) did the persecution. We need to end the situation where people can be attacked for their beliefs alone, and grow up and accept differences in thought.

Fighting The Wrong Enemy Leads To Defeat By Our Own Hands

Thursday, April 13th, 2017

The Western media is the enemy not so much because it is evil by intent, but because it is evil by failing to do good, and it fails to do good because it is a business that sells information, and information that supports convenient illusions is more popular than information of a realistic or even relatively truthful nature.

Today’s trope is a dumb one, which is that Facebook is publishing child pornography, which is not quite true but we all accept it because we hate Facebook for being so popular and yet so manipulative and degrading to information, so whatever reason will snuff it is OK with us. Would that we get to the same outlook regarding Amazon, Google, Apple and Reddit.

Facebook is at risk of a criminal prosecution in Britain for refusing to remove potentially illegal terrorist and child pornography content despite being told it was on the site, The Times can reveal.

The social media company failed to take down dozens of images and videos that were “flagged” to its moderators, including one showing an Islamic State beheading, several violent paedophilic cartoons, a video of an apparent sexual assault on a child and propaganda posters glorifying recent terrorist attacks in London and Egypt. Instead of removing the content, moderators said that the posts did not breach the site’s “community standards”.

Stepping aside the logical fact that it is idiotic for Facebook to remove any content, since in theory its filters separate normal users from anything extreme, let us look at what has happened: in a frenzy to remove Right-wing material, Facebook has neglected jihadist propaganda, rape and creepy anime.

This mirrors what has happened to the West in general. Egalitarian systems tend to be backward-looking because they are conformist, and so whatever worked in the past that was rewarded is now what people will do until events force them to do otherwise. This is why people are still re-fighting and re-living WWII; it was the last time we had a clear ideological position, and so people ape it.

And so we had the situation during the last election, where fifteen candidates got up on the Republican stage and preached the same thing: strong on defense, pro-Israel, anti-abortion, pro-business. What was this but reliving WWII? They wanted someone who would defeat those evil Nazis, defend the Jews, stop the wartime promiscuity and advance our economic interests, which happened quite a bit in WWII.

That brings us to a point where ideology replaces practicality entirely and we end up living in a weird fantasy world where it is more important to fight symbols than achieve results:

The museum didn’t hesitate to sharply condemn Richard Spencer, a vocal Trump supporter who organized a gathering of white nationalists in Washington in November. Spencer “said that America belongs to white people,” the museum noted in a statement. “The Holocaust did not begin with killing; it began with words.”

Back in reality, America was founded by white — Richard Spencer sensibly uses this as a synonym for WASP — people who made it according to their needs. They used some African labor, but this was a minority of the labor done, and without it the empire would have been created anyway. They also used some Mexican labor, mostly out of pity for the poor illiterate peasants than anything else, but again, this was not necessary.

In reality, homogeneity works for nations and heterogeneity does not. Israel itself is discovering this with Palestinians, and many people there are discovering that asserting European-style nationalism is their only way to survive the onslaught from the surrounding third-world, Arab-descended population.

If we go even further in realism, the Holocaust did not start with words, but with diversity. Jewish people left the middle east during the diaspora, and ended up first in eastern Europe and next in Germany. During this time, something glitched; accusations of racial preference against Germans, and of nepotism and Communist sympathies among Jews, boiled over during WWII. WWII, again.

Our old propaganda is dead and tired. It worked back then, but produced horrendous results, so we are re-trying it now because in egalitarian societies all decisions are made by committee, and committees favor that which is uncontroversial, such as repeating the past. But in doing so, we have ignored real threats.

Real threats? Our society is decaying from within; the West has fallen, replaced by an ersatz nu-West we call Amerika. Islamic and Asiatic invaders are attempting to destroy us. Eurasians want to invade. Our financial system is failing because of too many make-work jobs and regulations. Our technologies have not advanced. We are flailing and cannot admit it.

Instead, we are going to focus on symbols that the crowd knows. They know the WWII propaganda, so expect they will get social approval for repeating it in new and exciting ways, as has been the case for the past seventy years. And yet, this fails for them, because other events keep popping up that have nothing to do with their interpretation of the narrative.

The point is that in the West, we need a new narrative. We are not the people of the Book, nor are we egalitarians. We are not refighting WWII, nor are we refighting the Cold War. We are fighting for our lives, and the sooner we rid ourselves of false targets and focus on actual threats, both internal and external, the sooner we have some coherence in our dialogue about the future.

Recommended Reading