Category Archives: Politics

Debunking Natsocs

One of the things I often see cucks hiding in the new right pushing (and the Alt-White in particular) is on the necessity of destroying the free market.

Two accusations are generally made.
First is that late stage capitalism will inevitably result in some horrific awful event for which there is no precedent and the description of its inciting incident is always a generality AT BEST.

Second is that the conditions which helped keep capitalism afloat so to speak are now gone, only present for 3 centuries.

We’ll take the idea that late stage capitalism, a totally unfettered market will result in your dystopian fantasy. We’ll ignore your total inability to provide any evidence whatsoever, such as historical parallels, general trends, etc.
The assertion is crossing the point of X is really the point of catastrophe, or the beginnings of catastrophe. Late stage capitalism will take us across all sorts of bridges of prosperity, but the final one will take us into darker territory.
So what?
If some random event will be the awful result of the free market, create a restriction when we get to that point. Free market requires immigration from the third world to overrun our country? Sure! restrict immigration from the third world, we’ll take the lower productivity that you assume (we don’t care because we know its bullshit in the first place) and you’ll retain the homogeneous society.
It needs to be understood we’re primarily interested in meritocracy; if capitalism absent some singular regulation brings about the destruction of the nation, fine! Create that single regulation. We’ll take the hit.
But that’s not what these people want.
They say that because of the awful robot laser velociraptors that will destroy the world if capitalism is left to its own devices, they need to control your child’s education. They need to patronize the arts. They need to enact high taxes. They need more funding for public works.
There’s no logical connection between some end stage catastrophe and modern unsustainable practices; but socialists of all stripes are generally speaking too stupid to detect that in the first place.

Speaking to the conditions of capitalism, all of the circumstances which helped bring about the greatest expansion of wealth in the entire history of mankind are not only still present at large; they’re more relevant than ever. Human nature, for instance, has remained relatively constant throughout our history. The mechanism of capitalism, which ties resource acquisition to providing goods and services to people who voluntarily accept and pay for such things, has not failed in any society. What about modern technology? Has that made capitalism irrelevant? Far from it. No one (even the most retarded national socialist) would argue the internet has been bad for capitalism. Our capacity as a species to voluntarily organize boycotts, transactions, businesses, labor, etc has never been greater in the history of the species. The conditions which make socialism fail, however, have never been greater in the history of the species (particularly so in the United States). Managing the private transactions of 20 million people is theoretically possible, albeit stupid, inefficient, and unproductive. The idea anyone would attempt to manage the private transaction of 320 million people can only be managed by a bureaucracy so vast and bloated that it would cost as much as say, the GDP of China.


Again, we understand that a perfect free market might be not be politically feasible, and we’re even open to the possibility that left unfettered it might be destructive. But this doesn’t provide any kind of justification for  obviously harmful practices, like high taxes, public education and healthcare, etc.

If someone is too stupid to voluntarily organize with their own resources to enact changes in the free market, what the hell makes them think they’ll magically do better with the resources of other people which they extracted at gunpoint?

It doesn’t matter if you think you’re “on the right” or if we’re “punching right”.

Socialists get the bullet too.


Flynn and Morale

With the Flynn resignation there seems to be two primary perspectives.

1.  Neocons are getting Flynn to resign as part of a deep state project.
2. Flynn IS a neocon and is being shuffled out by Trump.

Let’s take a quick look at how Trump operates. Whenever Trump purges an individual, it’s generally because said person was disloyal or misbehaving in some fashion.  Trump is very deliberate in his response however; whoever he brings forward as a replacement is a hardliner. It follows the exact same pattern as the transition team. Moderates float around the spotlight, they’re hinted at, always in the peripheral. When it comes time to choose someone, Trump picks a hardliner, (and this needs to be understood) it’s crushing for leftists. They’re desperate for some relief or medication from the pain their cognitive dissonance causes them. Trump appealing to them would make no sense whatsoever; they hope for it nonetheless just to ease the heartache.

Right now there’s a great deal of concern about morale and whether leftists will view this as a victory. They do! They’re happy, celebrating even claiming that people like Bannon are next.
Fat chance.  Whoever next pops up as the replacement is going to be so much further to the right that “Literally Hitler” might be less ridiculous than usual for once. It’ll be crushing for the left.

I’ll be avoiding the topic of the deep state for now because I’m not privy to all of the details yet.

Nevertheless, this will be the end result because it is the playbook Trump follows impeccably.

Trust in the God-Emperor.

Bring Out the Apologists: Libertarians for Islam

So, mainstream libertarians (otherwise known as white democrats who aren’t as excited about taxes) are coming out in droves to bitch and moan about Trump’s new executive order concerning Islamic immigration. I’m writing this with a small caveat; I make little mention of Libertarians themselves, but this is designed for that particular audience. A group so enamored with reason and evidence either gets to acknowledge the facts discussed here or drop their principles. There is no moderate position; the chaff will be separated from the wheat.

The first and most vociferous objection is a legal question, arguing the president doesn’t have the authority to dictate immigration policies to any extent. Wrong! Anyone alive and thinking during the Carter years knows that’s a lie: whether they admit it or not. A total shutdown of visas issued to Iranians was enacted with humanitarian exceptions (I wonder if a certain religious minority in that region could be given such an exception?).

Second is this bullshit idea that Islam is not a threat in terms of political violence based on the raw numbers of deaths caused by Islamic operatives in the nation. This is a particular absurdity because Muslims consist of only 1-2% of the general population.
Of course, we wouldn’t want to do anything so rational as examining the global threat an ideology poses to evaluate whether it has a place in our society!


It’s completely ridiculous to evaluate any of this without adjusting for population. If a dangerous ideology doesn’t have much of a presence within the country, of course the country doesn’t suffer as much from the ideology! There’s a rarity of tiger attacks occurring in daycare centers, and it’s not because tigers are harmless. You can’t argue against a barrier to a threat based on the effectiveness of the barrier.

A few more examples to drive this home:

“Why shouldn’t we pour gasoline all over the floor? Do you know how few house fires we’ve had?”
“Why shouldn’t we let the bears out of the cage? Do you know how few people have been mauled in this zoo?”
“Why shouldn’t we blow a hole in the levy? Do you know how few floods we’ve had?”
“Why shouldn’t we take the brakes out of the car? Do you know how few crashes we’ve been in?

You get the idea.

Why not actually look at the impact of countries having gone through a wave of Islamic immigration? If only we had such an example to study!

This gets more and more convenient by the second. The Muslim population in Europe is far more statistically significant, and here we examine migrants over represented in crime (shocking!).  Islam is a dangerous ideology and the fidelity of a person to its precepts is the primary factor in either their support or participation in violent and immoral activities. It’s not the magic dirt of the Middle East that makes these people violent, it’s ideology and genetics (a comparison of IQ by nation can be found here). We’re doing a pretty good job of killing off what would be decent handlers ready to put the boot on the neck of Islamic radicals in the countries they lead, but that’s a topic for another time.

Another objection is that the ban is somehow unethical. Without reiterating everything I’ve said above (which is more than enough to debunk any such moronic notion) I’ll bring to light a simple fact.
No one has the right to this country. Few people are preferable in terms of ethnic and ethical compatibility, both essential. Fewer still come from populations with a mean of IQ sufficient to prevent any issues stemming from the natural second and third generation regression to said mean ( as noted by Jason Richwine). Libertarians and self avowed “Classical Liberals” should be especially opposed to the flooding of the nation with the most historically authoritarian religion in the history of mankind. I wouldn’t expect much consistency on that front, given that they’re mostly controlled opposition anyways (and the ones that aren’t are contrarians circle jerking over how “not mainstream” they are).

The final objection is a minor but fundamentally annoying one. The assertion that Trump is bypassing Congress on a number of these issues is correct, and not at all unethical. Libertarians would be happy to get gang raped to death in a gay brothel so long as a majority vote said it was ok, but normal people have more reservations about results than method; as they should. Libertarians need to understand this fundamental point: moral results trump immoral methods.

The end justifies the memes.


Isolation and Controlled Opposition

I’m a big fan of Vox Day; he’s been a valuable source of information and inspiration, both needed in my search for a meaningful writing style. His book SJWs Always Lie is a must-read and well known to the right (which you can find here). One of the things he outlines in his book is the methods SJWs employ to attack their opponents.

The one that needs to be discussed in recent conflicts is isolation. The left is composed of weaklings and cowards. Divide and conquer is their only available method of success in their goals; that must be understood to fight them. If they didn’t pursue that means of attack they would lose and be crushed so thoroughly that they’d be pushed to the outer limits of political discourse.

The past election cycle has been one of leaders; from all around the Right, Anarchists, Libertarians, Paleocons, Nationalists, etc men and women stood up and placed themselves in the spotlight of public discourse. They spoke to each other and spent the whole cycle building alliances, putting their best cases forward, and finding common ground. The left crumbled before it.

Now they’ve set their sights on those same leaders; Mike Cernovich, Jared Taylor, Stefan Molyneux, Milo Yiannopolous, Chuck Johnson, Ann Coulter, Roosh, etc. What are they going to do? Divide and conquer. Look at what they’ve been doing. Vox was being pressured to disavow Roosh. Milo was pressured to disavow Vox. Why didn’t they? They know the game. They’ve been fighting these people for decades and knowing waiting out the whining and slander is more profitable and productive than attacking their allies.

Anyone trying to single these people out and pressure their friends to attack or ignore them is an SJW, or total moron that doesn’t understand the game. Regard them as wolves in sheep’s clothing and punish foolish behavior. Have a disagreement with a pundit? Voice it, explain it, and move on. I took issue with Spencer’s performance at the recent NPI conference; I called it stupid, explained why I thought it was stupid, and calmly went back to enjoying Radix columns.

It’s easy and simple to do.

2016; A Year in Review

2016 was an emotional roller coaster for myself and many others. it felt as thought the realm of politics had hit a fever pitch. I lost a few good friends, and gained so many more throughout this election cycle.

It seems incredible what the Alt-Right accomplished, in spite of infighting. Third parties have failed for decades. The Ron Paul Revolution came so close to seizing victory, but was shunned by a party leadership determined to lie and lose rather than give up their idols. The same was slated to happen to his son this year; the values of liberty would be discussed, but the scene would be flooded with opposing voices and the party would lose simply the retain the power structure. But, we made our voices clear that the same-old same-old was done for. The basic bitch conservatism that ignored culture, ignored factual reality, and did nothing but pander to select groups all while trespassing on every single one of their promises was no longer enough. No longer would we sit back and accept the Trotskyite neocon ways of viewing foreign policy and immigration.

Being conciliatory towards the left isn’t enough anymore; being nice because we’re “above them” isn’t enough. That was just the rambling of men who had no claws, as Nietzsche would say. The New Right has claws, and we used them.

Culture is making advancements as well. Alternative media is successful like never before. There’s still the outcry about jokes that are too offensive, or mean, or whatever, but so what? We stopped caring, and more and more people are following our example. Art and literature aren’t following the trend yet, but that’s okay. We had to save a hunt to focus on in 2017, after all. No sense overworking ourselves (except when we enjoy it)!

Here’s to trophy hunting next year; now with low taxes!

The Charm Offensive

Midway through the Obama presidency was something called the “Charm Offensive”. The president went around the country, taking photos and meeting with celebrities. All sorts of public appearances followed from it.

I was young at the time and saw virtually no significance in it. After all, he’d already won his second term. What was the use in drawing up popular support? It turns out it was fairly useful politically. First off was the obvious fact celebrities appeared to be able to sway the opinions of their fans. It’s a reasonable assumption to make, people look up to successful and famous figures. But what was the use?

The election cycle we just experienced showcased it. Celebrities were used in propaganda style videos and advertisements in an attempt to sway the election! People of our stock aren’t easily swayed by Iron Man telling us who to vote for, but that isn’t true for swaths of the population.

Orrrr so we thought. Turns out actors are just that; actors. People don’t regard them as hugely credible, real, etc. There’s a more promising market for celebrity endorsements however, and Trump is tapping into it like his administration depends on it. The Elon Musk cabinet pick is fairly noteworthy. Trump recently met with leading technology innovators, telling them “You are the future”. Leading black celebrities are also common, Kanye perhaps being the most noteworthy.

Trump is tapping into creators of more intimately known aspects of our life. Music is something the singer (mostly) pours their heart and soul into. Technology invades every aspect of our lives, consulting those at its frontier resonates with us.

This strategy won’t see grand payoffs until 2020, when all the accumulated wealth, convenience, and eases of hardships will be on full display, but it’ll happen.

How Trump Played the Media (and Why You Can’t)

Is there truly such a thing as bad press? We’ve spent an election cycle watching the MSM flounder about with decreased trust from the public.

I’m going to be as straightforward as possible in saying this because it is a dynamic that will fuck us over if we do not understand it.

Donald Trump was able to trip up the media at every turn because he was familiar. Trump spent 50 years (longer than many in the media have even been alive) building up a brand. Everyone knew who he was. Trump was a household name for decades, his achievements in the workplace not unknown to the general populace.

Any lie told about Trump from the MSM wasn’t immediately consumed; it was immediately put under suspicion because the average American had a basis to believe otherwise. The entire hierarchy of media power over information was flipped like an upside-down pyramid. Every lie they told hurt them and helped Trump.

All of this, in addition to the rigorous work done by those in the alternative media creates a dynamic where no matter what the media says, they are met with distrust. This means Trump is free to say completely outrageous things without negative consequences; it gets him free media coverage and he has a private army to debunk the lies of an already delegitimized media.

Now, ask yourself before trying the bait and switch tactics with MSM; “Do I have what Trump has?”

I’ll let you answer that.

The Libertarian Vice

There’s a particularly annoying strain of political discourse that I can’t seem to escape no matter how many rides I take on the ideological roller coaster. There’s a tendency in politics to regard people you like as ideologically aligned on the virtue of being someone you like. At the same time, you might regard people you dislike as being the enemy regardless of their personal values simply because you hate them.

This is the reason I largely disassociated from the Libertarian movement, where this sort of garbage is rampant. Just a few months ago a slew of articles came from Libertarian publications disparaging Murray Rothbard as an evil, racist, and I quote, “politically retarded” gentleman. Some of you who are more educated may recognize Rothbard as the founder of the modern Libertarian movement. Obviously this is stupid beyond belief, but the only reason it exists on its platform is people in the Libertarian movement desire it! It would otherwise of course not exist. This kind of celebrity politics is cancerous, its tumors growing from popular figures and damaging the health of political influence and respectability. It provides a nice explanation for why the Libertarian movement has failed at every turn, but I’ll save that for another time.

The reason I bring this up is I notice similar tendencies growing in the Alt-Right. Take two gentlemen, for example. Milo Yiannopolous is self reportedly not Alt-Right, and yet I still enjoy his content and lectures. Richard Spencer is very much part of the Alt-Right, but I find my attitude towards him largely ambivalent as I have no particular attraction to his content. These are, I think, perfectly reasonable and well mannered positions to take. I haven’t ideological alignment on whether or not I like the person, and I haven’t based whether I like the person on ideological alignment.

This does not appear to be a common approach.  This past week I noticed some ridiculous articles claiming Richard Spencer is not “true” Alt-Right. They reminded me a great deal of the articles claiming Milo Yiannopolous (who stated in no uncertain terms he was not alt-right) was attempting to co-opt that same movement! This kind of celebritarian politics has no place in a movement such as ours. Quite frankly, it’s unadulterated bullshit, the whole lot.

At the front of our thoughts and focuses at every turn should be a desire to advance the desires of our movement and a proper dialogue with our fellow man on what means we will take to accomplish those desires. Anyone willing to assist us in gaining a foothold (at this point, a stronger foundation) in politics, culture, and art are an ally to the movement to that end. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why Does the Left Have a Speech Problem?

Some more moderate liberals, seeing a good opportunity to gain respect or providence from conservatives after the election (no one can blame them) have decided to pitch in on why Donald Trump won.

The tone seems to have converged around this statement; “We lost because we haven’t focused on ideas and arguing them. We lost because all we do is call people names! If we could only argue properly, we would win!”

This is easy to agree with on most accounts but it’s misleading in a sense because it implies the left has an argument to make. The reason the left switched to name-calling and use of violence is because they made what passed for argument among them and lost. This is why the immigration debate is so important; the left is focused purely on outvoting the right by any means possible and if that includes importing new low IQ third world immigrants, than that is what they will do. In fact, that’s precisely what they’ve done for decades.

Social Justice Warriors aren’t an “extremist wing” of the left. It’s their logical conclusion. This is why the left attacks speech and dialectic. They have no intellectual tradition of engaging in it and thus have no idea how to utilize it. The destruction of free speech is necessary for their victory.

Understanding this is key; there will be no return to civil politics in leftist circles beyond conciliatory moderates. The left will not come to bear with their mistakes because in doing so they will cease to be leftists. The left will cling bitterly to its delusions, and there is no number of bodies they will not climb over to achieve them.


“Utopia is only ever approached across a sea of blood, and you never get there.”-Peter Hitchens