PropOrNot, the Anti-Russian Propaganda Bill, and Why Some of Us Prefer Russian News to American

snopes-fake-news-sites-2

– 5 December 2016 –

Patulcius:

Patulcius-sqIn the aftermath of Trump’s election victory, the American Left is fighting bitterly to overturn, ruin, and disrupt the results. One of the ways they have tried to discredit the various anti-establishment voices is this “fake news” narrative. They seem to be wildly aiming this campaign against the Alt-Right, the #Pizzagate movement, and the alternative news media, along with Russian news outlets and their sympathizers.

On November 24, a Washington Post article warned against the horrors of various—mostly alternative—news outlets which, they say, frequently sympathize with Russia, including popular sites like Zerohedge, Infowars, and the Drudge Report. Most of my personal favorites are included, in fact. The Post cites a report by some mysterious and well-funded organization called PropOrNot which formed at the end of October to bring attention against what they view to be undue Russian influence in various irregular news sites across the political spectrum. It’s actually a useful list; I’ve found some pretty good news sites that I had never heard of. (Watch for them to break their links.)

This PropOrNot business seems to be growing teeth with the passage on 30 November of H.R. 6393: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. A seemingly ordinary and uncontroversial budget bill passed to fund our intelligence services with 390 votes in favor and only 30 opposed. Yet tucked within its verbiage is the ominous section 501, which relates to “active measures by the Russian Federation to exert covert influence over peoples and governments.” From Zerohedge:

A quick skim of the bill reveals “Title V—Matters relating to foreign countries”,  whose Section 501 calls for the government to “counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence … carried out in  coordination with, or at the behest of, political leaders or the security services of the Russian Federation and the role of the Russian Federation has been hidden or not acknowledged publicly.”

The section lists the following definitions of media manipulation:

  • Establishment or funding of a front group.
  • Covert broadcasting.
  • Media manipulation.
  • Disinformation and forgeries.
  • Funding agents of influence.
  • Incitement and offensive counterintelligence.
  • Assassinations.
  • Terrorist acts.

As ActivistPost correctly notes, it is easy to see how this law, if passed by the Senate and signed by the president, could be used to target, threaten, or eliminate so-called “fake news” websites, a list which has been used to arbitrarily define any website, or blog, that does not share the mainstream media’s proclivity to serve as the Public Relations arm of a given administration.

Curiously, the bill which was passed on November 30, was introduced on November 22, two days before the Washington Post published its Nov. 24 article citing “experts” who claim Russian propaganda helped Donald Trump get elected.

Of course some of us on the Right have grown to prefer our top news from RT.com or other Russian sites, and we have come to see the Russian perspective as the usually pro-White, pro-Christian counter to the corrupt lies and manipulations of the major American news outlets. To us, the only country in the world that seems to be moving firmly in a sensible direction is Russia. We don’t have to be propagandized to see this. We genuinely prefer the traditionalist Russian perspective and have deliberately sought it out.

Are there Russian connections to the American Right? Very likely so. Russia has a vested interest. The Obama regime has worked to isolate Russia and overthrow its government. If the U.S. can transform into an ally via Russian influence, great. But if the U.S. falls into civil war and balkanizes, that will work, too. In either scenario, the U.S. will stop working to push Russia into World War III.

Does Russia have America’s best interests in mind? I think they want us to stay out of their sphere of influence but otherwise don’t really care what we do. We should regard them the same way. Russia is following a Russia-first policy; the U.S. should focus on our own interests. The two don’t have to conflict.

Did Russian influence cause Hillary Clinton to lose? No way. Pro-union white men in the rust belt tipped the balance against Hillary. Lack of black turnout didn’t help her either. The establishment is just using this as a cover to attack the anti-establishment Right.

Perhaps the American establishment has good cause to worry about the rise of the white Right.

mccarthyism

The Left still whines about Joseph McCarthy and the House Committee on Un-American Activities. During the Forties and Fifties, those two entities kept the Commies in check. But they didn’t go far enough, and ultimately the Left won out, ushering in the dystopia we have today.

The pro-white, pro-Christian American establishment of the 1950’s rightly grew concerned over the growth of Marxist influence (much of it influenced by the USSR). And today’s anti-white, anti-Christian establishment likewise fears the resurgence of a popular and angry pro-white and pro-Christian movement, one that has finally inoculated itself against the Alinskyite tactics of the Left.

In the 1950’s, the Leftists successfully defeated a Joseph McCarthy who, while correct about Communist infiltration, overextended himself, with the cucks of the time successfully sabotaging his efforts. Basically the Constitution tied the hands of the Right against an enemy who uses our laws against us.

Today’s establishment isn’t about to give up without a fight like the overly-civic and overly-sensible white establishment of the 1950’s. They will attempt to repress any influential reaction against them.

Christopher Columbus – Another White Hero Vilified by the Left

desembarco_de_colon_de_dioscoro_puebla-3

– 10 October 2016 –

Patulcius:

Unless trends dramatically change in the next few years, official celebrations of Columbus Day around the world are coming to an end.

Via CNN:

Since Columbus Day 2015, at least 14 communities in the United States have passed measures designating the second Monday in October Indigenous Peoples Day.

The changes build on recent efforts to shift the day’s focus from the Italian explorer, beginning in big cities including Seattle, Minneapolis and Albuquerque, and spreading to counties and school districts.

“Indigenous Peoples Day represents a shift in consciousness,” said Dr. Leo Killsback, a citizen of the Northern Cheyenne Nation and assistant professor of American Indian Studies at Arizona State University.

“It acknowledges that indigenous peoples and their voices are important in today’s conversations.”

“Conversations.” There’s another word that the Left has hijacked and mangled. On the surface, it’s a mutual exchange of thoughts and ideas between multiple parties; but in the Left’s context, a “conversation” is their attempt to force one group of people to quietly accept self-righteous, condescending, and utterly self-destructive instruction.

Even in the Spain, where the monarchy sponsored Columbus’ voyage, people are rethinking his legacy.

A group of left-wing city council members in Barcelona called for the city to remove a 196-foot statue of Christopher Columbus in one of its most heavily trafficked intersections as part of a proposal to strike the October 12 national holiday and return it to a regular working day.

Council member María José Lecha González said public commemoration of Columbus glorifies colonialism and imperialism, and called the holiday a “mockery” of the genocide of the indigenous population.

fallen-columbus-statue

Formerly a monument to the man who discovered the Americas for Europe, now a monument to the ugly barbaric forces who will destroy what European peoples have built.

Regardless of how Columbus treated the Indians he encountered (and it doesn’t seem that he treated them any worse than European peasants of that time), Columbus bravely crossed the Atlantic, discovered America for European civilization, and established an enduring European presence. We of European descent in the Americas owe our existence, our cultures, and our nations to the vision of this one man. Had some other explorer discovered America ten, fifty, or a hundred years later, today’s world would be radically different.

Those of native descent have no reason to celebrate Columbus. He ultimately brought the diseases that wiped so many of them out, and the settlers who displaced them. Today, some of these natives see the weakness of whites and are taking advantage.

But don’t imagine for a second that our capitulation to these groups will win their thanks and approval for very long. They don’t want dialogue and understanding, they will tear us down until we are a forgotten people, if we continue to let them. And these natives will live no better after our demise.

If we don’t defend our symbols and our history, then we have no future.

A good defense of Columbus can be found at the Catholic Education Resource Center:

In all of history, only the Europeans and the Polynesians of the south Pacific have been true discoverers, sailing for the explicit purpose of finding new lands, trading with their people, and colonizing them. And of all discoverers Christopher Columbus was the greatest, because he accomplished the most against the highest odds.

Before Columbus’ time all European voyages had followed coastlines, or crossed open seas to lands previously known or at least sighted by storm-driven ships. Only Columbus set off directly across a broad, unknown sea with no specific knowledge of how far it extended or what lay on the other side. To be sure, Columbus was convinced that he could reach Asia from Europe within the time during which the provisions he carried in his three ships would sustain his men. But he was wrong about that. If America had not existed — had not been in the way — Columbus would have had to turn back long before reaching his goal, or he and every man on his ships would have died.

[. . .]

When, after leaving the Canary Islands September 6, they had been out of sight of land for a full month — a longer voyage out of sight of land than any other in the history of the world up to that time — Columbus’ men became frightened and angry. During most of the voyage the wind, often strong, had blown from astern or nearly so. How were they ever going to get back, beating against it? Columbus knew that further north the prevailing winds blew from the west, and planned to go north to catch the westerlies before he returned. But his men knew nothing of world geography; all they knew was what they had seen, that in these strange and empty seas the winds almost always blew from the east or the northeast. On October 10 the men of the Santa Maria came to the verge of open mutiny.[6]

Columbus tells us in his Log how he answered them:

They [the crew] could stand it no longer. They grumbled and complained of the long voyage, and I reproached them for their lack of spirit, telling them that, for better or worse, they had to complete the enterprise on which the Catholic Sovereigns [Isabel and Fernando] had sent them. I cheered them on as best I could, telling them of all the honors and rewards they were about to receive. I also told the men that it was useless to complain, for I had started out to find the Indies and would continue until I had accomplished that mission, with the help of Our Lord.[7]

That last sentence summed up the heart and essence of the whole life and achievement of Christopher Columbus.

[. . .]

Upon the islands that he first discovered on the other side of the Atlantic, Columbus found native inhabitants, whom he called Indians, believing himself to be in “the Indies” of Asia. And here began the long and troubled story of Columbus’ interaction with the native Americans.

Before going into the historical details of that interaction, it is essential to clear away the fog of idealization and special pleading that now surrounds so much talk about the American Indians. First of all we have to understand the situation that existed in the world of the Indian of the Caribbean and mid- America when Columbus arrived.

It seems to be true, as is so often repeated today, that when Columbus found them, the Indians inhabiting the Bahama Islands, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the great island the Spanish called Hispaniola (now divided between Haiti and the Dominican Republic) were a gentle, happy, attractive people living peacefully in good ecological balance with their surroundings. They were known as Taino, or Arawaks.[8]

But they were not destined to remain in their Eden-like situation for long, even if Columbus and the Spanish had not come. Advancing steadily northward from the long chain of Caribbean islands called the Antilles was one of the most ferocious people in recorded history, the Caribs. They were savage conquerors who practiced cannibalism, not as an occasional cultic ritual, but as a regular diet. Captured prisoners were immediately eaten. Conquered peoples were systematically devoured. On every island they seized, the Caribs soon exterminated every Taino. On no island did the two tribes coexist.[9]

Across the island-studded Caribbean Sea lay Mexico. Though politically and culturally advanced beyond most other Indian cultures — the Mexica had a large army, a well-developed governmental administration, a system of writing, and stone temples — their empire, which we call Aztec, carried out ritual human sacrifice on a scale far exceeding any recorded of any other people in the history of the world. The law of the Mexica empire required a thousand human sacrifices to the god Huitzilopochtli in every town with a temple, every year; there were 371 subject towns in the empire, and the majority had full-scale temples. There were many other sacrifices as well. The total number was at least 50,000 a year, probably much more. The early Mexican historian Ixtlilxochitl estimated that one out of every five children in Mexico was sacrificed. When in the year 1487 the immense new temple of Huitzilopochtli was dedicated in Tenochtitlan (now Mexico City), more than 80,000 men were sacrificed, at fifteen seconds per man, for four days and four nights of almost unimaginable horror.[10]

It must be emphasized that there is no serious dispute about these facts and figures. All reputable and informed historians of pre-Columbian Mexico[11] accept their essential accuracy, though some prefer not to talk about them. These facts of history totally dispose of the romantic fantasy of a hemisphere full of peaceful, nature-loving Indians who threatened no one until the cruel white man came.

That the conversion of the people he found was a central purpose of Christopher Columbus is made unmistakably clear by an entry in his log book written November 6, when he was exploring the coast of Cuba. It is addressed directly to Isabel and Fernando:

I have to say, Most Serene Princes, that if devout religious persons know the Indian language well, all these people would soon become Christians. Thus I pray to Our Lord that Your Highnesses will appoint persons of great diligence in order to bring to the Church such great numbers of peoples, and that they will convert these peoples. . . . And after your days, for we are all mortal, you will leave your realms in a very tranquil state, free from heresy and wickedness, and you will be well received before the Eternal Creator.[12]

Forced Transvestite Training for the US Navy

may-all-live-out-the-fantasy-of-the-deranged-freak

– 20 September 2016 –

Patulcius:

Patulcius-sqMore signs that the United States government and its military are no longer worth supporting.

Via Church Militant, via Military.com:

As the Pentagon makes changes to allow transgender service members to serve openly, the Navy is holding training to educate all troops on the new policies.

In an all-Navy message published Tuesday, Chief of Naval Personnel Vice Adm. Robert Burke said a three-pronged training approach will equip senior leaders and rank-and-file personnel for the changes.

A “three-pronged approach,” huh? There is no doubt that the greatest strategic minds available in today’s USN gathered over several days to plot their epic assault against the greatest enemy our country faces today: intolerance.

The solemn stupidity continues, blissfully clueless:

Beginning Nov. 1, mobile training teams composed of Navy fleet representatives and subject matter expects will be dispatched to deliver face-to-face briefs to senior leaders, including commanding officers, executive officers, command master chiefs, and chiefs of boat.

These sessions will also be open to equal opportunity advisers, ombudsmen and other command-designated representatives who will have a role in training the tenant commands on policies governing transgender troops.

A spokeswoman [?] for Naval Personnel Command, Lt. Jessica Anderson, told Military.com in an email that a commander’s tool kit is being developed to guide training, and that additional information about what these training sessions will include will be available in a future message to the fleet.

“Service members are expected to maintain standards of conduct and treat each other with dignity and respect,” she said. “Training for sailors will be conducted by command triads via mobile training teams or DVD with a facilitation guide if the unit is in a remote area and unable to receive face-to-face training. There will also be webinars for COs to ask questions prior to delivering training to their commands.”

According to the message, DVDs and discussion guides will be mailed to each unit, along with copies of the commander’s tool kit and a Defense Department guide being created to explain policy. The webinars, made available to leadership teams, will be provided after mobile training team visits as an opportunity for subject matter experts to answer any remaining questions before fleet training begins.

All sailors will have completed a training session on the new policies by July 1, 2017, Anderson said. That’s when the services plan to begin accepting transgender recruits for the first time.

Along with permitting transgender troops to serve openly, the military is creating procedures for troops to change their “gender marker” in the administrative Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System, and laying out rules to govern how troops might undergo medical gender transitions while in uniform.

Transgender troops will be required to use the bathroom and berthing facilities associated with their preferred gender, Navy officials have said.

And service leaders will be on alert for those who seek to single out or mistreat their transgender counterparts.

“We do not tolerate harassment of any kind,” Anderson said. “Treating all service members with dignity and respect is something we take extremely seriously, and when there are any indications that those values are not being followed, we will conduct appropriate investigations and take action as necessary.”

I served in the Navy for six years during the 2000’s, and it was getting bad then. Now, the military is overrun by feminists, foreigners, and freaks.

Frankly, I would rather see the United States pummeled in a major war than continue on like this. I’d rather shine the boots of the conquering Chinese soldiers, or listen to the Muslim call to prayer every day of every year, than to see my descendants corrupted under the rule of these emasculating egalitarian snakes.

Call me a traitor if you want. But this government no longer represents me and my kind. It is an occupying force as alien and hostile as any foreign power. The real traitors are those who embrace this society.

Even if Trump wins in November, I don’t see him overturning this nonsense. He doesn’t have a problem with sexual deviation.

The only hope for those who still uphold traditional Christian morality, who want our nations to survive intact for centuries to come, is the fact that this Evil Empire so grossly violates objective reality and promotes the most base and wicked parts of human nature that it cannot stand for long. Soviet Communism looks absolutely practical compared to the rotten, sterile “equality” of the West.

The sooner this reprobate society comes tumbling down, the better.

Concussus:

ConcussusThankless takers, self-absorbed half-wits, hunched over their little screens. The centers of fake universes six inches wide.

Insulated layabouts, seven-steps disconnected from toil and hardship and survival. How long could they live without their pre-packaged meals and their roadkill machines?

Bastards, literally Father-forgetting bastards, oblivious to the sources of their nourishment. Chemicals in the soil to grow the same unnatural crops again and again. Creatures raised and slaughtered in anonymity, ultimately stuffed between fat human cheeks without a word or thought of thanks or respect for the sacrifice of those simple lives.

May the glaciers march from the north and scrape the lifeless human fungus under their icy feet. May the cold, winter sun wither them away with its unrelenting stare. May the ants carry off every fleck of nourishment from their bleaching bones.

What vanity. Let them fall. Then disappear. Reduced to the dirt from which they sprang.

“Minneapolis” Rallies to Stop the Deportation of Criminal Cambodians

minnesotans-protest-cambodian-deportations

– 14 September 2016 –

Patulcius:

Patulcius-sqThe roughly one hundred protesters included several uniformed military veterans, some of them disabled.

Via the Minneapolis StarTribune:

About 100 supporters rallied in downtown Minneapolis on Wednesday to try to stop the deportation of Cambodian refugees detained in August by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Several Cambodian refugees in the Twin Cities area were detained by ICE, and informed that they will be deported to Cambodia. Families of those detained and community members, together with advocates from immigrant rights organizations, are calling for their deportations to be stopped and are asking Minnesota’s elected officials to intervene.

They held signs and chanted on the sidewalk and median of Washington Avenue S. near Interstate 35W during afternoon rush hour traffic to raise awareness.

All of those detained by ICE and slated for deportation have criminal convictions, including one with a conviction for attempted murder, said ICE spokesman Shawn Neudauer.

“They’re all clearly priorities for deportation,” he said. They were detained, Neudauer said, because the government of Cambodia recently has begun cooperating more with the United States on these issues.

But it is the long-standing policy of the United States to deport those with convictions, particularly for felonies, he said.

Obviously this ICE spokesman Shawn Neudauer cares more about the interests of the United States than the hurt feelings of our Cambodian live-in guests (who have the time to protest the deportations of their criminal cousins during weekday rush hour traffic).

I guess this Neudauer fellow’s days with ICE are numbered. He’ll probably retire soon, replaced by a more compassionate lesbian Pakistani.

Now let’s see if these “Minnesotans” can get pardoned in time to vote against Donald Trump in November.

Niceness: The Fallacy of Mormons and Other Sheltered White Conservatives

niceness-religion

– 10 September 2016 –

Patulcius:

Patulcius-sqHow sad that one of the most functional white societies in the world, that of the Mormons, remains so blind to racial reality. Jack Ryan explains:

Via Occidental Dissent:

Though I knew something about the Mormon theology and the turbulent history of the Mormons (persecution, migration from the Mid West to Utah), what attracted me to the Mormon Church was that I noticed:

There sure are a lot of good looking, Mormon White folks!

And it is true that the Mormon Church, or (as they preferred to be called now) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints/LDS is a very White Church. It has a White racial history – Blacks were not allowed to hold the LDS Priesthood until the late 1970s and the Book of Mormon contains lots of passages that would be considered very “Racist” by today’s PC standards.

Another reason I decided to check out the Mormon/LDS church was that I came in contact with some bright, enthusiastic, well scrubbed, nicely dressed, White Mormon Missionaries, that were actually walking the streets of an inner city, university community I was living in at the time.

[. . .]

After 10 years of association with Mormons and the Mormon/LDS Church I will share these observations.

1) Yeah, there are lot of really nice, good looking White folks in the LDS church – particularly in Southern California and the mountain/desert West.

mormon-church-congregation-arlington-va2

A Mormon congregation from Arlington, Virginia.

2) Mormons are really good at getting young White couples to get married early (in college) and have large families, with really beautiful White children.

3) Mormons have lots of very good practices, rules – they are very good at organizing their members, giving them things to do.

4) You see little or no bad Leftist, anti White politics inside any LDS – Mormon Church. In fact the LDS church prohibits political campaigning in church, and that’s really nice – no preachy Leftists lecturing the congregation about the supposed sins of Racism or the last PC lib cause.

5) White Mormons are really good at sports – provide lots of opportunities for basketball, tennis, ultimate frisbee activities.

6) There is little or no LDS women (White) doing male bashing – Mormon women have lots of things to do in Church, but (White) men run the ceremonies and have the authority and Mormon women/LDS women seem very happy to have (White) husbands, children and accept their traditional female roles.

All those things I listed are very good. But it’s not perfect from a WN perspective.

romney-family2-1

Good-looking white folks! Mitt Romney with his growing family.

[. . .]

Also, Mormons tend to not be very intellectual – choosing to being honest, have “family values” – they try to be nice and get along with everyone. So, don’t expect many White Mormons to get involved in contentious arguments with Jews over World War II, Communism etc. The current top Mormon – Prophet Monson, seems like a total, boring stiff.

Mormons seem to have no clue about “the Jews”, have no history of ever being in conflict with Jews as White Catholics from the old country have had. And since only terrible, close living with American criminal Blacks can turn a generally “nice” White person in to a RACIST against Blacks, most Mormon Whites are not going to want to fight, or be able to handle very hostile Black criminals. LDS Mormons have never lived in rough, racially mixed Northern Cities or the America South where there are lots of criminal, hostile Blacks. The Book of Mormon Plates were supposedly found in Up-State New York, the new church and their converts moved to the rural Midwest – Illinois, Ohio and Missouri then the church was brutally persecuted there and the Saints moved across the Plains to Utah… all these places were very, very White, and for the most part, they are still very White. Mormons tend to prosper and grow in White places.

Nice, decent white Christian folks do not want to hate anyone, or to oppress anyone. They enjoy attending their churches, which happen to be nearly all-white through no willful act of their own, and they become rather churchy.

By “churchy”, I mean they possess that positive, clean, neat, open, friendly, and even innocent demeanor that outsiders frequently deride as phony or hypocritical, but more usually reflects a genuine, day-to-day attitude.

Many such earnest Christians shelter themselves from the hostility of the fallen world, and in that shelter they can grow naive to the point of blindness.

Because these white Christians often grew up in fine Christian homes with parents who instilled the values of hard-work, honesty, education, and self-sacrifice, they tend to prosper in society. That prosperity isolates them even more.

Combine that overall churchyness and economic prosperity with residence in almost exclusively white areas—suburban sub-divisions, rural areas, or entire swathes of a country—idealism and naivety can grow to suicidal levels.

Niceness can become their religion.

Niceness before wisdom. Niceness before responsibility. Niceness before observable reality. Niceness even before one’s nation and Christian brothers and sisters.

As a stand-alone philosophy of life, niceness will leave a man stuck holding the door open for everyone in the world to walk through, without even a word of thanks or sympathy from those passing by.

When an entire nation adopts the philosophy of niceness. . .

migrants-crowds-cross-into-slovenia

cuck-holding-door-open

Look at the pushover! The Lord commanded us to love our neighbors and our enemies, but he didn’t command us to be fools, tending other flocks to the detriment of our own.

So I’m a Racist; Now What? A Practical Guide for Average White Racists in Day-to-Day Life

commuters-crowd

– 6 September 2016 –

Patulcius:

Patulcius-sqI took the red pill on race many years ago, well before the term “red pill” existed.

Oddly enough it was the old tabloid the Weekly World News that got me started. It seems like every week, along with tales of Bat Boy or Sasquatch, the Weekly World News published some bizarre article about Adolf Hitler. The ghost of Hitler appeared in an erupting volcano, or Hitler was a secret extraterrestrial agent from the Andromeda galaxy, or Hitler’s still alive in Antarctica almost fifty years after World War II. To my teenaged self, this Hitler guy was fascinating, all the more as I studied him. A man who could transform a whole country and march it according to his vision. I cut pictures of my hero out of this tabloid and pasted them inside a cabinet to hide them from my mother and my friends. Kind of creepy, really, but teenagers do stupid things.

Since that time in the mid-nineties, my views on race (and a few years later my views on gender and religion), have pretty much developed along the red pill path. Only the political vehicles and forms of expression have changed.

hitler-is-alive-weekly-world-news

Who would have thunk that a goofy tabloid would turn 1990’s teenagers into racists?

But I have never really stopped hiding my views in a sort of mental cabinet from the general public.

Until recent months, I often used to “cuck out” when discussing controversial issues (if I use that term correctly). I pretended to hold views that are acceptable to the general brain-washed public, representing myself as a libertarian or as a free-thinker, rather than expressing or defending views that are pro-white, traditional-Christian, American. I liked to emphasize that I treat people as individuals rather than seeing them as a collective, although in fact I assess people in both lights. At my bravest, I occasionally expressed support for freedom of association if the subject of race came up.

At one time, I might have called this concealment a form of discretion. I was taught as a kid that it wasn’t polite to bring up politics or religion. But my real motivation to avoid these subjects has been rooted in cowardice. I didn’t want the people I met to hate me; I didn’t want to deal with their outrage or ridicule.

The reason I bring this up isn’t to demonstrate what a nutless wonder I’ve been. I’m hoping that it will help racially-awakened whites to handle the same problem: how to deal with a diverse public in our day-to-day lives.

I have a feeling that most people who have awakened to racial reality, or other non-egalitarian realities, have lied about their views to people when the subjects have come up. Especially those who came to these realizations only recently.

What good is the red-pill worldview if one doesn’t apply it in real life? How are we supposed to treat minority friends and co-workers, or even liberals or other degenerates, whom we actually like? How should we live out our lives in a society that hates us?

peter_brady_buddy_hinton

Like Peter Brady training to fight the bully Buddy Hinton, the individual racially-awakened white man must train himself to defend his beliefs in everyday life.

My Day-to-Day Experiences

Personally, for the past year or so, I’ve challenged myself to stop being a chickenshit and to stand up for my beliefs when the subject has come up.

In practice, this doesn’t mean that I’ve beaten people over the head with my viewpoints, or that I’ve jumped at every opportunity to express them. I still practice careful discretion; I just refuse to compromise my beliefs for the sake of appeasing others. I refuse to be a hypocrite.

There have been times when I’ve simply declined to talk about a particular subject when asked. I would fail in my duties as husband and father if I got myself fired from my job because I foolishly discussed racial politics with some asshole who I could never persuade anyhow.

Still, I’ve kept my eyes open for the potentially persuadable.

Once broaching the subject, I was surprised at how often people have expressed agreement or sympathy with my views. So far, almost all of these have been white men. Generally I don’t talk at length to many women or minorities; when I do, I’m not eager to discuss race or politics with them. I don’t look for pointless fights.

In two cases, these men were surprised that anyone else had heard of this “Alt-Right” thing, just as I was surprised about them. It was a relief for these guys to speak openly about these issues. Yes, unrestricted blacks or non-white immigration pose serious problems for our society. Yes, women should not serve with men in the military. Often they don’t agree with me on everything, and that’s fine. I want open discussion, not indoctrination.

A few others, all conservatives, haven’t agreed very much, but they were at least willing to discuss the issues openly and without animus.

In most other cases where I’ve expressed my views, the other people have shown some level of agreement, but I can tell that they either don’t really agree or they don’t care about the subject. They are only playing along with me the way I myself had towed the politically correct line with others.

Many who express their opinions to others don’t realize that, even in one-on-one confidential conversations, the people who seem to enthusiastically share their views are really just chickenshits who don’t agree, don’t care, or don’t want to reveal their own ignorance. They will nod and laugh with the liberals just as readily as with libertarians or establishment conservatives or New York Yankees fans. Don’t let yourself get stabbed in the back by these idiots.

I have a black co-worker who rejoiced at the recent Supreme Court decision in favor of affirmative action that denied white students admission to the University of Texas in favor of a less qualified minorities. He wondered what the students who filed suit were even thinking. I simply said, “As whites become just another minority in this country, you can expect them to start fighting with all the other groups for their piece of the pie.” He had nothing to say. I managed to uphold my side without excess force or offense.

So far, I have yet to encounter someone, on the subject of race, who flat out berated me or expressed hostility to my views. Admittedly, however, I’ve not directly addressed these subjects with people who are likely to disagree. This is a process that one works up to.

And, as I said, my goal isn’t to go out of my way to challenge people, but to avoid being a hypocrite or a coward. To be willing to stand up and fight when confronted.

hang-em-high2

We might find ourselves outnumbered and outgunned, but we must prepare ourselves to stand up like men even when we expect defeat. Cowards never really win, but brave men never really lose.

Some Practical Advice

I’m assuming that the white racist will most often find himself alone in an argument, often outnumbered. My advice fits that particular scenario. If there’s a pack of fellow racists against a few Leftist weenies, that’s a different animal altogether. Red meat. Also, this advice is about face-to-face, real-world discussion, not online discussions, which again are a totally different creature.

  • Realize that most white people aren’t comfortable with the subject of race. It will frighten them. Feed them a little at a time. And not too much in one dose. Often speak about safer subjects that they care about in order to avoid becoming overbearing. If they are receptive, then they won’t even notice the evolution of the discussions over several weeks. If you only speak to the listener once, consider the discussion a nudge. In any case, the most effective communication is tailored to the intended audience. It’s best to express issues in terms or in arenas that the listener is comfortable with.
  • Show discretion. Choose your battles and tactics carefully. Don’t go out of your way to provoke a fight. You aren’t going to persuade your enemies. At best, you might win a few sympathizers among the spectators if you perform well. But is it worth losing your job or your family? I’d say not. It’s about upholding your honor and integrity, not crushing every insect that comes along. And those sympathizers won’t watch your back, I guarantee it.
  • Know why you believe what you believe, and defend your beliefs when necessary or when you’ve got something to gain (or nothing to lose).
  • Stay calm. Go into the battle not expecting to advance, just to hold your ground. What would you gain by winning an argument with an idiot anyhow? You can’t hold your ground when you’ve lost your temper.
  • Don’t ever lie about your views or misrepresent them. Either refuse to discuss the issue at all or express your views in the most patient and tolerant way that still represents the truth. For example, some soft-hearted, mushy-brained cuckservative says that we should bring in more refugees because “we’re a nation of immigrants.” Rather than simply shrugging, say something like “we are a nation of immigrants, yes, but with similar cultural and ethnic backgrounds, and besides, our country doesn’t need any more immigrants these days. Any immigration program should benefit the people of our country, not the immigrants.” If the cuck is pissed off, at least you showed moderation.
  • When talking to minorities or women, it’s best to be especially discrete. Either, once again, say you’d rather not discuss the issues, or give them simple, general (but truthful) answers until you can figure out their angle. Usually with women I just say I’m old-fashioned, that I think it was better when men felt the need to take care of their women and children before themselves and when women felt the need to care for their husbands and children at home. I refer to the types of lives that most of our grand-parents or great-grandparents lived, and if the feminist doesn’t agree, then just point to the culture and say, “look at our society when everyone lives for only themselves.” With minorities, I recommend trying to demonstrate that particular non-whites have their own nations of people, and whites have our nations also. Shouldn’t every nation have the right to self-determination? Such arguments probably won’t persuade these groups one bit, but maybe they’re worth a shot in some cases. If these opposing groups point and shriek, then they’re too far gone anyhow. No need to continue the discussion.
  • Know when you’re being set up for a trap. A sudden interest in your points of view, with a lot of detailed questions, should raise alarm bells. If you’re at work, this could be an attempt to get you fired. At the very least you might end up on YouTube, conveniently edited to sound as scary and ignorant as possible.
  • Remember that very few people really care what you think. Stay humble.

How Should We Deal With Minority/Liberal Friends and Co-Workers?

Janus:

Janus-smallPersonally, I often like other races. I find most foreigners fascinating when they’re not invading my damned country en masse. I don’t even really mind a few minorities who seem to be assimilating to American culture and religion.

Moreover, I have met and liked many individual non-whites and liberals and even homosexuals. I’ve got friends who have married very nice women of other races. Honestly, I wouldn’t want to hurt any of these people.

How does one balance his abstract, collective views on race and morality, issues that he knows to be true, with the individual people that he meets every day, many of whom he cares about? This apparent conflict will be difficult for a lot of racially-awakened people.

We can handle this in two ways. We can openly live out our racism in such a way that everyone quickly realizes our views. We refuse to associate personally with blacks, Jews, and other undesirables. We somehow make it plain that we don’t want them around us, either by wearing swastikas or simply telling them so. In one sense there is freedom in this approach. You don’t have to worry about hypocrisy. You’ll quickly burn through your unsympathetic friends and family and jobs, and then you can build a new life as an open, active racist. It’s not an easy road, as you will suffer persecution. But there is honor in it certainly. This is the die-hard road.

The other road is to live our lives pretty much as normal but stand up for our views when needed and refuse to misrepresent them otherwise. Try to find people who can be persuaded, or red-pilled, to your point of view over time. Win converts that way. We live in an occupied land, like a Christian living in a strict Muslim country, and for most of us, it makes sense to keep a low profile while staying true to our beliefs. This method represents the underground road.

But to those who choose the easier road, don’t get in the way of the die-hards. And support them behind the scenes if they are honorable. Die-hards might deride the crypto-racists as weak and cowardly, while some of the behind-the-scenes racists might look at the die-hards as low-brow or white trash. Certainly there are plenty of cowardly hypocrites, as I have been, and also plenty of white trash dysfunctional crooks among the die-hards. But if the honorable die-hards can work with the honorable underground types, then we can all accomplish a great deal.

As far as dealing with minorities of all stripes, it’s like an Old West cavalryman who was friends with a local Indian. The two might have hit it off just fine, hunting and fishing together and perhaps even one man risking his own life to save the other. But the cavalryman knew that the Indian would always side with his own people, just as the Indian knew that the cavalryman would side with his fellow Americans. In war, the best that the two could hope for was that each man would treat the other honorably, even while they were fighting to the death.

battle-of-little-bighorn-edgar-samuel-paxson_0

It wasn’t uncommon during times of peace between the various Indian Wars for individual American soldiers and individual Indians to respect one another and become friends. Yet each knew that the other stood with his own people.

During the period of America’s westward expansion, many Indians and whites had similar relationships. Friends during peace, enemies during war. Some Indians, of course, completely embraced the white man’s ways while rejecting those of their people, and they mixed into our people almost without a trace. Some whites did the same with the Indians, betraying their own people and becoming Indian, as much as was possible.

Today, most minorities will side with their own people when it comes to conflict. The homos will side with the other homos. Many of our people will side with these other groups also, just as some few of them will choose our side. As far as half-breeds, I consider them unfortunate but I’m personally willing to accept them if they are assimilated, few as they are here in the United States.

When the time for conflict arises, we must expect to fight our enemies whomever they are, from whatever direction they come. Even former friends.

As with dealing with the public and our co-workers, we must be honest with our friends when the subject of race (or religion or whatever issue) comes up. They may reject us for our views, but if we are gracious and honorable with our words, remembering the perspectives of others and showing mercy and respect to them as individuals, then they might accept us on our terms as we accept them. If they reject us, then what kind of friends were they anyway?

There is nothing wrong with showing empathy and mercy towards our enemies, but we must always remember whose side we’re on.

Andrew Anglin: A Normie’s Guide to the Alt-Right

andrew-anglin

– 31 August 2016 –

Patulcius:

Patulcius-sqToday Andrew Anglin at The Daily Stormer published a truly awesome article that explains the movement of which he is an enormous part. (And I use the word “awesome” in its classical sense, not the trite way in which today’s people abuse that formerly wonderful word.)

Additionally, Anglin addresses how he hopes the movement will evolve, growing beyond mere memes and trolling to real, concrete action and, eventually, to a cultural shift at least as thorough as that achieved by the 1960’s Commie radicals who rule society today.

The article addresses many of the future issues that the Alt-Right faces that C. F. van Niekerk coincidentally presented here last night.

Although somewhat long, the article is worthwhile and entertaining to read in its entirety:

Following condemnations by Hillary Clinton, everyone in the world is now trying to define exactly what the Alt-Right is. Most of them are getting it wrong.

The short story is that although the term could refer to a lot of different people saying a lot of different things, the people that it is being used to refer to by the media – Trump-supporting White racial advocates who engage in trolling an other activism on the internet – are the core of the movement, with any other groups and figures being peripheral.

The core concept of the movement, upon which all else is based, is that Whites are undergoing an extermination, via mass immigration into White countries which was enabled by a corrosive liberal ideology of White self-hatred, and that the Jews are at the center of this agenda.

The Alt-Right is a “mass movement” in the truest possible sense of the term, a type of mass-movement that could only exist on the internet, where everyone’s voice is as loud as they are able to make it. In the world of the internet, top-down hierarchy can only be based on the value, or perceived value, of someone’s ideas. The Alt-Right is an online mob of disinfranchised and mostly anonymous, mostly young White men.  This collective of dissidents argued with itself until it reached a consensus (consensus is yet to reach 100%, but it is damn close). We have now moved from arguments and debates and become a new political collective, a type of hive mind.

The mob is the movement.

Some of the ways the movement presents itself can be confusing to the mainstream, given the level of irony involved. The amount of humor and vulgarity confuses people. The true nature of the movement, however, is serious and idealistic. We have in this new millennium an extremely nihilistic culture. From the point when I first became active in what has become the Alt-Right movement, it was my contention that in an age of nihilism, absolute idealism must be couched in irony in order to be taken seriously. This is because anyone who attempts to present himself as serious will immediately be viewed as the opposite through the jaded lens of our post-modern milieu.

Now, on to the long story.

I will first lay out what the movement actually is and where it came from, and then layout what it appears to be to the mainstream media, and why I believe these narratives differ so drastically, and conclude with some loose predictions of where I see all of this going in the future.

Anglin follows up this introduction by:

  • Describing the major groups that converged to form today’s Alt-Right. It’s a fascinating evolution really. I hadn’t realized how many other people shared a similar evolution to what I went through from old-school white nationalism to conspiracy theories to Ron Paul libertarianism and paleoconservatism.
  • Defining for the “normies” some of the major tropes of the movement. Oddly, this felt like someone explaining a very subtle and funny running joke, almost ruining it. Almost.
  • Highlighting the major goals and concepts of the movement.
  • Best of all, Anglin reveals his ideas of how the hardcore Alt-Right should develop in the future, particularly on how the movement should interface with the real world without losing its soul.

Even though I disagree with some of it, Anglin has written a very noteworthy article, perhaps even an important one. It stands out like a culmination of years of work, or the end of the first chapter in a somewhat terrifying masterpiece.

  • July 2017
    S M T W T F S
    « May    
     1
    2345678
    9101112131415
    16171819202122
    23242526272829
    3031  
%d bloggers like this: