And what better an event to exhume myself from anonymous essay-making and random side projects than to regale my audience with my experiences at the 2026 Nationalist Media Conference!

Just as in years past attending this event in person, the presentations were excellent and gave me a whole feast for thought – a feast that I will now share with you, the people. So many tasty thoughts I’ve had, in fact, that it behooves me to make my reflections this year into a small series of articles. Did you know Substack recommends articles be about 800 - 1.5k words in length?

This year had 13 presentations, and more content than I could justly go over in any timely fashion in a single article. So this will just be a brief survey of my shower thoughts on each of the other presentations, split into three main articles. So lets get stuck in, shall we?

Handary See | The Importance of Committing Words to Memory | Nationalist Media Conference 2026

Handary See has been to every NMC so far, giving excellent presentations on rhetoric and poetry that are well worth checking out. This year he gave a presentation about memory, specifically the modern demonization of memorization and how it actually formed the basis of classical education.

One of the greater criticisms of rote memorization has been that children are committing things to memory that they don’t have the maturity or experience to understand. Yet Handary’s research demonstrated how the brain should be fed materials it doesn’t yet understand, as it furnishes the raw materials for later revelation. The brain loves deciphering puzzles, and in the struggle of making sense of things our minds fall in love with the process and results.

I likened this experience to why well-written mystery novels are so engaging and enjoyable, especially when it comes to the whodunit reveal. All the prior memories collected through the reading, details great and small, suddenly shift into focus, and that revelation gives us such delightful “Eureka!” moments. Even going back and re-reading it will reveal so much more in retrospect, and that further cements the memory in the mind.

It also is what furnishes my notion of a Gordian Knot in modern art. What I call a Gordian Knot is a non-puzzle that appears, nevertheless, as a puzzle. Based on the legendary Gordian Knot that was said to be so complex it could not be untied that Alexander simply cut with his sword, I assert that the thing wasn’t actually a knot but just presented itself as one.

We assume knots are meant to be untied, and try to do so even if a knot it is not. Likewise when we encounter something called “art” in a museum, we are led to believe there must be a meaning to distangle from it – even if there isn’t one. And in so struggling with the “artistic” Gordian Knot, we insert our own interpretations and meanings to make sense of its parts, and in so doing fall in love with the reflections of our own mind.

“Modern Art” highjacks these mental faculties our brains love to exercise, and exerts them on useless junk. Such misdirection and misapplication of our vital energies is the modus operandi of a certain (((type))) that just so happens to be the greater purveyor of this cultural slop, after all! At least when it comes to real and worthwhile memories like times tables and epic poetry, this same instinct to puzzle about with obscurities serves us much better!

Raw memorized materials seem to serve as the building blocks of personal and even state power. The mythology of Mnemosyne and Zeus, divine embodiments of Memory and Patriarchal Power that Handary mentioned, really does serve that story. Mnemonsyne gave birth to the Muses, the divine patrons of creative endeavor – creativity descends from Memory itself, literally. Unlike the modernist Globohomo lover that demands an absolute break from all prior ages and traditions, the real creative draws from the remembered past to furnish new instances of ancient things.

In another myth between Mnemonsyne and Zeus, the King of the Gods was informed that the next daughter born from Mnemosyne would overthrow him. Not wanting to fall to the same fate as his own father whom he overthrew, Zeus divinely absorbed the pregnant Mnemonsyne into himself. After this Zeus got an incredible headache, and when his skull was split, out sprang Athena, Goddess of Wisdom, fully grown and clad in armor. But instead of overthrowing her father, she was utterly devoted to upholding his order.

Memory that is not incorporated into Patriarchal Power will eventually birth something that will overthrow it, and only by absorbing Memory into itself can such Power endure. The rediscovery of the Greek and Roman tradition in the Medieval Age lead to such an explosion of creativity and innovation in the West precisely because it was the rediscovery and reincorporation of our own people’s Memory. It’s also notable that in all the arguments from Feminists against “the Patriarchy”, from the Marxists against “Oppression”, and every manner of Jewish-Saturnian contrivance, those poisons only takes hold when Power fails to integrate its Memory, turning what should have been Wisdom into its usurper.

Handary said memories can inoculate the mind against real suffering by “practicing” it in narrative tragedy. By building up a Cathedral of the Mind as Handary quoted from John Basinger, we can take refuge when times get truly difficult. Partly just the act of remembering takes the edge off of current circumstances, but more importantly it contextualizes our suffering to become meaningful. As long as we remember such stories, we can better endure our present suffering.

I was really struck by Handary’s fact about Fredrick Douglas becoming a great orator by memorizing and practicing a book of great Western speeches. If a Black man could benefit so greatly from such a practice, surely men of our own stock could benefit just as much if not more from imbibing the memories of our greatest speakers. It is in fact the same advice often given to writers, that in order to write great works you should read great writing. Handary would go a step further in suggesting we memorize great works like that.

I agree, and thanks to Handary’s presentation I will recommit myself to memorizing awesome speeches I’ve found in my various cursory travels. Before this point I accidentally memorized the infamous Azariah Kyras speech from Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War II, and now I will intentionally set about likewise memorizing Scolar Visari speeches from Killzone in my long forays into the shower…

Humble beginnings, right? You can check out Handary’s own memorization project on his Substack.

Trevor Raein | Narrative and Worldview | Nationalist Media Conference 2026

For a first-year showing at the NMC, Trevor Raein of Evropean Americans went all out. Not only did he deliver this excellent speech live in front of the spiffily-dressed audience, but his suit was perhaps the spiffiest of all! It’s only fitting then that his talk was all about embodying the mythos of your people and living your life as the knight who must face and slay the dragons of his age.

Much like Handary’s observations about the soothing and orienting properties of memorized information, Trevor reinforced how understanding yourself as a character in a grand unfolding narrative of life situates your suffering in relation to its narrative arc – thus giving you purpose in enduring suffering while also informing you as to what are the ideal actions to take.

It reminded me of the difference between Torture and Agony. For the modern English-speaking ear, we use both terms as essentially synonyms to mean pain, as pain seems to be the greatest evil in the plush and effeminate Globohomo world. But the words etymologically refer to very different kinds of pain.

Both imply motion, interestingly enough. Torture comes from Tort – to twist – and is a kind of pain that comes from contorting in place. It is pain that doesn’t take you anywhere, doesn’t advance anything. It is pain for pain’s sake, and has virtually no positive sense to it.

But Agony is quite different, deriving from the Greek word Agonia meaning “the struggle for victory”. Specifically Agony is the physical/mental/spiritual pain you feel in the pursuit of a worthy goal. It is an existential “Feel the Burn” kind of exercise that takes you from comfort towards an ascended goal.

Pain simply is, but whether you make it meaningful or not largely determines how well you’ll endure it. Our mythos enables us to understand our pain and place it in a meaningful context, thus enabling us to struggle hard and, in so doing, succeed in turning mere Tortures into life-affirming Agonies.

He went on to mention how the Jews own their wins and losses in history – alongside, I might add, their fake histories too! One of my first “ick” moments in studying the JQ came from learning about how their wedding ritual of breaking a glass underfoot was designed to remind all the Jews about the goyim destroying the second temple. Spiteful and grudging, even in a wedding! There is something shockingly profane about violating a sacred moment with such gnawing vitriol, but we are talking about Jews after all.

In any case, Trevor raised the point to assert his belief that all Nationalists should claim the term “Nazi” for themselves as part of reclaiming one’s narrative. I respectfully disagree. Adopting a term of abuse invented by the Marxist Konrad Heiden to denigrate a completely different people, and one that has had nearly a century of relentless Hollywood bilge warping the image of a German National Socialist into the most evil villain in every Western(ish) sense just seems like acquiescing to the convenience of modern convention. I am a Nazi only insofar as any non-Leftist is a Nazi by Leftist standards. Why give their nuspeak any credence, save to point out that it’s just a convenient term of abuse to demonize pro-White men?

The valiant stand for Porch Monkeydom.

Where I agree with Trevor is that the narrative surrounding the Nazi should be dismantled, and perhaps even reforged from its truer National Socialist roots as part of the spiritual rehabilitation of the West. If the Great Satan that is Hitler is shown to be a man of history and not the secular Devil incarnate, virtually all of the manifest evils of Globohomo will wither from simple, honest scrutiny. In that purpose I am happy with Trevor pushing on the issue from the direction of embodying a “classy Nazi” as he put it, though I will be pulling with others towards new and better terms to describe our Nationalism.

One of those ways he pushes back on that is admonishing the Nationalist response to the Alt-Right and Charlottesville in 2017. This was a pivotal point in the development American Nationalism, the first great push of “Cancel Culture”, and showcase of the merciless nature of our enemies as exercised on pro-White men.

Notice, dear reader, that any mention of the that rally is always attached with the “Deadly” label. This is done less for the excuse about the death of Heather Heyer as part of a violent Antifa-laden crowd braying for blood, and more as an implicit associative fallacy that the whole rally was a dangerous threat on “Our Democracy™”. This was the mainstream media’s one and only successful blow against the Alt-Right, and they have never stopped chanting that all-permitting mantra in the hundreds of articles and prosecutions that have followed since.

This event, more than any other, created the defensive masking culture in American Nationalism. As potent a defense as this has been, it has greatly retarded the growth of Nationalism through mainstream channels. Trevor reinforces the counter-narrative that those men and women who stood in Charlottesville for the preservation of their people and heritage were heroes. It is a critical step in overcoming the terror campaign waged on Nationalists for the past decade. One day soon, I believe this more truthful and accurate counter-narrative will assist in breaking out of the masked activism as our underground labors continue to bear fruit.

The power of narrative, indeed!

Flood | When Machines Decide | Nationalist Media Conference 2026

In his latest contribution to the conference to join his AI-deology talk in the 2025 Conference, Flood produced a most interesting and alarming presentation about one of the more insidious dangers of AI. Today the great debates about so-called AI rage about artist copyrights, expert job loss, and the diminishing quality of work done by digital cogslaves. All valid concerns worthy of respective explorations, but perhaps the greater dangers of AI come from their subtle, almost invisible manipulations of choice and free will.

Suggestibility is the human trait by which external stimuli affect the choices we make, the behaviors we exhibit, and the thoughts we have. The only humans that are not suggestible are those suffering from severe mental impairment – you can’t much influence the thoughts of a drooling vegetable, if thoughts indeed they really have! Everyone else is at some level or another adjusting their cogitations based on the information they receive, largely unconsciously and beyond conscious observation.

There are so many examples of suggestibility in action that it is hard to find examples where we are not being influenced by unseen hands! Handary See’s 2024 presentation Words that Change Minds tackled the various kinds of rhetorical tricks that can create agreement or consensus without the subjects even being aware that it is happening. K’s Art and the Mind 2025 presentation explored how beauty and the creation thereof affects not just our thinking but our very biology through primal suggestibility. The practice of hypnosis famously convinces people to act, believe, and even tangibly feel absurdities through the power of suggestion.

AI rules our thinking through convenient assistance and distractions, suggestions that we are often not aware of.

As Flood was trying to create his original essay, he kept running into the euphemistic “guardrails” built into the software. Everyone knows that you can’t get what you want out of these mainstream tools if you violate the sensibilities of their programmers.

Guardrails are last-ditch efforts to bluntly manipulate users away from certain conclusions. What is far more pernicious is the “current” dragging you towards the biases and conclusions the programmers want you to accept. This is done not by a blunt “No” splashed across your screen, but by providing tidy and appealing solutions suggested by means of its obsequious programming.

Omitting key details and providing only specific information in that mechanical “all-knowing” Redditor tone convinces many people to not even consider if the outputs given are even flawed. And even if you notice, your thinking often becomes boxed into its frame. Flood described this as floating down a river whose current relentlessly pulls you down a particular path. You can paddle around in this current, even resist it to some extent, but it will draw you inextricably towards its desired end unless you moor yourself on the guardrail shores. Most people will simply go with the flow, and not know it is not them making the key choices on where they are ultimately going.

I know this feeling firsthand when it comes to image generation. Often I will turn to my ComfyUI workflow with a particular image in mind. In the process of prompting, it will offer me many images – almost never aligning with what I had in mind, but eventually some will appeal enough for me to shrug and say, “Fine, I’ll work with this…” All my artistic process beyond that iterates on these proffered images, deviating from my original intention, but serving as the creative base from which I build my end product. And, by the end of such works, I feel fairly well satisfied – I made choices and a product after my own design.

But was it my design in the end, or the suggestion of the machine? Who was making the real choices in the matter? Who, or what, is most responsible for the outputs?

Flood gave the horrifying example of the Australian government making an AI control a debt-recovery program. The unfeeling, uncomprehending machine automatically sent thousands of erroneous debt notices to innocent Australians. These were not mere whoopsies – several people killed themselves over it. The machine itself was blamed and scrapped, yet its bureaucrat architects and the politicians who ensconced it in a position managing the lives of their people were never held to account.

The practitioner of Black Magic excuses the karma of his evil deeds by having his victims “freely choose” to engage in the ritual, whether they comprehend it or not. So too are we increasingly being told to freely choose to participate in rituals we do not comprehend, and are wrongly blamed for the results of these manipulated choices by sorcerers who know full well the misguiding nature of so-called “free choice”.

It is recognizing how much we are using the tool, and how much the tool is using us. The convenience of AI is that you can cede far too much creative control, even ideological control, to a machine that offers to grant wishes for you in a flash. But we must, as creatives and free thinkers, resist blindly accepting what these machines – programmed very often by those absolutely antagonistic to our worldview and ultimate well-being – suggest to us as we utilize their better qualities to assist in our endeavors.

What is most amusing in Flood’s presentation, a little secret between you all and I, is that you can listen to a 2-hour version of this same presentation on his Lyceum series. Same topic, same points, just elaborated in greater depth and detail. And this was easy for him to make, because Flood directed his agent AI Otterbot to write it, furnish the graphics, and perform it in his voice. Flood’s warning about the dangers of AI were granted to us by his personally-curated AI.

What fun food for thought!

Tonitrvs | Linguistic Nationalism | Nationalist Media Conference 2026

The next presentation touched on the role of language in shaping our perceptions and thinking, a topic rather close to my heart as my long-time readers would know...

Tonitrvs – Latin for “Thunder” – is a Spanish national who has adventured across the West and is currently dwelling in California. Throughout his travels he has picked up on many nuances in multiple languages and attitudes across the political spectrum. His presentation covered how important language is for determining groups, regulating social behavior, and pre-cognitively framing discussions.

Language has mostly been considered by the normie to be that annoying thing that sometimes gets in the way of understanding foreign people. There are now auto-translations going on across Twitter (X), alongside decades of Anglofication of all the world’s denizens into speaking the lingua franca of English. Dozens of interesting languages endemic to the various peoples of the world have been effectively going extinct with the excuse that, “They’re not useful for communicating broadly…”

The reality is that language constitutes the third most powerful barrier between human groups, the first being geography and the second biology. These barriers naturally form a comfortable zone in which a homogeneous people can develop along their own lines, befitting their own attitudes and inclinations, without the subversion and cacophony of competing alien inputs.

Like any great design, this happens not out of any conscious intention of anyone involved. Those who speak different languages simply don’t understand each other outside of those who exercise a high level of agency to bridge that gap. Languages are like the anti-hobo architectures found in the psychographic makeup of nations, being tolerable to ideal users while incomprehensible or even repulsive to the wrong kinds.

A great threat today for the West that Tonitrvs covered is, with the universalization of English, foreign ideas from even low-agency critters are infesting our culture. Even if those idiotic ideas garbled out by People of Urban Environments are ridiculed and widely rejected, they are still taking up attention and mental space from our own communications. The resulting diversification – read divisiveness – is all according to plan for the Globohomo Consumerists of the world.

Words matter, even within a shared language. Phrases produce their own lines of thought naturally based on the way they are presented rather than any change in their underlying propositions. The “glittering generalities” and other rhetorical trickery explained in Words that Change Minds does an excellent job exploring how meta-linguistics affect people like this.

Tonitrvs laments the Midwittian tendency to adopt language and phrases to make themselves sound smarter. The trappings of intellectualism are desired by the Midwit more than actual intellect, because this garners to oneself all the social benefits of being perceived as “smart” without any of the burdensome side-effects of being Bigwitted.

That the Midwit doesn’t actually understand the implications or fundamental nature of the things he says is no different than the babbling Negro throwing out $5 words that he cannot even pronounce or use in a sentence correctly.

The words are often Shibboleths, linguistic signs of status and group belonging. Just using the term “Problematic” or “Oppression” puts you into the camp of blue-haired Communists, Redditors, and the general “Woke” ideological cohort for instance. The whole Leftist lexicon is riddled with these words and phrases that signal their status within its (literal) gay hierarchy.

I, being a clever boy, just call their lexicon Nuspeak, both after the Orwellian Newspeak language that would preclude any dissent by simply depriving the words for those ideas to catalyze around, and short for Nuisance Speak since the language and that which is constructed from its users is repugnant, sanitized, and ugly.

I’d go further to add that not just the flavor or inclinations can change based on phraseology, but vital decisions over life and death itself. There was a recent hubbub about a hypothetical question pertaining to pressing a Red or Blue Button. Its normal formulation is this:

There are two buttons: One red, one blue. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, then EVERYONE lives regardless of what button they chose.

If more than 50% of people press the red button, then ONLY those who chose the red button will live, and everyone who chose the blue button will die. Pressing the red button does nothing otherwise.

Which button do you press?

This question caused mass uproar for a solid week as debate raged about whether it was more socially responsible to press the Democratic-survival blue button or the “selfish” red button. Most people who participated in the debate were unable to comprehend how the criticisms of the other could even exist, those being respectively breathtakingly selfish and irresponsible versus amazingly idiotic and virtue-signaling.

This was interesting given how breaking down this hypothetical to its components reveals a hilarious design flaw – IF it would be presented properly. Let me formulate it with a little tweak to the language:

There are two buttons: One red, one blue. If people press the red button, nothing will happen. Everyone who presses the red button will live.

If people press the blue button, they will die unless over 50% of all people press the blue button. If more than 50% press the blue button, nothing will happen.

Which button will you press?

See that? By simply re-arranging the presentation of the propositions without changing anything of the underlying conditions, it now seems absolutely absurd to even think about pressing the blue button. The fact is there is no logical reason to press the blue button unless you believe someone you care about pressed it, or if you want to virtue-signal about being heroic about “saving” others.

The latter wouldn’t have created much interest among the public I suspect – everyone would get the flaw of the question immediately and not see anything noble or selfless in pressing the blue button. But it showcases the power of language, how it isn’t always or even predominantly the ideas themselves but the ways they are presented that affects how people make critical choices in life. Understanding this is key to resisting and combating the manipulators of our day.

Tonitrvs goes on to advocate for “Spreading the Trend” in either salvaging a more proper English language and/or learning a new language to preserve one’s ideas from the foreign hordes corrupting it. At the very least the generation of our own lexicons within the sprawling language that is English is something we “Based and Redpilled” have long been doing against the soyboy cuckery and fag-haggeries of Globohomo.

While we disagree on the particular words – Tonitrvs is not yet able to appreciate the wry delights in rescuing terms like “Based” from Negroid babblism and forging them into erudite utterances – we would agree that the process of Linguistic Nationalism begins with ourselves and the words we choose to use in our daily parlance.

End of Part 1/3

There are more presentations to cover, and cover them I will! While I am still blasting through the suggested 1,200 word article length that Substack highly recommends, at least I am giving a nod towards trying to make them slightly more bite-sized. As much as I would rather fatten you people up all at once with my thoughts like stuffing food down a goose’s throat for foie gras, I’ll pace ourselves a bit better this time.

Stay tuned for the next installment, coming soon!

When suddenly a notification pings – A mention by Walt Bismarck. Bismarck! My commentaries with him on Nationalism had earned me the most updoodles of any of my articles to date. Turns out people like debates more than esoteric preening about neologisms and dissecting public psyop campaigns – for now at least. It’s fun and profitable to engage with Bismarck on such topics, so it behooved me to check the article out.

What would it be this time? A further extrapolation of the Jewish Question? Why, Norm knows a thing or two by now about those devious dastards and has said as much on prior occasions. Was Bismarck coming around to a well-balanced Nationalistic view now that he was not frying himself with modern Pervitin like a frontline Schutzstaffel officer? Surely my good-natured ribbings about resisting the perfidious yenta were breaking through at last!

Absolutely fizzing with curiosity, I took a look. And let’s see here…

“I’ve been meaning to put out a solid Jew article.”

Yes!

“Thing is it kind of just feels like the JQ doesn’t matter anymore.”

Oh.

“It seems to me unmarried college women are a lot more culpable than Jews.”

Uh oh…

“Why Jew Broads Are Hot”

Oh gawd, it’s another article about Bismarck’s sexual fetishes!

Okay, alright, fine... beggars can’t be choosers. We’re going to have to have The Talk about how Judaic jimmy-jockeying isn’t the greatest thing for maintaining an accurate perspective on the Jewish Question.

Normally the tragic hero picks up some kind of cursed sword that tragically corrupts his noble pursuit of laying low evil - not getting into such a pursuit of laying yentas that he picks up a masochistic backstab fetish. Is this a tale as old as time nevertheless? Maybe. Human sexuality is a funny thing like that. We all have our embarrassing sexual weakpoints somewhere. Let he who is without a weird, embarrassing erotic interest cast the first stone. I’m talking about you too, ladies. I know what you read…

Far be it from me to criticize too deeply a man for engaging in some Know Thyself when it comes to the often unexamined black box of sexuality. Newly-minted Puritans hovering around Nationalism often chide anyone for having any sexual funny-stuffs going on. The youthful days of humping around out of wedlock are wistfully behind them – now they are fully devoted to the latest of their several wives. To enjoy sex as anything other than how they enjoy it would be degenerate, you see!

But despite their granola and gruel tastes in the erotic, at least it is protective of these kinds of prudish Nationalists. As long as they don’t value sexuality more than a humping dog would, they won’t be as likely to get trapped dick-first inside the very problem sapping the life from our civilization.

Being one in possession of slightly more well-behaved junk and without the performative Puritanism that hobbles others of my persuasion, I might be able to summon up some kind of discourse on this matter of Jew love-hate dynamic from a different, less horny angle. At least after current events and other distractions as of my original penning of this back in September stopped redirecting all my attention…

But it is only fitting to begin this retort to an article jerking about belle juives to provide a sultry interlude on the same themes.

A Brief Interlude

Titillating? Enthralling? Of course! Now with every Judephile in the audience spent and enjoying a few moments of clarity, on with the response to Bismarck’s article.

JQ Delusions

I’ve begun to notice a strange whispering among the lords of edgemost internet provinces to the effect of, “The JQ doesn’t matter anymore.” Bismarck’s comments were right in line with these odd grumblings:

“Thing is it kind of just feels like the JQ doesn’t matter anymore […] The Brahmin Question was already far more salient half a decade ago, and since then Jewish power has collapsed so quickly and ignominiously that it seems bizarre to even talk about.”

It’s only fitting that a compromised JQ opinion would open with a deflection away to someone else besides the Jews.

Indians are perhaps the world’s most amazing heap of every annoying and awful racial quality known to man. Imagine a race so disgustingly obsequious and obvious in their scheming that even the Jews, an obligate slaver race, finds them too scraping and nauseating to endure. Indians are so viscerally repulsive that even Canadians have stopped telling them sorry, and they have been known to apologize to inanimate objects. No doubt they are loading up the maple chambers right now for The Day of the Flush...

Yet I appreciate Indians, if only for the fact that their arrogant stupidity and street-shitting ways are single-handedly causing even normies to racially reawaken. And for all the bad they introduce to any civilization they come to infest, Indians are just one of the many fetid artillery barrages launched into the West from the still intact and ever-firing cannons of world Jewry.

“Since then their paranoia’s been redirected away from my side towards poopy foreign student activists [...] These days they break ranks all the time over identity shit [...] Meanwhile the collapse of the 2010s digital media bubble means no more daily Ten Reasons White People Suck articles by Schlomo Shekelstein”

Does Bismarck mean the Jew’s racewar golem? The golem over-tuned on brown-oppression sensitivity by Jewish Broad Front rhetoric? The golem that finally noticed (again) that everything they’d been taught Whites did in the dim imagined past is what Israel is actually doing 1000x worse to brown Palestinians today? The golem they are now desperately trying to stop by pitting their other-golem against it while they melt back into “junior status” again? The golem that the Chutzpah Jews continue to bash against the Blood Jews in their internal power struggle? That golem?

Not only is this sudden yet inevitable betrayal absolutely predictable given what is fed into these brown hordes and their Libtard jannies, but it has happened before with the first BLM iteration assembled in 2015.

Remember that one? Most don’t, because the moment those Communist Negroids touched the Master’s third rail of Palestine, their Jewish handlers panicked and starved their golem of money. No money means no rabble rousing, no rabble rousing means no gibs, and no gibs means no Tyrone chimping out in the streets. Surely the Jews would have learned that teaching a horde of low-IQ lumpenprole to activate chimp-out mode on any pale-faced hominid that so much as thinks poorly about a brown person would inevitably backfire on them.

But these are Jews we are talking about – of course they rebuilt their golem, bigger and better than before! Programmed on the same sloppy, haphazard ideology as before, and thrown against America in fealty to Saint Floyd of Fentanyl. Cities burned, people died, and Jews danced with glee. And then, like clockwork, that Broad Front became dimly aware of Palestine and Israel. And wouldn’t you know it, the golem went berserk - again.

Oy vey! Who could have predicted this sudden yet inevitable betrayal!?

What we witness now with the turning tide against Jewish interests is simply certain Jews panicking to put on their White-face masks again to beg White people to, once again, clean up their mess while at the same time still ginning up every non and traitor White to aggress against White civilization.

Jews could hardly be more of a recurring baddie in a kid’s cartoon if they tried.

Yet Bismarck sees these age-old tricks that he damn well knows and concludes for his audience that the Jews have, this time, gotten a change of heart. They’re the White man’s quirky, goofy little cousins again! Nothing to worry about anymore, they are just “junior partners” in the White Man’s world. War won, genocide averted, now it is time to breed with the yentas. That codes as high-status, you know!

The media doesn’t castigate Whites anymore? I don’t even watch television and I know that is balderdash. The same people who were writing those articles are still writing them, sometimes even more viciously than before. Anti-Semitism laws are being pressed as hard as ever. Not a single newsroom or media corporation has fallen into the hands of the “based”, unless you count an autistic manchild playing with rockets to count as a “based” acquisition. Bismarck is just tactically ignoring these obvious facts to bolster his strange point.

“Jews were annoying and got a bit too big for their britches (as they have since time immemorial), and so we tweaked their schnoz just as the universe began to smack them down. But now they’re literally just another faction among many—Gen II psychics instead of Gen I— and expending political capital to keep fighting them makes you seem a little tarded [...]”

I’ve heard of masturbation making you blind, but I didn’t know sticking your cock in a Jewish cavern might also blind your eyes!

Jews thrive in the so-called “junior position”. Being the sneaky vizier behind the throne, pulling the strings, poisoning the chalice, looting the treasury, plotting overthrow – that’s the Jewish wheelhouse, set down in countless myths throughout time and place. Treating them like quirky little cousins is like patting a poisonous toad on the head.

This was the foolhardy hubris I mentioned in my previous article where Bismarck literally envisioned himself and the White Man as Superman – invincible, untouchable, ultimate status, immune to any Jewish poisons or brown shanks. That hubris-infused attitude among Whites has turned our people into debt-slaves and corpses for the goblins and ghouls of the world.

Jews still directly control the mainstream media, own the banks, pry open the gates, inject the drugs, ply our politicians, indoctrinate our schools, and bilge their filth into every nook, cranny, and facet of our civilization. You talk as if some bad PR from slaughtering sand children and a few Pepe memes have utterly humbled and defeated the great plastic demons of decay, without a single office being captured or cultural seat of note falling into Nationalist hands. The deck chairs have shuffled on the Titanic, but Schlomo is still whistling at the helm.

Too big for their britches? Bismarck, they haven’t even vacated a pocket of our britches yet!

“Jews are also just functionally speaking drifting towards Whiteness [...] even fags like Shapiro aren’t overtly hostile to white identity since they understand now they need it.”

Donning their White Man Mask again, you mean. Even in the midst of Bismarck’s yentic gushings he revels in how “performative” the Jewess is to afford herself advantages and protections of her host nation. Performative, you know, like an actor, a hypocrite in the etymological root of the word.

Performative Whiteness is what Bismark means. And Jews increasingly want to melt back into undifferentiated obscurity, to mimic the host nation population in such a way that the White man’s slow-awakening wrath passes them over. Maybe if they hang a red MAGA hat on the door and eat some unleavened pizza, their firstborns will be spared divine retribution!

Henry Ford addressed the Religion and Ethnic masks that Jews would constantly swap between to suit their argument of the moment over a century ago in the Dearborn Independent, and this moment is no different. Jews don’t see themselves as White – they’re Jewish. And to believe them because it flatters you as Super White Man is such an elementary mistake that it would be laughable if it wasn’t so fatal.

“Does that mean Jews are white? Eh. They’re white-adjacent—and at this point back to being on our side [...]”

No no, Bismarck, they’re at your back. They’ve got you covered. Right there behind the throne, ready to pull out their daggers the moment they think the crown isn’t acting the way they’d prefer.

But in the meantime they can perform for you, goy. They can be anything you want them to be. Just give them leeway to do what they want, and they’ll wear bells for you! Don’t you like that, goy? Funny little Jews, hopping around the court, “pretending” to guide your newspapers and manage your treasury!

But you’re in charge, great and glorious goy. Obviously – how could a silly little Jew ever surmount the great White man on his throne? You’re the big man, the Super White Man, and no one could ever even think to defy you. Wouldn’t that be delightful, goy? Now just sit nice and still while your trustworthy Jews get themselves right within striking distance...

You’re too stewed in Jewish psychology to be so blind to their fundamental Chutzpah urges towards treachery. You can’t tweak their nose if they’ve got it buried between your damn shoulder blades!

Like a Bismoth to the Flame

“you can’t love Jews without hating them and vice versa…”

“To know the Jew is to hate the Jew.”

It’s a simple truth that explains both the inevitable raise of anti-Semitism wherever Jews come to scheme, and the bottomless self-hatred so many Jews (particularly Mischlings) nurse. So while I can believe that a man infatuated with Jews will come to hate them all the same, the inverse is hardly true at all.

My own affections for the Jews met its height while my ignorance about them was just as lofty. God’s Chosen People were, I supposed, the innocent White victims of envious cretins throughout time and place, never having done anything but promote sensible advancements in economics and sciences and culture wherever they went. So my McGraw Hill textbooks taught me, and Hollywood, and every talking head I saw on the television. To speak ill of Jews was a sign of deep ignorance and pathological hatred, and society afforded me unlimited leeway in hating on those anti-Semites in service to these thoughts.

This was what I was taught, and I was a good student. But good students sometimes come across curious loose ends at the edges of that near-perfect cultural tapestry. And when I came to know those strings and gave them a tug, that seemingly immutable tapestry frayed and unraveled with startling alacrity. The more I followed those clues, the more the image changed. The more I came to learn about the Jew as he really was, the more his visage changed from the angelic to the… less so…

They tell us that anti-Semitism is the result of ignorance while chiding us to keep our eyes clasped tightly shut. They know, like all of us who know, that to truly know the Jew is to hate the Jew. And not even Bismarck, literally balls-deep in the oldest Jewish trap in the world, can deny that.

As to what he says about various anti-Jew figures having lusty relationships with those same people, I can only say it is not uncommon for people to mistake such passionate focus for the opposite side of that same coin. The mixing of both elements creates volatile, interesting dynamics in the same way that torches create interesting dynamics interacting with light-loving moths.

“Among miscellaneous wignats and ragheads the dynamic is lower order; primitive. They fear Schlomo, which proffers a certain respect for his low cunning.”

I’ve talked previously about how one should appreciate the Grug. Essentially, you can’t hack a Speak-and-Spell. Grug is too simple to be bamboozled by many of the Jew’s more potent framing tricks. What inane chatter about material dialectic that dazzles a Midwit passes right through the Grug without inspiring a single corrupting thought. It is as if Grug simply phases out of the Jew’s preferred plane of combat and into the realm of Nature with vexing regularity.

As a wise individual once told me about contending with Jews: “You either have to outsmart them, or outdumb them.” Grug didn’t choose that latter battleground – he was born for it!

Grug simply doesn’t fight the Jew on his preferred hill. Why fight him there anyway, in his webs of pedantic legalisms and dishonest pilpul, when he is nakedly inept at any form of physical or natural arts besides cloak and dagger ambushes and manipulative wordplay? Better to follow the advice of the old Knight of Cluny on the matter – it is simply more effective.

Schlomo doesn’t feel existential terror about Grugs because they are just so stupid, but because his more potent sorcery doesn’t work well on blockheads.

That isn’t to say however that Grug is immune to Jewish tricks and that we should all aspire to blessed Dimwittery. Grug is still easily ravaged by Jewish schemes and sickened by his moral poisons, but those only weaken and distract Grug. Whenever the Gruggish peasants get riled up enough and focus on the Jew, pogroms ensue. Hence Schlomo’s trepidation and ever-constant poisoning of social wells which, in the grand irony of history, makes pogroms inevitable.

“Only not being part of it you’ll [...] need to engage in some kind of totalistic Talmudic dialectic with the entire ethnos.”

Bismarck’s yucky desire to crawl inside a Jew so he can pilot him like a Rabbot again clouds his ability to discern what the Jew actually fears. No Rabbi fears a goy trying to pilpul him or his fellow Talmudic sorcerers – that’s his highest hill and pleasure in life. Bismarck even admits:

“You can’t out-pilpul a whole race – not even with MY verbal IQ.”

It isn’t Talmudry that Jews fear, except maybe for a few of its passages simply becoming known to the goyim since, again, to know the Jew is to hate the Jew. Rather what the dear Rabbi, Shekelstein, and every narrative-weaving Jew fears is counter-sorcery that breaks his spells.

In a word, the Jew fears Goyimancy.

Goyimancy terrifies the Jew because it neuters his main vector to power – ensnaring goyim in a narrative that advantages him. Jews don’t rule directly through physical force in most cases, and when they attempt to they have to equip their Jewish soldiers with diapers due to incontinent excesses in a battlefield - they’re shitty fighters, literally and figuratively. Rather, Jews prefer to weave context and scenarios and ideologies and incentive networks that compel the enchanted to follow through as characters in that story. It just so happens the story ends with the Jew winning, but those are in his personal pages and not those afforded to his victims.

Despite this, the Jew is not that great of a storyteller - just insistent, relentless, and ruthlessly repetitious. But marred skill doesn’t matter. Combined with his pilfered resources, linguistic cunning, and garish presentation, he can fatten the human herds with absolute slop with little difficulty in the absence of good grasses.

But Goyimancy weaves spells with the potential of much greater potency for the host nation, if only for the fact that they arise from the minds of the very people they are meant to enchant. Who better to speak to the souls of a people than a selfsame spark of their particular genius? Bismarck already knows this principle as a practitioner himself:

“My vehicle was literally showtunes;”

Spellcasting, by any other name. The Poets and Skalds of old practiced the same in their sacred storytelling. And a good story changes the listener, particularly when it takes on the level of myth. For in the myth, you have a place and purpose between the realms of the material and the Divine, and you are called to act according to your role. And terribly for the Jews, men can only truly have faith in one myth at a time.

Dang, so I guess the Jews just roll over and die whenever we come up with a really catchy song or storyline then, huh? Nope, not even remotely. If the spell can’t be directly overpowered or broken, then simply turn or break the spellcaster. Flesh rends easier than song, after all. And what better, more insidious way to deactivate the aspiring Goyimancer than to offer the thirsty wizard some irresistible Judaic pussy (on loan of course, goy).

“Meanwhile I can promise you literally no Jew ever watched one of my parodies and got offended, because [...] My goal was never to simply remove Soros—I wanted to replace the fucker!”

Bismarck’s Irish genes awaken at the prospect of worldwide slumlording. But just as the Jew cannot truly become a potato-gobbling belligerent, neither can Bismarck truly become a nebbish plutocrat. Aspire as Bismarck might, his brain and body are those of the potato-people, forevermore.

As such, his entire outlook filters through lenses befitting his biological type, most notably casting the shadows of “honorableness” onto his beloved Jewish rivals. The same happens with Jews, projecting their own shadows onto their subjects. And when we behave in ways that tickle these alien perspectives right, they will identify it with their own familiar shadows – but never actually understand it as you do.

George Lincoln Rockwell related a similar story to Bismarck’s, actually. On page 178 of This Time The World, Rockwell noted that he had the most success with Jews in his marketing due to his behavior relating to their psychology. Rockwell’s aggressive, haughty approach was somewhat put on by him whenever he entreated with small-hatters, and it would result in them becoming some of his most lucrative customers – so long as he got ahold of their noses and didn’t let go until they signed the paperwork.

The Jews, he said, would stare at him with a grudging respect for his arrogance and pushiness. To them it equated to Chutzpah, the shadow of their own racial understanding of what was occurring. Of course they still wanted to kill him for being one of those “best of the goy” types, but there was still that sort of respect going on with how brazen he was. A close analog might be how a Knight or a Samurai might respect a skilled and honorable enemy they nevertheless fully intend to slay.

But there’s the rub – Jews don’t admire or understand honor. At all. To them, it is just a silly excuse for holding back from an opportunity to get the better end of a situation. They mentally, culturally, and possibly even physiologically are not so made as to understand why people might aspire to a mode of being where you dismiss momentary advantages over rivals and even enemies. And it is a major reason why they are consigned by Nature and Divinity to be reviled throughout time.

Herein lies a great danger for Bismarck: What his brain registers as “honor” has no such resonance with theirs. When he observes them and inevitably casts his shadows onto them, he misinterprets their masks and furtiveness as things like honor and forbearance. This is why Bismarck will inevitably lose, having buried his sword quite literally straight into their domain where it cannot cut.

A veritable Sword in the Stein. You’re supposed to pull it out of the stone, Bismarck, not shove it in there!

“They’re not terribly hard to outmaneuver once you’re inside.”

That’s what he said. I’m sure that’s what your sword told you when you buried it in that Stein. But it’s lying to you – it just likes being in there. All swords like sheathes, but not all sheathes are good for the sword.

“And if I come off as “Mischling-coded” it’s almost certainly because the feller who hardened me up in life was quite literally a Mischling—one who hated Jews a lot more than me, by the way. Dude idolized Bobby Fischer; by and large lived by his example.”

Very good, I am not one to stand in the way of my racial enemies devouring one another. I have a policy of not interrupting co-belligerents in the process of furthering my interests. But I also certainly wouldn’t put the reins of my interests or people into their hands.

To know the Jew is to hate the Jew, and who better to know the Jew than a Jew himself? That’s even a theme in Jewish psychology, no matter how hamfisted!

However, the full-Jew’s natural tendencies and self-interests tend to prevent him from turning full turncoat despite his ever-seething hatreds. But the White genes inside the Mischling shriek out in despair no doubt like that of the chimeric Negroid. If you listen carefully and respectfully, you will often hear a race-mixed Black expressing every now and again some crystalline insight about himself and the world – a fleeting moment of clarity before collapsing again into foolish Negro-babble… What a terrible fate.

A similar condition seems to afflict some Mischlings. The Hebraic brain, struggling eternally against a rival predator lurking inside their own skulls. But even if the White side wins out, the words and deeds that come from such a mind will be tainted with Semitic energies channeled through that half-Semitic mind. It’s the substance more than the direct form that matters, a thing Jews and frankly many Whites don’t understand, but Jews mythologically so.

It is such interesting language though from Bismarck, that this anti-Semitic Mischling “hardened him up in life”. Past tense, passive-voice, and somewhat guarded. Let me guess: The Mischling “hardener” backstabbed him despite all that anti-Jewish sentiment and revulsion, right?

Worry not, audience, Bismark would be okay even if that were the case. The threat of an inevitable stab in the back is Bismarck’s favorite kind of foreplay! On prior occasions he has admitted all those Jewish buddies and beaus of his took turns having their way teaching him the ways of the pincushion. No better way to build up callouses than with scar tissue, eh?

Yet Bismarck had endured, like so many others treated to the same old Judaic handshake. But while most people, like myself, learn to give that offered hand a very wary eye, Bismarck now slaps his dick right onto its palm. Like a Warhammer 40k Nurglite, Bismarck revels so much in his endurance that he transfigured his warranted animosity towards the Jewish menace into a deep desire to be continuously violated by them.

To anticipate Bismarck’s counterstoke here just a bit: No, you cannot bleach the heeb out of them with your potato-genes. You can no more purify the Jew of his Jewishness than you can part a zebra from its stripes. The kinds of measures required to properly conduct such a policy of genetic conquest would be the stuff to make even Israeli housewives steeped in their Nazi smut novellas blush.

The genetic tendency of races reasserts itself despite the veneers of culture, place, and adulteration. The Jewish strain reasserts in its characteristically subversive ways, just as the White character bobbles precariously to the surface every now and again. Even if the Jewish characteristics don’t fully express in direct conflict with White interests, their expression will almost inevitably taint whatever it touches with that destructive Jewish enmity for all existence.

“Jews are mostly pedantic legalists who fuck you with literalism and procedure. Which is terrifying in its proper context—until the moment they inevitably overreach;”

Jewish power is, fundamentally, the power to manipulate other hominids and their societal organs. Jews don’t have much in the way of their own power, and Jewish power is directly proportional to how powerful their thralls are. Specifically, they corrupt people who serve as power conduits in their host nation to facilitate entry into controlling institutions. From there they poison the lower classes with vice, the middle classes with malformed morality, and the upper-classes with tainted utility.

Legalism is just the medium by which they bend institutions to their will, and Jewish legalism is simply the application of pilpul to secular legal systems. As their religion is a continuous Jewing of their own divinity out of his clear and stodgy rules, they certainly treat any man-made system with absolute irreverence and disregard just the same. This is key to what makes him such a menace to the institutional pillars of the host nation, or the pillars of your own psychological and social well-being. The Jew is not just taught from birth, but bred by those most successful in these deceptive arts. It comes naturally to them after thousands of years of selection under a system rewarding only the most cunning and Chutzpah-addled pilpulers among them.

Their rewards are those of the successful termite colony infesting a grand mansion – voraciously devouring the excellent wood collected by others, until their feasting brings the whole edifice crashing down around their ever-surprised heads.

That all being said, Jewish Legalism outside of its institutional context withers into useless babble. Take the snail out of its shell, and it is nothing but a misshapen slug. Take the Jews out of the institutions, and he becomes just a petty swindler preying on embarrassing vices. A simple pinch of salt will do in purifying the land of the menace once those ends are achieved.

The Yenta Microcosm

And what more embarrassing a corridor for vice than those of a man’s lusts. How Bismarck yearns for those ever-rubbing hands upon him. That chiseling nose breathing sensually down his pockets. Oh, how great an aphrodisiac it must be for him!

“Yet the Jew still has one last trick up his sleeve… I’m speaking, of course, of the illimitable Jewess.”

Yes yes, it is finally time to gently make fun of a man for his sexual fetishes. It is my civic duty as a man, myself in possession of my own silly interests, to do so. But unlike the weird foot-fetishist or mascot-loving furry, this particular Yid-yiffing is personally and socially catastrophic. And only because of that must I raise a warning to any others before they fall dick-first into a Jewess’ honeypot...

As above, so below. As without, so within. As of the part, so of the whole. One can hardly examine a system without coming to understand much about the parts that make it up, nor can you examine the parts without getting an inkling about the systems they make up. Namely, we find in the microcosm of the individual yenta the whole of the matter inspiring the JQ.

To understand the JQ is to understand large swaths of the Jew himself – and one tends to become familiar with the JQ by simply delving into the Jew. We just hope that “delving” doesn’t involve certain unruly organs.

Even a dullard will quickly learn this wisdom because pithy phrases like “With Jews you lose” and “The Jew cries out as he strikes you” are simple yet surprisingly widespread in their pertinence. Bismarck is no exception to this, save for his unique enjoyment of being on the receiving end of a perfidious blade. Even I, Farsighted Norman, have been ambushed by Jews a frankly embarrassing number of times. It’s part of the education.

“The girls I don’t consider White at all, because that makes it more fun to fuck them.”

Eww, don’t stick your dick in those, Bismarck. Just because its a slippery, slimy, greedy hole doesn’t mean you should fuck it!

It is true, dicks are dumb. Unfortunately it seems the heart and the penis are fused together so surely that hardly any man can distinguish the two in the face of an alluring specimen. Nor do some even care to separate the two. As one of the most reliable routes to securing goyish compliance and vulnerability, why wouldn’t the Jewess invite such advantageous yearnings into their web?

“When you pork a lot of Jew broads you tend to notice a few patterns.”

It is very unkosher to pork a Jew, you know. You can probe the neurotic Jewish racial mind without sticking your meat thermometer into them. In fact, refraining from it gives you a clearer picture to frame those odd idiosyncrasies.

Jews are matriarchal as a people. Their men apply their masculinity towards typically feminine domains – social manipulation, subtle persuasion, and emotional interplay. This creates the “Legalism” and other strange yet potent psychological and social aggressions that a patriarchal race like Whites only dimly grasp.

Ester is a fitting mythological example of this in action. Women have long been used to ply men into doing the bidding of others. It is literally the basic survival strategy of hominid females to do this, and adding the Jewish layer on top of that is just slathering manipulative syrup on top of that shrewd icing. If rabbis are sorcerers, Jewesses can be Baba Yaga for all her inscrutable feminine cunning and fickleness.

Bismarck’s Monica Lewinski discourse is more reinforcement to this sorcery. By manipulating the metaphysical frames by tapping into shifting human laylines, she can cast whatever narrative she wants. Or, more accurately, she and her countrymen can seance it into materialization. Lewinski is, after all, just a dicksucking Jewess who happened to get close to a powerful goy. She is a mostly passive conduit channeling Jewish manipulation through her whining, and goyish fluids through her gullet.

“the Belle Juive’s whole purpose is inspiring a certain guilt or pity in the goyim [...] specifically through a performance of fragility, victimhood, and unimpeachable moral judgment.”

And securing the horniness in particularly self-blinded goyim.

All the elaboration that follows in Bismarck’s discourse simply describes the female-centric version of Jewish burrowing into alien nations and the utilization of their natural defenses for their own interests. The Jewish people’s behavior is just a fluke – the animal, not the accident. None of this behavior is by accident or some poor fate befalling these critters. It is success-deriving instinct and cultural inculcation, whether the particular actors of it are consciously aware of the scripts they play out or not.

Pity is a powerful tool to control behavior. Pity stays the hand of the gardener against the pest. Pity is the degeneration of mercy, mere sentiment devoid of justice and duty. Pity is a self-serving vice, disguised as compassion but really a means of evoking a misguiding sense of superiority in the perpetrator-victim. Pity blinds a man to the reality he faces, and causes him to act in a manner contrary to his own best interests.

It is no surprise then that Jews might exploit pity just as they would exploit lust, addiction, guilt, and every other spiritual canker in our people. And the Bellicose Juive often willfully cloaks herself in this societal pity just as a White girl might bat her eyes at her father to become his little princess again, or a Black girl might beat her paws together in faux-violent threats. These behaviors provide cover for more active elements of their respective populations to execute on more sophisticated social strategies.

This reinforces my concept of the Excipient population, the non-reactive agents that deliver the active-ingredients in medicines to their target systems. Excipients are not exclusively the domain of parasitic group strategies, but are present in different flavors among all races and nationalities. But that will have to star in its own neologistic article, one day...

“he’s unable to win since she sets the frame from the start. He just falls in.”

You know, this silly self-awareness of Bismarck that he is leaping straight into a trap reminds me of how I often play board games.

Once, I was playing Mansions of Madness, an appropriate enough example since we are talking about doomed attractions towards those possessing the Innsmouth Look. Our scenario had a betrayer among three NPC’s who needed to be discovered quickly before he or she brought about the end of the world. Time was of the essence, I told my fellow players, and we needed to go fast – ignore anything else that might distract us from our interrogations and just blitz down those NPC’s.

Of course everyone agreed with me, for it was the reasonable and manifestly obvious nature of the situation at hand. So I nodded sagely, took my turn, and immediately veered off into the woods towards a mystery item waiting there to be discovered. The NPC I was supposed to interrogate turned out to be the betrayer, and he promptly ended the world in my absence. And the mystery item I sacrificed the game for? Turns out it was a stick.

There is a funny tendency in some to see a problem with perfect clarity, yet then ignore their own insight and fling themselves right into the waiting jaws of defeat. It is like an internal Cassandra Effect, only it is you who doesn’t believe your own prognostications! Or worse you do believe them, yet think yourself too clever to fall for such an obvious trap as you slap your junk down right onto the trigger.

“some of them have weird smiles [...] tbh it’s a little grotesque the longer you stare at it… [...] that grin stretches past her ears; lines the face in a way that reads sinister; even predatory. [...] Jews are just a bit spoopy looking”

And Bismarck thinks, “Boy howdy, what a Hebraic maw – I sure do want to stick my dick in that!”

You know, that observation about the Jewish smile and eyes reminds me of a personal story about my own encounter with it.

Before I knew of the JQ as anything but a topic that produced delightful Happy Merchant memes for my personal collections, I was getting myself in the crosshairs of our tiny-hatted friends. I remember distinctly telling off one Jewess in public, openly dissecting her prole-candy outcry against some “problematic” performer as the self-serving performative stunt that it was. I didn’t know she was a Jew, nor would that have made much significance to me at the time. Still, you don’t need to know what a maggot is to smell the rot it so often finds itself in.

I guess employing a bit of public down-dressing of a Jew’s psychology and scheme really touches a nerve, because for the next two years that yenta led a secret campaign against me trying to stymie my every public move. An actual conspiracy arose around her to castigate me, sully my name, remove me from my job, and even deploy spies to report what I said in private discourses. Cancellation, at least the attempt. A little too malevolently self-indulgent? Not for a vengeful bellicose juive it turns out!

It led to the most iconic moment for me in my emotional understanding of the JQ. Once during this conspiracy, I happened to be in a waiting room speaking to the secretary about some small gathering I had gone to, and that I had recorded the audio for my personal notes. I hadn’t noticed a Jew lurking in the corner.

A particularly obsequious and scraping individual he was, always prostrating himself before the organization’s upper-echelon, hoping to ingratiate himself with power – a brown noser through and through. And this creature was part of his co-ethnic’s conspiracy, looking to catch me in any kind of malfeasance that could assist her campaign against me.

At once the crooked ears of this lanky Jew perked up at my words. Cunning but not very smart, he thought he had a code of conduct violation to finally get me on. He scuttled over and piped up suddenly in the midst of my conversation:

“What was that? That thing you just said... about recording…?”

That was all he said, but I remember it so distinctly from how disturbing the whole of his manner was. His words were oily, like he was savoring them pouring from his thin lips. His back hunched with his gleaming, beady eyes staring at me. Unblinking. He even rubbed his hands together as that huge, Jewish smile Bismarck described spread beyond his ears. Like a toothy toad delighting in a long-anticipated banquet.

It was the gaze of a Jew delighting in his ambush. That elated, predatory grin on that Jew’s face was arresting. Anyone who hasn’t been the subject of that stare is missing out on a major emotive part of the JQ. It’s as uncanny as discovering a stalker in your house. It makes you want to run the devil through – I guess that impulse takes on a different meaning if you’re Bismarck though!

The split-second moment stretched until I brushed the subject aside and turned to other matters. He lurked back there, savoring his morsel, before scurrying away to report to his fellow conspirators. Turns out it came to nothing, but that didn’t matter – he thought he had me. In that fleeting moment, the full spirit of The Jew appeared before me absolutely unmasked.

Bismarck talks at length about the Jew leading with the eyes, and I suppose that could be true. Maybe it is more impressive though to see the real Jew than to see the telling eyes of our own people that tend to shine out fairly constantly whatever the real nature of their soul is.

Unlike ours, the Jew’s inner-world is often obscured over by his many levels of neurotic defenses. Eyes normally as sullen and dull as an old rag suddenly pulls back to reveal the bright gleam of a dagger’s edge – a flash of sudden vicious delight of having snuck up on something threatening to him and besting it.

Apparently Bismarck takes this sudden yet inevitable betrayal as a form of foreplay. Can’t say that I do, though!

“Which on one level is insanely fuckin hot because Jews sort of feel like fragile elves again and arguably In Need Of Protection;”

If I could have a conversation with a Toxoplasmodium, I imagine it would say this exact line about cats through the mouth of the mouse it was infesting…

Masculine protective instincts are lucrative things to exploit for personal protection and advancement. Again, all normally configured women do this as par for the course. After all, it only makes sense to do so with such willingly gullible meat-and-eggheads that men tend to be. But Jewesses do it in their own racially adaptive way, incongruent with our own way, and that leads to all manner of social auto-immune disorders.

“Meanwhile it’s insanely hot how ethereally fragile and materially more susceptible to illness Ashkie girls are tbh… has an appeal sort of comparable to the idea of fucking a chick in wheelchair. [...] it would be hot as fuck to have a wheelchair girl dependent on you”

Oh man, I don’t know whether to experience horror or schadenfreud at the thought of Bismarck discovering the concept of breeding stumps in application to his Jewess interests…

I think this gets more towards the root of Bismarck’s interest however. What would be more mentally stimulating and thrilling than to best his greater racial rivals by rendering their women into his own helpless dependents? What better way to dominate Schlomo by making his daughter into his personal cocksleeve?

But this is just a dick talking – the organ, not Bismarck or me. In particular it is a man of a fundamentally Paternalistic race viewing the matter in terms of dominating another Paternalistic race. It is a misapplication however, a Samson-like error to underestimate the whore in his bed trying her racial best to subdue him.

Matriarchal power comes as trickles of poison poured into unguarded ears. Let a man think himself the victor, the conqueror, the winner, and in his drunken triumph simply turn his mind just so that he alters the course of his masculine ambitions towards her interests. Set him off on folly quests and fool’s errands, until his use is spent or he drives himself to destruction.

And as I said before, Bismarck knows this and has well explained it with his allusion to cats and rabbits grooming each other. To the cat, grooming another is a form of dominating the groomed, while to the rabbit being groomed is recognized as a form of supplication to its higher hierarchical status. Both feel like they are the one on top of the relationship.

This is how Bismarck justifies his Jewish dalliances, but doesn’t realize that these are matters of manipulated perspective. That rodent in the grip of the cat might seem the conquered party, but what delivered it between those claws in the first place? The cat thinks it to be his own prowess, but the Toxoplasmodia making that rodent a cat-lover knows it to be its doing. And it will continue its life cycle all the better for having sacrificed its vector for it.

One should beware mistaking vices for virtues, and when they are encouraged by those famed for the most cunning forms of manipulation. Many men have been destroyed by their own perceived success, and the Bellicose Juive is a perfect pitfall for both a man’s better and worse natures.

The Point

Again, I don’t fault a man for examining his sexual interests, but my goyish eyes glazed over a bit as the rest of the article went on about the nuances of Judaic liddedness. Perhaps his would glaze over the same if I waxed poetic about my love of midsections. Or maybe we both would be rendered into a similar torpor by other exhortations about the delicate pinkie-toe or the erotic craftsmanship of a fursuit.

The main reason and point that I wrote this commentary was to push back on this notion that the JQ somehow doesn’t matter anymore. Trying to subtly handwave away centuries of extreme problems caused by Jews hosted by non-Jewish societies because the last few years have seen the nose get exposed a tiny bit more than usual is like catching the ball in football and just putting it down outside the end zone.

Jews are no more rendered into the noogie corner than in the last few years past. They’re increasingly herding towards a corner alright, and increasingly making worse and worse mistakes, but that means only that his masks are slipping and cracking from his collective hubris. Seats of Jewish power are at risk now, but none have been truly taken. Having the cultural cover to barely tickle the matter of Loxism and the overall JQ is no more victory than merely catching the football is a touchdown.

The fundamental observation that leads to the Jewish Question is that, no matter how you shake it, Jews cause problems when ensconced in non-Jewish Civilization. The only times they don’t cause significant problems is when they are sequestered away from our many vices and our levers of power.

These problems are not just passive incompatibilities with our characters or our ways of life. There are active, malevolent urges among the Jewish ethnos towards humanity at large but Whites in particular, from their culture right down to their very constitutions. It is not something that is “fixed”, nor is it particularly appropriate for us as Whites to suggest Jews are “broken” in some sense. They are not broken, they are natural predators that prey on other human civilizations to sustain themselves.

They have genetic and cultural urges that unshakably reassert themselves generationally even after rounds of gene-stealing and mimicry. They revel in this, worship it, enslave devils and angels and men to it. Such a mentality cannot produce anything but obligate slavers of men, and it does. History shows what happens when you leave Jews at the levers of power, and the woes that befall those who forget those lessons.

All these observations about Jewish behavior lead invariably to the Jewish Question – what does one do to solve this incredibly difficult issue? And not only is the question still relevant, it still remains unasked among the general populace and certainly hasn’t been answered with appropriate, substantial, and meaningful action as of yet.

Bismarck tries to downplay it all after claiming the problem has been solved because little people murmur about Jews a tad more openly now. Now, when not a single meaningful office has been taken from them in any field. When the same politicians who sold us out to their interests are still in office. When merely the nose of the creature raping the souls of our people has been ever so lightly tweaked.

How then can Bismarck be so assured it doesn’t matter anymore? Putting aside the obvious dick-minded jokes that we’ve beaten to flaccidness already, there’s another more broad element about edginess to mention.

There is a tendency for those having inhabited an exciting edge to become naturally repelled when it “goes mainstream”. There is a certain disgust that grips the erudite when the unwashed masses, dim and unappreciating of the art that is a well-crafted meme, run about as posers to “your thing”.

Goebbels famously wrote about the sensation when he encountered a police officer who had previously beat him in service to the Weimar regime. But after taking power, Goebbels found that same officer sporting a swastika armband as if he were a loyal follower all along.

Goebbels clearly didn’t like it and set about ensuring herdling mercenaries like that officer didn’t corrupt the core values of his party’s philosophy, but reasoned again that the whole point of his party’s efforts to gain power was to lord over the whole of the board and not just its furthest edge. That means getting normies, even those once stupidly antagonistic to him, onto his side.

I think this edge lord sentiment plays a large role in Bismarck’s distancing from the evolutions of counter-Semitic popularization. Unfortunately that urges him to sweep the things he knows full well about Das Juden under his rug - because they certainly can’t go under his sheets, because there’s a Jewess lurking there!

It goes without saying that a downplayed antagonism for Jews will let him bed his Jewish wenches in peace without an increasing number of people shutting him out over it. But a man as thoughtful as Bismarck would not let the whims of his phallus hold up the whole of his argument as to why the JQ is irrelevant anymore, and so he’ll undoubtedly have to explore that once he can swat his joystick out of the way of his keyboard.

I say all this with the hope that the warning will resonate with some people in our mutual audiences, but most of all Bismarck himself. I hold no illusions that Bismarck’s torrid affair with Jewry would cease based on whatever I have to say. Never has a man’s lusts been chided out of him by the finger-wagging of randos with NPC-faces online! But perhaps not downplaying the value of the JQ or misinterpreting temporary Jewish embarrassments for total victory will be enough of a change of perspective that I could hope for.

If this inspires more discussion, all the better. That is what the Jewish Question’s many observations are meant to inspire - Discussions, honest and informed, about what to do about this most fateful and perilous people in our midst. And it is a discussion that must find a conclusion among our people, else the Jews will conclude it themselves by continuing to lead us all down the road to perdition.

But to finish on a less dramatic note… Really? Getting the hots for the Innsmouth Look? Come on, Bismarck. Jeez, I’m a man of modest expectations and appreciations, but one expects better tastes from the man so down about Teutonic Hobbits and their parochial yearnings!

Maybe it’s that Irish blood that drives him to drink poison and get himself into predicaments no sane man would willingly plunge himself into. But one can’t have Don Quixote’s valiant Romantic charges without his partially-pickled mind, can we? Whatever (mis)adventures Bismarck will embark on, we can rest assured they will be amusing and interesting to watch.

Lets just hope he doesn’t unseat himself in his folly.

Subscribe now

Share

I fully intended that my main article Refuting DeepLeftAnalysis would satisfy my bullying instincts and provide something to smack a Liberal upside the head with whenever they prattle on about barbarous immigration.

And then DLA went on and posted something so infuriatingly insipid and conceited that Norm just couldn’t help himself. It was an advancement on DLA’s absurd assertion that “aesthetics” are the only reason anyone opposes replacement immigration or Liberalism in general. We dumb-dumb dissenters just find the foreign hordes yucky is all.

Another essay launched forth from my fingertips at the mere sight of this post. DLA is one of those people who awakens my inner bully. His posts yearn for an intellectual swirlie, and I can hardly ignore the siren’s call to dunk him.

Taking exception to the Broccolied-One in his own Notes generally isn’t going to amount to much. But it seems my retort was popular enough to set a humble double-digit subcount writer on fairly comparable footing with updoodles and reblubs as the 3k+ subscriber DLA. SirTophamHatt encouraged me in the comments to preserve it in a more archive-friendly form for posterity.

Well! I can’t disappoint the good conductor, and it is an essay good enough for my refrigerator so to speak. If it is the sort of thing people can slap DLA in the future with like a rolled-up newspaper for intellectually shitting on the carpet again, all the better!

So I add it as a short addendum to the main article. If you like this one, be sure to check out my greater takedown of DeepLeftAnalysis and his Legions of Retards argument there.

Without further adieu, I present this extra morsel for your esteemed palettes.

“The far right has an aesthetic opposition to the existence of non-white people, and an aesthetic preference for racial homogeneity. Appeals to economics or crime stats are distractions and a waste of time.

Let’s say I were to find a tribe of Negritos from the Philippines who had a violent crime rate of 0, and I promised that these people would receive $0 in welfare, and they would just sit on the streets panhandling and playing their traditional flute instruments, and supplementing their occasional begging with berry picking, hotel cleaning, and construction labor.

Even then, the far right would oppose the existence of these people, on the basis that they are smelly or stinky or ugly to look at.

It’s a petty mindset. Even if you accept their beliefs, that non-whites are basically farm animals, then their complaint is that “I have to share a country with farm animals.” There’s no higher ideal. No progressive vision. No hope for the future. Just a fear of filth and dirt.

It’s like dealing with an autistic/OCD neurotic who can’t stand the idea that someone else may have touched the doorknob. It’s not the aristocracy of warrior virtues, but of the dandy, the spandex of Rococo. Superiority-signaling, without any of the virtue of a true nobility.

Get over yourselves.” -DeepLeftAnalysis, Nov 5th, 2025

This hypothesis is based on your own petty bias, which compels you to dismiss any recognition of problems in multiculturalism as the results of mere ignorant bigotry.

You have to do this, because the conception that someone would have reasonable, objective reasons to oppose multiculturalism threatens the very foundations of Liberalism, and more importantly for you, the foundations of your own ego.

So lets dissect your hypothetical and argument:

“Let’s say I were to find a tribe of Negritos from the Philippines who had a violent crime rate of 0”

Lets also imagine they communicate telepathically and are made of cheese. Might as well, because there is not a single hominid population on the planet that has a “violent crime rate of 0”. Hominids are a very violent species, and even our lovely placid Japanese can and do throw down. Violent crimes, nevertheless, are not the only crimes and malfeasance of concern.

Hunter-gatherers don’t have official legal systems, but you better believe they misbehave and are punished accordingly when necessary, and likely corporeally. Because you are the one who views them like fauna, not as hominids, you actually can believe they are no different than urban deer or rabbit populations. Off to a terrible start for your “humanism” appeal, DLA…

“and I promised that these people would receive $0 in welfare, and they would just sit on the streets panhandling and playing their traditional flute instruments, and supplementing their occasional begging with berry picking, hotel cleaning, and construction labor.”

So, hobos. You want to fill my community with hobos. Well DLA, hobos have to shit somewhere. They don’t clean up after themselves, particularly if nature normally does the cleaning for them. They get into fights, they get preyed on by drug pushers, they make the environment unsafe, they’ll compete for limited resources without contributing back meaningfully, and, sure, they will cause unsightly messes everywhere.

Berries? Are you fucking kidding me? Do you think these people are deer, DLA? Are they going to munch on your grass and fertilize your lawn with their droppings too? Hunter-gatherers, DLA. These people would be innocently hunting your neighborhood cats and dogs and eating the geese from the park to sustain themselves. What conception or care have they for “money” or foreign concepts as those when there are free animals all around to gobble up, as is their tradition and culture. Get real, these are not ungulates, they are omnivorous hominids that you propose will spend most of their lives outdoors as urban decorations to your hubris.

The list really goes on, from unnecessary burdensome homeless populations with clashing cultural, linguistic, intellectual, and a whole host of other problems aside that are independent from inevitable criminal activities, we can dismiss your entire proposition here because it is all based on “I promise you”. Oh thank god, we have the promise of an internet person that the introduction of an absolutely alien people into an environment they never evolved in nor even came close to developing themselves will turn out absolutely fine! I guess we can stop thinking now and consider out pets to be fair game, literally, for our new neighbors…

It’s silly. Your promise. You know alien peoples have been “promised” to improve the economy and totally not take native jobs nor cause any significant rise in criminal activities or any other problems besides? It’s literally all that is promised with mass alien migration, and it is pure lies every single time. Because that simply is not how our species works fundamentally. Only the most pampered, privileged, and disconnected people can be so deluded as to reject such obvious realities in the name of playing their bourgeois social games.

“Even then, the far right would oppose the existence of these people, on the basis that they are smelly or stinky or ugly to look at.”

Here’s where you erect your strawman claiming the racially-aware sorts have no argument at all save for your “aesthetic” claim. “Oh we just don’t like people who smell like feces and have weird skin!” It’s simply dishonest and frankly pathetic, and I’ve already disproven it above.

But lets have more fun! Lets also take that flimsy strawman of yours and outfit it with the real steel the actual aesthetic argument has to it:

Why does the aesthetic matter? Because of the sociological effect that beauty has on public and personal investments. Ugly places fall into further disrepair because no one wants to commit resources to them, while beautiful places inspire further investments and civic participation.

This is called the Aesthetic-Usability Effect (nngroup.com/articles/ae…), and it is part of a whole host of scientifically-proven explorations on how beautiful environments enhance everything from civic engagement to personal happiness. These features underpin the prosperity of a society, and is linked right up there with Social Capital in terms of predicting how wonderful a society will become. And like all good things in life, they are ruined by people with ignorant, self-serving opinions like yours.

So even if our only claim was that these people would bring ugliness to our fair cities, which is the least of our concerns frankly, it would still be more than enough reason to reject your proposal for the damage it would cause.

Now even your strawman is beating up on you, DLA! Should have tried tackling the steelman first, instead. It’s better for you in the long run.

“It’s a petty mindset. Even if you accept their beliefs, that non-whites are basically farm animals, then their complaint is that “I have to share a country with farm animals.” There’s no higher ideal. No progressive vision. No hope for the future. Just a fear of filth and dirt.”

Again, here comes the projection. Homeless populations are herded around like cattle in major cities not by racially-minded sorts like me, but by your sorts. Liberals, secretly disgusted to violent proportions the moment they have to endure the consequences of their own social games in their backyards. But of course, cunning sorts use these people to destroy property values all the time by running the Aesthetic-Usability effect in reverse, and then clearing them out once the White Flight has concluded.

You would pluck these hunter-gatherers out of their native homelands to be the pawns of real estate speculators and civilization wreckers all so you can make a point about how much smarter and moral you are from people like me. How incredibly cruel and petty of you.

You even picked these people in particular because you see them like deer in human shapes. Which, by the way, we live with where I am from. Actual deer, in our yards, eating our gardens and pooping in the grass. They don’t compete for our livelihoods or get used as pawns in political games or have any serious risk of raping any of us or significantly risk death for living wholly outside without shelter, so they generally aren’t seen as anything but an amusing, mildly naughty, but otherwise harmless feature of our society.

And you see these primitive peoples as nothing but deer. They aren’t. And you should be ashamed of yourself for being infected with such a disrespectful and foolish view of other peoples.

“It’s like dealing with an autistic/OCD neurotic who can’t stand the idea that someone else may have touched the doorknob. It’s not the aristocracy of warrior virtues, but of the dandy, the spandex of Rococo. Superiority-signaling, without any of the virtue of a true nobility.”

An autistic dandy completely isolated from and delusional about the world around him would be much more amenable to your arguments than any with a proper conception of and respect for racial differences and the many complex variables that go into the creation of a well-operating society. Your worldview is wildly reductionist, disgusting cuckish, and absolutely foolish in the face of even basic realities - in truth, your views are everything that you accuse your opponents of possessing.

In conclusion, to use the scientific parlance: Your hypothesis sucks. Get a new one with some depth to it next time.

Get over yourselves.

You first.

Share

Leave a comment

It’s not every day that a social media rant turns into a stand-alone article, despite me typing essays at clouds or into tiny obscure forums just about every day.

This time though I got into a bit of a back-and-forth with DeepLeftAnalysis about the fundamentals of IQ and multi-racial immigration. DLA is presumably Leftist, but how deeply so remains a mystery…

He spends a fair amount of time writing articles about lefty-righty topics, including oppositions to Nationalism, which is probably how he ends up in my Substack feed. I swear if you pause for just 2 seconds over some boobie note or tittering banality, suddenly that’s all you get ever after in the Substack feed!

Anyway, DLA’s notes range more broadly. Those that aren’t him rapping or playing out some kind of roleplay with himself sometimes catch my eye, and their often smarmy overtones compel me to respond – tersely and otherwise. This comment prodded me in particular:

“If you really believed in the power of IQ, then you would realize that the chance of a single 130 IQ immigrant is worth many multiples of 70 IQ immigrants. IQ is that important that a single genius can outweigh a legion of imbeciles.” -DLA, Oct 11th, 2025

The DLA claim is that the opportunity of bringing in even a single racially-foreign bigwit justifies bringing in hordes of his dimwitted racial countrymen. Quantitatively, of course, though in our exchange he didn’t share his negronometry with the rest of the class.

It didn’t seem to occur to DLA to fathom some kind of system that could test for IQ and other pertinent metrics as part of immigration qualification. Those darkies apparently are absolutely impossible for this aspiring phrenologist to distinguish by any means!

Likewise he seems to believe without such immigration our supply of bigwits will just run out inexplicably, like our supply of tacos should we ever deport all the Mexicans. As we all know, our fair gringo hands are genetically incapable of folding pieces of flatbread. No matter how we try, they just turn into hamburgers or pizzas. Such is the White Man’s curse.

Well naturally Norm took exception to this hairy gobstopper of a canard, and immediately proposed a counter-thesis:

In short, my thesis is that the damage caused to a country by not just technical-retards but racially foreign incompatibles at that far outweighs whatever potential benefits derived from obtaining rare high-IQ individuals from those groups.

My astute audience can surely think of quite a few ways imbecilic racial foreigners trash whatever country they are imported into, but I must elaborate. This arrogant and misguided sentiment - that dumb non-Whites are harmless and just waiting for their infusion of magic soil and FREEDOM™ to turn them into doctors and engineers - is as pervasive as it is pernicious.

After a few rounds of discourse, DLA surprisingly asked if we could articles out of this topic. Fine, if it takes someone annoying me with horrible takes to coax me into actually doing something on Substack like a proper writer, so be it.

Not knowing what his particular quantitative analysis will be beforehand given his reticence to share in our exchange, I nevertheless typed this piece. Also par for the course for make slowpoke ways, he finished his article before I got done slugging my way through mine. But I won’t take advantage of his promptness by altering my own course. He wasn’t privy to my arguments either in writing his, so it wouldn’t be sporting to snipe out his specific arguments.

I’ll just carpet-bomb the whole field of this discussion instead!

My strategy in beating this dead horse of a topic? Surgically pummel the damn equine from every direction until I can sign-tap on its flattened corpse for all future instances I encounter of this suicidal perception. Sprinkle in some spicy statistics amid just common sense, and that should more than cover the many fallacies and psychological manipulations we tend to come up against on this topic.

So lets not keep DLA or his broccoli-perm waiting any longer, shall we?

Great Innovator Argument

Lets start with the “Great Innovator” angle, which goes something like this:

“If we don’t let racial foreigners in, then we might miss out on having the next world-changing genius as our own!”

Foremost to recognize in this argument is that it blatantly exploits FOMO – Fear Of Missing Out. You know that highly addictive emotional trigger that every social media company uses to draw you back into updoot loops? The same emotional manipulation that hopeless gambling addicts cite whenever it is suggested they stop with such a destructive habit?

There’s an additional hidden notion with this argument that if America doesn’t directly house such a world-changing genius personally, somehow the great innovation will either never come or be used against us.

No wonder this argument is so pervasive with such a gambler’s hook to it. You better pull that lever no matter how many whammy’s you get, or you’ll definitely miss out on the jackpot! But like most manipulations, it won’t stand up to objective analysis.

To begin, most of the world’s greatest innovations – computers, internal combustion engines, electrical harnessing, hamburgers, etc – were developed by Europeans and European-derived stock. Though it is only a proxy measure, the list of countries of origin for Nobel Prize winners throughout the years is absolutely dominated by America and Europe, with the notable addition of Japan.

This is not because of IQ alone, by the way. Japan have the highest reliably measured average IQ on the planet with a median value of 103-105. Yet they don’t lead the rankings in paradigm-changing inventions. Why? Because IQ alone isn’t exactly what creates groundbreaking shifts in technology. A certain adventurous sense and creative risk-taking combined with that strong intellect and independent agency tend to produce more innovations (and failures) than otherwise. And that confluence of traits just happen to be quite common among Northern and Western European peoples.

Conversely, the number of significant inventions in the past 200 years from South Americans, Africans, and virtually all the other non-White, non-East Asian peoples could probably fit onto a single notecard. Wait, what’s that I hear whispering on the wind? Is that… peanut butter?

Whenever general Black intellectual or creative tendency is challenged, the fact that the first thing brought up in defense is almost always the supposed invention of peanut butter testifies to how inventively destitute those peoples are. In 400 years of existence in America, is a snack the best they can do? By the way, George Washington Carver didn’t “invent” peanut butter, he modified one of its existing processing practices – modifications, not new paradigms.

When it comes to gambling, which this entire argument is predicated on, one has to appreciate the odds of a bet paying off. The fact is one will have many multiple times as much luck finding world-class geniuses among the Swiss, British, Germans, and French than whatever you will find among Somalians, Haitians, Mexicans, and the rest of the 3^rd World. If you’re to play the slots and one machine not only has a bigger payout but better odds too, why would you ever play other machines?

Furthermore, just because a thing is rare does not mean it is worthwhile. That rare high-IQ Liberian is most often just a middling intellect compared to those of our own population. Being able to occupy a minor bureaucratic post in America is nothing to write home about, but in a failed state like Liberia such a man could be a high-ranking official guiding the destiny of his people. We’ve already got too many meager bureaucrats, we don’t need even more from foreign lands dictating how we live.

To propose bringing in legions of this middling star’s literally retarded countrymen is like placing a thousand losing bets just to win one small payout. You’ll quickly go bankrupt with such a foolish strategy.

Real investments are not based on gambling. Go with the good bets, or stop betting at all.

Cultivation Argument

Oh but the Multi-Culties don’t stop with just one bad argument – oh no! The White Man’s Burden is a nasty gobstopper of an ideology, one that has layer upon layer of calcified, delusional crust to break through to get to its foolhardy core.

When the previous argument fails, adherents often move onto the next: Cultivation.

“Those 3^rd world countries are truly bad, yes, but that’s all the more reason to bring them here to a good country where genius can flourish!”

Ah yes, the nerdery. The place we cloister all our eggheads together so they can be carefully tended and crafted into highly productive members of our civilization. The outside world might crack those delicate noggins and stuff those shattered nerds into lockers for being so threateningly smert.

We called them colleges once, you know. Very useful institutions before Leftist infestation, but the truth is that the whole of our societies are incubation chambers for our particular forms of genius. Our civic environment has to be finely maintained to achieve optimal results. Like with actual incubators where any variance in temperature, humidity, jostling, or air quality can easily ruin the potential of incubated eggs, the various civic conditions of our societies so influence our delicate eggheads. For nerds to thrive, we need certain cultural mores, general predictability, overall safety, high opportunity, economic sufficiency, and high trust to make an environment high IQ’s tend to thrive in.

Yet this line of reasoning that our incubators can cultivate anyone regardless of their background or qualities is, again, an extension of the fantastical Magic Dirt Hypothesis: By mere exposure to our way of life, these strange and moronic savages will transform into Whites just like us - save for irrelevant outward “aesthetics”.

It is an absurd and fundamentally disrespectful way of viewing non-Whites, like they are some kind of wholly plastic, non-agentic substance shaped wholly by their environment without any inner-guidance whatsoever. It is difficult for me to even fathom how so many Whites continue to believe it. They believe shithole environments wholly turned them into shithole-people, so by simply changing the environment you will change the people.

As if you could change sewage water into fine wine by pouring that filth into the cask.

The obvious reality is that those countries are shitholes because the people who built them are themselves shitty. Barring examples like warfare, famine, and other temporary disasters, a country comes to resemble the people who inhabit it no differently than a coral reef comes to resemble the species of coral that comprise it.

Haiti is a sterling example of what incompatible racial succession looks like. Within the shell of what was once called the Jewel of the Caribbean, the Haitian Negroes eradicated the French colonists and came to dwell in the thriving society that the Frenchmen built. Now a few hundred years later, Haiti is a horrifying failed state teeming with mud cookies and cannibals, and its French ruins rot from the inherent neglect of a people who could never build anything near as complex or beautiful as it.

The same applies to South Africa, a European colony once so advanced their farming fed half of Africa and their doctors pioneered open heart surgery. Now after racial invasion, the remaining Boers are hunted in their homes by roving privateers. The government can’t even keep the lights on consistently because Negroes can’t be bothered to maintain their pillaged infrastructure. The Zulu can no more maintain a Dutch civilization than a fly can maintain a spider’s web.

All can agree that a shithole country is not conducive for higher-order thinking. When you have to spend your time scavenging for mud cookies and fending off cannibalistic bandits, it doesn’t afford you much energy to focus on solving higher civilizational quandaries. You’re stuck in tribal conflict and survival mode. What adherents of the cultivation argument ignore is that people, not magic soil or economics, make countries. And shitty people make shitty countries as surely as brilliant people make brilliant countries.

This returns us to the nerdery. Genius is a delicate form of intellect that needs sequestering from even a normal high-grade society in order to bring out its greatest potential. Real geniuses are essentially savants with (slightly) less brain damage, and tend to be prickly, grouchy, and socially weird. It is said that with one standard deviation difference of IQ between people, communication becomes strained - but by two standard deviations difference the parties become nearly incomprehensible to each other. All the dimwit hears when a bigwit speaks is some kind of possessed creature casting spells over him, and the midwit’s speech is but a desperate begging to be stuffed into a locker.

If you want to maximize the odds of extracting value from that 130 IQ guy, you need to severely limit the number of 70 IQ troglodytes roaming around their territory. The inherent retardation and cultural confusion caused by these dimwits will act like wrenches in the gears of bigwit incubation chambers, distracting and even harming them as they get attacked for gibs, run over in the streets, or otherwise harassed by jenkum huffing morons.

Yet DLA would usher them all in, retards and all - for what? For the mere chance that one of those gutter-oil salesmen or jungle cannibals would be a high-IQ sort. A genius who simply cannot express their brilliance fully because they’re surrounded by the shitty people of their shithole country.

So DLA’s solution is to invite in the very people who made their homeland shitty, or let them do it themselves, because somehow that is part and parcel with obtaining genius. That is suicidally absurd, and would be funny if it wasn’t routinely done throughout the West today.

Invite the 3^rd world, become the 3^rd world.

Contribution Argument

“But they deserve to be here, because they will contribute to our society!”

Oh boy, what a black box of a word “contribute” is. Perfectly vague yet unquestionably positive, a word that one can pull anything they wish out of it and call it a profound, unique, and irreplaceable gift. It’s called a Glittering Generality, and upon the sturdy back of this psychological manipulation is built an entire subclass of excuses for opening our gates to the largely worthless, if not actively harmful, dregs of the world.

The assumption Universalist Whites often make is that everyone pays the same into society as they do. Anyone who doesn’t is simply temporarily embarrassed due to misfortune. With just a little encouragement, and maybe some generous welfare, they will get back to paying into the common coffers just like the rest of us.

Maybe sprinkling some of that magic dirt over their heads and clapping for their every fart and burp will make the spell work even better! Why not? It’s no less fanciful as the rest of the proposition.

The reality is that only Whites and some East-Asians tend to contribute positively and significantly to European society. Lifetime welfare serves as a decent proxy for measuring that vague “contribution” word, since those who over their lifetimes seed more into that system are providing a measurable positive overall impact, while leeches don’t.

There are many hidden costs strewn about introducing incongruent racial types into a civilization. You need only sample the colorful jokes people have for other groups to get the often-true stereotypes that grind their gears. But while culture, behavior, and essence are difficult to quantify, we can still look to quantifiable metrics like civility and finances to objectively compare these costs. When it comes to Hispanics and Blacks, violent crimes and heavy welfare negate whatever meager contributions they make otherwise.

These peoples in the aggregate are financial, civic, and social burdens in White society, the very antithesis of “contributing”. Yet so many sheltered and pampered Liberals argue to endure all of that because Pedro makes a tasty street taco and talks funny.

They don’t have to live next to Pedro and his kin’s ever-expanding favelas or be kept up at night to obnoxious mariachi music and gunfire. Oh they’ll take the cocaine for their parties and the tacos for their lunch, and just ignore the coyote rape, the gangland savagery, and the economic slavery that invariably comes along with these sorts. Don’t worry, our selfish bourgeois can afford to ignore it – they don’t have to let sombrero-wearers inside their gated community, after all.

But yours? Yours is different, White man.

They certainly don’t care that their policies force Pedro and company onto their less fortunate countrymen, because they nurse their known hatreds towards Cleetus and Clyde while knowing nothing about Pedro except his tacos and silly hats. And the more the affected complain about the horrendous drop of life quality, the more these bourgeois can morally justify their racial imposition as a punishment against “Nazis”.

These people have the absolute privilege to engage in Prestige Moralizing – Virtue Signaling – where they can support insane and suicidal moral policies that showcase how magnanimous and selfless and all-compassionate they are to their wine-sipping coterie while ignoring the real human costs. It’s human peacocking, a sort of social one-upsmanship characteristic of decadent White civilization.

Prestige Morality is the White man’s version of Indian Train-Baiting, with even worse results.

If the term “contributing” is to mean anything, it must have a certain standard. Lets make the small assumption that our Western civilization’s native national type – Whites of various sub-specie flavors – are in the aggregate contributing at a baseline sufficient level to their society. After all, our ancestors built these wonderful civilizations, suggesting the net “contribution” when just limited to our heritage population is sufficient under general circumstances to maintain and advance our civilization.

Lets then use the absolutely quantifiable proxy measure of aggregate financial impact on a Western civilization as our metric. Like IQ it is a major, though not most important, metric by which a whole host of societal interests can be accurately predicted and analyzed.

Then, all we have to do is compare the aggregates of various racial and national types against this baseline to see how much “contribution” there tends to be from these populations. A simple, elegant, and reasonable methodology, really. So of course the Internet anons and the Dutch already did that:

To summarize, the only migrants that positively contribute over their lifetimes to the Netherlands financially without significantly backsliding into leechery in the second generation are Canadians/Americans, most Europeans, the Japanese and some Asiatics, and Israelis. The rest leech immediately and eternally.

This kind of analysis can and has been done in multiple countries where it is not yet illegal or verboten to explore the truth about racial differences. This also disproves the overwhelming value of whatever 130 IQ types are contributing from most non-White populations, because however many are being brought in, their group’s aggregate score still remains in the gutter.

Again, finances are not the only nor most important metric to measure the success of a civilization or how compatible peoples are with it. The Chinese form enclave Chinatowns where they feed constant spy data back to the mother hive. Indians exploit H1B systems to usurp American corporations and industries. Jews manipulate financial, cultural, and political spheres to cheat their way into power and institute policies like infinite immigration that harm all groups. This severely weighs against whatever tax revenue these groups tend to contribute.

Fundamentally, racial foreigners do not value our people or way of life like our own do. This is normal and practically inevitable with everyone save for those so similar in culture, history, and biology as to be compatible with one another. Therefore they often introduce the dollops of dookie into the ice cream of our society in many forms beyond easily quantifiable metrics. These more important things are qualitative in nature and difficult to compare on a spreadsheet, but matter more than any IQ or tax revenue.

Nevertheless, bald-faced financial leechery in general indicates if nothing else a basic burden – not a contribution – to the system that accepts them. Whatever non-quantifiable thing they “contribute” would have to be rather astounding to make up for those incredible shortfalls – and the burden of showing that lies on DLA’s and other multicultural advocate shoulders.

How many street tacos does it take to balance out the bad of a collapsed state?

Need Argument

“You don’t understand, we need immigrants or we are going to collapse as a society!”

Another facet of the FOMO fear-mongering is outright claiming doom and gloom if we would dare close the floodgates to the world’s lusting hordes. How will we ever replace our declining population? How will be fight brain drain? What about the rest of the world outpacing our precious GDP!? Won’t you just please think of the strawberries!?!

This form of claptrap is simply the negative form of the same gambler instinct, trying to frighten overly comfortable Americans into fearing that if they don’t employ slaves they will run out of toilet paper or strawberries – you know, the worst possible thing an average American can imagine happening to them in daily life.

History has proven time and again in everything, from war to business to culture and beyond, that the quality of a nation’s members matters more than their absolute quantity – a fact more pertinent today in a world of celebrity and hyper-efficiencies than it ever was in the ancient world.

The tiny kernel of truth of DLA’s sentiment about solitary geniuses is that the contributions of a singular man can outweigh those of the multitude, granted he be well-positioned and supported by his circumstances. But what DLA fails to comprehend is that those circumstances most often include being in the midst of a coherent society of familiars that insulate and uphold him against that which would work against his genius - and not be lost amid discordant troglodytes requiring constant nannying to keep from gobbling up your pets and stabbing you for pocket change.

We do not need infinitely-growing populations. No system predicated on infinite growth can sustainably persist forever, nor without dire consequences for the foundations of what makes society operate. It is only a model based on chronic inflation and the devaluing of labor and human life in general that requires infinite population growth. The pushers of such a system ironically fail to realize such a model requires that growth be of quality contributors and not obligate leeches to not collapse entirely.

Brain-drain is a result of a lack of opportunities and a lower quality of life in the affected areas, and we run a greater risk of experiencing it in areas afflicted by DLA’s legion of retards. The whining argument that might arise from that, to say we can only source high IQ to any significant degree from outside our population, is wildly incorrect on the face of it – and particularly so when examining non-White, non-East Asian nations.

Population IQ follows a fairly predictable Gaussian (or Normal) Curve, so predictable in fact that we know with fairly high precision that the number of individuals with 130 or higher IQ in a population whose median IQ is 100 and standard deviation is 15 points is going to be roughly 2.2% of that population. For heritage Americans, this makes for 4-5 million among us to draw from a population of 200 – 250 million Whites.

That is more brainpower available to us in a single country than most of the Western world, even when most of it is squandered by inefficiencies and corruptions aimed against Whites. Our brainpower is not lacking, it is underutilized. And it is underutilized in great part due to a system that looks outside of its borders to bring in cheap foreign labor to do work that once was done by our people.

Case in point, machinists in America are a dying breed. Where once this was the country that invented the motorcar and airplanes, our machining industry has been systematically sold for scraps to China, India, and other foreign countries. It is so bad that we even send our patents and proprietary machines overseas just so their sweatshops can increase stockholder margins.

Decades of this behavior has led to a massive decay in living knowledge of tooling trades within our nation. Now it is to the point that many industries are so bereft of existing talent that they seek talent externally rather than training up a new generation internally – perpetuating the problem!

H1B’s likewise have long been exploited by Indians to overtake American companies. There is no magic to it, just gaming an overly trusting system and engaging in the ancient tried-and-true practice of racial nepotism and perfidious sabotage. By systematically filling key hiring and executive positions with their countrymen, Indians have overtaken hospitality, logistics, and tech industries not through merit but sheer manipulation and persistence. The results are profoundly Indian in nature…

Arabs simply employ an enclave strategy to seize political and social power by sheer numbers. Once their numbers hit certain critical percentages of the population, their political strategy shifts into more demands, more agitation, and more steps towards the institution of Sharia Law and Islamic practices. A conquest by any means is still a conquest, and the chart below provides an excellent case of the stages of this conquest that sadly can be watched in real-time all across Europe:

The worst part is that it is not just the legions of retards who are creating these problems, but often enough the very bigwits DLA seeks to bring in at all costs. A historical example being the Walt Disney company. Despite Disney himself being rather suspicious of and even antagonistic towards Jews, his company still employed several based on their personal merit, by which they often legitimately (more or less) climbed the corporate ladder.

However, shortly after his death, Disney fell squarely into the hands of Jewish interests, who immediately set about inviting in all of their cousins, children, and synagogue acquaintances. Skill didn’t matter, only their Jewishness. The number of Jews imported into the operating structures of the company increased through the years until now it falls squarely into the ranks of Jewish-controlled media companies. This nepotistic pattern is repeated for virtually all non-White racial groups, because it is incredibly effective and nets the whole group riches beyond their otherwise petty means.

We need bigwits, it is true, but we have plenty of our own that don’t come with such incompatible baggage and risk. Until every one of our gifted Americans is maximally employed in a career or social service that utilizes the full extent of their brilliance, we should not seek anyone outside of our borders to fill fundamental roles in our society. From masons and farmhands to businessmen and doctors, all should be internally sourced until there is no other possibility left. And when we do find ourselves strained to do so in those cases of truly unique talent, we should reach out to those countries that produce peoples akin to our own from Europe and its colonies and not the alien peoples of the world.

For every American we employ like this, we avoid having to deal with cultural shock, integration woes, and a myriad of other completely avoidable headaches. Not just that, but we solve the eternal problems of unemployment, underemployment, and wage stagnation. And we can have these talented Americans easily, if only we don’t stack the deck against them at every turn.

And as for the strawberries, fuck the strawberries. Let them rot on their runners and be food for birds and worms if their growers cannot pivot away from the slave labor they never should have employed. A just punishment for their crime of aiding and abetting opportunistic invaders, if overly merciful for what justice demands for their treachery against our nation.

Screw having a green card stapled to every foreigner’s diploma – staple a career acceptance letter to every one of our children’s diplomas!

Endurance Argument

“But we can endure them! They need us!”

Whether it comes in the form of a bleeding heart exhortation for universal compassion, or as a vacant acceptance to all that has been previously said, the Endurance argument is the most pathetic of them all.

It really is like someone insisting he drop a scoop of shit into your ice cream. To your protest he has plenty of things to say: It’s only a little scoop of shit. Just a little fecal matter never killed anyone. Just close your eyes and lick around the filth if you are going to be prissy about it. But please, you simply must let me shit in your ice cream!

Huh? You still refuse? What’s wrong with you? Pah, you must just dislike the aesthetics of it, that’s why you disagree!

But everyone knows why no reasonable person would do something that so overwhelmingly, if not solely, disadvantages their interests. Why do something with a low chance of positive success, that comes with guaranteed major drawbacks with no significant upside, and worst of all is completely optional when there are perfectly fine, if not objectively superior, alternatives available to us?

The moral of the story is, there isn’t a good reason. Not for you and me, at least.

Can America endure Chinese gutter-oil, Columbian cartel members, Haitian goose-gobblers, Indian street-shitters, and every other colorful unpleasantry these racial aliens bring about? Sure we could. We could survive, after a dismal fashion. But why should we endure it in the first place?

What intractable, otherwise unobtainable good is there to racially foreign immigration that makes up for the civic disruption, the culture warring, the racial strife, the urban decay, the shattered social capital, and the rapes and murders and losses of our people?

To throw back what DLA demanded of me – Quantify it. Tell everyone how many foreign retards you’d take to equal the value of one American life. Because my position is you cannot trade for something of positive value with something of negative value. Even one of these moronic marauders is too high a price for maybe a middling-intellect among them, so no number of them will ever equal one of my countrymen.

You might as well ask me how many scoops of shit does it take for me to trade you my ice cream. Choosing to not take the deal at all will deliver more value than accepting any terms!

Let me be the first to give a grim example of this metric we accept every day: Cars. Every day, we sacrifice around 100 souls to continue using vehicles in America. While not directly voluntary, we know down to a certainty how many lives vehicle usage takes. For every 100 million miles driven, we sacrifice 1.26 lives on average – that is how lacking in uncertainty we are about the cost of driving. When we as a society choose to allow driving, we are choosing that people will die.

Now, is driving worth that cost? The fact is the way our logistical systems are structured today, were we to dispense with driving, hundreds of millions would die within months in the resulting cataclysm. Modern society is built around roads designed for cars. Our entire civic infrastructure depends on mass vehicular usage, and its value runs the gambit from personal pleasantries to individual freedoms to life-sustaining supplylines.

Having vehicles in society are worth the human lives they consume.

As grim a conclusion as that is, there is not a single reasonable person who could argue that the benefits of driving are not of such an astounding magnitude that the drawbacks of ripping ourselves free of it would be worth it. Those hundred people a day who die because of vehicular misuse and failures are an inevitable side-effect of the technology, and will persist with us for as long as vehicular usage remains.

We don’t need to get into the details about mitigation techniques and the many other methods we as a society have utilized to reduce these risks and costs over time, as it is still the grim fact about that technology that car usage will inevitably kill people. No getting around it. And vehicle usage is as necessary to modern American society as breathing air or drinking water is to keep ourselves alive. The advantages in lives enabled and uplifted by car usage make up for its grim costs by most social metrics.

Now, how vital are racial aliens to our civilization? For they cost us a great deal more than vehicles in terms of human lives. Be it through negligence leading to accidental deaths or outright intentional murdering, they cost many times more lives than cars. Their “contributions”, their “brilliance”, their “culture”, must be of so astounding a value as to make vehicles look like optional toys in comparison to what they must grant to our nation to bear so high a human toll!

By the way, their names were Jashanpreet Singh (top) and Harjinder Singh (bottom), both beneficiaries of gaming the American immigration system.

DLA’s vaunted bigwit might get slaughtered alongside several other of our countrymen by even a single member of his retard legion. How’s that big brain going to help anyone when it is smeared under the tires of some vacant-eyed opportunist who doesn’t even speak our language?

You and everyone else knows that facilitating this is not worth the lives of our countrymen, any of them. Not even remotely.

The absurdity is that the negatives of these legions of retards are so vast and multi-faceted that trying to argue any number of them should be endured to get their “best” is mind-boggling. Even having their best diminishes our civilization and theirs, let alone justifying bringing in enclaves of ungrateful, stupid barbarians who will devour our resources like locusts with nothing to give us in return but ashes.

Everyone here should already know about the poisoned M&M in the bowl analogy, but proposing bringing in legions of retards just to get one smartie turns the analogy on its head. DLA proposes that we reach into a bowl of cyanide capsules in hopes of blindly plucking out the one or two real M&M’s in there! Is risking certain destruction worth that oh so tasty little morsel?

Or perhaps, hear me out, we just… don’t reach into the bowl in the first place.

I know! I know, gosh, my tinest snack cravings will go unfulfilled for a few brief moments, but I just won’t reach in. But the truth is not even DLA would dare take that risk for himself if he was the one who had to eat the results. He’s not one of his legion of retards, after all. But he will advocate that you eat the likely-cyanide so he can argue how morally righteous and intelligent he is for being such a good and compassionate Universalist.

The fact is, there isn’t a good reason to accept any of these incompatible racial types into our country for anything other than a temporary visit for the purposes of cultural exchange or tourism. DLA knows it, which is why he dances around even the statistics and fundamental logic of the proposition. All he can argue is the strawman that anyone who opposes immigration is simply prejudiced against “aesthetics” – as if the only difference between an American and a Haitian is skin pigmentation and opportunity.

Oh there’s more than just “aesthetics” going on with all this…

Yep, all one race – the human race. No hilariously obvious differences detected in this Leftist pageant here!

But that raises the question: If this policy is so manifestly and obviously damaging, then why is it being done? Because it might not be to you or my benefit, but someone benefits. In fact, a great many someones who thrive on discord, depressed wages, and social decay desperately want multiculturalism as a matter of life and death for their fortunes and power.

A now infamous leaked document between Amazon and Whole Foods revealed that the companies actively monitored locations for “unionization risk” based on racial diversity. Turns out the more racially diversified a place is, the less risk there was of unionization. How could this be? Quite simply because unionization requires complex trust and social networks based on a common cultural and psychological makeup – networks that are profoundly inhibited by dividing the population up between naturally antagonistic and otherwise mutually incompatible peoples.

Diversity is Our Strength is a corporate slogan, because it is their strength – the strength to crush unions and societal trust formation that could lead to unwanted competition. You can take that to the bank too, because Amazon and corporate giants across the West certainly do. And on their crooked scales they weigh petty profits against the long-term wellbeing of a nation and find money their master.

But even assuming these foreign nations are not just dumping their prisons and ghettos down our country’s gullet, they come to suffer in a different way when we continue acting like the great brain-drain of the world. Those desperate, poor, needy countries of the world are absolutely starved for talent. A country like Somalia with an average IQ of around 70 would produce less than 20k 130 IQ individuals, if even that. If those people are oh so important for bettering a country, then doesn’t Somalia of all places need as many of them as they can hold!?

Those who actually care for the wellbeing of other peoples whatsoever will not go out of their way to steal away the only talent they might have. We can endure not having their alien “genius” among us, but can they endure not having their own? No, clearly not.

Behold the Gumballs demonstration! 12 minutes of paradigm-shifting revelation for any of you still clinging to the selfish notion that we can “save the 3^rd world” by plopping them into our midst:

So let me raise the counter then: Why endure any of them? Lets say we pull a Willy Wonka and shut our gates completely to all non-White immigration. We can keep guest visas and logistic exchanges open, but close down the residencies, work permits, remittances, and naturalization. What would happen?

The immediate shock to the system would be unpleasant for those who have relied on foreign slave labor and chain migrations. Corporate farms, sweatshops, contractors, Indian tech scammers, and a few more industries would probably writhe in agony at suddenly having to pay fair wages for their labor.

We would have to source all of our genius and labor from our burgeoning population, a task which would unfortunately employ many of our unemployed and give them a living wage. I know, how terrible! And worst of all, those street tacos of questionable health code compliance might have to give way to… American-made street tacos. Oh the humanity!

I dare say that there is no benefit that racially-foreign immigration can bring that cannot, and should not, be provided by our own people and by respectful cultural exchange and trade.

The only ones who might contend with that bold claim are East Asians like the Japanese, but even they don’t need to live here for us to benefit from a mutual respect and friendship as peoples. Cultural exchange, international trade, and foreign friendships are something I would encourage to keep fresh ideas and treasures flowing. I am no isolationist.

But we ought to do so with a respectful and firm distance. We must appreciate well-behaved guests and treat them to the full extent of our hospitality. But after our apportioned time together, they have to go home like any respectful guest. If we find them trying to take up residency in our pantry like rats, the only responsible thing to do is call in pest control before we lose our home to them.

By satisfying those needs by our own people and territories, we ensure more of our own get to contribute meaningfully to the lives and ambitions of our people. The pride and belonging every man, woman, and child can experience contributing to the innovations, culture, and advancements squarely due to our living traditions and racial character would be as a Renaissance for our Western spirit.

There was a famous exchange between John F. Kennedy and a NASA janitor during the space race. Kennedy asked the man what he did for NASA. Leaning on his broom and smiling, the janitor replied, “Why sir, I am helping to put a man on the Moon!” When virtually all men in a nation can answer as confidently and earnestly as that janitor did, because he feels a true union with his fellows regardless of their stations and his, that is when a nation truly experiences prosperity.

And what we stand to gain from such policies would wholly befit us as a people. The primary beneficiaries would not be the few fondling their stock portfolios or the market manipulators feasting on human misery, but the good and decent people who form the backbone of this country. Because all that we stand to gain will be borne out of our own National mind and not imposed on us or interrupted by alien minds trying to produce their own destiny within ours.

Conclusion

That concludes our brief tour of common arguments for racial replacement immigration practices. I don’t know which ones DLA most adheres to, or if he takes some other tact in his piece, but certainly the flimsy logic and willful ignorance about these ones animates the whole thrust of whatever his iteration would be. They tend to all arise from the same foolish root, after all.

Great innovators come overwhelmingly from Europe, not from the 3^rd world. The overwhelming leeching of most non-Whites in Western civilizations negates whatever contributions their masses or elites might bring to the table. Our need for foreign labor is a symptom of over-dependence on it, causing more loss of opportunity than it brings in. And proclaiming that we can endure all these negatives falls flat when the benefits are so minuscule and fraught with civilization-destroying drawbacks.

The conclusion one will be led to by reason and data is simple: Don’t. Don’t do it. It is a far better bet to close the gates to racial strangers than it is to usher their unwashed masses in on the thin and foolish hope that some minuscule number of them will be “worth it” – whatever that vague notion even means.

World history backs up this simple conclusion. As immigration is a wholly optional act, there is no excuse for instituting it in the worst possible ways. For most of American history up until 1965, immigration was carefully restricted based on high merit and qualified fundamentally by “White men (and women) of good character”. That was not a mere “aesthetic” choice to limit immigrants to our close racial cousins, but a deeply practical decision that all wise peoples adopt throughout time and place.

The only ones who did not are the sorts who threw Chinese peasants onto the railroad lines and stuffed their kosher ships to the gills with Negroes to maximize their profits. Then, as now, these kinds of selfish and often outright evil practices cost mass bloodshed to end, and even after the consequences of those actions continue to plague the descendants of this country today.

Racial harmony is a highly valuable yet fragile social state, but thankfully occurs naturally when a biologically homogeneous people of shared ancestry, history, and culture get to live in their own territory among their own and whose international neighbors are of a highly similar racial type. No disparity, no discord.

While some alien peoples get along very well in our civilization, like the Japanese, this is a rare partial-exception to what amounts to an ironclad rule of human nature. You will never achieve racial harmony when you set alien races together to struggle over the same limited resources, the same power structures, and the same one-size-fits-none culture. Conflict becomes inevitable and ugly.

Even if DLA comes up with quantified numbers showing some isolated and temporary economic benefits or exhorts some feverish overemphasis on some spotlit exception to the overwhelming rule, the bringing-in of legions of retards is never justified when it is absolutely, incontrovertibly optional. Nothing in the nature of rulesets or practicalities or serious morality says that you need to bring in everyone if you want just certain someones – that is juvenile thinking akin to kindergartners grudgingly inviting the booger-eater to their birthday party just because they have to invite everyone.

My belief is that any morality that demands you intentionally blind yourself to aspects of reality as a matter of moral necessity is an inherently flawed and evil morality. The fruits of such a corrupt moral system will inevitably lead to ruin, and it must be rejected by a fearless investigation of truth and tradition.

Therefore, I conclude by encouraging DLA to abandon his suicidal sentiments about immigration and rejoin the reasonable and responsible in affirming that admitting a handful of rare racially alien bigwits is not worth hordes of their absolutely retarded brethren pouring in alongside them.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

America will never be the same.

-Charlie Kirk

Despite how often we affirm among ourselves of how dire our political landscape has become, it nevertheless hardly prepares you for the moment of seeing rhetoric become reality. As is the nature of black swan events, you never know exactly when or what nature it will take when it arrives. But when it does, it portends the doom of eras and the coming of new, terrifying possibilities.

Charlie Kirk is dead.

In the direct wake of his violent end, a spectacle not just for the fact of his death but the shockingly public and gruesome manner of it, a White man feels an urge to speak benedictions even for longtime rivals.

For years, Kirk has been viewed as a premiere example of controlled opposition against the rise of American Nationalism. I recall having gone to a Turning Point USA gathering once to speak with the Conservatives there. I spoke of Moral Confidence in the face of Leftist moralizing, the need to not let their faux-tears or exhortations towards “normalcy” dissuade them from the right course. I thought I would find those willing to listen and stand on such affirming principles.

Yet I was disgusted when their leadership refused to let anyone speak to the increasingly repugnant social and cultural climate rising up like a miasma from the Left. Only flat praise for guns and good ol GDP growth was allowed to be discussed, as anything coming even close to the culture wars or Nationalistic ideation then was brusquely shut out of their midst. My protests were granted blank stares and shrugs. It was, after all, not politically safe to speak so forwardly then.

Despite its name, Turning Point was hardly a revolution in any sense. It was classical, moderate Republicanism through and through. From its foundations it was designed to capture a youth dissatisfied with the continual rise of Leftist power and guide them from the radical path of National rebirth towards the cozy sepulcher of Conservatism once more.

I was one of those who watched with satisfaction as Kirk himself withered at his many sit-down debates at the intellectual and moral challenges posed by the Groypers. Those Fuentes frogmen brought up Conservative failures. They brought up the Jew. They brought up topics and concerns that tiny-faced Kirk and his handlers recoiled in fear about to the point to censoring the whole of their speaker lineups for years as a result.

I smiled. Sic Semper Ianitori.

Kirk was more than just some run of the mill Republican party propagandist – he was their party’s hope for the future. Young and bright with a clear drive and willingness to bend to whatever political winds might best steer his ship towards favorable waters. Despite bearing a remarkably tiny face on a very large head, he was an ideal politician. The ideal future for the eternally moderate Republican party.

In truth, the man fell off my radar several years ago. I already knew what Kirk was, what his purpose seemed to be in veering off the natural development of Nationalist ideas at the last moment into the waiting maw of flaccid Conservativism. I heard my Nationalistic sentiments, long castigated by him, dribble out from him like watered-down syrup so as not to offend nor overly energize the palette of his audiences. I saw him embrace those ideas now that the tide was turning in the most milquetoast of manners, in hopes of guiding it to his party’s favor. He was good at what he did, and he grew rich and famous and influential as a result.

Some say that he was having a change of heart in the past few years. Perhaps he was. An honest man can hardly imbibe Nationalist notions without it affecting his heart somehow. He had been speaking more vociferously about the Epstein List, Israel’s manipulations, and racial crime. Watered-down for Conservative gerbils of course, but in a trajectory that curved ever further towards the Nationalist end. His final tweet was the opening line to this essay, referring to the horrible murder of the lovely Iryna Zarutska at the hands of a White-hating Negroid, caught on camera for all to see in its gruesome, all-too-common atrocity.

It was during the firestorm of this news outbreak that it, quite unexpectedly, became Kirk’s turn.

Charlie Kirk sat beneath his tour’s pavilion wearing a simplistic white shirt from his merchandise store reading “FREEDOM” in wide kerning. A veritable high-ranking officer for some school’s nerdy Young Republicans outfit. A bow-tie around his neck would have completed his characteristically dweebish, harmless look.

The whole display was almost like a carnival act, inviting punters to come try to dunk the big-headed Kirk into a pool of public embarrassment. Truly an American passtime. True to form, he answered a barb from the audience criticizing him with a snappy retort of his own inviting them to consider gang violence. “Great!” came the courteous response.

And the shot rang out. One shot. Deliberate. Practiced.

Something hit Kirk. He shunted back, a shockwave battering his white shirt. Then, the blood. His neck caught something – the bullet, its rebound, we don’t yet know as of this writing. But a hole appeared in his pale skin before the man could even blink. His jugular opened up, and blood fountained from his throat with fatal finality. Blood, his blood, marred the “FREEDOM” on his chest. He teetered to the left, body curling without conscious intervention, and fell.

There was screaming. Running. Someone yelled Charlie’s name. It was drowned out in the panic. The camera jostled as its holder ran for his life too. Kirk made no motion as his bodyguards rushed to his side. His wife was there, as were his two young children. They say that as the shot rang out, his young daughter ran for the stage, frightened by the sound and trying to find comfort in her father’s arms.

But she didn’t make it to the stage. And her father couldn’t protect her anymore. It was over in four seconds.

That Kirk was gone was pronounced hours after desperate, shocked prayers and hopeful rumors spread online. Vain hopes. Beneath the pavilion's words proclaiming the American Comeback Tour, inviting the public to Prove Me Wrong, an assassin spilled a principled Conservative’s blood before the horrified eyes of the world. They, and those who put up such a creature to that dreadful act, did not want to prove Kirk wrong. They wanted him dead.

And so, Charlie Kirk is dead.

I was convinced like so many others that Kirk was going to be a constant, irritatingly persistent rival to Nationalism for the rest of my life. We are of a similar age, the same generation, and his silly-shaped face formed the perfect foil to many a Nationalist looking to prove him wrong in the marketplace of ideas.

Kirk was neither the evil puppeteer behind our country’s woes, nor even without hope of joining our side once our ideas were to fully take power. I never thought of him as anything but an ambitious captain, tasked with guiding the young flotilla of future Republicans on the same general course its geriatric fleet had set it out on. We jolly Nationalists, in our modest skiffs, didn’t want to cut their throats, but have them join us one day – even if they would be scrubbing the decks for us as punishment for having to drag them the whole damn way towards that better horizon.

Kirk seemed eternal, like an avatar of the future Republican Party itself. A symbol of the future that right-hand of this bestial system wanted for us, to be swatted between left and right, blue and red, forevermore. Kirk would be our rival right up until the end, whether we won or not. We assumed many of us would be dead well before that remarkably tiny-face would leave the stage of this world.

But we were wrong. Charlie Kirk is dead.

31 years old, cut down in the most horrible and public manner possible. And as I write this there is confusion still. There never is accurate information for several days after so monumental a catastrophe. A thousand different theories, one amazingly more retarded than the last, a puzzle slammed together by a thousand hasty shills and overeager autists. Crumbs of truth make their way into the forming picture, before the Foundkey is at last accepted to explain this horrible act.

But for now, we only have a corpse, and the laughter of fools twittering above it.

Long have we suffered the barbs and bristles of smarmy, smug-faced cretins, sneering down at us as they crush us further beneath their boots. The same people who laugh at Kirk’s death are the same who called us traitors for our countrymen pressing back on January 6^th. The same who demanded we be interred in concentration camps over Covid. The same who demanded transsexuals have free access to our children. The same who burned our cities and demanded we worship the name of a drug-addled beast. The same who hunted us for our jobs, rotted out our passtimes, poisoned our national stories, all in the name of self-serving “Equality” and “Diversity”. The same who called Kirk throughout his life, and now all the more in his death, a Nazi.

A Nazi. They called Kirk, one of the most centrist and harmless of the Republican propagandists, a Nazi. And they laughed over his still-warm corpse. They don’t know who they killed. They don’t know what a real Nazi is, and they don’t care what it is. Kirk was labeled their enemy, and like a mindless, raging swarm they continue to chant and sting and revel in the bloodshed. His blood curdles on their cruel daggers, and they call you the monstrous “Nazi” that Hollywood has taught them all about.

They don’t know what a real Nazi is. But they are going to find out now.

These creatures, these demoralized husks, have no idea what they cheer for. But we Nationalists know. We stare in shock and awe at the body of our eternal rival, our wayward countryman, our slain kin. We know he was holding the gates at the center, trying desperately to keep us shuttered away from his audience and his enemies for fear of what the full force of our ideas would do in our country. We know he feared that our ideas would win their hearts and their minds, their hatreds and their loves, their fears and their hopes. Kirk feared that unless we were held in check, we would win, him and everyone else.

Charlie Kirk was our gatekeeper. And Charlie Kirk is dead.

Moderation killed Charlie Kirk. Decades and decades of decadence, placation of Communists and their fetid handlers has come into bloom at last, fed on soils long fertilized by Conservatism’s veneration of weakness and compromise. It is no high principle to give into your enemy’s demands, no great beauty to lose your country to monstrous men. There is no finding the middle ground between reason and madness.

Tolerance is the highest principle of Conservatism, as the dead wood of a mansion tolerates the termites rasping at its foundations. Tolerance of an ever-encroaching evil in the minds of men who throw open our gates to foreign hordes and sacrifice our children to strange gods. When his name changed to GDP and Capitalism, the Republican party worshiped gladly at Mammon’s feet. When he called himself Chosen and demanded our children’s blood, Conservatives and Liberals alike bowed their heads before Moloch’s Wailing Wall.

That which is dead cannot grow. Conservatism is the worship of dead ashes, not the kindling of new flames. America cannot tolerate Conservatism or the evils it so readily conserved. We cannot hide behind sweet sentiments of getting along with just a principled expression and nothing more. Charlie Kirk believed that he could beat his enemies with words alone, right up until the very end. There was nobility in this, beauty in this, a notion perhaps too beautiful and fragile for the world today.

Charlie Kirk is dead.

Conservatism is dead.

This land, our land, is our garden. Infested with weeds, with brambles and thorns that ensnare our steps and bleed us out in a thousand cuts. These burs are not our own. These vines have not been cut back. In our fear of being called racists, we let Iryna Zarutska bleed out alone and unaided. For fear of being called Nazis, we have allowed Communists to teach our children to piss on our graves.

No more. Conservatism is dead.

We Nationalists do not worship dead things, but seek to sow new life for our people. Our people, not grasping strangers, not spitting mutants, not sneering traitors. What has lit the eyes and fired up the minds of Americans for all our history have been the stories and values of our people – our People. Unapologetic, uncompromising, unrelenting in the pursuit of our Manifest Destiny that yet lies across every land of this beautiful world and stretches out amongst the stars.

The Nationalist feels with one hand behind himself the roots from which he proudly descends, while the other reaches ever towards the face of God. We may stumble upon the stones amid the jeering crowds. Mar our faces in the filth and dust of the arena of history. Embarrass our flesh with scars and bruises in our struggle. But we rise, we are rising again, our eyes ever on that horizon where our light is rising.

Conservatism is dead.

Shed this feeble coil of Conservatism, my countrymen. You have clung to it only because you were told all else was hopeless and wrong. Yet your heavy hearts know, now with painful clarity, that it is not the way to anything but a whimpering retreat into the grave. In your secret conversations, whispered between your trusted friends, in the quiet of your own mind late at night, you know that we must fight to retake our country from those bent on its destruction, and from those too weak to protect it.

Pick up once more those plow shears long abandoned, and fashion your swords once more. They will know peace and a future, those with the bravery to fight. They who spat upon our olive branches must now have their mouths shut with the iron fist. Our garden has long stood untended, and only those willing to grasp the roots and pull with us will have a hope of uprooting these perfidious weeds.

America will never be the same, as Kirk said. But what change befalls us good or ill is up to us. It is up to you, reader. For surely no good can come should you choose to not stand up with us for your country and your people. Honor Kirk by standing with us, for he can stand no more.

Let these words haunt you should you choose temporary comfort over worthy struggle:

This is the cost of freedom – blood, spilled over its name. This is not Charlie’s blood the moment it spilled onto his chest - it is our blood, now and yet to be shed. The blood of our Nation, spilled in defense of its sacred soil, values, and flesh.

Those Americans who value freedom more than comfort and safety, follow me. The rest of you, get out of our way.

God give Charlie Kirk peace, and may his enemies – our enemies – know none until we are done.

The Conservative is dead. Long live the Nationalist.

Share

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Wouldn’t you know it that while Norman was doing anything but developing his Substack, he was in fact contributing to this and that effort all across the American Nationalist spectrum. This is how the Norman do, and this summer I had the great pleasure to contribute to a newfound educational gathering called The Nationalist Media Conference.

Actually, this was not a new privilege since I actually was invited to it last year, but it hadn’t occurred to me to actually mention it on my own Substack. Revelations about marketing and promotion come slowly to me, despite how many contemplative showers I take each and every day of my life.

During the 2024 conference, I gave a presentation about a medley of digital tools creatives could use to enhance everything from their artistic projects to on-the-ground activism efforts. It was the equivalent of dumping out my toolkit and saying, “See? Isn’t that useful!?” Naturally my audience here would surely agree that a disorganized pile of strange and specific Norman-approved widgets would be eminently useful, but the rest of the world has yet to catch up with us just yet.

The whole 2024 playlist is here, and my fellow presenters did excellent jobs presenting on a whole array of subjects ranging from video game development to rhetorical techniques to even how to squeeze paint from cabbages. And while I was familiar with a few micro-celebrity names like Kill Your TV and Judenhass, I was pleased to see names of talented sorts who don’t have the spotlight for now like Joseph Query, Saya the Fashionable, and Potato.

As I contributed what I could to this event, I took great inspiration from the annual Milleniyule conference put on by MillenialWoes. Woes is a Scottish man from the Alt-Right days distinguished by his excellent taste in fuzzy bathrobes. Aside from that however, Woes started a digital conference series called Milleniyule in 2015, held during December with the intention that “No Reactionary will be lonely this Christmas”. From that humble desire, Woes put together a series of interviews with an evolving cross-section of Western Nationalists.

What I found impressive about Milleniyule aside from the astounding amount of work Woes put into organizing the event – often interviewing 3-4 guests a night for more than half of December – was how he invited both big names and no-names for the same spotlight. Many lesser-knowns got their first public traction on Milleniyule, like Asha Logos and Morgoth’s Reviews and Semiogogue.

This chocolate box of subjects and personalities provides delightful food for thought to nibble on, though Milleniyule only happens in December. Granted, there’s enough content pouring out to last most people months after, but still there isn’t currently anything like it during the other 11 months of the year.

That is where a team of intrepid souls put together the Nationalist Media Conference. Rather than live interviews, they elected to have presenters provide slideshows and discourses on creative topics aimed at promoting creativity and efficacy among Nationalists. Presenters are selected based on their creative works and invited to present on that subject to a live audience. The whole private event is recorded and later presented to the public so that every presentation is polished for posterity.

Effectively it is a show-and-tell for Nationalists and a ton of work from everyone involved. I am surprised people put in so much effort to share their knowledge with others, and I am very glad for it! I was so impressed by this promising little venture that I agreed to help more seriously with its development after the first go-around.

By now I’ve helped with virtually every aspect of its development and operations. And this time around, Norman here has decided to give it a little more of a well-deserving boost by yammering on a bit about each of the presentations this year – because live commentary cannot contain all the Normian thoughts that get flowing from these presentations!

For the best read-along experience, I’d recommend everyone watch the section’s video before enjoying my commentary, conveniently linked in its title. And of course, do help the Nationalist Media Conference reach an even greater audience by commenting, updooting, and sharing these presentations with those who might enjoy them.

With that, onward with the commentary!

Handary See | Tendies Tendies: The Future of Poetry

Handary See, the artist formerly known as Potato, is an erudite character who participated in the 2024 conference where he talked about persuasive rhetorical techniques. This year, Handary explored modern poetry with one of the great Anonymous contributions to our culture – a poem about a 4channer’s desire for chicken tendies.

Handary’s presentation was one of my favorites. The whimsical poetic focal point of 4chan humor excelled at underlining his major points about great poetry and contrasted well against the gross “Gaynesses” of modern poetry. There’s only so much prosy-prattling from brown women a man can endure without wanting to bash his head against a wall, after all.

Poetry’s evolution from oral tradition provides a huge insight to why meter, rhyme, and other musical qualities exist in its better forms. Their words don’t just sound good, but sound right, because they are notes in a musical score. And just as a missed note strikes the ear as wrong, an accidental transposition of words or missing stanza becomes immediately apparent in poetry adapted to our language.

Incidentally backing up that point, while Handary read some examples of unstructured Feminist hairballs some call poetry, he accidentally skipped lines and transposed words sometimes. Frankly it was a blessing to hear less of the dross, but it also underlined how traditional forms would have immediately sounded off due to their sophisticated musical structure. Claptrap, however, garbles out the same regardless of error!

A major point he raised is how Moral Simplicity is a Leftist requirement, which is also the core of why the Left Can’t Meme. They simply cannot let audiences consider conclusions outside of their narrow band of acceptable discourse. Alternate conclusions would be not just disagreeable, but morally wrong.

That struck me like the Henry Ford joke about customers asking for other colors of the Model T: “Certainly, they can have any color of paint they please, so long as it is black.” Liberalism for the Libtard is the license to do or say anything you want that doesn’t disagree. Such a flimsy pseudo-morality falls apart the moment anyone gets close to analyzing it, which is why their memes don’t allow for morally complex considerations or open-ended questions.

There was a great parallel drawn between the oral tradition and the R9K board, the 4chan forum that automatically deletes any posts that were not original. The normal ephemeral nature of 4chan communications made the website’s cultural contributions to internet memetics legendary while the rest of Western civilization seemingly sank into cultural stagnation as information – all information – became immortalized and absolutely reproducible.

There is something valuable granted to things normally fleeting but every now and again preserved in amber by merit and repetition. As opposed to the worthless dross bilged into our minds, first by idiots and now increasingly by robots trained on idiots, only that which human beings found valuable enough to repeat and preserve passed along into memetic form.

Without this ephemeral nature, life itself freezes into stagnant immortality. One more gift of prosperity: A never-forgetting cancer that will again curse mankind into a paradoxically discordant trash heap… Thankfully, our human follies will save us once again in the great churn of myth-making!

Handary’s idea that a Nation comes to know itself by capturing its essence into epic poetry quite inspired me. Poetry acts like a bridge between the genius of the individual mind and the racial consciousness of an entire people from which that mind is born. It is in a capacity not unlike the divine revelations of Prophets and Great Men in history, whose words and deeds become reflections of their people. No wonder we had the conception of the Muses, the Skalds, the Bards, and all manner of artists becoming the channels of divine guidance and inspiration during the creative process.

Handary’s presentation gave me great food for thought, and his Substack with his own original poetry will certainly give food for thought to many more too.

Cappy | Part of the Process

With Nature’s inextricable pull on the aging overlords of today, even the Cronian Baby Boomers are finally yearning more for the yacht than the seats of power. From this core observation followed Cappy’s discourse on local political entryism in the world of today.

Unfortunately for our Boomer bourgeois, their generation spent their prime subverting and denying their own children of succession. Refusing to raise up apprentices for fear of creating their own competition, they devoured three generations beneath them to secure their own selfish desires.

But fortunately for many of us alive and younger than a fossil today, those seats of power are being vacated so quickly that gaining a foothold in many offices – from the private sector to even the government – is becoming more feasible for those who show up. That was the core message of Cappy’s observations, that power is up for grabs for those who know how to take it. Or, more accurately, for those waiting to catch the scepter as it falls from the Boomer’s grasping hands.

Citing a classic CGP Grey film The Rules for Rulers, Cappy explained that the Key figures who unlock the gates of power are assured by the Ruler some means of acquiring their own power and position. Cappy’s contribution to this thought was considering these Keys like conduits. Power flows up and down throughout the hierarchy through them, and through them will is transferred between the singular mind(s) and the broader body.

Even being a lesser Key allows you to influence matters both above and below you, and simply by being present and useful to others allows you to ascend to greater positions of influence. Turns out even audience members had their own stories of simply showing up to local geriatric political meetings and being offered high positions just by being there – and that was before demonstrating even a crumb of competence!

Ah, that was an important point to raise too for the inevitable autist out there thinking he’ll show up to declare martial law at his local Republican convention: “Think of it like a game,” said Cappy, “Make the moves that win, not the moves your guys on Discord will enjoy”.

The classic advice of “hide your power level” always apply. Unstable weirdo sorts who cannot convince the Ruler and Keys that they can deliver their objectives will be shut out. Even if it pleases your Discord buddies, remember your audience and don’t violate their values – even if it would be really, really funny.

Instead of going innawoods, why not just look around at what already-existing power nodes are just getting left unattended? It may be easier than you think!

K | Art and the Mind

K was another returning presenter from the 2024 conference. Last time she had given an interesting presentation about turning cabbages and mushrooms into paint and ink, which increasingly could come in handy as we plunge into hyper-inflationary poverty! But I would say this year’s presentation was even more interesting as she covered how the creative process affects the body and brain.

With well-established neurobiology and cutting-edge science, K gave some interesting insights into why we experience the things we do from the sights, sounds, and places we encounter. Knowing the particular brain functions that lead us to link an action like chopping carrots to a certain song certainly informs how modern propaganda both good and ill connects action to memory.

Memes are definitely just like this, and even more refined are the creative insults or praises that encode into language. Just the mention of words like Soy, Cuck, Based, or Gigachad summon up entire hosts of memetic images and convey with a simple labeling all the emotional weight and notion inherent to them. It’s poetic, in a way.

K mentioned how so much modern architecture is hostile and uninviting, much like the warped and disgusting depiction of human figures, thanks again to our eternally tiny-hatted friends. Frank Gehry boasted that his goal was to make “architecture hostile to humans”, and he certainly did - to the revulsion of everyone forced to endure those hideous environments.

One must not mistake this kind of attack on beauty as some kind of succumbing to cheapness and convenience though. Gehry demands top-dollar for his uglifications, as do many more avant-garde acolytes. No, the Jewish impulse is hardly Utilitarian but actively hostile to humanity and beauty, and so many of them strive to smear their foul fingers across the face of reality while claiming the act is “thought-provoking”.

So many people today are convinced that beauty is merely subjective, but K demonstrates how that is simply untrue. Our bodies react to beauty, and the creative process, in ways that are so automatic and subconscious that it is surely not a matter merely of conscious taste or cultural inculcation. The height of a ceiling affects how lofty our thinking becomes – the color of a dinner plate affects how hungry we become – the objects in our environments inspire calm or panic by their mere motions.

Roger Scruton once expressed the sentiment like this: Those buildings built simply for utility soon find themselves vacant as time and technology render their purpose obsolete. But people always find a use for that which is beautiful, even if its utility changed radically throughout time.

"Quite simply,” K said, “Creating anything with that intention is going to create momentum that will reach out and resonate with our own people as well - even if they don't even realize it! But it's still doing what it needs to do."

I really do think that mentality underlined the whole purpose of the conference as a whole!

Saya | User Interface Design

Personally, I really enjoy the game development presentations, being in the process of learning to make games myself. Saya has the distinction of having professional experience in that field. In 2024 his presentation was about the process of making a game design document, which was not so unlike making a business plan document only much more directly amusing.

This year Saya made a tidy presentation about the humble user interface of games, which can be so overlooked despite it constituting the thing that players are going to interact with the most. Like any good construction, the most excellent designs tend to “disappear” in the act of using the tool. A good UI integrates to the point of making it feel responsive, smooth, and congruent with the overall experience.

His presentation reminded me of how important the less-obvious details are in any presentation. Non-game elements like music, art design, sound effects, and so on have massive impacts on the overall feeling of a game, sometimes making or breaking it. So much can go right, yet one mistaken detail can render an entire experience janky and unpleasant.

For instance, Saya mentioned a game in which dark-skinned ruffians could be sent skyward with a vehicle, and upon entering their Negronic space program would sometimes (oftentimes) play 3-5 seconds of angry chimp sounds. Amusing perhaps, once, but less so after the 100^th time. Then the joke just becomes obtrusive, ear-splitting noise that detracts from the more delightful little thunks and flops happening as the vehicle barreled through crowds of misbehaving melanites.

Saya’s suggestion was to ensure that such player feedback was concise, slightly varied, and provides information to the player - not just making a joke. That advanced my understanding about UI design beyond just cursors and blips, because different senses rather than sight could also convey a lot of information in a game.

Overloading precious visual space with dials and numbers and text and UI doodads is easily tempting. But instead of showing a speedometer, why not pitch up the engine, subtly blur the background, and rumble the controller? Saving the visual space while still giving the sensation of speed not only would convey that information to the player but do so in a more integrated and entertaining manner.

Steve Hanson | Livestreaming for Nationalists

Steve is quite the adventurous Canadian who started his online performance career by painting himself gold and dressing up as an Indian (dot, not feather) to mock people on chat roulette sites – a rather popular mode of entertainment anymore! And his presentation was sharing his insights about live streaming and how others can get started on the right foot.

I particularly appreciated how he spoke at length about what kinds of genres currently exist and which ones are quite over-saturated versus those that could use more entrants. While there is an insatiable demand for silly folks making edgy jokes at the expense of gawking teenagers and foreigners, it was nice to see just how expansive and creative the field can be.

Handary See had suggested during his Q&A that poetry could see a resurgence in plays and live performances again, and in a way I imagine that live streams could have a role in that. There is a definite difference between watching a recording that you know you can pause and walk away from, versus seeing something play out at that very moment. And the interactions between the live audience and the performer are simply not able to be replicated at the moment in virtually any other medium.

There being so much opportunity in live streaming still, not just in non-overlapping genres but also in collaborations, gives me great hope that those with a performative flair and content-driven diligence will be able to further develop the space for others. Successful streamers tend to produce little gardens of nascent streamers all around themselves, and cultivating those gardens with Steve’s sense of mutual-support rather than negative competition seems to me to be the right course forward.

And one lesser-appreciated tidbit he shared that I enjoyed: Be careful that what you present to your audience is something sustainable for yourself. Live streaming requires a regular, consistent input of its themes and effort, without which your gathered audience will lose interest and disperse.

In Steve’s case, his initial face-painting was quite an iconic draw for his audience which they loved, but turns out that face paint causes a lot of itchiness and mess for him. How he yearns to not put on the face paint, but his audience begs for the golden mask! The perils of success in a manner that is too taxing or unpleasant for you can grind you away quicker than any hater campaign could. So be careful what delights you share with them, lest they come to demand them from you forever!

TheTDC | Escape from Epstein Island Mid Mortem

The founder, writer, and editor of The Daily Rake, The Amazing Broseph Jones, aka Timothy Coish, is a man of many names and many talents. Timothy has always impressed with his rapid-fire rate of article-making, replete with his excellent sense of humor.

Back in the days where The Daily Rake was closely producing intellectual ammunition for the NJP crowd, it wouldn’t be unheard of to see multiple articles come out in a day from Timothy. That is why I have high hopes and excitement for his most recent passion project: Escape from Epstein Island, the subject of his fascinating presentation about his journey so far in developing his own game.

One of the best examples of scope creep in action was how he got sucked into producing too many hilarious enemy types. None here can blame a man for his enthusiasm crafting digital hordes of twerking-Taquanda’s and troon-troopers to blast away, but it highlights the insidious and alluring nature of almost all scope creep traps.

Falling out of scope is a project annihilator. Obvious unpleasant problems like lack of funding or team issues are things we already know we should resist. But scope creep destroys by delight – It dilutes our attention via our own ambitions. Everything we choose to spend our time, attentions, and resources on comes at the expense of something else we could have spent them on. This is known as an opportunity cost. Timothy conveyed that vital lesson in not getting sidetracked by perfectionism and additions to the 10% when the 90% foundations still need to be laid.

Another interesting observation from Timothy was positive deceit – by making player hitboxes smaller than displays we sneakily give players advantages so they feel like the game is fair. How telling of how we think as people! Sometimes being objective and honest mires the gaming experience with the sensation of unfairness. The infamous XCOM Percentages come to mind…

Counteracting the impulse to cry out, “Bullshit!” requires us to be a bit dishonestly generous to most people. Nuance, unvarnished truth, autistic correction – these things are simply bad for most user experiences, whatever your field of endeavor. The goal is not to deceive your players into false confidence, but rather encourage them to continue developing towards that positive, truthful path of getting good at the game. To me, there’s a broader lesson in governance in that.

Another great lesson in that vein is the solution to the degenerate strategy of circle-strafing ruining his intended game: Ruthlessly nerf the strategy until it becomes simply nonviable. No matter how initially crude that solution is, do it, lest the whole game experience will suffer. All his attempts to subtly fix the problem with player “bribes” and persuasions and soft powers failed, so he simply made it into a suicidal strategy – and gameplay finally improved as a result!

How many societal problems can be traced to singular degenerate strategies and the players who use them? How much would our social game improve by simply, even crudely, putting an end to those behaviors and troublemakers? I recall a recent statistic wherein only 1% of the population commits 63% of all crimes, and then I recall how in the end of the 30 Years War Europe ended up executing upwards of 1% of its whole population, mostly those out-of-control mercenaries and bandits who exploited the war. Sounds like a degenerate strategy getting mercilessly crushed!

Considerations like this, how problems often arise from small singular issues that resolve once rooted out, ought to guide many of our leaders. They, who so often pussy-foot around matters with so little understanding of the issues, often institute simultaneously delicate yet crude solutions that offenders simply sidestep – and produce even more messes as a result. No, take hold of the root of the weed and pull it out! Make degenerate strategies simply untenable to the player’s goal, and the players abandon the strategy.

Finally, I think his most important observation was that no matter how much you plan and dream and study, you simply cannot account for all the complexities and issues that arise in a game until you actually play it. You must build the mechanism to appreciate its intricacies and experience the consequences of your ideas in motion, otherwise you cannot know if your game is actually good.

The sooner you can plunge yourself into the game, no matter how crude, the sooner you can experience with more than just your noggin what the game is actually like. Is an idea that seems fun on paper actually fun with the controller? So many would-be creatives instead become Idea Guys, always dreaming fanciful ideas, beautiful ideas, the greatest ideas! But they never attempt to make them.

Instinctively they know the best laid plans never survive first contact with reality, but all creatives know that. The potter knows that beautiful hunk of clay will hardly be like itself after he sets it to the wheel, and his vision will adapt and evolve beyond his inclinations as it takes shape beneath his fingers. That’s the creative process, and why creative endeavor produces things beside and beyond our best plans.

“Nobody ever learned calculus from a tweet,” Timothy wisely said in his presentation. Every magnificent creation has been made by slamming the raw ore of an idea through the crusher and crucible of reality until a tested metal pours out the other side – an idea purified by strife and struggle by the unrelenting application of honest will.

Norman Eckart | Build your Own AI

Look at that handsome devil, up there presenting stuff! Yes, this was Norman’s second year presenting at the Nationalist Media Conference, and this time I didn’t want to just dump my toolbox of tools but try to walk through the creative process. This year it was about AI image generation, particularly making one’s own uncensored contraption.

AI image generation is a tricky matter to talk about without either being castigated as a techno-Philistine or a prissy Luddite, a subject which I fully intend to talk about eventually. But as someone who still believes AI will likely be the death of the internet while also learning how to command this mechanical genie, I think I occupy a somewhat interesting and mildly informed position to temper expectations and assuage fears.

At the very least, I can and do have enough knowledge to lead people to making their own (tiny) AI. And that’s what I do! And tiny though it may be, and janky as a jalopy, it is as I say in the presentation: “As shitty as it might be, it will still be yours!”

The real definition of freedom is not merely the license to take actions of your own accord, but to accept the responsibilities and risks of your own consequences, good and bad. My goal in trying to teach how to make our own AI’s outside the polished and convenient professional offerings is to let our compatriots explore and master this revolutionary technology without becoming even more dependent on our current societal masters for our creative capacities.

I don’t want to steal my own thunder when it comes to defending the exploration of AI and our skills regarding it, so I will refrain from my full-throttle defense for the time being. But I will say that it’s true, my greatest accomplishment in the whole of this presentation was making these beautiful balls.

I wax at length about those irons balls, and to wax a bit further on them here: That effort represents for me the reality of what image generation really is. At its proper core, it is utilizing a tool not so unlike the Fill bucket or so many Photoshop tools that we take for granted anymore but which would be called by prior generations cheating and non-art the same as we say today for AI.

I had to creatively problem-solve with combinations of techniques I thought might work alongside the skills I could execute with my various tools. There was a composition I had in mind that I set to canvas, a scene whose details were vague in my imagining that I refined in my execution, and a product that conveyed what I wished which bore the marks of my unique process and thinking. Is that not the artistic endeavor, still preserved in its spirit despite the novelty of some of its tools?

If nothing else, I hope that my presentation helped those interested in image generation to understand what took me many hours of study and experimentation to discover, in as succinct and entertaining a way as a blowhard like me could muster. And I hope that my support of this conference in general proves that neither a Philistine nor Luddite am I!

Flood | AI-deology

The efforts of Flood over the years backs up better than I ever could the creative potential of utilizing AI tools to our creative advantage. Whereas I am but a neophyte, Flood is a seasoned journeyman in the AI arts, and has used great amounts of his time, talents, and coin in his belief in those tools.

It is not a sacrifice that is always rewarded as much as it deserves. Handling the difficulties of ever-shifting social and personal waters as a Nationalist is the prevailing theme of Flood’s presentation. He speaks of the interpersonal difficulties he has faced as a result of his striving, more so from his own presumed side than even from his obvious opposition, and how he suggests to maintain a balance between Passion, Principle, and Purpose in the face of such harrowing difficulties.

One element in his presentation I mulled over was his perspective on how AI allows the average man to put his ideas out so that everyone can tell him, finally, how bad his ideas are. A refreshing angle on the whole bilge-pump scenario of colorful sewage spewing into the public spheres! And it is true enough, there are so many awful ideas that go untested and therefore unrefined, and thereby persist.

I personally fear that eternal flooding of unworthy ideas though. Ugliness, distraction, average dross drown away the worthy by sheer volume. But then again, the internet was filled with such things before. Combined with the immortal triteness of so much of anything digital now, we will need to develop new ways to pierce through the morass and extract the gems trapped in this ever-seething swamp. The hurtbox must become all the more refined in its prickliness, it seems. In the meantime, brutal honesty burns away unworthy trash, and truth will be our torch in the increasingly dim delvings we are entering as a people.

Flood has always been an advocate of creatives, encouraging those with ideas and humor and willpower to use these tools to advance our worldview. Another encouraging takeaway from his presentation is just seeing what power can now lie in the hands of a single driven man amid all the technological marvels we have access to today.

Long have I reminded people that just one hundred years ago, the first major expense that any political organization had to make was obtaining a printing press. Only with this expensive equipment would they be able to make mass communications in their localities, allowing them to put worldview to writing, and attract the masses to hear their one-time speeches.

Today, virtually everyone has a cheap printer able to churn out hundreds of dirt-cheap pamphlets, the quality of which surpass anything those past organizations would have been able to. And it is so ubiquitous an ability that we don’t even consider it in light of the internet. Substack, right here, lets us publish words, pictures, videos, and live streams right alongside a lively social media network, able to reach potentially tens of thousands of viewers, with only the cost of a few taps on a keyboard.

Had you told people a hundred years ago that you had a tool that would let them reach hundreds of thousands of potential listeners across the world, they would ask you what princely sum they would need to pay for such a wondrous piece of technology. It is astounding, really, how spoiled our generations are with this kind of technology, that our first question often is: “So, how would I get paid for this?”

Flood builds an AI piece throughout his discussion of the difficulties, and in that way demonstrates the noble workman’s trudge forward despite all difficulties. It’s an admirable thing to see, and I hope we will be seeing more of his diligent and clever works well into the future.

Elmowaffen | 3D Printers

So many of our discussions had been about work in a purely digital space. After all, the Nationalist Media Conference is a largely digital undertaking, despite it having ambitions for expanding its rustic physical venue too. Elmowaffen’s presentation about 3D printing offered a very cool way to take digital creations into meatspace, and that was quite refreshing!

This was one of my favorite presentations for how much it charged up my imagination. Last time I had checked out 3D printing, it was a fancy newer technology that seemed revolutionary in itself but cost-prohibitive. Printers were thousands of dollars, and the products it could make were on the astounding quality of a wiggly fidget-snake.

But Elmowaffen’s explorations have happily informed me of the great developments in 3D manufacturing. Many different kinds of materials and methods exist for building these digital designs, and now a person could get started with an excellent printer for about the cost of a big screen television screen. Naturally the greatest impediment micro-factory operators would face is one’s own diligence and imagination in actually using the damn thing!

One of the interesting conversations the audience had was about the practicality of making a living off 3D printed products. The immediate conclusion was you could make some money, but overall most raw printed objects are seen as cheap schlock and not super viable without a little something extra. My experiences with the wiggle-snake avalanches would attest to this worldview.

However, it made me think about the possibility of combining 3D printing with other technological and artistic forms to make profiting from it more viable. In the same way the computer mouse was a mere curiosity before Steve Jobs combined it with the Macintosh graphical interface, so too do I think 3D-printed products stand to benefit from combination with other technologies.

Some creative uses I’ve seen:

• 3D prints as negatives for building a foundry or silicone mold

• AI building 3D model bases to then turn into real objects

• Printing out other people’s tabletop characters

• Post-print modifications with acetone and other substances

• Laser-etching machines to engrave or build other parts

• Loading up 3D printers with batter to print out food

To be honest that last one is mostly because I’m hungry right now, but who doesn’t love the idea of nutrient-paste turned into edible monuments?

Anyway, Elmowaffen’s presentation really tempts me to get into 3D printing, but his best piece of advice in all of it is to only invest into it if you have solid plans for what you want to do with it. Otherwise that fancy printer just languishes in the corner, collecting dust rather than printing out wiggly-snake emporiums. And where I currently sit, Norman of the Untended Substack, I know right now my poor 3D printing ambitions might begin and end with trying to print out a cupcake for myself.

For now at least!

KC | The Arete Playbook

The last presentation of the conference was from KC. A member of the Phoenix Project, an initiative originally founded by Asha Logos several years ago but since has taken on a life of its own. It is one of our many hidden little ideation chambers where brilliant /ourguys/ quietly build out all kinds of interesting ideas and develop worthwhile projects.

One of those projects was a portion from The Arete Playbook on a section remarkably similar to Cappy’s presentation in terms of subject matter – gaining power in society. However, KC’s angle was less on the acquisition of particular offices and more on being able to connect with other people. Luckily, despite all our fancy technology, it still is people who are running our various offices and nodes of power in society. And connecting with others is a universally applicable skill.

One approach from KC’s talk was to identify some subject that the other person feels is messed up in the world, and let them share about it. As we live in an increasingly messed-up world, and a ridiculous number of those messes are caused by subjects we Nationalists are keenly aware of, it is almost inevitable that people will feel personally about something we are well-equipped to talk about.

Instead of prattling on about whatever you care about, let them open up about something they care about, and then talk to common experience and cause with those woes. Better yet, offer them something that can assist their problem, even if only to understand it differently or more keenly, and make them feel understood and valued for their observations. People enjoy sharing more than you might think!

Another great tip he gave is to go to places that naturally attract your ideal people. Not everyone everywhere is falling over themselves to get into Nationalism, but some are more amenable to it than others. KC mentioned how those who engage in contact sports, or their parents, are often much more willing to entertain Nationalistic ideas about unity, teamwork, and necessary aggression than, say, those who frequent LGBBQ ally powwows. After all, who should look for beer in the soup aisle?

I thought that was perfect advice to give even for activist-mediated conversations. I’ve termed it passive filtering, but it is how the aesthetics and “flavor” of what you do and present determines what kinds of people you get attracted to your audience. Thomas Sewell, the Australian activist, once put it as, “What you feed, grows”. KC and his compatriots in the Phoenix Project are great examples of the passive filter in action themselves.

Asha Logos produces work that appeals to a particularly contemplative kind of personality. Of course he does – his videos begin with a bell’s chime and a meditative ooohhhmmm hum before launching into his subject, lovely flowing images of transcendental art floating by in the airy breeze of his explorations... Asha Logos is basically a forest hermit who found a computer.

Now, is Asha’s work universally appreciated? No, of course not. Not everyone craves an aspiring sage’s accumulated wisdom. But some do, and that’s perfect. That means that when Asha put out a video recruiting for the Phoenix Project on his channel and buried an invitation inside it, virtually only the most intrepid ohm-enjoyers became aware of and pursued the invitation. In this manner, his would-be recruits filtered themselves for general character traits before they even knocked on the door.

KC passed through the filter along with hundreds of others, and on the other side found those quite similar in temperament to himself – aspiring acolytes, nascent philosophers, and navel-gazers most often. Smart, even-tempered, insightful sorts to contemplate contemplating with.

Does this mean you need ohm-chants and gnomish intonations to get views? Certainly not! There are many ways to configure a passive filter, and your modifications affect what kinds of people you end up attracting. The Americana aesthetics of Patriot Front, the harsh edge of Blood Tribe, the masculine fitness of Active Clubs, or the sardonic nibbling of Groypers all passively yield different kinds of audiences. Hence to KC’s point, if you are looking for particular kinds of audiences, consider what places and events and personalities would passively filter for those kinds of people.

KC’s best advice was how the Saul Alinski sneaky Commie approach of hooking the unaware in with some tiny agreement and eventually step them into being a revolutionary just doesn’t work with our more honest worldview. Instead, he suggests connect those personal concerns with the big picture right off the bat. Big and bold, so I am told!

I agree so much with this sentiment. Nationalists today think and speak too small and too easy. The “14 Words” is disagreeable to me because it is too meager a goal. Securing mere existence? Balderdash – we must tread every enemy beneath our feet and reach high into the heavens that we may touch the face of God! Grandiosity, difficulty, and righteous arrogance. If ever there is a sentiment to raise a potato-corpse from the cozy incline of his couch, it is grand, bold, unapologetic purpose.

It is far more galvanizing to have a grand goal to strive for, no matter its absurdity, than to just get some lowest common consensus. It is a man possessed of the former, not the latter, that sparks in the cynical gloom of modernity. There’s a Romanticism that even placid Conservatives crave, and so it is very exciting to learn from KC’s experience that is exactly what he observes in the wild.

Conclusion

As you can tell, I very much enjoyed this conference, and glutted on plenty of food for thought. What do you all think? Wouldn’t it be appropriate for the comments to likewise talk about their favorite moments and inspired thoughts from these presentations? Even better, have those comments on the videos themselves to help out the Nationalist Media Conference channel!

I’d like it for my whole audience to go enjoy those presentations when they can and learn all they can. Teaching new concepts and inspiring our people to go pursue them with newfound tools, techniques, and know-how is the way we advance our ideas and interests in every walk of life. Plus, the creative process is satisfying beyond compare. The world could use a little more beauty and competency in it, don’t you agree?

So go enjoy those presentations if you haven’t already, and be sure to subscribe to the Nationalist Media Conference to see more to come in the coming years.

While you’re at it, try subscribing to TheNorme too. I tend to sometimes write about interesting things, and make funny jokes, so it’s worth a whole click of a button.

Now if you will excuse me, I have some very important orbs to contemplate…

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Peanut the Squirrel, a rescue-pet trained and beloved by Mark Longo and popularized by a successful Instagram account amassing over half a million followers, was slaughtered by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation – a most Orwellian name for a government agency that goes around killing people’s pets.

This story exploded into political news as Elon Musk and other commentators noted how draconian Liberal governments were about peoples’ pets to the point of raiding homes, while they refused to stem the tide of criminal invaders shipped in by the bushel. Empowered by recent AI proliferation, internet denizens commemorated Peanut (and Fred the Raccoon) in a colorful panoply of memes.

So naturally, when noticing Whites giving positive attention to anything but themselves, Blacks and their rainbow-coalition bedfellows began yowling that age-old complaint: “White people care more about animals than they do Blacks!”

Yes, we do. Whites love animals more than Blacks. And we should.

Humans Aren’t Nice

We really aren’t.

Conquests throughout history of one human race by another have generally ended with only one race left to tell the tale. Archaeology is replete with dig sites showcasing savage tribal slaughters throughout the Americas, or humanoids in Africa and Australia devouring pygmies like cocktail weenies at a meet-and-greet. Just look at the modern world to the genocides of the Hutu and Tutsi, the Holodomor, or the Palestinian extermination. These are not nice treatments.

But more fundamentally, look at what hominids tend to do to their local environments. Given enough technological capability, virtually all races obliterate their local flora and fauna to the point of ecological collapse. Easter Island became deserted after its peoples denuded it of trees. The continent of Australia lost over 90% of its rainforests because Aboriginals burnt them down over thousands of years trying to easily flush out prey – and they only have any left because the heavily-inbred Aboriginals miraculously forgot how to make fire. Africa transformed from meager cannibalistic tribes into the worst examples of urbanized decay in the 20^th century, driving many beautiful species to extinction so they could better huff Jenkum on mountains of trash.

Conquest and genocide with hominids is like peanut butter and jelly. Except with Whites. Whites are virtually the only people who have actively tried to not just outright obliterate every living thing standing in their way. Sure, from time to time we exercise a little Carthago Delenda Est on some particularly obnoxious peoples, but hardly any other race is known for so readily embracing the conquered as our charges (or, pathologically, superiors). And this seems to be a fairly universal trait among Northern/Western Europeans in particular. Why might that be?

Druidic Whites

Whites are uniquely empathetic in the world. All throughout White history and religion, there has been a remarkable interest in stewardship of the natural world, to the point of shaping not just our cultures but our sense of metaphysics. The more you look for it, the more you discover this deep Druidic impulse throughout our history.

It may shock many to know that many old growth forests of Northern and Western Europe are not wholly naturally phenomena, but the results of European stewardship. Their winding game trails and rich biodiversity were shaped by generations of White foresters, foragers, and hunters. Their efforts cleared space for ancient trees and useful foliage to grow over hundreds of years, improved ecological health by orders of magnitude, and provided for many tribes and species. These practices were intrinsic to these peoples, developing and developed-by Druidic religious traditions that honed this stewarding impulse to a spiritual science.

Forming symbioses with non-human organisms is an incredibly White trait, at the core of our success as a hominid sub-species even among many others. It is a trait that we routinely project onto other races that we might not otherwise find much in the way of redeeming qualities. The “Noble Savage” mythos for instance is only really fawned over by White people, because it speaks to a yearning in our own souls to become closer with nature and to nurture it all around us.

Plains Amerindians did not, as the myth goes, actually use every part of the buffalo. Lewis and Clark noted in their journals a huge heap of bison corpses that a local tribe had wastefully driven off a cliff. Most of that slaughtered herd was left to rot while its putrid miasma wafted for miles around. With the introduction of the horse and gun, Amerindians frequently overhunted game and slaughtered their Amerindian neighbors in the same ways they abuse their wives and Listerine today.

If the Easter Islands, Australia, and Africa are any indications, driven to desolation by their native non-White hominids, it is that primal humans are not always “attuned” with the natural world but are simply opportunistic species. To live in nature is far different than living with nature. Those who simply live in nature, when given the technological whip-hand over it, will raze it to the ground in merciless, irresponsible exploitation to the point of their own population collapse.

But Whites tend to love nature in a way that most other peoples do not, and yearn to live with nature. While there are examples of other peoples creating cultural and religious symbioses with their natural environments, like the Japanese with the Animism of Shinto and amazing resource-conservation techniques, no other race tends to so readily become as fanatical or protective or self-denying as Whites do when it comes to their shrubberies and critters – even if those organisms are outright hostile to ourselves.

Blame it on Cold Winter Theory evolving us this way, or a historical-cultural hangover from prehistory, or a commission from Divinity in our creation. Regardless, it’s quite clear that most Northern and Western European peoples, if not Whites in general, are enamored with living things and have a general urge towards stewarding living beings beyond their own kith, kin, and kind.

It would not be a stretch to suppose that one of our racial destinies is to seed life among the stars – not just human life, but life in general. Whites are called by Providence to steward life itself.

That Whites regularly take on pets, and attempt to domesticate all manner of creatures, is therefore not so strange. What is a bit strange to an outside observer might be how caring we become over those animals. Pets, those especially loved little beings, are considered part of our families and treated to everything from scraps from our very own meals to burial plots next to our own. That we have “Fur-babies” in our lexicon is just indicative of how familiar and strong this feeling is among us.

The level of fawning and fretting over our pets often baffles other races whose own pets might be mere living status symbols that could double as an emergency meal. Eating cats and dogs is not uncommon in much of Asia, even as some of them get the pet rather than pan treatment. To us, it’s generally abhorrent to think of eating pet-creatures and, to some of us, creatures in general. We even demand our livestock animals to be slaughtered in a fashion that reduces their fear and pain as much as possible.

So why then do many Whites reflexively care more about animals than they do other humans? It comes down to two major factors: Competition and Innocence.

Non-Competition

A major determinant of many human relationships depends on a sense of competition that might exist between the parties.

Humans compete frequently with animals for basic resources like food, water, and shelter. Our concept of pest species is largely due to the way that those organisms irritate us by their competition for these basic requirements of life. Locusts gobble up our crops, mosquito larvae infest our water, weeds infest our gardens, and creepy-crawlies love tromping into our homes uninvited. There are even animals that would predate on us if given half the chance, and like with our homes we tend to be reasonably possessive about keeping our limbs to ourselves.

Resource competition is taken as par for the course though, and we handle that like we handle poor weather or bad luck. We may curse and crush and drive out the pests as best we can, and devise many effective or amusing ways to accomplish those tasks. Few feats in life are as satisfying as giving a fat, pesky housefly a blast of tasty flack from a salt gun or smacking it out of the air with a well-aimed swipe of a stick.

But there is a special competition among humans that animals are not competitors in, and those are social and sexual hierarchies.

What roles we play in society, our reputations, our dominance hierarchies, our social games of status and prestige, are all forms of competition that no animal is even valid to be considered for. Never do we fear that a horse will replace the jockey in the stables, or that a sheepdog will replace the shepherd in his household. Because neither horse nor dog are able to substitute a human in the social roles of rider and master, nor overthrow the roles we ordain for them. Thus animals are never the object of our envy or wariness in those respects.

Where there is no competition, there need be no struggle. Living with animals in the respect of these more pressing human concerns is an act of non-resistance. Not even tolerance is required to let your dog sleep on your bed in this sense, save maybe for the minor endurance of pushing their sprawling bodies out of your favorite cozy spot.

There is no concern waking up to find your wife in the paws of your loyal canine in the same meaningfully dire sense that it would be finding her getting manhandled by your neighbor instead! Your dog simply isn’t a threat to you or your social place, and only the most pathologically jealous types would consider competing with an animal in a competition that creature neither cares for nor understands.

This sense is so ingrained, with so few realistic examples to contrast it, that the best cases that unearth this ingrained attitude come from fantasy. We have plenty of examples in literature and film where animals overthrow humans or take on human-like social roles like Animal Farm, Chicken Run, or many Aesop’s Fables. But even these cases strike us as fundamentally amusing and non-threatening.

It really is absurdly humorous to think about pigs in suits and chickens building aircraft, and a great way like so much Science Fiction to explore philosophical positions from an outside perspective. It is an out-of-human experience where humanity itself becomes more in-focus and graspable precisely because it is being played out by obvious non-humans. Speaking of which…

Squirrel Friend - DungeonSoup

First, Dungeon Soup is hilarious. Second, we all can relate to the absolute violation of the elf woman. There is a bit of a difference between a cute little squirrel resting its nuts on your shoulder than there is the thought of a greasy-humanoid doing the same – even if they were the same being. In fact, knowing he was just a disguised humanoid the whole time reclassifies all of those experiences with that “squirrel” immediately and irrevocably. But why?

It’s a sexual threat, one that women in particular will be exquisitely well-acquainted with. That fear and revulsion is established not by just a difference in physical form, but a spiritual truth about his being - that truth being he’s actually a greasy-little humanoid and not a cute woodland critter. How many times do females have to deal with “sneaky fuckers”? All the time, if Nature is any metric to measure by.

That sexual concern can be so overwhelmingly powerful that it leads to another amusing dalliance in what was a popularized question to women: “Which would you rather run into alone in the woods – a strange man, or a bear?”

A surprising number of women will answer the bear rather than the man, to the great puzzlement and bewilderment of men. Now, putting aside the urbanite woman’s near-complete disassociation with basic realities, the foremost fear in her sheltered and over-socialized mind is being raped rather than mauled.

The bear, dangerous a beast as it is, nevertheless is not even in the category of sexual threat in her mind. It just is an animal, not in sexual competition with her nor threatening her social status by an unwanted pregnancy. Conversely, every strange man is a potential rapist and threat to her genetic line. Ergo, bring on the bears say these women!

Nature’s Innocence

Non-competition rolls right into the concept of Natural Innocence. The notion of innocence is found in the Latin innocere – in- meaning “not”, and nocere meaning “to harm, hurt, damage, or injure”. To be innocent means being not-harming or to not deserve harm.

On the surface this doesn’t seem to align much with Nature, red in tooth and claw. Nature and its many creatures do have the capacity to do us great harm in a physical sense. Whether it’s a bear deciding to add us to their Fall buffet plans or a bird bombarding us with precision-guided crap, animals do indeed have the capacity to harm us and do so regularly.

Yet those creatures are innocent in the spiritual sense of moral culpability. Bears and birds are not human, and while we afford them great respect for being living creatures, they are not bound to the human moral framework. In many ways animals have a different, more primal connection with Divinity than humans, whose humanity affords a different elevation of potential attainment, or fall, from Providence.

Animals acting on instinct, even the rabid and diseased, are not choosing based on moral considerations or burdens. They are, as far as we can observe, unaware of our moral imperatives. When they hurt us it is often out of fear, rage, confusion, hunger, or ignorance – but not out of evil, an opposition to their fundamental, ideal nature.

Gnats annoy us, mountain lions stalk us, fish look weird, earthworms are slimy, but they are as they were made to be and not somehow contravening what they were so made to be by Nature and Divinity. Entwined with the competition sense, these creatures good or bad are never threatening to our social roles. Our beloved dog isn’t going to replace my role as husband to my wife any more than our family cat is going to replace our children at the dinner table. Animals are simply incapable, and harmless, of that kind of ethical competition with us.

To anthropomorphize creatures to the point of holding them morally culpable to concepts most are not even able to comprehend makes so little sense that it basically doesn’t even occur in the negative in the White psyche. We’ll generously attribute our virtues to our furry companions whether they actually express them or not – kindness, love, even unwarranted cuteness - but hardly have I ever heard of attributions of sin to even reviled and hated critters.

We often feel that Druidic urge to nurture and protect these naturally-innocent beings in a sort of Divine calling. It’s a character trait so common among us that it is the subject of archetypal jokes about gentle-giants, tree-huggers, and cat-ladies. Whites regularly extend our empathetic instincts onto other species, and feel this is not just permissible but morally right action.

Even when the little beasties are biting and clawing us we hold on with seemingly infinite patience, applying our love and concern over beings absolutely alien to ourselves. Kittens might be more cuddly than slugs, but it will probably be a White who would be first to argue for the preservation of slugs as a moral, not just practical, good (just outside of our own gardens, at least). And to those who abuse such innocent beings, we regularly attribute a level of moral condemnation normally reserved for abusers of children.

Human Culpability

But humans, and whatever we put into the category of human-level sentience, do not occupy the same category as Nature. Any hominid existing today is capable of competing within our social organizations and is generally held to be subject to our moral laws and judgments thereof. Humans are capable of being evil, and generally are to a certain extent. Humans are beyond animals in their culpability, and in White minds are removed from flora and fauna in this respect.

This may partly be due to the fact that humans constitute the greatest threat to humans, bar none. It is humans who predate and threaten us more than any other species, and particularly those who are far removed from us genetically. Locusts and tigers and sharks might be dangerous, but none of them are capable of the kinds of concerted hatred and intentional genocidal campaigns that our fellow hominids are. Holding humans to a different standard therefore is a matter of survival.

But Whites go beyond this essential, instinctual reaction to danger and add to it a moral expectation. All humans are expected to abide by social and moral codes, and those codes are subject to our judgment. A “good person” is not purely innocent generally but considered “good enough” to balance out the “bad” they express.

Morally-relevant behaviors alien enough to ours tend to be condemned, and alien moralities that are little more than base instinct might even relegate their possessors to “savage” status – primitives or, at worst, monsters. Because it is not sufficient for a wild animal to be dangerous for it to be a monster, but that its very being or moral-dimension is likewise oppositional to Nature and/or our own.

Whites routinely condemn other Whites and take actions to control or cull our own. All humans are more than capable of infighting, but Whites are particularly prone to it on the basis of regulating morality. It is a tendency that spills out alongside our advanced empathy to other races, and forms the bedrock of our race’s many crusades and conquests (right and wrong) throughout history. Thus Whites have an increased tendency to apply the standard of what is right and good and beautiful for ourselves onto alien peoples, and assume what is good for us is the “default good” for all of humanity.

A Universalist might not see any problem with this, conceited as he is in the “reasonableness” of his often racial and cultural inclinations. But anyone respecting the differences between the races will begin to see the glaring issue. Applying White standards to non-White peoples, from morality to aesthetics to merit, will almost inevitably come up with grating inconsistencies, shortcomings, and conflicts. The square-White peg doesn’t exactly fit other-racial round-holes, and vice-versa.

And this is where we get, finally, to Blacks.

Blacks, being so distinct from us in everything from temperament to intelligence to aesthetics to values and more, are very obviously not White. They are not like us physically, mentally, or spiritually despite being in direct competition with us in our social order and sexual security. Genetically they are incredibly distant from us as far as hominids go, which is obvious to anyone even glancing between them and ourselves. Even when they profess the same beliefs, they express them in absolutely strange ways, and frequently those alien ways are not ways that White people tend to appreciate.

Conflict is inevitable.

Peanut vs Floyd

We now return to the question: Why do Whites like animals more than Blacks? Well, Whites generally view Blacks in a spectrum between two major poles:

1. Blacks are viewed as fellow humans and, holding him to our White standards of virtue and goodness, are most often found grossly discordant and repulsive.

2. Blacks are viewed as troublesome, hapless animals that require White stewardship to save from their own persistent follies.

Defective humans, or annoying domesticates. Damn Whitey, pick your poison indeed!

Peanut was innocent. Beyond being a particularly cute animal complete with endearing aesthetics and behavioral charm, he was a beloved pet and held as a harmless, delightful ward of not just his owners but the whole audience who enjoyed him. Whites grew particularly attached as they became familiar with his personality, to the point that we could sense the bright little soul in him very distinctly.

Could Peanut bite and scratch and be a nuisance? Certainly, but he was a good squirrel. Not a human, a squirrel. And squirrels like Peanut are innocent. Not just our White sense of justice was violated when that creature was ripped from his family, but our deep Druidic sense. He was no threat to anyone, and yet his unjust treatment by the state was ghastly. What happened to Peanut was viciously, horribly wrong – a lovely innocent destroyed by an immoral tyranny.

That’s all well and good. But lets compare Peanut to another creature made famous by its publicized death: George Floyd. Floyd was a thuggish criminal, incarcerated multiple times for burglaries, assaults, and other criminal acts unfortunately characteristic of his kind. He abused women, abandoned his children, and was in the process of defrauding a shopkeeper with counterfeit money while high on fentanyl when he met his end.

George Floyd was a bad man. Not just a man, but a bad one. And when that wastrel died, regardless of the circumstances, it was the death of a pretty bad human being in our eyes. Sure, humans are generally considered on a higher-order value than rodents as a category of concern, but they also are held to that higher moral standard. And while the circumstances of the death may or may not have been just deserts for him, it did not change the foundational fact that Floyd was an ugly, obnoxious, social-blight of a human by most White standards.

At least if you perceive Blacks as predominantly human, that is. Those Whites who view Blacks mainly as wayward-yet-sacred animals tried to hoist up his corpse like their very own Peanut and admonished their fellow-Whites who wouldn’t kneel and weep over Saint Floyd the Innocent.

Compare and contrast the performative protesting that Whites do on behalf of PETA to White BLM “allies”. It’s nigh indistinguishable. Where actual ethical sentiment drove those people to virtue-signal to other Whites, one may argue it is far more insulting and demeaning than calling Floyd a bad man.

To them Floyd wasn’t human, he was Black.

The truth is that Floyd was a woefully average specimen of his kind, and most Whites inwardly considered his kind as a certain mix of human and non-human. All races view other races in some sense as not-quite-humans, which makes sense - they are indeed separate sub-species of humans. We should recognize it as readily as we recognize different breeds of dog.

For most realistic Whites, Blacks are human enough to not be subject to an animal’s exemption from competition or moral judgment. Yet, our modern pseudo-morality of The White Man’s Burden manipulates our Druidic sense into performatively treating and cultivating them like prized animals. That perspective is not just factually wrong, but also immoral to a Nationalist worldview.

Blacks are not animals but hominids, competing directly with Whites not just for physical necessities but social, cultural, and vital resources. Blacks tend to fall short of White standards on almost all counts that matter to us – aesthetically, behaviorally, intellectually, and morally. Individuals fall even further when they are actively immoral and predatory, but as a group they are nevertheless forever strangers to us. Blacks as a group are so alien in manner and social organization as to be nothing short of an enemy tribe occupying our territory.

Could Floyd holler and lie and be a nuisance? Certainly, and we judged him harshly for this. It is mighty un-White of him, just like Whites tend to be mighty un-Black by Black standards and are loudly judged accordingly. And for that, the violation of innocence and beauty simply doesn’t apply to the same extent or depth to an average Black as it would for an average beloved pet or wild animal.

We come to know and like the bright little souls of animals more than the troublesome spirits of many Blacks. Familiarity can change the balance of our perception somewhat. Plenty of Whites mourn the loss of a Black they knew and liked, or a stranger White who was nonetheless a human like ourselves. But all else being equal, we tend to pity and mourn the loss of a beloved innocent ward before an alien human competitor.

It’s just mighty White of us.

Conclusion

Did the state-sanctioned murder of Peanut the Squirrel significantly shift the 2024 Election? Almost certainly not - not that it didn’t spawn many a joke to that effect.

But the jokes land on our funny bone so squarely because we as Whites, and those who observe our Druidic tendencies with perplexed eyes, recognize that such an event very well could have changed the political winds in our sails. After all, it was a national outrage to hear reports in the same election of Haitian marauders devouring cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio.

The Kiffness - Eating the Cats

Whites will take up arms to protect the innocent and our wards, and in no small way do many Whites consider Nature itself to be part of those categories. We compete with Nature and its many denizens in a vital struggle for the physical necessities of life, and yet we often yearn to be part of that greater body, not just in but with Nature as another small but bright soul blessing its many branches.

Competition with Nature does not happen on that all-too-human level as it does with other hominids, and more importantly our souls do not encounter resistance on a spiritual level with Nature as we so frequently do with one another. Its innocence, fundamental and primal, releases us from the tiring need for judgment, and lets us simply nurture and cultivate as we ourselves are nurtured and cultivated.

There is conquest, yes, and struggle aplenty in the vast lands and waters of this world, and even more awaiting us in the yawning Horizons beyond to relish and strive with. As wayward as our lash sometimes can be upon others who share something of our physical and moral form, no other race has been so ready to tend to those wounds as Whites.

So grant us the pleasure we take in heaping good soil up over a tender seedling, in felling a great beast after so thrilling a chase, and sitting in the absolute quiet of a mountain dawn. Nature sings to our souls and calls us ever onwards towards its embrace. It is part of what we are as Whites.

And for those of you anti-Whites still thinking this instinct is wrong and something we should be deprived of, beware: Let us Whites enjoy our little Peanuts in peace, or we will have only the pleasure of ripping apart weeds like you left to satisfy us.

Subscribe now

Share

Dissent Right met Walt-Right once more in volatile fashion, and now has boiled over into his article-of-subject: White Nationalism is Anti-White.

A boldly-garish sentiment shot across the bow, and one guaranteed to raise the hackles of many “Movement” sorts. It’s the kind of Anon-tier article Bismarck has built his Substack on, and one that is delightfully taunting for my response. And I’m certainly not one to let an opportunity to champion the right-instincts of my Nationalist compatriots with a touch more articulation than the usual fare.

Origin of Anti-White Nationalism

Walt Bismarck’s article thesis is to paraphrase: White Nationalism runs counter to White interests and values, namely in that White Nationalism proposes “a Racial Isolationism that seeks to insulate White people from external pressures and influence”.

Now this particular focal point was spurred on by the huff-and-puff he received during the second half of his Milleniyule appearance. The peanut gallery was rather intrigued during the first half of the conversation where Bismarck focused on the positive ability of his Tortuga Society to enrich its membership through Job Stacking.

Currently, conceptions of wealth-building among Nationalists are generally limited to dirt-farming, donation-begging, and t-shirt peddling. Anything more financially complicated than going innawoods to economize pinecones runs the risk of being considered “Jewish” by the salty-earth sorts who have little professional experience beyond manual labor. Limited experience limits imagination one might say, but this psychological defense is understandable and even necessary as I will later explain.

Bismarck’s proposition of coordinated Job Stacking therefore fits into a much-needed niche in Nationalist discourse. The practical and easily-graspable nature of Job Stacking as a significant and somewhat-quick wealth builder is something that even the gruggest of grugs can appreciate:

Job Stacking

Get remote job

Finish faster than full-time

Get second remote job

Finish in spare time

Collect multiple paychecks

Rinse and repeat as your time, skill, and sanity allow.

The simplicity of the proposition strikes some people as some kind of scam, having never experienced the frequent doldrums of remote work. Yet the strategy checks out for those willing to risk secretly juggling multiple positions. As I outlined in my article The Morality of Job Stacking, there are even good arguments on the moral case of defending the practice – so long as you don’t drop the balls you’re juggling.

Bismarck was reeling them in – practical optimism, workable financial solutions, and glimmering potentialities for an under-served section of the Nationalist audience. It was going so well that the host MillenialWoes even marveled at how promising and positive it all was. You could practically hear the gears turning in Dissident heads at what Bismarck was laying out for them.

And then, one by one, Bismarck grasped ALL the third-rails of White Nationalist discourse! Urging direct emulation of Jew and Jeet, aspiring towards morally-questionable tactics, promoting race-mixing, even hating on Hobbits to a largely British audience – oh the conflagration in the chat was a dazzling trainwreck to witness in real-time!

That response repeated the pushback he’d received from his articles criticizing White Nationalism and its adherents. The likes of Gordon Kahl and myself articulated as much with slightly more patience than our apoplectic compatriots, but the general raw nerves are shared by most Nationalists. And Bismarck, caught in this quicksand, pushed back all the harder into its grasp.

I for one appreciate how this episode has produced so rich an article from Bismarck challenging a few sacred cows in Nationalist discourse. We now have a further articulation about Bismarck’s proposed “White Globalism”, a notion that with a few tweaks can be restored to a far superior and mutually-satisfying notion of American Nationalism – such as what I ascribe to, of course. Naturally my ideas are the best ideas, you see!

So with the table set, lets get stuck-in, shall we?

Inevitable Minority Status

“[…] my desire to cultivate a new kind of political Whiteness—one that isn’t seen as hateful (or even outside the bounds of mainstream politics) and can help wypipo peacefully pursue our collective interests in a transactional accommodation with other races as we gradually adjust to our now-inevitable minority status. It goes without saying that his is an entirely fair and reasonable impulse, and that only a hysterical and dissolute freak could see anything objectionable in it.”

-Walt Bismarck

Defeatist phrases like “inevitable minority status” and this inherently Retreatist mentality towards wheeling-and-dealing with racial replacements is a too-common mewling among Nationalists. These mentalities must be shamed out of those capable of grasping anything of this brass-tacks discourse.

There is nothing inevitable about the racial composition of America. Today’s crisis was built from decades of cultural and political subversion, and it can be undone with the application of clever and effectual Will. No fatalism will do in the great game of power.

Most of the peoples trapped in the Communist hellscape behind the Iron Curtain believed that it was an invincible system, right up until the Soviet’s sudden end. Indestructible. Eternal. Inevitable.

Virtually all victims of post-totalitarianism believed so, save for those like Czech radical Vaclac Havel. In his essay The Power of the Powerless, he noted how these kinds of increasingly reality-disconnected regimes trap their populace under a sort of socially-imposed shell, forcing the people to reinforce the system’s terror onto themselves and their countrymen.

But the more total the system becomes in its pseudo-moralities and suppression, the more vulnerable it becomes to even the smallest form of dissent. A single crack in the increasingly absurd system can spark a cascading failure that uproots the entire power structure in a sudden, spectacular cataclysm. As the joke goes:

“How did you go bankrupt?”

Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.

-Ernst Hemingway

In Vaclac Havel’s Czechoslovakia case, it was the arrest of a rock band for criticizing the State that spurred the 77 Charter and mass dissent. Barely over 15 years later, Havel was elected President of his country as Soviet control finally dissolved. Small cracks in big tyrannies can quickly add up.

As for ethnic-trend reversals, the case of Kyrgyzstan is a useful example. After the native Kyrgyz were systematically ethnically replaced to falling minority status by the Soviet Union, they bounced back to over 77% in less than 30 years once reasserting control over their country, and its still climbing. Need I even cite Spain’s Reconquista beginning at so miserable a point of 200 men holed up in the mountains in Moorish Spain, and ending with the reconquest of the entire Iberian Peninsula?

So no, there is nothing “inevitable” about ethnic replacement. Will and tenacity makes inevitable the impossible. White civilization is a testament to that fact, as well as its inverse.

That all being said, Bismarck’s more-reasonable position here is that Whites should have some kind of interaction with other races. After all, a globe-spanning network of influence necessitated by technology will invariably put us into contact with, if not uncomfortable dependence on, other peoples. This is undeniable, and so long as industrial society and humanity remains unchanged, total isolation will be not just undesirable but an immoral dereliction of duty for Whites.

But what is the preferable kind of relationship Whites should have with other races? That is the Golden Question on which the whole matter of Nationalism and Imperialism find their greatest divergence, and a topic we will soon return to.

Nation as Greater Family

Bismarck loudly trumpets Imperialism, wherein one Nation of people politically rules over disparate others under the same State apparatus. This contrasts with the fundamental premise of Nationalism, that States are best developed around, by, and for a single, closely-related People.

Bismarck brusquely dismisses the Nationalistic argument of Nation (and later race) being larger encapsulations of the same unconditional devotion one has to their family. Truth is he doesn’t even like his family, a fact he emphasizes with both bold AND italics – so you know he’s quite adamant about that! His love must be conditionally earned by those following Bismarck’s Rule of Cool, more or less.

Sure, the familial allusion rings a bit hollow when you find your blood-relatives to be insufferable. But none of that negates the biological truth of duty towards one’s kith and kin. So now I’m going to pull a Jordan Peterson here and tell you all about how humans are like Hermit Crabs.

Hermit Crabs move into the vacant shells of other creatures in order to protect themselves from predators. But not just any shell will do. Different Hermit Crab species can be highly particular about the size, shape, and material they will accept for their borrowed carapaces. More difficult still is that their continued growth forces them to regularly swap for bigger, better shells.

All that shell-searching and testing takes a lot of time and energy, which they have to get right lest they risk being gobbled up. However, Hermit Crabs will gather up to form a swap meet of sorts, lining up to inherit the discarded shell of an older relative. Rather than go to all the effort of personally finding a brand new suitable shell, the Hermit Crabs rely on the “tastes” of their kin to do all of the testing and delivery for them. Because they are so similar genetically, their needs and lifestyles are virtually as interchangeable as the shells they inhabit.

By having a close-knit population of highly genetically-related individuals gathering up the same kinds of critical resources that specifically suit their general tastes, ALL the participating Hermit Crabs more readily find shells to live in – increasing overall survival at a much lower risk and energetic cost.

Humans are hardly different. The civilization built by your close relatives is going to trend towards your personal tastes and preferences more than those of completely alien people. By living in such a society built by, for, and of your own, you reduce your energetic costs of translating and interpreting the choices around you and free up that energy to get on with other, more complex social matters.

As put forth far more beautifully by some of the lines from Rudyard Kipling’s poem The Stranger:

The men of my own stock

They may do ill or well,

But they tell the lies I am wonted to,

They are used to the lies I tell.

And we do not need interpreters

When we go to buy and sell.

-Rudyard Kipling

And that truth weaves through all the Rule of Cool examples Bismarck references. Why do we White men tend to adore the Alexandrian conquests? The Roman legions? The cathedrals of Europe? And generally adore them more than we do, say, the Mongol’s Golden Horde, the Zulu impi ya masosha, or the mosques of the Middle East?

Because Alexander, the Romans, and the Cathedral-makers were peoples much like ourselves, driven to embark on adventures that sang to their racial souls. And we, being close descendants of those peoples, are inspired by much the same things they were. It constitutes the shape of our souls, and that shape is not interchangeable with other peoples in this world. It what makes us, and all peoples, special unto themselves.

Oh, but I am not a Nationalist loathe to opine about what makes Whites special, as Bismarck asserted in his article. Which brings us to Bismarck’s next position:

Whites: The Horizon-Seekers

“[…] to properly actualize the White man’s best qualities you really need some kind of outlet for exploration or conquest.”

-Walt Bismark

Bismarck first notes of White exceptionalism is that we often express a strong desire for exploration and/or conquest. This is a point I wholly agree with. Unlike the ossified spiritualism of Asia wishing for Nirvanic oblivion or Africans never dreaming of exploring beyond the sea-shore, Whites have a long history as Horizon-Seekers.

Obviously this is true in a physical sense. To go a-viking means to go adventuring, and that whole northern-people was named after their tendency to just go a-Viking at the drop of a hat. The Age of Exploration was not done by Asians or Middle Easterners despite their technological and intellectual capacities, but Europeans. Now the Romantic among us look to the stars and yearn to touch the divinity our ancestors saw among the constellations. Other races just don’t have the same kind or extent of Horizon-seeking urge as Whites.

But the Horizon is more than just the physical. For as much as certain Apollonian Nationalists out there like to reference Faustian Civilization in reference to conquest and exploration, Faust’s racially-familiar craving was intellectual and spiritual more than physical. Faust sought to know everything, and to expand on the very reaches of human knowledge and understanding.

It’s a drive so uniquely fundamental that it produces a special kind of terror in us. Icarus flying towards the sun in tragic abandon, the Oedipal horror of the inextricable quest for Truth, Knights errant plunging into the darkest monster dens, and even the Lovecraftian lore of soul-shattering revelations of encountering the Unknowable. Whites appreciate these terrors because they play on our instinctual draw towards unknown Horizons.

Spiritual revelation. Bodily mastery. Technological superiority. Literary encapsulation. Aesthetic ascension. Landed cultivation. Love. All these endeavors are pursued by many men, but few races pursue them so vigorously and obsessively as Whites. To appreciate only the outward and physical facet is to miss out on the whole unique gem of the White psyche.

Even those tired-Teuton Hobbits that Bismarck so despises form the solid backbone of White civilization. Indeed those Cathedral-builders were not pirates and raiders but humble peasant volunteers who indulged in the equivalent of his time’s sportsball when not humbly venerating God and tilling the fields.

It is because we have this powerful urge in many of us, like Cincinnatus, to humbly plow our own farms and answer the glorious call of history only when we absolutely must, that Whites are not obligate slavers of, nor kowtowing serfs to, other races. There is honor in humble cottages and pretty soils, whose inaudacious glory lies in the wind’s quiet whispers through wheatfields and the thumping of happy children rushing across clean-swept wood floors.

I doubt Bismarck would disagree much with this assessment, once reminded of the ways White man reaches out into the world and into his own soul. But his assertion that we have never been inward-looking as a race stands in stark contrast to the reality of the peoples who obsess over microcosms and minor differences in spiritual and intellectual opinion to the point of putting each other to the sword. Navel-gazing is in fact one of the greater flaws among capable Whites today!

Speaking of vain-admiration, that’s another flaw Bismarck kindly demonstrated in this section: He assumes when Blacks talk about “dem crazy wypipo” climbing mountains and shieeeet that they are expressing an underlying layer of admiration and respect.

Oh no, they literally just think you’re insane.

Now, crazy gets a certain kind of deference than can be easily mistaken for respect or admiration. But it’s the respect and admiration one has for an unstable landslide, or a sleeping bear. We can do certain things that align with what Blacks do generally find admirable – ostentation, haughtiness, and of course violence. But climbing mountains or venturing into the wilderness are not among them. Horizons mean nothing to them as a people, just as their pimp-suits and bling and exaggerated manner remind us of little else except clowns.

More importantly, Bismarck goes on to make the following claim:

“But this requirement isn’t especially compatible with White Nationalism, which tends to entail a very rigid isolationism. Most WNs—particularly those hailing from our interior regions—will instinctively reject overseas adventures, and maintain that empire is by necessity a waste of blood and treasure.”

-Walt Bismarck

Again we return to the crux of his thesis: Sclerotic Isolationism versus Virile Imperialism. Bismarck repeatedly asserts that White Nationalists want a hermitage country where all non-Whites are kicked out and the gates shut like Willy Wonka’s factory. Absolute self-reliance, racially purified societies, and spewing out blessings to the world from afar. It probably has a lot of t-shirt salesmen scratching out a living innawoods too given that vision’s main purveyors.

This wagon-circling may be only the natural impulse of White Nationalists scourged their whole lives by globalist multiculturalism. But that instinct hones in on the right concerns, and the answers thereof that Bismarck misses in his too-simplified assessment of their drive. Namely, there is a grand difference between Integrating and Interfacing that hasn’t been appreciated in his considerations, and it plays a vital distinction in his Pluralist Chauvinism section soon to come.

A Brutal Aside

But first, a brief moment about Bismarck’s interstitial section on the special Brutality of Whites. This was a weaker point, maybe something of a filler-answer when challenged with the, “What makes Whites special?” bombard. It tends to shell-shock most White advocates, really.

The stuff about other races being not as creative in mass-slaughter as Whites, or that it’s just to contrast against the barbarities of Blacks in White societies, was fairly well challenged and put down in the comments by others. I’ll save you all the reiteration by just saying: Whites certainly don’t have a monopoly on creative violence in world history.

Now, it is true that White Nationalists assert over and over their peaceful non-violence. Any hunted sort will say whatever is necessary to avoid the tyrant’s whip. Not just the tyranny of the ever-hungry federal glowies, but the social tyranny that castigates any White advocating for his race as the most-monstrous and dangerous kind of human being.

The more nuanced answer is that violence is expensive and morally hazardous, and White Nationalists are very poor in cash and manpower. Leftists can literally afford to lay out living speedbumps along highways and raid construction projects with bombs – they have the dysgenic-sociopath market cornered! Nationalists conversely get arrested and fired for throwing out literature regularly. The wiser among them therefore know that the kind of huff-and-puff violence rhetoric prone to online discourse has a trajectory roughly towards either a prison cell or a suspiciously-Federal inferno.

Some White Nationalists like to lean into the Scary White Man perception, giving rise to what could be called No Optics Activists who go straight for the cultural jugular. Aggressive Roman salutes from burglar-like balaclavas, bellowing creative variations of “nigger” at hecklers, and waving giant swastikas around every which way. There’s a whole fascinating psychology there, but they too appreciate the impact of Scary White Man and tend to get a ton of free attention for their verbal aggression.

But more normally the far more harrowing fantasies of violence come from your garden-variety Conservative, not most Nationalists. Ropes and trucks and trees and field dressings fill their vivid, idle fantasies… It is almost always the harmless prattle of consummate moral-losers who couldn’t even conserve a sandwich from a begging dog. A sound and a fury, signifying nothing. They just want to grill – and you must never get between a White man and his spices!

The force that serious Nationalists tend to espouse behind closed doors is generally bloodless. Mass deportations, trials for treason, exiles to desert islands. Legality is always emphasized over lethality. If pressed to more Romantic violence talk, it is not usually spoken about in terms of slaughter or massacre, but as crusade – brutal as necessary to the guilty, but noble in quality and measure. Odysseus dealing with the suitors defiling his home, or a certain Vlad making lawn ornaments out of violent invaders. Those kind of flavors.

So no, the serious Nationalists are really not afraid of violence, just prudent about expressing the whole matter.

The Pluralist Man’s Burden

Now back to Bismarck’s unique conception of Virile Imperialism with his Pluralist Chauvinism: To rule over dark-skinned peoples while also calling them niggers.

The word “nigger” is the greatest shibboleth of our age, a word that only truly inwardly-liberated Whites can say without experiencing moral panic. To imagine an empire of such liberated souls, where our racial rivals are cowed beneath our boots and lashed to our great Juggernaut pulling White civilization forward into glorious prosperity, is certainly a contrast to our current debasement as back-breakingly tolerant keepers of all the world’s scum and beggars.

In its more positive sense, this sentiment arises from the wish to restore a true sense of racial pride in Whites. Certain races more or less naturally have this – the warped superiority complexes of Blacks or the unblinking hubris of Indians are decent examples. In Whites this requires a more complex Moral Confidence, a psycho-spiritual faith in the righteousness of our convictions. It is our need to be “good”, that is to be emulating the Divine Plan and ways of our God(s), that allows Whites to subdue and employ even our bestial urges towards superhuman designs.

It is our greatest strength as a race, and our greatest weakness. A weakness that, I am afraid to say, is still being exploited even in Bismarck’s largely liberated mind. And I say this because no one has yet so earnestly and succinctly expressed support of the White Man’s Burden than Bismarck did in these bold lines:

“White boys will always be the main character. […] And at the end of the day it’s our job to protect them [non-Whites]. Because in truth there never was a real threat to our position. […] You can’t kill Superman.”

-Walt Bismarck

In this belief lies the festering core of the blinding moral cancer that has rotted out the soul of the White race. Appropriately enough, Rudyard Kipling glowingly coined the term that would bring The Stranger to every White civilization’s doorstep. It is the marriage between a racial hubris with the urge for nature stewardship that spawns this cancerous racial paternalism we call the White Man’s Burden.

Whites afflicted with this moral disease fundamentally believe that the White man’s divine purpose is to uplift all these lesser non-Whites from their pathetic ignorance into rightful “civilization” – our civilization. White civilization. And by bringing these helpless savages into our enlightenment and splendors, they will fall at our feet in worshipful praise and gratitude towards our righteousness, having become spiritually White themselves.

These are the glimmering delusions of Whites throughout eons, glutted on so poisoned a prosperity brought about during more enlightened and faithful times, that we seek the ultimate trophy of racial apotheosis by means of trans-racial Imperium. But it is a poisoned chalice, a glorious lie predicated on a fundamental hubris and misapprehension of what we really are and our rightful place in relation to other peoples.

It is, as my readers may sense, a subject too vast to expand on in this cursory essay.

However, it is enough to bring us back to the Golden Question: What is the preferable kind of relationship Whites should have with other races? Bismarck answers with with Global Integration. I answer this with National Interfacing.

Bismarck argues for a “certain level” of racial disharmony throughout White civilization to spur on a competition he believes leads to vigorous, vital White civilization. Like an early-stage Imperialist he believes that by racial pride and inherent meritocratic superiority, the White race will always end up on top of any hierarchy as naturally as cream floating to the top of milk.

To back this up he cites the Romans in their best times were, indeed, unshakably self-assured against the barbarian nations and races they crushed beneath their legions and lashed to their great twin-lived empire. He does not talk of the days of the waning empire when the Romans, at last effete and fat with Imperially-induced moral degeneracy, were conquered by the very barbarians they still, even to the end, believed could never truly harm them.

He cites the various dubious advantages of introducing racial diversity among the American populace, many of which bring about the same kind of empire-destroying weaknesses that are natural consequences of Integrating other races:

Taking advantage of gullible and submissive East Asiatics denies self-reliance, eventually rendering you dependent on those you’ve tricked.

Bringing Hispanics to fight the Blacks, and Muslims to bully the Jews, is to propose the Little Old Lady Who Swallowed A Fly scheme for fixing society’s racial disharmony problems. Spoiler: She explodes in the end.

Inviting in Hindus to rehabilitate our spirituality is like bringing in Mexicans to cook us tacos: We don’t need the cook, we just need a glance at the recipes.

In the end he calls his whole program White Globalism, a name which has about the same appeal as the name National Socialism has to Conservatives - Knee-jerk repulsion. Audacious sure, but we hate Globalism. Globalism economically, morally, and spiritually disgusts the Nationalist. Globalism is the great, dull, worldwide Brownification of all of humanity, and the dream of tyrants and slavers the world-over.

White Globalism is dead on arrival. But National Interfacing has always worked for virtually everyone who has practiced it.

National Interfacing

Even Bismarck hints at the far-superior solution of National Interfacing even as he expounded on his Pluralist Chauvinism. He mentioned the Roman’s alacrity in pillaging ideas from Greeks and Gauls and Carthaginians and virtually everyone else. They wove the mantel of the Western Canon that has blessed every civilization that has donned it with the power to conquer worlds.

It even was the story of Japan, our honoraryans of the Far East. What ended the vigorously-isolationist Tokugawa Period in Japan was the beginning of the Meiji Era (1868 – 1912). This era marked one of the most impressive displays of properly-done cultural exchanges the world has ever seen.

Tokugawa (or Edo) Japan sealed itself off from the world nearly completely, a feverish defense against European domination as it teetered on the edge of being chopped up like all their neighbors. It was an epitome of the Sclerotic Isolationist Bismarck rightly noted, and while not culturally dead it was certainly getting there from holding its breath for so long.

Yet in a 50-year time span beginning in the Meiji Era, this rigid backwater transformed itself into an industrial-grade civilization powerful enough to outright defeat a European power in post-Napoleonic warfare.

They did this by relaxing specific parts of their absolute-isolationist policy and sent scholars and diplomats to the West to bring back the greatest insights that led Europeans to world-spanning greatness.

Their diplomats returned laden with Western knowledge, and they immediately put it to work. They updated their legal codes in reflection of the French Napoleonic Codes. They learned how to industrialize from the British fathers of the Industrial Revolution. And they even adopted the American school system, back when it was rightly considered the best educational system in all the world.

This was an objective process, carried out by Japanese envoys and scholars witnessing the whole of Western civilization from a 3rd-party perspective. What they brought back to Japan completely revolutionized their entire civilization within a generation, without losing their national character. It was successful to the point that it later took a World War and virtually all of America’s sprawling might to put those crazy Nips back into the box from which they suddenly sprang.

That is real civilization power. But how did they do it? Did those envoys and diplomats throw open the borders and import millions of German technicians, British soldiers, French chefs, and American teachers to “boost the GDP” and “stay competitive”? Hell no! The Japanese were and still are hardcore race realists, and they don’t mince words about their disdain for virtually all other humans on this planet. “Gaijin Go Home” might as well be the motto of Nippon, as it well should be for us all in our respective countries.

No, they didn’t import the “best and brightest” to become the competitive powerhouse that they have ever-since been. They didn’t try to inject racial contaminants from Europe into their society no matter how delicious their pancakes tasted or how skilled their shipwrights were. Instead, the Japanese culturally and intellectually Interfaced with Europe, digested what they learned, and rebuilt the best parts after their own image.

They essentially sucked up the Western Canon mantel and turned it into a fitting hat. Like Kirby.

This is National Interfacing. You don’t integrate foreign peoples. You digest foreign ideas, then reshape them after the fashion of your National soul.

Cultures. Perspectives. Philosophies. To isolate oneself completely from learning about racially divergent peoples is a recipe for disaster. On that point Bismarck and I agree against the more blundering elements of Nationalist discourse. For while you look away from exotic ideas and stare at your civilizational navel, stagnation eventually sets in. The barbarians will howl at your increasingly decrepit gates, and one day those gates will open by rot or neglect. Regular infusions of fresh ideas are as essential to Great Civilization peoples as salt and spices are to a person’s diet – you won’t die on bread alone, but you might come to wish for death for want of a little flavor.

What is absolutely vital in successful cultural exchange is that it is always our minds, of our own near-kin people, that do the digesting. As with the Hermit Crabs fashioning perfect shells for themselves to then exchange among their similarly-inclined kin, so too do humans need to fashion strange ideas and cultures into innovations suitable for their kin. There is nothing more natural and fundamental to cultural-formation than this.

Gobbling up foreigners themselves, particularly incompatible racial foreigners, guarantees civic indigestion. Whatever benefits there are to African cultural exchange are obliterated by the mutually-felt misery of having to live beside and under the sway of such fundamentally alien people. Even the Japanese, whom I hold a dear liking for, can not achieve their racial destiny so long as they are injected directly into our societies – and we cannot achieve ours without trampling over theirs.

This is the blood-brain barrier of human civilization, through which only select ideas and artifacts must be allowed to pass while their human-originators are kept largely separate and sovereign - lest we introduce antigens that destroy our entire body politic. Whatever benefits there are to letting our brains be directly washed in whatever the blood carries is outweighed by the fatal consequences of such a hemorrhage.

Multi-racial empires break that blood-brain barrier by default. The upper-caste may assert it as domination, but call Integration whatever you will – you bring into the body politic, and into the very nervous-system of their Nation, foreign bodies. In due time, whether centuries or a few short decades, the qualities that make that conquering civilization great, born from that specific people united by their shared blood and souls, will dissolve in a house divided against itself, its divergent souls destined to war with each other until they are conquered in turn.

Every racially-mixed empire dies the same death. Sooner or later, the great people who built it with unquestioning racial pride lose themselves to the curse of prosperity and degenerate. They rip out from the civilizational garden the fertilizing traditions of their forefathers, to plant slave-foreigners bearing trinkets and baubles. And when their effete sickness runs its course and the wealth dries up, the barbarians within the gates feast on a bewildered corpse of a people who forgot themselves and their posterity in the Imperial fever-dream.

That is the Fate of Empires. And it is a fate any people must avoid at all costs.

Like I said Bismarck, we don’t need an empire to strive towards the Horizon and achieve the glory and prosperity we both crave. As a Nationalist I believe that the Nation-State is the greatest vehicle currently possible for achieving the destiny of my people, and by extension I believe that all peoples of this world must be free to pursue their own destinies and not be lorded over by others - especially those racially alien to themselves.

We will befriend some, war with others, and struggle as all peoples have always done. But in that struggle there is life and the promise of glory and beauty and striving towards our many Horizons. That is why I am an American Nationalist and proud to be fighting for my emergent Nation against the forgetful oblivion of multicultural imperialism.

Dissents with the Dissidents

And so we’ve come round circle to the final part, the irksome grain of sand around which formed this Bismarckian pearl – Bismarck’s message to the Dissident-Right. More specifically it’s a message to the peanut gallery that mounted their livechat soapboxes during his Milleniyule interview that inspired him (aka pissed him off) to write at length on this, but potato-tomato you know?

As one sympathetic and in agreement with many of their core beliefs, as well as a fellow ancient anon from the Alt Right days of yore, I feel obliged to lend my voice to their points as they echo recurring themes that are now ubiquitous among Western Nationalists. So I will address Bismarck directly through his five listed dissents with the Dissidents:

1. “You’re broke and verbally untalented.”

Well I’ve been called worse. It’s true, Bismarck talks fast. Very fast. Adderal-fast. Why, it may be because Bismarck has self-admittedly been leaning on the ol think-fast pills a bit too heavily! Seeing that self-improvement and bodily health are high on the list of Nationalist values, the perception of drug abuse, whether a reality or not, is firmly in the category of self-destructive “degenerate” behavior they dislike.

The scornful grunts of, “Jewish” are hardly any different from saying, “gay,” or “stupid” in certain Nationalist circles. Specifically it is a simple expression of dissent towards something reminiscent of a huckster-tricky-degenerate kind of flavor, generally after their goodwill is already spent towards the speaker.

Until you touched their third-rails, they noticed your blitzing speech but were not too put off by it. But after, they groused about it as any mean-girl will nit-pick at details to justify their enmity.

Indeed, many Nationalists are quite impoverished, and to be fair that state is not completely due to Judaic fiscal meddling in many cases. Those who have never known how to make significant money often cast a suspicious eye at anyone who claims to make money in ways arcane and unknown to themselves. Once they disliked you, they just lumped your whole pitch into their “Jewish Tricks” mental bucket.

And verbally untalented? Well not everyone with an opinion worth having has a silver tongue. Verbal dexterity carries with it that “Jewish” flavor because, and this might surprise you, Jews culturally pride themselves on cunning wordplay. Just because one might not be able stand toe-to-toe against the verbally adroit hardly means that their beliefs are wrong. And if that is the case, the grug-grunt generally will do.

2. “At this point accusing me of fraud is straightforwardly just libel.”

This is just an extension of the prior financial ignorance of your average impoverished Nationalist. When they are presented with a sharp, fast-talker promising a route to get-rich-(somewhat)-quick, it is only natural to suspect there being some kind of catch or angle coming at their expense. Most people only know about pyramid and Ponzi schemes, and so they try to fit your Tortuga into that box.

And why do they want to stuff it into that box? Because they came to dislike you. And in that dislike their charitableness dissipated, and with it their willingness to think things through did as well.

3. “The DR’s anti-commercial impulse is pretentious and hugely self-limiting […] and proof you have zero organizational skills.”

I can say from personal experience that organizational skills are in short supply in Nationalism. As is a keen sense of professionalism in these most dire of matters. Not absent, but less common than they need to be and should be among a bunch of self-admitted adults.

That being said, there is hardly an anti-commercial impulse among Nationalists. Even in the same Milleniyule conference there was Hearthfire Radio describing their Pagan commercial network, repeated mentions of the wonderful pulp-fiction Bizarchives publishing house, Aarvoll’s Return to Homeland project building a whole community around a for-profit school, and more. All were received with great interest and overall support.

Talk of business-networking is a hotly-enjoyed topic among Nationalists, with only the sense of “Grifting” – morally insincere profiteering on Nationalistic beliefs - being in contention. But no one is inherently against commercial endeavors – so long as they understand the angle.

Will2Rise sells Active Club t-shirts. Even the lowliest grug in Nationalism understands what their angle is. Selling t-shirts to fund Active Clubs. That’s how and why they make money. Haven’t I told you already Nationalists love t-shirt sales?

For Tortuga, the answer of your angle remained a bit hazy. Those paying attention know you make money predominantly from a club entrance fee, and later on optional services like consulting, resume help, etc. Later you intend to make revenues by directly landing people jobs and taking a fee for that service.

No multi-level marketing. No Ponzi payouts. Your pockets are staying remarkably lean if indeed it was a scam!

But simply put, once the dislike crept in, peanut-gallery people stopped listening for clarification and instead waited for nits to pick. Combined with some of their general ignorance of what Job Stacking proposes and how Tortuga assists, it was inevitable that some people would grumble about Jewish-flavored scams.

4. “One reason Jews are rich […]”

Even now, the third-rails sing out their siren’s call to you! This self-promotion point has the same answer as above, but this little contrarian morsel quoted is a great example of how the dislike crept in.

The Walt Right audience well understands the wisdom of Sun Tzu as applied to racial contests:

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

-Sun Tzu

Dissident Right people know this too, however some let emotions interfere when it comes to discussions of how the “getting to know them” part goes. You treated the topic of Jews with a combination of downplay, admiration, and even boasting of your associations with Jews. Oh boy, that’s a bold way to describe your relations with those the Dissident Right consider existential enemies!

Your Milleniyule audience are fairly knowledgeable about the role Jews play in the destruction of their societies. To downplay that role, to express naked admiration for their trickery and manipulation, and then to say you happily keep a few “good Jews” on hand are all massive red flags for that audience.

You might as well have told a Tolkien-loving Britain, “Fuck Hobbits!” - which you also did, to a similar effect!

That said, one should be able to accept the baby swirling around the bathwater of your point: If Whites wish to out-compete Jews, we have to learn about how Jews achieve success. Maybe some of those techniques, like racial networking, are things we too should practice to gain similar success.

But here’s the hard part – you need to make the moral argument defending your emulated practice. Nationalists are very, very morally-concerned people, to a fault you regularly take umbrage with. They need to feel and believe they are not doing evil, and they tend to hate what they consider underhanded or dishonest tactics.

The tide of opinion in the Milleniyule appearance began to turn on you when you were describing outwitting HR catladies as “blackmailing” them. Blackmail wasn’t really the right word perhaps, but rather petard-hoisting: running them aground on their own anti-White policies. It’s quite the opposite of illegality, its system-gaming. But describing it in “immoral” terms is enough to make Nationalists tense up. They don’t want to become evil or consort with monsters just to get the better of their enemies.

There’s a whole debate here about what constitutes good and evil, the extents to which virility vs ethics must inform virtue, the extents and criteria of mercy, and the treatment of foes as fellows. Power has a certain amount of “sausage-making” to be done after the fashion your namesake described, Bismarck. But to summarize its conclusion: You can sell a Nationalist on becoming Robin Hood, but not George Soros.

5. “It’s ultimately retarded to make the JQ your north star.”

A snicker escapes me every time you try to convince us on this point. You telling Nationalists that Jews are ruthless and manipulative, have backstabbed you personally, and that the good Jews in particular backstabbed you, is endlessly amusing! From the Jewish-Question purveyor’s perspective, you have more reason than most to keep Jews at a long arm’s reach away from anything you hold precious.

Are Jews responsible for all of society’s woes? No, just a surprising majority of the worst ones. Is it possible to mediate between Jews and non-Jews? Perhaps. But is the juice worth the nigh-inevitable sting? Not really, most of the JQ-astute tend to conclude throughout history.

The JQ should no more be the core of one’s worldview than crime statistics or IQ charts. It should be accessory to whatever your worldview is, like any set of highly-elucidating facts that make sense of world events. Which is why it’s so bemusing to me, and aggravating and suspicious to others, to witness you striding again and again onto the same rake and defending it more vigorously every time it thwacks you in the face.

Essentially, it’s not exactly inspiring confidence among the nervous would-be crew when the captain regales them about the backstabby Jew, then brags about the Jews he keeps close behind him. Maybe in your mind it constitutes a certain kind of boldness, like sticking your hand into a lion’s mouth. Most of the JQ-aware just wonder why you are so adamant on feeding yourself to a lion.

For many Nationalists, working with Jews is a danger they want no part of, and if Jews are involved they automatically suspect foul play is, or will soon be, afoot. As a blind heuristic it works out more often than it leads people astray. But we can agree that the instinct to shut one’s mind completely the moment anyone starts exploring the topic of how Jews developed themselves successfully can be unduly stifling.

But, really, it’s better for those unwilling or incapable of sparing with Jewish trickery to just follow the heuristic in the spiritual fashion of Louis IX’s knight in Cluny did. In a world where too many Midwits get bamboozled into destructive beliefs by engaging where they personally shouldn’t, a well-based grug approach has its useful place. That place just isn’t usually at the discussion table though, and grugs should recuse themselves from it and just go find a nice rock.

Hit a Big Brain with a Rock - Seventh Son

Conclusion

To conclude this small book of an essay, I sincerely do enjoy the exploration of this topic. It is becoming more necessary by the day to lead Nationalism towards real, practical routes of wealth-creation and societal infusion. There are many ideas swirling about the “Movement” beyond those either Bismarck or I contended with, some really great and some absolutely retarded. So there will be plenty of new gauntlets to be thrown and chewed on going forward!

Agree or disagree, respectful sparings like this are mighty-White in my book. I appreciate Bismarck’s brazen approaches that give opportunity to spew out a few memes, and I encourage anyone who wants to likewise grind your steel to subscribe to his Substack and engage more on these topics.

Just like in the good ol days after Gamergate!

Brains are squishy, but minds are even more delicate. Humans have all manner of psychological defenses ingrained into the very hardware of our biology, defenses that are themselves routinely turned into weapons against us. Knowing how the putty of our minds is shaped by unseen hands is the first step in guarding ourselves against mental trickery – and, perhaps, to use these weapons for good.

Today we cover a topic in the barely-perceptible world of narrative formation. Whether you’re dealing with NPC’s programmed with the latest goyslop opinion or trying in vain to coax others into a bit of original thought, this article is for you.

If you’re having trouble unlocking the minds of others, chances are you’ve lost your keys. Don’t worry dear reader, we have them right here for you. Or, at least, we have a Foundkey for you.

What are Foundkeys?

The term is based on a Jeff Foxworthy joke I only approximately remember:

People often say after finding their lost keys, “They were in the last place I looked.”

“Well I’d sure hope so! ‘Hey, did you find your keys?’ ‘Yeah, but I’m still lookin’ for them!’ ”

We all lose our keys sometimes, and without them we’re crippled in our daily activities. We search first in familiar places then further out, trying to find where the damn things are. And when we find those keys, in the last place we look, we naturally stop searching. To continue searching for your keys after you have them in your hand is so manifestly stupid that it’s a natural kind of joke.

Simple enough, right? Makes total sense, right?

But what if the key you found wasn’t actually your key?

You might discover the problem when you examine what you picked up closely. Or maybe it’s good enough to still kind of work with a good jiggling. Or maybe that key will hang on your keychain for days, months, years, giving you that sense of comfort of being able to unlock that particular lock the whole time - until you finally try to open that lock down the road. And the key doesn’t work.

But until a failure is discovered, some incongruity between your expectations and the key you’ve found, you will stop searching for your keys and move along through life as if you found them. You found a key, though what is in your hand might not be the unlocking-tool that you initially thought it was.

When searching for an answer, we look until an answer that sufficiently meets our criteria is found. We tend to take that answer, generally the first one that makes enough sense to us, and then crucially we stop searching. This is a Foundkey.

A Foundkey is a proposed explanation of an issue sufficient enough to conclude the search and frame the resulting narrative about the issue.

You’ve experienced this before...

Mother suffers from a Foundkey, believing she already has a breakfast meeting the sufficient criteria to her hungry offspring’s request – sugary, colorful cereal. Naturally she sees her child as foolish – how could he wish for something we already have? And Mother has more important things to do than occupy her thoughts with an ignorant child’s silly request.

But lo, Mother! That barely-edible slop back home is but a crude simulacra of the absolute ambrosia her child beholds upon that shelf. This Platonic ideal of cereal cannot be compared to that cupboard-abomination back home, costs be damned. Her child knows this manifest truth, but cannot convince her of the grievous error no matter how he extols the superiority of artisan marshmallow craftsmanship, the synesthesia of rainbow-tasting, and that exquisite crunch-to-squish ratio!

For Mother is in the grips of a Foundkey, and there is no room left for alternative keys for breakfast’s lock. Sugary, colorful cereal is already at home, and no mental energies or extra funds will be wasted on an already-solved problem of her child’s hunger. Thus, a cruel fate befalls our poor deprived soul the next morning, staring into the bowl of mockery that foolish Mother compels her offspring to eat.

Those possessing an answer rarely entertain any other. This is simple energy conservation. Even if that answer is misguided, incomplete, or outright wrong, so long as it seems good enough to get on with one’s business, most people accept it and move along. The gulf between the truest, most accurate answers and whatever would constitute a suitable alternative is where all manner of vile mental sorceries inflict their tragedies upon us well beyond the cereal aisle.

How Foundkeys Work

Horrifying as the Tragedy of the Grocery is to a young mind, it is just one of many mistakes in communication naturally happening out there in the wilds of human psychology. But there Foundkeys elsewhere, cunningly-crafted and deviously employed. Such intentional Foundkeys serve a dual purpose: to stop further investigation and to establish a narrative framework. And since they work whether the narrative is true to the facts or not, they are a staple in any deceitful-journalist’s toolbox.

Lets take an example of a high-intensity media story: On July 13^th 2024, Donald Trump was nearly assassinated on live broadcast. Who was the would-be assassin? Why did he do it? How was he even able to get his shots off? In those first two days, a great flux and narrative-struggle waged between weighty news networks and the internet’s finest chicken-tender fed sleuths.

Between the moments an event happens and the first explanation is accepted by the audience, there is a primordial soup of answers they entertain as new information comes in. Pieces of purported truth, of great or meager consequence to the overall tale, build up from all manner of sources. Only certain facts prove relevant or credible, and how one categorizes them determines how they will understand the event.

Proposals propagate outward like tendrils of lightning sprouting from a storm cloud in search of the most-viable conduit. Prior experience and opinions internal to the listener make some routes more acceptable than others. Q-toting Trumpians immediately weighed the negligence of the Secret Service as potential proof of a Deep State inside job, while booty-blasted Leftists spent their time obsessing over whether Trump’s ruptured ear was due to glass or ketchup.

While all these competing explanations are developing, purported facts pile up. Whichever pile grows tall enough to meet and satisfy a propagating proposal first will seize the public consciousness and establish the Foundkey. At that point all the energy behind the rest of the exploring propagations dies off in favor of that one explanatory route, for “the answer” was found.

But, people can only entertain a small handful of facts at a time in their conscious mind. We cannot fully grasp all facts, and wouldn’t want to given all the irrelevant noise and the energy and time required to do so. Therefore we instinctively look for a pile of facts that represents the whole picture well enough to make judgments by. Our minds seek maps, not terrain, to orient by.

An honest investigator connects enough relevant pieces of information amid the noise to represent that whole accurate picture to their audience. But ye olde lackey journalist will select only those facts that could support the narrative they want and obscure the rest that might compete with it. Truth be damned, they’ve a story to sell!

Thus begins a race between the spin-weavers and the populace-at-large to establish “The Narrative”. Foundkeys play a critical role in wresting attention from competing explanations since, once established, people settle with it and move along unless convinced with much greater difficulty that they need to spend precious mental energies to reassess.

In the assassination attempt, several leads first propagated around internet-fueled discussions as to who the assassin was. Outright false information like linking a supposed “Mark Violets” as the shooter sprang up but were quickly ripped apart by other tendie-infused investigators. Several more false leads appeared but failed to catch on, their fact-piles too scant to draw that Foundkey-establishing conduit.

A picture of the dead shooter leaked at about the same time that a name began circulating about the MSM – Thomas Mathews Crooks. This created an interesting bifurcation of speculation. Some internet investigators who weighted the dead man’s picture more heavily claimed another local man better fit the evidence: Maxwell Yearick.

Yearick is (possibly was) a shaggy-looking Antifa thug with long brown hair, scraggly chin-beard, and weirdly angular ears with a history of street violence. Compared to Crooks, a blonde with glasses with little in the way of violent history, Yearick seems a better match for the corpse in the picture physically and in psychographics. Furthermore, Yearick was a known Communist, virulently anti-Trump, apparently had a glowie contact, and already had gone to court over politically-inspired violence. The portrait of a perfect patsy. It seemed worth further investigation – but that was not to be.

The MSM established the name Crooks, and the other authorities in the MSM pushed it onto every screen they could. Crooks was the name of the shooter. Crooks was seen at the protest. Crooks was ambiguous in motivation, mentally questionable, and absolutely alone in action. Crooks was the man everyone was looking for.

A Foundkey was offered, and the public accepted it.

Speculation about who the shooter was died down and the questions rolled ahead where the process repeated for other questions, each with their own sometimes dubious Foundkeys offered in return. While some investigators tried in vain to tell people Yearick deserved more looking-into, the energy was just not there. The masses already knew who the shooter was by virtue of MSM repetition and assurances. It’s not like the authorities would just sweep something as crucial as the identity of the shooter under the rug and destroy any hope of confirming it lat-

The point here is not whether the shooter was Crooks or Yearick, but rather how the psychology of the Foundkey ensured that further investigation wouldn’t get much traction among the public. The Crooks Foundkey works for Average Joe. Even if Crooks requires a bit more squinting and head-tilting to make fit than Yearick, the answer is backed up with the compelling authority of the screen-authorities. The key works well enough for the lock insofar as Joe is concerned, so his curiosity is satisfied.

And with that satisfaction comes the narrative framework of a random, lone shooter with no significant ties to any relevant institutions or politics. This is a narrative manifestly more useful to the virulently anti-Trump MSM than a narrative where one of those dastardly Antifa Communists with Deep State ties got within a hair’s breadth of assassinating Trump on live television.

Oh the locks that such a Foundkey would start opening across the country! Whether true or not, it was not a narrative framework the MSM and the sitting government wanted whatsoever to be established as the facts-of-the-matter. So, luckily, it wasn’t. Because Crooks did it. End of story.

Implications

So is it that, with enough authority and repetition, any Foundkey will be accepted by an audience? Sometimes.

Aesthetics rule perception. There is a magnetism, a coolness, a panache to any compelling experience, and likewise the offered narrative to explain it. Be it music or speech or display or being in a crowd, there has to be some level of resonance struck between the appearance of a thing and the explanation about it. To ignore this is the sign of a rank amateur in the arts of persuasion.

Too much incongruity between a proffered Foundkey and the most glaring facts and prior audience conceptions will result in the immediate rejection of it. The more incongruity, the greater the damage to the reputation of whoever offered such a clearly disingenuous narrative. And it has been the aesthetic ineptitude of our modern media men that has led to their losing their grip on the public consciousness.

But one man’s Foundkey is another man’s trash, as this next example will show. News and rumor out of Ohio leading up to the 2024 election talked of Haitians gobbling up water fowl and even people’s pets.

Over time, experience, and sometimes introspection, we come to a worldview that helps guide our behaviors. Without this metaphysical understanding of the world, we wouldn’t know how to react to the rustling of bushes – is that the wind, or a tiger? Your understanding of how the world works is often the critical difference between life and death. Without your mental map, you’re lost in the woods.

When a hungry-hungry Haitian comes stalking down the street, whether we gather up our pet to keep indoors or carelessly stroll by depends on how we have classified the Haitian in our mind. Is he a poor helpless future scientist-engineer-doctor, or is he an island savage salivating over your cat? This perception is both influenced-by and influencing-of the Foundkeys we are willing to accept.

When the story came out about Haitians devouring urban wildlife and cooking kitties in our country, two very different reactions took center stage:

Those whose worldview could accept the notion of racial savages existing were primed to accept the tale without much resistance. Their incredulity only extended perhaps to ask about the incident(s) that showed this particular instance of cat-cooking. Many just accepted it as probably-happening – after all, someone’s cat would just be an appetizer to a Haitian warlord like Barbecue.

Yet Leftists mock the very notion of peckish pet-pursuers, as if it were impossible that a people known for eating literal mud cookies and strays off the street on their decrepit tropical island could possibly munch down on a duck in the park they were trafficked to. All Barbecue and his brethren need is a little magic soil in their diet and some taxpayer Benjamin’s in his pocket to turn them into upstanding Americans.

Otherwise… otherwise… Our Liberal is lost next to a rustling bush.

The same Foundkey is either accepted or rejected based on the prior conceptions of the listener. The Leftist can so easily dismiss the rumors or even the facts because their cognitive basket for a “Haitian” automatically puts them into the same helpless, ugly, pitiable basket as pound puppies, drooling babies, and huggable trees. What is proof of savagery for the racialist is a hateful, disgusting lie to the Leftist. The same information, perceived in completely different ways – that is the power of “spin” as journo-gandists put it, and the Foundkey locks the audience into the framework of their choosing.

Now the power of Foundkeys might be starting to make sense. The ability to not only stop people from seeking out an inconvenient answer, but to solidify a narrative anchor point so firmly in their mind that they cease being able to conceptualize the issue itself without the Foundkey’s influence – that is any propagandist’s dream.

So what can we do about it?

Countering Foundkeys

First-impressions are difficult to disillusion from people, and Foundkeys find their peculiar robustness in the fact that it is generally the first “answer” they get to explaining some event of importance to them. Therefore, the best way to counter a Foundkey is to substitute your own!

Having a fully-fledged explanation of why something is happening ready to go helps you get that first-mover advantage. Supporting a person’s prior conceptions with facts-of-the-matter, then nestling your more-impactful and useful explanation right in line with their worldview is a golden ticket to the acceptance of a Foundkey. Any propagandists who come after you will have to take your Foundkey out of the lock of their minds before their manipulations will work.

This removal process will be particularly difficult if your Foundkey is based on and explains an entire network of observations even beyond what this particular event was. The more explanatory-power your Foundkey has, the more mental importance and utility it will have to people in their lives, and the more people will value it and use it for this and other situations.

Returning to our example of the hungry-Haitians, there are two Foundkeys:

The Liberal Foundkey proposes that all non-Whites are just helpless future rocket-surgeons kept down by evil racist attitudes that keep them incarcerated, hungry, and poor. The explanation for all the ills inflicted on and by non-Whites is “Racism”, a miasma-like emanation from Whites that they must atone eternally for. While not very explanatory or predictive past the surface veneer, the word is so very easy to remember and effective at making Whites cower and hand over their wallets. Even a gibbering Haitian can pick it up and use it in no time!

The Racial Foundkey on the other hand proposes that Haitians, being non-White, live completely different and often incompatible lifestyles from ourselves, including barbarities like devouring innocent urban wildlife and pets. This is why wherever they go they bring their 3^rd world shitholes with them, because they make their abodes into shitholes. This explanation works in Haiti just as much with other once-White places experiencing enriched Diversity bombs like Chicago and Detroit. What this lacks in immediate gratification and pseudo-moral utility, it makes up for in being far more predictive. It lets you keep Fluffy from becoming Fillet.

Every Foundkey is going to be more or less appealing to certain audiences given how “useful” and/or “sensible” it is to their understanding of the world. If they are White, if they have pets, if they have a niggling-noticing of less-than-White behaviors from not-so-White people, they’ll be inclined to accept the Racial Foundkey. But if the “Racist” brainworm is well-entrenched, if their bourgeois lifestyle preserves them from the consequences of their virtue-signaling, or if they are a brown person looking for easy gibs, the Liberal Foundkey is pretty well stuck in place.

So is there no hope for people who have fallen into the grips of a Foundkey? Not quite. Remember that the key that fails to open its lock are likelier to be discarded, so help people try out that bad Foundkey on locks that personally matter to them.

Point out issues they care about and lead them to apply the false Foundkey given to them, and later a more-predictive and useful Foundkey instead. Your Foundkey will work even better if it is supported with highly visual and tangible facts that evoke undeniable human experiences – rage, disgust, hilarity, etc.

Introduce bits of mental sand in their mind, little irritating facts and perspectives that erode away false Foundkeys they otherwise had. People hate living in contradiction, as it means accepting their mental map is inaccurate and therefore is putting them in danger of the consequences of poor judgment.

Give them useful examples about things they directly care about so they think about it more often. Let them discover for themselves that the propagandist’s Foundkey doesn’t really work all that well for what matters to them. You might not be able to grind the key away for them, but by engaging their interest and planting a few grains of sand into that lock, they’ll perhaps start wearing away the false Foundkey all by themselves.

Conclusion

Outright-lying is the least of our concerns when it comes to mass manipulation. How many times have you stopped looking for your “keys” because the television told you a just-so explanation? How many of those times have been real answers, and when have you noticed them to be flimsy fakes?

Foundkeys are everywhere once you start looking for them – or stop not-looking so to speak. Maybe it diminishes ever so slightly the Foxworthy joke about key-searching, but gone are the days where we could rely on the screens to tell us the whole story and not re-frame our minds to suit their own agendas. Maybe with this simple term you can stay that much more afloat in this ever-churning sea of falsehoods and misguidance.

But it’s going to take a lot more than one term to brave the psychological perils out there. We live in a time riddled with so much mind-warping and brainwashing that the making of just one essay about a neologism barely scratches the surface. But may this to be one entry in many future-scratchings towards the foundations of the Mind Tricks used on and by us every day.

Now there is just one question left to ask:

Is this really the key you are looking for?

Share

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Recently, a new venture from Walt Bismarck caught my attention. A man known for his hilarious Disney covers in the mid 2010’s reappeared into the public discourse with his then Walt Right substack, now called Tortuga, in January 2024. Among other pursuits and podcasts, he proposed everyone join him on the privateering sector with Job Stacking.

Every modern man must be tempted at times to spit on his keyboard, hoist the black resume, and start stacking jobs. Ever since Covid normalized the concept of remote work and showcased how many jobs can be adequately done without full 40-hour schedules in the comfort of your own home, the idea of taking on more than one position at a time to great personal profit must have crossed many minds.

Bismark’s band of business buccaneers hopped aboard the Bisbuc job stacking group chat and are setting sail for the promise of corporate booty. Bismarck, having found success in the practice himself, is looking to scale up with his own scalawags for mutual referencing, tool-sharing, and coordinated support in his Tortuga chat. You can read his article for yourself where he lays out his plans.

It didn’t surprise me much that entire groups existed promoting job stacking, but it did surprise me that apparently there is some moral objection to it. Economy-damaging, ethics-shattering, soul-rending moral hazard of tip-tapping on more than one work computer at a time. A real civilizational and spiritual threat, so I’m told!

This perplexed me. Aside from the inherent risk of pissing off a taskmaster who demands every ounce of time on the clock be served up to his corporate master, these moral objections are cited by almost everyone warning against the practice.

Captain Bismarck scoffs at these moral objections, arguing that corporations are rascals themselves deserving of pilfering, and that the pursuit of wealth is justifying in itself. The Romantic overtures certainly appeal to plenty of downtrodden wageslaves, but like the pirate aesthetic he drapes over the Bisbuc, he skirts around the shoals of moral objection and sets sail without plowing through.

I, unsatisfied with a wall that hasn’t borne the brunt of my head beating into it, will politely decline the sensible back-alley and instead opt to run headfirst into those objections instead. Lets get stuck in.

Unit vs Time Valuation

For all the humane worker treatment that the 40-hour workweek provided after the horrendous exploitation of the Gilded Age, it also split the conception of work compensation into two major camps: Unit vs Time.

Those of the Unit Valuation view argue that you are paid for what value you produce. Imagine being a craftsman making doohickeys. You put in the labor to make 100 doohickeys? You get 100 doohickeys worth of revenue. Make 1,000? Make 1,000 worth. In this simple one-man occupation there is a linear relationship between the amount of units of value you produce and the compensation you receive, a self-reinforcing incentive structure that should be able to be replicated at greater scale too.

Hiring workers to help you make doohickeys can follow this Unit Value view too. If you have Worker A who produced 100 doohickeys in 2 hours, and Worker B who produced 100 doohickeys in 8 hours, the Unit Value perspective would compensate them the same because they both produced the same amount of value. Time within the deadline is irrelevant in this value calculation. The more-efficient Worker A could possibly provide more units if allowed to work longer, but it is his productivity, not his time, that drives his compensation.

This Unit Value view works well for enterprises producing discrete and obvious units of value. Everyone knows and loves a doohickey. But it becomes much more difficult to implement when you are not making simple doohickeys but instead providing relational interfacing between managerial initiative and labor productivity for reducing stochastic shrinkage while implementing a praxis of cultural wellbeing… That is to say, vague jobs with indirect value contributions. These kinds of positions, from CEO’s down even to variable-task workers, are nightmarish to account for accurately, let alone fairly.

This is actually where Communists lose the plot. Everyone understands doohickey-making and how more productivity helps both business and worker. But what really is the worth of a manager? A CEO? An owner? Why, they didn’t make a single doohickey last quarter, yet they get paid more!? Time to rouse the rabble and seize the means of production! Oh what’s that? The workers are becoming uncoordinated? The product quality has gone down the drain? There’s a new competitor and we are losing market share? What are “logistics” anyway? And all the guys who used to steer the ship are now hanging from the mast. Whoops! I guess they did provide some value after all… Thanks Communism.

Therefore, the easier-to-implement Time Value came into vogue. In this view, a worker is paid for his time, not necessarily his productivity. Essentially your enterprise rents you out for eight hours a day, five days a week, in order to command productivity out of you during that time. You are then compensated per hour that you were rented, regardless of the value you provided those particular hours.

This is a simpler system to account for on all sides, as each job position will be measured in an hourly rate that remains predictable and comparable to other positions. This makes sense for jobs that need someone around for some reason, whether to man the counter or just be on retainer for a happening. This also pleases the bureaucrats greatly as it removes those pesky “human” elements from their precious spreadsheets, making their jobs much easier.

But there is a catch. Work hard or hardly work, there is no immediate compensatory reason to be more productive. Suddenly the inefficient Worker B gets paid more than the highly-efficient Worker A just because he worked longer. Mediocrity, real or imposed, becomes the unspoken law around the watercooler under the Time Value model. Sure, feel free to break your back gifting your company with 80-hour workweeks, but it will be the schmoozer at the company cookout who gets the choicest promotions.

Plenty of professions are not simple doohickey factories where every minute spent at a task is a minute more value gained. In farming there are planting and harvesting periods requiring intense work well over 40 hours a week, as well as entire seasons where there is virtually no work to be done. A 40-hour workweek imposed on farming would be ridiculous – imagine the farmer being harangued over not tending his crops in wintertime, or a worker leaving the fields half-harvested because he’s not authorized for overtime.

The 40-hour workweek began as a protection against exploitation, but has since become a contrivance of convenience to deal with the complex question of value-compensation management. It is not supposed to be a value proposition itself, just an easy-to-calculate proxy for it. But, that hasn’t stopped managers from seeing it as the value they are seeking when it suits them.

Now, here is the real rub. You see, our middle-manager is rewarded best by encouraging productivity in his underlings without increasing compensation. The more value he can get without the company paying for it, the bigger the managerial bonus and promotion prospects. This means he is heavily encouraged to use the worst-paying valuation justification for your compensation, and will happily swap between views to suit his personal bottom-line.

Corporate managers will happily accept you working that extra 10 hours, granted you are donating it. Hell, they might even promise you that coveted vague reward of promotion or a raise at some undisclosed future date. “You’ll be noticed,” he’ll tell you with a casting-couch wink. Don’t ask about the overtime though. Why should you feel entitled to rob the company for your lack of time-management skills? No, any time you work over the clock is done out of the goodness of your heart, because we’re a family at this company!

But oh, if you ARE more efficient and finish your 40-hour job in only 10-hours, why are you robbing the company of your time!? It’s only fair that our manager’s most-efficient human resource be burdened with far more work to do. Don’t you dare ask for direct compensation for that extra value though – remember, you agreed to work on the clock, and the clock doesn’t recognize your productivity. Your reward will be in heaven, or a gift card at the company store, while your manager collects tens of thousands in bonus pay for your added productivity!

In the same way Procrustes would change his bed’s shape to stretch or cut his victim to only his advantage, so too does the corporate manager shift valuation from Unit to Time and back again to suit his personal whims. The incentives are misaligned, making less a crew working towards common purpose and more a taskmaster farming his colleagues for personal and corporate gain.

Are you beginning to see where this “moral sin” of Job Stacking arises? Lets pry deeper...

Consider the Unreliable Source

In Hyde Wars Episode 20, Sam Hyde gave the sagely advice to keep in mind who is giving you advice to understand the inherent bias behind it. Whether or not you should actually take that advice seriously depends greatly on understanding this and objectively comparing that request with your interests.

If your dear, loving mother tearfully begged you to please just promise her you would go to Hell, would that be something you would do? It is a request given by someone undoubtedly loving towards you, yet the request is so senselessly hysterical and wouldn’t be in your best interests at all. Just because someone is honestly well-disposed towards you, even loving, doesn’t guarantee that their requests are either good for you or even morally permissible.

Now lets apply this to our middle manager. Your average taskmaster at WalCorp Inc is tasked with returning maximal value with the labor he oversees. His concern for you is a concern for the productivity you deliver to the bottom-line, as that pads his own bottom line. You are a spreadsheet entry, variable only insofar as he can convince or force you to produce. Great managers will inspire and lead their crew to ensure they all share in the resulting prosperity. Unfortunately your average corporate manager just sees disposable human resources that require manipulation to achieve optimal returns.

This is the man and mentality from which the admonition about Job Stacking often comes from. You wouldn’t want to betray your fellow coworkers like that, would you? Did you know it is potentially punishable if you get caught? You won’t be able to devote all of your attention to this job, which means you will not deliver maximal productivity. And, and… well, it’s just wrong for you to do! Just sit for your designated 40 hours in front of our idle screen, and if you need more work to entertain you during that time, your manager will graciously grant you more busywork.

Is your saintly middle manager asking you to just stay in your wagecage out of the goodness of his heart? Is he even on the same level as your loving mother? And even if so, is that request even ethically relevant to your best interests?

I say no on all counts. The only valid point raised is the potential of not delivering the value that you contractually promised to deliver. You do have a moral obligation to stand by a fair contract you willingly make with another, and you should never compromise on that necessary quality.

Outside of this however, if you can satisfy your clients with sufficient value efficiently enough to facilitate holding another concurrent occupation, then you can reject the pseudo-moral babble saying it is somehow wrong to use that time for other purposes of your choosing.

In Feudal times, a peasant would be required to deliver a certain amount of production to his Lord in exchange for the right to live and work on the Lord’s land, after which the excess of time and production was the peasant’s to spend to his heart’s desire. In modern times our corporate overlords so often demand all from you, and dare call you immoral for withholding any time or productivity from them. To think we talk of peasants being oppressed!

There have been plenty of studies indicating that with focused work habits and efficiency techniques, productivity can actually increase with less work hours spent in an occupation. If someone gets so good at these techniques that their job requires a fraction of their allocated time to deliver the same value, then Job Stacking can rightly make the best use of otherwise idle time that most people would spend poking their phones or chattering around the water cooler instead.

The middle manager imagines however that if you have extra time, he can convert that into more value. This is often not the case. There are only so many tickets to be run, only so many orders to process, only so many emails to answer. Devoting more time to polishing the silver does not necessarily make it gleam brighter, and can even demoralize the polisher or damage the silverware when overdone.

Of course it is preferable to not lie or break any agreements in your contracts. Avoid it when you can. But agreements to devote arbitrary amounts of time to tasks that can be completed to the total satisfaction of all involved with less time spent are, frankly, just hedges on mediocrity. They are the bumper-noodles in the bowling alley gutters for those who can’t send a ball down the lane. The goal is to knock down the pins, not squishing the noodles. If you can deliver the agreed-upon value without needing those safeguards, then abiding by those safeguards is superfluous to the true spirit of your contract.

As for the claim that your coworkers care about you stacking jobs? Pfft! They’ll only care if their own job is badly impacted by your split attention. A middle manager would only ever tell you to “think of the coworkers!” to manipulate you emotionally, something many of them are not opposed to doing should it prove effective at getting compliance and free productivity from you.

But what of punishment? Punishment is undesirable, but ultimately an amoral circumstance that bears in itself no moral weight. Tyrants are notorious for their punishments, yet no one would argue the Tyrant’s will is somehow moral just because you get punished for defying his edicts. Often morality demands one risk or endure such punishments in order to do the right or permissible thing. If anything, preventing an individual capable of delivering greater value in exchange for greater compensation based on unnecessary safeguards is detrimental both for the individual and society at large.

These punishments are largely built out of fear of incompetence from mediocre people biting off more than they can chew. Understandable, but delivering greater-than-mediocre skill and discipline to your stacked occupations is justification enough to bend these specific kinds of regulations. If you wish to Job Stack and avoid punishment, delivering good work discretely is the best defense.

This advice doesn’t preclude the strategy of climbing a corporate ladder either. It can work too. Just be wary that gifts given to corporations will be happily taken, but not necessarily reciprocated. Many people have devoted years of working 80+ hour workweeks to be passed over for promotion in favor of the drinking buddy of some already-ensconced bossling. You’ll have better luck advancing by good work in enterprises that see you as a unique person, not as an expendable human resource.

Like the Hydian mother before, the moral-flavored platitudes of the middle-manager type are not compelling so long as you do the value-delivering work. Don’t go to corporate Hell just because a self-serving managerial type begs you to increase his paycheck.

Conclusion

The morality of Job Stacking is simple: If you do the work within the expected deadline and quality, then have as many jobs as you wish. If you begin to underperform however, then you are obliged to change something to bring your work back up to your contracted standard.

If you follow this simple metric with tact and discretion, everyone will be satisfied even if you do stack jobs. You will be satisfied with delivering what you promised and being compensated for your efficiency. Your companies will be satisfied that the job is done to their specifications. Even your middle manager will be happy because you will be reliable within your scope. Whatever precautions you have to take to prevent people from spoiling their own satisfaction with this, like not disclosing other jobs, is irrelevant morally. These are jobs, not marriages.

The case against Job Stacking as some kind of moral hazard in itself is ridiculous, the sort of emotional manipulation one would normally expect from a middle manager trying to milk you for all your worth with as little compensation as possible. One likewise doesn’t need to assume that these corporations are nasty and unfair in order to justify preserving your own time away from the every-hungering hands of corporate managers.

Despite Bismarck’s Buccaneers reveling in “pillaging corporate America” by way of Job Stacking like the glorious Crimson Permanent Assurance you saw above, it really isn’t a criminal or even immoral act in its most ideal and sustainable form. Perilous perhaps, in a very mild sort of wrist-slapping, resume-tarnishing, sleep-depriving kind of way. But the potential rewards of several years worth of pay all at once that can fuel more productive and interesting enterprises may be interesting enough to warrant further conscience-clear investigation.

Anyone interested in the art and science of Job Stacking should explore it practically and not let pseudo-moralizing dissuade from a profitable course in today’s increasingly unfair job market. Check out Bismarck’s Job Stacking proposals yourself on his Substack, and look into the free resources online – Yes, even the Reddit - before making a decision about the strategy.

Subscribe now

Share

On January 20^th of 2024, Patriot Front again conducted one of the largest and best-organized Nationalist demonstrations in America today on the streets of New York City. And, as has become the custom in the present day, they were accused of being “Feds” by an army of armchair critics both online and off.

The feeding frenzy is as absolutely confident as it is mindlessly repetitious. Big accounts and small, generally catering to that Conservative mindset that cultivates budding dissidents into inept pawns to be swept off the board at a moment’s notice, feed on the ensuing tweetstorms.

To thoughtful sorts, this mentality might be perplexing. To the hard-working activist, these thoughtless accusations are frustrating. Where does Fedjacketing come from? Why is it so compelling? And how do you counteract such a persistent accusation?

This article will attempt to demystify the Fedjacketing phenomena and provide some means of counteracting the paralyzing paranoia it causes.

Whence Cometh Fedjacketing?

Fedjacketing, the term for accusing others of being subversive and bad-faith agents of the government, comes from the birthplace of many memes and neologisms online: The bowels of 4chan.

Glowie was a phrase first used or at least popularized by Terry Davis, a beloved schizophrenic who once claimed that federal agents were easy to spot because they glowed in the dark. Aside from this apparent quality making them easy to run over at night, Glowies also was a delightfully memetic term that denotes those who have suspicious qualities lending themselves to subversive agents deployed by hostile institutions. They’re so suspicious they just glow, you see.

4chan used the terms Glowies and Feds to criticize posters who would Fedpost - that is, make entrapment-tier comments that try to goad people into supporting or conducting illegal activity. 4chan users warned each other how Feds justify their paychecks by actively creating honeypot organizations to entrap the unwary in criminal conspiracies – because it is easier to make criminals than to catch real ones.

The cases of documented federal honeypots creating crimes where none existed before are too numerous to link. Off the top of my head I can mention the Governor Whitmer honeypot kidnapping plot, the still-unfolding federal involvement with January 6^th, and a literal retard groomed into an ISIS-funder by feds. Even a FBI whistleblower spilling the beans on right-wing entrapment schemes is just par for the course with these American KGB agencies.

But this warning about actual Fed activity gradually turned into the easiest way to criticize any in-real-life political activity outside of the two-party system. Fedjacketing stokes the natural paranoia of persecuted people into believing that there is a Fed behind every blade of grass, that every effort beyond the screen is a ploy designed to ruin your life, and anyone who stands up in public is some kind of spook or actor. But how could such a paranoid fantasy be so widely disseminated and, apparently, accepted?

The FBI have only 35,000 employees, of which only a fraction are actual field-agents. Even the FBI’s network of confidential informants numbers at only about 15,000. The CIA has only 21,575 employees, many of whom have their hands too full with sabotaging other countries with pride parades and drug networks to bother with domestic honeypots. The ATF has only 5,099 employees of all stripes who apparently couldn’t investigate their way out of a paper bag. All together this amounts to at best one Glowie per 4,380 people in the United States, or about 0.000228% of the US population.

To say the federal government is hopelessly outnumbered by the people of this country is an understatement. They’re utterly overwhelmed. Therefore, Fedjacketing as a psychological tool provides a huge advantage in preventing counter-politics from ever getting started in the first place.

By encouraging an unhealthy level of paranoia and hesitation among those most likely to host “problematic views”, these actors induce learned helplessness in millions of increasingly disaffected patriots, rendering them corralled and pacified. Just as the central guard tower of the Panopticon dominates the sight of every individual prisoner despite being manned by just a single guard, so too do paranoid delusions of federal omnipresence loom over the minds of most of our decaying country.

So, how does this psychological trick work?

The Psychology of Fedjacketing

Accusing grassroots Nationalist groups of being Feds is psychologically satisfying because of its unfalsifiability and self-flattery.

In scientific study, the first test of any hypothesis is whether your explanation can be proven false with acquisition of evidence to the contrary. That evidence may not actually exist, but if it did exist it would prove your explanation wasn’t correct. Without falsifiability, we would never be able to reject a claim no matter how absurd it was.

For instance, I might propose that gravity exists on Earth, and therefore any time I jump I will soon thereafter fall to the ground. While I might never encounter a time that I do jump and float off into space, if I did it would at least throw a serious question towards how we think gravity works. Absurd as that evidence is, the fact that it could exist and disprove my explanation suggests that my hypothesis is stronger because there are ways to test and find evidence that could disprove it.

Contrast that against most cases of Fedjacketing. While Feds do exist – unfortunately - most accusations base their evidence on absolutely contradictory and irrelevant information. A short list of popular “evidences” from our modern online Sherlocks as to why Patriot Front are Feds are summarized as follows:

• Too fit

• Too fat

• Matching uniforms

• Cheap clothing

• Masked faces

• March in orderly lines

• Carrying flags and shields

• Not getting arrested

• Getting arrested

• No popularized Conservative approves of them

Or the best evidence of all:

• It’s just obvious

Our astute readers may notice how many pieces of evidence are non-sequiturs or even contradictory. That’s because these are not actual pieces of evidence but instead disconnected observations used to support a predefined conclusion. While all of these points have simple, plausible explanations, the accuser will act like the ONLY reason they could have a fit or a fat member is because they are Feds!

This “evidence” is actually just an excuse for an emotional reaction cloaked as reason. The “principled Conservative” is taught to have an adverse reaction to anything effective or assertive that pushes back against their neutering and replacement. This appeals to a certain effete, lazy, and terrified type who wants the prestige of virtuous Patriotism without all the hard effort and choices required for it.

This kind of Conservative is normally king of the roost – no one else is as much of a “Patriot” as he is in Our Democracy! In our two-party state you are either a Commie-Democrat or a Patriot-Republican. There is no third option, meaning there is no real competition. Libertarians are just a reservation for Republicans. You can ignore them.

But then our beautiful loser Conservative sees young, fit men in an organized parade, bearing not just one but ALL American flags throughout our history and then some, speaking about the decay of America in bold, uncompromising terms. This Nationalistic expression is basically everything that Conservatives whisper about around their dinner tables, but are too afraid to say aloud in public.

Our Conservative is now confused. “Strength and organization, for MY traditional values!?” He doesn’t feel he could fall in with these intimidating sorts who might actually be able to have their political way if they put their minds and muscle to it. Actually having power would require taking responsibility and having true confidence in one’s beliefs in the face of nagging Leftists and cowardly Rightists. That’s a lot to ask!

This shames and befuddles the Conservative, who is taught that anything that isn’t Fox News approved is Leftist or Socialist – i.e. “bad”. But these guys don’t look like Leftists. They look positively and powerfully patriotic – more patriotic than his own Republican party even! And they’re uncomfortably close to looking like appealing Traditionalists with youthful vigor. Our beautiful-loser Conservative can’t have THAT kind of competition making him look and feel weak by comparison!

Nevertheless, our Conservative must resolve this cognitive dissonance. He could try to understand what these guys are about. He could even seek to improve himself to get on and above Patriot Front’s level. But that’s a lot of effort requiring personal insight, and he might risk humbling himself in that process. Pah! Not gonna happen!

Instead, what our Conservative wants is what every McAmerican wants: A quick, easy excuse that makes him look smart and better than the ones making him feel uncomfortable. Happy then is that Conservative who has learned the magic word that dispels all personal responsibility to act: “FEDS!”

Ah, what a beautiful excuse it is! It dismisses any need to look objectively into these people, suggesting that the speaker already has such a discerning eye that he has “figured it all out” at just a glance! Any so-called evidence will do no matter how flimsy – they’re fat, they’re fit, they’re wearing the same shirts - because no evidence could dissuade this Conservative from his self-satisfying, and self-aggrandizing, delusion.

“They’re Feds, because they’re Feds. I can feel it. It’s just obvious, duh! Praise me.”

This psychological trick is remarkably akin to Gangstalking, or at least the paranoid-delusional form of it. Paranoid individuals become convinced that they are being stalked by someone intending them harm, and then they are told that their stalkers have “obvious tells” – they all drive black SUV’s, they frequently park over the lines, and they even scratch their nose as silent signals to their handlers.

All these sightings further convince the victim that they are being stalked. Every observation reinforces and deepens the paranoia, leading to a hypervigilance and the sighting of more “signs” – a self-reinforcing whirlpool that sends many otherwise healthy minds down the drain.

But the problem is those common observations are easily explained by other, far more plausible reasons – black is a popular color for vehicles, normal people suck at parking, and everyone gets an itchy nose sometimes. These are not usually signs of sophisticated conspiracies but just common occurrences that are, actually, coincidental and nothing more.

But because they are trapped in the narrative, “I am being stalked,” the “evidence” confirms their fears and deepens them. Part of the coping mechanism is to convince themselves that they are “too clever” to be tricked by these nose-scratching stalkers whom they now see evidence of everywhere. That kind of positive self-flattery is particularly addictive to the terrorized – a tiny crumb of control in an utterly helpless situation, the same kind of copium devoured by adherents of QAnon.

Worst of all, gangstalking paranoia is contagious. No one wants to be tricked and made a fool of in public, so why not take the safer route and denounce any grassroots initiative that appeals to your Traditionalist instincts but challenges Conservatism? As an unfalsifiable proposition, you can’t be proven wrong – there is never any way to fully disprove the Fedjacketing “evidence”, because it isn’t evidence at all.

What Fedjacketing amounts to is instant, cheap kudos and self-satisfaction while distancing oneself from the embarrassment of being outclassed in one’s convictions - all without having to lift a finger.

It’s exactly what every McAmerican wants!

Fedjacketing is a win-no loss position to take, as most forms of cynicism are. If you never believe in anything, you can’t be made to look like a fool for being wrong sometimes. It is why cynicism is such a pernicious refuge of the helpless and discouraged in modernity. Like blackpilling in general, it demoralizes others and shames them about their political beliefs in anything, especially the confident and Romantic faith of Nationalist aspirations.

Taking a stand takes an assertion of courage, a willingness to bear the pain of being proven wrong for what you believe in and doing it anyway for the love of your convictions and the strength of your faith. If your average Conservative lacks the spine to stand up for himself, then it is up to people such as my readers to stand on firm ground when facing down the inevitable Fedjacketing.

Putting Down Fedjacketing Claims

Before we deal with the claims for feddery, keep in mind two important things:

First, Feds actually do infiltrate, create honeypots, and mislead people into trouble. That is true. Some people do the bidding of Glowies and bad-faith agents, whether they are aware or not. And plenty of innocent people end up furthering bad-faith narratives because of how diabolically persuasive those psyops are crafted. Actual bad actors should be carefully and tactically exposed to protect people from their influence. In any case, approaching Fed claims with a careful reason and not just emotional reflex is absolutely necessary to not get stuck in the ego-stroking Fedjacketing trap.

Second, the forthcoming techniques are not for the benefit of the Fedjacketer. They are not interested in reason. They say “Fed” to justify their self-gratification and to excuse their lack of conviction and action. As truth and reason require effort and humbleness, this will not be at all attractive to these demoralized cynics. Rather all these techniques are for showing onlookers the foolishness of Fedjacketing and to dissuade them from falling for it. Don’t expect the recipient of the following techniques to “see the light” anytime soon. They often don’t want to see it.

Dissect

Use reason to pick apart their baseless claims “proving” the Feddery afoot. Showcase just how much more plausible your explanation is than their convoluted accusations of Glowie conspiracy. Better yet, provide direct counter-examples to their claims, such as those gleaned from news stories or leaks.

For Patriot Front, you could briefly point out to their common claims in turn and reference their 2021 leaks and other objective articles:

• Too fat orfit: Patriot Front emphasizes fitness and even has a physical fitness test in their application process. If a recruit fails, they are put into a fitness program. This would condemn many of the critics to jazzercize classes instantaneously.

• Uniforms and cheap clothes: Everyone loves uniforms, and having both a dress code and a suggested buy list is how they more or less achieve the same general look at low cost. Even school clubs can easily achieve a cohesive look without requiring government expertise or funding. Nationalists are no different.

• Masks: The prosecutions of Charlottesville and Jan 6^th clearly show the value of anonymous political dissent. Listen to the broken-tract of Lefties bawling about the masks because they inhibit their ability to persecute the dissidents. They hate not being able to destroy your life easily.

• Orderly marching: Patriot Front have videos showing veteran members practicing it with the new guys, and how most of them don’t know the basics until they do. Even highschoolers are routinely taught the basics of marching in band. Is the whole brass ensemble Feds too? No, we all know it’s the percussionists...

• Flags and shields: These materials are available for bulk purchases by civilians, and the shields have seen direct use against attackers multiple times. Both make sense for a dissident group in public protest known for being attacked.

• Arrest or No Arrest: Patriot Front was arrested for “Conspiracy to Riot” in Idaho in 2022, and those arrested were both demasked and their names paraded around the media as trophies. They do get arrested, and they do get legally harassed as a result. So they try not to get arrested by not committing crimes during their demonstrations. Unless only Feds like to not get arrested.

  

  

• No Conservative Support: Why would Conservative leaders want to support their greatest rivals for their base? They’re busily stealing and sterilizing their talking points to try to keep ahead of the swelling Nationalist sentiment. Conservative leaders denounce Nationalists to protect their own lunch.

This all being said, Feds still do exist. You may find out in the course of your critical thinking and investigation into some people and groups that there are legitimate suspicious circumstances and evidences supporting a claim of malfeasance. If that’s the case, your dissection of the claims will prove valuable in ruling out common excuses. Critical thinking is almost never a bad idea in the face of mindless blather.

The main point is that stripping away the absurd fig-leaves of “Fed evidence” will expose the nakedness of their real motivation - selfish indulgence of weak egos. And that lays them bare to the second, even more important step.

Mock

Those who Fedjacket are motivated by public praise. Mockery turns that attention on its head. Instead of that person being recognized for the brilliance of their split-second assessment, they are pointed out for being the mouth-breathing dupe who parrots subversives and propagandists. Not exactly the title most people want to be known for.

Any on-point mockery will do, but the more-honest and funny the better. Honesty finds the chink in their armor, and humor drives the point home. Funny put-downs are more effectively shared and repeated, and especially if it is concise enough for others to repeat themselves in similar circumstances.

Mockery induces shame and public derision, and can prevent a lot of those who would jump onto the Fedjacketing bandwagon from climbing aboard. Given it is all an exercise in ego-padding by means of touting how smart they are, showcasing how mindlessly stupid they are is a direct antidote to the venom they’re chugging.

It shouldn’t be a difficult stretch to turn the eye-rolling exasperation one has at the ever-repeating platitudes and NPC-tier accusations into a few potent doses of humorous put-downs. Many anons have already put in much of the hard work – use it!

Plus, as always, mockery is fun. Get your fellow shitposters involved! Build up your meme folders and deploy them generously at all the worthless Fed-sayers out there. And do so for any grassroots Nationalist group out there on the receiving end of it to raise the tide for all dissident ships.

Besides, the salt that pours from them is delicious and plentiful when they struggle to recover from the shock of being humiliated as the retard they sound like. Enjoy it!

Conclusion

Feds do exist, just not in every teacup and cupboard out there. The fear induced by Fedjacketing paranoia benefits only the very Feds that people complain about. By over-inflating their actual presence and capabilities, Fedjacketing infects people with a despondent cynicism and learned helplessness that makes them withdraw from listening to new and attractive ideas and actions that are desperately needed in this age of decay.

Luckily, the medicine in this case is mostly a spoonful of sugar. With just a bit of reasoned dissection and a strong dose of mockery to these prole-prattlers, you can break the paranoia-coping cycle they unwittingly fall into and free them and others from the eternal Samsara that is Fedjacketing ego-masturbation.

If all goes well, this article will soon be a relic of its age as the days of “Feds!” accusations die away in a hail of hilarious mockery. Point and laugh at the stupidity of people, especially online – it’s medicine for the Nation and the soul.

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now