“The Alt-right is dead”

“The Alt-right is dead!” I have heard it again. Ryan Falk denounced white nationalism. This means that the Alt-Right is dead, despite the fact that he explicitly has stated that he does no affiliate himself with the label of alt-right. This has been declared multiple times and it never amounts to anything. We need to understand why this keeps happening, who keeps saying it, and what does it actually mean.

The big problem is that nobody will agree to the correct definition. It technically started in the 90’s in France and then came over to America in the 2000’s. But, this is the wrong way of looking at it. If we were judging National Socialism then it was created in the 1920’s and “died” in the 1940’s. But, anyone with any knowledge of that philosophy knows it hasn’t died. The Alt-Right arose from a few contributing circumstances that created a synthesis between their respective groups. These groups number three. The first as named we can label as the “Intellectuals.” These were the philosophers and scholars in France and America that appropriated and consolidated these ideas and thoughts through the “end of history”, cold war, and second great war. The second we can label the “Discoverers.” These were the people of the /new/(news) board on 4chan. When ever some progressive bologna was being pushed in the news, it became a meme “The jews are behind this.” Because funnily enough it always was. It happened over and over to the point that /new/ became self-redpilled and sought answers that matched what they were observing. The third and final group we can label the “Truthers.” These existed for the longest of the three groups and naturally occur as long as a society is not perfect and lies exist. These are the dissidents of society who have found “The Truth.” They know that they are being lied to, but of course disagree on what “The Truth” is. This ranges from UFOs, to Illuminati, and a whole manner of things.

Part 1/3

Sorry I have been gone

I am back and will post weekly now I promise. Look forward to it on Friday.

 

The left wants a business; We want a Nation

What is left and right? You will never get a consistent answer among numerous people. The flaw in this is the application of trying to depict political philosophy as a geometric pattern or point on a graph. The most primitive depiction of left and right is as a spectrum.

This is one of the worst depictions of left and right because: what is the spectrum they are on? How can it be objective if it is only relative to other things on it? How can ideologies which are fundamentally different but have the same relative “leftness/rightness” be displayed on the same place and still demonstrate their differences?

The next archaic depiction was the political compass.

Look it is simple, we just need to add another dimension to show the differences between authoritarian and libertarian, that will properly represent this mess. Wrong. The edges of the blocks go on infinitely. There are only two things which are actual measurements, the distance from one another and from the origin(the center of both spectrum dimensions). So we come back to the same problems: What position is exactly center? If we don’t have an exactly center ideology defined aren’t they just as relative to other graphed ideologies as the single dimension spectrum model? In these models they outline authoritarian vs libertarian and make the assumption of left and right being controlled market vs free market. So how is this problem fixed? Well they try to just add more and more spectrum like a social justice warrior’s endless personal labels.

Endlessly adding more and more spectrum does not solve the problem of accurate representation of ideology. It is like trying to make a representation of a sphere only using straight lines. You can get closer and closer, but never fully accurate.

The best way to represent ideology/philosophy is to look at premises and truth statements as puzzle pieces. A priori (knowledge known before experience) and a posteriori (knowledge know by experiencing) are pieced together into a super structure that depicts both how things are and ought to be. Most people are unaware of these fundamental blocks that stack particularly with certainly defined partner blocks. Many when encountering a new piece of a posteriori they will try to see if it fits with any open spaces of their ideological puzzle and often discard it on the unconscious logic, “I know all the other pieces are true, therefore if it doesn’t fit with any of the pieces then it must not be true.” To get the most accurate assessment of this new piece however one must temporarily take apart their puzzle and try to reconstruct the puzzle using the piece then they will find specifically which puzzle pieces are mutually exclusive and cannot be a part of the same puzzle, and then must make the ultimate decision of which iteration of the puzzle construction is better/more valuable/more true and then discard the proper piece, or more gentlemanly categorize it among other pieces that were rejected in order that if the time comes when the particular puzzle must be revisited for assessment it is on hand.

While there are no diametrically opposing puzzle pieces or spectrum of puzzle reflections, there are, as mentioned, mutually exclusive pieces. For example to mutually exclusive pieces are “I can choose” and “I can not choose”. This is a fundamental piece in which all puzzles must have. However, do not conceive of mutually exclusive pieces as pieces that cannot be a part of the same puzzle. The proper way to conceptualize it as the two puzzle pieces cannot fit together, but they may fit onto other pieces whom fit onto them. What this is, is the “context”. So for example(even in this simple puzzle and to arrive at these two premises requires dozens of other puzzle pieces but ignore this for simplicity) consider this puzzle. We have the pieces “I can choose”, “I can not choose”, and “I may sometimes be unconscious” which has a shape so that it will invert the meaning of the premise to the left and thus yield the truth claim to the right. If we start our construction with “not choose” then attach the “unconscious” piece does the “can choose” piece fit on the right? No. We look at the world and see that the description of being unconscious does not give one the ability to choose. So we must rebuild our puzzle. Until we get a formulation in which the picture the puzzle displays best fits our perception of reality after being made internally consistent.

Instead of using economic policy or some other spectrum to define left and right. I think the most useful and predictive grouping ought to be for left and right the desire for a business or a nation. Classically there were to many problems with the old categorizations. Is anarcho-capitalism right wing just because it is capitalist? Then how can Fascism be right-wing if it is anti-capitalist? Is theocracy left or right? Is the complete rejection of the physical world and phenomenology even able to be categorized? While the rejection of phenomenology is something that is not able to be characterized by this model, it solves the problems of the other examples.

As stated in the featured image, “Every real nation is a people of common blood and descended from the same ancestors. A nation — from the Latin word meaning to be born — can have no other meaning.” A business on the other hand involves a group of individuals united for the purpose of monetary benefit. The more you describe what a business is the more you can relate to how “left” and modern countries seem to be becoming more like this. They often take the attitude of “We don’t care about your private life if you do a good job.” “It doesn’t matter who you are as long as you are the best suited.” “Company policy desires us to use specific language when addressing other employees.” “You don’t need to bring a weapon to work.” So many common practices found in businesses seem to be a good prediction of what the “left” desire.

But what kind of business? This is where the different ideologies come in. Many ideologies considered “right” are actually left in the model. On the most extreme you have the anarcho-capitalists and communists. The kind of business the anarcho-capitalist desires is most relatable to a farmers or flea market in which every individual can come and buy and sell his wares and use economic pressures to exclude those whom they don’t want participating in their commerce. The communists on the other hand want a non-profit cooperative. In the co-op at first everything sold will be owned and managed collectively with the notion that the management will dissipate although the only feasible way it seems to be possible is to degenerate into bureaucracy. The neo-conservatives as a common example want a large corporation where patriotism and enterprise are the company’s main brands and slogans then the employees take that attitude with them home. The social democrats on the other hand, want a large corporation where diversity and equality are the main brands and slogans, then the company provides numerous compensations, housing, activities, and lifestyles to the employees outside of their work environment, think like Hershey Pennsylvania(http://www.hersheyhistory.org/library-archives/hershey/96-the-town).

I encourage my reader to try this model. When looking at an ideologies’ goals ask, “Are they trying to preserve or promote a specific group of common blooded people, or are they trying to create a business of some sort where universalism is incorporated in some aspect in rejection of the notion of common ancestry in favor of economic adherence?

Necessary Definitions

Social Constructivism vs Objectivism

There are two categories that determine your beliefs of concepts and definitions. The first is that concepts are non-existent. They are whatever the consensus is. Biscuits are either flat sweets with chocolate chips or they are puffy and fluffy bready items that are served during dinner or during breakfast with gravy if you are in Texas.  The other category I believe is correct and true in reality. Objectivism I am referring to is, that all concepts objectively exist independent of human observation and recognition. So how does this work?

Consider the triangle. A simple right triangle of undefined length and angles. This triangle is not made of physical matter in our universe. Despite it not being physical, it still exists. All the mathematics about the relationships between the sides and angles still objectively exist. They exist independent of time, no human created the triangle. “But that is obviously false! Obviously someone came up with baseball and named it!” The vocal sounds we assign to concepts are arbitrary. But when we communicate we do so with concepts not just vocalizations. Us humans subject to time discover concepts, not create them. For example we may think, “The Pythagoras’ therm applies to all triangles.” However, this is not the case as it only applies to right triangles. We are not changing the concept, we are only better understanding the concept itself. Understanding this there are some terms I think can be better understood. These definitions I am going to give I believe are the best understood of the concepts they represent.

Country: Land claimed and under the control of a state.

Nation: A group of people who are the legitimate inhabitants of a country.

Ideology: A set of beliefs, in particular political but not limited to the political, that informs action and inaction.

Fascism: The ideology of Benito Mussolini, which through totalitarian means, seeks to create a country in which the nation is liberated and protected from both capitalism(the fascist definition of it) and Marxism.

Capitalism: An economic system in which a standardized currency is used and private property rights are enforced.

(Marxist) Socialism: An economic system in which the proletariat have seized the means of production; then the means of production are in the ownership of the state which is organized as a dictatorship of the proletariat.

(Prussian) Socialism: A capitalist(my definition) economic system in which all, some, or similar practices such as protectionism, welfare programs, and nationalized banking are in place under the premise that profit is not the purpose of a successful economy.

Empire(see the book Civil War II): a multi-racial nation in which the state must become more authoritarian and turn into a police state to maintain peace between the conflicting racial interests.

Degenerate- Any person, place, thing, or idea in which the majority of its character, involves, or is inherently based upon pleasure, ignorance, stupidity, purposelessness, savagery, and/or vapidity/shallowness.

Racism: The belief in the existence of race and quantifiable differences between them, and acting accordingly upon it.

Please feel free to debate me on these terms on my twitter @col_roll.

 

Civic Nationalism is not Sufficient

We could go into what nationalism is, but this has hundreds of volumes dedicated to the ideology. However just a quick point to bring up that a crucial point to take away from the distinctions in different forms of nationalism, is that for nationalism you need to define and thus ask the question, “What defines the nation?”. On the surface the civil nationalist provides a seemingly good answer, “Define the nation by objective terms. A better nation is one that is economically better, because economics can be objectively measured.” This is a very good starting point, looking for objective measurements in a field to inform your definitions is absolutely essential. However civic nationalism is not good enough, it overlooks key truths that debunk the position. The problem with the definition is it it makes the country and the nation one and the same.

With the Civic Nationalist definition lets run with it. We can put forth situations that make it’s glaring flaw obvious. Let’s look at the data of ethnic contribution per capita: Whites of course are more productive and contribute more to the economy than Blacks or Arabs, but Asians are even more productive and contribute more then the Whites. It then follows that under a civic nationalist perspective it would be better to minimize the number of Blacks and Arabs and maximize the number of Asians. However, it must be known that maximizing the number of Asians also includes minimizing the number of whites. It becomes a trap similar to the baby boomers. They unconsciously assume that the economy being grown by foreigners is being done for their direct benefit. However with the same problem as the baby boomers whose sole concern is “muh pensions” they assume they will not be negatively affected. The boomers assume they will never have their pension money redirected to immigrants and the White/non-Asian civic nationalists assume they will never be among those who are done away with for economic benefits of the country. It comes to the eventual problem with the conclusion is the ideology correct, if it condones replacing all the people in the country with other people if the economic state of those who now inhabit the country are relatively improved? It confuses the country for the nation, it confuses that the people are for the economy, rather then the economy being for the people. It is like treating a sick dog by buying a healthy dog and abandoning the sick one.

The next problem stemming from this is instead of a country of a nation serving the nation, is it turns the country into a company. Besides making profit another civic point is “I don’t care about race, but culture and institutions” It has the same problem of thinking that the people serve the institutions rather than the institutions serving the people. This prioritizing of culture and institutions, comes from the lack of understanding of where they come from. They believe, if they even consider it, is that culture is some independent thing from the people. That it develops in a sort of independence from people. That anybody can adopt any culture they wish as easy as they can switch political party. The actual source of culture is the people, specifically the genetics. Consider different genetic groups. Why does it seem some groups retain a predisposition to superstition despite them integrating into a secular society? Despite being in a capitalist world, why does it seem some prefer to collectivize into groups? It comes down to genetics. Are you of European genetic heritage? You have certain unconscious priorities and preferences you may not even be aware of in comparison to vastly distant ethnic groups. You probably have a propensity to individual responsibility and to personal freedom. Other groups value family honor and ethnic unity. There are numerous values, they don’t have to be diametric opposites. But these different priorities lead to different cultures that develop. Demographics is destiny. If you replace an individualism prioritizing ethnic group with a collectivist prioritizing ethnic group, they won’t uphold your individualist culture and institutions. They will alter the country to best reflect their own values and needs.

There is a very valid objection to this: “There are many who immigrate and wholly adopt our culture individuals are not bound by their genetics and can choose their beliefs.” This is true, but shortsighted. Yes an individual can change their priorities and adopt new cultures. However there are two points against this objection. The first is that they are the absolute minority. Those ethnic Chinese people who have adopted a culture completely opposite of China are the outliers. The number of them are so minuscule to the total number of them who do not is statistically not even a worthwhile contribution to consider to their total cultural contribution. They are the ones who act despite the genetic trends not because of them. There is not a majority of other ethnic groups willingly abandoning their own cultures and nations to adopt another. Over the generations on average their genetics will influence their values. It is not likely that every single one born will all be rebels against their own heritage. The second point is economic allure. Such as the case in the migrant crisis, when there are large percentages of ethnic groups who swarm into a country they are drawn by material and economic benefits. Here is the paradoxical trait that is shared among all the ethnic groups, despite going to a place for economic reasons, they will have no qualms about changing the economic system to that of where they came from if they are given the opportunity. It is quite funny and we see it all the time. When a European, Canadian, or Australian, immigrates to the US they will very frequently talk about their original country’s healthcare system. As many Europeans will note that despite the claimed reason of “fleeing Islamic terrorism” when they arrive in Europe they will sing the praises of Islam and how great their way of life is in the country they are fleeing from. Despite a person leaving their own nation, more often then not they will advocate their new residence become more alike their old one.

But even with the objection, the point still remains by valuing the institutions over the people, inevitably your country becomes more of a corporation rather then a land owned by a nation of people. In a corporation people can be removed and brought in for the sole reason of maximizing profit. It is interesting to think that those removed are removed by those at the top. Who are those with no chance of being removed from the company? It certainly isn’t the workers or those getting benefits. They are the owners and the higher-ups. So we see how it would turn out in a civic nationalist country. The people with not much economic power in the country would be vulnerable to expulsion and marginalization by those who are in power.

So what is the correct position? As an ethno-nationalist, I would put forth the proper definition of the nation is the ethnic group, the people. It is from their unique ethnic genetics their prioritized values manifest, which develops into culture and institutions to serve and promote those values, and from that culture and institutions the need to defend those values and institutions a country and government develop. Yes, it is understandable that the best way to defend your country is to defend your culture and institutions, but the civic nationalist must go one step further and also understand that the best way to defend your culture and institutions is to defend your ethnic group.

A peephole into the unconscious SJW

[After postponing and stalling, I have realized that there is not much to elaborate on this topic, and will release a better article soon]

I am not saying Steven Universe is a good show. Aesthetically the only good things are the color design and the background design/landscape art. The characters are pretty one dimensional and often just stolen tropes from harem anime. In fact the entire plot is lifted off of the Transformers cartoon: “Alien race has used resources on it’s homeworld and needs to take resources from other worlds to sustain/propagate themselves and a group of rebels/traitors on earth decide this is wrong so they fight against their own kind.”

What is fascinating about it is that it is a window into the subconscious of the social justice advocates. The first most important thing in the show is relationships. Not relationships with your race or heritage. Strictly the relationships between individuals, with an explicit sexual overtone. There is a background notion of “protect everyone and create peace on earth” but the overarching and undeniable priority of these social justice warriors is to endlessly explore and maintain personal relationships.

The common man and politics

If you learn about statistics, especially in political science, then you will learn, “there is no such thing as a real person who is the average person.” What this means is when ever you hear some pop-culture statistic of “Average person is…” there is no physical person they are describing. To best demonstrate this, we can create an example. If a street has two houses and one costs $100 and the other costs $0 the average house on the street costs $50. There are not any actual houses that cost $50. This is such with the average person.

However we can talk about the average man for it is true in aggregate changes within the overton window and cathedral. Populism has a paradoxical issue with the inherent nature of the common man. The common man is meek, he is simple, and most importantly he is not political. Whether they are like this because of the environment or because of natural inclinations, it is irrelevant. It is the state of them now. I don’t and you should not have contempt for them. They are members of your nation, family, and race. This writing is not to condemn them to be condemned by you , but for you to understand them.

What do I mean when I say he is not political? Humans are political animals. However, the average person has an unquestionable standard of socially acceptable political positions. They are not consciously acknowledged or formulated into a coherent political philosophy. When an opposing political position is exposed to them or they are pressured to consciously reevaluate, they react with cognitive dissonance or anger stemming from emotional outrage that such a ridiculous counter-notion could be considered. The wrath of the common men all aligned is on par with the wrath of an Olympian deity. You saw this wrath incurred by the social justice Marxists. It festered under the surface for decades in academia however once it began to make demands upon the population that were outside of this tolerable range they hold. The death of the ideology is assured. Once an ideology itself is in public ridicule, that ideology is dead until a new population has replaced them generations later. A fatal flaw of any ideology or movement that relies on gaining public support, is disturbing this sleep like state of the population.

There are only two ways to get your ideology to disturb the population and it succeed. When the population awakens and rubs its weary eyes, wondering what has disturbed it, it will look for these things to justify not reacting in anger and rejection. The first is for them to believe their security is at risk. When they wake they must either see the danger to them or the solution to said danger. If they see the solution first, they will react in frustration at first, “What is this alarm going off for no reason!?” Then when they perceive the danger to them that the solution is proposing to solve, they will be embarrassed and double their dedication to the cause compared to if they saw the danger first, for fear that others will notice that they didn’t see the “inherent necessity” of the solution. The second way is if the ideology is seen as an innocuous improvement. “Why did you wake me up? Oh that is all you are doing, that’s nice. Keep it quiet as you can, I’m going back to sleep.”

Although it was done by neo-cons, I do not endorse the method of creating a problem to propose a solution being the Alt-right. If we were dishonest we may try to change the system out from under the people so that they never wake but if they did, they would find the world changed around them. We are not dishonest so this is not the good path either. We do not need to be dishonest or sneaky with our ideology. The lack of our ideology is already creating problems that the masses are grumbling about, with the obvious solution being our ideology. In addition our ideology is not so radical. The advise I give to our movement is, no matter how wonderful you think it would be, do not make hasty and radical demands of the common man. Before a white American ethno-state you must have white nationalism, before white nationalism you must have racial segregation, before you have racial segregation you must have racial independence, before you have racial independence you must have racial identity, before you have racial identity you must have civic nationalism.

Understanding the Schism of Skeptics

The Skeptic community is coming apart. This could be attributed to drama between individuals, to a frustration in the differences between goals and achievements, or general tension created by outside sources like the YouTube ad revenue changes. However, I think an interesting area of division is under the political philosophies of the divisions.

If you know anything about American history you may know that in the past the South was almost entirely democrats. This is far from today where the South is exclusively republican with the exception of racial minorities. This is due to what can be described as “party switching”. It is not so much that the policies of the democratic party have been the same since then, it is the case that intuitively the members of the party determine the policies. Thus we can see that although parties may retain the same names, their policies and even fundamental philosophies can change in a matter of generations or as of late years with the rate of information spreading.

A useful way to frame the divide in the skeptic community is to look at it as the progression of the democratic party by decade. In the 80’s America’s the presidents of the time were Reagan and George Bush senior. Opposing these neoconservatives the left at this time adopted a very Anti-“Christian Right” stance. It is understandable, the right of today has even rejected the stupidity of creationism, and the politically incoherent stance of political events being done by God(people being elected or not based on the will of God rather than voters). The main focuses for you to take away from this time is an Anti-“Christian right” stance(a propensity to atheism) and a disdain for Reaganomics which manifests as a desire for market intervention to both punish large corporations and “help” the working class.

During the 90’s in America we had the later part of the Bush senior administration and the entirety of the Clinton administration. During this time we had the birth of the grunge movement. Interestingly enough also the first surge in Social Justice ideology. Very much the attitude was anti-establishment, but even further than that. It was a rejection of tradition, religion, and moralities. This would be the first time that progressivism took a solid hold in the left. It was clear by the fall of the soviet union and the failure of the communal systems attempted in the 60’s and 70’s, that the allure of communism’s “liberation of the working class from capitalist exploitation” was not able to persuade the American public. However, what did ring with the American public was a prominent “Anti-racism” stance. The people were not convinced that businessmen were the enemies of workers. However, black minorities happily accepted the narrative that despite the formal laws that oppressed them being removed, that subtle unseen racism by whites was the cause of their declining economic situation.”Racists divide us. People of color have not been liberated because the racism that created Jim Crow in the first place still lingers in the minds of people who enacted them.” What to take away from this era is the transition from nearly entirely economic concerns to a racial discrimination lens to explain economic disparity and an increase in the rejection of tradition, not only an attitude of “get rid of what doesn’t work” but a dogma of “the institutions of the past are evil and must be destroyed.”

After this point we can lump the rest as various shades and swaths of Social Justice Warrior. These were so radical that the 80’s and 90’s liberals were even appalled. Thus the skeptic community coalesced. Their core principles were things like anti-collectivism, atheism, anti-traditionalism, anti-racism, economic protections for the working class, increased social spending, etc. Funnily, it was not to their advantage. The anti-collectivist stance made them, even to this day, very staunchly hostile to the notion of coming to a consensus or using social pressure to reinforce and project a unified message. Their group cohesion depended on a very libertarian notion of individualist self-interest, “I will only be involved with you if it benefits me.” It is still very early, but based on your point of view, the war against Social Justice has been won. In common language most young people know what Social Justice Warriors are and disagree with them. They still need to be removed from institutions, but that takes time more than anything, decades even. With the war with Social Justice beaten according to some, in particular the 90’s progressives. With them they do not want things like punishment for whites or reparations to non-whites, but what they do want is a racial agenda to specifically ensure the equality of non-whites to whites. They may tell you, “We want equality, meaning equality of opportunity.” However, they want equity. Because of their anti-racist stance, if all the races in a society are given equal opportunities and other races aren’t suppressing them in someway, then on average equity is achieved. However, this is not the case in reality. When other races do not achieve a similar result despite getting the same opportunities and as far as a cursory examination can ascertain there is no racism holding them back, and the primary indicator of this discrepancy has the highest correlation along with race, the 90’s progressives cannot accept this and start to create narratives and theories of internal biases that must be eliminated. Contrasted with the pre-90’s liberals, if there is equal opportunity even if all cases fail miserably, then it is each individual’s fault for their own failures.

You must understand this crucial difference. The pre-90’s liberals are concerned as far as race goes, to remove explicit structural roadblocks based on race, if they fail after that then too bad. With the 90’s progressives, if the structural racism is removed and the results do not improve or the disparity completely dissolved, then there must be subtle racism in society that must be gotten rid of. This is the source of the divide. The progressives cannot tolerate an opposition to their anti-racism stance, because this is confirmation that their narrative that there is implicit racism in society that they must destroy. The liberals don’t want any explicit structural institutions that are racist, but also don’t want any explicit structural institutions that combat and suppress implicit, subtle, or personal racism. We can see why the skeptic community is dividing. The liberals only wanted to combat the Social Justice Warriors because they were realistically projecting race based structural institutions into politics. The progressives wanted to do that too, however they want to go a step further and create institutions that openly combat race based biases. With the rise of the Alt-right, the liberals rightly so, do not see a realistic projecting of implementing race based structures or institutions they advocate for. However, the progressives see the open and honest advocating of racism as a direct threat to their core philosophy and a completely unacceptable thing within the political discourse.

I reached out to members on both sides of the split. Sargon of Akkad aka. Carl Benjamin[ https://www.youtube.com/user/SargonofAkkad100 ] who is a “Classical Liberal” who is on the liberal side of my framing of the divide gave this comment on the schism, “It is yet one more purity test in a sea of moral self-aggrandisement. Hard work is self-evident and self-justifying…” Those whom I attempted to contact on the progressive side did not reply. A very clear point of contention in the community is over the drama between the youtubers Sargon of Akkad and Spinosauruskin. The complaints of spino and the progressives being that Sargon and the liberals do not criticize and attack the right enough. The groups may or may not realize the philosophical basis of these complaints, but even if they did, they would not save the skeptic community for the only thing that held them together was the mutual benefit of standing together against the same enemy. With that enemy changed, with one part considering it an enemy just as bad as the previous, and the other not considering it an enemy worth the time to do a serious campaign the progressive group understandably gets outraged at a perceived betrayal of what they believed was a shared principle. The liberal group responding understandably mad at a perceived purity spiral by the other group, “I never agreed with everything you believe, we don’t have to agree on everything.” If you saw the skeptic community as some kind of ideal, know it never was. It was doomed to fail by virtue of its own principles, the circumstances it came about, and the political climate in which it splits.

The World of Women

Women have been conned. Feminism sprung from egalitarianism which sprung from communism is the culprit of this con. Innate differences do not mean superiority or inferiority, nor does it mean equality. Feminism in its most noble solely strives for the equality of men and women. To the egalitarian, feminist, or communist this is just common sense to strive for. It is also common sense to avoid the number thirteen to abstain from bad luck. To the meritocratic this notion is absurd. It is also absurd to attempt to put a screw in wood by using a hammer.

A position to begin would be proving inequality. The most famous quote brought up regarding equality I have heard it, “All men are created equal.” The founding fathers are great and deserve our utmost respect and honors. This ought not to be interpreted as egalitarian however. This is correctly understood as, all citizens exist inherently with the same rights, to be equally protected, without favoritism, under the law. Inequality can be proven mathematically. The law of identity states all things are equal to themselves. X=X, X equals X. Assigning a single numerical value to a person as an accurate representation is bunk. People have multiple values. If you assign enough variables, you will eventually narrow down all people to have remaining a single individual. Each trait you assign you narrow all people the variable relates to. There are finite traits that any two randomly selected individuals share, and a finite number of traits they don’t share as there are not an infinite number of possible traits. S will be defined as all traits that are shared. If comparing two random picks from all individuals and the comparison of them is S=S then both selections must be of the same individual, basically if their are no traits different from each pick, they are identical by the law of identity. The traits that are not shared will be defined as T with a subtext of the ordinal number of the trait’s recognition: T1, T2, T3, etc. It is proven that S=/=S+ T1, as zero is not a possibility in ordinal counting, as the trait it exists it is countable. This proves that no two separate individuals are equal. If no two people are equal, then no groups containing them can be equal.

Between the group of men and group of women, each group share on average share a particular trait. The women are able to interact with the world of women. The men are able to interact with the world of men. I am not talking about a physical world. We both share the same objective world, even if we did not exist it would still exist. Our shared world is called “Society.” “Patriarchy” is what is thrown at us as a buzzword. Are we living in a tribal society in which ranked authority is determined by father figures!? No. Depending on where you are it varies, but here in the USA we are an Oligarchy. Whom ever has power is not determined by gender, but instead who is willing to take money from the large international corporations. There is a reason for why feminists think there is a patriarchy. Feminism has scammed women out of their world. They have convinced women that the only standards to be judged by are male standards. We share standards obviously in our shared world. Convincing women to be judged as men is simply cruel. Whenever they experience trouble when trying to enter or measure up in an area of the world of men, they cry “sexism.” From an individual perspective, if a woman can do just as well as a man than there is no reason why they cannot. From a general collective perspective, it is worrying that they are trying to enter the world of men and leaving the world of women unattended. Human society is the structure and human development is the structure’s vertical assent. “If the goal of society is to go up, then vertical beams are the most important.” Completely false. A building with no horizontal beams will easily fall to the winds of change. The connections, the relationships, between the beams  is also completely indispensable.

I have found it to be true, the world of men is about solving problems to advance. The world of women is about emotional validation to keep us all together to advance. Women, please listen, you are the glue and supports of our entire nation. Horrifyingly I have seem that, without you holding us together, men have begun to see you as a problem to be solved. This is not a threat to you; it is a warning to us all. When men who are designed to solve problems, see you as a problem, I don’t like any possible solution when problem is an essencial part of our own people. The “best” solution I have seen is robotic androids able to become pregnant. Ironically, men used to praise women to no end, yet now, due to feminism, women have become exactly what they thought men thought of them.

Classical Liberalism and the Alt-right

I feel I am in a unique position. I espouse myself as a Nationalist Libertarian. When questioned on this I truthfully say, “It is like American National Socialism, but with domestic capitalism.” This usually puts most objections to rest. There are a few strict anti-capitalists within the alt-right, but when you add the stipulations of protectionism, monopoly busting, and nationalizing the minting of currency, they are at least sated that we have enough in common that arguing over minor issues isn’t worth the cost of the argument. As it was wonderfully said to me before, “We still need to win the war, minor policy issues can be sorted out later.” However, I feel that there is something else to Nationalist Libertarianism than just domestic capitalism. I arrived at this ideological conclusion not through the usual far right foundation of Nietzschian Nihilism or Evolian esotericism, but through a classical liberal base premises. I know how many of people I am friends with must be reeling back at my claim of this, but as I said before, I almost have the same political policies as you but with domestic capitalism. I want to lay out some premises that I cannot get behind from the strict traditionalist base.

1. I loath Monarchism

We meme and joke all the time about the God-Emperor and bringing back the aristocracy. The French Revolution was indeed a horrible thing to happen. However I cannot condone a monarchy of any kind. I uphold the Tradition of my American ancestors and firmly reject a monarch ruling America. It still irks me that Britain still has a figurehead queen, though I can not advocate for their policy as I am not British, only give my opinion and advice that they have no responsibility of heeding. Even if the king/queen/emperor was completely good, just, and effective, I would still revolt. It would be a duty to my ancestors.

2. I do believe in inherent rights

I will need to do some specific clarification about this point. In anarchist collective international ethics, the only rule is Might Makes Right. This basic principle is that outside of a system of laws, collective groups acting as cohesive units cannot be immoral. The individuals can, but as nations acting upon other nations the people of said Nation are relatively blameless. But onto the real clarification. I do not equate humans with persons. Not every human is automatically a person. Through the process of self-actualization a human species(that we know of so far) is unique that it can transform from an animal which is essentially a biological meat machine, into a person who has transcendental value. If humans were not able to become persons they would not be much different in value from other animals, however this ability to become a person is where it derives the near entirety of its value. I won’t get into what is required to be self-actualized, but it requires stoicism, self-awareness, self-reflection, and a real grasp of intent, will, and consequences. A human is treated as if they were a person(unless given evidence otherwise) because it is conducive to a better society. It is important to add that a key feature that classical liberals should agree with, but their biases don’t allow them to, is that governments do not have to protect, enforce, or uphold rights of those not within it’s jurisdiction(the people which make up the nation). No government needs to uphold the rights of a British person/citizen if they are not the British government.

3. I am a White Nationalist, but not all whites should be too

America was specifically created with being a white nation in mind. With some success we were able to combine the various ethnicities of Europe into a new sub-race we call American. This did require the abandonment of previous ties to the old cultures from which they descended. Those who did not were highly frowned upon an ostracized, such as the Irish and the Italians. White Nationalism practically can only and should only be attempted in America, Canada, and Australia. However for the people’s of Europe, I do not advocate White Nationalism. I advocate Ethnic Nationalism. The British should remain British, the French:French, the Italians:Italian, Romanians:Romanian, etc. It would be self-defeating if we forced Europeans to abandon their heritage in an effort to create a new heritage, what moral difference would there be between us and the multi-cultural dystopian nightmare of the EU. When Germany annexed France, they did not attempt to turn the French into German Nationalists, they helped and advocated for the French to find their heritage and become French Nationalists.

There are probably numerous points I could go over, but I believe these are the key three that needed to be clarified at this point in time. If you would like me to discuss any ideas about Nationalism, National Socialism, or Nationalist Libertarianism, I would be happy to talk to you on my Twitter @col_roll, or if you are invested enough to make a video on these points I would be happy to watch it and consider your points.