Cannon Hinnant & The State Sanctioned Violence Against Whites
On Sunday, August 9, 2020, five-year-old Cannon Hinnant, a small white child set to start kindergarten later this month, was shot in the head outside of his home in Wilson, North Carolina, while riding his bicycle in front of his sisters. Cannon was shot at close range by his black neighbor of several years, Darius N. Sessoms.
Sessoms was friendly with the Hinnant family, he had been to their home for dinner the night before the killing. Sessoms has been arrested, details are still coming out, rumors are circulating as to the nature of the relationship between Sessoms and the mother and father of Cannon.
Many have taken to social media to express their outrage at the fact that while a black drug addict, George Floyd, received murals, non-stop mainstream press coverage, global support, and a funeral that would not have been out of place for a seventeenth-century Monarch, there was virtually no mention nationally of Cannon being executed by a black neighbor. The contrast people were making, asking why a black criminal received non-stop coverage while a young white boy killed received none, was met with extreme derision even among so-called and self-titled Conservatives.
When asking why there were no protests, riots, murals, hate crime charges, or media coverage of the death of Cannon, the responses varied from predictable, to anti-white, to Talmudic. Many replied that there was no international outrage because the killer was not a cop, others argued that it was merely a "random" or "individual crime", thereby not warranting further examination because there was no systemic nature to the ordeal. Others noted that the killer was caught and jailed, thereby indicating that "justice will be served." I do not believe any of these replies accurately refute the legitimate concerns of the white community, nor do I believe they address the central issue being raised.
As one “conservative” said, this is a “one-off” case and not connected to a larger national story. If that were true, why is it that when white people are rude to blacks or call the police on them, it becomes a national story with the races specifically in the headlines?
[CNN tweets that show a white calling the cops on a black is national news worthy, but when a white child is killed, no mention of race. ]
A great number of white people will think because the boy's killer has been arrested that "justice will be served", without realizing the entire system of forcing whites to live with hostile out-groups by legal mandate is the true injustice, and the murder of Cannon was a predictable and inevitable result of that injustice. Picking your neighbors is a right we once had that was taken. Justice will not be served even if Cannon’s killer is quickly executed for the reason that a systemic issue of injustice cannot be corrected by responding to only individual incidents within the larger framework of injustice.
Forcing whites to live side-by-side non-whites, especially blacks and Hispanics, who commit significantly more violent crimes than whites, and who both disproportionality target whites, is a systemic policy in place that actively harms whites. Whites have no choice, it is illegal to exclude non-whites from your neighborhood due to the Fair Housing Act, and if you do happen to live in a white area, HUD programs have been in place that seek to increase the number of non-whites in your area. Even if you make the deliberate effort to move to an area that is as white as you can find or afford, the U.S. government has seen to it that you cannot escape diversity. We are forced by black letter law to live around people who attack us and steal from us at incredible rates. This is a true and legitimate example of structural and institutional policies in place to an ethnic group.
When a white is harmed or killed by a non-white, nobody talks about it being part of a larger system of institutionalized policies that create harm disproportionally towards whites. The crimes against our race are often dismissed as “random” acts of violence, or “individual crimes” that somehow exist in a vacuum. Far from being random or individual or even unpredictable, whites being victimized by non-whites is not only very predictable and part of a much larger issue, but it is also one of the most serious dangers whites face in diverse and multi-racial societies. Each yeah, over one-million white people are violently attacked by blacks and Hispanics per the latest FBI data on crime. Blacks and Hispanics disproportionately target whites for the crimes, meaning as the number of non-whites in an area increases, so too does the chance that a white person becomes the victim of violent crime by an order of magnitude. Put another way, although intraracial crime does of course exist, whites have a much lower chance of being the victim of violent crime in an all-white society, than they do in a society that forced them to intermingle with blacks and Hispanics. Other races too pose a threat, but of a different variety, if you increase the number of Jews in a society, the odds that a white will be the victim of a media apparatus that demonizes them and provides justification for blacks to attack them also increases. I have often seen these criticisms mocked by people asking me if I’m afraid of non-whites, I’m personally not at all, but I do worry about the safety of elderly whites, white children, and white women, who do not have the same capacity for self-defense and violence that somebody similarly situated to myself might possess.
If it’s random, individual, and inexplicable or better yet, “just about evil and not race” then any solution is taken off the table immediately. This line of reasoning is injected into the public by design. They would like us to believe all of these attacks are totally random and nobody has anyway to predict the likelihood, which, if true, means there is no way to find a solution. That’s the point. But if it’s a pattern in place due to policies, changes can be made, what they do not want.
I’ve seen several comments that try to dismiss the issue of whites, like Cannon, being killed or attacked by non-whites by saying something along the lines that intraracial crime is higher than interracial crime. In essence these people are saying more whites are killed by other whites, than by blacks or non-whites. The glaring issue with this argument is that it does not account for rates of crime among whites and non-whites, nor population sizes. It’s only because whites are still the majority of people in the USA that this is the case. The homicide rate among whites has averaged about 4.5 per 100,000 people over the past 30 years, the rate for blacks is about 34 per 100,000, a difference of more than seven times.What this means in the real world is that the rates of whites being killed or attacked by blacks goes up significantly with both the proximity to blacks, and as the black and non-white population increases. To further illustrate how this operates, imagine two cities, one 100% white, one 100% black, the murder and violent crime rate in the white city is very low, while the murder and violent crime rate in the black city is very high. Those living in the white city as a result would have a lower chance of being attacked or killed than the residents of the black city. If we were to take 50% of the population of each city and swap them, the victimization rate of whites would skyrocket, and the rate of victimization among blacks would drop. This is the crux of the issue we face. As non-whites increase in numbers and we are forced to integrate with them, the chance of being killed, attacked, or having your property stolen or damages increases by an order of magnitude.
There is a key issue surrounding this debate about whites being attacked and killed by blacks, and blacks being killed by police, which is the animating belief of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. As I've discussed before, blacks are not truly killed by police at a disproportionate rate to their levels of criminality. The narrative that BLM and the mainstream media portray is that blacks are killed by police, especially white police, at a rate that is much higher than whites. The rate is only higher when you compare the rates of death by a cop at a pure per-capita rate, when you account for the different levels of crime committed by blacks and whites, especially violent crime, you see that whites are killed more often by police per levels of police interaction and crime committed. Crime, especially violent crime rates, are a much better indicator for police interaction than population percentages. With that out of the way, the reason people say things like whites being killed by blacks is not the same as blacks being killed by white police is due to seeing cops as state actors or the killing being seen as state sanctioned. "Cops killing people" is seen as more egregious among blacks than the regular city or gang violence due to it being seen as "state sanctioned", essentially. Because the police are viewed as state actors, even when they do not follow protocol or training or do what they are told, anything done by the cops will be seen as being done to a person by the state or country or "system" as a whole. Which is then seen as a different type of violence fundamentally. Being killed or attacked at the corner store is viewed as unfortunate, but almost inevitable or “part and parcel.” Being killed by the government engenders another type of outrage. Being killed by the people tasked with protecting you, that you pay with your tax dollars, seems far worse. And on some level it is true, it’s why we are still justifiably upset about the events that took place at Ruby Ridge and Waco, even after all these years.
When people say “sure, the death of Cannon is sad, but it’s not the same as George Floyd’s death,” what they are saying is “that death is a random event, police killing people is part of a larger, systemic issue.” The injustice of being killed grows when it's done by the people who were there to allegedly keep you safe. True. Now let us turn to our situation and people like Cannon Hinnant, Ebba Akerlund, or Reese Bowman or Pat Mahaney and all the others. They were all killed by what appeared to be, at first glance, to the laymen, as what I'll call "random non-white violence". Most whites view these deaths as sad, as a shame, as evil even, but they incorrectly saw them as "random" and not state action or state-sanctioned, much how blacks view gang violence, just part of life. This is not the case. All of those deaths I mentioned, and all the others, are absolutely state-sanctioned. Moreso than when a cop kills somebody.
What is more "state sanctioned"? A cop who doesn't do what he's supposed to do and kills a suspect (The BLM issue), or when a government creates a situation by law and is vigorously enforced, which ends in the violent death of white men, women, and children? (our issue).
I believe the latter. Not only does has the government created and forced us into the dangerous situation of living in close proximity to non-whites, they have ensured there is no option to opt-out. You cannot escape the forced integration. If you even speak about the issues, you’ll be defamed as a white separatist, a neo-Nazi, a white supremacist, and more, for wanting a safe society for your people. Further, the government and law enforcement know about this data, they are the ones (for now) who provide the information about criminality by race. The fact that they know whites are the disproportionate victims of interracial crime, while the same government enforced diversity and mass-migration, is more evidence to support my theory that these crimes are entirely state sanctioned.
But for predatory-migration and forced diversity, Cannon, Ebba, Pat, Reese, and all the others, would be alive today. Their governments forced them into a dangerous situation, lied to them about how dangerous it was, and then let them be killed. They released a violent and savage people upon them, fully knowing the consequences.
The system of legal regimes in place created not merely a dangerous society for whites, but one that we were already aware of, which is why we had strict migration laws and strict state laws to begin with, that prevented unnecessary mingling of peoples.
This was done by deliberate effort, by people who already knew what the outcomes would be. Every white death and abuse that happens at the hands of a person who would not have even been in this nation or society 50 or 100 years ago, is in-fact, stat sanctioned.
Another issue surrounding the death of Cannon Hinnant in light of the George Floyd coverage is the media itself. People have questioned why the media is so interested in covering the death of a felon and not a young white boy, a question that begins to broach the topic of race and crime. What these people are ultimately asking is why when a black person is killed by a white person does the media make the races very clear as if whites were hunting down blacks, but when a white is killed or attacked by a black (the far more common occurrence) is the crime framed in a way that makes it seem almost accidental. The simple answer is that the media is owned by people who hate whites and want them to be not only attacked but to also be unaware of the danger they face daily by living around non-whites.
There is no explanation to why the mainstream media would report on things like a white person calling the police on a black or pulling a pistol on one in self-defense while making the races explicit in the headline, while not reporting on actual violent crimes against whites in such an explicit way unless they were actively trying to create an atmosphere of anti-white sentiment and hostility while covering for the crimes of non-whites against whites.
[Notice that race is included in one, not the other]
Cannon Hinnant was not simply killed by his black neighbor Darius N. Sessoms. Cannon was killed by the people who fought to end racially restrictive housing covenants, by the people who wrote and introduced the Fair Housing Act, by the people who voted for racial integration of housing. Cannon was killed by a structured legal regime that ensures white families are not able to live only with whites, even those who make the deliberate effort to try.
Ebba Akerlund was not merely killed by Rakhmat Akilov, the Arab “refugee” who ran Ebba over in a truck as she walked home in her homeland of Sweden. The plot against Swedish society that would eventually kill Ebba started decades before, when David Schwarz, a Jewish migrant to Sweden, began to lobby for open borders in the nation. Ebba was killed by Schwarz and Jews like himself, she was killed by the Swedish traitors who agreed to go along with the open-border scheme leading to predatory migration. Ebba was killed by everybody who even passively supported bringing non-whites into Sweden.
Reese Bowman and Pat Mahaney were killed similarly, not simply by the blacks who took their lives in horrific ways, but by the Civil Rights Act, all those who voted for it, those who fight today to enforce racial integration, those who insist were are all the same race, with the same values, the same ability to create and maintain civilization, and those who even so much as call a person "racist" for wanting to live among their own. At the very least, all of these people are accessories to murder. Without their aid and support, none of those deaths would have been possible.
Without predatory migration and forced racial integration, these crimes, along with the other one-million or so each year, could never happen. The reason for immigration laws that allowed only whites to enter a nation, or laws that gave whites the ability to create their own neighborhoods and towns and gave them the right to exclude non-whites and Jews from their towns and businesses, was to prevent exactly what is happening today. These policies were not drawn out of spite or malice or hatred for the other, but for protection for their own kind. The exact thing any rational lawmaker would do who cares about their family and race and advocates for their interests.
One-million whites per year attacked by non-whites is an epidemic and a clear pattern of behavior with much more compelling evidence than the BLM narrative. Some contend that these crimes, although disproportionate, do not show racial motivation, yet anytime a black is “victimized” by a white, racial motivation is always implied. Even if we take this statement at value, and say non-whites attacking whites is not explicitly racially motivated, we can use the data to see a broader pattern of violence directed at whites to make policy changes all the same. When John Marvin Weed was sucker-punched and ultimately killed by black teens at a fair last summer, or when a BLM mob beat a white man unconscious in the street, or when a pack of blacks beat a man in the parking lot while leaving a corner store, we don’t need a more evidence that the attackers were anti-white. The results speak for themselves.
In short, even if specific crimes within the pattern are not explicitly racially motived, as with the case of Cannon, we know many are, as in the cases of Reese, Ebba, and Pat, and further, we know the systemic structure that allows the crimes to happen is racially motivated with an anti-white bent. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence that we demand changes as a community and begin to work to protect ourselves as a community.
None of these deaths should have happened. None of the gang-rapes should have happened. None of the petty property crimes should have happened. In a society that creates laws to protect their own, they couldn't happen. Justice for Cannon won't happen because allowing his killer to live out his days in prison at the expense of white taxpayers is not justice. Justice cannot happen because, in a just society, this would have never happened to begin with. It feels more and more like justice is becoming an abstract concept, I hope that at a certain point, whites no longer ask for justice but begin taking revenge on all those responsible.
In a just society, it would not be illegal to keep yourself away from groups of people, even entire races, who have a violent and criminal propensity. As the BLM movement and its supporters contend, their destruction of property and businesses and even attacks on random whites is okay because they are protesting what they think are systemic policies which target them unfairly. If whites were to adopt this tactic, justice might look like whites bulldozing the homes of blacks that live near them, forcing those who support more racial integration and mass migration to live exclusively in the parts of town where the most crime occurs. For us, justice means the total removal of these interlopers and parasites from our society and legal regimes that allow us to protect ourselves once more. Their mere existence among us is terrorism.
The evidence is clear. The systemic issue of whites being attacked by non-whites is far more common, hidden, and pervasive that anything blacks face at the hands of police. Whites have a far greater chance of being attacked or killed by blacks than blacks do of being killed by police. It’s very obvious that we do not in-fact live under white supremacy, if that were the case, I cannot imagine how a society would give the killers of white men, woman, and children, probation, as in the cases of John Weed and Pat Mahaney. It’s inconceivable to me that under true white supremacy, blacks and other non-whites would be free to attack whites in broad daylight, and that the lying Jewish press would be allowed to defame the white race constantly, portraying them as the ones threatening the safety of others.
It feels surreal even writing this or having to say it, but a society where a child cannot ride their bicycle safely due to government policies, or go to the corner store at night safety, will never be a just society. One thing is for certain, we shouldn’t have to live this way.
Going forward I will continue to maintain a two-prong approach to this struggle. The first, to make as many whites aware of the danger they are in as I can. To warn them of the dangers they face due to physical proximity to non-whites, to explain that these dangers are not random or isolated, but part of a broad structure of anti-white policies that were implemented and are upheld by those who hate our race to the core. And second, to bring whites together in a way where we can leverage our numbers and resources to attempt to roll-back all of these destructive policies, while at the same time building safe, parallel societies for ourselves.
I'm slowly learning how to make videos! after a couple friends had run-ins with the power structure and conversations we've had, I put this together about creating a structure that can withstand the attacks we face so that we can endure.
As time goes on i'll get better at making these and will continue to produce them. Thank you all so much!
2,800 Words ~13 minute reading time *Please open the attached image at the bottom of the text and refer to it while reading.*
I believe there is a hierarchy/pyramid to culture, I have been working on this theory for a while now, I think it's developed enough to at least introduce the concept and framework here as a blog post. It will deal with how culture operates both in theory and conceptually, as well as in practice with examples of people interacting with culture in day-to-day life experiences. It will also deal with what I view as anti-culture, where I see culture as a positive force that creates civilization and beauty, I see anti-culture as the inverse, a force that destroys civilization and beauty. The assumption that high-culture and beauty are inherent is made, I will not be defending or explaining that I do not believe beauty or culture are subjective matters.
This will seek to answer the “what is culture” trope and explore why culture is often hard to pinpoint or explain for many.
At the base level, is of course the foundation and where most people exist, as it is the broadest section. That is existing in the culture while not being aware of it, going about their daily lives in both the Unaware and Mindless Consumption blocks. These people, really through no fault of their own, exist between the worlds of culture and anti-culture. These people are busy in their day-to-day lives, trying to make ends meet, raising children, working too many hours, stuck in traffic, perhaps they do not have the cognitive ability or resources to understand a plane beyond their own existence. As a concrete example, suppose one of these people in the base levels fly on an airplane, listen to music, and on the plane watch some Hollywood produced filth on their phone. They are participating in both culture and anti-culture, as the two both exist heavily in modern society, often side-by-side.
You fly on airplanes or listen to music or go into a building and so on, in doing those things you are benefiting downstream of what were the products of a culture, a specific people, but maybe you don’t think about the Wright brothers or who invented a certain instrument or what people were responsible for figuring out how to build multi-story buildings or a certain architectural style that you like or who created the one you dislike. It just “is” for this level of the population. Maybe they watch football and pornography and see commercials on the television that depict dysgenic “families”, this is again the blurring of culture with anti-culture, existing in both planes. These people often enjoy pornography, get very excited for the next Avengers movie (or whatever is being pumped out en masse), but also enjoy Beaux-Arts architecture and will always remember their summer in Paris, without realizing why it was so special.
I understand the difficulty this broad group would have teasing apart strains of different cultures when they are currently very much mixed and integrated into modern society. As a further example consider the technology and infrastructure in place to deliver a film to the theatre or a news broadcast into your home. All of the technology that must be in place for a film to have been recorded, transmitted, the electric grid, the freeway system you used to get to the mall to see a movie, all of that was created, built, and maintained almost exclusively by European people. However, you may be watching a news broadcast funded by Bloomberg or a film directed by Weinstein, a mixing of cultures, a mixing of the creation and the destruction. Going through your daily life with all the stress that entails, to be able to have the extra cognitive resources available to actively work on pulling apart these often tangled webs is incredible. A non-white can deliver a piece of anti-white messaging on technology and infrastructure that only whites could have developed.
We’ll use two sets of examples to show how this works in practice a bit more, one positive and one negative.
For the negative examples, we consider mainstream media and pornography. At the lowest level, the broadest group, are people who consume the media and pornography at face value. They are both in the Unaware and Mindless Consumption levels, floating between levels, above and below, depending on what they mindlessly consume today. They don't ever truly question anything, they exist, floating through life, through space and time.
For the positive examples let us consider a novel, a political treatise, a film, a piece of art, and so on. At the base level are people consuming them and not thinking they are even part of a culture that is specific to a group of people. They may consume these mediums from various groups that even have conflicting messaging. Again, floating through life, like a leaf down a stream. The dissonance and conflicts, the lies and truths, none of that seems to bother them for one reason or another. They'll mostly believe what the status quo tells them. For good and bad.
Anybody can fly on an airplane, but not many can work on them, understand them, fly them, create better ones, and maybe most importantly, have kids that will be able to do so as well.
I have not assigned a percentage to these levels, but for the sake of clarity let's say the Base levels are 85%, the Aware levels are 5%, Curators, Producers, and Patrons make up the next 4%, and the Guardians are the 1% or so of the population. Truthfully, the top level is probably something more like 1 in 10,000 or more.
The next level up is presumably a bit narrower set of people who experience these things but realize they are a product of a certain people, that flight for example, wasn’t the “world’s culture” or from “Latin culture”. They recognize are might even seek out things that are born from European people.
This group can tell you important architects in their favorite style, they know which Hollywood directors are of our own stock and who is not but more importantly, why that matters. They know why it was the Americans and Germans and English and French who were interested in flight and why Mozart could not have been born in Ghana.
The inverse of this group is the “Enjoy + Prefer” group on the bottom half of our structure. These are the unrepentant bugmen. They actively seek out and enjoy degeneracy. You’ll find them spending their rent money on Only Fans, buying extremely expensive adult-toys and figurines, a sort of arrested development is usually found here as well. Things we find the most abhorrent, they take the most pleasure in. Given the choice between reading H.P. Lovecraft and Elie Wiesel or spending the day in the forest verses inside watching VR pornography, they will always choose the latter. You know the type. You probably work with a few of them.
The layer above the Aware segment is the Curator group. People who participate in, actively understand, and seek to continue on the specific culture. They might be somewhat of a curator or historian of the culture, a bit of a guardian on some level if you will. They know the roots of flight and the phonograph and their evolutions into the modern era. These people may collect art, artifacts, and books. They often actively seek out museums and performances that carry on the tradition, they may also participate themselves at some level. Not only are they Aware, but they also want to preserve and pass on the culture. It's a higher level of existing than "I like this more than that and why". It's "I like this, and it's important to carry on the legacy, to preserve these things, to teach others about these things, and to pass them on to the next generation."
The inverse of the Curator group is the Promotor group of anti-culture. This is essentially the mainstream media apparatus along with Hollywood, nearly 100% of elected officials at any level, and the major advertising agencies that operate in the West. They create false narratives in the media, outright lies, more often than not. But they do not produce too much beyond ads and news segments - they are more of an amplifier. The lower level of the producers of anti-culture.
Penultimate are the Producers + Patrons, the people actively producing and funding culture. This level has always existed in history along with those creating beauty and masterworks that may become timeless. The creators and patrons of culture may not even realize they are carrying on culture per se, they may be simply expressing a creative urge as an individual, but taken together we see how these individuals form the broader culture. Again, Mozart and his patrons could not have been from Ghana. Others in this category do see themselves as adding to the culture and the broader European experience in an explicit way. I think again of H.P. Lovecraft here. Where somebody like director Christopher Nolan, although adding to the collected films of those from European stock, is somebody who perhaps does not see himself as explicitly European. Where I assume Mel Gibson does. I have no personal knowledge of Nolan, I have reason to suspect he does indeed know, but for the sake of argument here, let’s say he doesn’t, or simply substitute for one who doesn’t, but still adds to the overall collection of works by Europeans.
I use the term Patron here because there is a slight demarcation between people who “fund” culture at this level and those who “vote with their dollar.” We see this in both extremes of our structure. Buying a film you enjoy does help fund that production, but being a person who writes a check to get the film started, who believed in the vision when it was a mere concept in the mind of an artist, is clearly a higher level. Similarly, in the anti-culture section, paying for a pornography subscription monthly is one thing, being the person or group who funded the pornography studio to begin with is another.
The inverse of the Producers + Patrons level will have the people producing the filth and degeneracy, the Subverters + Gatekeepers. Equally as important as their production of anti-culture, is their gatekeeping function, it’s not enough to produce anti-beauty, they seek to keep those who want to create beauty out of the business. People with the “wrong views” struggle to make it, or find it downright impossible to get into Hollywood, the mainstream media, music industry, contemporary art museums and art schools, top universities, top positions in government and business. They keep people who might damage their system from having a seat at the table. We have to build our own. As with the inverse, some of these people see themselves as active subverters, others are merely expressing their "creative" urges that their DNA dictates. Some create pornography because they believe it is their calling, others have famously remarked they must create smut because of their hatred of Christ and Europeans. Some people work to bring out mass-migration into the West out of some urge or co-ethnic interests, others had more malicious intent from the start. The end result is the same, contributing to anti-culture, anti-beauty, and subversion of the proper culture and tradition of a people.
In the dark trench of the anti-beauty structure exits the people who are the most dangerous. They are not useful idiots or mindless consumers, they are not those who merely prefer and enjoy the rot of civilization, they do not simply promote the decay as a good thing, they do not even necessarily produce or gatekeep anything themselves, they are the orchestrators. The people with the necessary funds and connections to keep the rest on schedule and on track. For all their evil and faults, they are brilliant in their own way, possessing the ability to have a birds-eye-view of the entire structure, with the will-to-power needed to see their haunting image reflected upon them in the broader culture. Their disease and ugliness are infectious, Midas, if he had a touch of decomposition and rot, instead of gold. These people are dangerous to the core. Never underestimate the lengths they will go, for nothing is off-limits, not your life, not your children, certainly not your livelihood. Nothing. This cabal makes everything else possible down the pyramid.
“Culture” is at heart the way of life of a certain group of people. It includes the customs and traditions, the creations of the people, their art and architectural styles, the physical and mental characteristics that they share commonly, and ultimately the society they create together.
In today’s “marketplace of ideas” (I suppose this is the black market of ideas), I do not believe many have included the shared physical and mental characteristics of a people as part of their culture. It’s of course, a very exclusive and limited view. The root of culture is DNA, therefore part of culture must also include DNA necessarily. I could perhaps move to Japan, dress as the Japanese do, either traditionally or contemporarily, learn the language, learn to prepare their food, build in their vernacular architectural styles, maybe mimic some of their art, adopt their day-to-day methods of interacting with each other, but one look at me, even if I spent a lifetime there, you would know I am not Japanese. At best, I would be mimicking their culture very well, but it cannot ever be my own.
It seems the majority of people cannot grasp the concept of culture for the simple reason that they exist on a lower plane of consciousness and understanding. Those in the Base Unaware and Mindless Consumption levels of our social structure struggle to conceptualize things beyond themselves, or at least, beyond a certain level or plane. This can all be further obfuscated by sub-cultures and overlapping cultures. For example, in the United States, there may be a broad culture, that gets more and more particular as it is regionalized and localized. Think of the French Quarter opposed to Martha's Vineyard. They are different culturally, just like your family has some different customs and ways of living than mine. Just like you and your siblings are not the same, but you still belong to the same family. Culture is like that too. German culture is not French culture, but they belong to European culture and are in the same family, where Ghana culture or Somali culture is not in that family but in the African family of cultures. Just as there is a difference between German and French culture, Ghana and Somali culture, there is a difference between Europe as a whole and Africa as a whole. You may diverge in ways from your siblings, but you are still in the same family. Culture operates similarly on a larger scale, as it includes many more families.
At the absolute precipice are the Guardians of culture, sitting in symbolic ivory towers with watchful eyes and vengeful hearts, protecting what is rightfully theirs by inherited succession. At this juncture in history, these people are woefully outnumbered by their "peers" at the equivalent level of the anti-beauty structure, this was not always the case, but it is certainly so today. To a woeful disproportion we are outnumbered and out-funded, likely even being outworked. The enemy is relentless. It is easier to be relentless with what appears to be infinite resources, with that said, this is where we find ourselves. As with our counter-parts in the inverse, the Guardians see the whole playing field. Just as they can sniff us out and root us from their ranks, we can also detect them by their deeds and words alone.
A war rages on, primarily fought between the Guardians and the Subverters. Each side is trying to recruit more and more people and resources to their side at the varying levels that operate beneath them. It’s an incredibly unconventional war, one that is not fought in trenches or jungles or concrete buildings in the desert. It is a war being waged from the top-floors of glass plated skyscrapers in places like NYC, Chicago, and Hollywood. For now, the Guardians remain largely scattered, hiding for cover in the shadows and alleyways, lobbing back what they can from their homes, on their mobile phones while on the metro, and in-between shifts at work. Control and power still comes from controlling land and capital, as with wars of past eras, but this time it’s not being taken by men on siege-towers or tanks, but though strategic networks of financiers, media moguls, and well-paid propagandists. Those who seek to destroy what our ancestors created have a tremendous head-start on us. That is for certain. We do have some advantages, this is asymmetric, I do not believe the same resources are required to tell the truth as are required to ensure people believe obvious lies.
Guardians are tasked with the sacred honor of carrying on the civilization and culture. Monks who made duplicates of ancient texts in times of war and chaos to ensure the contents therein would not be lost to the eons were of the Guardians of their time. There are people today, like those at Counter-Currents, who are keeping the works of Yockey, Jonathan Bowden, and Savitri Devi in print, others are keeping the legacy of Pierce and Rockwell alive. They are in ways the modern-day version of those monks. There are those among us who spend endless hours figuring out who is behind each assault to our people, naming them, warning others to make safe their family and friends from the endless affronts.
When entire cultures and civilizations are lost, and they have been lost over and over again, there is no coming back. The times we find ourselves in are dark indeed, there is no question there, only to the degree and perhaps how close we stand to the edge looking down. That said, we have been given a task that most of our people were never aware existed. With that, we have the opportunity to take our places again, to re-enter the scene of history on the main stage, and stand on hallowed ground amid the absolute finest men and women that Europe ever had to offer the world.
The Last Mall Rat OR The Decline and Transformation of The American Mall
Friday nights were always my favorite growing up. My dad used to take me to this little pizza place and then we would rent movies and video games from the rental store with an arcade across the street. They had all sorts of arcade games, movies, rental games, snacks, a popcorn machine, it was wonderful. We would race each other in the Cruis'N World or RUSH arcades.
Friday nights felt like you had the entire world in front of you. That feeling of relief when you walk out of class or work on Friday afternoon is something I still enjoy. One of the few things I have left, really.
I still remember wandering around the video store looking for things to rent. Buying snacks, sometimes finding an old movie poster or used video game for sale. Now and then I still go to big box retail store and wander through the DVD and snack aisles and reminisce about how things were not too long ago.
When I look back they some of the best weekends of my life as a kid, they were never anything too special. Being home from school on a Friday, going to the VHS store, the pizza store, the mall, and the arcade with my dad and waiting for my mom to come home from work.
I went to the malls a lot Friday nights too. I still go frequently, however, more and more, with each passing season, I feel like more of a stranger in the place I grew up. There are days I’ve been sitting in the food court only to look around and realize I was the only White person I could see.
I’m not even that old, but I can remember when things were better and not filled to the edge with third-world invaders speaking foreign tongues, wearing incredibly alien clothing.
I walk through the cities alone now quite a lot, and know the type of childhood I had is becoming exceedingly rare. Single motherhood rates, Whiteflight, destroyed social capital. It's all fleeing so quickly. Nearly unrecognizable. I feel great sorrow for today's children.
My last semester in undergrad was Spring 2017, three years ago. The winter was crisp, not harsh at all, I remember spending quite a few February days going on long walks, followed by an early, warm spring, with not much rain. It was probably the nicest time in my adult life that I can remember. My schedule was light, a few last classes to finish my degree, I had plenty of time to read and write. I read The Wright Bros on the 11th-floor reading room at the Thompson library with beautiful panoramic views of the sunsets, it would become one of my all time favorites. I wrote much of my first book and a few articles that semester around campus.
There was great relief knowing I was nearly finished. I could enjoy every minute of my time on campus, and I did. I took walks daily, go lift at the RPAC between classes, go for runs around campus or along the river, sit in the sauna or hot tub for a bit, then move on to where I had to be next. Nothing was hurried. My schedule was spread through the days and the week. Everywhere I went on campus and around town I would take time to look and appreciate the architecture of campus, the landscape design, and the little woodland creatures that lived at Mirror Lake hollow I would visit with. I packed a bag of cracked corn in my backpack each day to feed any ducks or squirrels that came my way – and quite a few did after figuring out I was the guy with cracked corn in his jacket pocket.
I spent many afternoons on the Oval with a close childhood friend playing football and throwing Frisbee together. He had a job not far from campus, up High Street a couple miles, it enabled him to spend a lot of time with me chatting and joking after he got off work for the day. We would find a new spot to eat dinner on the patios or rooftops at places all along High Street. I think we visited nearly every bar and restaurant on the campus area had to offer those months, with a few exceptions - fare we did not find agreeable to our sensibilities.
Spending evenings with somebody I had known longer than I did not, people watching, checking out new places and visiting old favorites, laughing, joking, having a beer or two, talking to pretty women, walking to the next place. I realized then it was idyllic, but later I would see it was one of the most entrancing springtimes of my life.
That was three years ago.
This spring is quite different. I had been looking forward to this spring semester for the past three years. Back then, I was finishing undergrad, now I am finishing law school. This spring could have been particularly grand itself. An advanced degree, closer relationships with old friends, great relationships with new friends I made in law school, my writing career is now more solidified with a catalog of work to show for the past three years of effort, and a law degree weeks away. The makings for another set of lifelong memories were all there.
Then, due to a steadfast commitment to open-borders, deference to the “free market”, and government negligence, the memories of this last semester of my formal education will not be filled with playing football in the grass with friends old and new, but with seeing anxious and tense people at the market wearing face masks and gloves dotting the cityscape on the occasions I do venture out.
I know it's something small. Probably insignificant. I know people are struggling far more than I am, people who are worried about homelessness, health issues, people have lost their lives, others who have lost loved ones. That, of course, is not lost on me, and the first piece I wrote discussing COVID-19 dealt with those grave considerations. With that said, it's often the small things that determine the quality of our lives. I was looking forward to spending this semester with my friends, having beers on rooftops and patios, eating at different places around town and campus, staying out way too late, and having some stories to tell, the way I do when I look back on my last spring in undergrad.
There are many wonderful memories that I'll never get to have due to this chain of events, none of which should have happened. We never should have had open borders. We never should have been outsourcing most of our manufacturing. There never should have been wet-markets. There never should have been the ability to travel back and forth to nations experiencing viral epidemics. There never should have been any hesitation to act. All of this current malaise, at every single previous stage, was easily foreseeable, and thus avoidable.
Sure, I'm a little annoyed that I can’t go grab a grilled cheese with fries and a beer. More notably, I'm upset that the opportunity to spend time with old friends and to strengthen bonds with new friends has been stolen from me. Stolen from all of us. I genuinely feel sorry for the graduates of 2020. How different my life was then, than theirs is now. I'm mad about the memories I’ll never get to have, about the future that was stolen.
There are some things where you don’t get a second run. For me, albeit insignificant in the grand scheme, this is one of those times. If all I lose during this pandemic is the ability to spend time with people I care about and the lost opportunity to make more memories, I’ll consider myself incredibly fortunate. With that said, it’s a loss I still feel greatly, in part by knowing that so many others will lose so much more.
I'll probably be angry about this series of events for the rest of my life.
It's always the little things that get taken for granted. Three years ago I truly appreciated where I was in life and that somebody like me was able to enjoy and graduate from a place like the Ohio State University. However, I never thought being able to walk down High Street with friends and stopping in a little dive bar for a drink would be one of the things that get taken in such a spectacular fashion.
When I look back on this time in my life, I'm sure it will not be as lucid in my mind as the spring of 2017. The spring of 2020 will be a blur of news cycles, finishing law school online, my writings documenting these times, and maybe the constant feeling of angst that has engulfed most of society. I won't have the idyllic ending to my law school career as I did three years ago. I won't be able to look back with the same fondness. But maybe, we'll be able to take this and build something that protects us in the future. I've been looking back to spring 2017 so much because I desperately am holding onto those memories in hopes I'll be able to build something where all of my people can have their spring of 2017. Maybe we can build something that ensures the COVID-spring was an aberration in the history of an otherwise tremendous people who look backward, while also forward to a place that doesn't quite exist, but it could some fine day.
Coronavirus, or COVID-19, the virus which originated in China, has now swept the globe. People are sick, many have died, there is widespread panic, entire nations have been shut down, and daily life has been disrupted virtually everywhere at this point.
The virus is both more infectious and more deadly than the common flu, though it is being compared to the flu by some due to overlapping symptoms.
COVID-19 first appeared in China sometime in November of 2019. One theory of the virus’ inception is that it came from a Chinese “wet market,” where live animals are sold in the open, including dogs, cats, fox pups, koalas, bats, and other "meats" that are uncommon to Europeans. Whether or not this theory proves to be factual remains to be seen. However, no matter where the virus originated, the barbaric practices of the dog meat trade, among others, should not be ignored. If nothing else comes from the wet market theory, we should understand the Chinese are radically alien people, who do not leave their customs at the border when they arrive in Europe or the United States. Pets have been found on countless occasions at these open-air markets; kittens and pups with collars and nametags are not uncommon. These practices, along with other anti-nature barbarisms such as shark-finning, are common throughout all of China, Korea, Japan, and the rest of Asia. These are not the type of people I want as neighbors under any circumstances.
With that said, the hostile media and diaspora Asians living in the U.S. and Europe have, on some level, picked up on this sentiment. There was general disgust at the revelation for many people at the types of “food” the Chinese and others were eating, along with the horrific methods of preparing the “food,” such as skinning and boiling dogs and cats while alive. Then there were legitimate examples of early “social distancing” on public transit, to which Asians noticed and took offense. Some of the reports from the mainstream media:
"A new virus stirs up ancient hatred,” Chinese columnist Jeff Yang wrote. "Across the internet, we've seen widespread eruptions of racist scapegoating, blaming Chinese for a disease that has so far only killed Chinese.” Yang’s claim of racism is what others would call basic observation. If the virus started in China, why would we “blame" the Irish, for example? Why would we pretend it didn't start in China? Yang is asking us to deny reality. If our nation was run by competent people, they might have proactively ensured nobody came into the U.S. from China without being quarantined—or, better yet, banned all travel to and from.
The ADL’s predictable blog post, titled “Extremists Use Coronavirus to Advance Racist, Conspiratorial Agendas,” was sure to make readers know the real issue is not a rapidly spreading pathogen with lethal potential, but the fact that people are saying unflattering things on the internet.
“Fear of coronavirus fuels racist sentiment targeting Asians” headlines the truly harrowing story of a random Asian in the LA Times: “I don’t know if it’s just people looking at me coughing or because I’m an Asian person coughing, they think I might have the coronavirus[.] . . . I feel like every time I cough, people are going to be uncomfortable with that. I shouldn’t have to feel that way.” Oh, you feel a little uncomfortable, and shouldn’t have to live this way? That’s funny, I feel like my entire life shouldn’t be turned upsidedown, and the lives of my elderly family members threatened because you and your co-ethnics are transmitting a global pathogen. I agreethatwe shouldn't have to live this way.
After Italy took reasonable precautions, like ending flights to and from China, a group of Chinese nationals in Italy put on a display of sorts called, "I'm not a virus. I'm a human. Eradicate the prejudice." At this display, a Chinese man offered "free hugs" to help end so-called xenophobia (the fear of the stranger). Shortly thereafter, over 1,800 Italians are dead from COVID-19, all of Italy is on lockdown, Spain and France have followed suit, and the number of Europeans infected continues to skyrocket.
Then came the day-to-day terror from the diaspora Asian community in what they found to be good-natured humor to combat “racism.” A viral tweet with over 200,000 likes read, “Coughing real loud on the subway today to see who’s racist[.]” Another Asian living in the U.S. decided to more explicitly harass a passenger, by coughing towards them, in a viral video with over 380,000 likes. Min, the Asian Twitter user, then went on to berate the woman for racism and stupidity, finally claiming she was the victim of discrimination because the woman covered her face and eventually moved away.
Former presidential hopeful, Andrew Yang, in a tweet ostensibly covering for his fellow Asians, wrote,“ The fear of the coronavirus is likely to be as or more destructive than the virus itself.” People are dead. They are dead because of a disease that came from China, yet Asians living in White nations are more concerned people might gaze at them too long or move away from them. People have lost loved ones, and Asians think this is some sort of joke, or that perhaps they are the real victims here at the hands of White people who have a bit of their self-preservation instinct left. The “racism” that diaspora-citizens and the media are describing is illegitimate on its face. Even if they were being treated differently, it is justified and based on wholly legitimate reasons.
Fundamentally, the cause of disruption in day-to-day life across Europe, the U.S., Canada, and other Western nations, is globalism and neoliberalism. The commitment to open borders and the free movement of people from place to place, along with the irrational deference to "the market," brought us here.
The official Twitter account of the New Jersey government tweeted, in a rather condescending fashion,
coronavirus is no excuse for racism
That same day, the first death in New Jersey due to coronavirus was announced. A man lost his life because his traitorous government believes the commitment to “anti-racism” was more valuable than his life. By not taking measures to ensure the safety of its citizenry, these government actors might as well have shot those who have died from the exotic disease in the head themselves. Elected officials in the U.S. had months to prepare; their lack of response for so long is at least tantamount to gross negligence. It was more than foreseeable that this virus would make its way to the West if nothing was done. Their obligation to act was disregarded; inaction was the route taken instead. Perhaps the government of New Jersey can explain to the family of those who lost a loved one that this was simply the price to be paid so that it could virtue-signal on Twitter dot com.
What nonwhites and liberals call "racism" is, in their intellectually stunted, juvenile minds, the notion that, for no apparent reason, a subset of Whites decided one day to irrationally and inexplicably hate others solely for the most superficial of characteristics, such as skin color or accent. In reality, however, what they call “racism” actually just appears to be a healthy and natural in-group preference, combined with astute pattern recognition and common sense. Understood properly, “racism” would have saved lives, and would keep our nation functioning. Leaders with foresight would be able to recognize that certain parts of the world are dealing with serious health epidemics and therefore must be separated from the people they were elected to protect. After all, if a nation is not charged with protecting its own, it is essentially illegitimate and should be seen as either an occupation government or a rule-making proxy for large corporations(or perhaps some other fifth-column). Suppose the U.S. or Europe did shut down travel to and from China or anywhere else? What about it? What does an American or European owe to his paper-citizens? What do we owe people whose ancestors did not build these nations, while ours did? I believe nothing at all.
A government that operates under the presumption that the health of the people is paramount would not have waited even a moment to act. All flights, cruises, and travel could have been stopped, and anybody re-entering the U.S.or Europe could have been quarantined. The disruptions we face now—schools and universities closing, events canceled, people struggling to pay their bills, deaths— is all a direct result, the inevitable result, of a government that is hostile to our interests, valuing “diversity and inclusion” and market deference above the safety of the people. Instead of stopping flights, inconveniencing a few people and costing a few companies to be out some money, we are all now facing the consequences of “anti-racism.”States, like Ohio, are mandating bars and restaurants to suspend dine-in service, and small business owners and their staffs will now be absorbing the impact because our illegitimate government would not cancel flights and cruises two months ago when the costs would have been absorbed by billion-dollar corporations. Instead, they waited until the effects would disrupt the lives of the most vulnerable.
Once this sickness was in China, it was only a matter of time until it found its way into our hometowns, as there is nothing in place at all to prevent its free travel. Globalism necessarily means exotic diseases are coming to your home town from the farthest corners of the globe.
The first instance of Covid-19 in the United State was a Chinese man who returned to the U.S. on or about January 14, 2020, after visiting family in Wuhan, China. China reported the virus to the World Health Organization on December 31, 2019, and had been seeing the novel virus since sometime in November. Although the Trump administration announced on January 31, 2020, it would be restricting entry into the United States from China, the so-called restrictions were in name only. “The restriction does not include immediate family members of American citizens and permanent residents.” Meaning that patient zero in the United State would have been permitted to enter, as well as nearly all of those traveling back and forth, even under the "restrictions."
The chilling part is this is only the beginning, the opening viral-salvo against our way of life. What it once meant to be "first-world" and "third-world" will begin to merge. Nations that were once able to eradicate diseases and care for them with extreme efficiency will become a thing of the past, as the diseased and wretched hordes continue their flood into historic White homelands. There is no reason at this point to assume the next dangerous outbreak that happens in some faraway land will be stopped from entering Europe and the U.S. unless these nations are secured and managed by their founding stock, who possess a clear and express desire to keep their kinfolk safe.
In a White nation with closed borders— a real White nation, run by people like us, who are committed to the safety and future of our people— none of this would be an issue. Instead, people are fearful they may get sick and die, they are out of work, their children are worried about their next meal, their daily lives are being significantly disrupted, thousands have already lost loved ones, and ultimately for what? So that heads of state can pay lip service to “racial and ethnic diversity” as they live in nearly all-White neighborhoods and send their children to private schools away from diversity? So that we can pretend we are “advanced and tolerant” as third-world diseases ravage our homelands and people? So that we can get trinkets for a few dollars less? This is a tremendous deviation from how proper nations have operated historically, i.e., with their own people coming first. We should never have been in a position where the possibility of elderly Europeans and Americans dying is weighed against being called “racist” or costing airlines to cancel some flights.
I have zero faith that our elites will make any considerable changes to the law or public policy in the aftermath of this event. The full extent of the devastation caused by this epidemic is yet to be seen, but what is for certain is this: If nothing changes, there will be another. And another. And another. As it stands, there is nothing to prevent a disease that pops up in any corner of the globe from making its way right into your favorite bar, grocery store, your university, your parent’s or grandparent’s nursing home, or your child’s school. More than ever, this is clear evidence that our current elite must be replaced with those who have their sights not on today's stock index, but eternity. Those who are not going to concern themselves with the feelings of alien interlopers (who already have their own homelands), but with the safety of their own extended racial family. We should not have to live this way— and White nations with hard borders will ensure we alone control our fate.
If nothing else, I hope this serves as a wake-up call to everybody that we must secure our own future. We must build our own institutions capable of wielding power and influence and see to it that our interests are no longer last in line behind what an alien with no legitimate reason to even be here has to say, or what may or may not happen on Wall Street at 9 a.m.tomorrow.
I am of the simple belief that our lives should not be turned upside down so that we do not offend people who ultimately hate us anyway. No amount of hurt feelings mitigate the fact that men and women of my own stock are struggling and dying because of something entirely preventable. After all, the only way an isolated epidemic becomes a pandemic is through open-borders.
Life could be so much better. Everything could be so different. It is more clear than it has ever been that our very lives and the lives of our families depend on regaining control of our homelands and that those in power reflect our image.
 I once made a similar comment to this in regards to the Chinese having no legitimate claim to be in the USA, and a person replied to me by saying, "Well, they helped build the railroads in the 1800s!" Yes, they did — and they were paid for their labor and can now go home. If I pay somebody to mow my grass or build a shed in my backyard, they don't get to move in and live at my house now, do they? Of course not. Participating in manual labor as a visitor is not the same as building a nation in the image of your people.
Making sense of political parties in the USA contemporarily, historically, and how they relate is not either intuitive or agreed upon. Historians, political science professors, writers, Dinesh D'Souza, all tend to disagree and look for different common threads as well as have different factors and elements they use to evaluate a party platform or organization or individual.
There are endless lenses one may view politics and history and their interplay, for a non-close to home example, consider the Radical Feminist (capital R). They view the world through the lens of patriarchal oppression of women. So to them, there is little if any difference between the Republican Party of Lincoln and the Democrat Party of Jackson to the Republican Party of Trump or the Democrat Party of Bloomberg (this is often how horseshoe theory is born). Through their lens, they see male-oriented structures, led by men, for which men benefit. To the avowed Marxist (the more traditional ones) all that is not theoretical Marxism is some flavor of capitalism, to the staunch free-market fundamentalists, any government action in a marketplace is socialism, from each of their respective lenses, it's easy to see how things begin to look identical between mainstream political parties. And I suppose it's possible neither are exactly "wrong", it's just that what each uses to evaluate a party, platform, policy, organization, or individual is so different from the other, they can both look at the same person or policy, etc and one call them Capitalist Swine, and the others accuse them of being Literally Hitler while another thinks they are Chairman Mao.
There is the modern Catholic church that kisses the feet of alien Muslims and there was the Catholic church that put their heads on pikes. Both of these iterations of the church have the same name, the Vatican is in the same place, the pomp and circumstance are more or less all there. Are we to believe they are the same entity? There was Vatican II, an event that would radically change church doctrine, there were popes who decried invaders and those who welcomed them. I believe it would be a wild oversimplification to allege that the Catholic church of Pope Urban II is the same church of Pope Francis. More than an oversimplification, I do not think it would be accurate and would convey very little relevant information to somebody if you were to say “it’s the exact same church” without a whole list of qualifiers and details of superseding and intervening events. There are at least two, very distinct phases of the Catholic church, so distinct they could be viewed as separate entities unto themselves.
With that example, let’s consider theories of people like Dinesh D’Souza, that essentially argues the Republican Party of Lincoln is the same party of Trump, and the Democrat Party of Jackson is the party of Hilary Clinton, and further, that everybody within each party from the donor-class to the low-information voter on each side, are in lock-step with each other.The analysis Dinesh gives is, in my opinion, something like "well, they have the same name, and they never changed names, so it's all the same." It's like when your favorite bar or restaurant gets sold to new owners, entirely renovated, the menu entirely changed, the staff all replaced, but keeps the name, is it the same at all? We have a Ship of Theseus issue on our hands here. No, I don't believe it's the same. More things have changed than stayed the same. We could really get into the weeds about metaphysics of identity here, people, for example, change a lot over their lives, but they are in one sense the "same" being, but in another sense, they are not. I contend that having the same name and the same logo, while no single issue in the party platforms remaining the same and no single ideological thread being unbroken, it’s not possible to consider the institutions the same.
Refuting Dinesh’s theory comes down to this, what policy, theory, ideology, or anything other than the most superficial traits unite the modern Democrats and Republicans with their ancestors? I do not believe there are any.
I think of US political parties of vehicles that have gone through many iterations and very little beyond that.
Take Thomas Jefferson, for example, people like Dinesh would have us believe that Jefferson's party that opposed the more central focused Federalist, who staunchly defended free-speech, who once wrote, "A white woman having a child by a Negro would be required to leave the state within a year. The individual who violated these regulations would be placed "out of the protection of the laws"is cut from the same cloth as the party that wants hate speech laws and encourages mixed-race relationships? It's not a coherent viewpoint.
One of Jefferson's fierce opponents at the time Madison, seen at the "big government" guy through today's lens, also had no qualms about his feelings in regards to race or wanting strict immigration standards and to be able to deport migrants very easily. The idea that either party of 2020 can be traced to Madison is nonsense. They do not map onto each other any more than the Catholic church of Francis maps onto the Catholic church that launched the Crusades.
Another aspect that must be examined is the presence of factions and issues. With two political parties, millions of people, thousands of distinct policy ideas, hundreds of factions, it’s not possible to conclude parties accurately represent everybody who may vote for them.
There have always been factions within parties that intensely disagreed with the main direction of the party, Radical Republicans are one example. They believed in racial egalitarianism that was quite literally a century ahead of its time in regards to things like marriage between races. Radical Republicans were in the same party as Lincoln, who said he does not believe in marriage between races. It was not the views on race that united the Radicals to the Republican party, it was likely more due to local Northern politics, and general Southern hostility that they saw to make the Republican party a vehicle for their views that did not squarely place them in the mainstream of either party of the era. The Radical Republicans in the Reconstruction era have more in common with modern-day racial theories and dispositions than anything around during and after the Civil War.
Consider the Civil Rights Era as another example, at the Federal level, there were people like Jacob Javits and Emmanual Celler pushing for The 1965 Immigration Act, gun control, the Civil Right Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Voting Rights Act, and so on, while also at the Federal level you had Theodore G. Bilbo who defended racial segregation. Or George Wallace, Democrat governor of the same era who declared in a fiery speech "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." What are we to make of these four men? All Democrats of the same era, as radically opposed as could be? We are to conclude that people chose a vehicle they can use. If most of your constituents identify as Democrat, for whatever reason, you run as a Democrat. If they believe in state's rights, you tell them the Civil Rights Act is a violation of the 10thAmendment and property rights and is the centralized government trying to impose its will on you. If your constituents identify as Democrats because they were supporters of FDR's Depression-era programs, you run on that platform to gain power.
As a sub-class to factions, there are single-issue voters. Take any "controversial" issue, say gun laws and abortion or immigration, there are fundamentalists who only care about one thing, and they often have disparate reasoning. Gun rights enthusiasts are a bit of the tail that wags the dog, they are largely rural and white, and as a bloc, they force the GOP to at least pay lip service to protect the Second Amendment. However there is often a large disconnect between the voters and their elected officials, many Republicans have come out in support of red-flag laws, more strict background checks, limiting the right to carry a weapon, have various views on things like castle doctrine and stand your ground laws. Even within the pro-gun community, there are factions in terms of things like shall-issue concealed licensees versus Constitutional carry, or whether or not the NFA should be abolished or remain.
Those who see abortion as their fundamental issue would likely side with a Democrat who is pro-life over a more socially liberal Republican that is not interested in passing any sort of anti-abortion measures. Within the anti-abortion community, some believe abortion is an abomination against God and they hold serious religious convictions on the matter, and some seek to end abortion because they view the practice as a racist endeavor in the USA. After all, the rate of black women having abortions is higher than white women, along with the idea that abortion clinics "target" blacks.
How to Evaluate
At times when you have Neocons advocating for war with Blue Dog Democrats opposing it, local labor organizers fighting for unions as Democrats, while other Democrats lobby for open borders to drive down wages, and some intersection of all of this, how does one make sense of anything?
How do we make sense of Right-wing Isolationists who are accused of being anti-semetic opposed to WWII, with ethnic Jews being charged with sedition during WWI for calling for young men to resist the draft?
I have a two-prong approach, I start by separating positions from interests, then look at various elements and factors. Admittedly, this is not down to an exact science, or anything close, more of a "know it when I see it" test with two-phases.
First, why separate interests from positions? Because positions are very squirrely, Black Panthers and the KKK both want to be armed. They both can be found supporting the Second Amendment in the USA. Does this mean the Black Panthers are the KKK? Of course not, that's absurd. If Communists want guns to overthrow the Capitalists and kill Fascists, and Fascists want guns to execute Communists, are they "the same ideologically?" No, again absurd. Their superficial positions of being armed overlap, but their underlying interests and goals are wildly different. Too often we see the "both cops and robbers have guns and use them, therefore they are the same" argument in terms of politics. It's very superficial. We need to get first to the "why." Then when we have a "why" we can evaluate. Suppose the Marxists want to be armed so they can overthrow the tyrannical Capitalist hierarchy and usher in an age of material and racial egalitarianism, they underlying interest is to achieve egalitarianism. Suppose the Radical Traditionalists also want to be armed so that they can protect their children and their citizens from what they view as hostile outsiders that threaten their homelands, tradition, history, and so on. Suppose they want to use their arms to march alien invaders into the Grand Canyon. It becomes clear that simply agreeing that "we want to be armed" is not sufficient to understand much about a person or policy or organization. You have to ask “why”?
Abortion is another good example if one person wants to outlaw abortion because they want more black and Latin children born in the USA so that they can outvote white people, that tells you something entirely different than a person who wants to outlaw abortion because they think it harms the traditional family structure.
Once you have parsed the position “what we want” and the interest “why we want it”, look at some elements of left vs right, or whatever you want to evaluate, it could be race realism vs racial egalitarianism, Trotskyism vs Stalinism, Inclusive Feminism vs Exclusive Feminism, and so on.
Some brief examples:
Left vs right
1. elements (the more static things)
a. Egalitarianism vs natural hierarchy
b. Out-group vs in-group preferences
2. Factors (not deal breakers either way, but indicative and weigh one way or the other)
a. Race realism – probably leaning right, but could be related to left-wing intersectional thought and radical feminism, consider Mike Bloomberg (below)
b. The biological reality of sex (maybe right-wing, maybe a Trans-Exclusive-Radical-Feminists (TERF) – see below.
c. Capitalism – maybe right-leaning due to viewing capitalism as a way to have a material hierarchy, maybe right-leaning due to seeing Capitalism as a structure that puts the Market above the well-being of our people. Being a capitalist thus is no a determinative element of if something is or is not "right-wing", but a factor that must be examined. Then you break the factor down more if necessary
i. Capitalism vs Anti-Capitalism (racial) vs Socialism (Marxist flavor, not National)
ii. Let the free market decide vs do what is best for the race vs do what makes us most equal
iii. The market will correct itself vs our destiny is not tied to the market vs central planning
iv. Is it good for the bottom line? vs is it good for our health as a nation? vs does this achieve more equality?
Trotskyism vs Stalinism
Communism International vs Socialism in one nation
Abolish family vs restore family values
race realism vs racial egalitarianism
Aggregate racial differences vs one race, the human race
Differences genetic vs differences due to society
Inclusive Feminism vs Exclusive Feminism
Trans-women are women vs Trans-women hurt genetic women
This can all be very complicated and we must also consider historic norms and leftward and rightward drifts in ideology over time. The important takeaway is to create some sort of non-binding schema and framework that allows you to evaluate things outside the box. Mike Bloomberg recently came under fire for some comments he made about crime and race, does that mean he's a "right-wing" guy? No, not really. It means there is a factor among others that do not neatly fit into the "box" of progressive liberal Democrat. And maybe that's all it means.
I hope this helps a bit. Let me know in the comments what you think.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/presidential-documents-archive-guidebook/national-political-party-platformshttps://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1996/10/thomas-jefferson-radical-and-racist/376685/(See: Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919), and The America First Committee of Charles Lindbergh.)
See something you like? Subscribe to see even more!
The subscription gives you:
Full, unlimited access to Star's profile content - to view it online or to download it to future use.
Support your Star by contributing – one-time or recurring.
You can cancel this subscription at any time.
$384 of $1,500
Full-time journalism, live interviews, video production, more pixel art, more cozy images, AMA's, more of everything.
Total takeover, firing on all cylinders.
Cost of readership would drop, we would reach more and more people with these stories, and the content would come more often.
At this goal I can hire people to help me with content, add video production and audio recordings of articles, and really begin to expand the entire operation. I would like audio versions of all of the content to ensure people who cannot read well are able to have access to the content. We are the stewards of our people and must care for all of them.
In addition to full-time journalism, I will hire a secretary, PR manager, and a guard-pupper to alert me of intruders.
The pupper will probably be a beagle or german shepherd, the secretary will be cute, the PR manager will be friendlier than I am.
The subscription gives you:
Full, unlimited access to Star's profile content - to view it online or to download it to future use.
Support your Star by contributing – one-time or recurring.