April 18, 2021 - Robin DiAngelo – university diversity lecture
Recently I had the privilege of attending a seminar on diversity and racism, presented by Robin DiAngelo herself. The opportunity came via an invite from my alumni association, for which I am grateful.
DiAngelo is not the typical anti-racism advocate that travels about lecturing whites on their privilege or decrying every little alleged micro-aggression or instance of police brutality, she is the reigning high-priestess of anti-white advocacy. Though she stands on the shoulders of anti-white giants, most of whom are Jewish, DiAngelo has managed to enchant her audience and cast a wide net with her Kabbalist spell.
The seminar was not what I had expected in some ways, but exactly as expected in others. Opening statements were made by a university president and a provost who assured us that we would not be "doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past," referring to public policies such as the common practice of racially restrictive housing covenants, school segregation, allowing businesses and organizations the basic Constitutional right of freedom of association, and so on. Both university officials went to great lengths to assure the audience knew DiAngelo's book, White Fragility, spent 85 weeks on the New York Times Bestseller list. Perhaps at one point a book being on the NYT list meant something, but much like Nobel prizes and Ivy league admissions, the list is a political and social tool, access is granted through nepotism and bribery, not merit. It was an excessive bemoaning that was odd even for academia. It seemed that this indicated to the presenters that there is a changing tide in the USA, they were very excited to live in an era where a book about how awful whites are as a people (while simultaneously denying whites are a people at all), and due to their alleged crimes, both historic and contemporarily, they must give up their remaining power and privilege in society and their lives, to non-whites.
I was a bit surprised at how openly and freely the opening presenters spoke about race and their vision for the country. They had no hesitation in saying things like non-whites should have no debt upon graduation and they would work towards this goal, or that there should be more non-white professors on tenure tracts. They spoke with zero fear of any pushback coming from any direction. There was a certain duplicity to the messages, they would talk of "challenging the system" and of "white supremacy," while openly advocating for the displacements of whites, trusting they would have no opposition in the process.
In ways the presentation and lecture from DiAngelo were shallow and vapid, her reciting trite platitudes we've all heard incessantly as if they were somehow original or groundbreaking concepts. Then she would surprise me with something so radical I would sit there wide-eyed and thunderstruck.
DiAngelo started her lecture by saying "I'm white" and "my fellow whites, we need to challenge this system" within the first 15 seconds of speaking. All right, you have my attention.
The tone of the lecture was set by asserting everything is too white to the mostly white, college-educated, liberal audience. She presented slides and commentary to the effect that Congress, sports team owners, interns in the White House, the media, academia, and business leadership, every aspect of society is too white, according to DiAngelo.
When speaking about the media, Television, films, books, and music, DiAngelo said, and I fully agree with her that, "those who write and direct films are our cultural authors, shape how we see ourselves, and others." She then presented a slide at which I struggled to not laugh out loud at the absurdity. According to DiAngelo, the group that owns the media, including the news, Hollywood, music industry, book publishing, and the owners of professional sports teams, are "white" men. I will not spend time belaboring this point or doing much more than a quick, back-of-envelope calculation and brief search. According to the Atlanta Jewish Times, at least 10 of the 32 professional football teams are owned by Jews.
From The Forward, “There are only three Jewish players in the NBA, and no Jewish head coaches. Yet nearly half the principal owners of NBA teams are Jewish, as are the league’s current commissioner and its immediate past commissioner.”
The major news agencies, film production studios, and major music labels, which DiAngelo claimed are owned by "whites", are nearly all Jewish, from the LA Times; How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.
The three major record labels are Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Music, the CEO of Universal is Lucian Grainge, Jewish, the Chairman of Warner, the one running the company, is Michael Lynton, the Vice-Chairman is Len BLavatnik, both Jewish. Rob Stringer, the CEO of Sony Music is Welsh.
From the quick search and quicker math, it appears that from NFL ownership to the heads of Hollywood studios range from 30%-90% Jewish representation.
DiAngelo went on to mention that the majority of NBA and NFL players were not white, 70% or more are black, while the team ownership was not majority black, asserting that ownership should match player representation. I was initially taken aback by the blind hypocrisy and obvious internal contradiction – how could a person explain that the professional athletes, making millions of dollars per year in a system of "white supremacy", deserve to be in that position due to hard work and talent and being the supposed best at what they do, yet claim that ownership of the teams is somehow unfair? And if the ownership of the teams is disproportionately Jewish, not white, does that mean the Jews are benefiting from white privilege and should give up the team ownership?
Then I realized later I was interpreting what DiAngelo was communicating all wrong. She was not making an argument that the talented or gifted or best should have the elite and privileged positions in society, that was never a consideration. DiAngelo is simply making an argument about power, which is that she believes whites have the power in society, and it should go to non-whites. That's it. There is no other underlying philosophy to her work beyond a naked power grab. The rest, all that is built on top of this foundation of wanting power to be stripped from whites is merely a way to achieve that aim.
What these slides displayed to me was that Jews are the ones who control an inordinate amount of power and wealth in society and control the media, as she alleged whites do. If Jews are white, then taking power and privilege and resources from whites also means talking from Jews, and if that was her position, antisemitism would be declared and her racket would dry up overnight. So her position thus must be to attribute Jewish wealth and success to whites alone, contend that whites must have their comfort and wealth removed, while Jews can retain theirs. In effect, the Jews would still be at the top, whites who are actually not in such a level of power as claimed, would see their material standings in society decline further, while the resources are transferred to Jews and non-whites.
In the middle section of the presentation, DiAngelo spoke to an audience of nearly 1,800, one of the largest in years of these diversity lectures, about "anti-blackness", a term I found to be an interesting deviation from the typical language of “bias” and "racism.” DiAngelo explained that while "racism" is something we all participate in, even if we disagree with it, anti-blackness goes a bit further and has a history of violence. She presented a slide listing all of the alleged crimes against blacks at the hands of whites, and remarked that it was "legal to murder black people in this country," a statement so absurd it’s not worth addressing, and hauntingly, "blacks have not been in a position to do this to whites..." while the slide was displayed.
Next DiAngelo brings up the topic of racial socialization to exhibit how whites were "conditioned" to be racist from childhood, obviously ignoring all of the hard data about in-group racial preferences, even among infants.
She asked the audience to recall if their parents talked about "good and bad" schools and what that meant to them, as well as what anti-racism training they had in primary school. She went on, telling whites that if their wedding album was all white, they were comfortable with racism, the concept of wedding photos being too white came up several times, making others visibly uncomfortable. DiAngelo can make even the most woke-liberal feel guilty for being too white, to scowl at the thought that their "racist" parents wanted them in a "good school." Some of this I can agree on, if “racism” is defined as a system that separates races, a white person, even a devout liberal, comfortable in an all-white environment, is on some level in agreement with people like us.
Concluding her lecture, I was able to look through the window into the mind of a radical anti-white agitator with her mask was off, she felt safe here. DiAngelo noted that the majority of white people have no close friends that are non-white, and then proclaimed "a segregated life is not a valuable life." There are several ways one can interpret this.
DiAngelo continued to call herself white as if to convince those who might begin to question this person with curly hair, a protruding witch-like chin, horn-rimmed glasses, and hooked-nose might be something other.
"I'm going to expose us, I'm going to break with white solidarity," she said proudly with an insidious grin. I was again thunderstruck.
DiAngelo remarked that even "anti-racist" whites are very comfortable in a racist society, and that "we are not entitled to comfort and whites must become uncomfortable to progress." The slide of the alleged crimes against blacks rushed into my mind once again - rape, murder, slavery, employment discrimination, biased laws, mob violence… DiAngelo is suggesting that this is what may be in store for us, in our well-deserved future. A future that a white person is not entitled to any level of comfort in a nation their ancestors forged from nothing. It was then I realized that DiAngelo was not merely some anti-racist sociologist that is riding a wave of anti-white hatred, but something far more. DiAngelo is the high-priestess, the person responsible for getting elite whites in high positions in society to give up what is theirs, to hand it over to a racial out-group that has been told for generations they have been humiliated, abused, and extorted by whites, and that they should take what is "rightfully" theirs.
DiAngelo's presentation concluded, a university president, the host of the event thanked her, explained that as jobs are leaving the state en masse once again, we should not fear, but learn to "become citizens of the world" instead of trying to create jobs here or to prevent them from leaving.
The president then asked several curated audience questions to DiAngelo. One question was along the lines of "how can we make this university more anti-racist?" DiAngelo pitched her services of weekly one-on-one coaching with university top-brass, where she will spend an hour with them each week coaching them on what actions to take to turn the university against whites even more while making herself obscenely wealthy. Good gig, if you can get it.
Another question asked about how to engage others with these ideas who might not be so open to "giving up their privilege and comfort in society." The reply provided another window into the mind of a radical anti-white, in essence, it does not matter if a person does not accept this message, it is coming whether they want it or not, whether they discuss the issues or not, whether they are an ally to non-whites or not.
My overall takeaway and message from DiAngelo was “allow yourself to be ruled by those hostile to your interests, learn to deal with it, learn to like it, or you’re a bad person.” These are dangerous people with bad intentions.
An integral part of the parasitic strategy of both those above and below us is to guilt us in to handing over everything to them without much of a struggle. They do not have the moxie to take things form us the old way, so they will spend careers, lifetimes, an obscene sums of money to convince us to lay down and die. To let them replace us entirely, to not even consider becoming an elite in society, while they suck up all of the resources like a tick on an exsanguinated host.
Our goal is a simple one – replace all of them before they replace us, become our own elite once more, and hold firm to everything that is ours. This war is unconventional, but it is war all the same. I hope to see Ms. DiAngelo again. Perhaps next time she will be in the audience, I’d be happy to take any of her questions.
If you are a current supporter, thank you very much for being here and especially being here so early! I’d like to explain what my work is and encourages others to join in for those who are new or unaware!
The tl;dr is pretty simple, something I’ve been talking about for years now, and it’s an organization similar to the ADL or SPLC, but for people of European stock. We need a legal organization that looks out for our interests which are often very different from other groups and from what the current mainstream will represent.
A bit about my work, past, present, and future. I’ve been writing publicly for four years now. I started writing during undergrad, working on articles and a book, I began to publish shortly thereafter with The Occidental Observer, Counter-Currents, and Arktos. My work has been re-published and mirrored on AmRen, Unz, Vdare, The Ethnic European, National Vanguard, and on sites in at least five languages throughout Europe from Spain to Norway.
I am building out a website to host all of my collected works and a site for the legal aid that will offer easier contact methods, testimonials of those we have helped, and a streamlined donation process.
Liberalism Unmasked book to buy and free PDF – I offer everybody the free PDF to take a look at to see if it’s something they would like before purchase or to keep an easy to search digital version to find stats and sources.
Every Christmas season for the past several years I’ve done a clothing drive for families in need. It’s grown each year, this past year with the shirt and sweatshirt sales, I raised about $2,500 that I used to provide sweaters, hats, gloves, Christmas gifts, and to help families from our community that needed a bit.
In addition to writing, I started a legal themed show called Dark Academia that has so far covered topics like free speech for political dissidents, the legal history of civil rights, firearm considerations for dissidents, red flag laws, and navigating legal options if your private employers require a covid-19 vaccine. Past episodes will be uploaded soon and will continue covering topics that are more specialized such as these.
Writing throughout all of law school, I graduated and passed the bar on the first go. Now that I am licensed, I have been providing legal aid to the community. Everything from mediations to helping people being investigated by the FBI. This is the focal point of what I will do going forward and why funding is necessary. Things are quickly becoming very busy and the need for legal aid for our people is tremendous, and I expect it to only grow for some time as the current trajectory continues.
Our people need help, and they often have nowhere to turn. I am changing that. But to continue to provide great care and to expand, I need help as well. Funding will go towards the day-to-day costs of running a legal aid operation. Research costs, filing and court fees if necessary, travel when necessary, and a very modest compensation. Beyond the basic requirements which the $1,400 goal would meet, which is a serious shoe-string budget, but most of these types of things always must start that way, will be expansion and building a “war chest”. I want to ensure I have a contact in every state so I can help our people anywhere they have trouble and enter into out-of-state courts if necessary, to represent them or sue companies / school boards / universities where necessary. Helping friendly travelers become licensed is part of this, as well as having lawyers in this community getting licensed in other jurisdictions, which is very expensive and time-intensive. The funds will go towards memos for the community, legal defense, offensive cases that come up, and more.
Some people have asked why I simply don’t just work a normie job and do this in my spare time, the answer is that I already am and that my time is already stretched to the point of extreme discomfort to my personal life. I work 30 hours a week at a normie gig (which these people are trying to get me fired from) and put in 40 hours a week writing and providing aid to this community. Although this is somewhat sustainable, without additional funding, it will not grow to where it needs to be, to where It can be. There’s no reason to leave so much potential good on the table. If everybody chips in a bit, we can build something powerful and lasting, way beyond what I can manage alone. This sort of project is ambitions, is already causing a lot of anger among the right crowd, and is something that has high rewards to match the higher cost. Nobody is doing anything like this now, nobody else is prepared to either. It's very important to set a high standard and follow through.
My goal for 2021 is to hit the $1,400 monthly goal on the this blog, and then raise an additional $30,000 to work as the seed money for this project. The main expenditure goes towards legal aid and outreach. Beyond providing basic legal aid, we will grow into offensive legal actions to push back against Critical Race Theory being taught in schools and forced diversity training at employers.
There is currently an ongoing and coordinated effort to have me fired and disbarred. Ruined essentially, for having the wrong views, according to these ghouls. I will not bend the knee and I will fight off every attack and defend myself and our people fiercely. There will be NO backing down to these freaks. With that said, I could use some help. Putting together a larger team of people is important. So is having the ability to weather any attacks and put more resources towards defensive postures. Here is a small example of the attacks. Well-funded NGOs, one based in Israel, with media connections are coming after me already, after a mere two-months of being licensed. A testament to what I am doing already.
If you would like to support via PayPal, cashapp, or venmo, let me know and I will provide that information. Old fashioned checks or money orders or cash in the mail is also accepted to a P.O. box, again contact me on telegram or here for those if that is preferable.
Heywildrich is my telegram name. You can contact me there for information about legal aid, or donating or any questions about any of this.
This is something I've been working towards for many years now. When I would mention it in the past it was met with a lot of negativity by people who were frankly already defeated. We have made it a long way and taken all the slings and arrows. At this point there is no legitimate excuse. We will not be "shut down" or stopped. We are already helping people, making their lives better, keeping them safe, and we will continue to do so.
Thank you so much for being here and supporting, together we can build this vanguard and step back onto the stage of history.
I hate parasites. I hate them about as much as anybody could hate anything in the abstract sense. Abstract in that “parasites” are a broad class of organisms that take many forms. Most people are only truly able to hate in a personal way, when they are grievously wronged by somebody specific, they can “hate”, but most lack the capacity to hate an idea or a broad category of things. Hate, true hate, requires an intellect capable of understanding deep abstractions and possibly subtle connections. Most living organisms are not capable of hate, they act, they can aggress, they can fear, but they cannot hate.
Only humans of higher orders can hate ideas, concepts, people they have never met, teach and pass on hate to their children, and act upon hate. Kai Murros said, “without hate for injustice, there can be no justice.” GLR said If you do not hate all that threatens what you love, then love is an empty catchphrase for cowards.
I truly hate parasites.
I was living in a crummy apartment with crummy neighbors who had a number of animals that were not well cared for. They moved out, I think involuntarily, when they left and took those sad creatures with them, they left behind a drove of fleas. They left behind parasites.
I'm sure many traveled to their new home on their clothes and the pets. But many were left in the now empty apartment unit next to mine. Without warm-blooded hosts to feed on, they soon plotted to migrate to my apartment. I had always known of the unsanitary conditions of my neighbors, so I would routinely spray all of the corners where the walls met the floors with pesticide, to create a hopefully unpassable barrier between myself, my pets, and the parasites that dwelled one wall away.
With no food in the next apartment over, the fleas became desperate, they began to find ways in under the walls, many died traveling through the pesticide on the floorboards, I was cleaning up their vile carcasses daily. But the fleas only became more determined. They found new ways in, somehow through the pipes that connected the units. They crawled over the dead bodies of their comrades lying in poison to make their way to my unit.
They were relentless.
I battled them daily. Killing them on sight. Laying traps in the form of bowls filled with water and dish soap and a light overhead in the darkness, to draw them in and drown them overnight. I would wake up, flush their bodies, lay more poison, caulk any spaces I found where they could find safe passage. I too became relentless. As their numbers grew with their desperation and hunger, my hatred of them so too would elevate.
Eventually, they tunneled in and found my two older cats I had adopted. A brother and sister. The brother is much larger and stronger, he's less furtive around humans than his sister. Both had been abused and lived a rough life before finding a permanent home with me. The fleas knew the sister was smaller and weaker and less likely to have a human notice the flea onslaught feeding on her blood. They chose the weaker cat to attack, nearly ignoring the stronger of the two. This is how parasites operate.
The fleas appeared to be gone, little did I know they were now devouring my poor cat alive.
Less than a week since the neighbors left, I noticed the little cat crying for help, something very strange for her as she's usually rather reclusive, only coming out at night. I immediately picked her up and found the fleas crawling over her body. The hungry parasites, unable to feed on each other, picked my helpless cat to bleed to death. I rushed her to the emergency vet, she had a blood transfusion, and eventually fully recovered. I took the other cat out of the apartment, gave him a flea bath and treatment, then left the apartment for good. My sweet little rescue was going to be murdered by these godforsaken blood-suckers. A creature that produces nothing of value, does nothing for the ecosystem, has no aesthetic worth, is nothing but a parasite in every sense of the word.
Then I thought more about the fleas and how they might have viewed the conflict between us. First, they would accuse me of being hostile to them before I knew them, after all, I laid down poison and traps on the borders of my apartment with the specific intent to keep them out. Why would I do something so cruel? Poison them? Drown them? Squash them? They were simply hungry, the food in their apartment was gone, they were starving, they had children. These were “refugees” fleeing starvation, were they not?
When I found fleas on my cats, I would remove them, but I would not put them outside, I would kill them. I always killed them.. They were sucking the life out of my beloved friends, but to them, they would tell the world I was trying to starve them to death, and they would be right.
If parasites such as these fleas ran a media empire, there would be nothing but similar horror stories, painting men like me as the villain. Men like me, viciously removing them from their homes for “no reason at all”, starving them, poisoning them, fumigating them. Exterminating them. They might even produce films about these incidents.
The films might even display an ordinary man like me with a couple of cats as the devil incarnate. The Orkin Man would be cast as the most evil being in all of history. Flea scholars would even write books on why it's a mental derangement to want to kill parasites, after all, they are just trying to eat, what kind of monster would murder a group of beings for trying to feed themselves? But the fleas would never tell you how they feed. The movies and news stories would never tell you of the poor, warm-blooded animals being eaten alive, to death, by flea infestations, or being poisoned by a tick-borne disease. All that would of course be ignored, perhaps even dismissed as an "anti-parasite conspiracy theory".
But you and I? You and I know the truth. And for knowing what they are truly like, to see their behavior so intimately, I will always hate the parasite.
I went to church today. Something quite rare for me. Not on purpose, that is I do not actively avoid churches. I find myself in them on occasion, a wedding or funeral mostly, sometimes sight-seeing in a new town, there are many famous churches and cathedrals I am fortunate to have experienced. But it's been some years since I found myself listening to a church service and interacting with the regularly attending congregation.
I've never been an atheist. I saw no reasonable position in arguing against something with no evidence, while claiming your lack of evidence is superior to their lack of evidence. I found the writings on the matter by Saint Thomas Aquinas and Descartes infinitely more fascinating than anything produced by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and the like. My view of current organized Christianity has been harsh at times due to the widespread, nearly total acceptance of the Second Vatican Council, and the rate at which secular-liberalism seems to have infected the non-Orthodox institutions. In the same sense, I am not against the idea of higher-education or academia, I'm against the modern version. All Western institutions have been infected. That’s no condemnation of Christianity to recognize it is one of the pillars under heavy assault. There is a more general discussion of the type of morality instilled, how that morality relates to the socio-cultural and political views I have, but broadly speaking, I've seen more of the good side as of late. Something I did not see before. Today is another such example of the trend.
The circumstances were regretful. A very kind fellow in my town named Gary passed away recently. He had no immediate family, his parents and siblings had all passed on before him, he never had children. I received a phone call from an unfamiliar number this morning, usually, I do not bother to answer unless I know the person, something told me to pick up the line today. It was the pastor of the church Gary attended, he knew that I knew Gary and asked me to attend services this morning, as there would be part devoted to Gary’s life. Being familiar with the whereabouts of the church, I told him I would be there. I never did ask how the pastor came upon my number. I'm still unsure.
Arriving at the small church in the middle of what are ordinarily cornfields, I counted only five cars. Walking in I was greeted by the pastor, handed a hymn and a small order of service with a nice photo of Gary on the front. I sat in the back as the pianist played a hymn. The pastor had a short eulogy penned for Gary, talked about his life, and offered a couple of quotes from Tolkien's Middle-Earth epic that he felt embodied Gary, his life, and travels. This was all very much to my surprise and delight (one of the several connections I would notice this trip). Gary was a very adventurous man, you would never know it by his appearance, demeanor, or accent, but he was a world traveler. And not in the 20-year-old sorority-girl sense of the term "traveler", Gary had seen it all.
I was invited to say a few words about the man I had come to know over the past ten years. Something that would have terrified me in my younger years, speaking in front of anybody, let alone perfect strangers. After many interviews and podcasts related to my writings and recently finishing law school, public speaking, especially without time to prepare, was something I have grown comfortable with. Although I wouldn't wish to be a public dissident or law school on anyone, looking back, I think both have made me a better man.
I shared how Gary and I met, he was a regular at a hole-in-the-wall where I was the kitchen-manager through undergrad. Gary was one of the first customers upon the bar/restaurant’s opening, he always supported small and local businesses. Supporting small businesses was something that meant a lot to him, I'm not sure why, I wish I would have asked him. As always, I wrongfully assumed that I had more time. I spoke a bit about the great travel stories Gary would share with the staff, how much we all loved his beagle companion that went everywhere with him, and that I appreciated seeing him all those days at work. No matter how slow we were, or how inclement the weather may have been, you could count on Gary to be there with a smile, a great story, and his semi-famous goodbye wishes, "I'll be seein' ya".
Others said a few words about our friend as well, about all the great little restaurants and coffee shops Gary introduced them to, and a particularly heartfelt story from a very old girlfriend. She was now wheelchair-bound, but she came out in the bitter cold under a patchwork of suicide-gray skies to tell the small congregation about how Gary would work in the kitchen and help the janitors at their school when they were kids to make sure she could buy lunch because her family was so poor she was unable to buy lunch herself.
Gary started working very young, from the time he was old enough to sweep floors and wash dishes. He would later get a CDL and drive trucks making deliveries around the nation. He always stayed kind and giving until he passed away in his sleep one November day.
The pastor ended the service for Gary with another quote from Tolkien, "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
There were other hymns and information about the clothing drive for the town's children, then service was concluded.
The congregation was small, all older, and white. Eleven people were in attendance, twelve if you include the pastor, thirteen including myself. The youngest person besides myself was nearly sixty, I would learn. This church, a small, one-room church house has been standing for as long as I can remember, mostly plain, with the notable steeple and large stained-glass feature behind the pulpit. A very old piano, slightly out of tune, but beautiful all the same – perhaps all the more so this way.
I met most of the members after the service, they thanked me for the kind words and the stories about Gary they had not heard before. I thanked them for having me.
Over coffee the pastor wanted to chat, he had a few questions about religion and the law which he had long been curious. Something that is on our minds a lot, his questions amounted to, "how did this happen?" We talked about Supreme Court cases regarding prayer in schools, public displays of religion, the Lemon test, Mr. Engle of Engel v. Vitale (1962), and how the establishment clause and free exercise clause can spawn all of these cases and controversies when it makes up less than twenty words in the U.S. Constitution. The pastor lamented the liberal transformation his denomination has undergone and how he now has nothing in common with the church’s leadership. Something so familiar to people like us on this side of the political realm.
These were very normal but intelligent people that I met. They are the quintessential salt of the Earth old-stock Americans, and the average ones seem to have a better grasp of things that people in online circles might give them credit for. What might be considered "normies" in online circles, were people who fundamentally understood this nation has been subverted and continues to be subverted by hostile outside elements.
Our conversation ended with a plan for it to continue over lunch on another date, I grabbed my coat and walked outside. Across the field I noticed a decrepit playground, a small wooden boat (Ark), that was rotting away. It's probably been decades since a child played on the structure, looking out of the portholes laughing, pretending to navigate the high seas with the now heavily weathered captain's wheel at the helm of the ship. There was a large cross where the swings were once held, based on the position of the remaining, quite rusted, eye bolts. The entire playground looked to be custom and hand built. It struck me that one of the old men I met, now using a walker or cane, in the church probably built the Ark and cross many years ago, when he was young and strong. Time seems to roll on in the most brutal way.
Perhaps it was the fact that this was the first time I've attended a church service in many years, perhaps it was the loss of a member of the community that I greatly appreciated, but walking to my car, passed the rotting playground, I could not help but feel something very uneasy and ominous. It had nothing to do with the service, the church itself, or the people I just met, that was all as wonderful as you could ask. It was something deeper.
At some point, I don't know when, maybe in the past decade, maybe the one before, or even before still, this church would have had a filled parking lot on a Sunday morning. Every seat would have been filled, there would have been little children running around, probably a person who taught them a youth bible-study at one of the now falling-apart picnic tables. Now the population is aging, aging out, and dying. Myself, a mere guest at their church, was the youngest by several decades. The number of old stock Americans, these types of Americans, is fading, the hope for the future, the next generation, is as abandoned as the disintegrating playground.
Leaving the long gravel driveway, I sipped the coffee one of the ladies had given me with a sense of despair. But I forced a smile and decided again, as I have a thousand times before, to keep on down this same old road.
I was reminded that there are still kind and good people in this world who feel very lost and like a stranger in their homelands and towns. Some people will still be searching for a shimmer of light in the darkness and although the numbers may be dwindling and the firelight is dimming quickly as night draws near, there is still the chance that the embers can rage once more.
The buzzing lights outside of Rich's apartment flicker violently, then go dark. The term apartment is a bit of an anachronism, to be honest. It's more of a pod. Four walls. Only four walls. No interior walls or dividers, those are too expensive. Only the wealthy have walls and privacy. Thin sheet metal separates Rich from his neighbors, their children scream all night, the static of foreign tongues makes it that much more grating.
Rich rests his feet on a stack of pizza boxes, rummages through a pile of empty cigarette packs to find the video game controller. The familiar chord chimes as the box lights up. A fleeting hit of dopamine gets released. You can almost see a smile on his face, maybe it's just the shadow from the TV. Nobody smiles anymore. You're never really happy here. At best, you get a few minutes of being less miserable.
The news marquee scrolls as the game loads, "21 dead in gun raid," "New Somali Constitution Party wins in a landslide," "white population down to 7% in the US," "All Guatemalan cast wins the SLA diversity award.”
Rich reaches into the micro-fridge, "damn, last Centipede beer." He logs into Nile Primacy to place an order.
"Order denied due to social infractions on PlayMachine Live, please try again after 72 hours.”
Rich’s childhood friend, Patrick, joins his lobby. “hey man, what’s new?" through the headset. It’s the most interaction most of our people have anymore. Online, in a heavily monitored and censored environment, with an old friend or two. If you’re lucky enough to have one.
“Ahh, not much mate. Trying to figure out if I can make it 3 days without a Primacy order, or if I should risk a walk down to the corner store."
“What happened? You get banned again?”
“Yeah, 3 days this time.”
“Don’t worry about it, I’ll drone you some extra rice and diet-soda I have.”
"Thanks man, means a lot."
Rich wakes up sweating. Cold. He sits straight up, the sheets drift onto the dark hardwood floor.
“What’s with this fucking video game dream and eating bugs living in some boxcar?”
The pup sleeping next to his bed stirs, then looks at him with a confused expression. The old floors gently creak under their feet, they are the fourth generation to live in this old Georgian home. He goes downstairs to get a jar of water and looks across the yard towards the barn. A rooster struts around, “Guess it’s later than I thought.” He pats the pup on the head, lets him outside, watches him run towards the barn to meet the rooster, much to the rooster’s chagrin, he tolerates the young dog.
He throws a few more logs in the hearth, enough to warm the entire house. There is a crisp bite some mornings, like this one.
Rich and the pup walk down the cobbled street into town.
“Hey Pat!,” Rich sees his childhood friend letting out his elderly neighbor’s dog and throwing cracked corn to the chickens.
"Hey, Rich! Hold on, I'll go to the market with you. I'm almost done here."
Rich and the pup sit on the old bench under an iron lamppost. He looks down at the date stamped into the solid base, 1947. Still working today. Things last if you take care of them.
Pat runs out of the house, swings the gate open, scarf flying behind. They walk together along the narrow cobbled lanes laughing.
Approaching the coffee-shop entrance at the market a stranger with a big smile holds the door open, “morning.”
A cute blonde, university age, with long braids takes their order. They take the coffees to go today.
“Hey Pat, grab some eggs from the barn, will you? The bread I made should be done, we'll eat breakfast at my place today."
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.
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.
$895 of $1,400
Full-time journalism, legal show production, more pixel art, more cozy images, 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 or travel often are able to have access to the stories. We are the stewards of our people and must care for all of them.
In addition to full-time writing, the legal podcast, and a community resource, 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.