As diseased as it may sound, I pursue this line of work not only because I am good at it, but because I like it. These problems concerning how to make a business succeed and how to get the correct message in front of the correct people are mentally stimulating, and I have been known to do it for free. I’ve worked with a mountain of clients over the years, even many in This Thing Of Ours, on a variety of different projects.

At a project’s outset the same question must be asked of them all: what is it you want to do? It sounds simple, but you would be amazed at how few companies – from start-ups up to multinational conglomerates – never think to ask this of themselves. Let’s veer towards Example Street. Many years ago, it was a best practice for every business to have a blog. You don’t see HVAC installers and car dealerships doing that much anymore, but there was a time entire agencies were built upon servicing that trend. For what purpose do you want a blog? Because that’s what your competition is doing. Understood, but what do you want to accomplish with the blog, and how does this serve your narrower business goals? That’s a jungle of a meeting you can have fun hacking through.

Lurking in the darkness beneath “what is it you want to do?” is “what do you want?” This is the fundamental question you must chart a path towards. The earlier the better.

How messages propagate and how information ecosystems function is of deep interest to me. There are eras of media, and each era has its own rules for how to craft an effective message. The era we inhabit now requires strategies that were never demanded of organizations or individuals decades ago, back during the Golden Age of Advertising when copywriters could take at least a shred of pride in what they do.

I could write a dozen articles on the basics of messaging psychology, media buying strategies, and the awareness funnel to name a few, but I want to focus on digital influence. Specifically, what people believe to be organically emergent trends which are covertly coordinated and funded. This applies to anyone who wants to make a name for themselves through design, writing, hosting a show, or grinding dollars from shitposts.

Most people are thinking inside an antiquated paradigm, believing the key to going viral is making something sensational, perhaps even good. Once you begin considering this seriously, the pursuit - especially if initiated now - is fraught with complication.

I am writing now about the nature of online influence in this particular political milieu, during this chaotic transitional period.

The internet is much different from how it was a decade ago. How does one reconcile the proliferation of internet access with intuitive assessments such as Dead Internet Theory? AI is being sourced from insane liars, but the data reported by digital platforms cannot be trusted either. There was a time when brands or individuals could rely on the organic reach of their efforts, but the pay-to-play model has been standard for years. At an agency I worked at years ago I was tasked with creating the Influencer Marketing department, and as I opened negotiations with influencer agencies it was clear that the talent they were prostituting was lousy with vanity metrics. You could get signed if you had a sufficient follower count and engagements were less important, at least at the time. They were pitched the same way you would sell billboard space.

These agencies remain the dream of many online personalities, offering security, legitimacy, and assurances of more exposure. Entering the Big House is supposed to acquire you the game-changing audience, but the tactics the big dogs use aren’t any different than the independents. The good news for you is the entire system is rotten and everything is fake and death comes suddenly and it’s not going to feel the way you always imagined it would during those dark 1-3 PMs of the soul.

The problem has come into sharp relief for people who track their analytics: how can we be sure the thing we are doing is actually getting in front of real people?

Botfarms and Clipmarkets

Online denizens complain about creators they perceive to be enjoying sudden and explosive popularity; often they are incorrect in the sense the subject can be proven to have an archive of old content proving a middling incline, but occasionally they are correct in their suspicion. Luck is when preparation meets opportunity, yes of course.

However, some people really do just appear out of nowhere, or their propulsion is inexplicable.

One example is Professor Jiang, a Canadian citizen of Chinese extraction who relocated to China and subsequently became 20x more Chinese. As of this writing, he boasts approximately 2.5 million YouTube subscribers. He came to most people’s attention in 2026, but his channel history goes back to 2023. The earliest data we have access to goes back to May 2025 where he had 11,000 subscribers.

His penetration into the zeitgeist was bewildering, especially since his production quality is remarkably poor and he is at least aesthetically filming from a Beijing classroom. It just looks so unforgivably Chinese.

YouTube is officially blocked in China, so such a consistent release schedule coupled with international notoriety all while delivered entirely in English is intriguing. More puzzling is why Professor Jiang would be allowed back into China after he was deported in 2002 for allegedly working with the United States on cultural subversion. Putting that to the side, his wildly popular videos on topics such as America’s inevitable demise and how Trump must live forever have built into appearances on Tucker Carlson and Medhi Hasan. Taken in aggregate, this is abnormal.

In all likelihood these views are in large part driven by bots, and while the purpose of this article is not conspiratorial, there is the distinct possibility that this is funded by the Chinese government. This is not to say that no real people watch Professor Jiang, but it is a way to develop social proof and trigger interest. The momentum is the story, a story attractive to regular people.

Another example is Clavicular, a recently infamous livestreamer who, as it turns out, has a much longer and more sordid history across various forums and channels. You may have seen his content, taking the looksmaxxing movement to its natural cartoonish extreme. He was an essential player in merging the world of incels with the world or professional wrestling, a mindrotting chimera where getting pussy is kayfabe.

While Clavicular’s posting career tells the story of a profoundly insecure and self-destructive young man, his meteoric rise has resulted in writeups in Rolling Stone, CNN, and the New York Times. His rise to prominence can also be attributed to bots, but we can drill down even deeper to investigate the system at work. A elucidative video created by Devin Nash details the entire process that takes someone like Clavicular – and dozens of others, including Caleb Hammer and Bobbi Althoff – mainstream.

In the video from Nash he explains how Clavicular had hundreds of clippers inundating the Kick platform with thousands upon thousands of clips. At 50 cents for 1000 views, that ends up being cheaper than buying bots with a much higher likelihood of reaching human viewers. We cannot be certain what tactics the clippers use, and it’s obvious they played some role in this campaign as well.

As a sidebar, relying on bots is a good way to sabotage your future chances at organic reach. Platforms such as TikTok and Instagram largely model their distribution off the followers you already have, so if it scans the attributes of your existing audience you run the risk of signaling to the algorithms that you do very well with Bangladeshi men owning 75 phones each.

There exist several networks which gather freelancers to produce and distribute podcast clips, assigning projects with the goal of making content go viral. As a content creator you can approach one of these networks and offer a budget of thousands of dollars to clip their content, deploy the clips from many different accounts run by real people, and play a simple numbers game until something hits.

There are of course creators who achieve this by partnering with a talent agency offering essentially the same services under the hood. Record labels do this every single day with new singles, as do movie studios with their trailers. If you have ever witnessed a music video dropping and have the chance to see the view count within seconds of its release, you may see it launch to 75,000 views. An impossible amount of views. They know what we all know: it is essential to get a baseline viewership over the algorithmic hump so the system recognizes it as something deserving of attention.

These games are played at every level of every media landscape.

Creators can also replicate this on a smaller scale by employing a team to chop, bedazzle, and post clips designed to punish the algorithm with exposure until something hooks. The point is that it’s no great mystery how one accomplishes this: there is a dollar rate, there is frequency, and there is duration. It operates like any other campaign, with the added benefit of making someone appear relevant in an unpaid feed.

It should be noted that this isn’t a cheat code and the content itself must be remarkable in some way. The staggering number of individuals and groups producing high-value content is staggering compared to where it was 15 years ago, and back then we were all joking about how everybody has a podcast these days.

You don’t just want adulation through inflated data, you want to be sure that you are connecting to humans and making an impact. How do you define a real person? When we say bots we don’t just mean scripts, we mean fake accounts run by real people who still technically view and engage.

We are here redefining the “real.” So, what do we mean by real?

Let’s return to the penultimate question of “what do you want to do?” You say you want a bigger audience. Wonderful, let’s pin that to the side. What do you want? You decide, having wisely read this article, that you want to get in front of real, honest human beings. Then you realize you want to be in front of important people, men of consequence. Following that, you might claim your true mission is to educate these people, then you might refine this mission and say that you want to help these people. You can help people for free of course, and you can help them with a private network, especially one of impressive scale. But that’s not what you want, is it? As we hack away the foliage and creep through the vines, we discover what you really want is to be respected as a messianic figure. We can do that, but that’s different. That changes the angle of approach, and perhaps it reveals you need to be creating something new entirely.

This is the type of discussion people are having in their mastermind groups.

No amount of money, awareness, or algorithmic support will help boring channels take off. You can’t just hurl capital at anyone and make them a star. Channels who don’t have an acute sense of where their niche could be will be boosting and turning up their own volume into it becomes desperate. The ones who want to make a serious run at content creation as a career, however, are forced to adopt strategies such as this to break their signal through the noise.

Influence Networks

Don’t get it twistcucked: it is possible to produce a post, image, or episode that goes viral without juicing it with paid networks. Hell, one of my posts went viral just the other day, garnering 200k views on X and thousands of engagements. This post was low effort (disgusting) and in response to a post on Reddit (disgusting) that was in all likelihood a troll comment (disgusting). Simply an embarrassing affair at every level. This is not life.

Your favourite content creator is in a group chat right now figuring out how to ping more whoppers like this over the fence. The biggest names you can muster from X, SubStack, YouTube, and beyond are in one or several private groups where they ruminate on the latest discourse and debate how to respond to it. I would know because I am in several.

“Dimes if you know how to be popular, why aren’t you?” - Guy Who Doesn’t Read Vanguardist Journal

My presence in these chats has not necessarily helped me of course, because I drop out for weeks and then submit commentary that I believe to be worthwhile to the deafening silence of my cohort. I am also generally alienating and disagreeable.

What goes on behind the closed doors of these chats? The goals are varied – often unspoken – but it’s generally the same as the paid clip networks. It’s the inevitable consequence of the algorithmic sands shifting beneath all our feet. People who take their work seriously are strategizing on the best path forward. They are collaborating on coordinated responses to trends. They are workshopping takes. They are asking each other what type of content they should be producing. Most importantly, they are boosting each other’s content to their own audiences.

These groups are invite-only, and they coalesce around central personalities, typically whomever creates them. This does not make them the leader, and I have witnessed middling talent attempt to raise their status by being the facilitator for larger names. These power-nodes are more likely to harbor a narrative agenda, even if they do not include it on the masthead.

The boosting of content is the most immediate benefit, and I have known individuals who have fallen out of the good graces of these groups who saw their viewership plummet because they no longer had the immediate distribution of their former collective. The reason they do this is because virality is easily assured if there is a positive response very fast. You can have your work fall into the hands of a massive account that blasts you to a new audience and it spreads from there, but one important parameter of the algorithm is that a piece of content should show immediate response – either positive or negative, expressed through engagement – very quickly. On Instagram the threshold is the first 90 minutes. For X it’s the first 30-60 minutes. During this time, you may notice that your content is not even reaching the minimum of your follower count, and this is by design.

How many times have you checked in with a creator you made the conscious decision to follow, wondering if they disappeared since you haven’t heard from them in a while, only to discover unbeknownst to you they’ve been active the entire time?

All social media platforms have long since moved beyond serving content to the followers of channels; what they prefer is having users locked into feeds that show them a mix of content they believe is tailored to their interests, including from channels adjacent to the ones they follow and some content far beyond their desire. They will show you content they suspect you hate simply because you have negatively engaged with it in the past. The common denominator here is engagement that is immediate. If your post, when delivered to a few hundred of your own followers, experiences sufficient immediate engagement, only then will it be delivered to a larger share of your own followers.

We are way past the days when someone could record a video essay, upload it to YouTube, and trust that the platform would serve it to people who would have an interest in that sort of thing. These were the salad days of hashtags. Hashtags don’t matter anymore. The system is designed to locate the most immediately sensational sentiments and amplify them.

What drives people to join one or more of these clandestine groups is the unfortunate requirement to hack the system however they can just to be seen. Many of them understand they need as much help as they can get during those first key moments of posting something, perhaps something they invested significant time and effort into. They might also be seeking advice on what content “works” and why theirs isn’t “working.” Even if you forego paid promotion, it appears impossible to reach the upper stratosphere of influence without these sorts of affiliations.

This is where the power nodes thrive: they understand the need for networking, they know most creators do a poor job at brokering these relationships themselves, and they understand the value of having a space where these individuals can discuss such things openly without the appearance of manipulation implied by ownership of the space. This is how the power nodes can exert their own influence; they can introduce their own narrative suggestions or encourage members to circle the wagons due to some manner of eDrama or otherwise guide the conversation in a direction that benefits them. If after such a time members do not appear to be a team player, well...

So, while creators can take the initiative to boost their own numbers, they can also organize communities to generate interest, each centered around an agent of soft control. There exists a tier above this which can make every aforementioned strategy subordinate.

Patronage Spheres

I have explained some key (but not all) strategies for how individuals or groups can make their content succeed in breaking through to general audiences. Once you understand the mechanics, it’s much easier to imagine how individuals of wealth or political import can wield them to achieve their ambitions. All you need to do is provide the funding.

Everyone is aware of wealthy patrons who distribute funding to creators, groups, or organizations they wish to exert some measure of control over. Names that jump to mind are Peter Thiel, Tenet Media, George Soros, or the Sixteen Thirty Fund. Jeffrey Epstein (the New York Financier) was certainly involved as a slice of his overall investment portfolio, although to what degree is murky.

I have personally known a handful of individuals who received Thiel Grants, and there’s even more out there who lie about it. The grants are often distributed to the tune of thousands of dollars for specific projects – art shows, documentaries, magazines that align with the culture he seeks to promote and control, etc. The ROI for these investments isn’t financial, and while I cannot divine the personal motivations of these whales in every instance, it’s obvious these individuals struggle to accomplish these tasks on their own. Many of them are socially jarring, downright upsetting on camera.

They don’t know how to write a book, host a party, or get people on their side. Further, they see an emergent social trend and treat it like every other upward leap on a line graph, whispering to the screen that they need to get in on that.

This direct investment is simple enough to track for those with prying eyes. What proves more complex is tracking the distribution of capital funding narrative control across multiple firms.

Data Republican produced a highly illuminating website that endeavors to graph the nodes and edges tracing how money flows from the government, large private investment blocs, and charities towards politically affiliated non-profits, news sites, and individuals who would otherwise struggle to stay solvent.

The above capital pathway shows how in one instance money flows from “Fidelity Investments and Charitable Gift Fund” through two unaffiliated recipients before it ends up at the “San Diego Lesbian Gay Bisexual,” a non-profit reporting gross receipts of nearly six million dollars. The money then goes to staff salaries and whatever projects - or persons - they deem necessary.

There are hundreds of other cases we could dissect, and this is the process through which many large Antifa groups receive funding. The beginning of the chain need not be the instigator of the conspiracy; oftentimes it begins with a family trust or a philanthropic foundation who want to be able to say they spread their money to the stewards of positive cultural causes. It has long been claimed that the Right suffers a dearth of patronage, but the response could be it lacks organizations. It lacks real projects.

I’m not saying that, but someone did or is.

I was speaking to a friend on the topic of Antifa’s network structure, and indeed whether or not Antifa even exists as a coherent organization. One thing he pointed out was if you break down the nodes on the graph, they are still real businesses that pursue measurable goals. One such example is Food Not Bombs, an outwardly Leftist organization and open Antifa affiliate that reports hundreds of locations across the planet. Putting their political agitation to the side, what is it they actually do? What they do is coordinate volunteers to show up all over impoverished areas - high conflict areas - and provide basic food necessities such as rice and beans. They give away free food in ghettos and countries where children on meth are working in government. Is anybody you know committing their time to personally distributing rice and beans to poor people, or are they on Substack talking about how everyone in the world is wrong about Rome?

Right now these patrons are buying up segments of the discourse, and my concern is the recipients are unaware of what they are selling.

Taking refuge under the umbrella of a benevolent aristocrat sounds enticing, especially if you are struggling. I would advise that person not to be so eager to hop into the pocket of a billionaire. They are far better at having money than you are at being broke, and they have a laser focus on their return on investment.

You don’t get investment for what you are currently doing, you get investment for what you could be doing in the future and that applies both to growth but also messaging. It won’t happen right away; whomever it is will allow you to acclimate to your new lifestyle, to a comfort you never thought you could enjoy. You can get loans soon because you can prove that steady income. You made a few big purchases, you got a new condo, maybe you upgraded your car. One day you get pinged to weigh in on a specific topic, to lend your razor-sharp wit. You get pinged again regarding a post you made, a careless post that is causing problems. Do them a favor and delete it. You’re not going to risk your career over trivialities, right?

You’re so distant from the real. One day you snap out of it and ask yourself, “what is it I’m even doing now?”

You know the real question you should ask yourself, but it’s too hard.

Leave a comment

I’d also like to take some time just at the top to thank all of you amazing regulars who took the time to come here tonight. Everything in here is for your partaking: eat and drink and be merry. Especially as this officially counts as a birthday party as per our event permit, so as we go about this extravaganza please ensure you are silently, privately singing the birthday song in your mind. Do not telegraph you are doing it by gazing at me. I should not know.

At this point I must include an important message that I hope everyone hearing my voice will internalize. Company of Adventurers, the April Event, and the speakers you’ll be hearing from soon all denounce violence, terrorism, and any advocacy that falls outside the boundaries of hate speech outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, especially as defined by Bill C-9 otherwise known as the Combatting Hate Act.

Please clap.

These are not your vilified Far Right Schizos. Even someone such as myself, let it be said, as true now as when it is about to be said, that I am a sweaterboy cutie. I am indeed someone that could be brought home to the family for gracious interrogation. I have nothing to fear, nothing to hide. They ask me, “where do you stand on the holocaust?” I say “hey, whoa, buy me a drink first!” They press me further, I say “look, don’t worry,” and then I give them two thumbs up. They ask, “wait what do you mean by that?” and I go “HAAAAAAAAAH?”

I’ll now direct your attention to the far room where you will find a merch table. Here you will find copies of Dr. Duchesne’s most recent book “Greatness and Ruin,” you will also find some clothing for sale care of Good Svffer and Operation Ensign. You can pay for this with cash, credit, or debit as we have a card reader at the table. If you get back there and find someone not attending the table to make payments, I trust you will wait until they arrive as they may be monetarily tending to other matters.

Now if you’ll forgive a coalhead oldtroon loudmouth, I’d like to just say a few words.

I won’t take up too much of your time, because you didn’t pay to see me. Hell, I may not even be what you expected to see when you listen to Blood $atellite your favorite show’s favorite show’s favorite show. Maybe you had an image in your head of what I looked like, I know how it is. In your mind’s eye you pictured The Golden One, obviously. I get it. You imagined a cocaine hunk like Elijah Schaffer, I KNOW. UGH! But here’s the thing: you don’t need to live this way; you can employ theatre of the mind. You can close your eyes and return, just like we do with our politics.

Imagine me as a buff Swede. Imagine my plus one standing right there at the front row, Rachel Gilmore. She’s so supportive. She’s watching me, her hands clasped in prayer, as she often does. She has heard me rehearse this very speech half a dozen times muffled through the door, but she’s wearing an expression like she’s hearing it for the first time. She’s giving me girlfriend eyes, you know those eyes? I’m her world. We complete each other. After I’m done talking she claps excitedly, I ask how it was, how did I sound, she says it was great. I say “aw I dunno, I think I said Catgirl Kramer.” She assures me nobody noticed.

After the show, back at the hotel, it’s a modest hotel because we don’t have a lot of money, but we don’t need a lot of money. We love the struggle. We kick off our shoes, she wants to celebrate, but I am tired and she holds me, stroking my hair. Something like that close your eyes you bastards. I say I’ll be up in a minute I’m just resting my eyes, but she knows. And she smiles knowingly, assured my heart is pure but my body is weak.

My body is treacherous.

I get text on phone, vvvvt vvvvt. She assumes it’s some micro niche eceleb groupie that I carry around in my pocket like so many dollars and cents. The phone is lit up right there, maybe it’s an emergency though, she doesn’t snoop. She checks it. It’s , he’s asking how it went. It’s Canada’s Fortissax. She puts the phone down. It vibrates again, vvvt vvvvvt. Then he asks if there were any French girls there. That’s our Fortissax. He needs a thick woman, he needs a French woman, this is known. He’s gonna do it. We’re going to get him there.

The next event is going to be his wedding, we’re all gonna be there. He split the difference and married an American Creole woman. The Canadian Pagan ceremony is beautiful, they’re standing face to face below, I assume some sort of fucking longboat covered in bones or whatever. They’re perfect for each other. But she’s sick. She’s dying. She’s gonna get better. She’s gonna lick this thing. But maybe she doesn’t. Maybe Goat Odin has different plan. It takes a great man to marry a dying woman; it speaks to his character. It’s all class.

Anyway, so as I said the merch table only takes tap cards so if you need a PIN you might just have to pay cash, and there’s an ATM nearby.

The ground has shifted beneath us and there is more opportunity than ever before to get people on board with what we want. But it is no longer about jailbreaking people out of ideas or exposing them to truth.

Before we were entranced by fantasies of what would happen when our ideas, or even our principles, were accepted by the mainstream. We dreamt of what would happen when we win the culture war. We are winning now more than any time I can remember, but the conflict now is over the model of what winning looks like. Winning does not mean that you have won; nobody announces that they are achieving victory even as it is in sight. “I am becoming victorious.”

That’s the noxious nature of that word which pollutes our thinking.

Everyone talks about legacy, and how important that is. Sometimes that is self-serving, since many of these people have no relationship with their immediate family. But it is better than nothin; looking ahead and shouldering sacrifice is better than nihilism. The desire to create something permanent and righteous is important. But we rarely think ahead to the other side of this struggle, hypothesizing when this is all over and the history books recount what happened here. And they will write about what happened here. All the sordid little dramas will be accounted, all the feuds tallied, all the betrayals highlighted. The good works glossed over as they look for failures to humanize you.

Do you ever think about what they will say about you after you are gone, about your role in what is happening now? Have you accomplished good works, have you behaved in an esteemable way? Have you shown bravery, or behaved cowardly? Have you helped those around you, or just been the most prolific critic? The image you cultivate – your dissident brand – that can be manipulated. That can be appropriated. The ideas you develop and the concepts you construct, these can be adopted by your opponents even after they gracelessly heelturn.

That’s what’s happening now, as I am sure you have noticed: ideas that would have been prosecutable 5 years ago are embraced by the mainstream with the vibe of a teenage girl wearing a Che Guevara shirt. All along the way, you find yourself further boxed out of the conversation. There was no redemption, there was no vindication. And shame on us, shame on me for expecting any different.

They’re never going to admit you were ever correct about anything. Their history books are being written as we speak, and theirs tell how they were reasonable the entire time and only sensibly – intelligently – changed their minds at the precise moment it made sense. They’ll just pretend all the things you said were things they said. I hope you kept screenshots of every claim and evidence of each exchange because it soon becomes a knife fight in the gas light.

The things you do, even the failed attempts, that’s your real legacy.

I am sure there are many Gods represented in this room but one thing we have in common is a sense that one day our deeds will be weighed in full, and if you died tomorrow what would the sum of these discrete actions be?

Right now, you are already more attuned and effective than most, but increasingly you will find yourself beset on all sides by enemies of action. It’s always easier to be vaguely correct on the internet than brazenly imperfect in public. But these are the things they will speak about when you are gone, for better or worse.

Right now is what winning feels like. It feels like a robbery. But you have a wealth these pretenders, these grifters, these jackals will never possess. We measure our success by how many ideological sluts don rubber skin suits with our faces emblazoned on them. All that matters is the work that has to be done.

Thank you for coming to the April Event.

Leave a comment

Will this be the one that finally gets me stripped naked and thrown into the Moid Cuber? Perhaps so. Even you, intrepid content slave, must play your cards carefully reading this. As a sensible preamble, I am going to state clearly for the record what readers should take away from this piece.

The following is a list of things you should NOT do:

• Commit terrorism against government buildings.

• Wage an unceasing sectarian conflict against the state.

• Train with Jordanians.

Conversely, the following is a list of things you SHOULD do:

• Tip your Mother.

• Sexualize Normalizing.

• Time crime.

^{You wouldn’t arrest a meme, would you?}

Separatist movements present in a variety of forms and assume a spectrum of tactics dependent on their level of commitment. Some movements are purely rhetorical while others plot violent resistance against perceived oppressors. At the outset it would be germane to sketch the shape of what we mean when we refer to “nationalism.”

On this very publication we have discussed the history of nationalism, and in our political realm much interest is committed to defining the nation along ethnic lines and thereby tracing the roots into ancient epochs beyond political science. From our modern vantage point we can identify the prototype of nationalism even though our ancestors would not have a grasp of such a concept as we do. They would most certainly have a shared identity, but more localized than collectivized. We presently contextualize everything in a global ecosystem of warring paradigms and mass conflict where even the disconnected individual is drafted.

For our present purposes I think it’s necessary to identify the development of self-awareness moreso than the presence of self-awareness, as it’s obvious that nationalist movements in the modern era take a different approach than their progenitors. According to Jürgen Osterhammel, the pivot point where group identities could collectivize into rivals of power was the 19^th century, and the gradual spread of nationalistic sentiments facilitated by technological communication networks, globalization, and electrifying examples of successful political rebellions.

In the nineteenth century it became possible for the first time to conceptualize an international politics that subordinated dynastic considerations, one that presupposed that the normal unit of political and military action was not a ruler’s arbitrary patrimonium but a state structure that defines and defends its own borders. Taken to its natural conclusion, power was wielded by a matrix of institutions not reliant on any particular leadership personnel.

It was the brutal end of the Ancien Régime as the floor dropped out of its legitimacy. The occasion was marked by the inauguration of the nation-state, a seismic reconfiguration of power spreading unevenly around the world. Kings and emperors across the planet transitioned to being figureheads rather than the essential head of the body of civilization.

While a nation fundamentally relies on a people possessing a sufficient comprehension of themselves apart from the sum of humanity, it’s undeniable that the fidelity of such a comprehension is vastly different in the fifteenth century contrasted against the nineteenth century. We can trace the technical definition of a nation back to the European middle ages and beyond - tribes can also fit within this model - but we can more narrowly identify a mass awareness and a populist empowering of this implicit association much more recently.

Nationalism as we know it is new, and it continues to refine itself.

“It was the era in which nationalism emerged as a way of thinking and a political mythology, finding expression in doctrines and programs, and mobilizing sentiments with a capacity to arouse the masses. From the outset nationalism had had a strongly anti-imperial component. It was the experience of French “foreign rule” under Napoleon that first radicalized nationalism in Germany, and everywhere else—in the Tsarist Empire, the Habsburg Monarchy, the Ottoman Empire, and Ireland—resistance stirred in the name of new national conceptions.” - Jürgen Osterhammel, “The Transformation of the World”

What differentiates a nation from an empire, especially in a historical period where the greatest empires have assumed a secular humanist form? According to Osterhammel, a nation-state proclaims its own homogeneity and indivisibility, usually finding itself surrounded by other nation-states with a similar structure and clearly defined boundaries. Cultural affinities such as language, religion and shared history are immersive to the whole population.

An empire, on the other hand, has less clearly defined external boundaries where it typically encounters “wilderness” or “barbarians,” meaning a much more existentially oppositional relationship to the other that never turns inward. It is for this reason that nations typically exist within empires, achieving self-awareness against a state apparatus rather than proximity to a vast dark forest. You can find elements of what constitute a nation within the empire structure, among the elites and aristocrats. Here you can see it as something of a nation-as-class.

A nation’s awareness therefore sharpens within the shadow of power. Thus an empire, destined for multiculturalism as it expands its boundaries and integrates new peripheries, becomes an uncontrollable engine for generating nationalisms.

Most nations expend their various energies striving for existence, and it is through this struggle they are given form. The following is an investigation of two revolutionary separatist movements gathered around ethnic concerns that reached critical mass in the 20^th century. In fact, they both cite the same oppressor: The English. We are referring to the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and Front de libération du Québec (FLQ). The former, despite its current fallen state, is internationally recognized as a pioneer of guerilla warfare and an illuminating case study in how to conduct a prolonged sectarian conflict against an overwhelming force. The latter is decidedly less focused and respected, so let us investigate why.

Ireland at the dawn of the twentieth century was approaching one hundred years of official political affiliation with Great Britain under terms of the Act of Union of 1801. That act established a unified parliamentary system and cemented political, economic, and religious ties between the two countries, with Britain assuming the dominant position. According to historian J.B.E. Hittle, Ireland prior to this had been governed for five hundred years by an independent Irish Parliament that nonetheless met at the command of an English king.

This unidirectional relationship maintained a reverberating oppositional sentiment among the Irish people who carried blood memories of Viking conquest and Norman invasions. This resentment compounded under the drooping eye of the great lion.

The Great Famine is the watershed event in modern Irish history and largely attributed to decisions made in a foreign parliament. While early as 1845 the Peel government recognized the potato blight as a looming catastrophe, local relief administrators botched the effort leading to a mass starvation that claimed the lives of over one million Irish and triggered the mass exodus of over a million more.

At the most foundational level, not just in the academies and salons but throughout the fields and villages, the longstanding yearning for rebellion was churning.

Prior to the formation of The IRA and its political representation of Sinn Féin, there were similar separatist movements such as the United Irishmen Party of the 1790s and the Fenians of 1858, the latter even attempting an ill-fated invasion of Canada.

At that time, Sinn Fein was the rallying standard for anti-British sentiment across the country and they were making great strides in proposing a practical alternative to imperial rule. They organized demonstrations, established banks, courts, and other institutions of civil administration, in effect setting up a parallel society in many counties throughout Ireland.

In all revolutions there is invariably some event or series of events that serves as a catalyst to move people from ideas to action or shift from political agitation into armed conflict. These two steps are typical as any prolonged revolt of sufficient scale requires an intellectual core to unite the people, and then a rhetorical justification to put those lives on the line. In America, it was enactment of an unpopular colonial tax policy serving as the flashpoint to armed confrontation. In Ireland, it was Lloyd George’s proposal in the spring of 1918 to introduce military conscription into Ireland, followed shortly thereafter by a subversive British intelligence assessment known as the German Plot that led to the sweeping incarceration of Sinn Féin leadership.

“The year 1920 has been referred to as “The Year of Terror” in Ireland. Ambushes of police constables escalated and IRA attacks on RIC barracks commenced. De Valera’s call for a boycott of British institutions, and the corresponding establishment of Sinn Fein shadow governments in almost every county, were rapidly eroding Crown authority and demonstrating Irish resolve to the world. Across Ireland, taxes went unpaid. Juries increasingly could not be impaneled, and if they were, Sinn Fein and IRA suspects were acquitted. The Dail established Republican courts to settle civil disputes and set up its own income tax and banking system. The IRA formed a police force to settle civil disputes and enforce law and order in towns and districts abandoned by the RIC. It is significant that while the IRA had gone on a full war footing in January 1919, the British had not.” – J.B.E. Hittle, “Michael Collins and the Anglo-Irish War: Britain’s Counterinsurgency Failure”

No rebellion, as populist as it may claim to be, is possible without its great men, and history will assess the effectiveness of a movement against the quality of its enigmatic figures. For the IRA in the early decades of the 20^th century it was Michael Collins, oft cited as the first urban terrorist and an architect of modern guerrilla warfare. Although he remains a national hero to many, Collins is also remembered for masterminding bold prison breakouts, daring raids on police stations, and bicycling around town in a pinstripe suit.

As chief of the Irish Republican Brotherhood and Director of Intelligence for the revolutionary Irish Parliament (among other titles,) Collins had the power to launch an insurgent strategy never before attempted in Ireland: an intelligence-driven guerrilla war that would tax the resources of the British government to the limit. The network of spies pulled together by Collins stood as a direct rival to the mirror network of informants that had kneecapped previous separatist movements. The war for the hearts and minds of the Irish people was an important dimension to the larger conflict, a battle that the Republicans won. At least for a time.

While the leader of Sinn Féin Eamon de Valera first conceived the strategy of ostracizing local British officials, it was Collins who upped the ante with direct attacks against the government police and soldiers. Sinn Féin and the IRA would lock horns at various points over the necessity of armed resistance and what the terms of victory ought to be, with the political party favoring a peace treaty while the insurrection movement favoring total retreat of all British forces.

Despite the IRA disintegrating due to internal conflict and Sinn Fein becoming a Leftist Girlboss Abortionpalooza, the movement demonstrated that, even when the insurgents are asymetrically armed, they can sustain a modern separatist insurrection so long as they are disciplined and their intelligence is adequate. Their strength was drawn from their fluid military strategy, but more than anything it was the deep pool of localized human capital that they could wield as offensive or defensive power.

While populism - understood as a bottom-up projection of political will upon the state - is correctly critiqued in these heterodox spaces, it is an undeniable component of more dynamic political movements serving pure pragmatism, one that is ignored at our peril.

No better example of this organic opposition can be found than South Armagh, situated at the border between Southern and Northern Ireland. Here we find another era of Irish resistance, beginning in the 1970s up until the discombobulations caused by their English bombing campaigns in the 1990s. In South Armagh, road signs warn not of children crossing but of a Sniper at Work, the red triangle framing the silhouette of a masked gunman waving a rifle. According to historian Toby Harnden, it was geography that contributed to the formation of a particularly rebellious people.

For the Irish in this region, hostility towards authority as such was more profound than elsewhere, stretching back to the Middle Ages and modern Republicanism was simply the latest manifestation of its independence and refusal to submit to any rule from a perceived outsider, including those within Ireland. Recruitment to the cause was a multi-generational affair, with many volunteers tracing their familial commitment back to the Defenders and Ribbonmen of the 18th and 19th centuries.

A parallel can be drawn with the Appalachians of the United States of America. Political configurations occasionally come to the harsh realization that these regions resist absorption, instruction.

“But while myth and propaganda had played their part in cementing the notoriety of South Armagh, so too had a terrible reality. Even to Irish nationalists, the area remained ‘neither fish nor flesh’, a borderland where strangers feared to tread. South Armagh’s quarrel was with authority per se rather than just British rule, and even a genuine political accommodation in Northern Ireland appeared unlikely to bring to an end a rebellion that had already lasted centuries.” – Toby Harnden, Bandit Country: The IRA & South Armagh

The South Armagh Brigade pioneered the use of mortars, Semtex was first used in South Armagh, and radio-controlled bombs were developed there. According to Army records, since the beginning of the Troubles the IRA in this borderland had mounted some 23 helicopter attacks using, among other devilish schemes, rocket propelled grenades and M60 light machine-guns acquired from infamous gun deals with Libya. The logistical requirements to accomplish such feats was further evidence of their permeation into Ireland’s civilizational musculature.

The charismatic leader of this particular zone was a smuggler known as Thomas ‘Slab’ Murphy, owner of the Slab Murphy farm complex. A bachelor, he lived at the farm with his elderly widowed mother Elizabeth. His terms of victory were even more acutely felt than Michael Collins, who was ultimately worn down and brought to the negotiating table. Murphy fought for nothing less than full retreat of British forces and it would be unceasing violence until such a time. One anecdote tells of Sean O’Callaghan, head of the IRA’s Southern Command at the time, in conversation with Murphy at IRA’s Revolutionary Council in 1983. When he asked “so, how are we going to win the war, Tom?“ the reply followed: “we’ll bomb them to the conference table and then booby-trap the table.”

Murphy was like a tulpa conjured by the will of a kinfolk who refused to be controlled. Such grand designs for violence - limited only by access to resources - sowed the seeds of the eventual downfall of the IRA as they took the fight to the heart of England. It was these bombing campaigns rocking the English citizenry that cumulatively lost them the mandate of the people, burdened as they were by the villanization of invaders.

The will of the people isn’t just moralism captured by the scribes of history, it is crucial practicality on the ground, behind the walls, and within the trees. Without the support of the public there so exits resources, protection, and personnel.

The Real IRA further triggered a collapse of public approval by a botched 1998 bombing in the Northern Ireland town of Omagh which killed 29 people. The bomb exploded as dozens of people unknowingly gathered around it, a failure of the Real IRA leadership to provide sufficient warning as was typical of their attacks. In the wave of public outrage that followed, the Real IRA was forced to call a ceasefire and the reputation of the IRA entered a freefall from which it never recovered.

One day you’re deciding to strike at the heart of imperialist power, the next day you’re getting a Cranberries song written about you because you whoopsie-daiseyed too many children.

^{(Zesty Factoid: on Spotify this banger is placed gently between Linger and Dreams, two of the Gilmore Girlsest lesbian anthems ever released.)}

One would assume that as the public acclimates to violence that their tolerance would reflexively increase, but it’s clear there are limits. It may be inevitable that with such a clear and decisive vision of total victory that the defensive position would assume an offensive position, following its own momentum to strike at the heart of the perceived oppressor. Collateral damage by degrees becomes acceptable, while unthinkable acts become thinkable. If a nuclear weapon was in play, on a long enough timeline of normalization what argument could be made against using it for the multi-generational hardened soldiers?

Limitations upon total victory wither in time.

While revolutions are led by remarkable men, without the blood and soil embodied by the people, such movements are doomed to disintegration. This is exhibited by the failure of the Front de libération du Québec which culminated in what is known in Canada as The October Crisis.

The October Crisis was not merely an isolated event that took place from October to December 1970, but rather the climax of revolutionary activities from 1963 to 1973 by at least 50 FLQ members or sympathizers, whose declared aim was to separate Québec from Canada and form a workers’ state.

A separatist movement that on the surface would appear reminiscent of the IRA, the FLQ was a very different beast in similar but separate circumstances. It was a purportedly ethonationalist independence movement that, after decades of political agitation and advocacy, kidnapped both British trade commissioner James Cross and Québec Minister of Immigration and Minister of Labour Pierre Laporte.

The operational timeline for the FLQ was short and their escapades scant by comparison, but they fulfill every criteria of a militant separatist movement and deserve to be studied in their cultural context.

According to William Tetley, a Canadian journalist committed to this story’s unfolding at the time, the FLQ began at the end of February 1963 as a separatist movement without any Marxist aspirations. This was reflected by their initial manifestos simply demanding that Québec achieve full sovereignty from Canadian confederation. It was the later manifesto released in 1970 which, while retaining this goal, further called for a workers’ state and employed the language of a broader anticapitalist revolution. These were the major contributions of Pierre Vallières and Charles Gagnon, two political activists who joined the organization in 1964 who would become the most notorious names affiliated with the movement.

In furtherance of this ideological shift, in 1968 a secret eight-page document entitled “Revolutionary Strategy and the Role of the Avant-Garde,” outlined the FLQ’s long-term strategy of successive waves of robberies, violence, bombings, kidnappings, and selective assassinations, culminating in class-oriented revolution. Like Michael Collins, the goal of Vallières especially was to leverage increasing waves of violence to repel the province from the established English order. Unlike Collins, Vallières saw the victory condition as much more complex. Québec would only be truly free if all existing power structures were toppled, capitalism abolished, and the classless proletariat triumphant.

Seeing themselves as heroic figures in the mold of Che Guevara, the FLQ chose to train in Algeria and Jordan and in the forests of Mont Tremblant Park, Saint-Boniface-de-Shawinigan, and Lac Saint-Jean. In their minds the public were not fully aligned with their mission, so they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the fulfillment of the People’s Revolt, at which point they would surely be celebrated as liberators.

“Just as an insurrection can be achieved by a relatively small number of people; so can a revolution. One example is Cuba, where Fidel Castro began with a band of 8 men. In 1956 this small group of fighters disembarked from a yacht in Oriente province and, within a month, had been reduced to twelve. Nevertheless, Castro managed to fight off 30,000 troops loyal to President Fulgencio Batista and trained by the Americans, and by 1958 he had 1,000 men and 7,000 clandestine urban guerrillas, a force with which he was soon to mount a revolution that succeeded in overthrowing the government.” – William Tetley, October Crisis, 1970: An Insider’s View

The acute movement was able to inspire many students and win over union leadership, but it failed to ignite the passions of the very workers whose collective identity they appropriated. Most importantly, they had the tacit support of the political class. The Parti Quebecois leadership wanted a solution to the ballooning calamity of firebombings and robberies, but one on their terms clean of the federal government’s fingerprints. Although officially opposing violence, they were also reluctant to criticize the FLQ because they overall shared their goal of Québec separation. The Parti also sought the youth vote and was reluctant to curb the students who were demonstrating in the movement’s favor.

The political dimension to separation was already in place and merely tolerant of the FLQ as long as it served their interests.

Prime Minister Trudeau understood that the FLQ’s aim was to establish a parallel power, similar to the IRA but defined along Communist lines, and so invoked on the 4^th of October 1970 the War Measures Act. This move was controversial as the act could only be used in only three circumstances: war, insurrection, or apprehended insurrection. It was “apprehended insurrection” that granted them the legal casus belli, if not the moral one. While the act was replaced with the Emergencies Act in 1988, such a response is still possible as evidenced by the reaction to the Covid-19 Trucker Protest in 2022.

Shortly after the military was summoned in 1970, Pierre Laporte was found murdered by strangulation. The FLQ appeared thunderstruck that such measures would be accepted by the public, and that their organization was so swiftly dismantled. Much of the blame can be placed on the enigmatic figures at the center of the movement; just like the IRA, or indeed any political movement, leadership is a prerequisite to conjure the spirit of the soldiers. Pierre Vallières was not directly responsible for Laporte’s murder, although he was found guilty of killing secretary Thérèse Morin with a bomb delivered to the La Grenade shoe manufacturer in 1966. He spent 4 months in jail for the crime, and after the October Crises he would renounce violence in all its forms, come out as a gay man, and dedicate the rest of his life advocating for LGBT rights.

What of Vallières’ pre-gay writings, those that inspired the actions of those who committed these increasingly scandalous direct actions under his leadership? Thankfully, he penned an autobiography during his brief stay in prison titled “White Niggers of America.” In his own words we can observe the author blur the enemy target towards the international order, and express no small amount of disdain towards his own people.

In the mind of Vallières, to be a “nigger” on the American continent was to be someone’s slave, referring of course to the people of Québec who he viewed as oppressed not only by American interests but the racism of the White man. Like many Marxists he saw international cooperation as essential to success, but lionized blacks as the revolutionary archetype, proclaiming Black Nationalists as natural allies despite their absence from the Québec population.

He asserted with vigor that Québec could not hate “dirty niggers” because they themselves were “dirty niggers.” He was clear to express how the poor Whites who despise the black man are “doubly niggers,” for they are victims of one more form of racist alienation which imprisons them in a net of synthetic hate.

Identification as “double dirty niggers” did not have as wide an audience as he may have presumed.

To his credit, Vallières began with an an ethnic case for separatism. Directing the reader to how his ancestors came to Canada with the hope of beginning a new life as soldiers or day laborers, they fought to carve out a space for themselves within the harsh North American terrain. The others came as “volunteers,” especially under the Talon administration of the mid-1600s, a century before the English conquest. In 1689 there were 10,000 French Canadians in what was then known as New France, a population that originated the term “Canadien.”

It wasn’t long for stratification to occur. The fur trade was monopolized by a few French merchants: “the French of France,” as they were already beginning to be resentfully identified by the French settlers known colloquially as Habitants. A revolt centered around the Speaker for the Legislative assembly of Lower Canada Louis-Joseph Papineau took the English by surprise with his Lower Canada Rebellion. The Habitants, many of whom felt politically dispossessed, were hypnotized by such firebrands and, despite the opposition of the higher clergy, demonstrated with increasing violence their will to overthrow the nouvelles élites.

Quebecois isolation was further entrenched by Premiere Maurice Duplessis who ceded iron deposits of northern Québec to the Americans in exchange for financial support of his political machinations. This is a recurring story throughout Canadian history, and Anti-Americanism was central to Québec separatism.

This history of revolt is a leading contributor to the persistent discourse surrounding Québec separatism, present even now while Irish independence has receded from relevance. Nationalists young and old prioritize Québec independence, the fire of separatism still alight where the embers barely flicker in civilizationally proximal regions.

“When a ‘great darkness,’ such as characterized the Duplessis regime from 1944 to 1959, extends over a whole people, those who ask themselves questions about man’s destiny are sometimes tempted to despair of others and of themselves. The triumphant reign of Stupidity seems to justify the metaphysics of the Absurd, of individual Anarchy and of Nausea. Before going through its ‘quiet revolution,‘ Quebec went through the dictatorship of Stupidity; and for a long time the Québécois struggled vainly, in anxiety and despair, like penniless prisoners who are totally ignorant of the procedures that cause them to be in prison one day and in court the next, then in prison again, without ever understanding the working of the machine that shifts them back and forth in a universe from which all light, reason, and meaning are shut out, the universe called Justice, Law and Order, the Public Interest.” - Pierre Vallières, White Niggers of America

Vallières took particular aim at who he deemed the parasitic petty bourgeoisie of French Canada and anyone he believed represented colonial imperialism. This included all members of the Catholic faith and, in a rough accounting, the majority of the Quebecois. Like most Marxists, Vallières had contempt for the working class he claimed to champion. He remarked that the destiny of the Québécois people was doomed to slow death, or to prolonged mediocrity. He heaped scorn upon his struggling family who he dismissed as boring, unimaginative. In fact, everyone in Québec was boring, inspiring him to depart for an extended stay in Paris. He left France when he decided that Parisians was also too boring for him. He returned home with the help of his loathed parents, globetrotting along a tightrope of darkening disillusionment. The entire world failed to live up to his standard, and everyone he met failed to recognize the importance of his translucent ambition. He saw opportunity with the emergence of the FLQ.

The FLQ failed to achieve the mandate of the people because located within its unifying spirit was the cancer what dreamed itself as superhuman. Its incoherent terrorism was not tolerated, its hostile proclamations fell upon deaf ears, and its disregard for the culture of Québec meant that no increase in violence would snap the masses out of their capitalistic stupor.

A revolt can never replace a government, it can only critique power and endeavor to deconstruct it, perhaps eventually topple it. It works best when it has an enemy to target, never led astray by fashioning soldiers into statesmen in parallel. As we have seen in the examples of the IRA and FLQ along with dozens of other examples, the creation of an alternative governance ecosystem is not only possible but crucial. Can such an ecosystem be swapped into the central power vacuum once obliterated? It seems to depend greatly on what spirit the revolution embodies, and many modern revolutions seem to have no desire to address the concerns of their own people. It’s the worship of pure ideology and an ironic disregard for the very humanity it purports to redeem.

In the final analysis, any war against the oppressor of a people requires said people to have a ferocious concept of self and a vanguard that is willing to fight for their survival. It cannot be a war fought for an ideology as that war will inevitably turn inward, directing its deconstructive pincers towards the people it claims to defend.

Years ago I published an article with the Old Gory Club titled “The Annexation of Canada.” Before this discourse dominated Canadian politics after threats issued by President Trump, the purpose of this article was to envision a scenario where concurrent rebellions of discrete Canadian nationalisms, occasionally taking the form of separatist movements, gather enough territorial will to position decentralized breakaway states that could engage directly with the American government in opposition to the Canadian state. It was gaming out a strategy to create a patchwork sovereignty which would still repel full integration into the American system while addressing the provincial interests which, left unfulfilled, have discombobulated confederation.

As we have seen, using Canada as a staging ground for an international revolution against America will result in failure, but the people as of yet are not ready to support any coordinated assault upon the legitimacy of the federal government. Canadians are too complacent, their identities so pummeled by secular humanist relativism. The same applies to most countries in the Anglosphere regardless of the multitudinous grievances they routinely levy against a government that so routinely persecutes its own people. A system is what it does, and from 10,000 feet it would appear Western governments were fashioned to dispossess its Heritage citizenry.

Canada is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, a voluntary association of countries primarily defined by their British colonial history. It would be wrong to say Canada is a commonwealth brokered between its provinces, but it certainly does not function as a nation. It is a country in technical terms, but that is more a description of a robust state apparatus. These categories sound fluid, but it could be argued that Canada’s multicultural and officially multilingual structure positions it as something of a lesser empire: not a homogenous nation by any measure, but a bloated collection of federalized organs of power that measures its success by how it balances the perpetually competing nations within it, nonetheless possessed by a global ambition and desire for reckless growth.

The only homogenous group within its borders is the multiplying managerial class reminiscent of the Aristocratic Nation Class pre-19th century, the only thing keeping the enterprise unified being the monolithic machinery of the state. Like many countries within the Anglosphere, it has become an engine for pressurizing identity groups into new hostile forms reminiscent of the 19th century formations of nations as reactions to imperial excess.

Another article on the Old Glory Club was released earlier this year titled “The Pan-American School of Foreign Policy” which argued strongly for military intervention into Canada, constructed on a Biblical understanding of international law. OGC members frequently enlist the endorsement of God to legitimize their political opinions, so we can move past that.

Written from an American nationalist perspective, it asserted that the Canadian government needed to be cajoled by limited military incursion to reverse course on plainly failing policies such as mass migration and the legalization – indeed, the popularization – of assisted suicide. It identified the perpetrator as the state and would act in the name of the oppressed Canadian people. While I harbor immense distrust towards the American government when it comes to regime change in the purported interest of the oppressed population, such speculative projects inspire a Third Other Thing, a roadmap apart from either total absorption by the American Empire or helpless fantasies of total system collapse.

The Biblical case for militaristic influence is flimsy, but the pragmatic case is imminent. Politically and demographically, America is not much better than Canada. California matches - perhaps exceeds - the progressive scandalizations of Ontario, and their population is at par with the entire country. What America has is money. What they also have is the realization that physical occupation of the Canadian landmass is a massive logistical headache.

Imagine a more kinetic short term solution that seeds regional sovereignty, thereby performing a Great Reset on Confederation. Could America be a source of investment for such shadow governments in the pursuit of delegitimizing the Canadian bureaucratic state, looming in cold apathy and casting such suffocating darkness over its own people?

This project would require the formation of entirely new nations within the provincial boundaries, gathered around self-determination, electrified by reaction to a corrupt superstructure, and defined along identity lines negotiated between the people themselves. But what then do these nationalisms, however clearheaded and impassioned, do with themselves once coalesced? Their presumed successes would invariably attract persecution from entrenched interests unless these upstarts were ready to assert themselves by other means. This means thinking geopolitically.

This is all irresponsibly speculative, of course. Inviting a separate colour revolution within every Canadian province sounds insane. However, creating breakaway system of support and governance for a people objectively betrayed by their government has the winds of solemn providence as its back, and preparing for the autoimmune response from the security panopticon seems sensible. Deconstructing power structures surrounds one with strange bedfellows, but proposing systemic solutions is where the obscured demarcations are boldly highlighted.

Leave a comment

When I was young, I was frequently exposed to the negative opinion average Canadians held toward their Southern neighbors. Whether these beliefs were genuinely held or performative is unimportant; the sentiment was common and you would feel culturally compelled to mirror this opinion to fit in.

For example, comedian Rick Mercer built a career in part from “Talking to Americans,” a man-on-the-street segment where he would quiz random Americans on their knowledge of Canada with the intention of making them look buffoonish, a live audience laughing in the background. The consensus was Canadians were more tolerant, enlightened, and hey let’s just come right out and say it, intelligent than Americans, who were by contrast violent, brutish, and ignorant.

(It’s a lot of this.)

I never accepted this prevailing narrative when I was even presented this fact by my teachers, exposed as we were to American media and many of these proponents listing all the Americans they know that are Not Like the Other Americans. George W. Bush was the quintessential Yank, but George Carlin spoke to their soul.

My alienation was compounded when I started personally meeting more Americans, and I noted how they challenged the stereotype that Canadians are more polite, as well. It just seemed like something we were required to believe as a pillar of our identity.

Canadians and Americans actually have much in common. For one, if a European starts expressing an opinion, we both start yelling at them. Is uncorking on Europeans enough to forge a New Atlantis? Let’s discuss.

It would be easy to reflexively believe that all Anti-American sentiment was a convenient mythology, but the unfortunate reality is there is a long history of civilizational tension between these neighboring nations, and much of that tension can be justified even if the average Canadian is unaware of these sources.

This history must be reckoned with if any substantial relationship is to be formed as we enter a period of geopolitical upheaval. The reasons Canada remains attractive have increased since confederation, especially opening Arctic trade routes and continental defense capabilities.

As of this writing, Canada has been entertaining more assertive diplomatic relationships with Europe, China, and conceivably any nation that can offer an alternative to America. Canada has previously attempted these maneuvers, in fact it was Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau who pursued a trade deal with China through a direct relationship with Chairman Mao at a time when the international community was attempting to isolate the emergent Communist regime. America naturally took this as a direct slight against them, and in the proceeding decades Canada has enjoyed CCCP infiltration of our political, intelligence, academic and business institutions. This is before we broach the culpability of Chinese organized crime working hand-in-glove with the government to control the flow of fentanyl into North America.

This is all to say, we have been here before and we understand all too well where this relationship leads. It is my belief that America presents a preferable alliance than China, as Canada at present must find one regional hegemon to fall into the orbit of. Fanciful as European connectivity may be, this nation is in the position where it will inevitably become a client state to a larger power at least in the foreseeable future and a multipolar world is likely to see Canada as yet another colony for resource extraction.

It’s not a foregone conclusion that the Great White North will remain at this compromised status indefinitely, but for now a larger dance partner must be selected.

With that in mind, we must extrapolate the fraught relationship between America and Canada to figure out if there is a path towards the ultimate goal of Canadian sovereignty.

The Illusion of Confederation

Canadian Confederation was primarily ignited as a response to American expansionism, and this is how it was sold to the provinces. From the outset it was clear that trade was destined to direct southward, so a schematic was drawn up proposing East to West trade, presenting a territorial unity that would economically benefit the emergent populations.

These conversations were occurring during an era where it was becoming clear that the oversights of Britain and France were waning, and with their attention drawn to calamities in Europe, the colonies of North America would be left to fend for themselves. After the American revolution, concerns of American dominance became more profound, especially along the West coast which would spell continental domination for the encroaching American borders. Quebec was of special interest at the time, as recounted by author and politician David Orchard, whose book “The Fight for Canada” chronicles 4 centuries of American Northward aggression.

One John Adams, who would become the second president of the United States, refused to give up the conquest even after a resounding defeat at the siege of Montreal, losing nearly half of his 8,000 troops. After retreating back to Philadelphia, his proclamation rang “the Unanimous Voice of the Continent is Canada must be ours!”

“It seemed inevitable that the United States would gain the entire west coast. Britain seemed almost resigned. The Times of London wrote that if the colony wished to join the United States, “the Mother Country will in no way seek to prevent annexation.” [...] From Ottawa, John A. Macdonald wrote to the British government: “No time should be lost ... in putting the screws on Vancouver Island, and the first thing to do is to recall Governor Seymour, if his time is not yet out. We shall then have to fight only the Yankee adventurers and the annexation party proper, which there will be no difficulty in doing if we have a good man at the helm.” The U.S. purchase in 1867 of neighbouring Alaska quickened the annexationists’ momentum.” – David Orchard, The Fight for Canada

These were not intellectual debates concerning the spirit of national identity; this was strictly about materialist survival and whether or not groups that had bled to defend the civilization they carved out across generations deserved to be absorbed by yet another foreign entity that would designate them colonies for resource extraction. It was daring to dream of something greater.

The game of sovereignty is simple: you either have enough mass, power, and strength of will to resist, or you don’t. Canada gambled that it could achieve this.

First and foremost was the financial incentive of unification. This was during a time when the region was defined by centuries of bloody conflict, not only from American military incursions but between the groups that were already in what would later become Ontario and Quebec; Aboriginal tribes, rival colonists, and competing business concerns were in a constant state of war.

Canada was born out of conflict and a desperate drive for survival.

“Canada’s history was nothing if not bloody. For the better part of a hundred years the French and their aboriginal allies, especially the Wendat, warred with the powerful Iroquois Confederacy of Five Nations—and that war had roots in conflicts that dated back even before the French settlements. Quebec City has been attacked and laid siege to numerous times—the bloodiest of which left much of the city in ruins. Montreal was nearly wiped out by an Iroquois attack in 1660; the city was later fought over by British and French armies, and endured occupation by an American force in the Revolutionary War. [...] Rival fur empires clashed in the Northwest with wholesale slaughter at places like Seven Oaks; the French and British battled on the seas of Hudson and James Bays; the Inuit fought repeatedly with their Dene and Cree rivals, who were also at war with each other; and the Great Plains warfare between the Sioux, Blackfoot, Plains Cree and other First Nations raged for centuries.” - Adam Shoalts, “A History of Canada in Ten Maps: Epic Stories of Charting a Mysterious Land.”

The seeds for Canada’s current situation were sown back in the conflagration of colonization and tribal conquest. The War of 1812 was but one flashpoint in a seismic shift occurring in the region, an exclamation point at the end of one very long run-on sentence spelling out blood and soil. Canada was able to marshal its forces and repel a foe of oversized force, thus earning it the right to stand apart and negotiate its own convoluted path of reconciliation between Anglo, French, Aboriginal, and European Diaspora peoples.

The Aboriginal element, while crucial to explorers such as Cartier and Champlain in their quests to give form to a continent that had no full conceptualization before they set foot on its untamed shores, should not be mistaken as equal to the other interests. While these tribal bands mythologize their ancient populace as overwhelming, data gathered by historians such as Stephen Leacock shows otherwise. As a result, they have not and will not be integral to the future of Canadian sovereignty.

“The early Jesuits reckoned the numbers of the Iroquois at about a hundred thousand; in reality there seem to have been, in the days of Wolfe and Montcalm, about twelve thousand. At the opening of the twentieth century there were in America north of Mexico about 403,000 Indians, of whom 108,000 were in Canada. [...] But even if we accept the more general opinion that the Indian population has declined, there is no evidence to show that the population was ever more than a thin scattering of wanderers over the face of a vast country. [...] The explorer might wander for days in the depths of the American forest without encountering any trace of human life.” – Stephen Leacock, “The Dawn of Canadian History.”

The fragmentation along colonial lines is seen as a feature rather than a bug, but the base economic incentivization combined with the demarcations between founding settler lineages means the discourse of provincial separation is ever present. Quebec being the loudest voice, followed by Alberta and recently even British Columbia. Provincial separation is often dismissed as unrealistic, but parsing the grievances put forward by each region reveals severe dissatisfaction with the economic promise of confederation, along with disproportionate control exerted by the state’s center of power in Ottawa. Like a marriage, the conversations speculating upon separation are enough to sabotage the essential bond required to be greater than the separate parts. These fantasies, if unrealized and unaddressed, will create a prison of self-destruction.

Canada’s first industries were trading outposts aligned with foreign powers, and this foundational relationship with nationalized ownership constrained the shape of its preferred business model. The large, centralized organizations characteristic of the fur trade had their political counterpart in bureaucratic government; this framework persists to this day. This centralized economy grew to independence in a brief window of time wherein capital moved in response to economic forces driven by Western dominance.

During the Second World War and the immediate postwar period Canada attained a level of economic strength and maturity which enabled her to export capital on a large scale, even contributing to the financing of the British postwar reconstruction. Despite Canada’s tendency to define itself along the lines of resource extraction and agriculture, it boasts some of the most renowned universities in the world and is responsible for a remarkable number of engineering feats. It makes little sense that Canada should boast such an academic legacy - legacies of engineering, of technological innovation - but this speaks to the dynamism achievable with the old stock population.

This would all change as the 20^th century proceeded, and the sovereignty forged though confederation would be slowly unwound.

Betrayal of the Economic Class

The promise of East-to-West political economy disintegrated altogether during the years which followed the Second World War. While American military pressure was consigned to trivia, their ever-present stranglehold around Canadian business development tightened. The subsidiaries of large American-based multinational corporations have replaced the operations of the earlier European-based mercantile venture companies in organizing the supply of manufactured goods and, increasingly, resource extraction. According to Kari Levitt, author of Silent Surrender, looking at the figures from as far back as 1963 shows 60% of manufacturing industry, 75% of petroleum and natural gas and 59% of mining and smelting were foreign controlled. As of 2025, America as a singular investor owns the most assets, controlling in one instance 47% of oil and gas extraction.

“Canada’s relationship with the United States is not primarily due, as is often claimed, to the strong ties of trade that exist between the two countries. Rather the pattern of commodity trade reflects the ties of corporate integration through the agency of direct investment by American companies. The basic decisions on investment and expansion of Canadian industry are made in New York, Detroit or Chicago, not in Toronto or Montreal. The satellitic status of Canada is reinforced, as in the old mercantile system, by the network of exclusivist favours, preferences and privileges negotiated from a position of weakness vis-a-vis the United States.” - Kari Levitt, Silent Surrender: The Multinational Corporation in Canada.

For Canada, concern about the degree of control exercised by U.S. corporations was first expressed when the promise of an economic boom in the 1950s was followed by three years during which per capita income did not rise at all, concurrent with a dramatic series of purchases of established Canadian businesses. Efforts to discourage takeovers or to repatriate some to these subverted sectors are still widely regarded as misguided nationalism. Trade protectionism in the form of “cartels” – the Dairy Farmers of Canada being a prime example – is routinely dragged in the press because many Canadian voters simply want cheaper American milk. The same arguments are made for the telecom and airline markets.

International corporations have evidently declared ideological war on the inconvenient nation state, at least as far as the vassals of the Greater American Empire are concerned.

The fact of the matter is the Canadian business class – and the elites that govern the productive centers of the country – view Canada as an economic zone to be exploited. Their goals are primarily to make the country attractive to foreign investment and tolerate when it is financially occupied. The story of the Avro Arrow is illustrative of how Canadian engineering acumen was ultimately subservient to its American counterpart in the form of their Bomarc missile as a requirement of enteringNORAD.

The geographic centers of Canadian power we behold now – the Laurentian Elites, the Quebecois Elites, and the Western Elites to name the major ones – appear to be more or less in lock step with this sentiment, even as they independently flirt with separation from Canada. From the Molsons to the Westons, from the de Lotbinières to the Mannixes, you would be hard pressed to find one of Canada’s dynastic families that isn’t either overtly or covertly jockeying for the most foreign investment possible.

The existing business class cannot give effective expression to Canadian nationalism because it has been absorbed into the the realm of global corporatism wherein America sits at the very center.

While Canada can claim American imperialism as a driver for unification, on what do we blame selling out that very unity, a betrayal which has seen us return to the previous Southward trade orientation? One reason provincial separation is so forecastable is each province can imagine a future with its largest trading partner. If the calculation of sovereignty is broken, can we even blame China for moving in, especially when invited? What about India when Canadian NGOs are beckoning that jaundiced biomass with promises of easy cash?

We can certainly loathe the environments caused by these groups, but we must also admit we make it easy for them. Canada broadcasts to the entire world that it desires their huddled masses because their citizenry is decadent and dying. Most immigrants repeat as much if pressured. On the most hostile tilt of this sentiment, they describe themselves as a swarm feasting on a desiccated corpse, one deserving of humiliation. Who is to argue when Canadians experience a proclamation of their degradation with every land acknowledgment?

The collapse of the promise of confederation was codified relatively recently, at the tail end of the 20^th century.

In the 1970s the Trudeau government in Ottawa became very concerned about the rapidly growing levels of foreign ownership and foreign control in this country, which had reached 38% of all non-financial-industry corporate revenue. The Foreign Investment Review Agency (FIRA) was created to address this, which managed to drive that number down to 27%; still high, but moving in the right direction.

This resistance would be short-lived, and once more it was the homegrown political class to blame.

After his election in 1984, one of the first things Brian Mulroney did was abolish FIRA and establish Investment Canada, an organization charged with soliciting foreign investment. Soon after, a startling 96.6% of the new foreign investment in Canada was for takeovers, with a diminutive 3.4% allocated for new business investment.

As Canadian shareholders were eliminated, corporate boards were substantially reduced in size and more American directors were added, as were more U.S. CEOs and board chairmen. Gradually this alters the character of the private sector even further, which proceeds to project a more unified voice towards the political class.

“During the free trade debates in the 1980s, big business sold the deal to Canadians as if it was essentially a trade deal which would get rid of tariffs and reduce the price of imported goods coming into Canada. The BCNI and friends rarely, if ever, mentioned all the other important aspects of the agreement relating to foreign investment, energy and resource sharing, and other clauses intended to permanently tie the hands of government, and many, many more unprecedented departures from previous Canada—U.S. arrangements. [...] Precisely the same sort of misleading tactics are now being employed in the corporate and political campaign to push us into an inescapable American embrace.” - Mel Hurtig, The Vanishing Country

As tempting as it may be, we cannot lay the blame entirely at America’s feet; how could we, when those charged with defending the national interest are so willing to deconstruct the system from within?

From exports to corporate ownership to trade agreements, Canada is currently dominated by American interests and any move against this will be interpreted as harming the American position. Assigning blame is less important than assessing the situation, and the situation is thus: Canadian Nationalism represents a direct threat to American economic interests, and any Nationalist will be treated accordingly.

Sovereignty In Numbers

If there’s one narrative policymakers, business leaders, and academics appear to encircle is that Canada needs more people. The answer they have settled on is mass migration, at one point promising only educated and skilled workers to address labour shortages, but presently admitting the country needs more people to address a declining birthrate and provide vaguely defined “economic benefits.” Most have come to terms with the plainly obvious negative impact this had on the real estate market, but it is now generally understood that the murky economic benefits refer to creating a consumer base to prop up the GDP while scrambling to inhale scraps of tax revenue to support our hobbling welfare system.

When tallying all the justifications for Confederation, one throughline can be driven across them all: between cultural affinity and economic guarantees, the animating belief was “we can do this on our own.” That was the flame that ignited the inferno of the nation. Does Canada still possess that spirit?

Canadian self-determination can be found in two different versions: Liberal (both major partisan groups) and Traditional (marginal radical groups.) The former says that Canada is a multicultural post-nation, the latter says that we must look to the Old Stock Canadiana of Confederation to locate an identity to return to. Is Canada best defined as an economic zone that simply needs more human capital - usually though mass migration - to scrape together relevance on the global stage? Or is there something deeper that defines us apart from every other Western country? No substantial relationship can be brokered with the world’s most consequential empire just south of the border until we apprehend awareness of ourselves as opposed to braying “what’s in it for me?” with a tattoo across our foreheads that reads “SLAVE.”

It is common for nationalists to aim their attention towards history. Nostalgia flows viscously in all nationalist circles, but especially so in Canada where many yearn to return to the mysterious frontier of an earlier century. We fly the Red Ensign flag, we speak of Loyalists the way Americans laud Patriots, and we proclaim that “Old Stock Canadians” are the foundation of the nation. But what of this Old Stock, and how rigid was this foundation resisting influence?

Doug Saunders in “Maximum Canada” builds the case that Canada has always struggled with maintaining its population, hemorrhaging residents and migrants alike into America. During most decades of the nineteenth century, Canada sent more people to other countries than it received as immigrants. When the largest emigration boom in history was sending more than 40 million people from Europe to the New World, Canada suffered a net migratory loss—mostly to the United States.

One might assume this phenomenon is on account of migrants intentionally using Canada as a springboard to greener pastures due to the lax border enforcement, but it appears to be an ongoing trend with citizens as well.

Mass migration as a driver of growth for the Canadia project is not a new idea. In response to the political crises of the late 1830s, Britain decided that its Canadian colonies needed a major immigration push in order to displace Lower Canada’s francophones and Upper Canada’s U.S.-born population. Even the most conservative politicians knew that the long-term success of Confederation would require more people. Its first thirty years involved a near-constant campaign to persuade people, mainly British, to settle in Canada.

The struggle to bring in familiar settlers was compounded by the fact that the territory that would one day be known as Canada was already awash in Americans. By 1812, Upper Canada had 100,000 residents and 90 percent of them were U.S.- born. The ruling officials in Upper Canada (the Family Compact,) and Lower Canada (Chateau Clique) resented that alien population. These elites answered first with a ban on Americans immigrating to Canada and on U.S.-born residents of Upper Canada taking the oath of citizenship or holding land.

This cocktail of isolationism mixed with thirst for financially-minded immigration has seemingly defined Canada since its earliest days.

This has even inspired movements such as the Century Initiative which endeavors to achieve a population of 100 million Canadians by the year 2100. This is an adaptation of Sir Wilfred Laurier’s dream of reaching 60 million by mid-20^th century, the goal the same now as it was then: achieve economic sovereignty through sheer population numbers and create a self-sustaining marketplace separate from the US.

“The 100-million figure seems to be a constantly rediscovered benchmark of Canadian success, as measured by economic analyses. In 1968, a group of scholars, policy advocates and business leaders formed the Mid-Canada Development Corridor Foundation, which argued that for a sustainable and independent economy Canada required a population of at least 100 million.” - Doug Saunders, Maximum Canada

Experts are quick to point out that there must be qualitative measures alongside quantitative ones; some of the poorest countries on Earth are also the most population dense, after all. It’s a matter of attracting the talented, and those appealing to some abstract notion of tolerance. The problem was that many of the most ambitious minds are consistently pulled into the gravity well of American liberty so antithetical to the Canadian project.

A choice example is Alexander Graham Bell, a towering figure Canadians proudly claim as one of their most cherished minds. Bell came from Scotland to Brantford, Ontario in 1870, using it as his base for experimentation. Ultimately, he left for Massachusetts and took American citizenship in order to find the investors, laboratories, and circles of creative talent he needed to invent the telephone.

To this day we see a steady flow of innovative minds splitting off towards Silicon Valley, Los Angeles, New York, and other creative hubs offering cultures of entrepreneurship. While some say that this is the result of more populous urban centers, another explanation identifies the difference of character between the two nations. It is difficult to start a business in Canada, and if you have ever attempted to you could easily come to believe the country despises small businesses.

Between the taxes and bureaucratic red tape, the message is loud and clear: Fuck Your Lemonade Stand.

Could it be that Canadians on average just think differently despite being inundated with American culture for over a century? To put a finer point on it: what is Canada’s relationship to liberty?

John Farthing, author of “Freedom Wears a Crown,” interrogated this question thoroughly and identified an anti-Republicanism lurking within the Canadian psyche, claiming further this offered a Third Path around the struggle between Libertarian Individualism and Marxian Socialism he saw dominating the dawn of the 20th century. He viewed society from a Spenglarian perspective: a living organism rather than a collection of individuals serviced by, and making demands of, the state. In this sense, the nation itself is a withering form born of the 18^th century and nationalists are engaged in a losing war to emulate their neighbors to the South much the same way the elite classes are attempting to play the game of mass migration to achieve a comparable population.

We understand that even skilled migration, whatever the justification given, is secretly initialized as a financial stopgap to keep the fetid organs of the state quivering on. Let us consider the opposing view: finding answers in the past. We must understand what made the founding communities unique and what drove them to assert this glorious, bombastic, cruel separation initially.

Farthing takes a distinctly Anglo perspective on the True Canada, despite the name itself deriving from the French Canadiens. He claims the British tradition has two characteristics: a king and an organic order, where a kingdom is essentially an organic order of growth. A king is the personal center of an order rooted in freedom and one that defies all possibilities of mechanical or mathematical explanation. Deny its true expression and the result is a hydra-headed array of substitutes; managerial elites, institutional rebellion, puppet politicians, and a cycle of elected leaders who serve foreign governments.

“There is an alternative for Canadians: to make the reign of Elizabeth II another Elizabethan age; claiming from the first Elizabethans an inheritance already ours by right and drawing from the past the essential elements of greatness in the present; a process of evolution in the true sense. We are the fortunate heirs of the greatest and richest tradition in the life of man; we need only to claim our heritage. Since the reign of Elizabeth I was precisely the time both of the Reformation and of the Renaissance in England, the realization of any new Elizabethan age must consist in our coming to see the meaning of the other, and in our carrying its work forward.” - John Farthing, Freedom Wears a Crown

In Farthing’s view, the three principles of king, law, and people are fully resolved in the ideal of the King-in-Parliament, a core element of all commonwealth countries. This is contrasted against the American Constitution which conceptually focuses more on the people. This highlights the primary division between the American and Canadian collective psyche: Order vs. Liberty.

How can we find a king? Republican Nationalism bewitches us into believing we can craft a democratic process to locate one. As we discussed in previous entries, the best we can attempt is creating an environment where forces beyond our control - our comprehension - can pull one from the volcanic schisms in our society. To begin we must understand the traditional, perhaps ideal, nature of the Canadian organism and how our struggle for sovereignty must necessarily appear different from the American Empire otherwise we will rhetorically gravitate closer to their frame of reference and ratchet ourselves closer to the very status we were trying to avoid: a vassal state granted the singular purpose of revenue generation.

To be clear, this is also how China views Canada, as does Russia, as does any regional hegemon that is making economic appeals to Canadian leadership. Frontiers demand to be occupied by adjacent powers, and by our own carelessness Canada has signaled to the world that it may be the last great frontier begging for manifest destiny.

President Trump caused a wave of indignation during the annexation controversy by saying it was at least partially inspired by Canada’s inability to project power throughout its arctic territory. As demeaning as it might feel to entertain such flippant flirtations with military conquest, Trump unfortunately has a point.

The nature of geopolitics is that everyone gets away with precisely what they can get away with, they assume control over what they are able to, and the only way to guide this reality is resistance. Canada resists performatively. If the nation desires sovereignty it must rediscover the sheer force of will that drove the insane dream of unification to begin with. Without this we are doomed to oscillate wildly between elected leaders both foreign and domestic.

Allegiance with America is preferable to anyone in Eurasia, but we are presently ill equipped to court any of them. Despite this, we have explored the history of American expansionism, subversion, and political agitation that has justifiably maintained an air of trepidation amongst the populace. We cannot chart a course onward unless this is reconciled.

One day Donald Trump will not be president, what will happen then? The only wrong answer is the one Canada has its hands gripped tightly around: “we’ll see.” One day Justin Trudeau stopped being Prime Minister, what happened then? The political ecosystem was insufficiently radicalized to provide a space for a new king or kinglike figure to emerge and restore order. To summon a leader of sheer will we must ourselves exert such a will on an atomic level to completely regenerate the mad dream of Confederation. Otherwise we deserve whatever happens to us.

Leave a comment

I am going to marshal all my creative skill to make this a more casual article. I am fulfilling my 2026 resolution to try less. In fact, the impetus to this entire thing was a just handful of conversations I had, which I am now flaying before you. You can’t do anything smart with that. If I do this right, it won’t feel like you’re reading at all.

I don’t like the word “based” anymore. I never did, but I also still don’t.

The precise definition has proven fluid since its introduction, but even back at the start of this whole circus of calamity it was still pretty loosey goosey. Most forget that its usage was inspired by rapper Lil B, the Based God. The meme became popular on 4chan which itself was a petri dish for dissident thought, one of many such online spaces and certainly one of the largest. It quickly became a substitute for “cool” but acutely applied to wild internet content while also contextually young and Right-coded.

Currently the word “based” has been refined to mean anything reactively heterodox, ironically embraced by both the Left and the Right, young and old. I’ve seen it utilized under a serious tone, uttered by someone attempting to discern if a subject is on the level. Are they based? Do they have based ideas? We only allow based people here.

People who are new to these sectors get very excited about applying the label to people, places, or things. It’s exciting. It’s fresh. There’s more mainstream attention now given to the Far Right than in recent memory, and a flood of mentally jailbroken individuals looking for an ideological home. Basedness is something the new adherent has tasked themselves with protecting. People in here are based, which makes them special. People out there are normies, which makes them bad. Right?
They are tempted to make the world based. We need a Based University. We need a Based LinkedIn. We need a Based Government. They can never tell you exactly what the word means, they can only identify a vibe.

This might all sound like some unc-coded coalhead oldtroon nostalgia; does Gen Z even say “based” anymore? If you wanted to kill my article, we could shake on that. But we do have an article to write, so let me wander.
The word isn’t used as frequently as it used to be, but the sentiment remains. I am reminded of Hunter S. Thompson describing a certain outlaw motorcycle club and how these men would begin making out with each other to spook the squares. That’s how it is utilized: reflexive counterculture vomit. It had a time and a place: perennial and everywhere.

Sweeping away all the semantics we see the rhetorical baseline is “being retarded on purpose.” It doesn’t matter if a statement is correct, it simply captures a bombastic disregard for any system-approved framing. I can pull dozens of examples from real content creators, but for diplomatic purposes let’s just summarize some anonymously:

“Hitler is in heaven and no black people are.”
“Suntanning your balls increases your vril.”
“Having a sexual relationship with your little sister is cool actually.”
“White women fuck dogs.”
“Meth is faustian.”

These are things I have been guilty of finding amusing, even entertaining them ironically. But the nature of internet discourse is that what begins ironically ends up earnestly; attitudes are normalized and younger generations are not in on the joke. An important feature of radicalism is the longer it persists the deeper it normalizes. You remember when we talked about how ideas are traumatic, right?

A friend of mine named Black Horse published an article not long ago that attempted to assess the political implications of what we are discussing. While I disagreed with his choice to frame it in sociosexual terms, the foundation of the piece identified a real phenomenon with possible political implications. He claimed the “gamma male’s” tactics within the male hierarchy - those of radical individual critique - have been victorious over the alpha tactics of the positive vision and leadership of men.

“Gamma male psychology is possessed of the urge to rage against the duty to embody the interests and pride of the group with arguments about the Machiavellian disutility of the practice. Gamma male psychology also maximally externalizes failure, blaming the group wherever possible and curating his reputation. The careful observer will note that the Gamma male has an inherent advantage as a social media influencer over the Alpha male, and yet is incapable as a leader of men.” - The Black Horse

On a long enough timeline, this filters for the most extreme personalities, those who make the most outlandish critiques or novelty takes that work as a hack to create signal that cuts through noise. Provocative statements incite discussion. The incisiveness of a comment increases its virality. Achieving a level of rhetorical insanity inspires awe. These are the rules to succeeding in content that most can intuit. It does not matter whether or not the opinion is correct, all that matters is that it moves the needle.

(No tycoon, mogul, or entrepreneur has ever met with his friends to “talk business.”)

This has all the markers of something based, but an important distinction is that it is wrong and asinine. Even though it threatens the prevailing feminist narrative, it is a fraudulent concept forwarded by antisocial losers that will psychologically one-shot whatever 13-year-old boy sees it. Do these people genuinely believe it, and if they do what percentage of it do they believe? We may never know, but that’s beside the point: the intended audience lacks the experience to parse the outrageousness.

In many ways the political Left - Marxism and its appendages - have mastered the so-called gamma approach, building a vast ideoplex of theory to justify itself. They have been successful with its strategy of isolating the enemy and directing multitudinous critique at that group, specifically those groups perceived to have power. Historically this was capital owners but since the definition of capitalism has expanded over the 20th century it is now argued to contain the concept of Whiteness.

Even though they were the original masters of weaponized critique, their mission is different than their opponents on the Right. They take no issue with aligning with the maladaptive detritus of society to target groups with names and faces, meaning their agitation can take violent form easier. In fact, their visionary proposals for a greater society are the least attractive part of their project. In America they struggle to energize the rest of the populace with universal healthcare and border abolition. These proposals tend to fall on deaf ears, but what still works is the collectivist antipathy towards the wealthy and, especially as immigrants are welcomed into the fold, White people as archetypes for abusive power. On the other hand, the Right generally believes you must toil over the perfect social schematic at which point you can scale up.

There is a severe distrust of politics-as-usual on the Right, and most adherents would welcome the total collapse of society to provide the wretched canvas upon which to architect this ideal society. This makes Leftist political action hugely successful as a ratcheting tactic with the end goal being violence. The promise is that once these malicious entities are removed - Capitalists, Kulaks, Monarchists, White People - balance shall be restored.

The Left and Right is a permanent axis of every civilization, and its varying tensions are based on everything from the history of the region to the genetic stock. I’ve come to believe a crucial difference between the Left and Right that cuts across all cultures is Freedom vs. Order. The Far Right/Dissident Right/This Thing Of Ours concludes that there are systemic solutions to problems that can be achieved through singular authority, fueling this is the belief in ideal states of being. The Left as we know it is comprised of two central beliefs: power is morally wrong, and everything else is relative.

Being Based orbits around these first principles, flowing like an electrifying technic. A Leftist calls their opponent a cuck and it means something completely different to them as the word has been stripped of meaning. You may hear “simp” in an Ed Sheeran song by the end of the year. Cardi B draws an IQ bell curve around her ass.

The socially dissident ecosystem that Basedness emerged from appropriated this deconstructive approach through online memetic warfare, whereas the Left has failed miserably in this space while their real-world infrastructure dominates.

(The only succinct ones are made by women about how they shouldn’t have to wish they were raped.)

Acceptance of abrasive concepts expressed wildly can be understood as an essential selection process for entry into this online sphere, but it has the dual effect of permitting maladaptive people or those seeking the destruction of all social standards wherever they may be found. They would tolerate equitable chaos over inequitable order in all instances.

We must ask these emigrants: do you despise this system, or all systems? Is offending popular sentiment something you do begrudgingly, or something you relish in every instance? The tricky thing about a vibe is it’s easy to fake, especially if the gatekeepers were recently fake themselves. The filters we leverage are those of esoterism, cruelty, eccentricity, anecdotal universalism reified through vigorous research, and humour, just to name a few. Just to name mine, perhaps.

This discursive online battleground exists as a feedback loop with the goal of generating a critical mass that calls leaders from the darkness, and the reaction it breeds against itself - even internally - is essential to its form.

When that reactionary chaos becomes a stylistic qualifier unto itself it becomes an identity. It is viewed as a trendy attribute to mark if someone is an ally in this thing of ours. There’s people you may vehemently disagree with but you feel you must support them tacitly because it would be “bad optics.” You will hear phrases such as “on side” or “directionally true.” I simultaneously observe that it allows individuals to cosign strange ideas as long as it seemingly offends the status quo. For want of attacking feminism we see the embracing of philosophical homosexuality. For want of offending liberal morality we see the embracing of figures like Jeffrey Epstein.

One day everyone starts sharing “The Happy Merchant,” utterly devoid of meaning and adopted to signal affinity for a barely understood countercultural recollection, adopted by teens to let everyone know they’re different. It is like punk rock, and like punk rock it is easily corporatized by the lame.

More seriously, this is also the biggest inlet for historical enemies to sneak their way in; an expat wave of bored Liberals, embarrassed Marxists, and Anarchists who decided to pick up a book. There’s no shortage of Directional Allies who can adopt a Far-Right frame to launder their priors and, most importantly, never admit fault for their previously held, failed positions. This is the first instance of strategy over idealism. People are momentarily “on side” even if they are enemies, holding beliefs that are utterly antithetical to your own.

This strategy has one purpose: attack the system. As it turns out, a great many groups want to attack the system and the natives to this worldview have an inability to detect skinwalkers.

Extreme Offensive Reaction is treated as political strategy; it fits the vibe, which must be defended at all costs. Extremism for the love of volume. We are told to allow it all because it is directionally correct. It owns the Libs, it spooks the normies. Look how popular we are getting, we must have changed so many hearts and minds. This is what winning feels like, some say. It feels materially static.

This is not to say that radicalism ought not be first and foremost offensive to the system it seeks to disrupt. On the contrary: I assert that being based does not fit the parameters of true radicalism. It’s a job of the radical to remain radical, and never to compromise. It is not the responsibility of the radical to temper itself and negotiate. That’s important to the health of the ecosystem, and we have no interest in scolding firebrands for the distance of their aim.

With that in mind, what is reactionary must remain reactionary. That’s what basedness is: a savage, nihilistic reaction to the systems which oppose you, but the moment it attempts to make itself into a political strategy or a collective movement, it loses that edge and it becomes a contraption. This is where the sunsetting Dissident Right is stuck at the time of this writing, attempting to wish its thrashing reaction into something fit for the boardroom. Struggling in vain to whip radicals into leaders of men. Trying to turn a memetic space into a lurking government.

Radical minds should be left to pursue the purest – perhaps most extreme - version of their beliefs. But something can be both radical and misguided, it can have the tone of something real but if you scratch the paint it is revealed to be hyperreal. Something purporting to be the Caustic Truth but the recipients identify with its caustic nature rather than the truth. A turd coated in acid.

The resulting commandment is that something based must be defended because it mirrors the abrasive nature that we have come to accept as truth, not because it attempts to be a heterodox center of gravity through intensity. This outlook encourages prey positions masquerading as Machiavellianism. What grows from this toxic soil are misguided sentiments such as “There’s No Enemies To The Right,” or “NETTR.” The stated goal is to annihilate the Left at all costs by adopting their mantra of NETTL. Maintain a united front with whoever even tangentially hurts the Left, even if it’s former Leftists whose central critique is their comrades are too inept. Ana Kasparian is welcomed with open arms because she was the last hag across the finish line to notice that the trans agenda had profoundly negative consequences on her personally. A tidal wave of baffled Liberals who achieved everything they wanted and are suddenly upset that it had negative consequences, elbowing out those who had been predicting it for decades because the natives are deemed to be adolescent. The adults are now in the room, grant the fleeing rats new staff positions.

Time may have vindicated you, but you remain an incel.

To attack the based you should address the substance rather than the tone. Our brand of equitable chaos desires to give itself form as authoritarian power, and this is where the cracks form. A business is a business, a movement is a movement, and a memetic war is a memetic war; all too often we expect the three to miraculously coalesce. This isn’t a boardroom, it’s a mosh pit. It must be left to exist without further expectations. Despite this, all radicalism found within the conflagration is not created equal, and all these realities must be juggled in the air.

I came across this post and my instinct was to disagree with it, but I said nothing while ruminating it over a few hours, embedded as it was in my mind. While I don’t believe it to be completely accurate I believe it to be true enough. Before the innovations of ideology and archetypes, psycho-analysis and meta-analysis, this is how your ancestors assessed the world. While the tableau described may not resonate with every reader, it is certainly true for the majority of people, that middle of the bell curve: the Hyperpeasants. Pure critique corrodes the social fabric and pure behavior affirms it, both approaches expressed through sheer force of will.

I am reminded of the Irish Republican Army, specifically the area of South Armagh and leaders such as Tom Murphy. The IRA has been described as the gold standard for waging a guerilla war in the West, especially against an enemy of close proximity. Its astonishing capacity to inflict violence has few competitors, even in dynamic movements such as Codreanu’s Iron Guard.

Tom Murphy was a principal figure in South Armagh, one of the most aggressive and beholden to the mission of Irish Independence at whatever cost, from the militants right through to the inhabitants. While one might expect such revolutionaries to be inspired by Marxism, the majority of the army were allergic to such highfalutin intellectualism. Murphy himself would dismiss appeals to the global struggle against capitalism, seeing it as a distraction from their multi-generational mission: chasing the British away permanently.

“Jim Lynagh was into Maoism and all that sort of shite because he’d had time to read in jail. The likes of Tom Murphy and Kevin McKenna had probably never read a book in their lives. They were ordinary fellas who left school at 14 with no educational qualifications and learned everything they knew on the ground. There was no big philosophy, no desire to have high-falutin meetings or anything.” - Merlyn Rees, Bandit Country: The IRA and South Armagh

These men could not be negotiated with, they wanted one thing and it guided all their actions: the British out of Ireland. Whatever they could do to make the occupation of their land difficult, they would do it. It was internal strife which tore them asunder, that and degrees of desire for negotiation amongst leadership. But for the diehards, their rejection of confounding intellectualism ensured they would never be distracted, never compromise. Using Tom Murphy as but one example, here was a man of pure action, as were most of the successful bomb makers, snipers, and smugglers which made the larger war of independence globally infamous.

Every dream of power found on the Far Right can be interpreted as imposing one’s will upon the world to achieve a desired order. It is this goal that separates it from the Left, but it is not a unified mission; it is fluid, multitudinous, and multi-generational. It is far more metaphysical and philosophical. The vision is wider, the breath of the war much more expansive. This leads to a pacification of the will, and a terminal strategization of the radical.

As Nietzsche once said, or so I am told, philosophy is at its best when it’s attempting to universalize one’s particular circumstances. I don’t know for sure that he said that, or if anyone has even said it before.
Anyway, it is a valiant struggle to divine the truth in an unknown universe, but it usually falls victim to the subject’s particular life experiences, upbringing, and even genetic stock. It is that drive to universalize the particular that sits at the root of all Western inquiry, the perversion of chilled investigation by the vibrant intersections of blood, soil, and spirit. Philosophy is the blossoming of the will in an unbounded metaphysical landscape, whereas strategy is the suffocation of will. It will tell you to cease imposing your aggressive will upon the universe. It is the anesthetizing of action. It is the feminizing of ambition.

Being retarded on purpose can act as a veil for the truly retarded. Radicals must not be tone policed, but it must be proven that they can bleed. Do not yearn for a symphony from the shrieking inferno. Strategy is born in strategic environments, forged from those avatars of leadership called forth from the flames we nurture.

See? That wasn’t so bad, it was like you weren’t even reading at all I bet.

Leave a comment

I recently had a lively discussion with the reading group I steal all my favorite books from while telling everyone they “came across my desk.” The discussion was concerning the term “peasant thinking,” referring to a way of understanding the world that harkens back to a narrower and far more provincial state of mind. To my mind it smuggled in a class critique, but I was assured it had less to do with the economic status of the individual and more their inability to think abstractly or correctly integrate new information.

This is a meditation on the demands placed upon us to internalize never-ending information hazards as we navigate this hostile society. This is about how our attempts to make sense of the world sap our strength of will directed towards it.

My cherished opponents clarified that it would be truer to refer to “peasant thinking” as “magical thinking.” Of course, only peasants would seriously believe in something like magic, because they’re poor and don’t know how to read. Such is the implication.

You have probably encountered people or groups that fit this description, one that springs to mind is when people blame the Antichrist for the strife of political particulars. It could be Satan himself, or ill-defined elites which could be Luciferian Baby-Eating Sociopaths or Luciferian Baby-Eating Extraterrestrials, as espoused by David Icke.

In short, you take a very complex situation and find the lowest-resolution explanation for why it is, typically taking the form of demons or some other superstition. To them, an explanation becomes a talisman: a mystically possessed object one can wave at a problem to affect change. The talisman perpetually places the problem in question beyond one’s grasp; a paranormal barrier has been erected to repel the problem rather than dissect it in a rational mindscape.

To be clear: these people do exist. By which I mean, of course, the modern peasant mind as well as the aliens eating the babies.

I objected to the characterization of this social phenomenon being something expressed by the lower strata of society. To begin, my view is that magic is not a simple solution to a complex problem; rather, it is a complex solution to a simple problem. How we see it employed is not as a blunt dismissal of impending tribulation, but a process of layering esoteric rationalisms over a single event in an attempt to explain and thereby control it. You do not even need to believe in magic to understand that every instance you can conjure is a complicated ritual backed by a bewildering belief system actioned by an agent that is laser-focused on making their ex-spouse sad or coaxing a demon out of the darkness to make the most asinine request imaginable.

This is pretty much what Wicca is, by the way. It’s 10,000 fat hags spending hours making drawings of chicken’s blood and flower petals in their room, concentrating their vaginal energies to sway the election for Hillary Clinton. When it doesn’t work they say something about how they “felt that there was... another...” then continue on gracelessly living.

This more accurately describes what I believe we are seeing: massively complex concepts developed to explain specific, often materialistic, events in the domains of politics and culture. While it is obviously true that uneducated minds may cling to faith when confronted by something they cannot understand, this is far more utilitarian than devising an ideological superstructure that is similarly called upon for quick reference.

It’s not the uneducated people who employ the latter; it’s the overeducated. It is the information-poisoned, the intensely-researched, it’s the most literate of us that grope for the same intellectual coping mechanism. These were the types who seem to have historically been drawn to magic, alchemy, and esoterica. Most superstition has been and remains an attempt to avoid the supernatural, whereas what we are discussing is people moving towards it in an attempt to understand and control it.

To their credit my colleagues identified themselves as peasants, as did I. The people in our circles are all guilty of this, but if that’s the case what do we call those who don’t behave this way? Would anyone that does not engage in these sorts of intense inquiries be the aristocrats- the monarchy - which could include both the super-wealthy and the impoverished uneducated?

A babushka waving a handful of smoldering thyme gathered into the shape of a man to ward off spirits is more defensible than believing oil is an interdimensional manifestation of evil given form through capitalism. Such are the sins that flow freely in our online realms of discourse. One of these approaches is for people who want to tell the devil to fuck off, and one of these is for people who want to invite the devil in.

The gravitational pull of intoxicating theory has great minds losing themselves in the pursuit of alchemy and metaphysics alike. In my experience this is also how most Leftist theory operates, specifically how Marxist ideology has developed throughout the 20^th century. The premises are always reputable; often their starting points are ignored by the Right, like Foucault investigating the history of incarceration or even Bataille analyzing the concept of surplus in the pre-capitalist world as a justification for human sacrifice. While such geneses are pulled from our lived reality, the solutions are always exceptionally simple, while the glut of the middle is where all the baffling theory resides. Herein lies the jungle of ideology.

Over where I’m standing, it’s the inverse. In my experience it is only what can be broadly identified as The Right that proposes detailed solutions and where most of us spend our time hashing out the details, even if such solutions are offensively radical.

An illustrative example is crime, where most Leftists will cite volumes of theory that lead to one conclusion: abolish crime. On our side of things, we believe that all crime is different and should be weighted as such. Certain crimes carry malevolence in their intent rather than misdemeanors of opportunity, and while we may agree with certain elements of the Leftist interrogation, we widely believe far more people should be in prisons and then those prisons hurled – indeed, chucked – right into the ocean. There is one group that is constantly attempting to legalize crime and enact social policies that excuse all behaviors except for wealth accumulation.

Leftist philosophers and their adherents adore vast labyrinths of theory. Like modern American conspiracy theories, the journey is more attractive than the destination. People love to get lost in these multitudinous conceptual frameworks, and the longer they persist the more real they appear. Furthermore, the more real they become, anchored as they are by real agents in the real world who commit real actions in their name.

It all sounds very magical, doesn’t it? Similar to how revolutions never end and the scars even vanquished movements leave define civilizations indefinitely, so too do these ideoplexes guide our destinies the longer they remain in the public consciousness long after their magnificent impacts.

The collective focus of individuals can have a profound effect on the real world. Hypernormalization is a term coined in the Soviet Union to explain how citizens near the collapse of the Communist system were aware that the system was failing but could not envision a viable alternative to replace it. This mode of social zombification generated the delusion of stability through inevitability, which was later appropriated by popular Leftist philosopher Mark Fisher to explain the persistence of capitalism. You believe the system you inhabit is the only possible system, which drives you to passively defend it out of fear that the alternative is total darkness. Apathy is adorned with vestiges of certainty which thereby perpetuates the system.

It’s a nice sounding theory to explain why everything seems fake and everyone is sad and everything seems to be getting worse. It sounds nice until you realize the primary competitor to capitalism enjoyed comparatively faker, sadder, and worse parallels of everything from art to architecture. If you hate Capitalist High Modernism, you should try Communist Brutalism. From where Fisher was writing in the 2010s it might have also seemed obvious that the dominant economic system was a frustrating fusion of capitalism and socialism, with China, Russia, and America embracing varying shades of this hybrid model. It leads to puzzling discoveries like how America, as a percentage of GDP, spends more money on social services than China. It’s all Neoliberalism across the board, so apparently hypernormalization is a feature of both thriving and failing systems.

Someone of my persuasion would point to the characteristics of the civilizations themselves and their human capital to explain many of the differences, but that is not on the table for these intellectuals. They are traipsing through that bloated tract of theory, seeking justification to the point they begin embracing obtuse metaphysics writing itself into existence.

You can build entrancing cathedrals of inquiry that justify their existence by the sheer scale alone.

“Yes, it’s good in practice. But, is it good in theory?” - Some Asshole

Generations after the Communist revolution we see Marxist/Leftist critique wandering far from economic concerns and into the fog of spiritual, sexual, and neurochemical capitalism. Now we’re talking about how symbolic castration gives birth to existential lack which spawns desiring-machines: the irreducible psychological mechanisms which make capitalism inevitable. Now we’re talking about the solar anus.

The longer these critiques are maintained by subsequent generations, and the longer they are kept alive through the blood transfusions of synthesis, the more influential they become. The bigger they are, the more gravity they exert, and the more matter they are able to draw towards them. And the more baffling they stand in their wild complexity, so increases their stimulation for minds wandering aimless.

Focused human intent maintains these constructs like a tulpa, and tulpas can wield sledgehammers in your neighborhood. There are no qualitative filters to wither these lifeforms. They become hypernormalized over time and eventually you can’t imagine a world without them.

Consider how much Marxist critique has been sewn into the tapestry of the American Capitalist Empire: it integrated class consciousness, it encourages collective revolt, it condemns the exploitation of labour, and it has been disproportionately redistributing wealth for over half a century. China and America have arrived at the same destination through opposing directions. The average person is so exhausted by this discourse they more or less accept it now.

It’s akin to UFO disclosure: we have been inundated with conflicting evidence, bewildering theories, and recently outright confirmation through official disclosure to the point if extraterrestrials landed on the Earth’s surface tomorrow most people would not be expectedly disabled by such a revelation.

There was a time when the majority would deny aliens existed, whereas recent studies show over two thirds of Americans believe in intelligent life beyond Earth and over half say UFOs reported by the military are evidence they are present on Earth. There have been no public demonstrations or seemingly any increase in social discord. People have been primed for acceptance through exposure, and exhaustion.

Every idea you discuss is granted power. You have more responsibility than you think by entertaining any of this.

Marxism and Aliens have been implanted in the Western psyche through media rape. It is an essential function of the Western mind to think, while being brutally raped, “let’s figure this out.”

Unless the Great Awakening - the “redpilling” - is paired with measurable action then the populace eventually becomes exhausted with the discourse and it is absorbed into the status quo. Taken further, it is the social integration of even insane, maladaptive ideas. Upon taking root, they mutate and become impossible to remove, subjects of meta-analysis, of cultural enshrinement.

Nobody wants to waste their time arguing against class resentment or alien spacecraft. Thus is becomes part of your cultural code.

We spatialize time but we also create living egregores of ideas we find compelling, becoming their servants in the interest of actualizing them on Earth. The reactive inquiries that would limit their growth gradually expend our vigor and we are left with bemused acceptance. We believe that, contrary to the peasant mind, simple situations require complex analysis and therefore the most complex strategy - regardless of how preposterous it might sound - must be the most accurate.

This is why I rejected the word “peasant.” If we gather what we have learned the more apt identification is “wizard.” And that is, of course, disgusting.

I prefer a word already in rotation which boasts exceptional explanatory power: “theorycel.” A reconfiguring of “incel,” or involuntary celibate, identifying the same manner of critique at work. There is no direct relation to sexuality here, but a parallel drawn to how incels experience paralysis though analysis of the inexorable tension between the genders and over-intellectualize courtship dynamics thereby making them ever more distant from their aims. Over time the -cels lose sight of why they are even pursuing these intense inquiries.

The theorycel is far more susceptible to bewitchment through shiny glittering objects than the ignorant peasant. To restate the obvious: that would describe me. That would also describe you, the doomed reader of this.

Putting magic spells and solar anuses to the side, what do we think is really going on here? If you recall what a K-Line (Knowledge Line) is, it’s a neurobiological model that explains how a human mind constructs itself through experience and problem solving. You can see it at work if you observe children growing up. Put simply, you grind to learn rudimentary skills and then you tie those skills together into a psychological shortcut both for quick recall but also to combine simple processes into actions of higher complexity. For instance, as a child you must first learn to grasp an object, which takes a significant amount of effort. Separately you must master walking, and then you must master throwing in a straight line, and then a dozen more distinct skills before you can ultimately pass a ball during a game. Once you connect them and relegate them to your subconscious, you can eventually graduate into operating an industrial lathe.

Your mind is k-lines hooked into adjacent k-lines, triggering one another like magisterial music, granting you the power of muscle memory to create tapestries of highly complex tasks like constructing an engine with discretely functioning components.

I believe our modern malaise is at least partially explained by how we have continued developing k-lines, but they have come to encompass higher-order ideological constructs. The essential pattern identification remains the same, but it now assumes the responsibility of perceiving overlaps between mind-bending concepts. Baffling words triggering connections to divergent ideas, their connections forged through acute contemplation. We are cramming esoteric theories into k-lines, then weaving those together to form even greater structures that trigger each other like a matrix of landmines.

Theorycels are especially prone to entombing themselves in these matrices, but I submit that everyone is susceptible to this to one degree or another. The age of information places incredible demands upon the average mind, and they are encouraged to craft explanations for the psychological operations – private, public, and social – they are subjected to daily. The risk we run is that everything we seriously consider leaves a stain upon our mind, just as everything that is actioned leaves some sort of wound on our world.

There is a theory that technological development is seeded from future or possibly interdimensional intelligences, but flights of fancy such as these sound like the reeking hippie cousin of determinism. I don’t believe it to be as simple as disjointed linearities painted with sci-fi graffiti. The egregores we conjure to implant into our world are drawn from a far darker and more treacherous aether. It’s pulled through us from timeless intersections woven through our DNA, not sent from the future by an evil robot. Grasping a talisman to keep it at bay would be far more dignified, but we are doomed. We are doomed to find these things interesting, to birth new ontologies matching every new trauma, and to detect astounding overlaps between the cognitohazards we must construct just to survive.

What we need are new talismans to smash the walls of theory and use their jagged shards to construct the tools for dark solutions. Such things we will do with these savage devices will prove to be far more illuminating, far more intellectually stimulating. The hour is late, and you can just do (insane) things.

Leave a comment

Advocacy for group self-determination is fraught with internal conflict. For example, those who engage in promoting White Identity, even passively, discover that much is lost in translation between European movements and North American movements, especially over the definition of “White.” A jungle of misinterpretation stretches to each end of the compass. Ethnicity vs. Race, Communalism vs. Individuality, and History vs. Progress frequently waterlog these agitators in circular firing squads. More time is spent debating what Whiteness is among its purported vanguard than strategizing against its threats.

Proponents of identity oriented survival who have been in the game for any substantial amount of time are aware that the first wall they hit is their own kinfolk, typically their own families and friends. This is the first autoimmune response that isolates the advocate and frequently leads to their burnout before long.

This kinfolk will proclaim such an identity too complex to ever understand. The definition of White used to preclude the Irish, they will say. Europe is too nuanced to ever share a cohesive identifier, they cry. The concept of race is the product of liberalism, they sneer. There are many rhetorical obstacles that work exclusively on those bred within the same cultural milieu, and most of these are accurate to say the least.

These intellectual conundrums ought to be deprioritized in light of the more urgent matter at hand.

In my view, the most practical strategy should be attacking the enemies of Whiteness rather than pounding wedges into its fault lines. It is much easier to identify those individuals and groups – institutions, even – that want to abolish Whiteness than it is to resolve its blurred edges. These enemies are overt, vocal, and identifiable. Even if White people cannot reach a consensus on their own qualifiers, the rest of the world seems to understand. This becomes unignorable when placed in multicultural environments.

There is no organic unity summoning the heading of “Asian” from the bottom-up unless these historically contentious groups are in a room of Non-Asians. They are able to identify the perilousness of their situation, as we all must in a globalized world. It’s prison rules on this prison planet.

To add another layer of complexity, there are many organizations that seek to center identities that want nothing to do with them. In America there are several that point towards the founding stock of the nation being largely White Protestants of one denomination or another, with the exceptions being the spiritual wilds of the South. Be that as it may, these groups can find themselves arguing for a group in the abstract, from a distance; White Protestants apparently to have little interest in exercising their own collective will for ethnoreligious survival, meaning these vanguards must do so on their behalf, as enemies.

That’s an interesting word: enemy.

Carl Schmitt’s “Friend/Enemy Distinction” is an important concept and one that enjoys ongoing relevance to anyone who endeavors to engage in realpolitik. If you want to strategize at all it’s important to know who your friends are, and what qualifies them as a friend. Many will merge this with “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” and right here is where it mutates into something dangerous. It results in one-way friendships, like Europeans seeing Muslims as their comrades – or even brothers – because they share a common enemy in the state of Israel.

These people will spy a global conflict and pick a side to support remotely, not engaging directly or negotiating an alliance. This negotiation is essential: making a friend of your enemy’s enemy requires a handshake accord after discussing the terms. If it is just being a cheerleader for a foreign struggle, it is highly unlikely that they will see this support as anything other than transitory naiveté.

This is the lowest-effort version of brotherhood, something more akin to consumerism. You find yourself window shopping for friends and simply hoping your currency is recognized at some later date.

The worst-case scenario is you befriend an existential enemy, a group that absent any legitimate treaty will immediately pivot against you at the earliest convenience. Indeed these clusters may be working against you presently. Can you really be allies with a group that in every other instance views you as part of The Great Satan and feels no compulsion to see you as any different than the rest of the cursed empire? What rewards do you believe they will bestow upon you in their moment of victory?

Why should they see you as special upon the moment of their victory?

Without getting too deep into it, let us simply ask one question: if the Palestinians were relocated to Western Europe, would they take a stand against the Muslim “grooming gangs“ that have raped countless White girls for a generation at least? Or would they endorse these gangs? Perhaps they would signal their compliance through silence.

The friend/enemy distinction we must embrace now is whether or not people believe your identity should survive. It’s a yes or no question. Folkishness has been defined as family before tribe, tribe before race, race before nation, and nation before globalism. There are many populations around the globe that would answer with a resounding “no.” Having spoken with many of these supposed comrades in arms, I have encountered no rung on this ladder that they would not have an interest in subverting. As previously mentioned there is a not-insignificant number of people within your own tribe that would answer the same.

The friend/enemy distinction indicates that both of these examples should be treated the same, and any short-term allegiance that affords them more power in your realm will be reckoned with blood before long.

Aren’t you tired of seeking allegiances with people who want you dead?

We have a lot of experience with that here in Canada, and it is the root of what has made our situation so dire. For many generations this nation has been controlled by a political and business class that sees national self-determination as a cursed prospect. The story of Canada throughout the 1800s is one of intense military and economic conflict with the United States, culminating in the surrender to American interests and a complete inability to advocate for itself. This would not have been possible without traitorous interests in our midst.

It all begins in Quebec. The French settlers had opposed the king’s attempt to call their country New France, insisting they were not French but rather a new breed of people known as Canadiens. According to David Orchard in his classic work “The Fight for Canada,” the American colonies broadly agitated for war to drive the French out of North America. Britain agreed, and in 1755 over 2,200 soldiers under General Edward Braddock and Colonel George Washington set out to take the Ohio Valley from the Canadians. For three years, from 1755 through 1757, the French, Canadian and Indian allies were winning. The British and Americans did not achieve a single goal, except for the expulsion of the Acadians.

This was a trend that would continue over the subsequent centuries. Later, the U.S. failure to take Canada in the War of 1812 carved deep memories of resistance to U.S. aggression and determined the shape of the nation thereafter.

“The conquest of Canada ... was essentially an American idea [...] And although advanced British opinion adopted it as a political program, it nonetheless remained American in its conception.” - Guy Frégault, Historian

Having failed to take Canada by force, the Americans attempted diplomacy. After the success of the American revolution, chief U.S. negotiator Benjamin Franklin opened talks by suggesting that to allow the Americans and the British to be “perfectly reconciled,” Canada should be entirely transferred to the United States. Britain was anxious to regain the goodwill of her former American colonies and was willing to make hitherto unthinkable concessions. Under the resulting treaty, Canada lost forever all its territory between the Ohio and Mississippi rivers which had been surveyed by the great explorers and represented an essential trade route for Canadian exports. The Dominion of Canada remained a prize ripe for the plucking, a sentiment that reemerges in cycles.

Diplomacy gradually lead to economic imperialism, frequently lead by Americans residing within the borders of Canada operating in concert with homegrown business magnates. One such example is the Montreal Annexation Association, an unlikely alliance of English Tory businessmen and French-Canadian radicals, which ran candidates for the legislature arguing that political union with the United States would improve Canada’s economy. Its president was sugar tycoon John Redpath. Other officers included brewery owner William Molson.

The annexationists failed to win support among the general population in their mission to make Canada part of the United States, but it was just one of many attempts driven entirely from within Canada. The discourse was more or less left to simmer the entire time.

Canada’s economic relationship with the United States is not primarily due, as is often claimed, to their strong trade ties. It’s more about corporate integration and ownership, the citizenry unaware of how much national control has been bartered away.

As Kari Levitt explains in “Silent Surrender: The Multinational Corporation in Canada,“ Canada’s concern about the degree of control exercised by U.S. corporations was first expressed when economic boom of the 1950s was followed by three years during which per capita income did not rise at all. U.S. economic control was concurrently growing and there was a dramatic series of purchases of old-established Canadian businesses. Expressions of concern were dismissed by business, government and the academic community.

These controlling interests did not want the public to fully understand the decisions on investment and expansion of Canadian industry were made in New York, Detroit, or Chicago.

“The satellitic status of Canada is reinforced, as in the old mercantile system, by the network of exclusivist favours, preferences and privileges negotiated from a position of weakness vis-a-vis the United States.” - Kari Levitt, Silent Surrender: The Multinational Corporation in Canada

Canada is experiencing the simultaneous process of decolonization and recolonization. It grew to independence and nationhood in a brief historical era in which goods, capital and people moved in response to economic forces operating in relatively free, competitive international markets. This is not the ecosystem we currently inhabit. American-based multinational corporations have purchased, replaced, and suppressed the operations of the earlier European-based mercantile venture companies through a network of branch plants and leadership positions.

Present-day Canada may be described as the world’s richest underdeveloped country, driven by legislation crafted to make the nation an ideal landing place for American capital creating a cascading effect that resulted in most large corporations being owned or run by Americans. This has resulted in formalized trade that greatly favors America and has positioned Canada as a fragmented vassal state incapable of controlling its own manufacturing base. While the tide may be turning on this sentiment in light of the recent tariff war between these nations, the legacy of economic servitude animates the entire political structure. Sovereignty is deprioritized against getting the best deal.

Geostrategists such as Peter Zeihan are accurate when they point out that each province of Canada has a stronger trade relationship with the US than any other province, the horizontal trade dominance pioneered by Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald a distant memory. Every component of the system wants to make Canada tantalizing for foreign investment, viewing nationalism as a direct threat. Forget finding support for ethnic nationalism, the government will not even tolerate civic nationalism. More migrants to prop up the GDP and more foreign investment to maintain the façade.

When reformers speak of the measures that must be taken to fix the system they might imagine a surgery undertaken upon a living patient. This is an apt analogy because during surgery the patient must be rendered unconscious in a zone of total control otherwise the body will sensibly react as if it is being attacked. If you lack a zone of total control, this reaction will be outrageous. Furthermore, the sheer amount of work that must be undertaken combined with the amount of corrupted flesh that must be removed is tantamount to gutting a fish. How many traitors must be removed from the bureaucratic structure, how many politicians and entrenched interests must be removed, how much of the Canadian business community must be exiled? 60%? 80%?

The Nationalist Operation can be mistaken for taxidermy when one considers the severity of the illness.

Returning to the Friend/Enemy distinction: many Canadians see America as its existential enemy. They define their identity at least in part by their opposition to their Southern neighbour. While history is clear that they stand as an all-encompassing adversarial empire, do they really count as an eternal foe or simply a competitor adhering to the rules of straight geopolitics? Sovereignty cannot be granted; it can only be seized. If a subject is unwilling to exert its territorial sovereignty through sheer collective will, why wouldn’t America simply move in? Forget America, why not China? Why not Russia? Why not Japan?

I once wrote an article for the Old Glory Club titled “The Annexation of Canada.“ A sensational title to be sure, the content was more calculating, especially for an American Nationalist outlet. The piece detailed a plan to secure provincial sovereignty in the event (likelihood) of state collapse, arguing that negotiations could be met along the existing trade routes as long as new regional governments emerged. This would be in the interest of both sides. It was written more as a call to establish provincial power centers driven by emergent groups creating parallel systems under the staggering, wheezing, utterly inept Elite Political Machine.

You only own what you can defend, and Canada is riddled with tumors that are auctioning it off to the highest bidder. Canada being oppressed into an economic zone could not have occurred without the political class and prominent business sectors enthusiastically trading it away. In this author’s view, America does not stand as an existential enemy, but rather as a political adversary. This is an opponent that can be met in the field of collective sovereignty and brought to terms. The conflict between the West – alternatively termed Europe and its colonies, or the White World - and the Global South, on the other hand, can enjoy no such accord.

Africa is a great example of what I am referring to. One of my favourite examples of Third Worldist Marxism is “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa” written by Guyanese radical Walter Rodney. African revolutionaries adore narratives that cast the entire continent as randomly oppressed, destined for Wakandas from sea to sea if only the wretched claws of the entire world would leave them be. The theme of the book is that while trade with Europe absolutely benefitted the regions economically, it just wasn’t enough. They were denied sufficient advantages that would have undoubtedly allowed them to “catch up,” seeing technological development as steps on a ladder anyone can climb.

African warlords enslaved their conquered opponents and sold them to the first big ship that showed up, but who’s fault is that? Why it was Europe’s for giving them the idea to do slavery, which purportedly never existed before Europeans stepped foot on African soil. Well, it did of course, but African slavery was nicer (or so we are told,) whereas Europeans used it to do capitalism, a hostile magic that made Africans want to get as many guns and shiny beads as possible.

What did they do with all these advanced manufactures? Let’s say extraterrestrials showed up one day and gave you mind-warping tech, what’s the first thing you would do with it? That’s right: you’d break it or make it into a hat. You would blame the Europeans for not making schools to develop the minds of the populace so as to fully exploit these new ideas, hold the fort they did build schools, and roads, and ports? Well, Africans going to school was just so they could be indoctrinated into capitalism, which as we have established was hostile magic. The White Man should have given Africans twenty trillion dollars so they could have witch doctor hukka hukka chukka ayyyyyayyyyyy oooooh ah-hukka chooka verbal history universities.

That’s how you get the floating pyramids cruelly denied by the Sons of Yakub.

“It would be extremely simple-minded to say that colonialism in Africa or anywhere else caused Europe to develop its science and technology. The tendency towards technological innovation and renovation was inherent in capitalism itself, because of the drive for profits. However, it would be entirely accurate to say that the colonization of Africa and other parts of the world formed an indispensable link in a chain of events which made possible the technological transformation of the base of European capitalism. Without that link, European capitalism would not have been producing goods and services at the level attained in 1960. In other words, our very yardsticks for measuring developed and underdeveloped nations would have been different.” – Walter Rodney, “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa

The causes responsible for Africa’s current state, of course, are so multitudinous that the aggregate might as well be metaphysical. Despite all the history and all the data and all the financial spigots opened over the continent, they believe they were denied the chance of securing placement upon the upward curve of social development. This misconception persists to this day, where in reality there is no bespoke system of education or mountain of technology, tactfully woven into the fabric of existing folkways as they must be, that would result in the continent “catching up.”

The problem is there is no civilizational drive comparable to Europe, and its leaders are not electrified by an enchanting time horizon. There is no amount of money that can fix Africa, and strategies to develop them will always be viewed as imperialism.

In Jean Raspail’s “The Camp of the Saints,” a chilling fiction detailing a near-future where a ship filled with the human detritus of India is bound for the shores of Europe, one could be mistaken for thinking the antagonist is the hoard of insane murdering rapists. As the book spends its first half explaining, the true villains were the subverters, the radicals, and the traitors inside Europe herself who halted every process set in place to prevent the oncoming race war. The ship would never have made landfall unless the entire political apparatus was staffed by ambivalent corpses bewitched by ideologues yearning for a more equitable world and seeing the West as the necessary sacrifice to achieve it.

Europe effectively had to die before it was murdered, pillaged, raped. A civilizational yearning for destruction so deep that God felt it necessary to intervene. The book captures the racial malaise permitting the invasion coupled with the paranormal forces that set the stage, called to action by the terminal cancer afflicting Europe. The traitors met their brutal ends the same as everyone else, but by that point who would be left to say “I Told You So?” as the legacy of European natives is gradually rewritten inked in their own blood? On what grounds would these people be your allies, they who blame you solely for enslaving them and condemn you for unilaterally ending slavery thereby threatening their profits?

There is no reasoning with this position. America doesn’t look so bad, you just need to bring a big enough gun to the table.

Many in our political milieu still seek unidirectional friendships and endorse geopolitics as optimistic spectator sport, blind to the full gamut of their enemies, assuaged by the belief that the bioweapon deployed by one foe will appreciate the narrative support at a later date and surrender their conquered territory.

There exist groups that have nothing but absolute contempt for who you are, what you represent, and your entire history. The friend/enemy distinction can be ascertained by one question: do you believe my people should be able to exist in their own space? The only correct answer is “yes,” any performative confusion at the question is admission to the negative. Even if you lack the confidence to fully draw the schematic of your identity, the rest of the world knows exactly who you are and knows exactly what the question implies. They see your self-determination as a threat to their designs. These can be foreigners and fellow countrymen alike. Friendship with these people cannot be entertained without the threat of force.

What we are speaking of are the metaphysics of survival, and there is eventually a tipping point where the spirit is unwilling to maintain its status and the problems proliferate too fast. It is not one enemy driving the decline, it is several. In a neorealist world driven by self-interest, it is not the legacy of slavery animating the bitter rebellions of Africans or other viral diasporas. There are traitors within the city walls, and their allegiances cannot be persuaded otherwise, even if at some undetermined future date their rhetoric shifts to echo your own. Their spirits are devoid of this necessary electricity and they will launder their sickness in new and horrible ways.

It’s easier to identify who wants to destroy you than who would adhere to your acutely defined values in a perfect world, a world where we can finally breathe. We can identify who even desires to inhabit that world right now, and who will be eternally and covertly opposed.

Leave a comment

“He who fights with monsters should see to it that he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

I don’t do thoughts and prayers. To clarify: I never offer prayers, and arguably I don’t do thoughts. Which isn’t to say that during mass I am not engaging thoroughly in the ritual, or I am otherwise confused about the goodhearted intent behind public proclamations. It’s not even that I don’t believe they have an intended effect, consumed as I am by trippy proposals of psychic links and phenomenological tulpas replicating like cosmic cancer cells.

I am immersed wholeheartedly in this thing, unplagued by disbelief.

I’ve encountered many people – notably transhumanists and tech accelerationists attempting to pragmatically appropriate Christianity as some sort of software upgrade – who struggle with getting their arms around what God is. Surely it is impossible to intellectually grasp the infinite, but I see them cast God as a species of lower deity similar to how pagan cults would. God, in this framework, is subject to a dominion of outside forces, bound by some ill-defined mathematics of nature. In the traditional view I have taken great effort to understand, even the most powerful gods inhabit a container of fate and judgment, whereas in the Westernized iterations of Christianity all life are constructs within the mind of God who simultaneously flows through us as a fluid self-realizing ecosystem. The concept of Logos itself being the word of God that birthed the logic of existence as pure unbounded creativity. God’s plan, to summarize it in my vulgar fashion, is the sum of reality.

With this in mind it always seemed selfish, even hedonistic, to appeal to this totality as if it were momentarily erroneous. Who am I to plead for disruption? The arrogance to deliver wishes unto Him or plead to correct the record always seemed futile. It becomes achievable when you imagine God as a superpower in the sky, or a Zeus-like figure that can be bargained with, driven as he is by emotions and agendas similar to your own. I say this with the full understanding that this is a subjective interpretation and I may be throwing the gauntlet down for theologians to inundate me with mean things.

There were many historical factors that lead to the dominance of Christianity in Europe and the decline (or absorbing) of regional paganism, but one undeniable consequence was the pivotal enlightenment allowing a much more abstracted, distant horizon of the divine while maintaining a direct relationship with this power. It was the nature of the relationship that had forever changed to what we experience now.

The spiritual revolution coinciding with the decline of the Roman empire was nothing less than a mind revolution signifying a reconfiguration of our place in the universe. A revolution that may be one more demanded by the faithful.

None of us can truly imagine something outside of our comprehension, despite our constant drive to do so. This is the case with God, entities from the future, extraterrestrials, or the purported machine elves lurking in other dimensions allegedly accessible through DMT. It seems obvious that true interdimensional power would have no interest in negotiating on a level playing field with us, especially in a linguistic or moral framework we could understand.

Solemn Providence does not utter syke.

It is reassuring to believe you hold central influence in the universe even when critiquing from the periphery. Those viewing unknowable power from below find comfort in populating incomprehensible paranormal spaces with entities it can understand, perhaps even outwit or kill. Even when you believe power is beyond your reach, you want to believe you can still draw a circle around it. The current online dissemination of Italian Elite Theory is selling such analysis to the margins of society possessing no sociopolitical sovereignty, proclaiming that power is a singular force that is wielded by a singular class, yet the act of elaborating on it appeals to it in some manner. Predicting the moves of elites as if these gambles have anything on the line. This plantation of thought curses adherents to a pathetic proximity away from embodying the rare black swan event that could fulfill their destiny.

Investigations into power structures, including those involving shapeshifting reptilian invaders, are indicative the rationalism of our age. They are important, but more than important they are inevitable. When we encapsulate, dissect, and disenchant we run the risk of creating a basic-assumption fandom; a device purpose-built for our own intellectual enslavement.

Ethereal extraterrestrials in fact live inside of our actions, not in performances of shotcalling elite moves from the ghetto, engaged in an eternal knife fight over speculative crumbs of influence. In light of the harshness of the prior assessment, these flights of ideation are symptomatic of a deepening understanding of the sociopolitical forces that shape our lives. It is necessary, but insufficient.

As our understanding of total power has expanded so has our obsession with probing its mechanics, thereby encapsulating it, placing it upon a stainless steel table upon which we can lord over with surgical instruments. This is a consequence of the paradigm shift from a cyclical model of time to a linear model, where even the gods were contained within the cycle of change into a permanent – if declining – progression wherein there is no rebirth, no forecastable Kali Yugas, and bookended by a definite beginning and end. We maintain this conceptualization of temporality for better or worse, and as we have ascended to even more complex theories explaining the innerworkings of reality, we have expanded the terms of creation towards a spatialization of time.

This phrase seeks to explain how our cognition has refined the ability to visually portray both the future and past as static zones accessible as one walks between rooms, but furthermore alternate interconnected ecosystems searchable in a rudimentary theory of “multiverses.” It is this visual spatialization that stages our endeavors. The future is not just the extended present; it is a place that is inhabited by our future selves. The future is understood as a place where entities live, and we are entranced by stories where heroes can not only communicate with these human (or inhuman) entities, but travel to the future as if it were an undiscovered country. A frontier we can colonize, or be colonized by.

The future is where utopia resides, and our mission is to chart a course towards it. Not only do we believe the ideal future is inhabitable, we believe we are owed it as if an inevitable destination.

It should come as no shock that our understanding of the immersive creator has shrunk to fit inside of these illuminated negative spaces. Our conscience whispering that existence is subject to outsideness.

This subconscious spatialization of time has created a modern terrain to affirm inevitabilities that we believe draw us closer to them. It’s literal, transactional, and scalable. Even Nassim Taleb in describing Black Swan events – discoveries or events that change the entire status quo – portrays them like lurking Known Unknowns. Discoveries we do not know but believe we can know, trapped and awaiting liberation. Innovation as treasure hunting. This triggers a race to who can discover it first under the assumption that someone inevitably will, the qualitative or even destructive capabilities of the achievement being secondary. The ripe fruit is there for the picking it, might as well be us.

Some of the most powerful men in human history are convinced our destiny is to multiply heedlessly amongst the stars. Not only do they feel drawn to this utopian future by ambitions located in the untamed nether somewhere behind the scaffolding of logic, they understand other groups have also arrived at this conclusion and are currently engaged in a mad dash to the finish line.

We are beckoned beyond reason towards an ethereal New World, the unforeseen hazards largely dismissed by this Faustian script.

Now the last thing you need to hear from me is another treatise on hyperstition. It’s a popular notion these days imbued with the belief that there are either benevolent or hostile entities in the future attempting to influence the present through ideas that manifest like tulpas. The broader definition of hyperstition is a fiction or concept that makes itself real like an platonic form giving birth to itself. The question naturally follows, from where do these seeds originate? Who writes these fictions to make them so special? Other dimensions is one explanation, but then why not the future? This is the plot of Interstellar, arguably the plot of Arrival, just to name two.

Interestingly, it seems that every time we create an accessible realm hitherto unimaginable, we populate it with monsters. This is what ruined The Backrooms, in my opinion. A wildly popular organic online narrative community, The Backrooms started as a fascinating idea likely inspired by video games: the ability to glitch out of the known world and access spaces that seemingly exist behind, above, or even through our waking world like the secret spaces behind a movie set. This zone was not created by malevolent intelligence, rather seemingly called into being as a necessary substructure.

We begin with an implication that the universe could have a subconscious where half-formed locations intersect in an interconnected dreamscape, but as we developed this world our story architects felt compelled to make it a space where monsters roamed. This narrowed the conceptual possibilities, no longer seeking novel storytelling hooks but rather crafting familiar halls to run around panicked in.

Perhaps there is an evil corporate conspiracy. There might even me a final boss.

Our obsession with armchair-quarterbacking The Without, hypothesizing the reciprocal transmissions, has us placing bets on what maleficent shape Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) will take, having accepted that this is the destiny of all technological innovation if not in the short term, then certainly the long term. The most centralized civilizations on Earth are presently engaged in a race to heedlessly unlock the secrets of this Black Swan, convinced as they are that our utopian future requires it.

Many believe AGI is impossible, hobbled by limitations of both energy and data. While artificial intelligence will likely remain a hot sector due to gated applications, the dream of creating a machine god remains practically elusive.

Like those advocates for spreading humanity across the stars, those who pursue the most outlandish dreams of AI are primarily animated by the belief that it’s man’s fate to create a perfect – indeed, a perfected - replica of himself. The return on investment is incidental. He with a closed and cynical mind spends his time predicting what precise form it will take, while he with a more open mind understands that upon release it will begin dictating its own form. AGI is the barbarian horde encroaching from a savage netherworld forcing us to prepare for the siege.

A Spenglerian assessment could indicate that it’s the natural symptom of civilizational decay, more a commentary on fallen races submitting their vitality to a new master, the only struggle offered being the pleading to dictate the terms of the conquest. The Huns are still well within the boundaries of the Steppes, though; we are so convinced we deserve the siege that we are already thinking past the enemy that is only stirring awake. We feel as though we deserve it, the cleansing fire of The Without offering such imagined vitalism that we beckon it in. We are still not asking the most crucial question: why? Do you know why we need to conquer the stars? Do you know why we need to create a machine God? Do you know why we should live forever? This is not to say there is not an answer to each of these questions, it’s just I’ve never heard an answer.

A case could be made that the desire itself is all the explanation that is required. We are thrust by a momentum that does not need further justification. At times I acquiesce to this explanation, but I have come to believe we need to start identifying better reasons. Bernard Suits was a Philosopher of Sport who developed a theory that all human endeavors fit the description of games. This is not to say they are frivolous, but rather that games are of the utmost importance in the interest of accomplishing higher order aims. He challenged the conventional notion that games existed diametrically opposed to work, where the latter is seen as valuable and the former a dalliance to ultimately waste time.

Games are defined here as quests to accomplish goals with elective obstacles placed in the way in the interest of hindering absolute expediency. Games can include sports, role playing, gambling, and ultimately anything with defined rules that narrowly define the route to achieve the goal, shifting the aim from attainment to victory. For example, the most efficient route for reproduction is rape on a mass scale, but we developed what could be described as a “game” called courtship. Sexual consummation is the last link in a very long chain of general stipulations, with everyone understanding what the goalposts are.

Laws against insider trading, beliefs regarding how to conduct a transaction, chivalry, all of these can be identified as games as long as we acknowledge that these rules are not arbitrary. Nearly everything we do exists on this game gradient, becoming more treacherous as we approach pure utility. The rules can be viewed as eugenic layers filtering for the most adept champions, and winning at life in an amoral fashion is seen not only as malignant but weak.

This outlook is grounded in the belief that morals are obstacles to achieving greatness, whereas in the aforementioned theory they are the boundaries required to achieve greatness. Morals are an aggregate system of behaviors that have been passed down generationally which, even taking the utilitarian view, have been proven to lead to the best outcomes. I have encountered a few people who, in the interest of accumulating power, have defended making a deal with the devil, or even the benefits of unchained hubris.

Creating a machine god. Colonizing the stars. Living forever. Which end of the game spectrum do these fall? Are we approaching pure utility for the sake of it, foregoing all rules established through mythical wisdom, dismissing these concerns as if they were part of a child’s play by the name of morals?

I am possessed by the conviction that alien intelligence is impossible to interface with, and that the highest forms of power cannot be negotiated with. The consequences of opening Technological Black Boxes are unknowable, and it has become apparent that reckless technic cannot be reigned in. Guenon asserts this is the Reign of Quantity, and Spengler condemns this historical period as the decaying empire of of mutated materialism. The abstract realms guiding our ambitions are populated by monsters of our own design at our own peril.

Even God allows free will, but many believe political power is an inescapable superstructure wherein nothing unpredictable can ever occur. What power we could conceivably have is anesthetized by drawing borders around the unknown, lead astray by puny imaginings of what dwells within. Forecasting our own subjugation grants us no power over it, this may even call it forth. Free Will and Solemn Providence are not contradictory, we are simply accustomed to surrendering to perceived power the moment our decision trees narrow to a singular disastrous branch. A highly-educated prey position that blinds us to opportunities and attacks emergent forms as ratlike cancer cells.

Awareness of outsideness should not be interpreted as an invitation to become its ward. The Without arrives not with a handshake but it shudders when confronted with the darkly multitudinous. Within that depth, bewildering to those polluting alien eyes, you still possess the oft neglected question: why? As my friend StormyWaters is apt to say, to paraphrase: “bodies without consciousness will inevitably become host to consciousness without bodies.” I am unplagued by disbelief, which is why I take insane things seriously.

Leave a comment

I have failed in my attempt to write a more casual piece, but my intentions were pure of heart. It wasn’t designed to plop an upsetting singularity into the crown of your spine. Year of the Crash Out is reaching its culmination, and we celebrate how everybody else has matched my/our mental instability.

I will open with a controversial take that will surely upset my loyal Nazi fans: I do not think the Hyperborean Overman depicted irregularly in both historical propaganda and current memes represent a realistic genetic pinnacle for White identitarians. The Tall Blonde-Hair Blue-Eyed Aryan does not seem to reflect the genetic characteristics of those individuals who appear to commit to these sociopolitical fights.

I am referring to each quality separately, or the rare aggregate presentation.

You do not need to be a White Nationalist to unpack this claim, my loyal nubian lesbian fans can engage with this like any other article.

When I survey the landscape of notable individuals who have laid down their lives and livelihoods for the mission of European survival – from Germany to England and even America – I don’t see many blonde people. I don’t see many tall people. I’ve seen a great many who do not have blue eyes. The majority of these leaders appear to possess a physiognomy that could be described as “dark” in centuries past. Consider Napoleon. Consider Julius Caesar. They would get zero pussy from Swifties.

Consider the most consequential civilizations and empires in the history of the world – America, Britain, France, Spain, Greece – and their populace are not representative of this physiognomy. In fact the nations that embody this throughout Scandinavia have come to define themselves by passive-aggressive socialism with a penchant for globalist economics rather than the Viking berserkers that outsiders project them being.

As scholars of National Socialist Esoterica we understand why this was done ideologically. I have even known some Dutch who make claims to distant German heredity and dream of a Fourth Reich emerging from windmill country. But we are Doing A Scientific Pragmatism.

This commentary is not implying hidden agendas held by these modern identitarians, quite the contrary: these qualities of self-awareness, leadership, and no small amount of martial prowess are precisely the things a sensible society would like to identify and multiply. But these are not the aesthetic qualities depicted as the visual ideal, the things we are told we ought to multiply. Most importantly, they are not qualities seen as corollaries for exceptionalism.

Where are all the jacked, blonde, A10 supermen? Even Nick Fuentes addressed this on a livestream not long ago, saying that these enviable individuals were off playing video games and smoking weed. Those who seek racial self-determination are for the foreseeable future stuck with him, described in his own words as a short mixed-race incel chud. He is one hundred percent correct, and there is presently scant competition for that level of populist authority.

These racial aristocrats seem numerously absent, yet their images emblazon inspirational posters. From a genetic perspective, we are always seeking to identify which traits should be propagated for the purposes of survival. Certain qualities appear to be more positively correlated to the aggressiveness of persistence, but they are not portrayed as aspirational. There appears to be a disconnect between our dreams and our fantasies.

Some will claim that the imagery is simply aspirational, or that its only intention is to be anti-ugly. A visual rallying call towards the singular power of the Western essence and something to spiritually strive towards. Viscerally imagined cries of “you’re overthinking it” cascade down upon me. But then we wouldn’t have an article. We must have an article. I already did the images.

With all those caveats addressed, the purpose of this inquiry is to dissect why something is aspirational, and when it stands as a biological ideal whether it necessarily intersects with the eugenic. There seems to be a disconnect between the qualities that optimize genetic survival and the qualities desired in mates. To take it further, do our aspirations subtly promote dysgenic qualities?

If short guys with dark hair are more often the great who make history, why are the hoes so scared? Why aren’t the physical attributes of billionaire nerds who hunt humans for sport and will in all likelihood crack the code of eternal life seen as attractive?

Something has chased Mark Zuckerberg into appropriating Kung Fu Wigger culture.

I asked this once to a Far-Right Feminist who, like many others, have found popularity in inversely mirroring the bombast of the masculine “redpill” sphere. There, all the anti-feminist talking points are embraced, one such accusation being female hypergamy.

Women, we are told by some of our wealthiest content creators, are naturally drawn to the Alpha Male of their tribe or society and any females will find it preferable to mate with the same high value male. Women date up and across their social status, but never down, which makes competition for the high value males exceptionally chaotic. Visualized data will be presented explaining that throughout history it was likely that upwards of twice as many women would bear a child but only 30-60% of men will father a child, indicating a trend towards polygamy, harems, or perhaps adultery. It is difficult to argue with the data, and even the fact that more men died young across time and were sacrificed at the altar of war does not dismiss the consequence of mate selection.

Where once this was dismissed as a misogynistic trope, the feminists in question assert it’s not only accurate but a laudable function of civilizational survival. To them, women are the stewards of the genome and should exercise extreme biases towards mate selection. Men just need to do better to fulfill their standards, and there is nothing more dignified than a chubby bully on SSRIs believing she deserves a handsome vampire billionaire.

If this duty were truly held, why would so many women favor self-destructive or even sociopathic behavioral tendencies in their mates? Have you ever known a girlboss who dates a reprehensible loser? How about the middling executive who believe they deserve the top 0.01% of men and bide their time until their organs expire? The intention here is not to paint with too broad a brush, but it seems that this theory grants unrealistic agency to a side that has shown to be extremely poor at the purported eugenics project. They’re just not good at it.

Furthermore, have you noticed that the majority of CEOs and executives appear to date laterally, often within their own social circles? It does not appear to bear out that women from the lower rungs of social class are reproducing with the top. This was presented by Christopher Lasch in Revolt of the Elites, arguing that this reinforced class segregation. If you exist in the real world and observe real people, you notice that George Clooney does not in fact have relationships with bitter graphic design girls or OnlyFans witches.

Then one day they wake up and it’s too late to snag a dawg.

If we examine the competitive landscape of the 21^st century, it’s clear that the most successful, powerful, and materially rewarding men tend to be nerdy technocrats. They’re probably short, they’re probably succumbing to the Norwood Reaper and despite that allegedly being an indicator of high testosterone that is treated as genetically inferior. High-value women may of course eventually settle for these paragons of their era, but it is never seen as genetically superior at the outset. They are not necessarily attracted to the qualities that charted the course to this social status. They choose these men not particularly because they want to codify these characteristics in their race, it’s more that they can guarantee limitless trips to Ibiza. They will admit the cynical nature of these pairings quite openly.

How many women would claw their way to sleeping with Napoleon vs. a broke criminal than smells of cat piss and cigarettes like this author? I am 6 feet tall with blue eyes and a devilish head of hair so I am arguing against my own interests with this entire article. I gain nothing from this.

Not only is the aesthetic peak of European existence absent during its public war for genetic survival, but one wonders how inspirational it is to strive towards for the average person. You, an oppressed Ham and Egger, does the revolt against ugliness agitate you to action? Does this cargo cult to hairless chests inspire you?

The man it depicts would never seek confidence from propaganda. He certainly would not let the works of intellectuals guide his ambitions.

The conceptual hyperborean man is not a populist. It is unrealistic to expect the layperson to become a lone wolf paragon. The great irony of Western dissidence is that its proponents yearn for collectivist power but idolize aristocratic – even gloriously rugged – individualism. McLuhan sketched out the trauma associated with the Western individualist being thrust back into the “global village” of ancient egalitarian communitarianism by way of technological immersion. We are currently struggling through this transition; our psyches ripped in twain between our disdain towards emotional mass revolt and the romanticism of being able to strike at oppressors with furious melanated immediacy.

The Hyperborean Man cannot be a sweeping collectivist. Third World Revolutions are a type of software we cannot run, driven as they are by surrendering primary to the dark music of genetic savagery. In late 2025 the Nepalese youth burned down their parliament and attacked every Prime Minister past and present they could get their hands on, all because the state took Facebook away. It is why White people were flummoxed by the George Floyd Riots: it made perfect sense to the perpetrators because Black Americans see their oppressor as the entire White (Supremacist) system, represented even by their neighborhoods which they merely temporarily inhabited.

Whether a blessing or a curse, Rationality will not permit Europeans to behave as a mindless cleansing fire. This is both cultural and biochemical.

There are two fundamentally opposed modes of experience and their difference is rooted in the bihemispheric structure of the brain. The brain’s left and right hemispheres need to co-operate, but Iain McGilchrist puts forth the theory that they are involved in a sort of power struggle, and that this explains many aspects of contemporary Western culture.

We are not describing different ways of thinking about the world, rather wildly different ways of being in the world. The right hemisphere, with its greater integrative power, is constantly searching for patterns in things. The left hemisphere operates an abstract visual-form system, storing information that remains relatively invariant across specific instances, producing less malleable categories of things. One is better at long-term thinking and creating complex mental constructs, while the other is designed for processing a wealth immediate information for short-term goals. Knowledge lines – or K-Lines – crisscross each side, creating a complex web of triggers and reactions that bind new information with experience. How these connections carve their way into existence is the purview of neurobiology.

“The history of the West shows times when a move forward in one hemisphere ‘releases’ a move forward in the other, according to Nietzsche’s assertion that ‘these two very different drives [the Apollonian and Dionysian] exist side by side, mostly in open conflict, stimulating and provoking one another to give birth to ever-new, more vigorous offspring, in whom they perpetuate the conflict inherent in the opposition between them.” – Iain McGilchrist, The Master and His Emissary

The theory dictates that Western civilization has reached a point where the balance has swung irretrievably far towards the Apollonian left hemisphere, which now appears to believe that it can do anything, or make anything, on its own. This is the side of rationality, primed to comprehend the universe through scientific dissection and recreation. The reaction we see both politically and technologically is a romanticism towards the world of the ancients, cyclical time, and perhaps a more profound romanticism towards the world around us. To be at one with nature rather than the Faustian quest towards rebuilding the universe in our image.

Whether or not you believe this cognitive shift has truly occurred, the foundation is the focus of this discussion: the Western mind was notable for its ability to apprehend larger ideas in an abstracted mental space and create more intricate ideological constructs with which to comprehend the hidden dimensions of the universe. Many of my cohorts envision an acceleration in this direction, to mount a revolt against the modern world that cuts through the cacophony of information dragging us towards the bosom of feminine reactivity. There is a strong case to be made for either, but the left hemisphere is responsible for both empathy and the capacity to create complex mental architecture defining long term strategies. These are the capabilities we often cite to test for a higher-order mind. A mind of existential literacy. A mind of agency.

A question was therefore posed by one of my community members: how can we as a society behaviorally filter for agency? Taken further, can we eugenically identify those who possess these qualities? In other words, to multiply the overman. There are mental faculties that have become memes in recent years that indicate the dimensionality of the ask: picture an object in your head and rotate it. Tell me how you would feel if you did not have breakfast this morning. Tell me what your inner voice sounds like.

I do not believe these capabilities are necessarily correlated with IQ, and I have encountered several high-IQ individuals who cannot action one or all of the aforementioned abilities. I have seen some very learned men who are deeply impressed with the free LLM they are convinced is the most ingenious mind, this is the sort of thing I am talking about. It is not stupid people vs. smart people. Maybe it’s the souled vs. the soulless. That sounds extreme. Let’s leave it there anyway.

Returning to the beginning of this inquiry, the selecting for what one could term Elite Martial Traits: how do we eugenically promote Left-Hemisphere thinking, and proliferate the very individuality the Right alternatively condemns and lionizes?

The best answers I can muster relate to the capacity for responsible leadership and the curiosity to seek out challenging information. A leader who can stand apart from those under his charge but also maintain the same people for an extended period of time is extremely rare, and there are countless examples of tyrannical leadership both in professional and political instances. Foresight, empathy, organizational acumen, and the capacity to understand the group organism indicate a higher order mental state. Overlapping with this is the desire to seek out information that challenges one’s preconceived notions, never retreating to the comfort of biases as this man understands the fluidity of survival. This is Anti-Fandom behavior.

Why do we need to scientifically multiply these people? Perhaps only 15% of a population sit at the intersection of these qualities. And perhaps that is how it should be; these individuals are summoned by their historical period, and the filter is their abilities manifesting. If they are inferior stock, they end up exiled or consumed by their own groups. We don’t need gene editing for this, we just need more severe mechanisms to filter out the pretenders, the grifters, the sociopaths.

The Aristocrat of the Sovl does not require a guide to accomplish any of this. He does not need to read a book to awaken these qualities within him. He is not looking for an intellectual leader.

On the contrary, those who promote the technic of elite masculinity are in all likelihood coercing the wrong sorts of people, those who do not genuinely feel these compulsions and therefore create a shoddy fandom of strength. Some say the sovereign is identified as he who decides the exception, and true power does not proclaim itself. Similarly, the hyperborean man does not traffic in memes of himself. He just does things.

Is there a way to effectively communicate to this nascent population? In an era of mass communication, the established forms seem counterintuitive. I am not a staunch believer in “antimemetics,” especially considering I find the term misleading. But within the sometimes-confused expression of the theory rests the truth that certain influential ideas are not designed to be populist in deployment. A meme as originally described by Richard Dawkins can be summarized as units of cultural transmission (not just an idea, but an idea expressed through communication) that move, replicate, and evolve like organisms. Its strength is dictated by how many minds it can thrive in and how long its fundamental message can persist in the zeitgeist, even after countless iterations of retranslation.

“The memetic city is easily recognizable. It is the realm of viral ideas and social contagion: tweets that explode overnight, social media avatars supporting the latest political cause, TikToks and Instagram Reels that we scroll through at the end of a long day. […] But the strength and might of the memetic city depends partly upon another, less visible, but equally powerful world that we don’t always notice or see: the antimemetic city. The antimemetic city resists replication, dwelling in the shadows of our collective consciousness. Like Shenzhen, which drives the global electronics market, or Zürich, which drives global finance, the antimemetic city is not invisible for lack of importance, but because it thrives on operating quietly in the background.” – Nadia Asparouhova, “Antimemetics: Why Some Ideas Resist Spreading”

The notion that certain ideas should present themselves as hostile to most viewers is a novel one in a maddening information age. Ideas that glimmer with a toxic coating so only the initiated can consume them, that prevent them from the mistranslation that occurs with widespread acceptance. The problem is that this appears to lead to severe mistranslation in the short term, even the target audience unsure if a message is serious or a troll deployed as an purity test. Messages that inspire fevered debate even among the initiated, meaning that while most will recoil at the sight, the immune can still interpret them however they want.

In this sense antimemes proliferate not as encrypted wisdom but concepts that immediately mutilate themselves. An valiant attempt at aristocratic coding that bears all the markings of a deranged fandom.

Standing apart in singular greatness is not a meme to be trafficked for popular consumption. There are those who want to bring you onto a content plantation concerning the relationship between people (you) and power (not you.) Still more rubes want you to adopt a theory speculating on the innerworkings of power as a class. All of these are shoddy altars constructed by the egotistical fringe – delirious exiled strivers – upon which to sacrifice the consumer of ideas in a vain attempt to impress the influential.

The popularity of the propaganda of the hyperborean man attacks its legitimacy. Leaders are selling leaderlessness, cargo cults of distant elites are forming, at every level it’s the familiar phenomenon of rich men selling courses on how to become rich, the secret being that one must sell courses to convince desperate simpletons on how to be rich. The Overmanagerial Class shucking pyramid schemes in futile efforts to barter their way into an elite class they barely understand. Women cannot be the shepherds of the genetic code because they struggle to identify eugenic qualities aside from aesthetics and the data concerning hypergamy misleads one to believe they even desire to engage in this process. The memes we share promoting greatness do not reflect the great men who alter the trajectory of history. Those who are called upon by destiny to fulfill these actions already posses this awareness, and they’re not slave to any filter.

So that is all to say that women should be fucking more short guys.

Leave a comment

It’s always difficult when Wilhelm Apologist opens for you. It’s my duty now to hoescare the energy.

Why did we choose to host an event like this, and not something more conventional? We still intend to hold conferences, but why are we getting in our own way by inviting a large group to a cabin with no air conditioning by the way there’s no air conditioning? I could list the reasonable justifications, but to summarize the most important ones: the purpose of this event is to recapture the genuine. That sounds like a lofty goal for a bunch of Canadians in the woods roasting marshmallows.

The good news is that I’m insane, and it’s true.

We thought carefully about the types of gatherings we wanted to create, and our ambitions lead us to more innovative realms. The purpose became to create spaces for experiences, and once you enter this mindset there’s all sorts of opportunities for memorable dynamism.

I was partially inspired by the book Bowling Alone, and if anyone has not read it I would suggest they do because even while referencing the American experience it is applicable in most Western contexts. It describes the cross-generational shift in recreational activities in America, exploring why nobody joins bowling leagues anymore. In fact, from the Baby Boomers onward, recreational and fraternal organizations began to wither. It’s very rare for people to join clubs, have group affiliations, or even engage in community-based events. There was a time that the suburbs would be teeming with activity, then later they became known for cold silence. This wasn’t necessarily a feature of the suburbs themselves, the people were changing.

One phenomenon the book investigates is that when Gen X and subsequent generations chose to pursue group affiliations, it was political in nature. They would opt for Communist, Fascist, or Anarchist meetups. Conservative parties, activist mixers. They still functioned essentially as social meetups, but they had to be under the directive of some sort of sweeping social change. It was never community for the sake of community. Even now I am sure people might be secretly saying to themselves “yeah, why would we even want to do that?”

Younger generations – our generations - require the utility of the moment. Even this event exists infused with socio-political utility. We are looking for purpose, we are looking for networking.

Many of us are looking for the antidote to a terminally online condition. We build connections in physical reality assuming they are more real than those forged online. There may be some truth to that. Despite this, we can never really leave the online mindspace the same way we can’t escape the utility of the moment.

I am reminded of how even after we assumed this political orientation, everyone seems to speak sarcastically or ironically these days. We insult the things we like, we meta-analyze every trend we participate in, every comment needs to be a self-aware performance. It is most prevalent on social media but with each younger generation it seems increasingly common. David Foster Wallace spoke of this often when opining on authenticity and the problems of postmodernism, specifically irony. The schizophrenia of reading a book that knows it’s a book being read. The TV show that knows it’s stupid and broadcasts that sentiment to you in an effort to appear enlightened.

One particular quote from him is “hip cynical transcendence of sentiment is really some kind of fear of being really human.” This is particularism by way of recursive context. The Truth Uncertainty Principle.

Total immersion in irony and sarcasm are the most interesting consequences of this postmodernism becoming the status quo. We step back from the genuine and deny universalist messages, all the while encoding our own communications in hostile ways. I’ve seen many influencers proclaim this as a new strategy, making their content toxic purposefully in the interest of keeping certain eyes off it.

If a meme is an idea that spreads rapidly across the populace like an organism – or a mutating virus – then some say we now propagate antimemes. I prefer a different term, because it sounds like an antimeme is something that resists a meme from spreading, like the existing paradigm or status quo. Anyway, the concept of an “antimeme” is a viral idea that counterintuitively presents itself as abrasive to casual viewers, thus inhibiting its ability to spread rapidly and unchecked. They are coated in a slime that only a select few are able to see through.

It is so easy to communicate through technological means that we need to mutilate our communication. You’ve likely encountered this across different communities where their content is made with the purpose of offending the sensibilities of “normies” as a rhetorical filter. This is but one example.

We need to break through a lot of walls of irony, meta-analysis, and psychoanalysis to converse with a real person. The vast majority of people don’t even realize they are doing it. This coating of hostile context will impact how this historical period is understood when assessed centuries hence. Perhaps that’s the purpose.

Reinhart Koselleck was one of the most consequential philosophers of the 20^th century and his most famous work was a philosophy of time itself. He was one of the pioneers of historical time, contrasting it with the standard temporality we are all familiar with: a linear record of events that can be carefully understood and used in such a way as to predict the future. This is what Progressivism is founded on, the jaggedly ascending timeline. It is also known as “conceptual history,” and it challenges the rational chronology of events. One example of this is when people mention “the post-war consensus,” this can be seen as one easily bookended historical example that fits irregularly across centuries. It’s a narrative gradient that marks a tectonic shift in the civilizational consciousness, similar to the French Revolution.

His is a semantic study not only of what happens but how the changes that occur during these periods affect how we view time itself. An era of revolutions – the French, the American – created a new revolutionary conceptualization of time, of a utopian future we feel compelled to navigate towards. History itself is redefined by epochs that change our relationship with history itself. The broad strokes of human events change the nature of recorded time itself, conversely the same word can be used across centuries and take on a new meaning in each of these eras.

Like the shift from bowling leagues to political parties, the present no longer represents a place we inhabit; it exists in the interest of serving the future. It is part of a larger context that is always looming over us as it beckons us forward.

We can never really be here now.

There can be no revolt against postmodernism as one function of conceptual time is that it is itself memetic. The only revolt can be against the genuine, of retreating further into obscurity. The funny thing about encasing your message in irony is that it does not act like a shell, it leeches into the substance of the information itself and corrupts it. The more we search for humanity in semantic particulars the more inhuman we seem to become.

Historical sarcasm is a mutation of historical revisionism: it is a way to protect history from hostile actors. But in doing so it corrupts history itself. We can say things that sound cool that we don’t even really believe yet add expediency to culture-political agendas. We can say that Jesus Christ was a racist, we can say that philosophy was invented by insane Greek rapists, we can commoditize the memetic nature of conceptual history in ingenuine but highly practical ways. Historical sarcasm dominates the discourse and increasingly defines our highly cynical historical period.

Most people don’t desire truth the same way they don’t desire community. They signal that they do, but their souls are smeared and grayly hued.

What I am trying to address is the fakeness our circles routinely complain about. There is the falsity of modernity that we despise, but there is also the utility of the moment we demand. Then there is the war over conceptual time’s multitudes that we are forced to operate in, and then there is the commoditization of these very multitudes that apparently excite us. If there is indeed a prison we are attempting to break from, we have thus far lacked a schematic of the structure so we pray for an atomic bomb to set us free.

That’s what we are really fighting against when we gather like this. It’s a very big ask to solve the problem of modernity if we don’t know what modernity is, and which battles can be won. Every surrender to the moment is a step outside of the commoditized revolutionary spiral. You are now closer to figuring out what type of war you are fighting.

Think about that as you’re drinking and staring into the fire, we can not have a fire because there is a total fire ban so forget that last part.

Leave a comment

"Too much of heaven / Can bring you underground / Heaven (Yeeeeeah) / Can always turn around" - Eiffel 65, Too Much of Heaven

I cannot sanction science-fiction writers proclaiming their genuine predictions for the future, especially if it is concerning public policy suggestions. I have encountered serious men explain at length how unimaginable moonshots can be unleashed if we simply begin mining asteroids by hurling them back to Earth and catching them. We can achieve lightspeed travel, we are told, by developing technologies the complexity of which would approach that which would grant lightspeed travel.

One imagines they view the world like a real-time-strategy game, with a resource counter floating somewhere high above beside which is our collective Level. If we can simply max out diamonds and gold, then we can unlock all tech trees at once.

If you get a console command you can get infinity copper, and then you can just do the Dyson Sphere path right off the rip.

Pessimistic and Optimistic Accelerationists alike believe the technological singularity is inevitable, and it is only a matter of time before we will subsume ourselves into the exponential developmental momentum to become blissfully inhuman. Technology will solve all problems caused by technology, markets will vanish, classes will evaporate, and scarcity will be a distant memory.

Have we always had a utopia-shaped hole in our clutches? It’s not obvious that pre-Christian cultures – European Paganism or Eastern Mysticism – had much interest in creating a perfect world on Earth, and despite possessing varying conceptualizations of the end of the world they did not seem particularly obsessed with any sort of divine apocalyptic reckoning. It seems that our attempts to perfect the world have multiplied within modernity, cutting across all ideologies and monotheistic faiths.

Michael Löwy calls our attention to one illustrative example of the sociopolitical implications of this thinking with the account of Jewish intellectuals in Germany from the middle of the nineteenth century up to 1933.

During this era, the culture of the Central European Jewish community blossomed into a Golden Age comparable to that of the Judeo-Arab community in twelfth-century Spain. A golden age which gave the world Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Ernst Bloch, and Walter Benjamin. They were towering examples of a larger generation of intellectuals whose writings were drawing from German (romantic) and Jewish (messianic) sources.

The central argument is that very special kind of dialectical relationship developed between two disparate cultural configurations; a mutual attraction that went as far as a fusion. Connective tissue is sketched between Jewish messianism and an ascendant Socialist wonderland free of ancient hierarchies. While many of the figures are legendary in the halls of Marxism, this intermingling is purported to have birthed what we know as Libertarianism.

Löwy builds a case for what he terms “elective affinity,” where worldviews that are discordant yet alike enough to exist in geographic proximity select each other for allegiance. Is it true that there is something in the DNA of cultures that makes them more likely for collaboration over others? This author is inclined to believe that synthesis can be forced and that one of the perils of ethnogenesis is that it is reactive to those groups which find themselves in close relation. Ethnogenesis is reactive rather than prescriptive.

If you put enough Sub-Saharan Africans into Norway, it may take only one generation for those wildly disparate peoples to form a trauma bond.

“For the Jewish intellectual who belonged to the ‘romantic generation’ of the 1880s, who sometimes attended the informal German circles at which romantic anticapitalist culture was being developed – such as the Max Weber Circle in Heidelberg, frequented by Lukács and Bloch – one problem arose immediately. A return to the past, which was at the heart of the romantic orientation, drew upon German ancestry, medieval aristocracy or Protestant or Catholic Christianity – that is to say, upon national, social or cultural references from which he, as a Jew, was completely excluded. As for the others, the majority of Jewish intellectuals of German cultural background, only two solutions were possible within the framework of neo-romanticism: either a return to their own historical roots, to their own culture, nationality or ancestral religion; or adherence to a universal romantic-revolutionary Utopia.” – Michael Lowry, Redemption and Utopia: Jewish Libertarian Thought in Central Europe

The logic follows that this is how Jewish theology became interwoven with German Romanticism, thereby graduating to a universalist politic that would nonetheless benefit the ethnic identity of its proponents. Socialist utopia is not so different from Libertarian utopia, seeking above all to replace the state apparatus with a society of individuals moving as a rational self-aggregating collective. In either example, what state permitted to exist serves the material needs of the population.

To be Anti-Authoritarian and Traditionalist presents obvious obstacles, unless a propositional history is isolated. Then Heaven only exists as a schema for sweeping social policy. The solution to tradition is the politicization of everything, and there’s only anarchy in the afterlife. The end of days shepherded by political revolution, at which time we will surrender to the authority of divine will.

The promise of utopia is a grand leveling; total immaterialization. Each mode of thinking presents obstacles that prohibit inevitable progress to this Millenarian immersion. To the Communists it was those who seek to hold ownership over the means of production. To anarchists, it is all who seek power as such. To liberals, it is the world of tradition. Libertarians, the state itself. And so on. Each ideology redistributing the human biomass into a homogenous collective has an archetype, the apex individual these human units are modeled after. All historical time collapses towards this ideal.

I am not enthused by yearnings of immersion into total fluidity of being. From tribal immersion into the paranormal to the adoration of self-replicating 4-D nanotech singularity, all utopias are goo.

Where once we believed we could strip away consumerism like a scab upon our essence, each successful political system is currently searching for the most effective way to supercharge it. Naturally, it didn't used to be this way; there was a time where awareness of capitalism invited hostility and endorsement rather than bitter acceptance.

Let’s begin with the Soviet Union’s economy. Your saintly patience is recognized and appreciated.

The entire Soviet leadership expected that world capitalism would enter a period of heightened class struggle, which would bring opportunities for Communist expansion. As Lenin explained in a May 1918 address, “If war is waged by the proletariat after it has conquered the bourgeoisie in its own country, and is waged with the object of strengthening and extending socialism, such a war is legitimate and ‘holy.’" This is to say, contrary to the prevailing mythology circulating in Communist circles, the Soviet Union was primed for ongoing aggression on the global stage.

In the formidable accounting provided by Sean McMeekin, a dangerous virus was injected into the international system, with political parties in every significant country in the world devoted to routinely sabotaging their own governments while in the paid service of a foreign power. This was evident most vividly in the United States, although there was similar agitation throughout Europe.

“In the years after Roosevelt recognized the USSR, dozens of Soviet agents and CPUSA members infiltrated the US government, helped along by the vigorous (and almost entirely un-vetted) bureaucratic expansion of FDR’s New Deal. Key targets for infiltration included the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA), where a Communist cell run by Harold Ware provided entrée for notorious Soviet agents such as Whittaker Chambers, Elizabeth Bentley, and Nathan Silvermaster.[..] Communists also infiltrated the Works Progress Administration, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Justice Department. The State Department, meanwhile, was honeycombed with Soviet agents such as Laurence Duggan (code name Frank), Michael Straight (NIGEL), and Alger Hiss.” - Sean McMeekin, Stalin’s War

After World War 2, by measures of territory conquered and influence gained, Stalin was the undeniable victor in both Europe and Asia. Britain was bankrupt and moribund. The United States emerged in a strong position, inheriting the infrastructure of the British Empire by financial default but moving onward with exterior infiltrations emboldened.

Lenin himself was convinced that the cataclysmic demands of their movement would eventually make enemies of the whole world, so the USSR strategized itself in a very advantageous military position. The Communist economic experiment was on solid footing during this time, and its tendrils extended far to subvert ideological opposition both politically and culturally.

This was the advantageous status quo leading into the Cold War where the lofty goals of a classless revolution would be tested.

Starting in the mid-1950s, Soviet elites began to reimagine the confrontation between socialism and capitalism from the successful “military-industrial” approach to what became explicitly labeled a “socioeconomic competition” extending throughout the the latter half of the 20th century. According to the work of Yakov Feygin, a dynamic story of economic reform in the post-Stalin USSR is told through the emergence of a new kind of policy entrepreneur, men who based their authority and decision-making power on oftentimes heterodox economic expertise.

The Soviet Union was able to expand as many of their counterparts did; rapid industrialization and the transformation of a peasant class into a specialized worker class. This ended up placing demands upon the system that it could not fulfill as it was locked in statis by the middle-income trap.

Stalin’s particular reading of Marxist theory meant that building socialism in one country would take acutely coercive approaches to setting up the institutions necessary to force household savings. Like all industrializing economies seeking to form capital very quickly, the USSR repressed the consumption of its population to increase the rate of capital investment. The problem with such a model is that it has diminishing returns.

“Before economists could think about transforming the Soviet system to meet the challenge of the new Cold War, they would need to think about ways to reform the Soviet growth model without crossing ideological third rails and to find the chance to make themselves relevant. Thus, to become reformers, these economists needed to create agendas for redefining value within the state-run economy and successfully turn those agendas into programs for economic reform with concrete policy prescriptions.” - Yakov Feygin, Building a Ruin

As households found more and more cash in their hands, they had three options for what to do with it. First, they could spend it on goods. But since the supply of consumer goods did not respond to increases in consumer demand or kept low through centralized planning, this was not an option. Second, they could deposit the savings at the state bank or invest them in state bonds, thereby allowing some of the excess cash to reenter the budget. However, exceedingly low real interest rates, distrust of authorities, and the fact that the appearance of goods on markets necessitated immediate access to physical cash made comrades hesitant to surrender their funds. The most common course of action was hoarding cash.

This is the middle-income trap, which freezes the movement of money. The economy of the future was stalled in the one place it could not exert total control.

Khrushchev attempted to remedy this by boosting investment, although my most accounts it worsened the imbalances endemic to the chosen growth model. Despite slow-moving internal reform across successive leaders up to Gorbachev, and the emergence of an clandestine entrepreneur elite within the state apparatus, inability to address the movement of money was the primary driver of the economic strife. They could not solve the problem with increased production.

The theory detailing this crisis was novel at the time, one of its leading proponents being Marxist academic by the name of Michał Kalecki.

Outside the academic journals that dominated monetary economics during the early 20th century, two schools of thought emerged each claiming to secure a firmer grasp of monetary circulation. One of them sought to focus money and credit around a principle of stock-flow consistency. Its limitation for the analysis of monetary circulation is that the whole economy becomes too complex to be entirely predictable as soon as one tries to break down the ‘transactions’ of the private sector down into the transactions of individual households vs. firms/organizations. The other school of thought has sought to reconcile the monetary theories of Marx with Keynes by examining ‘circuits of money’.

Kalecki’s central thesis, which still directs towards a fantasy of full employment for every citizen, was that the economy was not a spreadsheet of rational transactions guided by an invisible hand that would inevitably sort through its own irregularities. Rather, everything was driven by the accumulation and centralization of capital, and such centralization could dictate the terms of the entire transactional ecosystem.

In short, only capital owners can bequeath capital and choose how it moves, and it is the movement of such capital that defines the success of an economy. Removal of these capital distribution centers lead to stagnation, and this was the system slowly ricocheting between ideological rails and gaining form by degrees in the winter of the USSR.

“There are certain fundamental principles that run through the fragments on money and monetary circulation in Kalecki’s work. The first and most important of these principles is his assertion that capitalist money is the money of capitalists. This money is thrown into circulation when capitalists undertake production and investment. [...] This assertion is perhaps most obvious in Kalecki’s famous definition of a capitalist: ‘Many economists assume, at least in their abstract theories, a state of business democracy where anybody endowed with entrepreneurial ability can obtain capital for starting a business venture. This picture of the activities of the 'pure' entrepreneur is, to put it mildly, unrealistic. The most important prerequisite for becoming an entrepreneur is the ownership of capital.”- Jan Toporowski, Interest and Capital: The Monetary Economics of Michał Kalecki

The way many people still understand the relationship of credit is: you as an individual ask for a loan from the bank, which holds everybody’s savings. Your repayment of the loan with interest repays the loan and society gets richer.

According to Kalecki and his contemporaries, interest has little impact on investment. The system of creditism is a series of spigots opening and closing over institutions, with the central bank releasing seemingly endless credit over banks which can disperse it as they see fit, orchestrating economic activity in a more decentralized way. Interest rates and taxes control consumer spending, rather than raising funds or extracting profit. A Marxist like Kalecki, once grasping the realities of the Money Space, was forced to pursue communist aims through these intractable rules.

A polished pane of idealism spiderwebbed by the mallet of the markets.

Marxists continue to think they are in a war of productive forces, and it is the highest producing country that wins. Their inability to enter into an American Hegemonic international trade system, they believe even now, was the main reason the Soviet system failed. This is another way of saying that without Capitalists to buy their goods to support them, they could never dream of survival. Many authors have attempted to predict how this same model could once again achieve dominance and crush the American empire, one such author being Fadi Lama.

In Lama's framework foretelling the imminent collapse of Western hegemony, political elites reflect the interests and agenda of the economic elite known as FIRE sector (Finance / Insurance / Real Estate.) The interests of these political elites present throughout the developing world are coherent with the Western financial construct. While this inclines the political elites in the Global South to serve Western interests, the stage is set for a tectonic shift towards regional sovereignty.

The central players to this move are Brazil, Russia, Iran, China, and South Africa, known collectively as BRICS. They constitute the coordinated pushback against the monetary system thus far described, and a return to the economics of production, wealth redistribution to the lower stratas of society, and classless peace.

“The current global geopolitical clash is in essence a struggle between the colonial powers wishing to preserve the Bretton Woods system that facilitates siphoning the wealth of nations and sovereign nations striving for independence and an end to a millennium of their oppression. During WWII, at peak colonial power, the Bretton Woods conference established the financial and monetary architecture for the post-World War II era, a framework which has controlled the global economy for eight decades and proved more effective than colonial armies in extracting wealth from Global South nations.”

Multipolarists believe that the decentralized FIRE money powers may have recently given up on global hegemony after a millennium of expansionism, and the stage is now set for new manufacturing forces to assert control. They blame the materialism, neoliberal policies, and war as the main contributors to America's decline, ignoring that most of these variously apply to China, Russia, and Iran.

The promise is reminiscent of all those that came before: if the oppressive constructs are removed by force, then the age of peaceful exchange can begin. Reason can reign supreme. The Default of Heaven can wash the world unimpeded. Technology will solve all problems caused by technology, markets will vanish, classes will evaporate, and scarcity will be a distant memory.

This process is, of course, inevitable, with revolution only utilized to speed up the process.

This defensive position is justified in light of the many proclamations of Western geostrategists, notably Zbigniew Brzezinski whose book “The Grand Chessboard” loudly telegraphs the disruptive power of the American sphere of influence. He states that China’s opposition to America has more to do with its hegemony status rather than what it represents ideologically. This is as opposed to Russia who has a historic and existential war with the West in general, and a long history of imperialist efforts. The union of Anti-American nations is much more precarious than its agents assume. America's admitted goal is to expand the European Union as a springboard to the rest of Eurasia. From there the mission is to take soft control of Eurasia by promoting national pluralism with America as the leader while distancing itself from the appearances of a conniving superpower.

This manifests military in the form of NATO, and without such a charge NATO has no reason to exist. The Multipolarity advocates are correct that Western forces are attempting to disrupt the region for the purposes of control, thereby maintaining the status quo. The animating belief is that he who controls East Europe controls the heartland, who controls the heartland controls the world island, who controls the world island controls the world.

Even if you do not believe this to be true, it has guided the decisions of statesmen for generations and we must reckon with these realities where the rubber meets the road.

Despite the salience of their paranoia, the overarching assertion is that the Sovereign World – the regional powers outside the American sphere of influence – will imminently generate a variety of development models, reflecting the civilizational diversity of the world. This harkens back to the generative ecosystem of free transactions and assuming a comparable consumer market can replace the current system of international trade.

For them there is no qualitative aspect of labour; Chinese workers are equal to Russian workers which are equal to African workers, and the one with the most human capital has an edge.

Conversely, the West has moved on entirely from the debate over labour power and is even now seeking a way to the other side of materialist consumerism. Dreams of anarchy bind the tapestry of all our disparate secular nirvanas. It is ideological millenarianism acting like a political Roko’s Basilisk demanding we be on the right side of historical nature. A preposterous and ahistorical notion, and yet the same oceanic idealism pollutes the foresight in the West as well.

To wicked capitalists like Keynes, technological development ought to lead to the fulfillment of all of our basic needs, triggering a post-economic age wherein each of us would be required to only work a maximum of 15 hour per week, and allowing for the remaining time to be used as we please (presumably to improve society.) Of course, this era never came to fruition. Instead of proposing limits to technology advancements in order to halt the replacement of labour by mechanized automation, Jack Buffington proposes that we develop a new economic model that will complement the benefits of accelerating technology to transform markets into a frictionless supply chain model.

A new form of Economic Accelerationism with acute focus on the consumer circuit of money, this hypothesis attempts to move beyond mass manufacturing entirely, supercharging the circuits of consumption while dismantling the traditional centers of production. This is one example of Western innovation attempting to exit the 20^th century notion of labour as such, buttressed by artificial intelligence and nanotechnology.

“I am advocating a virtually infinite computational model of design that is a no design approach, like exists in nature through emergence that will only be possible when supercomputers are able to do so. As such, the long tedious process of the Edisonian approach will be replaced, and nor shall we expect to follow a glacially slow process that exists in nature of natural selection, self-organizing emergence. Through this sheer computational power will be the no design paradigm of our products in a twenty-first century frictionless market.”

In this model there is no longer a design process, creative production, or conceivably even engineers. No longer is a market analyzed by entrepreneurs, a solution to a problem devised, a design laboriously drawn up, and a product mass produced to service this market. Everything becomes automated, from fabrication to distribution, even the analysis of desires.

In the early stages of this possible future, a product designer will have an idea for the modification of an existing product, or a wholly new product or material altogether, and go to the an artificial intelligence driven Material Genome System with simple data. One can easily imagine readily-available public data being parsed by this same system, deploying predicted products to regionally-located prefabrication facilities then sorted for robotic delivery.

The technological singularity proposed by Kurtzweil will have been achieved, especially if our standards can be coerced lower. Technology will solve all problems caused by technology, markets will vanish, classes will evaporate, and scarcity will be a distant memory.

The circuit theory of money and the spigot theory of decentralized credit - both primary drivers of the non-oppressive victory over Marxist economics - proved a nation must allow the market to define itself through emergent centers of elite control while providing money new horizons to travel towards. However, the extreme of this is a fluidic nanobot-driven hypematerialism acting as a conveyor belt to a post-scarcity utopia. An anarchic grey goo with 4k God Rays blasting from it.

These Edens Within Reach all bear a striking resemblance: a land of plenty, where people live in peace and labour is no longer coercive. It is taken for granted that the forces guiding us towards patriarchal dominance, feudal lordship, or corporate amalgamation will not emerge again. It is assumed that the aberrations and exceptional individuals will not separate themselves from the rest under their own directive, resulting in yet another interior to the exterior.

All the AI powered mutually assured destruction systems, workers tribunals, eugenics, and appeals to ancient constitutions cannot exempt us from the reality that complex systems are engines for the production of exceptional glitches. Regardless of how attuned our vast networks or institutions are to our perceived goals, heaven will recede further from our grasp. The aberrations persist. Black swans glide across the pond. As the oft repeated quote by GK Chesterton goes: "I can make the future as narrow as myself; the past is obliged to be as broad and turbulent as humanity.”

I do not believe we can achieve a post-scarcity world for the flattened collective; it is much more likely that peaks will climb and valleys will crater while the fog that hovers between these extremes gestate unpredictable specters of mammoth size, perceived only by the furthest reaches of either end. Some will say that the quest itself for the end of materialism by way of hypermaterialism is the impossible goal that conjures cascades of wonders even in its failure, even if we fall short. It's not the destination, it's the journey, or so they say.

I submit that the most advanced societies are already exiting this paradigm and are seeking alternatives to the infinity diamonds cheat code.

We don’t need to approach the light, hypnotized as we are to dive into its core. We need only to catch the light with the understanding that if it deigned appropriate we would already be bathed in its entirety.

Leave a comment

There are many inlets one can take to end up in this surprisingly diverse political sector. You might have been an advocate of the Mises Institute until you were clubbed over the head with Israel. Or you were an Orthodox Christian who had their shoes thrown up on the telephone wires by a Black infant. Whatever it might be, my greatest affection is aimed towards those who entered through the world of conspiracy theories. It is common to dismiss these people as low-class or simply mentally ill, but I find the Spinal Vitality of these individuals to be unmatched.

If you think UFOs are beneath you, I will not trust any of your economic prescriptions.

Over time I have stepped away from most of the popular conspiracies as even the wildest flights of the more extreme positions hold little entertainment value for me anymore. When I read “Behold a Pale Horse” by Bill Cooper, I can appreciate the importance of its legacy but when he says near the end that the dark side of the moon has been colonized by every nation because it is covered in lush jungles generating breathable air, I no longer mouth the word “cool.” The Tartaria discourse is exhausting aside from the comedy of believing the White House was just sitting there waiting when European settlers arrived in America.

Big Ben was FREE, and they TOOK IT.

If you ever find yourself discussing these highly evocative worldviews with regular people, you'll encounter a Pavlovian rejection of large networks enacting their shadowy agendas upon the world, as there is a levelling of the most preposterous alongside the generally accepted ones. It's simply something you must avoid if you desire to be taken seriously. However within even the most outrageous claims there is always a kernel of either truth or insight into what triggered these assertions.

Broaching the topic of Satanic Pedophile Elite Cults will elicit eye rolls, triggering expectations that it's another bombastic Infowars rant against a doppelganger of vague authoritarianism, bucketed thereafter as a metaphor.

Let's see if we can locate the kernels of truth in what has now become a post-ironic meme.

Marc Dutroux was convicted along with his wife in 1989 for the rape and violent abuse of five young girls, the youngest of whom was just eleven. As the evidence was mounting, Dutroux was accused being a key player in an international child prostitution and pornography ring whose practices included kidnapping, rape, sadistic torture, and murder. Even the press speaks openly about the validity of suspicions of his connections to an organization with ties to state power.

Dutroux was not a serial killer in any of the definitions provided by behavioral scientists. He was a profit driven and rather marginal figure on the periphery of a particularly brutal child sex trafficking network. The claim was that Dutroux was merely the frontline employee of a much larger and more nefarious network of individuals that trafficked in children and teens. Dutroux would keep them in the dungeon in the basement of his house and then pass them off down the chain.

The best place start among the generally forgotten facts would probably be with the fact Dutroux somehow managed to accrue enough wealth as an unemployed electrician to own seven properties. Soon after his arrest it was revealed he had around ten bank accounts across Europe, and large sums had been transferred into and between these accounts over a period of ten years, and large lines of bank credit had been made available to him.

This is a thread that law enforcement agencies across the world are unable or unwilling to pull.

If the Marc Dutroux case was a peculiarity, it would still be a disturbing story for the level of unspeakable corruption and depravity of the Belgian political and law enforcement establishment of which it speaks. But another line item would be Jimmy Saville, British luminary and one of the most notorious child sex abusers in European history, boasting a remarkable ability to flaunt his excesses right up until his death. His exploits include funding a section a children’s hospital for the express purpose of molesting the sick and injured children, an unimaginably evil plot that would require the complicity of multiple dimensions of our society to perpetuate as a so-called "open secret."

Then there is the puzzling case of the killer clown known as John Wayne Gacy. The alternative accusation to the accepted story is that Gacy was not actually able to kill alone, although he was clearly capable of raping and torturing his helpless young men. His initial statements to the police following his arrest indicated there were others involved in the actual killings, and Gacy’s house was just a convenient place to dispose of the bodies. Gacy was arrested at a gas station that same day and when he arrived at the police station he reportedly said, “who else do we have in the police station. There are others involved.”

Gacy’s statement was that at least a half-dozen people known to have keys to his home. During his interrogation he named both David Cram and Michael Rossi as accomplices who had primarily buried the bodies. According to testimonies provided by Cram and Rossi, Gacy claimed to work for a crime syndicate involved in "setting people up."

The accusation is never that these individuals are innocent patsies; they are certainly violent and deranged perverts, but these qualities make them useful agents for larger organizations. For one reason or another they are either funded or permitted to conduct these depraved acts.

You have likely seen stories such as these in irregular excerpts over a lifetime of media exposure, consumed them in passing, then shook your head at the momentary wickedness of the world. You have been conditioned to believe that these are but twisted aberrations; glitches in the system that, as the news reports, are being justly corrected. It was just a fat clown who had a crawlspace full of dead men, and he did it because there's insane people in the world.

The true conspiracy lurks beneath the surface, and very few possess the constitution to peer into it since pulling at these threads may unravel the entire ligature of your civilization.

It is much easier to believe in lone wolves that are punished by the system, otherwise known as the Sick Man of History Theory. From a counter-perspective, these individuals are cast as scapegoats as described in the work René Girard: necessary sacrifices to release the pressure in a community after evil has reached a critical mass so it can revert back to the mean and begin the cycle again. In this framework there is the community of innocents and the machinations of Satan manipulating them. In our framework, rather than one heterogeneous mass of “The People,” a more dynamic relationship between entrenched sects emerges between which the forces of malignant entropy can traverse.

The Lone Wolf explanation of social catastrophes is much flimsier than most assume. As the FBI’s Behavioral Sciences Unit gained legitimacy during the 1970s, the emerging science of criminal profiling was thrust upon the American people, with the term “serial killer” entering the national lexicon. It has been an electric curiosity within our culture ever since.

“The Phoenix Program has been referenced a number of times in past chapters, and its relevance to this discussion cannot be overstated. Phoenix was, by design, a psychological warfare operation. Its goal was, quite literally, to scare the hell out of the Vietnamese people—to such an extent that their will would be broken and they would accede to the demands of their would-be oppressors. The crime scenes of the Phoenix Program were, in other words, indistinguishable from the crime scenes of America’s serial killers. The goals of psychological warfare are no different here at home than they were in Southeast Asia or Central America: to scare the people, in this case the American people, into willingly surrendering their rights and accepting ever increasing levels of repression; and to desensitize the people to horrendous levels of interpersonal violence.” – David McGowan, Programmed to Kill

Some say the concept of the ‘serial killer profile’ was put forth largely to misinform the public, mainly the presupposition that they always act alone and in the interest of singular and often fetishistic desires. It appears that some of the most notable case studies have ties to employers, and many worked with accomplices. In the case of one of America’s most notorious serial murderers Henry Lee Lucas, few if any of the accepted serial killer trendlines seem to apply. It has been officially acknowledged that Lucas worked with not just one, but at times as many as three accomplices.

If we were to take him at his word, a picture was painted of this toothless miscreant working hand-in-glove with the American government to take out inconvenient figures mixed in with his typical murders. He confessed to a myriad of bombastic tales recounting training by the American government in Mexico for the purposes of wetwork, however many of his claims are dubious at best. Despite this, he broke the standard template of a lone predator.

This alternative Manchurian Pervert model further explains how these individuals are chosen not just for their sociopathy but their malleability to suggestion through a traumatic childhood; trauma is always the key to smithing the ideal tool. While it is to be seen whether children are purposefully traumatized to create recruits for sinister operations – they too disposable pawns dispersed to the frontlines – has yet to be fully disclosed.

All we know is that experiments such as these have occurred in the 20th century, the subjects being American and Canadian citizens during the infamous trials known as MKULTRA.

When MKULTRA ended in 1973, the claim is mind-control experiments had continued under different titles and perhaps off the record. Elements within the CIA would have turned from academics to "alternative lifestyle" communities - including pedophile rings and cults - as conduits to carry out trauma-based investigations into suggestion.

It's certainly an entertaining thesis, but does it have legs to stand on? We find a startling validation of this hypothesis in a case popularly known as The Finders.

In 1987 police in Tallahassee, Florida received a call from a member of the public concerned about six disheveled children in a park seemingly under the supervision of two well-dressed men. The men were members of a bizarre commune cult calling itself The Finders, including the children those of women belonging to the group. The children recovered were dirty, malnourished, and after being taken into police custody, one had shown signs of sexual abuse.

As Simon Dovey explains in “Eye of the Chickenhawk,” The Finders had been transporting the children in a white van registered to a warehouse in Washington D.C. Inside the warehouse was discovered: hot tub and sauna facilities, various film sets, a video screening room, a library containing books on mind control, and a room full of networked computer equipment with a satellite link on the roof. A photo album found during the warehouse raid had contained pictures of men and children from The Finders group dressed in robes slaughtering goats.

The press ultimately declared it a hoax reminiscent of the satanic panic: another seemingly inexplicable instance where everyone decided to be concerned about Satanists until they listened to sober minded media to set them straight. Reminiscent of the McMartin School case, it was toxified to the point nobody wanted to bring it up in polite society. The story was too wild, there's simply no reason to believe anyone would abuse children in or around esoteric rituals. It's easier to think everyone just went insane for awhile and then stopped being insane.

The CIA connection to The Finders never received widespread acknowledgment, and the incident soon slipped away into the transience of the news cycle, forgotten about for a number of years. The leader of The Finders, whom the children called “the game-caller”, was a former Air Force Master Sergeant named Marion Pettie. He is but one of many instances where federal, military, or NGO personnel are directly linked to these groups.

“Richards drove around in an orange pinto with 'Jerry the Magician'”' marked on the side, and was pulled over in his distinguishable vehicle on July 23. Inside the glove compartment detectives discovered two envelopes. One contained naked photo’s of boys, the other was a letter Richards had written to a 'Frank Shelden', warning them to 'watch his files & mail & to check his files & get all stuff to North Fox Island.' Richards confessed to molesting boys and in exchange for partial immunity gave detectives the names of two other men he said were principal figures in a nationwide child porn operation, of which he claimed to be merely on the periphery of. These were Francis Duffield Shelden and Dyer Grossman. Francis Duffield Shelden belonged to an old money establishment family in Michigan. As such, Francis Shelden was endowed with a trust which allowed him to pursue a leisurely life of ‘philanthropy’, which in his case took a particular interest in youth charity.” – Simon Dovey, Eye of the Chickenhawk

Just because the government has direct ties to bizarre rituals involving children, the proven capacity to permit mass molestation in the interest of the public good, and a history of mind control experiments harnessing abuse doesn't mean they are in any other way involved in the global trafficking of children. In 1983, Haroon & Carole Kasir operated a suburban hotel at the address called the Elm Guest House in the United Kingdom, operating a group known as ”Spartacus Club." After the premise was raided by police, it was reported visitors were provided with a price-listed menu of sex to indulge in with boys as young as ten. Twenty-three men were detained, found amongst bedroom suites festooned in whips, chains, and ropes.

That same year, a Tory MP named Geoffrey Dickens handed the Secretary of the Home Office Leon Brittan a dossier on members of parliament and the Queen’s royal staff alleged to have been part of a VIP pedophile ring, with ties to a group called the Pedophile Information Exchange (PIE.) Not long after, an investigation was launched by metropolitan police into historical allegations of child abuse at the hands of a VIP pedophile ring, allegedly made up of high-ranking government officials who frequented the Spartacus Club. Records from the Elm Guest House sign-in book were included among the photos seized by officials.

Does this mean that all serial killers and child sex abuse organizations are operating with the consent of the government? Or as David McGowan posits: in the dark and ugly netherworld where violent crime and covert operations collide, are there truly two general categories into which a large majority of those we label ‘serial killers’ can be sorted: controlled assassins, and controlled patsies?

I think not, and it appears Ted Bundy simply loved raping and beating women. There indeed exist lone predators out there. Additionally, there are organizations proven to exist exist that fulfill these ends, and every time one of these organizations is uncovered - especially when it has direct connections to government officials in the highest echelons of power - the media treats it as an elementary if lurid happenstance.

We understand now that the consensus around serial killers is flimsy at best, and we have begun gathering cases where society’s elites are at the very least propping this industry up. But how involved is the government, really?

Do intelligence agencies actually take a hand in organized domestic affairs, or is the era of MKULTRA yet another random glitch in our otherwise just system? Let’s talk about the Patriot Conspiracy Program, otherwise known as PATCON.

How the tale of Timothy McVeigh, the face of home-grown terrorism, plays-out depends on which of his confessions you decide to believe. Many astounding breadcrumbs, even those strewn by McVeigh himself, have been officially devoured by the assertion that no one else was significantly involved. He was known to tell tall tales of being an elite spy, but how much can we rely on the anecdotal evidence from a man sitting on death row?

Within all the most popular explanations and their subvariants, McVeigh is no longer the mastermind or primary villain in the bombing plot, never acts entirely alone, and is always one of several additional unidentified and/or unapprehended conspirators who helped conceive of, plan, fund and execute the bombing. Therefore, McVeigh’s culpability is mitigated and his role is usurped by Others Unknown. Rather than a lone wolf, the set of "Wolfpack" theories explain how, while over 226 people reported seeing one or more John Does with McVeigh in the months before the bombing, everyone who saw him the morning of the explosion saw him with accomplices.

The attack was much larger than the public was led to believe, yet the narrative of Timothy McVeigh as a lonely and mentally unstable White Supremacist persists.

The American government has its fingerprints all over the leadup to the bombing, and they would be the main beneficiaries of a coverup that falls apart under basic scrutiny. By 1990, undercover federal informants and agents positioned within targeted patriot and militia groups began reporting the development of violent criminal conspiracies in the burgeoning antigovernment movements. On March 1991, FBI Assistant Director Larry Potts authorized PATCON: a national multi-agency domestic anti-terrorism initiative meant to disrupt these plots and bring criminal charges against the conspirators. McVeigh himself asserted during the SFAS at Ft. Bragg that he was deeply ingrained in this network, part of a covert assignment which entailed acting as a “military consultant working hand in hand with civilian police agencies.”

“It seems you can’t go anywhere these days without a fed trying to hand you a bomb and some blueprints. Recently, a mentally ill homeless man in my hometown of Rochester, New York, was arrested for his own “terrorist plot” after the FBI drove him to Walmart, bought him a machete and other tools of terror, and pressured him into voicing his desire to hack up people at a local bar on New Year's Eve. The arrest immediately made national news and everyone was freaking out. One local news article actually reported that the man had been arrested for “carrying out an attack,” as if the Machete Massacre of 2016 had already occurred!” – Wendy Painting, Aberration in the Heartland of the Real

Similar to the violent right-wing rhetoric and dissent it ostensibly sought to quell, PATCON spiraled out of control. In attempts to prove they were not “Feds,” PATCON agents and informants set about successfully arranging the theft (often from military bases), sale, and purchase of related contraband, mostly weapons but occasionally explosives. Like in the FBI’s COINTELPRO strategy, operatives started their own organizations and sometimes engaged in unjustified criminal acts. More than a few suggested blowing up federal buildings and one PATCON operative allegedly attempted to get his comrades to destruct a nuclear power plant. While this could be charitably viewed as entrapment, one can also view this as subversive radicalization that might otherwise not be present.

In the murky world of psychological operations, often the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, and those who have “gone dark” in the world of esoteric apocalypse readiness can wind up responsible for a lot of different things. While Timothy McVeigh was undoubtedly responsible for the Oklahoma City Bombing, it is without question that he did not act alone, it was proven he was networking intensely in the months leading up to the attack, he had a rich confessional history pertaining to being in league with shadowy government departments, and most importantly, the American security apparatus has a proven history of agitating Americans against their own beliefs.

The government's interest in mass movements was not misguided; the form of political action throughout the 20th century was defined by mass mobilization in every area. The work of Sam Francis, notably Leviathan and its Enemies, describes the reconfiguring of the business and corporate worlds as we know them, transitioning from the bourgeois world of decentralized private ownership to a landscape of conglomerates controlled by a managerial elite driven to standardize their model and grow it indefinitely.

The consequence of this revolution of mass and scale has been the re-organization of human communities at all levels into structures radically different from the institutions of earlier civilizations. Mass organizations are the dominant forms of social organization in the Western world: the bureaucracy, the corporation, unions, academia, media empires, and even religious movements. The complexity of mass organizations, and their dependence on highly technical functions and the skills that perform them, generate elites within them that differ in composition, structure, mentality, and interests from those that presided over the Western world prior to the industrial revolution.

In both the mass state and the mass corporation, organizational enlargement involves a proliferation of highly specialized individuals who excel at mastering complex systems more than skills.

To grapple with this structure is to strike at a fluid hierarchy where no one individual is accountable, and it appears driven by technological ambitions beyond our control. We readily accept that no single person can be held accountable for any grievance; it is the system which is to blame. In a world of mass movements, the proposition that a great man can stand apart is a propagandistic tool to deracinate the radical. It was inevitable for conspiracy theories to scale, matching pace with our fattening institutions and the public's embrace of collective action.

The truth is that everything that happens is a conspiracy, and while we have been granted a new sense of where the winds are blowing, we find ourselves lost in an unfamiliar jungle of power and indescribable agendas.

It's impossible to deny conspiracies of one form or another are driving global events, and the tools they can muster are continually evolving. Across this spread of documented events we have established the system's willingness to conduct trauma-based psychological experiments on its own citizens, its interest in creating agents capable of committing extreme violence, its direct connections to the operation of child sex abuse groups, the frequency with which federal employees are caught participating in the trafficking of kidnapped children for clandestine meetings, and the interest of mainstream psychology in dismissing most of these case studies as one-off lone wolf aberrations. Most importantly, we have seen how these schemes can veer off course and take on minds of their own, and those individuals accountable recede into obscurity.

Edges must be drawn to connect these nodes, but it is not difficult to see the silhouette of something horrific lurking in the furthest reaches of our civilization.

This is where you should pivot your cynicism and direct it not to the accuser but rather the accused. These are but fragments plucked from a substantial pile sitting mountainous in plain view. It is to illustrate that there ought to be enough to detect the shape of something abhorrent and massive lurking beyond political ideology and behind the economics of global affairs. It is ever-present in our peripheral vision; there’s nobody you can query who wouldn’t tell you that something like this couldn’t happen, but they will for some reason deny there is any evidence of it in the particular.

Despite the mainstream disregard for what it deems to be “conspiracy theories” - the term itself allegedly issued by the CIA as a way to discredit such inquiries - it appears that they have become the concensus in North America. Trust in the organs of the state has been tracking a steady decline to reach a historic low, and there has simply been too much unearthing of clandestine activities – including psychological operations – for the average voter to disregard.

Some have asserted that Conspiracy Theories are the new American religion, but I posit it’s something apart.

Our drive to puzzle out vast conspiracy networks is a function of us drawing ever-widening circles around components of our world which could previously not be cracked open. Our trust in the system has declined in inverse correlation to our understanding of how the system operates. We have collectively been exposed to shocking occurrences like those outlined above, and radical notions such as Satanic Pedophile Kidnapping Cults have elbowed their way into the national consciousness. This has ejected the average voter from the context of their own society, placing them outside of the power structure and demanding to know the invisible hands guiding the semi-opaque engines of control.

The vibrant spirit of the polis has been irreparably shattered by our awareness. When we step outside of the context of what we inhabit to investigate its functions, it forever loses its essence. The very same thing happened to Hellenism in Rome.

The history of Graeco-Roman Christianity resolves itself largely into a criticism of the ideas upon which it rested; principally, that it was possible to attain a goal of permanent security, peace and freedom through politics of empire, especially through submission to the virtue and fortune of a political leader. What the Romans later came to demand was a radical revision of first principles which would illuminate a new cosmology and anthropology. While Classicism rejected the possibility of apotheosis - except for the hero - the violent struggle of a nascent Christian faith extended this possibility to all who believed in Christ. It was to be accomplished, not through the development of intrinsic qualities of surpassing excellence, but by submission to a law superior to that of nature. Those who were at one with that law repositioned themselves as superior to nature.

While to critics this may read as enslavement, it broadened the horizons of the conceivable universe and granted increased agency to those who dwelled within it. The revelation on the individual level was the God in whom we live and move and are, which is an exceptionally grand concept if investigated thoroughly.

“The error of Classicism was in this respect original; it could, indeed, be traced to the world of naive experience revealed by Homer and the poets. The world to which Homer introduces his reader is a world of movement, in which impressions succeed one another with lightning rapidity. Against this background emerges the figure of man, face to face with a mysterious universe which his riotous imagination peoples with demonic forces; while, at the same time, his reason struggles vigorously to reduce those forces to some kind of order. [...] Already in the Odyssey, the optimism which the Iliad appears to justify becomes somewhat remote; and, as the vision of triumph to be achieved through wit and endurance , the main ingredients of virtue, fades from the screen, there arises a further, more energetic and, at the same time, more conscious and deliberate search for a principle of understanding. – Charles Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture

How Christianity incrementally achieved dominance is a complex and winding analysis. To summarize centuries of rich history begging for subjective interpretation, by the third century Rome was immersed in an existential crisis from which it would ultimately fail to quell. Inflamed by an insatiable thirst for novel forms of experience, members of the aristocracy let themselves go in a protracted orgy of extravagance and debauchery. Among the masses, bread and circuses on a rapidly expanding scale flanked by riots of sensationalism and emotionalism.

When the barbarians once more descended like vultures upon the empire, it was to pluck out the eyes of a corpse. The destruction of private quickly followed that of public law. According to Charles Cochrane, what we witness is a moral and intellectual failure; the failure of the Graeco-Roman mind around which swirled the crises of culture, religion, birthrates, and permissible invasion.

Christianity's subversion of secularism was not to destroy the actual structure of secular society; it was merely to envisage it in a new light. When one's entire mind, body, and spirit are bound up in the State, as the state shudders and cracks as does your being. An expanding empire inviting incursions from the outer regions in the form of Eastern mysticism and multicultural conflict shook the stable ground upon which a Roman citizen's identity stood. For it was to see the state, no longer as the ultimate form of community, but merely as an instrument for regulating the relations of what Augustine calls the 'exterior' man.

This can be seen as nothing less than a mind revolution during an era of immense upheaval, permitting the laypeople to slake their thirst for a more complex outlook with which to reasses the unfurling tapestry of the universe and reassert their place upon it. The Roman empire could no longer provide adequate solutions to the problems vocalized by pagans in a multicultural empire controlled by decadent elites. The immediate world was beheld as smaller and inadequate to vivify the soul of man which had an entirely new conceptualization of itself, granting it the ability to detect the shape of a higher order God.

Here we reach the root of the mental process we have been exploring. At the heart of the self lies the ability to stand outside of oneself and look down from a higher vantage point, thus becoming an outsider in one’s experience. The main developments in the theological and cultural spheres within higher cultures actually represent so many stages along the path to reducing the spiritual bedrock’s otherness, something most fully realized in primitive societies. Religion was totally and completely immersive, and the relationship with the paranormal was literal. This existence is utterly alien to us at present.

Over time the old gods withdrew and simultaneously the unquestionable became questionable; encircled with boundaries and dissected. Even now it appears even the most faithful must apprehend their spirituality from a rationalist balcony, only momentarily glancing upward into an unfamiliar sky while yearning for the immersive faith of their ancestors.

In a universe presented as united, thought corresponds to a logic of the many; in a universe divided between presence and absence, there suddenly appears a way of considering the “One.” One God above all others, who is not an omnipotent player within the universe nor constrained inside of nature. Most importantly, this revelation was not delivered to those blind to it; the citizenry of the empire had sufficient mental faculties to grasp it. Most of the world was unable.

“The disappearance of enchanters and powerful supernatural beings is only the superficial sign of a much deeper revolution in relations between heaven and earth, which decisively reconstructed the human abode separate from the divine. What is currently alive in the Christian faith has no connection with the circumstances surrounding its birth, the conditions that allowed it to assert itself and develop, or the role through which its major themes and variations have been played out.” – Marcel Gauchet, The Disenchantment of the World

The experience of an inner split opens up a fracture in being, which allows an illuminating access from within to more truth than is given by traditional communal existence. Whereas the primitive tribal reality was holistically intertwined and collectively fluid, McLuhan among many others have directed our attention to the European tendency to segment, systematize, and encapsulate. There is indeed no doubt that the savage mind’s system of the origin’s radical otherness and the institution of the unchangeable is at the same time the most thorough method possible for neutralizing the self.

It is in our blood memory to seize and reveal the inner workings of all that we inhabit, even to our own detriment; especially so. We laid the natural world upon the grid as did we with The One. Does God retreat further and beckon us into the outsideness?

Our prerogative: to understand, to master, and to increase. The subjugation of totality, calling for an endless reworking of the entire terrestrial condition and which allows contemporary activism to communicate with the past’s immobility. We make systems containing fractals of other systems, tattooing them upon our psyche as we dominate them through inquiry.

This is closer to what this Conspiracy Culture is in 21^st Century North America. A civilization in crisis invites mass critique and is defined by a quaint spiritual state that can no longer answer the call for a more dynamic understanding of the paranormal world. Once vaunted institutions collapse into disrepute, and revolution (however commoditized) becomes the status quo.

The drama of the critique is all that inspires us now. Organized religion has debased itself under subservience to politics. The tectonic shift has been occurring and this starved howl will echo across time with increasingly ferocious amplitude unless it is satiated.

Conspiracy Culture is a consequence of our genetic predisposition to encircle and understand, and as the basest of the system's human capital is dragged into caustic enlightenment they will be the first to signal the arrival of The New System. The institutional denial of the forces at work will stand as its epitaph. This phenomenon isn’t a religion; it’s the further morphing of the planet into a snow globe floating before us in the darkness while our fixation is tickled by the mind-bending movements in the corners of our eyes.

Leave a comment

I work in marketing. I was presented the query “what if advertising were made illegal?” by someone who wanted to jostle me off my axis. The question implied there would be a sweeping positive change throughout society. While I agreed in principle that there would be less annoying paid messaging cluttering the otherwise oppressive urban landscapes, I explained that the real problem wasn’t the defanged and heavily regulated advertising ecosystem but rather the decentralized cross-generational trend of individuals seeking influencer status by turning themselves into paid placements and monetizing every single relationship possible.

OnlyFans is for girls with catastrophe anuses, but social media is for nearly everybody else.

One of the most significant reasons advertising’s effectiveness has been muted is because people have adapted hacks to cancel them from their vision. From billboards to Spotify commercials, even unskippable ads are ignored with extreme prejudice. On a subconscious level we blur the edges of each perception, but on a conscious level we are aware more than ever before of the tactics used to persuade.

Most people fancy themselves in possession of media literacy certificates, and it turns out it’s easier than getting into Mexican MENSA.

The technic of media persuasion is inexorably linked to psychoanalysis and one trillion recorded years of trade. New techniques are tested on us yearly, and by the time we adapt to them more are being rolled out, each innovation layered in paranoid sediments training us to be critical of what we see, how we see it, and how we think we understand it.

The first example of this would be our deep awareness of propaganda, going so far as to misdiagnose it. Jacques Ellul elucidates my favorite perspective, explaining that propaganda isn’t just when the government makes posters that demand compliance. Rather, it is the pummeling of messages that make you adhere to rules outside of your own self-interest and rationality. Propaganda is when you don’t even believe in a value, but you know you must adhere to it even when punishment is unclear. Propaganda is the phrase “you’re not supposed to do that” repeated by the populace as it is transformed into the pitiless censor of itself.

It’s a subversive string of programming that sits outside of your conscious mind, meaning it is not subject to rationality. As we collectively achieved awareness of it, we are also aware of this space around our immediate senses and what we believed to be our self-interest, wondering what else can reside there. We have stepped backwards from our immediate experience and become cognizant of what other codes could orbit around our narrow purview, controlling our behaviors. Stories of man against nature were superseded by stories of man against himself, then man against the author, and once more man against the author who is against himself through his character.

We gain dominion over ourselves with distance, like gaining a deeper knowledge of an animal by standing above it snapshotted in death and dissecting it. We are then made dizzy by inhabiting a new cognitive dimension, no longer leveled with all life but the arbiter of its meaning.

"Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent." - Judge Holden, Blood Meridian

We feel comfortable flung into further dimensions, as Jim Hougan expressed during his travels abroad. Relishing the singular abandon of the Caribbean population in the mid-20^th century, over time this freedom from the Western fixation on contextual interpretation caused internal discord. How could these people not ceaselessly analyze what they were doing, and then analyze that very drive for analysis?

The defining characteristic of the meta-state is separation. Once the Rubicon between vacation and inhabitant was being traversed, he realized he was a stranger in a strange land.

We all feel this state of being is natural. With the publication of books like “Nudge” by Richard Thaler, jobbers throughout society are informed of how false dichotomies presented by authority permeate their everyday lives. Persuasion isn’t the handshake deal, it is a succession of small choices that slowly lead you to a destination, typically in the form of false dichotomies you are given the illusion of total control in choosing between. True control lies in who is prompting you to choose, but the goal of this is to legitimize the game itself by making you an active participant within it. The result is nobody trusts choices in closed systems, and everybody understands voting for change is impossible.

One of my favorite Marketing books early in my career was “Positioning” by Al Ries and Jack Trout, and I cite it as an example of how marketing experiments count as primary research that feed right back into our understanding of general psychology. In short, the book concerns how information-saturated minds can be breached with your brand proposition. The average person can only really be aware of two or three versions of a subject/object at any given time, which is why you often see competitive markets dominated by three main players (especially outside of cartel or oligopoly structures.)

Where there are exceptions is where niches have been constructed, and these niches are the strategy of creating a whole different category in someone’s mind that is easier to occupy.

An illustrative example would be vehicles. There are not of course 2-3 main contenders in the vehicle space, because sub-categories were forged. What are the two best luxury sedan brands, compared to truck brands, then budget sedans had to emerge, and you may be old enough to recall a time not long ago before SUVs even existed as a consumer class. Often you are taking a broad category in someone's mind and breaking it down to a lower level of hierarchy, and further down it fragments.

It became common knowledge that it is more expedient to carve out a space for yourself in someone’s mind than engage in a knife fight over contested territory. Seth Godin, a dog coffin of anti-joy, reworked this concept into The Purple Cow. The sky ever so slightly darkened, homosexualized.

So, to position your product you need to open up a niche, which is a completely new space populated by you. This is a ferocious uphill battle that requires significant upfront investment, but it means you can find a place to utterly dominate and scale through your leadership.

I am likely explaining something you could intuit through experience, but at one time this was a revolutionary idea. Now Etsy skanks employ it. We are all advertisers, and like the crypto tycoon that moonlights as a derider of Baby Boomer Real Estate Holders, we have decided raping a lawless land is just different this time.

Hypernormalization was Hypernormalized, and we all become a little more aware of how easy we are to manipulate. Our awareness of all these tactics has fed into our schema to interact with the world; with each psychological innovation it is thereby commoditized, normalized, and deployed by regular people, forcing further innovations. This has caused paralysis through analysis on a civilizational scale, which may be the main culprit for why we are fat and our sperm is dead.

While everyone in our political milieu despises psychology and its ascended social form in the Therapeutic State, we still operate within the framework, accepting much of the concepts pioneered by Freud and Jung. We renounce the work of Alfred Kinsey and his mainstreaming of fetishization, but we constantly accuse each other of narcissism, delusion, and wanting to fuck the thing you want to destroy. Daily we psychoanalyze everyone around us, dealing in terms we forget were born by the very clinicians we routinely villainize.

The most important aspect of the Therapeutic State is the therapy itself, the endless interrogation between the clinical authority and the subject in lieu of measured punishment for social infractions. It is the alleged pursuit of root causes backed by the dual understandings of "you would not be here unless you were mentally ill," and "everyone is mentally ill to one degree or another, it is simply a matter of severity."

Awash in psychoanalytical terminology, we have been all too eager to enter into this frame of reference. We have been granted exciting instruments with which to dissect our culture and persecute each other.

“It is not that television is entertaining but that it has made entertainment itself the natural format for the representation of all experience. […] The problem is not that television presents us with entertaining subject matter but that all subject matter is presented as entertaining.”- Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business

Which brings us to the “vibe shift.” Usually, this term is deployed when discussing the danger in endorsing President Donald Trump in his first term vs. his second; it seemed the media was at war with him and friends turned into enemies, but no longer. People feel as if they can say things they could not previously. It can represent either Trump achieving the mandate of heaven as God Emperor around which society orbits, or the victory lap of seethin' smokin' CHUDCELS declaring a war on women.

It is very important for the reader to acutely understand why both of these narratives are farcical.

“Vibes” are indescribable; if they could be explained properly, they would, but the people who use this terminology lack both the vocabulary and insight to explain what is truly transpiring. Like an insect detecting a dramatic shift in air pressure, they are reacting to the mood of the zeitgeist, cowering when there is danger and emerging during the calm like a naked illiterate tribesman draped in viscera. It is reactive acrobatics to the confounding pressures of analyzation, triggering a feminine retreat into vibrations in the culture for survival.

This leads to the development of pop-esoterica like cyberpunk astrology, believing in everything from shitposting reality into form to noosphere entities driving global events, reaching their tendrils through revisionist history to give form to the formless. With Trump, you could more accurately explain that the journalist class that dedicated their lives to ginning up the Apocalyptic consequences of Trump during his first term were fired by their publications or migrated to Substack where most were subsequently fired by their audience. This conjoined with the infight-driven collapse of the Democratic opposition and the war of attrition waged by Far-Right Maniacs in every available online discursive space resulted in the temperature changing.

That is, at least in part, what really happened. You should care about what really happened. Nobody benefits by crafting kooky nu-spiritualities fueled by meme magic. This is an unnesessary fandom. This is a prey position.

People can be forgiven for falling into these traps; every aspect of our waking lives seems fake and insane, or at least that is the impression after periods of contemplation. There’s not a single source you can trust, nor media form that you can assume is legitimate. After staring into the void for a sufficient length of time, the void stares back. After you and the void stare at each other for a sufficient amount of time, something needs to happen. You take one gaping metaphysical step back from the situation, you stand outside of yourself, you take charge the only way you know how: commoditize the analysis and monetize the relationship.

One example of this mutated form is the Remilia Corporation – associated with Milady Maker and KaliAcc – a collective of terminally online degenerates drawn from all the main races, believing a successful subversive art movement manifests if approximately twelve people won’t stop talking about it on X. I’m going to make up a bunch of statements from them and in all likelihood they’re valid: a dark triad sorcery simulator, femcel influencer academy on the blockchain, interdimensional vitalism as nootropic.

None of that means anything, but it is being conjured by the wackest humans imaginable to make money off the mentally moebius-stripped.

It's not far off from the transgender transhumanist subversive orgs lurking in the e/acc movement or slithering through Discord, leveraging esoteric dissident schizo imagery to be palatable to the youth. Losing your mind in dark oblivion is fashionable, and the molesters of the world have heeded the call. It’s every dunce who wants to start a sarcastic cult, it’s every pinhead who penned a viral tweet thinking they can write a book, it’s every morphsuit filled with slop who ruined NFTs.

Reckless identity formation leads to commoditization of individuals and history – like how Hitler is commoditized in America, the recent release of Kanye West’s “Heil Hitler” being a fitting case study – and we now can include states of being. We can glamorize being schizophrenically nihilistic, we play pretend as ourselves but with the tweak of a sexual fetish for fatal punishment. You have taken a decisive step outside of yourself, staring down at you losing your mind by witnessing the auctioning of your fragmented identity. You are making money off your own tulpa scamming people in a sex cult, and making the action a novelty turns it excusable. You have created so much distance between your present actions and any significant consequence. You have drawn such bold lines around the components of the dominion of individual experience so as to be ensconced in the vibe, utterly powerless as you gaze upon yourself enslaving yourself.

This is amplified by the Economy of Takes, an irreverent phrase we coined before we were informed tastemakers were making tens of thousands of dollars a month farming engagement with one of their several hundred posts per day. It is what it sounds like, referring generally to online status achieved through viral posts and reputation tracking.

The Economy of Takes pushes otherwise reasonable people with a thoughtful opinion to workshop that opinion into its most declaratively unhinged form (the hot take) because this is what generates the most energized response. Financial incentivization - most pronounced on X with their payouts - further pushes these people to become the most unreasonable versions of themselves, inciting controversy is reflected in more cash.

As I explained earlier, the ambitious influencer is replacing the rules-based network and there are more people willing than ever before to become preposterous monsters for a chance at impacting the status quo. None of this was instigated by governments or corporations, this is something that lurks inside of us.

This dynamic field of tumors is fertile ground for corrupting and antisocial personalities, but it is also manifests as a hack aesthetic and even worse amateur spirituality. As it happens you can produce a creative movement if the purpose is to make lazy images look more unhinged. It can never be art for the sake of art, though: it seeks to corporatize a generative vibe and collect cool madness into something pretentious. These corrupt intentions become a feature of the aesthetic. If you ever feel like you have responsibility for something simply step outside of it and interrogate then sell the narrative of interrogation.

There is a war being conducted for your mind, and all of your friends are enthusiastic participants. The social media creator landscape is just as controlled as the unending conveyor belt of cable TV wonks, and your friends want to make money upon the spectrum of prostitution whether it be broadcasting their feet or engineering an opinion with the express intent of enragement. It is trying to take a counterculture mainstream.

You can be an actor in this drama as long as you do not surrender influence to the Invisible Hand of Vibes, and you reject the unique Western propensity to lose oneself in the Oort cloud of meta-analyses that justify emergent wretched superstructures.

Leave a comment

I recently visited New York and spent some time in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, one of the great galleries. Gushing to my online community of wealthy and unemployable schizos, this predictably inspired a debate on the nature of postmodern art, fringe galleries, and as some would describe it, the negative value of a smashed and pissed upon lightbulb in the middle of a room given an ironic title. “My kid could paint that,” they might say, albeit expressed more threateningly.

The criticism follows that there’s real art – meaning romanticist paintings and baroque sculptures and the like – and then there is whatever we are doing now, which is obviously degeneracy and intellectual decay.

I disagree, but I think to appreciate it you must inhabit art and swim in its pure context. Most people have no interest in that.

I’ve heard defenses of this thing called art that justify its value by how it impacts you emotionally; that it needs no explanation other than some feeling that remains with you after you beheld it. I find this reductive, as the search for meaning is essential to understanding creative work of any kind. The creator’s intent is essential, as is the message screaming out for attention. There has to be a difference between a masterwork and a chemical train derailment.

I prefer to say that modern art can only be enjoyed with at least an awareness of classical art, meaning one must understand that it exists as a contrast. The former is a reaction to the latter, part of an ongoing conversation, but it should not necessarily be seen as hostile critique. Modern art is best understood within the context of its surroundings within an art gallery, or its proximity to the history of art all surrounding it. The lights that illuminate these works emanate from the bulbs of history, geography, and curiosity more than any gilded certificates of media literacy.

Art is not passive; it is created by ludicrous people, it yearns alarmingly to be understood, and you must immerse yourself in its entire dimension of dominion to truly understand it. The living ecosystem of art - its historical and contemporary forms gathered and organized for coherency in so many temples - is the sum of all human trauma, expressed as a revolutionary pure context that reveals itself to people who are willing to understand it. It is inhabitable, and you can interface with entities you encounter there. You can bring things back.

This is why art is remarkable the less realistic it becomes, with its attempts to capture something only a human perception can apprehend. If done correctly, it would appear utterly threatening to an extraterrestrial.

If Andy Warhol cannot be appreciated on the basis of technique, he must be appreciated in the context of both his geographic and historical period, and more broadly the entire history of creation it is intended to be held against. You must know what it is a successful reaction against. It demands to be blanketed by your participation.

I know you didn’t just tune in to hear me talk about the type of art everyone hates; trust me, I’m going to get weird.

What I am describing is an essential element that most other politics are missing; they get so imprisoned in the technics of propaganda they forget to generate anything from the yearning of their soul. Their ideology thereby becomes a mansion for demons in form of spreadsheets.

Rather than political trauma that endeavors only to virally spread and annihilate itself in a progressive ouroboros – the end result of most Leftist ideologies – this interplay is an inhabitable dimension existing in violent opposition to those entropic forces that otherwise foster nihilism. It stands apart from materialist machinations: it is a dimension of pure humanity.

Available only to those who are willing to open themselves to utopia.

In my view, the essence of futurism is to generate a politics that rises to the technology of the era, and it’s no coincidence that Futurism of the Past is synonymous with a great aesthetic anchor. It is impossible to separate the futurist political movement from the explosive energy of its artistic form at its inception.

I am reminded of Marinetti’s anecdotes included in his Futurist Manifesto, explaining his inspiration occurring while travelling on a speeding train. Something was triggered deep within of him that allowed him a fleeting glimpse into the future: a politic of speed, and its implied violence, incarnate. There is a notion that technological upheavals completely disrupt not only the economic status quo but psychological paradigms, causing great unease with the populace. The train once traumatized its passengers, we are told.

Many corridors in the labyrinth of Leftist thought are built on this concept of trauma, and this idea constitutes much of psychoanalysis. You see wild flights such as the book “Spinal Catastrophism,” which is all about how our spines – and indeed our entire bodies – have evolved to predict and escape trauma inflicted on us by a hateful universe. Indeed, our entire existence as highly evolved forms are in reaction to trauma, driving us into a chain of paradigms where we eventually dominate the universe as total embodied violence revolting against itself.

It's a ridiculous book, but it got me thinking a lot about the concept of trauma, even whether or not it exists as we have been led to understand. I know many people will cite challenges to the Freudian view and say trauma is something we can simply choose to overcome rather than imprison ourselves there through incessant interrogation.

Anyway, the dialectical tension between these two perspectives got me thinking of trauma as the unrequested hostility that impacts us and drives us forward. It is metaphysically tied to the negative while existing in the broader category of memories we can choose to succumb to or overcome. This is what both art and politics seeks to solve, one from the direction of materialism and conflict and the other from something approximating metaphysics. What works best is when both approaches are working in tandem.

Revolutions are traumatic. They never leave us even if they are ultimately defeated, and we end up reliving them again and again as they are mythologized in retrospect. I recall walking around Paris and beholding artifacts of the French Revolution stamped upon architecture, even with Napoleon he was attempting to imperialize the sentiment behind what drove the Jacobins while reigning in its violent excesses. But France never excised liberté, égalité, fraternité, and it never will. So often we attempt to recreate these violent movements in our present day, even the ones we renounce guide our immediate geopolitical actions.

Revolutions traumatize the civilizations that generate them, and they are appropriated into the dimension of art to live on forevermore as the echoes that permit us to echolocate our way through the darkness.

Art is how we grasp at the symmetry of eternity; trauma is the palette we wield to map it onto the world. While we have no power to curate what is collated into our collective consciousness, we can control it in the artistic realm.

The dimension of art is the reflection of the dimension of trauma. One is a memory we either choose to reject to inhabit while manifesting in the real world, the other is our own soul’s warnings we either reject or inhabit to manifest in the real world. Can these dimensions overlap? This is where true revolution sits.

Ideology is how you organize action in the material realm, geopolitics is how you survive in a matrix of complex systems, but art is how you capture humanity and project it across time. It is how we gather the essence we wish to recapture through technics and praxis; it is the only effective conduit through which to transmit our soul across time. That’s the root of this entire thing: drilling through the discourse and the noise, the vibes and the elite theory, competing systems of universal proclamations, and discovering the Heartland of the Real.

The spirited trauma of what we must harness in our endeavors intersects art and politics, unified by a positive vision. This vision will be situationally relevant, contextually innovative, and exciting to those curious souls who are tapped into the realm of creative dynamism. It will not be propaganda posters and corporate mantras expressed with supreme irony. It will not grope for historical narratives. It will not be a gilded time machine that becomes a time capsule some later generation can amuse itself with. “Look, they tried to do Cubism Rome,” they might say.

This is how to avoid the irony of futurism becoming locked in an early 20^th century model, which is a trench the majority of those who title themselves futurists are currently stalled in. This thing ought not simply seek to replicate exciting 45-degree angles smattered with the commoditized vigor of our ancestors. It is easy to fall into lust with the ideology behind the art in question rather than the art itself; do you appreciate it, or does it speak to you? Or is it just that it seems like an antithesis to something you hate?

The soul we will harness to chart a course onward will unite art and politics, the nervous system weaving together a vision that demands utopian boldness. The political cannot be actioned without an artistic self-awareness of what we truly desire.

If futurism does not arrive from the future upon a bullet train of yearning, with the goal of exerting unimaginable traumas on the haunted noosphere of the status quo, it is simply discourse as aesthetics as a plantation. That’s what this means to me, and why I am speaking on Futurism affirmatively even though I once called Marinetti gay and cringe.

Thank you.

“Time is that which ends. Time is limited time experienced by a sentient creature. Sentient of time, that is – making adjustments to time in terms of what Korzybski calls neuro-muscular intention behaviour with respect to the environment as a whole ... A plant turns towards the sun, nocturnal animal stirs at sun set ... shit, piss, move, eat, fuck, die. Why does Control need humans? Control needs time. Control needs human time. Control needs your shit piss pain orgasm death.” – William S. Burroughs

There is no hidden agenda compelling me to denounce trains. For all intents and purposes, I have, like many of us, become so irradiated in this spermworld intoxicated by memes that I should default to train appreciation. Trains, and 15 Minute Cities. It was politics which landed me here, a culmination after serious talks with highly intelligent people who recounted the history of how there was once a war in America between advocates for advanced public transit and those who envisioned America defined by roads and the interstate highway network.

Without getting too deep into the weeds, the train lobby ultimately lost, as depicted in the neo-noir “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?”

Trains lost the rhetorical battle against highways in the realm of politics, they lost the battle for the soul of America against the liberating automobile, and they are presently losing the battle even to maintain their rail lines, seeing as train infrastructure is currently on the brink of collapse. It is an unbelievable tragedy, unless you are a Highway Man; a gas-guzzling, pavement-brained, nitro-burning, smoke-belching carny demon straight off the Anarcho-Mestizo assembly line. More lanes, more offramps, more signs, more jugs of piss hurled into God’s creation as the daymoon grins down upon you knowingly.

This is a position staked against centralized planning, both practically and paranormally. I concede that trains are a superior way to transport freight and essential cargo, but I am not concerned about bourgeois survival. I concede that they make sense hidden underground as a way to ferry vomiting SSRI ladies between penile fight clubs. I am an immaterialist. As far as I know, shipping containers are all filled with fraudulent art and canned corn just being passed back and forth in some sort of transcontinental spreadsheet error. We are speaking instead of the ontological train.

I don't even dislike trains. I mean I do, but I don't.

You can pummel me with factoids on how many neurons might be saved by adopting whatever carnival of illusions Asia has achieved, and that we possess the technology to destroy traffic forever. It matters not. I do not trust the quest for total efficiency as a matter of course; as a certified expert in LEAN methodology, I know how the ceaseless extermination of redundancies and waste lead to extremely fragile production streams. I similarly understand how large-scale resource projects like scientific forestry have resulted with the destruction of entire ecosystems and, ultimately, the evaporation of the desired resource.

Examples of this can be found in the work of James C. Scott, an anarchist in spirit who detailed the failure of lumber utopianism in Germany and the desire to wipe clean the old growth forests to be replaced by a methodically-planted grid containing only those trees that offered maximum utility in the optimal distribution of space. Unfortunately after one successful generation, subsequent to the initial harvest the land would yield no lumber, stripped of the chaotic complexity that was deemed systemically irrelevant. There was no way to replace the complex organism of whimsical redundancies which took hundreds – perhaps thousands - of years to naturally accumulate.

You may be thinking the highway represents this cynical surgery of the grid. On the contrary, you idiot: highways are the birds and moss and spiderwebs. The highway is a rebellion against technical efficiency, and the apparent tilt towards faux communitarianism seemingly expressed by most radical political sectors.

The highway is the only place you can drive drunk alone. If you are drunk on a streetcar: an angel's lament.

He's Talking About Hyperstition Again

Entropy is magnetized to complexity like light to shadow, and we endeavor to create antifragile constructs to defeat it. This process appears to gather chaos around us as a permanent incursive forcefield that we define ourselves by in a dialectical tension. When you hear of a genetic code, what exactly is that code? It is a message that seeks to replicate itself and survive. DNA in this framework is understood as information developing the most effective replication process possible, thereby creating a behemoth of meat and bone with which to withstand destruction for as long as possible.

A sinister universe optimizing the means of its own blessed destruction or the Word of God changing in tone throughout the ages, let's put that aside.

In the example of civilizations and societies, entropic forces are not natural disasters or external conquest (those simply sweep to victory in the finale,) but something approximating Amphidemons and Cyclic Chronodemons of Lemurian Pandemonium. Don’t worry about it.

The center of power axiomatically births the fringe it deserves as it ascends the ladder of complexity, and its value can be measured by the quality of its counterculture. As we have seen, mechanisms of control are inevitable in an advanced society, and these attract the disease of wickedness which on a long enough timeline leaves the doors of the house open for the wolves and harsh winds. You cannot rebel against the a priori concept of control otherwise it takes on the form of a Strange God. It is very easy to fall into the trenches of nihilism this way, where even suicide affirms the curse of life too positively. Those who rebel against the entire group – even those who expel themselves from it - never break from living within the context of that group. They remain in orbit around its essence.

In the shadow of power, you find twisted clones of yourself and glorious mirrors to gaze into, through.

Do the hostile margins survive by sovereignty or pity? Simplifying to a previous state is out of the question; you simply make yourselves more inert human capital, incapable of legitimate rebellion. Those who reject cities and the civilizing forces they represent ignore the tumultuous histories of their creation, focusing instead on the utility to their immediate experience, choosing a life apart that ironically generates a deterritorialized zone of slavery. Is that the ideal configuration to withstand entropic forces, as idealistic biofuel? Savagery waltzes in as insectoid biomass.

All of this is to say that the center of power is revitalized by its periphery, and the fate of cities is inexorably tied to the spaces surrounding them. At the heart of this problem, we find the oppositional essences of two archetypes of masculinity that dominate internet discourse: the Barbarian and the Cowboy. It should be the Barbarian and the Knight but I don't make the rules, I don't even make money.

Both archetypes are pulled from history and stand as defiant external opposition against the apparent feminization of modern civilization. Both archetypes are doomed to fail, but we attempt to distill their revolts against the modern world. Through hyperstition we seek new methodologies to conjure these entities into the digital realm which increasingly constitutes our lived reality. One of these identities has a cartographic understanding of otherness and the inevitably of interfacing with centers of power, the other inhabits a cartoon metaphysic granting inert form to modernist rage.

Men who hunt for ideologies and collectives encircling an archetypical center are searching for fandoms. These demarcated zones within the warm embrace of power that one is allowed to roleplay as an approved vanguard, knowing that any revolution permitted by the system has been deemed nonthreatening.

The answer to the longhouse is the tallhouse, the concentric circles radiating outward streaked with blurred psycho-folkways dominated by traumatized terrorist knights surfing waves of mind-bending harsh Darwinian pressures. Cracked reflections in frames of speed and violence.

The cultural conflict between rural and city life is the result of fandoms animating the minds of the violently uninitiated. Ruralites of this stripe are blind to the soul of their people manifested across time in the urban zones, especially in examples such as London and Paris which makes it even more traumatic when they are overrun. Even when they truly fall, we remain magnetized to cities, understanding their eternal relevance not only geographically but spiritually. We continue to inhabit Rome and Athens, raising new developments around the ruins, while the galloping across the steppes has been commoditized as a comic book convention.

Similarly, city dwellers fail to see the rural areas as vast and intricate neural paths of folkways, essential components of the civilizational organism, recalling that much of what we know of the ancient world has been gathered from relics in villages and farms as cities became IQ shredders of their era. The fact that their most ambitious and maniacal seek to retreat to the surrounding forests is significant, although the dankest fantasies of our civilization – that as the hermit who outsmarts the sudden apocalypse – acts as a sort-of IQ Shredder in itself, assuring that those most capable of saving the world are lured into the same darkness that births their oppressors.

Total exile by way of rebellion against the center is impossible, as the topography you abscond to is that cracked reflection where mutants dwell. A system is not made antifragile by streamlining and you do not become more lethal as you become smaller. The center pivoting ever so slightly based on your demands is a paltry acquiescence as well. You have the ability to actualize the nightmares of the sleeping giant as long as you can navigate the backroads of its labyrinthine nervous system.

What we require is a bright and cleansing fire to surf the outermost edge of the periphery, one that can reverse course and roll through the nervous system of power at our soul’s warning.

Nudging Towards Utopia

We dissidents proclaim our love of collectivism as wandering outlaws, seeking connections yet hostile towards mainstream networks. Savage aristocrats waxing poetically of the populace they are doomed to exist on the margins of, like awestruck critique will open the drawbridge.

This treacherous insight we are cursed with comes with historical analysis of how these organisms arrive and thrive, more specifically how large populations can be controlled. These social orchestrations do not require the assistance of neurotoxins or psyops, although those certainly help. It can be achieved at any scale with a process simple as choice architecture, as outlined in the work of Richard Thaler. The application of choice architecture – whether executed by a state or on a one-to-one exchange - is bureaucratic psychoanalysis. The curated selection of choices is a form of consensus building and corralling people into a preferred context. For example, presenting you with a trio of solutions to a problem which appear in opposition but are in reality closely associated but represented as the totality of responses.

A form of pressure release many parents will understand as a tactic for expediting getting children ready in the morning, even the opposing binaries presented by power conceal manipulation, and one can be guided into new terrains of normalization through carefully curated conflicts over time.

Power lies not with the decisions of the player, but with whomever makes them feel the game is essential. This is how authorities manufacture consent, but more importantly how their time horizons appear to recede when it comes to achieving material goals.

And when I say manufacturing consent I do not use it in the fashion of Noam Chomsky, where it is simply when the government does a war and occasionally journalists agree. Radical presses can never do propaganda, only the state can do propaganda, unless it's cloaked in civil rights, in which case it's socialism which is the only valid form of government. War is good for business, unless it's the war on poverty, in which case massive invasions are part of the plan. Democratic imperialism works when directed inward in a seppuku pose. Thank you Noam, love u nome.

The promises of socialist perfection are validated by the same bureaucracy that segmented your essence into that which is most easily quantifiable, unilaterally deciding that true freedom was measured by the totality of silence. It's not that I am allergic to perfection, it's that I am distrustful of utopia. According to the likes of Steven Pinker we are already living in the wealthiest, freest, and happiest period in human history. Why is everybody so miserable, he asks? The conclusion of him and his ilk: user error.

Highways represent anti-utopianism and the maximization of harsh Darwinian pressures. Put simply, once you remove all natural eugenic forces – conflict, disease, or socially removing dysgenics from the gene pool - destructive characteristics proliferate, eventually devouring Order from the bottom-up. Undesirables proliferate in a world optimized for total survival for the longest duration possible. The quest for utopia ends with 80 IQ pill addicts with inside-out penises and outside-in buttcheeks.

In this inescapable historical period, finding ourselves unable to truly submerge ourselves into the realm of nature except on an infrequent individual basis, we are tasked with seeking out new Darwinian pressures. A truck can be just as efficient as a train if it is massively fucked up enough and has a cowcatcher welded on the front to obliterate girlbosses who think driving isn't the autoamputated extension of the sexual act.

Not long ago I spoke on an article titled "A General History of American Land Piracy," written by a friend of mine on the historical record of privateering and piracy so foundational to the American identity.

"The tale of the term filibuster is soaked in the blood, sweat, and gore of thousands of English, French, and American pirates and patriots who died to satiate the expansionist thirst for land and profit. The American Gulf Coast from Florida to Texas was not peacefully purchased; it was conquered." -

America was carved into existence through conquest, conflict, and what we would now classify as guerilla warfare. With these terms in mind it would be fair to categorize the ocean as the original highway; God's Highway. And as our grievances echo those found in the 19th century, we now realize that we must surrender neither to drunk Filipinos.

When I lived in Toronto, on more than one occasion I was confronted by a naked black man wandering down the middle of the street in broad daylight, picking fights with cars in gridlocked traffic. I thought to myself: “I should be able to run this man over.” I should have the power to peelout this man's bones to dust beneath the robust tires of my sport utility vehicle, my heart a whetstone as I drove off with the understanding that I likely prevented several home invasions. There exists a suite of ideologies and systems of belief on what we as a collective ought to do to handle individuals such as this. Our current paradigm demands we gaze upon them with pity, or as numbers on a graph to be solved with a downpour of material boons.

In my world populated with Agents of Change, we need only encase ourselves in screaming metal and hurl ourselves at it. Do you know what a hacked cybertruck can do to a man gagged with fupameat and chained to a brick wall with big blinking arrows and neon signs pointing towards him like Looney Tunes? Do you know what the wrong mugshot can do to an innocent man’s chances of being convicted in a court of law? Do you know what happens to a Judge’s face when a motorcycle careens roaring into the courtroom, launches off the benches, and smashes into it at full speed?

Ryan Dunn accomplished more politically than any cancer researcher in the 20th century.

Like I was saying, great cities across time and cultures have always been complex systems, and strategies were regularly initiated internally to sweep away the ancient labyrinthine pathways and replace them with rigid simplicity, typically planned by bureaucrats.

The curious thing about complex systems is they are not nearly as prone to collapse as our fantasies would lead us to believe. Rather than being disproportionately prone to natural calamities by way of butterflies flapping their wings against confoundingly numerous dominoes, it turns out that complex civilizations tend to fall in complex ways. For example, if one investigates the Bronze Age collapse, the main culprit is often depicted as the “Sea People” overtaking the Egyptian civilization. In reality, this was likely the final phase of a much longer descent, similar to the Huns moving into Rome; what preceded it was a chain of disasters in the form of earthquakes, famine, and war. The savages then proliferated like vermin feasting upon a corpse.

Collapses happen very gradually - the chainlink of centuries tell the tale - and usually involve several reconfigurations in response. Rather than defeated in short order by the hand of solemn providence, complexity seems to invite perversion and hijacking from within as it's weakened by the increasing demands to withstand entropic oppression, and this drives the initial discombobulation that invited corruption more than seeding cancer.

While many of us yearn for the warm embrace of thermonuclear war, promises of cinematic decline have never been granted, and when they have arrived it's bewildering. A good example would be the concept of Peak Oil espoused in depth by activists such as Michael Ruppert. A commonsensical assertion to those who read the headlines, it can be summarized as: fossil fuels - specifically oil - are a non-renewable resource, and we will eventually reach the top of the bell curve where production begins to decline due to scarcity. As supply falls off the cliff, a total global systems collapse will occur as no other renewable energy can swap in. Predictions on the date of peak oil have not occurred, and predictions that all large oil deposits being accounted for prove untrue.

An alternative theory is provided by Thomas Gold, who states in his "Deep Hot Biosphere" model that we don't truly know how crude oil is produced, and it may be a naturally occurring function of the Earth's mantle. This would mean there is no hard limit on oil availability at all, although hypothetically a demand could reach such a level that it outpaces supply. An even more alternative theory is put forward by Reza Negarestani, who paints an esoteric picture of oil as a demonic entity, a dark force seeping in from the incursion of negative space into the material world which demands to be made porous, one that acts as a lubricant to the metaphysical engines of war. Creation demands infiltration by the void and out destiny may be glorious dust.

I for one think both of these are valid, and they are made all the more convincing by the Adam McKays of the world being clownshoe-style rake-steppers forever. Until your system can create a predictive model that actually works, I substitute my own interpretations. I don't need your highways to have highways. I endeavor to pierce your utopian project, breaking the sound barrier as I switch lanes, sniping my hulking metal between the curves of the most outrageous antimatter inhabiting the margins, exposing the antifragility of efficiency. I am not driven by a schematic, I am possessed by a shape.

It takes years of intense research to be this insane. This Toilet Kills Libs.

So, you see , this is why trains are gay as hell.

I am told that it is natural to want to live forever.

If you are now or have ever been raised in this historical epoch, it’s not obvious that the highest goal shouldn't be to achieve eternal life. It’s also not obvious that this isn’t a modern phenomenon, especially when contrasted against ancient history. JD Unwin, in his comprehensive anthropological research on the relationship between sexual monogamy and the development of civilization, identified the baseline of human comprehension as a “dead level” where the deceased are not only immediately disregarded, but their spirits are sometimes chased away, despite their comprehension of spirits being wholly different from our own.

Their relationship with the world was practical and immediate, and nothing beyond their daily purview demanded serious inquiry.

“We must abandon also the idea that uncivilized men believe in gods. What is a god? In what manner does a god differ from a spirit? Sometimes it seems that there is no difference between them, for the same native word has often been translated both as 'spirit' and as 'god'. Yet we are faced by the suggestion that 'spirits' have become 'gods'. The word 'god' lacks precise meaning and cannot be used as a basis of classification. A god, I suggest, is a power which is manifest in a temple, and, according to the definitions which I should like to adopt, it is manifest only to deistic peoples; but I am aware that if this definition were adopted, most commentaries on historical religions would have to be rewritten. Moreover, the definition is based not on beliefs but on rites.” – JD Unwin, Sex and Culture.

As tribes begin to ascend the ladder of civilization by discovering the inner workings of their environment , they are granted not only geographic permanence in the form of temples but also mythical permanence in the forms of important spirits that can be appealed to.

In this light we could say that our current obsession with human longevity is new; it was never the case that our progenitors groped for immortality, and it was far more common for the dead to be hurled aside until the innovation of ancestor worship which was symptomatic of a fuller understanding of time and space. These patterns were not egalitarian, and one does not naturally follow the other. One can remain a zoistic society indefinitely, or degenerate from a society of temples and monogamy to magic stones and hypergamy.

This is all to say that our obsession with individual immortality is neither Christian nor the status quo in the ancient world. This tells us its genesis is attributed to technology.

The Cozy Compression of the Bottleneck

I can’t imagine life without death: the finality after a common duration giving shape to every aspect of our lives including marriage, employment, law, and valor. Indeed courage and morality are grounded with this inevitable terminus always in view.

Our ancestors knew how to make friends with death. We always knew what a glorious death was, and its lingering presence spurned our adventures onward. The best of us understood how to employ it as fuel. Furthermore, we understood that death was necessary. At present we believe death is an obstacle to be overcome, and many of our most ambitious minds view it as the ultimate affliction to cure.

The pursuit of all medical science is to solve the problem of pain, and ultimately death. Most of our most powerful citizens see it as the most worthwhile target in life: that is, to sustain life indefinitely.

While the zeitgeist no longer permits real discourse concerning eugenics, everyone has an opinion on who should not be allowed to procreate. Even a Catholic priest, so adamant about the sanctity of life and the divine pursuit of its multiplication, if confronted by a woman who had three children with Down Syndrome, would advise her politely yet firmly to stop.

Edward Dutton was one of many prominent scientists who take the opposing view, that death – even on a catastrophic scale – has positive benefits. The term “Harsh Darwinian Pressures” is used to describe the variety of diseases, wars, revolutions, and genetic afflictions that reduce populations, allowing the most suitable to survive. Harsh Darwinian Pressures create the genetic bottlenecks necessary to dispassionately filter dysgenics. Even the most Progressively Liberal minded reader, when parsing a story of a man who is allergic to "nearly everything," will unquestionably at least think to himself "he should probably not be kept going."
We have things to do.

Dysgenics not only refers to physical handicaps and birth defects but antisocial behavioral defects as well. Any characteristic that discombobulates the long-term biological survival of the group, up to and including mental illness, is eventually bred out either through death, exile, or the soft power of mate selection. One way or another, they are removed from the genetic stock.

In this framework we define adaptive genetics as those that lead us to cooperate and thrive in groups, whereas maladaptive genetics are correlated with antisocial or anti-group behavior. As Foucault pointed out, Europeans had perhaps the most advanced system of imprisonment and exile.

One popular theory is that Europeans executed more criminals of each generation and destroyed these behavioral mutations and mental illnesses most aggressively. These would include crimes beyond rape and murder, including fraud and theft of certain goods.

With this in mind, there are 4 essential types of selection to pass on genes: natural, sexual, kin, and group. When we think of passing on our genes we tend to think of sexual reproduction, but we often ignore how the caretaking of the genes occurs in concentric circles radiating out into the extended family and the tribe, meaning even childless relatives can have a crucial hand in strong propagation of the bloodline towards a more distant time horizon.

The international meatgrinder wars of the 20^th century represent a counterpoint where perhaps the best of our genetic lines were obliterated in the conflagration of runaway technology, and it is such conflicts that could reproductively select for the cowardly or infirm. Despite this, the concept of a genetic bottleneck exerting extreme pressures to filter for survivors is sound insofar as those pressures remain.

Despite the best and brightest of us likely swept up in such purges, over a long enough timeline it created a eugenic mean filtering for qualitative attributes such as intelligence, cooperation, ambition, courage, and a multitude of ideal physical attributes. In the present day, there are fewer filters than ever before.

When you hear mention of the “Great Reset,” it represents the most comprehensive War on Suffering that has ever been conceived and at the heart of it sits the abolition of death itself.

While the now-memoryholed Great Reset is often handwaved away as an inertly populist conspiracy theory, it's simply undeniable that there exists a vast network of international private and public organizations, hooked in with serious investment and dominated by some of the most influential minds on Earth, seeking to make humans an eternal intergalactic civilization. This requires the scientific mastery of resource scarcity and an end to conflicts both ideological and identitarian by whatever means necessary.

"The fourth industrial revolution, however, is not only about smart and connected machines and systems. Its scope is much wider. Occurring simultaneously are waves of further breakthroughs in areas ranging from gene sequencing to nanotechnology, from renewables to quantum computing. It is the fusion of these technologies and their interaction across the physical, digital and biological domains that make the fourth industrial revolution fundamentally different from previous revolutions." - Klaus Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution

The Great Reset was but one iteration of centuries-long scientific mission to preserve human life and wellness at whatever cost, another branch of this tree being the e/acc movement and its sad meth dad transhumanism. The latter being the relentless pursuit through whatever technology possible to protect human life from the forces of entropy and maximize its civilizational footprint upon the universe.

It is also the cessation of all eugenic forces and of reproductive selection pressures.

While these and other social phenomenon have been covered elsewhere, both the aforementioned movements share the Kurzweilean faith that technological singularity is inevitable and therefore any effort dedicated to anything other than heedless technological accelerationism is not only a waste of time but a direct threat to mankind's destiny. The capitalistic doppelganger of Roko's Basilisk, where the first one to open AGI's Ark of the Covenant will be rewarded by God with an infinite money cheat code.

The Great Reset has become a stumbling block in the larger discourse and most people don't even want to speak on it, so exhausted they are by even broaching the topic. Perhaps the term has been poisoned, in all likelihood revealing why the perpetrators have abandoned it. The reason we discuss it still is as follows: the richest and most influential people on the planet, working in concert with NGOs and government institutions, are leveraging hundreds of billions of dollars in capital directed at private and public scientific projects for the sole purpose of making (certain) people live forever.

Clichés aside, if you do not think this ought to inspire urgent conversation, you are not a serious person.

If you meditate upon this zone of inquiry it becomes clear that to mount a coherent defense against transhumanism and the longevity movement, one must stand on the side of death. You must ally yourself with suffering and what many perceive as the ultimate foe of all people everywhere. The endorsement of this position is not grounded in the glorification of war or the love of social collapse that drives many heterodox dissidents, rather it is a first principle that simply recognizes that dysgenic forces exist and are just as much a threat to human prosperity as natural, villainous entropy.

It's no easy task to mount a case for death. It will not be cajoled into a Trojan Horse, it can only be made nakedly, boldly.

A Solitary Hand Grabs the Bottle

The Western mind refuses to surrender agency directing this eugenic momentum. We are cursed with the knowledge of natural law alongside our dominance within that very system, and within the broader context of creation.

The metaphysical innovation of linear time so integral to the European mind, codified by the non-recurrence and historically singular manifestation of the death and resurrection of Christ, grants an essential conceptualization of the divine manifested in the physical realm, and conversely the physical world able to interface with the supernatural realm. This proved to be the divine soil from which to grow individualism.

Charles Cochrane is one of the most prominent voices that lays out the shift from the Classical way of thinking to the Christian way of thinking, a process that took centuries and was guided by innumerable political, social, and economic arcs. Perhaps the most intriguing pillar of his work is how Christianity helped construct the foundation of what would one day take the shape of individual interest, bringing the Classical fascination with the hero’s journey down to the level of the citizenry.

“The period following Theodosius may be characterized in general as one of twilight government by twilight men, whose puny and distracted efforts proved utterly inadequate to forfend the approaching doom. That doom was signalized in the destruction of cities, the devastation of the country-side, and the disruption of communications. [...] It should, however, be observed that, while Christianity contained elements which might be employed to reinforce the established order, at the same time it embodied ingredients of a highly explosive character, sufficient indeed to shatter the already weakened faith in classical ideals and thus to empty the system of whatever meaning it still possessed.” – Charles Cochrane, Christianity & Classical Culture

In this model the transition from one belief system to another was largely caused by dissatisfaction with the existing system, or more accurately: a way of thinking that was unable to present a coherent solution for more complex problems. These problems were materialistic: declining quality of life, attacks on the polis through imperial multiculturalism, and an unstable government unable to command the pride which resonated throughout the Roman world. When so much of one's identity is chained to the state, any fluctuations in the state will reverberate cataclysmically downward.

There are those perched upon their mountain of grievances gathered in these early decades of the 21st century who would see this radical traditionalism - the philosophy of heroism - as a welcome substitute for the Christianity they condemn as impractical, soulless. However, we must appreciate that there was a time where the patriarchal family cult buttressed by Greco-Roman glory-through-citizenship was apparently deemed obsolete technology, correlated so strongly with the degradation of the state and exposure to competing ideas.

From “we worship heroism” to “you can be a hero,” the baseline thinking over the course of centuries irrevocably changed. This is not to posit that an Eastern worldview infected the West through the nervous system of the Roman empire. In most cases, the existing European folkishness steadfastly transacted right back into the church.

James C. Russell explored this process of proselytization with the Germanic peoples, specifically how while many attempts at conversion were attempted by the Catholic church across the world – Jews, Japanese, Indians – but it seemed as if Europe took to it much more readily. The causes exhaustively explored were that as these monotheistic concepts extend into new realms there is a transaction wherein the more successfully it is adopted the more the core religion itself changes. It is similar to how as English swept the globe it became indigenized, with the Anglophone natives losing ownership by soft imperialism.

Concessions must be made to historic folkways and while large swathes may be willing to adopt a new set of core tenants, they will not abandon their history to a dawning global hegemony.

“Similarly, the Anglo-Saxon missionaries did not emphasize the central soteriological and eschatological aspects of Christianity. Instead, seeking to appeal to the Germanic regard for power, they tended to emphasize the omnipotence of the Christian God and the temporal rewards he would bestow upon those who accepted him through baptism and through conformity to the discipline of his Church. The most significant factors in determining an appropriate missiological approach and in predicting missionary success appear to be the prevailing world-view of the target society, the degree of popular satisfaction with the indigenous religion, the level of the target society's sociocultural cohesion, and the target society's levels of scientific and economic development compared to those which exist in the society from which the proselytizing party originates.” – James C. Russell, The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity

The success of the conversion process, at some level, is answering “what’s in it for me?” and in the case of the Germanics the answer required continued stewardship over several immovable folkways which eventually cycled back into the Church to forevermore possess it with an unmistakable Europeanness. To sketch out some of the influences: it made the religion more community-oriented, which was essential to non-urban converts. They made the religion more temporally locked, fixating on the power of Christ and God as the spiritual world becoming real.

Perhaps most importantly, Christianity was made to reckon with the warlike heroism of its new converts, which it would harness to great success in the proceeding centuries. It stamped down one of several Western source codes into an otherwise Eastern incursion, one of many that gave the Catholic Church a distinct European character without contradicting the core faith.

Christianity can be broadly summarized as “World-Rejecting” whereas folk religions and pagan cults tend to be “World-Accepting;” conversion succeeded insofar as the former showed flexibility to the latter.

The singular focus upon the hereafter prohibited Christianity to be deployed as a template, thus forcing it to negotiate in the interest of growth. The universalization of eternity realized through the aggrieved individual would not install properly on the Germanic psychology and it needed to be made more rea; more vitalistic and communal. This would lead to a diverting of the power of the individual standing apart from their socii towards the power of the individual as part of their kin network.

These groups we speak of had a desire to conquer and thrive, to rebel against the forces of nature, but it is not accurate to say they sought to cheat death. Rather they glorified it, and perhaps this is why the glory of the resurrection resonated so profoundly to the Western mind.

When we discuss eugenics and the cold realities of population numbers, we do not approach it from the vantage of religion, or even politics. It must stand apart, because the former phenomena lack the tools to address it fully. Both Western politics and religion have brought us to a point where each one of us feels a deep and consuming duty to participate in this genetic bottlenecking, even going so far as to see it as essential to long term survival.

It is not beyond our station to have an opinion on gargantuan concerns such as these. You can apprehend this mission both tribally and monotheistically. This alchemical capability for synthesis intertwines with our DNA strands, and by asking the question you are seizing the bottleneck with your cold pale hands.

Project 20XX

To accomplish anything significant upon this planet, an ridiculous amount of people need to die.

From the pyramids to the industrial revolution, our achievements are haunted by our sacrifices. Eternal life is a dysgenic parody of life that functions as a nihilistic rebellion against this sacrifice.

You are not living through a total collapse scenario, you are living through a genetic bottleneck that will pitilessly filter those who have the intellectual focus and genetic fervor to survive. As we have just seen, you are not a passive actor in this experience. Not only can you take precautions to survive, but you can also strategize on how you want the other side to blossom.

As genetics are at least partially kept alive through group dynamics and the tribal form, any explicit attack upon this system can be interpreted as an attack on the genetic line of the people. With the Christian revolution there was a careful strategy to adhere to pre-existing social fault lines and synthesize each extension thus creating a collective European superstructure. Most revolutions encountered currently seek not to synthesize or negotiate but to tear down the columns of a target society and replace it with something entirely new. The Bolsheviks immediately come to mind, but a more recent example would be the globalist machinations of USAID recently uncovered by DOGE which were largely interested in projecting American Progressive cultural sensibilities into the international community.

Revolution is traumatic, and no revolution ever truly ends. The French Revolution, the American Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution; all of these, regardless of their success or failure, imprinted on the surviving societies and in the case of France much of it remains stamped on the institutions. In attempting to overturn the status quo, most of them settle for a protracted negotiation where it is eventually subsumed into the civilization. This was the fate of every radical Syndicalist movement as described by Georges Sorel, but it also impacted the revolutionary sentiments of Far Right in the words of Guillaume Faye.

Where revolutions seek victory through violence, it becomes clear that their true effectiveness lies in their ability to change the way people think on a fundamental level even as the martyrs multiply. From this perspective most revolutions are successful insofar as the reaction rarely manages to excise their influence generations hence. For this reason, above all others we must be cautious about which revolutions we support with the knowledge that they never fail, and we will be forced to bear the tattoo of them upon us forever.

Just as the church synthesized with the tribes, so too will you synthesize with the ideological weapons you play with.

We may opine that Marxists are stuck out of time and employ tired strategies for a reductive class war, but we will never be rid of Marxism the same way we will never be rid of Fascism. We will never be rid of the globalist alt-tech revolution to make humans an eternal intergalactic species, even if practical obstacles hobble it indefinitely. Your children and grandchildren will be subject to this culture, and even in total failure they may cargo cult for it.

Your ideologies will live on insofar as they can punish the zeitgeist and imprint trauma as long as a cultural memory exists. However, you can never change hearts and minds with immediacy, and there will be no mass awakening once people are exposed to arguments no matter how profound they are. A system is what it does, a person is what they repeat, and a society becomes what opposition it tolerates. The only appropriate reaction is prompt and total liquidation of the offenders and erasure from the collective memory permanently.

The only immediate result can be achieved with the mass employment of new harsh Darwinian pressures that sweep away antitheses manifest in the populace. Both the Communists and Fascists understood this. Everyone intuits this.

With this in mind, it only makes sense to approach revolutions from a eugenic perspective, in fact it would be reasonable to say revolution is politics by eugenic means activated through individuality despite its appeals to collectivist mass movements. This is what Project 2025 gets right, as does Jonathan Bowden with his popular refrain of “clear them out.” The intellectual foundation, once laid, will live on longer than you could ever have imagined. But the only thing you can control is identifying who ought to survive the natural or unnatural conflagrations that coalesce as the interaction of innumerable collapse phenomena.

Bloodlines are terminating all around us and the birthrate decline is a concurrent global emergency. Robotics are advancing at a rate fast enough to bewilder but slow enough to be acceptable. The free-floating globalist elite class wants to make some people live forever and strip you of your sovereignty. The decline is gradual, imperceptible to most, primarily the ones that will not make it through. It's going to happen because it's necessary and wisdom tells us that viewed from 10,000 feet: in the end, everybody gets precisely what they deserve. But it's only at the end, and there's a lot of hiking yet to scale that summit.

Project 2025 endeavors to remove human biomass with the volume turned down, because as Westerners it is impossible at this inflection point to surrender the eugenic filters to nature as our ancestors did. We are not slaves to entropic forces; we can calculate to circumnavigate them and accelerate demise where necessary. This is a dimension aside from religion and beyond politics, and while both will remain in our orbit, we are in search of solutions to address the failures of these dimensions to address our survival. We do not need to tear them apart or fuse them into a heinous chimera, we need only fashion a new system designed to target these acute problems in the short term.

It may be true that this is not what Christ would have done, but historically he showed the grace of flexibility when it came to matters of survival through growth.

Leave a comment

The latter would be the worst possible scenario, so it followed that we ought to endorse our distant Islamic brothers which we want absolutely nothing to do with and whom by all accounts seem to view us with similar hostility. What if by extending the time horizon of this game, both outcomes result in more Arab Muslims in the West?

You may notice that both poles of this binary result in the West absorbing a foreign group against its wishes, and we are merely tasked with selecting the least-worst scenario. It becomes apparent that across the political spectrum, an overwhelming segment of Whites – for our purposes, those of European extraction – lack a fundamental understanding of how to operate in their own self-interest. This involves not simply asking “what’s in it for me?” but suggesting “here’s what could be in it for me.”

The response for what to do with the Holy Land would then look very different. My suggestion was to give it to Mongolia, but I was also trying to appear aloof and heroin-poisoned online.

This is a common occurrence for political radicals: the compulsion to broker a one-way friendship with an international ally, or to pick a side they feel might incidentally serve their survival somewhere in a chess match they were not invited to. It further seems only common in Westerners, and even more specifically only a narrowly defined segment of Whites. This is a group which understands that it exists, and it understands that every other group acknowledges they exist in this category, yet perpetually finds itself grasping at foreign strategies with greased palms. Eastern collectivism doesn’t seem to install properly into this demographic, fully immersive Christianity and ancient Paganism grind against a round hole as a square peg, class-based identifiers do not resonate, and with no other identity seemingly desiring a partnership the appeal of “multipolarity” feels like a bait-and-switch serving a rival interest.

This should not be surprising since the name of the game is respect through sovereignty rather than pity through trauma-bonding.

If a German, a British, and a Scandinavian man enter a crowded bar in Nigeria, they will be identified as “the White guys” no matter how skillfully they can explain their thoroughly nuanced ethnographies as particular. This is a phenomenon that becomes undeniably pronounced in multicultural environments, so as much as one might advocate along ideological lines for an alternate reality, it would behoove the competent White man to be aware of his surroundings for the purposes of survival.

Some may desire society to move beyond this form of categorization, but you do not have that privilege, and you lack the sufficient privileges to manifest a status quo.

With that in mind, why does it seem so difficult for even the most politically, culturally, and ethnically aware to advocate for their own self-interest? The rest of the world seems to understand what Whiteness is (even if the edges are blurred) and Whites are the least likely group to accept this rhetoric, often struggling to recast themselves as an oppressed minority. Leftist critiques (mostly their premises) can be real if you let them: it simply comes down to understanding that they can be embraced as a positive.

The first step is understanding what Whiteness actually is, which is a graduation of the genetic legacy of Europeans and the multifaceted civilizational history of the West, strengthened in a feedback loop of revealed preferences and affiliations.

Everybody intuits that being White is not simply skin colour, although that is an important corollary. Even those who despise White people agree that it includes a behavior set, something genetic and even ontological. While Albino Africans are often identified as paranormally valuable, it is understood by family and tribe that they are not White. We also observe those who are not White but exist on a separate strata even in their own hierarchal context, examples being light-skinned Brahmin or upper-caste South Americans recognized as something else within their society.

Once again it appears the opponents of Whiteness understand very acutely what qualities it contains, as if they had inherited a stack of values genetically. While they exist upon the furthest edges of this phenomenon understood as Whiteness, we must acknowledge where there is a periphery there must axiomatically exist a center, something that one can genetically graduate into, although perhaps never fully.

Jews possess many of the outward qualities that appear White from a distance – even boasting generations of European habitation – but are careful to never fully accept the identity. They are Jews, they see themselves as another thing, and everyone in the world understands it goes far beyond skin colour. It is necessary, but insufficient.

While Whiteness is generally comprehended by the entire planet, it is not the identitarian fount from which all attributes flow. It has been said that everything is downstream from race, meaning the broad categorical aggregates that appear to undergird the composite peoples. The concept of race – of White People, and thereby Whiteness – is a modern construct that seeks to not only describe genetic connectivity, but political congruity. However, we must be clear that ethnicity is not downstream from race; ethnicity is the great lake which feeds the rivers and streams of culture, language, politics, and genetics. More accurately, these all exist in a synthetical feedback loop, but these generate the umbrella of race, the boundaries of which are being negotiated along scientific and geopolitical lines.

This does not make Whiteness less real; on the contrary, we can now understand it to be crucial to survival in a globalized world, and it now comes into sharp relief as an emergent philopolitical project. It rises to thrive in the paradigm of technological interconnectivity of diasporas and centralizing identity power centers, especially crucial as Europeans are a minority on the international stage.

There is a unique belief in inevitability that comes with the Western state of mind, one which dominates the Californian discourse emerging from the 1960s counterculture which endeavored to usher us all into the dawning of a new and perhaps catastrophic era of enlightenment, right up to Tech Accelerationism and its similar convictions of utopian Kurzweil-grounded futurism. Ray Kurzweil proselytized his entire career that technological advancement is inevitable; it naturally advances at an exponential rate, eventually designing itself beyond our authority, the reaction to this inevitability forming the bedrock of the e/acc movement. Similarly, the counterculture of the 1960s, echoing millenarian belief structures stretching back thousands of years of Christian European history, believed a revolution of the mind-body-spirit was both imminent and unstoppable. There are other striking similarities between the revolutions of consciousness experienced by the Baby Boomers and what we experience now, but for now we are only concerned about the blinding light in the near distance that we are certain is divine.

Even a Lebanese thinker like Nassim Taleb, blessed with proximal Whiteness through his education and propensity to shitpost, speaks of “black box” technologies as Known Unknowns; innovations that we know must exist and are awaiting to be discovered, therefore instigating a race for whom discovers them first, regardless of possible negative applications. This fixation upon the future in linear time coupled with certainty of forecastable apocalypse creates a distinct cartesian conceptualization of time which allows a more ambitious relationship with time itself, standing in stark contrast to cyclical time as understood throughout the Eastern world.

As Nick Land wrote, but summarized more effectively by Christopher Sandbatch: English is a language with which to do apocalypse with.

You can witness this blossom in our popular discourse, notably with the triumvirate of “It’s Happening / It’s Over / Nothing Ever Happens.” During every significant event that threatens to jostle the zeitgeist, you will eventually hit all three of these refrains if you stick to the story’s development. Rarely does anyone establish what “it” is; what is this thing we are expecting to occur that has us regularly experiencing such emotional flux? Contrary to deflating admissions of stasis, circumstances are always shifting, things are always in movement, and the status quo is always evolving under pressure, albeit incrementally, and usually in areas we aren’t acknowledging.

While our fixation upon the end times has roots extending deep into the European psyche, Baby Boomers seem to represent an important demarcation as the prophetic generation: the first generation that believed it could shepherd society to the benevolent collapse. There is a profound inevitability regarding this mass movement of peoples to a higher plane of enlightened deconstruction, and it is our charge to lead the parade along the conveyor belt.

Whether it be the Age of Aquarius or the End of History, there was an overwhelming sense that the end of the world was in sight and it fell to them to see it through. This sentiment has replicated across generations and become the fertile soil from which nearly every future forecast twists from. We now yearn for the end times, and it is precisely this yearning that we weight every news headline against.

This quickly becomes an obsession with revolution itself as the singular cure for the fallen state, harnessing 19^th century dreams of spontaneous mass upheaval through a decentralized awakening. In fact, our concepts of revolution are all inexorably linked to a history we want to revive and apparently inhabit. Sam Devlin correctly identifies the problem, writing:

“Both sides have engaged in a grand ‘transvestiture’ over the course of the last three centuries, inverting their historic attitudes towards capitalism, progress, relativism, universalism and other issues.”

Our understanding of revolution is hyperreal; a bewitchingly fake reproduction which legitimizes the now inapparent fakeness of the original, like a deceased musician’s hologram performing to a live audience thereby heaping cultural capital to the “real” record company’s former mass-produced entertainment product. Our agitation for revolution is a simulacrum, the distilled product we consume rather than inhabit.

We are unable to discern whether it is a dream or a memory, but we are certain we know what it looks like, and it inexplicably looks like a cinematic union riot led by the youth donning quirky uniforms.

However, beneath these epidermis of simulacra lurks a soul we mistake for a parasite or some sort of racial imperfection: the tectonic plates of Whiteness buried beneath the mind virus fueled by technological revolutions coupled with the drive towards universalism implied by the rhetoric of revolution. Woven into this virus is the desire for some grand innovation to save us from the absolute terminus of all existence, as opposed to a naturally regenerating cycle of death and rebirth found across the planet. A cycle we are powerless to influence, and one that dismisses all human action as impermanent and thereby unimportant. Whiteness is the obsession with the sort of decline that is afforded by embracing linear time.

This takes the form of all the grievances that are levied against Whites, which once again we identify as fundamentally correct but not necessarily negative: the violent relationship with the unknown and seeking a divine process as a revolt against the universe.

A system is what it does, and a people are what they repeat every day. We inhabit the dialectic between obsession with the past and controlling the future, between traditionalism and futurism. We understand the naked hubris of these things we do, but that knowledge directs rather than halts us. Arriving at these conclusions means admitting that many Leftist critiques of what they deem “Whiteness” have been correct (especially those non-White pioneers of “Whiteness Studies”) where we diverge is believing that it is something that must be corrected.

Presented before us is the pathway to identifying what our self-interests actually are.

You do not possess the privilege of denouncing Whiteness; you can only absolve yourself of it in death. You also do not possess the authority to force the rest of the world to delegitimize the word; they hold the power to cut through your peculiarities of ethnography and ideology and identify you as “the White person” within their context. The rest of the world is not mistaken, and for every Israeli or Palestinian you defend you will find yourself no closer to finding enthusiastic allies of your own self-determination.

There is only the profound Whiteness: a relentless and multitudinous self-analyzing revolt against time and space, perpetuated by a people who have never truly asked themselves “what do we want with the Holy Land?” Once they answer that question, you behold the It, and its Happening forms before you as a chalice to grab.

The 21^st century man cannot be a believer, he must be an agent of change. The tools are splayed out to fashion an escape from this punishing and anesthetizing dialectic he experiences while searching for the correct witch’s brew of ideology and faith to wish the world into order. Believers are passive biomass. They could once be counted on as a resource in times of civilizational contraction – maintainers of the folkways and language as the center of power is utterly discombobulated – but presently they cannot avoid being drafted into the culture war by broadcasting accelerating consequences. Believers are peasants, and now even denizens of the vast rural outbacks compress under demands of individual greatness, a grand leveling of classes that has granted a new ecosystem of consensus building and alleged democratic power.

There is no demilitarized zone in the culture war.

The fracturing of the public along niche interests has unleashed swarms of networks against every sacred precinct of authority where each failure is magnified, criticized, and mocked with more vigor than ever before. The institutions of the status quo struggle to repress it, and can barely control it. The margins of society, however, can neutralize but not replace the Center where true power resides. It is a mistake to believe that revolutionary forces can assume a position upon the throne. Martin Gurri spies the final destination, explaining:

“The closest historical parallel to our time may have been the wars of religion of the seventeenth century. […] If an educated person of that era were transported to the present, his first question would be, ‘Who won — Catholics or Protestants?’ For us the question has no meaning. Both sides endured. Neither won. Something different evolved. Much the same, I suspect, will occur with the dispute of hierarchy and network.”

Synthesis is the end result of nearly every conflict, it just depends on who enjoys the dominant position at the point of victory. That which is devoured is internalized, and conquerors typically find themselves merging with their property despite their best efforts. Rather than shuffling the decks of our identities, we are traumatizing our essence by degrees. What matters most is which identity enjoys the dominant position.

You could be forgiven for believing racial identity is irrelevant and it is obvious even the most racially aware prefer to define themselves along different priorities, more immediate psychological demands. These Networks of Critique appear to be working, should we not attune our efforts to the identities that can be narrowed into blades against the power structure that has attacked us? It’s right about then you must return to that bar in Nigeria, to the categories you can’t control, to the entities you can’t barter with.

At one point we predicted the internet would atomize us in a space of boundless imagination, but in reality, we interconnected with stronger bonds than ever before, forcing the already heavily individualized Western mind into an unfamiliar tribal state, leaving us to forge new types of relationships. It is understandable to yearn for a reset in all this chaos and return to a simpler time that our ancestors would have enjoyed.

The only measure of success is thought in action. Faith in either collapse or miraculous collective redemption is not enough. The relentless self-analysis of 21^st century Whiteness prohibits belief of the kind our ancestors enjoyed. But therein lie the keys to deeper understanding; it is one thing to believe in the sacrifice of Christ, it is a different thing entirely to understand Divine Providence is the wind at your back in His name.

Now rather than stoically standing against the discursive winds thereby eventually exposing your twitching inner flesh to nature’s hostility, you can sail upon these winds of identity politics and master them, conquer them. Whiteness is fully internalizing your position against those who identify you as the violent adventurer obsessed with empire, admitting their assertions are accurate, and finally accepting the violent relationship with the unknown and the quest for divine processes as a revolt against the universe can be redeemed with the correct anchoring to historical values rather than ancient identities, bespoke ideologies, or, perish the thought, new religions.

The only question you need to ask yourself is “what do I want?” If your values are fully subsumed into your being, and your faith is imbued in your soul, you are able to answer that question. Anything else is a consumer-ready simulacrum. The conflict finally reveals itself as Ideas vs. First Principles, where first principles will be what captures and holds these ideas you place in orbit around it. Ideas can be adored like relics or ingested like cocaine, and taken to excess they can utterly conquer uninitiated minds.

Where ideas take root and replicate like nanomachines into webs of inward facing analysis, they become ideologies which quickly exude the adhesive to comfortably trap prey for the rest of their lives. Ideologies typically fail due to their inability to fulfill their purpose of scientific universalization along murky metaphysical lines, but prove extremely useful in their acute investigations of social crises. There is no better analysis of power dynamics than what is found even in the kookier reaches of Marxism, but these must remain as punishingly massive microscopes rather than inhabitable schema.

It is cozy to believe the Proletarian revolution is inevitable, it is similarly cozy to believe the Age of the Strong Gods will arrive one day and clear the world of the weak on behalf of us. These systems, more often than not, end up wielded by those who simply desire power and influence, as Paul Hazard outlines in “Crisis of the European Mind.” There we see how Liberalism as we understand it today grew out from the Enlightenment, which was a different beast entirely.

What began as the serious investigation into the mechanics of existence under the translucent banner of rationality was mutated by degrees into Rationalism, perverted by philosophers and social activists into something with the sole purpose of deconstructing. A naturally generative evolution was corrupted by tumors draped in the velvet of ideology for the purposes of abolishing the status quo.

The gentleman scholar at one with nature became an agent of social critique, unable to affirm and doomed to question until everything is equitable sludge. The revolt was hijacked and turned on itself, as it often does, as active agents are wielding ideas along sometimes puzzling fault lines. Carl Jung once said “People don’t have ideas. Ideas have people,” but technology has revealed that ideas more often than not are cast through people in a more nuanced synthesis.

Within these magisterial halls one loses grasp of their own soul’s drive to action, convinced by Strange Gods that internal inconsistency is prohibited when in reality it is the only power we have. European Pagans can never remove themselves from the context of Christianity, conversely why is it Christians believe in ghosts and luck? In David Hackett Fisher’s classic tome “Albion’s Seed,” he traces the various folkways that defined the major waves of European migration into America, and among this anthropological accounting were “Religion Ways” and “Magic Ways,” how was that possible for so many centuries? When someone points out that the birth of Christ falls upon a pagan holiday, you are drawn into a battle against yourself. Whiteness is identifying this, acknowledging its reality, and validating the relationship.

Whiteness is balancing conflicting universals within the soul of the individual while possessing enough inwardness to know the interior is not synergistic with the exterior. His proximity is not to be found in the lateral tribe of a cyclical universe.

White men in America can stand against abortion and be apathetic to how many abortions Africans undergo. Somewhere in America, a pagan unwraps his Christmas present: 2 tickets to the Witan conference. Holistic consistency of beliefs is a standard set by the scientism of the ideological mind, a standard you do not need to sanction. The dialectic we inhabit is between universalism and particularism, faith and ideology, the stasis of historical order and the revolutionary drive against the dark unknown. A First Principle of Whiteness is: who cares?

The current geopolitical goal of Whiteness is to reconcile the internal conflict as perpetual revolt while the external conflict is defining what Whiteness is. You are surrendering the conversation unless the global minority of Whites can abandon reactionary impulses to emulate other identities and thereby stand outside the terms and conditions set by hostile actors. This isn’t a game you can win by playing by the rules.

The more basic your demands are, the more you can ground yourself in this deterritorializing information revolution that commands us to rethink the existing paradigms of power, identity, and allegiances. Accepting that Whiteness is real is the first step many will be unable to take, and the lightness of one’s skin and genetic heritage do not appear sufficient to grant one access to this category. The reconfiguring of this identity along technological lines requires agents of a more vital momentum. Following that, understanding that Whiteness is not a plague will be the next great filter, which proves nearly impossible for many self-identifying Whites to comprehend.

But for those who are able to model themselves as the 21^st century Gully Foyle, they will be able to ask themselves what they want above all others, and maybe that involves violently retaking the Holy Land for ourselves before setting our sights upon the galactic horizon.

Leave a comment

Good evening, my name is Dimes.
You will have to forgive the somewhat disjointed nature of this speech. I felt compelled to do some last minute rewrites as I looked around the room and saw several beautiful women present.

And I'll just be honest with you, most of this was constructed on cock and balls references.

I have been asked to set the pace and the tone for this fine event. It’s a lot like a wolf pack. Conventional wisdom would dictate that the alpha wolf, as the pack leader, is front and center as the North Star. I learned, however, that the Alpha actually leads from the back, the women and children in the middle, the most young and ferocious in front of them, and at the very front are the old, busted, decrepit, washed wolves, there to set the pace.
So, I hope I can exude wisdom for you tonight.

Every speech prepared for tonight that was written before the victory of Donald Trump in America likely had to be amended, if not rewritten. I never had this problem because I did not write this ahead of time. All the Homework Guys have once again proven themselves lacking in the physiognomy of the soul.

What is to be said that has not already been said? Let’s just say this: Donald Trump’s election triggered a vibe shift, which makes these events more essential than before. It forces us to look inward, to our own political machinery. It forces us to look at Poilievre and weep furiously, it causes us to glance at the PPC, take three cocktails, then glance again.
Would you? Can I say something without everybody getting mad?

Most importantly it forces us to reassess our predictions, our political models, and what we plan to do with the opportunities presented to us.
And we do this here, in person, in groups. That’s far more essential than many believe.

This is what I find most exciting about our scene currently. After slamming our heads against the brick wall of collectivism vs. individualism for the greater part of our existence, we have switched the questions from “what should be done?” to “what comes next?” and finally to “what do we do now?”

The enemy of propaganda is not the collective moving as a single fist or the sovereign individual, but a small group that can reason through manipulation and create their own internal filters for information. It is here we see the formation of group identity and its dynamic feedback loop with the individual members.

One of the pillars of me being here tonight is to tell you how to do that. And you can start tonight. It is rooms like the one we are in now that will constitute the seeds of great trees whose branches may one day be adorned by the hanging corpses of our enemies.

That’s a strong start. That’s a wild thing to just say to a room full of guys about to be arrested. Hell, from where we are standing presently, I reckon it feels like we are winning, so why am I speaking like this?
The reason is that you’re not here to win. You’re here to decimate. Winning was never enough.

Most people gathered here feel compelled to engage with democratic institutions but do not otherwise believe in democracy.

It’s okay to say that here. I believe that very few people, across all ideological and spiritual sectors, believe in democracy. I could ask any five people here their assessment of democracy and I can guarantee “gay” would be two of the responses. And by democracy we don’t mean seeking consensus in a team, but rather the electoral system within an advanced civilization that expects leadership to be propelled from below and maintained by a competent matrix of informed individuals.

For democracy to function requires the Mass Man. The rational individual who can bind together with other individuals completely laterally, like a real time strategy game. The age of psychiatry in the 20^th century was the death of the Mass Man, leading to its fracturing into runaway self-consciousness and the tribalism of fandom sectors.

This is where we are currently, and even hyper-informed genius psychos like us still fall victim to believing a mass reaction – or awakening - is right around the corner. Or we believe that the stage is set and we are missing only the key of sudden leadership.

You will hear people openly advocate for this even now, stating that the only way anything can get better is only after things get as bad as they possibly can. Any good news delivered any time before the last seven seconds of tortuous death must be treated as an attack in itself.

I mentioned the word “fandom.” What’s a fandom? You can probably intuit that it means a comic book reader or a Swiftie. There’s the undeniable aspect that it is a consumer. But in broader sociopolitical terms it’s something you can join, draw an identity from, adopt a behavior set through, and it really has very few barriers for entry. It is a shared affinity for a product above all else, and an ideology can absolutely be a product.
Are you a revolutionary or are you just a fan of one anime and one book?

Organizations of all stripes must always sort through genuine believers and adepts from sociopaths looking to join an army. The more radical they are, the more difficult it is.

The key here is filters, that is how you define a group. It was through the work of Freud, Bernays, Bion, and a rogues gallery of radical scientists that our conceptualization of ourselves began a skyrocketing of mutations. Fandoms of identities proliferated, each of us began to stack group affiliations. Even in our sector we behave like consumers. Are you a Hoppean-National-Socialist? Are you a Goth-Hegelian? Are you a Groyper-Falangist? We are in search of tribes, wandering the barren wasteland by night tracking distant campfires.

A popular word is “retribalization,” that seems to describe what I’m talking about. I’ve spoken to influential people who speak on the general need for retribalization, or the inevitable trend of retribalization, but when we get granular nobody really has a schematic for how to make a tribe, or what function it should have aside from “being parallel to the mainstream.” It is assumed you can just find like-minded people and land to the equation, and then a new vitalistic nucleus can be formed.

I’ve known a few people who have taken on such projects, even going so far as to attain the land. I’ll spare you the anecdotes, but it typically ends in tears, and that’s the good ending. It’s because they’re too open to whomever, and it turns out that when you open the floodgates to anyone who agrees just with your ideas... how many of your internet friends do you trust to live with you?

Even calling it a “tribe” doesn’t help, it conjures images of paleolithic politics. It is very easy to lose yourself in a memeplex of fantasies and stories relating to Rome, it is almost impossible to generate one yourself. Starting with the knowledge that this thing you are doing will be suffering and strife all the way down, and nothing will be ideal.

It’s not a rebellion, it’s not an escape, it’s not even a solution to the problem of modernity. It is survival. It is the ONLY THING.

All that you need to concern yourselves about is “first principles.” Values are good, historical literacy is great, research into ideology helps, faith will see you through, but all you really need are first principles, and I wager that most people here know what those are. The simpler they are, the better. This is how you form your crew. This is how you build your tribe. This is your friend/enemy distinction. This is how you find the baseline of what you are willing to fight for. To suffer for.

Most people here will not have that thing. Is it Donald Trump? I bet it isn’t, not really. Is it Christianity? Maybe for some, but not as many as one would imagine. Euro-Canadians? That might mesh with your ideology or theory, but do you know what that means at a deep enough level to suffer on behalf of its realization?
I’m asking a lot of questions. What am I? A Questions Guy?

Let’s get granular. The book The Network State describes ways to build an online community with a very simple constitution, stripping everything away to a single commandment. This is how you build your group, expressed as something where if the other person disagrees with it, you know they are your enemy. For example, “Christianity = Good,” or “Technology = Bad.” He writes like a NRx startup-sperg, and while it sounds reductive, it is an effective filter.

Maybe it’s “White People Good” or “Confucius Good.” The point is, if we cannot shake hands on that, or you try to argue that it cannot be that simple, I will know that we cannot be allies. That’s how you form a group, but how do you make it thrive? I mentioned Bion before, referring to Wilfred Bion. He was a contemporary of Freud who posited that people cannot be understood solely as individuals, and the 1:1 psychiatric relationship only explored one aspect of their identity. The psychology of group dynamics was his focus.

The group becomes a distinct organism, but the individual never really loses themselves in it; this synthesis is essential. One could say the dialectical tension is what we are trying to capture. But you wouldn’t say that here. Look at you people.

He identified two sorts of groups: The Basic Assumption Group, and the Work Group. A Work Group could be defined as any group that comes together to accomplish a project, and how they negotiate group dynamics to rank each other and accomplish that. After they accomplish the task they need another one right away, they need a new mission. They cannot just hang around, because if they do then they become the second group. A Basic Assumption Group, on the other hand, was one where there was no task or goal, and these groups tend to form all the time when people are thrust into any social situation for an extended period of time.

Workplaces, schools, churches: men and women are subject to them. You fall into them whether you like it or not. These groups begin to mutate over time, they have leading personalities and pair-bonding and internal rules on behavior; they are where cults of personality emerge, it’s where complex systems of frivolous dogma proliferate, where the most emotionally extreme tend to become leaders. Any group based on an identity without a long-term plan will inevitably become this.

But the group organizational pattern is inevitable. Individuals will be drawn into groups, they will be pulled into political events, and they may even look for comrades to give their life meaning. Without a heading... maybe some people here have experienced that yourselves, how many political groups have you been a part of that ended in maddening, complex sorrow?

We’re not looking for leaders, we’re not looking for an army, we’re not looking for a revolutionary product. We are looking for how to realize our first principles outside blind adherence to systems that have failed to assist us.

This is all a roundabout way to say that your individual vote doesn’t matter, your vote is a data point that communicates information to the sectors where real decisions are made. These sectors function as organisms that represent groups as distinct organisms.
This is why you need to squad up for a seat at that table.

You are dealing with people who want your dispossession and have no problem crafting an identity on your behalf, and then assaulting it from a political dimension you have no access to. This is a type of control that cannot be persuaded with a bullet, as it exists as the persuasion for bullets.

When Trump was shot during his first assassination attempt, it didn’t matter that he was a lifelong East Coast Democrat who had the majority of the Black and Hispanic vote. What mattered was he represented Straight White Men, and it was this construct that was repeatedly attacked. We might roll our eyes when women screech about stochastic terrorism, but stochastic terrorism is real; groups can collectively focus and summon a tulpa through technological means that can ultimately lead to visceral attacks upon you.

I am reminded of an article I recently covered on my paywall show Real Secret Coffee Hours. It was written by a hicklib, does anybody know what that is? It is what it sounds like: a liberal from a rural area that is attempting to ingratiate themselves into the urban progressive sphere. They claim that they are from the rural world, those are their people, and they hate those people. They are attempting to sacrifice their friends and family for entry into this strata of politics.

Now the article in question explained how when the author was a child, gun safety and education were paramount. He recounted stories of training with rifles with his friends and family, learning how to hunt and respect firearms. He then claimed that all mass shootings in America were on account of this group specifically. It was a wildly incoherent piece, but whether or not it describes reality is immaterial. What mattered was it was written by a journalist, for other journalists, with the express intent of robbing this specific group of their rights and there is no way the target can argue the logic of this strawman used for ritual purposes.

Your candidate won; the Straight White Man got the most points. But you are not here to win, you are here to decimate. Winning was never enough.

Trump is a signal in the same way populist movements are a symptom rather than a cause. It means we are moving the needle. But we never planned for success. If we are being honest with ourselves, I reckon most people assume we are destined to be oppressed to the fringe.

As our discourse is victorious, it will be adopted by our opponents, and we will be boxed out.

This is something you’ve likely seen as new figures begin adopting what were once our most radical points, and our rhetoric appears to be mainstreamed. The Dissident Right, the Alt Right, the Fringe Right, it’s all being looked upon with greedy eyes. The smart Leftists already started adopting our rhetoric a year ago, the Libs are already figuring out how to convince us they wanted remigration the whole time, and all our discourse is being segmented for consumption by our enemies.

As our discourse succeeds, we lose our earned influence, and then we must reckon with the complete absence of influence. Is this what winning feels like, to have mass deportations enthusiastically driven by a Punjabi technocrat?
If you’re not suspicious, you have not been paying attention.

The power of discourse is important, but of you’re here it’s because that rings hollow now. There is no mass redpilling, there is no great awakening, there’s no inflection point where the complex work miraculously completes itself. You are not powerless within the shadows of the systems you obsessively study. However, the total victory we dream of, sad as it is to say, will never be realized in our lifetimes.

You are cursed to awareness, if you are presently in this room. You will never enjoy the material benefits of victory. Your predestiny is to suffer onward.

So, let’s talk about you, and how you relate to this paradigm of which I speak. How do you relate to groups? I will hazard a guess and say: you don’t do it very well.

It is tempting to become reactionary and enter the fandom of ultraviolence, or wax poetically about all the genocide you would do if you merely had the chance. You’re Conan the Barbarian who has only seen half of the John Carter movie. This still lacks the truly masculine trait of the first mover. Reaction is surrendering the conversation; it is entering the gravity well of something or someone stronger. You want to destroy while nurturing the secret belief that creation will emerge miraculously afterward.

If we survey the great barbarian hordes throughout history we witness their constant magnetization towards the center of civilized power. They had no desire to simply exist on their own. So even when they won, they succumbed to civilizing forces and lost their vitality. The conquerors vanquished their foes and fell victim to bureaucracy.

It is seen as feminine to not project power and influence at all times, bending the world to your will. But empathy is required for persuasion, imagining what someone else’s motivations and experiences might be is essential to hammer a group of men into a node of action.

Marshall McLuhan was correct when he explained how the electronic revolution, rather than triggering atomized alienation as we are exploded outward into infinite cyberspace, actually collapsed society inward and retribalized the Western mind along extensions of senses into a strange interconnected existence^​​. The digital world has smashed us together into an unprecedented paradigm of total awareness, and when you combine that with the hypernormalization of psychoanalysis, we are always attempting to intrude into the lived experiences of friends, family, even our enemies.

This what I mean when I say you are cursed to awareness. I don’t think there’s any true way to rebel against this, we can’t truly live outside of this context. We can chart a multigenerational struggle beyond it, but we can never believe that we can simply step outside of it.

Being cursed to awareness has been granted a title: the Sensitive Young Man. Have you heard of that before? Does that describe you? Like “The Longhouse” it has a myriad of definitions depending the ideological priors of whom you ask.

A distinctly Western entity, the Sensitive Young Man is ambitious but not necessarily a leader; he is at war with society but not necessarily a revolutionary. The sensitive young man finds refuge in expanding labyrinths of theory drilling into the world and finds a pleasant home in the widening cracks between reality where endless ideologies lurk.
Every data point becomes a cathedral of intersecting rabbit holes, every idea is overthought, and every opinion commoditized as a mass market ready consumer packaged good.

He can believe this because in all likelihood he has never existed in a dynamic group that required absolute trust and placed a high value on information.
Now does THAT sound like you?

The Sensitive Young Man’s enemy reveals itself not as the matriarchy of civilization but the commoditized revolt itself. These are the canyons inside which he will be mummified in search of the secret of hidden vitality. Society requires ambitious men defined by ahistorical circumstances, with sufficient time horizons both forward and backward, to occupy the zone of proximal sovereignty by any means, lest they become bewitched by dysgenic agents.
Now more than ever we recognize that the goal is not to scramble to the status of a spiritual leader – or a God King - but to find your crew.

How do you build this crew? This would probably never occur to the sensitive young man, but it’s basically starting a gang. Or as famed Romanian Fascist leader Corneliu Codreanu described them, nests. It’s a type of organization seen since time immemorial, it’s how military units are structured, it’s how successful startups are structured.

Codreanu is a very illuminating example because, in his most famous work “For My Legionaries,” he has a line I will paraphrase as “political organizations are to control men, what we are trying to do is make men.” While finding your tribe online is a good first step, you really need to be in the same geographic area. You need to work together, you need to play together, you need to build trust and camaraderie.

A friend of mine who works in venture capital says that when he invests in a startup, it’s less of the idea and more of the team. A solid team can withstand all the chaos that will befall them on the path to greatness, but the greatest app idea ever made will crash and burn if it’s a bunch of mercenaries over Zoom calls. You and five friends who irregularly go rucking up a hill and help fix a car is more effective than a room full of PhDs. If you disagree, go join Mensa and change the world.

Orientating oneself in modernity requires calculations unimaginable to previous generations. Respect for tradition is essential, awareness of your lineage is essential, historical orientation is essential.

But if you think your ancestors are looking upon you and smiling, imagine your Boomer grandparents looking upon what you’re up to. I bet they’re confused as hell, and unhelpful at best. Imagine their faces written in the clouds like Mufasa asking you how to change the email subject line, forever.

They can’t help you. They should have no influence. You’re taking ownership of their bloodline. You stand alone. And it will happen to you too, it’ll be your face in the clouds one day, not knowing what’s going on, asking dumb questions like your wife watching Tenet.

Your job is to find a tolerable balance between values and effectiveness, fiction and truth, and erratic paths to reach that distant time horizon, alone. You are going to have to get used to appearing schizophrenic to your ancestors.

You are here to become tradition by transcending the dead.

We are drawn into these ideological Houses of Leaves not because they present immediate solutions, but because we sense a vibe somewhere deep within them, something we can still use to chart a course where all our traditions and institutions have proven ill equipped to lead us.

You’re going to have to make decisions that would appear to betray your stated values but serve your first principles. This is a game very few can play. This is not a fandom you can join, these basic assumption groups promise dogma and utopia; this is a road you walk alone until such a time as you can form a group of other inwardly-focused savages.

Masculinity is not achieved by the highly theoretical projection of the commoditized ideal upon the self, neither is it fantasies about joining a rampaging horde. It does not need to be commoditized as a pop-philosophy, it does not even need to be discussed. It is achieved by the individual strength of hostile will realized in the group dynamic, at varying times the warrior tribe and the self-sufficient family unit.

Guided by goals reaching up from the intersection of imagined past and future and scaffolded with blood memory, it seeks to map itself onto the real world rather than inhabiting the seductive memeplexes of radical theory.

The task can only fall to us. There is nobody else on Earth who can do this except for us, right here.

And I mean that in the sense of sheer survival. I’m going to tell you something you already know: a lot of these dreams of legacy and glory will initiate with us; they are not passed down or inherited. If you want to have a big family, odds are you’re the first one in several generations who have pursued this.

For those who concern themselves with the discourse over birthrates, the news has been dire: even outside of the West, births have plummeted, including throughout Asia, South America, and the Middle East.
Furthermore, the insistence that mass migration be constantly increased to rescue the population growth fails to address the reality that even migrants have fewer kids after one generation.

It seems apparent that no race nor religion can truly stand in opposition to Western Liberalism once encountered. “Look at the Muslims in Europe” some say, having 7 kids with all their income based on welfare. These strategies are only embraced by the terminally online.

Make no mistake, demographics are destiny, and replacement repopulation is the primary symptom indicating civilizational crisis. But the solutions are not as simple as accelerationist emulation of Eastern behaviors. Europeans, especially Anglos, have strong opinions on who should not have children, especially their neighbors. Eugenics flows throughout our social systems.

We are probably the only group that can think carefully about which qualities deserve to be maximized in society, or at least the processes which could be employed to reward these emergent decisions.

When I have spoken in the past to Muslims on the topic of mass migration into Europe, they speak of themselves as a virus. They speak of themselves as a tide of devouring rats. This is completely alien to the Western mind, and emulation will just lead us down a road of treachery. We do not want to multiply like rats or consume like a virus.

The only folk who can proceed through the fire of Liberalism and arrive at the other side are those who have stoked the flames; those who encounter it elsewhere appear utterly bewitched by its guarantees of consumerism, feminism, psychiatry, and welfare.
To put it more narrowly: you need a work-group populated by people who truly believe reproduction has a spiritual or ontological essentiality to their identity, not just an unintended consequence of seeking pleasure.

This is one immediate filter which may very well correlate with leadership qualities, intelligence, and other desirable characteristics of self-sustainability.
This is what we are truly discussing: we have abandoned the project of awakening the masses, we are looking very thoughtfully at how to create an entirely new people. This sometimes takes the guise of “parallel societies” or “retribalization,” but it all basically describes the same thing.

But it can’t live in our minds as a miracle that will descend from on high once a critical mass of suffering and dispossession is reached. What we’re describing is how Rome was founded, or how ancient Britain began. A founding stock of conquerors carrying the memory of their great civilization and planting it in new soil. In the case of Britain, it was Troy, and they cleared the lands of giants to do it.
That is the difference between a tribe and a fandom, and why many such groups regardless of their size of their population or war chest ultimately dissolve. Or why a cult of personality grows as cancer. Or why a brotherhood mutates into organized crime.

Do not believe that the mass democratic upset that just occurred means that you have won, you have merely opened the floor up for real work.

Those who chart this course will do so on their own will and determination, they are the ones who will direct the future on their own terms to see us through this civilizational collapse.

You are not doing this with the specters of your ancestors smiling upon you, you are not doing this for material reward. You are planting trees you will never enjoy the shade of, there is no status in this mission, and you have learned that there is no automatic camaraderie to be found with the ease of joining a fandom.

You are not here to win, you are here to decimate. Winning was never enough. Now your real work begins. Not OUR work. Your work. And you know what to do.

Thank you, and godspeed.

The story of multiculturalism in Canada, long believed to be a foundational mythology, is in reality a relatively recent political movement, one that occurred against the clear and explicit wishes of the Canadian public throughout the 20th century.

“Paving Over the Public” documents the clandestine schemes and political machinations that subverted Canadian identity contrasted against opinion polls and the lies public officials were forced to tell to cover up the truth.

Note: the “voiceover narration” included on this Substack is the audio rip of a space hosted on X between the creators of the project, including several Canadian influencers discussing topics related to the short doc.

A Good Svffer Production

Video Production by: Arbelast Editing

Written by: Cooper

Narration by: Dimes

Music by: Nanocyde