Is it possible to comment upon the "movement" Sturm und Drang taking place lately, without mentioning any names or (overtly) taking any sides? In his latest "Nameless" Podcast, Andy Nowicki does his best. Topics include the perils of knee-jerk trolling and alpha male "beta-baiting."


While Western Europe becomes increasingly cucked and ashamed of its own history, Eastern Europe is increasingly asserting itself, and taking pride in its historical figures—even the "fashy" ones. And few figures from Hungarian history are as fashy as Admiral Horthy, the country's dictatorial strongman, who ruled the country for 24 years (1920-44) and also allied himself with Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. 

Usually somebody with that kind of political pedigree would be regarded as a historical pariah in most European countries, but not Hungary. Under Prime Minister Viktor Orban the landlocked country is uncucked.


A specter is haunting the West…the specter of racism. All the powers of the West have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this specter: Pope and President, Obama and Cameron, student radicals and the American police state.


The Alt-Lite have proved adept at getting clicks, but online clicks, it seems, are quite a different thing to actual boots on the ground and fists in the air. 

This was evident in Washington yesterday as the Alt-Right and Alt-Lite went head-to-head in rival demos.

Unfortunately for the Alt-Lite, mild interest in an online clickbaity item about a piece of low-hanging fruit (Moooslims, SJWs, etc.) is not the same thing as people getting fired up enough to come out and march for a cause. So, numerically, it was a big win for the Alt-Right, who drew over 300 supporters to the 20 or 30 of their rivals. 

To get people to actually show up you need something a bit more positive and passionate than the negative Alt-Lite values of "muh freedoms" and "Where's my dildo?" It was no surprise, therefore, that they got their arses handed to them in a bucket in Washington.

Originally the demos were supposed to be united, but then members of the Alt-Lite, including Mike Cernovich and Jack Posobiec, thinking they were as big as their Twitter followings decided to counter-signal the Alt-Right as "racist" and "anti-Semitic" and make their own demo.

While the Alt-Right demo, featuring Richard Spencer, Nathan Damigo, Mike Enoch, Baked Alaska, and others, attracted over 300 supporters, the Alt-Lite demo struggled to get a few dozen at most.

The reason for this is because the Alt-Right actually believes in something positive—identitarianism for a group long denied it, and at a time when the lights of Western European civilization are going out all over the world.

The Alt-Lite by contrast just believes in atomized freedoms, and therefore is part of the process of decay that spawns egoism and apathy. And while that works with low-threshold Twitter followers looking for a bit of bait to click, the downside of it is that you are not likely to mobilize much of a showing IRL. The demos in Washington amply demonstrate that.

Hail victory!


This book review was published ten years ago in the largely degenerate Metropolis magazine. The subject, nationalism in architecture, is a subject of obvious interest to the Alt-Right.

Ise Jingu, spiritual centre of the nation.

Modern Japanese architecture seems to be rooted somewhere in the Space Age, but this informative book by Arata Isozaki, an important architect and writer on architecture, shows that to understand the present you often have to look at the very distant past. 

For example, the fact that buildings in Tokyo are constantly being knocked down and rebuilt every five minutes somehow makes more sense when you consider Ise Jingu, the nation’s most venerated shrine. Every twenty years, this 'holy of holies' – the Japanese equivalent of the Vatican or Mecca – is ritually leveled with the ground as an identical building is reared up alongside it.

According to Isozaki, the main problem that Japanese architects have always faced has not been keeping the rain off people's heads, resisting earthquakes, or looking nice next to cherry trees, but instead successfully internalizing and 'Japanizing' foreign influences. 
"Japanese history repeats this pattern over and over," Isozaki writes. "First external pressure strikes Japan; triggered by it, social turmoil occurs and brings civil disturbance in its wake; and, finally, society is restabilized by a cultural Japanization."
Japanese architects have worked harder than most in the national struggle of a country that has forever been in the cultural and technological debt of foreigners to retain its sense of national identity and self worth.

Although the book's structure is not chronological or even logical, the picture that emerges is consistent and compelling, presenting a Japan that alternates time and again between periods of intense receptivity to foreign influences and periods where these influences are either assimilated or rejected. 

With his deep understanding of his own country’s architecture, Isozaki is able to point to many examples left in the architectural landscape, including the quintessentially 'Japanese' Ise Jingu shrine, which Isozaki shows has undergone several changes over the years in the attempt to make it seem as purely Japanese as possible.

The writer also identifies the characteristics on both sides of the main stylistic tension in historical Japanese architecture: indigenous Japanese vs. imported Chinese, and is not afraid to give reasons for these differences. For example, the use of the round, lacquered wooden pillar in Chinese design, as opposed to the square-shaped, lightly varnished or unvarnished wooden pillar in Japanese design, was caused by the scarcity of wood in Northern China, which was itself the result of the denudation of forests to provide the wood to bake the bricks to make the Great Wall of China.

Often these little snippets of information are more fascinating than some of the larger points Isozaki is endeavoring to make, like his belief that pursuing Japan-ness in architecture is somehow flawed and his assertion that globalization is eradicating the 'borderline' on which Japan-ness relies. 

He is particularly critical of the pre-war teikan style, a self-consciously nationalist but not unbecoming style promoted to counter the international modernist trend in architecture. Interestingly, for keen students of architecture, both styles can be studied relatively close together in Ueno Park, where the Tokyo National Museum's Honkan is the embodiment of the teikan, while the Tokyo Bunka Kaikan is an equally fine example of international modernism.

Tokyo National Museum's Honkan

Another key thread in Isozaki's account of Japanese architecture concerns the refugee German Jewish architect Bruno Taut and his modernist appreciation of traditional Japanese structures like Ise Jingu and the Edo period Imperial villa at Katsura, Chiba. After a visit to Ise, Taut, who had fled Nazi Germany in 1933, enthused that "Ise Jingu will become an ultimate destination of architectural pilgrimage, like the Acropolis."

As in so many other fields, the appreciation of a pair of foreign eyes helped the Japanese to discover their own merits. The result was that Japanese architects gained the confidence to apply their own traditions to modernist architecture, culminating in post-war architectural masterpieces like Kenzo Tange's Olympic Gymnasium.

The fact that Isozaki, a generation younger than Tange, never conceived of anything as impressive as this, seems to have left a note of bitterness that occasionally finds voice in an otherwise fascinating narrative. 

Yoyogi Gymnasium: the Battleship Yamato re-born as an architectural masterpiece.



To understand and evaluate Feminism properly, it is necessary ignore all the balderdash about "empowerment" and "woman's rights," and instead to strike to the essence of what women are as well as how feminism impacts on this. This involves viewing women in the same reductionist way that we tend to view animals, namely as creatures defined by a salient characteristic.

For example, the camel is defined by its hump (and occasionally its toe), the elephant by its trunk, and the giraffe by its extremely long neck. In the same way, Woman – viewed as exotic creature – is defined by her womb (womb > womb-man > woman, geddit?). This is the large and unmistakable physical characteristic that makes her what she truly is – and is also the reason why "chicks with dicks" or even "chicks without dicks" (like 'Caitlyn' Jenner) are simply sick.

Now that we are veering into Aesopian territory, let me make my point with a simple parable. Imagine if you will the trickiest animal in the natural world appearing – a wily fox or cunning snake perhaps. It approaches the elephant as it is going about its business, flapping its ears or walking to the watering hole.
"Why do you allow humans to objectify you?” it hisses sympathetically in the great animal’s ear, pausing between sentences because it is concerned that its target might be a little slow. "They just define you by your trunk... But you are so much more than simply a trunk-using animal... Be equal to them... Empower yourself by not using your trunk."
The elephant can't help thinking there is something in the sly critter's words, and decides to give it a try. Next, the shit-stirrer of the animal kingdom approaches the giraffe.
"Look at you playing right into their hands by stretching your neck to reach the high leaves," it says. "You are just reinforcing the stereotype... That’s all you are to them – a ridiculous long neck... But who can blame them for thinking that about you... All you do is pop food down that long tube of yours... Try to show them how much better you are by not using your neck all the time... In fact, try not to use it at all..."
It is the same story with the camel. Its evil interlocutor persuades it to give up using its humps for water retention, and instead to carry a small bottle of mineral water hung around its neck in a fashionable pouch.

Now imagine if you will that these animals listen to their poisonous persuader with the same gullibility and competitive social signalling that Western women have listened to the siren call of feminism. What do you suppose will happen in a week or two? Yes, that’s right, the camel would have probably died of thirst out there on the desert plains; the giraffe would no longer have the strength to reach the succulent tree tops, even if it decided that being a "walking neck" wasn’t so bad after all; and the elephant would be nearing its end as it struggled to feed and water itself without the use of its defining prehensile proboscis.

In exactly the same way, Feminism – in cahoots with a culture of sexual liberation – has persuaded women in the West to shun the very attribute that has always defined them and which has given them real trans-generational power, in return for a deadly mirage of fake "empowerment."


Even before he called for Trump's assassination at an arts festival in England, actor Johnny Depp's career and life had been going into a tailspin.

The call for Trump's death came at the Glastonbury arts festival in England, where Depp asked "When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?" after a string of other disparaging comments about Trump in what was a clear invitation for one of the many mentally unstable wannabe young actors in the world to "make a name" for himself by "reprising" the historical role formerly played by actor John Wilkes Booth in 1865, when he assassinated President Abraham Lincoln in 1865.

Since that possibly drug-influenced comment, Depp, who seems to have an unstable manic depressive personality disorder, has abjectly apologized. 

This is the usual, insincere apology, motivated by sheer self interest, because people like Depp lack a moral compass. Quite simply his handlers are now in extreme damage control mode because things haven't been going very well for Depp at all in recent months. There has been a messy divorce, charges of domestic violence, and toxic financial problems, caused by an enormously inflated ego, absurd extravagance, and trusting his financial affairs to dodgy Hollywood lawyers.

Depp is now suing his former management for the "disappearance" of tens of millions of dollars. But, with running costs for his estate running at $2 million a month, a staff of 40, costing $3.6 million a year, and impulse buying of artworks, yachts, property, and anything else that can temporarily assuage his dark moods, it is easy to see how Depp got into this deep financial doodah. 

No doubt this mess is behind his mentally unhinged comments regarding Trump's assassination.

But then there is his fading star. Depp's most recent big-budget movie, "Alice Through the Looking Glass," lost tens and possibly hundreds of millions of dollars for Disney, gaining a mere $277 million gross at the box office but costing $170 to make. 

In order to estimate profits or loss you have to add on publicity costs, usually equal to production costs for "blockbusters" like this, and then cut the gross at least in half, meaning that "Alice Through the Looking Glass" lost at least $100 million.

So what better way to crash and burn his career by alienating at least half his fan base with childish hate comments against the President!

So, what has gone wrong with Depp's life? Well, one possibility is that he invoked the curse of Kek by his ill-timed and badly-acted parody of Trump himself in the abysmal and extremely unfunny "mockumentary" "The Art of the Deal" released in early 2016, a film that appears to have had zero effect on the US election.

Here is a short clip so you won't waste your time watching the rest of this crap movie. Note the pedophiliac juxtaposition in this scene of "cock chomping" and a child. Also note the interesting Jewish theme.


A brief podcast by Alternative Right chief editor Colin Liddell, reporting on site matters and events in the news. This time the focus is on the UK general election.

In recent weeks there has been some infighting in the Alt-Right, between the camp and the Counter-Currents camp. Colin Liddell argues that flare ups like this are to be expected and should not be taken too seriously. He also explains why he has a slight grudge against Greg Johnson, and considers whether gays can be a useful part of the Alt-Right.


by Dota 

I recently finished reading Orwell’s 1984. This is a project that I’ve put off for years, and in hindsight, it was probably for the best, as many of Orwell’s predictions have manifested themselves in recent times. Let’s go over some of Orwell’s warnings. There are spoilers up ahead.

Why did Orwell select the title 1984?

The conventional view states that he merely reversed the last 2 digits of 1948, however, I think there is more to this than meets the eye. Orwell was a member of the socialist Fabian Society from whom he later broke away. Contrary to popular belief, 1984 wasn’t aimed solely at the Soviets, but rather at the ideals of the Fabian Society. The emblem of the Fabians is the tortoise, which symbolizes the Fabian’s stratagem of wearing down the enemy. They believed that they could bring socialism to a society through gradual imperceptible increments even if it took them a 100 years. The Fabian society was formed in 1884, and giving them the benefit of the doubt, Orwell titled his dystopia 1984.

Women are some of the biggest supporters of The Party
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy."
Women are the shock troops of today’s Inner Party. Feminists owe their success largely to the generous financial contributions made by the very Capitalists that they instruct their unthinking acolytes to despise. The State plays its own role in buttressing feminism via social welfare programs and affirmative action paid for by male taxpayers. The nanny state allows women to make false rape accusations without any fear of legal reprisals, retroactively withdraw consent and move the goal posts on rape, and in general create a consequence free society for women.

Our Inner Party has correctly deduced that women require a bloated nanny state to help them achieve parity with men and thus women are “empowered” by these elites. As I’ve pointed out before, strong willed men desire small government whereas “strong and independent women” desire a large nanny state to hold their hand. Unsurprisingly, most women tend to vote liberal.

Orwell also mentioned that women were the "nosers-out of unorthodoxy." This is easily observed today as young women routinely initiate social media witch hunts against individuals that hold views contrary to those espoused by the Inner Party (anti Homosexuality/anti-Feminism/anti-immigration). These witch hunts are intended to kill an individual’s livelihood by smearing their reputations and rendering them unemployable. Orwell stated that women were the most fanatical supporters of the Inner Party and we see numerous examples of their mindless zealotry on social media.

Women possess a key characteristic that endears them to the Inner Party, and that is their propensity towards doublethink. Orwell defined doublethink as a form of mental gymnastics where an individual could simultaneously hold two contradictory beliefs. We are surrounded by examples too numerous to list here. We’ve noticed how women defiantly state that they don’t need men while simultaneously living on a man’s charity (alimony, child support, etc.). We’ve noticed how some women have consensual sex and then and then genuinely believe that they were raped. We’ve noticed how ‘strong’ women often rely on boyfriends, cops, bouncers, etc., to solve their problems. Doublethink is the enzyme that facilitates the digestion and assimilation of Inner Party propaganda. Female solipsism is the catalyst which aides this process naturally.

The destruction of gender
"I’m going to get hold of a real woman’s frock from somewhere and wear it instead of these bloody trousers. I’ll wear silk stockings and high-heeled shoes! In this room I’m going to be a woman, not a Party comrade."
Orwell was obviously not familiar with the cancer that would eventually become feminism. He was, however, intimately acquainted with the nature of communism and rightly surmised that the nature of communist “equality” was essentially a bland sameness. The Party did not tolerate the pillars of identity as they rightly believed that the latter would allow individuals to define reality on their own terms. Thus race, religion, and gender must be neutralized. Our Inner Party today uses Cultural Marxism to assault Western ethnicity (Critical race theory) and gender (Feminism). The classification of transvestites as women is another blow against gender. Ultimately, I believe most women want to be feminine, but feminists (the Outer Party) have other plans for them.

The destruction of language as a means of controlling thought
"You don’t grasp the beauty of the destruction of words. Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year? Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we’re not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller."
This is arguably Orwell’s most stunningly brilliant observation. Vocabularies seem to be shrinking at an astonishing rate every year. Bay Area Guy once told me about an acquaintance of his who did not know the meaning of the word ‘amoral.’ How could anybody discuss politics without being familiar with the word ‘amoral’? Popular culture has played a decisive role in the erosion of the average individual’s vocabulary where shows like the Simpsons openly glorify ignorance. There is not much else for me to add.

Perpetual Warfare

"War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society.

The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word ‘war’, therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist."
War is an industry and a large chunk of the US economy. The reason for perpetual war is not so much as to keep this industry going, but to instill a psychological dependence within the minds of the sheeple towards the Inner Party that governs them. The World Wars were old fashioned wars that were brutal and fought to the finish. What Orwell is referring to is continuous war, a war that does not threaten total destruction (and is technically less dangerous) and is perpetual. Oceania and Eurasia (or Eastasia) are evenly matched and are incapable of utterly destroying one and another. Elites on both sides understand that neither side can totally triumph against the other and thus the charade of perpetual war is maintained indefinitely to strip the sheeple of their liberties. The deluded masses fail to understand that the outside war is a prerequisite for the war that is perpetually waged against them.

Orwell's Quad

The Cold War was the first prototype of the continuous war model followed by the newly perfected war on (Islamic) terror. Combating Islamic terrorism is like playing whack a mole: Whack Hamas, and then Islamic Jihad shows up. Whack Al Qaeda, and then ISIS pops out. Whack Harkatul Mujahideen and watch the Deccan Mujahideen spawn out of another hole. The US government does its part in indirectly supporting Islamic terrorism so that the continuous war may go on. By attempting to oust Bashar Al Assad in Syria, the US hopes that ISIS will be strengthened. Bashar has repeatedly warned that his Syrian Arab Army is the only force that stands between ISIS and the genocide of Arab Christians. The US would rather support the Christ hating nation of Israel than prevent the genocide of Christian Arabs at the hands of radical Islamic savages. A US official was quoted as saying:
"This is in perpetuity what we’re dealing with. It’s like the war on drugs. This isn’t going to stop."
2 + 2 = 5
"Physical facts could not be ignored. In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four.

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O’Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
It would be an act of unparalleled stupidity to think that Liberals are the modern inheritors of the Enlightenment’s rational tradition. Today’s Liberals are the inheritors of Marxism and are just as averse to science as their religious counterparts on the Right. If reality contradicts ideology, reality is to be disposed off. The UCLA Women’s studies department had this to say about the works of Kevin MacDonald:
“Women’s Studies rejects any claims to a natural, biological or essential basis for social hierarchies that impute lesser or greater social value to designated populations. As such, the mission of Women’s Studies and the ethical and political impulse of feminism stand in direct contrast to the fields of socio-biology, evolutionary psychology and, by association, the work of Professor Kevin Macdonald.”
and this:
“Professor MacDonald works in fields that are considered to be legitimate by academic standards, and unfortunately, research into the genetic basis for the social value of racial and ethnic groups, women and homosexuals continues under the auspices of many fields of study. As such, we wish to raise some broader questions about any research that promotes bigotry, intolerance and racial superiority.
The highlighted part is crucial because what it is really saying is this:

Since we can’t challenge Professor MacDonald’s research on empirical grounds (i.e. 2+2=4), lets shift the matter into the realm of theory by questioning the value of his research as opposed to its findings and methodology.

The reason why Science (Biology and Mathematics in particular) upsets leftists so much is because these disciplines directly challenge the ideology of our Inner Party. Evolutionary Psychology and Biology alone are capable of demolishing the foundational myth of Feminism which states that gender roles are socially constructed. These fields demonstrate that gender and sex are irrevocably linked and cannot be changed as easily as one changes clothes. In order to control people’s minds, it is essential to first control their eyes. It is to this end that college professors (Outer Party) hammer into their students the pernicious message that reality is “socially constructed.” By internalizing this message the student effectively mistrusts his eyes and allows the Party to construct and re-define his reality for him.

From the Occidental Observer article linked above:
"John Horgan, the scientist who wants to ban research on race and intelligence, is not quite fit for the pages of Nineteen Eighty-Four. But he is getting there, because he thinks like O’Brien and puts ideology before science. Unlike O’Brien, he wants to stop science, rather than pervert it, but his predecessor Gould imitated O’Brien and perverted science in the cause of ideology. Gould’s award-winning best-seller The Mismeasure of Man (1981) was a polemic against “racist” brain-science and the concept of g, or a general factor of intelligence that underlies human cognition."
Nobel Prize winner James Watson (Molecular Biologist) was similarly attacked by our Inner Party for violating the sanctity of leftist/Marxist ideology by insinuating the genetic basis for the IQ of racial groups. I am not interested in HBD or Biology and have no vested interests in those fields. The matter that agitates me is that the Cultural Marxist left, in Orwellian fashion, wants to censor science for the preservation of ideology and not academic integrity. Two plus two must equal five. This is ultimately why the Left despises Positivism and preaches Anti-foundationalism in University classrooms across the West.

Orwell’s 1984 is required reading for anybody that wishes to penetrate the structure of the world we live in. It serves as map and compass in a world where language and reality are bent to serve the interests of a Party whose interests can never converge with out own.

The ever popular "two minutes hate."

Originally published at Occident Invicta


by Colin Liddell

London was not always evil.

There was a time in British history when the financial resources of The City, the industry of the North, the military prowess of the Celtic fringes, and the markets and raw materials of the colonies created a positive win-win synergy that transformed the World. But, throughout the 20th century, the mismatch between London and the rest of the UK has become progressively greater, with the former becoming a parasite on the latter.



Culturism (cǔl-chər-ǐz-əm) n. The use of philosophy, art, governance policy and science to honor, promote, manage and protect traditional majority cultures.

Culturist (cǔl-chər-ǐst) n. 1. An advocate of culturism. 2. One who engages in the philosophy, arts, policy creation and sciences that promote, protect and manage traditional majority cultures. 3. Adj. Of or pertaining to culturism, culturists or culturist policy.


To my delight, the new Wonder Woman movie was visually stunning, and was not marred by page after page of hackneyed feminist dialogue. Indeed, the girl-power theme was rarely taken beyond the level to which we are already numb. One notable exception to this being when a bunch of Amazons armed with Bronze Age weaponry somehow win a battle against World War One guys. Come on. Bows and arrows couldn’t even cut through 17th-century muskets, much less… whatever. Sure, sure, have it your way; mere dudes with bows and arrows wouldn’t last ten seconds against a WWI-era firearm, but Amazon Power outdoes the laws of physics. At least it was a cool-looking scene.


Following the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami that killed more than a quarter of a million people in South East Asia, a bar owner in Phuket, one of the towns worst affected, was asked how business was doing. "It's been very quiet," he replied. but some of the regulars are starting to drift back."

Following the 9-11 attacks in New York, in which many policemen and firemen were reduced to ashes, the following joke surfaced:
Q: Why are police and firemen New York's finest?
A: Because now you can run them through a sieve.
Both of the above are extremely "offensive." But they are also examples of gallows humour, a particularly black-tinged variety that is all the funnier for being so. In our increasingly dysfunctional modern age, such black humour is more necessary than ever as a coping mechanism for the various insanities that surround us.

However, it seems that coping with insanity is the last thing the UK government wants its people to do, as it has taken to routinely arresting people for any humour considered “offensive” or “insensitive.”

The latest example is the arrest of Richard Gear Evans, aged 37, for a comment made on Facebook in the wake of the van attack on Muslims leaving the Finsbury Park Mosque. Evans is the the son of the man who owns the van hire company from which the attacker Darren Osborne rented the van used in the attack. A spokeswoman for South Wales Police said Evans had been arrested on suspicion of "displaying threatening abusive / insulting written material with intent / likely to stir up racial hatred" for the following comment:
"It’s my dads company I don’t get involved it’s a shame they don't hire out Steam Rollers or Tanks could have done a tidy job then." 
It seems that since that attack the police have been taking time off from the important business of keeping tabs on Britain’s officially admitted population of over 23,000 known jihadis to instead trawl social media accounts for such examples of “unkind” words.

It is not clear what the consequences of this solitary comment will be, but the timing is certainly an issue. With a spate of Islamist terrorist attacks in London since the announcement of Article 50, a major “third world style” tower fire that burned scores of mainly non-Whites to death, and the government’s extremely narrow and unstable majority in Parliament, the potential for chaos and riots, especially in London, is now extremely high.

Welcome to Maybot Britain: humour does not compute.

This may push the government to attempt to keep a lid on things in a particularly heavy-handed way. For this reason, Evans could well be made an example of for his "unforgivable Islamophobia." Those in authority may well be thinking that only by hanging him out to dry can the multiracial mob be placated and its sons weaned away from the radicalism that once found its home in the very mosque that was the subject of the attack.

But in doing so, they are merely creating a more brittle and fragile situation, because gallows humor exists for a reason and serves a useful function. Sigmund Freud explained it not implausibly by linking it to the human need for stoicism:
"The ego refuses to be distressed by the provocations of reality, to let itself be compelled to suffer. It insists that it cannot be affected by the traumas of the external world; it shows, in fact, that such traumas are no more than occasions for it to gain pleasure."
In 1981  Ronald Reagan produced an excellent example of gallows humour when he was badly wounded by gunman John Hinckley Jr. As he was taken to the emergency room he cheerily quipped to the medical staff, "I hope you're all Republicans."

Taken in the same completely humorless way that the British authorities now take everything said about Muslims, this comment clearly implies that Democrat-voting doctors routinely kill anyone whose political opinions differs from theirs—an obviously extreme and very libelous comment. Treating humorous comments in this way thus creates absurdity. So, what are we to make of Evans’ quip?

First of all, it is ridiculous that we are forced to consider what is an essentially private comment made by an anonymous person as a state and public matter.

But, looking at the comment's content, the message seems to be that things could have been a lot worse (tanks, steamrollers) and that this would not necessarily be such a bad thing. There is also an implication of surprise at the signalling of concern for the mosque, which suggests that Evans is well aware of its history as a hotbed of Islamic radicalism connected to actual terrorists.

Anyone thinking he is literally advocating attacking Muslims with tanks and steamrollers is clearly a moron. But it seems that this is exactly what the British police are—morons choosing to ignore the frivolous gallows humour of the comment and instead robotically interpreting it in the most literal sense.

Of course, this may be how certain low-IQ Muslims also interpret it, but that is merely an argument against creating the kind of conflict-riven multiracial societies where everyone inevitably misunderstands each other all the time. Also, if that is the kind of society you have created, then it is probably not the best idea to use the full Orwellian apparatus of the state and media to blare out the private thoughts and comments of individuals from different groups about each other. Imagine what kinds of insults against "kufars" and infidels you would find from trawling through the social media of the average British Muslim. I'm sure they say plenty of things that could be willfully misinterpreted when they let off steam on their side.

But if gallows humour is a coping mechanism for a society that is deeply flawed and out of balance, then maybe the best way to fix things is to do exactly what the British authorities are doing, namely crack down on Gallows humour. Because, after all, anything that helps a dysfunctional system to function and survive is itself dysfunctional.

Will Britain's new state humorlessness actually lead to its salvation? 


The best way to end U.S. intervention
 is to increase the body count.
by Colin Liddell

On Sunday, Iran launched a long-range missile strike on ISIS forces in Al Mayadin, now believed to be the Islamist group’s new capital. Iran claimed the attack was in retaliation for the ISIS terrorist attacks in Tehran earlier this month, attacks that it also indirectly blames on the U.S.


How did it come about that much of the British intelligensia, for decades, was persuaded of the moral superiority of Communism, and of its inevitability as the future political system of the world?

One man, virtually unknown and unnoticed, can claim the dubious distinction of being the prime mover. Willi Münzenburg was born in 1888, the son of an alcoholic innkeeper in Thuringia, Germany, who killed himself cleaning a gun while drunk.


A US guided missile destroyer, worth approximately $1.5 billion dollars and equipped with every form of navigational and detection device possible, nevertheless managed to collide with a massive container ship in the Pacific Ocean to the South of Japan.

The extremely high improbability of such an occurrence has everyone scratching their heads, trying to think of a vaguely plausible explanation for the accident, which almost sunk the ship, the USS Fitzgerald, and cost the lives of seven of its crew. The Fitzgerald, a 8,315-tonne ship with a crew of 300, was hit by the 29,060-ton CX Crystal, manned by 20 Filipinos.

There are a number of speculative possibilities. It could be that the captain was just a complete moron (unlikely) or a druggie (slightly less unlikely), or that there was some weird anomaly in the area of the collision, either physical or electromagnetic that interfered with the ship's navigational equipment in some way. Perhaps it was some kind of "waterspout"—a mysterious rotating column of water and spray typically formed by a whirlwind occurring over water—or maybe the Fitzgerald's guidance systems were hacked by "evil Russians" or shut down by alien interference from the planet Zog, etc., etc.

OK, this is just getting silly...

Let's stop beating around the bush and instead focus on the most likely cause of maritime mayhem in the modern US navy, namely the old bugbear of "diversity" and the organisation's well-known policies of fast-tracking women and minorities.

Remember, the military services in the US don't merely exist to defend the country against its enemies and carry out globalist wars. They are also a handy tool to remind the very divided United States of America how "united" they are—or should be.

Accordingly, a search for crew shots of the USS Fitzgerald, suggests that the ship was in fact being used as something of an "affirmative action" guinea pig and showboat.

Hillary on the Fitzgerald: If Zimbabwe had a navy it would look like this.

This picture from 2011, shows then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on board the Fitzgerald with what looks like a "more diverse than normal" crew—and enjoying every minute of it, naturally.

Of the 17 naval personnel in the photograph only 6 can be said to be White males, with the rest being mainly Blacks, and at least 2 women. The presumption of course is that these "diverse" elements were there not entirely on merit but instead to present the desired "optics."

Of course, this photo was taken six years ago and a lot may have changed in that time, but usually when it comes to "diversity" things tend to move in only one direction.

The US navy today is now around 15% female and 34% non-White. Contrast this with its main rival navies—the Russian and Chinese navies, which are overwhelmingly male and core ethnicity.

But even if the Fitzgerald's crew was less diverse than this picture suggests and more in line with the general demographics of the navy—which is still the least White and second least male of all the services—it only requires a few unsound individuals to cause disasters. "Affirmative action" provides the means by which such individuals can be placed in positions of great responsibility and danger. We have to now see if that was the case with the USS Fitzgerald.


Why did a would-be future politician like the profile pic of a future would-be assassin?

In his latest "Nameless" podcast, Andy Nowicki considers two strange anomalies surrounding last week's attempted assassination of Congressman Steve Scalise, including the fact that a gun-control favoring Democrat "liked" and posted a smiley-face on the Facebook profile pic of the alleged shooter James Hodgkinson two years ago.

Listen here:


Lindy Li Philly Voice article
Dem Whip Delivers Pizzas to Scalize Staffers


The recent scenes of campus insurrection, violent intimidation and property damage at Evergreen State College in Washington were strikingly reminiscent of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, in which a comparably self-righteous horde of students was exempted from the rule of law to unleash their savagery on a cowering society. They should also provide the last nail in the coffin of this "racial reconciliation" bullshit that Americans are always droning on about - albeit for very different reasons, with conservatives wringing their hands and looking to heaven, and progressives aggressively holding out their own hands while looking to the conservatives' wallets.


This is a fast-paced interview!  20 questions in 28 minutes. I like the format. Enjoy!


This article, first published in September 2015, is here republished in light of news of Michelle Carter, the "suicide seducer" in question, being recently convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the case described below.
Michelle Carter and Conrad Roy

There is a very odd scene in the celebrated Rogers and Hammerstein musical Oklahoma, in which the play's hero, the jolly, upbeat Curly, attempts to talk his antagonist, the surly, sullen Jud, into committing suicide.

Jud is a creep, to be sure: a menacing stalker, who is later revealed to be a murderer. Still, the song's humor – and it is funny – brings great discomfort when the viewer considers the inherent cruelty of the circumstance. It is even a little heartbreaking how Jud comes around so readily to Curly's point of view on how his death would really be the happiest outcome for everyone, including himself:

Curly is clearly playing dirty here, and not just because the act of attempting to manipulate another man into ending his life is rather unseemly and appalling in itself. Curly is additionally culpable because he is a much more astute and mentally nimble man than Jud, so his effort to woo the other man into self-slaughter has something of the character of a grown man corrupting a child. (To head a certain type of ubiquitously anti-intellectual reader off at the pass; yes, I know it's "just a play," but my point is that it's a darker scene – and given the scene's significance in the story, a more disturbing play – than is commonly acknowledged.)

I cannot help but be reminded of the macabre comic exchange between crafty Curly and deadheaded Jud when I consider the tragic case of Conrad Roy, a sweet but dull-witted lad from Mattapoisett, Massachusetts, who was apparently talked into offing himself by his malevolently sadistic, Iago-esque online girlfriend Michelle Carter last summer.

Of course, when 18-year old Roy took himself out by ingesting a lethal amount of carbon monoxide in his pickup truck on July 12, 2014, Miss Carter first publicly behaved in what seemed an appropriate manner befitting a deeply bereaved girlfriend. The pleasant-countenanced, pixie-faced teen took to social media (but of course) to mourn the passing of "a beautiful soul gone too soon." Later she tweeted, "I'll always remember your bright light and smile. You'll forever be in my heart. I love you Conrad." She even organized a suicide prevention fundraiser in the name of her fallen virtual beau, cementing her seeming "cred" as a grieving loved one of the departed.

Yet when police investigated the boy's death, they came across his cellphone, and soon discovered the cache of texts that he had exchanged with Michelle in the days and hours leading up to his suicide. These text threads revealed, shockingly enough, that Carter had repeatedly insisted that Conrad get over his fearful reluctance and kill himself already. In fact, she had nagged him relentlessly about it, until he finally capitulated and – in the grand tradition of henpecked boyfriends – gave her exactly what she wanted.

In one representative sample (see the entire recorded exchange here), Michelle advises Conrad to obey the Nike and Shia Labeouf-endorsed injunction to "just do it":

CARTER: You can't think about it. You just have to do it. You said you were gonna do it. Like I don't get why you aren't.
CONRAD: I don't get it either. I don't know.
CARTER: So I guess you aren't gonna do it then. All that for nothing. I'm just confused. Like you were so ready and determined.
CONRAD: I am gonna eventually. I really don't know what I'm waiting for but I have everything lined up.
CARTER: No, you're not, Conrad. Last night was it. You kept pushing it off and you say you'll do it, but you never do. It's always gonna be that way if you don't take action. You're just making it harder on yourself by pushing it off. You just have to do it. Do you want to do it now?
CONRAD: Is it too late? I don't know. It's already light outside. I'm gonna go back too sleep. Love you. I'll text you tomorrow.
CARTER: No. It's probably the best time now because everyone is sleeping. Just go somewhere in your truck and no one is really out there right now because it's an awkward time. If you don't do it now you're never gonna do it, and you can say you'll do it tomorrow, but you probably won't. Tonight? Love you.  

Later, Michelle admonishes Conrad that he needs to stop "overthinking." Like a certain eternally conflicted Danish prince, this hapless lad must simply learn to stop dithering and take proper action:

CARTER: Okay. So you gonna do it?
CONRAD: I guess.
CARTER: Well, I want you to be ready and sure. What does that mean?
CONRAD: I don't know. I'm freaking out again. I'm over thinking.
CARTER: I thought you wanted to do this. This time is right and you're ready. You just need to do it. You can't keep living this way. You just need to do it like you did the last time and not think about it and just do it, babe. You can't keep doing this every day.
CONRAD: I do want to but I'm like freaking for my family I guess. I don't know.
CARTER: Conrad, I told you I'll take care of them. Everyone will take care of them to make sure they won't be alone and people will help them get through it. We talked about this and they will be okay and accept it. People who commit suicide don't think this much. They just could do it.
CONRAD: I know. I know. LOL. Thinking just drives me more crazy.

According to court documents, Carter even instructed Conrad to get back in his truck and finish the job when it seemed he was tempted to chicken out at the decisive moment. Later, she confessed as much in a text to a friend: "I was the one on the phone with him (Carter wrote) and he got out of the car because... he got scared and I fucken told him to get back in because I knew he would do it all over again the next day and I couldn't have him living the way he was living anymore. I couldn't do it. I wouldn't let him."

That Michelle Carter mentally manipulated Conrad Roy into killing himself is a proposition beyond dispute; it is, in fact, supported by all of the available evidence. But though authorities have duly charged Carter with involuntary manslaughter, it isn't clear that she broke the law in any way. In fact, it seems unlikely that she will serve any significant jail time.

Still, her wretched and unconscionable behavior has infuriated people beyond measure. They are enraged, it would seem on a patently primal level, "triggered" by the fact that this seemingly innocent, well-meaning, cheerful smiley-faced girl in fact proved to be a spectacularly squalid specimen of pathologically narcissistic duplicity.

But their response isn't just about sociopathy-shaming. In fact, the widely-shared anger has deeper, patently premodern roots. Though feminism and unisex gender-neutrality are now officially-sanctioned mainstream ideologies, it has proven more difficult to rewire the built-in human tendency to expect nurturance from females, and to see the absence of such a proclivity as a uniquely horrifying, even monstrous betrayal of nature. Particularly galling, it seems, are women who appear to be sweetly sympathetic "earth mother" types, but in fact prove to be bloodthirsty Kali-like demonesses in disguise. (Take a look at the message board at the end of this article to get a good indication of the rage occasioned by the Carter-Roy case, and ask yourself if the extent of the collectively expressed disgust doesn't stem from a shared gut-level conviction of gross, viscerally inhuman perfidy, akin to how we feel when we run across egregious cases of cannibalism, incest, and the like.)

As with Shakespeare's consummate villain Iago, Michelle Carter's motive for her depredations remains murky. One can reasonably speculate, however, that she simply got off on the thrill of causing the destruction of another person, and afterwards reveled in the attention of being widely seen as a grief-stricken "widow" of a poor lost soul. Nor, in her thirst for "drama," is she particularly unique among her sex, though admittedly she took things to an unusual extreme to achieve the narcotic-like buzz that accompanies the attainment of acclaim.

Andy Nowicki, assistant editor of Alternative Right, is the author of eight books, including Under the NihilThe Columbine PilgrimConsidering Suicide, and Beauty and the Least. He occasionally updates his blog when the spirit moves him to do so. Visit his Soundcloud page.


Not surprisingly, Donald Trump has followed in the infamous footsteps of his presidential predecessors in the transition from candidate to chief executive. Invariably, every candidate for the presidency makes a whole host of promises, the vast majority of which are horrible and typically only exacerbate the problems they attempt to resolve. Among the proposals, however, there is an occasional bright spot. Yet, once elected the stupid polices are eagerly pursued while the good ones are quickly discarded.


by Colin Liddell

One of the keys to the success of the Left is its ability to weaponize mental illness in a variety of sick and disgusting ways to serve its purposes. This ranges from causing hysteria and witch-hunts on campuses by clearly mentally unbalanced students (taken straight out of Mao’s “Cultural Revolution” playbook) to encouraging Blacks, Muslims, and others to riot and commit terrorist acts. Ninety-eight years ago, the Left encouraged massive terrorist attacks by ethnic minorities in an attempt to reverse immigration legislation.


Following the latest act of Leftist terrorist violence against Representative Steve Scalise, now is the time to re-read Gilbert Cavanaugh's 2013 article on the hatred and violence that have long powered the Left.

In the last half a century only leftists have killed congressmen.

by Gilbert Cavanaugh

The word "hatefact" seems to have been coined by VDARE's Peter Brimelow back in 2008. Speaking at an H.L. Mencken conference, he said that "hatefacts" are, "things that everybody knows are true but can't be said." They are the truisms behind so called "hate speech."

The concept of a hatefact is quite accurate, and deserves more traction. Gavin McInnes wrote an amusing piece on the matter for Taki's Mag a few months ago, but the hatefacts he listed were mostly focused on statistics and common sense. Although that is well and good, referring back to history should be the modus operandi of all conservatives. History's lessons manage to debunk nearly every theory and utopia the left can dream up and argue for. In that spirit, here are five hatefacts from America's history.

(1) On Puerto Ricans and Crime

About two years ago Gabriel Giffords was nearly killed in an assassination attempt – and the media went nuts pretending to be detective-psychologists who would soon answer all questions surrounding it. Naturally no one was interested in discussing the history of congressmen being injured or killed in office. In looking over the facts, it becomes easy to understand why the topic was avoided by the powers that be.

In all of American history exactly nine members of congress have been wounded in office.(Compared to many other nations, this is an admirably low number, but that's an aside.) Puerto Ricans were responsible for 55.55 percent of this total. It is a chapter of history not often discussed, but on March 1st, in 1954, Puerto Rican terrorists stormed America's Congressional building and opened fire. The intent was to achieve independence using Black Hand style tactics. Blessedly, none of their targets were killed, however, five did sustain injuries. As for the four who were injured outside of this attack: one was shot by a wacko, another by some muggers, and the other two were beaten by other congressmen. (Those would be Giffords, Stennis, and Sumner as well as Grinnell, respectively.) Given America's current brouhaha about the supposed white male tendency to shoot up this place or that, now may be the time to remind people of this attack.

(2) On Violence and the Left

The more acute readers of fact one are likely questioning its focus on congressmen wounded, rather than killed, in office. However, the list of killings only reveals more discomforting facts about who employs political violence.

Dixiecrat Larry McDonald was the most recent congressman to fall. What happened always sounds so farcical, but it really is true, in 1983 he was on a civilian plane that was shot down by Soviets.

Before him was Leo Ryan in 1978. The Jim Jones groupies in Guyana gunned him down. The People's Temple had been in his California district, and after they picked up stakes and fled the country, many family members of believers had asked Ryan to go down there and figure out what had happened. When Ryan arrived, he was killed. Yes, Jim Jones and his followers were insane, but quite progressive as well – and staunch supporters of Harvey Milk.

Next comes Robert Kennedy in 1968; who isn't familiar with the assassination of RFK? Unfortunately, in this context, "familiar" takes on the narrow definition of "aware that it occurred." Who killed him? Why? It has been forgotten, but the assassination was quite politically motivated. The killer was Sirhan Sirhan, a staunch anti-Zionist, and Bobby had come out in support of Israel during the 1967 war, so Sirhan shot him.

There are a few more, but most of them were brought about by duels or the Civil War, with some strange exceptions such David Brokerick who was killed by his insane son. Saying something like, "In the last half a century only leftists have killed congressmen," would not be "biased," it would be accurate.

(3) On Foreign Aid

Antebellum America held great resentment towards Haiti and the 1804 slave revolt that gave her independence. For a long time the United States liked to act as if the nation did not exist or was illegitimate. Haiti's official recognition by the US did not come for while, and its timing does not come off as coincidence – 1862. It was never explicitly said, but it is hard to interpret this move as anything other than a somewhat desperate and somewhat friendly way of asking for aid. As any historian will tell you, 1862 was not a great year for the North in terms of military victories. But Haiti did nothing; apparently the quest to free several million slaves to their north was not considered worthy of a war effort. This did not change even when it was clear that the North was going to win. Autumn of 1864 could easily have seen a successful Haitian expeditionary force sent to New Orleans for a bit of looting and liberating. (To imply that there would have been looting is far from racist, ever heard of "Sherman's March to the Sea"?)

After Haiti's last devastating earthquake, some said that it was, "our moral responsibility to help," but if that is the case, then was it not Haiti's moral responsibility to aid the North a century and a half ago? Why does foreign aid always seem to be a one way street?

(4) On Anti-Semitism

As opposed to Europe, America has never suffered from serious bouts of anti-Semitism. There was a bit with the resurgence of the KKK in the 1920s and then into the '30s with Father Coughlin and his followers. But no anti-Semitic federal law has ever been passed, and even our most racist historical figures tend to at least refrain from anti-Semitism. What did Andrew Jackson think of Jews? It does not seem like he did. One of the highest cabinet members of the Confederacy was Jewish. George Wallace and Jesse Helms said countless vicious things about blacks and gays, but not a peep on Judaism and its adherents.

Du Bois: "The Jew is the heir of the slave-baron"

The one group of Americans who do seem to suffer from this ethnic prejudice is blacks, and this has been true throughout our history. W.E.B. Du Bois wrote that, "The Jew is the heir of the slave-baron" in his book, The Souls of Black Folks. Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam as a whole are certainly guilty of this as well, not to mention Stokely Carmichael. Some say Jesse Jackson would have gotten the Democratic Nomination back in 1984 had he not made those comments about "hymies" and where they live. Have you ever heard of American white gentiles rising up and rioting against the Jews in their neighborhood? (And no, Nazi lone wolfs and marches are not the same as neighborhood-wide riots.) It certainly happened against Catholics and many other groups, but the only anti-Semitic riot in America's history was the 1991 New York Crown Heights Riot, committed almost entirely by blacks.

Can you imagine Walter Mondale (eventual winner of the 1984 Democratic nomination) having a single anti-Semitic bone in his body? Or how about Stephen Crane writing something openly anti-Semitic around the time Du Bois did. How about a white 1960s radical, like the much talked about Bill Ayers attacking the Jewish race? The trend continues too, have you ever heard of Congressmen Keith Ellison?

(5) On Voter Rights

Many different "Voter ID" proposals were decided on this election season, and with that came countless tales about "voter suppression" and "voter disenfranchisement." This narrative disregards a key voting-block in America - the South. Leftists ignore the topic, but the South as a whole has a long history of being disenfranchised at the polls. Aside from the 2000 election, the three times in American history when a candidate became president despite losing the popular vote have been candidates the South almost uniformly voted against. The first instance was in 1824 when John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay kept Andrew Jackson out of office via clever congressional maneuvering. Jackson won all but three Southern states and Quincy won zero. The second instance was in 1876 when Rutherford Hayes was seated instead of Samuel J. Tilden, who like Jackson, won all but three Southern states. Finally we come to 1888 when Benjamin Harrison unseated Grover Cleveland, who won the entirety of the South without exception.

Another example of Southern disenfranchisement is the 1868 election. Three Southern states (Texas, Virginia, and Mississippi) were not allowed to participate in the election despite having been recently forced back in to the Union. The reasoning behind it was that they had not been sufficiently "reconstructed." It would seem as though the South merits the title, "disenfranchised."

These are five mini-history lessons. Look into our past more deeply yourself and rest assured that you will find more. Every ounce of history disproves a pound of theory.

Originally published 10th January, 2013