Radical Agenda S06E002 – Welcome to the Party, Pal!

Here at the Radical Agenda, we pride ourselves on thinking outside the box. Our defining characteristic as Right wingers is not so much our conservatism as our nationalism, and of course our unyielding reactionary contempt for the Left.

This is not to say that we lack any conservative impulse. We know as well as anyone that if something isn’t broke, there is no sense in attempting to fix it. In the name of so-called “progress”, Democrats keep trying to “fix” elections, race, and gender. In this pursuit, they seem to be getting exactly what they want, but the honest observer cannot say that they are making life any better, and they themselves seem more miserable with each successive victory. So, conservatism surely has its place as an element of one’s political repertoire.

But we also know at least two things about the present. It is intolerable, and it is the product of the past. Thus it would seem to follow, that repeating prior behavior is a roadmap to an intolerable place. So, with all due respect to tradition, we find ourselves determined to blaze new trails.

Then again, there is an argument to be made that nothing is really new in this world. A timeless bit of wisdom from the Bible, in Ecclesiastes 1:9, reads “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.

Many have fancied themselves inventors before they got to the patent office, and all experience has shown that even those of us who do study history, are no less doomed to repeat it. Or at least, something that rhymes with it.

Reconciling these paradoxes is itself a perennial issue in politics, and every other field of human endeavor. The old saying that “The more things change, the more things stay the same” is a cliche for a reason. Man perpetually longs to alter his circumstances, usually for the better. He does not reach a point of satisfaction and rid himself of all uneasiness and cease to act. Yet man is a natural creature, and thus he has what can be called “human nature”. This nature is a limitation on his capacity to innovate, and attempts to create change beyond a certain degree can only lead to that most common of human conditions, which we call death.

The term “progressivism” has become almost as bastardized in the modern common parlance as has “conservatism”. Far from seeking progress, self styled “progressives” are dismantling civilization into a Hobbesian hellscape, red in tooth and claw as much as in ideology. Marketed as Utopians, and often even granted this by their opponents, these Trotskyites are in fact incapable of happiness. Their concept of progress is entirely destructive, in that whatever is, must not be. They seek perpetual revolution, and it is only the destruction of the current moment, combined with the inevitability of the passage of time, that they are oriented toward the future.

People have come to think that conservatism and progressivism are distinct ideologies which encompass all the tenets of a political party. Indeed, many think of politics in the Untied States as being precisely this. There are the “progressive” Democrats, and the “conservative” Republicans, and based on your point of view, one of those parties is the good party, and one of them is the evil party. Either the good, progressive Democrats are trying to improve mankind toward his destined perfection, and those evil conservative Republicans keep thwarting their plans out of bigotry, or those good conservative Republicans try diligently to preserve our beautiful country, which those evil “progressive” Democrats are always busy trying to ruin.

This is, in a word, silly. Nobody really organizes their lives or thoughts in this way. We all want, in varying degrees, to progressively improve the things we see worthy of conserving. We change, in degree, but not in kind. Political extremists long for what is often described as “revolutionary” change, but whether they obtain the reins of power through ballots or bullets, the most they can obtain are larger or smaller degrees of largely cosmetic alterations to a fundamental and permanent order. They might kill lots of people and destroy lots of things. The people impacted by their zeal might have their lives turned completely upside down or snuffed out entirely, but in the end, one still must produce more than he consumes, and there are still two complimentary and opposite sexes, which cannot be altered by nebulous conceptions of “gender”.

All of which is to say, there are, however loosely defined, some limits on what is even conceivable, in politics. What is actually possible is even more tightly constrained, and what is probable falls inside a still smaller boundary.

Limits of Means to Power

To even find opportunity to act within these constraints at all requires obtaining political power. To lay hands on this prize, the means are fundamentally limited to three categories of action. Persuasion, deception, or force. None of which are mutually exclusive, and successful strategies typically combine the three.

Fundamentally, force is inescapable. The exercise of political power is the legitimization of force. Say what you will about the communists, but Mao was largely correct in his observation of power’s origin. Setting this aside, the difference between revolution and terrorism is who writes the history. For this reason, and others, history teaches us nothing if not that people can, and all too frequently do, obtain political power by force of arms.

But force does not negate the requirement of persuasion. The legitimization of force is a question of perceptions. No government can operate without a certain degree of enthusiastic public support, and a much larger degree of acquiescence. To rule, even with an iron fist, one must persuade the governed that the ruler is at least not the worst case scenario, and this can be a heavy lift if you’re running around killing everybody who talks out of turn. To even acquire the manpower and resources to topple the prior regime, one must persuade men to risk and forfeit their lives and freedom for the conflict, which is a greater burden to meet, though in smaller numbers, than obtaining the acquiescence of the general public.

Historically, deception has proved useful in such affairs. The study of revolution is near exclusively a study of communism, which has at its core the most dishonest of all conceivable political promises: that man may be freed from his own nature and that of his environment if he inflicts enough suffering upon others.

Elections, largely perceived today as the only legitimate means of obtaining power, are, when properly functioning, designed to be measures of persuasion. One asks the public for their votes, and tries to persuade them that he is the best use of this scarce resource. Typically, he is opposed by at least one competitor for this resource, who makes the contrary case.

One need not necessarily win the election himself to wield political power through persuasion. It is quite well enough, perhaps even preferable, to have influence over people who win elections, or  even to hold a position within the political apparatus or civil service. Every contributor to a newspaper or television news production, every social media star, is influencing both the electorate and the elected.

Perhaps another day we can do an entire episode on non-elected political power, but, in the final analysis, democratically elected governments are designed such that the policy makers are answerable to voters. Lasting, sweeping change, requires legislative authority. Judicial nominations, regulatory control, and enforcement discretion, all flow from elected executives. Thus we are met with the stubborn fact that some proximity to the electoral process is an inescapable component of any political strategy, with the possible but by no means certain exception of armed revolution, which we will now rule out for us, for obvious and not so obvious reasons.

Force is still necessarily a part of the equation, not only because the winner of the election will wield the power of the State, but because the loser will be physically removed from his office if he declines to accept the results. Unless he gets the armed forces to back him, but that involves force all the same.

While an election without deception is theoretically possible, we do not live in theory, we live in the empire of lies, in which truth is treason.

Deception, in addition to its role in the prior to categories of action, may also be the primary element of a political strategy, such as in the case of voter fraud or election tampering. It necessarily involves some persuasion, in that one must typically convince the governed that the deception did not occur or was not of outcome determinate scale. Ultimately force cannot be separated from it both for reasons inherent in all matters of State and for the high likelihood that one will need forcibly incapacitate those who detect the fraud, such as happened with the January 6th Defendants.

With our narrow and overlapping categories of action now defined, we have one more step to go before we attempt to apply this analysis.

Who Are We?

I keep on saying “we”. Who are “we” – or, perhaps better said – who is “us”?  What common goal defines membership in the group I reference for purpose of political action?

If you have been paying attention to me for awhile, you already understand that I am working my way up to advocating participation in the Republican Party. But since I do not consider myself to be on the same team as Adam Kinzinger or Liz Cheney, a Republican voter registration is not sufficient for our purposes.

Nor can we describe ourselves as “movement conservatives”. Not that most people who do, really can. Self described conservatives today, with a few rare exceptions, know little of William F. Buckley or Russell Kirk, much less Edmund Burke. The “free speech absolutism” mindlessly parroted by self described conservatives today in their complaints about social media censorship and Democrat tyranny more broadly, is not something that would fall from the mouth of one who had read God and Man at Yale.

Nor would one who had read The Conservative Mind be so in thrall to the “free market absolutism” mindlessly parroted by a rival faction of self described modern conservatives, in response to the same subjects. Conservatism, properly understood, does not consider itself powerless to stop a transnational criminal enterprise from wrecking the country, just because it files articles of incorporation, and allows people to buy shares of it on the New York Stock Exchange. These people sound a lot more like Murray Rothbard than Richard Weaver, and while we all owe Ron Paul a debt of gratitude, there are good reasons why people don’t vote for candidates who promise not to help them.

More to the point, as touched upon at the beginning of this discussion, conservatism is not a holistic political philosophy, but a constituent element of all political philosophies. This fact is what gives rise to the two factions just mentioned. Free speech and free markets are not compatible, and thus cannot be absolutist members of the same coherent thought process. These are different ideologies which merely have a constituent element in common.

Everybody wants to conserve something, and while it is an unfair oversimplification of conservatism to say that it merely protects the status quo, that has become its function as of late, and we have no interest in becoming the protectors of prior revolutions.

Certainly, none of us can be accused of being neocons, though I would argue we can learn more from them than most of my listeners would guess. Giving the devil his due, Irving Kristol and friends may very well have saved this country from a permanent Democrat majority, by shunning Misesian economic orthodoxy, and isolationist foreign policy. Given its ethnic origins, we ought not be surprised that neoconservatism paved the way for a rootless, corrosive, globalism, and all of its accompanying domestic ailments, but since it taught the American Right to come to grips with the New Deal and stop scaring voters by threatening social security, we might do well to tip our hats.

Speaking of the ethnic origins of neoconservatism, one way I could convey my point is by referring to “us” as “what was once called the Alt Right”. This shortcut would save me some keystrokes and convey much of my point. But the Alt Right lost, and while we can blame the disreputable acts of non-adherents for this fact, that is not going to change the outcome. Moreover, the failure of the Alt Right has more in common with the failure of conservatism than most adherents of either camp would like to admit.

While conservatism monomaniacally focused on “standing athwart history yelling stop”, the Alt Right’s myopic focus on the Jewish question left everything else blurry. Since the targets of this entirely reactionary contempt understand full well the implications of it, they were able to mimic its patterns, infiltrate the movement, predict the behavior of its adherents, and control, subvert, and ultimately eliminate them from the political contest.  Whatever the merits of this movement, we cannot repeat its errors.

Like conservatism, anti-Semitism is not a philosophy, much less a political strategy. It is a predictable reaction to a peculiar state of affairs with an identifiable cause. The present analysis makes no value judgements about it as one constituent element of a worldview, except to say that is what it is, one constituent element. Like conservatism, attempts to create an ideology out of a single constituent element results in social conflict among adherents, because they are not all actually on the same side. They simply have one constituent element of their worldview in common, and even their conception of that element can vary dramatically from one adherent to the next.

This was exploited to devastating effect against the Alt Right. A paper in the Journal Nature, described a strategy for “combating online hate” which proposed having social media platforms introduce artificial users whose purpose was to try and force interactions between what they called “hate clusters” with the explicit intent of causing them to fight and destroy one another.

Policy 4 exploits the fact that many hate groups online have opposing views. The policy suggests that the platform administrators introduce an artificial group of users to encourage interactions between hate clusters that have opposing views, with a view to the hate clusters subsequently battling out their differences among themselves. The authors’ modelling demonstrated that such battles would effectively remove large hate clusters that have opposing views. Once put into action, policies 3 and 4 would require little direct intervention by the platform administrators; however, setting opposing clusters against each other would require meticulous engineering.

While I am not accusing the organizers of the event of anything, it should come as no surprise to us that our downfall more or less began at the “Unite the Right” rally. As the pressure was ratcheted up in the wake of that event, the Alt Right became a circular firing squad, and never recovered.

Monomaniacal anti-Semitism is often perceived as a pathology, and not without some justification. Any honest observer of political movements centered on anti-Semitism has surely noticed if not confessed, that that whatever the merits of those movements, and whatever the percentage of quality people could be counted among the adherents, a substantial number of their adherents turn out to be among the worst sort of people. Better than Democrats any day of the week, but terrible nonetheless. A surprising number of those terrible people happen to be Jews, or  to be financed by Jews, themselves. This should tell us something about tactics if not ideology.

When centered near exclusively on a single outgroup, other problems go unnoticed, or at least uncorrected. Not the least of which are severe character flaws in adherents. Since anti-Semitism attracts violent resistance, this might be considered more feature than bug at some stage of the movement’s development, because prosperous well adjusted people tend to avoid activities that carry the risk of beatings, bankruptcy, prison, and murder.

This could be dealt with through competent leadership, but exacerbating this problem is the fact that the power wielded by its targets tends to fall heavy on precisely those leaders. This decapitates organized movements, and sets those deeply flawed, and now battle hardened, adherents, loose with no productive outlet for their contempt. This lends itself to “leaderless resistance” ideations, which is a thinly veiled euphemism for terrorism and other forms of criminal violence. Such acts are encouraged and even celebrated by the targets of anti-Semitism, in large part because it aids in bringing the force of the State down on those who would see them dislodged from power.

A successful political movement cannot simply “power through” such obstacles, and insistence on doing so is akin to the conservative pathological insistence on “losing with dignity”. There is no dignity in losing. Losing is what has facilitated our repeated humiliation, and we have learned all that loss has to teach us. These pathologies have to be overcome, and in our case that begins with a conscious decision not to outwardly center our worldview and action on the undesirable behavior of an ethnic minority.

To be clear, I am not talking about the familiar refrain of “trying to sneak up on the Jew”. Ethnocentric outgroups will always view us as their enemy no matter what we do, and we will not overcome their enmity by way of deception. If we are accomplishing anything, they will see right through that tactic and treat us identically to if we were holding torches and making Roman salutes. What I am talking about is goal oriented behavior, intelligent risk/reward calculations, and giving people who are not members of those ethnocentric groups the the ability to associate and do business with us without risking their lives and fortunes.

One does not typically insist on walking around in crime ridden minority neighborhoods preaching the gospel of George Lincoln Rockwell. Not least of all, because it carries the significant risk of being beaten or shot to death without any substantial chance of reward for that risk. It is not entirely dissimilar to say, that if one wants to use certain services for political purposes, or to develop contacts in a given organization, that he would be prudent not to introduce himself as a National Socialist. Not because of anything pertaining to the merits of national socialism, but because it would be contrary to his purposes. The more this individual wants to spread his ideas, the more restraint he needs to show in his actions, because changing other people’s opinions is an exercise of political power he has not yet obtained.

Obvious Race Realism

Of course, it is not quite so simple to just shut up about one’s political views, especially while engaging in political discussions. It requires more than an effort to infiltrate an organization for all but the most skilled operators to do something like this. One must actually reorient his focus, so that his interactions seem sincere, because they are.

Fortunately, I do not think this is nearly so heavy a lift as some might suspect. I have already done it. I had to spend three years in prison to do it, but I do not think that everyone need go through this. My understanding of the world, and how race interacts with politics, has not changed, fundamentally. I just don’t find it useful to spend a great deal of time focusing on the subject. That conclusion came in part as a result of a compulsory change in my routine media consumption, from the ecosystem of Telegram and Gab, to Fox News, conservative talk radio, the Wall Street Journal, and reading many books that had little to say about race. I consumed commercial media, and filtered it through my existing understanding of how the world worked.

There is a limit to how much useful information a person can consume on the subject of race. Reading the collected works of Kevin MacDonald, Adolf Hitler, and Charles Murray should more than suffice for this purpose. Once one has this information incorporated into their worldview, the aim ought to be to work it into the underlying assumptions of new information, and share the underlying assumptions by engaging with others on the more topical subject matter of the day, from this perspective.

This is a sort of reverse engineering of political propaganda, but if you think about it, this is how most people learn most things. By inference. If you sign up for a class, you might want to be told directly about the subject matter, but most people are not anxious to be preached to. They far prefer to believe that they figured the world out all on their own, and ideas formed in this way are more durable than those that are conspicuously inserted in the mind by others.

A powerful example of this is provided in the subject of the Ukraine conflict. Zelensky is willing to fight to the last Ukrainian, in large part because he is not a Ukrainian. Get that idea into the head of somebody who is skeptical of Joe Biden’s Ukraine policy, and soon you will smell the burning of the gears. You can’t explain this to the average person by starting the conversation with Holocaust denial. You have to meet people where they are, remain within their comfort zone, and then change the boundaries of that zone before you go outside of them.

Rules For Hegemony

We would all do well to learn from the tactics of the Left. They didn’t begin by trying to transgender the kids. They appealed to the values of normal people, and then gradually distorted those values to the point that even people who disagreed with their conclusions, tended to give them the moral high ground. Their recent excesses, in the form of race riots and classroom pornography, were born of the echo chamber that emerged from the hegemony purchased with prior restraint. Now they get to steal elections and burn down police stations on camera with no fear of harm to their reputations, much less being prosecuted.

Meanwhile, you can’t protest at the Capitol, count on the authorities to prosecute criminals who victimize you, or have a PayPal account.

They are winning. You are losing. We need to learn from them.

In his book, Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky says the following about the art of communication;

It does not matter what you know about anything if you cannot communicate to your people. In that event you are not even a failure. You’re just not there. Communication with others takes place when they understand what you’re trying to get across to them. If they don’t understand, then you are not communicating regardless of words, pictures, or anything else. People only understand things in terms of their experience, which means that you must get within their experience. Further, communication is a two-way process. If you try to get your ideas across to others without paying attention to what they have to say to you, you can forget about the whole thing.

Later in the same section;

In mass organization, you can’t go outside of people’s actual experience. I’ve been asked, for example, why I never talk to a Catholic priest or a Protestant minister or a rabbi in terms of the Judaeo-Christian ethic or the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount. I never talk in those terms. Instead I approach them on the basis of their own self-interest, the welfare of their Church, even its physical property.

If I approached them in a moralistic way, it would be outside their experience, because Christianity and Judaeo-Christianity are outside of the experience of organized religion. They would just listen to me and very sympathetically tell me how noble I was. And the moment I walked out they’d call their secretaries in and say, “If that screwball ever shows up again, tell him I’m out.”

Communication for persuasion, as in negotiation, is more than entering the area of another person’s experience. It is getting a fix on his main value or goal and holding your course on that target. You don’t communicate with anyone purely on the rational facts or ethics of an issue.

A great example of this for the Right is the news stories coming to us from school board meetings and elections in recent years, over critical race theory and transgenderism. Parents do not want their children to be indoctrinated with bizarre sexual nonsense from pedophile groomers. They do not want their children to be taught anti-White race hate.

But they don’t want to be branded Nazis or lose their jobs, either.

Anyone who helped those parents protect their children became their best friends, and anyone who stood in their way became their worst enemy.

Which category do you think you would fall into, if you showed up at that meeting, and used your time at the microphone to discuss the ethnic background of Magnus Hirschfeld?

There is scarcely any more persuasive figure in politics than a concerned mother. These scenes scared the life out of Democrats to the point they had their spies in the FBI target these mothers as terror suspects. When that headline broke, the public was rightly outraged.

These events have been fortunate for the Right, in that they are shifting the “spectrum of allies” discussed by Johnathan Matthew Smucker in his book “Hegemony How To

If we are presently too feeble a force to win the fight today, what can we do today so that tomorrow we will be a little stronger, and the day after that, a little stronger still?

Before we can wield power for change, we need to build and align that power. The addition of the word align is necessary here because it is not only a matter of building our own power from scratch. Certainly we do need to build some of our own explicitly progressive political organizations, but constructing a political force is just as much about aligning with existing groups and institutions.

To think about where we are now and where we want our trajectory to take us, picture a tug of war, in which one side seems to be winning handily. But when a few key actors switch sides, it suddenly shifts the balance of forces and momentum. In a case of a regime and its challenger, the old regime may suddenly find itself weakened, perhaps beyond recovery, while a challenger alignment finds itself potent, its strength ascending, the “tug of war” moving in its direction. Now, let’s complicate our binary metaphor. The problem with the idea of an actor “switching sides” in a tug of war is that such a complete defection from one pole to its opposite is unusual in the real world. While such dramatic conversions are not unheard of, they are quite rare and we cannot rely on such dramatic individual conversions. The good news is this: to win politically you don’t have to win over your most ardent opponents.

The “spectrum of allies” graphic below provides an instructive map of our spectral “tug of war.

Spectrum of Allies

Spectrum of Allies

Shifting the spectrum of allies is about moving people and groups—leaders, influentials, social bases, institutions, polity members, new and hitherto unmobilized actors, etc. —over just one notch closer to your position. Groups working on specific campaigns can use the above “spectrum of allies” as a strategy tool, by identifying (and then writing into the “pie slices”) specific social bases, institutions, and leaders that could potentially shift the balance of power. Perhaps the most crucial category shift is the pulling of passive allies into the active allies category, as this brings an influx of volunteers and resources, substantially increasing the alignment’s immediate capacity for collective action. For example, when pre-movement civil rights leaders and their small nascent organizations pulled (i.e., activated) black churches, students, barber shops, etc. from the passive allies to the active allies category, suddenly all of the pre-existing infrastructure, resources, and social capacity of those constituencies and institutions went to work for civil rights, dramatically boosting the burgeoning movement’s capacity and reach. Probably the next most important shift is in winning over neutrals, thereby pulling them into the passive allies category. The Freedom Rides were designed precisely with this in mind. SNCC leaders knew that many students in the north were sympathetic but inactive (i.e., they were passive allies). By creating a way for hundreds of these students to become actively involved—by riding in integrated buses to segregated southern states, and then lending a hand to voter registration drives—they not only increased the civil rights movement’s capacity by bringing in more active participants, they also caught the attention of the families, friends, and broader social networks of those northern students, thereby pulling many thousands of people— including many “politically connected” people—from the neutral to the passive allies category.

If an emerging movement or alignment succeeds in effecting important shifts in these categories (passive allies -> active allies, neutral-> passive allies), it may be approaching a tipping point, where passive opponents start losing their conviction-they are “neutralized”-and the active opposition eventually loses its base of support. If challengers can keep up their spectrum-shifting trajectory – if they can weather countermoves, counter-attacks, and perhaps repression – their opponents will eventually find themselves isolated and thus weakened to the point of retreat or capitulation. Of course none of this is easy. There are many obstacles, structural, cultural, social, and psychological-that tend to prevent individuals and institutions from aligning with and adding their energy to a collective effort or challenger movement. Overcoming these obstacles usually takes good planning, hard work, and savvy- and success is still never assured. But however hopeless the present situation may seem, we have to always remind ourselves that our success ultimately depends on a growth trajectory. Progressives will not- we cannot- make the kinds of changes we envision with only a small active force. There Is a danger of getting stuck on a “low plateau”- where our capacity is limited to that of a small number of .. usual suspects … We might even become comfortable on this plateau, where all the faces are familiar, and everyone thinks more or less like us. But we have to figure out how to climb higher.

There is a tremendous amount of wisdom in that passage, which we’ll address presently.

Party Politics in the United States

America has a two party political system. This is not a mere perception of the electorate. It is not ideological. That is the system we have. It is established in law and fact. Electoral districts are drawn based on territory and population, and within those jurisdictions, winner takes all in elections. If the winner gets one more vote than you, you are the loser, you lose completely, and there is no participation trophy.

The two parties are, at least in theory, adversaries, and on the rare occasions that they work together, one or both of their constituencies are typically furious.

This differs from other parts of the world and different times in history, with parliamentary systems and proportional representation. In these places and times, the people of an entire state or federation of states, vote for a party, and that party sends representatives to a legislative body that elects the executive. In these systems, minority parties can wield tremendous power by joining governing coalitions.

This opportunity does not exist in the United States.

In most parts of the country, the two parties have further arranged the laws to prevent independent and third party candidates from even getting their names on the ballot. Either through massive fees, or petition requirements, these candidates face obstacles which often prove insurmountable.

Even in places with relatively lax ballot access laws, where one need only pay a nominal sum to gain ballot access, even low information voters are informed enough about how the system works that they refuse to waste their vote by casting it for a candidate who has no chance of winning the election.

Media outlets, if we try to imagine honest ones operating in our political system, have no reason to convey the messages of inconsequential candidates because they are fundamentally unnewsworthy. Partisan news outlets, which it should go without saying are more common than honest ones, may occasionally make the strategic decision of promoting a candidate perceived to pull votes from their party’s opponents, in the hopes that the candidate may “play spoiler” in the election, to the benefit of their party’s candidate. But they will not grant the candidate so much coverage as to create a serious possibility of the candidate actually winning, because that is borderline impossible in our system, because their audience would likely change the channel rather than be inundated with irrelevant information, and because they themselves are invested in the two party system.

These challenges are exacerbated by campaign finance regulations, which limit how much a supporter can give to a candidate they favor. If the candidate himself is wealthy, he can spend as much of his money as he sees fit. If the candidate merely has the support of wealthy benefactors, he cannot spend their money on his campaign beyond a certain limit which typically is designed to be inconsequential. While campaign finance regulations are marketed as a means to prevent corruption in politics, the effect is precisely the opposite, by cementing the media’s position as gatekeeper, and granting electoral advantage to dishonest candidates who find more “creative” ways of using others’ resources beyond contribution limits.

Left and Right

The coherence of a two party system stems in part form the fact that, while there are challenges that attend to defining it which are beyond the scope of this reading, there has often if not always emerged throughout time and geography, what can be referred to as a “Left Right Paradigm” of politics. The terminology stems from the French Revolution, a situation the description of which I will provide as a quote from a post at TheConversation.com;

Left and right are old labels, dating back to the French Revolution. In 1789, the National Constitutive Assembly met to decide whether, under France’s new political regime, the king should have veto power. If so, it queried, should this right should be absolute or simply suspensive, for a period of time.

When voting, supporters of the absolute veto sat on the president’s right, the noble side. According to Christian tradition, it is an honour to be seated at the right side of God, or to the right of the head of the family at dinner. Those who wanted a highly restricted veto were seated on the left.

Thus, the layout of the room took on political significance: to the right, supporters of a monarchy that sought to preserve many of the king’s powers; to the left, those who wished to reduce them.

As a general matter, the Right is more accepting of hierarchy, while the Left is more intent on levelling. Either can be seen as more or less “liberal” than the other, in the classical sense, this being a relative term describing the degree of government coercion requisite to impose their respective standards on a given population. Your humble correspondent holds the view that the Right, however forceful it needs to be to establish order, will always be more “liberal” in this sense, because its aims correspond to reality and human beings are at least capable of living according to Right wing standards. This stands in sharp contrast to the Left, whose unrealistic fantasies lead to perpetual catastrophe, and are invariably met with demands for more State coercion with each successive failure, eventually giving way to an all pervading tyranny, as the levellers come to despise the citizenry for their rejection of the project.

This being the case, the Right, which is by no means of a single mind, must form what are often uncomfortable coalitions to defeat the Left. This is because, lacking any meaningful standards, the Left has historically had less trouble making the sort compromises electoral coalitions necessitate.

In the American two party system, we have a Left wing Party, nominally Democrat, more accurately described as communist. We also have a wholly inadequate Right wing party, called the Republicans, whom one might flatter by describing as speedbumps.

Reasonable people find this state of affairs intolerable, and demand alternatives. Should one present itself as viable, your humble correspondent is all ears, but this writer remains unpersuaded that the proposals presently on the table meet this standard. If we rule out the option of armed struggle, as any sane man must, at least while speaking under his real name,  our only means of influencing public policy is to influence the electorate, the elected, and those who derive their powers therefrom.

Third Parties

Since failure to name the organization will result in accusations that I am waging a thinly veiled attack on it, I should make specific reference here to the National Justice Party, or NJP. But most of what I am going to say has already been said about the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party on the Right, and of the Greens and other third parties on the Left. There is nothing new about independent political parties in American politics, and since I think the NJP does good non-electoral work, I would just as soon leave them out of this analysis. They are reluctantly brought up because people will assume I am talking about them if I don’t talk about them specifically.

There can be no doubt that the NJP has made substantial accomplishments, most of which I surely remain unaware of on account of the conditions of my incarceration. Among the successes I can name, they range from the charitable – raising money to purchase Christmas presents for White children, to the organizational – getting large numbers of like minded people to show up and act collectively, to the ideological – in the spreading and refinement of ideas. Within what might be described as the “far right”, the NJP doubtlessly wields social if not political power.

I can imagine that in due course, the NJP might have other accomplishments, such as serving as a useful legal and financial vehicle to accomplish goals not normally considered the purview of a political party, by taking advantage of legal privileges and immunities granted to this peculiar sort of institution.

I never begrudged the Traditionalist Workers Party for taking on the form of a political party, and I have no quarrel with the NJP for structuring its legal organization in this way.

So far as elections go, there are states like New York, which have the unusual feature of cross endorsement, where a candidate’s name may appear on the ballot for a single office more than once under different party lines. Usually, this means if you vote Republican or you vote Conervative, you vote for the same candidate. Nothing is lost by voting for the minority party, and Republican candidates seek Conservative cross endorsement so they do not miss out on those comparatively few party line votes. While this has not had the effect of rescuing New York from Democrat hegemony, it has earned the Conservative Party a seat at the table of Republican Party politics, wielding more influence than they likely otherwise would as a mere faction of the GOP.

But New York’s cross endorsement law is very unusual. In most places, third party candidates can only help those parties whose positions they oppose most vehemently, by attracting voters from the larger and more closely aligned party, to deprive that viable party the benefit of their ballot. The benefit thus naturally accrues to the viable opposition party, whose platform consists of open borders and transgender toddlers.

The NJP is not presently engaged in this sort of political activity. They are thus not prone to criticism of that sort of activity, yet. But from what I can gather, there pervades throughout the membership and sympathizers of the organization an understandable contempt for the Republican Party. Should this contempt manifest itself as an organized and successful effort to deprive the Republican Party of electoral victories, they will become a convenient tool of the Democrat Party. I hope they do not do this.

I have some personal experience with this sort of activity. Not long after my first steps in political activism, in the year 2010, I ran for the US House of Representatives in New York’s 1st congressional district as a Libertarian Party candidate. I originally intended to seek the Republican and Conservative Party cross endorsements as well, but being a political novice with the meager support of a near non-existent Libertarian Party, it quickly became obvious I would not have a chance of accomplishing this goal.

In fact, I never even made the ballot as a Libertarian. I had to run a write in campaign.

The vote totals were as follows

  • Tim Bishop (D) : 98,316 votes – or – 48.67%
  • Randy Altschuler (R): 97,723 votes – or – 48.38%
  • Write-in: 5,968 votes – or – 2.95%

New York does not read the write in votes unless the total number of write ins has the potential to alter the outcome, so I have no idea how many of those 5,968 votes were for me, but I am unaware of any other write in candidate in the race.

Tim Bishop was reelected with less than 50% of the vote, and shortly after this, Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law.

This did not improve my relationship with the Tea Party groups, many of whom understandably blamed me for giving this winnable seat to the Democrat.

At the time, I took credit for doing so. I felt powerful for having done so. I did not think Mr. Altschuler was a good candidate, and I still do not think he was or is. But the 2010 midterm elections were a big win for the Republican Party elsewhere, which Barack Obama subsequently described as a “shellacking”, and this shellacking likely saved us from his Cap & Trade carbon taxes, under which “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”.

Should the Libertarian Party have enjoyed more such “victories”, Barack Obama would have continued to have a free hand with a compliant Democrat majority for at least another two years. To advocate this with knowledge of the implications is a thinly veiled advocacy of accelerationist terrorism, and a willingness to harm the public in the hopes of distant future political gain. One who pursues such a strategy must be prepared to do so under guise of deception, because the public will not reward with political success, the persons or parties they see as having brought this misery upon them intentionally.

The Primary Challenge

Those dissatisfied with the Republican Party will state, in various versions, certain slogans familiar to anyone who has dealt with Libertarians in the past. Lines such as, “The Republicans do this” or “The Republicans don’t do that”. As if the Republican Party (or any other party) were its own agent with its own will.

The most cursory examination reveals the fault in this thinking. It is the same error made by anarchists who begin similar statements with “the government” in place of “the Republicans”. A Party can only only do as its participants direct it to do, just as a government only does what the party in control of it directs. One who advocates the abandonment of the Party due to the actions of those in charge of it, creates by his actions a self fulfilling prophecy, just as does the eligible voter who boycotts elections. He leaves control of the weapon to the very people he blames for his dissatisfaction, and according to a certain line of reasoning, forfeits his right to complain.

The more dissatisfied one is with the behavior of the Republican “establishment”, the more his rational judgement should guide him towards becoming it. Among the benefits of having a party system institutionalized, is that the rules for participation in the Party are established by law. Those laws  may vary from place to place, but they do not generally permit the party to disenfranchise eligible voters who register as party members, and thus with effort similar to what it takes for one to spoil an election, one can commandeer leadership positions in the Party apparatus.

Without even doing so, every Republican nomination for public office is subject to primary or caucus elections, in which, again, any voter who registers party affiliation is eligible to participate. It takes fewer votes to win a primary election, and fewer still a caucus, than it takes to win a general election. If you cannot win one of these contests, there is no reason to expect you can win a general election, and thus third parties are not only destined, but usually designed, to lose, and often to play spoiler. It is infinitely more viable a strategy to court registered Republicans to vote for one’s chosen primary candidate, than it is to encourage those same voters to abandon their party to support a non-viable third party or independent candidate. This is because the stakes in a primary are typically and correctly thought of as lower than the general, because most primary voters rightly consider any party member a better option than the candidate of the opposition party.

But, to court those voters, one must not be an enemy of the Party. If one’s stated purpose is the destruction of the Republican Party, he can scarcely blame party members for rejecting his bid for leadership or nomination for office. To pursue his course, he must endear himself to these primary voters, and to do this he must emphasize those points he has in common with them. He must appeal to their own self interest, and even their vanity. Where he differs from them on a particular policy position, he must be able to articulate not why that voter is wrong, nor even why his position is more correct, but rather the coherent reasoning which sheds light on the fact, that his position is more conducive to that voter’s non-negotiable demands, than alternative courses of action.

His candidacy must furthermore be conducive to the overall strategic success of the Party, because no elected official can conduct public policy without a governing coalition. He is rightly discouraged from standing on some espoused principle to the benefit of the opposition party. If he believes the party strategy is wrong, he can wield only so much influence as he has earned, toward changing it. To earn that power, he must have proven willing to pursue strategies he disagrees with for the good of the party, just as he will demand that other party members who disagree with him, pursue his strategy once he has obtained power.

Some might say the above stands in contrast to lived experience. The Republican Party’s critics on the Right point to nominations like Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Liz Cheney, and Adam Kinzinger, as evidence that the Party is hopeless. In this, they illustrate the error of their own thinking. The problems we all recognize with these names, is that they behave like, and come to the assistance of, Democrats. These “Republicans In Name Only” (RINOs) are disloyal to their Party, and are accordingly held in contempt by most Republicans.

That these RINOs manage to obtain positions of influence within the Party anyway, is a subject of considerable controversy, but it must be remembered that no informed participant in politics is aiming for perfection. This analysis does not conclude that having an R next to one’s name makes one a good person. We are seeking to move things in our preferred direction by whatever degree we can manage. If some Citizen of Utah is sick of Pierre Delecto marching with Black Lives Matter rioters, they should put on a suit, and put in the effort, toward seeing him defeated in a Republican Primary. Until that happens, the informed observer is compelled to admit that we would not be better served by an open Democrat in his Senate seat, or for that matter, Evan McMullen.

The Overton Window

If you’ve been listening to the Radical Agenda for any considerable period of time, you have heard me discuss the concept of the Overton Window at some length.

If you’re new to this concept, the Overton Window is the range of socially permissible discussion topics. Shifting the Overton Window means changing that range in a manner more favorable to one’s position and less favorable to one’s opponent. For example, it is currently permissible to discuss race through the lens of what has been called “Critical Race Theory” but not through the lens of genetic or biological determinism. There is an effort underway by parents of schoolchildren to make CRT an unacceptable frame of reference, and this is moving the Overton Window in a direction unfavorable to the Left. The people who are conducting this effort do not want to move the window all the way to biological determinism, but I am of the opinion that they will not be able to prevent this from happening, due to a certain natural progression of comprehension.

While our ultimate goal is the change in public policy, this is impossible without our proposed policy positions becoming first, acceptable to discuss, and second, widely accepted truth. Right now, one risks being assaulted and imprisoned on fake charges for discussing our ideas. I have proven willing to risk my life and freedom to change that state of affairs.

I take this so seriously, that I am also willing to admit when I was wrong.

My conception of the means by which to shift the Overton Window used to be that one ought to stake out a more extreme position than he actually holds. To push the range of allowable discussion by making, as forcefully as one can, a case that one has little to no expectation of achieving in any foreseeable time frame, in the hopes of achieving a lesser position, under the guise of compromise.

In this thinking, I was influenced by some words of wisdom by a man calling himself Bill Marchant, who wrote on a blog called Northern Reaction. In an August of 2016 piece titled “Don’t Punch Right“, Bill makes the following observation;

The idea behind that is that anyone doing something to the right of you is “good” and anyone doing something to the left of you is “Bad”. It does NOT mean “Don’t punch anyone ON the right”, because that would not allow us to criticise people like Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz. Those people are on “The Right” as it currently stands in the American political spectrum, but they are to the left of you and I. “Criticise anyone not exactly as right as me” is cuckservative logic and doesn’t work. “Don’t criticise anyone on the right” encourages a leftward shift as more and more “somewhat rightwing” people are accepted into what I will call the “mainstream Alt-Right” while noting the irony of that phrase. The only effective strategy, the one leftists have perfected is to not criticise anyone to the right of you. This pushes the Overton Window to the right.

So if you see someone criticise Milo because He’s gay or something, don’t defend Milo unless Milo is to the right of you and the criticism is coming from the left. Because criticism directed at Milo for being insufficiently rightwing pushes the Overton Window in the same way Milo’s existence does. Yes, Milo is probably pushing the mainstream further right on some issues, but defending him does nothing to further the cause besides allowing the cause to move leftward.

That does not necessarily mean you have to actively engage in criticism of Milo. I don’t always. But it does mean that you should let those to the right of you do it. Because that’s what works.

While there is a lot of wisdom here, it took awhile for me to realize the problems with this. Among them, that really awful people could shield themselves from criticism by staking out absurd positions like cheering on mass shooters, then accusing anyone who questioned the wisdom of such a course, of “Punching Right” or “Optics Cucking”. Combined with the general attitude in the Alt Right that piercing the veil of anonymity was the ultimate betrayal, this allowed people who did not sincerely share our views to turn us into cartoon Nazis, which had the effect of putting us so far outside the Overton Window that normal people had no idea what we were even talking about. All they knew about us was what they heard from Leftists, and this had the effect of moving the Overton Window back Leftward.

Bill figured this out before I did, but I wasn’t keeping such close track of his material when, in February of 2018, Bill wrote a piece titled “Bystanders, Language, and Rallies” in which he made the following observation;

Disclaimer: I’ve said, many times before, don’t punch right. And I’ve mostly kept quiet, as people to my right (I guess? I’m not sure how monarchism and national socialism interact on the ol’ spectrum) make what I believe to be unforced errors. I’ve spoken to a few of these people privately, but I feel like I’m obscure enough and this is an apolitical enough point that I can get away with it, just this once. Alright, enough disclaimers. On to the main event.

Middle America, even white, right wing middle America, doesn’t like Hitler. Shocking, I know, but it’s true.

The broad American public has ideological antibodies that, when you talk about Hitler, pop up and replace “Hitler” with “Bad Guy!”

This may be the most powerful example of these ideological antibodies, but there are many of these triggers. “Antisemite” = “Nazi” = “Hitler” = “Bad Guy!” I’m not going to list all of them. You know what they are.

You need to avoid hitting those ideological antibody triggers. Outside of very odd circumstances (like talking to teenagers on 4chan), you’re going to get the “Bad Guy!” label, and the person you’re talking to will discount everything else you have to say.

I’m not sure if this was intentional or accidental, but during Trump’s campaign, the Alt-Right learned how to short circuit this immune response. I’m going to use Pepe in August 2016 as my example. If you use a cartoon frog as a stand-in for Nazism, no one will believe you are being serious, and whatever else you say will be able to slip by with it. Crucially, though, this does not work forever.

There are three groups that you need to think about when you choose your language. There is your Ingroup (The people who are on your side), your Outgroup (Journalists, politicians, rootless cosmopolitans, whoever your enemies that will never join your cause are), and the Bystanders (Everyone who does not fall into the other two categories).

If you want to say things that would normally trigger ideological antibodies, it needs to be understandable to the Ingroup and non-threatening or unintelligible to Bystanders. Whether the Outgroup understands or not doesn’t really matter.

Pepe, in August 2016, was understandable to the Ingroup (The Alt-Right). Pepe, by that time, was also understandable to the Outgroup. But Pepe was a mystery to the vast majority of Bystanders. So when Hillary Clinton got up on stage and claimed that a cartoon frog was a symbol of evil racism, the Outgroup nodded along, the bystanders thought she was having a stroke or something, and the Ingroup laughed hysterically, because they knew how crazy she would sound to the Bystanders.

Fast-forward to today. By now, many of the bystanders know that Pepe is, in fact, used by the Alt-Right. And the Alt-Right is racist = Nazis = Hitler = Bad! So someone coming out today and saying that Pepe is a symbol of racism would get far fewer confused looks from the Bystanders than Hillary’s speech did.

Think about this in relation to the Alt-Right’s “operations” since Trump’s inauguration. Before Trump’s election, if someone called the Alt-Right “Nazis,” the bystanders would mostly be confused. “The old Nazis are gone. The Neo-Nazis are trailer trash types with tattoos on their faces. These guys don’t look or act like the old or new Nazis. Yeah, they say some similar things, but it seems to be mostly in jest.”

Then, after Trump got elected, some people decided it would be a good idea to start looking and acting MORE like Nazis. I’m not just talking about Richard Spencer saying “Hail Victory” in a speech. One weird incident does not make a movement Nazi-like. The problem was the rallies.

You know who has rallies? Nazis.

He goes on to complain about rallies at some length, but we’ll skip ahead a little bit. Marchant continues;

This article is mostly intended for those people who say “They’re gonna think we’re Nazis anyway, so we might as well embrace it.” No. That’s dumb. And I’ll tell you exactly why it’s dumb.

Who is “they”?

Joe Sixpack in Alabama won’t have heard of you, and certainly won’t be calling you a Nazi. The “they” that will think you are a Nazi no matter what is… The Outgroup! As I mentioned earlier, it does not matter what the Outgroup thinks! You will never convince the Outgroup to your side, that’s what makes them the Outgroup!

So, yes, you are correct, the Outgroup will always think you’re Nazis. But the Bystanders certainly won’t. And if you don’t look or act in a way that easily ticks off Nazi boxes in the Bystanders’ heads, the Outgroup will just look dumb for calling you that! Unless, of course, you wear swastikas, speak German, goosestep, rally in large numbers, and yell about Jews. Then the Bystanders will think that maybe the Outgroup has a point.

Think about this in terms of what I quoted from Smucker earlier in Hegemony How To. The “Spectrum of Allies” concept. Let’s say that the man Bill describes as “Joe Six Pack in Alabama” is neutral.

Your actions can either move Joe into the passive allies category, or the passive opposition category. Work harder and he can become active in either camp.

If you tell Joe you’re a Nazi, he’s going into the opposition column. It doesn’t matter if you’re right. It doesn’t matter if Hitler did anything wrong. What matters is Joe’s frame of reference, in which Nazis are not a 20th century German political party with legitimate complaints, but cartoon villains who murder the innocent because they are possessed by demons.

On the other hand, tell Joe that you are his fellow Republican; tell him that, just like him, you want to defeat those evil Democrats; that you share, rather than oppose, his values; and you have just placed yourself into Joe’s active allies category, quite independently of his decision making processes. This is great for Joe, who has always known he was right, and is happy to have someone recognize this.

Now that you are allies with Joe, you can have more meaningful discussions with him, and gain his trust. You might even suggest new ways of defeating the Democrats, like by fighting identity politics with identity politics.

Perhaps more importantly, the more people like Joe who you have on your side, the less power people like Mitch McConnell have over the Republican Party. Mitch McConnell is your active opposition in the Republican Party, and you will not render him your ally. You can, however, render him passive, or even neutral, if by attacking you he will incur the ire of people like Joe.

The recent Alabama Senate primary provides a brilliant example of our point.

In the 2022 midterm elections, Lisa Murkowski was challenged by fellow Republican Kelly Tshibaka. Alaska has so few Democrats as to make the general election a Republican Primary, because a Republican was going to win no matter what. The only question was, which Republican? It would either be Tshibaka or Murkowski.

This is hardly something the Senate Leadership Fund, McConnell’s Super PAC, needed to spend money on. The Democrats were defending the thinnest conceivable majority in the Senate (50/50 w/ VP Harris breaking the ties), but that year’s election had Republicans defending more Senate seats than Democrats. Allocation of campaign finances was crucial to determining who would hold the Senate majority, and if Mitch McConnell was a good team player, his PAC’s resources would have gone to defeating Democrats.

Instead, McConnell spent over $6.1 Million attacking Tshibaka to help Murkowski, who, it should be kept in mind, voted against Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, and for Ketanji Brown Jackson’s. Murkowski is notoriously disloyal to her Party, and Mitch McConnell’s decision to back her, while abandoning competitive contests like the Arizona race between Masters and Kelly, arguably resulted in Democrats increasing their Senate majority, at a time when Republicans had a chance to gain control over the chamber.

And it is small consolation that Republicans managed to eke out a thin majority in the House. Sure, a united Republican majority in the House can block the worst parts of Joe Biden’s agenda, but cabinet and judicial confirmations are a Senate power. So whatever your views on race, be sure and pray that Clarence Thomas remains in good health.

This presented a tremendous opportunity to attack McConnell from the Right, but only for those who were loyal Republicans. Since McConnell’s offense was in his disloyalty to his party, an outsider attacking him for it lacks standing and credibility, and is seen, rightly, as someone who is only trying to sow discord within the Party.

Put in Smucker’s terms, Mitch McConnell shifted his spectrum of allies in a disfavorable fashion. Active and passive allies of McConnell’s who supported him for partisan reasons, now have less partisan reason to support his efforts. Those allies are currently up for grabs, but only to people who can appeal to partisan interests.

Who can deny that our movement could benefit from obtaining power at the expense of Mitch McConnell?

Unfortunately, we are not today in a position to reap this windfall because we have made exceedingly poor investments of our meager political capital in the time preceding this tremendous opportunity. If we want to reap the next such opportunity, we have to change our behavior now.

Shifting the Overton Window cannot be done when one is so distant from the building that they cannot be seen with binoculars.

One must be able to participate in the discussion before he can propose a change of subject.

Nobody takes advice from their adversary.

Conduits of Influence

I will never win a popularity contest.

Maybe you will. As a writer with little measure of who precisely reads my material, it is impossible for me to say. But my statement is true for most of us.

Winning elections is a specialty, and it is one which has no necessary connection to expertise in public policy. Candidates are recruited on the basis of image, and groomed and trained by teams of professional manipulators. Millions of dollars are invested. Entire media empires are erected around controlling the outcomes.

You and I can aspire to such heights, but it will be quite a climb. Whether we ever reach that altitude or not, our goals are well served by getting our ideas in greater proximity to the people who are actually winning the elections and making bureaucratic decisions.

This happens, to some extent, organically. When you are spreading memes on social media, for example. The meme power of the Alt Right in 2016 was intense. We could all feel it, and we eventually started to see these ideas bubble up in unexpected places. We definitely influenced Trump and those around him, and Tucker Carlson has surely been impacted as well. They went on to spread those ideas, in a substantially diluted fashion, to millions of other people. Elon Musk has surely since been influenced. I probably shouldn’t get started on Kanye West…

This is huge stuff, and we did it while having fun. Imagine what could happen if we were more calculating?

In Trump, Tucker, and Elon Musk, we have some version of our ideas in the highest echelons of American life. They don’t just wield power themselves, they influence the masses tremendously. Just as importantly, they themselves are influenced BY the masses. Influence, properly understood, is a two way street.

If we try to think of this visually, we can picture beneath Trump, Carlson, and Musk, a certain faction of the Republican Party, particularly in the House of Representatives. People like Matt Gaetz, Chip Roy, and Marjorie Taylor Greene. They are more accessible than Trump and Carlson, but they have access to Trump and Carlson. Aside from the power they themselves wield, this makes them a conduit of influence to the former President and the top show in cable news.

I don’t know about you, but even they aren’t going to be coming to any of my parties anytime soon, and how Nick Fuentes gets these meets is beyond me. So, I would very much like conduits of influence to them, and this, I suspect, is very achievable.

There are people in our circles who attack Trump for any number of things, with varying degrees of merit to the complaints. Tucker Carlson gets less of this, but there’s always somebody who insists that if you’re not screaming about joooos all day, that you’re complicit in White genocide. Criticism is one thing, but to make these guys your enemy is insane.

Between you and them are millions of people we can influence. They are getting watered down ideas from up above, and their frame of reference is being made permeable to us by this. In 2015 they (and I) would have told you that tariffs were just tax hikes, and their views on immigration were largely moderate. But now they are keenly aware of “the other” and the idea that people who are “not us” are dangerous.

Probably 75% of them still think “racism” is evil and probably 95% still think it’s okay to “punch Nazis”, but they know that “Trump supporters” are “Patriots” and therefore “Good”.

Now, you can introduce yourself as a Nazi who hates Trump if you want to, but these people are not going to listen to what you say after that.

Better idea:

Be a fellow Trump supporter. Don’t pretend: BE!

Then, ask them if they’ve seen Tucker Carlson’s interview with Charles Murray on Fox Nation.

If not, offer to show it to them.

If they watch it, offer them a copy of Murray’s book “Facing Reality: Two Truths About Race in America” which, at 157 pages, is a lot easier to digest than “The Bell Curve”.

Another great intermediate book is Pat Buchanan’s “Suicide Of A Superpower: Will America Survive To 2025?“. The title of the book (published in 2011), asking if America will survive to 2025, makes this the perfect time to offer this to people. Anybody who has been paying attention to politics for awhile, has heard of Pat Buchanan, and unless they are watching MSNBC all day they don’t think he’s a Nazi. Many Trump supporters read Buchanan’s syndicated columns, and consider themselves to be on the same team as him.

So let them stumble across this bit of wisdom in his book, and then talk to you about ethnonationalism;

If ethnonationalism has been behind terrible crimes, have not great crimes been committed in the name of religion? Do we therefore decry all religions? “Nations are the wealth of humanity, its generalized personalities. The very least of them wears its own special colors, and bears within itself a special facet of divine intention,” said Solzhenitsyn.

We may deny the existence of ethnonationalism, detest it, condemn it. But this creator and destroyer of empires and nations is a force infinitely more powerful than globalism, for it engages the heart. Men will die for it.

Religion, race, culture, and tribe are the four horsemen of the coming apocalypse. But let us give the last word to Professor Jerry Muller: “Americans… find ethnonationalism discomfiting both intellectually and morally. Social scientists go to great lengths to demonstrate that it is a product not of nature but of culture…. But none of this will make ethnonationalism go away.”

That passage is from the last page of Chapter 8. Chapter 9 is titled “The White Party” and makes the case that the Republican Party is the party of White people and ought to embrace this.

Sound familiar?

Keep The News, I’m Here For The History.

I read a very interesting book in prison by Matthew Continetti titled “The Right: The Hundred Year War for American Conservatism“. Continetti married the daughter of Bill Kristol, and traces his political roots back to the American Enterprise Institute, and the Weekly Standard. He hates Trump and thinks conservatism has gone astray by failing to embrace the “blessings of immigration”.

While Mr. Continetti might not be the best source to take our cues from on what it means to be Right wing, his abhorrence of racism gave an interesting dimension to what was otherwise an excellent book. Hardly a chapter went by without some mention of race realism entering the conservative movement. As he describes it, the valiant defenders of freedom always defeated these monsters, even if it meant giving the country away to the Democrats in the process.

His descriptions of these conflicts were not particularly detailed. These sort of people never can be, because to do so would be to give away the game. Some could be summarized as “So and so did racism, and had to go bye bye”.

But as one who had already been informed about the nature of this conflict on the Right, the frequency of these realist insurgencies, which I had not been fully aware of, was inspiring to me. Our movement is not so new as many have been led to believe. We have been a repressed faction of the Republican Party for over a century, and it is only by joining forces with the opposition Party that our internecine rivals have kept us as such.

People like Mitch McConnell say there is “no place in the Republican Party” for us, and so many on our side believe him. The truth is, people like Mitch McConnell make these utterances aspirationally. This is something they would like to see become true, rather than something that actually is. They live in constant fear knowing that we could displace them at any moment, and that without constant effort on their part, we will.

Continetti’s book ends victoriously with the 2020 defeat of Donald Trump, and proposes a conservatism that is “acceptable to elites” going forward, so that this type of thing does not again become necessary.

That makes Matthew Continetti a bad Republican, and speaking as a Republican myself, I was rather enjoying the White Party. So I say Matthew Continetti and his “elites” can either show some loyalty, or go the way of the Weekly Standard.

This is our Party. We are not infiltrators. They are, and given their brazen double dealing under Trump, I figure it’s only a matter of time before your average primary voter figures this out.

Let us hasten the day.


Pay Me Plz

GiveSendGo Campaign


If you leave me a voicemail, I might play it on the air and respond to you. (202) 599-7386

Radical Agenda S06E001 – It’s The Espionage, Stupid

“It’s the economy, stupid” is a phrase coined by Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign strategist James Carville. You usually hear it uttered as a means of stressing the importance of economic issues to voters, but another, less popular but more accurate, interpretation, is that Democrats should avoid cultural issues because their staggering depravity causes them to lose these arguments.

This paradigm of politics, the division between culture and economy, personal verses commercial, dominates so much of popular political discourse, that one is almost tempted to believe that real people actually organize their lives and thoughts this way.

The most cursory examination, of course, reveals the contrary. There is hardly anything we take more personally than interference with our property, but only because it is intertwined in everything else that we value. Our cultural attitudes shape our economic activity. It amounts to making voters choose “Your money or your life”, as if there were a meaningful choice between the two. There isn’t.

This is not to say that people should not or do not part with, or forgo opportunities to acquire, money and other forms of property for “higher” aims. Of course, they should, and do. That is the whole point of the institution of property. To use, trade, consume, lend, give, or otherwise dispose of it in order to obtain some inner satisfaction.

Distortions such as the social vs. economic dichotomy are hardly accidental. In a tyranny such as that presiding over us today, anything to keep the public from attending to the meaningful issues of the day is of the utmost value to the people pulling the levers.

I have become convinced that those people, in the final analysis, are spies. It’s not the economy, stupid. It’s the espionage.

Espionage, Generally

Spies, by the nature of their profession, don’t like to be noticed, much less talked about. If they are doing their jobs well, they remain undetected. If they are detected, they are trained to halt transmission of the information of their detection. Deception, bribery, blackmail, coercion, and assassination being hardly beneath the dignity of this second oldest profession, they stockpile and deploy deceptions, carrots, and sticks, to craft, with the utmost care, the information environment in their favor.

This is power. The ultimate power. To design reality itself. One need not pay or coerce someone into doing something they otherwise would not do, if they can be convinced that a given course of action is desirable or inevitable.

The history of espionage is a fascinating subject. Prior to my January 2020 arrest, I read “Enemies: A History of the FBI” by Tim Weiner, which described in startling detail how the FBI has, from its inception, been an espionage operation using law enforcement as a cover. After September 11th 2011, this was made more or less official. The book describes J. Edgar Hoover’s “COINTELPRO” operation, in which the FBI infiltrated Left wing groups and subverted the subversives.

A noble enough effort, which was unfortunately picked up on and later used against right wing groups. Guys would go to meetings, and half or more of the people in the room would be FBI agents, trying to get the other attendees to commit crimes so they could be prosecuted.

In prison, I had occasion to read a history of the Mossad titled “Gideon’s Spies” by Gordon Thomas. “Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales; Spies, Lies & Blackmail”  by Dylan Howard and Melissa Cronin, described what could be discovered about the pedophile financier’s mysterious life and death, including his connection to American and Israeli intelligence agencies. Gerald Posner’s history of the Vatican central bank, “God’s Bankers” provided valuable context on the subject as well, since all the world’s spies throughout the long history of the institution, seemed to find the peculiar features thereof very useful for their trade. Charles S. Faddis, a former  clandestine services officer with the CIA, and frequent guest on Frank Gaffney’s “Securing America” radio program (one of my favorites), wrote a brief history of America’s Central Intelligence Agency in “Beyond Repair: The Decline and Fall of the CIA”. Less about espionage, but worth a mention as a peek at just how screwed up a supposedly elite government agency can be, is Carol Leonnig’s “Zero Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Secret Service”.

Espionage is the principle tool of successful warfare. Foreign or domestic. In his “The Art of War”, Sun Tzu famously said “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” Perhaps even more pertinent to the issue at hand, Sun Tzu, in the same book said “To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.” This is accomplished primarily through espionage.

It surely helps to have the enemy outmanned and outgunned. No sane man would deny this. But to even permit such a calculation, espionage is necessary. To know what you are up against requires acquisition of strategic information your enemy would rather you not be privy to. To access this information, you will need to use force or deception.

In Gideon’s spies, Thomas informs us that, “At the Mossad training school, instructors reminded students that from the moment man established himself as a new species unique among all animals, it was the moment when he first used his primitive language to lie; the world became his to create and destroy. It would be ever so.”

Deception is by no means free of cost, but it is typically far less expensive and than force. That which can be accomplished with a few breathes or keystrokes makes little sense to accomplish with loss of blood and treasure. If the enemy must be physically damaged to accomplish some aim or another, preferably, your enemy would destroy himself, or be destroyed by your other enemy. Ideally they would destroy each other. In the best case scenario, your enemy would think you were his friend while these things played themselves out.

“Intelligence” has become a euphemism for espionage, but not without some measure of justification. While the word “intelligence” intentionally and deceptively sounds much cleaner than “spying”, stupid people make poor liars, because keeping track of deceptions is cognitively demanding. The complexity of this task grows exponentially with the number of deceptions in play, and by the time you’re trying to convince an entire population that genetics and economics are superstitions of a bygone darker era, these demands necessarily exceed human capacity. Not that this stops people from trying, to which we are constant witness. And so, a successful intelligence agency is necessarily in the business of acquiring actual intelligence, as in, brainpower, as well as what is commonly termed intelligence in popular speaking, which is more accurately described as information or knowledge.

It is also in the business of diminishing the intelligence of enemy States. Again, I am not referring to knowledge or information (though, that too), but intelligence itself. The very capacity for the enemy to think. This is why we see immigration deployed as a weapon, and why communist subversives are so often the product of foreign sponsorship. To flood a foreign threat with new arrivals who have already destroyed their home country, has a predictable impact on the place where they settle. Communism, by its very design, sets the poor into violent confrontation with the upper and middle classes. Revolutionaries slaughter the “class enemy” and in the process, owing to the correlation between income and IQ, commit the Nation to brain death.

One does not often seek wisdom on the pages of the Daily Stormer, but it is occasionally found there. In a post titled “Communism Isn’t a System – It is a Tactic“, Andrew Anglin makes the following observation;

If the goal of communism is to abolish the state and create a workers’ paradise, then it is obviously a failure of a system. However, if the goal is to tell the masses of people that you’re going to abolish the state and create a workers’ paradise so that you can use them to kill all rich people, along with millions of others, then it is a tactic that has literally never failed anywhere it was implemented.

Communist leaders just feed low-IQ poor people a bunch of gibberish about a workers’ paradise and march them off to commit a slaughter so that they can completely cleanse the old elite and establish themselves as supreme leaders.

Every successful communist revolution has resulted in the entire ruling class being killed or driven out of the country. Millions of people always die.

The people that start the revolution are never the ones that finish it, and the ones that finish it are rarely the ones holding the cards when it’s finally over.

He goes on to draw some conclusions from this observation that I won’t endorse here, but the above observation does an excellent job of explaining much of the history of mankind.

As a brief aside, this is also why trial lawyers make the big bucks, and why a certain accent pronounces the title as “liar” without risk of misunderstanding the nature of the profession. What actually happened in a given dispute is borderline irrelevant in a courtroom. The task of a trial lawyer is to selectively feed information to the jury, and to prevent inconvenient information from reaching them, so as to form their perception of the dispute in favor of the client. This is cognitively demanding, because it requires constant processing of the information presented, contrasting this with one’s own knowledge of the facts, and imagining what that looks like to a dozen people who only know what has been presented. Honest people hardly stand a chance at this sort of contest. Their theory of mind is not nearly so developed as that of the liar. Honest people rely almost entirely on the truth, assuming naively that this is what shapes perception.

If our masters had their way, we would all be a lot more like jurors. Fed only that information previously approved by those selected to craft the scene. Ideally, we would follow silly instructions like “you may not consider this revelation in your deliberations”. Though, perhaps our masters would prefer some greater flexibility in the rules of evidence, than most courtrooms permit.

I have some experience with an experiment in this vein. The Communications Management Unit, or CMU. is a prison within a prison at the United States Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois. Communications are tightly restricted and monitored by an outfit known as the Counter Terrorist Unit, or CTU.

Counter terrorism, though often nominally carried out by law enforcement agencies, is necessarily espionage. Law enforcement involves investigating crimes that have already occured, so as to punish the perpetrators. Counter terrorism, by contrast, is necessarily involved in pre-crime, because nobody wants to wait until after the building blows up, and terrorists, often prepared to die for their cause, are not typically deterred by threat of punishment. Most of the prisoners in the CMU, accordingly, were put there by some kind of fictional FBI stratagem.

Within the CMU, the flow of information is so tightly controlled that one could be tricked into believing almost anything that wasn’t disproven by their AM/FM radio. Prisoners are not allowed to use the real time monitored communications systems to talk about other prisoners. The CMU at Marion houses approximately 50 men, and if all 50 of them were intelligence officers, the target of the deception would have little to no means of figuring this out, unless he happened to see an image on television of someone his fellow “prisoner” was falsely claiming to be.

The staff of the facility lie habitually, and not with any clear purpose to the deception. The consensus among prisoners was that these were psychological operations, designed to keep the information environment as polluted as possible.

But I digress… Back to warfare.

Armed conflict, even when waged successfully, is tremendously expensive. Unsuccessful warfare is a total loss event. It cannot be waged without the assistance of espionage, and the most successful espionage can accomplish the same things as high tech weapons systems at the social and economic cost of keystrokes.

This being the case, a government not heavily invested in espionage acts against the interests of its population no less than if it fails to maintain a military. This is not to say that an investment in espionage cannot so act. Obviously it can, and in our case, certainly does. Espionage is a weapon of war, and turned upon its own citizenry, acts with equal or greater effect. But if a well crafted deception or a single well placed bullet can avoid the expense of war, it would scream negligence for a government not to conduct such an operation.

This is all the more the case if one nation is militarily superior to the other, and the vital interests of the weaker cannot be protected by mere brute force.  In such a case, espionage and diplomacy are its only means of defense. With one being of hardly any value absent the other.

This, of course, is why countries always expel each other’s diplomats when things get hectic. There’s so much overlap between diplomacy and espionage that it only barely makes sense to distinguish diplomats from spies. Diplomacy, at the end of the day, is a straightforward influence operation. Negotiators attempt to alter a foreign government’s behavior by way of negotiation, and in no small number of cases, the threat of military force enters into those negotiations.

And, it should almost go without saying, strategic information is as useful in negotiation as it is on a battlefield. Even in something so straightforward as a payment is aided immeasurably by knowledge of what payment will suffice to accomplish the goal at hand. Absent this information, one is as likely to overpay as to fail to reach an agreement.

Better still, to lie successfully in negotiation is to obtain ends by discounted means. The ability to craft the information matrix of the negotiator in one’s own favor is to determine the outcome of the negotiation before it begins.

In the case of diplomacy, negotiations necessarily happen between people who act on behalf of others, in contrast to business deals where one may actually be negotiating with a principle agent more directly interested in the outcome. Strategic information in diplomacy may be so simple as knowing the weaknesses of the individual interlocutor. Does he have a secret he doesn’t want exposed? A peculiar appetite you are able to satisfy? If so, a diplomat may accomplish his aims by influencing the negotiator himself, as opposed to those he represents. This, in the case of Nation States, is almost always a far less costly affair. See, for example, satisfying Hunter Biden’s crack habit to obtain government favors from Joe Biden.

Social Espionage

Recent revelations from the so called #TwitterFiles, expose not only how the Pentagon used Twitter for “psychological operations” overseas, but how American intelligence agencies like the FBI and CIA, in addition to influencing Twitter to carry out their domestic information operations, in some cases took actual jobs at at the company. The so-called “Foreign Influence Task Force”, informed readers will not be shocked to hear, was primarily interested in domestic affairs. Anyone questioning the outcome of the 2020 election or pushing “anti-Ukraine narratives” was deemed a Russian plant, and when those accusations proved to be lacking in substance, Twitter employees sought excuses to carry out the government’s wishes anyway, and generally managed to find them.

These, mind you, are overt operations. This is, “Hello, I’m here about the content moderation job. Here’s my resume, where you’ll see I’ve been at the FBI for the last 15 years, and I think this makes me uniquely qualified for the position.” Among the larger troubles with finding out that your government is doing something that shocks the conscience, is not the revelation, but the knowledge that your government still has secrets which are far worse than the revelation at issue.

We’ve heard so much in congressional hearings about “algorithms”. A reasonable person might conclude based on watching those hearings, that this term was simply used to mislead the Congress by saying things they didn’t think would be widely understood, and it seemed to work. An algorithm is not some magical process, however. It’s a computer program, and behind every program is a programmer.

How many CIA trained programmers do you figure are working at Twitter? At Facebook? At Google? I’ll bet you a dollar it ain’t zero.

And why would the United States be the only government engaging in this activity?

Gideon’s Spies, though an interesting read, surely contained some disinformation. The book told several stories about electronic warfare which anyone who understands technology could spot as fake news. Some of the stories reminded me of Gilligan’s Island, in which the professor was always trying to make some contraption or another out of coconuts.

But we know about real Israeli electronic warfare. Most famously, the Stuxnet virus which was used to sabotage Iranian nuclear operations. In more recent headlines, the Pegasus smartphone spyware supposedly produced by a “private” company keeps finding its way into our newsfeeds whenever it is used against a journalist or a politician. Another ostensibly private information warfare campaign is conducted by Israeli Zionist groups, to edit Wikipedia in favor of their country, contra the Palestinians.

American intelligence agencies weren’t the only ones interfering with Twitter, and of this we need not speculate. Even before Elon Musk started leaking, Peiter “Mudge” Zatko told Congress that Twitter knew foreign spies were working there, and didn’t seem to mind. Zatko claims he tried to raise concerns about a suspected foreign agent to a company executive and was told, “Well, since we already have one, what is the problem if we have more? Let’s keep growing the office.”

That is exactly what seemed to be happening. India was able to place at least two suspected foreign assets within Twitter, and the FBI notified Twitter of at least one Chinese agent in the company.

But then again, one might excuse Twitter employees for doubting the credibility of FBI agents, who were in the habit of making false foreign interference claims.

Nobody seemed to mind the fake so-called “far right” accounts operated by the German government. According to a September of 2022 report in Breitbart,

Hundreds of fake social media accounts espousing far-right ideology on platforms such as Twitter, Telegram, Instagram and Gettr are being operated by the German Federal State, a report by a major mainstream newspaper in the country has revealed.

According to the report by Süddeutsche Zeitung, — one of Germany’s largest newspapers — Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution has been operating hundreds of accounts espousing extremist views for the purpose of infiltrating groups of interest to government officials.

The federal office has reportedly been paying civil servants to operate accounts posing as radicals on the left and right as well as the likes of radical Islamic extremists, anti-vaccination activists and so-called “Reich Citizens” — a term used to describe people who question or reject the legitimacy of the German Republic.

At least some of these fake accounts are involved in actively promoting the ideologies they are linked with, with one agent telling a reporter that it is important to “feed this bubble” of extremist ideology in order to gain the trust of targetted activists, some of whom are reported as being “neo-nazis”.

Those behind the accounts have also reportedly been granted permission to break laws in the operation of these accounts, with the journalist behind the report, Ron Steinke, saying that: “many people who are victims of right-wing online hate speech would probably be amazed if they knew what is now being posted and liked on behalf of the state.”

Along with employing people to operate the social media accounts, the German Federal government has employed psychologists as part of the project, who are tasked with both helping those operating the accounts to deal with the stress of their occupation, as well as to sniff out if one of the civil servants is themselves being radicalised.

Governments are not known to be the most innovative institutions. They are often picking up on strategies developed elsewhere. In an August of 2019 article at the journal Nature, researches proposed a four point plan for “combating online hate” which included creating fake social media users to instigate conflicts between “hate clusters” (see, any group not favorable to the Democrat Party) who hold different views.

Policy 4 exploits the fact that many hate groups online have opposing views. The policy suggests that the platform administrators introduce an artificial group of users to encourage interactions between hate clusters that have opposing views, with a view to the hate clusters subsequently battling out their differences among themselves. The authors’ modelling demonstrated that such battles would effectively remove large hate clusters that have opposing views. Once put into action, policies 3 and 4 would require little direct intervention by the platform administrators; however, setting opposing clusters against each other would require meticulous engineering.

An information warfare program indistinguishable from this one befell the Alt Right movement, and ultimately resulted in me doing some prison time. Remember this when somebody tries to drag you into senseless online conflicts with people who agree with you 80% of the time.

And what should concern us more than anything is China’s role in all of this, for it is far less conspicuous, which one can only conclude is the result of successful secrecy. We know plenty about Chinese espionage in terms of collecting information, especially corporate and technological secrets, but Chinese influence operations are surely going on, and it should worry us that we are not more conscious of these efforts.

China has more at stake in the United States than any other country, save for perhaps Israel, whose very existence arguably depends on American support. China is the world’s second largest economy, and has no intention of staying that way. While Russia seeks a multipolar world order in which peer Nations respect one another’s spheres of influence, China looks with envy on America’s privileged position, and seeks to take our place as the global hegemon. The best way for China to accomplish this goal is for Russia and the United States to end up in a military conflict with one another, in which both are irreparably damaged, and the only winner would be China.

In Peter Schweizer’s book “Red Handed: How American Elites Get Rich Helping China Win”, the author goes into great detail about what is publicly known about American political elites falling under the sway of the Chinese Communist Party. The Bidens, the Bushes, the Pelosis, the McConnells, to name just a few, all derive very substantial revenue from China, and would have their lifestyles diminished significantly if they were to be deprived of those revenues.

Now, maybe you think that these people are just such brilliant business wizards that Chinese companies had to recruit them from the other side of the planet and make them fabulously wealthy, just to make their operations possible. With the possible exception of the Bidens, Schweizer does not allege that what these people are doing is unlawful, just awfully conspicuous, given who they are and the significance of the revenues they derive from a rival country.

But Schweizer doesn’t obtain his information by digging through trash cans, tapping phones, following people around with a camera or blockchain analysis. All he can tell us is what is publicly available. The true depth of these ties remains hidden from us, and what we are able to discern from publicly available information is only our first clue as to what is really happening.

And even the money is only the carrot. What of the stick?

Today’s headlines are full of news about TikTok, the Chinese social media app that teaches girls to “twerk” and boys to become transgender, while its domestic equivalent celebrates academic achievement and other wholesome content. It is obvious to interested people that China uses TikTok as an influence operation, but most of the headlines today center on its potential abuse as a means of collecting information.

TikTok parent company ByteDance denies that it shares information with the Chinese State, but Article 11 of China’s National Security Law makes it clear that all Chinese citizens and “enterprises” are obligated to assist the State in matters of National Security; (emphasis added)

Citizens of the People’s Republic of China, all State bodies and armed forces, all political parties and people’s organizations, enterprises, undertakings, organizations and all other social organizations have the responsibility and duty to safeguard national security.

The sovereignty and territorial integrity of China brook no violation or separation. The safeguarding of national sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity is the common duty of all Chinese citizens, including Hong Kong and Macau compatriots, and Taiwan compatriots.

This is very similar to the Mossad’s “sayanim” which Gordon Thomas informs us in Gideon’s spies are “Volunteer Jewish helpers who live outside of Israel (singular: sayan)“. But don’t you dare mention dual loyalty. That would be anti-Semitic, and apparently, anti-Chinese.

Article 3 defines National Security Work, and is all encompassing, including culture and economy and political security;

National security work shall persist in a comprehensive national security view, take the security of the people as purpose, take political security as the foundation, take economic security as the basis, take military, cultural and social security as guarantee, take stimulating international security as a support, it shall safeguard national security in all areas, build a national security system, and march the path of national security with Chinese characteristics.

A June 7th 2022 report in Reuters states that the Chinese government is paying citizens for assistance in intelligence work;

BEIJING, June 7 (Reuters) – Chinese citizens can get rewards of more than 100,000 yuan ($15,000) and special certificates for tip-offs on breaches of national security under measures introduced this week, state media reported on Tuesday.

Rewards for exposing foreign spies or other security violations have existed for years in China. The new measures are aimed at standardising rewards and motivating the public at a time of intensifying threats from foreign intelligence agencies and other hostile forces, a Ministry of State Security representative said, according to a state media outlet.

“The formulation of the measures is conducive to fully mobilising the enthusiasm of the general public to support and assist in national security work, widely rallying the hearts, morale, wisdom and strength of the people,” the ministry representative said, according to the Legal Daily.

A June 17, 2022 report in the New York Post informs us of leaked audio recordings from ByteDance corporate meetings;

Fears that China could snoop on TikTok users were confirmed in leaked recordings from internal meetings held by the social media app’s parent company, according to a bombshell report Friday.

The recordings revealed that China-based employees of ByteDance repeatedly accessed data tied to US users — raising fresh concerns about TikTok, which once faced a ban in the United States because of privacy concerns.

Audio clips from dozens of meetings revealed 14 statements from nine TikTok employees who said that ByteDance engineers in China could access nonpublic US user data, BuzzFeed reported, citing material from more than 80 meetings.

The Chinese employees were capable of accessing the information from at least September 2021 through January.

The leaked recordings suggest that Beijing-based ByteDance’s ability to access US user data was farther-reaching than previously known — with one TikTok director stating at a September 2021 gathering that one unnamed engineer in China was “Master Admin” who “has access to everything.”

In a separate meeting that same month, a member of TikTok’s Trust and Safety department purportedly said that “everything is seen in China.”

And if you think information obtained from TikTok might be damaging, imagine the blackmail potential derived from four years of Chinese ownership of the homosexual dating app known as Grindr. A March 6th 2020 report in TechCrunch informs us that;

Chinese gaming giant Beijing Kunlun has agreed to sell popular gay dating app Grindr for about $608 million, ending a tumultuous four years under Chinese ownership.

Reuters reports that the Chinese company sold its 98% stake in Grindr to a U.S.-based company, San Vicente Acquisition Partners.

The app, originally developed in Los Angeles, raised national security concerns after it was acquired by Beijing Kunlun in 2016 for $93 million. That ownership was later scrutinized by a U.S. government national security panel, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which reportedly told the Beijing-based parent company that its ownership of Grindr constituted a national security threat.

CFIUS expressed concern that data from the app’s some 27 million users could be used by the Chinese government. Last year, it was reported that while under Chinese ownership, Grindr allowed engineers in Beijing access to the personal data of millions of U.S. users, including their private messages and HIV status.

Beijing Kunlun had agreed to sell the unit by June.

Little is known about San Vicente Acquisition, but a person with knowledge of the deal said that the company is made up of a group of investors that’s fully owned and controlled by Americans. Reuters said that one of those investors is James Lu, a former executive at Chinese search giant Baidu.

But that transaction was not completed. Mr. Lu, it turns out, was not entirely forthcoming in his disclosures. According to a March 29, 2021 report in Reuters;

When Grindr Inc’s Chinese owner sold the popular dating app to an investor consortium last year to comply with a U.S. national security panel order, the parties to the deal gave information to authorities that contradicted disclosures to potential investors and Chinese regulators, Reuters has learned.

They told the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) that James Lu, a Chinese-American businessman who is now Grindr’s chairman, had no previous business relationship with a key adviser to the seller, a man named Ding’an Fei, according to a Reuters review of the parties’ written submissions to CFIUS.

Fei, a former private equity executive, was acting as an adviser to Beijing Kunlun Tech Co Ltd, Grindr’s owner at the time, on the deal, the documents show.

“The investors and Ding’an Fei have at no time conducted business together in their personal capacities prior to the proposed transaction,” Kunlun and the investor group, called San Vicente Holdings LLC, wrote to CFIUS in a response dated March 27, 2020.

However, when Lu was raising funds to buy Grindr in the second half of 2019 and early 2020, potential investors were told by firms helping him raise the money that Fei was involved in the effort with him in various capacities, a review of four different fundraising documents shows.

The duo had also done business together in other ventures: Fei was a member of the board of a Chinese restaurant operator in which Lu served as chief executive officer, according to that restaurant company’s 2018-2019 annual report.

The discrepancies and omissions in the parties’ response to U.S. authorities, reported by Reuters for the first time, could prompt a new review from CFIUS, according to six former U.S. officials and lawyers familiar with the panel’s rules. If CFIUS were to find the statements were not true, it can also lead to civil penalties and criminal charges under the false statement provisions of the U.S. penal code, they said.

This looks an awful lot like trying to swindle the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, and threaten American national security, by shuffling papers across a desk.

Grindr was later purchased in 2022 by a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company) called Tiga Acquisition Corp, and is currently listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol GRND. It is not immediately clear what, if any, ties the company has to China. But to me, “Tiga” sounds a lot like “Tiger” and tigers are a common feature of Chinese corporate branding. According to the website Tiger’s Tea Live, tigers symbolize power and fear in Chinese culture;

In the Chinese culture Tigers bear a greater symbolism – power and daring and a subject of awe and fear, more than just prized for its beauty and majesty. In China, the Tiger is considered the king of all beasts as it symbolises power and a great deal of nerve. The Tiger has always featured heavily in Chinese culture and tradition. It is also known as the king of the mountain.

Power could certainly be wielded, and fear could certainly be inspired, by the owner of a gay dating app that was willing to misuse its access to information. Given what we know about Democrat attitudes towards sex, we can make a reasonably safe assumption that if Grindr was used for political blackmail, it would fall primarily on one party. Though an obvious response to this would be that Republicans who were discovered using Grindr would have more to lose by such a discovery, and could be pressured more intensely, even if in fewer numbers.

And we also know that China has used trade policy to impact US elections in favor of Democrats. Cambridge University researchers published an analysis in January of 2021 titled “Tariffs As Electoral Weapons: The Political Geography of the US–China Trade War“, which concludes;

In response to President Trump instigating conflict over trade with China, the Chinese government countered by issuing tariffs on thousands of products worth over USD 110 billion in US exports. We explore whether China’s tariffs reflected a strategy to apply counterpressure by hurting political support for the president’s party. We also assess the strategy’s impact on the 2018 midterm elections and examine the mechanism underlying the resulting electoral shift. We find strong evidence that Chinese tariffs systematically targeted US goods that had production concentrated in Republican-supporting counties, particularly when located in closely contested Congressional districts. This apparent strategy was successful: targeted areas were more likely to turn against Republican candidates. Using data on campaign communications, local search patterns online, and an original national survey, we find evidence that voters residing in areas affected by the tariffs were more likely to learn about the trade war, recognize its adverse impact, and assign the Republicans responsibility for the escalating dispute. These findings demonstrate how domestic political institutions can be a source of vulnerability in interstate disputes.

So, whether it is by bribery, blackmail, or trade policy, we know that China is running influence operations in the United States. We know that Chinese citizens and enterprises are conscripted into Chinese national security operations. We reasonably believe these efforts are to some degree bipartisan, but that it should come as no surprise that a foreign nation who wants America weakened, particularly one that embraces communism, favors the Democrat Party to be in power.

So, if China has a “no limits” partnership with Russia, why are their puppets in the US Government all in for Ukraine?

Are Mitch McConnell and his fellow Democrats just so inspired by Ukrainian democracy that they don’t mind having their revenue streams taken away and their sexual deviancy exposed?

This, I doubt very highly. China is trying to get us into a war with Russia, and at this rate it looks like they are going to succeed.

Speaking of Russia…

Though an overwhelming majority of Democrats polled think the Russian government actually manipulated the vote count directly, that is not the mainstream view of the issue. We have been told by supposedly credible sources, that Russia “hacked our democracy” not by changing the function of voting machines, but by tricking dumb Americans into voting for Donald Trump with “trolls and bots”.

Typically, mainstream “respectable” conservatives treat this allegation with skepticism, either of kind or of degree. Either they say it didn’t happen, or they say that it was not of such a scale as to be determinative. In support of either claim, they point out that the sum spent on supposedly Russian advertisements was actually quite small, in comparison to otherwise “legitimate”ads.

According to Politico;

Facebook accounts with apparent Russian ties purchased about $150,000 in political ads aimed at American voters during key periods of the 2016 presidential campaign, according to a new analysis released Wednesday by the social networking company.


Facebook found some $100,000 in ad spending from June 2015 through May 2017 connected to about 470 accounts that were deemed as inauthentic and in violation of its internal guidelines. These accounts – associated with about 3,000 ads – were connected to each other “and likely operated out of Russia,” Alex Stamos, Facebook’s chief security officer, wrote in a Wednesday blog post.

While the “vast majority” of those ads didn’t reference any specific presidential candidate, or even the election itself, Stamos explained that the Russian ads that Facebook uncovered were designed to amplify hot-button social and political issues, such as LGBT rights, race, immigration and gun rights.

A quarter of the Russian-linked ads were also geographically targeted at specific Facebook audiences in the U.S., and most of them ran in 2015 before the first primaries and caucuses when the GOP and Democratic presidential fields were still packed with multiple candidates. While the amount of spending on the ads was nominal at best, the fact that it even occurred is likely to reinforce concerns expressed by some Democrats that Russia may have used Facebook to promote narratives that flattered Trump and bashed Clinton in key Rust Belt swing states that helped the real estate mogul take the White House.

Now, wait just a second. Do you mean to tell me, that these “Russian bots” were trying to help Donald Trump, by amplifying LGBTQ rights and race? Those sound a lot more like Clinton advertisements if you ask me. Although Trump campaigned against immigration and for gun rights, it wasn’t like these issues don’t have a Democrat side to the story either. Mind you, this is coming from Politico, which is not exactly known for its objective reporting, much less its far Right ideology.

Checking the source material, the Facebook blog post, the issue is obviously left intentionally vague. It doesn’t say what stance was taken on the issues promoted, just that those issues were promoted. Facebook only mentions that some ads were geographically targeted. It doesn’t say anything about the “rust belt” or any other specifics about what geography was targeted.

Those better informed, will call attention to the fact that these supposed Russian “bots”were, if anything, more prolific with Leftist themes on social media than anything supporting Donald Trump. According to this theme, the goal of the operation was not to support Trump, but to polarize American politics, and sow chaos.

One of the ads shared by Adam Schiff, of all people, was for a “Free Legal Night” for illegal immigrants. Another ad from “LGBT United” promoted an event in Kansas to support teachers who push sexual deviancy in school classrooms.

According to TechCrunch;

Russia focused on black Americans

Many, many of these ads targeted black Americans. From the fairly large sample of ads that we reviewed, black Americans were clearly of particular interest, likely in an effort to escalate latent racial tensions.

Many of these ads appeared as memorials for black Americans killed by police officers. Others simply intended to stir up black pride, like one featuring an Angela Davis quote. One ad posted by “Black Matters” was targeted at Ferguson, Missouri residents in June 2015 and only featured the lyrics to Tupac’s “California Love.” Around this time, many ads targeted black Facebook users in Baltimore and the St. Louis area.

Not exactly straight out of the RNC playbook…

The sources I’m referencing show some ads that are clearly designed to support Trump, but I’m not going to waste your time talking about them because we’ve been hearing that side of the story for six years. I can, however, share with you my assessment, that what is being shown to us by Democrats, is roughly 50/50 pro or anti-Trump.

Slate put it more bluntly “Russian Trolls Were Obsessed With Black Lives Matter“.

There were ads about white supremacy that targeted people interested in HuffPost’s Black Voices section. Another featured an image of a member of the Black Panthers with a baby on his lap next to a photo of three hooded members of the Ku Klux Klan holding a noose under the text, “I find it very disturbing that the Black Panthers were called terrorists and sent to prison while KKK still exists and legal.” Hundreds of ads were bought about American racism, laser-targeted to people interested in, to take a few examples, “Understanding racial segregation in the united states,” and “Martin Luther King, Jr.” and “Black is beautiful” and the “African American Civil Rights Movement (1954-68).” It seemed that the more politically aware and interested in American history someone was, the more likely they were to be targeted by this propaganda. IRA trolls seemed to be interested in reaching people who are deeply invested in political history and expressing their beliefs, particularly on the subject of race in America and institutional violence against black people. Hundreds of the ads were focused on police violence toward black Americans.

Of the entire Russian “bot” narrative, Buzzfeed says “This is, not to mince words, total bullshit.”

I spent hours trying to find an article I saw not long before my 2020 arrest, which broke down which news sources the supposedly Russian Twitter accounts were promoting. I couldn’t find it, but Law and Crime was able to determine that their favorite TV pundit was MSNBC’s Joy Reid, whom Tucker Carlson appropriately refers to as “the race lady”.  Reid’s entire existence is centered around stoking racial tensions in the United States, and there are few scenarios one could imagine in which she was promoted to help Donald Trump get elected.

But, here’s one the Democrats don’t want to mention…

Let’s just say for the sake of argument, ridiculous though it may sound, that Russia tried to help Donald Trump by giving in kind contributions to Democrats in the form of free advertising. How could this possibly assist him?

We know Russians aren’t stupid. In a post release interview with RT, Viktor Bout told Maria Butina that Russians pay too much attention to American politics. When Leftist media covers the supposed Russian propaganda targeting black Americans, they often remark about how well the propagandists understand American racial tensions.

So, if we are to take this at face value, the means by which Russia was assisting Donald Trump is to show Americans how terrible the Democrats really are. By deploying this tactic, these propagandists showed how truly vicious, dishonest, and violent the Democrat Party is, just by amplifying normal Democrat behavior. They brought into the open what you and I have known for a very long time, that the Democrats’ perpetual stoking of racial tensions is designed to sow misery and chaos, on the assumption that it will aid them in pursuit of power. Watching blacks and other Democrats run riot in 2015 and 2016, and watching their media coconspirators run cover, so disgusted Americans, that an electoral, though not a popular, majority, voted for Donald Trump in 2016.

Reasonable people might think this was actually benevolent, and, let’s face it, this would not be the most absurd thing to happen in American politics. Though, we must confess that is a rather high bar to set. Democrat dirty tricks are legendary, and a political party trying to win popularity contests by pushing transgenderism on children is nothing if not capable of thinking outside the box.

But if that put Donald Trump in the White House in 2016, why did Democrats embrace the riots in 2020? If they really thought racial tension was harming their chances of victory, wouldn’t they stop stoking them?

Let us contemplate a more mundane explanation.

In 2018, Democrat operatives created a fake Russian botnet to make it appear that Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore was backed by the Russian government, according to the New York Times, per a Fox News Report;

Democratic operatives, backed by a liberal billionaire and facilitated by a former Obama official, created thousands of fake Russian accounts to give an impression the Russian government was supporting Alabama Republican Roy Moore in last year’s election against now-Sen. Doug Jones.

The secret project, which had a budget of just $100,000 and was carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was revealed after the New York Times obtained an internal report detailing the efforts.

“We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet,” the internal report said. It also took credit for “radicalizing Democrats with a Russian bot scandal” after experimenting “with many of the tactics now understood to have influenced the 2016 elections.”

The Alabama project was funded by liberal billionaire and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman who gave $100,000 to the cause, according to the Times. Hoffman is one of Silicon Valley’s top donors to the Democrats, donating $7 million to various groups and campaigns in the last election cycle.

The money trickled down through American Engagement Technologies, a firm run by Mikey Dickerson who was appointed by former President Barack Obama to lead the newly-created United States Digital Service.

Now, $100,000 is not a lot of money in a race that spent $51 million, but recall that the supposed Russian menace only spent $150,000 on a Presidential race and Democrats literally called that an act of war.

The source of the money, another tech oligarch, tells us a great deal too. While I don’t know LinkedIn to be a hotbed of political activity, I’d be willing to bet Mr. Hoffman didn’t allow his power over the platform to go unutilized by Democrats.

More recently, Consortium News published a report in November of 2022 about a massive anti-Russian “Bot Army” operating on Twitter, and the implications are staggering.

The Adelaide University researchers unearthed a massive organised pro-Ukraine influence operation underway from the early stages of the conflict. Overall, the study found automated “bot” accounts to be the source of between 60 to 80 percent of all tweets in the dataset.

The published data shows that in the first week of the Ukraine-Russia war there was a huge mass of pro-Ukrainian hashtag bot activity. Approximately 3.5 million tweets using the hashtag #IStandWithUkraine were sent by bots in that first week.

In fact, it was like someone had flicked a switch at the start of the war as pro-Ukraine bot activity suddenly burst into life. In that first day of the war the #IStandWithUkraine hashtag was used in as many as 38,000 tweets each hour, rising to 50,000 tweets an hour by day three of the war.

This operation was already in place when the conflict broke out, unlike Russia’s. Which tells us something very interesting about Ukrainian influence efforts.

After being apparently left flatfooted, the #IStandWithPutin hashtag mainly from automated bots, eventually fired up a week after the start of the war. That hashtag started appearing in higher numbers on March 2, day 7 of the war. It reached 10,000 tweets per hour just twice over the next two days, still way behind the pro-Ukraine tweeting activity.

The #IStandWithRussia hashtag use was even smaller, reaching only 4,000 tweets per hour. After just two days of operation, the pro-Russian hashtag activity had dropped away almost completely. The study’s researchers noted the automated bot accounts “likely used by Russian authorities,” were “removed likely by pro-Ukrainian authorities.”

The reaction against these pro-Russian accounts had been swift. On March 5, after the #IStandWithPutin hashtag had trended on Twitter, the company announced it had banned over 100 accounts using the hashtag for violating its “platform manipulation and spam policy” and participating in “coordinated inauthentic behaviour.”

Later that month, the Ukraine Security Service (SBU) reportedly raided five “bot farms”’ operating inside the country. The Russia-linked bot operators were reportedly operating through 100,000 fake social media accounts spreading disinformation that was “intended to inspire panic among Ukrainian masses.”

Why would Russia be operating “bot farms” on Ukrainian soil? Sounds to me like the SBU was kicking down the doors of their fellow citizens who had dared to challenge the prevailing compulsory narrative.

But why did Democrats think being backed by Russia would hurt a candidate? Didn’t Russian backing just put Trump in the White House?

Well, obviously, they had done the same thing in 2016, quoting from the Washington Examiner;

Durham’s latest indictment centers on Democratic National Committee and Clinton Foundation lawyer Michael Sussmann. One of Sussmann’s other clients, only identified in the indictment as “Tech Executive-1,” approached Sussmann in July 2016, claiming he had information that could help create a “narrative” of Trump collusion with Russia. Tech Executive-1 would later say in an email that he wanted Hillary Clinton to win the presidency because he believed she would give him the nation’s top cybersecurity job.

Tech Executive-1 then used his connections with a cybersecurity firm helping the federal government to gain access to nonpublic internet data about Trump and six of his associates. Although Tech Executive-1’s employees later told their boss that the data supposedly linking Trump and a Russian bank “will not fly in [the] eyes of public scrutiny,” Sussmann nevertheless fed it to media allies upon whom he could count to build a false narrative that Trump was colluding with Moscow.

Sussmann, who had worked with the FBI during its investigation into the Russian hack of DNC servers, told the FBI he had information showing a link between Trump and a Russian bank. During the meeting, Sussmann insisted to the FBI that he was turning the information over simply as a concerned citizen and that he was not working on behalf of any client. He further claimed that cybersecurity experts had approached him about a possible link between Trump and a Russian bank, but he never mentioned the true source of the data, Tech Executive-1.

This was a monstrous lie and now it has been exposed. Sussmann had been billing Hillary Clinton’s campaign for his collusion with Tech Executive-1 the whole time. That is, he was working for her. If the FBI had known that Sussmann approached it on behalf of the Clinton campaign merely so he could dish dirt on her political rival, it might never have opened an investigation. But since Sussmann lied about his motives, an investigation was opened.

The Department of Justice inspector general would later conclude in 2019 that the link between Trump and Russian banks was utter fiction. But Sussmann had already primed the media with his false information, and they dutifully played their part in creating the Trump-Russia “narrative” that would distract and divide the nation for most of Trump’s presidency.

DC being a Democrat cesspool, Sussmann was ultimately acquitted at trial of lying to the FBI.

Tech Executive 1 is Rodney Joffe, who, like Sussmann, just so happens to be Jewish, and spent much of his life as a fraudster before he began getting lucrative contracts from the federal government, according to a Real Clear Investigations article titled “The Checkered Past of the FBI Cyber Contractor Who ‘Spied’ on Trump“. Joffe had been working for the United States government, and used that privileged access to deceive federal investigators at the FBI and the CIA, about fake links between Trump and Russia.

I’m not saying that the Russian Federation does not conduct influence operations in the United States. In fact, it would be irresponsible for them not to. What I am saying is that Democrats, whether they be elected Democrats, party people, bureaucrats,  or just the general type of scumbag who votes this way, all seem to glom onto the same lie and pursue it seamlessly.

And let us not forget the infamous, “dirty Russian dossier, bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton”, which was put together by a supposedly “former” British spy named Christopher Steele, and which the Clinton campaign was fined by the FEC for covering up in their campaign expenditures, per CNN;

The DNC was fined $105,000 and the Clinton campaign was fined $8,000, according to a letter sent by the Federal Election Commission to a conservative group that requested an inquiry.

Political candidates and groups are required to publicly disclose their spending to the FEC, and they must explain the purpose of any specific expenditure more than $200. The FEC concluded that the Clinton campaign and DNC misreported the money that funded the dossier, masking it as “legal services” and “legal and compliance consulting” instead of opposition research.

The dossier was compiled by retired British spy Christopher Steele. It contained unverified and salacious allegations about Donald Trump, including claims that his campaign colluded with the Kremlin to win the 2016 election.

So, let’s pick this apart a little bit. The Clinton campaign and the DNC were working with a foreign intelligence officer to create a fictional narrative that Trump was some kind of Russian asset, and it just so happens, that a bunch of Russian intelligence assets are trying to help Donald Trump by echoing Democrat talking points on social media?

Pardon my skepticism. I suspect this is just a high tech foreign sponsored version of what Democrats do every year, which is try to paint Republicans as racists, on the safe assumption that they’ll make themselves look weak, and alienate White voters, by running from it.

But how did they convince everybody of the existence of these Russian “trolls and bots”?

By running them through Ukraine.

Most Americans probably thought Ukraine was a city in Russia prior to 2014, and it probably would have been by the end of 2022 if not for American military aid.

If you want to convincingly paint Donald Trump as a Nazi, you’ve got your work cut out for you. The man is surrounded by Jews at all times, and he’s conspicuously popular among black rappers. The New York real estate mogul didn’t make his billions by being the enemy of banks and media, and his rightward shift in political ideology followed years of being a big donor to Democrats. While Trump’s talk of immigration and crime were painted by Democrats as “racist dog whistles”, his push for criminal justice reform and so-called “opportunity zones” in black neighborhoods were directly marketed to black voters, which scared the living hell out of Democrats, who cannot win elections without near unanimous support from this demographic.

So, to pull off this heavy lift, it might help to get some “Nazis” to help by echoing their support for him.

A 2014 article at the Jewish website Algemeiner.com, tells us an important fact about Ukraine’s Azov Battalion;

Among those going into battle from the Ukrainian side are some 500 trained fighters in the self-declared Azov battalion, backed by Jewish energy magnate and Dnipropetrovsk region governor, Igor Kolomoisky, according to Israel’s Ma’ariv daily.

As the conflict in Ukraine broke out, I was astonished to see Western media denying the existence of Ukrainian Nazis. Just a few months earlier, I had read an article about Azov Battalion in Time Magazine, and there’s probably not a White Nationalist in the United States who doesn’t know somebody who went to Ukraine.

A headline at CommonDreams.org, a climate change obsessed Democrat propaganda rag, reads “There Is No Wisdom in Pretending That Ukraine’s Neo-Nazis Don’t Exist” and goes on to tell us in March of 2022, that “The troubling history and dangerous U.S. relationship with the Azov Battalion and other extreme right-wing groups in Ukraine cannot be forgotten.”

Russian President Putin has claimed that he ordered the invasion of Ukraine to “denazify” its government, while Western officials, such as former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul, have called this pure propaganda, insisting, “There are no Nazis in Ukraine.”

In the context of the Russian invasion, the post-2014 Ukrainian government’s problematic relations with extreme right-wing groups and neo-Nazi parties has become an incendiary element on both sides of the propaganda war, with Russia exaggerating it as a pretext for war and the West trying to sweep it under the carpet.

The reality behind the propaganda is that the West and its Ukrainian allies have opportunistically exploited and empowered the extreme right in Ukraine, first to pull off the 2014 coup and then by redirecting it to fight separatists in Eastern Ukraine.

So, in Ukraine, we have Jews financing Nazi militias that fight Russia with US backing? Does any sane person want to tell me that there aren’t spies involved in this?

Continuing at Common Dreams;

In 2019, the Soufan Center, which tracks terrorist and extremist groups around the world, warned, “The Azov Battalion is emerging as a critical node in the transnational right-wing violent extremist network… (Its) aggressive approach to networking serves one of the Azov Battalion’s overarching objectives, to transform areas under its control in Ukraine into the primary hub for transnational white supremacy.”

The Soufan Center described how the Azov Battalion’s “aggressive networking” reaches around the world to recruit fighters and spread its white supremacist ideology. Foreign fighters who train and fight with the Azov Battalion then return to their own countries to apply what they have learned and recruit others.

Violent foreign extremists with links to Azov have included Brenton Tarrant, who massacred 51 worshippers at a mosque in Christchurch in New Zealand in 2019, and several members of the U.S. Rise Above Movement who were prosecuted for attacking counter-protestors at the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville in August 2017. Other Azov veterans have returned to Australia, Brazil, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden, the U.K. and other countries.

If you listened to Stage Six Episode Zero, you’ve heard me tell the story of Weev before, but for the sake of continuity in our storyline, please pardon some repetition as I add a few details.

As I was about to do a show themed on Tucker Carlson Tonight’s imminent debut on Fox News, a listener suggested I take instead a semi-famous guest who went by the name of Andrew Alan Escher Auernheimer, best known by his pseudonym “weev”. Auernheimer is a Jewish computer hacker who rebranded himself as a Nazi after he got out of prison for hacking AT&T.

On the show, weev quickly began advocating the extermination of most of the world’s population, praising Charleston, SC church shooter Dylann Roof, and generally praising racially motivated violence. This was not what I expected at all, but the show was live on the air, and I had long styled myself as something of a “Shock Jock”, so I tried to roll with it. Those who saw the video however, remarked that I was visibly uncomfortable with what was going on.

Weev was the technical mind behind the Daily Stormer, commonly thought to be the most popular neo-Nazi website on planet Earth. This perception, however, turned out to be a manipulation. Weev, had managed to use the skills that had landed him in federal prison to manipulate the site’s Alexa rankings to make it appear much more popular than it actually was. Before its retirement in May of 2022, the Alexa rankings ranked nearly all websites on the planet with #1 being the most popular, and typically going back and forth between Google or Facebook. The Daily Stormer was not the only site he performed this service for, and he managed to make them look comparable to major news networks in popularity.

The importance of this can hardly be overstated. Bloggers and journalists used the Alexa rank to determine the relevance of sources when they were putting narratives together. When a neo-Nazi website rivals the most popular news sources on the web, it confirms the superstitions Leftists hold about the world in similar fashion to a weeping statue. When that same neo-Nazi website endorsed Donald Trump, it was as if Jesus had returned to earth to address his followers.

I was less interested in affirming Leftist suspicions about racism than I was in promoting my entertainment product, but I fell for this Alexa rank trick all the same. Tucker Carlson was not driving traffic to my website. Daily Stormer was.

So here we have an American Jewish computer hacker, residing in Ukraine, associating with Jewish and American backed nationalist groups, using my show to promote racial holy war, and aiding the Leftist press in their fervent desire to paint Donald Trump as the second coming of Adolf Hitler.

After the show had aired, I was contacted by Andrew Anglin, the purported primary writer for the Daily Stormer. Anglin had been planning an armed march on Whitefish, Montana, in furtherance of his “troll storm” against Tanya Gersh, a Jewess who had attempted to extort Richard Spencer’s mother. Anglin told me he would not be able to make it to this event, and that he wanted me to lead it.

I wisely declined the invitation.

The event never ended up happening, but Anglin was sued by Gersh for his efforts nonetheless. After crowdfunding over $150,000 for his defense in the suit, and in the process beginning the financial deplatforming of the Alt Right, Anglin defaulted.

Today I suspect that Anglin was attempting to get me to do this event as a trap, owing to statements I had made in the past which were sympathetic to antigovernment violence. I would have made the perfect patsy for some kind of false flag attack that made our group look like terrorists, and I likely would have been injured, killed, or stuck in some sort of legal quagmire, such as would later befall me in Charlottesville.

Immediately after the Whitefish event would have happened, was the inauguration of Donald Trump. During this, Antifa criminals rioted and burned Washington DC. As bad as this was, I can only imagine it would have been far worse had the Whitefish event actually happened.

Then came the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August of 2017. Leading up to this, Weev published a blog post which would be used against us as evidence in the Sines v. Kessler civil litigation titled “Operational Security for Right Wing Rallies” which painted our perfectly lawful behavior as criminal conduct and instructed participants to destroy records and use encrypted communications. This was entered, despite its nature as hearsay, through a supposed “expert” witness on White Supremacy, who, when cross examined by me, stated that Weev was Jewish.

In the wake of the event, while I was out on bail, I told Weev that I was planning to talk to the FBI. This seemed perfectly reasonable to me, since we were not guilty of any crime, and I had body camera video of our planning meeting, which disproved the popular myth of a premeditated conspiracy on our part.

Weev took screenshots of this conversation and published them, claiming that I was “ratting everybody out”. Of course, to rat people out, one must be party to a criminal conspiracy, and to be party to such a conspiracy, such a conspiracy must exist. In this, Weev helped spread the lie that the Unite the Right right rally was a racially motivated violent conspiracy, which was the biggest lie told that year, and Weev no doubt understood this.

Why is a Jewish American computer hacker in Ukraine doing all of this?

I will posit a theory.

Weev was recruited by the SBU, the Ukrainian espionage agency descended from the KGB.

He did not support Donald Trump. He was helping the Ukrainian government paint Trump for a Nazi in the hopes it would prevent him from being elected. When it backfired, he was helping them to destroy his presidency by promoting racial violence in his name.

I was specifically targeted in this, because during my libertarian days I had made a great many statements in support of antigovernment violence. Whether I could be egged on to carry out violence, or whether something would simply be blamed on me, I figure was a matter of indifference to those responsible.

While I was in prison, I heard about Volodimir Zelensky firing the head of the SBU over claims of rampant treason within the agency. I asked a friend to send me more information about the story, and he sent me this piece in the New York Times.

What struck me about the article was not the primary subject matter, but this snippet;

The Security Service of Ukraine, known by its Ukrainian initials S.B.U., is the main domestic security and intelligence authority in Ukraine and the successor to the local branch of the Soviet-era K.G.B. With 27,000 personnel, it is Europe’s largest security agency, and faces calls for reform — by comparison, Britain’s MI5 has just 4,400 employees, according to the Atlantic Council.

While U.S. intelligence agencies have worked with the S.B.U., their main relationship during the war has been with Ukraine’s military intelligence service.

Why does the SBU have five times as many spies as Britain?

This “faces calls for reform” line is humorous when you inform yourself. That might be the understatement of the century. The SBU is a ruthless state sponsored criminal enterprise, and they likely inspire a great deal of envy in their American counterparts.

According to reports of the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU), SBU personnel are responsible for multiple cases of human rights abuses including forced disappearances, sexual violence, and torture.

According to a report by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights titled “Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine
16 May to 15 August 2017″;

During the reporting period, OHCHR documented the arrests and detention by law enforcement of individuals under terrorism charges, allegedly for running businesses and paying ‘taxes’ in ‘Donetsk people’s republic’. For example, four entrepreneurs who left Donetsk after the conflict began were detained by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) under allegations of terrorism for activities related with running businesses in territory controlled by armed groups

OHCHR documented the cases of eight individuals detained and tortured by SBU in Kharkiv in 2015. For example, three of these individuals were arrested separately in May 2015, handcuffed and had bags placed over their heads. They were taken to the Kharkiv SBU building, where they were interrogated and tortured separately for hours by methods including suffocation with a gas mask, dislocation of joints, electric shock, and mock execution. The detainees also received death threats and threats of a sexual nature against their families. SBU officers forced these men to sign self-incriminating statements and refused them access to a lawyer. They were transferred to a hospital where a doctor refused to document visible injuries. In another example, also in May 2015, a man was arrested by SBU. On the way to the Kharkiv SBU building, the perpetrators stopped the vehicle and tortured him with electric current. Upon reaching the SBU building, the victim was further tortured until he “confessed” to planning terrorist acts. As of 15 August 2017, all four of these victims remained in pre-trial detention. The Military Prosecutor’s Office has launched an investigation into these allegations.

As previously documented, sexual violence is most often used as a method of torture for conflict-related detainees. For example, a man detained in the Kharkiv SBU building in May 2015 was tortured for hours in an attempt to extract a confession. He broke down when a person claiming to be a doctor entered the room with a set of surgical tools and started pulling down his pants while threatening to cut off his testicles. SBU officers then took him to the investigator’s office where he was compelled to sign several self-incriminating statements. In another case, a woman arrested in April 2015 by Kharkiv SBU was subjected to various acts of torture, including threats that the SBU officers would hand her daughter over to the Right Sector or Aidar battalion, so she could “watch how they play with her”.

The UNHCR issued another report titled “Conflict-Related Sexual Violence in Ukraine 14 March 2014 to 31 January 2017” in which;

In many cases, sexual violence amounted to torture, causing severe physical pain and mental suffering. Rape, threats of rape, beatings and electrocution of genitals were often used as an interrogation technique. Such violations most often perpetrated against individuals, mainly men, detained by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and volunteer battalions. The majority of these incidents date back to 2014-2015; nonetheless OHCHR continues to receive testimonies indicating that such practice still occurs.

In May 2014, members of the “Azov” battalion, who claimed to be acting upon the orders of SBU, abducted a woman near her house in Zaporizhzhia region. They subjected her to threats and torture which lasted for four to five hours. Her captors, who were all masked, bound her hands and legs with zip ties tightened by a metal chain, beat her with their feet and with the butts of their guns and forced needles under her nails. She was also subjected to the ‘swallow’ torture method. One of her captors threatened to gang rape her by subjecting to oral and vaginal penetration. One of the perpetrators, believed by the victim to be an SBU officer, ordered him to stop. The victim was released on the same day.

On 23 December 2014, unidentified armed people arrested a woman at her house in Krasnoarmiisk district (Donetsk region) and took her to the town of Kramatorsk (Donetsk region) where she was kept for two days in a basement. She was threatened with sexual violence and forced to sign a confession, which was video-recorded, stating that her sons were members of the armed groups and that she had transmitted information to them about Ukrainian military vehicles. She was then transferred to the Kharkiv SBU premises where she spent almost two months, without any contact with the outside world. No official charges were ever brought against her and she was never presented in court. In February 2015, she was released.

OHCHR also documented a number of cases of women detained in 2015, who were tortured and threatened that their minor daughters would be raped in front of them. A woman arrested on 19 January 2015 by 10 masked men wearing camouflage uniforms, was kept for more than a week in the basement of an SBU building, where she was beaten and tortured with electric shocks and burning plastic. The perpetrators threatened to rape her daughter if she refused to confess of having supported the armed groups in 2014.

These lengthy reports contain far grimmer incidents which are unattributable to the SBU specifically, but we can expect the SBU isn’t advertising who they are whenever they rape and murder people in Ukraine.

According to the Daily Mail;

Kyiv has already opened investigations into 1,309 suspected traitors and launched 450 prosecutions of collaborators accused of betraying their own nation and neighbours.

Others are being tracked down and slaughtered by resistance fighters. A list passed to this newspaper by a Kyiv government source identifies 29 such retribution killings, with 13 more assassination attempts that left some targets wounded.

‘A hunt has been declared on collaborators and their life is not protected by law,’ said Anton Gerashchenko, an adviser to the interior ministry. ‘Our intelligence services are eliminating them, shooting them like pigs.’

The Washington Post, for example, tells us in a September of 2022 headline that “Ukrainian hit squads target Russian occupiers and collaborators

Since Russian forces invaded in late February and began seizing Ukrainian cities and towns, close to 20 Kremlin-backed officials or their local Ukrainian collaborators have been killed or injured in a wave of assassinations and attempted killings.

They have been gunned down, blown up, hanged and poisoned — an array of methods that reflects the determination of the Ukrainian hit squads and saboteurs often operating deep inside enemy-controlled territory. The unpredictability of the attacks is meant to terrify anyone who might agree to serve in the puppet governments Russia has been creating with an eye toward staging sham referendums and ultimately annexing the occupied lands.

A Ukrainian official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter, said one of Ukraine’s special services was involved in the attempt on Bardin’s life, though he couldn’t specify which agency.

“In my understanding, everything that is done to destroy the leaders of the invaders and traitors is done by our special services,” the official said. “You can say that three organizations are involved in this kind of business: special operations forces, the main intelligence department [of the military] and a special unit of the SBU,” Ukraine’s main internal security service.

Russian officials have also blamed Ukrainian special services for the car bombing that killed Daria Dugina, a right-wing, nationalist Russian TV commentator and the daughter of far-right Orthodox Christian ideologue Alexander Dugin, a strong supporter of the war. Ukraine has flatly denied involvement in her killing near Moscow.

The assassination campaign, while cheered by many Ukrainians, nonetheless raises legal and ethical questions about extrajudicial killings and potential war crimes, particularly when the targets are political actors or civilians and not combatants on the battlefield or other military personnel. And those questions cannot simply be waved away by pointing to the illegality of Russia’s invasion.

Video has emerged of Ukrainian forces executing wounded Russian soldiers, and executing Ukrainian civilians accused of collaboration then dumping them into mass graves with their hands tied behind their backs. The video of the civilian executions was posted to Telegram by Azov Battalion for the purposes of bragging, then was subsequently edited to blame the deaths on Russia.

These revelations would be troubling enough if they were limited to cases of providing actual assistance to the Russian military, but that’s not the case at all. The Ukraine government considers anyone who speaks favorably of Russia, or negatively of the Zelensky government, to be collaborators, along with anyone who takes so much as a teaching job in the occupied regions, or accepts Russian financial assistance.

According to Human Rights Without Frontiers, those charged with treason include a female teacher, a female deputy of the Mariupol City Council, and religious leaders.

A headline at Newsweek reads “Ukrainian Mayor Charged With Treason for Accepting Aid From Russia“.

Months before Russia’s military action, Ukraine announced reason charges against opposition figures in the Ukrainian Parliament, according to UkraineNU;

Both Viktor Medvedchuk and Taras Kozak are members of the Ukrainian parliament for the pro-Russian party Opposition Platform – For Life, and Kozak owns several Tv-channels, which were closed by the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky back in February. The President justified the need to close the channels to “fight against the danger of Russian aggression in the information arena.” Both Kozak and Medvedchuk were sanctioned, and Ukraine nationalized one of Medvedchuk’s oil pipelines, his most valuable possession.

Even former Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko was charged with treason, months before Russia’s military action, according to DW.com.

And as Zelensky jails his opposition, commandeers media for the State, executes and sexually assaults his enemies, and grants criminals license to do as they see fit, Democrats and entirely too many Republicans tell us that we are to shower him with cash and munitions to the detriment of our economy and military, all for the sake of “democracy”.

These people sound like fine friends for the CIA to make. So, what was the nature of US intelligence cooperation with the SBU before the war?

I could go on about the so called “biological research facilities”, American assistance in the 2014 coup, and all manner of speculations, but the truth is, I do not know the full answer to these questions. Vladimir Putin, on the other hand, almost certainly does.

My next door neighbor in USP Marion’s Communications Management Unit, Viktor Bout, denies the US Government’s accusation that he is a Russian intelligence asset, and I have no reason to disbelieve him. But Viktor was by no means surprised to find that treason was rampant throughout the SBU. In his telling, the SBU was thoroughly infiltrated by Russian intelligence. The Russian government would thus be in a position to know Ukraine’s state secrets, including its interference in US politics.

Not that one would have to necessarily infiltrate the SBU to figure this out. Peter Schweizer documented it at some length in his book “Secret Empires” discussing how the Biden family got rich off corrupt deals in the oil and gas rich country.

In early March, only days after the Russian move into Crimea, Secretary of State John Kerry visited Kiev, arriving with a pledge of $1 billion in American loan guarantees and offers of technical assistance. He also announced clear-cut American political and moral support for Ukraine.

Kerry spoke forcefully about the U.S. commitment to an independent Ukraine. But it was Vice President Biden who would end up being “point person” in the Obama administration’s policy toward Ukraine.2! “No one in the U.S. government has wielded more power over Ukraine than Vice President Joe Biden,” noted Foreign Policy magazine. Indeed, his power as it relates to Ukrainian policy extended far beyond just Washington; he was “considered the voice of the country’s western backers.” Biden consulted regularly with the Ukrainian president by telephone and made five trips to the Ukraine between 2014 and 2017.24 He did so at the same time that his son and his son’s business partners prepared to strike a profitable deal with controversial and reportedly violent oligarchs, Kolomoisky and Zlochevsky,
who would benefit from his actions.

On April 16, 2014, Devon Archer made a private visit to the White House for a meeting with Vice President Biden. We do not know the duration because, according to White House records, the meeting lasted until 11:59 p.m., the end-of-the-day placeholder when the meeting’s end was not recorded.

Less than a week later, on April 22, there was a public announcement that Devon Archer had been asked to join the board of Burisma. Three weeks after that, on May 13, it was announced that Hunter Biden would join, too. Neither Biden nor Archer had any background or experience in the energy sector.

As was the case with their deals in China, the foreign company, Burisma here, did not hide the fact that the son of the vice president and the financial manager for the family of the American secretary of state were joining the board. Far from it.

Politico wrote about it, too. In a January of 2017 post titled “Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire“, Ken Vogel informs us,

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

Let us recall the first annual impeachment of Donald J. Trump. The reader will recall that this took place after a call between Trump and Zelensky, in which Trump wanted Zelensky to show that he was fighting corruption in Ukraine by announcing an investigation into the Biden Crime Family’s obviously corrupt dealings in the country. Trump saw no point in providing military assistance to a kleptocrat just so he could fight Russia, a country Trump campaigned on improving US relations with.

Given what is now common knowledge about the Biden crime family, Trump’s corruption test was profoundly wise. If Zelensky was as he claimed to be, a corruption fighter, figuring out why a Ukrainian energy company was showering cash on a crackhead who didn’t speak the language or know anything about energy, seemed like a rather modest test of his bona fides.

Zelensky failed the test, and a parade of Ukrainian Jews, among them Lt Colonel Vindman, came before Congress in an attempt to overthrow the President of the United States.

Not that this stopped Trump from sending him weapons.

I was covering this circus on the Radical Agenda when the FBI broke my door down in the middle of the night, and dragged me off to federal prison for the next three years.

The charges on which I was serving time, as I discussed during Stage Six Episode Zero, were absurd. I was convicted of threatening a member of a neo-Nazi terror cell that I had repeatedly gone to law enforcement about because they were sabotaging my business and threatening my life. For years I had been followed by undercover agents and confidential informants for the FBI who were seeking any excuse to make a case against me. The alleged victim was threatened with public exposure if he didn’t testify against me, and paid for his cooperation. This is not law enforcement, it is blackmail and bribery. It was a total setup by the FBI’s Joint Terror Task Force (JTTF) and I do not imagine the timing of my arrest  (more than six months after my alleged offense) was a coincidence.

As stated earlier, counterterrorism is not law enforcement. The whole point of the enterprise is to incapacitate suspects before crimes are committed. Counterterrorism is covert surveillance and dirty tricks, otherwise known, as espionage.

“Mainstream” Espionage

But, you don’t really think this is limited to “social” media, do you? Why stop there? The legacy media needs subversives too…

The Daily Caller provides a list of 15 supposedly “former” spies who now work at CNN or MSNBC, though that list is from 2019 and could probably be updated. Alexander Vindman doesn’t appear to be employed by either network, which is odd, considering how often he is featured on MSNBC. Fox News viewers will doubtlessly recognize names like former CIA station Chief, Dan Hoffman, or General Jack Keane, who have so thoroughly discredited themselves by commenting on this Ukraine/Russia conflict, that they might end up working at CNN by the time this thing is over. Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe is regularly featured on Fox News, and former Acting DNI Richard Grenell went on to become a paid Fox News contributor.

And who could forget the 51 “Intelligence” Officials Who Lied About Hunter Biden’s Laptop?

CNN’s annual revenue is approximately $2 Billion a year, according to Zippia.com. Its richest on air personality is Anderson Cooper, at a cool $50 million in net worth. The next wealthiest, Wolf Blitzer, has half that. Less than a week’s worth of post-sanctions Russian energy sales could buy the entire network and all the property of everyone who works there. It’s a good thing CNN has such stellar patriotism and integrity, or they might sell out to a foreign country.

In theory, spies are supposed to answer to the elected branches of government. In practice, it’s beginning to look like the exact opposite.

It’s like that line in the Matrix, where Agent Smith tells Morpheus,

The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization. I say your civilization, because as soon as we started thinking for you it really became our civilization, which is of course what this is all about. Evolution, Morpheus, evolution. Like the dinosaur. Look out that window. You’ve had your time. The future is *our* world, Morpheus. The future is our time.

One could probably get into a lot of chicken or the egg type of debates about the order of operations to this. Did the politicians weaponize the intelligence agencies for political ends, and thereby begin their involvement in politics? Or did the intelligence agencies decide democracy was too important to leave to chance, and begin using their dark arts to control the elected branches? The answer is likely pre-democratic, and the progression of this state of affairs in the United States most likely involves a lot of give and take in both directions.

J. Edgar Hoover was reported to have kept extensive blackmail files on people, including but not limited to politicians. Ronald Kessler, author of “Secrets of the FBI”, says this about Hoover’s “Official and Confidential” files.

In my book “The Secrets of the FBI,” I quote William Sullivan, who became the No. 3 FBI official under Hoover, as saying: “The moment [Hoover] would get something on a senator, he’d send one of the errand boys up and advise the senator that ‘we’re in the course of an investigation, and we by chance happened to come up with this data on your daughter. But we wanted you to know this. We realize you’d want to know it.’ Well, Jesus, what does that tell the senator? From that time on, the senator’s right in his pocket.”

Some suspect Hoover of being a homosexual, but he still lived and ran the FBI in a time when morality really mattered in public life. That time is over. The principle problem with blackmail these days is that people have far less shame to exploit. In the current year, being a homosexual is just how you make up for being White in the Democrat Party. But this does not mean that politicians don’t have secrets, and if you think the moral code of our spies has improved over the decades, watching them on MSNBC once in awhile will disabuse you of that notion.

We cold not possibly forget Chuck Schumer’s famous line that “Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” as he told told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow.

Schumer wasn’t alone in warning of U.S. intelligence agencies’ penchant for politicized revenge. A little over a week later, Daniel Benjamin, who had served as the principal counterterrorism advisor for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, scripted the scenario for Politico Magazine, writing:

Leakers and whistleblowers won’t hesitate. What [former Deputy CIA Director] Morell and other intelligence veterans are too decorous to mention is that Trump’s treatment of his spies will also come back to bite him in the form of leaking and whistleblowing. The intelligence community doesn’t leak as much as the Pentagon or Congress, but when its reputation is at stake, it can do so to devastating effect.

Peter Strzok suspected CIA employees were behind inaccurate leaks to the press regarding possible Trump campaign contacts with Russia, according to an email the former FBI counterintelligence official sent to colleagues in April 2017. Strzok wrote “I’m beginning to think the agency got info a lot earlier than we thought and hasn’t shared it completely with us. Might explain all these weird/seemingly incorrect leads all these media folks have. Would also highlight agency as source of some of the leaks,

He later wrote to his lover/coworker, Lisa Page in a text message that “Think our sisters have begun leaking like mad. Scorned and worried and political, they’re kicking in to overdrive,” Sisters is a likely reference to the CIA, or other American intelligence agency.

Licensed to Kill

As illustrated in the case of Ukraine, another tactic of domestic espionage is to grant certain groups of people a license to commit crimes, including the most horrific sort of violence. From my jail cell, I saw this go on all throughout 2020 in the United States, in tandem with a bizarre and frightening propaganda campaign on social and mainstream media.

After career criminal George Floyd died of a drug overdose in police custody, the heroic officer who subdued him was charged with and subsequently convicted of murder. Instead of seeing this as justice taking its course, the same rioters who had terrorised me and my associates and the rest of America since 2015 took to the streets for their biggest campaign of mayhem yet. They murdered business owners and police officers, set fire to commercial property, residences, and federal courts. They surrounded a police station, laid siege to it, and set it on fire, forcing police to flee for their lives.

Did the Democrats decry “Russian interference” stoking these racial tensions? Didn’t they fear that this subversive activity would help Trump like it supposedly did in 2016? Of course not. Democrats supported this. Racial strife is their stock in trade. Dividing the country along identitarian lines proved so useful to them, that they started creating new sexual identities along which to cause even more trouble.

Kamala Harris promoted a bail fund, which helped lead to the release of people charged with murder, violent felonies, and sex crimes, including one alleged Minneapolis domestic abuser who was subsequently charged with murder.

MSNBC Anchor Ali Velshi, filmed in front of the scene of an arson, said of the Minneapolis riots “I want to be clear on how I characterize this. This is mostly a protest. It is not generally speaking unruly but fires have been started, and this crowd is relishing that”

In Kenosha, Wisconsin, when convicted sexual predator Jacob Blake violated an order of protection, and sexually assaulted his ex girlfriend, police were called to the scene to help his victim. Blake attacked officers with a knife, and the officers shot him. Blake survived his injuries, but was paralyzed.

Because Democrats are so enamored of sexual assault, they rioted again, claiming this too, was racist.

Police did not stop the riots. Democrat supported them. CNN famously described them as “Fiery But Mostly Peaceful“.

While law enforcement let this chaos ensue, Kyle Rittenhouse was forced to defend himself against Blake’s fellow sex predator Joseph Rosenbaum, and repeat violent felon Anthony Huber, among others in the crowd. Rittenhouse too, was charged with murder, but ultimately acquitted by a jury.

The riots continued, and the media smeared Rittenhouse as a white supremacist terrorist.

At the Democrat Nation Convention of 2020, where Joe Biden received his Party’s nomination for the presidency, former President Barack Obama described the riots as “Peaceful Protests“.

Did the “Russian bots” just go away?

Clearly the Democrats did not think so. The Democrats decried the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation”, their spies supported this obvious lie, their media lapdogs reported it to be obviously so, and the social media companies, which had been overrun with spies and political partisans, suppressed the story on this fake claim. So why didn’t they also blame the riots on this supposed foreign interference?

Foreign or not, why didn’t the social media companies suppress the riots like they did the laptop story?

Because this is what they wanted. They did not view it as the unfortunate consequence of an unjust society. They viewed it as an unalloyed good.

It is simply not plausible that such a campaign of violence and mayhem happened spontaneously, and avoided law enforcement scrutiny without help from the top. These riots were bloody organized, well funded, immune from prosecution, and supported by the highest echelons of American power.

The Democrats and the spies in their service understand all too well the power they wield, and they sure as hell know how to crush dissent.

But did they actually believe this was going to help them win the election? What on Earth could drive someone to believe that violent crime, looting, and arson, in support of counterfeiters, drug dealers, and sexual predators, was popular politically? Did they simply have that much confidence in their control over information, that they actually believed the population would not know what was happening or who was responsible?

This, I highly doubt.

One recalls a quote from a Russian who was anything but a bot. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn once said,

We know that they are lying, they know that they are lying, they even know that we know they are lying, we also know that they know we know they are lying too, they of course know that we certainly know they know we know they are lying too as well, but they are still lying. In our country, the lie has become not just moral category, but the pillar industry of this country.

They do not expect you to believe the lie. Only to acquiesce to it. And as long as enough of the population will do this, they can do as they please.

If the Democrats believed that Donald Trump was truly a corrupt power hungry dictator who would do anything to stay in power, they would certainly not leave to chance the integrity of our elections. But since they knew that anyone who was willing to cheat in the election would be on their side, they went about dismantling every security feature ever imagined, in the holy names of COVID and racism.

Molly Hemingway’s book “Rigged: How the Democrats, Big Tech, and the Media Seized Our Elections” really illustrated this perfectly without getting into all the crackpot stuff or venturing down any rabbit holes. Democrat lawyers sued over various election integrity measures claiming their were either racist or a COVID hazard, and in no shortage of cases, their collaborators in the various Secretaries of State offices, settled the lawsuits with consent decrees instead of fighting the absurd allegations. This had the effect of bypassing the legislatures, which is transparently unconstitutional.

And sure enough, they managed to put a vegetable in the White House, and obtain the thinnest of congressional majorities, by promising the public nothing but violence and deception.

In the wake of this, surely you all recall the cartoonish press conference with Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell, in which they allege the most outrageous of plots. Hacked voting machines, foreign servers, China, Venezuela. One is almost tempted to think somebody sabotaged Rudy’s hair coloring.

Say what you will about Powell and Giuliani, they didn’t get to where they were by being stupid. They were not incapable of thinking through the consequences of making up this story out of thin air. Yet the evidence they claimed to possess was not forthcoming. As Powell “released the Kraken” and Rudy visited legislative committees around the country, these most outrageous claims faded from view, and they were reduced to discussing statistical anomalies and matters of law.

What possessed them to tell these wild stories while the world watched?

One can only speculate, but it seems clear to me that somebody told them these things had actually happened, and for whatever reason, they believed it.

But what sort of person would it have to be, for you to believe they knew about hacked voting machines and foreign servers and an international coalition of spy agencies being involved?

Obviously, they were talking to foreign spies. A spy is the only source of information from which you could take such claims seriously, and if the spies were American, they would have just said “the intelligence community” told them, and call the guy a whistleblower. The fact that they preferred to be mocked into oblivion and jeopardize their law licenses, tells you that it would have harmed them more to name their sources. If they acknowledged collaborating with foreign intelligence agencies, then the Democrats, who were about to control all levers of political power in Washington, would have used that confession to pursue them as national security threats.

And how would Rudy Giuliani have come to make connections with foreign spies? I’m sure the Democrats would scream “RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA!” which tells you right away that this isn’t the case. If the Democrats say it, it’s almost certainly a lie.

But Rudy Giuliani’s activities in Ukraine featured prominently in the first annual impeachment of Donald J. Trump, and something tells me the friends he was making over there turned out to be less than loyal. The SBU fed him a line, and he bit, and the circus that ensued served to distract from whatever really happened to fraudulently elect our first brain dead President.

The people of this country didn’t fall for it. They were, in fact, outraged, and a number of them were willing to put their bodies and freedom on the line to stop it from happening. That collective will manifested itself in the events of January sixth, and spies were by no means taking a hands off approach to that event.

Well, perhaps I’ve chosen my words poorly. On the surface, it appears that this is precisely what they did.

Per a recent report in the New York Times,

Steven A. Sund, who was the Capitol Police chief during the 2021 riot, writes in his book, “Courage Under Fire,” that intelligence in the possession of the F.B.I., the Homeland Security Department and the Defense Department should have had those agencies “seeing red,” but they instead failed to warn the Capitol Police.

But, even taking this report for face value, inaction is itself a form of action. Recall that the whole entire point of counterterrorism is to intervene before events occur, and that the FBI is in the habit of entrapping Right wing dissidents using precisely this excuse. They surely didn’t stop doing this under the Trump administration, otherwise I never would have seen the inside of the Communications Management Unit. The Oathkeepers and Proud Boys would not have had to commit a crime for the FBI to take them off the street. If the FBI wanted to stop them, the FBI would have created a crime.

Which, more than likely, is exactly what they did on January 6th. The reason these people were not taken off the streets before the riot, is because the riot was the stratagem the FBI was using to take them off the streets.

And they really weren’t all that hands off, after all.

The Oathkeepers and Proud Boys were infiltrated with no fewer than 8 FBI Confidential Human Sources (CHS), including the Vice President of the Oathkeepers, Greg McWhirter.

During the trial of Stuart Rhodes for seditious conspiracy, McWhirter’s name was leaked to the New York Times, and prosecutors asked the Court to question Defense Counsel whether they had been responsible for the leak. This, I’d bet almost anything, is a case of Democrats accusing you of what they themselves are doing. McWhirter had been terrified of being identified in public as an informant, and this anxiety damn near killed him.

Prosecutors rested their case in the trial without calling McWhirter as a witness, and Defense Counsel, seeing this absence as conspicuous, called him themselves. McWhirter boarded a plane to come testify, but had to be removed when he suffered a heart attack, rendering himself unavailable.

Rhodes was subsequently convicted of seditious conspiracy, and awaits sentencing at the time of this writing. He faces up to 20 years in prison on that count alone.

You could be next.

There’s no upper limit on how long I could draw something like this out. I need to stop somewhere, and this is where I will conclude. We’re nearly 17,000 words into what used to be an unscripted production, and the longer I write the more I think I need to write. The more I search for source material, the more threads I find to keep pulling. I’ve tried to stick primarily to what was publicly accepted as true, and kept my speculations to a minimum. but the nature of espionage is secrecy, which means that for all the violence and deceit here discussed, what we’ve identified is only their failures. Their successes are still unknown to us, and that should be more troubling than anything.

In any political movement that challenges the status quo, one must have a healthy skepticism of the authorities. The people in power have an interest in protecting their position, and those who have been dug in for a substantial period of time come to think they have property rights in State power. They will thus wield that power against those who seek to take it away from them. But my assessment here is that it is not cops, or even federal law enforcement that we need to be concerned about, except to the extent that they are put to use by nefarious actors, though that happens all the time, sadly. We are the good guys in this struggle, and with some unfortunate exceptions, our guys tend to obey the law.

The threat to us, indeed the reason we are not in power today, the reason I and other law abiding people have accepted peril at the hands of the legal system as a fact of life, has nothing to do with law enforcement or any other legitimate domestic power of the State. We are imperiled not by cops, but by spies, foreign and domestic.

And beyond the dirty tricks that they have deigned to use against us, they have turned their dark arts against the general population. Globalism plus espionage amounts to a transnational criminal enterprise, that refuses to leave the outcome of elections to chance.

In the case of foreign countries, you can hardly blame them for this. In the current world order, Americans alone are granted the privilege of electing the world government. The supposed “rules based international order” is cover for a unipolar American hegemony that dictates terms to the rest of the planet with a combination of bribes and threats. Even a two year old can intuitively grasp the unfairness of that. If the future of a Nation is to be determined by the outcome of an election in another country, the government of that affected Nation would be negligent not to utilize every tool and weapon at its disposal to see that election go its way, or to outright steal it.

So we should not be surprised to see influence operations by foreign intelligence agencies in the United States. In fact, when we don’t see them, it ought to raise our suspicions, because it can only mean they are hidden from view.

If our intelligence agencies had not violated our trust, we might even go so far as to pardon their own influence operations designed to counter those of foreign countries, but what we have seen here is that they are not countering foreign espionage. They are collaborating with it.

We have been told that Russia interfered in our elections to see Donald Trump come to power. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that this is true.

Given what we know about how Hillary Clinton would have governed, given what we know about how Joe Biden has governed, we can only conclude that Russia would prefer to avoid war with the United States, and uses its influence operations to avoid that outcome.

In contrast, we know that Ukraine actively tried to help Hillary Clinton. We know that the Bidens were and are involved in all manner of corruption in Ukraine, and that, as a consequence of those corrupt dealings, Joe Biden is risking war with Russia at the time of this writing, for his own personal land of milk and honey.

We know that this accrues benefits to China, above all, whose government has made our political elites wealthy beyond imagination, and whose social media platforms have been weaponized to collect and to disseminate information against the interests of the United States.

And if I wanted to turn this into a lengthier research project, an audiobook as opposed to a podcast, I could spend much more time talking about Israel’s Mossad, their sayanim in the media, the ADL, the SPLC, AIPAC, George Soros, and any number of banking executives and central bank officials.

Leftism weakens a country. Chaos is its means and its ends, and every lever of power in this country is being wrenched Leftward in such a fashion that it is miraculous any of us still have the electricity to produce or consume this communication. That state of affairs is not merely due to a misguided population. It is due, in no small part, to intense manipulation by foreign governments, with the consent and collaboration, of our own.


I won’t keep you waiting so long for the next episode. Extenuating circumstances made this take longer than anticipated. I hope you think it’s worth it.

Instead of the old format’s open phones, I’m looking to answer listener voicemails on the air or possibly record calls with listeners offline and then play them on the show. Send me an email, or leave me a voicemail at (202) 599-7386 , and I’ll try to work you in, if you give me good radio. Especially if you’re a donor.




If you like what you’ve heard, please pay me at https://ChristopherCantwell.net/donate

Radical Agenda S06E000 – Reintroduction

This is one of those stories that begin with the protagonist getting out of prison. You’re tuning into Stage Six. We’ve been at this for almost a decade, but I’m just getting started. The Radical Agenda, on the other hand, well, let’s call Stage Six the end of the beginning.

The Radical Agenda was a live, uncensored, and mostly unscripted entertainment program. It began in 2014, after being rebranded from its predecessor, which was called “Some Garbage Podcast”. The Radical Agenda aired live three days a week at the time it went off the air in January of 2020, which was when its host and producer, Christopher Cantwell (yours truly), was dragged out of his apartment by the FBI.

More on that later, but for now, I’m going to break this episode up into two parts. I first want to primarily address those of you who have been listening for awhile, and then we’ll take a stroll down memory lane to reminisce and tell newcomers how we got to this point. After almost three years in federal prison, I am back. While I intend to make Stage Six the conclusion of the Radical Agenda, I have some exciting and ambitious projects I am eager to begin (or continue) working on, once I conclude the Radical Agenda, and we’re going to talk about that a lot, real soon.

This has to happen for a number of reasons, none of which I am particularly enthusiastic about.

The format of the Radical Agenda is that it is an open phones call in talk show. Stage Six cannot be that, because toward the end of Stage Five of the show, malicious actors, some of them State sponsored, made this completely impossible by subverting every call screening method I attempted to institute, and though they committed many crimes in the process, I was denied the protection of law by the United States government. This, as we’ll discuss in greater detail later, is the preferred method of persecuting political dissidents in the United States today. The authorities refuse to assist them when they are victimized by criminals, and then the dissident is held legally responsible for the predictable outcome of that lawlessness. This is sometimes referred to as “anarcho-tyranny”, but I think this wording fails to capture the full gravity of the problem. This is anything but anarchistic. It is State sponsored criminality.

I do not want to ruin the artistic integrity of this project. It is better that I end the show than try to pretend that something completely different is the Radical Agenda. I am producing Stage Six in an altered form because I want to conclude it on my own terms, rather than just abruptly leaving off when the FBI dragged me away.

Another reason I will touch on briefly is that the Radical Agenda brand has been completely blacklisted from the financial system, social media, and many vendors, service providers, and advertisement markets. The show never would have become what it had at its peak if I was not able to make a living by producing it. I worked very hard to produce this show, and I suffered a great deal in pursuit of excellence. Because it was a quality production, I put my faith, foolishly, in market forces to correct the wrongs being done to us. That faith was clearly misplaced.

Before my arrest, I managed to obtain services for other ventures of mine. Most notably the Outlaw Conservative podcast, Edgy Goodies, and Penned and Pronounced voice services. Christopher Cantwell is not completely incapable of doing business, but the Radical Agenda is. Christopher Cantwell thus has a future, and the Radical Agenda, sadly, does not.

Additionally, my ideas have changed in the last three years, and during the course of this stage of the show, we’ll discuss this in greater detail. I have done a great deal of reading, listening, and thinking. I’ve met some very interesting people. I have come to conclude that the Radical Agenda “jumped the shark”, if you’ll pardon the expression, at some point. The Radical Agenda blurred the lines between reality and fiction to the point that it became impossible for most people to determine what was hyperbole, rhetoric, humor, or advocacy. I myself became uncertain of this at times, and while I and others found this entertaining and intellectually stimulating, it did not advance my sincere political aims, which I take seriously enough to risk my life and liberty over.

I remain convinced that the United States is on the brink of catastrophe, that race and ethnicity play a central role in this, and that under the geopolitical world order of today, such a catastrophe cannot manifest itself strictly within the political boundaries of the United States. I daily endure a well educated and rational fear of death, destruction and misery, on a global scale, that makes Mao’s China look like Galt’s Gulch, and through that lens, a few years in prison appears to be the least of my problems.

Ask me what I would do to prevent this outcome, and my one word answer is “ANYTHING”. There is NOTHING that I will not do.

This show began with the idea that moderation was our biggest political problem in America. I figured people were too scared to take bold stances on the issues of our time, and that it took courage to push the limits of politics. While there is truth in this, it is not axiomatic total truth. Extremism verses moderation is just one dimension of politics and philosophy.

What I have learned from Joe Biden, is that a man can prove himself weak and timid and stupid by automatically assenting to the most extreme political ideas, as easily as he can by being a political weather vane, and groveling to consensus. Restraint, and discipline, are no less virtues than courage, and a man who cannot control himself, a man who has no concern whatsoever for the will and opinions of his countrymen, has no place in politics. In any honest political order, he is pushed to the fringes, and barred from participation, and rightly so. This is not to say extremists have no influence on the political order, as we’re seeing with the absolute lunacy of the Democrat Party, but if you think Joe Biden got more votes than any president in history, you’re an idiot, and of whatever votes he did really earn, he earned them by lying about how he would govern. Anybody with eyes and ears knows that the Democrat Party is being rejected by the people of this country. Nobody wants their kids to be propagandized with transgenderism and anti-White hate, and the next honest election we have, should we ever be so fortunate, will see them reduced to a permanent political minority.

I care too much about our people and our goals to let that continue happening to us. I mean to make our presence felt in this world, and that will not be possible if we endlessly indulge in fantasy violence and shock humor.  Our goal is to WIN, and if these crooks want to stop me, they will have to send an assassin next time.

Now, as regular listeners know all too well, I was prominently featured in a high profile civil trial in Virginia last year. I’m going to do a much longer segment on this in the future, but I have to touch on it briefly to further contextualize my motives for this change in tone. Those of you who listened to, or followed the alternative media coverage of, the Charlottesville Unite the Right case, know that I did something very important down there, but there seems to be a lot of confusion still about the verdict in that matter.

My codefendants put on a mostly negative case, which is to say, they simply called attention to the fact that there was no evidence of the central allegation of a racially motivated violent conspiracy. I, on the other hand, representing myself pro se, tried to prove that the Left was actually responsible for the violence, and I made fools of these people down there.

Now, if you tuned into CNN, or for that matter, read the Wall Street Journal, the headline was about some $25 million verdict holding us liable for the Plaintiffs’ damages. Like so much of what you see and hear these days, that’s not really what happened. The case had six counts. The first two counts were federal civil rights conspiracy claims, alleging a racially motivated violent conspiracy. The second count was Virginia Civil conspiracy, under which we could have been found liable for violating half a dozen Virginia state statutes, including the so called “hate crimes” law, which can hold someone liable for “racially motivated violence, vandalism, or harassment”. The fourth count had no conspiracy element, and held that a smaller number of defendants had themselves violated this “violence, vandalism, or harassment” statute, The 5th and 6th counts only applied to James Fields, and on account of his guilty plea in his federal criminal case, which he took to avoid the death penalty, there wasn’t much we could do for James.

The jury deadlocked on the first two counts, which tells you that they did not find us liable for a racially motivated violent conspiracy. The jury did find us liable on the 3rd and 4th counts, which tells you that they found us liable for something other than a racially motivated violent conspiracy, to the tune of millions of dollars, though most of the damages were actually held against Mr. Fields on counts 5 and 6, which the media conveniently leaves out of their narrative.

But if you’ve got a mind for legal stuff, you may already see the problem here. We weren’t sued for harassment, we were sued for a racially motivated violent conspiracy, and since the jury didn’t find us liable on counts 1 and 2, we were found liable for something we weren’t actually sued for. And, tellingly, during deliberations, the jury asked the Court a question: “Are words a form of violence under the 1st Amendment?”

Well, no, that’s obviously utter nonsense, even if it is an all too popular belief these days. You don’t get to show up at the Nazi party seeking confrontation, and then sue them when somebody calls you a name. That’s not how harassment works, and if they had sued us for harassment, the case would have been dismissed before trial. The Judge was pretty specific about this when he denied our motion to dismiss.

So I put in a post trial motion making this argument. Without counts 1 and 2, they don’t have the racially motivated violent conspiracy, and they can’t collect hate speech reparations as a consolation prize. I argue that the court should set the verdict aside, and either dismiss the case or order a new trial. I also argue that since my litigation was obstructed by the federal government, I didn’t get a fair trial, and in any case I needed more time to finish my motion because the government was preventing me from accessing documents.

A verdict is not a judgement. They are two very different things. Courts tend to issue judgements in line with what a jury finds, but that’s not always the case. Courts also tend to issue those judgements pretty soon after the verdict, and the magistrate Judge denied my motion for more time. I appealed his decision to the District Court Judge, and he has not ruled on that or on the post trial motions. It’s been over a year, and that is extremely unusual. It indicates that the Judge may agree with my point. Even if he doesn’t, these are solid grounds for appeal.

That means there is still a chance for us to salvage the narrative, and the truth, about what happened in Charlottesville Virginia on August 11th and 12th of 2017, and that is a prize I will not throw away for some cheap thrills and laughs. I want to win this case, and then I want to put together a presentation based on that trial which we can show to the uninitiated, and I can’t do that if we’re cracking jokes about gas chambers and fedposting like there’s still a 1st amendment in this country. That’s just not going to work. It’s either or, and I am quite willing, to quote Van Jones, to “forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends”.

Now, for those of you who are new to the program, allow me to reintroduce myself.

This show began as a doctrinaire libertarian production. In 2009, I had been given cause to consider the rapidly diminishing freedom we Americans once enjoyed, as a corollary growth in the size and scope of the United States Federal Government spiraled out of control. I sought answers to constitutional questions, and stumbled upon a series of YouTube videos by 2004 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik.

The series was called “Introduction to the Constitution”, and made what I still consider to be a compelling, perhaps irrefutable case that the government of the United States long ago forfeited any claim of constitutionality. So far outside the bounds of that framework has its apparatus strayed, that the vast majority of the federal government lacks any authority in the constitution. Lacking that authority, and generally lacking popular support, it resorts entirely to coercion and deception to accomplish its goals, and visits unceasing misery on its population.

Today, to me, and to listeners of the Radical Agenda, this is uncontroversial. America now operates in a post constitutional order. Obviously.

But for me, at the time, this was terrifying. I was filled with dread at the thought of my country hurtling toward some terrible cataclysm, on the order of the millions of deaths in Mao’s China or the Soviet Union or Hitler’s Germany.

I tried to discuss this with the people around me, and their responses were equal parts varied and horrifying. They either didn’t know, or didn’t care. Some simply refused to believe what I was saying, others said I was probably right but that it wasn’t worth getting worked up about. Most just didn’t want to talk about “politics”.

This radicalized me. I have, from this point on, been driven as if by religious fanaticism, although I cannot in good faith claim to believe in a deity, much less subscribe to any particular religious doctrine.

I started attending Tea Party rallies. I ran for the US House of Representatives as a Libertarian Party candidate. I moved from New York to New Hampshire to join the Free State Project. I volunteered for the Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign. I propagandized on social media and started a YouTube channel.

Once I started to earn a little bit of money from all this, I decided to make it my profession.

I traveled the country, recording and inserting myself into various events. I collaborated on projects with other media personalities. I started going to open mic nights at bars and doing standup comedy. I was invited to political events as a featured speaker.

I began “Some Garbage Podcast” with its self deprecating title because I did not take it very seriously. I had long enjoyed talk radio, beginning with Howard Stern, and later upgrading to Opie & Anthony, for which I purchased my first SiriusXM subscription. On the SiriusXM Patriot Channel, I discovered conservative talk, and became a regular fan of the Mark Levin show. But I didn’t think a long form talk radio show was a viable format for me.

My experience with YouTube had been that short videos got the most views, and my dwindling faith in my fellow man had me convinced that he could best be reached by means which did not challenge his attention span.

So I was rather shocked when Some Garbage Podcast quickly earned over a thousand regular viewers on YouTube. At the time, I wasn’t even producing it as a “podcast” technically. It was just a YouTube show.

After I saw it catching on, I decided to put the effort in. I spent more money on better audio equipment, I set up the RSS feeds and published it to iTunes and all the other major syndication platforms.  I set up a Patreon account, and told listeners that if I met a particular fundraising goal, I would start doing the show three days a week. This goal was met instantly, and so began our Monday, Wednesday, and Friday showtimes.

Throughout all this, I didn’t have much of anything to say about the subject of race relations. Like anybody, I noticed patterns, but I considered it impolite bordering on immoral to say anything about them. Most of the women I had dated over the course of my life were not White. My childhood best friend was Jewish. I knew scumbag White men, and upstanding black men. I knew then as I know today, that skin color is not a reliable means of judging individuals.

But I also considered it uncontroversial that black people were disproportionately represented in prison populations. I thought no more of it than their prominence in professional sports, and I didn’t hold it against Asian people when I observed them disproportionately represented in cognitively demanding positions. A mere demographic disparity is not evidence of a racist criminal justice system, any more than it is evidence of a racist sports draft or college admissions. I had no doubt then and I have no doubt today that America’s legal system is a dangerous purveyor of violence and injustice, but prejudice against blacks is not one of those many countless and egregious injustices.

So, I considered it offensive when I was accused of being a racist for saying so out loud. I had made a name for myself as a “police accountability activist” by video recording police and generally trashing law enforcement online, but I took issue with other activists who tried to make it about race. This was transparently dishonest and I saw the people picking this scab as nefarious actors who were trying to make matters worse, not better.

Within the libertarian movement, a radical leftward push was being engineered by a handful of loud voices. Among the top names on this list would be Jeffrey Tucker, Antonio Buehler, and Cathy Reisenwitz. Accusing people of racism, sexism, and homophobia was merely a tactic being deployed, one which I had come to recognize as a principle weapon of the Democrat Party.

When I stood up to them, the results were predictable. I was smeared as a racist, and at the time I found this deeply offensive.

I decided I should make some effort to understand what it was that racists believed, if only to be able to distance myself from it. Before long I stumbled across a video by Walter E. Williams titled “How Much Can Discrimination Explain?

Mr. Williams was terribly unlikely to be accused of being a White Supremacist. He did confess to engaging in a bit of discrimination, such as when he decided that, as a black man, he wanted to marry a black woman, but this could hardly be considered an invidious discriminatory animus. And although he did rule out the entirety of the White race in his search for a wife, he was generous and gracious enough to grant White folks a full pardon for our real and imagined transgressions, as well as those of our forbears. He even offered a certificate of this pardon, available as a PDF for download, which I proudly printed and framed and for a number of months hung behind my seat on the set of the Radical Agenda.

Something Mr. Williams said in that video really stuck with me. He explained that, in the name of race relations, Democrats had set about instituting all of these economic programs that were proving ineffective at best, and were arguably making matters worse for black people. He went on to say that, to fix these problems “it’s going to require that White people, show some backbone and courage, and not fear being called a racist.”

This made perfect sense to me. It seemed so terribly obvious that I was sort of ashamed that I hadn’t thought of it myself. And, since I generally had little regard for the opinions of others, I thought myself uniquely well suited to the task.

I had no expectation of it working, but I decided to fire off an email to Mr. Williams to invite him to be a guest on Some Garbage Podcast. I didn’t tell him the name of the show at the time, however, because I considered him a fairly classy guy and was reasonably certain he would decline an invitation to be on my “garbage” show.

I was shocked when he accepted, and I titled the episode “Pardon My Racism”.

I was so embarrassed to introduce this high profile guest onto “Some Garbage Podcast” that I decided after this episode that I would rebrand. But to what?

I had not long before stumbled upon an article by Murray Rothbard titled “Do You Hate The State?

It read, in relevant part;

Perhaps the word that best defines our distinction is “radical.” Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and antistatism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul.

That last line quoted, most of all, captured me. Something that “integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul”. This is what I wanted, above all, to produce. Something emotionally charged, and at the same time intellectually stimulating.

Thus was born the “Radical Agenda”. I could hardly believe the domain name was available.

I titled Radical Agenda EP001 “Patriots’ Day” in honor of that “Shot heard round the world”, making note of the day on which the episode had aired.

It didn’t take long before I was tested in my resolve to follow the advice of Mr. Williams to “not fear being called a racist”. Riots erupted in Baltimore over the death of a black criminal named Freddy Gray, right around the same time that Bruce Jenner decided to popularize transgenderism. Accordingly, I titled EP004 “Race Riots and Genital Mutilation”.

At the time, I wasn’t even all that worried about the riots so much as the racial theme fueling them. If the people of Baltimore found their government so intolerable that they would resort to force, this seemed reasonable enough to me, given the conditions of Baltimore. But it hardly seemed prudent to destroy private property over some criminal just because he happened to be black. That the local authorities saw fit to let this happen troubled me, but I did not fully grasp the weight of the matter yet.

More worrisome to me was the transgender craze that at that time had only begun. I am sure I was among a tiny minority of people who, at that time, could foresee what a total menace this was going to become in a few short years. I considered the popular support for Jenner’s delusion to be a threat to the survival of the human race. People thought I was blowing it out of proportion, but as it is now being thrust upon children in grade school and Disney cartoons, I believe time has already vindicated my apprehension.

For the sake of time, we are compelled to skip ahead quite a bit. There were many twists and turns on the road to my realizing that immigration was no mere market phenomenon. I saw millions of non-Europeans pouring into Europe. I came to realize that political attitudes were in part a genetically heritable trait, along with the cognitive capacity requisite of advanced civilizations. This was for me another watershed moment like when I first recognized the post constitutional order. Western civilization, and all that I valued about it, was about to be destroyed, and the only reason people would not act to stop this, was because they feared being called racists.

But I suffered no such hindrance.

We fast forward again, only slightly. To the 2016 Presidential Campaign. This caused me to realize that immigration into the United States was a plot by the Democrat Party to form a permanent majority in Washington, DC. Those sick, racist Democrats thought that by flooding the country with people they saw as cognitively inferior, they could replace the voters they had so badly abused over the decades, and dupe the remaining public into supporting their catastrophic policies. The primary victory of Donald J. Trump was at first celebrated by Democrats who sought this in the hopes of beating him in the general election. I thought they might be right, and became convinced that I was soon to die in a war against the Clinton administration. My most unexpected salvation from this horrible fate, came when Donald Trump was announced the victor.

I did not think this was possible. I had become convinced of a certain cycle of events, which I thought was a historical inevitability. It has been formulated several ways….

One was;

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.

Another phrasing went like this;

Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.

I was firmly convinced that a “You are here” sign could be placed right before the catastrophe in either of these phrasings. I did not think a peaceful democratic solution to these problems was possible.

Nor did I have any time to adjust to this possibility. Events just unfolded too rapidly to stop and think about it.

It was just after Trump’s victory that Tucker Carlson began his nightly show on Fox News. I had come to appreciate Carlson’s commentary well before this, so when it was announced that he was to start his own show, I titled the subsequent episode of the Radical Agenda “Tucked”, and the written show description was about my enthusiasm for this new production.

The gravity of this moment can hardly be overstated, because, at the very moment I was about to talk about this very important event, a listener suggested that I substitute, at the last minute, that theme for a guest who called himself “weev”.

Andrew Alan Escher Auernheimer, best known by his pseudonym weev, is a Jewish computer hacker who rebranded himself as a Nazi after he got out of prison for hacking AT&T. He fled the country, at some point ending up in Ukraine, and managed to insert himself in the central nervous system of the Alt Right movement in the United States.

I had no idea who this guy was before I had him on my show, and I was totally unprepared when he started praising Charleston, SC church shooter Dylann Roof, and advocating the extermination of most of the world’s population on my show. Being a self styled “Shock Jock”, I tried to hide my discomfort, but those who have seen the video will note that I failed at this goal.

I call attention to the gravity of this moment whenever I tell this story because it was a demarcation in time at which, if I were gifted a nuclear Delorean and able to traverse time correcting historical errors, this would be one of those moments I would correct.

I knew before Tucker’s first episode that he was going to change the politics of the United States in a positive way. I did not know how positive he would change it until years had gone by, but I knew Tucker Carlson was at least as important as Donald Trump before Episode 1 aired on November 14th 2016.

Weev, in contrast, spelled doom. In his telling, there were not enough White women of child bearing age to save the White race from extinction, without a culling of the non-White population. Political inclinations being in part genetically heritable, this would spell the certain doom of Western civilization absent drastic action. This particular angle was somewhat new to me, but it rhymed with my previous conception of inevitable cataclysm. I found it difficult to refute, saw nobody else making any effort to refute it, and incorporated this fear, though not his proposed solution, into my worldview.

Tucker Carlson would go on to become the most popular show in cable news, and at some times, the most popular show on cable. His impact on the Republican Party and American political discourse can hardly be overstated. Weev was (much later) exposed as a fraud and a liar and all but disappeared from the Internet.

But not before dragging me and the Radical Agenda off course.

After speaking with weev, I was contacted by Andrew Anglin of the Daily Stormer. Anglin showered upon me what was in hindsight conspicuously high praise. He had been organizing an armed march on Whitefish, Montana, to protest the behavior of a Jewish woman who had tried to extort Richard Spencer’s mother. Anglin explained that he was unable to attend his own event, and he asked me to be the leader of it.

I wisely declined, and the event did not take place. But Anglin was nonetheless sued by his target, and after crowdfunding a six figure defense fund, he defaulted on the lawsuit.

Today I am convinced that Anglin attempted to lure me into a trap, wherein I would either have been killed, seriously injured, or find myself in some sort of legal quagmire. This would not be the last time such a trap was set for me.

Just after that event was scheduled to occur, Donald Trump was inaugurated the 45th President of the United States. Raving Leftist criminals tore DC apart, rioting, burning and assaulting with seeming impunity. Richard Spencer was sucker punched by a still anonymous goon. Those charged in the mayhem eventually had their charges dropped.

Riots and assaults became a regular feature of American life long before George Floyd met his overdue demise beneath Derek Chauvin’s knee. This was the new normal for activists of the Right and supporters of Donald Trump as far back as 2016. But, as long as we were the ones being targeted, the public at large did not much seem to care.

By necessity we fast forward to August of 2017, the next trap laid for me. This time, I fell for it.

The Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, was portrayed in the media as a violent criminal conspiracy cooked up by White supremacist terrorists, whose only motive for living is to inflict pain on their moral betters. Like so much of what you see on TV, there was only the slightest fragment of truth in this.

As stated in a subsequent civil lawsuit, the violence that ensued in Charlottesville on August 11th and 12th of 2017 was no accident. It was the result of a plan concocted by racist criminals, but they could hardly be described as White supremacists.

On the contrary, the violence that day was driven by a fanatical invidious discriminatory animus against the White folks who dared to take a stand against the increasing bellicosity of the political Left.

It was nothing new. They had done this dozens of times before, and for that reason, that the pro-White demonstrators came prepared to defend themselves against the threats which the police and federal law enforcement were well aware of. Those preparations proved prudent, as the Antifa and BLM criminals acted according to habit, and attacked the permitted demonstration.

Your humble correspondent was pepper sprayed twice in as many days, deployed pepper spray in self defense, and was subsequently framed for crimes by Emily Gorcenski and Kristopher Goad.

I heard about a warrant for my arrest through a social media rumor. Uncertain of its veracity, I called the Charlottesville Police Department, but they couldn’t tell me if there was a warrant or not. So, I decided to livestream a video from my hotel room.

Traumatized by the events of the last two days, I was brought to tears. During this, I stated that we had done everything in our power to keep the event peaceful,  and I said “I’m not a fucking Nazi!”

For this, it should surprise nobody, that the lying vulture Left wing media branded me “The Crying Nazi”, and said that I was crying in fear of arrest, both of which were complete falsehoods.

I turned myself in not long after I confirmed the warrant and hired an attorney. I was held without bail for 107 days, during which I read many books, including Mein Kampf, The Bell Curve, A People that Shall Dwell Alone, Separation and its Discontents, and Culture of Critique. I was no longer offended to be called a racist. I considered it a positive good.

The case against me quickly fell apart. Video of the alleged incident proved that Goad and Gorcenski lied under oath. Not that they had to worry about being prosecuted for their crimes, Charlottesville coddles Leftist criminals. At my preliminary hearing, two of the three charges against me were dropped, with the Judge remarking in his decision that there was no evidence I had done anything to Goad or Gorcenski.

I sued Goad and Gorcenski for, among other things, malicious prosecution. But when I accepted a misdemeanor “time served” plea agreement on the remaining criminal charge to avoid trial, we settled the suit with a mutual release of all claims.

Social media and financial system censorship was nothing new, even before August of 2017. Those of us who dared to challenge the prevailing political narratives had long been aware of Facebook and Twitter intervening to see us suppressed, with varying degrees of brazenness to their interventions. Sometimes they would simply throttle or “shadow ban” other times they would temporarily prevent people from posting, and still other times they would permanently ban people from their platforms.

But the events of August of 2017 saw the gloves come off and the monsters who rule us from behind the scenes bore their fangs for all to see. Even the ACLU abandoned any pretense of standing for freedom of speech. We were not only banned permanently from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, but from PayPal, Stripe, Square, First Data, and countless other payment providers, reportedly on orders from MasterCard and Discover.

Almost nobody cared. For all the Left’s incessant whining about “systemic racism”, and America’s inherent wickedness, nearly all Americans were relatively content to let these reputed racists be abused in any way imaginable.

Perhaps the greatest of these abuses was pursued in civil court. While all of this was going on, an ethnocentric Jewish lesbian Democrat lawyer named Roberta Kaplan cooked up a bizarre conspiracy theory, and went about chasing ambulances. She sued the event organizers under state and federal laws claiming a racially motivated violent conspiracy on their part had caused the mayhem of that weekend. More on this later.

The truth would become available in due course to those who sought it. But they were few indeed, and the Leftist criminals who seek the destruction of this civilization were not disappointed in counting on that to be the case.

And so, bankrupted, silenced, wounded, and imprisoned, the Alt Right faded from view.

At which point, the Left visited all these same punishments, and then some, on regular people who wanted nothing more than to protect their children from State sanctioned sick sexual experiments and racially motivated anti-White harassment, theft, and assault.

All this, before COVID.

There is a reason the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution promises “equal protection” of the law. When most people conceive of an “outlaw” they think of a criminal, but there is a different definition of this term. One who does not enjoy the protection of the law.

This is precisely what happened to the Alt Right, and America would do well to correct this injustice. A famous quote by H.L. Mencken reads “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

The Unite the Right rally was a permitted demonstration, attacked by Leftist criminals who had done the same thing over and over again before that day and continued to do it over and over again after that day. The attendees of the rally were denied the protection of our laws due to their political views, and blamed for the predictable outcome of that lawlessness. That it was not stopped when it was done to us, explains why it was later done to regular people. The people who did it were rewarded with success, and you can hardly blame them for repeating a successful strategy.

But our persecution did not end there.

I returned to New Hampshire in July of 2018 after settling my criminal case. Three months later, Robert Bowers walked into the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, and opened fire on the congregants.

In my audience, there was a small group of listeners who would speak positively of Dylann Roof. Their shocking sense of humor was off putting to many, but I considered the temporal distance sufficient to consider it just that, humor. When the synagogue shooting happened in October of 2018, these listeners tried to use my platform to get others to follow suit, and I banned them from my platforms for doing so.

Immediately after this, the FBI launched a “Full Field Investigation” into me.

The Dylann Roof fans would not take no for an answer. They called me a sellout and determined to destroy my personal life and what little was left of my business. The harassed me relentlessly, threatened my life, and when they defaced my website in February of 2019, I reported them to the FBI. The FBI did nothing.

Three months later, in May of 2019, I reported yet another death threat to my local police department, and the detective who was handling this now routine problem invited me to come speak to him at the station, noting that the volume of threats I was receiving seemed to exceed the usual noise level.  While I was there, I told him what I knew about the groups that had targeted me. Outside, the FBI’s Joint Terror Task Force was taking pictures of my car.

The following month, in June of 2019, one of the criminals who had been harassing me made the mistake of using a recognizable account to do so. He leaked the resulting private text message onto the Internet, in which I was incautious with my words.

The FBI tracked this man down. They threatened to expose his online activity to the public, and told him that he could avoid this consequence if he testified that I had threatened his family. He agreed, and he was financially compensated for doing so.

In January of 2020, I was federally indicted for extortionate interstate communications. A federal magistrate issued an exceedingly broad search warrant which was to be executed in the daylight hours.

Ignoring the Judge’s order, the FBI broke my door down at approximately 3:00am, and went over my apartment with a fine tooth comb, looking for anything as small as a micro SD card, supposedly to find evidence of this conversation I never denied having. They took 17 perfectly legal firearms out of the apartment, and all of my electronics.

This is where we left off at the end of Radical Agenda Stage 5.

At the time of my arrest, I had been covering the first annual impeachment of Donald J. Trump.

What became obvious to me during the course of that circus, was that the Democrats had pulled on of the greatest scams in American political history.

The impeachment was supposedly for trying to extort Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelensky into announcing a fake investigation into Joe Biden over his son Hunter’s dealings with Burisma. One Ukrainian Jew after another was called to testify before Congress, one even invoked the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It was like an anti-Semitic cartoon.

That was when it dawned on me, that all of this nonsense about “Russian Collusion” was the ultimate example of Democrats accusing you of what they themselves are doing. It wasn’t Republicans colluding with Russia, it was Democrats colluding with Ukraine.

This would come to have profound impacts on American foreign policy, the world economy, and the future of mankind.

All of which will be discussed, as we pick up where we left off, with this Sixth and Final Stage of the Radical Agenda.