Radical Agenda S06E017 – Goeth Before Destruction

Happy Pride Month everybody!

Just kidding, there is nothing happy about this shameful, morbid, sick ritual.

Pride month, a celebration of sexual deviancy, is one of the more prominent symbols of our National decline. There being so many such symptoms, this grants it a rather special place in our history. Nominally, it begins as so many Leftist things do, with a riot.



The Stonewall Inn, a bar in Manhattan’s Greenwich Village was a den of debauchery owned by the mafia, and frequented by homosexuals and transvestites. Back in those good old days, such things were frowned upon by the law, and today we see routinely why that is. The idea that gays just want to live normal lives loving whom they see fit to love was a popular lie, pedaled by Jewish swindlers heavily invested in our downfall, and preying on Gentile notions of civility, it earned them enough power to impose upon us the Satanic madness now pervading throughout our taxpayer funded educational and library systems.

There is so much to learn from this movement about politics, about good government, and about subversion.

To begin, as mentioned, Pride Month started with a riot, and the riot began with the mafia.

The “Stonewall Uprising” as it is now popularly called by those so beaten down as to have abandoned the term riot, was ignited at a bar called the Stonewall Inn. It was owned by an organized crime figure known as “Fat Tony”.

To operate without a liquor license, Fat Tony classified the bar as a private club, and bribed the local police approximately $1200/month, which was big money in 1969.

According to a story from American Experience on PBS;

With little police enforcement of local laws, Fat Tony was able to cut corners on safety and hygiene. Bartenders did not have access to running water behind the bar, so often served drinks in dirty, used glasses; many Gay Rights groups blamed the Stonewall for a 1969 outbreak of hepatitis among its patrons. In violation of city code, Stonewall also lacked a rear exit, leaving the narrow front door as the only escape in the event of a fire or emergency. The alcohol served at the bar (rumored to be stolen or bootlegged) was watered-down and sold to patrons at top-shelf prices.

Stonewall’s owners also reportedly engaged in extortion. Employees singled out wealthy patrons who were not public about their sexuality, and blackmailed them for large sums of money with the threat of being ‘outed.’ This practice eventually became the most profitable aspect of the Mafia’s club management.

Police raids were a routine situation for these criminal enterprises. Such is a common feature of lawbreaking, you might be aware. Despite this, much like Black Lives Matter paints every police shooting as an act of racially motivated genocide, homosexuals considered it an act of official oppression to shut down the mafia extortionists who sold them watered down knockoff booze in unsanitary conditions at ripoff prices.

There’s a lack of clarity as to what the specific cause was for the raid of the evening in question. Time Magazine has published an interview with Martin Duberman, author of a book titled Stonewall, which purports to be the definitive account.

In 1969, police raids at Stonewall were common, says Duberman, who was not there on the night of the raid but was closely involved in the organizing that followed. Officers would throw people against the wall and make sure they were wearing three pieces of clothing that were appropriate to their biological sex, per New York State law at the time. But nobody really knows why the police showed up that specific date, not long after midnight in the wee hours of Saturday morning on June 28; one theory, Duberman says, is that the bar owners failed to pay off the police. “It’s one of those apparent accidents of history,” says Duberman.

It’s also unclear how exactly that particular police raid turned violent, or why that was the night when, rather than being cowed, the patrons responded with resistance.

Some eyewitnesses to whom Duberman has spoken say that “a lesbian actually began the rioting by striking out at a policeman who was mauling her,” he says, but no such woman has ever come forward to say that was her. Some say the incident may have turned violent when a trans person hit a policeman, and some think that one of those people, at least, was Tammy Novak, who fought back when a policeman tried to push her into a police van, according to an account Duberman heard from Sylvia Rivera, a pioneering transgender activist whom the city announced on May 29 will be honored with a monument near the Stonewall Inn.

An interesting theory. Fat Tony was bribing police to let him break the law. When he failed to pay his bribes, the police did their jobs. As is common to Leftists, they responded with violence.

JSTOR Daily points out that homosexual and transgender crime and violence were hardly new political tactics by the time of the Stonewall riot.

But there were gay activists before that early morning of June 28, 1969, previous rebellions of LGBTQ people against police, earlier calls for “gay power,” and earlier riots. What was different about Stonewall was that gay activists around the country were prepared to commemorate it publicly. It was not the first rebellion, but it was the first to be called “the first,” and that act of naming mattered. Those nationally coordinated activist commemorations were evidence of an LGBTQ movement that had rapidly grown in strength during the 1960s, not a movement sparked by a single riot. The story of how this particular night and this particular bar came to signify global gay rebellion is a story of how collective memory works and how social movements organize to commemorate their gains.

The sociologists Elizabeth A. Armstrong and Suzanna M. Crage detail four previous police raids on gay bars in cities across the United States that prompted activist responses—and local gains—but that either faded from local memory, did not inspire commemorations that lasted, or did not motivate activists in other cities.

For example, San Francisco activists mobilized in response to police raids on gay bars in the early 1960s, which came to a head during a raid on a New Year’s Eve ball in 1965 that eventually brought down the police commissioner. This New Year’s Eve raid attracted wide media attention, garnered heterosexual support, and is credited with galvanizing local activists, but it was subsequently forgotten. In 1966, again in San Francisco, LGBTQ people rioted at Compton’s Cafeteria, smashing all the windows of a police car, setting fires, and picketing the restaurant for its collusion with police. The city’s gay establishment did not participate, however, and distanced themselves from the transgender and street youths and their political organization, Vanguard, behind the “violent” protest.

San Francisco was not the only U.S. city with gay rights activists gaining strength. In Los Angeles, the first national gay rights organization, the Mattachine Society, was founded years earlier, in 1951, and spawned chapters in other cities around the country. Bar raids in late-1960s Los Angeles also prompted resistance. The 1967 police raid on the Black Cat bar, for instance, led to a demonstration 400 people strong that garnered evening news coverage. That demonstration played a role in the founding of the leading national LGBTQ magazine, The Advocate. While the Black Cat demonstration garnered support from heterosexual activists for Chicano and Black civil rights, no further coordination occurred, and the event was not commemorated. When police again descended on the L.A. nightclub The Patch, patrons struck back immediately, marching to city hall to lay flowers and singing civil rights anthem “We Shall Overcome.” But its anniversary passed without remembrance. Los Angeles activists did organize a one-year vigil on the anniversary of the night the L.A. police beat a gay man to death in front of the Dover Hotel, but this 120-person-strong rally and march to the police station did not inspire activists in other cities. Subsequent demonstrations were subsumed by the Stonewall commemorations.

Activists were busy on the East Coast before Stonewall, too. In Washington, D.C., LGBTQ veterans chose the Pentagon as their place to picket, making it onto national television with signs reading, “Homosexual citizens want to serve their country too.” Subsequent demonstrations targeted the White House and the offices of Federal agencies. New York City’s Mattachine Society secured legal gains in 1966 when they organized a “sip-in” at the bar Julius’, securing the right of homosexuals to gather in public. None of these actions inspired commemoration, locally or in other cities, however, leading scholars to look for pre-Stonewall protests. The question that scholars are seeking to answer is: Why not?

Well, quite clearly, it is because the Left glorifies violence, and for the same reasons they glorify homosexuals. They are hell bent on destruction, and the gays are simply one tool of that malicious mission.

Even the Library of Congress has joined in the fun of glorifying homosexual riots.

It is important to note that there were a number of uprisings against police & state brutality, harassment and entrapment of the LGBT+ communities in the U.S. in the years before Stonewall. These events and the people involved have not received as much historical attention as Stonewall, but are just as central to understandings of U.S. LGBTQIA+ histories. Some of the pre-Stonewall uprisings included:

  • Pepper Hill Club Raid, Baltimore, Maryland in 1955. Over 162 people arrested.
  • Coopers Do-Nut Raid, Los Angeles, California, 1959
  • Black Nite Brawl, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, August 5, 1961
  • Compton’s Cafeteria Raid, San Francisco, California, 1966
  • Black Cat Raid, Los Angeles, California, 1967

So why do we dedicate an entire month to a riot perpetrated by sexual deviants who attacked police in defense of a mafia extortionist?

Why is it so difficult to find in a Google search just one critical account of this “rebellion”?

Why does the Library of Congress, an arm of the Federal Government, apparently so concerned with a more recent “insurrection” celebrate this mayhem?

I suppose for the same reasons an ostensibly biblical religious group does.

I could say plenty of this in my own words, and originally as I was preparing this I intended to, but a confluence of things happened while I was preparing today which caused me to change focus a little bit, and I think you’ll be happy with what I came up with for you instead of this. I want to take you through a bit of my journey to this point, and go through some of my old blog posts and recordings which happened as I realized the gay thing was a problem, but before I figured out the Jewish problem, and then, I have some stuff from National Vanguard which tells us about Jewish subversive activity.

This issue was one of those things which really changed my perspective on the world. As most of you know, this started out as a libertarian show. As you may also know, the libertarian movement at some point basically devolved into what I’ve referred to as drug induced homosexual anticapitalism, and their obsession with homosexuals was one of the things that really drove me nuts.

I had accepted, I think, like most Americans, that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is none of the government’s business. And if they had kept their behavior to the privacy of their own bedrooms, then we would not be having this discussion at all. But that, of course, is not what they did.

I was born in the year 1980. I knew nothing about the Stonewall riots until, I guess it was 2016 or 2017 when I first heard about this actually. I drove down to New York to visit my father for his birthday and on the way I listened to some lunatic thing on, I think it was NPR which talked about it and my mind was just completely blown by it.

But it was really in early 2015 when I really started seeing the problem. In March of that year I published a story titled “On #BoycottIndiana, Atheism, and Religious Freedom”, and I’ll ask you to bear with me in this because, libertarianism was not my only delusion back then. I was also hostile toward religion and to some extent Christianity in particular and this used to come through in the content. I’m not entirely cured of my atheism, let’s say, but I view Christianity positively, and this stuff is embarrassing to me when I stumble across it.

Then, in April of 2015, very early on in the history of this show, Bruce Jenner declared himself a woman on primetime television and became a national hero for the Left. Until of course, he started saying that maybe male Olympic athletes like him shouldn’t be able to compete against women just because they woke up one morning and made a silly decision. I’m going to play for you this clip, it’s a little long, from Radical Agenda Episode Four. We were not speaking about stages back then. I titled the Episode “Race Riots & Genital Mutilation.

I play other clips, and read other old posts, then move on to Jewish involvement.

I stumbled upon something in my research, and since it is put so well, I’ll read to you this 2021 piece by Chris Rossetti at National Vanguard titled “How Jews Forced Homosexual “Marriage” on America”.

Another piece at National Vanguard, by Michael Walsh, published in 2019 and titled The Jewish Pioneers of “Sexual Degeneracy in 1920s Berlin” informs us about the story of Magnus Hirschfeld, the Jewish pioneer of transgenderism.



If you would like to help finance this high quality production, I try to make this easy enough to do….


Follow me elsewhere, listen, watch, and keep in touch…

Be sure and get subscribed to my newsletter if you haven’t already, and whitelist [email protected] so I don’t end up in your spam trap!



Radical Agenda S06E016 – Seditious Conspiracy

Among the great crimes of the last few years is that I was not here to cover the story of January 6th 2021 as the events unfolded.

On the other hand, I suppose I am fortunate to have had a rock solid alibi for that day.

Not that one needed to be present to end up in prison over it.

Among those convicted of seditious conspiracy for the event are Proudboys chairman Enrique Tarrio, and Oathkeepers founder Stuart Rhodes. The latter of whom was recently sentenced to 18 years. Neither of them were actually present at the event.

Revolver News has a piece today feigning outrage at this fact, featuring words from one of the defense attorneys involved in several cases, who has seen one of the few acquittals so far.

Anybody who knows anything about the laws of conspiracy isn’t surprised by the fact that one need not be present at the scene of the alleged offense. Surely the attorney they are quoting understands this.

The offense need not even occur. The agreement is the conspiracy, and that is the crime of which the charge of conspiracy aims to convict the accused. The alleged plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer may stand out in some minds. Most of the people involved in the plot worked for the government. They went so far as to have a woman working for the government spend the night in a hotel room with one of the alleged conspirators. They tried to bait men into a plot with drugs and sex, and having satisfied themselves that such an agreement had been reached, put the men on trial.

Some pleaded guilty to avoid trial, and testified against their codefendants. Two were acquitted during the first trial. Two others were retried after a mistrial, and subsequently convicted.

In the case of the January 6th trials, particularly regarding Tarrio and Rhodes, it was more complex, but their convictions are hardly surprising, whatever their justice. The real injustice of the story of January 6th has very little to do with the way trials are conducted, or how judges interpret the law, or how juries deliberate, or how prosecutors exercise their discretion, or even what motivates them in said exercise. Nor is it the harsh sentences, the questionable evidence, the government’s involvement, or the media coverups.

After all, why were these men even contemplating a visit to the Capitol? Maybe you think the election was above board, or maybe you’ve read Molly Hemingway’s book about it or are otherwise informed enough to doubt the outcome, but what we know for certain is that when you think the elections are rigged, and you think the guy who stole the election is going to ruin the country, you’re not an evildoer if you contemplate force in response. While I have all the sympathy in the world for the men who face these charges, I don’t actually think there is much room for doubt that they communicated with one another about using force that day.

You might say that it was not seditious, given that they meant to see the will of the voters upheld, but as the saying goes, if you come at the king, you best not miss.

Our legal system is not designed to discern moral integrity. It is a means by which those who have power, endow their use of force with a shroud of legitimacy. In many cases, even most, that legitimacy is well deserved. We all want rapists and murderers and robbers thrown in prison. Most of us think drugs are a major problem, and even if we think prisons may be imperfect in dealing with that problem, they are effective in keeping drugs from making their way to TV commercials and clearance racks of major department stores.

If I were in charge of the government, and people tried to interfere with my taking power, I’d absolutely wage a war against those people.

Anyone who has ever interacted with the criminal justice system will tell you that it is completely stacked against criminal defendants. It’s supposed to be. That’s the whole entire point of the thing. To punish the accused. Acting like this is some new phenomenon of our criminal justice system is just plain disingenuous. There’s no reason to act surprised.

From my perspective, the surprises ceased around the time the chaos of that historic day subsided. While it was ongoing, there was the sense that anything could happen, but once Trump told them to go home in peace, and they complied, what happened next was as predictable as the sunrise, whatever its justice.

While held in the Strafford County Jail pending sentencing after my conviction at trial in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, I had contracted COVID not long before New Years eve. I was moved from my regular housing unit to the unit where COVID patients were kept and held in 23 hour lockdown as a result. I had a cellmate, an ostensibly White member of the Gangster Disciples, who went by the name of Smitty. I had given Smitty some political education as we were locked in that cell together, and perhaps it seemed fitting to him that as he was coming to know that, and how, and why our society was spiraling out of control, a revolution was underway at the Capitol. It caused him to remark something to the effect of “You were right, man” and I took some measure of satisfaction in this.

COVID knocked me off my feet. I could hardly get out of bed for the first week, and I was half asleep as the chaos broke out. I could not see the TV, but I was listening to the Rush Limbaugh show. It was being hosted that day by Todd Herman, whom I dislike with some intensity. Rush was soon to die of cancer, a far greater tragedy for our society than anything happening in Washington DC that month.

I recall at the time being frustrated with him and later with Sean Hannity as they condemned the violence. What else did they think was going to happen? They had both, in my memory, doubted the legitimacy of the election. They had stopped short of endorsing all the crackpot theories which abounded, but they did give voice to the legal challenges which were mounting.

One of the last things Rush Limbaugh said to us was that he thought the election had been stolen. He encouraged us to keep fighting for America, no matter what. I’m not saying he envisioned what happened on January 6th, but like many in conservative media, he always maintained a certain affinity for themes surrounding the American revolution

I didn’t know how exactly, but I knew the election had been stolen. That much seemed obvious to me from the mere fact that Democrats had tried to remove all fraud protections prior to the election. In any legal proceeding, one of the most powerful pieces of circumstantial evidence is anything that evinces consciousness of guilt. If you try to destroy evidence, this will be shown to jurors and they will find you guilty or liable. In a civil case, such destruction will result in adverse inferences, where the Court actually tells the jury that they are to deem a fact as true or false according to whatever the evidence destroyed may have proven to the detriment to the destroyer. When it was announced on election night that a water pipe had broken in Fulton County Georgia, and that counting would be suspended until morning, I thought “here we go!” and I imagined swarms of activists carrying out whatever plot they had conjured with the protection of Democrat officials in Atlanta.

Moments later, Fox News called Arizona for Biden. Even the hosts on air seemed shocked by this. Other networks had not called it, and this seemed premature to everyone.

The credibility of this claim was not helped by prior media hysteria. The Left wing media had predicted that Trump would dispute the election and refuse to leave office. This was, in my mind, more evidence of consciousness of guilt. They were preparing to be caught cheating, and they were getting in front of that accusation by saying that they would be accused of it by a lunatic criminal President. They had stated over and over and over again that Fox would have to make the call to make the election credible.

Here was Fox News, doing, essentially, just that, though it would not officially declare the election as a whole for several days.

When Trump came out, declared victory, and it became clear we were headed for a historic showdown, it almost made up for Charlottesville. Neither before nor since that moment did I desire my freedom more. I wanted to stand with the President. I would have followed any order he gave me.

I equated my struggle with his. The same people who did this to me, did that to him, I thought. Maybe you think it’s silly, and you are in some measure surely justified in this, but it’s not my craziest idea. I used to be a libertarian.

You know, the guy who prosecuted me, John Davis, he was the same guy who prosecuted Richard Jewell. He was a cop and a security guard, who saved lives by alerting police to a bomb, and he was blamed for that bomb, and long after it was obvious that he was innocent Mr. Davis just subjected him to the system anyway, because that’s the kind of monster that he is. Sean Hannity talks about that case all the time as an example of the justice system being weaponized. Hardly seemed a stretch that Mr. Davis was a deep state crook.

The same Jewish lesbian who sued me, sued Trump on behalf of E Jean Carroll in this phony rape case.

I don’t think it’s irrelevant that I was among those in the Alt Right who still supported Trump, and that the lunatics who the FBI let victimize me over the course of more than a year, were actively hostile to Trump. My so called victim, wanted to keep Trump from getting elected so that more people would lose hope and become mass shooters. That whole Charlottesville fiasco, they tried to pin that to Trump to cost him the election. Joe Biden says that’s why he ran for President, and he called Antifa a “courageous group of Americans” in his campaign announcement video, which featured your humble correspondent fighting crime at the Jefferson Memorial on UVA Campus August 11th 2017.

So it seemed quite reasonable to me that I was on the same side as Trump, even if Trump didn’t necessarily want to be. We are in some measure defined by our enemies, and we have a lot in common there. It hardly seemed at all surprising to me then, that people who Trump had not gone out of his way to disavow, would follow him into war on January 6th, and I’m not saying that’s necessarily what these men did, but it’s hardly a crazy conclusion to reach.

I couldn’t see how bad the events were from my cell, but it seemed obvious to me that the theft of the election would result in disorder. One point the Democrats made during that silly show trial of a commission they put on, was like “What did you think was going to happen, he said the election was stolen, of course they resorted to violence, that was the inevitable outcome of it?”

And in that sense, the only question really was whether or not that was actually the case. Whether or not the election actually had been stolen.

If it was, and if the people involved believed that, they were Patriots. They were fighting for their country, not against it.

And after a year of race riots, endorsed by Democrats and covered up by their friends in the press. Who really believed that there was a constituency for that?

So there’s your injustice. There’s your conspiracy. Even if the election was above board, the fact that half the country or better doubts this is reason enough to storm the Capitol. I said in the leadup that the Democrats were acting like a lawyer with a guilty client, just trying to raise reasonable doubt. I thought they were preparing to dispute the election, was my honest assessment before it all went down.

But you can’t possibly think they were just going to let that challenge to their power stand. The idea that “Oh well Republicans didn’t stop the race riots, so…” Well, yeah exactly. That’s kinda the point. The Republicans let people get away with things, and that’s both because they are weak and why they are weak, and it’s a vicious cycle that Democrats are not going to let themselves fall into.

So once the so-called insurrection was over, of course the next step was going to be mass arrests.

I am all too familiar with our Court system, as many of you know. One of the countless reasons attorneys have a professional reputation near synonymous with dishonesty is that they are necessarily compelled to pretend they have some measure of faith in the system to administer justice. Since this faith must be diminished by exposure thereto, this variance between what what is known and what is said, negatively impacts their reputation for honesty.

If you don’t already know, I’ll inform you of what is too rarely said about our Courts. Discerning truth is not their purpose. Neither is it their purpose to administer justice. Their purpose is to prevent you and me from killing eachother. That is all. They do this imperfectly, quite clearly, but viewed from this perspective they are not entirely incompetent.

So long as the population remains at least moderately confident that this system functions in the way it purports to function, they are disinclined to criminality for fear of being punished, and more to the point, they are disinclined to settle scores outside of the court system. This latter portion is what prevents total anarchy from reigning on our streets.

Prior to the normalizing of jury trials and prisons and civil suits, criminal accusations might be settled by something known as trial by ordeal. A Defendant might be ordered to grab hold of a a red hot iron or put his hand in a flame. In other scenarios they might be thrown into water or made to eat something that might kill them.

The purported theory of this was that if they were innocent, God would protect them. In which case, they had nothing to fear. If they were guilty, then surely God would not protect them, so they had best plead guilty, and suffer whatever punishment the Court would render, rather than going through that ordeal, and then dying or having to endure both the ordeal and the Court’s punishment.

I have read some accounts that the ordeals were sometimes fake. That the red hot rod was red with something other than heat, for example.

On the one hand, you might say in this instance that the trial was rigged, but obviously it is no less rigged if one grabs a red hot rod expecting God’s protection. God helps those who help themselves, as the saying goes. God gave you the good sense not to touch fire. That is your protection, and you do with it as you will.

One can only speculate as to how prevalent faith was among those who carried out these rituals, but real or fake you can see how it approximates our current system of Justice.

There is not the highest of likelihoods that one is accused of a crime to begin with, even if they are a criminal. If one has committed a crime, the likelihood that they committed that crime is easily greater than 50%. If they are falsely accused, particularly if they are accused by a person of good character, the likelihood is that they found themselves in this position because they have otherwise acted disreputably, and so it is not really the end of the world if they are nominally punished for something they did not do, given that they have otherwise earned the scorn of their society.

If in some cases the ordeals were fake, assuming the accused was not aware of this, it is a test of their faith. In a society which deems faith to be what prevents wrongdoing, this is near as good as a test of actual misconduct. If you do not believe in God’s protection, then you must likewise doubt his judgement, and best we do away with you now before you take advantage of that doubt.

If you grab the rod and you are not burned, society sees you as having received God’s protection. Your reputation is salvaged. If you plead guilty to avoid the rod, you knew that God would not protect the guilty, and society considers justice rendered by the Court’s punishment.

That some number of innocent people got their hands burnt and were sent to prison or worse, is surely a price worth paying for civilization to carry on without perpetuating generations long blood feuds between families taking vengeance upon each other.

Say I suspect you stole my chicken. I come to steal your goat as payback. You kill me to prevent this. My cousin comes to avenge my death. He burns down your house, killing your wife. You burn down his house, killing his son. He comes to avenge his son, and so on and so forth. This cycle can go on forever. In such an environment, it becomes rather difficult to conduct business, and perhaps more to the point, for the governing authorities to collect taxes thereon.

From a certain perspective, it is much better to let some criminals go free and for some innocent people to be harmed, if it can prevent this sort of feuding. The damage and injustice will occur in either instance, and its prevalence can be reduced by the illusion of orderly justice.

The key to making trial by ordeal work is preventing false accusations. You must punish those who make false accusations no less harshly than those who are convicted of the crimes being accused. For those who administer the system, they too must be subject to punishment if they knowingly use it to free the guilty or harm the innocent.

If they have been administering ordeals, they must have some knowledge of the certainty of the outcomes. They must then necessarily fear accusations worse than anyone. For this reason, they must be of the most cooperative sort, never incurring the ire of those who might see them put to such a test. Prosecutors must decline to bring charges when met with non-credible witnesses. Judges must dismiss cases when they lack legal foundation.

Most importantly, perjurers must be prosecuted when they make false accusations.

The idea that trial by jury has dramatically improved upon this is hardly supported by the evidence.

To begin with, anyone with the slightest familiarity with the Court system will do almost anything to avoid a trial. Nobody expects these things to discern the truth. Everybody tries to avoid it. Nearly all criminal cases end in guilty pleas, and nearly all civil matters are settled out of court.

But the average person still believes that he will not be subjected to legal abuse, and more importantly, he believes that if he is wrong he can go to the courts for justice.

People like John Davis, Alvin Bragg, and Roberta Kaplan, they put the lie to that theory with their abuse of the Courts. They are letting regular, ordinary people know that the whole thing is a sham, and that anybody can be victimized by a powerful person who has an axe to grind.

If there was ever a seditious conspiracy, that’s it right there. The Reds, they tell you the cops are racist and they set things on fire and you think “Wow those reds are bad people”.

These people, they are much more effective in undermining confidence in our system of government, and the consequences of that, are going to be with us, for a very, very long time.




If you would like to help finance this high quality production, I try to make this easy enough to do….


Follow me elsewhere, listen, watch, and keep in touch…

Be sure and get subscribed to my newsletter if you haven’t already, and whitelist [email protected] so I don’t end up in your spam trap!


Radical Agenda S06E015 – Screw Your Optics

Here at the Radical Agenda, we’ve… had our ups and downs, shall we say…

Six months ago to the day, I was released from the custody of the Attorney General of the United States. Today, I remain under the Supervision of the United States Federal Court of the District of New Hampshire. This will remain the case at least until December of this year, at which point I can move the court to terminate my supervision a year early, having served half of the two years of supervised release which comprised that portion of my sentence.

Shortly after that release I came to you with a plan to conclude tastefully and move on to what I saw as higher artistic and intellectual challenges. This was motivated in no small part by money, and I do not consider this to be a bad thing. You can’t do anything worthwhile without access to financial resources, and the people who say otherwise are the same people who seem to have every other part of their agenda rooted in our separation from political power.

Nothing we do matters at all if our people are governed by those who mean to kill us. So I will do what is necessary, without limitation, to cease this state of affairs in which we find ourselves. Whether that means IRL fed posting, or heaping disingenuous praise on somebody I plan to stab in the back, figuratively or otherwise, is of no consequence to me in this.

Thus forms my recent affinity for Realpolitik.

I first heard this word many years ago, and had to look it up. At first I was kind of struck by the simplicity of it. I wondered why it required its own term.

“What other kind of “politik” is there?” I thought at the time… “What good is fake politik?”

I would come to learn that, this is precisely what makes up most of our politics, and came to conclude that a course correction is long overdue.

What good it do my soul to die an honest man, be I among the last of my race to live?

I dare say, were I to meet my maker subsequent, he would not deem this a life free of sin.

Such is the character of a war not of our choosing.

In Stage Six Episode One I went on at some length about espionage. It is my well informed view that we are inundated with this. That we are immersed in a matrix of information warfare which causes the signal to noise ratio to be of such a level, that merely perceiving reality is so burdensome as to render meaningful action fraught with peril.

I was recently informed, notably, that Roberta Kaplan told a Jewish publication that mass shootings were a good thing that she took credit for. She said, accurately, that the mass shootings were the consequence of a political right that had been rendered incapable of organizing on account of her lawfare. This is what they want: dumb motherfuckers flying off the handle and giving them propaganda victories. while taking good men out of the broader struggle. If a few Jews die in the process, they do not care. They assess, with some merit, that far greater peril awaits them if we obtain political power, and they find it preferable that stupid motherfuckers commit senseless murders. Anybody who thinks they wouldn’t go around flooding chats and comment sections with this nonsense to bring it about gives them too much credit.

I have a similar view of anonymous accounts who tell us all is lost and that we ought not participate in politics. This is part of a very obvious progression of ideas. The government is bad. The government cannot be changed. Throw your body on the pile. Thus is the path to racial salvation, if we follow the advice of Jewish subversives who work for Roberta Kaplan.

So while the filth of the information environment renders action perilous, the peril is no less so for inaction. A prudent man might look both ways before crossing a one way street, but this need not make him late for appointments.

Having looked around quite a bit, I’ve made some observations over the last six months. I mean to share some of them with you today, and revise to some extent my assessments.

The political environment is more permissive than it once was. That much was obvious even from prison. I remain convinced that our task is to meet those who are moving in our direction, by moving towards theirs, and not take this as an opportunity to spiral out into ideological pandemonium, but it seems clear to me our rivals’ failure to act this wisely has substantially diminished their power. My observation is less of kind than of degree.

Revolver News is a fascinating phenomenon. Here’s a few headlines there today…

  • “New info emerges in case of black teens targeting pregnant “Karen” nurse with fake “racism” viral video…”
  • “Ben Shapiro’s epic flip-flop: accused of extreme double-talk…”
  • “Effort underway to change crime coverage at local levels to hide “inconvenient” stats from the public…”
  • “Illinois parents call cops on teacher after she tried teaching middle schoolers sodomy…”
  • “Nevada pink-haired, half-shaven middle school teacher calls white people ‘problematic,’ claims education is racist: ‘start a riot’…”
  • “We “just wanted to kill a white person”…”

Those stories are all worth quoting at length, but we have other things to get to. For now, I’ll just point out a couple of my favorite parts.

In the story about the absurd notion that a White woman tried to steal a bike from some black teenagers, Twitter has added a “community note” to fact check the BLM activist who launched the malicious campaign to smear her, noting that she had provided a receipt showing she paid for the bike she was accused of stealing. That receipt was produced by her lawyer, and one hopes his intent is to sue the crap out of that BLM scumbag and make these people think twice about defaming people online.

In the story about Ben Shapiro, they quote a Tweet from an account with a Pepe for his avatar.

Revolver was much promoted by Tucker Carlson before his departure from Fox News. They are popular on social media and have tremendous credibility with the MAGA crowd.

One who goes there is informed that all these stories about white racists imperiling the lives of black people for their own amusement is completely fake, and when they read about Ben Shapiro he is accused of doubletalk and the reader is introduced to Pepe.

The Babylon Bee has also been instrumental. Through good natured humor they have made the Left look absolutely ridiculous, and in their zeal to destroy everyone who dares challenge their dominance, the Left overstepped by banning them from Twitter. This was, reportedly, a large part of Elon Musk’s motivation for buying Twitter, which got us our community correction on the BLM fraud who defamed the pregnant White woman. Famously, one of Tucker Carlson’s last shows on Fox News was an interview with Elon Musk, and it is now all but certain that Tucker Carlson will begin producing a very popular show on Twitter.

These describe the progression of ideas I’ve been talking about, the conduits of influence I’ve been imagining. Tucker talks to Revolver. Revolver gains notoriety. Tucker talks to the Babylon Bee. Babylon Bee inspires Elon Musk. Elon Musk talks to Tucker. Elon Musk compares George Soros to Magneto, the ADL freaks out. Rasmussen polls America on their view of George Soros. America agrees with Elon Musk.

This progression of ideas is, as it turns out, further along than I had previously understood, and this informs my plans for the future.

Twitter has recently updated its service so that paying subscribers like myself can upload videos of up to two hours, and last Monday I held my first successful stream using Twitter spaces.

It might not be the most important factor, but it is quite illustrative of the phenomenon that I currently have a Twitter account bearing a blue checkmark. Even if I never said another naughty w word again, the mere fact that somebody might find my name in this context is quite significant.

When I first got out of prison, I signed up for Substack and Locals.com and was immediately deprived of the financial services to utilize those systems. I signed up for Rumble, and Rumble only had PayPal available as a payment option.

Today, Rumble will be happy to send me a check for the money I earn there, and I am now eligible to monetize content on Twitter. I have access to Entropy for superchats, and GiveSendGo for crowdfunding.

This will change if I spend my days screaming about Jews on those platforms, so I prudently exercise some caution. SurrealPolitiks, whatever you think of the content, is serving its purpose quite well. I have payment processing. I have e-commerce. I have advertising contracts. I have platforms to reach new people.

In our members only sessions, I have been teasing an ambitious project to make better use of these advantages, and to help them serve as ideological conduits in an effort to prudently impact the Overton window in a more favorable direction. It’s a project I have had in mind for a very long time and I have never been so close to accomplishing it as I am today.

The Radical Agenda cannot access financial services. I was recently informed that one of the most famous alt right paywalls is similarly situated.

Why don’t I just have SurrealPolitiks be a front for the Radical Agenda, and continue as I had been before prison?

Well, because I’d be credibly accused of fraud, for one. And so, not only is SurrealPolitiks a real business, but it actually produces more content than this hobby of mine called the Radical Agenda.

But picture this scenario.

What if a network of websites shared a common user database, and access to one was access to all. Each site on the network sold its own subscriptions with its own payment processing, even if some of those sites were limited to cryptocurrency and pay by mail options. But if you purchased a subscription to one website, you would gain access to all the sites on the network.

To begin, this has the potential to provide a great deal of value to the listener. Say for example you enjoy SurrealPolitiks but think paying for a membership subscription is a bit pricey given the range of entertainment available out there for a lower price tag. Say another content producer you enjoy joins the network. Now you buy one subscription and you gain access to premium content from both producers.

And, while some producers cannot gain access to financial services, there is no prohibition on producers entering into advertising agreements with one another.

Say your favorite show is called Talk Radio God, and SurrealPolitiks has an advertising agreement with Talk Radio God that anybody who uses his referral link or promo code to purchase a subscription gets 80% of the recurring revenue from that subscription. If Talk Radio God is part of the network, he doesn’t really need to sell his own subscriptions, he can make his money selling other producers on the network as an advertiser, and his audience gains the benefit of access to his site as a consequence.

Through such a business model, the Radical Agenda need not conclude. Neither should such a model warrant much concern for respectable opinion.

But for what purpose?

Let’s take a trip down memory lane, and explore this…



If you would like to help finance this high quality production, I try to make this easy enough to do….


Follow me elsewhere, listen, watch, and keep in touch…

Be sure and get subscribed to my newsletter if you haven’t already, and whitelist [email protected] so I don’t end up in your spam trap!


Radical Agenda S06E014 – Operation Warp Thee

In near all my interactions since coming home I’ve been struck by the shift in people’s perspectives. Just as striking is the tremendous variety of perspectives one comes into contact with. There appears consensus only on a single truth. Namely, that the information environment is so polluted, as to render discernment of reality a task few are fit to meet.

Hardly a stretch for an anti-Semite to doubt the mainstream press, of course. One of such a mindset might find tremendous hope in this phenomenon. To doubt the media is to doubt Jewish lies, and to doubt Jewish lies is to render the Jew a powerless wretch.

And yet, I, poor soul that I am, have been fed a steady diet of this poison behind the walls while the rest of the world seemingly abandoned it. As I read the Wall Street Journal, listened to NPR, and watched Fox News, the rest of the world was retreating to their AI curated social media feeds, and quite accidentally venturing down rabbit holes one used to have to try very hard just to find.



And, it seems to me, the rabbit holes have rabbit holes, and they themselves still more labyrinthine subterranean corridors.

It used to be that a so-called extremist might be a Nazi, a communist, or a libertarian, or some variety of anarchist perhaps. You might find your answers in a category of thought known as Christianity, or Islam. But these categories were, at the end of the day, identifiable. You could discern that “this person is speaking this language, they are of this mindset” and through such a categorization, navigate the social implications of the interaction. You would venture down the rabbit hole, and there you would find others who had ventured down the same hole. You would share a common perspective, and in this form the bonds of a social circle.

The ideological landscape of today however, seems a tad bit more complex. We have less a menu of ideological categories, and more a buffet of ideas. One is not just a Nazi or a Christian. He may be a Christ following anti-Semite libertarian, or a cryptozionist anti-lgbt socialist. On the Left, one is no longer a mere “LGBT” Democrat, but a TERF, or a non-binary two spirit yada yada yada.

All they seem to agree on is sexualizing children and hating White people…

If only the Right had such a unifying principle…

Last night, you may know, I had a chat with a fellow who calls himself “Handsome Truth”. He was a pleasure to speak with, and if you haven’t heard that interview, you should make the time.

As much as I like to see my hit counters go up, it might even be worth watching the video on his site, to get a glimpse of what was going on in his chat during the thing. I did, and it in part inspired today’s rant.

HT is among a number of people with what I think I can fairly describe as an unusually strong aversion to vaccines. I did not inquire if this was categorical to vaccines as such, a failing on my part in hindsight, or whether it is specific to the COVID shot, but he has nicknames for it like “the kike spike” which is… clever…

I had expressed a view of the shot that I think was nuanced and reasonable. I was in jail when it was first being distributed, and I didn’t think I was in any particular danger from the virus, so I declined to take an experimental drug. By contrast, my parents, who you might have gathered are not younger than me, have some medical histories and based on my assessment of the situation, I thought it prudent for them to take the first shot when it became available.

I was sincerely worried that my parents, and my father especially, might die before I got out of jail. My statutory maximum was 27 years, after all, and people in better shape than them, I was informed by the television, were dying quite routinely by the time the shot became available.

I really didn’t want that to happen. I care about my parents. I’ve put them through absolute hell and they’ve never abandoned me.

I considered myself fairly well informed on the subject, even lacking access to the Internet. There were two news talk radio stations at the Strafford County Jail. I was usually able to at least get Tucker Carlson on the TV, and when somebody else would turn on CNN, I’d listen. When I first got to the jail, few people wanted to watch national news, but when the virus got the jail locked down, people took greater interest. Some months I managed to totally dominate the TV, and the jail had the full, I forget if it was Dish Network or DirectTV, but some full package satellite deal, including a lot of the movie channels. So I had NewsMax and OAN in addition to Fox, Fox Business, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and I was news junky so I was watching, listening, or reading basically all the time.

The jail also had these modified Android tablets, and on the tablets there was a news reader app. I could read articles from Fox News, CNN, Forbes, Bloomberg, CNBC, and at least a dozen other places, I can’t remember them all. They also had like a modified TuneIn app, that you could listen to a pretty long list of radio stations, and PlutoTV was on the app, though you had to pay $0.05/minute to watch. I spent a few bucks on that thing, and thanks to those of you who paid for it.

I hesitate to tell the story, but I suppose it was long enough ago… I’ve mentioned before this smartphone app called Libby, which is an interface for a service called Overdrive, which is basically a means by which to digitally borrow e-books and audiobooks from your local library using your library card. The jail had it configured that you could borrow whatever books the jail had made available, and you were not supposed to be able to get outside libraries.

But guys in jail, they got a lot of time on their hands, and if you give them a computer they’ll tap on every pixel of that screen in every conceivable sequence until they know everything it is capable of. Guys figured out how to get to outside libraries, then they started passing and trading library cards around, and I had this amazing availability of literature that just made doing time almost something of a vacation. I love to read, and I really love a good audio book, but the demands of life so often get in the way. There’s a lot less of that in jail, especially during a COVID lockdown. Put me in 23 hour lockdown with an infinite library all to myself, that is not entirely without its appeal.

Though I’d already read it twice I couldn’t help but check if any library had a copy of Mein Kampf available. Of course not. No Kevin MacDonald either. I think there might have been a Charles Murray book or two, but not a copy of the Bell Curve. Karl Marx was easy enough to find though. As was Lenin. There was even a book titled “In Defense of Looting” which was exactly what the title sounds like, so the curators are very clearly not averse to violence. The selective censorship of the online library was ideological.

The app would show you on the front page of each library, suggested books. And no matter how much Right wing stuff I read, and rated, no matter which libraries I went to, it always suggested absurd Left wing nonsense. That’s how I came to read The New Jim Crow, White Fragility, and How to be an Anti-Racist, to name just a few. I listened to the audiobook of “I Am Jazz” by that famous transgender Jewish child her coethnics paraded around on Television. It was horrifying.

For a time, I was even able to pull up the Drudge Report. The Overdrive app, you see, was just a dressed down web browser. You couldn’t enter a web address into an address bar, and it didn’t have javascript, but whatever link you clicked, you got the next page. Well, it was discovered that if you went to the about page of the app, it said that it had been reviewed in Forbes and other news outlets. Click the logo of one of those news outlets, and you’re on that website. Search that website for mentions of other websites, and you can click those links. Guys would share tips on how to find different things. “OK, you go to Forbes, search for PlutoTV, then you find an article about PlutoTV, and you can click the link to PlutoTV, and watch it without paying $0.05/minute” was the most common one. When I found Drudge, I felt like I was Kevin Mitnick, and props to you if you get that reference.

I illustrate all this just to say, I actually do try to expose myself to information from a variety of sources, including those I don’t expect to agree with. I did this before I went to jail too.

I became aware of the rabbit hole effect not long after I got into 9/11 truth. I used to spend all night watching these really scary documentary films about everything from GMO food to terrorism to secret societies, you name it. I think in 2010 I watched every Alex Jones Movie he had produced up until that time. There’s a website, still up right now, though it gives you an SSL warning, TrueWorldHistory.info with links to a lot of these things. A cursory inspection shows a lot of the links are to YouTube videos since removed, but if you wanna scare the shit out of yourself all night some time, you can find the titles there, in any case.

But I did notice a pattern emerge in that this “True World History” site was linking me to to all types of crap which was necessarily even in agreement. That’s fine of course, we don’t all have to agree, but if the site says “Here’s the truth” and you get different truth from one page to the next, you have to be more discerning about your sources.

I watched that movie Zeitgeist, and being an atheist at the time, I though it was like the greatest red pill movie ever. It hit three topics. Christianity is fake, 9/11 was an inside job, and the Federal Reserve is here for the singular purpose of stealing from you. I tried to show that to as many people as I could. And then they started coming out with sequels that were like “Yeah, we’re going to live in a “post scarcity” society, so we should just start abandoning the whole private property concept” and I was like “Hey wait a second, this is communism”.

I was unable to find out quickly if the film’s producer, Peter Joseph, was Jewish, but his partner in crime, Jacque Fresco of the Venus project, his Wikipedia says “he grew up in a Sephardi Jewish household, at the family’s home in Bensonhurst, in the Brooklyn borough of New York City”. Never fails…

I had a similar experience with the Drudge Report in 2020. There are people who say Matt Drudge has always been a bad actor, maybe that’s true, but I never went to Drudge for original reporting anyway. I used to check the Drudge report every morning while I drank my coffee, and I was able to find out what the news of the day was, from a variety of sources. I wasn’t there to know Matt Drudge’s opinion, and actually I kind of appreciated that he had curated a conservative theme using largely mainstream reporting.

But the whole tone of the site changed in 2020 and I was like why is this guy trying to tank the Republican nominee for President while the blacks riot on a daily basis in an election year?

That’s why you so often hear me reading from Revolver today.

When I got to the CMU, there were two conservative talk stations, an NPR station, and the TVs all had FM transmitters attached to them. That was the only way you could listen to the TV, using your FM radio, the speakers on the sets were disabled. This worked out pretty good for me, because, depending on where your cell was, you could pick up most or all of the 9 TVs on the unit, and since I’m a radio guy and a news junky, I don’t give a fuck if I can see the thing 90% of the time, I just want to listen.

I couldn’t get any mail at the Strafford County Jail, but when I got to Illinois, I got a subscription to the Wall Street Journal, I think one or more of you probably paid for some portion of that, but I’ll thank Joe the Jew by name for his assistance with that. I really appreciated that newspaper. So did Viktor Bout, and Matt Hale. The Wall Street Journal is sincerely probably the best daily newspaper that you can get delivered nationwide, and while I found their Zionism and Ukraine cheerleading nauseating, I hope I’ve already demonstrated that I am a discerning reader and news consumer more generally.

That paper followed me when I got shipped to Virginia. The AM radio selection there after dark was, oh, man. I didn’t know about this until that point but, you can try this at home. Turn on your AM radio in the afternoon, the dial will be wide open. Nothing there, maybe one or two talk stations, if you’re lucky, and they’re probably simulcast much clearer in FM.

Come back after 10pm, do the same thing. It’s a whole different world. AM radio waves, I won’t get too into the technical details, but the bounce of a layer of the upper atmosphere called the ionosphere, at night. So radio waves will basically skip entire states and find you all over the country.

That might not seem like much to you with a computer at your desk and a smartphone in your pocket, but when you’re in prison, especially if you only get to make two phone calls a week, this is better than cable.

So like, I was in Virginia, listening to 890AM WLS Chicago, and I could hear it more clearly there at 10pm in Virginia, than I could in Marion, Illinois. I listened to WABC 770 New York and all these other stations. Just about anywhere you go, overnight, you can hear Coast to Coast AM, and Red Eye Radio. These are staples of late night talk radio. In a lot of markets, the same company owns two stations and they might carry the same shit during the day, but they’ll have Coast to Coast on one and Red Eye Radio on the other overnight.

In some places, if you’re lucky, before that, you catch John B. Wells on Caravan to midnight.

Wherever I ended up, I drew up these radio schedules. I’d map out the different talk stations, just by listening at all hours, know what was on at what hour, and post it up on the wall. I started giving them to fellow news consumers in the places I was housed, and they made very thoughtful gifts, people really appreciated that.

Viktor used to translate the Russian Newspapers for me. He would get this big stack of like a week’s worth of four or five Russian newspapers every week, and a bunch of different Russian magazines, sent to him by the Russian embassy. he also had his own Wall Street Journal subscription. We were both glued to the news, and him all the more after the Ukraine conflict broke. Now that I think about, I was the one who told him about the first explosions reported on the news, and from that day until the day I went home, him and I just constantly conspired to keep at least one of the TV’s within reach of our radios on the news at all times so we didn’t miss anything. Anytime something exciting happened, one of us would find the other to make sure that he was listening, and more often than not, we already were.

Oh shit, time to start the show. Guess I’m gonna have to finish this without a script…



If you would like to help finance this high quality production, I try to make this easy enough to do….


Follow me elsewhere, listen, watch, and keep in touch…

Be sure and get subscribed to my newsletter if you haven’t already, and whitelist [email protected] so I don’t end up in your spam trap!


Radical Agenda S06E013 – Handsome Truth

I had a great chat tonight with a fellow who goes by the name of Handsome Truth.

The interview happened on sort of short notice, but that worked out because my goal was to get to know the man a little.

I asked sincere questions that I did not know the answer to, and at some point he “took the wheel” and questioned me.

This was great conversation and I’m sure you will enjoy it.

If you would like to help finance this high quality production, I try to make this easy enough to do….


Follow me elsewhere, listen, watch, and keep in touch…

Be sure and get subscribed to my newsletter if you haven’t already, and whitelist [email protected] so I don’t end up in your spam trap!



Radical Agenda S06E012 – Try Though I Might…

You may have gathered I’ve sort of been trying to change the subject in recent months, having become annoyed with a myopic focus on race in politics, and in particular with the legal and professional consequences of becoming typecasted as a caricature of a Biden campaign advertisement.

But I am no more anxious to become typecasted as a meteorologist, and it almost seems today that to avoid talking about race, one would be reduced making smalltalk about the weather.

This morning I saw a Fox News Alert on my phone, and, at the time this notice popped up on my phone, I had the Fox News Channel on my TV.

The image on the phone alert showed a picture of a very beautiful White woman with blonde hair, and picture in picture, another photo of her black killer in handcuffs on the curb after being arrested by police in Arizona. The 29-year-old Lauren Heike had been walking down a popular pedestrian trail when her assailant took her life for reasons yet to be explained. Police have said that there was “trauma to her body” and we are left to our imaginations as to what that entails. If you’re like me, that’s not a good scene to be left to your imagination.

On the TV, they were talking about this stupid animal who got choked out on the subway because he decided to try and intimidate riders rather than sobering up and going to work like a human being. To their credit, and this sincerely did surprise me, Brian Kilmeade, who I hate with every ounce of my being, was taking up for the “blonde straphanger” as the New York Post called him, that choked the animal out.

But this was the newsworthy story, so far as the Fox News Channel was concerned, whatever the case, and, in particular, the race riots that predictably ensued as a consequence of the Democrat Party being so enamored with drug addicted criminals, and so contemptuous of White men who serve their country honorably in and out of the military.

The story about a little White girl, Kinsley White, who got shot in the face when the bullet passed through her father Jamie from a black criminal’s gun, that’s old news now. Nobody has seen fit to mention the explicitly racial motives of the black attempted murderer who told his victim ‘You White? I don’t even like White muthafuckas, I’m gonna fucking kill your fuckin white ass!’ as he drew his second gun and began emptying it on the White family, also striking Mrs. White in the arm.

Familiar though it may be, this was a fascinating study in contrasts, BEFORE the explicitly racial motives of the black shooter became known.

When Andrew Daniel Lester, an 84-year-old White man, shot and wounded a black teenager by the name of Ralph Yarl, who had come to his door after dark unexpected, in a situation where both men clearly just made some unfortunate mistakes, the Left went crazy, calling it a racially motivated crime, before anything was even known about it. Hardly a surprise there, of course, but when Lester’s grandson came out and said that Mr. Lester was an avid Fox News viewer, this was prima facie evidence of a hate crime, and Mr. Lester was charged with 1st degree assault, which in Missouri, is the offense other jurisdictions call attempted murder.

A GoFundMe for Mr. Yarl raised over $3.4 million from over 9,800 donors. That’s an average donation size of $346.93. The Yarl fundraiser set out to raise $2.5 Million. He and his family were subsequently invited to the White House to have a personal audience with Joe Biden.

There was also a GoFundMe set up for the White family, seeking to raise a paltry $50,000 for their medical bills. At the time of this writing, a little over 2,800 donors have raised a little over $129,000 for the White family. That’s an average donation of just over $46.07, and they can’t even get a meeting with Brian Kilmeade.

It shouldn’t be shocking to see anymore. I know the routine. I’ve been immersed in this stuff for years. It’s kinda why I get sick of talking about it, honestly.

How many times am I going to get in front of a microphone and point out that the media are a bunch of lying Jews, and that blacks are 13% of the population committing half the homicides in this country? How many times am I going to point out that the crime statistics are completely fucked, because Hispanic illegal immigrants are categorized as racially White in the FBI crime statistics?

Well, it’s been awhile since I’ve done that actually, so here goes.

I found something pretty amusing as I was putting this together. I start with a DuckDuckGo search for “fbi crime statistics interracial violence“.

I come up with a result titled “FBI Releases 2020 Incident-Based (NIBRS) Data” That’s the National Incident Based Reporting System, not to be confused with a word spelled with a G.

You scroll down to look at the data, there’s a link that says “Full Report: NIBRS, 2020“, you click that, you get a 404 not found error. I guess all those race riots left them less than anxious to publish the raw numbers…

But scroll up, and in the summary they give us some useful information.

We get this on the race of crime victims… “Most victims (66.9%) were white; 24% were Black or African American; 1.9% were Asian; 0.8% were American Indian or Alaska Native; and 0.2% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. The race of 6.2% of victims was unknown.

We get this on the perpetrators; “By race, more than half (50.8%) of known offenders were white; 29.6% were Black or African American; and 2.2% were of other races. The race was unknown for 17.4% of reported known offenders.

Well, let’s put this in perspective… According to the US Census, in 2020 “The most prevalent racial or ethnic group for the United States was the White alone non-Hispanic population at 57.8%. This decreased from 63.7% in 2010.

Well, 6%, that’s a pretty steep decline, and I don’t think we can blame it entirely on murder, but I can’t imagine it’s helping matters that in 2020, Whites appeared 13% more frequently in the crime victim statistics than they did in the census.  And given that blacks were 12.1% of the population in 2020., them making up 29.6% of the known perpetrators, and 24% of the known victims, tells us not only that they are more than doubly represented in offender statistics proportionate to population, but that they are disproportionately crossing racial lines in their victimizations. Matter fact, they are doing so by nearly 6% more, which rhymes with the decline in White percentage of the population. Do that every year for a decade, it’ll add up, for sure…

You keep hearing about our racist criminal justice system, and there may be some truth to this. Here’s what the data says about arrests for crimes in 2020. “By race, most arrestees (67.7%) were white; 27.1% were Black or African American; and 2.9% were of other races. The race was unknown for 2.2% of arrestees.

OK, so, Whites are 50.8% of offenders, 66.9% of victims, and 67.7% of arrestees? I thought the cops were just running around hunting blacks for sport? You mean to tell me they’re not only overrepresented as offenders, but underrepresented in arrests?

You commit a crime in America, and you’re White, you’re A LOT more likely to be arrested, than if you’re black. It’s just right there in, no pun intended, black and White.

Is that because Whites are committing more serious crimes? No.

Let’s look at a 2019 statistic about assaulting police officers… “In 2019, 61 alleged offenders were identified in connection with the law enforcement officers assaulted and injured with firearms, knives, or other cutting instruments.” … “33 of the alleged offenders were White, and 26 were Black/African American. The race was not reported for 2 of the known assailants.”

Now, I’ll be the first to say, that sometimes stupid people just fight a cop over a traffic stop. Sandra Bland comes to mind… But usually if you’re fighting the cops, especially if you’re shooting at them, you’re probably trying to avoid going to prison for a very, very long time… 26 out of 61 is nearly 43%. When you’re 12% of the population, you can’t be doing that…

And of course, this does not count all the stupid crap of like, blacks just shooting at cops and not being identified.

The 2020 numbers aren’t impossible to find, as it turns out. They just don’t give it to you in an easy to find spreadsheet. You have to go to the Crime Data Explorer, or CDE.

But before we do that, we should clarify something… Crime is not, pardon the pun, black and white. It’s not entirely grey, there’s a lot of brown missing from our crime statistics so far… The FBI, in its anti-White mission, counts Hispanics as White in racial terms. Sometimes, we get breakdowns of “Ethnicity”. There’s “Hispanic White” and “Non-Hispanic White” in what they call “White” in racial crime statistics.

So, this makes racial crime statistics completely useless, given what we know about the Hispanic representation would be in any honest crime statistic.

Citing DOJ statistics, the Center for Immigration Studies informs us that 26% of Federal Prisoners Are Aliens. The Bureau of Justice Statistics informs us that in 2018, of the 84,838 persons criminally charged in U.S. district courts in 2018, 49% were non-U.S. citizens.

So if we look at the CED for 2021, we see this for violent crime.

Black perpetrators 332,433, White perpetrators 328,015

Ethnicity of perpetrator:

Not Hispanic, 357,998 – Unknown 157,392-  Hispanic, 88,829

Keep in mind, “Not Hispanic” includes Blacks. I also think it safe to assume that it’s not a bunch of Irishmen who can’t tell you if they’re Hispanic or not, so, take that for what it’s worth.

Victims by race.

White, 458,527 – black, 310,119

By ethnicity

Not Hispanic, including blacks, 506,119 – Hispanic, 125,867 – Unknown – 82,501

That is staggering. 458,527 so called “White” victims, plus 310,119 black victims that’s 768,646 victims. Let’s subtract our black victims from the non-Hispanic numbers. From 506,119 non-Hispanic victims, we subtract 310,119 black victims, that’s 196,000 non-black non-Hispanic victims, and we’re safe to say most of those people are White. There are numbers for Asians and unknown in race but they are small enough for us to ignore for our purposes.

Do the same thing for perpetrators. We have 328,015 so called “White”perpetrators. We have 332,433 black perpetrators. Broken down by ethnicity we have 357,998 non-Hispanic perpetrators, which includes blacks, so let’s remove blacks from the equation. 357,998 non-Hispanic perpetrators, minus 332,998 black perpetrators, leaves us with an even 25,000 non-Hispanic, non-black perpetrators.

196,000 non-black non-Hispanic victims, 25,000 non-black, non-Hispanic perpetrators. That’s nearly a 4:1 ratio. Now, I don’t doubt that White killers are more efficient than their darker counterparts, but 4:1? No. This is unidirectional interracial violence, and if you don’t think there’s a racial motive, then you don’t know blacks.

It gets even worse if we limit our search to rape.

In 2021, rape offenders by race:

White 52,168 – black – 24,092. Now, even if we ignore Hispanics that’s wildly disproportionate overrepresentation for black rapists.

Victims by race

White, 66,297 – black, 18,301.

So, who did the other 6,000 black rapists rape? Must have been the other 14,000 White victims…

Non-Hispanic rape offenders, 38,255 Minus 24,092 blacks. That’s 14,163 White perpetrators, and of course, that’s 14,163 too many, to be sure.

Non-Hispanic rape victims 53,517, minus 18,301 blacks, that’s 35,216 non black non Hispanic victims.

A more than 2:1 victim to perpetrator ratio for Whites, and I can promise you it’s not because White rapists are raping three women before they get caught, and they certainly aren’t raping blacks.

Black criminals look upon White victims as easier prey, and not without some justification. They’re afraid to be called racists, for one, so they use this to their advantage. “Why you scared, you racist or somethin?” and White people snap right to it. “No sir! I’m not racist! I’ll come into this poorly lit area with you no problem, just don’t tell the SPLC please! I don’t want to lose my job”

When Jamie White spoke to Warren Balough, the first thing he said was “I don’t want to make it a racial thing”.

Can you believe that? This guy’s family just got shot up by some guy who said “I don’t like White motherfuckers I’m gonna kill you fuckin white ass” and the first words out of his mouth are “I don’t want to make it a racial thing”

So, if we break our crime statistics down honestly, half the offenders aren’t White. They’re almost entirely black and Hispanic. We obey the law, they fucking kill us, and then the cops come and break our doors down in the middle of the night and haul us off to prison. Then we are humiliated in the media and dragged through show trials because we dared to fucking notice what the hell was going on.

The question then becomes, what the fuck are you going to do about it?

I for one, am almost as sick of bitching about it, as I am of seeing it happen.






If you would like to help finance this high quality production, I try to make this easy enough to do….


Follow me elsewhere, listen, watch, and keep in touch…

Be sure and get subscribed to my newsletter if you haven’t already, and whitelist [email protected] so I don’t end up in your spam trap!


Radical Agenda S06E011 – BOND Villain?

Here’s a riddle for you…

Q. Under what circumstances do Democrats think homosexuality is sinful?

A. Under whatever circumstances it suits their political purposes to say so.

The Daily Beast and other Left wing rags are gloating about a scandal involving black conservative talk radio host Jesse Lee Peterson. Apparently they have finally found a sex act they disapprove of, which was something I did not expect to see in my lifetime, given all the brave new world stuff going on with the Left’s latest depth of depravity of transgendering children.

Following this thread, I just got done watching a video at Church Militant titled “Amazing Disgrace”. In it, a reporter for the site interviews several men who purport to have either had sexual relations with, or rejected sexual advances from, a black Christian talk show host by the name of Jesse Lee Peterson. The story has reportedly “roiled the manosphere”, and has the rainbow mafia all in a froth at the prospect of taking down another Right wing media personality.

I want to be clear from the start that I’m not accusing Church Militant of anything disreputable in the skepticism to be here expressed. I assume, and indeed do so with a reasonable degree of confidence, that they are acting in good faith. I have every reason to think that the team there believe that they would be punished by God for defaming a fellow Christian, and that they would not willingly submit their souls to such peril.

If you know anything about me, you might rightly assume that I have no particular desire to carry water for Jesse Lee Peterson, either. I was interviewed by him many years ago, and in late 2017 or early 2018 I appeared on The Hake Report with one of his associates, but we have not communicated since.

But I am very suspicious of this story, and far be it from me to doubt that Leftists would sink to unimaginable depths to destroy a Right wing media personality, especially a black one.

To begin with, the story is framed with Peterson as a sexual predator based on the allegation that he has had sexual relations with male adults over the age of thirty. These men make no allegation of coercion, force, drugs, or deception, aside from Peterson’s seeming hypocrisy in the perceived variance between his public persona and his alleged behind the scenes proclivities.

One can understand why Church Militant would take that stance, given their views on sexuality and Peterson’s status in the Christian community. From their point of view, it makes sense that a religious leader who led his congregants astray would be acting in a predatory fashion, whether this was in the context of sexuality or any other type of sin. So, I repeat, I am not casting any doubt on the integrity of the men at Church Militant.

I have a somewhat different worldview than that production team, however, and it strikes me as odd that men who would submit to an ongoing homosexual relationship would then turn around and frame their erstwhile lover as predator for doing exactly what they wanted him to do. I am not of the opinion that adult men simply get “tricked” into gay sex, and I look with suspicion on people who make such assertions.

Patrick Rooney is one of Peterson’s alleged “victims” and he told the Daily Beast “I’m very sorry to have Jesse’s situation damage the conservative movement,”.

This would seem to indicate that Mr. Rooney is interested in the wellbeing of the conservative movement which, if true, would tend to dispel any idea that he was trying to sabotage Mr. Peterson as part of some Left wing conspiracy.

And, there’s some evidence that this is the case. Mr. Rooney has a blog at OldSchoolUs.com, on which he has posted a number of podcasts and articles ostensibly sympathetic to Right wing themes.

The domain was registered on April 24th of 2019, and utilizes a privacy service based in Iceland to hide the contact information of the registrant. The first post pre-dates the domain’s registration,  specifically August 15th, 2018, and given the five comments which are correspondingly dated, we may assume the post is not back dated. This appears to be a rebrand from Mr. Rooney’s old website, PRRooney.com, which we’ll get into in a moment.

He also has a category titled “Podcasts” the first post of which appears to be a podcast posted just under six months later on October 12th, and it is titled “Old School Podcast #2 – Dr. Dharam Singh Deutsch, Qigong Master Healer”. If you’re wondering what happened to Episode 1, it is posted 6 days subsequent, on Octber 18th 2019.

I checked YouTube to see if there was a channel corresponding to these, and indeed there is. The @OldSchoolPatrick channel was created on Oct 8, 2018, has 1.72k subscribers, and here his podcasts are posted in chronological order, with Old School Episode 1 appearing on May 27th 2019 and Episode 2 appearing on September 28th of the same year.

Prior to Episode 1, Rooney has one video from November of 2018, titled “Orange County Turns Blue!“. In this video, he has a different website in the description which he mentions in his introduction. PRRooney.com, which as of this writing is not registered and has no website associated with it.

To set the stage for the video, Mr. Rooney informs his viewers that he has been listening to the Rush Limbaugh show, and that Rush had been speaking that day of the Democrat sweep of the erstwhile Republican stronghold of California. Mr. Rooney then informs us that illegal immigration has influenced the outcome of the elections there. He then concurs with a caller into Rush’s show, who complained about RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) who run the Republican Party in California, and went on to state that she had received more than four mail in ballots to her home, which is a not so subtle hint at potential voter fraud. The hints become less subtle as the video continues.

The video has one comment on it from an account named NancyLee, which was created on July 4th, 2009. She has one video on her channel titled “IMG 0870” dated Mar 21, 2015 in which she appears to be showing people her backyard. It has 18 views. She has created 16 playlists on YouTube, none of which have anything to do with politics or California. Everything about Nancy’s account seems almost conspicuously designed to avoid any suggestion of an interest in politics.

Nancy’s comment reads “The Russians must have been there….I know, it really isn’t funny at all. It’s pretty scary – the voter fraud there…..and spreading throughout the country. What is that saying? All it takes is for good men to do nothing? Well they might have been good men once (the rhinos) but they’ve lost their courage and are just appeasers.”

I’ll note for the listening audience that she spells the RINO acronym as one spells the shortened version of the animal name, with an “rh” and in all lowercase letters.

Mr. Rooney replies to this comment stating “Yeah, Nancy, we really need to get busy. It’s gonna take a lot more than Trump to win this battle. People are always looking for a champion, and I understand that. But we all have a role to play in fighting this battle.”

Now, if you’re at all familiar with me, you can understand why my skepticism begins to build. Who is it that thinks Russians are interfering in our elections? Not anybody who would be accusing Democrats of election fraud, that’s for sure.

Mr. Rooney is like a Democrat’s cartoon image of a conservative. He listens to Rush Limbaugh, and considers the unverified assertions of random radio callers to be more trustworthy than what one reads in reputable newspapers. He makes vague implications that illegal immigrants are responsible for swaying elections, without any particular concern for supporting that claim which, even if there is truth to this, still fits the suspicion I’m raising in that this is what Democrats caricature as xenophobia.

When his commenter claims Russians are stealing the elections, for Democrats, he responds in the affirmative, as if this were just obvious.

The “About” Section of Mr. Rooney’s channel provides links to a Subscribestar profile, and his own website’s Donate page. There are no links to any Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Gab, Truth Social, Parler, Gettr, or any other social media accounts from which one may derive a history of his online activity. Searching Twitter for Patrick Rooney returns many results, but for a man with no fewer than five years of political activity under his belt, it is rather conspicuous that none in the first few pages of scrolling make any reference to him, and OldSchoolUS has no Twitter presence that I could find.  A search of Twitter for oldschoolus.com returns 16 Tweets linking to this domain, including one from Jesse Lee Peterson on February 19th 2020, but none seem to be from Mr. Rooney.

His channel has accrued 26,125 views over the course of 70 videos. Most of those videos have less than 200 views, and the listener will be unsurprised to discover that his most successful videos involve the accusations against Mr. Peterson.

I also find it interesting that Mr. Rooney begins his first YouTube video with “This is Patrick Rooney from PRRooney.com” and links to this site as if this is supposed to matter, but six months later he has a new site, and has forgotten all about the old one. For this reason, I checked the Internet Archive’s WayBackMachine, to see what, if anything, ever existed, at PRRooney.com.

The result is one crawl on July 20th 2019. There are no other references to it in the archive.

When one checks the archive, it is a redirect to Mr. Rooney’s new website, OldSchoolUS.com.

I can tell you from experience that I’ve run a number of low traffic websites over nearly 15 years of online political activity. All of them, no matter how obscure, are in the WayBackMachine. So, I find it very suspicious that this one has no archive.

There is likewise no data from the site in Archive.today.

But we may assume that content once existed there, given the redirect and the aforementioned posts and comments on OldSchoolUS which predate the domain registration.

That first post, mentioned prior, is titled “America Was Never That Great”–Tell That To My Dad, this appears to be the first thing Mr. Rooney had to say to begin his now years long history of supposed public activism. As the title may imply if you pay attention to the news, Mr. Rooney is referencing a comment by disgraced former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

To begin his posting career, Mr. Rooney informs us that his father was a Word War II Veteran, and that, having been aboard a sinking ship, he certainly would have considered America quite great. Then he gets to the bit about then Governor Cuomo, reminding us of his devotion to talk radio…

This afternoon I was driving and listening to the top-of-the-hour news. I’ve been conditioned to do this since I was a kid. My dad was a news junkie–radio, newspapers (yes, more than one, and he was no intellectual), and TV. I heard a sound bite of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, giving a speech in which he actually said the words, “America was never that great.” Wow. This man is the Governor of a populous, productive state, and one of the leaders in his party.

After audible gasps from attendees, Cuomo went on to attempt to tie the statement into the “fact” that we won’t be great until we supposedly stop holding women down. Pandering comes so second nature to most politicians these days. In a moment, the great fall of the Democrat Party was official.

There’s nothing too suspicious about this, except for the fact that it is such standard fare. If one were trying to build a false image of being a conservative activist, one could hardly endeavor to find a more cookie cutter example. Son of a veteran, conservative radio listener, outraged by the Governor’s comments, dislikes the Democrat Party. It touches all the bases as a lawyer might attempt to do in a legal brief.

From this point on, Mr. Rooney posts to his blog sporadically. Sometimes every other day, sometimes taking a month or more off at a time. He posts mostly about nutrition and fitness, with a heavy focus on a vegan diet, which he says is directed by the old testament, in a November 2019 article titled “Kosher Bodybuilding—For Strength, Health, and Longevity“.

On January 7th of 2020, Mr. Rooney announces that an update of his book “Greek Physique” has been published to Amazon. The link provided shows no such book, and a search for the title returns no results. Notably, Mr. Rooney also here links to a page where he encourages his readers to leave a review of the book, and while the fact that his book is no longer on Amazon might be explained by Amazon removing the book, perhaps over politics, it is conspicuous here that Mr. Rooney links to an error page, and that the error is right there in the text of the hyperlink. https://www.amazon.com/review/create-review/error?asin=B0797H7K33

He posts this link not once, but twice in the article.

Why would Mr. Rooney be linking to an error message, at the very time he wanted his readers to be reviewing his book?

There are no comments on this blog post indicating any issues from his readers. He does not update the blog at any time to announce that he has been censored by Amazon, but on  June 15, 2020 he does announce that his book is available exclusively on his SubscribeStar, to users who pledge $5/month or more. The book costed just $2.99 at Amazon, per his prior announcement.

A search of Amazon for Author Patrick Rooney returns a title “Exploring Black Philanthropy” published in 2005, though it is not at all clear that this is the same Patrick Rooney.

Mr. Rooney’s posts take a dark turn during the Coronavirus pandemic. He is convinced that the government is hiding the cure to coronavirus, and again we have an example of a cartoonish depiction of a conservative which burns brightly in the mind of all Leftists. On April 22, 2020 he posts a podcast about the “clear connection between Coronavirus (COVID-19) and sanctuary cities, counties, and states” which is feeds yet another Democrat trope about the Right.

On July 31, 2021, Rooney begins the process of unveiling his accusations against Mr. Peterson in a post titled Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll Really ARE the GATEWAY TO HELL (Part I). Here, he makes no mention of it specifically, but he teases that Part 2 is coming soon, and that it pertains to sex.

Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll Really ARE the GATEWAY TO HELL (Part II) arrives on August 3rd of 2021, and here Mr. Rooney claims that he was molested as a child. Except, he wasn’t a child, he was 19 years old and had already moved out of his parents’ home.

Corruption took hold of me once I left my parents’ home. Because while in their home, I was constrained–the presence of my parents and family were an inhibiting factor. My worst instincts were held back.

But once I left home at nineteen, the corruption inside of me was allowed to “flower.”

I had been something of a solitary child, and for some reason, for a time I believed that I was adopted. I created my own world to some extent, retreating into my mind. There was something about reality I didn’t want to face head on.

I had a neighborhood friend who had been damaged. His father would drink and beat him on a regular basis.

My friend’s father had a set of playing cards with photos of naked women on them. I remember one day I was over at his house, and he showed me the cards. Somehow that led into him molesting me–it happened fast and that was it. There was something spiritually traumatic in the experience, and I felt great shame for years–decades afterwards–for allowing it to take place.

More recently, I began to see the incident in a different light, and realized that it really wasn’t that big a deal. Some embarrassment, sure, but I could see the dysfunction in my friend’s life that led up to it. He was passing on a form of anger and trauma that his father passed to him.

I hate to break it to Mr. Rooney, but he wasn’t “molested”. If we accept what he said as otherwise true, what actually happened was, a grown man went to another grown man’s house, looked at pornographic images, and engaged in some sort of sexual behavior he later came to regret. Rooney’s vague description of “somehow that led to him molesting me” is conspicuous in its failure to describe what if any measure’s were taken to render him incapable of giving consent, and no mention is made of consent being denied. We may grant him the benefit of the doubt so far as him not wanting to be graphic, but 19 year old men are not typically described as having been “molested” by their peers, and to support such a serious allegation, there has to be some mention of consent or its absence to be taken seriously. He seems to be asserting that the fact of the encounter was evidence enough of predatory behavior, and that says more about his psyche than it does about the encounter.

Mr. Rooney goes on to say that he moved back in with his parents as an adult years later, though since he claims to have been molested at 19, it is unclear when he thinks adulthood begins. When he moves back in with his parents, he describes this seemingly poetic scene.

That family background I provided you was a long way to saying that once I came home–as an adult–my friend (the one who molested me) was still living in the old neighborhood. He was in the hospital, as he had a cancer in his private parts–the specific form I do not remember. Interesting, though, isn’t it, how some of these things work out.

I finally gathered the courage to approach my friend, and one day entered his hospital room. After a little small talk, I broached the subject, bringing his attention back to that fateful day. He said he didn’t remember. I told him that I forgave him for it. He wanted to get away from the subject, and said he was tired and needed to sleep. I never saw him again. I later found out that he had died.

Suggesting that God gave this man cancer as punishment for the “molestation”, Rooney quotes the bible at Romans 12:19

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

At this point I’ve long begun to doubt Mr. Rooney’s credibility, so I’m not certain we should believe this account of the man dying of penis cancer as God’s vengeance, but even if we accept this account as true, the now dead accused, denies the accusation, and wants this weirdo out of his hospital room so he can be alone with his cancer.

Rooney returns with Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll Really ARE the GATEWAY TO HELL (Part III: Conclusion) on August 6th, and here he describes how he went on to begin using drugs on a regular basis, and how these drugs would contribute to him have depraved sexual fantasies.

A negative to the lab job is that, after a long night at work, I would come home to my cheap apartment in Reseda (San Fernando Valley) and have trouble sleeping. So, when blackout curtains weren’t enough, I started taking bong hits (for the uninitiated: a water pipe that cooled marijuana smoke) until I was comfortable enough to sleep.

Big mistake.

Oh, I didn’t have any trouble falling or staying asleep at that point. I had the opposite problem: my sleep was too deep.

Once I fell into a deep sleep, I would have vivid dreams, sometimes involving sexual situations. That was enjoyable enough, but it was what happened AFTERWARDS that scared the hell out of me.

Because the sexual situations in my dreams almost always led to dark dreams–literally shadowy dreams where I could not see an enemy attacking me. …And sleep paralysis. …And other jarring experiences.

If you watch a movie from the Seventies, you may notice (in comparison to, say, the Fifties) the commonness of casual sex (sex outside of marriage). Or then again, you may not, as this is also rampant today.

But there’s something about sin: It never stops–it evolves into a greater sin! Casual, heterosexual sex became bi-sexual, then homosexual sex, homosexual marriage, pedophilia, and bestiality. In other words, there is always a new frontier where evil is concerned. Exploration, and the pushing of societal boundaries of right and wrong, are always part of the experience.

In between parts two and three, Mr. Rooney releases a video stating that he’ll be forced to get a job if he does not get more financial support on his SubscribeStar. In it, he acts as if working for a living is a fate worse than death, and makes a mockery out several different totally respectable professions by pretending to perform them.

So, we now have revealed a financial motive.

Even as of today, Mr. Rooney’s Subsribestar has only 1 supporter.. The video in which he demands to be freed from the obligations of work has 121 views as of this writing, nearly three years after publication. Even if every single one of those viewers signed up for his $5/month subscription, this would only amount to $605/month, and one wonders just how Mr. Rooney expects to pay for any sort of lifestyle on that sort of budget. He must be capable of realizing this, and he has a strong motive to draw attention to himself as a consequence.

Mr. Rooney began his Subscribestar profile in April of 2020. He has posted there 263 times since, as recently to this writing as April 21st 2023.

On November 8th 2021, Mr. Rooney comes with more sexual abuse confessions in a post titled Sexual MOLESTATION–The Secret CRIME.

My sister, who recently passed, had years ago accused my father of molesting her. I have no idea whether her accusation was true. At the time, nobody in the family wanted to deal with it. Part of me did want to hear her out, and I remember discussing meeting my sister to at least listen to her. But for some reason I never followed through with it.

I believe that part of the reason I never did meet with my sister was because I was involved with a men’s organization, and at the time there were many women in the news accusing men of sexual “crimes,” and we and much of society were suspicious of their motives.

I think the suspicion was legitimate, as I do believe that many women hate men (sometimes for understandable reasons), and look to destroy them.

But some of these accusations are true.

I wrote about my sister–and my relationship with her as someone who did not agree with her politically–HERE.

My mother–in her rejection of my father’s authority–followed the authority of the Catholic priests, and one priest–a friend of the family who acted flamboyantly gay and who liked to drink (a common combination)–was drunk one day, and called my mother on the phone, telling her the sexual things he wanted to do with her.

This same priest molested someone close to me. He was accused of molesting other boys as well and is no longer a priest.

Authority figures know they have power over the minds of those who “follow” them, and many abuse that power in one way or another. Sexual abuse is not uncommon among them.

This is the second time in our timeline that there are sexual situations being disclosed after the deaths of the people involved. Both his father and his sister are now dead, and cannot answer if he is telling the truth. We have a vague reference to an unnamed priest, and we get our first hints about Rooney’s time in a “Men’s organization” which leads up to the accusations against Mr. Peterson.

He continues below;

Sexual abusers are often those who themselves were sexually abused. What percent is open to debate. But clearly many of them are. And the sin can be passed on from generation to generation.

But it doesn’t have to be.

The sin passed down to me has hurt those close to me. But I have admitted my sin, and turned from it, and asked those I hurt to forgive me–not for me, but for their own well-being.

Here he seems to be referencing a confession to himself abusing others, but no such confession is forthcoming.

A week later on November 15, 2021 Mr. Rooney comes to us with a post titled When All Goes SILENT (After Disclosing SEXUAL CRIME) in which he begins referencing Mr. Peterson more directly. But his references seem to be less geared toward the reader than at Mr. Peterson himself, as he is drawing a connection which is impossible for one to understand at the time of writing, until it is placed in the context of later disclosures.

I heard a minister this weekend say that people shouldn’t reveal their vices. Really?

Revealing a line that is somewhat unique to Mr. Peterson, Rooney makes this reference

The preacher said that the real sin is anger, and that we’re all human, and you know, humans will do what humans will do, right?

He goes on to say

This preacher also said that God will work out our vices, once we get our “heart” right. Okay, that’s understandable, but what if a person has supposedly “gotten their heart right” and then kept indulging their vices for a period of years, even decades? It appears that God would be working pretty slowly in their life, would it not?

“What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?”

Romans 6:1 NIV
If you’re not a Christian, bear with me here. I’m using Scripture to refute error in preachers. Where the subject of sexual molestation is being discussed–dangerous, wicked, and profoundly damaging error.

What if a person involved in sexual sin–while they’re “letting God work it out”–is damaging others? I know that in my case my actions and the actions of the adult male who led me into these actions were an assault on my marriage and family!

This is called ADULTERY! Hello!!!

And yes, I made it perfectly clear in my original post that as an adult male, I take total responsibility for what happened. But there was another adult male involved. When will THEY take total responsibility for their part?

Mr. Rooney is very upset about the fact that few people have taken his sexual disclosures seriously, and presumably, this is motivated in some part by the fact that it has not increased his financial prosperity.

Once I made my disclosure, the silence came.

Very few of my friends have come to me to talk about it. I think it’s because the implications of what I have said scare people. I understand, I’m scared too.

He returns again on November 22, 2021 with WHAT Made Me CONTINUE In SEXUAL SIN, here he says;

After these disclosures, it’s apparent that the Christian minister who molested me and encouraged me to continue in this sin with him for a period of YEARS has shown no real remorse–just a bunch of excuses and admonitions to others who are involved in “vice” not to tell others about it.

But Mr. Rooney is clearly stuck in his own head, because the only person he directly accused of molesting him so far is the peer who supposedly was stricken down by God with genital cancer. He is only now stating that he was “molested” by a minister, who we are now informed is Jesse Lee Peterson.

He continues;

He’s telling men not to tell their wives (to get “sympathy”) if they have cheated on their spouse and committed ADULTERY!

Now, in fairness, I can see that a bad woman can use this information to destroy a man. But a good woman will forgive, so his blanket instruction is careless at best.

In this case, I disclosed my sexual sin to my wife and son. It was essentially a confession to my wife–that what we did was WRONG–damaging the sanctity of the “bonds” of my marriage! And it was a warning to my son not to get involved with this charismatic–yet evil–minister.

And after coming clean about my sin, my family is closer than ever–we are healing, thank God!

Here we are informed that Mr. Rooney has told his wife and child about his homosexual affairs, and that they have forgiven him, but that he has received this forgiveness in part by blaming his homosexual behavior on his sex partners. First he claims that his peer molested him, now we are informed that Mr. Peterson “molested” him. And this story just gets harder and harder to frame this way as we move forward.

He also gives us another strong hint as to who this “minister” is;

I have told this minister that he is obsessed with being the “teacher”–the “corrector.” In fact, I learned the hard way that confronting him about his wrongs resulted in denials, and in him “flipping the script”–rejecting any serious correction while calling me “angry” for bringing up truth.

This goes on regularly with this minister. He seeks to discredit anyone who comes forward with any truth as being “angry” and therefore worthy of being dismissed.

He is an expert at playing the “anger” game. It goes like this: He pushes the buttons of those who challenge him. If he can succeed at getting them angry, he puts the focus on THAT, and not the substance of what they said. The outsider sees this exchange, and it appears that he is the “right” one, and they are wrong. It’s quite slick, and most may never notice it.

All manipulators know how to push the “right” emotional buttons to achieve their desired outcome, and to appear “good.”

This minister shows the outward appearance of calm. Is it real? I’ve come to see it more as something dead inside him. Dead people are indeed calm!

Then we are informed that this went on, consensually, for YEARS;

So here is the kicker: the reason that I CONTINUED in sexual sin with this minister for a period of years is twofold:

#1: The minister convinced me that once I engaged in this act with him, I was “born again”! (I’ll explain below)

#2: I used this religious cover he provided as an excuse to indulge my perverse sexual appetite.

Am I really saying that this minister said that after having deviant sex with him I was “born again”?

Yes, he did say it.

Now, in fairness to him, I did FEEL a sense of freedom after performing sexual acts with him. I felt like I was walking on air, and the feeling stayed with me for a period of weeks.

I realize now that there is always the real, and next to it is the counterfeit.

What I felt was a sense of relief that the sexual identity / attraction that had grown in me after I was molested by a neighbor (another boy) was something I was no longer HIDING–SUPPRESSING.

I am sure that this is the same feeling that many homosexuals feel after their first “consensual” encounter (which often occurs sometime after they have been molested).

I now know that a sense of relief from suppression is not the same as being “born again.”

This was a LIE that kept me in sin. The minister knew how important it was for me to find spiritual freedom, and consciously or unconsciously played this card for all it was worth.

If this minister truly believes that having deviant sex with a member of his congregation is great therapy, then perhaps he should advertise this as a service he can provide in private counseling!

At some point I began to question the minister about our illicit sexual relationship. I’d say, “I can see that perhaps the first time (we had sex) had some value in getting me to be honest about what was inside of me (a post-molestation attraction to having sex with men), but what about all these other times?”

The minister had no answer for this, and I should have stopped then and there.

In fact, I finally did stop it. I told the minister I did not want to engage in this activity any more. Apparently, he thought I really didn’t mean it, and that I was playing some kind of game, so one day, while talking to him in his bedroom (big mistake!), he tried to force himself sexually on me, and I stuck my arm straight out–grabbing him by the throat and thus stopping his advance. I got out of there quickly.

While driving away on the main street, I got a call from him–he was furious, telling me to, “Never do that to me again!” He paused, thought better of continuing the tirade, and calmly ended the conversation.

From that point on, I knew that I had to leave, and I began to make plans to do so. Months later, I was out of there.

And not only did this go on for YEARS, but even after it supposedly turned violent, he stuck around for MONTHS? And it gets worse…

After that time, I was angry with this minister, but continued our “friendship” from a distance. I would go back and forth in my mind–knowing all along what he had done, and alternately feeling angry about it and sometimes blaming myself only, and excusing his behavior.

I’d also rationalize what I knew and felt against the “good” that he was doing.

This went on for some time. After a while, I realized that whatever “good” he was doing was likely being eclipsed by things he was doing that were not good.

At some point, I confronted him–actually several times–to get all off my chest that I could.

And once I saw him making inroads with my son, I decided at that point to confront him directly about our illicit sexual relationship. I did not want to take the chance that this minister would spread his corruption any further in my family.

My son didn’t believe my accusation against the minister at first (he’d fallen for the hype that the minister was somehow “perfect”) and wanted to hear my accusation for himself, so I confronted the minister with my son present–and then with both my son and wife present.

So, after all this has happened, he is bringing his son to see this man, and he informs us of this by framing his acts as virtuous. That he now discloses to his son that he’s been cheating on the boy’s mother for years with this man that he now confronts in their presence, we are to believe is a selfless, virtuous act, aimed at improving this boy’s life.

Well, I hope you’ll pardon my skepticism.

Now, as I prepared for this show, things just got crazier and crazier as we went on, and you may notice it conspicuously absent any investigation of the claims themselves.

I’ll note that, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Peterson has not responded to these claims, even to deny them. So, perhaps, he has something to hide. I told you at the beginning that I have no interest in carrying water for Mr. Peterson, but what’s obvious to me is that Mr. Rooney is at best a lunatic, and a homosexual, who cannot to save his life take any responsibility for his own actions. He is a detriment to his son and to his wife and to anyone foolish enough to be around him, and whatever his relationship may have been with Mr. Peterson, we may be certain that Mr. Peterson now regrets it profoundly.

I intend to return to this subject in the future, because it only gets crazier from here, but I’ll now take your calls and get into the other news of the day…




If you would like to help finance this high quality production, I try to make this easy enough to do….


Follow me elsewhere, listen, watch, and keep in touch…

Be sure and get subscribed to my newsletter if you haven’t already, and whitelist [email protected] so I don’t end up in your spam trap!



Radical Agenda S06E010 – Bon Voyage, Bongino

There’s plenty to talk about today, but several stories in the news, about the news itself, have my interest at the moment. Dan Bongino has parted ways with Fox News. Fox News settled a defamation suit with Dominion voting machines. Buzzfeed news has ceased to exist. Vice World News could be next on the chopping block.

It might go without saying that we’ll have to get into the story of the Charlottesville indictments on my uncensored production, having touched on it during SurrealPolitiks and the associated members only features. But now I’ve said it anyway, and so you’ll surely want to tune in for that, but one of the things I’ve found most remarkable about those indictments is the seeming disinterest of the media in the story. Sure we’ve had a few left wing drive bys. Notably, the Washington Post and the usual suspects. And, admittedly, I haven’t been glued to the news as much as I used to be, which is probably a subject I should address at greater depth at some point, now that I think about it… But, overall, this does not appear to be a big deal to anyone but those highly invested in the event.

Which brings us to the departure of Mr. Bongino from the Fox News Channel, which was, in my view, inevitable if not long overdue.


I should begin by stating that I do think, on balance, Dan Bongino is doing good work. Attacking Democrats is a worthy pursuit, and Dan has made alternative online platforms for  social networking, video distribution, and even online payments which, while not the “free speech” systems he markets them as, have improved the online ecosystem substantially. I certainly wouldn’t want him to stop, and I have my doubts the Fox News channel will be much improved by his departure.

Dan’s show “Unfiltered” caused me to do some serious reflection on my own media career. It was this really cringe inducing attempt top appear “edgy” while remaining within the boundaries of good taste as defined by people who have none of their own. This routinely took the form of calling Democrats stupid and and making immature jokes about their various inadequacies, followed by self congratulatory remarks about how he was bold enough to go there…

But Mr. Bongino is not so bold as he would have his audience believe, of course.

Firstly, while there are no shortage of stupid people falling for Democrat tricks, dismissing Democrat schemes as the product of substandard intellect fails to capture and convey the threat that they pose. We are not met with incompetent people ruining the country by accident, but rather by careful planners doing so with malice aforethought, which is an entirely different category of problem. Mocking Democrats as silly dumb people downplays this threat, grants them the moral narrative they thrive on, and does a disservice to those who take such messages as more than light humor. Democrats are a dangerous menace, one far more powerful than the Republican Party, and exponentially more powerful still than any alternative thereto. Be though it may, fine to enjoy some ridicule at their expense, I believe Dan and people like him would do well to give Mein Kampf a read, and see what Hitler said about war propaganda.

Bongino’s faux edgitarian routine quickly became tired to me, and I’m not certain it would be much better if he really was edgy. More on that later, but for now it may suffice to say that it’s hardly bold to say that Democrats are stupid. It’s bolder than people who meekly submit to their schemes perhaps, but not when you work at the opposition news network and have money to burn. Much like his various investments in “free speech” online platforms which specifically prohibit anything they deem racist or anti-Semitic – which, as an aside, they conspicuously seem to view as two different things as if to deny that Jews are a race distinct from Whites –  Unfiltered always stayed within the accepted boundaries of mainstream political discourse.

This might be one thing if Mr. Bongino were hewing to those boundaries as a means by which to wield the promotional power of the Fox News Channel, and then taking his radio listeners closer to the forbidden truths of our time. But this, Mr. Bongino did not do.

Among the platforms Bongino is a prominent investor in, are Rumble, a YouTube Competitor, he Terms of Service on Rumble contain this little carve out from their “free speech” mission…

You may not post or transmit any message which is abusive, inciting violence, harassing, harmful, hateful, anti-semitic, racist or threatening.

For this reason, I stream SurrealPolitiks to Rumble, but not Radical Agenda.

Rumble owns Locals.com, and though their terms say nothing about racist or anti-Semitic content, they use Stripe exclusively for payments, and the platform is borderline useless without these features. As I’ve written elsewhere, Stripe is a Left wing activist organization, which has banned your humble correspondent and many others, permanently, and without justification.

I tried to create a Stripe account for my Substack and Locals accounts, and as soon as I processed my first payments, I was promptly banned again. I can still use Substack and Locals, but these platforms are of minimal utility without the financial features.

To Rumble’s credit, when I first found the platform in December of 2022, they only payed through PayPal. They have since updated their system to let you get paid by check, and SurrealPolitiks is monetized on Rumble.

When I first heard about Bongino’s effort to start a free speech payment processor, I was excited. It was among the first things I looked up when I got out of prison. And you might be encouraged by reading their FAQ, which states;

Does AlignPay regulate the content of its users?

We exist solely to facilitate a welcoming “economic square” where people, organizations, campaigns, and merchants can interact in a healthy, open, and legal way. That said, we do not permit our services to be used to support crime, civil torts, or other unlawful acts (see our Terms of Service here).

Those terms, the “fine print” as it were, say the following upon closer inspection;

You must respect others and obey the law. You may not use the Services to assist or aid and abet crime, civil torts, or other unlawful acts, or do anything that, in our sole discretion we believe is or could be considered racist, libelous, tortious, abusive, or otherwise objectionable.

Well, if one may not do anything that “could be considered racist” … “or otherwise objectionable” one fails to see the benefits of this service as opposed to PayPal. Perhaps they exercise this discretion more prudently, and I’d imagine they do, but this is no high bar to set, and in our day, the capacity to say things which “could be considered racist” is the very litmus test of free speech.

This is the taboo subject one may not broach, and the Jewish question in particular. Arguably, all this tranny nonsense is just the next step, in a mission to disconnect people from the biological reality of their existence, in hopes of keeping them ever further from realizing the dire consequences of ignoring the racial question. I believe it is a drastic overstep which will backfire in spectacular fashion, but only because they are of the same categorical phenomenon.

I am not an advocate of free speech. The idea is pure nonsense. I don’t expect any website to become a platform for spam, porn, communism, or gender nonsense, and I think it is overdue that the Right begin censoring their opponents. So I do not hold it against them that these are not free speech systems. I am, however irritated by the silly marketing of a nonsense idea which is contradicted quite plainly by the reality of the situation.


Like many Fox News viewers, I’ve been familiar with Dan for many years. Most notably, as a frequent guest on Sean Hannity, best known for treating Geraldo Rivera as a punching bag. In a 3 minute segment before a hard out for commercial, this is occasionally amusing, but just about the time I was shipped from jail to prison, Mr. Bongino tried to outdo Brian Kilmeade in terms of sheer number of hours in front of a microphone.

While I was at the Corrections Corporation of America facility in Tallahatchie, Mississippi, just before being shipped once again to the Communications Management Unit at USP Marion, I was first exposed to Mr. Bongino’s podcast, which aired for one hour each weeknight on Supertalk 96.9 WTCD. It was during this time that he announced he would be moving into Rush Limbaugh’s noon to three slot on broadcast radio, and began snatching up EIB Network affiliates just as quick has he could. Around the same time, his Saturday Fox News show was likewise announced.

Limbaugh had been dead for several months by this point, and I was furious that el Rushbo had not hand picked his own successor. It had become clear to me that a contest had begun in conservative media to claim the prize, and with little to do at this time but listen to the radio, I was a close observer of this phenomenon.

The result has been nothing short of tragic, in my view. Beyond the loss of Limbaugh the man, his platform had become a unique force in politics. From one microphone, “millions and millions and millions” of ears were reached each weekday. In the wake of his death, scavengers picked at the carcass, dragging bits and pieces away to be devoured among packs of lesser animals.

Not only did Mr. Bongino begin snatching up the slots, but so did Dana Loesch. Have you ever listened to “The Dana Show”?

Ms. Loesch did a fine job working for the NRA. She repeats the familiar talking points with conviction and is a visually appealing spokeswoman for a cause typically associated with masculinity. By presenting the 2nd amendment as women’s issue, she made a fine case for guns as “the great equalizer” and for this we may all be grateful. But to see her step into the shoes of Rush Limbaugh, was as if to watch a child put on his father’s suit and drag a briefcase around the house in his little red wagon. It would be comical if it wasn’t such a tremendous loss to Right wing politics

It was subsequent to her and Bongino beginning to dismantle the reach of the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, that Clay Travis and Buck Sexton, whose names, joint and several, are so obviously subject to mockery that it almost seems petty to repeat the jokes, were awarded control over the show’s branding.

And they too, do good work. I don’t hold it against Gay and Cuck that they won’t name the Jew or broadcast a daily segment with Charles Murray. I haven’t really listened that much to the show, and maybe they’re doing better work than I’m aware of. But the one time I did listen to the show was when I was in the Central Virginia Regional Jail during the Sines v. Kessler civil trial. And the first thing I heard them say was on the subject of transgenderism, and they said something to the effect of “Well, if you want to change your gender, nobody is holding that against you, just don’t make everyone else go along with it”.

Alright, fine, if that’s really how you feel, go ahead and say that, but I’d say there are people who are going to hold this against these degenerates and rightly so. Watching Bruce Jenner become a regular feature on Fox News has infuriated me for this reason, and when I heard them say this to once loyal listeners of Rush Limbaugh, I knew all had been lost so far as that source of power was concerned.

There is only one man who could have filled the shoes of Rush Limbaugh. If you listened to the show on a regular basis, especially if you listened to his fill in hosts as he was frequently out of commission due to his cancer treatments, you know who it is. Those fill in slots gave me a deep appreciation for him which I was unable to fully get from his brief segments on Tucker Carlson, and gaining that familiarity with him caused me to read some of his books, which were excellent not only for their humor, but for the deep insight the humor conveyed.

He really made me think, and since I considered him more of a comedian than a source of wisdom, this really surprised me.

This thinking is in no small part the cause of my change in tone as of late.

One moment in particular stands out to me, and I imagine some of you may have heard this. While he was filling in for Rush, they let a caller on the air who asked a rather pointed question about race. I fail to recall the words, but I believe it took aim directly at the Jews, and I was shocked that he didn’t like, hit the dump button and call the guy a crank and move on, as any other man on FCC airwaves would almost certainly have done, and not without justification.

He let the guy go before he answered, clearly not wanting to make a long segment of the subject, but he didn’t dispute the guy’s point at all. He treated it as obviously true, and not subject to much in the way of argument.

And before I even get into what his response was, I am going to ask you to pause and consider the implications of this. I’ve talked before about conveying an idea not by stating it explicitly, but by having it implied by the underlying assumptions of more topical messaging. If you’re in the habit of listening to Nazi podcasts, it’s easy to miss the value of such nuance, but if you’re in the habit of listening to broadcast radio I suspect you can more fully appreciate the subtlety involved.

Most radio hosts would hear a guy mention “the Jews” and hang up and start talking about some silly QAnon weather conspiracy nonsense to knock down a strawman and distance themselves from the crimethink. But not Mark Steyn.

He responded with such earnestness, that he almost seemed to drop the British accent. He knew exactly what the guy was saying, and you knew he had no desire to dispute it much less distance himself from it. It bordered on a confession, in some ways, as if he was telling the world “I can’t talk about this, but I’m in this with you”.

I’ll try to find this clip and analyze it in greater depth before the conclusion of Stage Six, because I’m regretting now that I don’t have it handy, but his response was essentially that to address the legitimate concern he had about the very real problem described, the aim had to first be the Democrat Party. That, he said, was the clear and present danger that made it impossible to even discuss the problems we face. That, essentially, it was the obstacle, to solving other problems.

If you’ve ever known anybody who was an alcoholic, and who also had other problems on top of this, you understand this triage very well. Quitting drinking is not a sufficient solution to this person’s problems, but it is a necessary one, and no amount of medication or counseling is going to fix a person who is drunk all of the time. Whatever else ails them, until they stop with the damn booze, the only thing you can do is demand they stop drinking, and nothing can proceed without that obstacle being removed. If they refuse, eventually, you just have to cut the person off.

And so it is with America, in my view. The Democrats have to be dislodged, and while that won’t solve our problems, or even come close, on its own, it is a necessary step to doing so. If we cannot do that, then we must seek greener pastures, because there will be no safety within the reach of their power.

If I recall correctly, Steyn made a similar comparison, and this stuck with me.

And given that he was clearly the most talented fill in host for Rush, I have to suspect that even this was just too much for whoever calls the shots. Instead of Mark Steyn carrying those hundreds of radio stations, they were split up between Dan Bongino, Dana Loesch, and Clay and Buck. That is a terrible, terrible thing for the radio business, and for American politics.

And Bongino in particular, I mentioned earlier really made me think about my routine. This edgy, bad boy, “unfiltered” persona. It’s one thing to take a bold stance. It’s one thing to make a joke that transgresses the boundaries. It’s one thing to question established orthodoxies. All of which are unquestionably worthwhile pursuits.

It is an entirely different category of action to build a persona – centered – on being edgy. It’s especially nauseating when, like Dan Bongino, that persona is fake, and you distance yourself from the real trailblazers. But, even in my case, where I was really willing to break all the rules and suffer all the consequences, at some point this has to jump the shark. If what you’re trying to do is change the boundaries, and what you are doing succeeds, at some point you either find yourself within the boundaries you have now set, or you just become a caricature of an extremist, and your words necessarily decline in value precipitously.

Someone calling himself “A Very Naughty Boy” sent me a money order recently. Along with it came a note which reads as follows;


I doubt the Republican Party will welcome you. If you appear at Republican events, I believe the Jews and shabbos goyim will set upon you and throw you out.

Is that a path to political power? Doubtful. Would it be interesting to watch? Certainly.

Thus I support your scheme to work within the Republican Party, provided you record and share the results.


Thank you sir, for your donation, but I regret to inform you that I will not be able to provide you with the content you seek in the foreseeable future.

Of course, if I go to the local Republican Party meeting, and I say “Hello, I’m the crying Nazi, and I’d like to help you boys win some elections” they are going to do everything in their power to get rid of me, because my presence would be at cross purposes with their efforts to dominate popularity contests.

The question I had to deal with was, am I causing other people to likewise be shut out of political power, and if I am, is that a good idea?

The conclusion I reached was, no. It obviously wasn’t a good idea. My best interests, and yours, are served by people who agree with us being able to sign their real names to letters they send, instead of hiding in the shadows and complaining about those who need not hide. If we want to win in politics, then if not us, then at least the people we are able to have conversations with, must be able to walk into the meetings of a political party, and influence the direction of that organization.

And if we cannot do that, then I dare say, the patient has refused to quit drinking, and we have no choice but to cut him off. Which is to say, that America will descend into violence and chaos and poverty, it will be dominated by foreign powers, and criminal gangs, and will cease to be a place where one might secure the existence of our people, much less a future for White children.

And be that the case, we will have to seek greener pastures. In which case we must ask, what greener pastures might we find?

Will you be an avowed Nazi who attempts to make his way through Russian immigration authorities? Good luck with that, my friend. Russia doesn’t much care for Nazis, and not because of any unique affection for the Jewish people.

Russia cares who comes into their country. Most countries do, you might have gathered. Lauren Southern, you might have heard, was denied entry to the UK. Richard Spencer was banned from 26 European countries. Gavin McInnes, and others, were denied entry to Australia.

So what’s the goal here?

Is being edgy the goal? Because that’s what Dan Bongino does, and I don’t particularly care to top his performance. In fact, I’d say that even with his falling well short of the mark on the free speech stuff, he’s done a lot more by simply providing platforms which are ever so slightly better than YouTube and PayPal, than he has with “Unfiltered”.

If the goal is to secure the existence of our people, and a future for White children, but you can’t participate in American politics, or travel to other traditionally white countries, just how do you expect to accomplish this goal?

I’m not saying I know the answer. In fact, I’m really interested to hear your thoughts on the matter at 217-688-1433. But I do know that the consequences of us failing to accomplish our goals are so dire, that our race a profound and arguably unforgivable disservice by declining to reassess our own behavior from time to time.



If you would like to help finance this high quality production, I try to make this easy enough to do….


Follow me elsewhere, listen, watch, and keep in touch…

Radical Agenda S06E009 – Economemetics

Here at the Radical Agenda, we’ve come to understand, quite by the hard way, the concept of scarcity. Whatever discomfort this accompanies, we consider ourselves fortunate for the lessons such experience teaches a man.

A bit of formal study doesn’t hurt, either. One thing I do miss about libertarianism was the centrality economics played in the more coherent circles of this otherwise often frivolous social movement. They didn’t always do economics well, but at least they put forth the effort.

You can’t learn all there is to know about Human Action by reading the Ludwig von Mises book of that title, but a man will be better off for having read it nonetheless, and many libertarians, including your humble correspondent, did do just that. In prison, I read it again, along with a book by the same author titled “The Theory of Money and Credit”. I also took in “The Road to Serfdom” by F.A. Hayek, and became a devoted reader of the Wall Street Journal.

Text continues below the video

While valuable in gaining perspective, one cannot stress enough the inadequacy of such orthodox classical economic doctrines. They suffer, first and foremost, from a categorical error. They attempt to isolate the “economy” from other spheres of human endeavor. This apriorism reaches ostensibly logical conclusions which nonetheless do not correspond to reality, and therefore find little practical application in politics.

It’s been too long since I’ve reviewed the works of Karl Marx, but I did have the opportunity to read some Lenin while I was in prison. His 1899 book “The Development of Capitalism in Russia” was of particular interest. Thinking about what it described in the time it was published, the hell that befell that beautiful country made a great deal more sense, however senseless it may appear today, given the benefit of hindsight.

What he and Marx called “Capitalism” was not so much a critique of free markets or a government economic program, but rather an understandable fear that had gripped the people as technological developments rapidly upended all that they had become familiar with over the course of many generations. That kind of disruption doesn’t just change one’s levels of comfort and consumption, it completely upends family life, and you can hardly be surprised by such a revolution taking on a martial character at some point in the process. That vicious people take advantage of the chaos and make matters worse is, no more surprising than any given sunset.

On my shelf right now is “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” by John Maynard Keynes, which I had begun to read just before my release from prison. I’ve had to prioritize other things as of late, but the need to get this title under my belt burns urgently in my mental to do list. From what I know of its contents, which is substantial, giving my reading about Keynesianism elsewhere, I don’t expect it will teach me much about economics, but it surely contains valuable political information, given the pervasiveness of Keynes’s theories in the upper echelons of modern central planning circles.

The Alt Right, by contrast, largely abandoned economics as such. More concerned, quite prudently, with immigration, and the genetic integrity of the societal organism, a collective decision was made to worry about marginal tax rates after a series of metaphorical bullet wounds had been tended to.

A sensible triage indeed, but not without consequence in an environment where such wounds are so frequently inflicted. If one must choose between oxygen and food, this is a rather simple decision at first glance, but of course, you must eat, eventually.

Leftists, be they nominal Democrats or portraying themselves as devotees of Adolf hitler, are never slow to take advantage of a situation. The decision to sideline economics within the Alt Right, consequently, became a decidedly one sided affair. Those of us who understood the subject, and who approached it coherently, dutifully kept our mouths shut while silly ideas about income guarantees and nationalizing everything from health care to widgets became commonplace, and to this I attribute no shortage of blame for the movement’s increasingly undeniable failure.

The pathologies from which these ideas stem manifest in other categories of action, most notably, political strategy. This observation prompted me to go on a bit of a Telegram rant yesterday, and this in turn prompted today’s subject matter.

I’ll quote here at length one of these posts;

Describing a problem, and proposing a solution, are entirely different categories of action.

The fact that one sees a problem with a particular course of action, does not invalidate that course. All other courses of action will likewise be open to criticism,

The prudent man’s task is to weigh the risks and benefits of any course, commit, act, re-evaluate, revise, and repeat, in perpetuity, until death. Perhaps beyond, it is not for me to say.

The most abundantly clear fact of your present existence is that you have no good options. There is no safe choice. There is no cost free unalloyed good.

As a consequence of this, all of your choices necessarily involve perils and compromises.

If you try to pursue a wholly uncompromising political radicalism, you will either realize as you traverse this path that what you are doing is dogmatic nonsense, and abandon it, or you will dwell in an ideological dreamworld and be fortunate to accomplish nothing. Less fortunate people who pursue this course will end up dead.

If you try to avoid all risk, then you will either acquiesce to anything and have no political purpose, or you will be deterred by all obstacles and your otherwise intact political purpose will meet an identical outcome.

The most basic understanding of economics will render the above obvious. Everything involving human action involves a constant weighing of costs and benefits, which are subject to an infinite variety of entirely subjective value judgements.

While dogmatic devotion to “free markets” is no less misguided than any other fanatically narrow vision, one of the biggest problems facing the White Nationalist movement is that they have permitted the abandonment of economics as such. Which is to say, the ideas that pass for economics in these circles, often have nothing to do with economics. They are just silly fictions about perpetual guaranteed abundance at the expense of a 40 hour workweek, and careful assignment of authority to the sufficiently dogmatic among us.

You don’t have to agree with Ludwig von Mises to understand that this is nonsense.

State run health care, income guarantees, family subsidies, we might determine that whatever these forfeit in overall economic efficiency is a worthwhile tradeoff, given a particular set of circumstances. But anybody who suggests these are just obvious things we should and would be doing if not for <insert target of attack here>, is not talking about economics. They are pedaling incoherent rhetorical nonsense for political purposes.

Whether we’re talking political strategy or economic policy, it’s the same phenomenon. it is not a question of if you will take risks, or if you will incur costs, or if you will make compromises. It is only a question of which costs you will incur, which perils you will endure, and which compromises you will make, and what the likelihood will be, of reaping what potential rewards, as a consequence of those investments.

The debate that subsequently ensued in the comments only further reinforced my point.

fAs a pointed example, user responded;

Libertarianism is gay.

The very small inefficiency price to pay for government health care is worth compared to the hell scape of the libertarian option.

To which I replied;

This is exactly what I’m talking about. This is not the output of economic thought.

The problem with the government monopolizing a service isn’t the cost of the service. The problem is figuring out what the service costs.

Prices are formed by negotiations among competitors in a given market. The government is not capable of determining this by the whims of the legislature.

If the government monopolizes health care, are all the doctors now government employees? Is the chemical company that makes Viagra and pool cleaning chemicals on the same compound now government property? If the chemical manufacturer needs to purchase raw materials from a farm, does the farm now belong to the government? Will all the schools that train chemists and doctors now become government schools?

If all the doctors now work for the government, who will determine their salaries? Will they have a pay scale similar to that of IRS paper pushers?

Will the government take over all of health care, including breast implants? Will the government cover dental?

Presumably, the government system would endeavor to at least cover the most vital services…

If there are elements of the healthcare industry which pay better than those the government does cover, and all the most capable doctors flood into those industries, what will become of our most vital healthcare needs?

This is what happens when you consider things in economic terms, instead of axiomatic ideological rhetoric.

One of the most predictable phenomena on Right wing Telegram conversations has become that in any conversation, somebody will invoke the National Justice Party in a promotional manner. Identify this for what it is, namely spam, and you can expect to be hounded as an enemy of the movement. But it does occasionally provide opportunity for response, if not dialogue.

One user responds;

Former Ron Paul Libertarian turned Jack-Booted National Socialist here…

I have totally turned a corner am All-In on National Justice Party Platform Position #19:

“Health care is a right. Health care must be removed from the control of for-profit hospitals and insurance companies and made a public service for all people. Preventative care will be emphasized and physical fitness will be promoted.”

I responded,

OK. Great. I don’t suppose there’s anything in there about how they intend to calculate prices when they wave their fuckin magic wand, is there?

Again, not often much opportunity for dialogue with people who are spamming a political website, so there wasn’t any answer to this question, but that in itself is a source of information for those who care to pay attention.

This was still not fully understood though, so another user stated;

But the problems always lead back to jews, technology has advanced so much that most “healthcare” should be dirt cheap…look at saline or gauze production as an example, this stuff costs pennies to produce but costs more now than it ever did..whatever problems we have cannot be solved until we remove the juden, kebab, negro and mongrel…the rest is just speculative meandering

This gave me the opportunity to further illustrate what has been called the socialist calculation problem;

If the true price of heart surgery was 2 tenths of a cent, how the hell would the regulators know this, once the service was monopolized? If they have no competitors, and the buyers have no alternatives, or more to the point, if the buyer and the seller are the same entity, price formation is impossible.

The idea that things are important, and therefore should be controlled by government, is hardly the conclusion one would come to as a consequence of day to day experience, much less coherent education.

Sure, there are problems we can attribute to the people governing, or to influences upon the government. But there are actual limits on what the government is capable of doing, as a consequence of its peculiar features.

This is at the heart of what fails the economic sniff test when you examine many political ideas that parade as economic policies.

Just before the show, Hadding emailed me. His website, by the way, is National-Socialist-Worldview.com. He said to me

The established Republican cant about “less government” is detrimental in every way. It makes no sense either for winning elections (outside of the South) or for governing.

OK. Cool. You win. I’m not arguing for less government. I’m not arguing for conservatism. I’m not even arguing for fiscal discipline. Let’s set all the moral arguments about so called “property rights” aside and just do everything our capacities permit to obtain political power and wield it to the benefit of our people. Let’s spend all the money. Let’s raise taxes. Let’s provide services. Let’s make outrageous promises to obtain political power, and try to do everything we can to fulfill them so we can maintain that power.

But let’s make sure we understand what we’re doing, so we don’t wreck the country in the process.

It’s not a question of spending the money. It’s a question of whether or not instituting the policy is actually possible, and to determine this you have to contemplate how resources are allocated. It is fine to look at current prices and project those into the future and say that it is worth the expenditure. Let’s just accept this as true, because, maybe it is, but even if it weren’t, that’s not the point.

The point is, as soon as the government institutes the policy, all your projections are going to completely alter the market, and as a consequence, your projections are going to go out the window like a conservative’s campaign promise.

I don’t know about you, but I pay attention to prices when I shop. It’s taking some adjusting since I’ve gotten out of prison, but before I got arrested, I knew what all the stuff I kept in my kitchen on a routine basis, costed at the nearest four or five stores. I knew what their regular sales were, and I made it part of my weekly routine to get the weekly sales fliers.

I would regularly stop into TJ Max, to see what deals there were on clothes. When I travel to an unfamiliar area, I have to see if they’ve got a Marshalls.

When I shop on eBay, I make my search criteria as narrow as possible, and I sort my search results according to price + shipping low to high.

I’m a very cost efficient shopper, and I’m far from the only person to do this. There are things that I want to do that I value more highly than lazily buying the first thing that I see on the shelf, and I allocate my resources according to my own hierarchy of values, with prices as one of the most vital signals in that allocation. Even if you’re not so discriminating as I, you do this too, to some extent.

That behavior, which marketing professionals are keenly attuned to, forms prices in the marketplace. If they raise their prices beyond a certain point, people go elsewhere for that product. If they raise prices beyond another, higher point, people will go elsewhere for all of their products. Conversely, it may go without saying, that if they sell something too cheaply, they will simply multiply losses until they go out of business.

Notice the parties involved in this process. Buyers and sellers. Unspoken here, but hopefully obvious, are the actual producers. Farmers, factories, this sort of thing. But for our purposes right now, let’s just consider them sellers too, and say that their buyers are the people who sell to you. Buyers and sellers, once again. There are laborers, and employers, or, more accurately, people who sell labor, and people who buy it.

Each buyer is looking for the lowest price, and each seller the highest, and in that competition for resources, prices are formed, and resources are allocated according thereto.

So you want to have socialized medicine. Fine. For the sake of argument, let’s just call health care a human right. I’m not endorsing this, but let’s just accept it as the premise of our argument. You say, other countries do it, why can’t we? Alright, sensible idea. No objection.

But what happens when the government monopolizes the health care industry? There are no longer buyers and sellers. The buyer is the seller. Anybody who tries to compete with the government gets thrown in jail. Anybody who tries to tries to hire someone outside of the government system, let’s just say they pay a fine.

These are the peculiar features of the State. It imposes forces on the market which you or I would be killed or imprisoned for trying to impose, with such tremendous certainty that nobody even considers it.

As a thought exercise, let us say that the government would monopolize the grocery stores. All the rest of the market would continue to operate as closely to normal as possible. The farmers would continue to own their farms, but the government would be the sole buyer. The people would have to pay for their own groceries from the money they earned, or, let us go further and say there is a basic income guarantee or a negative income tax or some kind of food related dispensation by the State.  In any case, the people have their resources, and they allocate them as they see fit, within the government grocery stores.

There are surely going to be some problems with this, but at least prices are conceivable. The government is a buyer in relation to the farmers, and seller, in relation to the citizenry. The government buys and sells, albeit lacking competitors.

Supposing the government does not claim the power to expropriate from the food producers their products by force, the government still must deal with these producers according to prices. The producer must calculate the costs of production, pad this with what he deems a profit worthy of his efforts, and offer this for sale to the government. If the government refuses to pay, he goes out of business, but prices are still conceivable because it’s likely some number of producers are still going to be able to sell their products at a price that, fair or not, at least compensates them for their production costs, because the government is going to be disinclined to put all of the food producers out of business, and there is a minimum cost of production beneath which no producer can go.

The people, they have nowhere else to go for their food than the government grocery store. The government has tremendous control over prices, but this control is not omnipotent. The people must eat, but they need not eat anything in particular. If the government charges too much for beef, the people may buy chicken, as the most simple example. If beef sales plummet, the bureaucrats who run the store, may be given instructions to approximate the behavior of a market actor, and respond to this price pressure by lowering the price. Or, maybe the government wants to reduce beef consumption, and considers this drop in beef purchases to be the desired outcome of a policy decision.

Say the government wants to encourage the consumption of vegetables. The government could buy the vegetables at a given price from the producers, and sell it at a lower price, financing the loss by some combination of taxes and profits from the sale of other groceries. Maybe the government raises the price of cookies by 25%, and uses this revenue to subsidize vegetable consumption. Now we have a policy that discourages the consumption of cookies while promoting the consumption of vegetables.

But we still have prices. It’s not ancapistan, but you can imagine this pattern continuing without anybody starving to death.

Now let’s say that the government declares food a human right. This makes enough sense, after all. How can one have a human right to all the miracles of modern science, but not 2,000 calories a day? So, the government now declares that food is free, and the government is the only supplier of food.

Now there are no prices, so far as the citizenry is concerned. They go into the store, and they take whatever they want. Kinda like some Democrat cities right now, only it’s formally legalized.

On the upside, some people may very well improve their diets. They could fill up their carts with the highest quality cuts of meat and the most nutritious vegetables. They would only discriminate according to what they deemed would benefit their diet. Price would no longer be an object.

Others, on the downside, may prefer beer and cookies to sirloin and asparagus. Assuming the government is covering healthcare at this point, there are some downsides to this, but let’s set that aside for now. Maybe the government bans cookies and beer. Let’s pretend there’s no problems with that, and keep going.

The bigger problem would be the distortion of demand. In this environment, few people would acquire ground chuck, when sirloin, porterhouse, and ribeye can be carried out at identical costs, namely, zero.

When each cow slaughtered is slaughtered for only the finest cuts, and the remainder can only be put toward the feeding of pets or some industrial process, what do you imagine that does to the demand for beef? What does it do to the production costs, when to feed the population, many times more cows must be slaughtered?

One supposes there must be a limit on how much free sirloin the people would consume, but there must also be some limit on how much can be produced, and I suppose we can only guess at which limit we would first encounter, but in a complex society with hundreds of millions of people, we must imagine that demand would at some point outstrip supply without a price mechanism to regulate it, unless the government stepped in with more forceful means, such as quotas.

And of course, such means were implemented in places such as the Soviet Union, and other communist countries. Perhaps it is foolish to assume that it is universally preferable that America not meet the same fate as the USSR, but this would certainly be my preference.

When the price of beef skyrockets, supposing the government is still willing to pay it, will anyone bother to raise chickens? Or goats? If the government will run the printing presses day and night to pay beef producers, for what reason would anyone continue to raise other livestock?

What would this do to the production price of eggs? What would this do to the price of all things derived from eggs?

I am not saying these questions do not have answers, in fact, they most certainly do. Given limitless cognitive capacity, we might even be able to project them. With advancements in artificial intelligence, perhaps someday we might even be able to calculate them sensibly.

I am only telling you that these questions are not asked by people who advocate the nationalization of industries. They tend to view these things, if we attribute to them charitable motives, as simple moral claims. But this is not an accurate portrayal of how an economy functions. What they are discussing is something completely different from economics. They have abandoned economic thought, as I stated in my quoted Telegram post, and I hope the listener is now satisfied that this is obvious.

And of course, we must, if we think this through all the way, dispense with the idea that the government is going to refrain from using its coercive powers in its role as buyer from producers. At some point, the pressures to nationalize production would necessarily follow. We’re talking about socialism, after all, and while the definition of this term is so fluid as to render it conversationally useless, one definition of that term is “State ownership of the means of production”. Read anything about the Soviet Union and you will hear the horror stories about the collectivization of farms, the “liquidation” of the kulaks as a class, and the terrible intraethnic violence that this entailed.

Prices folks, not costs, prices. I’ll happily pay the costs of living in a better society, but if you make prices impossible, you can’t print enough money to solve that problem…

Old cliche’s about “knowing the value of a dollar” are becoming decidedly antiquated, sadly.

As inflation causes the dollar to rapidly loses its value, prices don’t simply go up in uniformity, a la theories about the so called “price level”. Rather, price relations between various goods and services lose their coherence. One drops, another skyrockets. One goes up 250%, another 25%. Another reduces the contents of a package by 10%, and increases its sticker price by 12%.  Another now tastes different as a result of cost cutting in the manufacturing process, though its sticker price remains the same. Another product disappears from the shelves entirely. The store brand product you used to think was such a great deal because it was identical to the high end product at a fraction of the price? It’s made by an entirely different company now, and scarcely resembles the product you were once so fond of, despite the price and package being identical.

You go to the grocery store, and forget the increased costs you have to pay for the items in your basket. That almost pales in comparison to the time you spend trying to navigate this chaos, and the frustration of trying to move around other people in the place, hopelessly caught up in the same confusion.

Ah ha, but don’t you worry, friend. The Federal Reserve, they’re going to “fix” this. Hahaha… Yeah…

You see, inflation is what happens when too many dollars, or, more generally, monetary units, chase too few goods and services. So, the Federal Reserve, clever guys that they are, have a remedy for this. They just raise interest rates, and in this way, syphon dollars out of the economy. This “fixes” the problem by making people have fewer dollars, which puts downward pressure on prices, causing them to fall, or at least, cease to rise so rapidly, when those people who have fewer dollars, can no longer afford to purchase those expensive products. This “demand destruction” impacts the supply/demand ratio, you see, and thus they get to claim that they have “solved” the problem of inflation.

Of course, you, as the individual economic actor, know better.

As I mentioned earlier, forget the price level. If everything goes up in price 10%, including your wages, who cares? The price level borders on irrelevant. Savers may understandably beg to differ,  but they’re a rare breed these days in political terms, and folks with stocks and other non-cash assets hardly mind seeing their portfolios go up like a hockey stick, generally speaking.

The disorder is the problem. It rewires everything. And when the Federal Reserve tries to placate the anxieties of people who happen to be holding a great many dollars – namely, foreign central banks – they start that process all over again. Unless you’ve got a billion in cash somewhere, deflation does not tend to improve your life anymore than inflation does.

And of course, nominal incomes, which is to say, the number of monetary units a person reliably accrues, be though they may, a decidedly poorer measure of economic wellbeing than so called “real wages”, the amount of value an income of any measurement represents, hold such an outsized psychological importance, that as prices begin to fall, and wages, being themselves the price of labor, fall with them, the political consequences of this can hardly be overstated. The elected branches, recognizing this, intervene to stop the falling wages. In this, they act at cross purposes with the central bank, and the central bank, exerts greater force to compensate.

All of this perpetuates the disorder, creates uncertainty in the market, discourages investment, and ultimately, family formation. These diminish the future prospects of the nation. It creates the kind of chaos that allowed Lenin to come to power in Russia.

Moreover, they damage the credibility of the governing authorities. Why did this happen in the first place? The people ask. Well, because they debauched the currency, of course. Recognizing that will cause a man, or for that matter, a child, to think about what the currency is.

There’s a quote commonly attributed to Henry Ford which says;

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.

There’s some question as to whether he actually said this, but it captures the idea quite well. Somewhat less colorfully, we know he did write in his 1922 book “My Life and Work”;

The people are naturally conservative. They are more conservative than the financiers. Those who believe that the people are so easily led that they would permit the printing presses to run off money like milk tickets do not understand them. It is the innate conservation of the people that has kept our money good in spite of the fantastic tricks which financiers play-and which they cover up with high technical terms. The people are on the side of sound money. They are so unalterably on the side of sound money that it is a serious question how they would regard the system under which they live, if they once knew what the initiated can do with it.

The point being, people won’t ultimately put up with this nonsense forever. They can tolerate a loss, but not constant chaos. Prices are signals. They don’t simply alter one’s standard of living, they tell a person about their environment no differently than sight, smell, taste, and touch. Like all other information, these signals are subject to a degree of manipulation, but as the saying goes, you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

Test the limits of their patience, and eventually, you will find them.



If you would like to help finance this high quality production, I try to make this easy enough to do….


Follow me elsewhere, listen, watch, and keep in touch…


Be sure and get subscribed to my newsletter if you haven’t already, and whitelist [email protected] so I don’t end up in your spam trap!



Radical Agenda S06E008 – The Folly of Turning on Tucker

There’s a video going around of Tucker Carlson saying that he doesn’t particularly appreciate the phenomenon of identity politics, even those of the White variety.

More specifically, on a recent interview with Adam Corolla, the following exchange ensued;

Tucker: I will say this if I can just make one prediction. So, the United States is becoming non-white, everyone’s excited about it, or whether you’re not excited about it doesn’t matter. Whites are going to be in the minority,  soon. So what that means is, you’re going to get, at some point, probably in my lifetime, people standing up and saying “I represent white people! I’m the candidate of the white voter!” And I just want to say on the record that I’m going to tell that person to fuck off, because nobody speaks for me. I’m an adult man, and nobody speaks for me because he shares the same skin color as me. Like, I just reject that entire idea. If I agree with you, I’ll let you speak for me, and if I don’t, I won’t, but this idea that someone of a certain skin color, any skin color, or any ethnic background, speaks automatically on behalf of all people who share that skin color ethnic background, is a Nazi idea and I’m totally opposed to it, and I will be opposed to it when it happens, to me. When somebody, this will happen, someone’s, gonna “oh white people!” I gonna be like “I don’t even know you, dude! I don’t even know you! I refuse to allow you to purport to speak for me, because we look the same!” period.

Corolla: Well this is the real white privilege, it’s not having a spokesperson it’s not…

Tucker: Oh that’s so deep! that’s so deep sorry I’ll let you continue I’ve never thought of that I love that though!

The video embedded below begins at about the moment this exchange begins, and I’ll pick up with my commentary below that.



The clip being passed around in White identitarian circles predictably leaves out the broader discussion, which as I said in the first line, is a general aversion to identity politics. I’ll let you judge for yourself whether you deem it worthy to spend an hour and 11 minutes viewing the whole thing.

This has stirred some controversy in these circles, as it has been deemed an attack on White identity specifically, in which, the usual suspects, inform their audiences that there is no hope and the whole world is out to get them.


If you would like to watch this episode, I have embedded the Odysee video below, or you’ll find the audio player at the bottom of the page. Please note that the video is a little bit choppy due to a configuration change, but we fixed it about half way in and the audio should be fine.


The Usual Suspects

I was tagged on Telegram in a discussion about this, because I am quite famously a fan of Tucker Carlson, and you may have heard, have some opinions on the subject of race. The post I was tagged in shared a video from a channel called “Black Pilled” and the caption was;

“Based tucker” once again shows his true colors. He hates all of you. Get in the pit, dick tucker.

As predictably as the sunset, the absolute most disreputable lowlife (who purports to be) in our movement had to chime in too, on Twitter.

I don’t think personal attacks are generally the most efficient means of getting to the truth, but here I think it is worth considering our sources for a moment before we move on to the substance.

A channel called “Black Pilled” is not here to improve your life. It is here to make you miserable, and it makes no secret of this.

There’s an argument to be made that this serves a legitimate purpose in politics. People need to be shaken from their slumber, and see the menace for what it is. I did a great deal of this sort of thing as a libertarian, in an effort to turn people against the institution of the State.

This habit lingered to a degree as I shifted rightward ideologically, but as I matured and became determined to solve problems, rather than create them, it became clear to me that identifying problems was of little use without an aim at solving them.

Black Pilled, by contrast, has the singular aim of antagonizing people in all directions, as a means by which to promote his monetized live streams. This has been successful, judging by a quick glance at his publicly available audience numbers. One of his more insightful posts goes as follows;

This is how delusional some Qtards and Trump worshipers still are. They are simply feeble minded cowards unable to face reality. They are the men in the foxhole that start singing Happy Birthday at the top of their lungs while smearing shit all over their faces because they can’t stand the constant shelling from the enemy.

Well, I’m no “Qtard”, but I like Trump. Say what you will about me, I’m no coward, and I invite the reader to compare the intellectual value of my Telegram channel to that of Black Pilled, and see who suffers from feebleness of mind.

This is the sort of thing people like this do, because they are not capable of doing more. They are successful because they cater to the lowest common denominator, and this has always been and always will be a successful strategy for attracting attention to oneself in terms of sheer numbers.

It is not a successful strategy for solving problems, but Black Pilled does not purport this to be his goal. Solving problems would negatively impact his business, because he is in the business of spreading misery. For him, the worse things get, the better. It’s really that simple, and everything he says, must be filtered through this understanding of his purposes.

Similarly, Andrew Anglin could charitably be described as a liar and a subversive. Less charitably, one might interpret his behavior as being guided by an intelligence agency or the Democrat Party.

Anglin promotes “incel culture” which, you may have heard, is slang for “involuntarily celibate”. He purports this to be an aspirational goal. That a man should seek to achieve a social status in which women will uniformly refuse to have sex with him.

Now, I am as fed up with feminism as anybody. More so, likely. But the idea of an ethnocentric political movement that is averse to marriage and reproduction is not precisely what I think of when I devise strategies for the success of the White race.

Anglin’s antics once seemed amusing to me and many others. There was a time when his shock humor and eagerness to offend regular people, fit into a broader direction of action within the Alt Right movement. That time is now over.

Anglin has discredited himself to such an extent, that anybody who doesn’t disavow any connection to him, can only be interpreted to be ignorant of recent history, or a malicious agent of chaos and destruction. I will not spend a great deal of time on this, because that would be its own book length post, anybody who knows anything about him already knows this, and anybody who doesn’t know it probably doesn’t care what Tucker Carlson says about White identity.

In any case, the guy who wants you to stop having sex is not trying to help you. That much should be obvious without explanation.

And this fits into my broader theme.

Anglin and Black Pilled represent a force within the White identitarian media sphere, which is uniformly hostile to White identitarian goals. Namely that “We must secure the existence of our people, and a future for White children”.

The future is necessarily a hopeful thing. If we have no hope, producing children for whom to secure a future, seems like a rather expensive folly.

They have coined a term to mock this rather obvious observation – “hopium” – the idea that hope is a mere drug, an illusion, and unworthy of pursuit.

This is about disempowering you

It should almost go without saying, that this also precludes meaningful political activity. Second perhaps only to the raising of children, political activity is necessarily an investment in the future. One puts forth effort and expense today, with no certainty of a return on his investment, hoping to see the future better reflect their values than the present.

People who want you without hope, and without the capacity to reproduce, mean to eliminate your influence from politics, and from the shaping of the future.

In addition to spreading misery and bad ideas, they do this is through a tremendous variety of creative means.

They tell you to insist on extreme political changes. Ones which are certain not only to fail, but more importantly, preclude you from any opportunity to participate in actual political discussions. It would not be at all sufficient to say, get a candidate for office to ask for the White vote, or to put black criminals in prison when they carry out a race riot.  No, the candidate must promise the extermination of the Jews, and a White ethnostate, and all manner of economic nonsense that makes Bernie Sanders look like Ludwig von Mises.

More to our point, they aim to create hostility between you and those who can serve as conduits to power for you. If somebody with a platform, like Tucker Carlson, or Donald Trump, is trying to help you, well, then you are a “feeble minded coward” for thinking that this might benefit you in some way.

To hear them tell it, you would be far better off dropping out of the economy and the dating market, and, necessarily, out of politics, and spending your time listening to them call other people names, with no regard for the truth.

After all, if Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson aren’t screaming racial epithets at strangers on the sidewalk, what good are they? Who cares if one became President, and the other the number one show on cable news? Real power is in Internet shit posting and ideological masturbatory exercises.

When you see people who espouse these sorts of ideas saying something, it doesn’t necessarily mean that what they are saying is wrong. It might very well be true. In fact, your capacity to verify the truth of much of what they say is a vital part of the exercise.

This is not a new tactic. A wise man once said;

The followers of the movement, and indeed the whole nation, must be reminded again and again of the fact that, through the medium of his newspapers, the Jew is always spreading falsehood, and that if he tells the truth on some occasions it is only for the purpose of masking some greater deceit, which turns the apparent truth into a deliberate falsehood. The Jew is the Great Master of Lies. Falsehood and duplicity are the weapons with which he fights. Every calumny and falsehood published by the Jews are tokens of honour which can be worn by our comrades. He whom they decry most is nearest to our hearts and he whom they mortally hate is our best friend.

So while one cannot discount the possibility that a disreputable character might be telling the truth, goal detection is an important feature of the human psyche. A man who wants you to stop reproducing and become politically impotent, might be telling you that Tucker Carlson is your enemy because that’s true, and saying so is a good way to get you to believe him now, so you’ll believe him again when he stabs you in the back later.

Or he might be trying stab you in the back right now, by depriving you of an important ally.

As a rule of thumb, when you see such characters do or say something, I would advise taking a step back and making a sober analysis of the situation. There’s a good possibility that their behavior is the best warning you’re going to get before you end up in an irreparable situation.

Now, for the sober analysis.

Anybody who watches Tucker Carlson on a regular basis was by no means surprised by the content of the video above. Tucker Carlson has been adamant about his aversion to identity politics well prior to becoming the most popular show in cable news.

Corolla’s observation that “Well this is the real white privilege, it’s not having a spokesperson” was especially astute, even if it slightly missed the mark.

Whites have interests in common, but that’s primarily a function of us being set against non-whites. Identity politics is offputting because it is a consequence of ethnic diversity. If you didn’t have blacks and Jews and Hispanics to contend with, you wouldn’t be thinking of politics in ethnic terms. If you did, it would be in terms of German vs. Italian or whatever, and in my book it would be the proper role of the government in a pan-European State to suppress such conflicts.

Our concerns are not fundamentally ethnic concerns. They take on an ethnic character because patterns emerge along ethnic lines that create conflicts of interests along those lines. A healthy State would have prevented this from happening through immigration controls, but we are met with what we are met with.

The point is, identity politics is not aspirational. It’s a consequence of harmful stimuli. Arguably a necessary one, but you can’t blame reasonable people for being averse to it anyway.

Politics that appeal to healthy discourse deal with substance, which is why Democrats are always stirring racial chaos.

If you want White people on your side, don’t emulate that behavior, like Anglin and Black Pilled do. It is disorderly, and people dislike it.

If people dislike you, they won’t give you political power. If you don’t have political power, you cannot secure the existence of your people, and a future for White children.

And think about what Tucker actually said…

I’m an adult man, and nobody speaks for me because he shares the same skin color as me. Like, I just reject that entire idea. If I agree with you, I’ll let you speak for me, and if I don’t, I won’t, but this idea that someone of a certain skin color, any skin color, or any ethnic background, speaks automatically on behalf of all people who share that skin color ethnic background, is a Nazi idea and I’m totally opposed to it, and I will be opposed to it when it happens, to me. When somebody, this will happen, someone’s, gonna “oh white people!” I gonna be like “I don’t even know you, dude! I don’t even know you! I refuse to allow you to purport to speak for me, because we look the same!” period.

Is this statement entirely unreasonable?

The point he’s making is not without merit, and the idea that somebody gets to say he speaks on my behalf because I happen to be White is not without its perils.

Look at the people who purport to speak on behalf of blacks. Are their interests being well represented? I’d say not. The Democrats pander to blacks, and intentionally keep them as miserable as possible so they can be sent like attack dogs after their enemies.

If Richard Spencer endorses Joe Biden on behalf of the White race, am I supposed to feel better about war with Russia, high energy prices, inflation, and transgenderism in public schools?

I’d say not.

The fact that I am White and somebody else is White does not by this coincidence alone, authorize him to do anything on my behalf, and no White Nationalist who had educated himself so little as having spent 5 minutes in a Telegram chat would seriously say otherwise. This movement, like many others, is bursting at the seams with crackpots and scumbags, and you can’t trust them on the basis of the outward appearance of their genetic composition. Much less their “skin color” which we happen to share in large part with the most malicious race of creatures ever to curse the Earth.

He’s actually saying something obvious, which is that somebody who attempts to appeal to you on ethnic grounds is probably trying to avoid appealing to you on grounds more subject to rational analysis, and that this is indicia of deception. Anybody who has spent a year in White politics has come to understand this phenomenon far better than Tucker Carlson does.

As I posited this analysis on Telegram, I was met with several variations of the idea that, on account of the genocidal demographic changes wrought by the anti-White Left in the United States and Europe, Whites have no choice but to form a collective response and become an ethnic voting block.

There is merit to this. In Pat Buchanan’s book “Suicide of a Superpower“, he had a chapter titled “The White Party”. In it, he made a compelling case that the Republican Party should stop responding to Democrat accusations of racism by trying to outpander the Left with non-Whites. They should accept it as a badge of honor that they represent White interests, and pursue those interests without apology.

Of course, one counter argument to this, which drives many White Nationalists nuts, but is no less true, is that White interests actually benefit everybody. The old “rising tide lifts all boats” meme, is a real phenomenon. We saw this under the Trump administration, and as a consequence he got to go around on the campaign trail touting the unemployment rates of every racial group, noting that they were at record lows. Many White Nationalists hated this, because for some reason they cannot understand how political power is apportioned in the presence of a multiethnic electorate.

Humorously, at the time of this writing, White identitarians happen to be in thrall to the National Justice Party, or at least, hostile to the GOP for some even more senseless cause. It’s hip to hate Trump now, and if you don’t hate Trump, the common theme is that you’re some kind of stooge for the Republicans, who’s stuck in 2016.

I typed that before checking, because I already knew what I’d see, but here’s the top of JusticeReport.com at the time of this writing.

The image is a frame from the video in question, stating falsely that “Tucker Carlson Denounces White Advocacy”

This links to a post at “Information Liberation” by Chris Menahan.

Mr. Menahan embeds a Tweet from “West Country Bumpkin” which includes the video, then he posts a short transcript of the exchange in question. Below that, he adds the following for the entirety of his contribution to the discussion.

Key takeaway: Tucker believes white people have no group interests and anyone saying they do is advocating “Nazism.”

If his words are to be taken literally, Tucker also believes every group sharing any ethnic background which advocated for their own group interests throughout all of history are Nazis because Nazis are the only people who have ever believed in group interests.

That said, there’s no reason to take his statement literally because he has no issue with discussing what appeals to “black voters” and “Hispanic voters” based off their own group interests on his show every night.

You’ve seen the transcript, you’ve had an opportunity to watch the entire video. Mr. Menahan’s assertions are contradicted by the evidence.

Tucker Carlson is fine with you speaking on his behalf if he agrees with you. His point is, you don’t get to speak on his behalf, just because he is White, and you are White. If you want things he does not want, then you don’t get to claim the right to speak on behalf of Tucker Carlson.

For that matter, you don’t get to speak on behalf of other White Nationalists, especially if you print falsehoods with all the gleeful malice of a Jew, and defame people for exceedingly short sighted political purposes.

Justice Report is an information outlet (I’d say propaganda arm, but people take that term negatively and I don’t think of it that way, personally) of the National Justice Party.

What does the National Justice Party want to do? The charitable answer is, something other than defeat Democrats.

  • Which political Party wants to open the borders? Democrats.
  • Which political party wants to get us into a war with Russia? Democrats.
  • Which political party wants to transgender the kids and imprison the parents who complain? Democrats.

So, if you don’t want to defeat Democrats, you don’t get to speak on behalf of me either. I’ve been imprisoned, twice, and bankrupted, for my white advocacy. I have bled and drawn blood for our people, and I would do it all again, which is more than I can say for most of the loud mouths popping off about how much cooler they are than the people who actually wield political power.

And before you tell me about your token RINO who voted one day to do something that helped the Democrats, know that your tired old story is nothing new, fools nobody with a 3 digit IQ, and is not dispositive of the point. Republicans who help Democrats do these terrible things are bad actors who are held in contempt by Republican voters, and if you would like to deprive them of the opportunity to do so, you should vote in Republican primaries, embrace Realpolitik, and stop instructing your followers toward impotent, masturbatory, ideological pursuits.

The above provides us with the most poignant example of a phenomenon I described before I even saw it.

I am typing this at 1:16am on April 5th 2023. This was my Telegram reply from 7:51pm US Eastern time, earlier in the evening;

How’s your “collective white response” working out for you?

Personally, I’ve been unimpressed. I’ve been locked up twice and bankrupted in service to this cause and I can’t even coordinate my appeal with my codefendants.

You have a bunch of people trying to appeal on ethnic grounds, and falling short on every measurement of success. That’s exactly what the Democrats are doing to the blacks, and White people seem to be getting served about as well by the phenomenon.

Where whites have common interests, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with identifying and pursuing this, and neither is Tucker.

What Tucker is saying, and what I agree with, is that inadequate dishonest people use identity politics to avoid accountability for their failures.


I find the idea downright bizarre, that anybody who had spent 5 minutes with White Nationalists wouldn’t understand what Tucker Carlson is saying. Presumably, he knows less about the people in this movement than I do, but having spent years in this thing, I wouldn’t want almost anybody in it speaking on my behalf. The people who purport to do so, near uniformly do so in ways I find at best misguided, and all too frequently, dishonest and malicious.

By contrast, Tucker Carlson has;

This list could go on, ad infinitum. Whatever your complaints about the ideas, shortcomings, or failures, of Donald Trump or Tucker Carlson, they have done more than anybody in what was once called the Alt Right, to improve our politics, and there is only one reason to wish they would be deprived of support.

That reason is that you would like to stop, not their failures, but their successes, and for the people of this country to suffer more than they already do, as a consequence.

Maybe this because you’re a closet Democrat, or maybe this is because you’re a sincerely misguided White Nationalist, who is dumb enough to think that by some miracle, you’ll benefit from some fantasy you have about the “collapse of the system”.

In either case, in my estimation, that is against the interests of White people.

If that’s what you want, then you do not get to speak on my behalf, either.


For those of you reading who think I might do a better job of speaking for you, I would invite you to pay me for the service. Or, you could just listen…

I try to make this easy enough to do.

While this site, and my Radical Agenda podcast have been shut out of financial services, on account of my White advocacy, I have happily multiplied my workload to produce another show that you can play with your kids in the car and without much risk of losing your job. It’s called SurrealPolitiks.

Follow me elsewhere, listen, watch, and keep in touch…

Be sure and get subscribed to my newsletter if you haven’t already, and whitelist [email protected] so I don’t end up in your spam trap!