Stick with me, I promise there’s a nice juicy practical plan at the end.
From what I can tell, it’s illegal to be a “white nationalist.” I’ve always been somewhat ambivalent about the term “white nationalism” because I’ve always been ambivalent about both of the words “nationalism” and “white.”
Nationalism was an 18th century movement that developed partially because the Holy Roman Empire was falling apart. Frankly, a real “American nationalism” would look something like the old “sovereign state’s rights” ideals of the pre-1960s. USA was “supposed” to be a federation of independent sovereign states and America is too big to be “one nation” anyway. As we can see in Europe, anti-whites are not limited to one nation, either, anti-whites are international.
The other problem is the term “white.” I call myself “white” because everybody else does. “White” isn’t really an ethnic identity the same way that “Desi” or “Latino” or “Chinese” or “Irish” are ethnic identities. My ethnic identity is “American” – and my ethnic identity is being stolen from me by anti-whites and “immigrants” of varying colors. They aren’t really Americans – I’m a real American, and only people like me are real Americans. But some of the people calling themselves “American nationalists” are not just anti-American – anti people like me – but in many cases are anti-white. The Jewish faux-populist “national conservatism” movement that is trying to be constructed to get Trump re-elected is run by Zionist Jews that hate white people, and people like me even more specifically.
Plus, I’m just not really into labels, man. I contain multitudes. What I can say absolutely is that I am anti-anti-white. If you are anti-white, I’m against you. It’s that simple.
And as far as people who are like me – anti-anti-white – the best, most practical thing you can do is follow the advice of the late, great Bob Whitaker. When you see someone being anti-white, call them out, and call them exactly that: “anti-white.” It doesn’t need to be any more complicated than that. In fact, it shouldn’t be any more complicated than that. It works for three reasons.
One, it’s true. Two, it’s simple. Three, it can be repeated ad nauseum and in fact should be repeated ad nauseum. Slogans like “it’s ok to be white” should be used early, and often.
One of the most amazing social developments in my lifetime has been the mainstreaming of “LGBT.” When I was growing up, everyone said “that is so gay” and made “gay jokes” quite a bit. Homosexuality was generally thought of as a perverted, perverse crime and a good way to get AIDS. Over the next 20 years, however, homosexuals became a protected and privileged class, constantly praised in the mass media and the academy and expressing any negative opinion about homosexuals will now cost you your job and in places in Europe, even sent to jail.
How did this happen?
It happened via a coordinated propaganda campaign that was spelled out in the 1987 paper, “The Overhauling of Straight America” by Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill. This paper is a must-read for anyone interested in social propaganda and anyone – like me – sick and tired of anti-white haters slurring white people with “the r-word.”
The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal. At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more.
The paper then gives a six-step plan, the first one being:
TALK ABOUT GAYS AND GAYNESS AS LOUDLY AND AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE.
The way to benumb raw sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Open and frank talk makes the subject seem less furtive, alien, and sinful, more above-board. Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizable segment accepts or even practices homosexuality.
Repetition, repetition, repetition.
When I began blogging nearly a decade ago, a new term had cropped up: “hipster racism.” This was just another example of vile anti-white hatemongers finding new ways of slandering white people. “Hipster” was itself a slur – not a vicious slur, more of a humorous and dismissive slur. No one ever calls themselves “a hipster.” But hipster is a stereotype of certain kinds of urban white people, and the concept of “hipster racism” was invented to find yet another way of slandering these white people.
I began to constantly mock the concept and adopted the term for myself as a way of “reclaiming” what had once been a slur. Just like blacks have “reclaimed” the “n-word” and homosexuals had “reclaimed” the “f-word” I was going to reclaim the “r-word.”
It was around this time that Taylor Swift became a world-wide media sensation, and of course she was accused of being a “racist” for no other reason than the fact that she is a pretty, blonde-haired blue eyed white lady. So, in a successful attempt to “google-bomb” the term “hipster racism” I did a little bit of research about her and her fans and began writing short little blog-posts about Taylor Swift.
But what I found amazed and astonished me. When reading some sort of “pop culture” blog, presumably read and commented on by teenage girls, I discovered that black and brown teenage girls absolutely do believe that Taylor Swift is an “Aryan racist” and that she is the leader of an “Aryan racist movement” among Hollywood celebrities and pop stars, and that she “mentors” other younger and newer white women celebrities on how to “hide their racism” and “advance the Aryan cause.”
Upon making this discovery, I recalled an incident that occured many years ago with my financee.
She was a pretty, blonde-haired, blue eyed white lady too and kind of looked like Taylor Swift. She used to read those “People” kinds of magazines about celebrities and fashion, something I constantly teased her about, because when I teased her she got pouty and when she got pouty she looked adorable.
But once I teased her a bit too much and she got mad so I had to back-track and come up with something to appease her. I remembered hearing the phrase, “Washington DC is Hollywood for ugly people” and told her that celebrities and fashion were a kind of politics too. It worked, she got less mad.
But the more I thought about it, the more I realized it was true. For a young woman, celebrities are a kind of politician, and how they act, the kind of scandals they get in, the causes they discuss, these have a real, measurable, and material influence of young women around the country. If a celebrity acts in a certain way and is praised, it means that a regular woman can act that way and expect praise. If a celebrity espouses the wrong opinion or gets caught doing something scandalous, and is harshly attacked, regular women will know to avoid that behavior.
Social norms are more important that whatever stupid thing the conservative Republicans are discussing. What matters more? How Taylor Swift influences the behavior of young white women, or some sort of tax regulation some Republican is trying to pass?
What matters more? The young white women who will be the mothers of the next generation of white children, or what Donald Trump does to pressure the Chinese Communist party to increase sanitary conditions in Wuhan wet markets?
While in college my wife took a class on fashion, assuming it would be an easy A. But she described feeling surprised when the first day of class the social implications of women’s fashions were discussed in historical context. Women’s fashions matter – in fact, they matter a hell of a lot more than much of what conservatives whine about. Women’s fashions matter more than some Republican plan for an “economic opportunity zone” in Detroit.
Another thing I learned in my blogging career. See, I really only care deeply about two issues: white well-being, and 9/11 truth. I wanted to write about 9/11 and the CIA. But I knew that few people were interested in reading historical articles about 9/11 and the CIA.
At the time, 50 Shades of Grey was a huge phenomenon. Over my life I’ve learned that if you are sleeping with a woman for any length of time, she will eventually hint, then suggest, then demand that you tie her up and give her a good hard spanking. Pretty much all of them, 100%. So I got a brilliant idea. Instead of writing yet another boring essay about 9/11 and the CIA, I would instead write fictionalized erotica, with an unreliable narrator, about 9/11, spies, and include plenty of hot, juicy sex scenes with the kind of spanking and bondage that the women who read books like 50 Shades of Grey can’t get enough of.
It worked. In fact, it worked so well it astonished me. I had women all over the internet reading my stories, linking them, and some of them even admitted to masturbating while reading them. The hook may have been the sex, but the substance was 9/11 truth. I got the message out to a far, far wider audience than any essay I could write about the melting temperature of steel.
A couple of years into my blogging career, I put my ideas to the test. I started another blog called “Hipster Intelligence Agency” that would include steamy erotica, a James Bond-style “spy” gimmick, and soft peddle pro-white talking points. I recruited a few other authors, including a regular middle class white lady housewife that liked to read and write erotica, a young white woman in college that wrote poetry, and a couple of other bloggers that I knew.
It was almost immediately successful. Sadly, only a few months in I had to take three months off from blogging and it fell apart, but the immediate success proved that there was a market for this sort of content among white women.
Now I’m just a regular white man of merely moderate intelligence, so of course I wasn’t the only one to come up with this idea. Listening to the “Paranormies” podcast on TheRightStuff.biz a few weeks ago, they said they were using the same technique I have used. They realized that there was a huge demand for “conspiracy theory” content, so they do a show about “conspiracy theories” and the paranormal. That’s the hook, but the substance is pro-white talking points.
I used this technique to great effect when the pop celebrity Miley Cyrus turned from Sweet Disney Girl to Singing Stripper.
I’m a huge fan of “Weird Al” Yanovic. A real fan, unironically. Not only is “Weird Al” very funny and a clever lyricist, he’s also a genuine musical talent and songwriter in his own right. He had done a hilarious parody of the Miley Cyrus song “Party in the USA” titled “Party at the CIA” complete with a hysterical animated video. I loved it immediately and used it as part of my “James Bond spy” gimmick.
So I was prepared when Miley Cyrus came out with her new Singing Stripper persona with a song called “We Can’t Stop.”
Three podcasts at TheRightStuff.biz have already deconstructed the new documentary “Out Of Shadows” which is a sort of “Pizzagate” style conspiracy theory about the “Satanic elites that run Hollywood.” They get it mostly right in the specifics, but miss the larger significance and the tactic being used.
“Conspiracy theories” are narratives inserted into popular culture to both distract from a real truth as well as to discredit truth seekers. And by examining conspiracy theories you can find out the truth that they are trying to distract you from and the reality they are trying to discredit anyone noticing and speaking out.
As written previously, in the 1970’s the “Flat Earth Society” was set up in order to distract people from “Moon Landing conspiracy theories” and to discredit truth seekers. In the 1980s, “Satanic panic” was popularized in the media to distract people from child sex abuse and human trafficking, and to discredit the truth-speakers and the truth-tellers. Aaron Russo’s “Rockefeller New World Order” conspiracy theories were meant to distract you from Jeff Gates and Mel Rockefeller attempting to expose Jewish organized crime. “Gang-stalking” conspiracy theories are meant to distract you from tactics used by that organized crime cartel.
And in the last decade, the conspiracy theories about the “Hollywood Illuminati” were invented in order to distract people from the real “mind control” that the mass media is perpetrating on the population.
Conspiracy bloggers like VigilantCitizen.com do a real disservice to their audience because they don’t tell the truth, they obscure the truth. VigilantCitizen may simply be doing it for clicks and money, but he is deceiving his audience nevertheless. In fact, conspiracy theorists like VigilantCitizen are, in a very direct way, assisting Hollywood and their agenda, while posing as critics.
So when the Miley Cyrus video came out, full of weird and disturbing imagery, bloggers like VigilantCitizen raked in huge numbers of clicks by discussing how Miley Cyrus had “joined the Illuminati” and was a “beta-programmed sex kitten.”
I did my best to hijack this new “conspiracy theory” and instead lead people to the truth. Using the Miley Cyrus video – and the “Illuminati” narrative around it – I wrote about the really existing “mind control” projects at the CIA, like MK-ULTRA, as well as documenting the long history of military and intelligence ties to Hollywood and the entertainment industry.
The black and brown teenage girls who hate Taylor Swift and believe she is an “Aryan leader” promoting white domination of mass entertainment join with white teenage girls in believing that “the Illuminati” controls Hollywood.
It’s true, on a simplistic level, the “Illuminati” conspiracy theories help to distract from the actual people who control Hollywood, which is of course Zionist Jews. It also helps to discredit people who are critical of the often disturbing and offensive content coming out of Hollywood, and it really helps to hide the real “mind control” in plain sight.
The modern “Illuminati” conspiracy theories about Hollywood are the modern version of Anton LaVey’s “Church of Satan” and the tabloid stories surrounding Hollywood director Roman Polanski and the Charles Manson murders.
LaVey, real name Howard Stanton Levey, was putting on a show meant to scandalize the conservative Christians who were critical of the messaging Hollywood was putting out in the 1960s. It was both an in-your-face insult to white (and black) Christians, and it also helped to hide the Jewish nature of the organized crime cartel that controlled Hollywood and its drug trafficking, its “casting couch” and its human trafficking and child abuse.
This is how Mike Enoch totally missed the magic trick in Out Of Shadows. He was focused, laser-like, on Jews and their glaring absence from the documentary. When the film showed a picture of Anton LaVey, Michael Aquino, and Sammy Davis Jr., Enoch complained, “see, they are going to ignore the Jew LaVey and instead talk about the goy Aquino the whole time!”
Which they did, but not for the reasons Enoch thought. The real reason is because LaVey was just an actor, while Aquino is a high-ranking military officer who later on went to develop psychological warfare operations policy and co-write papers with high ranking US Army generals. He was also influential in the torture programs used against Afghanis, Iraqis, and other Arabs and Muslims in places like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. It’s not really Enoch’s fault, he just doesn’t know the full story.
But let’s face it, the so-called “white nationalist” movement is exceedingly pathetic and another manifestation of how comical it is is how, every year, Greg Johnson’s Counter Currents writes yet another ridiculous and unintentionally hilarious essay about Alistair Crowley, who was, at the time, playing both the role of Anton LaVey as well as Michael Aquino.
That Counter Currents calls Crowley a “man of the right” and treats him as a serious philosopher and takes his “occultism” at face value tells you all you need to know about them. These are the people who take George Lincoln Rockwell at face value too. In this, Counter Currents is almost like the Vigilant Citizen of the white right, either purposefully or unwittingly participating in the scam and lying to their audience. Also, the fact that Crowley was “bisexual” and anti-Christian is likely a factor in his popularity among the Counter Currents crowd.
Counter Currents totally misses what is actually significant and interesting about Crowley and instead takes his “proto-Nazi occultism” at face value, trying to make him into a Savitri Devi-like figure. Ironically – or not – perpetrating the same fraud on their audience that the makers of Out of Shadows are on theirs.
Thanks to the research of Andrea Nolen and others, we can now understand what Crowley was doing, and why.
Crowley was a British intelligence asset. One of his earliest assignments, during World War I, was to infiltrate pro-German circles in the UK and USA for British intelligence, both to spy on them as well as attempt to discredit them (similar to what Rockwell was doing to the Council of Conservative Citizens and respectable segregationists.)
But Crowley’s “occultism,” in fact, shares a lot of similarity with what Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were doing, and what Hollywood is doing today.
In fact, understanding what Crowley was doing is the key to understanding his work. His work is “in code,” so to speak, and should be read in the same way that the godfather of the Jewish neo-conservative movement, Leo Strauss, suggested reading Plato or other ancient philosophers. Crowley writes for two audiences; the first, exoteric meaning of the text is about “the occult” and “summoning demons.”
Now, mid-wits and the very smart people at Counter Currents always say, “Crowley wasn’t really talking about sacrificing children. He actually meant it as a metaphor for sacrificing the self and the ego.”
Balderdash. These people illustrate nothing more than the great joke at the beginning of Monty Python’s Life of Brian.
Two Jews are listening to Jesus give the Sermon on the Mount. Standing way in the back, they are having trouble hearing him.
The first asks, “Blessed are the cheesemakers? What’s so special about them?”
The second responds, haughtily, “It’s obviously not meant to be taken literally. He’s referring to all manufacturers of dairy products.”
Alistair Crowley was doing very specific things for very specific people, and he was describing the things he was doing in his writing, in such a way that people outside of his real audience would be entertained, scandalized, and mystified, but have no idea what he was actually talking about.
But the people who were Crowley’s real audience, who knew the “code” and who knew what he was up to, can read Crowley and come away with a very, very different understanding of what concepts like “summoning demons” and “sacrificing children” mean.
Now, my audience knows that I don’t believe in anything paranormal. I don’t believe in supernatural “demons” in any sort of literal way. I don’t believe that “the elites” really “sacrifice babies” for some satanic purpose.
But there are certainly people and powers that can be described as “demonic” in a metaphorical way, and real babies are really “sacrificed” all the time for realpolitik; for material reasons.
Of course Crowley had a predecessor in another “occultist” that worked for British intelligence and Crowley’s “occultism” has a very long history in British intelligence. That “occultism” would go on to inform American intelligence agencies and its MK-ULTRA and related projects.
And even further back, in the ancient world, apocryphal Biblical literature about the Prophet Daniel describes how Jews were able to overthrow and massacre the indigenous priestly class of a nation, not by copying their tricks, but by revealing them.
My goal is demystification. I want to show the magician’s sleight of hand. I want to help Mike Enoch to see the real trick in Out Of Shadows and help Counter Currents actually understand Crowley’s esoteric meaning and language.
I want to help people understand why the “Hollywood Illuminati” mythology exists and why, in fact, Hollywood promotes this mythology.
And I want people to create entertainment for teenage girls that promotes healthy, natalist, pro-white ideas.
So, let’s crack, once and for all, this “occult” and “Satanism” nonsense and its role in helping sinister intelligence agencies and criminal syndicates.
And along the way, let’s put on the record the darkly hilarious story of how the CIA accidentally tricked the US military to accidentally trick the CIA – in a circular fashion – to believe in exactly the wrong kind of “mind control” and forgetting the actual “mind control” that the advertising business figured out in the 1920s when they were selling cigarettes to proto-feminists and women’s libbers.
What was Crowley really doing?
You’ll have to wait for tomorrow!