Foreign Lol-icy

Ever since the Democratic National Committee was hacked and had numerous emails published on July 22nd through Wikileaks, the narrative the media has been trying to push through is the idea that Trump, or at least Trump’s surrogates, had colluded with the Russian government in order to bring that hack into existence. I am, frankly, getting sick and tired of this ongoing debate, and the political hay being made over it on both sides.
The DNC had malware spread across its network, and so the DNC ended up calling in a private cybersecurity firm known as “Crowdstrike” in order to determine how the hack was played out, and who is responsible for it. I’m not going to pretend to be some sort of cyber-security expert, I am not. However, I can draw a few things from this report, and various other private reports on the attack itself. Crowdstrike lays the blame for the DNC leak and email phishing on two separate actors which have been dubbed “Cozy Bear” and “Fancy Bear” or “APT29” and “APT28” respectively. They determined that the Cozy Bear actor had been present in the DNC systems since the summer of 2015 while the Fancy Bear actor didn’t show up until the spring of 2016. The DNC called for CrowdStrike’s services in June of 2016, and the leaks were published in July of 2016.

 

So, if we are to take the accusation that Trump or his surrogates colluded with the Russian government in order to make these hacks happen, a few things have to be true. That these two actors are connected to Russian intelligence agencies and were ordered to undertake this task by the Kremlin, that Donald Trump and/or his surrogates knew this task was being ordered by the Kremlin, and that Trump and/or his surrogates conspired with the Kremlin in the undertaking of this task.

 

If we examine the timing of various events we can see that there are some strange coincidences. Crowdstrike claims that “Cozy Bear” was in the DNC systems since the summer of 2015, and Donald Trump officially announced that he would be running for President on June 16th, 2015. Of course, this would suggest that Trump or his surrogates had already set-up a sophisticated and complex hacking operation targeting the DNC before he had even announced his candidacy, or hired any of the people who are currently being cited as “smoking guns” for the Trump campaigns involvement. No such evidence, as far as I’m aware, has surfaced of this. So instead of looking at the “Cozy Bear” actor, I think it is more appropriate to examine the “Fancy Bear” actor when considering the chronology.
It’s important to take note at this point that no one is suggesting that Russia toyed with the outcome of the election via vote rigging or anything to that effect. The accusation is that the Russian government ordered a couple of groups to hack into the DNC, find compromising information, and then release it in order to hurt the Clinton campaign. The only effect this could’ve had on the election was that people were now privy to private information that would hurt Hillary Clinton in the running for President in a “public opinion” fashion. It has also been reported that the RNC suffered a similar attempt at an attack, but the attack ended up failing. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a report titled “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” where no evidence is actually presented to us, but simply the repeated conclusion that the Russian government was actively involved in these hacks.

 

Nowhere in the reports by Crowdstrike is there absolute proof that the Russian government is involved. The only thing that can be said about them from these reports is that they are based in Russia, these types of attacks require a lot of skill and time to undertake, and that they sometimes select targets that they think would be in Russia’s interests. Certainly there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that would suggest it is state-operated, and perhaps the FBI, CIA, and NSA have information that we aren’t privy to for national security reasons. However, with the information available to the public, at present, it would be unwise to leap to that conclusion until further evidence is presented. It is entirely possible that our intelligence agencies have damning evidence they can’t show us. It does say in the report,

“This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment. This document’s conclusions are identical to the highly classified assessment but this document does not include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow.”

Unfortunately, with the public information available to me, I can’t tell you whether the Russian government was or wasn’t involved in the hacking. But that means, neither can the press, without taking the intelligence community’s word for it. However, the press continues to report the contents of this report as if it was roundly accepted and established fact. When that very clearly isn’t the case for the average American, it’s only established, maybe, to various officials who wouldn’t disclose said classified information to the press to begin with. In order to dispel your fear a little bit, there will be no brand new “DEFINITE ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT THE RUSSIANS DID IT” headline coming out anytime soon unless the press somehow got access to classified information, which intelligence officials don’t just give out when being interviewed by journalists. There isn’t absolute proof, but there isn’t “no evidence” either. In my personal estimation though, it doesn’t look good for the Russian government. This circumstantial evidence is going to be very difficult to explain away, but it is still possible that it could be explained away.
Anyway, barring the accusation against the Russians, those who would make this charge against Donald Trump still have all of their work ahead of them in order to implicate Trump and his campaign team with a charge of collusion with the Russian government. If the Russian government was not involved in this hacking attempt, then the case falls apart completely. So, just for the sake of argument let us take the accusation against the Russians as true in order to deal with the latter portion of this apparent indictment. A couple public figures that have been, and are currently, being cited as the “smoking gun” by the press are Michael Flynn, and Jeff Sessions, and the Russian “fertilizer king” Dmitry Rybolovlev. I’ve found no evidence of Rybolovlev having any sinister connection to the Kremlin, in fact, the only evidence I’ve found is the the Russian government is hostile towards him.

 

Paul Manafort is also cited and served as Trump’s presidential campaign chairman from the end of March 2015 until mid-August of 2016. If there is any possible sinister link between the Trump campaign and Russia, it would be through the likes of Manafort. He has volunteered to testify before an intelligence committee on Russia and so I’m going to leave his case alone for now. We’ll see how everything plays out. I will be going through the cases of Michael Flynn, and Jeff Sessions to examine if they can be implicated in colluding with the Russian government to enact these DNC hacks, and whether they can be implicated in any other Russia-related scandal.
Okay, first off we will start with Michael Flynn who was Trump’s former National Security Advisor. According to him, he got a call from Trump in the summer of 2015. In an interview with Dana Priest Michael Flynn claimed that he was advising five of the candidates, to include Donald Trump. Michael Flynn first interacted with Donald Trump, according to this same interview, in late summer of 2015. Flynn also accounts of one of the trips he made while serving as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, in which he was allowed into the headquarters of the GRU [one of Russia’s intelligence agencies] during which, he briefed the staff and gave them a class on leadership. Flynn was invited by the now-deceased General Igor Sergun in June of 2013. If one is going to suggest that this is the moment in time in which Michael Flynn can be implicated in this DNC hack issue then one has to believe a few very improbable things. One has to believe that this operation was something that was openly talked about by GRU officials with the currently serving Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. One must be able to convince themselves that members of the GRU discussed their plans for hacking the Democratic National Committee *with* a then serving US Intelligence director.
I find this to be completely unbelievable. Why would the Russian intelligence community risk compromising their operations in such an obvious way? Especially in the middle of a meeting that was purported to have been arranged to assist in bridging the Russia-US divide? Of course, the evidence currently offered against Michael Flynn was that he omitted the discussion of sanctions when reporting on his talks with the Russian diplomat Sergey Kislyak who has been serving as Russia’s ambassador to the US since 2008. Correspondence between incoming administration officials and foreign diplomats is not an unusual practice. The Trump administration also claims that Michael Flynn had correspondence with diplomats from various other countries as well. There were conflicting stories from Kellyanne Conway, Sean Spicer, and Donald Trump himself about the nature of Flynn’s resignation and there was a report issued by Fox News which stated that Trump was fully briefed of the complete content of the phone call despite his saying that he had no idea what the press was talking about when asked about whether he had seen reports saying Flynn had discussed the sanctions with the Russian ambassador. And this was all brought to light due to FBI leaks, I wouldn’t call this a leak of classified information because whether or not the sanctions were brought up in a phone call between Flynn and the Russian ambassador isn’t exactly a threat to national security.

 

In late December of 2016 the FBI reviewed intercepts of the communications between Flynn and the Russian Ambassador, but have found no evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government. The same was said of Trump himself. The FBI also investigated in the summer of 2016, according to the New York Times, not a very pro-Trump source,

“For much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank. Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.”

But of course if we cycle back to the ODNI report on the hacking released on January 6th of 2017 (which used information dating up to December 29th), the FBI joins in the conclusion along with the CIA and the NSA that Russia hacked the DNC and various campaign officials specifically in order to damage Hillary Clinton and get Donald Trump elected. What is the average person supposed to believe? What type of new information surfaced between late October and late December that warranted such a 180 flip from the FBI? Provided that what the New York Times reported was true. It might be classified, it might not exist. In fact, many assessments in that report are alongside a “high degree of confidence” which reads, from the ODNI report: “High confidence generally indicates that judgments are based on high-quality information from multiple sources. High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment is a fact or certainty; such judgments might be wrong.” Just so you can be aware of how things are being graded.
According to the Washington Post which originally broke the “Flynn Russia call” controversy,

“The FBI in late December reviewed intercepts of communications between the Russian ambassador to the United States and retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn — national security adviser to then-President-elect Trump — but has not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government, U.S. officials said.”

So unless one is going to posit that the FBI is lying to the Washington Post in order to cover for the likes of Michael Flynn, or the Washington post is lying about an FBI source that counters their previous “jumping the gun” attempt to suggest Flynn was in cahoots with the Russians over something or other…I think we can call this case…closed. There is currently an emerging second scandal with Flynn over whether he violated the “Emoluments Clause” otherwise known as the “Title of Nobility Clause” which reads:

“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

This accusation is brought toward Michael Flynn with the revelation that he was paid to speak at the 10th anniversary gala of the news network Russia Today which gets direct funding from the Russian government, but is not itself the Russian government. Whether that technicality means anything, I don’t know. This could be classified as an “emolument” which basically means a salary or fee. I wouldn’t rule out, at present, the possibility that Flynn did indeed violate the Emoluments Clause depending on the financial situation there. That still remains “Plausible.” It should be noted that in the same interview with Dana Priest, Flynn remarked on that gig “I was asked by my speaker’s bureau, LAI. I do public speaking. It was in Russia. It was a paid speaking opportunity. I get paid so much. The speaker’s bureau got paid so much, based on our contract.” So…there’s that to take into account as well. But, if it’s such an obvious violation of the emoluments clause for this to have taken place why would Flynn have just said that he violated it outright in an interview with an adversarial media? Is Michael Flynn that stupid?

 
The Jeff Sessions case appears to be more of the same. Jeff Sessions is the current Attorney General for the United States. Al Franken asked Jeff Sessions a question in light of a completely unverified dossier released by Buzzfeed and CNN which alleged that Russian operatives had information about President Trump that could be used for blackmail.

Al Franken: If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

Jeff Sessions: Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I’ve been called a surrogate a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have communications with the Russians and I’m unable to comment.

The Washington Post then released an article pointing out that Jeff Sessions had, in fact, met with the Russian ambassador twice. But neither of these incidents are without innocent explanations considering he was meeting with them in his capacity as a Senator. From context, it is clear that Sessions is talking about communications relating to the campaign. He followed up with a clarification that leads us directly to that conclusion. Jeff Sessions responded in writing to Senator Patrick J. Leahy who asked him, “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?”

 

Jeff Sessions responded unequivocally, “No.”

 

According to Sessions’ spokeswoman, he also had meetings with twenty-five different ambassadors from different countries during his work as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee. This entire case is based on nothing but malicious innuendo, and the majority of the press seems to be stomping along with it. If it becomes suspicious that a U.S official whose duties involve speaking to ambassadors, speaks to ambassadors, then we’ve arrived at an interesting time in history. Jeff Sessions has since, recused himself from overseeing investigations into more of these “Russia ties” allegations. I think the press in the United States needs to take a good hard look in the mirror, and take responsibility for the hysteria they’ve implanted into the minds of the American People, and its governing bodies. So far, the investigations have turned up empty-handed. If they continue to turn up empty-handed, many factions of the press can decide to take responsibility for what they’ve done, or double down and become no better than the likes of InfoWars when it comes to journalistic integrity.

 

Sources:

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/08/15/trump-adviser-michael-t-flynn-on-his-dinner-with-putin-and-why-russia-today-is-just-like-cnn/?utm_term=.47be2acc4740

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/02/death-gru-commander/125567/

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3254237/Russia-Hack-Report.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-reviewed-flynns-calls-with-russian-ambassador-but-found-nothing-illicit/2017/01/23/aa83879a-e1ae-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.30ad35cb6472

I Was Able To Buy A Razor in 12 Minutes

Considering the large problem this country has with suicide, and we all know how slitting your wrists is considered a popular method among youth, I decided to see how easy it was for me to purchase one of these death machines. It was an unnaturally breezy summer morning. I hit nearly every red light on the way there, but I eventually made my way into the plaza where “Target” was located. Just the name of the establishment gave me chills. It was almost like I was being taunted the moment I walked through the automatic sliding front doors. I felt like I was next.

As I entered the building I was blasted with cold air which made the hair stand up on the back of my neck. The floors were so white and polished that they reflected the LED lights hanging high above me. There were people in gore-colored vests checking people out at the registers to my left. It took all I could muster to continue pressing on. As I passed by the Yu-Gi-Oh cards and make-up aisles a person sporting the previously mentioned blood tinted garment asked me if I, “needed help finding anything.” They were practically begging me to buy this irrefutably disgusting product. I was sickened to my core so much that I declined and decided to find it for myself.

Unfortunately, as I made my way through the aisles I found the “kitchen” section. I saw a kitchen knife set and I had to immediately make my way to the nearest bathroom. I twisted and I turned through the overtly bright corridors. I thought I heard a young child mutter something along the lines of, “Mommy, what’s wrong with that man.” If only that poor little kid knew. If only they knew. I finally found the bathroom. I busted into the closest stall and emptied the contents of my stomach into the toilet. Just seeing that array of slaughter made my morally sound guts wretch. This was no time for quitting.

I steadied myself and left the restroom after wiping my face with a damp paper towel and headed straight for the toiletries. My heart and mind were racing. My adrenaline began kicking in and I turned the corner to see an entire pack of disposable razors. They were just placed on a shelf in a plastic bag, as if you couldn’t cut through plastic bags with a razor. I picked up the bag. It crinkled slightly. I felt my stomach turn again. Racing as quickly as I possibly could with horrifying scenes of bloodshed running through my tormented skull I finally reached the cash register.

“Sir, are you okay? You’re panting and sweating an awful lot” the cashier snidely remarked. He was mocking me already. I slammed a ten dollar bill on the table and screamed “KEEP THE CHANGE” as I ran through the door into the refreshing summer breeze. That was it. An average citizen was able to purchase a razor in a store that sells them in twelve minutes. Where have we gone as a society?

 

My Response to “The Alternative Hypothesis”

I noticed that you made a video discussing my older video on how Race Does Not Equal Culture.

Original here: https://youtu.be/V4LWQ3TIl5I

So I thought I’d just make a quick aside to you acknowledging that you’ve made this and that I’ve watched it and give you my thoughts on why any educated person, or anyone who understands how the basics of this topic function will never take you seriously.

You are very keen on leaning on studies that simply cite things that correlate. For example, you cite a study which makes the claim that IQ correlates with political view. However, clearly this study does not control for all or even most outside factors so there’s no way to determine that IQ is a deciding factor on what political views one holds.

Then you decide to drag it into race, like you seem to always do. But you’re doing exactly what Zennistrad used to do in regards to lobbing studies at me and you, and a lot of your commenters, seem to have an issue with my saying “Correlation doesn’t imply causation” in regards to a lot of your points. Even though they are actually valid points.

And someone else decided to take it upon themselves to tell me to “stop pretending that regression analysis doesn’t exist” which, of course, i’m not doing. I’m just saying that the things you’ve sent me that correlate don’t prove that there’s any sort of causal relationship to be had. You just assume that to be true because of the studies you’ve actually cited to me.

If you want to prove that (just to use an analogy) Asians are genetically predisposed to prefer collectivism. You can’t simply cite something that states “Asians tend to prefer collectivism.” There is absolutely zero genetic aspect involved within that.

Also, regression analysis is a statistical estimate, not a biological experiment or study. So when you ask me to stop remaining skeptical towards a shaky estimate, I’m going to have to politely refuse that request.

You also have not scientifically even quantified “culture” which is another problem for you. You seem to be under the misapprehension that culture is not the very definition of nurture. When trying to decide whether or not something is nature or nurture it’s pretty daft to try and claim that nurture is in fact nature and therefore nature wins. It’s absolute lunacy, sir.

I have seen zero separated at birth studies trying to see whether people of a certain race still tend to prefer the culture that corresponds with their race, I guess, or any twin studies. That being, twins growing up in completely different cultures and seeing which they are more predisposed to when they are adults.

Culture is a product of people discovering what works and doesn’t work within their environment. When humans were in their infancy, they had to make dyes out of the things they had (before trade flourished), they had to eat whatever would grow the best in their respective environment. But now, update that. Update that to the 21st century where people of different races are still being born and co-mingling within different cultures.

You’re taking something that occurred when people were generally restricted by location, and applying it to people who live today and it’s retarded. It’s just absolutely retarded. In my estimation, the only reason you see a correlation between race and culture is because people tend to be brought up in the culture that their biological parents happen to be in, and people are biologically the race, of their parents.

I mean, I don’t know how to make this simpler for you. You can’t just assume environment away because it hinders what you wish to be true. It doesn’t work that way ever.

Full Circle

What do you think when I say “grown women around little girls in bathrooms?”

What comes into your mind when I say “grown men around little boys in bathrooms?”

What pops into your head when I say “grown women around little boys in bathrooms?”

Keep those thoughts fresh in your mind. Let it simmer. Stop reading for a few minutes if you have to. Now what pops into your head when I say the phrase “grown men around little girls in bathrooms?” If your brain went straight to pedophilia then you have a serious prejudice that you need to get rid of. This introduction is probably assumed, by you, to be an argument against some new SJW argument. How women are just so terrified about how some evil men use their bathrooms accidentally, and it scares them. How they are petitioning someone somewhere to do something about this scourge of indecency.

No, it’s conservatives doing something remarkably similar. There is an argument floating around in conservative mind-spaces about how male to female transgendered people using the women’s restroom is dangerous. The people who say these types of things are indistinguishable to me from modern feminists. First off, they equate being transgendered with being a pedophile. As if there is going to be more danger to little girls in their bathrooms if transgendered people are present. What bothers me about this kind of thing is, no matter which sex you actually call this person the argument still falls flat on its face.

Let’s say you think this male to female transgendered person is male. Well, what you’re saying in this case is that you think that these little girls will experience more danger if they are in their presence. Well, this brings up the obvious fact that grown men are around little boys in the men’s room all the goddamn time. It shows that they either care more about little girls, or they are just using that as political rhetoric.

Let’s say you believe that this female to male transgendered person is female. The argument still falls on its metaphorical face for slightly different reasons. This is just someone actually using the bathroom that corresponds with their gender. What I have seen a rhetorical lack of, in mainstream conservative idea clouds, is female to male trans people. I have seen exactly zero people express a concern for little boys being in the bathroom with grown women. Because clearly, it’s men who do the child rape, never the other way around.

These particular conservatives are supporting laws that would require transgendered people to use bathrooms corresponding to the sex on their birth certificate in public areas. They are not the proponents of freedom in this case. They are the ones arguing that the government should step in and bar people from taking a shit in a particular toilet. Businesses are free to do whatever they like (which was facilitated by the overturning of certain anti-discrimination laws), but in North Carolina, on public sites people are barred from using bathrooms designated for the opposite sex, of course argued for under the guise of “safety.” (Full Law Text Here)

I have no idea what the penalty would be for doing so. I suppose I won’t eat any Mexican or Indian food before going to a public museum of any type. Emergencies do happen, folks and sometimes the only toilet you care about is the closest one.

Even using this pedophile argument is absurd to begin with. Do you think pedophiles look at a “women’s room” or “men’s room” sign and think “Darn it. If only I were allowed in this restroom. But this sign, it says it’s for women so getting into this room is impossible.” No, they’ll walk through the door anyway. If they are deciding to do publicly whatever awful thing they are going to do, do you think a sign is going to stop them? It’s similar to making the argument that a “no pedophiles” sign is going to stop them. They can always just make the excuse that they went in there accidentally. Conservatives could make an argument for an additional “children’s bathroom” if pedophilia truly is their main gripe here (I have a feeling it isn’t). Every thinking person knows signs don’t stop criminals. Not in “gun-free zones” or in “[insert sex here] bathrooms.”

In any case, conservatives are now feeding into the “men are inherently dangerous to little girls” narrative. If you are concerned about your child, go into the bathroom with them. I would rather it not become some sort of state-sanctioned offense for someone to accidentally enter the lady’s room when they aren’t paying attention. It’s stupid. It’s childish, and I honestly don’t get what the big deal is. Go into a bathroom, take your piss like an adult, and leave.

Don’t Be Afraid of the Offense

I’ve gotten into the habit of watching debates on the topic of social justice. I know, I’m a masochist, but what to you expect? My eventual inevitable descent into madness is your entertainment. Putting that off to the side, I discovered a very prominent tactic that is taking place. A tactic that needs to be done away with immediately. The tactic of a good defense. Generally, when one imagines combat one imagines a trading of blows coupled with maneuvers away from attacks and successful blocks and parries. As cringy as that sounds it is exactly what a debate is like. But I’ve noticed a trend that has been occurring across college campuses and I couldn’t simply stay quiet on the matter.

There is a specific video I would like to briefly address. There was a debate that occurred where white life was mentioned and whether or not we should “affirm” it. Which I can only assume means something along the lines of “recognize it as valuable.” This should be a question that has an obvious answer to anyone with a moral compass not skewed by any ideology’s interruptive magnetic field. The answer would be a resounding “yes.” Human life should be affirmed, and regarded as valuable, regardless of the race of the specific human being. This is a basic moral proposition that, personally, I believe any moral person would be hard pressed to disagree with. But those who certain people are debating need to figure this out as soon as they possibly can.

Now, I don’t know the names of anyone in this video, but generally, the question that befalls them is “Is white life worth affirming?” Now, the problem with those confronted with this question on a professional debate stage, is that they think remaining high-minded and grounded in logic will win them the argument. It won’t. Especially with the audience present. Instead of lifting up the metaphorical shield, they need to parry the strike and slash their opponent across the chest. When confronted with the question “Why should we affirm white life?” the response should be “kill yourself.”

While some might write this off as irrelevant reactionary trolling, there is actually a substantial point to be made from this type of response. Telling someone to kill themselves forces them to think about a world in which they have killed themselves. It shoves them into a mental state where they must think about the hardship it would cause their family, friends, and other various loved ones. Hopefully, it will trigger a state of empathy, or at least anger in response to the realization that what they said was an example of some of the most disgusting evil nonsense ever uttered. Ultimately, in the end they will get defensive towards the statement you threw at them unexpectedly. But, if they are on the defensive, that means you at least have the upper hand. As “zen” as it sounds, forcing someone to understand the basic Golden Rule in the midst of a debate, when they are violating it, resonates far more than simply trying to get out of the debate without being called an “-ist” of some type.

Short Rambling on the Alt Right

The Alt Right tends to make the fundamental mistake the Internet nearly always makes, which is the conflation between “triggering people” and “winning an argument.” Before I get started in my jumbled criticism of this movement I want to get a few things out of the way. I am opposed to mass immigration. I think that Western values/cultures are worth preserving. Finally, I think that multiculturalism is a bad idea. Those tend to be explained as the core beliefs of the Alt Right, and they are entirely agreeable. This curtain however, is swiftly yanked away whenever one speaks with someone who isn’t a prominent figure within the movement. Then it devolves into racial divisiveness, political propositions bordering on 19th century European racial fascism, and flat-out authoritarianism. Many people who oppose the authoritarianism of the radical left, are only opposed to it because it isn’t “their” authoritarianism. Hence, the underbelly of the Alt Right exposes itself.

There are reasons some positions are met with an immediate harsh reaction, because they are stupid ideas that have been tried and end in either slaughter or injustice. For example, if I were to expressly advocate genocide on the internet, was met with harsh logical rebukes, and simply screamed “Triggered” that doesn’t make my position any stronger. I simply don’t understand why this attitude is being taken in regards to this type of thing. The Alt Right tends to fancy itself as a movement that advocates “reals over feels” which is simply a repurposing of anti-SJW points, and are mainly used incorrectly. I’ve noticed a common trend of movements using these points where they don’t belong in order to end discussion with honest critics.

One can be angry with you (“triggered”), and factually correct. Just ask any of Donald Trump’s supporters. It’s strange that a movement basing itself on “reals over feels” would cite how angry and frightened they are so consistently. Members of the movement commonly express that they are necessary in order to fight the rise of the radical left. But what is over-looked is that the radical left arose from combating actual racism and bigotry. The Alt Right is in the process of building a movement functionally equivalent to the radical left, to fight the radical left. One can’t expect they will simply dissolve after reaching their goal, no movement does.

There is also a tendency towards the “Motte-Bailey” strategy within this movement as is customary with nearly every movement throughout history. If you notice someone from the Alt Right making claims which state, “It would be better for everyone if black people just went back to Africa,” and you criticize that particular point you will be swarmed with various irrelevant accusations. Some of these accusations include, but are not limited to:

“You’re a cuck”

“I guess we should just open our borders then”

“Sure, let Muslims just come in and rape your women”

“((( Your name here ))) so typical” [The parentheses are a reference to a Jewish person]

And last but not least: “Disgusting anti-white behavior”

This is entirely expected from any political movement where there is a strong need to hide behind the collective in order to defend your individual insanity. The same sorts of responses are seen from feminists who make insane claims about men:

“You’re a misogynist”

“I guess women just shouldn’t have rights”

“Typical man”

“Disgusting anti-woman behavior”

Why are we currently treating people that simply looking to seek an angry reaction as intellectual power houses? Why are we currently treating any view that is “edgy” and in the minority, by default, more correct? Why in the world are we treating anyone who can make someone angry online a salient dissident voice? Finally, why are we treating any enraged buffoon that opposes the radical left like a genius worthy of praise?

An Allegory

A book is on the ground in the middle of a lush green meadow. It is leather bound and although it has been sitting on the ground it seems relatively unscathed. It doesn’t have a title, but the artwork on the front is spectacular. It’s the most beautiful piece of art you’ve ever seen. You, our observer, see a few people walk up to this book and pick it up. They begin reading the book and they are all enthralled by the stories, promises, and lessons encased in it. The passages blow their minds and make them think about the Universe in its entirety, and they finally realize where they belong in the world. But one of them isn’t too impressed. They think the book is contrived, it’s idiotic, the plot doesn’t hold together well, it’s not believable, and some of the characters aren’t that great. Well, in the back of the book there is a provision that reads, “If anyone you come across in your travels doesn’t recognize the wonder that is this tome, you must whip them until they die, or else I will not keep my promises of riches and paradise to you.”

A whip mysteriously pops out of the book, and the person who likes the book the most begins whipping the dissenter. One person originally in the group runs away in fear and disgust. But the rest stay. They watch the whipping take place. Occasionally they will wince and ask the whipper politely not to whip the poor innocent man so hard. The whipper turns to them and says, “Don’t you want all of those wonderful things in the book?” They reluctantly agree, and watch this nightmare go on. With every lash the man suffering this travesty begins to look less like a human and more like a corpse. Blood flies off of the whip, and they’ve been standing there for so long that the grass beneath their feet begins dying. Every drop of blood that hits a blade of grass in the meadow acts like a poison. Although, with every twenty lashes the man receives, one of the believers standing behind the whipping gets hit by the backlash.

A stranger passes by and sees the horror that is taking place in this formerly green pasture and begins shouting at the person delivering the blows. This stranger begs this man to stop. This stranger calls the person doing the whipping an awful human being. The stranger then gets shouted at by the other book believers. They scream, “Why do you hate us?” “our book is peaceful” “you just don’t understand,” and “not all of us are doing this.” Then, they get hit by the backlash and scream “Do you see what you’ve done? This is what happens when you hate us like that. We get hurt.” The stranger desperately tries to explain that he doesn’t hate them, he just wants the whipping to stop. But as soon as those words leak from his lips the man being whipped draws his final breath. His back looks like it has been stripped of all of its skin, the grass has died around him, and the arc that the blood was flying in created a semi-circle of death.

The man with the whip then slowly turns to the stranger, with blood speckled on his face and asks, “Do you like our book?”