Jeremy Corbyn typifies the contemporary Left. He is, if you like, the SJW's grandad. Born into an affluent middle-class family, he pretends to be the voice of the working class, like so many of his Leftist contemporaries: Ken Loach, whose premiere of I, Daniel Blake Corbyn attended, is a prime example. Of course, when these people put their fists in the air and shout about the working class, they invariably deconstruct the White working class of Great Britain, and Loach's aforementioned film, which Corbyn lauded, is a prime example, although that is for another article. The White working classes are 'soooo yesterday' and these people have moved on to the minority groups displacing and abusing Britain's indigenous working class. Unfortunately, those same native workers—and voters—seem largely not to have noticed.


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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hail victory!


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

Ise Jingu, spiritual centre of the nation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tokyo National Museum's Honkan

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


Apparently for some time now, though I'm not sure exactly how long, "baby dancing," a unique species of aerobic dance jazzercise, has been a thing that some young mothers do.

Some may call this activity silly, while others might say it actually provides a means by which mothers are enabled to bond with their infants while at the same time losing some of their "baby fat."

One might entertain certain reservations, wondering if it's good for wee ones to be bounced around like this. I suppose, however, that if the bjorn is secure, the child is snug and serene. In any case, none of the kids in this video look like they're being harmed, inadvertently or otherwise:

But of course, in our enlightened age and time, we can't have baby-dancing relegated exclusively to the female sphere; men must be femininely nurturing, too! Real men, even if they are technically dads, can in fact-- and should in fact-- be moms, too!

And so (below), if you dare, behold the baby-bearing dancing dads of doom.

Note their embarrassed smiles-- oh, they're such good sports, aren't they! Note how their wives howl and hoot at them from the wings, as if there were nothing sexier than henpecked men acting like clownish minstrel show sad sacks (albeit with no true "sacks" to speak of)... Finally, see how the climax of their dance is none other than assuming "rock out" and stroking their "air guitars." Play that imaginary music, white boys!

In short, a snapshot of an era of militant emasculation, of a culture ripe for colonization and replacement.

Dig it? No, me neither.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


by Dota

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

Why did Orwell select the title 1984?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perpetual Warfare

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

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

Orwell's Quad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ever popular "two minutes hate."

Originally published at Occident Invicta




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

Culturist (cǔl-chər-ǐst) n. 1. An advocate of culturism. 2. One who engages in the philosophy, arts, policy creation and sciences that promote, protect and manage traditional majority cultures. 3. Adj. Of or pertaining to culturism, culturists or culturist policy.
This is the sixth of a weekly, 8-part review of culturist policies. The series will become a short e-book. Any feedback you could provide in terms of ideas or presentation would be appreciated.

Culturist Assimilation Laws

Whereas multiculturalism emphasizes diversity, and drives us apart, culturism emphasizes our unity.

Whereas multiculturalism says the West has no core cultures into which to assimilate, culturism affirms that western nations have wonderful core traditional cultures to protect and promote.

Culturism asks immigrants to assimilate to Western culture.

Immigration limitations

Law impacts culture. As much as any education policy, culturist immigration laws can reinforce the idea that the West has a culture. Doing so on a culturist basis will reaffirm our culture’s legal standing and help defeat multiculturalism.

Trump needs to overtly embrace the ‘Muslim ban’ label. Muslim immigration must stop because Islam is incompatible with, and hostile to, Western culture.

Latin American immigration must stop because concentrations of Latinos are making the US culturally divided nation. The historic territorial war between the US and Mexico makes this division dangerous.

No dual citizenship

Ending dual citizenship is necessary because it forces a choice of loyalties.

No remittances

U.S. residents annually send more money in remittances to other nations than the debt of several of our major states combined. Sending money abroad while our nation is in debt shows poor citizenship.

Again, we need to end remittances for fiscal reasons. But, just as importantly, it will force people to decide whether they are working for the benefit of America or a foreign nation.

Monolingual government

Government transactions, including voting, should only take happen in nations’ traditional majority language.

Not providing services in foreign languages forces new citizens to learn the national language: this is an essential part of being a citizen.

Conversely, conducting government work in foreign languages creates enclaves where only foreigner language speakers may be hired, reinforcing separation and increasing resentment.

Worse yet, in such enclaves, only foreigners will be elected. Such foreign representatives make passing immigration laws difficult and undermine our sovereignty.


The FCC should not give public radio and television licenses to foreign language stations.

In the age of the internet, it cannot be argued that such culturist rulings deny persons access to foreign language media.

Western nations’ national anthems should be played on public television and radio stations at designated times. Patriotic programming should be funded and aired.

Government offices and institutions receiving government funds should be required to fly the national flag.

Western festivals

Federal, State and local governments should celebrate western history and holidays with public parades and events. Conversely, they should not fund celebrations of other nations or their cultures.

While attendance at such events should never be compulsory, these celebrations will provide an opportunity for new citizens to show public enthusiasm for their adopted nations.

These celebrations should be as fun as possible.

As with sporting events, other public events might be encouraged to play the anthem prior to beginning.

There should be no compulsion to attend celebrations or stand for the anthem. However, the potential discomfort of individuals should not overrule our right to have culturist content.

Culturist Infrastructure

New York City's 9/11 memorial was built with guidance from "Middle Eastern scholars." Hence neither the word 'jihad' nor our 1400-year defense against Islamic aggression are mentioned. Our memorials must be created by western culturists for our culturist ends.

Foreign nations should not be allowed to fund mosque building in the West. Since locals can fund mosques this does not infringe upon their speech. Our Constitution confers rights to US citizens; it does not give the Saudis speech rights.

Refuse non-Western Policies

Citizens must show their face for government identification; polygamy and sharia law must remain illegal.

Again, western law must recognize the existence of western culture and its legal standing.

Reinstate real citizenship oaths

Citizenship is a matter of the heart, not paperwork. If you prioritize your individual or group rights over the welfare of the nation in which you reside, you are not a citizen, no matter what your paperwork says.

To reinforce this culturist truth, we must reaffirm the legal standing of loyalty oaths for those seeking to become new citizens.

Culturist repatriation

As detailed in the culturist repatriation policy article, displays of 'fealty to foreign potentates' provide evidence that you perjured yourself during your naturalization proceedings: your adopted citizenship contract is thus null and void.

Culturist Education

As detailed in the culturist education article, we need to replace multicultural curriculum with culturist curriculum. Western schools must teach that the West has a particular culture that is superior to foreign, primitive cultures.

Our universities must not allow foreign nations to fund “Middle Eastern Studies” programs.

Assimilation Conclusion

Multiculturalist policies will divide and thus destroy the west. Like other nations, Western nations need culturist laws that acknowledge, protect and promote our nations’ traditional majority cultures.

Click the following to read the policy series intro or part two (culturist rights) or part three (repatriation) or part four (culturist profiling) or part five (culturist education). You can read more about culturism here.


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

But Wonder Woman had me crying when it didn’t mean to.

Gorgeous as it is, by the end my jaw was scraping the floor: they actually tried to make a feel-good movie about World War One. They tried and tried, and ultimately only succeeded in making it seem even worse by contrast with the pall of cheer they were trying to cast over it.

Oh, yes, there was some complexity and darkness, as though they felt they had to touch those bases. But in the end, despite being a god, Wonder Woman winds up concluding some stupid shit to the effect that “Humans might be bad...but deep down they’re good!”

Well, I guess trench warfare doesn’t seem like the invention of demons if you’re a goddess and you can just waltz up to a machine gun nest looking cool and hot and impressing everybody.

But that’s what brought a bitter tear to my eye: Yup, the only way to get anywhere in that eternal metaphor of a war would be to be a fucking deity. Congratulations, Wonder Woman. You got to skip trenchfoot.

She plows into a German position to save some quaint European-village women and children, of course, because innocence sells, and none of the good guys die.

Are they fucking kidding?

The horrors of trench warfare in World War One

World War One was one of the worst things that ever happened. There’s a reason Hollywood doesn’t make a lot of movies about it. As Wonder Woman kind of indicates with its desperate casting about for something cheery, there really was no order or lesson to it, except that maybe the gods hate us, and with good reason. It’s arguably to blame for all the shit we’re in now.

There was a little comic relief: they insist on making the Germans already cartoonish monsters, even though the First World War had no clear villain (except for everyone). This was (snort) probably because they figured most of the public can’t tell one World War from the other and would go berserk if they appeared to be not-anti-Nazi. I’m serious, that must be why they made that choice. Jesus Christ, it’s like everything in the world comes with one of those safety helmets for retards now. “Better pad it, otherwise they’ll hurt themselves!”

Some of the people freaking out about the movie’s themes are priceless. You knew the hard-core MGTOWs were going to go nuts before they even showed up on your feed, but I think even they would admit this entire movie is a giant spank bank—and you could have just as easily set your watch by the black feminists showing up to complain about white women growing fangs and sucking their blood out in their sleep.

But in this piece from Essence, Arielle Iniko Newton, a dip who went to college and learned some jargon, really goes the extra mile for hatred: she simultaneously roasts Gal Godot for being born Jewish AND for being born white, in the most unintentionally humorous word salad of the week. (Hating Israelis has become very PC since President Trump started waddling around in a yarmulke.) She is quite correct that white feminists are entitled and intolerable. But so is she. GOD, I hate college kids. I should feel lucky that the Internet wasn’t around when I was a kid. This silly crap is going to follow her around forever. She’ll probably have to double down; she’s already attacking other black female writers over stupid shit in an attempt to expand her turf.

Anyway, Wonder Woman is a visual feast. Just try not to think too hard about what rushing a German machine gun nest (or going up against firearms with a bow and arrow, for that matter) was really like. Or at least wear your waterproof mascara.

Originally posted at

Ann Sterzinger is the new author of Disaster Fitness: Make Your Demons Do the Work


Operation Barbarossa and the Saving of the West

by Daniel Barge

Today is the anniversary of the German invasion of Russia, known to history by the name Operation Barbarossa. This was the start of what was undoubtedly the most titanic struggle in human history, between two incredible fighting machines, the German Wehrmacht and the Soviet Red Army.

Typically it is presented as a simple German act of aggression in pursuit of something called Lebensraum, and no doubt it was, but it was much more than that. It was also part of a great ideological and geopolitical struggle, and an event that had an enormous and unexpected impact on the world.

Those on the alternative right tend to view Hitler's decision to attack Russia as an unfortunate event, both because it was a war in which White man killed White man, and because it laid the foundations of the globalist, anti-White world we live in now. It is difficult not to sympathize with that position and to have wished that Hitler had never made his ill-fated decision to launch three million men and three thousand tanks against the numerically superior Red Army. But if Hitler had not invaded the Soviet Union, how would the world have been different?

When hostilities commenced exactly 76 years ago today, Germany was already involved in the occupation of France and several other countries as well as an unresolved war with the British Empire that it had no simple way of winning. The Soviet Union meanwhile had revealed itself to be an entirely ruthless and expansionary nation itself.

To view Nazi Germany as the only brutal and voracious state in Europe is clearly a mistake. In 1939, the Soviet Union had participated in the same invasion of Poland that had involved Germany in war with Britain and France. That same Winter the Red Army launched a massive, unprovoked attack against Finland, which bravely resisted. After heavy losses, this resulted in gains that the Russians continue to hold to this day. 1940 also saw the Soviet invasion of the peaceful Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

In each of these cases, whenever the Red Army rolled into town, the NKVD was not far behind. Tens of thousands of innocent people were arrested, tortured, and "disappeared," as with the executions of Polish officers and other elites at Katyn Forest.

Blokhin without his leather apron.
The chief Soviet executioner, Vasily Blokhin, personally dealt with a quota of 300 executions a night. Dressed in a leather apron and leather gloves, he would wait in a soundproof room, painted bright red with a sloping floor and drain, and shoot the prisoners as they were brought in one-by-one in the base of the skull. For these and other heroic services he was awarded the Order of the Red Banner, twice (1940, 1944), the Order of the Red Banner of Labour (1943), the Order of Lenin (1945), and the Order of the Patriotic War, 1st class (1945). Blokhin and his master, Stalin, typify the kind of regime that the Soviet Union was.

The idea that nothing would have happened if Hitler had sat still seems extremely unlikely. There is every indication that Stalin had plans to expand further West. The rapid German successes of 1940, when France unexpectedly fell and the British retreated to their home island, no doubt upset his calculations. Stalin’s plan was to allow Germany and the Western powers to exhaust themselves in the West, while he built up his strength in the East. This strategy was revealed in a speech he gave six months before WWII, when tensions were high following the German occupation of Czechoslovakia:
"Nonintervention represents the endeavor... to allow all the warmongers to sink deeply into the mire of warfare, to quietly urge them on. The result will be that they weaken and exhaust one another. Then... (we will) appear on the scene with fresh forces and step in, naturally 'in the interest of peace,' to dictate terms to the weakened belligerents."

Stalin quoted in Stalins Falle by Adolf von Thadden
It is a remarkable fact that when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, the Red Army had a three-to-one superiority in tanks and aircraft, and they were already mass producing their main battle tank of the war, the T-34. This was not some peaceful Ruritania cruelly invaded by the fascist jackboot.

Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun, a Soviet intelligence officer who defected to the UK in 1978, wrote a famous book Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War? under the pen name Viktor Suvorov. This contends that Operation Barbarossa was a preemptive strike by the Germans against a Soviet invasion that was planned for July 6th. While this date seems a little too precise and Rezun's thesis over-dramatic, the essence of his claims are far from preposterous.

Military expansion was in high gear well before the Germans even invaded Poland. By 1941, the Red Army surpassed 5 million men. According to historian Roger Reese:
"There were 198 rifle divisions in 1941, compared to fewer than 30 in 1927; 31 motorized rifle divisions in 1941 and none in 1927; 61 tank divisions in 1941 and none as late as 1939."

It is often said that the bloody nose the Red Army received from the Finns in the Winter War, in which they suffered over 300,000 casualties, persuaded Stalin to avoid war with Germany for as long as possible. This is not entirely believable.

Firstly, the Winter War was fought under unusual conditions that would not be repeated in a Summer war with Germany; secondly the Red Army was concentrating much of its build-up on offensive weapons like tanks and planes, and believed in a theory of offensive warfare; and, thirdly, when the Germans struck, much of the Red Army was exposed by being placed too far forward in positions more suited to attack than defence. This last reason also accounted for the extremely high number of Red Army casualties in the opening months. Soviet officers, like Major General Pyotr Grigorenko commented on the large concentration of Soviet forces near the German frontier in occupied Poland:
"More than half the troops of the Western Special Military District were stationed around Bialystok and to the west, therefore in territory extending like a wedge deeply into that of the probable enemy. A troop arrangement of this kind would only have been justifiable... if these troops had been earmarked to launch a surprise attack. Otherwise, half of them would have been surrounded in a moment."

Quoted in Unternehmen Barbarossa by Walter Post
But whatever the exact details of the military situation, it is clear that Stalin believed war with Germany was inevitable, and was hoping to pick the moment, preferably after Germany had been weakened by other conflicts, and intended to fight it on advantageous terms with a great superiority of force. If the Germans had not attacked, you can sure that the Red Army would have done so, at least within a few years.

Preemptive war?
But surely none of this is important, some will say. After all, Germany lost the war anyway, and all of Eastern Europe fell under Communist tyranny for 40 years. Yes, that’s true but think of the difference between a war of Stalin’s own choosing and the one foisted upon him by operation Barbarossa.

In the first case, the Red Army would be starting from the line of the Vistula and advancing in full strength against a Germany involved in war with Britain and possibly America. Victory would have meant the conquest of not only Eastern Europe, but probably also Central and even Western Europe, with Germany and France falling into the Stalinist orbit. We can guess what kind of job opportunities this would have created for the likes of Vasily Blokhin.

Instead of this scenario, however, the Red Army got the stuffing kicked out of it and started its advance from the Volga. By the time they reached Berlin, they had lost around 14 million servicemen dead and many millions more wounded. They were a much weakened and demoralized force that was incapable of going much further against organized resistance, and could only be impelled forward by the prospect of raping German women.

Operation Barbarossa was also a major factor in bringing America into the war, both by raising the stakes and by making American involvement in a war against Germany an easier burden to bear. Without an Eastern Front, the US would have faced the full brunt of German power in the Battle of the Atlantic and North Africa, the likely point of engagement. It is unlikely that the US would have relished that. Operation Barbarossa made American involvement in the European war a much easier proposition, and was thus the reason that the Americans were in Europe at the end of WWII, armed with nuclear weapons, and able to keep the Red Army at bay.

Operation Barbarossa was many things, including a brutal grasp by the Nazis for living space, but it was also a historical event of overwhelming importance that, in the dislocation of Stalin’s evil plans for World dominance and the damage it inflicted on the Red Army, was the main reason that Western Europe remained free to make its own mistakes in the post-war period.

Connected Articles:
The Myth of the Great Russian Victory
Bombing Germany, Russia, and America in One Night


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

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

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

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

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

Welcome to Maybot Britain: humour does not compute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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