Nick Fuentes is no genius. His blatant antisemitism, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, Anti-Protestantism (or, any religion that is not Pre-Vatican II Catholic), and xenophobia aside, the other underlying parts of Nick’s core thesis regarding the state of society is not original and even the most politically uniformed person (which is not a sleight by me) already knows what Nick is saying.
That being how society made promises by selling a system (college, houses, constant growth, etc.), yet, that system inevitably consumed and destroyed itself, thus making previous promises and dreams, e.g., the American Dream, more difficult to achieve, despite the seeming ease of making money (e.g., paid partnerships and income from Google’s algorithm).
Nick is essentially pent up white entitlement dealing with the existential malaise of the theorized fall of the American Empire. The only currency he has is cruelty and being a snarky troll.
Nick is just a basic person with eyes and ears who is a byproduct of the economic and political malaise which arose out of the 2008 Financial Crisis and the nearly decade long Global Recession which overlapped and extended from the underlying reasons of what caused 2008. For example, in the USA we had the real-estate crash whereas in Europe you had the Greece sovereign debt crisis and other crashes in Ireland, Spain, Iceland, etc.
This era gave us Occupy (which foreshadowed Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and even Zohan Mandami) but also Tea Party (which laid the seeds of MAGA, Qanon, January 6th, the Obama Birther Conspiracy Theory, Project 2025).
It’s not brain science.
This is why Tucker Carlson is being disingenuous when he claims to not agree with Nick despite both men being racist. Tucker is just snooty about his and yet is seen by Zoomer conservatives are being something akin to a “plant”, i.e., Tucker says the right populist things but still is seen as proxy of the status quo.
However, Nick brings nothing ground breaking to the table as far as his analysis of economics, culture, etc.
It does not take an advanced degree to understand that capitalism sent jobs overseas. It is not a secret anymore that de-industrializatiion hit the white (and, yes, black) working classes of the USA, England, etc. Nick and people like JD Vance (a Catholic convert who bridges the “Trad Bro” community with the “Tech Bro” oligarchs) essentially plagiarized or co-opted Left Wing structural analysis of the ills of capitalism, but both Fuentes and Vance twisted it to appeal to regressive borderline fascist sensibilities and tactics. The same way how the German Right on the 1930s usurped popular Left Wing sensibilities to grow the Far Right.
The only thing Nick brought to Tucker was broadcasting and legitimizing Nazism, no matter how much Tucker denies it. Urchins like Nick Fuentes are essentially the street thugs protecting the elitist racism and WASP nostalgic snobbery of Tucker’s world.
Basically Tucker is just the older, wealthier and more spoiled version of Nick Fuentes, yet, since Tucker is from a “Ralph Lauren, Conde Nast, cardigan wearing, row crew affiliating, late 80s to early 90s Ivy League-esque” world, Tucker simply refrains from publicly being Far Right because in these elite circles such behavior is seen as proletarian and not of “refined”, “established” men of the “classical liberal” tradition.
Tucker agrees with Nick but has to appear to have slight disgust only to save face and disgust is simply a characteristic of the upper bourgeoisie class. Tucker is like powdered wig landowner covering his mouth with a scarf as he strolls through the muck of the everyday person.
Contradictions and irregularities are in part an element of the exclusivity of the rich, because not making sense enables this class to gatekeep, raise the bar, and appear aloof with their tastes which of course the peasants can’t understand.
Tucker Carlson literally could have invited any Joe Smoe to talk because as stated, Nick is not original.
Let me quickly distill Nick’s overrated analysis.
In 2008, the banks crashed the economy and unemployment rose. The US was already fighting an expensive forever war in the Middle East which was funded on US debt considering the Bush Administration cut taxes. The US domestically had already been suffering from unique drug pandemics in the early 2000s such as the rural meth crisis, but by the time of 2008 Crash, the seeds of the opiod epidemic was already established.
When you mix economic crashes, wars, veterans, drugs, etc., you get crime, political unrest and more extremes, but also increased cop altercations because of crime, evictions, for-profit prisons, etc.
Many cop altercations, notably as cell phone camera technology improved, were across racial lines. Protesting against police thus became ripe for exploitation by racist who wanted the civil unrest to appear inherently anti-white (which they veiled under milqtoast calls for Law & Order), so alienated people who felt silenced by society would normalize White Identity politics. White supremacists co-opted Left Wing anti-colonialist frameworks to argue that white people deserved the same sort of special treatments, preservationist policies.
The people promoting this purposely omitted or failed to grasp that minorities were given a sort of unspoken ability to have racial solidarity because past oppression of minorities under white supremacy created the need for the empowerment of minorities to heal and make up for generations of lost opportunities.
White people within the USA have never been and will never be as oppressed as BIPOC people, and even if there were industries that exploited and/or trafficked white people (i.e., indentured servitude), thr scope snd scale will never match black chattel slavery, Indigenous genocide, Jim Crow, the KKK literally running governments, etc.
Sorry to all white supremacists. You’re not oppressed.
White Identity politics which steals Left Wing frameworks is ironic since most of time there is an innate sense and calling for supremacy.
It is funny to me that so many white racists are fearful of being minorities (which is a theory not necessarily a reality) but they expect minorities to be happy in staying minorities. So are racists admitting that being a minority sucks? So…why are they suprised minorities resist or call out their treatment by the majority (notably from a historic perspective).
Even if this isn’t the case entirely, White Identity politics erases and downplays the effects of past racial abuses on current material conditions of minorities.
More irony added, is that the more racist white people are, the more self-awareness and determination that minorities feels as they realize assimilating will never be good enough.
But, back to how the world evolved into what it is, many war veterans became cops in a tumultuous America, thus asethically linking these two careers more so, which enabled further politicization of them, which conservatives capitalized on due to their ability to appeal to patriotism and law & order, while dismissing concerns of police brutality, systemic racism, the blowback of imperialist adventures, etc.
Because of the crash, the rich got richer, and Big Tech took off as being the catalyst of the new emergent economy. The old industrial DOW Jones was now in the backseat towards the hype fueled Tech Sector of indexes like NASDAQ.
Near zero rates enabled those who in part caused the crisis to get cheap loans to buy competitors, bloat their stocks, etc., indifferent to the natural inflation the “Free Money” era created. Capitalism’s propensity to boom and bust, and to seek new paradigms to justify its continued and unfettered existence, creates irregularities between real life and market perception. The crash essentially burned a forest in which society was living off of and got comfortable with, but those who burned it got rewarded and society had to do the slow and painful migration towards new forests (paradigms, systems).
This era gave us the “gig economy”, “porn hubs”, data brokerages, etc., because the physical world was becoming for technological and digital based, yet the efficiency that capitalism creates such as saving on labor, means people struggle to find jobs and the economy itself becomes more reliant on asset investing rather than real production of tangible items. Further, as the developing world becomes more advanced due to capitalism, the more conflict over resources arises, and the utopian ideals of free markets takes a backseat to human barbarism, amoral realpolitik, etc.
The reliance on asset investing, bolstered by cheap money and interests, boats assets thus making homes and stocks pricy while the currency itself fluctuates in its purchasing power.
The general population found themselves in a sort of Japanese Lost Decade situation where it seemed the rich only got richer, previous ideas of college became criticized, homes became unaffordable by the time Millennials and Zoomers had enough capital to put down payments down, and socially the public spent more time in online spaces which in itself can create nihilism from the all the drama, tension, fighting, desensitizing media, competitive online dating, trolls, misinformation and depressing news one is inundated with.
Nick is simply a byproduct of this. He was one of the “basement dwellers”. The revolt of supposed losers against the elites.
Yet, Nick has to grow up. He himself is nostalgic over the Pepe The Frog era of pre-2016 which gave rise to the Charlottesville Riots in which he participated in. The Pepe The Frog era was a counter culture movement of cynical, lonely, Sound Cloud ethereal music listening young people who felt alienated but many saw liberalism (Lean In feminist capitalism, criticism of white male privilege, etc.) as the new establishment and thus went into Right Wing ideology which can first start with YouTuber content creators such as Sargon of Akaad or Jordan B. Peterson but then bleeds into fascist online spaces.
Many Zoomers don’t remember the education of Martin Luther King post-racial education of older Millennials and Gen X (though this post racial education was largely a shallow attempt at solving the residuals of systemic oppression).
Many Zoomers and younger Millennials are Nick’s target audience so all they see is the perceived failure of liberalism and thus are being sold a vision of the past that wasn’t entirely true and ironically by people such as Nick who weren’t around in such past times.
But, regardless, 2008 and all the strife and struggles, did advance the world but interstingly it also unleashed an antiquated and potentially violent force of Right Wing reactionaries. I was born in 1987 and the future I saw as a kid was of post-racial harmony, high technology, egalitarianism, but what I am seeing is the forewarning of postmodernism writers.
That being a world of recycled fashion and anachronism, Zoomer racists who lack an understanding of how much progress was made yet live in online spaces litered with undicpherable memes/intertwined irony and nonsense, and Seig Heil flashing oligarchs like Elon Musk or Kingmaker oligarchs like Peter Thiel (who grew up in a Nazi enclave in Namibia).
Nick isn’t original. We know how he formed so the question is if society has the guts to course correct and send people like him back to the basement. Not only that but having a genuine de-radicalization effort of his influence networks, which can only be done by honesty addressing the concerns of the lost and alienated.
Further, the political left needs more representation in spaces where younger people were recruited into Right Wing ideology, and this means the Left needs to lower its eyebrows and ease up on seeming pretenious or overly Enlightened.
Also, mainsteam outlets and news need full time staff covering online spaces otherwise we risk the rise of more Tyler Robinson situations, in which authorities and elders are utterly lost in understanding modern culture and its ever complex layers and semiotics.
The elites, social programmers, cultural engineers, think tanks, etc., need to understand people are not stupid and being more hyper-aware than ever, people can smell inauthenticity, hunt down and expose “industry plants”, etc., a mile away.
No one quite knows why the shooter did what he did, but both sides of the political spectrum has too turned this murder into a discussion about political violence. The Right Wing media wanting what they consider to be long overdue Civil War and purge of “Lefties”, “Commies”, “feminists”, “migrants”, etc., or, the Left Wing, which seems to be on a type of pre-emptive and defensive campaign to shed light on the possibility that the shooter wasn’t a Leftist, despite possibly being involved with the LGTBQ community, since sexuality and politics aren’t mutually exclusive (I mean look at a gay man such as Peter Thiel, Dave Rubin, etc.).
But still, no one knows why he did it but we have preemptively concluded it is about partisan politics.
Yet, the shooter has reasons we do not quite know yet, and in the mystery, we are all guilty of trying to input or spin the situation; however, there is nothing wrong with thinking this through. It is just that we have to be humble to the fact that we don’t know everything. Randomness does exist and if though randomness goes against our human need to control, the universe at times simply doesn’t care. Nihilists, anarchists, etc. do exist, and we have to factor this in, and the plausibility that this event was a random act of opportunistic violence and infamy seeking.
Even, Andrew Callahan with Channel 5 “station”, or “video-cast” – who I support and respect – has already done a segment exploring this ideas that it is about political differences between the Left and Right, but…we don’t know why the shooter did what he did. However in Andrew’s segment, titled: “The Last Person to Debate Charlie Kirk (Exclusive Interview)“, he does touch upon an important idea that younger generations seem disassociated to violence, which sounds a bit paternalistic considering people said the same about Millennials or Gen X, however, I do think and feel that Zoomers specifically are the most entrench generation of what we can consider (and, I hate to say this word) of “postmodern” irony. But, it is not even a postmodern irony which allegedly afflicted Gen X and elder Millennials at play, but more so an even more advanced, entrenched, realized, and recycled version of ideology that even surpasses the “postmodernist condition”. A post-post or “meta-modernist” type of behavior which seems to instill a sense of hope or sincerity through action (aspiring for the objective truths or grand narratives that postmodernist rejected), while still playing and flirting with postmodern tropes such as irony, being snarky, detachment, punk anarchism, and weaving a playful quilt of high-and-low pop cultural references and anachronisms.
But, what even what I just said is too intellectual likely for the shooter, and all I meant to do there was paint a picture of the sociological conditions in which he operates. He was operating in the digital landscape of gaming, chatrooms, memes, shock videos, etc., which gives a person a sense of connection without actual physical connection, and allows people to operate under anonymity, thus potentially giving a person a false sense of grandeur as opposed to the likely mundane nature of their actual non-digital existence.
This could be a matter of intra-conservative violence, rather than bipartisan violence. Similar to how the Nazis of Hitler beefed with the Strasserism. There is a big policy divide of Zoomer Conservatives (who have been influenced by online movements such as the Catholic Dues Vult movement; Groypers; 8chan; figures such as Lilly Gaddis or Nick Fuentes, etc.) who have turned on Israel and those who are Zionists.
A lot of older people, parents, etc., don’t know what is going on online, and I think there is a kneejerk reaction to blame change on progressive explicitly, i.e., like how parents in the 60s called anything different as being “dirty hippies”. Yet, many conservative parents, who see their children as “God fearing darlings” are a lot more technology adept than what their parents know. Their parents who go these large Evangelical Churches don’t understand memes, racist troll symbols, the irony, the lingo, etc. Tyler Robinson could thus be an example of conservative parents being out of touch, and when presented with the actions of their children, they fall into denial and simply blame outside forces, rather than understanding many of these online spaces are explicitly for conservatives, right wingers, fascists, etc.
I wrote this post a few days ago, but as of 9/15/24, I am adding in a video by Internet Today, which also talks about this online postmodern irony I spoke about above.
And, of course, you have liberal centrists (different from Leftist), i.e., the CNN, MSNBC crowed (not to be confused with the Jacobin crowd), doing their “can we all just get along” campaign, while they inadvertently creating more top-cover for conservatives, but establishing a false equivalence between the Left and Right, as if the Left has the history of violence in the USA as conservatism does, and the Left is generally more financially broke that the Right Wing. Since liberal (modernist liberals) and conservatives (classical liberals) are both guided by a capitalist framework of thinking, liberals simply want to “go back to business as usual”, with no real moral or humanist impetus, so they accidently become conciliatory towards conservatives, and their messaging in suite follows.
I can already see the “Charlie Kirk Foundation” or “Charlie Kirk Society” being created and used to bankroll tax write-offs for wealthy industrialists from the Great Lakes Region, or for their more ruthless, ambitious, and crypto investing grandkids. “Inspiring liberty and freedom from leftist Ideology” will be the motto. The board will be figures associated with Hillsdale College (a school implicated in trying to overturn the 2020 Election), Patrick Henry College, Liberty University, etc.
It will be just another 501(c) in the conservative ecosystem used to move money around. These controlling figures are the old money who controlled factories, farming, brewing, mining, chemical plants, etc. Families no one sees. They are not the endearing father figures such Brian Dennehy from 1995’s Tommy Boy, starring Chris Farley, who owned an auto parts factory. Rather, these seem to be the types of people who may say, “Hitler was bad, but he had some good ideas” at a party.
Such an organization would be a self-aggrandizing fawn-fest of self-awarded accolades, “Fellowships”, and other resume padding efforts to make those associated with it seem like “scholars” or “experts” worthy of Fox News airtime similar to cretins such as Christopher Rufo. It will be just another organization in the vast web of interconnected right-wing “think tanks” such as the Claremont Institute, Cato Institute, Discovery Institute, Hudson Institute, Gatestone Institute, Atlas Network, VDARE, Pacific Research Institute, Seale Freedom Trust, the Federalist Society, Manhattan Institute, etc.
Yet, such experts will be corporate stooges arguing for tax cuts on the rich and trying to convince the public that forever-chemicals don’t cause cancer.
There will likely be exchange programs for American students to visit Israel too.
The Right Wing is already trying to merge the death of Charlie with the unfortunate murder of Ukrainian refugee
Kirk, despite being a father, etc., was a loathsome person, who got paid to divide. Seriously, his portfolio is toxic. Rarely did he present positivity unless vanquishing liberals is the only happiness one gets. He did not bridge the divide but rather he widened it, hoping his ideology – one of exclusion – would win. Though not deserving of violence, his rhetoric could be considered as dehumanizing in nature, thus being violence in and of itself. Stochastic terrorism at its finest. Contrary to Trump’s claim that calling someone a Nazi led to Kirk’s death, I’d argue that Charlie’s toxicity came back around like a boomerang.
Now his wife, who seems like she would not have been with Charlie if Charlies were not famous and well-funded, is threatening an ambiguous group of people for his death. It seems she is supposed to be the mascot, a type of white, Trad Wife, Nashville Joan of Arc for the Civil War that many Christian Nationalists, white supremacists, anarchists, fascists, etc., wants but because the shooter doesn’t fit the intended demographic of their anger, she is only left with posturing towards an ambiguous “they”. Her speech almost seemed scripted, but I don’t want to shame a grieving wife, however, it seems odd she’d make such a scripted response just a few days after his death, where I would think most people would have been too traumatized to have spoken just yet.
Yet, keeping tabs on these conservative people I remember years ago Kirk beefing with Nick Fuentes and racist “America First”, “Alt Right” Groyper movement (look it up if you don’t know this term — but be forewarned that the surface level childishness is intended to conceal the abhorrent fascists that these Groypers are).
Kirk wanted to absorb and harness the Alt Right, i.e., be its establishment linked handler, but they felt Kirk was not racist enough (which is hilarious considering Kirk’s default was the “how can we blame black people?” crutch which most conservative pundits rest on).
Kirk was a Zionist whereas Fuentes is an antisemite and anti-Zionist (I consider those two different things).
Before I go on, it is important to note that both Kirk, and racist America First leader, Nick Fuentes, are both from Chicago. This seemingly random tidbit sheds light on the Midwest’s influence on Right Wing ideology. It is a city with a notoriously segregated past.
For example Nick Fuentes is essentially the modern day, online troll, version of mid 20th century racists such as Wllis Carto (of Indianapolis) and Francis Parker Yockey (of Chicago, IL).
Also, as alluded to previously, there is a group of shadowy Midwest Republican Megadonors who were behind Charlie Kirk. The Midwest has a charming place in America’s heart yet is home to the Rust Belt, was hit hard by decades long crime rates due to deindustrialization, and more recently was in the America’s mind because of the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting on Kenosha, Wisconsin and the George Floyd Protests in Minneapolis.
However, this shooter, if truly a Groyper, then he was likely a “troll, 8chan kid” who wanted chaos. 8chan is an unfiltered message board where anonymous users often share controversial material ranging from racist memes, videos about death, etc. Such youth-oriented political and 8chan types of violence is not unheard of, but the allure of 8chan for many is that if it gains attention for the infamous actions of some of its users, then outsider backlash often comes off as “lame”, “parental”, or being taken too seriously. It’s a way for detached or alienated to have a sense of “insider knowledge”.
8chan in a sense is simply a distillate of the cynicism, irony, parody, etc., of our modern times, where morality is really subjective and nihilism ironically makes people attached to a world, they feel alienated or exhausted by (and I say ironically because nihilism is supposed to be the absence of feeling). It’s a place for the blacked pill to trade in craft and fellowship. 8chan is a mirror of the perpetual Holden Caulfield (i.e., The Catcher in the Rye) malaise that seems to have robbed people of optimistic thinking.
According to a basic online search of a headline I remembered, in early 2025, in Waukesha, Wisconsin (where Wisconsin oddly appears a lot in my writing), teen Nikita Casap was charged with killing his parents as part of an extremist plot to fund a white supremacist political revolution. The FBI discovered evidence that the 17-year-old was influenced by neo-Nazism and intended to use his parents’ money to assassinate President Donald Trump.
This seems similar to the Kirk assassination to me. But conservatives can’t admit any possible white supremacist or adjacent type of motives, even if it were a fraction, because the modern conservative movement in the United States is a white supremacist movement, more so than it has ever been. Fox News sounds like something one might have heard in Apartheid South Africa, and the seeming parody of Fox News’ cruelty is really them testing what they can get away with. I heard on a Fox News segment the cast of a show talking about executing homeless people with lethal injections.
Yet, to understand Casap, we have to briefly touch upon the Occult, which is very broad and can make the person explaining it seem odd or looney.
I could go back as far as the Greco Roman world with figures such as Plotinus or Iamblichus, or to Renaissance era with Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola, or the Masonic and Illuminus Movement of the Enlightenment, or more recent modern figures such as Madam Blavatsky, but in simple terms, the Occult, notably “magic” or “magick”, seeks to will existence into reality and reach higher levels of consciousness through ritual. According to magic practitioner John Michael Greer, author of “The King in Orange: The Magical and Occult Roots of Political Power” (2021), he states on page 91, “Magic, as we’ve seen, is the art and science of causing changes in consciousness in accordance with will. If you are denied access to any other sources of power, you can still exercise power over your own consciousness.”
Greer’s thesis in his book sheds light on how a generation of “basement dwellers” who were alienated from society, for which they blame the failings of liberal market-capitalist democracies, started practicing “Chaos Magick” as a means of finding friends in fringe online spaces. Chaos Magick is the Postmodern version of older forms of Occultism where relativity, Discordianism, and subjectivity are keys in willing or manifesting one’s will into being. By postmodern I mean a philosophical worldview which rejects grand narratives and is skeptical of objective facts, and thus sees value in mixing high with low art, blurring lines of morality, distorting time and traditional narrative, and musing over living within the hyperreality which could be summarized as the constant propagation, replication, and recycling of consumer and pop culture within capitalist systems that have reached levels of domination in which every aspect of life is a commodified product. The postmodern condition thus could be defined as people living in advanced capitalist societies which have reached such a level of systemic domination over people, that there is no escape for a system based on an idea that people made up. For example, the irony of having third world poverty in the most wealthy nations, as if this were naturally occuring, rather than the byproduct of a man made system and game that we could alleviate ourselves from, but choose not to simply because we are addicted to the system we created.
Many youth mass shooters are…the afterbirth of the postmodern condition, and they know it, so they are predisposed to reactionary politics, often but not always with a traditionalist or Orthodox bent. This is why so many young people or Zoomers seem to be more open to anti-democratic versions of political organization. It seems in part a mix of their rage against their real-world materialist conditions as isolated youths in a world that seems to be getting worse day-by-day, yet it also seems part of wanting to create a fantasy world where individuals have agency again, no different than characters people play in complex world-building “dreamscapes” in video games.
Chaos Magic, Postmodern Magick, what have you, is simply making up whatever you want with the intention that you are performing a magic working to change behaviors and will existence. If we were to apply a sterile military application or lingo to what I just said, the Chaos Magic and Postmodern Magick are simply… psychological warfare without any qualms of bending morality. In grunt military terms it is essentially… f-cking with people. This thus makes it alluring to snarky and edgy teens and young adults.
By the way, I recommend Greer’s book, notably pages 86 through 107 as a better summary as what I stated above
Greer was saying that alienated young people are playing with “magic” as a means of wanting political change, however I am adding on that certain groups want actual results and use violence as a means of ritual to stir chaos, hopefully to bring on collapse or totalitarianism (i.e. Ceasar, Trump).
For example, Casap was a member or associate of Order of Nine Angles, an online mostly Satanic Neo Nazi cult of lone wolf operators, who do violence including murder, sexual assaults, pedophilia, etc., because they see it as a kind of Alistair Crowley, Hermetic, Occultic path towards Enlightenment and reaching higher “Aeons”, i.e., stages of development, where their goal is a “galactic Aryan civilization”.
Members believe in “manifesting”, so by doing evil acts they feel it opens up new pathways of personal success. It sounds very odd. Your grandmother would have zero clue on how to process this, but the Republican Party’s inability to vet the extreme fringes of Right-Wing ideology has given groups like O9A an almost playful albeit dangerous safe space to operate. Rather than calling out extreme white supremacy, which can only vote modern Republican in a two-party system, the GOP simply blames The Left, to the delight of Neo Nazi anarchist organizations.
Like Casap is Wisconsin, in another case a US Army member was given a 45 year prison sentence for trying to a terror attack on his unit as part of an O9A ritual. According to ABC New, Aaron Katersky (2023), stated, “Ethan Melzer, the former Army private described as “the enemy within” because he plotted with a Satanic neo-Nazi group known as O9A to kill fellow soldiers, was sentenced Friday to 45 years in prison. Melzer, 24, pleaded guilty last June to three counts: aiding and abetting the attempt to murder U.S. service members, providing material support and resources to terrorists, and illegally transmitting national defense information. The charges accused him of attempting to plan a jihadist attack on his Army unit in the days leading up to a deployment to Turkey, by sending sensitive details to other members of the U.K.-based Order of the Nine Angles, known as O9A. The attack never came to fruition.” (https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-soldier-ethan-melzer-enemy-sentenced-jihadist-plot/story?id=97616439).
So, we have two cases of O9A members, so it could be possible that Tyler Robinson was influenced by such a group. But this is only a lead I am suggesting.
It goes further, according to a piece by the BBC with Daniel De Simone revealed the larger scale of O9A activity. In the segment, Daniel Hussein was a member of O9A who promised to sacrificed women for power and money, and he was just one of at least 7 men arrested for other O9A inspired violence. Hussein killed two women in a satantic ritual.
But when Tyler Robinson of Utah was arrested it made me think of some research, I did a while ago in which this BBC segment talked about a man, Matthew Lawrence from Utah, who was the cult leader who helped inspire Daniel Hussein. Lawrence convinced Hussein to believe in Lucifuge Rofocale, a supposed demonic entity that Matthew Lawrence told his followers to make a blood pact with.
The BBC segment featured analysis from Professor Matthew Feldman of the Centre for Analysis of The Radical Right who spoke about Left Hand Satanism which he explained as a Darwinist, violent form of Satanism.
So, if my theory is correct, Tyler Robinson could have been a “chronically online person” who was exposed to groups such as O9A, notably because Robinson is from Utah similar to O9A affiliated cult leader Matthew Lawrence. Robinson could have done the shooting to “will existence” such as start general chaos, anarchy, etc. Lawrence was affiliated with the Temple of Blood, which is related to the O9A, and O9A has influenced Nazi groups such as the Attomwaffen Division.
Adding to this Occult angle, is that people are trying to pin Tyler’s act on links to transgenderism or Furries. However, sexual orientation or assignment doesn’t automatically indicate political leanings, e.g., you can have gay Nazis, where in the case of male homosexuality may find arousal in the Right Wing’s emphasis on hypermasculinity, domination, etc. The Christian Nationalist movement would love to pin this on the LGBTQ community, black community, immigrants, Jews, etc., as the impetus for their Holy Civil War. Many see Transgenderism as Satanic and there is a basic thesis, I call it the “Jay Dyer Thesis” which has gain prominence in Right Wing conspiracy theory circles, states that transgenderism is effectively alchemy, in which humans are playing God by distorting the natural order of things. This thesis pushes that the modern world, with ideas such as Darwin’s theory of evolution, Transgenderism, etc., are effectively modern occult practices linked to demonic entities.
Tyler’s roommate may have been a Furry or on the LGBTQ spectrum. However, there is a good video that explains a real case of a Nazi Furry conducting a mass shooting. Conservatives haven’t come to grips that people with conservative or even fascist leanings can be gay, trans, irreligious, etc. But I want to be careful as to not paint these groups as synonymous with each other or as being bad. Of course, being LGBTQ is not bad.
The Cost-Benefit of Kirk gone from the perspective of the shooter is as follows:
(A) Make a statement by taking out a prominent Zionist whom you see as an agent of the “Zionist Occupied Government” where “Z.O.G” is a term often associated with White Supremacist politics notably in the 1980s, due to the book “Turner Diaries”, but hate aside, the non-racist truth is that the Israeli lobby has deeply rooted influence in American politics in which more Americans are aware of. And, the brazen actions of Israel and the apparent desperation of Zionists to sway public opinion in their favor, is making more people suspicious of Zionist Jews, which increases retaliatory threats against Jews in general
(B) Hope that the vengeance of Trump will cause “accelerationism” (a term popular in “Black Pilled” – i.e., nihilistic, communities). They, such as extremist groups such as the Boogaloo Boys, Proud Boys, and more overtly Neo Nazi groups such as Attomwaffen and Order of Nine Angles (O9A), want societal collapse. Anarchist violence helps figures such as Trump (whether he is aware of it or not) towards pushing more authoritarian ideas. Both A & B are goals of people such as Nick “I’m Half Mexican” Fuentes.
Fuentes is exploiting the fact that US politics avoids calling out Israeli actions, thus Fuentes deceptively appears more authentic, “real”, forthcoming, etc. This “authenticity” seems genuine to younger people online. This new era of Israeli negative sentiment is exciting to many in that the establishment appears like a parent hiding the truths of how things work. And, they were hiding the truth.
The rise of political violence, relating to issues such as Zionism is “blowback”. It is the inevitable “Chickens coming home too roost”, as more people realize they’ve be living in one world, slaving, dying, and spending for it, whereas there’s larger agendas at foot.
A lot of people blame Israel for the Middle East situation, which has caused the USA to lose it’s de facto position as arbiter of democracy, but has also made millions of refugees, where many fleed to Europe and the West, during times of economic uncertainty such as durinh the Global Recession of 2008 to roughly 2014.
This could have all been avoided if the legacy media treated Israeli coverage fairly – both the goods and bads, but media in the US is corporate driven and many corporate leaders have Zionist sentiments.
For example, Zionist Jew, Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle, has a son, David Ellison, who is the new Chairman and CEO of Paramount Global following the Skydance Media merger that was completed on August 7, 2025. As the leader of the combined Paramount Skydance, David Ellison will oversee a vast entertainment empire that includes CBS, MTV, and Paramount Pictures.
Ellison has already given journalistic reigns to Barri Weiss, an ardent Zionist, to help flip negative coverage of Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
But, there is a theory that Charlie Kirk was taken out because HE WAS judging Israel, and I HIGHLY skeptical this.
But to expand further, Charlie being dead makes him more valuable to the Right Wing Movement who will exploit his death.
This situation eminds me of John Birch of the John Birch Society if you know that history. John Birch was a Christian missionary during World War II, and given a commission during the days of US and Chinese “Flying Tiger” operations against Japan. His fluency in Chinese made him useful to American operations assisting China against Japan, but after the war, China erupted in Civil War between Chiang Kai-Shek’s Nationalists and Mao’s Communists. Birch was allegedly killed by Communist at a checkpoint for misunderstanding instructions.
The JBS was founded by rich industrialists, mostly in the Midwest, such as Harry Lynde Bradley (co-founder of Allen Bradley which is now Rockwell Automation) of Wisconsin. Fred Koch, who helped Nazi Germany refine oil, and whose sons Charles and David, became Republican Megadonors, and founded the CATO Institute, a libertarian think tank. Another man Revilo P. Oliver, a professor at University of Illinois, helped found the JBS too but left because he felt it too nice to Jews. He left to join the National Alliance, a hate group founded by William Luther Pierce, an ex Oregon State University professor, who wrote the racist Bible called “The Turner Diaries”, which as a book inspired Tim McVigh to do the Oklahoma City Bombing.
This split of Oliver from the JBS is similar to the Kirk versus Fuentes beef.
The Bradley Foundation gives money to the ultasecret Donor’s Trust who funds Libertarian and conservative causes, including… Turning Point USA of Charlie Kirk. The Bradley’s are inter-married to the Uihlein of Wisconsin. The Uihlein’s owned Uline Logistics, Schlitz Brewing, and General Binding Corporation.
To distill all of my information further, in simple terms, Charlie’s insurance policy expired and his value to the MAGA, the Heritage Foundation, Project 2025, etc., yields more benefits with him gone.
It sounds heartless but if this were something more coordinated from MAGA proper, i.e., a grand conspiracy, which seems unlikely, then it is a basic cost-benefit analysis.
(A) Trump can blame the Left with no proof (B) MAGA can drum up its call to purge people on the margins. Trump already pardoned January 6th Rioters, so what else will he pardon? (C) a new generation of people will be loyal to Kirk in memory as they will zee the Left as to blame.
(D) It distracts from all other Trump stuff like his round ups of migrants, his contract awards to Peter Thirl’s Palantir to create a mass surveillance “dragnet” program, but also troops in cities, keeping the media off Israel/Gaza, and no Epstein talk such as the fallout of the botched Ghislaine Maxwell interview, (F) boost before November elections especially with centrists where Republicans are already Gerrymandering in Texas. (G) Justify taking out Leftist in a tic-for-tat scenario
Kirk’s death increases the odds of violence on Left Wing figures, etc., such Mamdami, Hasan Pikeer, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, etc.
Overall, Kirk’s use ran out, especially with Zionists and Republicans furious with the rise of figures like Mamdani in NYC, indicating Kirk has failed a bit to sway public opinion. However, Kirk being killed by an Anti-zionist can help the Zionist lobby clamp down further on anti Israel movements.
So that side had gripes on his failing assignment. Yet, Groyper may have killed him because Kirk was Pro-Israel and his death would cause “the theory of accelerationism”.
It is a basic cost benefit analysis.
Kirk is better off to the Zionist – Right Wing – Trump movement, not being alive than alive, even if they weren’t involvement in a grand conspiracy.
Disclaimer: I enjoy Tim Dillon. I think he’s pretty level-headed and fair in his analysis of politics.
Wow. This post was originally dedicated towards talking about my criticism of Dave Smith but now has evolved into comedians in general.
If this were a book idea, I would call it “Comedians of the bourgeoise & the Jesters Who Hold Court: How Anti-progressivism in comedy supports classical liberal elitism, conservatism and fascism” by Quinton Mitchell.
But I am a busy working-class person, with not much time to do a book now, but for keepers, I am copyrighting that title, just for proof for later if I ever get to it.
This post and idea of a book comes from what I observe with comedians as they rally against “wokeness” (which has some merit), but often ends up eradicating underlying progressive sentiments, and inadvertently or purposefully ends up supporting the conservative status quo.
Comedians, who also moonlight as podcasters, did have some sway on the 2024 US Presidential election. The scope is of course debatable, but to say they had no influence seem flat out false to me. Joe Rogan for example is now under Spotify, which has a net worth of $134 Billion dollars, so of course he, his guests, and others like him have some level of influence.
Sure, comedians/podcasters can dismiss this allegation of helping Trump win, and by dismissing people who allege this it makes it seems like those accusing comedians are just further proof of being “out of touch” or “suffering from the woke mind virus”, yet comedians are also lavishing in the attention that they possibly DID have impact.
What I just said here reminds me of the recent Tim Dillion interview on CNN with Elle Reeve. First off, I don’t hate Tim Dillon, and, I think he has a fair approach to analyzing both sides of the political spectrum, but he does like the finer things in life, often talking with a slight sense of Gatsby-like outsider-peeking-into-the-rich analysis with his stories centering around the “WASP-ey” nature of the Hamptons as juxtaposed against the out-of-touch “white” privilege and dramatics of blue collar Long Island.
Dillon reminds of the something akin to the punk-of-the-elite class-which-therefore-makes-you-not-punk mantra of Brett Easton Ellis (a MAGA supporter), but Dillon is nowhere nearly as elitist and nostalgic as Brett East Ellis in my opinion. Dillon and I are Millennials more impacted in our developmental years by turn of the Millenium events (e.g., 9/11, War on Terrorism, The Great Recessions, etc.), whereas Ellis is true Gen-Xer who was raised in a time of “America not questioning” itself commercialism of the 1980s and 90s. If anything, Dillon still believes in some sort of grassroots hope without being fully nihilistic towards progressive sentimentality, despite his sometimes-dystopian analysis of life under late-stage capitalism. Dillon actually has self-awareness unlike many other Rogan-sphere comedians. I think Dillon stands on his own and I feel bad even linking him to Rogan.
Dillon also seems to be trying to hold court with those in political power such as with RFK, Jr., and his wife, and did have a slightly smug dismissiveness about the allegation that comedians helped Trump win in the interview I referenced on CNN.
Whether Dillon wants to admit or not, I think he – and by extension his comedian “Rogan-sphere” buddies – saw this CNN interview as a crowing-achievement, because A) it must have been personally surreal for himself to be thought off as a serious person to “the establishment”, which lays the impetus for more comedic inspiration for himself going forward because the whole event can thread upon irony and ridiculousness, and B) it gives him a consciousness-like, Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club “Project Mayhem” sense of glee, knowing that he and his comedy buddies are in part sticking it, or capable of sticking it to “the man”.
For example, Dave Smith in a YouTube video titled his video “Tim Dillion Embarrasses CNN” which goes to show how they see the establishment, but for Dave Smith specifically, is his wrath is dedicated more so towards the current “liberal” (i.e., Left Wing) establishment, and I say this because Smith and many other “free speech” comedians, seem to not be attacking the Donald Trump Administration as much as they could, except for maybe on America’s support for Israel in the Gaza War, but this to me is more so a trendy thing to do for them to gain sympathy and appropriate leftist positions (e.g., Theo Von crying about Gaza on his podcast, just to go to dinner with Jared and Ivanka Kushner, where both of them fund Israeli settlements on contested Palestinian lands).
Did he Dave, did he really? And if so, what are you so excited about that, when we have a literal fascist regime in the Trump Administration in power right now?
But, don’t get me wrong. CNN should BE CALLED OUT. CNN can be very embarrassing, considering by proxy it is seen as a type of “left wing” news outlet, but the issue to me is that comedians often in this lingering anti-woke regime, forget to call out the absurdity one can see daily in the conservative media. Tim Dillon, Andrew Schulz, etc., calling out CNN is not bad, and could be coming from a place of wanting them to do better, but even if that we the case, the fact remains that the “focus” is still on what we consider to be Left Wing. I think this is important to call out because not focusing on the conservatives gives them a sort of pass. As a result, I think a lot of people feel they are in this suspended animation of absurdity. Trump’s lies, cruelty, and truth bending seems untouchable while we all still unnecessarily debate the philosophy of “wokeness”. Who cares anymore. The constant attacks on wokeness are really a form of kicking people while they are down.
My observation is that comedians found the Left Wing to be easier targets, but now with Trump in power, doing all sorts of ridiculous things, it seems that many “anti-woke” comedians all of a sudden have “writers block”.
Trump is literally (1) claiming white South African farmers are going through genocide – which is a popular white supremacists’ myth – to distract from the point that his administration is funding the actual ethnic cleansing of Gaza, (2) Trump is hosting Trump meme-coin events, thus selling his title as President and pimping out of the Oval Office, (3) the Jeffrey Epstein Files, which people in the heyday of Qanon lunacy used to attack the political-left – largely because of Bill Clinton’s relationship with Epstein, despite Trump knowing Epstein too- are still not…public despite a disastrous attempt at doing a “public unveiling” featuring stochastic terrorists like Chaya Raichik of Libs of Tik Tok, etc. (4) Trump literally has “slave patrols” chasing down migrants, and whether we agree to disagree about the legality of their status (e.g., yes, coming to the US without permission or claiming asylum is a crime), we should hopefully be able to agree that the heavy-handed “Gestapo” like strategies of detaining people – many of whom are hardworking, tax paying and law abiding – is excessive force, and ironically obfuscates from the fact that capitalism benefits from often low-wage labor.
Or let’s go simpler…with that being that eggs are still high (as if it’s not a joke already that Presidents can’t control egg prices, and the fact that eggs spiked in prices due to an Avian Bird Flu pandemic).
Switching from Dillon to Smtih, I believe that Dave Smith is nothing more than MTV generation Republican who uses libertarianism to sound counter to narratives of power, but the underlying ideology of libertarianism naturally supports the elite status-quo which causes the wars he claims to be about. Since the Fall of the Berlin Wall, Smith can’t honestly say that Communism has caused any wars. What is causing them is the territorial and self-preservationist natures of nation-states, often ruled by an elite class of wealth people – getting into hot wars or cold wars over influence, resources, etc.
But comedy’s current overemphasis on wokeness forgets that wokeness is really a strategy of progressive ideology but not progressivism overall.
Wokeness in a very simplified definition could be explained as: (1) employing a combination of intersectional thinking which is an analysis of power along the intersections of various identities, (2) having an intolerance towards intolerance – which seems counterintuitive, but intolerance towards bigotry is an effective weapon against the status quo who wield both capital and state-violence, and (3), and has philosophical roots in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, the works of Herbert Marcuse such as One Dimensional Man or Eros and Civilization, with the latter analyzing the subversive nature of capitalism and convenience via socialization, control, etc.
This is very gross over-simplification, but I think these are three core tenants. I didn’t list Marxism because wokeness despite being left-wing oriented in how we understand it in contemporary society, can be distained by people in the Far Left (i.e., those who feel identarian politics erodes class solidarity and, if anything is a weapon employed by liberals to balkanize class solidary) or by the Center-Left (who often see wokeness as counter to the “do what thy wilt” nature of liberalism, often focusing on free speech debates). But wokeness can be defended by from people within both camps. So wokeness is not inherently “communist”. It is really a worldview, framework, strategy, style, mantra, sentiment, etc., rather than an ideology. To be honest, you can allege that many people on the political right are “woke”, and these people are conservatives who simply complain or call-out the actions of the status quo, but don’t actually want it to go away.
Libertarians are effectively…woke conservatives. They’ll talk about “CIA, Operation Gladio conspiracies” here and there, they may smoke marijuana, they may sprinkle in Anti-George Bush and Dick Cheney throwbacks, and maybe, just maybe, might criticize police for excessive force (despite them liking cops as being defenders of property rights), but at the end of the day, they are…conservatives, and Republicans.
But regardless, even if there were flaws in the strategy of wokeness, it doesn’t mean progressive ideology is bad, but the goal of these comedians is to make it seems they are one in the same.
What these comedians are doing, is no different than what conservatives such as Jordan Peterson attempted to do by liking progressivism with “postmodern Neo Marxism”.
Jordan Peterson lazily (and with the help of meatheads like Joe Rogan), pitched the very Nazi-like idea that progressivism was explicitly “postmodernism” in nature, or as he put it “Postmodern Neo-Marxism”. This insinuates that the wants and needs of groups outside of “in-group”-oriented hierarchies as somehow espousing a dangerous “dada” nonsense.
Feminism, LBGTQ, diversity, environmentalism, etc., based on Jordan Peterson’s biased explanation of postmodernism (amplified by Joe Rogan’s platform to millions of listeners), means that these groups and the wants of these groups are unnatural, relativistic, and possibly even a “Jewish” subversion (with the latter being allegations espoused by the Nazis, American Paleoconservatives such as Pat Buchanan, and the more recent Alt-Right).
To go a little off course, but when thinkers like Peterson revive old tropes of “Cultural Marxism”, which always morphs into the horrid nature of antisemitism which I consider to be Jew hatred and blaming of Jewish people, but not a criticism of the state of Israel. By Peterson opening up the Cultural Marxist pandora’s box, he, even as a Pro-Israel, Christian-adjacent classical liberal (conservative), is able to help the State of Israel, because the antisemtiism they helped unleashed, helps Zionists organizations clamp down on free speech and criticiams against their colonial conquests against Palestinians. It is a very sinister strategy where you (1) promote antimsetimic tropes to help reinvigorate white supremacy though pulling Center Right politics more Far Right, and this Right Wing sphere includes the Evangelical Christiains who want Israel restored for their own religious propgheic reasons, but also, (2) promoting antimsetimsim allows Pro-Israeli groups, companies, think-tanks, etc., clamp down on speech agaisnst ISarel by alleging its antimsemitic. This also allows these Zionist groups to have more of a disporortionate effect on American life such as schools being threatened with defunding if they don’t support Israel, people being fired from jobs, or companies not getting state grants or contracts if htey don’t pledge to Pro-Isreal Anti-Boycott, Divest, and Sanction (BDS) laws.
Truly, an evil double whamy, entrendre, what have you, we live under.
But back on course, from Dave Smith, Bill Maher, Tony Hinchcliffe, Joe Rogan, Andrew Schulz, Tim Dillon, etc., are “defenders of classical liberal” traditions such as individualism and free speech, yet classical liberalism has been fully assimilated into the existing capitalist structure, thus naturally creating classism, imperialism, wars, etc., despite these comedian’s beliefs that they are countering state power with free speech.
As a result, I consider comedians like this to be Jesters of the Courts of Kings. Court Jesters could be an esteem tradition in the barbaric Dark and Middle Ages if a person was good enough. Not wanting to back to poverty, or get their heads chopped off, they would pander to the rich while at court, helping to justify the system as is, which was a feudalist system where elites were ordained by God to bind people to the land in exchange for “protection”, but a protection ironically from those elites themselves who had the power (with the exception lords may protecting serfs from highway bandits, when they weren’t acting in the capacity of robber barons I suppose).
These comedians’ free speech advocacy, which often centers around making fun progressives who are critical of existing hierarchies, is in a “snake that eats its own tail” feedback loop., because their comedy ends up supporting those at the top, while dismissing the grievances of those at the bottom, and when they do reach down to elevate the grievances of those at the bottom, it is often those at the bottom who still stuck in mental control that favors the rich, conservatism, etc.
Bill Burr is the most famous comedian who taps into true grassroots, blue collar, unintellectual progressive sentiments, which is why conservatives were so terrified of him. He is not only a white, straight guy from a culture ingrained in American lore as being romantically blue collar (i.e., the Irish), but uses his positions in these “privileged intersectional” boxes to call out the conservative status quo. Bill Burr threatens the status quo, no different than how when Republicans lost their minds over “White guys for Harris” during Kamal Harris’ run. The status quo knows that straight, white men are the buffer demographic needed at keeping things essentially the same for a very few amounts of people.
Yet, these comedians I am referring to will obfuscate from the fact that they are doing anything wrong by alleging that grassroots (and often monetarily broke) progressives are the “real elitists” as a means of pitting them against the everyday moderates and conservatives who are still largely living in their own denialism about how the capitalist system is exploiting them.
Comedians therefore can be weapons to help divide the proletariat working classes, so they never develop enough class consciousness to overpower the manager, owner, corporate, and elite classes.
Therefore, these comedians are…jesters holding court. Having made some money off Netflix who took risks on their careers by releasing their so-so comedy specials, but also having made money off pall-wall Patreon accounts or from the YouTube Google Paid Partnership Program algorithm, many of these comedians, who were once average joes, are in the upper middle class to lower rich brackets, and they don’t want to go back to where they came from. So, it seems the more they make it to the top, and I often saw this in Andrew Schulz, is that end up in this increasingly isolated “HBO Entourage” fantasy, where they are now the cool kids, and if they say anything ridiculous which gets criticism, then it is some people hating on them (literally, “They hate us, cuz they ain’t us” saying).
They get close to power, hoping to be let just a bit further into some secretive enclave, that they kind of sell out, but to distract from that fact, they simply base their entire comedic identity around pointing out what they see as “Left Wing hypocrisy).
On Dave Smith’s beliefs, which to me is a good start at calling out what I consider to be this “classical liberal apologia within comedy (which always ends up supporting the status quo), is that Smith calls himself a libertarian, but he that he defines himself as this because “the state represents violence”, which to me is a corny co-opt because one could in reverse provide a counter by stating “uncontrolled humans are innately violent” and stronger people or groups of people will target weaker people.
Also, I am not a pacifist. I aspire to be, but I am not one because peace isn’t something that naturally exists in nature, notably human nature, so taking the high moral ground of calling oneself a pacifist is nice, but in reality, has no substance. If anything – for better or worse – the freedoms of people are in protected by the possibly of violence. Pacifism though a something to aspire to, isn’t how the world is, and if the Dove Left or Libertarians got their way, they would likely create such as power vacuum that things would more violent sooner than later. A problem, with Libertarians and the Dove Left, is that they naturally assume that the United States is to blame for everything, and this often morphs into “Far out Man” “Blame the CIA” for everything arguments as if everyone other nation on earth doesn’t have their own self-preservationist attitude and realpolitik.
Government as a concept is not bad, and yes, government does have a monopoly on state-violence, so we as individual people aren’t exercising vigilante violence, based on our own subjective belief systems.
One could argue (and I admit that am oversimplifying things here for the sake of brevity) that government is one of the oldest human concepts we have as a species, in which humans ceded their personal freedoms to create a truce that was held firm by some sort of higher force needed for the arbitration of issues. Other species have something we could make the comparison to as a government, i.e., a social system of rules and truces that governs behavior.
From elder members of tribes to Kings, to elected representative bodies, we have had some level of government, because government essentially represents consensus, a body to establish truces, and an organ to uphold standards.
Sure, governments being comprised of people can be corrupted, but if anything, that’s a people problem, and not a problem with the concept of government.
Further, Dave Smith’s libertarianism provides him an easy way to win arguments by taking a non-interventionist and pacifist approach, notably by calling out the State of Israel in its treatment of the Gaza Strip in which the IDF is treating the entire area and its peoples as supporters of Hamas. Yet even though what the IDF is doing is unfortunate and is a clear example of what colonialism looks like, and sure, the United States helping Ukraine defend itself against Russia is not out of kindness but rather helping to sustain American hegemony, still, Dave Smith’s libertarianism doesn’t counter state-power, but rather enables the forces of wealth disparity via classism, that eventually hijacks governments to create the wars — often for conquests, market domination, and resource extraction – he claims to be against.
His libertarian ideals emphasize private property rights, which therefore evolves into a society of wealth-disparity since some will always own more than others and eventually monopolize markets and use government to help protect those monopolies.
Libertarianism is essentially capitalism, and capitalism, imperialism, etc., have been the impetus for wars of conquests, resource extraction, slavery, human trafficking, etc. Capitalism does not admit it does these things, because it’s not an actual person, but an idea, but the people implementing and advocating for the idea of capitalism often obfuscate from the negative externalities of capitalism, rather instead giving a “rising tides lifts all boats” Milton Friedman-like cop out.
Dave Smith is also on this bandwagon on anti-wokeness (which has made comedy predictable) and seems to employ what a lot of other current comedians are doing, which is what I call “Gotcha, see, you’re a hypocrite” angel to comedy, notably targeted at Liberals (who do corny things such as performative Civil Rights while continuing to support economic systems, that their conservative opposition benefits from), and the political-left. For example, there is a trend of calling out liberal elites (i.e., your Center Leftists, modernist liberals, etc., who compromise with the political-Right in order to prevent socialist economics undermining private property rights that disproportionately benefits the wealthy) and the Left (i.e., those critical and sometimes fully opposed to liberal economics, i.e., capitalism).
So not only does he have a political ideology that favors the rich naturally, but he also basis a lot of his comedy on calling out the hypocrisy of the only counter to conservatism, where conservatism is unapologetic in its belief in free-markets, hierarchies, etc. Sure, call out hypocrisy, but I don’t think that’s what he’s fighting, but rather he’s fighting for the preservation of the economic system as is, which means there’ nothing really revolutionary about his beliefs at all. Just because you get rid of government doesn’t mean that the majority of people’s lives will get better. If anything, it may get worse. Libertarians are at this point a weaponized ideology of think-tanks and organizations who provide intellectual top cover for elitism and wealth disparity. People like Reagan and Nixon called themselves libertarians to my knowledge because it was the fashionable thing to be in post-WWII America as it became more popular to rally against New Deal Era social programs.
How it is punk to be a libertarian, when people like Reagan would call themselves that? Libertarianism is nothing more than an ideology of apologia for private property which naturally favors the elites, business and mercantile classes. It is the higher-brow, bow-tie Ivy League variant of anarcho-capitalism.
Also, why is libertarianism also the preferred ideology of racial (notably white) supremacy and separatism? Because it provides intellectual layering of people’s internal desires and fears, which is anchored in racism, sexism, etc. Better put many conservatives aren’t libertarian because of the high-brow, debate-club talking points they say, but often it is about maintaining a hierarchy based on race, gender, sex, etc., and they see government regulation and interventionism as counter to their wants. But libertarianism provides a “high horse” position by alleging it is simply about maintaining freedom. Sure, it may be maintaining freedom but maintaining freedom and being a humanist are two different things.
Sure, Dave will probably allege that he is a purist when it comes to his beliefs and that his beliefs have been invaded and ruined by others, but even that would be a cop out.
Generation X and Elder Millennial Libertarians in my view, coming from a person in my late thirties, are what I MTV-generation Republicans. They were raised on Reaganomics and Clinton Neo-Liberalism, but to save face when George Bush Neocons started ruining the planet (destabilizing the Middle East and helping cause a decade long Global Recession), they distanced themselves from standard Republicanism and called themselves libertarians because it was cool to do so. The Tea Party movement and the presidential campaigning of Ron Paul also led a lot of people into libertarian ideals. Paul often seemed like the rational one in a room because he was anti-war but also anti-regulation, yet the flaw still remains…. with that being that power can accrue in the hands of a few even if you get rid of government, and nothing may change for the better, and may get worse, because there’s no government recourse to challenge those with dipropionate power.
Many of these Libertarians were also raised with a pre-existing libertarianism from the mid-20th century hovering the background which included the thoughts of Murry Rothbard-inspired extremism (who was a Jewish man who had odd links to white supremacists), a Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell intellectualism of the 60s and 70s, and also a good dose of American Southern-oriented “State’s Rights” Jeffersonians (i.e., often Southern libertarians who used Thomas Jefferson as the basis for their ideological stances on segregation, states’ rights, etc.).
Figures such as MTV’s Kurt Loder was an example of the “hip libertarianism”. Don’t get me wrong. Kurt Loder who I grew up watching as the “smart guy” on MTV who gave it an air of journalistic integrity, seemed like a nice guy and I want to say him beliegn a libertarian in his heart was coming from a good place, however, I would argue the idealism of libertarianism, simply ends up supporting the status quo as is.
I suspect Loder’s libertarianism was based on the Baby Boomer rejection of the stuffiness of suburban conveniences, which later found existential catharsis is the lyrics of Lou Reed and Velvet Underground during the emergent punk scene, post the failure of the hippie movement, with bands like The Stooges, Television, those of NYC CBGBs, etc. Essentially, libertarianism of Loder’s day could be seen as punk, but really it wasn’t. It felt punk maybe, but how punk could it really have been if Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago was winning a Nobel Prize for basically promoting “Greed is Good” during the same late 1960s to early 1980s timeframe. The wish fulfilment of Milton was the Reagan 1980s.
Loder helped inspire Fox New’s host, Kennedy.
Kennedy therefore leads us to “Republican Comedy” shows such as Red Eye and Gutfeld!
Greg Gutfeld of course calls himself a libertarian too…
Dave Smith has of course been a panelist on Gutfeld’s shows.
The truth of the matter the older I get and the more I get tired of analyzing the system is that liberals and conservatives are the same, and both are the biggest hinderances towards a true progressive future, which I feel can only happen underneath some sort of true Left-Wing ideology.
To me, conservatives are simply “classical liberals”, where what we call liberals in contemporary speech are “modernist liberals”. Both are liberals in that they have a core philosophy centering around private property, markets, individualism, and the “Devine Rights of Man” (inalienable rights), but classical liberals (conservatives) inspired by people such as Edmund Burke still favor classes, traditional, religion, etc., and feel that human nature itself (the invisible hand, i.e., human chaos) will somehow solves things, whereas modernist liberals (liberals in our modern day lexicon) inspired by Oliver Wendell Holme’s “living interpretation of the US constitution”, and the philosophical school of Pragmatism led by figures such John Dewey, have a hands-on (real hand versus the invisible hand) approach. Science, managerialism, psychology, etc., are more so utilized by modernist liberals in applying classical liberal presuppositions.
Yet, both are liberals based on that classical core tenant of beliefs.
My belief is that only true Leftist ideology can reform society at this point because liberalism, and notably neoliberalism has reached its inevitable conclusion, which is corporations replacing the state that represents all peoples in theory such as through privatization of services, and the fact that wealth is already so much in the hands of a few people (the game has been won) that economic mobility for the vast majority of people is either impossible, going to get much harder, or will only be sustained by those in power manipulating from behind the scenes to prop up a system that requires belief in them still holding onto power. For example, as technology and AI literally gloats about replacing people’s jobs, the fact still remains that people still need to pay bills and rents since even living is a for-profit enterprise under capitalism. Captialism running out of things to do, so can only recycle itself to stay relevant (for example, promoting anachronistic fashions to keep consumers interested), promote forced-obsolesce (ensuring things break more easily so you have to keep buying that thing, i.e., reducing quality), promoting subscriptions to unlock extra features in products people already paid for, etc. This is why Universal Basic Income is gaining traction. It is not about creating a post-capitalist utopian state, but rather maintaining the hierarchy as is, but why an agreed upon amount of state generated “play money” to keep propping up belief in the current Monopoly Game we are enslaved to. Liberalism like Marxism are both idealistic utopian ideal, even though Orthodox Marxist won’t admit it because they consider themselves as “true realists” because of dialectical-Materialism, etc.
But liberalism like Marxism posits itself on a belief that their specific idea will lead to a utopian version of the future, where Marxist believe in a collective of the proletariat will get us there, whereas liberals believe that individual will get us there.
The same fallacy that Communists argued when by claiming the state would wither away after the “dictatorship of the proletariat” took over to implement a “classless, cashless, stateless society”, can too be found in capitalism (liberalism) where this fallacy somehow believes that rich people winning the game of capitalism will…somehow give up their wealth for a utopian future for everyone, or, I guess the masses will be better off peasants than previous era of peasants if only a few winners of capitalism stay in power?
If you step back, you notice that the Far Right and Liberals both agree on destroying the only reformist ideology which can be found the Left.
From anti-woke comedians to the liberalism of Cenk Uygur Young Turks or steamers such as Destiny, to the Far Right from literal Neo Nazis to the general and Right Wing with figures such as Ben Shapiro, Jillian Michaels, to think tanks, to bot armies, to God knows what else… is that there is a war against the Left.
I call it full spectrum cross-divisional (both left and right) liberal warfare against the progressive Left.
Was wokeness annoying?
Sure.
But I felt I grew as a better person because of it.
A lot of people hung up on wokeness as the culprit of the world’s problems are those who never cared to really care about what woke progressivism stood for or was trying to do, but tapped into their own sense of victimhood by alleging they got cancelled by the “woke mob”.
Like I can’t imagine being a main in 2025 who still angry and afraid or triggered by feminism, even if an individual triggers you. I say this because even though individuals in the left may be very annoying, rude, hypocrites, themselves…so what? That’s a “them” problem, so I am not going to throw feminism, or LGBTQ, or fellow Black consciousness thinkers under the bus because I get their goal. My support for progressivism is not based on transactional relationships but rather a belief in the transformational nature of it. It’s simply the right thing to do, and yes, I am making a firm objective truth claim on what is right and wrong.
For example, it is the right thing to support women in supporting women, and I have to accept that it may not include me, and if anything, always may be mistrustful of me as a man. It is what it is. Patriarchy has given them every reason to feel a certain way. It sucks. Sure, there will be bridges between us possibly, but maybe me being supportive of their self-determination is the simply the only thing I can do? It doesn’t mean my life is over, especially on matters where emotions may be involved. Sure, if I am accosted by a person on a person-to-person basis, then yes, I will defend myself, but I am not simply going to throw feminism under the bus as being the root scourge of modern problems. I apply the rhetoric to other things to.
The goal of conservatism is to make it seem that what is now is natural and not a construction. It’s easier to be a conservative. It’s safer. It’s tempting as a result. Maybe the Left needs to realize that people have a propensity for simple thinking and easy living, and, yes, we have natural insecurities which sometimes intersectional conflict brings out to people’s dismay? The Left is not perfect, but still there are the only force that can reform their current neoliberal globalist regime we labor under.
A part of me thinks that we weren’t woke enough, if the result was Trump or JD Vance.
Regardless, for example, I admit there was a time where I thought this woke ideology was explicitly Communists, but then I grew out of that because it’s not about the strategy but the underlying sentiment that underrides that strategy. And even if were Communists…so what? Communism has an analytical tool against capitalism is not the same as living under a totalitarian communist regime.
I don’t see the woke era as a bad thing but rather something that push conversations forward, however, a society as a tolerance point, and those who espouse woke ideology (though I support them) should respect that. Wokeness was most so about pushing conversations forwards on the hopes of achieving materialist gains. Sure, we’ve talked a lot, but we still don’t have…. Medicare for All, legalized weed, a fair immigration system, and if anything, rights have been LOST.
Identity politics is not bad, but it’s how much we focus on it. The Left can have both class solidarity while also factoring in intersectionality, but to me it’s how much emphasis at the forefront do we put on identity. Identity is easy to me. Talking about it, analyzing it, etc., is easy, cheap, and often can lead to nothing beside maybe Behavorial modifications to how we treat each other, but often talking on identity all day everyday does nothing but create a few hyper-successful voices who become the leaders of their tribal groups, but nothing is actually changing. If anything, fatigue kicks in, and those who wanted a better world, drop the Left, and go back…to suburbia or the system as is.
It happened in the 70s and 80s after Civil Rights and is a happening again, and this attack on wokeness is a sign of that. Liberalism coopted and destroyed anything revolutionary, and created a newer type of inclusive liberalism. A new update to its software, rather than anything in the underlying code structurally being changed.
This is something the left needs to work out, but you better believe it that the opposition will do as much as it can to promote disunity.
But as I end this, Andrew Schulz, another comedian, interviewed Bernie Sanders. This may seem random, but Andrew has said certain controversial things to some that have gotten him into “hot water” as far as Twitter goes, but Bernie is slightly disappointing fashion was pushing this “wokeness as a problem” trope, to the glee of Schulz and his friends.
I feel Bernie did this being an old guy and little out of touch about the deeper nuances of online conversations and controversies, but I also think that Bernie is unfortunately adopting a liberal and Right-Wing framing of wokeness, as it being some “ridiculous” strategy. And, sure, as I’ve admitted, wokeness was not perfect, but in the case of Schulz is that Schulz was really wanting top-cover for anything he may have said that pissed people off. By getting Bernie to agree with him to varying degrees, it somehow alleviated Schulz from anything he said, because both he and Bernie pushed the ideas that “woke” type of Left are more problematic than good.
Me hearing Bernie on Andrew Schulz’s Flagrant 2 Podcast, to me means we need younger blood and this why Alexandia Ocasio Cortez is so important and why the system fears her. She would have pushed a bit more than what Bernie was capable of doing.
I truly think the system is afraid of AOC and if these comedians are truly free speech, I think Joe Rogan, Andrew Schulz, Theo Von, etc., should host her.
I would highly recommend going to YouTube, going to Jay Dyer’s page, go to videos and then filter for older videos and then start your journey from there.
Jay Dyer when it comes to explaining geopolitics, political dialectics, etc., has had a big influence on me, however, I am not a social conservative, Orthodox, etc., and I believe Dyer’s worldview has already been co-opted and incorporated into the “system” and will be used to by those in power, even though a person such as Dyer would blame the political left. For example, I don’t think being LGBTQ is social engineering but is something a part of the human species. It was simply suppressed, and for example cultures with more than two genders have existed, granted they were outside of the context of Abrahamic religions. And at the end of the day, all Dyer can do is debate. I am not saying that his belief in God is bad. I believe in God; however, it’s really Dyer’s words versus his opposition, and luckily, we live in a country of pluralism, i.e., the ability to agree to disagree.
One reason why I strategically like Dyer is that he helped undermine Jordan Peterson, libertarians, etc., even though he does go after the Left, but in this case, the enemy of enemy of my friend.
A lot of people have talked about Curtis Yarvin having influenced J.D. Vance, but there is little commentary on Jay Dyer who I consider to be one of the largest online sources for the how the Trumpian brain works, with its emphasis on ultra nationalism, pandering to Christian Nationalism & Dominion Ideology (such as a belief in revoking the separation of church and state), and a belief anchored around a conspiratorial worldview where everything that is not conservative (and isn’t Caucasian male heteronormative) is an automatically conspiracy. For example, conspiracies of Qanon, the Federal Reserve and Jekyll Island history, the Rothchild’s owning the world, etc., are more so firmly Right-Wing oriented conspiracy theories. Even if there is truth to them, they are often twist towards preferencing Right Wing positions.
However, I do not think that Jay Dyer is a bad person. He is very intelligent and had an influence on my worldview and how I analyze politics. I however stopped following and listening to Jay Dyer years ago, largely because it became more apparent that he is firmly within the Right-Wing ecosystem despite having criticisms of it. To Dyer, the system is not conservative enough and Dyer seems to reject pluralism. I consider myself to be progressive in my politics and even though I may not agree with conservatives, I still do believe that pluralism and democracy are worthwhile efforts in defending, whereas Dyer is symbolic of anti-modern and anti-democratic neo-reactionary movement.
To get my main criticism of Dyer out the way up front, my criticism is that Dyer thinks he’s being against the establishment when his ideas are very conducive to the establishment. If anything his ideas are the original establishment with that being theocracy.
Even though he understands things such as dialectics, etc., Dyer seems incapable of admitting that his ideas have largely been influential, let alone plagiarized, by those in “the machine”. The machine is system, i.e., the amalgamation of various complexes that all feeds into power of the current elite class (i.e., that of the capitalist, multi-national corporatists, etc.) and there’s no real fighting this behemoth of a system, so even though Dyer’s works seem to be against the system, the system will find a way to co-opt it and use it to its advantage.
Thus, Dyer’s beliefs, which I will go into detail below, can be seen in the contemporary Republican Party’s shift towards anti-democratic and pro-authoritarian politics. Dyer is either (A) so naive of this that he loses a bit of respect, since he seems to know everything, or, (B) he is a part of the system itself but pretending to not be, or (C) he is being strategic though faithful to his beliefs, i.e., he knows the system is flawed but he figures influencing certain spaces and being incremental in his approach is the best way to eventually convert “the machine”.
My argument against Dyer isn’t that I disagree with his worldview, which is that of a God First “Essence precedes Existence” worldview, because it’s hard to argue that God exists or not, so him being right is always a possibility, though one could say that the opposite to his views can be true too, but rather my concern is that Dyer seems to be naive to the fact that this worldview was the original way of controlling and oppressing people.
Even though Dyer can argue that he is approaching everything from a theistic belief in God framework, once can also say that his religious beliefs are simply covering up his personal fears, biases, prejudices, need for controls, etc. In other words, Dyer like many white male conservatives can say they believe in God first, when really, they believe in God to give credence and justification to their identity, and notably the social privileges afforded to that identity. For example, a rise in religiosity amongst young white males, could be argued as not being very religious at all, but more so people wanting a meta-physical justification for their identity, which they feel in the physical world has been the analyzed, deconstructed, critiqued, etc.
It is impossible to know whether Dyer’s personal needs and wants precedes his religiosity or if his religiosity precedes his personal wants and needs. To not sound too much like a “Social Justice Warrior” (as if that is a real insult to be one), whiteness, patriarchy, and heteronormativity seems to gravitate towards conservatism, and conservative philosophy as a means of “intellectualizing” and shrouding their wants and needs to maintain power, authority, etc. This why a lot of online racism for instance can often be linked to profiles with “Christian crosses” in their bios. Christianity in the United States has largely been coopted by white supremacy, and the irony is that more white supremacy takes over Christianity, the less people outside of this group trusts Christianity. Thus, these white conservatives may be doing more to kill Christianity than what they are aware of.
But who is Dyer?
Jay Dyer is an online personality who peaked in my opinion in the mid-to-late twenty teens but still has a pretty active online following. He appeals to younger people with his goofy humor, Cold Wave and synth music production, and often 1980s inspired nostalgic thumbnails, fonts, etc., touching upon Miami Vice, etc.
To me Dyer is one of the original “Trad Bros”, i.e., Traditionalis who are Gen X, Millennial, and Zoomer men who reject modernity and embrace Third Position politics which is hostile towards both capitalism and socialism and are in favor of medieval political and economic systems. This group is highly religious, patriarchal, and often favors ethnic nationalism, and engaging in online 4-chan or 8-chan “edgelord” humor which is often racist, sexists, antisemitic, etc.
Jay Dyer is important because he foreshadowed the most powerful Trad Bro, we currently have which is Vice President J.D. Vance.
He was born Protestant to a father who was in the United States Navy. He grew up in Tennessee and is likely living somewhere near the “the Redneck Portland” of Nashville, TN.
Supposedly Dyer went to some sort of special school for gifted children as a young kid if I remember right from his many lengthily videos. He later converted to Roman Catholicism, but then converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, seemingly because the Catholic Church was becoming too progressive and Dyer disagreed with Catholicism’s stance on “filioque”, i.e., the order of operations within the Holy Trinity. He may have also been a political intern for Rand Paul. He is married to a woman named Jamie Hanshaw who often contributes to Jay’s videos.
Separately, Dyer has given some credit to the ideas of white nationalists such as Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, has stated that a wife should submit to her husband, etc., in certain debates which I don’t have the links for right now. He is pro-death penalty, anti-globalism, pro-ethnic nationalism, pro-theocracy, etc.
When it comes to Curtis Yarvin, who is similar ot Dyer, Yarvin created his concept of the “Cathedral”, and this alongside the ideas and lectures of Jay Dyer can be symbolic of the beliefs of J.D. Vance, and the new crop of young Millennial and Zoomer neo-reactionaries who span every right-wing space from Trad Wives, raw milk drinkers, homesteaders, No Fap movement (no masturbation), Repealing Woman’s Right to vote (and convincing women to be supportive of “Biblical femininity”), White Identity politics (including Hitler apologia by some), pro-segregation ideas, and a rejection of multiculturalism and globalism, etc. The talking points of figures such as Lilly Leigh Coleman Gaddis and Nick Fuentes and his Groypers of the American First Movement could be traced back Dyer, even if a person such as Gaddis adopted her ideas indirectly. Movements such as Patriot Front could be symbolic of the political reality of these ideas coming true.
To understand “The Cathedral” simply, David Phillips (2025), states, “The Cathedral, as Yarvin describes it, encompasses elite universities, mainstream media organizations, the permanent bureaucracy, non-profit organizations, and progressive activist networks. These institutions, he argues, work together not through explicit coordination but through shared assumptions and mutually reinforcing incentives. A professor publishes research suggesting a particular policy approach; journalists cite this research in articles advocating for change; activists organize around these articles; bureaucrats implement policies based on this pressure; and academics study and validate the results, beginning the cycle anew” [Source: Phillips, David (2025). Curtis Yarvin’s Radical Critique of Democracy. https://wdavidphillips.com/curtis-yarvins-radical-critique-of-democracy/]
Behind both Yarvin and Dyer, there is a disdain for modern democracy and a yearning to return to times of kings, etc.
I have been observing Jay Dyer for years. I used to watch his very long lecture-like videos where he goes into details about the historical roots of modernity, geopolitical intrigues, and what he considers to be the actual New World Order.
He studied Plato’s The Republic, Carrol Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope and The Anglo-American Establishment, Turning Point by Frtijof Capra, Storming Heaven: LSD and the American Dream (1987) by Jay Stevens (which Dyer believes LSD is a control drug used to converse with demons who commission people such as Beat Poets such as Allen Ginsberg, to destroy traditional society such as promoting abortion, etc.), etc.
He is also a popular figure in the “Hollyweird Movement”, where he believes that Hollywood is spreading subliminal message and engaging in “predictive programming” to steer the general population in ways that benefits the elites, who I will go into more down below. He is the author of Hollywood Babylon where he goes into details about film, such as of course, Eye’s Wide Shut by Stanley Kubrick, as proof of what the elite class is actually up to.
Yet, Dyer has also lectured more fringe books such as
And, I learned a lot, however, Dyer and I have very different worldviews and conclusions. Whereas he is essentially a conservative, I see myself as a progressive, so though I agree with a lot of his analysis centering around Western philosophy, both mainstream and esoteric, I however don’t reject modernity, democracy, women’s equality, diversity, inclusion, etc. Dyer does however, so he is firmly within the online Right Wing, and he does have links to Alex Jones, Lauren Southern, Nick Fuentes, etc. He has even gained some celebrity endorsement with people such as Jamie Kennedy. Dyer though his relations with Alex Jones and controversial troll-like comedians such as Sam Hyde, Dyer is effectively just a few degrees separated from the Rogan-verse, which one could argue is main cross-roads between the vast array of culturally conservative spaces, which are often online, e.g., comedy touches upon the conspiracy movement, etc.
The best way to get a quick view of Dyer’s beliefs is to watch the video where he critiques Jordan Peterson down below.
Dyer’s main thesis is that modernity which includes liberalism such as capitalism, libertarianism, socialism, communism, scientism (in the vein of Bertrand Russell), Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, feminism, multiculturalism, etc., are essentially occultic and Neoplatonic, where Neoplatonism is a gnostic (hidden knowledge) type of belief system from late antiquity where ritualistic and magical practices are used to reach higher levels of consciousness since the body is seen as a lower level of perfection, created by a lesser God known as the Demiurge (which Neoplatonists believes to be our Biblical God), who is in the way of true enlightenment found closer to the true God, called the Monad. This thus makes modernity based on what he considers to be Satanic beliefs systems (Luciferian, individualistic, blasphemous, etc.), which has resulted in the modern world (removed from God’s law), where science is something akin to alchemy, i.e., instead of doing black magic, science is just a continuation of Neoplatonic alchemy. Essentially modernity removed metaphysics and spirituality and put all emphasis on materialism, but materialism has a propensity for being subject to flux, change, evolution, etc. He believes that both sides of the political spectrum are used by elites in a type of “dialectical warfare”, where binary opposites are encouraged (e.g., Far Left Communism and Capitalism & Libertarianism/Far Right Fascism), but these binaries are clashed with each other, so the reaction from the clash creates a new paradigm, where the weak are weeded out.
Since these ideas are based on materialism, i.e., without an objective truth based in God, Dyer would argue that materialist philosophies without any truth are spinning in flux, and flux leads not only to a grotesque merging of things (such as his view on Transhumanism, Transgenderism, etc.) but also recurring or cyclical violence, i.e., this clash of dialectical ideas are repeated in perpetuity.
Thus, those who control the system, are akin to something called a “death cult”, because they see themselves as the entitled elites, who see themselves as a “god”, and who task themselves with forcibly evolving the species but evolving the human race in a way that permits the elites to control the population. Many of these elites are modern renditions of the philosopher kings from Plato’s the Republic, where a Republican is a society ruled a few and not the many (a democracy). Even once these elites pit dialectics against each other, they will then begin the process of tension again. This group has a Malthusian world view where they are obsessed with control population which they do through abortion, feminism (which he would argue as being witchcraft, where feminism often has symbology of Gaia, thus links to the Green Movement), the LGBTQ movement, etc. This concept of cyclical violence can be concepts can be seen in Nietzsche’s “eternal recurrence” and his emphasis on the Übermensch or even within Indian Vedas thought with the idea of Kali Yuga (which was highly influential on European Occultism, which in turn influenced fascists movements), etc.
Dyer believes the goal of the elites is to make a world inspired by Aldous Huxley’s A Brave New World where people will be dumbed down, mutated, and forced into caste systems, where they live in “smart cities”. They do this by funding research at the Esalen Institute (which was prominent in the psychedelic drug scene, Human Potential Movement, and Hippie movements), the Tavistock Institute, the Anglo-American Cliveden set, the Council of Foreign Relations, The Bank of International Settlements, the United Nations, Davos, Bilderberg, the World Economic Forum, etc.
Not only does Dyer reject modernity, but he also rejects Islam, nominalism (which is traces as one of the main culprits in creative modernist and relativist thoughts), Roman Catholicism (notably Thomism, i.e., the beliefs of Saint Thomas Aquinas), Protestants, atheists, etc.
Dyer however does not really speak about Judaism, and Dyer does seem to have a Zionist predilection, which could be argued as showing him as being in proxy with the Zionist Occupation of the American politics (e.g., using allegations of antisemitism to suppress criticism against Israel’s treatment of Gazans, etc.), especially considering Dyer’s links to Alex Jones, who is essentially the “conspiracy theory” gate-keeper and handler for the American Republican establishment that is now typified by the Make America Great Again Movement.
Alex Jones is a disciple of American conservatism’s weaponization of conspiracy theory culture which can be traced historically to paleoconservatives such as Pat Buchanan (who argued that liberals and progressives were Cultural Marxists), Eustace Clarence Mullins (an antisemite and Ezra Pound follower, known for popularizing conspiracies relating to the Federal Reserve system), and the John Birch Society, which was an organization so extreme they thought that Republican President Eisenhower was a secret Communist for supporting school integration.
Dyer who claims to be against the system, is really in close proximity to what I consider to be the “Right Wing Deep State”, which is the Judeao-Chrisitan wing of the military and intelligence community, working at the behest of Republican lawmakers and Right-Wing wealthy donors.
But this group has influence and to some degree control of spaces within the Right-wing cultural sphere notably that of conspiracy theory culture. Conspiracy theory culture is often more of a Right-Wing endeavor in the United States and West, where I would argue many American conspiracies all feedback to elitist conservative power by advocating for libertarian ideals, which always disproportionately benefits the wealthy, corporations, etc., largely by engendering a hatred towards government which allows for its privatization.
This “Right Wing Deep State” in my opinion is comprised of military figures such as Paul Valley, Michael Flynn, possibly Michael Flynn’s Brother with Charles Flynn, John K. Singlaub, Tulsi Gabbard (as a disciple to Michael Flynn), Jack Posobiec, etc., but also notable former high-ranking military officials such as John. B. Alexander (who advocated for UFOs) and Albert Stubblebine who was the famed military leader behind the real Project Stargate Experiments that inspired books and films such as the Men Who Stared at Goats by Jon Ronson. Stubblebine became a known right-wing conspiracy theorist after he left the military, such as becoming a 9/11 denialists, where won could argue that 9/11 denialism is more of anti-Zionist conspiracy because the belief is that Israel had details about the attack before it happened and didn’t share information with the USA, or the US intelligence community leading up to Bush didn’t care to act on it.
Where I disagree with Dyer is that his “shadowy cabal” aren’t some “fruity, Left Wing, Social Justice Warriors” as we would argue, but rather…. his camp, even if he thinks he is in opposition to what is going on.
Dyer presents these “globalist elites” as having everything on lock down, however, why do they not also control what he believes? Modernity, democracy, etc., for example is a small part of human history, and I would argue that religious-based traditionalism is the oldest form of human control.
Dyer thus to me seems like he’s a part of the very cabal he claims to be against, but he’s so committed to his beliefs that he can’t understand or admit that. It’s the equivalent to “Say it ain’t so, Joe” mentality, i.e., knowing our heroes (or beliefs) may be flawed but having extreme doubt about it to the point of looking past any flaws.
I say all this because Dyer’s beliefs as best seen in J.D. Vance, and J.D. Vance is as system as you can be despite Vance co-opting reactionary populist sentiments and talking points to make present himself in the same “anti-globalist” vein as Dyer, Elon Musk (who spoke to the Nazi-like part in Germany, the Alternative for Germany, etc.).
Essentially, this “Trad Movement” is just another element of control of those in power, and I would argue that Trad Movements are the strongest and most time tested forms of control, so Dyer advocating for it, isn’t really freeing anyone from anything, but rather enslaving them even more so, but within a paradigm that his hostile towards a united human species beyond color, ethnicity, religions, etc., and a paradigm which is actively hostile towards marginalized groups.
And I say that because Dyer is reflected in the talking points of J.D. Vance, who is both a Trad Bro and also a Tech Bro, but these Tech Bros are allegedly what Dyer is against. If anything, with how much of a constructed politician Vance is, i.e., being fully funded by Peter Theil, one could argue that the Tech Bro elites are coopting Traditionalist through as a means of constructing a future they control.
Nick Fuentes is scum and likely just ripped off other’s people analysis but I’m putting this video up to even show how some Far-Right people are even suspicious of JD Vance.
He often promotes an Anti-Western talking point, which could be argued as having been pulled straight from Russian Kremlin psychological warfare manuals, however, Dyer gets very angry if he is mentioned as being some sort of Russian asset. I won’t go too much into that for fear of losing the “Muh, Russia-gate” crowd (i.e., those skeptical of any sort of Russian influence in American politics).
However, Dyer did have contact with Nina Kouprinova, the ex-wife of White Supremacist Richard Spencer (who divorced Spencer on domestic violence grounds), where Nina as a woman with Georgian Soviet roots, has some sort of links to anti-Western thinker Aleksandr Dugin. Dugin is the ideologue behind Vladmir Putin’s neo-Imperialist agenda (with Putin invoking ancient treaties as his basis for conquering lands such as Ukraine). Richard Spencer has some links to Steven Miller of the Trump Administration (despite Miller being Jewish, though he is essentially a Fascist), etc. Essentaiily Dyer is jsut a few degrees of seperation away from the MAGA movement, which I call as being “Antisemitic Zioinists”, which sounds contradictory, but the Antisemitism stems from conservatisms obsession with supersitious and conspiratorial thought, which often leads back to Jews as the culprits, as well as Christian Evangelicals devotion to Isarel for their own claculate reaosns, with that being their belief that Jesus can only return once Israel is made whole again. MAGA is of course Zionists because of its stance on Israel being 100% committed to the “Jewish Reconquista” of the Levant region. Even though Jew’s don’t believe in Christianity or Jesus, and because Christians needs Jews to convert and for Isreal to be whole again for their own prophetic reasons, these two seemingly opposite camps are pragmatically working with each other.
More sinister is that the antisemitism that persist within Western Christian thought (all the way from European antisemitism of old such as the pogroms of Europe such as the Rhineland Massacre, all the way to the more recent Holocaust) is that both parties agree that helping to increase antisemitism notably through conspiracies helps both of their causes. It helps the Jewish Zionists by helping them seem like victims so that any criticism of Israel’s use of force on Palestinians is instantly suppressed with severe economic consequences such as firings, deportations, and even likely targeted misinformation campaigns (such as the Make Ireland Great Again movement funded by the same Cambridge Analytica cabal who are trying to destabilize Ireland for their support of Palestine). etc., but also increased fear in “government” “globalism”, etc., which are unliterally blamed on Jews helps conservatives maintain legislative, judicial, and executive power by claiming Democrats are representatives of the “New World Order”.
The irony is that the New World Order is capitalist, corporate, and thus more in proximity to conservatism, libertarianism, etc., since the NWO is actually the full integration of all nations on Earth into the capitalist framework.
For example, the boogeyman of the West is China, despite the irony that the West used Chinese labor to enrich themselves, and many of these wealthy people are Republican mega-donors. If the USA goes to war with China over a situation such as Tiawan, the USA is hoping that a defeating China will open up on the lucrative Chinese market to unfettered and Western controlled capitalism. This would be the NWO. A world of unfettered multinational capitalism, possibly linked with digital currency, but elites will swing between both globalism and hyper ethno-nationalism as they see fit, because both have elements of control that are beneficial to the elites. If anything, the neo-reactionary calling for ethno-nationalism is something akin to treating cultures like zoo exhibits. By foster hatred over our differences, this actually can lead back to Dyer’s thesis about how these elites are the “death cult” he claims they are. World War I and World War II were more so caused by reactionary nationalism (hauntingly more present than ever) which arose from the decline of globalism’s first modern rendition which was imperialism, where imperialism, notably of the British (who made up arbitrary borders to divide-and-conquer), helped spur nationalism, thus ethnic conflicts.
Sure, Dyer would likely agree with a lot of what I just said there, but again, Dyer’s religious world view has convinced him that somehow even his own beliefs can’t be weaponized and used by those in power, and I would argue that his beliefs are more conducive to traditional power systems, which is what figures such as Tech Bro elites such as Peter Theil, and thus his minion J.D. Vance wants.
Even with Dyer as an Orthodox follower, it is very apparent that even Orthodoxy can be infiltrated by Russian intelligence, etc., to do the exact same thing that Dyer talks about concerning the CIA in cahoots with the Vatican, notably during the Cold War.
RGIII received backlash for comments, and I want to say they were about Angel Reese mostly. RGIII chimed in on the Angel Reese versus Caitlin Clark rivalry – which is largely manufactured by social media – by using themes to describe Reese with what many would call caricatures of black women. These are the allegations. Supposedly, RGIII even before this Angel Reese situation may have done some sort of caricature of black women, but I have not found anything, but who knows.
However, watching the following video by RGIII (the first video below), what he is saying is not bad at all. Maybe Angel Reese DOES hate Caitlin Clark, and if not a hate for her, but rather being associated with her? Even for the people supporting Angel Reese, just thinking about your personal life and think to a time where a person simply hated you because…they just did. These things exist. So, I do not see RGIII’s comments as being anti-black, though he his assuming things, but a lot of people turned it into RGIII being a “self-hating black man, notably because he has a white wife”. This of course unleashed psychopaths like Umar Johnson, whose only claim to fame is talking about race, and notably rallying against interracial marriages.
In the video, RGIII actually praises Aliyah Boston, who is a black woman, and even compares Angel Reese to NBA legend Isaiah Thomas of the Detroit Pistons.
But let’s entertain that RGIII was being unfair to Angel Reese.
The idea goes is that Angel Reese’s competitiveness, attitude, and swagger is seen as being “ghetto” or “ratchet” behavior, which are often negative stereotypes applied to black women for simply participating in competitive spaces, where one could argue the most competitive space is the daily grind of life in general.
RGIII essentially used the “Shaniqua” trope to describe Angel Reese’s on-court persona, where this trope is often depicted as a very loud, in your face, and “unproper” person, where properness often centers around adhering to what some may consider the culture of the majority, i.e., white people.
This is why many black people defended Angel Reese and I will also defend her on these grounds.
Angel has gotten a lot of hate, and even if she is not the greatest player of all time, in a sport like basketball (which I played growing up), to be honest, some of the most iconic players were what we consider to be “goons”, i.e., the enforcers. Goons are a part of basketball culture and mythology, and even if Reese is not a standard “goon”, or maybe she is not that all, the truth is her style is a strategic part of basketball play. Intimidation is often as vital as skill on the court. Angel has won awards such as Rookie of the Month in 2024, WBNA Player of the Week in 2024, and won accolades for her play in the WNBA All Star Game.
This will sound overly intellectual, but Angel is being defended by black people because they see her being unapologetically black, because blackness has been seen as the traditional lesser position to whiteness within American or Western society, where American or New World societies of note where often built upon a racial-colorist caste system framework.
But even though it is good to defend Angel on these grounds, people also have to understand that people may not like her, and race isn’t a part of the equation.
Race aside, some people simply don’t like her. They may not like her face, her smile, etc. It’s petty but it is what it is.
Multiple things can be true at the same time and people not treating reality as such is what is annoying to be frank. (1) Yes, RGIII could have made a tacky commentary on Angel Reese by inserting the Shaniqua stereotype, though I don’t hear him doing that in his video, (2) Angel Reese regardless of race may not be very likeable to many people on factors that aren’t racial in nature, (3) Some people may be criticizing Angel Reese because of veiled racism, (4) people will defend Angel Reese regardless of her actions and may have blinders on her actions because they see themselves in her, etc. There are even more things we could probably think of.
I understand Reese defenders. Being black, bold, confident, or even cocky are not bad characteristics, and the irony is that these characteristics are often mythologized in other American cultures, for example the mythology pertaining to Americal rural, frontier, and county culture, cowboys, what have you. Sure, people will say such archetypes often presents a type of stoicism or the “strong and silent type” (which could be debated), yet still, being confident is a virtue in American life due to its history of homesteading, exploration, conquests, capitalism, etc.
People are defending Reese because they feel she is the victim of a double-standard and cognitive dissonance, i.e., by cognitive dissonance that being the phycological term that describes discomfort or tension a person feels when their beliefs, values or attitudes conflict with their actions or new information. Angel emulates values many hold dear but because they seem them in her they up feeling repulsed about those ideals or that they see her an unworthy cupbearer of those virtues.
America hails certain behaviors as virtuous but sometimes when black women and men emulate those very virtues we hold dear, black people are then turned into indicators of being dishonorable, or that black people can’t quite master the refinery of these virtues to the degree to approval as proscribed by the white majority as far as the United States goes (side note: such anti-black sentiments can be found in non-European cultures as well, but often Black Critical Theorists forget this since their main source of analysis is often framed against white supremacy).
I call it the Denzel Effect. Denzel Washington exuded a type of cool, cocky masculinity that wasn’t always appreciated in film, but those same virtues found in let’s say a John Wayne (a noted racist by the way) are perceived differently.
Regardless, despite the Angel Reese versus Caitlin Clark drama, where I feel both women are role models for young girls across the globe to be active in team sports, and I suspect behind closed doors that both women have a respect for each other, the fact still remains that RGIII is being accused of pushing this “Shaniqua” trope on black women. However, I can’t find much evidence of this.
It is made worst – visually speaking – to many Pro-Reese types, because of RGIII’s marriage to a white woman, so the perception of RGIII pushing “Shaniqua” tropes, instantly makes him a target, where he is attacked for “not being black enough” or a “sell out”.
People reduced his criticism of Angel Reese towards him hating black women, which does not seem to be THE CASE AT ALL, but it can appear that way.
People used RGIII’s comments on sports between Angel and Caitlin Clark to spin-off an adjacent conversation relating to interracial relationships, which seems unnecessary, but also boring.
I say boring because it is easy click bait, especially in black circles to talk about Interracial relationships. I feel we have better things to talk about (e.g., learning about AI, how to invest money, to use tools, studying art, whatever, etc.), but often lots of black pop cultural discourse revolves around…. drama, and not actually learning skills to improve our lives. The main topics of black discourse are (1) black men fighting with black women, (2) interracial relationships, (3) accusing each other of being gay, (4) racism, slavery, and white people, and maybe a good dose of (5) conspiracy theories. Seriously. It seems very black spaces only talk about these things.
This is where two people who will be central to this paper come into play. One being NFL Veteran, Ryan Clark, and the other being YouTube content creator, FD Signifier.
Ryan Clark (not verbatim) stated that RGIII has a fetish for white women as he learned from his locker room experiences with RGIII (e.g., RGIII allegedly calling himself “the Milk Man”).
Clark also made an affirmative claim that black men who date outside their race will never understand a black woman because they are not married to one.
Clark got some push back, just for him to later show a photo of his first-born biracial daughter he bore with a white woman, to show that he was not being prejudiced, but some people claimed this move was the equivalent of a white person saying something racist and then saying “I am not racist. I have a black friend”.
My rebuttal to Ryan Clark is that even if RGIII allegedly has a fetishism for white women, first off that is an RGIII issue and not indicative of other people and their interracial relationships.
Sure, Clark did not outright say this, and this may not have been his intent, but he needs to be aware that many people who are his fans will take his words to come to such a conclusion because they do not support Interracial relationships and will do anything to discourage them from happening.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Even if RGIII was wrong for his Angel Reese opinion (which I do not think he is wrong), and even if he is being wrong about his alleged “white fetishism”, it doesn’t make it right to reduce the lived experiences of others in interracial relationships, knowing the hurdles that interracial couples often face.
As stated, even if that was not Ryan Clark’s intent, I am simply holding him to the same standard he held RGIII too.
For example, RGIII did not explicitly talk about black women in a negative light, but rather people went extra and beyond, and extrapolated that he was demeaning black women.
Basically, people read too deep into what RGIII was saying and turned into a larger intersectional, i.e., “woke” conversation about race, sexuality, etc. So, even though Clark did not explicitly say that interracial relationships are wrong, one could read deeper into his words, same as he read deeper into RGIII’s words, and come to the conclusion that Clark is helping promote hatred towards people in interracial relationships.
Let’s entertain the idea that RGIII did generalize, but Clark just turned around and generalized himself with this claim that “black men who date outside their race, can’t understand black women”.
I felt Clark said this more so to wink to “Black Twitter” (which is a real thing but also a euphemism for majority online black spaces) to rally to his call, knowing that there is already a pre-existing disdain for interracial relationships within certain elements of the black community, which are exemplified by the recent infamy and fame of figures such as Umar Johnson (where memes of Umar are often used online to show disapproval of black men with white women, i.e., “snow bunnies”).
Clark essentially went low, then called upon others to back him up, knowing they were going to back him up regardless because of a disdain towards white women in some black circles. Clark realizes that in our modern “Buy Black” “Support Black” this-or-that era, which has merit, that a lot of black people will support him regardless of any flaws in his takes. I want black people to succeed just as much as anyone, but I also want it to be based on rationality, rather than pure “you’re with us, or against us” passion and emotionalism.
Clark was being Machiavellian to a degree. I suspect that he sees RGIII as part of his competition in the sports commentary industry, so Clark to vanquish RGIII, pulled the race card, so that RGIII cannot talk on black issues. Clark basically said (without saying) that RGIII is not qualified enough to talk about this, because he doesn’t have something I have (a black wife), so listen to me, Mr. Clark, see – I have a black wife, and ignore RGIII. It was something that ruthless middle managers in corporations do with each other as they jockey for more influence. This is all complicated further by the viral nature of online culture with algorithms, etc., which at this point seem to incentivize toxic conversations.
ON FETISHES
But when it comes to words like fetish, people often use the word fetish as a derogatory attack on people to insinuate that their attraction is a type of mental disease, perversion, brainwashing, etc.
The goal of anti-interracial people is to create as much discomfort, awkwardness, shame, etc., to force social compliance to rigid racial hierarchies, boundaries, borders, etc.
Haphazardly throwing around the word fetish helps inspire bigots who’s only prerogative is to paint interracial relationship in a pejorative light.
Even if RGIII has an actual fetish (which should have remained confidential locker room talk between teammates), it does not mean that others do, but the truth is that many people who are against interracial relationships often WANT to push this “fetish” trope as the only reasons interracial relationships exists.
On a separate note, why isn’t Ryan Clark being called out for revealing confidential talks from the locker room? If Clark can reveal this, what else will he reveal about others, or what will we learn about Mr. Clark?
But, back to using the word fetish to describe interracial relationships, it is a form sex shaming people into compliance, and even though I do not have any empirical evidence, from my qualitative experiences, I notice the trope that “interracial relationships are fetishes” is often pushed by white men (patriarchs) and black women (matriarchs), where these two groups can be seen as the de facto leaders of their racial groups for various reasons, and feel entitled to own their sexual counterparts as something akin to resources.
I agree with Clark in his defense of Angel Reese, and sure, maybe RGIII likely has some sort of fetish, but even if he as a fetish, that is RGIII’s prerogative.
However, to go a bit off track, is having a fetish a bad thing?
It seems like a very subjective thing. I believe all humans have fetishes, however, we as a society do consider some fetishes to be antisocial, i.e., against the limits of what is tolerable and acceptable to humans, and interestingly our morals can be viewed through “property law”. For example, we consider certain things antisocial if they go against children, animals, the mentally delayed, those with physical handicaps, etc., because these groups, especially children, have limitations on consenting and have limitations within their development. We also consider things to be antisocial that are truly irregular towards conducive, safe and/or honest human interactions such as sociopathy, psychopathy, narcissistic personality disorders, etc.
In the context of sexuality, some people have slight fetishes (i.e., sexual attractors they can live without) one could argue, and others have deeply rooted, conscious or unconscious, and required fetishes (i.e., sexual attractors needed to function sexually or even socially outside of the realms of sexuality).
From women in fishnet stockings or yoga pants, to men with chest hair, to high heels, to even dimples, people have a wide swath of things that could be considered a fetish, and sure, race or color, could be a type of one. But why is that a bad thing even if so? And even if so, for others, it does not mean that desiring a person or loving a person of another race qualifies as a fetish, except for the fact that people can argue that everything is subjective, and others will simply throw out the word fetish to spite those in interracial relationships.
For example, let’s play a logic game. Let’s say that Ryan Clark (and, also FD Signifier who I will get to later) will only date black women. Ok. Nothing wrong with that. That is their preference.
I see nothing wrong with that as long as people are not verbally expressing some sort of disdain for people who do counter to this, even though it is a person’s free speech to express things in this way.
So, for Clark or FD Signifier, I am sure there is something about their spouses that they fetishize. All human desire has some level of objectification, even if their (i.e., people like FD Signifier, etc.) rebuttal to this claim is that what they are actually desiring is the “subjectivity” of a person.
Such rebuttals seem to insinuate that subjectivity respects the empowered agency of the target of desire, whereas objectification is about reducing such agency for the unilateral pleasure of the targeting agent. Getting lost in the objectivity versus subjectivity debate seems unnecessary, so I won’t waste too much there.
So… let’s say that Clark, FD Signifier, or anyone who doesn’t engage in “Swirling” (which is a quasi-black euphemism for interracial relationships) desire their black wives, then I am sure there is something about their wives they fetishize, whether it is an action or a physical characteristic.
For example, black women are known for having “large buttocks” or being more voluptuous as in relation to other women such as white women. This truth, stereotype, what have you, is something embedded into Americal cross-racial discourse, e.g., black women saying white women have “flat asses”.
So, let’s say black men who only date black women desire their black woman’s curves because they see it as something better than what is available outside of their race. Is this not technically a fetish? Even emphasizing a desire around “beautiful black skin” or “fair white skin” could be considered fetish.
Where I am getting at is that it seems people who don’t like interracial relationships are fine with “intra-racial fetishism”, but not “interracial fetishism”, but the fact remains that one could argue that all desire has levels of fetishism, since objectification seems intrinsic to human consciousness.
I am no expert on Continental Philosophy (more concerning existentialism, phenomenology, ontology, etc.) or Analytical Philosophy (often concerning cogitation, logic, and linguistics), but the human propensity for objectification has both existential implications as well as implications concerning the very being of human cognition itself.
Essentially there is a reason we objectify things, fetishize things, etc., and it can be explained in rational, empiricist, and scientific means as well as through metaphysical quandary.
I am defining “fetishism” as the “pornification of inquiry” where we as observant sentient beings, and as objects in a world of objects, create a relationship as an observer towards an object that is being observed, where the very object being observed and the action of observing the thing, whatever it is, creates a para-social relationship, to the point of being required for the observer to function.
A fetish is simply a curiosity of things that is metabolized or internalized so much so by the observer that the observer is assisted in functioning when performing a task, but the degree of assistance varies from person to person (e.g., some may not be reliant on a fetish at all, whereas others may be dependent upon it). Sexual intercourse is a task, hence why we put so much emphasis on studying sexual fetishizes, but my definition can be applied outside the area of sexuality to pretty much any other aspect of human existence. But I can admit my definition in debatable, and has gaps, I am sure.
But, back to Clark, RGII, FD Signifier, etc., there is another logical flaw in Clark’s rebuttal to RGIII which is that Clark made an affirmative claim that black men who don’t marry black women cannot understand black women.
This is problematic to me because not all relationships need to be sexual to understand a person.
There are fraternal, paternal, etc., types of relationships. I am no Freudian psychologist, but my understanding is that Freud argued that a child’s, notably a boy’s first love, is his mother, hence the concept of Oedipus Complexes, and for females the concept of Electra Complexes.
Regardless, saying that marrying a black woman is the only way to understand a black woman is a form of purity testing, because it allows Clark, FD Signifier, et al., the ability to take a higher position when it comes to discussing black issues (even if their logic is flawed in any arguments), since a lot of black conversation and debates requires a level of approval from black women.
Essentially, Clark praising black women is appealing to the biases and desires of black women, so they are more likely to support his claims even if there’s logical flaws in his arguments because Clark is essentially fawning them.
This fawning strategy can be applied to any type of debate. It is effectively a strategy in debate. You are greasing the crowd by appealing to their internal desires, so they are more likely to believe your arguments. Another similar tactic at winning debates or winning “buy-in” from audiences is to use self-deprecation to disarm an audience, garner sympathy, protect the egos of “Alphas”, etc.
But that aside, many black men have relationships with their mothers, sisters, co-workers, extended family members, classmates, etc.
Saying that not marrying a black woman prohibits a person from understanding black women actually reduces the impact of other non-romantic types of relationships, where I would argue the most important relationship, that of a mother, is something that most black men will experience and gain a lot of their understanding about black women from.
Even for men who marry black women, a lot of what we learned is from our black maternal-like figures, since our mothers and grandmothers were, and were conversing with, black female culture, be it their own lived experiences and towards what they preferred to watch in the media, etc.
Having marriage to a black woman be the prerequisite in having a say in black conversations, actually widens the gap between black peoples, rather than bridging them together.
And, what about single people? Do single black men or single black women, not have any say because they aren’t in relationships?
I am simply pointing out the gaps in Clark’s claim which are reductionist.
But, if Clark can say that black men who date outside of their race do not understand black females then, then why can’t we say it in reverse for black women who date outside their race?
Are we really going to say that Venus Williams, who was crip walking at the Super Bowl during Kendrik Lamar’s performance, where Williams is from Compton California, is somehow not black for marrying a white man? Are we really going to argue that Eve from rap group Ruff Riders, is not black for marrying a white multi-millionaire? Are we really going to say that Alfree Woodard, known for playing black matriarch roles such as in Spike Lee’s Crooklyn does not understand black men because she is married to a white man? No.
The truth is that there is double-standard applied to black men because the truth seems to be that all groups on planet Earth, black women included, have some problem with black men due to the depictions and de-humanization of black men, first through white supremacy, but later though the hegemonic spreading of global capitalism (rooted historically in white supremacy) that spreads negative images about black men, where black men don’t control the mediums that spread negative images about them.
This double-standard of black men with white-women as opposed to black women with white men, or any other race with members of other races, can also be considered patriarchal, because what many people are saying, notably black people who don’t approve of interracial relationship, are insinuating that black men should be controlling their sexual opposites.
This type of patriarchy against interracial relationship can be observed in many black nationalist movements, where women often take a secondary role to patriarchal men. Better put, many advocates against interracial relationships, notably in black nationalist politics, are against interracial relationships because they feel men should be dominating their sexual counterparts of the same race.
This sentiment can be seen in the resurgent movement of polygamy within black nationalist circles, where such polygamist circles are often adjacent or firmly within Right Wing Men’s Rights (i.e., The Manosphere, or Red Pill) communities. For example, Umar Johnson, a known advocate against interracial relationships, and Brother Nathaniel, the leader of the black nationalist group, Israelites United in Christ (IUIC), advocates for polygamy, but notably for Brother Nathaniel, it is based in his interpretation of Biblical patriarchy over women.
The rebuttal to my arguments concerning this double-standard that falls more harshly on black men with white women, can be seen loosely in rhetoric by FD Signifier where he will say, “Well, black men date more disproportionately outside of their race than black women do. It’s not even close”.
My rebuttal in turn is that black men have been more so victimized by white supremacy because black men are seen more so as a physical threat to it, so black women actually with white men (which I support) can actually amplify the effects of white supremacy.
So, if white supremacy and patriarchy are the main culprits of most black inquiry, notably based on a dialectical way of thinking (i.e., analysis based on opposites, contradictions, etc.), then a black woman with a white man actually amplifies white supremacy, more so than any black man with a white woman.
But I don’t hate on black woman with white men. If anything as a black man I almost give a nod of “cool” approval, because that white man has shown himself as possibly loving, thus seeing as equal, the black community. I never see black women with non-white people as being “treasonous”, an act of betrayal, etc.
Being consistent to the logic of most black Critical Theory, I do have a point.
The truth is that white supremacy does not want black men with white women, whereas if a white man is with a person of another color, it is almost an exercising of white privilege because white men are often given a pass.
Even if a white supremacist does not like that a white man dates outside his race, they will not do anything about it because that white man is still exercising a type of privilege that other types of men of other races are denied. White supremacy is an ideology of power that is indifferent to equality. It is not based on fairness or equality but power. The white supremacist does not care so as long as the privileges and preferential double-standards of their system still favors them.
I hate to compare modern interracial relationships to slavery, because this a bad habit many modern Critical theorists have, but to make an example, think about a white plantation owner with a black woman, versus a black male slave with any white woman regardless of class. The penalty for the black man was always going to be castration, death, etc., whereas there was no consequence for white men.
I like to say that white men have free reign to “colonize p-ssy”, which historically is the case from black females’ slaves, native Africans such as those modern day South African (which created the mixed-race Colored demographic), to Asian woman, Indigenous Aboriginal Australians, etc. White men have doing whatever they want forever, but if black men do it, not only do they get shamed (or, killed) by white supremacy, but also by their sexual internal counterparts give them grief, etc.
Black men were literally killed for being white woman, whereas the penalty has never been the same for white men.
So, even if black men currently do date outside their race at higher levels, per Left Wing logic, the structural impact will never be the same as that of a black woman, essentially emboldening white supremacy and patriarchy.
Which is why it dangerous to reduce people’s love, emotions, etc., to intellectual frameworks. People simply use intellectualism to make their personal hates sound smarter than what they actually are.
For example, in media, black men with white women are often used to shame interracial relationships, by reducing black male-white female relationships to comically absurd fetishes. There is also the racist slogan of insinuating that white women with black men will be raising children in single parent households.
For example, there is the famous meme of Piper Perri, a pornographic actress before a group sex scene with black men, being used by various people to caricature female desires because most male insecurity involves female sexuality, so shaming women is a means of protecting the male ego, or “id”.
The meme or memes like them are about shaming women, black men, etc., but done so in a sinisterly playful way that gives the person who uses it plausible deniability that they aren’t insecure, because “it’s just a joke”, harmless fun, or postmodern pastiche.
This meme is often used not only to “make fun” and reduce black male-white female relationships for the benefit of male egos, but notably the male egos of non-black men in general.
Even the show Family Guy has made fun of white women preparing to be “gangbanged” by a group of black men.
At a certain point the use of such tropes tells more about the fears of society, with that being (A) black male sexuality being seen as more masculine, thus it poses a threat to the deification of white male honor, thus black male sexuality has to be shamed as naturally “evil”, “diseased”, “wild”, or degenerate, and (B) a fear about female sexual choice, where patriarchy reduces women to simple sexual objects for male use, but notably as incubators for sustained racial majority, i.e., ensuring more “pure white babies” are born to maintain racial dominance.
The irony is that white men, notably in the porn industry, have privilege, such as models being paid more to have sex with black men because of the perceived taboo and fears of hurting a woman’s career. However, such issues have been addressed or at least talked about as being problematic by many adult performers, so this issue is nothing new, and the adult industry seems more inclusive of non-white male voices than it did previously.
A person could easily make a meme of white men preparing to gangbang a black, Asian, or Hispanic woman, but you often don’t see these being shared throughout the zeitgeist, where part of our zeitgeist, does involve your run-of-the-mill (mostly non-black male) online trolls (for example, 4Chan or 8Chan culture, where these Chan-sites are often associated with Alt-Right and white supremacist politics).
These memes are even used by black people often within the Right-Wing oriented Manosphere, where figures such as Fresh and Fit of the Fresh and Fit Podcast, or even more moderate figure such as Aba and Preach, use tropes of “gangs of black men having sex with white women” to shame feminism, but also promote an irrational fear in young men that their women are likely to cheat/commit adultery on them.
Many people use memes of black men with white women to socially shame people, but white men in the same scene get a free pass.
Interracial relationships between black men and white women if utilizing a Left-Wing framework is actually a revolutionary act one could argue by subverting white male patriarchy considering all of the historical violence and effort exercised towards preventing black male-white female relations. Thus, more interracial relationships is a sign of progressive change in society at large, even if intra-racial relationships are still the majority.
More irony is that the more accepting people are of interracial relationships, it could be argued as an acceptance of blackness overall, because the divide between seeing black and white as polar opposites is reduced.
More irony to the situation is that many tenants of Black Liberation politics which uses Left Wing frameworks often dissuades from positively acknowledging interracial relationships, because certain schools of Left Wing thought advocates for “Self Determination” – often as an extension of Anti and Post-Colonial thought.
Essentially, Left Wing thought can promote racial segregation, but instead of it being based on Right Wing “top down” hierarchal modes of segregation between races, the Left-Wing version of segregation is “flat” “non hierarchal” “intersectional”, etc.
Who would have thought that the Left Wing promotes…. Separate but Equal?
FG SIGNIFIER AGAIN PROVES HE’S INTERESTED IN AGITATION RATHER THAN GROWING AS A PERSON
FD Signifier for example in his video titled: “What are we going to do about these Coons“, to me expresses this yearning within certain Left Wing, notably Black nationalists’ circles. This video, FD chimes in on the RGIII comment drama, which to me isn’t much of drama at all, but goes to show how some black people will jump on anything to talk about race.
FD Signifier uses this recent video to segway back towards an earlier video with other creators he was on which alleged that you could tell if a black man dates a white woman by how well their hair is maintained, i.e., how fresh their cut is.
Somewhat funny, the truth is that FD was actually purity testing by trying to insinuate that only corny black men date outside their race, so he, of course is somehow naturally better?
I commented on his page that if you can judge a person’s hair cut as them being more likely to date a white woman, then can I say that you as a slightly pudgy black man, who looks like my mother with braids, can be predicted to be a Communist?
First off, as a black man, calling another black a Coon is absurd, but for people who are not black, I need to stress that certain things about black culture may seem like “anti-matter” to you. Black people often use these terms, which were and are still used by white supremacist/anti-black people in general (who can be non-white) against black people, as a means of black people reminding other black people they see as too comfortable with their dialectical foe (white people) that they are still black.
It is a reason why black people use the N word, though the N word is often used – allegedly – in an “endearing” way. Black people have coopted white supremacist language and some of it like the N word are used in endearing ways while other words are used to shame people as a means of reminding black people that they are black. Using such words equates to the linguistic form of the “Tall Poppy Syndrome”, i.e., a culture that “chops people” don’t to size so they never feel more special than that of the collective. For reasons across the spectrum, some petty, and some that could be based on some type “intellectual pragmatism”, are used to keep black people in their place.
FD Signifier, as a Black Nationalist, has a lot of blind spots in this analysis of black culture.
For example, in his video FD talks about how black military brats often get messed up and insecure about their race and turn into RGIII. This is partially true, but also debatable. Black children may suffer from issues of identity if not in an environment that affirming and accepting of what we consider to be traditional black culture, but FD almost has their belief that growing up in black environment guarantees you may wind up “messed up”. He seems to believe growing up around white people is the same as Native Americans forced in schools where they were forced to assimilate. His assumptions often seem to erase nuance and complexity.
Black children may feel the dilemma of fitting in with their more segregated black counterparts because they have been exposed to other cultures (fashion, music, lifestyles, subcultures, etc.), have more economic certainty, and live in statistically safer environments, etc.
What FD doesn’t understand as he tries to oversimplify things is that black military brats still have black parents who are often still connected to their black roots, with many having been enlisted from urban inner city black communities or rural black communities.
FD signifier talking about military brats, has some merit, but it also diminishes the truth that many black families in the military as still connected to their roots.
But F.D. not having served, having been a military brat, not being a two-parent household, and not living in a truly multiracial environment…assumes things.
As a person who served myself, grew up in the military, and is around the same age group as FD himself, I can attest that the military is…. pretty black.
That’s well known. The military often recruits from the poor classes and statistically, black people as far as wealth are in near last place (though we can argue about what is wealth, how studies were conducted, etc.).
Many black officers are from Historically Black Colleges and Universities which have esteemed ROTC programs such as Tuskegee with US Air Force ROTC or Morehouse with Navy ROTC.
Many black military members are also involved with Black Fraternal and Masonic organizations. FD when talking about RGIII did talk about anything of this because HE DOES NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.
He assumes a lot of things, but his target audience are what I call “White liberals searching for black authenticity” with what I call “Take Me To Your Leader Mentality“, and woke – sometimes but not always black – people who more addicted to woke frameworks of thinking, which at this point as devolving in online shame culture to suffice for the fact the woke Left has failed in making actual real-world structural change. Something of course that FD has said he is incapable of solving or fixing.
And I say this as a military brat from a two-parent black household with an inner city raised mother and country “rural” raised father.
FD Signifier who seems to emphasis qualitative research like most Left-Wing sociologists, but I suspect that FD already has his conclusions in minds and wants his work, video essays, etc., to moonwalk or back up into those conclusions, so he has to have a degree of blind spots in his analysis to justify his preconceived presuppositions.
If I had to explain FD, he is a race-realist, dialectical materialist and Critical theorist, who has a palatable platform enough to not be relegated to the fringes of black nationalist discourse. A lot of what FD would say on race, I suspect a lot of white supremacists would agree with, because if self-determination means not being around black people, then they are for it. This is no different than George Lincoln Rockwell of the American Nazi Party working with the Nation of Islam, and even helping give seed money to N.O.I., black only farms in rural Georgia.
If FD can make an assumption on black military brats or black suburbanites, then I can make an assumption about his.
Coming from a single female parent household in the Chicagoland area, which is an area known for its history of Northern based racial segregation – when analyzing a person such as RGIII, Mr. Signifier has a propensity for assuming what it must have been like to have not been raised in explicitly black spaces.
FD deeply wants to believe without saying it directly that black people who aren’t raised in explicitly or majority black spaces like him seemed to be lacking in purity or authenticity, yet purity and authenticity are subjective things.
The irony is that he as a Leftist, would espouse ideas such as “everything being on a spectrum”, yet, when it comes to black lived experiences, he seems to not understand this, and even if so, his own personal biases make him uncomfortable in admitting that his vision of blackness is not the entire vision of it. I can hear it in his voice.
It makes you think that maybe even certain aspects of Left Wing (what we consider as liberal) politics are just a different shade of the same thing but used by those who actually controls things to create disunity amongst the general population. For example, Black Lives Matters is a concept I support, because I always understood that it meant “Black Lives Matters too”, and not “Black Lives Matters only”, yet the effects of BLM, for an array of incalculable reasons, did help re-solidify white supremacy, because such a bold slogan was seen by many people as explicitly a dismissal of their own misery, lives, etc., which weren’t in black bodies.
Even though the Left Wing is good intentioned in brining topics such as cultural appropriation, white privilege, patriarchy, imperialism, environmental racism, and gentrification to forefront of discourse, the Left Wing is also very bad, if not unapologetic, in the adverse effects of their messaging campaigns. Maybe this is because human emotion and feelings could be argued by some extreme Left-Wing voices (such as Marxist voices) as being…. bourgeoise and counter revolutionary. For such as theoretical person, feelings and emotions are often the constructs helping to prop up systems of oppression by prioritizing individual emotional comfort over the needs of the collective proletariat. And, let’s say, sure, this argument has merit, the fact still remains that it has consequences.
Despite the Far Left having pushed the needle forward in many good ways, and I would argue the Left Wing has “elevated consciousness” (notably a popularization and normalization of socialist analysis in American life), they have also enabled a complete opposite and dialectical reaction. MAGA for instance is essentially pro-imperialist, gentrification, and white identity politics, and the Left is now in a malaise, still arguing about if it is wise to go the intersectional route or the class-consciousness route. I would argue we’ve had enough intersectional conversations and should go to class consciousness because it seems the only method left in bringing on structural reform.
Better put, we have never truly tried a racially blind and unified, class-oriented movement, largely because of the infighting of the “intersectional-ist” faction. And many people may cringe at the words “racially blind”, but I am not saying “unaware”, i.e., unaware of the importance of applying intersectional analysis towards alleviating oppression, but rather…. we’ve talked enough already, and talking about identity politics has only given us heightened awareness, but not structural change.
I wouldn’t be surprised for example if Clark, FD Signifier, Umar Johnson, etc., were explicitly told by their black mothers to not date outside of their race. If so, then I guess they learned something about black women without needing to be married one.
End Notes
Disclaimer: I am tired of talking about race. However, there are many people online whose identities and career are explicitly based around race, and these people often need to be challenged. I consider myself something akin to a “radical abolitionist”, i.e., who is a Left-Wing progressive, however, I am cautious about the over usage of intersectional frameworks, however, as a person of color (but even if I were not one), I see value in intersectional thinking. However, ideology aside, on a person-to-person level, I think that many hateful or “troll like” figures hide behind ideology to sound smart, but really these are just…racist, prejudiced, etc., and some of these people can be on the Political Left, be they “Far Leftists” (Communists, Marxists, etc.), or milquetoast “Center Leftist” liberals. Ideology often veils desires, insecurity, biases, and people’s selfish will-to-power. We have to be honest that we all do this to an extent. I support Black liberation, empowerment, etc., because black people…deserve it considering how we as a people were literally designed to be the “Ying to the Yang” of white people (a concept I have talked about before), i.e., we as black people were manufactured to be an internalized foe to help justify, inspire, and motivate white supremacy as an ontological construct. We were designed to be hated and having been incubated in hatred (literally within the equivalent of prison conditions for centuries), we as a community do have deep rooted trauma, which we even as black people towards black people hurt each other with.
To really understand what I am saying in this post, we have to ask, “What is America to me?”. This will sound “brainy” or quasi-intellectual, but I think it will make sense to you.
The United States is built upon a post-colonial, psycho-sexual racial caste system, which emphasizes “racial dialectics” as a means of controlling and organizing the population in a way the serves the interests of the capitalist class. The capitalist class – once called the aristocratic and gentry class, but later euphemistically called “the one percent” – uses psychological warfare, notably around agitation-propaganda to create intersectional division, so economic class consciousness can never take hold to threaten the wealth of elites. For example, figures such as W.E.B. DuBois spoke about how the white poor often defended the white rich, because the white poor were given a “wage of whiteness”, i.e., social privileges above others, even if the white poor were voting against their own economic interests by supporting elites. Separately, what I mean by “psycho-sexual”, is not in some Freudian sense about childhood development, but rather a psychological system built upon sexual insecurities that are nuanced along racial lines, where the awkwardness created from this system helps to veil and protect the power and privileges of white patriarchy within European colonial nations. The USA is built upon a fear of black male sexuality and the control of white female sexuality. These two groups pose the largest threats to the existing white patriarchal order (side note: I am not hating on white men, but rather a system catered towards their needs at the expense of others), which is why there was so much historical emphasis on shaming and preventing these types of relationships. Ironically, within certain left-wing circles, more visually seen within Black Liberation politics, there is constant theme of talking about black male-white female relationships, which one could argue is about a fear of cultural erasure or “appropriation”, but in essence these types of Leftists are perpetuating the same hatred towards black male-white female relationships that are existent within white supremacy. Even though the arguments are coming from different angles, vantage points, ideologies, etc., the similarity is that both sides want to limit and discourage such relationships.
The United States is a post-colonial nation, however, we in contemporary times often have a hard time truly understanding that, largely I suspect because of our economic success which has even overpowered that of our previous colonial masters in the British. However, the same way how we in the West and USA understand that certain African nations are troubled because of the divide-and-conquer systems applied by the British, this same sort of divide-and-conquer mentality is too fundamental to the United States.
Main Ideas by Quinton Mitchell: (1) People try to reduce interracial relations to fetishes, but those same people are fetishizing within “intra-racial” relationships. For example, people will try to hate on black male-white female interracial relationships by calling them fetishes, however, if a person hails a “Black Queen” in for example a white male-black female relationship, then people often don’t use the fetish accusation. Further, people advocating for explicit intra-racial (same race) relationships, ironically use fetishes themselves. Further, I bring up the idea that all humans fetishize things and fetishizing may be central to desire to varying degrees. (2) Left Wing concepts such as Self-Determinism under Post-Colonial frames of thinking can lead to a flattened “Separate but Equal” type of segregation, that is not much different than the hierarchical “top down” segregation found on the Political Right. Which alludes to the idea that Left Wing and Right Wing ideologies, can both be used as systems-of-control to maintain pre-existing systems such as racial segregation (3) Tiger Woods Syndrome, a term coined by me, Quinton Mitchell, which is the social phenomena of black people to consider and shame things that are perceived as white, but then later incorporate these things into black culture once popularized by black cultural leaders (4) “The Colonization of P-ssy” (however, crude that may be, where the intended crudeness is meant relate to online colloquialisms, urchin speak, etc.) is a term I coined writing this which is about how white males don’t get criticized as harshly as non-white men, notably black men, for interracial relationships, and this privilege that white men have dates to the Age of Discovery, the colonial era, etc. (5) The Denzel Effect is a term that may not be original but one that I thought of out of the blue to talk about how black confidence is often seen as dishonorable, whereas white confidence can be seen as honorable. However, this effect doesn’t obfuscate from that the fact that people of any race can simply rub people the wrong way and color is not a factor. (6) Take Me to Your Leader Mentality, is a term which may not be original, but I came up with out of the blue when writing on subjects relating to race, so if this term does exist, I created it in a type of “no original idea really exist” type of randomness. However, I intend this term to mean how black intellectuals often consciously or unconsciously winds up being seen as the “de facto voices” of the black experience, but these leaders, often to forget to explain, defend, and champion different black lifestyles which aren’t seen as the standard type of black culture. White liberals for example try to find what they consider to be intellectually and aesthetically “the blackest” person they can find to explain things, while not realizing the cultural complexities within black culture, and these assigned “black leaders” often have their own biases, gaps in understanding, etc., when it comes to black lifestyles which aren’t their own individually speaking.
I wrote this post originally back in 2020 I believe
Let us get a few things clarified. 1) arguing against white supremacy isn’t hating people. Sure, for some it might be that, but white people tend to focus on the most vocal opposition force to paint a larger picture as if that mentality quantifies the entire group. I don’t dislike white people at all. I grew up with them, many friends, and some I consider family with no realization of race at all. Arguing against white supremacy isn’t arguing against the “classification” of white people or European culture or history, nor is it an attack on naturally occurring white majorities in traditionally white majority nations. These majorities didn’t come into being simply because the entire population of a specific nation said we have to shut out others, but they arose because it was a natural occurrence. Even as immigration came to be as we can still see, white majorities still prevail in Western nations, and even if there is intermingling, the white majorities in theory actually get larger despite the notion that diminish since many children sired from such relationships have equally as much of chance of assimilating back into the majority. So, what, there’s majorities of white people. That’s not the issue. The issue is with latent racism, the covert language of promote it, the marginalization of other group’s cultures in order to promote a sense of superiority (in which many supremacists have not contributed do despite being racist), reactionary fear, marginalization of other people’s viewpoints, and using fear of becoming a minority to justify emboldening the poor treatment of native minorities or new coming immigrants. So, I can rally against white supremacy since it does have a history, as all people do, of nonsensical violence, but I can also stand up for white people, see them as friends, family, etc. The goal of the racist is to prevent you from making a separation between the ills of white supremacy and the fact that white people simply exists. To them racism and white identity are synonymous, so they cleverly use attacks against white supremacy to justify slipping in their segregation mentality.
Disclaimer: I’m not saying the Russia as a county or a people are bad or to be feared. I’m not saying that Orthodox Christianity is bad. Russian Americans are Americans, yet, there’s an element forming like an viral enzyme silently in the body of the United States and Europe. No on notices, people deny it, people are even cynical because of the malpractice of those who are charged to protect us, yet, it’s there. However, you have separate the good from the bad. The bad being that certain elements, emphasis on certain, are influencing the US and European Far Right. Sometimes its coming out of Russia but other times its an appropriation of US and European Far Right groups such as the Alt Right and Neo Nazis who find inspiration in Russian Imperial and Soviet Era iconography. This Alt Right sect despite not being taken serious by mainstream or moderate Republicans is an influential force within the MAGA movement. Due to the major stall or let down of the Russia-gate situation, I think most Americans have relegated Russia to the status of “Muh, Russia”, but they often don’t see the actual influence of Russia within the online Alt Right, but also in establishment GOP Republican politics. Even the Pacifist Anti-Establishment Left (The Greyzone, Graham Elwood, Jimmy Dore, etc.) is complicit in underestimating Russian influence because like the conspiracy minded Right Wing (Richard Spencer, Jay Dyer, Know More News with Adam Green, Lauren Southern, Alex Jones, etc.), they too fear the government and look at the government as a propaganda machine for war, which is true, but they overlook the threat of Russian influence within American white supremacy in order to hedge against war. War is bad, but also being ignorant of Russian influence in order to support your cause which therefore supports the Alt Right is a big issue.
Russia-gate was fiasco was co-opted by the American power establishment who contorted the real truth for their own benefit but threw the American people under the bus on a nearly two-year interactive conspiracy game, largely, for the state not to lose too much leverage considering the USA was spread thin globally during the Bush and Obama Administrations. The USA was exposed and vulnerable. This being-spread-thin-status of the American defense apparatus, created a prime opportunity for Russia to make gains, defensive barriers, but also exploit the underlying white supremacy of the reactionary right-wings of the United States and Western/Central Europe. For example, Russia manipulated the Right Wing’s fear over Latin American immigration in the USA; presented itself as an alternative to the issues of globalism by pointing out the US NATO war-created refugees of Syria and Libya and the creation of a transnational corridor for undocumented immigration, and provided an “Anti-Modern” ideology to combat expanding rights to women, minorities, and non-heterosexuals.
The US Mainstream Media and State used real facts in part but also many lies and fabrications to launch a reactionary campaign to hedge Trump’s unilateral power after he won since he held both Chambers of Congress, nominated two SCOTUS judges, nominated many Federal Circuit Court Judges, and had a loyal Executive Branch who’ve obstructed justice in many cases and is full of unqualified individuals and where many have ties to Russian money or money interests. Yet, after they got what they wanted, they dropped the case and quickly moved on to other issues on the circuit of the 24/7 news feeds. However, Russia may not have hacked into any voting machines (though it’s plausible Israelis who have strong ties to Russia did) but Russia more so did “social networking”. Russian infiltration is a combination of multiple tactics such as (1) Spread Soft Power such as buying real-estate, sport teams, wining and dining elites, and selling an image of wealth and prosperity such as in the Russian billionaire class (2) Appealing to a common European ancestry especially since the political-left has made gains analyzing and deconstructing white supremacy, yet, this tactic create generation of eager white people searching for identity in a change world that affects us all regardless of race, (3) Using “postmodern” tactics such as online content spanning blogging, podcasts, chat rooms, and anonymous accounts, etc., and (4) Religion such as using Orthodoxy as a new alternative to re-establishing Christianity by undermining Catholicism and Protestantism, but also equating the Orthodox Church with Israel as a type of alternative to American Zionism. Thus the strategy is multi-dimensional and uses isolated categories which can rub off on each other to merge and create a larger consensus for Russian acceptance.
Resistance to MAGA seems futile considering how many billionaires, millionaires, disgruntled military and CIA alumni, religious fanatics, etc., it has on its side.
Below are some ad hoc schematics I like to do to track things
Notes by the author. Quinton Mitchell Notes by the author. Quinton Mitchell Notes by the author. Quinton Mitchell Notes by the author. Quinton Mitchell
I see MAGA as a phase of history that the United States needs to go through. It is the manifestation of paranoia as old as the John Birch Society, the Minute Men far-right social groups, the racism of people such as Willis Carto, etc. It is the amalgamation of things a lot of ideas, that people won’t be content with getting over until tried. That is the simplest and least wordy way to describe it. Only when we are forced to stare at the results of our actions will we learn. That is it. It seems that all societies decay into some form of fascism at some point unfortunately, notably as the nation, like an organism, becomes insecure about any possibility of waning power and prestige.
So, this will all bleed together and flow like a linear story.
Michael Flynn has been waging a psychological war against the American people, and no one seems to…care.
Flynn admitted to commanding an army of digital soldiers in an insurgency.
To get the point, Michael Flynn was a friend of the late General John K. Singlaub.
Singlaub was a veteran of the WWII having served in Operation Jedburgh, but later spent time observing the Chinese Civil War, managing the Secret War in Laos during the Vietnam War, helped provide guidance to the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, and was later implicated during the Iran Contra Scandal for having smuggled weapons – then banned by the Boland Amendment -, allegedly through a place called John Hull’s Ranch in Costa Rica to the Right Wing Contras in Nicaragua (some allege they were nothing more than death squads).
I think it is fascinating that every region that Singlaub was hot in was also interestingly a hot spot for drug activity (opium in Afghanistan and the Golden Triangle of Southeast Asia) and of course cocaine production in Latin America.
The bank is said to have been involved in drug trafficking since it had offices in places near DEA overseas offices, and this money laundering was likely used to fund CIA clandestine operations across the globe including continental Africa which was seeing conflicts such as Rhodesia, Namibia, etc. The Nugan Bank Scandal mimics other notable shadow banks such as the BCCI Bank and the Banco de Ambrosiano Scandal which had links to the Vatican. This era in CIA history was strongly influenced by William Colby and then later William Casey. Other notable CIA figures of this time, who were connected to Nugan Hand by varying degrees of separation where figures such as Theodore Shackey (The Blond Ghost), Richard Secord, Thomas Clines, Edwin P. Wilson, Frank Turpil, etc. Many of these men such as Shackey were CIA veterans from the days of Bay of Pigs invasion disaster and the assassination of President JFK, and Shackey through his cadre of underlings had links to many Cuban anti-communist radicals, where many of these men had ties to cocaine trafficking in South Florida, mercenary work (some as far as in Congo), assassinations, etc.
As you can read there is a lineage or direct links tracing from figures such as Michael Flynn all the way to deep state figures of the early CIA, yet, the irony is that Flynn and conservatives as weaved this lie that the Deep State is “liberal”, “Democrat”, etc., when the Deep State has always been more Right Wing (pro-elitism, pro- capitalism, etc., but nuanced with a Judeao-Christian, Zionists Millennialism. It’s ardent stance on anti-communism is often a passive-aggressive way for maintaining white supremacy, since most of the traditional wealth in the USA is still owned by white elites. This is why the CIA, when fighting anti-communists forces, often works alongside the extreme Far-Right and by doing so, they create “blowback”, i.e., domestic terrorists, hate groups, rogue veterans, etc.)
William Colby is noted as being one of the creators of Stay Behind Units (along with figures such as Frank Wisner, James Jesus Angleton, etc.) in Europe to fight the Soviets in case of invasion but these Stay Behind Units were often fascists or right-wing organizations including Neo Nazis and European Identitarians. William Casey, who later died from a brain tumor before he was possibly indicted for his ties to Iran Contra, was the creator of the Manhattan Institute, which is a conservative think tank. This think-tank, still in existence today, has hosted figures such as Right-Wing billionaire and Elon Musk associate, Peter Thiel, who has obtained lucrative tracking software contracts from the Trump Administration, but also has hosted figures such as Christoper Rufo.
Hillsdale College is the mother-brain behind America’s charter school movement, offering curriculum such as the 1776 Project which is a rebuttal curriculum to the 1619 Project (a study course detailing America’s history of slavery, Native American conquests, etc.). Hillsdale College is not only the alma mater to ex-Blackwater mercenary group CEO, Erik Prince, but also hosts many notable conservative and Federalist Society connected individual such as Justice Clarence Thomas, who was later revealed to have received money from shadow donor Harlan Crow. Crow is a man known for collecting fascist memorabilia.
The school also has ties through its president Larry Arnn, a Plato fanatic and self-ascribed “West Coast Straussian”, i.e., after neoconservative progenitor, Leo Strauss. Arnn links to another conservative organization called the Claremont Institute.
The Claremont Institute is noted for having started the Obama Birther Conspiracy movement (alleging Obama is not an American citizen), and this organization attempted the same with Kamala Harris. Claremont was run by a man named Michael Pack who was later appointed by Trump to be the CEO of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which is the entity that overseas Voice of America (an organization that Tucker Carlson’s father in the nineteen-eighties ran). While at USAGM, Pack gutted the origination and filled it with Trump loyalists, going so far as having been sued by some of his employees for workplace treatment.
Pack later platformed a man named Guo Wengui, a shadowy Chinese exiled “billionaire”, who is a close associate of Steve Bannon who is an ex-Goldman Sachs manager, ex CEO of Brietbart in which Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire is a spin-off of, and a former US Navy officer. Bannon of course was Trump’s former campaign manager and is still a diehard supporter. Bannon is credited with having discovered the armies of angry online male gamers via a scam in which Bannon would pay Chinese sweatshop workers to mine in-game digital goods and then sell these goods for real-world money at high markups, often to underage people. Bannon did business with ex-Disney star, Brock Pierce and his accomplice Michael Collins Rector where Rector later fled the country for assaulting teenage boys. Bannon was introduced to Trump by David Bossie, the President of Citizens United, a conservative non-profit known for winning a federal court case that enables corporations to give funds directly to political candidates, thus erasing any real chance of campaign finance law reform in the United States.
Bannon, a real chaos agent, during the early Trump years, went on a European tour courting Far Right candidates such as France’s Marine Le Pen, Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, Hungary’s Victor Orban, and Germany’s Alterative for Germany (AFD) Party where the AFD has ties to the Kremlin. Bannon even went so far as to help buy an old Italian monastery to be a “gladiator school” for new generations of Right-Wing activists, though this acquisition was protested by many of the local townspeople.
It is also important to note that Bannon was on the board of Cambridge Analytica, now going by Emerdata or something similar, was the data collection firm who took customer data with Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook’s help, to launch targeted political campaigns. Cambridge Analytics also involved Robert and Rebekah Mercer, with the Mercer’s having earned their billions from the Renaissance hedge fund. The Mercer’s were the funders of Brietbart News where Bannon was CEO at. Further, a Hong Kong Billionaire named Johnson Ko was the board and Ko owned a Chinese security group known as Frontier Services Group (FSG) which employed Erik Prince. As you can see this is a closed loop.
But back to Guo Wengui, the Bannon associate and Michael Pack selected mouthpiece, he went on VOA to protests the Chinese government, but he was so unhinged that weary producers cut his segments, which later garnered the wrath of Pack. Pack was later let go by President Biden, yet, Guo was later indicated for having scammed his loyal followers out millions of dollars (some value the fraud as high as a billion).
Guo who courted people such as former UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was later discovered to have been recording people in his Manhattan penthouse, and when investigators went back to inquire further, the apartment mysteriously set ablaze from incendiary devices set up in the apartment. Guo was discovered to have fled China for a sexual assault allegation but also fraudulent real estate transactions with corrupt CCP officials. Having fled to the United States, Guo presented himself as a political refugee trying to topple the Communist Chinese but was likely a double-agent working for the Chinese (as a form of probation to ensure his funds weren’t frozen), but his anti-CCP groups were simply a way of spying on dissident anti-CCP voices amongst the Chinese expatriate community. Guo was later found guilty of fraud, similar to his friend Steve Bannon, who was also indicted for hosting private “Build the Wall” fundraisers in which he and others pocketed the money for personal use.
Before I end this tangent on China, it is also important to note that Erik Prince worked for a Chinese mercenary group called Frontier Services Group (FSG) who provided security services to the Chinese regarding their Belt and Road infrastructure project but also security details for their African mineral extraction programs. Prince, a real shadowy player, also met with a Russian banker via a UAE lobbyist, George Nader (later convicted of child sex crimes) while in the Seychelles, and Prince was outed as having broken UN Sanctions by providing military hardware to Libyan warlord General Haftar via Project Opus, where Haftar, a CIA asset, is one of many vying for control of the oil rich region (this meeting was arranged via Trump’s ambassador to Egypt).
Regardless, Michael Flynn in recent years has admitted to having a Digital Army which he admitted at a Young Americans for Freedom event. The Young Americans for Freedom event is a conservative youth organization now under the leadership of Scott Walker, former Governor of Wisconsin who made his fame by going after public employee unions in his state. YAF is notable for having purchased Reagan Ranch. Scott Walker was bankrolled by the secretive billionaire family, The Uihlein Family, and this family also donates to Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA. Kirk himself has said plenty of racist things throughout his career and seems to have strong ties to Arizona’s College Republicans, an organization which seems to have ties through individual members to the America First movement with figures such as white supremacist Nick Fuentes, and his Groypers (which I would assume through individual members have ties to groups such as Patriot Front).
The Uihlein Family are intermarried with the Bradley Family, and both have ties to the infamous John Birch Society, which is a right organization so unhinged they claimed that Republican President Eisenhower was a Communist, likely for his support for desegregation.
What Flynn was really saying is that he runs an army of trolls and bots who see politics as insurgent warfare.
Michael Flynn can be seen online with Singlaub at Phyllis Schlafly Eagles event celebrating his 100th birthday. Phyllis Schlafly Eagles is a conservative organization which according to their site are anti-feminists, anti-political correctness, and supports reduced immigration and fosters free market economics. It is important to note that Phyllis Schalfly was a female activists who opposed female rights. Think about that, you have career military and intelligence officers being celebrated at an organization that is vehemently opposed to modern female liberation. YouTube content creator named Intelexual Quickies has a great video titled, Are White Women Voting Against Their Interests? detailing Phyllis Schlafly. Separately as a side note, I find it interesting that the modern Trad Wife movement, which itself could be understood as a sub-set or proxy to Alt-Right politics, could be considered as being a psychological operation in and of itself, and it has roots in the anti-feminism of women such Schlafly. Yet, these ideas of old have been repackaged for a younger generation of Millennials and Zoomers, etc., who are being inspired to be nostalgic, notably as a reaction to the Social Justice theories they were taught in school, but also they are reacting to the lack of economic ease grew up in since 2008 (The Great Recession) until now. For example, many Zoomers were in elementary school during the tumultuous Recession and Social Activism years, largely defined by the Presidency of Barak Obama (and the ardent obstructionism of Republicans at this time to Obama), and despite the assumption that these younger people would be all become progressive, many in rebellious fashion are looking backwards rather than forwards to gain identity. The reactionary nature to be Far Right to me is a reality of an empire in decay and in which the citizens of said empire refuse or cannot accurately criticize the underlying presuppositions of what props up their realities, notably that of capitalism. For example, as home and other assets continue to rise as worker wages stall, and as the wealth of a few balloons to new heights, many people still put their faith and vicarious aspirations into figures such as Elon Musk. A man who is sinister due to the fact that he not only understands that the game is rigged and able to be exploited by the billionaires and tech elites, but he is so cynically aware that he understands people will simply believe whatever he says as long as he says the rights things, even if he doesn’t believe those things or if he is in fact behind the conspiracies he claims others are.
Yet, back to Michael Flynn and his “Digital Army” (which is very real).
Michael Flynn’s brother, Charles Flynn was involved in the January 6th insurrection scandal. Colonel Earl Matthews alleged the Charles Flynn and Lt. General Walter Piatt misled investigators in that the Flynn and Piatt seemed to delay requests for National Guard support. Lieutenant General Piatt, previously a candidate to run the US Army Futures Command (the command that deals in modernization efforts of the US Army) is likely very salty that he was denied his fourth star by President Biden. Piatt is now the CEO of the powerful Wounded Warrior Project organization, which has loyal followers amongst the veteran and POW/MIA community. So not only does Michael Flynn run a digital army of trolls, but a likely associate of Michael via this brother Charles Flynn, runs the WWP. The political left often loses the “war of aesthetics” regarding the military and veterans, largely due to the pacifistic notions such as cutting military spending, thus giving them a massive disadvantage in political discourse. Criticizing the military is often misconstrued with attack veterans, and conservatives us this as a means of controlling the narrative around the military, intelligence communities, etc. Sadly, the Left falls for this hook and sinker because the Left has no tangible realpolitik on military matters besides emphasizing peace – which is something that arguably doesn’t exist in nature- but, also emphasizes a self-reflective and self-critical gaze, which can be easily misconstrued as not being patriotic.
Alex Jones of course is friend to Joe Rogan, who as a podcaster platform a litany of personalities involved in steering the general public more right-wing such as Jordan Peterson (who pushed notions such as “Postmodern Marxism”, which is simply a reinvention of the older Pat Buchanan “Cultural Marxism”, and the even older Nazi term of “Cultural Bolshevism”), Sam Harris (who flirted with studies about Racial IQ and acting through his atheist persona would go onto to push Islamophobia), Stefan Molyneux (a man listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate list who too pushed racial IQ hierarchy studies), Gavin McInnes (founder of the Proud Boys), Graham Hitchcock (knowns for his alternative archeology beliefs notable in conspiracy theory, New Age, and Ancient Alien-like subcultures), etc.
Rogan, who I like to call a “Neoplatonist”, a former actor tied to the Disney corporation, is the cross-roads between the Alt-Right, UFC bloodsport, comedy, and conspiracy theory culture such as UFOlogy, the New Age movement (which included the Human Potential Movement, a movement famously lampooned in the film, The Men Who Stare at Goats, which was inspired by true event such as Project Stargate), Timothy Leary-like “psycho-naut”, i.e., psychedelic drug using subcultures as best typified by the Burning Man festival, MAPS, and The Esalen Institute, etc.
Rogan not only is able to platform and spread “red-pilled” ideas to the masses, but his ability to bleed into the comedy sphere grants him even more authority. Andrew Schulz, Tim Dillon, Tom Segura, etc., are all part of the “Rogan-verse”.
Rogan, whose politics could be best understood as classically liberal yet syncretic, i.e., splicing elements of libertarianism and some aspects of socialism (if you catch him on day he’s not fuming about the political Left). I have compared his views to that of science fiction author and US Naval officer, Robert Heinlein, author of Starship Troopers and Strangers in a Strange Land. Starship Troopers details a society ruled by a military government where voting is based on military service, yet, for those who wish not to serve, they live a libertarian and voluntarist existence. Strangers in a Strange Land is noted for having inspired both early hippies in areas such as Laurel Canyon and also libertarians, where libertarians through the Cold War became more so synonymous with Right Wing politics and think-tanks, e.g., the CATO Institute, the Atlas Society (a global libertarian foundation). Republicans such as Reagan, Nixon, etc., all called themselves libertarians at certain points, and both were influenced by thinkers such as Milton Friedman, where Friedman led the Chicago School of Economics, a school dedicated to neoliberalism, i.e., unfettered free markets. Friedman trained a cadre of Chilean economists under the fascist regime of Augusto Pinochet, where Pinochet was known for his kidnapping, torture, and disappearances of his opposition.
Tulsi Gabbard, a politician hailed by the Joe Rogan community because she seems to mix both hippy and militarist elements, such as those I spoke about above, is now Trump’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence. Tulsi herself is the epitome of this nexus between New Age culture and militarism as I alluded to relating to Heinlein. Her youth was largely controlled by the Hare Krishna sect, The Science of Identity Foundation, which is a group known for their anti-homosexual beliefs and also their anti-Muslim stances. She like Michael Flynn is involved in psychological warfare with her meritorious service with the U.S. Army Civil Affairs & Psychological Operations Command (Airborne).
Alex Jones has been hailed by Russian media for his anti-Hillary Clinton stance, and he has links to little known YouTube influencers such as Jay Dyer, author of Esoteric Hollywood. Dyer, a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, has interviewed thinkers such as Aleksandr Dugin, who is Vladmir Putin’s ideological architect. Dugin wished to bring back Russian power to its heights in the Soviet Union but instead of Communism he shifted to fascism with an Imperialist Czarist aesthetic. Dugin believed that stirring up as much civil unrest in the USA by fostering racial conflict, ideological conflict, etc., so the USA will implode from within and European forces would leave NATO.
Russian operations have been effective at convincing many in the West that the Ukraine War is explicitly a “money laundering scheme” and that it is the United States’ fault that Russia invaded despite the fact that Russia has had a dictator for over twenty years and was already meddling in Ukrainian politics. For example, the United States borders Mexico in which some security studies organizations deem it a failed narco-state, but the US has not invaded Mexico. Even if NATO was on the door of Russia, Russia had already invaded Georgia and has shown themselves as having a foreign policy which seems to advance themselves at any chance at the expense of the United States.
Dyer often pushes anti-Western conspiracy theories, often disregarding any criticism of Russia, where is Orthodoxy is symbolic of. His conspiracies theories often involve concepts such as “predictive programming in film”, Federal Reserve conspiracy theories, and how science and materialist philosophies have erased God, spiritualism, etc., and therefore enabled an Occultic and Satanic takeover of modern societies. I don’t think Dyer however is a Russian asset, but I think by proxy he leads people down a path towards anti-Western thinking that can be usurped and twisted against the West for the benefit of foreign intelligence agencies.
His remedy is embracing Eastern Orthodoxy, yet the issue is that his feeds into the Kremlin backed information campaigns which seeks to make Russia look the Savior of “Christendom” and the West. Pro-Russia conspiracies have expertly infiltrated the Western and American conservative movements. Fox News hosts such as Tucker Carlson hailed Putin for his stance on LGBTQ issues and his anti-feminist perspectives for example. Yet, a big reason Western conservatives are supporting Russia is because of white anxiety in the both the United States regarding demographic changes, but also in Europe due to Middle Eastern Refugees. The irony about the Middle Eastern refugees is that Russia played a role in helping exacerbate the destabilization of the Middle East such as how Russia stepped in on behalf of President Bashir Assad. Russia used mercenaries in the region and also conducted aerial bombing missions. However, Russia helps send refugees into Central and North Europe often with the help of Russian underling Belarus.
Tucker Carlson currently seems to be undergoing a mental and/or spiritual crisis with his belief he was attacked by demons. Seriously. He said it.
Dyer even connects back to the comedy space, via online troll figures such as Sam Hyde, but Dyer also connects to Alt-Right figures such as Lauren Southern, where Southern also interviewed Russia’s Dugin, but she was also platformed on Rupert Murdoch owned Sky New, where Murdoch of course owns Fox News. Fox News of course has produced Trump cabinet position picks such as Pete Hegseth, Sean Duffy, and Sebastian Gorka, etc. Gorka of course was a liaison to Hungarian leader Viktor Orban, and Hungary and in many ways has been seen by the Western and American Alt-Right as a bastion of hope because of its anti-migrant stance and perceived social conservatism. Hegseth in true “crusader” fashion with Deus Vult and Jerusalem Cross tattoos (slogans and symbols appropriated by the fascists) has been accused of sexual assault.
[Ending Commentary by Author]
First off, I want to say I love my country, the United States of America, and I do not hate Republicans. I hate that they hate their opposition and how they are pretending that they haven’t always. I may not have been Rambo, but I raised my hand and gave a few years of my life to serve the country.
But I am tired, absolutely tired of the Right Wing thinking they own this country. I see their games about how they try to corner, encircle and engulf the very powerful aesthetics and mythology of the military for themselves, and they try to use this to take the high horse position to undermine progressive ideas as not being American enough or not American at all. Though I have many issues with the political left, such as their idealist stance on pacifism and their lack of a realpolitik when dealing with legitimate threats to the United States, I do embrace the inclusiveness of progressive politics and its empowerment of the working classes.
The truth is the Left Wing lost the psychological warfare fight.
The Left does not seem to have full-time armies of trolls online, nor the funding to afford complex bot technology, etc. The Right Wing expertly conducted a shadow war on the American public such as pushing erroneous and dangerous conspiracy theories such as Qanon. Even though the mainstream media seems to be on the Left because they have to be inclusive as a means of selling advertisements to the diverse masses for their revenues, the truth is mainstream media, as capitalist organizations, are not necessarily in alignment with what Leftists actually want, e.g., Medicare for All, universal education, criminal justice reforms, restrained military spending, etc.
Yet, the opposition in Republicans argues or insinuates that this corporate left-leaning liberalism is proof that the media (including social media) is actually controlled by Leftist.
There is a difference between liberal and leftist. Liberals are actually both Democrats and Republicans since they both trace roots to Enlightenment classical liberalism, which fosters private property, inalienable rights, separation of religion from state, pluralism, etc., whereas leftism, is more on the spectrum of Socialism, i.e., a collective view to property to some, or at least a redistribution of wealth within a liberal system for egalitarian means. For example, in the United Kingdom you have a Liberal Party similar to the American Democratic Party, yet they have the Labour Party, which is similar to the Democratic Socialist of America with figures such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. You can be a Left Wing liberal, a Social Democrat, a Democratic Socialist, a Communists (typically but not exclusively adhering to Marxist ideology. For instance, you have socio-anarchist who reject the state), etc. which are all different things.
Yet, the American public with a short attention span, and easily misled by fantastical and escapist conspiracies such UFOs and “animal-human hybrids” rather than focusing on factual conspiracies, have seemed to have already forgotten the real and apparent attacks on democracy that Republicans and their operatives conducted in this MAGA era.
Getting students at Evergreen State University or Oberlin College to develop a comprehensive defense policy relating to manpower, readiness, intelligence, psychological warfare, and nuclear weapons seems a bit of stretch, but with Trump having won for a second time, the Left needs to do some deep thinking about how it lost and why it will continue to lose. A big reason I believe the Left will continue to lose, is that the left has an ideological issue with the military, despite Leftist regimes throughout history having actual militaries.
The military by the Left is always framed as tool for colonialism for the behest of capitalism and spoken about with an explicitly self-critical tone. And even though it is apparent that this colonialist-capitalist animus is fact a reality of the current military, the Left, despite talking, does not have a plan for an alternative system. Peace is a concept often enforced by violence or fear thereof. They don’t have a concept of what I call Patriotic Progressivism. Even being proud to be an American is often left out of discussions. For example, I have said before that a start in this process is to frame the American Revolution – which is often usurped by conservatives – as being a worker revolution against a charter corporation rather than merely a revolution against taxes. 1776 was a war in which human trafficking victims (African slaves), non-unionized contractors (settlers), and Indigenous peoples rose up against a chartered corporation owed by foreign investors of a global empire.
But what is the end game here of Republicans?
It sounds like a mouth-full of intellectual jargon, but the clear agenda of the conservative movement seems apparent to me.
They seek to establish an anti-democratic Republic ruled by wealthy elites, technocrats, and industrialists, as a type of dreams-of-grandeur vision of ancient Plato’s Greece as understood in his treatise “The Republic”. This sort of “Neo-Greco-Roman”, i.e., fasci, i.e., fascist vision, is layered with Christian Evangelicalism, and they see the United States as a continuation of this Greco-Roman tradition as understood through the thinking of figures such as Leo Strauss, Edmund Burke, Ayn Rand, etc.
These Rand-Straussians as I call them wish for a nativist and isolationist world to protect the culture they have designed in their own image, yet see no issue in exploiting, colonizing, and extracting resources from abroad, indifferent to the destabilizing global impacts these may have, such as migration of the impoverished to their borders. Thus, their ideology is ultimately a Darwinist, zero-sum game of eternal struggle of power versus the powerless.
Underneath the veil of modern capitalism, marketing, commerce, and corporations there is an underlying animus akin to medieval and feudalist thinking. A reality of generational lords and knights (business owners, landlords, the officer classes, etc.) ruling over the renting serfs (the general public). Religiously committed to capitalism, they must ensure capitalism’s continual existence.
As technology reaches its logical conclusions, they are left with only investing in over-charging the people on assets such as housing, using forced obsolescence, and turning the entirety of life into a subscription-based model, etc. Many neighborhoods are now owned by corporations. Even automobiles may require people to pay to unleash special features in the cars they already paid for.
The same way how Kings and Popes of old used fear of “witchcraft” and the Occult to violently suppress progress and dissent, modern conservatives use conspiracy theories to engender irrational fear. Irrational fear of “Communism” as a means of ensuring that they can privatize government, cut their own taxes, and deregulate industries. Fear of racial, gender, and sexual orientation equality because they may pose a threat to the existing Western order that traditionally favored European American, straight, males, and maintaining this white heteronormative order, i.e., a type of caste system, the existing capitalist and colonial inspired order which is the foundation of the USA lives on.
Disclaimer: You can either watch the videos first or read the post first and then revert to watching the videos. If you read first, remember to scroll up to the top to watch the first set of shared videos. Thank you! Also, I am not a communist, but rather I find value in some Marxist talking points or sentiments from an analysis standpoint. I find the worldview of Marxism offers an alternative methodology to the seeing the world as is, yet, outside of analysis, I find the real-world applications of Marxism (a type of communism) to be less than desirable. I feel it oversimplifies reality into dialectics based on my novice understanding of it. However, I acknowledge and understand, contrary to critics and enemies of Left-Wing thought, that there is a difference between socialism and communism, in which socialism is a plethora of various and often differing egalitarian types of socio-political and/or economic systems, whereas communism is a type of socialism, and Marxism is a theory of communism. Also, I do see value in capitalism. I consider myself open minded and blend elements of capitalism, socialism etc., in my personal views. Personally, I prefer to think theoretically about a world beyond the dialectics of capitalism versus socialism.
This post will explore (1) Patrick Bet David’s erroneous claims that the first slaveowner in the Thirteen Colonies was a black man; (2) an analysis of his casual antisemitism despite attempting to court Jewish people and Zionists, i.e., he juggles two key demographics of Right Wing politics which are Zionists/Evangelicals and Antisemites; (3) how immigrants often adopt a white supremacist mentality when trying to assimilate into pre-existing super-structures [(in Marxist theory) the super-structures are the institutions and culture considered to result from or reflect the economic system underlying a society]; (4) the nexus between capitalism, colonialism, and supremacy, and (5) remembering disgraced New Jersey Institute of Technology professor, Jordan Reza Jorjani, who is of partial Iranian descent — similar to Patrick Bet David, and how Jorjani’s views were infused within the late twenty-teens Alt Right movement, particularly relating to “Indo Aryans”, “Indo Europeans”, etc. Jorjani’s main ideas could be considered at an intersection with “occultic fascism” in the vein of people such as Julius Evola, another darling of the Far Right and Alt-Right, and Francis Parkey Yockey.
Further, Jorjani’s ideas are adjacent to the theosophy of Madam Blavatsky (who coined terms such as “root races”), antediluvian “pre-flood’ myths, pan-spermia (alien intervention in human evolution) or ancient alien theories (e.g., Anunnaki believers and alien assistance with pyramid building), etc. These ideas have been platformed on popular YouTube podcasts such as the Joe Rogan Podcast, Danny Jones, etc. The accrual of these counter-cultural and/or alternative history ideas have been documented as having a cross-juncture with Far Right and fascist politics such as the field of “Nazi Archaeology”. This is best explained by University of Exeter professor, Dr. Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke who has explored Nazism and other fascists ideologies influence on and use of counterculture and fringe ideas such as Ariosophy, Western esoterism, etc. For example, regarding his 2001 book Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of Identity it was mentioned that the book explored, “Subjects surveyed that include American and British neo-Nazism, the writings of Julius Evola and Francis Parker Yockey, Savitri Devi‘s and Miguel Serrano‘s Esoteric Nazism, belief in Nazi UFOs, neo-Nazi Satanism, Christian Identity, the World Church of the Creator and Nordic Racial Paganism.”
[Note: Jorjani was the editor of Arktos Media, the publisher of Vladmir Putin’s chief intellectual, Aleksandr Dugin’s The Fourth Political Theory. Arktos Media has published Far-Right content. Jorjani is a believer in a cyclical view of history notably the Kali Yuga which as a concept was appropriated by the Nazis who themselves think they are Aryans, where Aryan is a variant of the word for Iran. Modern political pundits and provocateurs such as Steve Bannon have even been noted as having a “Kali Yuga” worldview.
Intro:
The one thing I notice about Right Wing grifters is that if they have larger legal troubles or fear getting in trouble, they often deflect their problems as being the fault of the “woke mob” or Leftists. For example, when Brian Callen got accused of sexual misconduct, it was because the system was out to get him. When Andrew Tate got in trouble for trafficking, it was because of the woke mob. Dan Bilzerian who will be talked about a lot in this post got in trouble with authorities about possible fraudulent accounting practices regarding his penny stock weed company. Patrick Bet-David, who I will refer to as PBD throughout this post, that despite never having been in trouble with the law to my knowledge, has been accused of running a Multi-Level Marketing pyramid scheme, so it is possible that since he sees no issue in how you make your money (he’s just an entrepreneur, right?) is that he understands he may be in trouble one day with the Federal government so he preemptively sides with Right Wing anti-government politics. However, I consider PBD to be an Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman disciple, so his worldview will always have a libertarian, anti-government, and Republican viewpoint. (End Intro)
But that aside, I don’t really know where to begin.
Patrick Bet David recently pushed the Right Wing lie that the first slaveowner in the United States was a black person. This is likely alluding to the story of Andrew Johnson, which has been debunked.
Tyler Parry of the African American Intellectual Historical Society (2019) stated, “In various corners of the internet, memes circulate about a Black man identified as “Anthony Johnson,” believed to be a pioneer of American slavery and the first slave owner in North America. Intended for shock value, these memes reveal the new ways people disseminate knowledge in the age of social media. Anyone with access to the internet and the necessary software can generate historical narratives that gain disconcerting popularity. Of course, memes are perfect for establishing “Myth-stories,” as they do not ask readers to evaluate the sources and are often shared prolifically.” (Parry, 2019).
Further, Perry (2019) stated, “Though it is not the only myth attached to American slavery, the meme-ing of Anthony Johnson manifests the unique challenges scholars face in combating historical misinformation. As one of the few documented Black landowners in 17th-century Virginia, his unique story has morphed into a manipulative trope used by right-wing activists. From the 1960s–90s Johnson was predominantly known among academics who studied slavery, but interest in his (misrepresented) life has recently gained traction with the advent of digital sharing, discussion sites, and public forums. For instance, as of July 12, 2019, Johnson’s Wikipedia page claims he was a “colonist” sold by “Arab slave traders,” though there is no citation for the latter claim, nor is it supported by historians. It was likely added by a user who hoped to redirect blame from the Atlantic Slave Trade toward the “Arab Slave Trade,” a popular talking point among right-wing commentators. In his podcast disputing reparations for slavery, conservative pundit Michael Knowles reiterated this myth about Johnson without reviewing the available literature. Such historical distortions seek to minimize Europe’s culpability in expanding African slavery and discredit the system’s intergenerational impact upon African Americans.” (Perry, 2019).
Another source, the History Channel, stated, “On or about August 20, 1619, “20 and odd” Angolans, kidnapped by the Portuguese, arrive in the British colony of Virginia and are then bought by English colonists. The exact date is not definitively known (a letter from the time identified the ship’s arrival coming in “the latter part of August”), but this date has been chosen by many to mark the arrival of the enslaved Africans in the New World—beginning two and a half centuries of slavery in North America. Founded at Jamestown in 1607, the Virginia Colony was home to about 700 people by 1619. The first enslaved Africans to arrive in Virginia disembarked at Point Comfort, in what is today known as Fort Monroe. Most of their names, as well as the exact number who remained at Point Comfort, have been lost to history, but much is known about their journey.” There is even a historical marker dedicated to the area where the first African slaves on American soil.
The lie that PBD casually believes in and promoted on his YouTube podcast, is just another attempt at covert white supremacist historical revisionism and revisionist contextuality (with the latter being not necessarily erasing or revising history for bias purposes, but rather trying to doctor the context of generally agreed upon historical facts for bias purposes, e.g., claiming the Irish, Anglo, or Scottish indentureship was as bad as Africans within chattel slavery).
And I understand that many people reading this might state that PBD…isn’t white.
Regardless, the fact that American society is and has largely been dictated by white men created a super-structure in which whiteness is the default position (and where blackness was designed to be the antithesis), and even newcomers who aren’t white, as they try to assimilate will adopt white supremacy as an ontological position as a means of “fitting in”, weighing values, and garnering acceptance, i.e., being a “pick me”.
By white supremacy I am not talking about “European culture” or simply existing as a white person, but rather the mentality of believing that white people must control the levers of power at the expense of others as a means of “preserving themselves” since they consider themselves superior. White supremacy is an inherently paranoid and therefore violent way of thinking, because it sees reality as a Darwinist struggle of “different species”. White supremacy is also the epitome of projection, i.e., it alleges that everyone is out to get white people, yet white supremacists use this as a means of wanting to dominate everyone else.
The hardcore capitalist mentality of PBD is naturally in bed with white supremacy, since capitalism (if left unchecked) is an inherently elitist, top down and an exploitative doctrine which has variants or styles such as colonialism, where colonialism was the main culprit for the enslavement of black people and the mass murder of Indigenous peoples. Better put, PBD being a capitalist, notably of the Ayn Randian type of “virtuous selfishness” (e.g., the global pro-business organization called the Atlas Network takes its name from Rand’s Atlas Shrugged book despite claims that it did not), where Rand was popular within paleoconservative politics of the mid-to-late twentieth century, is naturally in alignment with a colonial exploitative framework which created the foundation for anti-blackness within the West. This therefore explains why PBD often has “Freudian slips” of casual racism when arguing for legitimacy of his capitalist doctrine. Even better put further, PBD essentially believes marginalized peoples are the result of their own follies, and he disregards the deeply enshrined white supremacy that dictated American discourse for most of its history. For example, many capitalists when speaking against the government or in support of the police state which protects their property, the typical culprits are black people, such as pushing the stereotype of being black people getting “handouts”, being “welfare queens”, being inherently poor, criminal, uneducated, and lacking an entrepreneurial spirit. Even white liberals can make this subconscious instant association of blackness with defectiveness or poverty, despite these liberals yearning to reconcile the flaws of the past, yet this yearning can come off as infantilizing via something akin to the “clinical gaze”. The clinical gaze I am referring to was address by Michel Foucault and is described as “how doctors modify the patient’s story, fitting it into a biomedical paradigm, filtering out non-biomedical material” (The British Journal of General Practice. https://bjgp.org/content/63/611/312)
In other words, at least based on my understanding of the concept, this means doctors dehumanize the person and then turn the person into data, statistics, etc. So, progressive liberals can be seen at times, despite noble intent, as incidentally seeing black people for example as the embodiment of statistical data needing to be corrected. However, the Left Wing’s emphasis on qualitative experience, i.e., lived experience, has been a movement that has largely corrected the clinical gaze of older progressive liberals who inhabited a more segregated paradigm.
I take what PBD said personally since I am descended from people who suffered under slavery in the United States, mainly from the US states of Georgia and Alabama.
At minute 26:40 of the video, PBD states talks about how one of the black descendants of Thomas Jefferson was wanting to erase history for not liking Jefferson statues. At minute 28:10 he states that the first slave owner was black, and his co-host Andrew Siosik agrees with them. First off, PBD does not get the point that by having a statue you are not just learning about that history, but rather you are celebrating and idolizing that history. No one is saying we can’t learn about Jefferson or even later Confederate soldiers, but rather people are raising the question of whether we should celebrate them, since a statue, i.e., a monument, ends up memorializing the person or persons.
But the fact remains that what PBD said is a flat out lie used by white supremacists as a means of taking the steam out of black people’s argument when discussing their lived experiences in relation to white supremacy such as being profiled, followed, any many cases killed. White supremacy is not about simply conquering a people but getting the people who were conquered to blame themselves for their lots in life. Yet ironically, white supremacy despite pushing notions that it is the most superior, also likes to play victim politics as a means of pre-emptively attacking and keeping down those which it rules over. By revising history, in this matter regarding PBD, it robs black people of authentic justification to be angry and tries to use reverse psychology to get black people to blame themselves and “look into the mirror”, i.e., judge ourselves.
White supremacy, in which many immigrants align with as they try to fit into the larger status quo and super-structure of American society, is what PBD panders to without even understanding it I think. In other words, he is very ignorant about the complexities of US history, but since he aligns himself with the profit seeking capitalist Right Wing, he applies as right wing historical revisionism to history (despite, the full history of the United States not being his own history). This mentality is very similar to the child of immigrants, such as Fit (real name Amrou Fudl) from the Fresh and Fit podcasts, who despite being of African origin has adopted a right-wing, Darwinist, Bell-Curve statistical viewpoint. Fit from the Fresh and Fit podcast has called black people stupid, lazy, and acted as a primate when describing black Americans.
PDB, Fit, and other immigrants or children of immigrants often swing down on black Americans because black America is historically the most swung down on race in the United States, and swinging down on blackness is almost a rite of passage when trying to assimilate into the predominate white superstructure. I would recommend you watch this video about Ferris State’s Museum dedicated towards understanding America’s racism.
Patrick Bet-David’s casual Antisemitism
But let me switch up to what I consider to be the subconscious antisemitism within Patrick Bet David’s mindset despite his claims of being a Christian Zionist. Separately, it is important to note that PBD doesn’t call himself Iranian (e-rahn-ian) but Assyrian, despite being born and raised in his early years in Iran. Back on track, I have been noticing that PBD has been pushing antisemitic tropes despites him appearing to seem to defend Jewish people in his recent discussion with Dan Bilzerian. Further, Patrick Bet David pushed more Jewish stereotypes in his group discussion about Candace Owens and PBD helped push the antisemitic George Soros conspiracy theory on the Flagrant 2 Podcast with Andrew Schulz. The video is titled, Patrick Bet-David Explains Who George Soros is & Why He’s Important in Society
Hannes Grassegger (2019) of Buzzfeed wrote a piece about how two Jewish political consultants helped to push the George Soros conspiracy theory. It is my understanding that they did this because of Soros’ criticism towards the Zionist project and the treatment of Palestinians, yet, by pushing a new version of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” conspiracy theory with Soros as the main villain, the real rise in antisemitism would create top cover for Zionists by making them into victims able to deflect away from their own mechanizations, plans, agendas, etc. Better put, these Jewish consultants scarified Soros for the cause of expanding Zionism yet also putting pressure on one of its biggest critics being George Soros.
The hatred towards Soros is laughable considering he is just one billionaire and the Right Wing who love capitalism are incapable of pointing out any plausible conspiracies from non-Jewish billionaires. The hatred towards Soros is not only lazy but it is just another form of white supremacist projectionism, i.e., desiring the capitalist avarice but only for themselves, and when a Jewish person plays and wins the game, the lizard brain of white supremacy descends into paranoid manic conspiracy theories. However, it is not just white supremacy that pushes antisemitism but also black militant politics such as the tomfoolery of people such as Louis Farrakhan, who ironically visited Iran to do give an antisemitic speech.
Note that this article was done in 2019 yet as of 2024, the Israeli state under Netanyahu has not only raised Gaza (with Zionists even blocking and destroying humanitarian aid to Gazans) but the IDF has also invaded the West Bank which has ever-growingly become conquered by Israeli settlers.
Grassegger (2019) stated, “The demonization of Soros is one of the defining features of contemporary global politics, and it is, with a couple of exceptions, a pack of lies. Soros is indeed Jewish. He was an aggressive currency trader. He has backed Democrats in the US and Karl Popper’s notion of an “open society” in the former communist bloc. But the many wild and proliferating theories, which include the suggestion that he helped bring down the Soviet Union in order to clear a path to Europe for Africans and Arabs, are so crazy as to be laughable — if they weren’t so virulent.”
Back to the video by Valuetainment, titled: “HATES Jewish People!” – Candace Owens & Dan Bilzerian UNDER FIRE, published on 21 August 2024, which as of August 22, 2024 at 3:17 PST has amassed 284,110 views. Contributor and co-host, Andrew Sosnick, who is of Jewish descent, actually justifies getting into bed with the Far Right if it means helping defeat Kamala Harris. Sosnick in a past video that I don’t have the title of or the time-stamp on has been accused or belittle by PBD for being soft on Democrats, so I feel Sosnik has to continue to double down on right wing rhetoric for his own credibility within the largely right-wing oriented, male, crypto bro, dating guru, Bell Curve statistic believing sphere of the Red Pill section of YouTube.
Adam quoted the recent Ronald Reagan movie starring Denis Quaid (who they called a friend), by stating “A person who agrees with you 80% of time is a friend an ally, not a 20% traitor”. Adam referenced this quote in relation to white supremacist Nick Fuentes and Far Right pundits such as Candace Owens criticizing the MAGA movement and Donald Trump. Adam, making a false equivalency between Joe Biden and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, one being center left and the often being left (some say “far left), justifies the Neo Nazis of the American First movement, Goyim Defense League, Groypers, etc., being part of MAGA. To me this common sense because Nazis, survivalists, race realists, antisemites, anti-feminists, anti-LGBTQ have always been apart of the modern Republican Party, so Adam is simply admitting what Democrats and the Left allege the Right actually is.
The irony to me is further exacerbate since Adam being Jewish is essentially arguing for a type of amoral realpolitik and pragmatism, which is something that Israel has been criticized for as far as achieving their objectives such as how Israel contracted a Nazi such as Otto Skorzeny to hunt other Nazis despite Otto Skorzeny starting various Neo Nazi organizations which endangered Jews across the globe.
Instead, Adam should have stated, “We don’t need you. Good riddance”, yet that doesn’t seem to enter his head.
Next off in the segment, another co-host, Vinnie Oshana, goes off to allege how the media is controlled by the Left, but fails to realize (if true) that this is not a manufactured conspiracy but possibly (and, most likely) the natural trajectory of American media since the US is a melting pot and has become more socially aware and accepting over the last sixty years.
It’s not that the mainstream media is biased but rather media is reflecting where most of the people are today. If we view the content of OAN, Newsmax, etc., most of that content is highly alienating and arguably offensive. Conservative media, art, etc., is not intended to be inclusive or accepting, and since capitalism is about market expansion, most media would lean progressive since they would have a larger pool of potential customers, etc. This seems like something a self-ascribed capitalist should know but Vinnie’s intent is to weave another needle in the right narrative of conservative victimhood despite their own propensity for bullying people outside the traditional Western norms. This goes back to my earlier points about PBD in which his type of capitalist beliefs has historically been in alignment with right-wing and far-right politics. PBD wants capitalism but a capitalism that only has a media that feeds into supporting the larger supremacist superstructure that hides behind the levers of power, i.e., the status quo.
In the discussion with Bilzerian, PBD around minute 1:01:10 starts talking about…Jewgenics, which is the study of Jews allegedly having higher IQs than everyone else. After, talking about this quasi “Bell Curve” talking point, PBD then goes to talk about how Jews are successful because of unity and higher IQs, thus they make “better decisions”. Sure, this may be flattering on the surface, but it does thread upon stereotyping a people, when there are many Jewish people living in poverty or in lower income demographics. We can debates studies on the matter all day, but the success of Jewish people seems (emphasis on seems) to be more environmental such as children (often bilingual since they are learning Hebrew and the language of the nations, they are citizens of), develop stronger linguistic and reading comprehension skills. This mixed with expectations and what I consider to be the multiplier effect of opportunity, i.e., uplifting each other despite academic performance, i.e., giving each other “a shot”, helps to incubate sub-communities of the larger Jewish community (which has segments that are impoverished, uneducated, under-employed, etc.) towards success.
We can even add on notions of inheritance to children, and the cultural traditional of giving financial donations that many Jewish children get during Bar and Bat Mitzvah’s that help train children how to deal or invest money, etc. It is almost a trope about how many Jewish teens get money from family members and use that money in something akin to venture capital to go start their first businesses. In other words, supportive environments with strong professional connections to get an inside leverage on jobs in exclusive industries – even if starting out as unpaid interns – mixed with children developing stronger bilingual, linguistic, and reading comprehension skills would generally produce “smarter children” in any race or culture.
PBD effectively is pushing the notion of seeing Jews as “lucky” or “lucky charms”.
At minute, 1:07:35, PBD brings up that portrait with the Shah of Iran. He goes to stated that the Shah actually oppressed the Jews and called out the “Zionist media”, and because of this his beloved Shah was removed from power.
This statement is strange because it seems PBD is trying to relate to and agree with Bilzerian and attempts to acknowledge that a “global Zionist plot” is possible or has been involved in regime change. So, it seems PBD trying to relate to the points of Bilzerian is alleging that because the Shah oppressed Jews that they somehow removed the Shah and installed the Ayatollah. If this is true, this means that PBD has revised history to totally disregard the abuse that the Shah imposed on his people overall (secret police, torture, abhorrent wealth hording and lavish lifestyles, etc.), and that his relationship with the US government, who were supportive of Israel, is a reason for the rise of the radical Islamic Ayatollah. The Shah was suffering from cancer and was allowed to get treatment within the United States, and this provoked the Iranians who were angry with the Shah and wanted him returned to Iran to face trail.
PBD despite objectifying the Jews from a standpoint of wealth that he admires, he then panders to the possibility of right-wing conspiracy such as “global Jewry”, “the Zionist occupied government”, etc. To me it is more about environment and incentive than supernatural forces or genetics, though genetics may play a role, though genetics are so complicated – with mutations happening all the time – that it seems rather objectifying to distill success down to pure genetic characteristics.
We also fall into the trap of defining intelligence based on a pre-conceived set of standards but who determined the standards? Creativity may outweigh concrete concepts like math or science in certain situations.
At minute 1:23:08, PBD goes off about how fascist and communists got rid of religion in order to support “materialism” and this was done to control people.
This is an odd statement because sure, yes, totalitarian regimes – both left and right – have employed erasing religion as a means of control, however…. religion was used since the beginning of religion to control people. PDB brings this up I suspect because it feeds back into his propensity for oversimplistic binary thinking, where in essence he is actually referring to dialectical materialism of Marx as being the culprit for what he see as the moral decay of the West and attacks against wealth.
This therefore can lead one to start pushing allegations of “cultural Marxism” against those who do not represent or bow down to the traditional status quo. In other words, conservatives can allege that people wanting rights are somehow employing “Marxism” has a means of “destroying hierarchy”, when in essence, people just want rights.
It is important to note that these Cultural Marxist allegations are ironically anchored in part in antisemitism, and contemporary figures such as Jordan Peterson who uses terms such as “Postmodern Neo-Marxists” are simply rehashing and repacking this cultural Marxist or cultural Bolshevik term employed by the likes of the Nazis for a new generation. A new generation which includes Dan Bilzerian.
Around minutes 1:25:29, Bilzerian asks PBD if Nazis are bad and PBD simply says “depends on who you ask”. Seriously? So PBD somehow thinks he is a defender of “Jewish people”, some sort of Cyrus the Great from Persia, yet, he cannot even straight up say that Nazis are bad and that it is all subjective?
The issue with Bilzerian’s question is that he is using the question to set up for his following false equivalencies. Bilzerian doesn’t distinguish German people from Nazis, as a means of alleging that not all Nazis were bad. He is making it sound as if the Western propaganda against Muslims during the Global War on Terrorism is somehow equal to stereotyping all Nazis. The difference is that the Nazis were a political party, i.e., a hate group, so yes all were bad, yet, Muslims are a religion so not all are bad, but Bilzerian is trying to use the “don’t stereotype” people notion because of their religion as a means of defending not stereotyping all Nazis. This therefore feeds into the foundation of Bilzerian’s ever-growing antisemitic lens. He is effectively saying without saying that the Nazis were good people, and they had a reason for disliking the Jews. The Nazis were pure evil. Many Nazis that survived the war never renounced their allegiance to Hitler and many died as ardent Holocaust deniers.
The creepy thing about living in the twenty-twenties and beyond is that the internet has repackaged old antisemitism and racism for a new generation of meme making, video game playing, technologically saturated youths who look up to people such as Elon Musk, where Musk promotes racist talking points all the time. This trend seems indicative of the inherent fear of many white people and the need for many to push apartheid like politics and sentiments. Online on YouTube for example, it is common to see Rhodesia nostalgia videos or Rhodesian military analysis videos which paints the Rhodesians has heroic rather than a Jim Crow racist pariah state. It is also common to see World War II videos pointing out the bravery of the SS. White supremacists have appropriated the self-determination of marginalized groups to push towards a new “White Identity politics”, where white supremacist can finally celebrate being different, separate, and superior to others. Many individuals within immigrant groups such as Indians, Iranians, Cubans, Mexicans, etc., often wish to be included into the right-wing white superstructure because of its perceived higher value.
Dan Bilzerian represents what happens when society has such a lack of discourse around the state of Israel and its politics that people then find themselves listening to good-faith but mostly bad-faith analysis of Israel, where the bad-faith side is of course steeped in a literal mistrust, hatred, and fear of Jews. This is something that Vinnie Ohsana on the the PBD segment alluded to but didn’t outright state.
What I mean by good-faith is pragmatic analysis of Israel indifferent to ethnicity of Jewish people, e.g., criticizing their government but not hating Jews. The lack of discourse in contemporary politics around Israel has enabled fringe ideologies to dictate the discourse, even if presenting their arguments as professional, restrained, well-researched, etc.
The typical subjects within this contemporary antisemitism involves a range of topics such as (1) 9/11 was in inside job and that a group of “dancing Israelis” celebrated because this meant that Netanyahu and the Mossad, etc., could drag the US into wars in the Middle East for the protection of Israel, (2) the USS Liberty attack by Israeli Air Force and alleged involvement in the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings (3) the plausibility of Jeffrey Epstein being some sort of blackmailing intel asset for Mossad to make sure US politicians towed the line of AIPAC, WJC, etc. (4) the Jews allegedly controlling hip-hop, pornography, sports, etc., which helps conservatives point to Jews as being responsible for “moral decay” or “bread and circus” antics — despite the fact that many Jews are ultra conservative, follow Kosher laws, etc. However, the rebuttal is that despite Jews being conservative mostly, they have no problem in “corrupting” the goyim who have “lesser souls” (5) the over-representation on Jews in prominent positions, etc. (6) George Soros, who as a billionaire has spent his money on progressive causes to the ire of conservatives. Soros has found himself unilaterally being blamed for the current state of the world despite in the USA and Europe, most of the wealth or socio-political power is still largely white, male, and Christian, etc. (7) the Rothchilds via “central banking” have turned nations into slaves for the Jews, etc., (8) Jewish participation in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, (9) Jewish male “neuroticism” and the wavering between being unassertive versus a Might Makes Right clinical view of power, etc. (10) the Jews we see today are not the real Jews but Caucus peoples called Khazars who converted to Judaism to distinguish themselves from Muslims and Christians, who later migrated into Europe, so they have no legal claim on the lands in current day Israel (11) Jewish men enjoy abusing “shiksa” or Gentile Women
Antisemitism happens across racial, ethnic, and nationalistic lines, often where the develops an intersectionality of antisemitism depending on whichever group is promoting it. For example, antisemitism in the African American or Black-American community often centered around being denied power, whereas antisemitism in white people often centers around their power being corrupted and drained.
I had watched quite a bit of the content because at first it seemed like a genuine criticism of plausibly shady dealing with Israel, such spying on campus protestors who support the BDS (Boycott, Divest, and Sanction) movement, but also Israel being home to many US tech companies and how this sharing of technology (and possible theft thereof) of US trade secrets, etc., has damaged American primacy.
Yet slowly but surely Adam Green started pushing the theory that the Talmud endorses hatred towards the “goy” or “goyim” (gentiles, non-Jews, etc.). He also started mixing in very common conspiracy theories about Jews such as Jews controlling the hip-hop industry as a means on enslaving black people and destroying the family unit (despite Adam Green likely being a white supremacist or at least adjacent to many of their talking points).
I actually wrote about Adam Green in another post relating to RFJ, Jr., where RFK himself has said antisemitic things.
Side note. The Right Wing is attempting to paint the Political Left as antisemitic because they are protesting the bombings in Gaza. Yet, the Right Wing my entire life have been the ones in bed with actual white supremacist antisemites. Look into Willis Carto or Eustace Mullins where Mullins is notable helping push the myth that Jews are behind the Federal Reserve. For example, the John Birch Society – a right-wing conspiracy organization – which was founded in part by th Bradley Family (who are related to the Uihlein Family who fund figures such as Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA), had splintered into the National Alliance, a white supremacist organization founded by William Luther Pierce and Revilo P. Oliver. Piece, author of the Turner Diaries, inspired hate groups such as The Order, who killed Jewish radio host, Alan Berg, but also this book inspired Tim McVeigh who did the Oklahoma City Bombing.
There are many links between conservatism and the Far Right, and ironically MAGA inspired the Far Right to change their appearance from skinheads for example, but rather into young ideological men in suits with modern haircuts, etc.
Other thoughts on PBD
Patrick Bet David is a….self-made millionaire…who allegedly made his money by running a Multi Level Marketing insurance company where he siphoned off the profits in order to inflate his own personal brand dubbed Valuetainment (which includes his PBD Podcast).
Patrick to me after having watched his material for years is a proponent of unfettered capitalism (almost teetering upon the libertarianism of The Atlas Network, Mont Pelerin Society, Mises Institute, etc.), social conservatism, etc. For example, Patrick Bet David in his home has a portrait with him, Tupac, Einstein, Martin Luther King, Milton Friedman, The Shah of Iran, etc. Within the portrait, there are the books Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (hence proving his links to Atlas Network type of anarcho-capitalist and libertarian thinking) and the Communist Manifesto. These two books best explain Patrick’s dialectic framework. It’s either “freedom” or “communism”, i.e., a hardliner yet oversimplified way of thinking.
Patrick despite maybe having changed his name to “Bet David” which insinuates a connection to Judaism, despite him being Iranian (he prefers Assyrian), ironically panders to antisemitic talking points and stereotypes despite what his almost scripted defense of Israel and Jews. Yet, Patrick has such as an oversimplistic and binary way of thinking mixed with his use of cherry picked statistics, that he sometimes comes off as gruff, unrefined, and in many ways simply pandering to current conservative landscape, notably online, which is comprised of everything spanning the Man-o-sphere (Men’s Rights Movement, Red Pill movement, Fresh & Fit podcast, etc.), Cryptocurrency community (a medium of exchange which has been linked to libertarianism on the surface, but organized crime under the surface), Trad-Wife Movement (via Pearl Davis, via Just Pearly Things), COVID skeptics, but also the George Soros Conspiracy (which is important to this piece I am writing).
Far Right love for Indo-European and Indo-Aryan Studies. PBD, Jorjani, etc.
PBD being Right Wing reminded me of the curious case of Jordan Jorjani. Jorjani of partial Iranian heritage was a professor at the New Jersey Institute of Technology but was fired I believe after being videotaped talking about a new world order of Aryans. He says it was taken out of context. Regardless, from what I know about Jorjani, who can be seen from time to time contributing to “New Age” podcasts on subjects such as time-travel and aliens, is that his main thesis is that Aryans, i.e., a Proto Indo-European peoples, whose traditions were best manifested in ancient Persia during the times Zoroaster, where corrupted and “mongrel-ized” by the Asiatic Muslims of the Mongols. These Aryans had spread sacred knowledge and in order to save the world, the world needs to adopt an Evola or Rene Guenon like return to traditionalism. He wishes to reinvigorate the Aryan spirit, invoking something asking to the Übermensch concept of Nietzsche in writings such as Thus Spoke Zarathustra which gave us terms such as “Will to Power”. This affinity with the Indo-European or Indo-Iranian or Aryan research is of course common within Nazi and white supremacist concepts. Many white supremacists however push that the original Aryans were blonde haired, blue eyed. Yet, most mainstream researchers seem to think of Aryans as a class of peoples within the social structures of the Steppe peoples of Central Eurasia, who may have domesticated the horse and spread their language west towards Southwest Russia and modern-day Ukraine but also as far as East as the Iranian basin and Indian subcontinent. Regardless, Patrick Bet David without saying it, though very prideful of his Assyrian origins seems to point here and there to being of a noble lineage that laid the foundation of Western civilization, but I had also heard him say somewhere that his language is the same that Jesus spoke, which may be true if he’s talking about a particular strain of Aramaic, notably that of Levant region.
There have been notable Right Wing or Alt-Right YouTubers such as Survive the Jive, who devotes his entire time to promoting Aryanism in as much of an academic sense as he can.
Jorjani however to me represents the “Kook Right Wing” at its finest. There’s something both quack but also Lovecraftian where of course H.P. Lovecraft was a notorious racist. He reminds me of a kind of Ghostbusters gone bad researcher who may have been a contributor to P.E.A.R, i.e., the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Lab, if it were still in existence.
Notes: (1) The Russian controlled, International Boxing Association, who may pay Carini reward money after her lost to Khelif, has largely been discredited and was banned by the International Olympics Committee. The IBA in response has banned Ukraine for example. Thus, the IBA vs the IOC is a part of the larger West vs Russia conflict, but conservatives jumping to Carini’s defense so quickly proves the effectiveness of Russian psychological operations and infiltration campaigns into Western conservative politics to the delight to the Kremlin.
According to Greg Beacham (2024) of the Associated Press as published by PBS, stated that the Olympics has tightened rules relating to gender such as since the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, the World Aquatics (organization), World Athletics, and the International Cycling Union having changed rules on the matter. These new restrictions span from banning athlete’s born male who went through male puberty but transitioned to female after puberty, and to testing testosterone levels of people assigned female at birth who may have more masculine characteristics, e.g., being intersexual, not trans-sexual.
So, we are in an Olympic games where qualifying international organizations clamped down on possible trans-athletes, but…that still hasn’t prevented conservatives from threating the Paris Olympic Games as a showcasing for “the fall of Western Civilization”.
But this paper I am writing is about a theory I have.
The theory being (1) Russia worked a deal with Angela Carini – who outside of boxing is an Italian cop – to be a plant to throw the fight, to help Russia in their psychological war with the West. By Carini being beat by Khelif it would enrage many Christians, conservatives, Right Wingers, etc., and help paint the West as a decadent, immoral, ungodly, woke, etc. The Russia led International Boxing Association, i.e., the IBA, would then pay Carini outside of the Olympics for her throwing the fight and would make it seem like Russia cares about women’s rights and fairness in sports. This is the same IBA that disqualified Khelif from the 2023 IBA World Championship, or (2) Carini wasn’t actively involved but the IBA intended to use her regardless for their own propaganda campaigns.
The only reason why I may suspect the number one theory of Carini possibly being complicit is that Carini did appear to “flop” when fighting against a Turkish female fighter Busenaz Suremeneli (the current defending IBA world champion and Gold Medalist at the Tokyo Olympics) in the 2022 IBA Women’s World Champion Boxing event. So that’s two events that Carini has been caught up in some form controversy, or suspicion by onlookers, etc.
At minute 4:09 you can see Carini slip against Busenaz.
According to Beacham (2024) of the Associated Press, “Kremlev (leader of the IBA) also said he intends to award $25,000 to Italy’s national federation and $25,000 to Carini’s coach after her dramatic opening-round exit against Khelif. Further, Kremlev regarding Carini said, ““I couldn’t look at her tears,””.
Russia, who oversees the International Boxing Association, was disqualified from the Olympics for their invasion of Ukraine and has a gripe with the International Olympics Committee (IOC) for the banning of Russian athletes suspected of doping at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Games.
Russia has also been proven as having tried to infiltrate American conservative and right-wing politics, e.g., Trump Tower Meeting, Trump Bayrock Scandal, Tucker Carlson & Alex Jones being platformed by Russian State media, Marina Butina with the NRA, the Neo Nazi group – The Base – being in Moscow and ran by an American in exile, David Duke having an apartment in Moscow, etc.
Also, Russia has been doing ongoing irregular warfare campaigns against the United States and European NATO allied nations. By irregular warfare I am referring to online warfare such as troll and bot farms, sometimes posing as American’s and Europeans across the political spectrums to sow unrest, tension, foster culture war, etc. Yet, it is not only the Russians doing this irregular warfare but the Israelis (who have some ties to the Russian state, both politically and culturally), Iranians, Chinese, Cubans, North Koreans, etc. Russia has diplomatic ties with all these nations that are hostile to the United States, and often steps in to be a savior to these pariah regimes when the larger international community condemns their actions.
If Imane Khelif, who beat Italian amateur boxer, Angela Carini, were to be a male, many people are assuming that all men are stronger than females. However, Imane Khelif is a woman who was assigned that birth, and this gender is on her passport, but she has more masculine features. Imane Khelif has lost to women before such has having lost to Ireland’s Kellie Harrington during the Tokyo Olympics and had been on the international circuit for some time now, even having been assigned as a UNICEF Ambassador (according to Beachman, 2024). So, in theory Angela Carini had a possibility of putting up a fight or even beating Khelif, yet, Carini called the fight herself in less than one minute. Currently, Khelif will square off next after the Carini fight against Hungary’s Anna Luca Hamouri who outright said she isn’t scared of Khelif and Khelif isn’t even considered the best in the games.
People’s instant, unresearched reactions are more about instilled implicit biases which paints women as being scared, feeble, and weak and that men have automatic advantages across the board over females, even if the females are better trained, conditioned, etc. In other words, the world is using the scandal to project their patriarchal sentiments and ambitions onto others. The out of shape, balding, middle-aged divorcee can feel a sense of accomplishment knowing that he can beat women no matter how much they accomplish, sort of thing.
To me this means that Carini, may just be…soft. Yes, I said it. If Khelif was beat by other women, then maybe Carini wasn’t as tough for what a female Olympian is expected to be.
Yet, Carini has already been coddle by far-right, Pro-Mussolini Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who as a candidate won on the larger wave or Euroskeptic, Anti-EU, far right politicians that swept over Europe in the wake of the European Financial Crisis (onset by the poor financial management of Greece and others) and the refugee crises of the Syrian War, Libyan Civil War, Arab Spring, and the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
People are using this boxing “scandal” to be political, with the critics being opportunistic and trying to weave this the woodegy-boodgedy narrative of the “ungodly, Neo-Marxist, Luciferians” who are trying to attack, flatten and distort the godly, hierarchical, traditional order best typified by Western (often synonymous with White, Patriarchal, European) Civilization. This scandal is just shy of the earlier Olympics opening ceremony scandal that featured either a depiction of the Last Supper or the Feast of Dionysius, or a combination of both, that featured gender-bending drag queens, queer people, and plus size models. That scandal had already activated the masses of Christians – many who have adopted a conspiratorial mindset in our post-COVID 19 post-lockdown world – but, now with this boxing scandal the hungry masses were already primed for more blood.
The irony of conservatives jumping on this scandal and pretending to defend Carini is that many Right Wingers, notably the men within it, don’t care about women’s sports. These are the same type of men that you can see on any WNBA post making fun of the WNBA and how it isn’t as profitable as the NBA. These are the same people within the larger contemporary conservative movement who…repealed federal abortion protection under Roe vs. Wade, are pushing the “Trad Wife” lifestyle where women don’t work or control their finances, and admire a leader such as Donald Trump who called Stormy Daniel’s “horseface” (even though he had unprotected sex with her while his wife was pregnant), was civilly charged with sexual assault, and of course was caught on camera talking about “grabbing women” by the p-ssy.
The Right-Wing men often speaking on this boxing controversy are not defending women’s rights to support women in being free or equal but are trying to get women to reject feminism and comeback to the overlordship of patriarchy which requires rigid gender conformance (largely to coddle and inflate the male’s ego and sense of self-worth). The men often commenting on behalf of Carini, first off spoke without hearing all the facts, but that is irrelevant because they already have their agenda in mind. It is fake sympathy with hidden intent. The intent being of convincing women with the tactic of “See, I told you so”, so come back to men protecting women because you (women) can’t protect yourself.
However, there are plenty of women as you can see online commenting that are embracing this patriarchal framing of the matter. These women span your run-of-the-mill, freaking out at PTA meeting, 1980’s -like Satanic Panic Karens, to this new movement of “Biblical Femininity” “Trad Wives” (women who want to live at home and not work despite technology having replaced the duties of domestic work such as microwaves, dishwashers, laundry machines, grocery deliveries, etc. – note, yes, being a stay at home mother is not just about cooking and cleaning), and, of course the Trans-Exclusive Radical Feminists (TERFs). On TERFs, I find TERFs to be nonsensical because they claim to want to “destroy patriarchy” so they’re at odds with conservative men but they are in agreement with conservatives on excluding trans-people, though trans-women specifically have voluntarily given up their male privilege in order to fit into and honor femininity (some going as far as getting bottom surgery). The fact that radical feminists believe in destroying patriarchy, you would think they would ally with someone who voluntarily gives up their male privilege, but TERFs are in theory adjacent to purist supremacist forms of fascism.
But what does this boxing scandal have to do with Russia? The paranoia and backlash feeds into the larger anti-West propaganda in part from Russia to label the West as decadent, liberal, but the Russians as being strong, Orthodox, traditionally masculine, etc. Which is ironic because Putin has tried to pay people to have children. No, seriously. He had to ordain a baby-making day to encourage Russians to have babies. If Russians were as much of a caricature as Putin and Western conservatives wish the Russian people were, then they wouldn’t need any problem pushing out children in a very homophobic culture.
Further, is the fact that Angela Carini is being paid by the International Boxing Association which is now based in Russia. According to Greg Beacham of the Associated Press, as quoted in an online article by PBS on 2 August 2024, “The IBA is controlled by Umar Kremlev, who is Russian and brought in the state-owned energy supplier Gazprom as its primary sponsor and moved much of the governing body’s operations to Russia.” The irony of the Gazprom connection is that Gazprom’s football club, FC Zenit, has been accused multiple times of racism and xenophobia, and was later banned form European competition.
It is important to know that Khelif was disqualified by the IBA in 2023 for “failing unspecified and untransparent eligibility tests for women’s competition from the now-banned International Boxing Association” (Beacham, 2024). Her 2023 disqualification came interestingly after Khelif beat Russian Azalia Amineva in 2023 according to Beacham (2024).
I can’t prove it, and it does seem conspiratorial, but it could appear that Angela was promised to have been paid by the IBA if she threw the fight with Khelif, and by her throwing the fight it would feed into the narrative that Khalif was transsexual and beating up on a “poor, innocent, beautiful” women who trained her whole life just have it taken away by the “woke, Social Justice” mob. This therefore feeds back to the Kremlin’s psychological warfare operation of trying to posit themselves as the saviors of Christendom against the “failed experiment” of liberal democracies where “women have rights”, “white populations are in decline” “LGBTQ+ aren’t forced to live in hiding and are able to get married”, etc.
The talking points regarding the west being “degenerate” are straight from Putin intellectual Aleksandr Dugin, a man who became a key foundational figure of the Western Alt-Right movement (alongside other figures such as Juilus Evola). Dugin has been associated with Right Wing conspiracy theorists, Alex Jones and Jay Dyer, but also former Fox News contributor, Tucker Carlson, and even white supremacist Lauren Southern, who was platformed by Fox’s Australia outlet, Sky News.
According to Thomas Saintourens of Le Monde (2022), Umar Kremlev has ties to Putin, in which Kremlev, a former Russian military man who is a member of the Order of St. George (Russia’s Medal of Honor) used Russian troops for ceremonies for his International Boxing Association. Further, Saintourens (2022) mentioned that Kremlex is part of the patriot biker association known as the “Night Wolves”, and in 2004 and 2006, the former amateur boxer was convicted of violence. “Under the chairmanship of Mr. Kremlev, the IBA hoists the Russian colors high up in boxing rings around the world and defies the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Mr. Putin himself has made the case a personal one in a long-distance fight against IOC president, Germany’s Thomas Bach, in retaliation for sanctions imposed on Russia following the disclosure of a “state-sponsored” doping program after the Sochi Olympic Games (2014). Overseeing amateur boxing, which is a popular sport on every continent, is seen as an opportunity to promote Russia’s soft power.” (Saintourens, 2022).
Being a Black American, I noticed that a lot of the more vocal, fiery, and/or analytical voices within Black Liberation politics often attempt to be at odds with “Western philosophy”, yet, they are indelibly… Western through and through.
Most Black Liberation Politics centers around Continental Leftist and or liberal (in the classical sense onwards) types of ideology centering around concepts such as deconstruction, post-structuralism, Critical Theory, existentialism to many extents, anti-colonialism, post-colonialism, and some degree postmodernism (e.g., hip hop as a late stage capitalist form of music that blurs high art with low art, pastiche, hyper capitalism, the subjectivity of morality, pop culture, etc.).
But, for those within Black Liberation politics, stretching from the Ivory Tower college seminars with the stereotypical dred-locked wise sage professor, to YouTube video essayists with their evermore ridiculous thumbnails to attract eyeballs (yes, I am talking about “Foreign Man in a Foreign Land”, etc.), and all the way to fringe cults pushing antediluvian Black Supremacist origin stories (even throw in a few UFOs or mad scientists, e.g., The Nation of Islam, Nuwabians, Hoteps, etc.), what I notice is…. there is no real black philosophy.
Rather, we what we have is blackness expressed through Western philosophy.
What I’m saying is….is that most of the Black Nationalist or liberation types who are quick to call another person’s “blackness” into question, even going so far as using white supremacist Antebellum slavery monikers towards each other, i.e., house slave, house negro, coon, Uncle Tom, the N-word, etc., but these Black Nationalist and liberation types are….living in the “House”, i.e., the house is the Western civilization including its philosophy.
So, to appear to be at odds with the West, when in essence we are products of the West, including using its language, didactic, etc., is ironic. In other words, don’t pretend that you’re higher or holier or more “organic” simply because you push pro-blackness when we are all living collectively under the roof of the house. The only way to truly alleviate this dilemma is to…leave the West.
Full unplug form the West or rather attempt at establishing a coherent “Black Philosophy” or “Southern Philosophy” that with academic rigor pools various indigenous African philosophies under one umbrella. No conspiracy theory, no anti-white girl paranoid black female nonsense, no toxic masculinity, but literal hitting the books and creating a framework that spans ethics, logic, etc.
I say Southern philosophy because we obviously know that Eastern typically represents Asian and/or Indian Subcontinent frameworks spanning Hinduism, Daoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc., whereas Western philosophy touches upon everything from the Sages, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, Continentals vs Analytics, etc. In other words, we live under a global “Eurasianist” viewpoint, which isn’t bad necessarily, but the problem is that it excludes the philosophical frameworks of other parts of planet, so we can’t have a truly united human specifies until we include other frameworks or test them at least.
My call, yes, Quinton Mitchell is saying, that there should be a Southern Philosophy that emphasis the major categories of philosophy such as Ethics, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Logic, and Aesthetics. This could be done my using game theory, Artificial Intelligence, computer regressions, etc.
Mitchell Research Group 