Biden Crime Family

[Impenitent]

...

History is chaotic and supremely unpredictable. Who knows where this is going.

it is going where it always goes...

we simply have better weapons this time

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

...

History is chaotic and supremely unpredictable. Who knows where this is going.

it is going where it always goes...

we simply have better weapons this time

-Imp

Ain't that the truth.

[Walker]

History is chaotic and supremely unpredictable. Who knows where this is going.

I think that the extent and power of the unprecedented persecution of Trump, and the popularity of Trump with the middle class, shows where it has already gone.

Relativists, look away from the following lest your heads explode ... it has narrowed down to Good vs. Evil and history will be the judge.

Unfortunately with technology being what it is these days, the deep state does have the power to control history in all the old familiar ways and some new ones, resulting in what is considered to be more of a proof of the past than human memory, memory that includes how government media spins and propagandizes the meaning of events. Which is where it has already gone, so that now everyone accepts a demented president spouting obvious, ridiculous ramblings that are only loosely connected to reality.

It's quite dangerous. Biden is obviously the fall guy, the one responsible even though he isn't all there. Those pulling his strings could have him do anything because they are not answerable to anyone, e.g., overt war that is not a "minor" incursion that Biden said was okay for Russia to do with Ukraine.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Here is an interesting series of perspectives by an Argentinian presidential candidate Javier Milei who explains his strong (intense) aversion to socialism as a state enterprise that always results badly.

Curiously, all over the world, there are protagonists coming to the fore who seem often better capable of explaining a populist, opposition-platform to what we loosely call “globalists” and “elitists” than their (American) counterparts.

It is impossible not to note the extremist, angry tone in their rhetoric, yet this seems a necessary (?) part of the reaction itself — a reaction that tends to move people.

Therefore the question becomes What is going on? Why is there such notable resistance? And why is this (articulate, thoughtful, though also at times semi-hysterical, even irrational) resistance labeled “fascistic” and effectively described as evil?

One cannot dismiss the deep antagonism that arises to Socialist-Communistic movements when they become entrenched in the State and that rigid reactionary opposition that arises in an attempt to combat it. It is the stuff of profound social and civic strife.

Therefore again, there is more to be gained through seeing and understanding what is going on — attempting to comprehend it — and discussing the factors, rather than getting dragged down in the strife itself.

[Immanuel Can]

Therefore the question becomes What is going on? Why is there such notable resistance? And why is this (articulate, thoughtful, though also at times semi-hysterical, even irrational) resistance labeled “fascistic” and effectively described as evil?

There is notable resistance for several reasons. These include:

• People who know what Socialism has done in 100% of the cases, and don't want to see that happen to them.

• People who understand Socialism, having read the theory and history of "the Movement."

• People who don't want to be ruled by an elite who take away their possessions and freedom while accruing more and more power and wealth to themselves.

• People who realize that globalism means being ruled by distant others who have no interest in the welfare of local people, but use them for a global scheme of mass management.

• People who are not fooled by the rhetoric squirted out by these would-be despots, or who are suspicious of their allies in big business, big banking and big media, to say nothing of the military-industrial complex.

• Radical Libertarians, nationalists, free market advocates, and ideologues from various things other than Socialist ideologies.

• People who don't like to be manipulated, deprived of their earned property and income, taxed to death, or lied to.

• People who have observed how truly awful big government is at doing anything at all, and so know better than to trust it for any solutions.

And there are probably other reasons as well. Some might even combine with more than one of the above.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And there are probably other reasons as well. Some might even combine with more than one of the above.

I agree with your list. There are certainly many other factors that could be mentioned. In fact a great deal of the Dissident Right (AKA the Alt-Right) lays down many different ideas and speculations, some grounded in sound reason, some less so.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Here is an interesting one that proposes that Google, and one assumes other electronic platforms, influenced what sort of information people could access in respect to Biden and Trump and conceivably influenced the final election result (the one Trump says was *stolen*):

Ben Bartley reports on PJ Media: “Robert Epstein….director of the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT), has concluded through a quantitative analysis of Google search engine manipulation and subsequent extrapolation to the population level that the company… added six million votes to Joe Biden’s column in 2020. If accurate, this was more than enough to have artificially swayed the election….The value of Epstein’s work is that it confirms what is immediately obvious to anyone paying attention who searches a contentious term in Google and then searches for the exact same term in a non-compromised search engine like DuckDuckGo.”

[The Fruits of Technocracy: Quantitative Analysis Shows Google Steered 6 Million Votes to Biden in 2020]

Here is a relevant video.

People I reckon sense or paranoiacally believe that, somehow, the election was improperly swayed, and they latch on to any plausible theory that supports their suspicion. When you are in the dark you can't know and so you guess . . .

I happen to be one of those people. I don't know exactly how it was done, but it seems to have been done. Was it illegal and criminal? That does not seem to be the case. But was it unethical and deeply problematic in a society that says (or pretends) it is concerned for *our democracy* -- that much seems to me certain.

[Immanuel Can]

the Dissident Right (AKA the Alt-Right)

Where is this "Alt-Right" thing?

I never meet any. I never even see any. Apparently, they have no media outlets, no political parties, no publishing companies, no hold in education or medicine, no public profile at all, so far as I can see. If they exists, it's in a closet somewhere. But I can find the extreme Left easily....they're in media, politics, education, the military, and in the streets (burning things and throwing bricks), major sections of cities like Portland, Chicago, San Fran... They have manifestos, rallies, "social justice" initiatives, they're in the medical profession, the legal profession, the colleges of teachers and psychologists...

The radical Left is easily locatable everywhere. But where is this "Alt-Right" thing?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I never meet any. I never even see any.

It is a term that I think was coined by Richard Spenser sometime close to when he edited Taki’s Magazine. See for example A FairHearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of its Members and Leaders, edited by George T. Shaw (2018 Arktos Media Ltd).

Some names:

Gregory Hood
Collin Liddell
Sam Dickson
Evan McLaren
Melissa Meszaros
Marcus Follin
Jared Howe
Ethan Edwards
Bre Faucheux
Jared Taylor
Kevin MacDonald
Daniel Friberg

Given your orientation — limitations and prejudices — it does not surprise me you are unaware of the Alt-Right/Dissident Right.

Around 2016 I began to investigate them. At that time numerous of them had YouTube channels but most were banned 3-4 years back. Some have a more limited audience on BitChute, Rumble and other more permissive platforms.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If they exists, it's in a closet somewhere.

See Arktos. Or Counter-Currents. Or Unz Review.

All of them have definitely been pushed “underground”.

[Immanuel Can]

Some names:
Gregory Hood...etc.

Never heard of even one of them. Never seen them in the press. Never seen them in the news or on film anywhere. Never seen them in politics, education, medicine or any other compartment of human endeavour. Never read one of their books or manifestos. These people have no public profile at all, it seems.

At the same time, I've heard plenty from people on the radical Left.

So if the Alt-Right is such a threat, and the radical Left isn't, then how can that be? Why is it so hard to find an "Alt-Righter"? And why is it such a darn simple matter to find the radical Left?

[Gary Childress]

Some names:
Gregory Hood...etc.

Never heard of even one of them. Never seen them in the press. Never seen them in the news or on film anywhere. Never seen them in politics, education, medicine or any other compartment of human endeavour. Never read one of their books or manifestos. These people have no public profile at all, it seems.

At the same time, I've heard plenty from people on the radical Left.

So if the Alt-Right is such a threat, and the radical Left isn't, then how can that be? Why is it so hard to find an "Alt-Righter"? And why is it such a darn simple matter to find the radical Left?

Those are good questions. Could it be because the alt-right is more dangerous than the alt-left and therefore gets suppressed more often? I noticed at least one common theme that goes against "political correctness" on each of those sites. What are your thoughts? Given that most economic and political leaders in the US are white, should we go ahead, open the censorship floodgates, and let the sparks fly (and let God sort 'em out when it's all done)?

black-people-and-morality
The Danger of a Multiracial Society
The Worst Week Yet...

[Alexis Jacobi]

Some names:
Gregory Hood...etc.

Never heard of even one of them. Never seen them in the press. Never seen them in the news or on film anywhere. Never seen them in politics, education, medicine or any other compartment of human endeavour. Never read one of their books or manifestos. These people have no public profile at all, it seems.

At the same time, I've heard plenty from people on the radical Left.

So if the Alt-Right is such a threat, and the radical Left isn't, then how can that be? Why is it so hard to find an "Alt-Righter"? And why is it such a darn simple matter to find the radical Left?

Well, I think you already know the answer to your mystified perspective: the ideas of the "Alt-Right" (and the Dissident Right which is my preferred term) are extremely suppressed. They confront directly and with a certain intellectual force the tenets of Hyper-Liberalism. They are not afraid to speak about issues of race and demographics, or to confront sexual deviancy, and to challenge feminist tenets that have become established as if they are God's own word.

Many of the figures I mentioned have developed perspectives that are absolutely and thoroughly dissident and as such deal in *unthinkable thought*. Things that you are not allowed to think or to say.

If you have not seen the press where they have been exposed, I am unsure what to say. The Atlantic did numerous pieces of Lana Lokteff and Richard Spenser. In fact there was a good deal of (bad) press a few tears back.

At the same time, I've heard plenty from people on the radical Left.

As you know they followed the Gramscian plan and "marched through the institutions" over a 50-60 year period (even a bit longer actually). The process by which this *cultural engineering* happened is my personal area of interest.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Could it be because the alt-right is more dangerous than the alt-left and therefore gets suppressed more often?

In at least some notable senses the Dissident Right (I will drop the term Alt-Right) is far more connected with, let's say, the genuine roots of America and Americanism. That is, to Jeffersonian America. And that *America* was beyond any question what we would now say *pro-white*. America was a nation founded on certain ideas about Anglo-Saxon Protestants and their culture. Indeed America, the nation, was founded and created because these men saw themselves and their creation (our Constitution, our laws, our mores) as being different, unique and superior. There is no doubt about this and there should be no doubt.

Therefore, to examine *our present* in any depth is to examine a re-engineered America. That is, an American idealism that has been entirely reworked through those processes I refer to as *cultural engineering*. And who managed and directed this cultural engineering? Largely the Progressive forces that now, as their socialist projects mature, have the reins of power. Again, they marched through the institutions and doing so they influenced (they directed) how children were educated.

But the New America is very very different from the old America -- from the sort of America that any Founder would have envisioned.

So what is actually suppressed -- and this all makes sense when you see what they have in mind -- is exactly that old, original America. You could refer to the America of regions and states as opposed to a Federalized America with a very powerful global elite (business interests really) whose allegience is in no sense to *original America* but to something extremely different. A pseudo-America, a revamped America. In order to create that new America you have to alter how people think, and therefore it all hinges in education.

Those websites I shared provide a picture of people who have chosen to refuse to buy the terms of the New America. Quite literally they take issue with every tenet. Take Pierre Krebs -- a very interesting intellect. I read his book Fighting for the Essence and I recommend it highly. His arguments are extremely coherent and acute. And in fact the argument that he employs could well be one that Indigenous people in Peru of Ecuador could use to defend their own social and cultural interests.

Having spent about 10 years now in a loose, self-directed study of these people and the ideas they work with I do not dismiss them as "morally corrupt". Possibly that is why I continually recommend seeing how people on the *other side* think. And the only way to do that is to read their material first hand. Careful, close readings.

The Dissident Right is indeed dangerous. You likely cannot trace the routes, but their ideas have penetrated very deeply into the present cultural debate (or struggle, or war, or whatever it is).

Read Fighting for the Essence and you will see and understand.

Dr. Krebs offers a devastating critique of multiculturalism, showing that although it claims to be the watchman of racial and cultural diversity, it is actually destructive to both, as it denies the significance of racial differences altogether. He traces its origins to the legacy of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and shows how this has developed into many of the most powerful tools of liberalism of our times. These are serving the interests of the global marketplace by turning all of humanity into compliant consumers. Those who endorse multiculturalism are, in fact, the enemies of all traditional culture. Dr. Krebs also takes issue with the use of the term ‘West’ to describe our culture, which he sees as an effort to deprive the various European cultures which comprise it of their unique characters and histories. This will lead to their replacement by a grey conformity divorced from any authentic roots, as well as a value system that is frequently used as a weapon against those nations which refuse to share them. This assault is not limited to Europe, but is something that is going on in every corner of the globe.

Dr. Krebs says that it is time for all those who believe in the worthiness of their heritage and unique ethnic identity to return to the wellsprings of their peoples, and defend what is rightfully theirs. With a deeper trench between the camps of multiculturalism and traditional culture being dug all the time, this is the conflict that will define the 21st century. Drawing examples from many of the most notable contributors to science, philosophy and religion, Dr. Krebs illustrates a truth that is difficult to deny. Anyone who heeds his warning will find it impossible not to accept his challenge to take sides in the ongoing struggle against universal conformity.

Dr. Pierre Krebs (b. 1948) is a major figure in Neue Kultur, the German branch of the European New Right, and is also the leader of the Thule-Seminar. He holds degrees in law, journalism, sociology, and political science. This is his first work to be translated into English

"...our task is to oppose the egalitarian ethos and egalitarian socio-economic thinking with a world-view based on differentiation: this means an ethic and a socio-economic theory which respects the right to be different. We want to create the system of values and attitudes necessary for gaining control of cultural power. Our strategy is dictated neither by the immediate contingencies of reality nor the superficial upheavals of political life. We are not interested in political factions but in attitudes to life... What motivates us and what we are striving for does cannot be accommodated within the activities of a political party, but - and we insist on this point - solely within the framework of a metapolitical, exclusively cultural project. A programme which sets out once again to make us conscious of our identity through awakening the memory of our future, as it were. In this way we aim to prepare the ground for what is to come... The tragedy of the contemporary world is the tragedy of disloyalty: the uprooting of every culture, estrangement from our true natures, the atomization of man, the levelling of values, the uniformity of life. A critical and exhaustive engagement with modern knowledge - from philosophy to ethology, from anthropology to sociology, from the natural sciences to history and educational theory - if carried out with the appropriate intellectual rigour and sound empirical methodology, can only contribute to throwing light on the general confusion of the world."

Here is Tomislav Sunić's review.

[Gary Childress]

Some names:
Gregory Hood...etc.

Never heard of even one of them. Never seen them in the press. Never seen them in the news or on film anywhere. Never seen them in politics, education, medicine or any other compartment of human endeavour. Never read one of their books or manifestos. These people have no public profile at all, it seems.

At the same time, I've heard plenty from people on the radical Left.

So if the Alt-Right is such a threat, and the radical Left isn't, then how can that be? Why is it so hard to find an "Alt-Righter"? And why is it such a darn simple matter to find the radical Left?

Well, I think you already know the answer to your mystified perspective: the ideas of the "Alt-Right" (and the Dissident Right which is my preferred term) are extremely suppressed. They confront directly and with a certain intellectual force the tenets of Hyper-Liberalism. They are not afraid to speak about issues of race and demographics, or to confront sexual deviancy, and to challenge feminist tenets that have become established as if they are God's own word.

Many of the figures I mentioned have developed perspectives that are absolutely and thoroughly dissident and as such deal in *unthinkable thought*. Things that you are not allowed to think or to say.

If you have not seen the press where they have been exposed, I am unsure what to say. The Atlantic did numerous pieces of Lana Lokteff and Richard Spenser. In fact there was a good deal of (bad) press a few tears back.

At the same time, I've heard plenty from people on the radical Left.

As you know they followed the Gramscian plan and "marched through the institutions" over a 50-60 year period (even a bit longer actually). The process by which this *cultural engineering* happened is my personal area of interest.

The "process" was essentially spending 400 years practicing institutionalized slavery and wiping out the native inhabitants of the Americas. After my ancestors did that, (at least some of) their children learned the hard way that what happened at the hands of our ancestors was morally reprehensible. What other "new world" 'secrets' would you like me to share with you? Did Russia get enough of Stalin, now you all want to make Russia "great" again and bring back the czars so people in bread lines will get trampled by cavalry instead of sending private business owners to gulags?

¯\_(*_*)_/¯