Note: Robert Gore has written probably one of the finest pieces in all the media, both Alternative and mainstream. It’s worth the read just for the critical thinking. It is amazing how Mr. Gore was able to assemble his thoughts and memories in such an order. Then to go on the propose an idea whose time has in no doubt arrived, well put it all together and it is one heck of a masterpiece. I think they guy put is heart and soul into it. And if we are anything we owe it to read and listen, to pass it on. I hope you do, cause I am, and if all of us spread it far and wide, it will find a receptive audience and that certain legitimacy that is exactly missing in the legacy/fake media.
Breaking the Alternative Media’s Dependence on the Mainstream Media, by Robert Gore
Posted on June 25, 2017
I attended the First Zero Hedge Symposium and Live Fight Club in Marfa, Texas, where I presented the following speech: “Breaking the Alternative Media’s Dependence on the Mainstream Media.” The speech was about 45 minutes long, so the article is lengthy.
Hi, I’m Robert Gore, the guiding light behind the website Straight Line Logic.
Let me tell you a story. Remember the Bill Clinton administration? Remember the scandals? I was 34 when Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. That was a good year for me; I got divorced. Before the election, Gennifer Flowers disclosed her affair with Clinton. There was Hillary, seated lovingly beside him, as he denied the relationship on 60 Minutes. Flowers released tapes of phone calls with Clinton. You would have thought that might raise the media’s interest, but it latched on to George Stephanopoulos and James Carville’s proof-free claims that the tapes could have been—not were, but could have been–doctored. There was no investigation of the substance of Flowers’ allegations, just a vicious smear campaign against her. The matter died, although six years later Clinton did admit to having sexual relations with Ms. Flowers.
The Flowers story characterized the pattern. Somebody would accuse Bill and/or Hillary of something immoral, illicit, or illegal. There would be evidence, or what would have been evidence—whatever it was—had it not gone mysteriously missing. Sometimes a few so-called fringe media outlets would try to investigate, encountering resistance and obstruction at every turn.
The Clintons’ hatchet-people would go to work, trumpeting purported inconsistencies in investigative stories, maligning the character, political leanings, and associates of those publishing them. The mainstream media, or MSM, would ignore and suppress, but would rush to publish anything that exculpated the Clintons from the scandals the MSM wouldn’t acknowledge. The first couple commissioned a lengthy “Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce” memo, which Hillary later popularized as the “vast right-wing conspiracy.” It was a condemnation of all those who had investigated the Clintons, and a handy pre-condemnation of those who might do so in the future. Facts and issues were left unexplored and unaddressed.
I followed what was probably the same progression as some of you through the many scandals: pissed off, then numbed, and finally, resigned. The fix was in and would stay in while Clinton was president.
Ron Brown was Clinton’s Secretary of Commerce. He was on a plane that crashed in Croatia, April 3, 1996. At the time he died, his son, Michael, was being investigated by the Justice Department for shady dealings with a small Oklahoma energy company. Tom Parsons was my brother Jim’s best friend growing up. They were best men at each others’ weddings and they’re both straight-arrow, salt-of-the-earth guys. Tom went to college and medical school on an Air Force ROTC scholarship, and was trained as a forensic pathologist. I went to dinner with him once at a barbecue place, and was amazed how he stripped his baby backs clean with just his fork and knife. Right there I decided: I want this guy doing my autopsy.
Tom was working for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, or AFIP, in Washington, when thirty-three bodies from the Croatia crash, including Brown’s, were brought to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. Tom didn’t examine Brown’s body. The pathologist who did found a perfectly formed round hole, .45 of an inch in diameter, the kind a bullet makes when entering the body, on the top of Brown’s head. That hole was seen by another pathologist and by the photographer who took pictures of the body.
Although autopsies were performed on several corpses, there was no autopsy on Brown’s. Tom heard about the hole from his colleagues, but it didn’t become public knowledge until December, 1997, twenty months after the plane crash. It was revealed in a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review story. That newspaper was owned by the late Richard Mellon Scaife. Both newspaper and owner had featured prominently in the Clinton’s “Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce” memo.
The disclosure kicked up a controversy, especially after it came out that both sets of Brown’s head X-rays were missing. Brown was Afro-American. The head of the NAACP, Kweisi Mfume, demanded answers from the Clinton administration, and comedian and activist Dick Gregory led a group of protesters in a Christmas Eve vigil outside AFIP’s headquarters. Gregory released a statement.
We are not going to allow this to pass. There is very strong evidence the AFIP found a gunshot wound on Brown’s head and decided to cover-up this evidence.
Gregory was arrested and spent Christmas in jail. Jesse Jackson weighed in after the new year, calling for an investigation. In response, Janet Reno, the Attorney General, informed a press conference that the Justice Department would not investigate. The Washington Post reported the basis of Reno’s decision. The AFIP had convened an internal panel of pathologists, which according to the Post unanimously backed the decision by the pathologist who examined Brown’s body not to conduct an autopsy or further investigation.
Lieutenant Colonel David Hause was a forensic pathologist on the AFIP panel. He had seen the hole. He told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Herald he did not agree with the panel’s supposedly unanimous decision. Neither did Tom Parsons. He thought the hole was suspicious and an autopsy should have been performed. The Tribune-Herald quoted both of them in a story published on January 11, 1998.
Six days later the Monica Lewinsky story blew up, and it would consume the press and suck the oxygen out of every other story for weeks. The Afro-American community, led by Jesse Jackson, rushed to Clinton’s defense and stopped pursuing the matter of the mysterious hole in Ron Brown’s head.
According to Jack Cashill, author of the book Ron Brown’s Body, David Hause and Tom Parsons were essentially cashiered. They were barred by the AFIP from doing further autopsies, which put them out of business as forensic pathologists. Hause was transferred to Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri and Tom to Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, and they were both reassigned to hospital pathology, a specialty outside of their training. That jibed with what I remembered my brother telling me about what had happened to Tom not long after it happened.
Cashill never directly accused the Clintons of murdering Ron Brown, but he highlighted a whole string of suspicious circumstances and a possible Clinton motive: Brown was the president’s reputed bagman for corporate campaign donations and had threatened to spill the beans if Clinton didn’t call off the Justice Department investigation of Brown’s son. Cashill’s book was published in 2004. At the time I read it, I had never heard of confirmation bias, but the book certainly confirmed my biases against both the press and the Clintons. I had no trouble believing either that the Clintons murdered Brown and exacted retribution against David Hause and Tom Parsons for publicly calling for an autopsy, or that the mainstream media helped them cover it up. Case closed.
Here, though, the story takes an interesting twist. I called Tom recently and asked him about the incident. He confirmed some of the story, but said he had not been cashiered to Andrews Air Force Base after the Tribune Herald article. He had requested the move because tensions were running high at the AFIP where he worked, and he wanted to get away from that environment. He said he was not barred from doing autopsies, and in fact was put in charge of the Andrews’ unit that did autopsies. Cashill had never contacted him for his book.
Which makes the Clinton retribution angle problematic. Maybe Cashill was right and somebody got to Tom so he changed his story. I doubt it; I know Tom. Or maybe Cashill just got it wrong, which prompts the question: what else did he get wrong? It threw the book’s credibility into doubt and wreaked havoc on my confirmation bias. I still have no problem believing the press took a powder on the story. I was following it at the time and I remember how it just died, obvious questions unasked and suspicious issues not investigated or resolved. But I realized that because of my political leanings and willingness to believe the worst about the Clintons, I had accepted a certain so-called fact for years without confirmation when all it would have taken was a phone call. The truth is a tricky thing, and those who would pursue it must reckon with their own psychology.
In the 1930s, when the federal government decreed that the airwaves were public property and frequencies must be licensed, objectivity in radio and television were grounded before they ever took flight. A broadcaster operating at the government’s sufferance cannot be independent. Newspapers are a different story. Since the founding of the republic, newspapers have been a pain in the government’s ass. Thomas Jefferson hated the press but to his credit concluded that, “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” Newspapers don’t exist at government sufferance, so neutering them has been a more gradual process.
World War II and the Cold War, painted as existential struggles, turned much of the media into government toadies. Even Hollywood jumped on board. The war gave rise to the US’s first intelligence agency, the Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner of the CIA, which was formally established in 1947. By secret executive order, Harry Truman established the National Security Agency, or NSA, in 1952. You can’t understand history since the war, or the present state of affairs, without understanding the intelligence agencies and their relationship with the media. This is difficult because so much of what has been done has been cloaked in secrecy and disinformation—which is the officially approved, twenty-dollar term for lies.
In the early 1950s, the CIA set up Operation Mockingbird, which put on its payroll or within its influence everyone from lowly stringers in remote foreign locations up to big name journalists and editors with, among others, the New York Times, Washington Post, CBS, and Time. The goals were to ensure that the CIA and foreign policy establishment’s Cold War party line, what we now call the narrative, dominated the media, and to make sure that any questions, or alternative points of view, were marginalized.
If that sounds like today, it’s because little has changed. Vietnam gave the intelligence agencies, the FBI, and the military, what I’ll call “the Complex,” operational and propaganda templates. Operation Phoenix was a joint CIA and military project, with the South Vietnamese military and secret police as junior partners. At its laughable best, leaflets were dropped from helicopters on hamlets in a bid to win hearts and minds. At its worst, bribery, blackmail, extortion, torture, and murder were used to terrorize the local population into submission. Since then, those tactics have been used during overt and covert US interventions in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. I wrote a two-part Straight Line Logic article called “The Phoenix Template” arguing the same will come to the United States, and many of us think it already has.
The Complex spied on domestic critics of the Vietnam war and other aspects of the status quo, particularly race relations. Although there were isolated exceptions—publication of the Pentagon Papers and pursuit of the Watergate scandal—the media became increasingly supine. Even those episodes may have, sub rosa, served the Complex’s purposes; we may never know. There are alternative explanations of Watergate that conclude it was essentially a coup engineered by the Complex.
The Complex lost its ostensible reason for existence when the Soviet Union fell in 1991. However, ten years later, 9/11 conjured up another so-called existential threat. How a band of Islamic guerrillas holed up in Afghanistan’s caves posed the same danger as Nazi Germany or the USSR was never answered. The question was rarely asked, certainly not by the mainstream media. It endorsed the Afghanistan war, still going on after sixteen years, the Iraq war based on nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, and the Patriot Act’s constriction of civil liberties. Since that fateful Tuesday in September of 2001, the Complex has massively grown in both funding and power.
If not for the internet, the media today would be a captive sloth only Joseph Goebbels could love. Not that the mainstream isn’t close. The first glimmer of something different was Matt Drudge’s 1998 Monica Lewinsky disclosure, a story Newsweek had but only published after Drudge did. The story probably didn’t have the media moguls shaking in their Guccis, but it might have had them looking over their shoulders a little. Drudge was new competition. The other challenger was Fox News, which like Drudge had launched in 1996. They questioned totems which all the right newspapers, magazines, opinion journals, and networks had sworn fealty to since World War II. More ominous than anything the newcomers published was what they portended. Anyone could start an internet site, and cable and satellite were opening up hundreds of new channels.
If we had all of the alternative media in 2001 that we have now, we might not have had the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. At the very least, more questions would have been asked. Unfortunately, the government and MSM steamrolled potential opposition, and the alternative media, then in its infancy, couldn’t push back.
Our own beloved Zero Hedge burst on the scene in 2009. It made its bones on the financial crisis engulfing the world. The reality of that crisis was fairly simple. A lot of people and institutions were gambling with borrowed money and at extremely high leverage ratios. Markets, led by grotesquely inflated residential and commercial real estate and their associated mortgage securities, went against them. Margin calls begat more margin calls in the globally interlinked financial system as decades of debt expansion became debt contraction. In their wisdom, governments and central banks addressed that crisis—caused by too much debt—with more debt.
In straightforward prose laced with a fair amount of invective and moral outrage, Zero Hedge covered and explained what the MSM was calling an out-of-the-blue, mystifying crisis. From fraudulent mortgage applications to fraudulent mortgage-backed securities to fraudulent financial institution balance sheets leveraged thirty and forty times to fraudulent crony socialistic bailouts to vacuous and fraudulent pronouncements by pundits, academics, and government and central bank officials, Zero Hedge provided perspectives absent from the MSM. They called the frauds as they saw them. The crisis worked a seismic upheaval. It became us against them. Those with decimated retirement accounts and underwater mortgages, footing the bill for the bail outs, against the government, its string pullers, the connected bail-out beneficiaries, financial institutions, academia, and the mainstream media. Since then, the chasm only yawns wider.
The 2016 election has been the alternative media’s shining moment, so far. The emerging order was confirmed when Donald Trump appointed Breitbart’s Steve Bannon as his campaign’s CEO and then kept him on after he won. While not all of the alternative media jumped on the Trump bandwagon, virtually none of it supported Hillary. Even non-Trump supportive sites were putting up stories about her emails, foundation, donors, health, incompetence, cronies, lies, and inept campaign. Clinton and minions recognized the AM’s growing impact, countering with the fake news concoction, which probably attracted more people to the alternative media than it repelled.
After Trump’s victory, the AM has had a period of consolidation. Certainly Trump’s campaign was the baitiest click bait ever. During the campaign, putting Trump’s name in the title of my Straight Line Logic articles guaranteed an extra 25 to 50 percent readership. However, now that he’s president, day-to-day issues and governance matters aren’t quite as exciting. When they get into office, politicians invariably disappoint supporters, and Trump has been no exception. To its credit, much of the alternative media has, at times, been highly critical of Trump the president. The MSM, on the other hand, continues its role as unrelenting cheerleader for the Clintons, Obama, and the Deep State, doing nothing to repair its tattered credibility.
Like sharks, AM sites must keep moving or die. They can’t waste time reading their own press clippings. After the election, the AM and blogosphere were filled with stories taking credit for Trump’s victory and heralding the death of the MSM. The AM had an influence on the election, but the death of the MSM has been greatly exaggerated. Consider these numbers from SimilarWeb US Media Publications Top 100 Rankings of monthly online page views. These are for April, but they don’t change much from month to month.
At the top of the list is msn.com, with 1.7 billion monthly page views. espn.com is second with 1.39 billion, followed by the alternative media’s gorilla, aggregator drudgereport.com, with 1.24 billion. After that, there’s not an AM site until you get to breitbart.com, at 34 with 155 million page views, about one-eighth of the Drudge Report’s and one-eleventh of MSN’s. Most of the top spots are news, sports, and business sites. The first three of what can be termed opinion sites are liberal buzzfeed.com and huffingtonpost.com, at 10 and 12, respectively, and politico.com, at 25. The top tier is populated by sites like bloomberg, cnbc, washingtonpost, New York times, CBS news and NPR. Zero Hedge comes in at 56 with 66.4 million page views, or quite a few more than Straight Line Logic, which you’ll be surprised to learn doesn’t make the list at all. Go figure!
The alternative media has a long way to go before it displaces the mainstream media, no matter how you define the two. You can say that these numbers just confirm that most Americans are oblivious morons who are content with MSM bias, pablum, sensationalism, and fake news, and deserve what they get. This offers all the emotional solace of sour grapes. It also disparages people who might otherwise end up in your camp, and wasn’t that Hillary Clinton’s big, deplorable mistake?
Moreover, the sour grapes’ mindset ignores the obvious message from the numbers. People want to know what’s going on, far more than what somebody else thinks or feels about what’s going on. Strangely enough, more people want to know what Trump said or did last night than what Straight Line Logic has to say about what Trump said or did last night. They want news and facts. People need to know what’s going on, and until that need goes away, obituaries for journalism—the gathering and disseminating of news and facts—are premature. Technology and methods of dissemination will change, but the need to know will not.
This confronts the alternative media with both a challenge and an opportunity. For years we have vigorously criticized the mainstream media: its capture by the powers that be; its propaganda; the many issues it won’t cover; it’s bias, and so on. The criticism came to a head during the campaign. The MSM didn’t try to hide its anti-Trump and pro-Clinton biases. The alternative media identified the old guard and its candidate as the perfect targets. Every ounce of credibility the MSM lost the AM gained.
The AM shark tore into the MSM and drew a lot of blood, but remember, sharks have to keep moving. Look at the AM’s business model. We tear into the MSM, but it has almost all the hard news and fact gathering capabilities and info-structure. Right now, it is the mainstream media that decides which stories to ignore, investigate, write about, and slant. The MSM uncovers whatever facts get uncovered, or manufactures its own facts, and decides what gets published. The MSM is the the source; it decides the newsworthy issues, and sets the agenda. The alternative media, on the other hand, is a snake swallowing its own tail. We are devouring the mainstream media but we’re almost totally dependent on it for facts and news. You can see the conundrum. It can’t last.
There’s another consideration. Remember my Ron Brown story. Just because you can point out the other side’s shortcomings, and it’s distortions and lies, doesn’t necessarily make your side’s version right. Journalistic credibility is built up slowly over time by consistently getting it right, discarding political allegiances for an allegiance to the truth. Authentic journalism—uncovering facts and news, the truth—is hard, time consuming, expensive, and dangerous. Even within the MSM, journalism is being replaced with opinion and analysis. It’s cheaper and easier. Everyone has opinions and opinions disguised as analyses. Ideology forces facts into the reigning opinions, discards them, or makes up more congenial facts. However, it’s counterfactual to say that only the MSM is at fault.
The mainstream media is under financial pressure. The internet and cable have fragmented its audience, and advertisers want mass audiences, not fragments. Newspapers’ classified advertising, a reliable cash cow, is in line at the internet’s slaughterhouse of business revenue streams. Internet advertising was going to be the new cash cow, but that bovine is already dying.
So how does the shark keep feeding and put the MSM into extremis? I have a proposal. After I’m done proposing and explaining, tear into it. Just imagine it’s one of my articles on Zero Hedge and you’re commenting on it.
The alternative media must have its own independent journalistic capability, its own source of real facts and real news. As long as the MSM sets the agenda and provides the fake news, which nevertheless remains the sole facade of journalism, the AM cannot be either independent or a go-to news alternative for most Americans. A 2016 Gallup poll revealed that only 8 percent of Americans trust newspapers. Why do they distrust them?Because they aren’t trustworthy.
Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I believe there’s a substantial market for the truth among the other 92 percent. The MSM is a dead man walking, giving the alternative media a huge opportunity to establish itself as a trustworthy source of news. That will require it to grow beyond its current role as a diffuse purveyor of opinions the establishment doesn’t like. No longer can it remain reliant on the establishment media’s version of facts and news. The alternative media must become a credible journalistic source. This is the next logical step in its evolution. Call it the alternative media’s disintermediation from the mainstream media.
As you would expect, that poses challenges. Even a very successful alternate media site would be hard-pressed to fund such a journalistic capability on its own. The effort would also be handicapped by the perception that it was a captive of its parent. The Associated Press, or AP, is a US-based multinational nonprofit news agency. It was started in 1846 by 5 New York newspapers to share the cost of transmitting the Mexican-American War’s news. It’s still owned by its contributing newspapers, and radio and television stations. I believe the AP offers the financial model for an alternative media news agency.
What if a consortium of alternative media established a news agency along the lines of the AP? The AP’s rationale remains as valid today as it was in 1846. Gathering news is costly, and media outlets can help themselves by sharing costs and stories. The AP is still alive, but it’s owned by the legacy media and it’s showing its age.
Why can’t the media of the future—the alternative media—develop its own platform? Why remain beholden to the legacy media? They don’t get it, they’re out of touch, biased, don’t cover real and important stories, and have become the fourth branch of the government. We can and should continue saying these things, because they’re true, but why then should we continue to rely on the mainstream media, the opposition, for facts, news, and agendas?
Say the alternative media set up a consortium; let’s call it the Independent News Consortium, or INC. The members of the consortium would be the INC’s owners. How would an INC operate in 2017? We would have the freedom to design and to fully exploit modern technology; to take full advantage of the internet and other information and communications technologies. This will be tomorrow’s, not yesterday’s, platform.
The legacy media are crying in their $20 dollar cocktails: the internet is destroying their advertising and subscription models. But the internet is a mixed curse, and it could be an outright blessing for the INC. For example, it dramatically drives down the cost of acquiring and disseminating information and reaching viewers. I say “viewers” instead of “readers” because the internet also enables a marriage of text and video. Journalists and editors can be all over the world, writing, filming, and editing from their homes, small offices, coffee shops, or other locations, all of which would be cheaper than space in expensive urban office towers. It would also contrast to the MSM’s concentration on the coasts.
Changes in technology explain only so much of the mainstream media’s misery. Most of it is self-inflicted. The MSM has destroyed its most important asset, its credibility. An independent media consortium must be structured around developing trust and protecting credibility. Most importantly, there must be an inviolable separation of the ownership from editorial policy, call it the Chinese Wall. If the INC is perceived as the mouthpiece of its owners, then it will be relegated to the same dustbin as so much of the mainstream media. Invitations to join the consortium should be extended to all outlets that can be characterized as alternative media, regardless of political persuasion.
The owners of the INC would fund it for objective news, unique stories, and perhaps an eventual return on their investment, which I’ll address p. We in the alternative media can generate our own opinions; the INC would stay out of that game. The INC’s goal would be journalism pure and simple: discovering and disseminating real news, the truth, as accurately as possible. Period. Biases will never be completely expunged and mistakes will be made, but journalistic integrity and accuracy must be the goals, first and foremost.
If a high-minded mission were all it took for a successful business venture, there would be a lot more successful businesses. Running a business is a combination of vision, calculated risk, trial and error, details, opportunism, execution, modification, and adaptation. Therefore, everything I say should be regarded as suggestions and proposals, subject to discussion, modification, or outright trashing.
The INC would probably start with a narrowed focus on areas of assured readership and existing expertise within the ownership structure: government, politics, business, and finance. That may sound like picked over territory, but the amazing thing is how little it has been picked over. Take, as an example, the US government. It will spend over $3.5 trillion dollars this year. We’ve seen the pie chart breakdowns, but how many stories actually drill down to the details of what is spent and why? Take one of those slices, the roughly trillion dollars spent on military, intelligence, and homeland security, and start asking questions.
Who gets all that money? Who are their lobbyists? How much of what they get is recycled back to politicians in the form of campaign contributions or other bribes? Which members of congress and their districts are the biggest beneficiaries? Did you know that Homeland Security has 229,000 employees? What the hell do they do, other than groping travellers and making flying miserable? How much of the military, homeland security, and intelligence payrolls are administrative personnel? How much money has been spent on Afghanistan? Iraq? Syria? Those figures should be readily available, but the estimates are all over the map.
That’s just from the boring old budget. Every one of you can come up with an important story the mainstream news doesn’t cover. Or which they dismiss as a conspiracy theory. FDA captured by the pharmaceutical companies? Conspiracy theory. Wars waged for the benefit of the military, intelligence agencies, and their contractors? Conspiracy theory. Rigged markets? Conspiracy theory. Surveillance of every nook and cranny of American life? Conspiracy theory. Government officials profiting from the drug war? Conspiracy theory. Autism caused by heavy metal-laced vaccines? Conspiracy theory. Health dangers posed by pesticides and GMOs? Conspiracy theory. The CIA invented the term to discredit anyone who questions official story lines. Legally, however, a conspiracy is merely an agreement between two or more people to commit an illicit act. By its legal definition, there is a plethora of conspiracies out there, just read Zero Hedge.
The stories that don’t get covered are usually more interesting than the ones that do. They’ll be the foundation of the Independent News Consortium, the basis of the alternative media’s disintermediation. Story ideas would come from readers, whistleblowers, INC journalists and editors, and consortium members. In keeping with the Chinese Wall, the INC news staff could accept or reject member ideas. Members could contribute material, expertise, personnel, or other resources, but would exercise no editorial control or veto power.
Involvement in the INC would be scaled according to the varying sizes, profitability, and audience reach of websites. For smaller sites, most likely non-equity members, access to stories could be a la carte. They would get a non-distributable feed of INC stories, from which they would choose the ones to post on their sites. INC would release the chosen stories. Billing could be per story or by monthly subscription, allowing for access to a certain number of stories per month.
Larger sites would receive equity participation in proportion to their equity contribution. Equity members would receive a continuous and distributable feed of INC-produced stories. Technological and legal issues would have to be worked out to prevent non-INC members from posting INC material. INC could also offer both equity and non-equity members a separate feed compromised of members’ articles, primarily opinion pieces, for distribution throughout the INC universe. Feed recipients would have the option of reposting. They would get both member-generated content and wider distribution for their own material.
There are other details that would need to be worked out. Would the Independent News Consortium make its stories directly available to the public, or would it rely solely on its member sites for distribution? My inclination would be the latter, because I don’t think the INC should be in competition with its members, but the members may see it as a source of INC revenue through advertising. If INC stories are not directly distributed to the public, advertising is not an issue. However, with direct public access, advertising would be an option.
The Independent News Consortium’s primary asset will be its credibility. If INC accepts advertising, it has to be on the same condition with which it accepts equity membership: a Chinese Wall between advertisers and editorial policy. The goal would be to have enough of both equity members and advertisers so there would be no significant financial dependence on any single one of them. The INC must have the ability to say to any and all funding sources: we’re sorry you don’t like this story, here are your two options: get over it and stay involved, or don’t get over it and withdraw.
As a life-long capitalist, I’m partial to for-profit enterprises. Profit puts a spring in the step and a fire in the belly. It makes employees, especially those with equity participation, conscious of costs. No big offices, expensive lunches, jet-setter conferences, or other fancy perks that have become the norm within government and many nonprofits, some of whose executives make seven figures. Giving key INC employees the right bottom-up, profit-based incentives could pay for itself many times over.
Long-term profitability emphasizes building credibility and consistently offering well-written, well-edited articles that people will read. Try to recall the last truly interesting writing you’ve seen from a nonprofit or government source. Potentially producing profits could help the INC generate support and investment from its alternative media owners. To paraphrase Robert De Niro in the Untouchables, a lofty goal and a payday gets you a lot farther than just a lofty goal.
A for-profit consortium would have all of the usual startup risks. There’s financial risk, but scalability, gradual expansion, and keeping costs in some proportion to revenues would be the plan; it’s not going to burn cash like a Silicon Valley unicorn. One infinitesimal risk: the world isn’t as corrupt as we think it is. One risk we’d be happy to have: pushback from the establishment, which would be a marker of success.
Here’s an article by blogger Fred Reed about those who inhabit the mainstream media universe.
“Notes of a Reformed News Weasel: Understanding the Vacuity”
By Fred Reed May 26, 2017
Do you wonder why the legacy media are such puzzled otherworldly twits? Why, for example, they had no idea what was happening in the recent election? Why they seem to know so very little about America or much of anything else?
Some thoughts from a guy who spent a career in the racket:
Ask journalists when they were last in a truck stop on an Interstate, last in Boone, North Carolina or Barstow, California, or any of thousands of such towns across the country. Ask whether they were in the military, whether they have ever talked to a cop or an ambulance crewman or a fireman. Ask whether they have a Mexican friend, when they last ate in a restaurant where a majority of the customers were black. Whether they know an enlisted man, or anyone in the armed services. Whether they have hitchhiked overnight, baited a hook, hunted, or fired a rifle. Whether they have ever worked washing dishes, harvesting crops, driving a delivery truck. Whether they have a blue-collar friend. Know what the Texas Two-Step is, have been in a biker bar.
Now do you see why Trump surprised them? Next, ask how many went to fancy schools like Oberlin, Swarthmore, Amherst, the Ivies, Bard. Ask how many even know someone who graduated from a land-grant school. Ask whether they know an engineer.
Now look at how much they write about each other for each other. Look at the endless coverage of what Maddow said about what Hannity thought about O’Reilly’s harassment of soft-porn star Megyn and how much she might make at CNN. Ask how much time they spend comparing ratings. They are fascinated by themselves.
Ask them how many have ever worried about paying the electric bill, had to choose between a new winter coat or paying the cable, or known anyone who did.
They don’t know America, and they don’t much like it.
Ask them whether they are rich. They will say no, and believe it. Yet when friends drop in, the question will be whether to eat Turkish or Thai on the Hill. For much of America, dinner in a Turkish restaurant on Cap Hill, where the waiter puts a white napkin in your lap and the bill for four with drinks and tip is $180, would be the adventure of a lifetime.
In Washington, a two-bedroom apartment in a very old building across Connecticut Ave from the zoo, with the original steam radiators, goes for $2500 a month. An 835-square foot two-bedroom apartment in Colonial Village, just across Key Bridge in Arlington, Virginia, starts at $2450. Fifteen years ago, such a closet sold for $300K.
Now ask how many journalists voted for Trump. Close to zero. Virtually the entire press corps is of one mind and slants the news to the point of verticality. In the absence of Trump, they are almost as heavily Democratic. Most don’t know they are doing it. It’s just that they are so obviously…right. They are not reporters. They are advocates.
It is more than having the same politics. They have no conception of such romantic notions as freedom of expression or the interplay of ideas. You will never see a policeman given five minutes, uncensored, to describe what really happens in the streets or a gun owner, not chosen to be a buffoon, allowed to explain his position. If you told them that the media are tightly controlled, they would think you a right-wing loon.
Journalists are not stupid, running to well above average in intelligence. You could form a large chapter of Mensa by raiding newsrooms in Washington. However, with a fair few exceptions, they are not intellectuals, not contemplative, not studious. They are high-pressure fact-accountants, competitive, comfortable under tight deadlines, aggressive, combative, quick but shallow. This can be a serviceable substituent for stupid.
In a curious process of self-delusion, they imagine a world that doesn’t exist and then try to live in it. For example, they don’t know what cops face in the ghetto because they have never been in the ghetto and don’t know any cops. They dismiss anyone who tells them that things are not as they think. Their confidence is invincible, for do not all their friends say the same things?
Their ideological attachment to political correctness is–obviously–strong. This is particularly stark with respect to race. Week after week, year after year, we read on the internet of whites beaten, burned, punched, of stores looted by flash mobs and wrecked in brawls. The perpetrators are always “teens” or “troubled youths.” If you ask reporters why they never mention race, they say things like “race is irrelevant. A crime is a crime.” But let a white cop shoot a black attacker, and nothing matters except race–not truth, guilt or innocence.
They see no hypocrisy in this. They believe that they are just expressing Right Values. Since they talk only to each other, nothing contradicts them. Coverage of most things is either bad or nonexistent because the media have neither the time, resources, nor inclination to cover much of anything. Most outlets are crippled by the nature of their medium, political correctness, narrow focus, and lack of curiosity.
For example, television is the medium of the illiterate and barely literate. (People who can’t or don’t read all have televisions.) It lacks the staff to have specialized reporters, has to avoid offending anyone so as to keep the advertisers happy, has very little time to spend on a story which it has to keep at a sixth-grade level to avoid losing much of its audience. It has to be politically correct so as to impose appropriate values. It can’t upset big corporations because that’s who owns it.
Newspapers can assume perhaps a tenth-grade and better readership, but they too must be PC, worry about the advertisers, and they too lack staff. Big papers will typically pay attention to State, DoD, Congress, the political parties, and themselves. Most of the government simply isn’t covered. When is the last time you saw a story about HUD, Commerce, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Energy, or Education?
That’s why the mainstream media are largely vapid and predictable. It is why the internet, not bound by political correctness or controlled by corporations, able to specialize, to serve intelligent readers, is now primary.
Thank you, Fred, for your tour of that Twilight Zone, and for the vote of confidence in the internet. The alternative media can’t tell the truth while relying on the Twilight Zone for facts, news, and journalism. We know we’re not getting the truth. We’re getting evil, mind-destructive corporate and government propaganda, tedious triviality, and superficial stupidity. Neither the First Amendment nor this country will survive if the malignant and the corrupt control the news.
We can fire our shots at the political establishment and its captured mainstream media, we can rave and rant, but if we rely on their version of facts and news, we’re captive to them. Revolutions begin with ideas. Alternative media journalism, real journalism, is an idea whose time has come. It’s what must happen if the alternative media is to evolve away from the mainstream, fight for the press’s vanishing freedom, and tell the truth. If we don’t put up, we’ll eventually be shut up. Thank you.
Western Rifle Shooters Association: One of, if not, the finest blog in the Liberty Sphere. The author and owner, Concerned American, has been in the thick of the scrum, faithfully and steadfastly, with courage and conviction, endured the winds of change and resistance from 2007 to today. An amazing accomplishment deserving of the highest accolades and kudos.
C.A.’s archived WRSA blogspot original blog is timeless and chockabloc stuffed with timeless technical/tactical info, not to mention early posts on politics and happenings of the day, a veritable archived smorgasbord time travel machine: http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com
(3 posts pasted verbatim):
Posted on June 17, 2017
I keep thinking what happens after Trump. If nothing substantial and foundational occurs before he leaves office or is deposed. All arguments aside as to what Trump and MAGA can or can not accomplish, if the motherfuckers we all despise are left to pick up where obama left off, to me this above, is the prime directive.
Think about it. Trump AD, if the “swamp” isn’t drained, is going to be payback time for all us deplorables who voted Trump in. Bank on it.
It’s what we got to be planning for. Whether Ol’ Trump does good or not, it is a pretty sure bet the color revolution of 11-8 will never be permitted to happen again, and you know the entire uniparty will be burning the midnight oil to assure no more Trumps.
Remember who we are talking about here. A class of debauchery. Where even pedophilia and child snuff films is a right of passage into the elitist class. You think going after us deplorables will not happen? These will be the same who murdered LeVoy Finnicum, who make up laws out of their ass to suit whatever circumstances require.
I’m not saying anything new here, we all know what these motherfuckers are and are capable of. They will be thinking of rooting anyone who will defy them out.
At best we get 7.5 more years. They will probably JFK or depose Trump before then at the rate things are going. It don’t look good in that department. But Trump is a pretty interesting guy, he is not a quitter or a loser, and has a big set of balls. It’s the potential after Trump for Amerika stage II that we got to be getting ready for. Short of hanging everyone of the motherfuckers, how are they got rid of?
And if the Normies don’t pull the suppository pacifiers out of their arses and wake up, it’s gonna be real sporty for us dirt people.
Posted on June 14, 2017
Can someone explain who and why re same?
(Note: 119 comments)
Posted on June 13, 2017
Come on in.
The water’s just fine.
I sincerely recommend Max and his training. Personally I am truly empowered and have gained a perspective on armed combat that provides me with a true fighting chance to not only survive but win the battle, protect my loved ones, and have the knowledge to fortify my courage and virtue. I hope you take this great Patriot and Man up on what he offers. You will not go wrong.
Fight Right-Fight to Win-Fight to Live Another Day
Pasted verbatim from: https://www.maxvelocitytactical.com/2017/06/tactical-preparedness-vs-the-trump-slump/
Tactical Preparedness vs. The Trump Slump
Posted by Max – June 6, 20176
To be truly dangerous to your enemies, train at MVT.
It was reported to me that many businesses in the tactical and preparedness industry had bought in a ton of stock prior to the election, anticipating a Hillary win, and that they have been desperately trying to sell off that overstock due to the Trump win. It simply amazes me that people base a lot of their preparations on who occupies the White House, but it is a reality in ‘the business.’ A very odd way for people to make their knee-jerk ‘threat assessments.’ I took a different view, as a tactical training company – the election of Trump meant (to me) that I was not immediately expecting more anti-2A laws coming down the pike, which meant time to continue to build the business, and on a personal level, train and prepare. Because that is the key point – the election of Trump does not free us from the reality of ‘the collapse,’ it simply means that the current administration is not overtly hostile to gun owners and Liberty. A breathing space, nothing more. We still live in extremely uncertain times.
So what is it? Why did so many people appear to crawl back under the comforter following the Trump win? Those that had at least partially woken up to the need for tactical preparedness, in many cases, just went back to sleep. Amazing, and not rational. At MVT, we have a very active group of Alumni who return again and again for training; they have internalized the warrior ethos, and train to be prepared to defend their families. But we have noticed a distinct drying up of ‘new blood’ coming in to classes. It is definitely a phenomenon.
It is at this point in the post that I expect nasty comments from the usual crowd, those entitlement-socialist-think-they-support-Liberty-conservatives, who will pipe up and say ‘screw you Max, you are just in it for the money.’ So I will preempt that with the following comment:
Max Velocity Tactical was never my intent. It grew out of writing ‘Contact! A Tactical Manual for Post-Collapse Survival’ and an assessment of the poor advice and training I was seeing out there. It became a vision with the loose mission statement: to bring real combat proven tactical training, adapted to civilians, in order to keep the good folks alive. It began it as a part time activity, then I decided to give up my ‘real job’ to do it full time. It does of course have to be run as a business to ensure continued viability, and most of that goes back into reinvesting in equipment and training facilities. We have come a long way, and now we are even training SOF as well as civilians. MVT is really the only option of its kind for this type of training – we are doing this full time with excellent facilities and course design. We have not become rich doing this, and do not expect to do so. It is a calling, and extremely rewarding to see people grow tactically and with their leadership capabilities. So yes, it is a business. Do any Liberty loving Americans have a problem with that?
There was always a niche market for MVT, because the vast majority out there cannot or will not effectively train and prepare. They are the unconsciously incompetent. The students at MVT come from those who rationally identify the need, and take the steps to prepare. They come from the consciously incompetent and the consciously competent. They have to have sufficient humility to be trainable, which is sadly lacking in our society, full of false egos and untested blowhards as it is. All in all, MVT alumni are a great bunch of people, and I am proud of them. At the end of the day, however, if the trickle of students to MVT dries up, we will have to do something different. Simply move on. Looking at that remote possibility from a purely detached perspective, it would be a crying shame, if the training offered at MVT simply goes away due to the lack of takers. Don’t cry to me that there is no combat training available to civilians, if you never bothered to show up when it was offered! How many times do I hear that companies only offer training to Military/Law Enforcement and ‘vetted civilians’? Yet here we are at MVT, offering the best tactical training on the market, primarily to civilians, with a small niche training SOF. Don’t make us flip those priorities, please! Amusingly, it could come to pass that MVT goes away simply for being TOO GOOD at what we do, when the market really just supports people messing about on the flat range conducting training of a dubious tactical nature, designed to appear cool.
Training, and how it relates to the Four Stages of Competence
The ‘Trump Slump’ is a definite phenomenon. I am not sure how to tackle that, or if I even can. We have, as explained above, started to see the effect of that on new student bookings at MVT classes. How do I encapsulate the risks we face in these uncertain times into one post? I cannot. How to persuade people of the need for effective tactical training and preparations when they are locked into unconscious incompetence and ego? I cannot.
Here is one thing, however, that I can perhaps try and explain, and I will do this by copying in a part of THIS PREVIOUS POST. Please read this with the thought that perhaps you may not see a need for tactical training, maybe only a need for concealed carry in case of a terrorist threat, and thus why do team tactical training at all? Read on:
Consider this. Most of you will be familiar with the concept of ‘Shoot, Move & Communicate.’ Let’s look at those in turn:
This seems to falls into two camps: either weapon manipulation and handling is poor, or it is excellent but lacks a proper tactical frame of reference, and stops short of actual tactical knowledge – and in many cases becomes dangerous to the student, because poor or inappropriate techniques are taught, and training scars deeply embedded.
When you have a culture that is firmly embedded on the flat range, instructors run out of things to teach. They often get into the realm of teaching ‘cool guy’ stuff or inappropriately teaching CQB techniques which are then misused in open tactical environments. Often, it is more about the cult of the instructor than the training itself.
If you stop at weapon manipulation on the flat range, you are not following a tactical training progression. You have nowhere to go – not the student, not the instructor. In reality, we could all shoot better / faster or whatever – but most of you do not have infinite time to become a performer on the carbine. The truth is that you only need to be able to shoot GOOD ENOUGH to be effective in a tactical environment, so long as you have the knowledge and ability to pull off the move and communicate parts. And if course, preferably a team and the ability to operate with it – but if you don’t the correct tactical training will at least give you that advantage.
In short, sticking on the square range is a rabbit hole that can in fact be very detrimental.
The purpose of MVT flat range training is to teach effective weapons manipulation / muscle memory / operational (real) safety / shooting techniques to allow students to effectively run the gun under pressure ‘out in the wild’ on the tactical ranges, and thus in combat. It is not an end in itself.
You must be able to move tactically. Unless you are trained , you will have no idea. You must be able to move to cover, and then move appropriately by fire and maneuver.
If you are not trained to move under fire, you will likely freeze in place, which could also involve you freezing in a standing position, if that is what you have been taught.
Conducting an initial response – the RTR drill – will break the initial freeze, and hopefully get you out of the initial threat.
Knowing drills to conduct under fire, whether that be assault or break contact, will help you break the second freeze that can occur in cover, and get you moving to a place of safety. Or victory.
All of this is operant conditioning. Tied with the ability to manipulate and run your weapon under pressure, you are starting to get to the ability to break the freeze, keep your ‘head out of your weapon,’ and being able to survive those first few moments.
But you cannot do any of these things without being able to locate the enemy, which means you have to scan, constantly. This means that you have to train to ‘get your head out of your weapon’ and get away from that tunnel vision on the flat range targets. You have to have your head on a swivel and be aware of your surroundings. Train to fight against tunnel vision.
You cannot do any of the moving without being able to communicate.
You cannot communicate effectively without being able to look and see where the enemy is, where your buddies are, and how that relates to the terrain.
Newbies on the range can only shoot at Ivan, and move in a robotic manner, simply because they have been told to. They are ‘sucked into Ivan’ and find it very hard to ‘get their head out of their weapon.’ Tie that in with poor weapon manipulation under stress and now you have a cluster waiting to happen. No one is communicating, no one is moving, or at least not with effective suppression.
You cannot move under fire without effective suppression of the enemy and coordination.
Thus, at MVT we are not really teaching SUT TTPs. Oh yes, we do teach them, but that is not even the true value. Rather than absolutes however, we want you to take away the tactical principles that you can apply to your real life situations.
The true thing we are teaching at MVT is awareness and decision making under stress.
When students first hit the tactical ranges, it is a cluster. We know that. They get better. They get even better the more they train, and the more repeat and varied classes they do. But do you want that level of performance the first time you have a critical life or death self-defense situation? To literally be the muscle memory gorilla beating at your weapon with both hands because you cannot make it work and you are overloaded with the stress of the situation?
Yes, you can introduce stress on the flat range. But that is not the whole story. You need to introduce stress and decision making with realistic live fire and force on force scenarios. Only then will the lessons be truly hoisted home.
MVT is training and preparing you psychologically for combat. We encourage the physical fitness, we train the physical skills, but we are developing the psychology of battle inoculation, stress conditioning, awareness and decision making.
Here are a couple of comments from a multiple-Alumni students on this post: ‘Roundup: Texas Report, Updates & Thoughts:’
Justin :I’m a three year, Texas Alumni. I have gone through the progression of crawl, walk, run. This year with Max bringing Force on Force to Texas my eyes were truly opened. I’m a member of Team Cowbell and as a team we have gotten pretty good at the drills Max teaches. Going into FOF I was sure Team Cowbell would rule the day. When the rounds start coming the other way you learn really quick that you’re still learning. The situational awareness you get from moving in the woods scanning for movement that might shoot back at you is priceless.
Working year after year you can see the progression. Look at the difference between the River Assault 2015 and Anatomy of a Team Assault Videos on YouTube. I’m in both and I can see a HUGE difference. Watch the head movement, the communication, the lack of robotic movements. It’s just more fluid.
shooter: I will echo everything Justin said above… I cannot begin to describe what a huge leap forward the UTM training was! It’s a good solid smack up-side-the-head with the reality that being good at “running the drills” is NOT the same as “knowing how to apply the tactics”. You DO have to know how to do the drills well, but that’s not enough. You also have to be able to ebb and flow with the changing situation, apply the drills, and adapt them on the fly. I can’t imagine any other way to really learn that lesson, short of actual combat… and I’m pretty sure UTM hurts a lot less when you screw up!
One more thing: Max is dead on when he said that this stuff definitely increases awareness in your everyday concealed carry world. You begin to actually perceive more of what you see in your peripheral vision, you become more aware of who’s where and what they’re doing, and you become more able to rapidly shift your mental focus back and forth to/from weapon sight to the other 99% of the world around you. All of that is an unexpected benefit which I never got from the dozen or more handgun and “carbine” courses I took from various big-name instructors.
When I write posts such as this, many take it as a ‘rant.’ It is not. MVT is doing very well after four years of being in operation. My point is to make observations on the general state of the firearms / training industry and the issues that I see. Given that I set myself the mission to provide training to ‘keep the good folks alive,’ I can of course not be happy with the poor state of affairs that I see out there.
I realize that many will not make the personal investment and sacrifice to provide the level of training that MVT offers. I would just hope that we can get the word out about what we do at MVT, in order to make more people aware, and thus drive the industry because people are demanding better.
I know, I know: what we teach at MVT are true warrior skills, and not mere games at the range. I know that this fact in itself puts many people out of the demographic. But I am aware of that, and I know that most people are not warriors, they are not true protectors. They are fearful and weak. The people I am interested in are those with the courage to step up, identify the need, and make the commitment to get some real tactical training.
You may find some interesting thoughts on this topic in this recent Guest Post:
Guest Post: ‘So Why Would You Do Tactical Training?’ by David
To be truly dangerous to your enemies, train at MVT.
General Info / Links:
Authors note: Max has written and published a number of fine books. His series of tactical action function thrillers are composed as an extension of all he teaches in his courses but in a fiction format chock full of wonderful characters and tactical small unit infantry scenarios, thrilling actions taking place in the mountains and hollows of Virginia, West Virginia and Washington DC. Max makes you feel a part of the story and action: Books
Don’t fear the unknowns, and the unknown unknowns of combat
Learn & Practice those great unknowns
This in itself is a supreme tactical advantage second to none in winning small unit infantry combat
Fight Right-Fight to Win-Fight to Live Another Day
FOR GOD AND COUNTRY
Posts that will be useful…………….
An excellent go to compendium of selective pertinent postings for and from the Liberty Sphere.
Straight up, HIJRAH is the organized importation of Jihad into the West to destroy everything. It is real, it is happening, and it is only possible with the assistance and treason of the political class running things.
WHAT IS HIJRAH?
We understand far too little about Muslims leaving their homes. What is Hijrah? Obama was well educated in the Muslim religion since he studied it while living in Indonesia. He does not want this email to be spread all over the US because he wants us to be totally ignorant of what is really going on with the ISIL movement. All this turmoil now makes sense. Sad, and doesn’t bode well for us at all.
So what is a Hijrah? Hijrah is when large scale mass migrations become invasions. What is happening in parts of Europe right now, actually appears to be a hijrah as the Quran describes it. This is NOT going to end well. Because it appears the policies of the liberal socialist leaders in Europe and the US do not want to keep their lands from being overrun.
Why? I couldn’t figure out why other Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, etc.) weren’t taking in refugees, so I started digging. Hijrah is jihad by emigration. It means moving to a new land in order to bring Islam there and is considered in Islam to be a holy and revered action. “And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance, and whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah.” Surah 4:100.
So, if a Muslim dies in the process of immigrating to another country, that’s essentially the same as being a suicide bomber, his reward is automatic. This explains the great eagerness to undertake such a perilous journey. Muhammad and his followers emigrated from Mecca to Yathrib/Medina in 622 CE. It was there that he became a military leader though still uneducated. This is where all the commands to commit violence against unbelievers originated. It’s important to note that the Islamic calendar marks this as the beginning of Islam.
This current massive hijrah was announced last January, although few Muslim countries paid the announcement much attention. A supporter (or member) of ISIS uploaded a document in Arabic that urged Muslims to get to Libya because of its proximity to southern Europe and for the important tactical value of its illegal immigration circuits to facilitate infiltration of European cities. Libya has a long coast and looks upon the southernmost countries of western European, which can be reached with ease by even a rudimentary boat.
In February, transcripts of telephone intercepts published in Italy said ISIS was threatening to send 500,000 migrants as a “psychological weapon” against Europe. The Italian Minister for the Interior, Angelino Alfano, said at the time, “If the militias of the Caliphate advance faster than the decisions of the international community how can we put out the fire in Libya and stem the migration flows? We are at risk of an exodus without precedent.”
Also in February, the Turkish intelligence service warned police that up to 3,000 trained jihadists were seeking to cross into Turkey from Syria and Iraq and then travel through Bulgaria and Hungary into western Europe and then into the rest of Europe. Sound familiar?
In May, a Libyan government adviser warned that Islamic State operatives were being” smuggled to Europe in migrant boats.”ISIS is profiting from the human trafficking trade, forcing boat owners to hand over their profits or be killed. Some ISIS operatives are already sheltered in safe houses in the south of the Europe.
Groups of men, 17 to 25, from Palestine and Syria, cross into Bulgaria and from there move into the rest of the EU. A former Al Qaeda double agent told the BBC that he knew of two Egyptian brothers who reached Italy from Libya, accompanied by men who were deeply religious and fluent in Italian and French.
Go watch the videos of those “refugees” again. How many of the “refugees” are 17-25 year old men and of military age? If that doesn’t convince you, we already know terrorists are coming through with the waves of refugees: a week ago five men were arrested attempting to cross the Bulgarian-Macedonian border with Islamic State propaganda, specific Jihadists prayers, and decapitation videos on their phones. They had been posing as refugees.
UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage warned: “I fear we face a direct threat to our civilization if we allow large numbers of people from that war torn region into Europe.
Other Muslim countries are not “taking in” these “refugees” because this is a hijrah into Europe. This is no humanitarian crisis. It is an invasion. Its goal is to transform Europe: over tax its economies, tear down its wealthiest nations, re-draw the demographics and, of course, the culture. And our government wants to start letting them into our Country? Obama, having already announced over 100,000 are going to arrive in the USA in 2017. Are we all Forest Gumps?
If you feel this is worth sharing with others, please copy and re-post, thanks. – The Author is Buck Comb
(Blog owners statement: The below graphic agitprop are totally free and open unlimited use. No restrictions or limitations. Spread it far and wide. We all need to know what HIJRAH is. An outright invasion of OUR great country.)
(updated 9:41 6-7)
Some things are so genuine and heartfelt they have an epic sense to them. I’m beginning to see a sublime paradigm, a sea change in thinking, it portends something, some sort of cascade preference, an almost synchronicity of thought across the whole of the dirt people. I think a shitload of us are going to revolt and defy the sonofabitches here pretty soon. Something is going to happen, and it will change everything. I can almost see it, it can’t be quantified or qualified, it is this audacity of spirit, like I said, something is going to break, and all hell is going to come loose on the political elite. It’s real close.
This is one of those genuine things. It is epic. It portends.
(copy and pasted verbatim)
Guest Post by Revanchist
Though our stars tend to rise and fall in opposition through the years, your reputation for adventure, fearlessness and a legendary hunger for more lingers, and for the most part we find that admirable—no, more than that—we find it astonishing.
We may denigrate your American whisky (as well as your tendency to spell it with the Irish ‘e’) as you joke about our pasty faces and reliance upon dentures but we are cousins—if not always kissing—and share a rich common language, culture, customs and cuisine. We are more alike than different in nearly every respect but these: One, we are a constitutional monarchy and Two, despite what you may have heard we really, really envy you your guns.
America has always seemed the dangerous, glamourous older brother. You were the cowboy, the gangster, the astronaut and the comic book hero of our collective imaginations. You were the captain of the debate team, dating the homecoming queen and cruising through life in your ’55 Chrysler, one hand on the wheel, elbow on the door, working on that car tan.
The 40’s, 50’s and 60s were perhaps your finest hours. During World War II you were overpaid, oversexed and over here, breaker of hearts and hymens. The winds of heaven tousled with a loving hand your perfect hair, the sunlight glinted off your straight, white teeth. After the war you invented rock and roll and corn dogs and forty-seven million things to do with sugar including LSD, and we were dazzled.
While we were washing under our arms from basins of cold water in cold rooms in a bitterly cold country, you were inventing the hot tub. At the cinema, we would bask in shimmering visions of your highways and high fashions, your Endless Summer California culture, your glittering skyscrapers and flawless pavements, then trudge home and tune in the wireless for a Parliamentary debate on whether or not we could afford to clean centuries of coal smoke from our cracked and blackened buildings.
While you were bringing Caesar Salad, Martinis, Bananas Foster, Baked Alaska and the almighty, sacred Hamburger into the world, we anticipated the prospect of instant mashed potatoes finally becoming available down the local shops. We were unimaginably insular; it is within living memory that people in Britain believed spaghetti grew on trees.
Despite pretensions to polite behaviour we relished your films and television programmes like The Godfather, The Maltese Falcon, The Third Man and White Heat; more recently The Sopranos, Breaking Bad and Deadwood—the more violent the better. We admired Clint Eastwood’s entire oeuvre. We devoured books like Lonesome Dove and the works of Steinbeck, Hemingway, Mark Twain and Raymond Chandler. Some of us even like bluegrass but those people are mainly in the looney bin. We treasure pretty much everything about you, but we’re British so you don’t hear us mention it very often.
Some Britons flinch when one suggests ever needing a gun in Old Blighty but don’t believe the lukewarm protestations. As the past few years have unfolded any remaining hesitation is apt to change, and soon. What we are beginning to remember is that for thousands of years everyone on this island was armed at all times with daggers—with swords if you could afford them, with throwing axes and longbows for truly special occasions. Personal defence was not just a choice, it meant accepting full responsibility for individual safety beyond city or castle walls. Defending ourselves with grace and strength and skill was something we once took great pride in.
Our downfall can be charted in three separate events:
Two hundred years ago, give or take a couple of decades, Sir Robert Peel established a full-time, professional and centrally-organised police force with the passing of The Metropolitan Police Act of 1829. It was not well received at the time; the public felt they did very well already with night watchmen and personal vigilance and besides, who was expected to pay for it? And why hadn’t the people been consulted? As things usually go between governments and their subjects, government had its way. We turned our weapons over to legally-sanctioned protectors and began to soften as a people.
In the midst of austerity after The Second World War, universal healthcare for all was rolled out to tremendous fanfare, followed by a steadily increasing system of welfare for mothers and children, later for pensioners, then veterans and civil servants. There was in the early days some shame associated with taking a government handout but practice makes perfect and before long anyone with a doctor’s note affirming a sprained wrist or dodgy knee could sign on and be supported for life. No one asked this time who would pay—no one wanted to hear the answer anyway. And we grew softer still.
Simultaneously, the government threw open its doors to the former colonies, or rather the brown colonies. Indians, Pakistanis and Caribbean Islanders answered the call to serve as a labour force and in short order became a demographic who never actually seemed to leave. Politicians had discovered the lucrative stand of virgin timber that was the immigrant class and promised them anything, even citizenship, in exchange for their vote. And vote they did, until their children grew up, stood for election themselves and were voted in by their own people on the colour of their skin. When native Britons asked why they were never consulted on allowing this flood of immigrants they were called racialists. Since Britain had just finished dealing Jerry a bally good hiding, any accusation of holding Nazi sentiments was social poison. Hence we softened our principles and muffled the warning of our hearts.
This is how we joined the invertebrates.
Now we are facing Islam, though not many know that what is happening today is just another battle in a very old war.
From the 16th to the 18th centuries upwards of two million Europeans were captured and sold as slaves in Tunis, Algiers and Tripoli. These weren’t people who were taken at sea but from their beds, in the dark of night in coastal towns and villages in Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, up into Wales and along the west coast of Ireland, as well as throughout the Mediterranean. Why who would do such a thing, you may ask—the Barbary Pirates, of course—Muslims.
This carried on for two hundred years with only sporadic and half-hearted interruption. England talked a good game and now and then ransomed a lord or two out of slavery, but what’s a few missing Cornish fisherman, their wives and children here and there? It wasn’t until American ships began to be attacked and raided for goods and slaves that investors studied the situation and concluded, “You know, this could be bad for business,” and went to war.
First though, in the interest of fair play, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams made the perilous journey across the Atlantic to London for a sit-down with Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, the envoy from Tripoli. When asked what right the Barbary pirates had to force Americans into slavery, Jefferson recorded the ambassador’s answer in two letters and his personal diary:
“He replied that the right was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise”.
So, not a lot’s changed then.
In an Anglo-Dutch-American alliance three campaigns of The Barbary Wars were fought and the Muslims were at last subdued and colonised. Client kings and strong men were installed and until the present day Muslims have remained a benign tumour on civilised society.
It was a stunning victory and Francis Scott Key composed a song to mark the occasion. The original verses included:
And pale beamed the Crescent, its splendor obscur’d
By the light of the star-bangled flag of our nation.
Where each flaming star gleamed a meteor of war,
And the turban’d head bowed to the terrible glare.
It wasn’t a huge hit at the time though after the War of 1812 he dusted it off, rewrote some of the more laboured lines and it eventually became the American National Anthem.
Were you taught all this in school? No? Nor I. Why is it that where our history intersects with Islam it always seems to either vanish like morning mist or become corrupted into making the Christian world into the bad guys and aggressors?
This brings us to the current mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, the platitude-puss Pakistani with links to Hamas, Al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. When he’s not scurrying along the baseboards he’s raring up on his two hind legs and sporting the most punchable, weapons-grade constipation face this side of the Atlantic. It doesn’t take an adept in Texas Hold’em to ascertain that Khan’s tell is one of a man who is eternally biting back what he really wants to say.
Within an hour of the latest cultural enrichment, Khan is on hand with fair-minded and reassuring statements like, Terrorism is part-and-parcel of living in a big city or London is one of the safest cities in the world. Meanwhile, the poisonous flood of piety and bloodlust threatens to drown us all.
What people in Britain are gradually coming to grips with is that Islam teaches that this life on earth is merely a stepping-stone to Paradise and that Muslims must stop at nothing to attain it. To paraphrase Kyle Reese, they can’t be bargained with, they can’t be reasoned with, they don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear and they absolutely will not stop, ever, until all non-Muslims are dead or enslaved.
For politicians, though, hope springs eternal; just fire the old PR firm and hire a new one. Hence, the RUN•HIDE•TELL campaign is off to a rocketing start. Of course, scruffy young tearaways were quick to deface the posters by substituting the last word to read RUN•HIDE•SUBMIT but the kings of PR, the Americans, have gone us one better with DRAW•AIM•SHOOT as the only viable response. We respect this, of course, because we love your guns.
In other news, on 28 May 2017, police sent a helicopter and combat-ready police to confiscate a karaoke machine from a backyard BBQ because the hosts played a song mocking Osama bin Laden. Bear in mind this was four days after bomb and bloodshed at a concert attended by teenaged girls in Manchester Arena. Several days after the karaoke caper, the horrific massacre on London Bridge took place. Clearly, prioritising threats could do with some work.
Our current PM, Barren Cat Lady, famously stated upon her election, “Brexit means Brexit.” We’re still waiting. After the London Bridge Massacre she said, “Enough is Enough.” At this rate she’ll probably say,”Potatoes are Potatoes,” next and the media will still stand up and applaud it.
But now I am just lobbing outrage darts at the page so I’ll wind this up.
Governments which no longer guarantee the security of their citizens are worthless, and those that disallow the right to defend oneself are worse than negligent, they are clearly dangerous to support in any way. People here are beginning to get this, but I still feel it’s too late to prevent the rivers of blood alluded to by the brilliant Enoch Powell, king of ‘racialists,’ true patriot and martyr.
As I write this it’s less than seventy-two hours till we march once more unto the polls to vote in an election that probably won’t make a bit of difference except to take our Brexit away for good. And yet it could also upset the entire apple cart as well. Such are the times we live in.
My American friends, you are surely aware that you don’t have to own a gun to fight like hell to retain your right to bear arms, as well as the freedom to play anything you damn well please on your karaoke machines. Preserve those rights, defend them, they are more precious than you know. Never sell them. Never soften.
They say a falling knife has no handle and yet our British politicians keep snatching it in mid-air, then expressing astonishment and dismay at the cuts on their hands.
Based upon past experience they’ll just carry on trying to catch it while the rest of us bleed to death.
This essay is dedicated to Admin, sword and shield
authors note added 9:48 6/9/17: If ya don’t read nothing else, read this below, it’s whats on the political elites menu under main entrée for us Men of The West.
If you got a lick of balls in you, this is what your fighting for:
ALT-CHRISTIANITY? The title speaks for itself and to so many things. I for one believe so, if anything it is long overdue. In fact it is time for a reformation. Looking at it now it strikes me as another Validation of Alt-Right. This fellow wrote something I can not add to, the entire essay speaks for itself. Is it time? In no uncertain terms it sure is. To be a Man of The West is to embrace the pillar of faith in something larger and better than just self.
Verbatum, because this deserves it in every sense: https://damianmichael.com/alt-christianity/
The 21 Theses of Alt-Christianity
Is It Time for a New Christian Mindset in the West?
In recent years, the Alt-Right—along with the Alt-West, Alt-Lite, and the Hard Right—has come to the forefront of the political scene. This has been due in large part because right-leaning individuals have come to realize just how ineffective standard “conservatives” are at battling the Left. And given the left-leaning socio-cultural changes that have swept the West under the guardianship of standard conservatives, it is quite understandable that many young traditionalists have gravitated to a political alternative like the Alt-Right.
But just as with modern conservativism, the same sorts of problems exist for modern Christianity. Indeed, under the “watchful” eye of standard conservative Christians, Christianity in the West has become more liberal, more feminized, more Churchian, and entirely less Christian! As such, is it any wonder that many Christian men are leaving Christian churches and are searching for an alternative to the weak-kneed Churchianity that they see around them. Of course not. But is there any Christian alternative to be had? Indeed there is, and it is called Alt-Christianity.
What is Alt-Christianity? In one sense, Alt-Christianity is a new way of looking at Christianity; it is a new Christian mindset, if you will. And as we know from fitness and game, changing one’s mindset is often the key change that needs to be made for exponential personal development and growth. At the same time, Alt-Christianity also aims to be a means by which orthodox Christianity could be revived amongst men in the West. And since traditional Christianity is a pillar of Western Civilization, then the importance of this goal can be overstated.
Now, in terms of its general tenets, Alt-Christianity can be summarized by the following 21 points (and note that these points were largely inspired by Vox Day’s 16 Points concerning the Alt-Right):
Both theologically and morally, Alt-Christianity is traditionalist and right-leaning. It is also more focused on shared morality and mere-Christianity than on denominational differences. However, Progressive-Christianity, Liberal-Christianity, and Feminist-Christianity are not Alt-Christianity.
Alt-Christianity is an alternative to the mainstream Christian conservative movement in the West which has, whether wittingly or not, been largely infected with strains of progressivism, materialism, feminism, SJWism, over-ecumenism, and Churchianism. Alt-Christianity has seen the socio-cultural results of these infections on the Christian faith and thus pro-actively and overtly fights against them, rather than ignoring, accommodating, or even indulging them, which many modern Christian movements do. And the combat against these problems is done first within the church, and then against them outside of the church.
Alt-Christianity is not defensive in nature and, just like Christ, it rejects the elevation of niceness, tolerance, and likeability over Christian truth. It holds an “initiative-maintaining” mindset and believes in victory through persistence, sacrifice, materialistic minimalism, and remaining in harmony with objective reality, historical truths, and psychological/biological facts about human nature.
Alt-Christianity firmly believes in the use of reason; however, since Alt-Christianity knows that men are not usually moved by dry arguments, it is also willing to use truth-focused polemics, biting rhetoric, humorous memes, and imaginative narratives to make it points.
Concerning faith and morals, Alt-Christianity is skeptical of any attempts to redefine the clear sayings, implications, and example of Christ and the rest of the New Testament, or Christian tradition, in order to accommodate modern sensibilities.
Alt-Christianity recognizes that all men are made in the image of God and that all men will be judged, but beyond this, Alt-Christianity rejects the idea of earthly equality for all practical purposes given the observable lack of anything like natural equality existing or possibly existing amongst men. For the same reason, Alt-Christianity denies human perfectibility and earthly utopianism.
Alt-Christianity believes traditional Western Civilization is the best civilization that Man has ever created. It also holds that traditional Christianity is a key pillar of that civilization. As such, Alt-Christianity supports the roots of traditionalist Christianity: namely, the traditional family, patriarchy, “red-pill” knowledge, Christian education, and apologetics in the full and broadest sense.
Given the above, Alt-Christianity wishes to see traditional Western Civilization maintained, and is thus open to whatever political system shows itself best suited to the maintenance of that civilization. At the same time, Alt-Christianity realizes that civilizations and nations are maintained by people, and that not all people are created equal. As such, Alt-Christianity supports the implementation of whatever specific political and cultural practices are best suited to allow a particular people to maintain traditional Western Civilization. Simultaneously, Alt-Christianity supports restricting whatever specific political and cultural practices undermine a particular people’s ability to maintain traditional Western Civilization.
Alt-Christianity is nationalistic. It supports the right of all distinct ethno-ideological/religious groups to exist as distinct groups, and to defend their existence. Alt-Christianity is also anti-globalist in the political sense, but believes in unity amongst nations through a shared Christian faith. Ultimately, Alt-Christianity remembers the lesson of the Tower of Babel and realizes that ethno-states are a lesser threat to Christianity than a global political entity is.
Alt-Christianity see no conflict between science and Christianity, but it is not naïve enough to ignore the fact that there is a difference between certain scientific claims and the interpretation of scientists—many of them actively anti-Christian—concerning those claims. Thus, Alt-Christianity takes an attitude of tentative acceptance, coupled with skepticism, concerning the findings of modern science, especially those of a historical rather than an experimental nature.
Alt-Christianity believes that identity—both in the ethnic and the religious sense—is the catalyst for culture, which is itself more important than politics. As such, the Alt-Christian is both verbally and non-verbally overt in his Christian identity.
Alt-Christianity is opposed to the unrequested rule, domination, or excessive influence (by any means) of any ethnic and/or religious group or Christian denomination over another; as such, Alt-Christianity supports the right of de facto or de jure self-determination / segregation for ethnic and/or religious reasons.
Alt-Christianity is more interested in the approval of God than of men; it knows that the Prince of this World is its enemy and that, as Jesus warned, the world will hate it. Thus, the Alt-Christian is not interested in being “respectable” in the eyes of non-Christians, nor does the Alt-Christian care about the negative labels that non-Christians will inevitability place on him.
Alt-Christianity is opposed to the separation of church and state in an absolute sense, for Alt-Christianity understands that the absolute separation of church and state always leads to the state, and/or the enemies of the church, using the resources and laws of the state to undermine the church.
Alt-Christianity is more interested in the Faith than in earthly charity, although it strongly encourages the latter because it is mandated by, and supports, the former. However, the Alt-Christian knows that charity begins first at home, and only then extends outward. Furthermore, virtue-signaling charity is a vice, and so whoever allows his own family, his nation, and the Faith itself to be undermined for the sake of virtue-signaling charity is worse than an unbeliever.
Alt-Christianity is pro-“capitalism” in terms of policy, but pro-socialist in terms of personal charity; it holds that a man who freely does not work, but can, shall not eat, but a man who wishes to work but cannot, shall not be hungry.
Alt-Christianity believes that we must secure the existence of Christians in general, but that we must also specifically secure the existence of Christians in countries of European heritage and ancestry, for as Belloc said: “Europe is the Faith, and the Faith is Europe”.
Alt-Christianity believes that Christianity is true, but it also sees truth and value in other religions. As such, while holding Christianity as the best and most complete faith, and boldly proclaiming it as such, Alt-Christianity does not, in principle, ignore or reject the insights of non-Christian religious or cultural traditions.
Alt-Christianity believes in evangelism. However, the Alt-Christian remembers to wipe the dust off his feet from those who, in full knowledge and Godly-freedom, reject Christianity. Thus, Alt-Christianity rejects the non-evangelism of liberal-Christianity as well as any imperialist attempts at the imposition of Christianity by force or coercion.
Alt-Christianity values personal strength, intellectual boldness, masculinity, and the Christ who overturned tables. Indeed, Alt-Christianity realizes that Christ was not followed because He allowed Himself to die, but rather because He was the ultimate alpha-male who conquered Man’s greatest enemy: namely, death.
Finally, just as the man Jesus Christ and his male Apostles led the first Christians, so too is Alt-Christianity meant to be led by men. After all, the failures of the West ultimately fall on the heads of its men, and so it is men that must lead the West back to its traditional roots.
Now, will embracing these 21 tenets of Alt-Christianity reverse the slide of orthodox Christianity in the West? Frankly, I do not know. But I do know that making the mindset change to Alt-Christianity is surely better than continuing the ineffective tactics of the past few generations.
What is Alt-Christianity (An Older Essay)
In recent years, and especially with the arrival of Donald Trump on the political scene, a movement broadly describing itself as the ‘Alternative Right’, or ‘Alt-Right’, has risen to some prominence in the West’s social, cultural, and political arenas. This is a movement that many individuals involved in politics—both those on the left and those on the ‘retreating right’—associate with the more unsavory elements of the political right-wing. And so, the alt-right is often vilified and misrepresented both by its enemies and by its alleged political allies. Now, while exaggerated and propagandistic attacks from the left are a standard phenomenon that should shock no one, it is also by no means surprising that individuals on the right with the strongest hold on power and political influence would try to discourage, disparage, and denigrate a movement that threatens their political and cultural capital. And while there are indeed some less than pleasant elements in the alt-right, as is the case with nearly all movements, one cannot help but suspect that a great deal of the reason for the dislike and sheer vitriol directed at the alt-right is due to the fact that many of those on the alt-right are willing to speak with a clear tongue, rather than with a politically-correct one, and they are willing to pursue the truth as they see it even if that pursuit takes them to impolite places, places that too many people in the last few generations are unwilling to enter. Those labelling themselves as alt-right are unapologetic, loud, and aggressive when pressed, and unlike the retreating-right all too often does, those on the alt-right are not willing to attack their actual allies on the right with more fervor than they attack those on the left. The alt-right is not willing to bow and scrap in order to be accepted by the cultural elite and the East-Coast ‘intellectuals’. And instead of merely standing athwart the progressive’s path yelling stop, but still getting pushed down that path regardless, only at a slightly slower pace, the alt-right is not a rear-guard action but an offensive vanguard; a vanguard to return civilization, and specifically Western Civilization, to a time when the follies of the present age were seen for the follies that they truly are.
In much the same way as with the alt-right, ‘Alternative Christianity’, and thus the Alt-Christian, is also tired of being on the defensive, as he has been for at least the last ten years. And so the Alt-Christian seeks to move to the attack to reclaim the intellectual and cultural ground that he has lost. Though not necessarily sharing all the same political or social goals as the alt-right, the Alt-Christian shares the latter’s same desire to speak forcefully and unapologetically for what he believes in. In this vein, the Alt-Christian is thus a man who does not call Christianity a faith, nor merely one faith among many, but rather, he proudly calls it the truth. The Alt-Christian does not seek emotive post-modern dialogue; instead he seeks rational argumentation, truthful rhetoric, and effective evangelism. The Alt-Christian is deeply concerned about the salvation of souls, but not at the expense of Christian truth; furthermore, the Alt-Christian realizes that it is precisely the truth, spoken boldly and forcefully rather than weakly and nicely, that will lead to a greater salvation of souls. Thus, the Alt-Christian does indeed seek the conversion of those from other religions, but he will not kiss the Koran, or white-wash history, or engage in religious equivalency for the sake of ecumenism. And while the Alt-Christian is not vile—for speaking the truth is never vile—the Alt-Christian does not give a rat’s ass to be falsely labelled as such if speaking the truth leads to such an outcome. At the same time, the Alt-Christian laughs in the face of non-Christians who try to pressure and shame him by labelling him as ‘not very Christ-like’. The Alt-Christian, furthermore, is not afraid to directly say that Christianity is indeed the most rational, and arguably the only rational, reasonable, consistent, non-ad-hoc, satisfying and reality-reflecting worldview that Man can believe in.
Spiritually, the Alt-Christian is a Christian who remembers that Christ was indeed gentle with repentant sinners, but that Christ was also the same man who was not afraid to violently clear out the money-changers with a self-made whip. The Alt-Christian knows that Christ was kind, but he also realizes that Christ was an alpha-male who spoke His mind and achieved His mission above all else. And the Alt-Christian appreciates that Christ always spoke the truth, but he also notes that Christ was more than willing to speak that truth with a harsh and biting tongue if the situation warranted it. Furthermore, the Alt-Christian accepts the beauty and complementariness of men and women, but he also accepts the headship of the man in all familial relationships and stresses the man’s acceptance of that role. The Alt-Christian accepts the existence of different denominational sects, but notes that if you are morally and socially on the right, and if you believe that God exists, that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and if you hold to Christianity’s foundational creeds, then you are to be counted as a Christian ally in the struggle for civilization regardless of your denominational affiliation. Relatedly, the Alt-Christian also realizes that though ‘Alternative Christianity’ thus embraces members from a wide range of different denominational affiliations, it is a fact that, in the world today, traditionalists and orthodox-believers across all denominations have more in common with each other than do liberal and orthodox members of the same denomination, and so an alliance along orthodox / traditionalist creedal lines is arguably more important than denominational ones in today’s day and age. Finally, the Alt-Christian takes seriously the danger of wolves in sheep’s clothing, and he realizes that Christianity is in as much danger from internal enemies as it is from ideologies and individuals who are exterior to it.
The Alt-Christian, furthermore, is not ashamed or embarrassed of being a Christian, nor does he feel some undue guilt at what Christian civilization has done in the world. Thus, the Alt-Christian is a Christian who does not hide his cross behind his shirt, but rather wears a shirt with a cross on it. Indeed, the Alt-Christian is proud of the fact that, though flawed in many ways, traditional Western Civilization, borne from the bosom of Christianity as one of its major forces, is the best civilization that the world has ever seen. And while the Alt-Christian knows that a return to the past is neither possible nor even desirable, he does note that a departure—whether physical or moral—from the absurdities of the present age is needed if any sort of traditionally moral civilization is to be maintained in the future. In essence, the Alt-Christian is first and foremost a Christian, but he is unapologetically and overtly Christian in ways that many Christians today are not.
Why the Prefix ‘Alt’
Now, one question that can be asked of the Alt-Christian is why choose the prefix ‘alt’? Indeed, why create a name which identities one as an ‘alternate’ Christian specifically, especially when there exist any number of other such prefixes that could have been used? In fact, why use a prefix at all? Well, there are a number of different reasons for why calling one’s self an ‘Alt-Christian’ is a solid choice of term given the current state of Christianity in the West.
First, and as mentioned earlier, the Alt-Christian shares many of the same goals as the alt-right does, and the Alt-Christian also aims to be intellectually uncompromising like many on the alt-right are, and so using this particular prefix demonstrates the loose ideological and strategic connection that exists between these two movements. Furthermore, the Alt-Christian is culturally and socially on the right of the political spectrum, and since the ‘alt’ prefix, at least today, belongs almost exclusively to the alt-right, then the Alt-Christian, in calling himself an Alt-Christian, is also demonstrating his commitment to the right side of the culture wars.
Second, the word ‘alternative’ brings to mind the idea of possibility and choice. Thus, to be an Alt-Christian is to imply that unlike many merely cultural Christians, the Alt-Christian has consciously and deliberately chosen Christianity as his alternative out of the many worldview alternatives that exist today. The Alt-Christian is not merely a Christian in the sense that some people are ‘pro-democracy’, and yet have no real knowledge of the benefits or drawbacks of democratic rule, nor do they know the arguments for or against their position; rather, the Alt-Christian is a Christian who knows what he believes and why he believes it. And in knowing what he knows, the Alt-Christian thus makes it clear that his alternative is indeed Christianity, and everything else is secondary.
Third, since the Alt-Christian is different from what many people would consider a Christian to be today, by thus calling himself an Alt-Christian, the Alt-Christian makes it clear that he is indeed different from other modern ‘Christians’. The Alt-Christian, for example, is not a progressive-Christian, nor a social justice Christian, nor a Christian-in-name-only. And while the label ‘Alt-Christian’ would be unnecessary in any other day and age—for what an Alt-Christian is, is largely what a regular Christian should be—given that today many people call themselves ‘Christians’ who are not so even in the most fundamental sense, and given the way many ‘Christian’ churches have sold their souls for the sake of worldly approval, then it is the case that something like the term ‘Alt-Christian’ is required to distinguish between the vast ‘Churchianity’ of the present age and the true Christianity that supported science, build universities, created cathedrals, developed natural law and human rights, repelled Islamic aggression, employed precise reason, and did so many of the things that have ennobled the life of Man.
The Alt-Christian’s Aims
Fundamentally, the Alt-Christian has three main aims. The first is to support the universal spread of a culturally robust, socially potent, and morally orthodox creedal Christianity both in the West and globally, as commanded by Christ Himself. Second is the resurgence of this form of Christianity in the West, which the Alt-Christian believes is the key to the renewal of Western Civilization. And finally third, the Alt-Christian aims to support ethno-ideological nationalism—essentially, ethnic groups, in their own nation-states, who are bound together not only by ethnicity but also by a common ideology, culture, and moral code—which he believes is critical to preserving orthodox Christian nations that can serve to promote Christianity worldwide.
To achieve these aims, the Alt-Christian, although unapologetically Christian, is willing to strategically ally himself with anyone on the side of traditional Western Civilization. Tactically, the Alt-Christian believes in offensive action, not defensive reaction. He seeks to take the initiative, not respond to his opponent’s manoeuvres. The Alt-Christian wants a secure base to operate from, but he also wants to then move out and take the intellectual fight to the enemy. The Alt-Christian wants a re-conquest of the cultural terrain, and he knows that the only way to do this is to actually go out and conquer the intellectual and cultural enemies that oppose him!
It leaves no doubt in my mind, in fact it gives me a great sense who we are as the dirt people, of winning, of pride, of defiance looking out and seeing the resistance to all tyranny there is taking place. Our enemies do not stand a chance. They can hardly keep up with their memes and false flag crisis as a means, their fake traitor media distractions. They are loosing, they hold on to the “message” by a thread.
TRUE STORYS of the destruction of GODS children .
Create the future you want to see
Take The Easy Money And Run
everyday and outdoor gear close to tactical and emergency
Gun rights hunting and fishing
Freedom's last stand.
Dirt People Are All Who Have Ever Effected Positive Change In This World