Radical Agenda S06E006 – Sorry for the F It, We’ll Do It Live!

Today I did my first live stream since being released, and I did it with open phones.

We had some audiovisual problems, which I describe in the beginning of the audio. This was marketed as a test stream, so I’ll ask you to pardon the imperfections, but I think many of you will find it worth listening to anyway.

You can catch the replay of the video stream at

DLive https://dlive.tv/p/surrealpolitiks+qKrUrh-4R

Odysee https://odysee.com/@ChrisCantwell:9/ras06e006:1

I’ll be uploading to my BitChute channel momentarily. As well as Brighteon and Rumble.

Tonight, Sunday March 12th at 8:00pm Eastern, I’ll be doing a live test stream of the Radical Agenda.  And yes, I’ll be taking calls.

In the future, I’ll be asking everybody to watch/chat on Entropy, which allows users to send paid SuperChats.

You can also watch live on;

  • Odysee https://odysee.com/@ChrisCantwell:9
  • DLive https://dlive.tv/SurrealPolitiks
  • JoshWhoTV https://www.joshwhotv.com/plugin/Live/?c=RadicalAgenda


Follow me on


Subscribe to my email list, and I’ll be sure you get notified of the next scheduled stream by email.


Radical Agenda S06E005 – Do Your Time

I really didn’t want to do this episode. I had actually considered doing something to this effect under a pen name somewhere else, because the last thing I want to do is minimize the experience of prison in such a fashion as to make my audience more inclined to find themselves there.

I had considered producing something like what I am about to do when I heard that a January 6th defendant had committed suicide. Not long before I heard the news of this, I had fresh in my mind a pretty good time I had enjoyed behind the walls. I thought of these two things side by side in my mind, and it really upset me because I also understand the idea most people have about prison that it is akin to death, and in many cases, worse. I happened to know with certainty that this was not true, and I considered it a terrible tragedy that this man had ended his life over a falsehood.

It is to society’s benefit that people generally think about things in this way, however. I have remarked in the past that, the worst part about going to jail is realizing that it is an option. Most people think, “I can’t break the law, I’ll go to jail”. When you have done some time, the calculation is different. “I can do this, but I might go to jail, maybe even prison, so now I must decide the likelihood of that outcome, the amount of time I stand to do, and whether or not that risk is worth the reward of the act in question”. Such calculations complicate one’s life in undesirable ways, and increase immeasurably the likelihood of such an outcome. It is far better that one eliminate the possibility of prison from their menu of options in life, and avoid even the appearance of criminality.

But, of course, this becomes more difficult as our society descends into chaos. We are, with increasing and frightening rapidity, approaching the Democrat Party’s ideal state of affairs in which a criminal is no more likely to find himself in prison than anybody else. The true, egalitarian Utopia. In such a place, the idea of staying out of prison is not merely a calculation of doing the right thing, but of telling the appropriate lies, and kissing the right asses. Even this. brings no certainty. It requires an eternal diminishment of one’s integrity, and promotes cowardice as an unalloyed virtue. In such an environment, one’s satisfaction with life might best be served by considering prison a foregone conclusion, and thinking of time spent outside as a matter of very fortunate chance.

A compromise might be to think of prison as being a very costly affair. Consider what you are capable of earning in a year, triple that, multiply it by the number of years you are doing, subtract the result from the economic value of your life’s output, and then reduce by 75% or so what you are going to earn when released, and in monetary terms you might approach a reasonable assessment of the expense.

It is a more difficult matter to calculate the costs to your family. I do not often consider myself fortunate to be single and childless at my age, but this is certainly advantageous when facing prison.

For a man who does have a family, the idea of leaving them for a number of years is surely an altogether more devastating affair. Will your wife leave you for another man? Perhaps you should divorce her, and tell her to move on for her own benefit? Would that be the charitable thing for you to do, or would it be, in an odd sense, selfish? What impact will your incarceration have on the lives of your children? Will they remember you? Will they hate you? Will they end up in prison when they grow up? Will it even take that long?

You can hardly blame a man for considering suicide under those circumstances. Death may seem preferable to the contemplation alone. Going to prison might be the least of his problems. It’s not so much the prospect of doing the time making you want to end your life, but the desire to take a bullet to the intrusive thoughts, to kill the ideas in the ultimate kamikaze attack, as attempted Edward Norton, in Fight Club.

Of course, that stands no chance of improving the matter under contemplation. If it is bad for a child to know his father went to prison, it is surely worse to know that he killed himself, but that is hardly your problem. You are dead now, and provided you’re certain that there is no afterlife, your last thought will soon be comprised of a lead alloy.

From here derives the idea of suicide as being selfish. The concept of a mercy killing derives from the idea that it is not the dead who suffer. If you believe in hell, you might conclude otherwise, but even in religious circles this concept has largely fallen out of fashion, and those circles are, in any case, becoming smaller by the day. Much to our detriment, I’d say, whatever the facts.

What prompted me to this point was the news that a friend of mine killed himself not so long ago, and I’m really, really, really bothered by it.

I know rationally that it’s not my fault, but I’m also kind of an egomaniac who thinks everything ought to be under his control and that whatever isn’t is a consequence of some sort of personal failure. That’s a dumb idea, and I know that, but as we discussed on the prior episode, our minds are not nearly so rational as we like to tell ourselves most of the time.

Ted von Nukem was born Ted Landrum. He changed his name to von Nukem in 2012 inspired in some part by the character of the Duke Nukem videogame franchise.

It wasn’t so long after this that I met Ted for the first time, in 2014. He had long been a listener of my show, from the “Some Garbage Podcast” days, and I hesitate to say he followed me into the Alt Right only because he seemed to be ahead of me in this in some respects. When we met I still considered myself a libertarian but had been well along the antifeminism track,and Ted approached me with an idea that had me thinking he might be a spy.

Ted shared the view I then held that government was fundamentally an illegitimate institution, and that force was a legitimate, and perhaps inevitable means of ceasing its predatory schemes. But we both had come to grips with the power dynamics of the United States in that we would not be able to build ancapistan on the continent of North America. Ted contacted me asking if we could meet up and he would buy me dinner, and when he came here he suggested we could seize power by force in some third world country with nicer weather. While the idea seemed plausible, I got the idea that if I agreed with him, I’d soon find myself somewhere far less sunny.

But Ted and I stayed in touch, and frequently texted one another. He came to Charlottesville in August of 2017, and when I saw video of him fighting right next to me at UVA, my lingering suspicions of him were substantially diminished. When he testified at my preliminary hearing, it would be fair to say he seemed overly eager to help me. My suspicions of him by now were mostly erased. Though, not entirely.

While things were at peak chaos, Ted sent me a text message claiming to be trapped in the same parking garage where justice was dispensed on Deandre Harris for his attacks on our people. I was at that point in no position to help, but I had asked around if anybody else was. A short time later, Ted sent me a text message saying he had fought his way out, and that “The garage was bloody business.” I would subsequently see the fight with Mr. Harris become a national news story.

These messages were sent in unencrypted plain text. While I was in jail in Charlottesville, I was served with a lawsuit, and a demand to preserve records. When I got out and was ordered to hand over all my event related communications to the plaintiffs in discovery, I was very conflicted. I did not want to risk getting this guy in trouble, but I could have wound up in more than a little trouble myself if I didn’t give up that text message. The Plaintiffs might not have had it yet, but the FBI certainly had to have discovered it in the course of their investigation. If I tried to lie, they would know I had, and they would have me dead to rights on perjury. At this stage of the proceedings, we still expected self defense claims to be taken seriously in trials.

So, I warned Ted that I had no choice to give up the messages, and told him to take precautions. He was understanding of this, and we remained friends.

I thought it was conspicuous that Ted was never even subpoenaed, much less sued or prosecuted. But since I didn’t want that to happen, I kept the mindset that I was happy for Ted’s good luck.

To make a long story short, Ted’s luck seems to have run out.

According to a federal indictment, which I stress we should not accept as fact, Ted was caught smuggling fentanyl into the United States across the Mexican border in 2021. He made bail, and was set to stand trial earlier this year. When he failed to show up for that trial, the Judge issued a bench warrant. The case was dismissed when Ted was found dead of a self inflicted gunshot wound, and police found several suicide notes with reportedly inconsistent handwriting.

I’ll conclude this part of my narrative by saying that I personally liked Ted, even when he raised my suspicions. I met his wife and she is a beautiful woman who gave him beautiful children and my heart goes out to them. This will have to make due for my eulogy of Ted.

Aside from the questionable entertainment value, a listener in the Telegram chat pointed out that in Robert Cialdini’s book Influence, which we recently discussed, it was shown that news reports of suicides actually increased suicide rates. I have enough guilt in my life, Ted is at least the second Radical Agenda listener I know of to have committed suicide, and if you’ll pardon some gallows humor, dead men don’t donate. So, don’t kill yourself, please.

The episode I said I didn’t want to do, but am about to, is an episode about prison. Fortunately, I have more experience than most of you regarding this subject, which is to say I am glad that most of you have never been there and never will. Not that I consider myself fortunate to have gone, which is subject to more vigorous debate. But I am by no means an expert on the subject, and my experience in prison was different from that of most. If you’ve been keeping up with me, you know that I was housed in something called the Communications Management Unit, which is far from the normal prison experience. There was almost no contraband in the way of drugs where I was housed, not even tobacco, and it was impossible to get your hands on a cell phone. In the rest of the federal prison system, these items are ubiquitous, and they have profound impacts on social dynamics. Most of the people in the CMU were political prisoners, and thus disinclined to uncontrolled violence, comparative to other parts of the system. So if you go to prison, your experience will surely be different from mine.

I have seen a great many jails though, and prisoners do talk to one another about their tours of the system, and I do learn fast. So I can speak with reasonable confidence about the matters I’ll be addressing here today.

But as I have alluded to in the preceding 2,000 words, I have come to you with a specific purpose in mind for discussing this, which is to convey that prison is not worth killing yourself over. I can say with the utmost confidence that if a man were to kill himself to avoid prison, and then, in his afterlife, to be shown the outcome of his life had he not, he would be filled with the most profound regret at his poor choice. But dead men are not given this option, to the best of our knowledge, and this prompts us to say something about suicide more generally.

During Radical Agenda Stage Three I did an episode titled “Lacking Tomorrow” and the opening monologue was included in one of the “Best Of” compilations released subsequently. It’s not currently in my interests to be distributing this, and one of these days I’ll explain why. In the meantime, talk amongst yourselves, and you’ll find it if you try hard enough.

Fundamentally the idea was this: If a person concludes that the future will contain more suffering than satisfaction, and that only death will end his suffering, there’s a coherent line of thinking that results in the taking of one’s own life. From what one derives satisfaction, determines the trajectory of this thought process.

So if you derive satisfaction from wealth, comfort, and sensual pleasures, then you are going to have an exceedingly difficult time in prison. But arguably, this does not lead to the happiest life in comparative freedom, either, as evidenced by every story you have ever heard about some wealthy idiot killing himself or becoming addicted to drugs. When such a man finds himself facing prison, it is most likely the outcome of his orientation toward the world leaving him profoundly dissatisfied with how he has utilized his freedom, and taking some risky maneuver as a consequence. In such a case, prison is just one more symptom of a pathology which has very little to do with his material environment.

To find satisfaction in life, one must have a purpose, or better yet, he must have purposes. Plural. If you have a single minded focus on a narrow objective, then prison is near certain to derail your plans. If that is all you’ve got, then fast forwarding to the end begins to seem reasonable.

One must also have an identity, but not entirely dissimilar to his purposes, his identity must be subject to constant development and discovery. If your identity is as a law abiding successful person, and you have the new component of a prisoner identification number imposed upon this self image, one’s image of oneself must not be so rigid that it cannot bend without breaking.

For me, the way I get through the day, whatever my circumstance, is in my constant search for purposes, and in my constant evaluation and discovery of myself. I have long term goals, but when the likelihood of accomplishing them seems diminished I am not deterred from life. This is because I have integrated into my worldview a purpose of seeking new goals as I go forward. I reassess every so often, what I am capable of doing, and I attempt to do these things. As new information becomes available, I reassess again, and repeat the process in perpetuity. Consequently, I have known little of the concept of boredom for many years.

When I encounter setbacks, when I suffer, when I fail, these are mere data points to consider in my constant reassessments. Fear, pain, and dissatisfaction, are little more than information to me, and I dare say that your satisfaction with life will improve dramatically if you can adopt this mindset.

This outlook was refined substantially during my incarceration. I read a good deal about religion, I read about Buddhism and more specifically, the concept of mindfulness. I read about stoicism. And the common theme throughout much of this literature is that there is opportunity in suffering. I hesitate to invoke the facially false cliche that “anything that doesn’t kill me makes me stronger” but the theme is familiar and somewhat approximates my point. If you get shot up and survive but are paralyzed from the neck down, it would be difficult to say this made a man stronger. Not impossible, but it is hardly axiomatic that this would make him more powerful in any sense.

I like a line Viktor Bout used in an English language interview he had with Maria Butina. He said he read something along these lines, that put it quite poetically. A challenge can either be your tormentor, or your mentor. It is entirely up to you. You have very limited control over your environment and the people around you. We would like to improve upon that and that is one of our purposes, but you have substantially more control over how you react to stimuli, and it is by no means beyond your capacity to intelligently direct your thoughts and emotions.

Among the many problems with our politics today, perhaps chief among them, is that the people involved in politics have not learned this. People become politically active not because they have any coherent vision for how to organize society, but because they are profoundly miserable internally. These people are incapable of addressing these deep psychological and emotional issues, and so they focus their energies outward and attempt to reorganize the rest of the world. To them this tremendous and ultimately impossible task appears to be quite a trivial matter, compared to the pain which attends to spending 15 minutes alone in one’s own head.

The trannies are just the most extreme example of this. They cannot change their sex. They know they cannot. For that matter, they know they should not. But they demand that everybody else tell the same lie as them, and will resort to any means to compel universal dishonesty in pursuit of this aim. And then, of course, it should almost go without saying, they kill themselves anyway.

What I mean to get at here is this. Prison or not. Make peace with the world. I don’t mean that you should seek a life free from conflict. far from it. I mean you should learn to be at peace, internally, no matter what. Things will upset you, sure. You will get angry, of course. I am not the Zen master and I am not proposing that you become passive. What I mean is that you should strive to accept things as they actually are, and to accurately include in this assessment your capacity to change them.

If there are bullets whizzing past your head and you have a gun, you should try to shoot the people who are trying to kill you, and you will be far better qualified to accomplish this goal, if you are in possession of what is sometimes referred to as coolness under fire. If the fear of death in this circumstance preoccupies your thoughts, you will likely hide behind something and wait to die. Getting up to shoot back will be too much to handle. If you are whipped into a murderous frenzy and can only think of damaging those who have tried to harm you, then you are likely to make an error and reach the same outcome.

These stand in contrast to what I am encouraging here. If you calmly say to yourself in this gun fight scenario, “How many people are shooting at me? How many shots have they fired? How many bullets do I have? What can I use to my advantage in this environment? How fast am I capable of running for how long?” you’ll be in a far better position to survive that conflict, and it is no different in prison, or for that matter, in politics, or in business.

Love, well, that is always more complex, and far less aided by rational analysis.

If you can manage what I’ve described here, the rest is just data. Information is useful, but it almost doesn’t matter what happens so far as your satisfaction with life is concerned. If you end up spending the rest of your life in the worst prison, and you have to fight for your chastity day in and day out, your purpose will be to do this and suicide will not enter into the equation. So far as I am concerned for my purposes today, that would be the ideal state of affairs, and it would not be necessary for me to say much about prison specifically.

But, I have hardly given the master class on mindfulness today. I will find it far less effortful to tell you about prison, and I do have a podcast to produce. So, as I’m fond of saying, Alright on with it.

Let us begin, as these things always do, well prior to the alleged conduct which is to result in your incarceration. Since you are not likely on your way to prison, we can, in your case, begin right now.

Suppose you have concluded that as a consequence of your lawful political activity, that you are at an increased risk of being forced to defend yourself in a hostile area with unsympathetic juries and unforgiving statutes regarding self defense. This is just an example, what I am going to say could apply equally to an actual criminal. For whatever reason, you have concluded that you are at an increased risk of finding yourself on the wrong side of the authorities.

This is useful information. You can use it to organize your life more efficiently, and to decrease the likelihood of panic and consequent error should such an event come to fruition. It should also go without saying that you can use this information to avoid the circumstance you fear might lead you to such an outcome, but such will be beyond the scope of our discussion today.

Do you know a good lawyer? Now might be the time to do the research. These things can become exceedingly difficult if you are denied bail. Do you know how you will pay this lawyer? How much you will need to pay?

Who is really going to be there for you, and for how long? Perhaps more importantly, when you find out the hard way that your assessment is faulty, as almost all incarcerated people do, how will you readjust to this discovery?

In the event you find out the authorities are seeking to arrest you before you are captured, how much trouble would you have to be looking at, before you considered it preferable to abscond?

Don’t underestimate this calculation. Most people who run, are caught, and it tends to make matters worse. Many are killed. If you are going to be charged with a misdemeanor, and you run, you’re an idiot. A fugitive almost always has to commit more crimes along the way, and each of those increase the risk of capture, and the penalties one will face upon that outcome. If you do your time, the matter is likely to conclude someday, but if you run, it will be a lifelong committment unless you are ultimately forced to face the music.

Do you have a passport? Cash? An unused prepaid cell phone? Cryptocurrency? A friend you can count on? If you ask yourself these questions for the first time after you find out about the warrant, just turn yourself in, because you will not last as a fugitive. You would need to know these answers well in advance, and begin making life or death decisions immediately.

If you have facial hair, it’s a lot easier to shave it than it is to grow a beard. A white man might do well to find a tanning bed if time avails, but if you’ve never done this before you might end up red and conspicuous.

Can you run fast, or have you been smoking cigarettes your whole life? If you punch somebody as hard as you can, are they likely to fall down in one shot? Is your car reliable? Does it have a bunch of political bumper stickers? Are your windows tinted in such a fashion that you run the risk of being pulled over for an equipment violation? Do you have a real spare tire or one of those donut things in the trunk?

All things to think about, but we’re not doing a show on the fugitive lifestyle. I don’t run fast. That’s how I learned to fight.

More important things to consider are your freedom related expenses, and how easily you can avoid paying them if you’re incarcerated. Do you have a family to worry about? Do you have investments? If you are the breadwinner, how long after you are taken into custody will your wife be looking for jobs and babysitters? Does she have marketable skills that will facilitate such a search?

Maybe you should make a plan to sell your house or your car or your stocks or other assets in advance, so that you don’t have to figure this out from behind the walls.

Maybe you shouldn’t, but at least now you’ve got an idea of some of the decisions you are going to have to make once you are met with this challenge.

It’s helpful to know a little bit about the law. Particularly, the rules of evidence. These vary to some extent from place to place, but the federal rules are instructive enough to talk to a broad audience about.

You should most importantly learn about the legal concept of hearsay. You might think the authorities know something, but that does not mean they can introduce it as evidence. A facebook post is not evidence. With few exceptions, if a person will not or cannot say it under oath in court, a statement made outside of court is not admissible as evidence. Even video that proves or disproves the central facts of the case can be excluded from evidence because it is legally considered hearsay, and you might be shocked at how ridiculous some of these decisions end up looking to reasonable people. This is one of the prime examples of why it is typically considered ill advised to speak to law enforcement. If you corroborate otherwise inadmissible evidence, it can become admissible.

This does not mean you should not speak to law enforcement. To give a less controversial example from my own life, some of you have seen a video where I pulled a gun out on a guy and the cops came up while I had it pointed at him. I told them exactly what happened, I had the video on my cell phone, and I told them “hey here’s the video” and they reviewed it, concluded I was righteous, and sent me on my way with my revolver in its holster.

Lying to law enforcement, or anybody else, about a situation that might land you in legal trouble, is a risky gamble. One of the strongest forms of evidence is what’s known as a false exculpatory statement. You might think it prudent to say “I didn’t do it” but even that can land you in hot water. Take for example, Alex Baldwin saying he didn’t pull the trigger on a single action revolver that happened to kill somebody while he was holding it. He might not have been charged save for that absurd lie. Lying is very suspicious, and in many cases, can be a crime all by itself.

What you say before arrest can definitely influence charging decisions, such as when I told those cops why I drew down on that guy. If I said “fuck you copper I want my lawyer” I’d have probably gone to jail that night. But it is unlikely that I would have faced a trial, much less been convicted. I was in a position to make that decision because I understood New Hampshire’s self defense laws. The cops knew who I was, they knew I wasn’t the type to be running around shooting at innocent people, and I knew I had it all on video. New Hampshire has no duty to retreat, but before I pulled my gun I tried to run away. If I had shot that guy, I’d still probably not have been arrested, because I exercised more restraint than the law required. But I could have had a far different outcome in another state, and spending a night in jail might be a foregone conclusion. There’s no benefit in talking there.

When in doubt, shut your mouth. If you have something to say, usually there’s not much downside to telling your attorney before you tell anyone else.

In every correctional facility in the United States, there is law library access for inmates. If you are ever arrested, you will want to know what exact statutes you have been accused of violating, and what the potential penalties of that crime are. In the federal system, there are sentencing guidelines, and you definitely want to figure those out as soon as possible. It can be overwhelming to hear that you are facting, as I was, 37 years in prison. It then comes as a huge relief to find out that this is a statutory maximum, and your sentencing guidelines come out to less than five.

You will want to know what peculiarities attend to interpretations of words, laws, and facts, surrounding it. Your lawyer will help you to get started on this, but you should pester him with questions, especially if you are using a public defender. You should not assume your lawyer knows everything, because he most certainly does not. You find out these peculiarities for yourself, so as to inform your questions of the attorney, by reading what is known as case law. Case law consists of decisions made by courts, which guide the actions of courts in the future, so as to maintain consistency in the system. That is what it means to have a “common law court system”. When you hear Supreme Court decisions cited, perhaps most notably, Roe v Wade, or Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health, these are citations of precedent which have a similar, and arguably more permanent effect, as statutes passed through a legislature and signed by an executive.

Reading case law can be very tedious and time consuming. To use a familiar example, there’s a lot of caselaw surrounding the subject of threats. In my case, it was not at all clear that what I was accused of constituted what is legally known as a “true threat”. The central questions are what I intended it to be received as, and how it was in fact received. Context is key. That’s important to know when you are fedposting, because “I didn’t actually say I was gonna kill the guy” is not a defense in court. The question is, did you intend to intimidate the person in question, and your use of innuendo and jargon does not a defense make.

The appeal of my criminal case currently pends before the first circuit court of appeals. A central feature of my appeal is that hearsay was used to undermine my contextual defense. I defended my conduct by saying in the context of my relationship with the alleged victim, the statement I was charged with making was not a “true threat” legally, and that to undermine this defense, the prosecution invoked out of court statements by someone who was not called to testify.

If the court rules against me, which let’s face it, is the baseline expectation, it will not be because my argument is meritless. What the prosecution did was inarguably against the rules of evidence. It is, what is known as “plain error”, though I hate that term because error implies lack of intent, and they knew exactly what they were doing.

But the point I’m trying to make here is not so much to bitch about injustice or to teach you about the law. It is to demonstrate that it ain’t over when you get charged with a crime. It ain’t even over when you get convicted. The legal process is full of intricacies and uncertainty, and process, process, process. There’s guys who spend ten years in prison, some of them guilty as hell, they empty their assets into the pockets of lawyers, and then get their sentences reduced or their convictions expunged on a Hail Mary pro se filing typed up by some weirdo they met on the yard.

People get intimidated by the system, appropriately. Guilty or not, they fear that they are powerless against it, and not without justification. But whatever your challenges in Court, they are less certain to destroy you than a bullet through your temple.

If you have a family, and you are put on trial, they will suffer. No doubt. If you are sent to prison, and they have to get by without their breadwinner, you will be tormented day in and day out by the guilt of failing to meet your obligations. But you will fail to meet those obligations all the more, and all the more certainly, if you are dead. When I hear about some family man blowing his brains out to spare his family some harm, I get really upset. With all due respect to the dead, I mean to protect the living with what I say today, so sorry for the F, but what kind of fucking asshole thought process, leads a man to conclude his family will suffer less upon discovery of his lifeless corpse, than to endure some number of years, without the benefit of his presence?

If you ever get the idea in your head, that you’re gonna whack yourself for somebody else’s benefit, let these words be the last thing you think before you pull that trigger. That’s a bunch of fucking bullshit, and you goddamn know it. I don’t blame you for feeling overwhelmed. But whatever obligations you incurred prior to your arrest, did not get erased by that arrest, and they will not be erased by your death. That is not how familial obligations work. You owe, and ain’t no such thing as bankruptcy in this field of endeavor. Pull it the fuck together, and do whatever you can of what you must.

The future is uncertain, it is ALWAYS uncertain. You can bring a certain conclusion to your life on this earth, but if you think your heartbeat and brain activity are all there is to your existence, well, no wonder you’re fuckin suicidal. Your impact on the world continues in those children, and in all the people whose lives you have impacted, and thus continues your obligations, whether you strive to meet them, or not.

But let’s face it, these people didn’t indict you because they thought it would be a fun exercise. There’s a reasonable likelihood that you’re going down. You are unlikely to succeed on appeal, and even if you do, it’s gonna take awhile. I’ve done all my time and my appeal is still pending. You’re going to have to figure out how to get on inside the walls.

Let’s begin with an important distinction. Jail is not prison. These things get confused in the common parlance because they have a lot in common and most people have no reason to discern between the two, but there are differences that take on quite profound meaning once you have to do some time. Most people who know the difference between prison and jail assume that prison is worse, but everybody who has been to prison can tell you it is exactly the opposite.

Jail is where you go before you are convicted. It is usually run by the county or the city. Jails are designed to house pretrial detainees, and people who are sentenced to less than one year of confinement. Many are notoriously filthy, violent, crowded, and teeming with transient mentally ill people and drug addicts in withdrawal. They typically have a bare minimum of health care, mental health assistance, or rehabilitative programs, by design, because most of the people in them will soon be leaving, whether it is through the front door or on a bus to a prison.

Prisons are exclusively for convicted felons who have been sentenced to more than one year of confinement. They are typically run by State governments or the Federal Government. Depending on the prison, there are varying degrees of programming, recreation, and services available, designed, ostensibly, to prepare prisoners for release back into the community. They are typically much larger than jails, and are subjected to higher standards since people are expected to endure long stays inside them. For the same reason, the prisoners themselves tend to behave differently.

These environments are very different, and different incentives attend to them.

For one example, while I was being held in Strafford County, I got in two physical altercations. Both times, me and the guy I mixed it up with were punished with two weeks in disciplinary segregation. Disciplinary segregation is typically a 23 hour lockdown with minimal distractions and no access to commissary, which, if you don’t know, commissary is like the store where you can buy things from in correctional facilities.

To say the least of it, this does not provide much of a deterrence to violence. Depending on the circumstances, somebody can be charged with a crime if they commit one in jail, but this is not frequently the outcome, and that expectation is how people inform their decision making. If you’re a violent criminal who will assault people on the street knowing it could get you years in prison, two weeks in disciplinary segregation is not enough to keep you from assaulting people in jail. In his eyes, going to jail is actually an incentive to be more violent, because the penalties are comparatively reduced quite dramatically, and you can hardly be surprised that dumb animals behave like dumb animals when met with such incentives.

Prison, by comparison, provides substantially greater disincentives to petty violence. Serious violence such as rape, stabbings, and murder, are more common in prisons than in jails. But there is no sort of permissive attitude about this among the staff or among the prisoners. Violence in prison is a big deal, and so when it happens it is often more serious than in jail, but n my limited experience it is more avoidable in prison than in jail. While in jail, mentally ill people will just attack you because they are fucking crazy and don’t have any reason not to. In prison you can spend months in disciplinary segregation while the violence is “investigated”. So, people have a greater disincentive to just randomly attack other prisoners, and if you are not disrespecting people, gambling, borrowing, trafficking in contraband, or making yourself aware of things which you can be accused of informing on, then you are substantially less likely to find yourself on the receiving end of an assault.

But, if you are a reckless shit talker, or engage in other conflict prone behavior, you are a lot more likely to get stabbed in prison. When violence happens in prison, the goal is to get the victim off the unit permanently so as to not have to deal with them. Getting punched in the face sucks, but it will only lead to prolonged conflict if you aren’t hospitalized. So, in prison, respect is exceedingly important.

Rape is not nearly so frequent in prison as you might think from watching TV. It’s more common in prison than in jail, for sure, largely to the fact that people in jail are likely to leave before homosexual behavior appeals to otherwise heterosexual men. Two guys were in disciplinary segregation when I left Marion, and they had been accused of raping a guy, but I was in no position to judge the veracity of that allegation. The idea that guys are walking around with raging hard ons raping people for urgency of desire is largely fake. There are enough homosexuals in prison, and increasingly, trannies, who are all too happy to service their fellow prisoners free or cheap without the need for coercion. Numbers are hard to come by, for obvious and not so obvious reasons, but I’ve heard estimates that about 1 in 10 male prisoners engage in some kind of consensual sexual behavior with another male prisoner at some point during their incarceration. I think this is probably accurate. I never witnessed it, thank god, but I heard credible rumors while I was locked up in Marion, and I am willing to bet it is more common in less restrictive and less monitored places, especially where drugs are pervasive.

Of course, there are differences of opinion as to what constitutes consent or coercion. If some effeminate homosexual is performing sexual favors in exchange for money collected by people who provide him with protection, is that consensual? This is a subject of debate for other formats, and not likely to be a subject of urgent concern for anyone listening to this show.

Especially in the federal system, but I expect in most state prisons as well, there is a more rigorous classification process than in jail. A jail simply takes the murderers and the drunk drivers and the crazy people screaming at cars, and puts them all in the same box and hopes they don’t kill eachother before the Judge can sort them out. Prisons are more conscientious, and there are more than 9 levels to this particular version of hell. The vast majority of federal prisoners are sent to camps, or low security facilities. To reach a medium security facility you typically have to have committed a violent crime, and people who end up in penitentiaries or maximum security prisons typically are either murderers, rapists, have some extenuating circumstance, or have gotten in trouble in other areas of the prison system.

This provides a strong disincentive to bad behavior, especially violence. Especially at the camps, there are drugs and cellphones galore. Escape is possible and deterred primarily by the threat of incurring new charges. I have even heard stories of female prostitutes sneaking onto the grounds, to service the better off clientele at exorbitant rates. I am not saying it would be wise to join in any of this behavior, but it gives you an idea of the level of freedom one still enjoys while locked up there. If somebody creates a victim, he is likely to lose access to such amenities.

You take your smartphone for granted today, but it really cannot be stressed enough what a luxury it is to have one is in prison. After you’ve spent a year or so in pretrial detention in county, the capacities a cell phone provides will seem amazing to you, and time will zip by like the breeze as you chat and play and work.

I mentioned commissary, and this is more important than most people can imagine. People get the idea in their head that the world just stops spinning while you’re incarcerated and that is so not the case. Any jail or prison will provide you with everything you need to survive at taxpayer expense, but the comforts you can purchase from the commissary are meaningful. You typically eat dinner around 4:30pm, and for me, this results in hunger before bedtime. Prisons typically provide a warmer set of clothes, but jails can also be cold at night, and buying sweatpants and sweatshirt is important. In my experience, jail commissary is anywhere from two to four times more expensive than in prison, and the quality of the products is not nearly as good. For example, ramen soups costed $0.95 in Strafford County, and $0.25 at Marion. The menu items were also about twice as numerous, and when things are cheaper, one can afford to be more discriminating in their tastes.

Eat your vegetables, and drink your milk. The diet provided to you by the facility is not random crap. It is designed by qualified professionals to give you nutrients your body needs. If you don’t like something on your tray, I’m not saying you’ve got to eat all of it every time, but you can find yourself with some kind of deficiency if you don’t eat the food they give you. Get whatever sun you can too, because your body needs that more than you probably realize. I did a lot of time when going outside wasn’t an option, and I didn’t realize what was happening but it was causing me to be hungry all the time, and I only understood it when I started going outside everyday and the hunger stopped and I was like holy shit my body was trying to find something it was missing.

This is how I got fat in jail, eating cheap garbage at night during a COVID lockdown. I gained almost 40lbs. I dropped 15 in prison, and I am happy to report I’ve dropped more than another 25 since I’ve been out. Goodbye fat pants! More on that later…

I’ll tell you a little bit more about what day to day life is like, but I wanted to get some of these basics out of the way, and especially to differentiate between jail and prison. Experienced criminals try to conclude their cases as quickly as possible to get the hell out of jail and into the prison system because they reasonably expect their lives to improve there.

And it can improve, almost in perpetuity. The more time you’re in, the more people learn to navigate the system, and one another, and the potential for conflict tends to be reduced. The guards get to know you, and if you’re not an asshole, you can develop friendly relationships with them without being accused of snitching by other prisoners. A friendly cop can make a world of difference while you’re incarcerated, and that’s one of the reasons I promote a positive attitude toward law enforcement on this show. Power is your friend, and  all the more so if you are dependent on them to open your gate and to feed you.

So, if you’re ever in jail and thinking to yourself “I can’t stay here for X number of years” don’t worry, you won’t have to. If you think you’re going to end up someplace worse after jail, you won’t. You’re not going to get raped, you’re not going to get beaten up everyday, and I have my doubts you’re going to be among the one in ten who starts banging other dudes out of boredom. In the unlikely event that you are, that behavior will in all likelihood cease once you have access to women, unless you’ve been some kinda closet case the whole time.

So, at this point in the narrative, you might be asking yourself “Well, then what the hell am I going to do?”

Not much. Whatever you want, really. In a way, there’s a lot more freedom in jail and prison than there is outside. You ain’t got to do shit but be there, for the most part.

Some places say you have to work, but chances are you’ll want a job because of the benefits of having one, which can be substantial even in places that don’t pay prisoners. In Strafford I used to get $55 a week for cleaning up my housing unit at night, but the money was nothing compared to the benefit I had of getting the TV and microwave to myself after everybody else was locked in for the evening. In the federal prison in Marion, I couldn’t get a job because I was in the CMU. That meant I had to find other ways to occupy my time, I had no special privileges, and I was dependent on people outside for commissary. If you don’t want to work, they can’t really make you, but refusing a job can result in minor disciplinary action and being housed less favorably by classification.

The people who work there don’t want to know what you are doing, for the most part. In a lot of places, the prisoner to staff ratio is easily 100 to 1, and they couldn’t keep track of what everybody was doing even if they wanted to work hard, which in nearly all cases, they do not. These are some of the most notoriously lazy people on the planet, and unless you make them work, they are not inclined to bother you.

By default, you’re going to have a cellmate almost anywhere you go. Sometimes more than one. Some housing units, commonly referred to as dorms, are just one giant cell with a hundred people on bunk beds. Depending on your social attitudes, this can be a mixed bag.

Personally, I will do almost anything to avoid having a cellmate. If I can’t be with a woman I love, or men I respect, then my next best option is to be in absolute solitude, in which I am perfectly happy, provided I have mental stimulation in terms of interesting books, talk radio, and access to news. The great thing about being happy with solitude in jail and prison is, you can always find it, in the worst case scenario, by getting in trouble. After my second fight in county, I never got stuck with another cellmate the whole time I was in that jail. Not that I was fighting with my cellmates, in fact, the first fight happened because my cellmate was a fuckin pussy and I was standing up for him when somebody tried to bully him. But I told classification I was conflict prone and I’d be substantially less likely to get in trouble if I had a single cell, and I had a single cell until they shipped me out. But I wasn’t alone, I had a single cell in what is known as a pod, which is to say many cells which open up into a common area known as a day room.

If you require contact with other human beings, there are different advantages that attend to this. Typically, you’re going to have this contact whether you want it or not, so it helps to want it. Your life will not be improved, however, if your neighbors detect that you think you’re better than them. From what I know about this audience, that’s more than likely to be the case, so you’ll want to be conscious of the signals you are sending. This can be cognitively demanding if you are accustomed to an honest life, but as we’ve alluded to in prior episodes, it might be worth the effort to think more about how you appear to others, for political reasons, prison aside.

If you know how to play cards, poker and spades in particular, you’ll have no trouble making acquaintances. I discourage gambling, but the problems associated this are more typically associated with debt than the wagers themselves, so keep that in mind. Spades, as you may know, is typically a friendly game. People bet on everything in prison so I’m sure there are people who bet on a game of spades, but from what I’ve observed it’s mostly an excuse to slap the table and talk shit.

Voluntary racial segregation is the norm, obviously. There’s not a lot of Jews in prison suppress it, so whites tend to become race conscious while there even if they weren’t on the outside. Depending on where you’re housed, many classification officers have a loose tendency not to mix whites and blacks as cellmates, but that’s not by any means universal, and in any case once you come out of your cells you are going to be in the same room as eachother, so, get used to that. But, typically whites sit with whites, blacks with blacks, Spanish with Spanish, Islam with Islam, and so forth.

This does not mean that prison creates white racial unity, by an stretch of the imagination. It just means that they become conscious of the racial element of their social order, and this does not imply that they do a good job of assessing or navigating it. Most white guys in jail, and many still in prison, are scared of blacks, and not without cause. If you get in a fight with a black guy, if blacks jump you, don’t expect the other white guys to jump in, and if you’re smart, you won’t do it for them either absent other cause. The idea that your skin is your uniform in a race war is an edgy meme, and has no place in the prison social order.

Who is white, that’s an interesting subject.

There’s a lot of ostensibly white guys in the Gangster Disciples, but they are not, for our purposes, white. They are gang members who are loyal to their gang, and the Gangster Disciples were formerly known as the Black Gangster Disciples Nation. The was BGDN founded by Larry Hoover and David Barksdale in 1969, and subsequently split into what are now known as the Gangster Disciples and the Black Disciples. This is a black power gang that paints six sided stars all over the place, and I can only assume White guys join it for protection, but I dare say one is better off solo, even if there is a beating involved.

My experiences with these guys wasn’t bad, for what it’s worth. The white and non-white ones actually treated me with considerable respect in Strafford County. They knew who I was and what I was about and I guess they kinda bought the media narrative that White Supremacy is gangster shit and they perceived me as having status in it so, we never had to test one another’s boundaries. Your mileage may vary.

A lot of Whites convert to Islam in prison, and this too, I assume is a matter of protection. I also suppose that the upside of Islam is, they tell you pretty much exactly what to do so, if you don’t know how to act, they’ll provide you with a fairly rigid standard of conduct which, if you abide by it, will secure your place in the group. But of course, Muslims sit with Muslims, and are thus, for our purposes, not White, whatever the organization of their DNA.

Interestingly, my experience with Muslims in prison is quite positive. This stems in part from recruitment efforts, no doubt, but more to the point they are not typically involved in senseless behavior, even the black ones, on whom this rigid standard of conduct has a remarkably civilizing effect. They are interested in politics and have no use for liberals, and so you can watch the news or listen to talk radio with them and remark about the marvelous things that fall from Jewish and adjacent mouths in the process, without any fear of misunderstanding one another.

The Spanish speakers are, as Joe Biden put it, more diverse than the African American community. At one place I was housed, there were enough of them that the Puerto Ricans were a separate group from the Mexicans, but in smaller numbers they constitute a single group. The Puerto Ricans, in such an instance, tend to view themselves as of a higher caste, and will consequently adhere closer to Whites than blacks in some matters. This can prove a useful conduit of influence if you need to negotiate across racial lines. Come to think of it, the Muslims are pretty good at this too.

Pride in your race will not often be inspired by the White guys you meet in jail. Prison, a bit more so, but by no means is this universal. A fentanyl junky who was shitting his pants in withdrawals two weeks ago is not an impressive specimen. If he was stealing from his mother to fund his habit before he got arrested, you can reasonably assume he wasn’t just skipping her to extend greater loyalty to his broader racial family.

That reminds me of another advantage of prison over jail. Aside from the fact that the prisoners are typically further from the depths of their drug addictions, the worst people in the world to be around are not murderers. They are petty thieves. This is not a moral judgement, it is a question of who you would rather spend your days with, when you have to pick from a menu of criminals. Bank robbers, killers, high level drug dealers, terrorists, you might not want to introduce some of these people to your wife, but they are infinitely better company than some junky who just can’t stop breaking windows to steal change from ashtrays. Any day of the week, I’d rather watch Tucker Carlson with a black Muslim, than watch some fucking white junky change the channel 500 times because he can’t concentrate on anything so intellectually stimulating as music video.

One thing people get scared about when going from jail to prison, is that you are around more serious criminals. That concern is not without a degree of merit, but as far as your day to day interactions are concerned, especially when it comes to white guys, these people are actually better to be around, in my, albeit limited, experience.

This is all the more the case in federal prison, and my view of this is doubtlessly informed by the fact that it is all the much better still, in the CMU. The FBI is not above snatching dope fiends off the street in flimsy drug dealing conspiracies, but the goal is typically to flip them, and you’ll not be shocked to learn it usually works. Other than that, the FBI isn’t typically involved in your day to day law enforcement stuff. So the people in federal prison are often a higher caliber of criminal than in state prisons, and certainly higher than the average lowlife in county jail.

You might have heard that Derek Chauvin, and the guys who were convicted of killing Ahmad Arbery, both tried to do their time in federal prison instead of state prison. This is partly why. Federal prison, depending on where you’re comparing it to, can often have longer sentences, but your quality of life tends to be better, and while there’s some evidence that the facilities themselves are better, the bigger issue is the caliber of people you’re around.

Ultimately, you should do what you can to minimize the necessity for caring who is around you. Always be exceedingly polite, especially to people you don’t like. Make a reasonable effort not be overheard discussing political topics you expect to piss people off. Don’t join a gang. Don’t get tattoos, especially on your face. Don’t do drugs. Don’t drink alcohol. Don’t get into avoidable arguments. Don’t Insult people. Don’t gamble. Don’t borrow. Don’t lend.

You will almost certainly borrow and lend anyway. It’s very common, and it almost always works out. If you borrow and you pay on time, ultimately, there’s not going to be a problem. But shit happens. The commissary is out of something you’re supposed to repay, your people don’t make a deposit when they’re supposed to, whatever the case may be, and you can hardly blame people for assuming the worst about men they meet in prison. If you lend, then somebody doesn’t pay you, well, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to let this guy dick you around and look like a punk? Or are you going to fight some retard over potato chips?  You have no good options.

You’re going to make some friends whether you want to or not. Chances are, there will be at least a couple of decent people there, and if you’ve got three guys who have a few bucks coming in, then nobody is going to have to go a week without a deodorant, and nobody is going to get hungry at night. In Marion, I knew that Viktor Bout, Matt Hale, and Bill White were solid people, and they knew that I was solid. If any of us needed anything, we would ask one another, and we would have it without any discussion of repayment. Next time commissary came, you got your stuff back, or you got told that the commissary was out and he offered you anything you wanted to make up for it, and you typically tell him, “whenever they get it in stock is fine, thanks”. Not a big deal.

In Strafford, the commissary was expensive, not a lot of guys had jobs, and your neighbor wasn’t necessarily going to be there next week, so lending typically involved interest. Guys who had money would run basically their own store, and they would either give you one item and expect two in return, or two items and end expect three. Pretty steep. But on top of the fact that guys get released from county jail more frequently than a federal prison, Strafford was a place where you could just tell the cops “Hey I owe and I can’t pay” and they’ll move you to another unit.  So, the guys who lent were doing so at greater risk.

Here’s a scenario. You borrow from a guy, he gets in trouble and they take him to the hole. Somebody else says “Hey, you gotta pay me what you owe him”. This actually happened to me.

Do you pay him? There’s no right answer here. It’s a coin toss. Maybe you pay him, you see the other guy and you say “Yeah, I paid your boy” and he says “What boy? You owe me. Pay.” Or, maybe he says “Good lookin out” and everything is fine. Maybe you say “I didn’t borrow from you, I’m not paying you”. Forget the debt, you just insulted this guy by calling him a liar.

When in doubt, pay. That way, you can’t be accused of being dishonorable. If you gotta pay twice, pay twice. Now one of them is dishonorable. If you have to choose between being seen as dishonorable and just about any other option, choose the other option, even weakness.

Clean your cell when you move in, and no less than once a week after, and I mean wipe the whole thing down with a wet rag and preferably some kind of cleaning chemical. As a general matter, always clean up after yourself, if you have a cold drink that leaves condensation on a table, wipe it up.

Don’t skip showers. Don’t fart in the presence of others if you can avoid it. If you have a cellmate and you have to fart in his presence, sit on the toilet with your pants on and flush while you fart. It sounds dumb, but prison toilets are usually very powerful. They have to be on account of retards throwing things in them that don’t belong there. Even if it doesn’t work to eliminate the smell, it is a show of courtesy, which is more important than the practical effect.

When you shit, you flush while you shit, repeatedly. Cellmate or no cellmate. These are called courtesy flushes. Pinch flush repeat. Sometimes this will make the toilet seat cold and you will not appreciate this. Do it anyway.

Blacks will be loud. It is impolite to be loud in jail or prison. They will do it anyway. You will not.

The general idea of what I have outlined here is that you don’t want your presence to be a discomfort to others. Noise, smells, and mess, make other people’s lives more difficult, and the last thing anybody in prison wants is for their life to be more difficult. That makes time move more slowly, and everybody in prison wants to fast forward. If you piss off your friends, you won’t have any. if you piss other people off, your friends will not appreciate the burden this places on them, and you won’t have any.

So let’s talk about friends for a minute.

When I got to Strafford, I was amazed at how white it was. I had once been in a mostly white unit inside a mostly black jail back in New York, and it is interesting what this does to social dynamics. While jail does not automatically create white racial unity, it does determine your social circle when white are the minority. This is not so much the case when whites are the majority. I won’t spend a lot of time on this, because it is so unusual it hardly warrants mention.

But in this environment, friendship is much like friendship anywhere else. People find their own level, they find common interests, and our fellow whites are not particularly interested in the fact that you are also white. When they are the minority, they care about this much more, and for good reason. But if there’s one or two black guys on your unit, they’re not gonna sit alone, and you’re probably not gonna  tell them to.

When whites are the ethnic minority, as per usual, upon arrival, White guys will introduce themselves to you. Smile, make a firm handshake, and thank them. What I told you earlier about borrowing, forget about it. If they offer you things to get settled in, accept them. But, make the repayment terms clear. If you’re just getting to jail after arrest, and you had money on you when you were arrested, that money is in your account already. If somebody offers you something, say “Thank you so much man, I really appreciate it. When does commissary come? I have money on my books. I’ll replace it as soon as I can place an order”. Telling him that you will “replace it” is a not so subtle way of saying “I am not paying interest.” The dynamics are similar if you are going from jail to prison, or if you’re transferred from one place to another, simply adjust for the accounting.

If somebody lends you something at interest, he is not trying to be your friend, at least not through this gesture. Giving you something and expecting a return on his investment is a sales pitch, and you should only do this upon proper consideration, not as a means of getting to know somebody.

It is entirely possible he will say “Don’t worry about it, I got you” or something to that affect. If he does, tell him you will take care of the next White guy who comes on the unit.

Whatever the outcome of this interaction, you should do this for the next white guy who comes on the unit. Try to have an extra soap, an extra deodorant, an extra set of shower shoes, and some extra coffee around. When a white guy comes on the unit, you introduce yourself, ask if he needs anything, and no matter what he says, make sure he gets a set of shower shoes if they arent’ provided by the facility.

You might not know about shower shoes, it occurs to me. In your shower, you just get naked and wash yourself off. In jail and prison, you generally share a shower with others. Depending on the environment, there is a varying likelihood that people are masturbating in those showers. If you want to step in another man’s semen, then get in the shower without shower shoes and get your feet pregnant, but most people don’t want pregnant feet. So if you are the guy who gives the new guy his shower shoes, you’re off to a good start with the new guy.

A more common problem than pregnant feet is foot fungus. If you’ve never had this problem, lucky you. If you have had this problem, you know how much it sucks. One of the first things you’ll want to buy from commissary is whatever antigfungal product is on the menu. All correctional facilities sell them. Don’t wait until you need it, buy it right away. You should also get “triple antibiotic ointment”. All correctional facilities sell this. It is basically a generic Neosporin, and it hastens the healing of cuts and prevents infections. Don’t wait until you need it, buy it right away.

Wherever you go, analyze the social dynamics of the unit. Sometimes there is an identifiable shot caller. People might tell you who he is directly. In the absence of a designated shot caller, hierarchies nonetheless emerge. The biggest guy on the unit has influence, obviously, and he’s usually not White. But intelligence plays a big role too. So does money. Do not express disapproval of the social order if you are not influential enough to change it, and upon arrival you are certainly lacking this influence.

Some facilities designate an inmate as a “Pod Rep” or something to this effect, essentially somebody who acts as a liaison between inmates and staff. Be friendly toward him.

If there are gangs, which is common, you might have a situation where a gang claims to run the unit. They might say who can use what phone when. This might piss you off, but take my word for it, this is not worth fighting over unless they say you can’t use the phone at all. It’s possible, even likely, they are preventing a worse situation from emerging.

I’ll give you an example. When I left Strafford, but before I got to Marion, they dropped me in a Corrections Corporation of America facility, a private prison, in Tallahatchie, Mississippi. This place was notorious, people all throughout the federal prison system tell stories about Tallahatchie. We pulled up on the bus and this tall black dude with dreads to his thighs takes one look at the staff and says “There’s way too many black people working here” and I wholeheartedly agreed in total silence. The place wasn’t just run by black people, but black women, specifically, and no matter how reliably they vote Democrat, black men are not feminists. They do not respect women as authorities, especially black women, and the black women, at this facility, were disinclined to assert themselves, so the place was absolute fucking chaos. Guys were smoking synthetic cannabinoids out in the open, which, if you don’t know, is one of the most dangerous drugs around. People got beat up, people got stabbed, there were these like kiosks that were supposed to be for commissary and they destroyed the kiosks and started making weapons out of them, it was the most dangerous thing I had ever been anywhere near.

The phones were absolute goddamn chaos . We had a hundred guys trying to share four phones, and nobody could agree if there was one line for all the phones, or a separate line for each phone, and arguments were threatening to turn into fights all the time. The Gangster Disciples and the Puerto Ricans got together without consulting the Whites, and they said “This is the Spanish phone, this is the gang phone, and those two phones are for everybody else. That meant whites had to share the two ‘everybody else” phones with non-affiliated blacks, but Bloods, Crips, and Gangster Disciples, had one phone and they handled access in their own hierarchy. The Spanish guys had cell phones, and they never touched their phone. There would be a line an hour long for the neutral phones, but if you tried to pick up that Spanish phone, you would get surrounded by gang members who would insist that you hang up and wait your turn on the neutral phone, and they would absolutely send you to medical if you challenged their authority.

Believe it or not, this was a better arrangement than we had prior. They maintained order in a place where the staff could not and would not. They ran the unit, by force, and they actually did a reasonably good job of it. In that environment, you can go to a gang leader and tell him your problems and ask him to solve them. If he wants to maintain his dominion, he has an incentive to comply. Your polite request legitimates his authority, it is a show of respect, and he will more than likely make a reasonable effort to incentivize this.

The TVs there were chaos too, obviously. I had one request. I want to watch Tucker Carlson. And, you guessed it, I watched Tucker Carlson, with the help of black gang members. And it is worth noting, that they knew exactly who I was and had a CNN viewer’s comprehension of what my politics were.

All of which is to say, don’t buck the social order. Learn it, and navigate it, and your social situation, and notably, your safety, will be much improved.

The black gang members are not your friends though, obviously. Friendly, preferably, but your friends are White, and you’re going to have an easier time making those White friends, if your White friends don’t think being friends with you is going to get them in a fight with the blacks. You follow?

Guys with Swastika tattoos might be your friends, or they might not be your friends. Do not assume that somebody covered in Nazi ink knows the things you know. In prison, swastikas are gang signs, not indicia of nuanced views about World War II.

At the same place in Tallahatchie, I met a guy named Drew. Drew did something straight out of American History X when we got to the place. I had sat next to him on the plane and I didn’t know anything about him, but when he went up on the second tier, took off his shirt, and displayed his giant swastika while leaning on the rail, I figured I had my first friend.

Drew turned out to be a pretty good guy, for prison. We got along well, but he had never read Mein Kampf, which a reasonable person might assume was something you did before you got such a tattoo.

I had been checking out the talk radio options at the facility, and after I had a reasonably good idea of what was on, I sat down next to Drew and asked him if he was into talk radio. He told me that’s all he listens to, and you’re not gonna believe this, he tells me “I really like that Ben Shapiro guy”.

Now, we had just gotten there, this guy didn’t know who I was yet, and I don’t have Nazi tats advertising my politics. So I figured this was a good opportunity to let him know that I favored his symbols. I said “I like a lot of what he says too, but hardly an episode goes by where he doesn’t remind me that he’s Jewish and that drives me nuts”.

He says to me “He’s don’t sound like a Jew to me” and I just sorta let it go. He went on to tell me that he’s been in and out of prison most of his life, and he picked up the Nazi ink as part of a skinhead gang in California. He literally didn’t even understand the conflict between Jews and Nazis. I had to explain the Jewish question to this guy covered in Nazi ink. On race, he told me “I just don’t like blacks. I fuck with them Puerto Ricans though.”

I tell this story, one because it’s funny, but more to illustrate that Nazi means something different in prison than it does on Telegram. It’s a gang affiliation, and whatever you are, you’re not a fuckin gang member. Assuming you’re gonna get out someday, you shouldn’t become one, either. Some people cover themselves in Nazi symbols not because they think Hitler was right, but because they are as convinced as any Jew that he was the most evil man who ever lived, and they too, want to be evil.

Prison will force you to interact with evil people. You will more than likely come to enjoy their company, to some extent. But you are not evil, and you should not become convinced that you are on account of your compulsory surroundings.

I actually ended up getting along much better with a common horse thief, and I mean that, almost literally. Dude was doing 3 years for interstate transportation of stolen livestock. The way I met him was kind of an interesting story too.

When we first got to Tallahatchie, I had my own cell, which as I’ve mentioned, is a big deal to me. I was told by staff members “this is your cell” and I went to that cell. At the county jail I had come from, you would get in trouble if you refused a cellmate, which is important to understand the next part of the story.

One day, a whole bunch of new guys come onto the unit. Some black dude shows up at my door with his sleeping pad and says “you mind if I move in?” and I didn’t think I had much of a choice, so I said “sure guy, let me get my stuff off your bunk.”

Then I looked outside, and I saw people negotiating their cellmate situations, and it occurred to me that this dude wasn’t assigned to my cell, he chose me. So I stopped him and I was like “Hey, ah, I don’t have a personal problem with you, but before you get settled in, I should probably tell you that I’m a White Nationalist.”

He asks “What’s that mean?”

I tell him “I don’t think that White people benefit from the presence of other racial groups, and that we should have our own country. It’s nothing personal against you, it’s a political thing”

He says “Oh, okay, no problem” and keeps getting settled in.

While this is going on, I notice that there’s a bunch of white guys down in the day room who don’t have cells to go to, and they’re talking amongst themselves about what to do. I went downstairs and I said “one of you need a cell?” and my soon to be horse thief friend says yeah.

So I go back upstairs, and I tell my would be negro neighbor “Hey, look, I’m sorry to interrupt you while you’re trying to get settled in here, but I gotta ask you to find another cell. There’s white guys down there who need a bunk and I gotta take care of them.”

He says to me “I think you’re being racist”

I says to him “Dude I just told you I’m a White Nationalist and I’m kicking you out in favor of a White man. Of course I’m being racist, that’s the whole point”.

When you get to a new facility, I mentioned shower shoes earlier, some give you the shower shoes as your primary footwear upon arrival. Some kind of plastic crocks or sandals, but you may or may not have regular shoes in your property. This guy was wearing his crocks as I say this to him.

Generally speaking, you don’t want to wear such things as your primary footwear, because they are not good for fighting. If you are wearing them, and you decide you are going to fight, then when you go to put your shoes on, it is a show of aggression. If you want to have a fair fight with a man in crocks, you say “Put your fuckin shoes on” as a challenge.

This guy puts his shoes on, and refuses to leave the cell. I tell him, “buddy, you’re gonna leave this cell, and if you want to fight me first, that’s your call.”

He sees his buddy walk by my door, and he calls the guy’s name. Dude comes in the cell, and he tells him “This guy’s racist, says I can’t move into his cell”

His buddy tells him “Then what the fuck you doin here? Let’s get you another cell”.

Problem solved. I went and got my horse thief friend, told him the story, and we had a good laugh about it.

I had a lot more in common with this guy than I did with Drew. This guy led a normal life, he had a wife and kids and a successful business, and I never tried to get the details out of him, but he figured he could make a bunch of extra money if he bent the rules a little and, like most non criminals, he got caught. He was an honest guy, who made a bad choice, and got nailed for it. He wasn’t covered in tattoos. He wasn’t particularly race conscious before coming to prison. He was a Christian who thought Israel had some special place in God’s plan, and in all my tours of the American criminal justice system, I had never had a more pleasant cellmate.

Fortunately, I didn’t have a cellmate in Marion. When the bus pulled up, I saw “USP Marion” on the sign, and I got scared. USP stands for United States Penitentiary, and a Penitentiary is the second highest security classification right under ADX which means Administrative-Maximum U.S. Penitentiary. In holding cells, you hear horror stories about Penitentiaries, but as it turns out, Marion operates more like an FCC, or Federal Corrections Complex, with different security classifications spread across what is known as “the Compound”.

The Communications Management Unit, or CMU, is a very high security unit. It has to be, in order to control communications. A unit that you can get drugs into, is a unit that you can get messages out of, and that was not acceptable to the people who run it, which is an outfit known as the Counter Terrorist Unit, or CTU. The CTU is not organizationally part of the Bureau of Prisons, or BOP. They are an intelligence agency, and accordingly their mission has nothing to do with law or justice. They are a political secret police, and my understanding, which I have not endeavored to verify, is that there are line items on their respective budgets in which the CTU is actually renting space from the BOP to run the CMU, to give you an idea of how this works.

But, the purpose of the security classification is the communications component. Not violence. If you are a communications risk and prone to uncontrolled violence, you go to ADX, and people not infrequently are transferred between the CMU and the ADX, depending on the circumstances.

There are two CMUs. In at USP Marion, in Illinois and one at USP Terre Haute, in Indiana. If you get in a fight at Marion and they have to give you a separatee, one of you is going to go to Terre Haute, most likely. If you have separatees in both places, the only place they can send you, is ADX.

In any case, after I got out of quarantine and they put me on the unit, I am greeted warmly by several people, including a man with a dark tan who asks me my ethnic background. I tell him I’m Irish and Italian, and he says “I’m a Jew”. I tell him, “good to know” and keep it moving.

I meet Matt Hale for the first time, and although we have no idea who one another are yet, we understand without saying anything that the other is race conscious, and shake hands.

I find out the toilet in my cell is broke, and the cops move me upstairs. Upon which, a fat guy with white skin named Steve comes and introduces himself, and asks me if I need anything. I assume he is white and ask for coffee and antiperspirant. He says he will introduce me to Mohammed, aka Frenchie, who will lend me whatever I want at 20% interest. I accept the offer, thank them both profusely, and go back downstairs to talk to Matt.

Matt subsequently informs me that Steve is Jewish, and the interest bearing trip to Mohammed begins to make more sense.

At my first meal with this group, Matt invites me to sit at his table, and I accept. At some point in the course of our conversation I make mention of “my website” and a guy by the name of Jarrett Smith asks me what my website is. I tell him ChristopherCantwell.com (now ChristopherCantwell.net), and the whole table simultaneously says “Holy Shit!” letting me know they were familiar with my name, but did not recognize me.

I didn’t have to try very hard to make friends, thankfully. It was part of the package.

I’m not going to say a whole lot else about my social interactions in Marion. I have my reasons.

I will tell you that I had five situations at Marion that almost turned into fights while I was there, and all of them were with blacks, and over the TV. None of them resulted in anybody putting hands on anybody, and for this reason, I think they are instructive.

Black people love TV. They will watch Ridiculousness all day long, and never tire of it. If you don’t know, I’m not just saying that what they watch is ridiculous, though that too. I mean they watch as show called Ridiculousness, which is basically a blooper videos show that has seemingly become the singular purpose of what was once called Music Television, or MTV. I, too, like TV, and as you may have gathered, I like the Fox News Channel. Black people, for the most part, have little use for the Fox News Channel, and this was a source of constant friction during my incarceration.

Matt Hale hardly watched television. He had it worked out that he just wanted to watch Tucker Carlson, and that was considered Matt’s TV time. It didn’t matter if there was a football or basketball game on, or if some idiot started watching a movie at 6:30. At 7pm (8pm Eastern), Matt would put the Fox News Channel on and watch Tucker. I too, like Tucker, but I was not about to let it be the case that White men got one hour of TV time a day just because they like the same show. I like to watch the news whenever I am not doing something more worthwhile. And so, I tend to insist on respectable negotiations over the TV.

Sometimes, black people think they can just insist, and that White men will simply go along with it. Usually, they are right. With me, they were wrong.

I too, insist. I don’t insist on anything in particular, as long as I’ve got Tucker, I’m fairly easy to negotiate with, but the news is always happening, and when left to my own devices, I leave the Fox News Channel on mute while I do other things at home. I unmute it when something catches the corner of my eye. When one shares a TV, this is obviously untenable, so I just try to make things equitable.

The first altercation arises when one black guy who I knew had only a few months left to do, wrote up his own TV schedule and posted it up on the wall, deciding that he would determine who got the TV when without any negotiation. His time slot, of course, was from 7pm to lockdown, which is when everybody wants the TV. That is why they call it, Prime Time.

I flatly insisted that he lacked the authority to do this, and demanded a negotiation. He said “Nah, that’s my time. You watch whatever during your time.” and I firmly but politely said “No. That’s not going to work. You need to negotiate this with me.”

He tried to intimidate me by puffing out his chest and saying “What? You think you can punk me out?”

I said, “No, you’re trying to punk me out, and it’s not working. We need to negotiate this”

The guy goes and puts his shoes on, and I says to him calmly, and within arm’s reach, “Hey man, we both know you’re too short for that shit, and neither one of us are gonna be able to watch TV in the hole. You have no choice but to negotiate this”.

And so, we negotiated a situation in which we watched Special Report, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingraham. White hour, black hour, white hour, black hour, white hour, and after we locked in overnight he could put it on whatever he wanted.

Another time, another black guy, decided that my news time was less important than his football game.  He said “Nah uh, football, is we always watch football”.

I told him, I don’t watch football, I always watch the news. There’s football on every tv in this prison, you’ve been watching football on this TV all day,  so go watch this hour of football somewhere else. He tells me to come in his cell, which is an invitation to fight in prison. You say “come in the cell” as a means to get away from the cameras.

I told him “I ain’t getting charged with no hate crime, you come into my cell” and I went to my cell. He did not follow, and tried to change the channel. I changed the channel back, and I said if you want to fight over it, I got you in cell fourteen. If not, fuck off.. And off he fucked.

I basically ran he TV after that.

When I got shipped to Virginia for the trial, I basically lost my spot. When I came back, two blacks came into my cell uninvited in an attempt to intimidate me, having seen me on television while I was gone. One of them says something to the effect of “I know you don’t like black people, we from the penns, we know about you guys, but we don’t want you preaching that white supremacist shit around here, and we don’t want this other white guy from upstairs coming down to watch Tucker Carlson with you and Matt.”

I tell them, “Look, what you see on TV, ain’t what’s going on. You been in prison long enough to know that. I’m a White Nationalist. That means, I think race interacts with our politics in ways I don’t appreciate, and I think we would be better off if ethnic groups governed themselves. If you want to talk about politics, I’m happy to do so, but you don’t know anything about me.  I got no problem with you, and both of you already know that I treat everybody here with respect, and that ain’t about to change. As for the other guy coming down to watch Tucker, I’ll talk to Matt about that. It’s not my call.”

And they had to agree that I treated everybody with respect. I had pleasant interactions with both of them before I went to Virginia. One of them needed batteries once and I offered to lend him some and he paid me back promptly. The other one, we used to joke around sometimes and we were cool. They had been prompted to make a show of fucking with me by some other black dude, and when the intimidation routine didn’t work, they eased their posture.  One of them actually said to me “If anybody fucks with you, let me know.”

And it wasn’t long before I did exactly this.

While I was gone, another black guy basically claimed ownership of the TV for our section. He let Matt watch Tucker, and he would actually watch it with us a lot of the time, but he wanted to watch horseshit all day long and basically camped in front of the TV to maintain his control over it.

After two days of this, I said “Hey, this ain’t gonna work man, we gotta negotiate this TV situation”. He insisted that he didn’t want to, and I said, “What you’re doing isn’t an option, you gotta negotiate.”

He puts his shoes on, says “You wanna fight about it?” and one of the black dudes who had previously entered my cell comes over with unclear intentions.

I told him calmly “I’d rather avoid fighting, but this isn’t going to work, so we’re going to have to negotiate.”

Matt Hale and another white guy come over and stand, quietly at first, nearby.

Now, this situation is threatening to turn into more than a TV dispute. If I provoke this guy, It’s gonna be three white guys against at least two black guys, and this conflict is going to take on a racial character that threatens to get all of us thrown in the hole and possibly lock the whole fucking prison down.

I’m not going to tell you how it ends in that moment, but suffice it to say, nobody gets hurt or sent to the hole. I knew however, that the situation wasn’t over, and if it isn’t solved, it’s going to turn into something bad.

So, I go to the other guy who had entered my cell before. And I tell him what happened. I tell him “Look, this is a dispute over the TV, and I don’t want to turn it into a fuckin race war, so help me de-escalate this situation. ”

He comes downstairs, me him and the other black guy go in a cell. A few minutes later, all three of us walk out unharmed, and I get back to watching the news.

Pardon me for being vague, but trust that I have my reasons.

There’s one more, but it’s kinda repetitious of the first two and I’m not telling you these stories to act like a tough guy.

What you may have already taken away from this, but I will say anyway in case you didn’t, is that I was neither picking nor running away from fights. I made reasonable requests, refused to be intimidated, and insisted on being treated with respect.

And as a result, I was treated with respect. More notably, I made what effort I could to prevent things from escalating without forfeiting my dignity.

The first two situations I described, I knew I wasn’t in danger. Those guys just thought that I would back down, and when I did not back down, they did. I sized them up, I made my decision, I came out ahead.

When those guys came in my cell, they could have fucking kicked my ass, and unless I ended up in medical, the cops would never have been the wiser. One of those guys was later accused of rape, and caught with a knife, as I mentioned earlier about the guys who were in the hole when I left. So, I was genuinely in serious danger, and I knew it in the moment.

What I mentioned earlier about Stoicism, coolness under fire, mindfulness, and mastering your emotional responses and your thoughts, it helps in a lot of situations. My mind is like “Okay, you’re in danger. These are the range of harms that can come. Calculate your best chance of avoiding them, and act accordingly. You don’t want to show fear, so don’t be afraid. You don’t want to fight, so don’t provoke them. You don’t want to have this happen again, so don’t reward the behavior.”

A lot of guys, and I’ve made this mistake myself in the past, try to look unafraid by inviting escalation. Trying to make themselves look dangerous, or crazy, like a blowfish to ward off predators. But I’ll tell you what, people like these goons who came in my cell, they see right through that shit. If they think you’re supposed to be scared, but you’re calm and assertive and polite, what it tells them is that you feel in control of the situation, and they’re typically unprepared for that.

So not only did I escape with my life and chastity, but I managed to get one of them to help me de-escalate another subsequent conflict. That is more power than you can wield by being bigger than somebody, in a lot of ways.

I accomplished this, first and foremost, frankly, by concluding a long fucking time ago that it wasn’t such a big deal if I died. I don’t want to die, and sure, they could have killed me, sure I could have gotten beaten up, but that wasn’t really the end of the world in my book. It hadn’t occurred to me that I might be raped honestly, and that probably helped. But I started this thing off telling you that I decided on producing this episode after hearing about suicides of people who killed themselves to avoid prison.

Well, dude, like, what’s the worst thing that happens to you in prison? Somebody kills you? Why save them the trouble? Why do the guy a favor?

If you’re really to the point, where you want to die, god bless you man, you’re free. I thought I had come along way achieving indifference to death, and here you eagerly waiting your turn. You can no longer be intimidated. That makes you the toughest guy in the prison, pal. Relax.

Stoicism was pretty big on this. Seneca said “A man cannot live well if he knows not how to die well.”

The Stoics contemplated death at great length. It was the subject of considerable writing. They famously said “Memento mori” translating to “remember that you will die”. As far as they were concerned, death was just one more fact of life, and it was not death that made people miserable, but the fear of death. If you can shed your fear of death, life is much improved.

Death is inevitable. It will come for you at a time of its choosing, and the only control you have over it is your capacity to bring it on sooner. The two men we opened our discussion with, made that choice, and with all due respect to the dead, I think they chose very poorly. If you are ready to eat that bullet, your life is just getting started. You’re more like an abortion than a suicide, in this respect.

In studying stoicism, you come across this concept articulated by Epictetus as “the open door”. The idea being, there’s really not a whole lot of point in cursing the gods, because if you don’t like your life you can end it whenever you want. Poetically, he says “if you remain, don’t complain” from his “Discourses” I will share two quotes;

“Remember that the door is open. Don’t be more cowardly than children, but just as they say, when the game is no longer fun for them, ‘I won’t play any more,’ you too, when things seem that way to you, say, ‘I won’t play any more,’ and leave, but if you remain, don’t complain.” (Discourses I.24.20)

“Has someone made smoke in the house? If it is moderate, I’ll stay. If too much, I exit. For you must always remember and hold fast to this, that the door is open.” (Discourses I.25.18)

If it’s not clear from those quotes that he is talking about suicide, take my word for it, the broader context does. The door is open, you can leave whenever you want. So, no sense in getting all worked up about things. More importantly, if you’re not getting all worked up about things, then you probably don’t have any reason to kill yourself, and thus comfort with death is comfort with life. You follow? This is profound wisdom, and it is old, old old. You shouldn’t have to stumble upon this shit in prison, we should teach it in kindergarten.

But let’s just say, that yeah, for whatever reason, you still do want to die. Well, what’s the hurry? You gonna be late for something, besides your own funeral? Somebody expecting you? I’m reasonably confident your life isn’t so pointless that there’s nothing you can accomplish between now and ten years from now. If you’re ready to die, okay, that’s a fine piece of data. File it away in your hierarchy of values, and as soon as you run outta shit to do, blow your fuckin brains out.

I like the way Epictetus puts it here when he says;

“I must die, must I? If at once, then I am dying: if soon, I dine now, as it is time for dinner, and afterwards when the time comes I will die.”

Do I have to die now? Eh, maybe after dinner. We’ll see. Whatever works.

From some of the things I say, it might not seem this way, but I got a lot of sympathy for guys who off themselves, I do. I’m also really glad I never gave into despair in my darkest moments, of which you may know, there have been many. You think I wanted to go to prison? You think I wanted to turn myself in to Charlottesville in 2017? What do you think went through my mind, as I’m in a hotel room with a bunch of firearms looking at 60 years?

I been locked up in 7 states. I was 13 the first time I got put in handcuffs, and not for nothing so noble as my recent adventures. I’ll turn 43 this year, so you could say that I been at this for 30 years, though I’ve spent just over one tenth of that time held against my will.  If you think it gets easier as you do this repeatedly, it doesn’t. I didn’t want to do this episode, because I don’t want to come off like I’m bragging about how good I am at doing time. It’s not a fucking skillset, and certainly not one you want to brag about.

Obey the law, and stay away from things that you can reasonably foresee carry a risk that you might get in trouble anyway. Jail is awful. Prison is awful. Supervised release is awful. Court is awful. Losing your right to legally carry a firearm is worse than all of them, and perhaps most importantly, being branded a criminal will not aid you in your pursuit of political power, which at this point, should be second only to the wellbeing of your family in importance.

But if shit goes sideways, and you get jammed up anyway. Do your fucking time. Chances are, you’re going to get out someday. Probably sooner than you think.

But before we go, let us address what is sometimes considered a fate worse than death. Life in prison, without the possibility of release.

It’s not the craziest thing to consider, after all. I know a kid from Ohio who is suffering through this as we speak. He got in a car accident when some maniacs attacked him, and a dozen registered voters in Charlottesville sentenced him to life plus 419 years after a mockery of a show trial in that Democrat cesspool.

James Fields was simultaneously charged with a hate crime murder by the Federal Government. They threatened him with death by lethal injection. They said you plead guilty to this, or you get the needle, kid.

James still could have appealed his conviction in Charlottesville. The truth is out there, everybody knows it. One might reasonably have hope that James could someday be released. Maybe the federal trial would have failed to convince those jurors of the lie, the way they had in the city of Charlottesville’s kangaroo court. With the inconsistent verdicts, maybe the appeals court would have taken his appeal more seriously. Even if he was convicted in the federal trial, the fact that the prosecution seeks a death penalty, doesn’t mean they’ll get it.

“Plead guilty, or we’ll kill you”

If you know anything about James Fields, he doesn’t look or sound like the kinda guy who takes prison lightly. He was attacked by some black guy in the Charlottesville jail, and to the best of my knowledge he didn’t even hit the guy back. He was a scared kid, trying to get home to his mother, a bunch of fucking animals attacked him, he was wrongly convicted of murder, and sentenced never to leave prison.

Arguably, the Feds would have done him a favor with the painless death. No getting cold as you run out of blood. No bullet crashing through your skull on the way to your brain. No long fall, no sudden stop. Just a medical professional, telling you it’s time to rest.

But he pleaded guilty to a crime he knew he didn’t commit, to save his life. And I’d go so far as to say that this scared kid made a wiser decision than Ted von Nukem.

If James Fields can handle life in prison, so can you., and I’d go so far as to say, that you would likely manage to find meaning while you were there. You would meet good men like Matt Hale, and Bill White, and Viktor Bout. You would talk about politics, tell jokes, cook food, and eat together. You would probably do some pushups, read a few books. Try to better yourself, and if somebody tried to intimidate you, well, I imagine you’d find that pretty amusing.

I did, and I still had shit to lose.

If you’re never gonna get out, what’s stopping you from putting a knife in one of those guys? Nothin. I’ll tell ya, I’m pretty unlikely to be the last high profile nationalist to do a stint, and it’s entirely foreseeable that one of them might need a favor done. You think you can’t be of service to your race and nation behind bars? Behind the walls they call it “puttin in work”, White man.

So, as I said about the subject of suicide in Stage Three, when it’s time for you to die, somebody else, will gladly handle that for you, and until that times arrives, tomorrow’s another day, fellas.



I’m not bragging to say that I’m getting better at this again. In prior episodes you heard me saying I forgot how to talk, and this was something that was really bothering me. At one point I thought it might be because I had some teeth pulled while I was in prison and I thought I’d have to get implants to fix my verbal fluidity, but I am happy to report that I was able to make this entire recording in two hours and 11 minutes. It took a little while to edit it, but not as long as some earlier recordings. I’ve still got it! I just had to blow the dust off, it turns out.

Owing in part to this, I’m gonna start live streaming soon. The equipment and studio are all configured and tested and working great.

I’ve almost got the new website ready. Just a couple of more bugs to work out with some friends I’ve got testing things. I built in a feature that paying members can use the website to call into the show live, and the system will associate their membership account with the phone call. Some of you threw a tantrum when I said I was going to use Discord for this, but that is no longer necessary. I heard you, and I found another solution. It wasn’t cheap or easy, but I found it.

I also talked to the guys at Entropy, and they say they can run Superchats for me, so we’ll have that. I’ve got several platforms I plan to stream to including DLive, Odysee, JoshWhoTV, and Rumble, to name just a few. I’ll basically stream anywhere that has an RTMP feed and won’t kick me off. I’m open to suggestions on Telegram or at ChristopherCantwell.net/contact

Listening to audience feedback, mostly on Telegram but I read your emails too, I’m glad to hear that these long form, single theme recordings are being well received by many of you, even those who were skeptical of the announcement. But it’s obvious to me that this is not a sustainable business model on its own, yet. These take a very long time to produce, comparative to the old model, and I think it might be too important to put behind a paywall. So, my thinking currently, and I’ll appreciate your feedback on this, is that I’ll do public live streams two or three times a week, and limit on air audience participation to paying customers, whether that’s through membership and call ins or through superchats. I’ll work on these long form things in my spare time and release them every couple of weeks probably, but with the live streams I will at least have a constant production presence and a revenue model to finance this decidedly more labor intensive project.

I’ll seek opportunities to put out members only content, but as I’ve said elsewhere, I always had trouble with this because the business end of this is really something I’m doing to finance what is ultimately a political project. If I hide what I’m saying from the public, it largely defeats that purpose. These long form things, I think are worth paying for, as an example, but I think you’ll agree that they should be made public. So I’m thinking of ways to add value to the membership subscription in terms of functions or other perks. The site has like a group video chat built into it for example, maybe I could do a private members video chat once a week?  I’m again open to suggestions.

I’m also considering doing my own version of Miss Cleo’s Psychic hotline, if any of you remember those commercials. A more common reference might be the business model of a phone sex operator. But I won’t be reading tarot cards or talking dirty. As I was looking for ways to restrict access to the call in lines, I came across some service providers who will basically run a pay per minute or pay per call operation. I don’t know how popular this would be, but I need to make money and I like to talk so, if anybody wants to chat on the phone and is willing to pay for it I’m willing to take your money, I guess is the moral of the story.

Once I am confident in the functions of the new website, the last of the Radical Agenda merch is going up for sale on the new website. All the stuff is entered into the e-commerce function already, I have shipping labels and packing materials, it’s all ready to go. So stay tuned and I’ll make the announcement soon if you want to buy those. There’s not a whole lot of this stuff, I should add, and I don’t have current plans to make anymore. If I do make more, it will be of a different design, so it is, at the very least, limited edition. You’ll be able to get that piece of history very soon, and I hope you’ll pick up a membership at checkout.

In the meantime, you should just throw money at me to show your appreciation for the content, I’m thinking. You may have gathered from what I’ve just said that I need to make money and that’s absolutely the case. Putting all this together has taken longer and costed more than I expected, and I am almost out of the money I raised when I got out of prison. So, FYPM, as I’m fond of saying.

There’s two GiveSendGo campaigns up. It would be really nice of you would make a monthly pledge at https://GiveSendGo.com/spm. There, you’ll see that I am trying to raise $5,000/month to finance the SurrealPolitiks Media production. There’s also about 1400 words written there, total coincidence, describing what I have pictured for that operation. It might be worth a read.

The other one is the thing I set up when I got out of prison at https://GiveSendGo.com/Cantwell. I had set a fundraising goal of $10,000 to get an apartment and a car, the goal on the site is $10,000 and you’ll see that it’s at about $6,000 at the time of this writing. I’ve gotten money from other sources but, I’m still adjusting to inflation and I haven’t been able to buy a car and as I said, I’m nearly tapepd out so, if you want me to keep doing this, pay.

You can mail me stuff,

Christopher Cantwell
497 Hooksett Road
Unit 312
Manchester,  NH 03104

Cryptocurrency, I love it, and I’ll read out my public keys on air, get a pen. I’m kidding. Just got to https://ChristopherCantwell.net/donate and you’ll find those.

If you can’t pay, don’t kill yourself over it. I promise I won’t. Try to stay out of prison, and I’ll do the same.

Thank you very much for tuning into the Radical Agenda. Have yourselves a wonderful evening, and goodnight.



Radical Agenda S06E004 – Persuasive

Here at the Radical Agenda, we take a great deal of pride in the success we have enjoyed in exploring, and spreading, ideas.

As in any meaningful pursuit, we take measurement of our success from time to time. We analyze how it was achieved. We critique our failures, usually quietly, but never mercifully. Through such a process, we seek to improve.

Doubtless, we have much to brag about.

This show began oriented toward libertarianism. Then, something unexpected happened. Other people changed our ideas.

As we were confronted with inescapable challenges to our view of the world, we shifted rightward.

I’m not complaining, but this was no small challenge for your humble correspondent. I had built an audience and a revenue stream on the basis of ideas which I had espoused a willingness to lay down my life for, and I had transmitted to my audience that they too, ought to adopt this orientation toward the world. I reasonably feared that to alter course would alienated this audience, and see me branded a sellout and a hypocrite, not to mention a racist Nazi monster.

Sure enough, some portion of this fear came to fruition. But, I was not put out of business by it. At least, not right away. Some of you who are listening to this today, remember watching it happen. I am willing to bet I dragged some of you along kicking and screaming in resistance down a path you today view as inevitable.

I would like to think this was accomplished through the provision of facts, and the application of reason. Doubtless, these proved decisive for most of you.

But, in subsequent study on the subject of persuasion, I have come to learn that facts and reason are not what primarily move the minds of the masses. For most people, these criteria play hardly any role at all. While true information makes persuasion easier by providing the influencer with firm support for his argument, it is only to the extent that the truth fulfills some other tangentially related psychological need, that it plays any role whatsoever.

Let us pause here for a moment, to curse the Gods. Surely, none of us find this particularly appealing, and we will doubtless have our own psychological needs to fill before we can accept this. Chief among them, our own perceptions of ourselves as decent, honest people.

What I have said here seems to take aim at the value of truth. For one to accept it could be perceived as an internal devaluing of truth within oneself. To forfeit one’s own integrity so as to conform to a corrupt and fallen world. What is the purpose of our efforts if not to advance the truth? Why have we suffered as we have, if the truth is not the highest value? What kind of low creature must man be, to find the truth so unimportant? Curse the Gods! I refuse to diminish my integrity! I will insist to believe something else!

Rest assured that, if you are listening to me, you likely find deception extremely unattractive. If one were inclined to lie, and/or to be lied to, there are very appealing common lies to adopt which could earn one money and sex and social approval. There is very little sense in the sort of struggle we have collectively endured, when comforts are so readily rained down upon those who acquiesce to the immersive falsehoods which constitute the social matrix of our society. Your integrity remains intact, and the Gods care not for your cursing.

We are not devaluing the truth, we are discovering it. We are coming to terms with the word as it is, and making a decision to operate within the parameters of its design.

And this understanding is helpful in our honest mission. Our efforts to reveal the truth are aided, not diminished, by our study of how our fellow man comes to know and believe things. To know that truth is not the deciding factor in man’s acceptance and organization of knowledge, is to discard a falsehood, rather than to adopt one. Namely, we are accepting the truth that man is persuaded by other factors, and discarding our superstitious belief that he is guided by truth alone.

So there is no need to curse the Gods. Our integrity is intact.

We are only in the process of better equipping ourselves for the struggle, and whatever benefit we may derive from accepting this, we may also rest assured that we will forfeit no opportunity to better ourselves through suffering.

So, if truth is not the determinate factor in man’s assimilation of knowledge, what is? This is what I hope to scratch the surface of today.

For all the fuss I have made here, it likely comes as no surprise to any of you who have ever worked as, or with, a salesman.

When I first began podcasting, when the first iteration of this show launched as “Some Garbage Podcast”, my co-host was a man by the name of Eddie. Eddie and I were working together at a marketing company he had launched, and which I later joined in the capacity of the IT guy, and later a managing partner. The show began because Eddie and I would stay after work and talk mostly about politics, but lots of other things too. In one of the more fascinating conversations we had off the air, Eddie explained sales to me.

It is beyond the scope of our discussion today to get into the details of the services we provided, because they also bordered on irrelevant to the sales process. Eddie was a master closer. To acquire clients, a team of cold callers would, in industry terms, “smile and dial” from lists of leads which would be generated in a tremendous variety of ways. The cold callers had a rough script and some details about the people they were calling. Most of the people they called would not be willing to listen to much of this, but you make up for this in sheer numbers. Whenever they came upon a potential client who would listen to a sales pitch, the prospect would be transferred to Eddie along with whatever information on them we had available.

Eddie would quickly review the information, put on a smile, and convey through the phone the energy and confidence that constituted the real substance of the transaction. What services we provided the client in exchange for the payment, Eddie later explained to me, were primarily matters of integrity and earning repeat business. The customers weren’t buying the product, they were buying the pitch. It surely helped that we had a valuable service to provide, but we were hardly unique in this regard, and we certainly weren’t the least expensive. We got the sales we got, at the prices we got, from people who in most cases were not seeking our services, because our people understood persuasion.

This is a subject I mean to talk a lot about in the newly branded show, which you may have heard, I am calling “SurrealPolitiks”. Not to be confused with Surrealism, the theme is “Realpolitik in an Unreal World.” The name is a combination of the word Surreal, which Merriam Webster defines as “marked by the intense irrational reality of a dream” and Realpolitik, which, returning to Merriam Webster, means, according to one definition, “politics based on practical and material factors rather than on theoretical or ethical objectives”. If you’ve ever read “The Prince” by Machiavelli, that’s one of the more notable examples of Realpolitik. I’m not going to get into that in much detail now, except to say that I’m sick and tired of running in an ideological and theoretical hamster wheel. Ideas are cool, but power is cooler. I want to know how it feels to see a country bend to my will, and thank me for the outcome.

That mission begins with mastering the art, no, the science, of persuasion.

If you can sell, you can write your own ticket anywhere. If you can sell over the phone, you don’t even need a ticket.

A good salesman can sell anything, or for that matter, nothing. The con man is little more a salesman short on product. You think you can spot these people because they make you offers that are too good to be true, but such rank amateurs usually quit before they even make it to prison, because they don’t have the talent. A guy who’s gonna sell you a winning lottery ticket for $50 isn’t persuasive, he’s just throwing lines at marks and seeing who bites. A persuasive person, a compliance technician, buys your winning lotto ticket for $50.

Another major advantage of understanding influence is knowing when you are being taken for a ride by a trained compliance technician. When you study this stuff, and you learn to spot it, life takes on a very interesting dimension. When I spot these behaviors in people who aren’t trying to sell me things, I often say “you should be in sales”. Not long ago, somebody was trying to convince me to do something I didn’t really want to do, and I recognized his technique as being straight from one of Cialdini’s books. I told them “I’ve studied persuasion, and I know what you’re doing” and the look on the person’s face was rather priceless.

There’s a tremendous amount of literature out there on this subject, and content creators who talk about almost nothing else. I’ve read a few books about it, and listened to even more audio books about it, and frankly it’s a lot more interesting, and useful, than getting bogged down in the news everyday.

Perhaps the best known author in the subject is a behavioral psychologist by the name of Robert Cialdini. He is known to have worked for Barack Obama’s re-election campaign, and was suspected to have worked for Hillary Clinton in 2016. He calls himself the “Godfather of Influence”, and Scott Adams refers to him as “Godzilla”.

I’ve read two of his books, one titled Influence, the other titled Pre-Suasion. I cannot recommend them highly enough, and while I find reading the actual book to be better for retaining information, there are audiobook versions of each and short of listening to me, I can’t think of a better way to spend a car ride.

Influence has undergone a number of revisions over the years, having been updated from time to time with new information and more timely references. This book gives a really good foundational understanding of the psychology behind the art. The book is broken down into seven principles, each of which he dedicates a chapter to. Those principles are reciprocation, liking, social proof, authority, scarcity, commitment and consistency, and unity.

Notice that substance is nowhere to be found in this list. No wonder he works for Democrats…

It should almost go without saying that the human mind is remarkably good at figuring things out, comparative to other animals. When we do figure things out, we tend to believe we’re doing so in a fairly straightforward fashion, but the realization one comes to after reading Cialdini, and others, is that what we actually have are various systems for approximating reality. Not directly, but by inference from different mental systems triangulating meaning out of a variety of diverse data sets.

It is generally easier to tell the truth than to lie, because you don’t have to manipulate the systems or the data sets. It is less cognitively demanding, and doesn’t require any specialized training. You simply put into words whatever meaning your mental systems have inferred from the data, and count on the other person to observe the same readily available data, and agree with you by validating your inferences.

As we know all too well, it doesn’t always work that way. In politics, it almost never does. In race conscious circles, we tend, with no shortage of legitimacy, to sum this up to ethnic predispositions, or the corrupting influence of ethnic outgroups. One of our data sets is voter demographics, and upon observation, it is impossible not to notice that our politics take on an unmistakably genetic dimension. Genetics being stubborn things, we conclude that political stability is best served by ethnonationalism, and however substantial the merits of the theory, our practical success in the contest for power to act on this, is stalled. We stubbornly insist that our way is the only correct one, and unfortunately, unless you have the political power to coerce people, this is not persuasive in the slightest.

Persuasion is, first and foremost, a two way street. It does not matter one single bit how correct your position is, if you are presenting ultimatums instead of arguments. Only powerful people can do this, and you are not powerful, yet.

This brings us to Cialdini’s first principle of Influence, reciprocity.

Cialdini provides a number of examples of this principle in action, such as a charitable organization asking for large donations. They found that if they gave a gift as small as a packet of sweets before asking, contributions were as much as doubled. That’s a big deal, but not directly applicable to our mission.

In a political or philosophical discussion, however, it is not without parallel. One common meme about salesmen is, it’s easy to sell things to them. This is because they have become accustomed to opening themselves to persuasion, as a means of gaining influence for themselves. It is tremendously rewarding, mentally, to see a person come around to your point of view. Far more rewarding, in fact, than getting a little bag of candy.

So if you want to extract from someone the reward of bringing them to your point of view, it is to your tremendous advantage to first accept some wisdom from them. Like you, the average person has had their political ideas rejected countless times, and they want, perhaps more than anything, to convince other people. Give them what they want, and you will have established a connection. They will listen intently to what you are saying, because they are now invested in the flow of information, and according to the rule of reciprocity, which is universal throughout all cultures, it would be rude to dismiss out of hand what you are saying, after you displayed your openness to his ideas.

This also provides the opportunity to ask questions, and questions can be as persuasive as answers can be informative. Many of you have remarked on my performance in the Charlottesville trial, and while my opening and closing arguments are things I take some pride in, my greatest accomplishments were in questioning witnesses. During most of a trial, a lawyer, or in my case, a pro se litigant, does not get to make statements unless he is under oath or making opening or closing arguments. He speaks quite forcefully, however, through his questioning of others.

I was better equipped to do this for having read Trey Gowdy’s book “Doesn’t Hurt to Ask: Using the Power of Questions to Communicate, Connect, and Persuade“.

Now, you wouldn’t want to treat someone you’re trying to persuade like I treated witnesses on cross examination. That would not be persuasive, not of the person being questioned, anyway. But you can still ask leading questions, through which the answers a person is providing actually tell the story you are trying to have told. This can come across as very coercive, however, if you are not cautious in your technique. I made those witnesses sweat. I wish you could have seen their eyes darting all over the room, realizing they had been caught. That proved useful in persuading jurors, but you better believe the witnesses were no closer to agreeing with me when they left that courtroom than when they were plotting to set us up.

A more persuasive technique is sometimes called the Socratic method, but it is fundamentally the same principle. You ask questions that are designed to elicit a particular response. If you are subtle with it, you can convince the person that they reached the desired conclusion on their own, and if you can get them to do that, then you will have the opportunity to agree with them yet again.

You know, on social media, there has been this very fun game of “owning the libs” as it is sometimes called. The goal is not to convince the person you’re grinding down in this. Sometimes you might be influencing others who are watching, but that usually stems more from the unpersuasive behavior of the lib who loses their composure, than as a direct result of your ridicule. I only draw this out as a contrary example to the persuasive technique of reciprocity. You’re not convincing the lib, that’s not the goal, the goal is to get them to behave badly to make them look less persuasive, and thereby diminish their influence. Donald Trump was a master of this, and that is one reason Scott Adams describes Trump as having “weapons grade persuasion skills” in his book “Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don’t Matter“, which I also read.

If you treat the person you’re trying to convince of your position, like you treat the lib who you’re trying to get to pop, don’t be surprised if you succeed in little more than obtaining some frivolous amusement.

We talked in a prior episode about what John Smucker called the “Spectrum of Allies”.  By agreeing with somebody, you put yourself in their mental category of allies, quite independently of any of their decision making processes. If you are on their team, it is easier to persuade them.

Which brings us to Cialdini’s second principle in Influence, liking.

It is hardly a scientific breakthrough to note that people are more open to influence from people they like, than people they do not like. And much of what we can say here we’ve already said on the subject of reciprocity.

But there’s plenty more to liking somebody than reciprocity. Some of these things are within our control, and some are not. Some can be manipulated within the confines of a first meeting, and some develop over longer periods of time. Some are applicable over text messages, and some require an in person exchange.

Before I get into Cialdini’s analysis on what makes us like people, I’ll drop another title here. I once listened to an audiobook titled “The Attractive Man – The Ultimate Guide To Texting Girls” and while this was obviously geared towards dating, it contained some really excellent insights that are more broadly applicable in persuasion. A lot of the so called “Pick Up Artist” stuff is good for that, if you’re not approaching it as a thirsty whoremonger trying to bed women through deception. This stuff gets a bad name for good reasons, but there’s hardly anything in this world that motivates men more than sex, so it should come as no surprise that a lot of prudent research was done in that pursuit. If you can get a woman to have sex with you, you can probably get her to vote for you. I imagine that makes some people cringe, understandably, but I’m not trying to say anything bad about women here, and I recognize that there may be a better way to put this if I wanted to dwell on the subject more, but I don’t.

Also not without consequence, is the fact that the presence of women is persuasive in politics. Just look at the libertarians, and how totally unpersuasive their Grindr-esque conferences are. Men want to be around women. Men want women to be happy. Men want the approval of their mothers. Men want to be desired by women. Men want to emulate men who are desired by women. So if you can be persuasive with women specifically, you have a distinct advantage politically.

Now, somebody who understands women is screaming at their radio “No! Chris! The way you get women is by being admired by men!”

Yeah, I get it. Chickens, eggs, etc.. We’re moving on.

In the chapter of Influence on liking, Cialdini has a section titled “Why Do I Like You? Let Me List the Reasons” and lists always make for good radio, so I’ll try to slim this down for you.

Physical attractiveness, it should go without saying, is persuasive. Cialdini goes so far as to describe this as a “Click, run” response, explained in an earlier part of the book about automatic processes more broadly, and says we tend to underestimate how much we actually attribute to good looks.

The response itself falls into a category that social scientists call halo effects. A halo effect occurs when one positive characteristic of a person dominates the way he or she is viewed in most other respects. The evidence is now clear that physical attractiveness is often such a characteristic.

We automatically assign to good-looking individuals such favorable traits as talent, kindness, honesty, agreeableness, trustworthiness, and intelligence. Furthermore, we make these judgments without realizing attractiveness has played a role in the process. Some consequences of this unconscious assumption that “good looking = good” scare me. For example, a study of a Canadian federal election found attractive candidates received more than two-and-a-half times as many votes as unattractive ones. Despite such evidence of favoritism toward the better-looking politicians, follow-up research demonstrated voters did not realize their bias. In fact, 73 percent of Canadian voters surveyed denied in the strongest possible terms that their votes had been influenced by physical appearance; only 14 percent even allowed for the remote possibility of such influence. Voters can deny the impact of attractiveness on electability all they want, but evidence has continued to confirm its troubling presence.

Now, there are obviously some limits to what we can do to make ourselves more physically attractive. You’re more or less stuck with your face, unless you want to look like Madonna. Men have an advantage over women here, because testosterone is a helluva drug and it’s not particularly hard to come by, if you catch my drift.

Too many people think of physical fitness as something you do either for fighting or for getting laid. Depending on your situation, those advantages might not warrant the effort of going to the gym, but aside from those factors, and being generally advantageous to your health, it’s also useful politically.

Not only will you present as more credible if you’re in good shape, you will feel more credible yourself, and that will cause you to exude confidence, which is the most persuasive thing of all. Especially if you were fat, and then you lost a bunch of weight and underwent a meaningful transformation, that kind of thing will totally rewire your brain. If you’ve been paying attention to me for any period of time, you know that my body has undergone dramatic changes. When I started doing Some Garbage Podcast, I was like 260lbs and I had no kind of muscle mass to justify this. Either just before, or just after, I rebranded to the Radical Agenda, I did the low carb thing started walking a lot, and I went from 260lbs to 214lbs. My entire wardrobe became “fat clothes” in like three or four months.

I was getting compliments from people, which obviously did wonders for my ego, and more importantly, I found out I had tremendous control over my body. When I was in my teens and twenties I could eat anything and drink all night and nothing phased me. Then one morning I woke up in my thirties with a paralyzing hangover and was like “What the hell happened to me?”. I just concluded this was an inescapable consequence of aging and I didn’t think there was much I could do about it. I just felt like a pinball getting smacked around by buzzing and beeping things, and while I didn’t feel like it diminished my confidence because I didn’t have a whole lot to compare it to besides youth, it certainly wasn’t making me feel empowered. When I regained control over that process, I felt like the master of the universe, and from this I felt more empowered to change external factors as well.

I started lifting weights and minding my hormones, and next thing you know I didn’t feel ridiculous flexing in front of mirrors, cameras, or people. My whole entire frame of reference, my view of myself, of my place in the world, my relations with other people, of both sexes, completely reconfigured in a period of a couple of years. If you listened to the show through this time, you definitely noticed it in the audio no less than in the video, and if you do this for yourself, you’ll be happier, and you’ll be more persuasive politically.

Failing that, another persuasive quality in the category of liking, is similarity. Cialdini comes dangerously close to ethnonationalism by pointing out the obvious.

But what if physical appearance is not much at issue? After all, most people possess average looks. Are there other factors that can be used to produce liking? As both researchers and compliance practitioners know, there are several, and one of the most influential is similarity.

We like people who are like us. It’s a fact that applies to human infants as young as nine months and holds true later in life whether the similarity is in the area of opinions, personality traits, background, or lifestyle. In a massive study of 421 million potential romantic matches from an online dating site, the factor that best predicted favorability toward a partner was similarity. As the researchers stated, “For nearly all characteristics, the more similar the individuals were, the higher the likelihood was of them finding each other desirable and opting to meet in person.”

But it’s not just phenotypes and genotypes we’re talking about here. It’s about hobbies, taste in entertainment, clothes, food, cultural references, and especially religion. In the value hierarchy of most Americans, these things constitute far more important elements of their identities than race. When you tell them it should be otherwise, you are attacking their identity, and this is not persuasive. You are differentiating yourself from them, by expressing a foreign set of values. This is not persuasive.

The single biggest failure that stems from radicalized ideological echo chambers, is we become so different from the people that we’re trying to persuade, that we might as well be illegal aliens ourselves, so far as they’re concerned. In terms of persuasion, you’d literally be better off speaking broken English, and struggling to communicate about football, than you are by rattling off crime statistics and Telegram jargon in otherwise perfect English. At least with the example here of the language barrier, there’s a common idea between the two people, however difficult it is to communicate. There is a reason to overcome the language barrier. If there is no common idea, then there’s no communication, and no mastery of any number of languages is going to fix that.

The next thing he talks about in terms of liking in Influence, is compliments. I just mentioned how receiving complements boosted my ego, but perhaps more importantly, it made me like the people who complemented me. Now, it should go without saying that you should exercise some discretion in complementing people on their physical appearance, but praise is very persuasive., and it doesn’t always have to be about looks. Looking at someone’s shoes is more than a great way to avoid being accused of staring at their chest. If you can recognize a talent somebody has, tell them they are very good at whatever it is they are doing well. Ask for their expert advice on the subject.

People like people who make them feel better about themselves. If this isn’t rule number one in the pick up artist bit, it should be, but I know they talk about it. Sometimes in the context of a “push pull” strategy where you shower a woman with praise to have her up above the clouds, then you yank the rug out from under her and take her down a peg as a manipulation tactic. It’s brutal and if you screw it up she’ll never talk to you again, which I know from hard won experience, but I’ve seen this exploited to tremendous effect by scumbags.

In any case, you’re not a scumbag, so that’s besides the point. If you get in the habit of seeking opportunities to complement people, you’ll definitely find them. The people you compliment will find you pleasant to be around. They will want to talk to you, and this will provide you ample opportunity for persuasion.

The rules of reciprocity will also be engaged. You will receive more compliments as a result, and your own confidence will increase, which as we’ve established, is itself persuasive.

Perhaps the best part of this is that it’s free, and easy, and in most cases, honest. You can make a decision today to make this a feature of your lifestyle. Look for opportunities to tastefully compliment people, without any expectation of reward, and before long you will begin reaping rewards you did not expect.

The next point about liking in Influence, is Contact and Cooperation, and here you get a really meaningful indicator of the book’s integrity, because he talks about racial integration of schools.

He starts off with the fairly common sense idea, not all that different than what we said earlier about similarity, that people tend to favor the familiar. If you’re in regular contact with somebody, there’s a greater capacity to be influenced by them, or to visit influence upon them, than if, all else equal, you don’t have that opportunity. But, Cialdini explains, contact is not persuasive absent cooperation, and he gives the example of school desegregation as a poignant example.

On the basis of evidence that we are more favorably disposed toward the things we have had contact with, some people have recommended a “contact” approach to improving race relations. They argue that simply by providing individuals of different ethnic backgrounds with more exposure to one another as equals, those individuals will naturally come to like each other better.

There is much research consistent with this argument. However, when scientists have examined school integration—the area offering one test of the widespread application of the contact approach—they have discovered the opposite pattern. School desegregation is more likely to increase prejudice between Blacks and Whites than decrease it.

Going to School on the Matter. Let’s stay with the issue of school desegregation for a while. However well intentioned the proponents of interracial harmony through simple contact are, their approach is unlikely to bear fruit because the argument on which it is based doesn’t apply to schools. First of all, the school setting is not a melting pot, where children interact as readily with members of other ethnic groups as they do with their own. Years after formal school integration, there is little social integration. The students clot together ethnically, separating themselves for the most part from other groups. Second, even if there were much more interethnic interaction, research shows that becoming familiar with something through repeated contact doesn’t necessarily cause greater liking. In fact, continued exposure to a person or object under unpleasant conditions such as frustration, conflict, or competition leads to less liking.

Speaking as a former New Yorker turned New Hampshire resident, who occasionally bumps into white liberals who have no experience in being around black people, this is very humorous to me. I won’t say why, you already know.

Cialdini goes on at some length on this, citing studies that show different results under different circumstances. He notes that if the competitiveness of the environment is reduced, it reduces conflict, and this too, you already comprehend, and find humorous, I’m sure, so I don’t need to crack the jokes.

After he gets done edgeposting about race, he goes back to sales.

Before we assume that cooperation is a powerful cause of liking, we should first pass it through what, to my mind, is the acid test: Do compliance practitioners systematically use cooperation to get us to like them so that we will say yes to their requests? Do they point it out when it exists naturally in a situation? Do they try to amplify it when it exists only weakly? And, most instructive of all, do they manufacture it when it isn’t there at all?

As it turns out, cooperation passes the test with flying colors. Compliance professionals are forever attempting to establish that we and they are working for the same goals; that we must “pull together” for mutual benefit; that they are, in essence, our teammates. A host of examples is possible. Most are recognizable, such as new-car salespeople who take our side and “do battle” with their bosses to secure us a good deal. In truth, little in the way of combat takes place when the salesperson enters the manager’s office under such circumstances. Often, because sales professionals know exactly the price below which they cannot go, they and the boss don’t even speak.

This might sound familiar if you listened to Stage Six Episode 2. Not the fake argument with the boss, but the idea that it is persuasive to identify as a member of one’s team, and to be seen as working toward similar goals. Trying to move people along the spectrum of allies, by indicating to them that your allyship is a foregone conclusion. Compliance technicians manufacture these things artificially to influence outcomes, and this is by no means irrelevant in politics.

Cialdini goes on at some length about the classic “Good Cop/Bad Cop” interrogation strategy. I doubt this needs much explanation here, but I’ll briefly describe it for continuity. The idea is that one cop (Bad Cop) acts like he wants to put the guy away for a long time, or worse. The other cop (Good Cop) assures the suspect that he, by contrast, is on the suspect’s side. All he needs to help the suspect out is a full confession, and that will allow him to guide the case in such a fashion as to result in a reduced sentence, but he obviously can’t be of any help without that confession.

Now, to be sure, in this equation, without Bad Cop, Good Cop gets nothing from the suspect. It’s the carrot and the stick in concert that make the bit work, but the design is that Good Cop is the one who obtains the compliance, and that’s important to keep in mind politically. In politics, Bad Cop is built in. The opposition Party is Bad Cop. Bad Cop wants to transgender their kids and take their guns away. You are Good Cop, because you are against groomers and for self defense. So, you get compliance.

The next point of liking in Influence is Conditioning and Association. He begins by telling a story about a weather reporter who was being blamed by his viewers for the weather. The story, it turns out is not unique either, as he quotes at length a story in the Associated Press describing this to be a frighteningly common phenomenon that results in physical violence more often than a reasonable person might guess. This might sound absurd, since the weatherman is the most sincere reporter in a newsroom, even if he is wrong from time to time. Unlike political reporters, he has no participation in creating the weather, and in most cases, he’s not even the one interpreting the data. This is a clear cut case of killing the messenger, of which he provides a morbid example from ancient Persia.

But he likens it to our assigning of likeability  to the “halo effect” of people we find physically attractive. If you see somebody who is good looking, you assign other positive traits to them involuntarily, and if somebody is bringing you bad news, you associate them with that bad news, and you subconsciously assign negative traits to this person and dislike them. That might not be fair, but subconscious processes often are, and we ought not be surprised by this in the slightest.

Association works in the other direction as well, which is why advertisements are full of beautiful people, and such and such company becomes the official product of the current year’s Olympic games. He cites for example a study in which men rated various perceived qualities of cars that were viewed with or without a beautiful woman in the scene, and by this point in the story you may be unsurprised to find that they thought the cars with the beautiful women were faster and better looking and more expensive, and that when confronted with the results, they vehemently denied the women had anything to do with it.

Some associations he cites were even more absurd, and I’ll just quote one paragraph at length here;

Similarly, although it made great sense that sales of Mars rover toys would jump after a US Pathfinder rocket landed the real thing on the red planet in 1997, it made little sense that the same would happen to the popularity of Mars candy bars, which have nothing to do with the space project but are named after the candy company’s founder, Franklin Mars. Sales of the Nissan “Rogue” SUV saw a comparable—and otherwise inexplicable—jump after the 2016 Star Wars film, Rogue One, appeared. In a related effect, researchers have found that promotional signs proclaiming SALE increase purchases (even when there is no actual savings), not simply because shoppers consciously think, “Oh, I can save money here.” Rather, owing to a separate, additional tendency, buying becomes more likely because such signs have been repeatedly associated with good prices in the shoppers’ pasts. Consequently, any product connected to a Sale sign becomes automatically evaluated more favorably.

This has obvious political implications, and not so obvious political implications. I’ll also directly quote an explicitly political example, which is not at all obvious, about an experiment conducted in the 1930s by a psychologist named Gregory Razran.

Using what he termed the “luncheon technique,” he found that his subjects become fonder of the people and things they experienced while they were eating. In the example most relevant for our purposes, subjects were presented with some political statements they had rated once before. At the end of the experiment, Razran found that only certain of them had gained in approval—those that had been shown while food was being eaten. These changes in liking seem to have occurred unconsciously, as the subjects couldn’t remember which of the statements they had seen while food was being served.

To demonstrate the principle of association also works for unpleasant experiences, Razran included in his experiment a condition in which participants had putrid odors piped into the room while they were shown political slogans. In this case, approval ratings for the slogans declined. Other research indicates that odors so slight that they escape conscious awareness can still be influential. People judged photographed faces as more versus less likable depending on whether they rated the faces while experiencing subliminal pleasant or unpleasant odors.

If that sounds like it has some connection to Pavlov’s dog, which is also cited in the book, it may be because Razran was the first to translate Pavlov’s research from Russian to English.

Associations are powerful, and whether we like it or not they apply to us. The easiest and most obvious example is Antifa violence. Like it or not, Antifa violence is linked to you and me. We show up, they attack us, we are associated with violence. Curse the gods if you want, but when you’re done, you might want to reconsider strategy, because winning the fight doesn’t solve the problem.

I used to think the Reds were trying to scare us, and the response I had to this was to make like a blowfish and try to seem dangerous so as to ward off threats. That works fine with common criminals seeking weak people to victimize, but it does not work with professional political strategists who are using behavioral psychology and advertising tactics against you. It was never us that they were looking to scare. The Reds who understand what they are doing don’t consider it a bad thing if their people get hurt. They celebrated Heather Heyer’s death. The tranny who bragged about giving Heyer chest compressions likely wasn’t trying to save Heyer’s life.

The strategy there was very clear. Trump = Nazis = Violence = Vote Democrat.

The common theme throughout the subject of scientific influence tactics is that the truth has almost nothing to do with it, and association may be the most powerful example of this. If people buy candy bars because of a space mission, or approve of political slogans because of what they were eating when they heard them, or think cars are faster because they saw a beautiful woman, then you can hardly be surprised if they associate anti-Semitism with mass murder and war.

Moreover, you would be a fool to think that you can use evidence or reason as a means to overcome these associations. You cannot reason a person out of an idea they did not reason themselves into.

The best that you can hope to accomplish is to understand what is happening, and navigate the situation according to an accurate assessment of your own capabilities. If you can do that, then you can navigate to a position in which your capabilities are increased.

The Democrats would very much like to associate you with the Republican Party and Fox News. Help them do it, and while you do, make this less painful for Fox News and the Republican Party, by minimizing your association with concepts they associate with losing advertisers and elections, in order to diminish their conscious and subconscious resistance to the project. By associating ourselves with powerful institutions, we will derive social if not political power from those institutions, and we can apply this power to change other people’s mental associations. This will occur even if we do not obtain official positions within those institutions. Even if those institutions try with all their might to disassociate from us, as you can expect them to do,

Simultaneously, use what voice you have to associate the media with the Democrat Party, and the Democrat Party with Antifa, transgenderism, and racial conflict. Will this empower Antifa? Yes. But Antifa already has power, as evidenced by the fact that they can commit crimes on camera and brag about them and not go to prison.

The reason the Democrats want to associate the Republicans with extremism is because extremism is unpopular by definition. If it was popular, it wouldn’t be called extreme. The Republicans run from this in part because they understand the truth has very little to do with people’s voting patterns, and in part, yes, because there are nefarious people within the GOP who see us as a threat to their positions. Our activity, to be effective, must conform to these facts and use them to our advantage.

Associating the Democrats with extremism will cost the Democrats more than it will gain Antifa, because Antifa already enjoys all the benefits of Democrat power, and calling attention to this fact is part of the association we’re trying to make. The Democrats are already in too deep to back away from the association, because they have been running cover for these maniacs while the country burned on TV, and they did this because they were associating Trump with chaos in the streets.

It is not a huge lift to change that association from Trump to the Democrat Party. Democrats destroyed the country to turn the country against Trump. That’s a very simple message that conforms to people’s experience of the world, and which powerful institutions like Fox News and the Republican Party will assist us in making.

Accept the association that the Democrats make of you with the Republican Party, and you can become law abiding Republicans who were attacked by Democrat criminals. This is a flow of ideas that benefits our likeability and public perception in a manner that will improve our conduits of influence to power.

The next principle chapter of Influence is Social Proof, and Cialdini opens with a powerful example of restaurants increasing the sales of certain menu items by labeling them “most popular”. In another example, people were 55% more likely to buy a McFlurry at McDonald’s if they were told it was “our visitor’s favorite”. These are examples of marketers simply conveying accurate information, and more examples are provided throughout the chapter.

He provides other examples in which social proof is manufactured artificially, and I’ll quote one set directly from the book here;

Certain nightclub owners manufacture a brand of visible social proof for their clubs’ quality by creating long waiting lines outside when there is plenty of room inside. Salespeople are taught to spice their pitches with invented accounts of numerous individuals who have purchased the product. Bartenders often salt their tip jars with a few dollar bills at the beginning of an evening to simulate tips left by prior customers. Church ushers sometimes salt collection baskets for the same reason and with the same positive effect on proceeds. Evangelical preachers are known to seed their audience with ringers, who are rehearsed to come forward at a specified time to give witness and donations. And, of course, product-rating websites are regularly infected with glowing reviews that manufacturers have faked or paid people to submit.

The implications are obvious. People crowd source information all the time. The world is too complex for any individual to figure out entirely on their own, and so we all have a certain natural and entirely appropriate tendency to do what others are doing and adopt popular opinions. Real and artificial social proofs are thus provided by compliance technicians to achieve desired outcomes in a limitless number of examples.

The word Bolshevik means Majority. Their opponents of the time, the Mensheviks, had been saddled with the name of minority. The Democrats are not enamoured of democracy because they actually believe the majority makes wise decisions, but because saying so makes them appear more popular than they otherwise would be. People accept democratic governments because the implication is that most people do, and we daily witness the horrific consequences of this innate tendency.

While this is obvious, there are less obvious components of it that are interesting to discuss.

One example given is that of religious cults. A group of researchers infiltrated a small and secretive group that prophesied the end of the world. In the lead up to the event, this group did not spread the word, they were entirely devoted to their ingroup preparing for their ride to salvation by space aliens.

However, as one might predict, the end of the world, and their ride to outer space, failed to materialize. The cult leader had a word with the aliens, and told the followers that they had saved the world. Some of the group members walked away immediately, but others became more fervently devoted to their fanatical faith, and began to spread the word. While they had previously refused to speak to reporters, they now proactively reached out to the media. They proselytized and recruited.

In this case, in the wake of a devastating hit to their faith, the group members went about trying to produce social proof, as a means of validating their beliefs.

Perhaps more interesting is what Cialdini says about our being on guard against this source of influence. Namely, being aware of when we are most prone to it.

In Cialdini’s telling, he identifies three circumstances that make social proof most persuasive. We are most prone to this when there is maximum uncertainty, when a great many people are providing the influence, and when the people providing the influence are similar to us.

This gives us a great deal of politically useful information.

For one, it explains why Democrats love chaos. It frustrates the individual’s capacity to comprehend the world on his own, and thereby makes him more prone to suggestion.

We can also see this manifest as a tactic in the manipulation of social and legacy media. The Democrats have to suppress some messages and promote others in order to maintain their narratives, and I don’t need to spend a great deal of time explaining that to this audience. The Alt Right was gaining such tremendous influence at such a rapid pace prior to August of 2017 because the social media algorithms were actually doing a good job. We had quality content that prompted engagement, and it spread like wildfire. People began to realize that the things they always knew were true but were afraid to say, were far more widely understood than they had previously comprehended. They lost their fear of speaking out, and this had to be, and ultimately was, crushed by force and deception.

We have discussed similarity in another segment, and this should come as no surprise to us that information from people we see as part of our ingroup is more persuasive than information from outgroups. The old “fellow huWhites” meme stems from our adversaries’ understanding of this phenomenon as well, as does their targeting of women and trying to make an interest group out of them.

For our purposes, it provides helpful hints on subverting popular groupthink.

Chaos serves the Left. This should be viewed as axiomatic and obvious by our people, and it is discrediting to accelerationists. Terrorism, street violence, and political instability, reinforce, rather than undermine, popular narratives. If you want to be able to get people to think rationally and to question the forms to which they have become accustomed, work to stabilize the environment, so as to provide them with the spare cognitive bandwidth requisite of serious contemplation.

We presently lack the capacity to engage in the sort of mass media manipulation that Democrats have made their stock in trade. We are, however, capable of conducting targeted, coordinated influence campaigns designed to immerse an individual or group in a narrative. Carried out on influencers and audience members of influencers,  we can generate perceptions of social proofs which will be self reproducing once the narratives are accepted. Done in a systematic fashion, moving from intelligently chosen target to intelligently chosen target, such narratives will become self reinforcing across groups, shifting the Overton Window more broadly.

We can also undermine narratives by pointing out the dissimilarity of narrative purveyors, and by making ourselves appear more similar. The idea that necessarily rushes to many listeners’ minds is J Naming, which obviously has its merits, but cuts against the other imperative of making ourselves seem more similar. In my view, this is a later stage of the project. Calling out ethnicity is a social taboo associated with pain response, and it is not the behavior of most people’s ingroup. Identifying the purveyors of certain narratives as “gender groomers,” to use my favorite example, puts those people into a category of predatory weirdo, and member of a cultural outgroup. Identifying yourself as an opponent of the gender groomer, makes you similar to the vast majority of people, thus making you more persuasive.

The next principle chapter of Influence, and perhaps of greatest interest to us, is Authority. The perception of authority is very powerful, and comes from many sources. Not just political power, but doctors, lawyers, subject matter experts, trusted news sources are all in this sense sources of authority.

In its simplest form, authority is similar to social proof, a weighted version, essentially. The world is too complicated for any individual to fully comprehend on his own, and he outsources that cognitive burden to those better equipped to make the decisions. Understanding some limits on the wisdom of crowds, another signal to discern from the noise is transmitted by what we perceive to be authoritative sources.

Beyond simple receipt of data, we allow authority figures to directly instruct our actions, and absolve ourselves of responsibility in their name. One of the more famous examples of a study in this phenomenon is cited at some length by Cialdini at the opening of the chapter, known as the Milgram experiments. I imagine most of you have heard of this, so I am not going to spend a great deal of time discussing it, but the thrust of the story is that in 1968, people were told they were participating in an experiment, but mislead as to its nature. Participants were instructed to ask questions to an individual connected to a machine designed to deliver electric shocks, and to shock the answerer if he failed to answer correctly, with increasing levels of voltage that at some point in the experiment had the answerer begging for mercy. The scientists conducting the experiment instructed the test subjects that they were to ignore the pleas for mercy and continue. Two thirds did as they were told all the way to the end, with the remaining portion complying to various stages beyond the initial screams for help. While we are generally relieved to find out the answerer was a paid actor who was not actually subjected to electrocution, the takeaway is perhaps more troubling than the thought of a few people being tortured for science. When asked to choose between the directions of an authority figure and their own conscience, most people will choose the authority with frightening reliability, even if it means hurting other people.

Since the study was conducted, it has become quite famous, the results have been reproduced to control for variables like the sex of the test subjects (women as well as men exhibit essentially the same compliance rate), and today it is more or less undisputed that people adhere to authority in this fashion. It is interesting to note, however, that this is not what experts in the field predicted before seeing the data. Milgram himself asked his peers what they thought the outcome would be, and the highest estimates were that 1-2% of people would make it until the end.

And of course, we should note that the researchers conducting the experiment did not purport to wield a coercive sort of authority, like that of a police officer or President. One who is responding to threats of punishment by government officials is typically considered to be excused from all moral dilemmas in the eyes of his fellow citizens. The researchers in this case portrayed themselves as “scientists,” and their subjects had volunteered. The researchers dressed in white lab coats, in order to drive home the point, and of course many of you will recall this same theatric portrayed in various forms of political theater, not to mention commercial advertising. Had they also brought a stethoscope, there is no telling what horrors the subjects might have assented to.

Democrats understand this, and thus we have the familiar refrain to “follow the science”. Anthony Fauci, revered Prophet of the COVID Cultists, says “I am the science” and to criticize him is to commit blaspheme. Long after the policy positions cease to correspond to scientific research, the call to the authority of science still remains, because its persuasive power is independent of facts and reason.

To further illustrate the unreasoning of the authority response, Cialdini calls attention to this in discussion of an advertisement for Vicks Formula 44 cough medicine, which I will quote at length from the book;

Whenever our behaviors are governed in such an unthinking manner, we can be confident there will be compliance professionals trying to take advantage. Returning to the field of medicine, we can see that advertisers have frequently commissioned the respect accorded doctors in our culture by hiring actors to play the roles of doctors speaking on behalf of a product. My favorite example is a TV commercial for Vicks Formula 44 cough medicine featuring the actor Chris Robinson, who had a key role as Dr. Rick Webber in the popular daytime TV drama General Hospital during the 1980s. The commercial, which began with the line “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV” and then offered Robinson’s advice to a young mother regarding the benefits of Vicks Formula 44, was very successful, lifting sales substantially.

Why should the ad prove so effective? Why on earth would we take the actor Chris Robinson’s word for the health benefits of a cough suppressant? Because—as the advertising agency that hired him knew—he was associated in the minds of viewers with Dr. Rick Webber, the role he had long played in a highly rated TV series. Objectively, it doesn’t make sense to be swayed by the comments of a man we know to be just an actor who played a doctor; but, practically, because of an unthinking response to felt authority, that man moved the cough syrup.

As a testament to the effectiveness of the ad, in 1986, when Chris Robinson was imprisoned for tax evasion, rather than end its run, the Vicks brand simply recast the ad with another famous daytime TV actor (Peter Bergman), who played a physician on the All My Children series. Except for the switch of TV doctors, the ad was a near duplicate of the earlier version. It’s notable that, despite his criminal conviction, Chris Robinson was allowed to continue his role on General Hospital under a prison work-release program. How can we account for the grace he was afforded that would have been denied almost any other actor serving a prison sentence? Perhaps it was that he played a doctor on TV.

Cialdini goes on to identify three of the components we use to identify authority, titles, clothing, and trappings. For example, a man with the title “Doctor”, wearing a lab coat, and carrying a stethoscope.

But the examples are by no means limited to medicine. A group of security researchers was hired by a banking industry group to test the security of various systems, and managed to compromise roughly 96% of the systems they targeted. This was not done by guessing weak passwords or exploiting buffer overflow vulnerabilities written by weak coders, but by dressing up as fire inspectors, pest control professionals, and government safety monitors. Simply by identifying themselves as service professionals there to conduct some ostensibly important function, the hackers were allowed into controlled access areas of the banks where they went to work downloading confidential files to prove their work to the group that hired them.

The title alone, be it officer, judge, doctor, Senator, or President, conveys the authority of its position. But obviously clothes help us determine the legitimacy of titles. In addition to the white lab coat, the blue police uniform, the army green, the black robe of the judge, the white collar of the priest, even the yellow reflective vest, the hard hat, letters screen printed on a cheap t-shirt or baseball cap, even, in some contexts, a jacket and tie.

Cialdini sites one study in which a man puts on the uniform of a private security guard, and makes demands of passersby which have no obvious connection to such a role. He makes the same requests in plain clothes, and measures the results of compliance.

In one especially revealing version, the requester stopped pedestrians and pointed to a man standing by a parking meter fifty feet away. The requester, whether dressed normally or as a security guard, always said the same thing to the pedestrian: “You see that guy over there by the meter? He’s overparked but doesn’t have any change. Give him a dime!” The requester then turned a corner and walked away so that by the time the pedestrian reached the meter, the requester was out of sight. Nonetheless, the power of his uniform lasted, even after he was long gone. Nearly all the pedestrians complied with his directive when he wore the guard costume, but fewer than half did so when he was dressed normally.

It is interesting that, later on, Bickman found college students guessed with some accuracy the percentage of compliance that occurred in the experiment when the requester wore street clothes (50 percent versus the actual 42 percent); yet the students greatly underestimated the percentage of compliance when he was in uniform, 63 percent versus the actual 92 percent.

Trappings largely follow the same rules of clothing, but Cialdini goes on to cite studies that show increased compliance rates for people with, for example, expensive cars. A man with tools is a man here to build or fix something, and he tends to get compliance. I know from experience, that almost nobody even hesitates to fulfill, much less refuses, the requests of a man carrying a ladder, and a clip board is your all access pass to basically anything.

I have many anecdotal experiences from my prior profession in IT. At one point I was a project manager for a company that installed networks, phone, and security systems in new construction. I’d show up at construction sites where our installers were running cable in the sort of attire you would expect to see construction workers wearing. I’d typically be wearing more businesslike clothing, and carrying a briefcase, or a laptop bag that resembled one. You would expect in this circumstance that the men from my company would recognize me as management and alter their work according to my orders, but some might be surprised to know that I could make similar demands of men from other companies in other trades, and often with less resistance. They did not think I had any authority over them, just that I was a person with authority, and on that basis, gave me their compliance. In contrast, the guys from my company in some cases resented my authority over them, due to the fact that they had been at the company longer than me, and that I, a new face, had gotten the position they hoped to be promoted to. They knew with absolute certainty that I was endowed by the issuer of their paychecks with specific authority over their work, and to report them for insubordination. Yet they resisted my orders a greater percentage of the time, than complete strangers from whom I could only request professional courtesies.

Cialdini spends little time referencing religious authority, which I find curious. Perhaps he is, like your humble correspondent, not immersed in this culture, and, unlike me, underestimates its potency. But it seems malpractice that I should conclude this portion of the discussion without addressing it, if only for its political implications.

There is no higher authority than God, and one need not believe in God to know this. People who doubt God’s authority due so on the basis of doubting his existence, but, save perhaps for Satan, none who accept this part as the ultimate given, dare to challenge the authority that necessarily follows from the assumption of that existence. If God shows up one day, the expectation is that every knee will bend and every tongue will confess, and a lot of people, not least of all your humble correspondent, are going to stutter with fear and embarrassment in the process.

Even if one assumes the entire concept to be the most malicious sort of fiction, God is endowed with all the characteristics which constitute authority, and it is instructive to think of it in these terms.

God is the Creator. He is First. He is Source. Recall the resentment of my subordinates at the construction site, who questioned my legitimacy due to their longer period of employment with the company. God suffers no such challenges to his authority, being the creator of all things. As the creator, God is endowed with the authority of a Parent over a child, but since God created all things, one cannot simply get a job and move out to escape his power. With a few exceptions in the course of history, such as after revolutions, governments similarly claim their authority to have began prior to the existence of their subjects.

God is omniscient, or all knowing. He is the ultimate subject matter expert. He knows not only what did happen, but what will happen, and this makes him the ultimate possessor of strategic information. Democrats tried to endow Anthony Fauci with these qualities, and from there it was hardly surprising to see people selling Anthony Fauci prayer candles.

God has the power to destroy. Whether he is flooding the Earth, depriving Adam & Eve of their immortality, smiting the first born of Egypt, or destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, God claims and exercises the rightful power to destroy repeatedly throughout the Bible, and doubtless similar authority exists throughout other religious traditions. It almost goes without saying that governments make near identical claims. In the final analysis, every government proves and maintains its authority through force of arms.

God is the ultimate moral arbiter. His will defines the parameters of moral action. A prominent example of this is briefly cited by Cialdini in the case of Abraham, whom God commands to plunge a dagger through the heart of his young son, in Genesis 22. No explanation of the purpose is provided, save for being a test of Abraham’s obedience to God’s command. Abraham demonstrates his willingness to comply before, at the last moment, God rescinds the order, and spares him the morbid task. Abraham’s willingness to do what God and Man alike would otherwise condemn as among the most unconscionable evils, is praised by God as a measure of Abraham’s faith, and God promises to reward him with “as many descendants as the stars in the sky”.

Governments make near identical claims. Lawmakers define murder as killing without government approval. Soldiers in war, executioners, and police acting in the course of their duties, are among those absolved of moral judgment for their taking of human lives. Theft is defined by lawmakers as a wholly separate category of action from taxation, fines, and civil judgements. Slavery is defined by lawmakers as a separate category of action from imprisonment, compulsory community service, and court orders of specific performance.  The will of the State, however constituted, defines the parameters of moral action, in which one category results in rewards, and the other in punishment.

Depending on your preferred translation and interpretation, God is commonly understood to endow governments with their authority. In Romans 13:1, the King James Bible reads “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” The English Standard and other versions are more explicit, using the term “governing authorities” in place of “higher powers”, but in either case, the existence of the power on Earth is evidence of God’s having ordained it.

Religious leaders, in some circumstances, claim to speak with, and/or for, God, and to derive their authority therefrom. In other circumstances, they claim to be subject matter experts on God’s will as a result of research, revelation, or contemplation, and endow their own words with similar authority on this basis. Whatever the theological premise, their followers perceive the authority of the religious leader as an extension of God’s authority on Earth, and organize their thoughts and behaviors accordingly.

This conception of a power beyond man’s capacity for direct observation is summoned by an infinite variety of compliance technicians. Whether it manifests the form of an oath taken with one’s hand upon a Bible, a cult leader ordering his followers to end their own lives, or a radio host instructing his listeners to be kind to one another, there is scarcely imaginable a more persuasive concept than the will of a deity. For God, men will defy the State, disbelieve scientific consensus, and end lives, including their own.

One who discounts the relevance of such authority, forfeits his right to participate in serious discussion.

There are obvious and not so obvious political implications here, many of which would be repetitious of what we said on social proof.

The perception of authority is among the most persuasive perceptions of all, and is wielded in politics to great effect. Whether it is Democrats claiming to speak on behalf of science, or Republicans claiming to speak on behalf of God himself, political actors summon the influence of other sources of authority to bolster their own claims to sovereign jurisdiction. The alignment of multiple sources of authority can confer legitimacy on any act, and anyone seeking to exercise sway over future events, would do well to find himself so aligned.

Apply this to what you have seen in our political circles. While none of what I’ll say in this paragraph is universally applicable, we have variously seen so-called far right leaders declare the State itself as illegitimate, condemn police officers as mindless tools of an unjust system, announce their opposition to Donald Trump, designate scientific subject matter experts as fools and liars, deny the existence of God, specifically condemn Christianity as a uniquely wicked falsehood, vow futile opposition to the two party political system, declare eternal enmity against “the media,” and align themselves with the most hated man in history, who also happens to have lost the war that came to define the current world order, to name just a few. Depending on your point of view, any collection of these tactics might seem ideologically or strategically desirable, perhaps most obviously, the hostility towards established media outlets. On the other hand, what I have here described is a near exhaustive list of sources of authority, and if one cannot make any alignments therein, if he instead asserts the mere correctness of his ideology as the ultimate and singular source of sovereign claims, he forfeits any right to be taken seriously in political contests.

The next principle chapter of Influence is Scarcity. This concept is familiar to any student of economics, and, in combination with demand, is the basis of all economic value.

Cialdini opens the chapter discussing several examples of the principle in action, including the experience of a divorce lawyer, who dramatically increases the efficiency of her arbitration services by way of a seemingly minuscule change of terminology. She begins by telling her clients “All you have to do is agree to this proposal, and we will have a deal.” After consulting with Cialdini, she begins telling them “We have a deal. All you have to do is agree to this proposal.” She later reports to Cialdini that this works every time.

Cialdini appropriately expresses some skepticism at the 100% success rate in something so contentious as divorce negotiations, but is unsurprised that the language changed outcomes significantly. He cites the work of Daniel Kahneman’s prospect theory, which asserts that people generally weigh the potential for loss more heavily than the potential for gain. This tendency gives rise to the sunk cost fallacy, which, however fallacious, is no less common a feature in human behavior. By stating “we have a deal” as opposed to “we will have a deal”, the mind is primed for compliance by the prospect of losing a perceived existing deal, whereas prior, the mind was more inclined to persist in the negotiating process in the hopes of improving the conditions of a deal not yet established.

Cialdini goes on to cite specific examples of phenomena you see in action all the time, in which scarcity is implied by marketing practices. Going off the top of my own head instead of citing the book, every ticking clock in a TV commercial instructing you to call now before the offer expires, Balance of Nature comes to mind, and Mike Lindell’s ceaseless warnings of limited quantities, followed by the instruction to “Please order now,” will be familiar to any Fox News viewer. In the section discussing social proof, we mentioned long lines outside of night clubs which were actually the result of intentionally slow door work, leaving passersby with the impression that their opportunity to enter the seemingly popular venue might be running out. Such a display is periodically visible outside an Apple Store, as well to do enthusiasts compete to be among the first to possess the soon to be sold out new releases. Such lines similarly form outside “door buster” deals on Thanksgiving, so as to get first crack at the “Black Friday” sales that invariably result in violent confrontations between customers. These clashes are captured on video, which are dutifully aired by media outlets no less as free advertising for the stores, than as bleeding leads for the newsroom.

Advertising is persuasion distilled. Cialdini makes no mention of diamonds in the book, which is peculiar given the amazing story behind them, and its being so prominently featured in so many works on the subject of sales and marketing.

Diamonds are not nearly so rare as most people think. They were first widely known to have come primarily from India, where they were featured as jewels for the ruling class and traded abroad during the 1700s. During the 1800s, diamond deposits were discovered all over the world, and especially in South Africa, at which point they ceased to be rare in any meaningful sense of that word.

De Beers, in the early 1900s, bought up all of the South African diamond mines. This gave them control over about 90% of the world’s diamond production. They ruthlessly went after competitors, and bought them out when they could. By artificially restricting supply, they were able to control prices, but only within a certain range. The next step was to increase demand.

De Beers sent free diamonds to prominent women all over the world, including the wives of heads of state and celebrities. They then arranged for 125 newspapers to do stories on the diamonds of these prominent women.

Surely by now you have heard the phrase “A Diamond is Forever”. This slogan was coined by the N W Ayer & Son advertising agency for De Beers, as part of a ubiquitous marketing campaign to associate diamonds with marriage. Prior to the coining of this slogan, diamonds had no greater association with marriage than any other gem.

But that’s not all. At the time, it was not uncommon for women to choose their engagement rings, because surprise proposals were hardly the norm. In marketing research, De Beers discovered that women would tend to opt for cheaper rings than men. So, as part of their marketing campaign, De Beers popularized surprise proposals, so as to shift this purchasing decision to the big spending males.

And so it came to be that, almost by persuasion alone, and by the illusion of scarcity specifically, diamonds went from a common gemstone of no major significance, to among the most sought after minerals on the planet. They are today seen by many as a prerequisite of mankind’s most sacred institution, and making a small number of people fabulously wealthy as a consequence.

The political implications of scarcity’s use in persuasion are anything but obvious. Politicians tend to promise plenty, and scarcity is what tends to result in their replacement. The principle, however, is no less in action under either example.

To call attention to actual scarcity, even as a means to thrust an incumbent from power, risks bringing negative feelings to the surface, and harming one’s likeability. Despite this, Nationalists have had great success in radicalizing the few by calling attention to the scarcity of our people, and the continued threats to our existence by the abundance of other peoples in our territories. There can hardly be any starker example of the principle’s use in political persuasion, as the permanent elimination of a given population is commonly referred to as genocide, which prompts the most base survival instincts in anyone who comes to recognize it. Faced with the prospect of the end of one’s own kind, a man will forfeit his own life with gratitude for the opportunity, and a woman will make similarly generous use of her reproductive powers. From this perspective, a vote is easy to obtain for the party credibly promising salvation.

But the grim, morbid, and startling nature of this recognition is extremely difficult for most people to tolerate. The soft, soothing whisper of “it will be okay, we will all live as one, in harmony, if you submit to our demands” is near universally preferable to the intense, primal scream of “They will eradicate us if you do not immediately forfeit your comfort!”. This hit to likeability synergistically impacts the capacity for social proof, and renders Nationalist fervor unpopular.

This tends toward a rejection of democracy in Nationalist circles, and consequent ideations of political violence, occasionally manifesting itself as uncontrolled mayhem and terrorism. A small number of radicalized young men ready to lay down their lives does not an electoral majority make, but in sufficient numbers it will suffice just fine for coup or a revolution. These occasional outbreaks of violence are encouraged and promoted by our political opposition as propaganda to favor still more of the policies creating the trouble that provoked them.

Aiding in the Nationalist radicalization drive has been another form of the scarcity principle in action, which Cialdini addresses in the book. That of censorship.

The tendency to want what is banned, and, therefore, presume it more worthwhile, is not confined to commodities such as laundry soap; it also extends to restrictions on information. In an age when the ability to acquire, store, and manage information increasingly affects access to wealth and power, it is important to understand how we typically react to attempts to censor or constrain our access to information. Although much evidence exists concerning our reactions to observing various kinds of potentially censorable material—media violence, pornography, radical political rhetoric—there is surprisingly little evidence on our reactions to the censoring of this material. Fortunately, the results of the relatively few studies that have been done on censorship are highly consistent. Almost invariably, our response to banned information is to want to receive the information and to become more favorable toward it than we were before the ban.

The intriguing finding within the effects of censored information on an audience is not that audience members want to have the information more than before; that seems natural. Rather, it is that they come to believe in the information more, even though they haven’t received it. For example, when University of North Carolina students learned that a speech opposing coed dorms on campus would be banned, they became more opposed to the idea of coed dorms. Thus, without ever hearing the speech, the students became more sympathetic to its argument. This raises the worrisome possibility that especially clever individuals holding a weak or unpopular position can get us to agree with the position by arranging to have their message restricted.

The irony is that for such people—members of fringe political groups, for example—the most effective strategy may not be to publicize their unpopular views but to get those views officially censored and then to publicize the censorship. Perhaps the authors of the US Constitution were acting as much as sophisticated social psychologists as staunch civil libertarians when they wrote the remarkably permissive free-speech provision of the First Amendment. By refusing to restrain freedom of speech, they may have been trying to minimize the chance that new political notions would win support via the irrational course of psychological reactance.

Astute observations, but of little practical use to us at this juncture. We have managed to capitalize on bad press, and for those curious enough to make the effort to find out what we have to say, the results have surely been impressive. The phenomenon Cialdini describes in North Carolina however, hardly applies to us, and to the extent it does it inflicts more harm than its benefits warrant. When we are censored, all people are told is that hateful violent monsters were censored, and the public knows little else unless they put in the effort to discover otherwise. The people who purport to agree with us because they think we are hateful violent monsters, do not, in fact, agree with us, and yet their terrible behavior is held up as a shining example of the reason we were censored in the first place.

We know from experience what the limits of the “capitalize on censorship” strategy are, and that those limits are effective in their design to render our ideas incapable of directly penetrating the vast apparatus of deception that stands between us and power. Censorship might fail to extinguish an idea in its entirety. It may fail to eliminate a hard core base of support, and even to prevent that base from growing in numbers. But with the help of a vast disinformation apparatus, and a corrupted legal system, it works well enough to render democracy almost pointless.

Persuasive scarcity has helped us about as much as I can imagine it will, all else remaining the same. Our goal today has to be to overcome it with other levers of influence.

The next principle chapter of Influence is Commitment and Consistency. Cialdini opens with some anecdotal examples of situations where people face a choice of some sort, and having made that choice, become psychologically invested in making that choice the correct one, seemingly independent of the actual merits.

One of the more interesting examples is an Amazon program that offers employees $5,000 to quit. A company spokesperson says the purpose of the program is to make an amicable separation from employees who don’t really want to work for the company anymore but are sticking around just for a paycheck. Jeff Bezos, separately, says that the purpose of the program is to make employees choose between the payout and the job, so that those who choose the job will appreciate it more, and be more dedicated to it. Clever, I’d say.

Consistency fills deep psychological needs. Without consistency in our environment and the people around us, there is chaos, and planning becomes impossible. If there is frequent inconsistency between an individual’s words and deeds, that individual is rightly seen as unstable or dishonest, and consequently undesirable as a friend or partner. Social animals that we are, our predisposition toward behavior that improves our social status is a survival mechanism, and since our behavior is informed by our ideas, it is psychologically important for our thoughts to be consistent.

We see this in action all the time in politics. Among the most hazardous things a politician can do is change his mind. Such is to confess to being prone to error, which is an undesirable quality in a lawmaker or executive.

This, of course, is quite a separate matter from the prudence of changing one’s mind, which is more often the case than most people would care to admit.

So goes the quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson;

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — ‘Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.’ — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”

However prudent a revision may be, it will doubtless be seized upon by one’s opponents. This is the consistency principle put to persuasive use. It is almost invariably put to use yet again, when it inevitably emerges that the critic too, once changed his mind, rendering his criticism inconsistent.

Who can forget the 2004 Presidential race, in which George W. Bush supporters labeled John Kerry a “flip flopper” and began showing up at events waving giant sandals around as if this proved the wisdom of the Iraq war. His famous “I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.” line, has become one of the most well known in American political history. Kerry’s support for the war should have washed him out of the Democrat Primary, were it not for the near unanimity of his error. His later revision of his position could have been seen as prudent, but then he “flip flopped” again and said he only wanted to pay for the $87 billion in question by rolling back the Bush tax cuts, but that had he been president, he would not have gone to war with Iraq.

Changing one’s mind is an expenditure of political capital. Properly executed, it can contribute to likeability, and demonstrate prudence, humility, and character. Such a proper execution would make it a wise investment of said political capital, but as we are warned in many a television commercial, all investment carries risks. Kerry earned his silly nickname, and lost his shot at the presidency. Today he demonstrates his inconsistency by flying around in private jets lecturing poor people about their carbon footprint.

In our experience, activists and media personalities are ever fearful of pivoting toward more prudent strategies out of concern they will be attacked for inconsistency. Should they make such a pivot anyway, the fear comes to fruition, and they are then tempted to abandon this and return to the familiar. Like Kerry, this too is seen as inconsistent, and the damage is only multiplied.

As a prominent example of the polar opposite outcome, we have Joe Biden. He repeatedly promised to ban fracking and do away with fossil fuels entirely, until he got called out on this by Donald Trump on the 2020 campaign trail in Pennsylvania and other energy producing swing states. Were it not for a servile and corrupt media, Joe Biden would have lost his third presidential race in 2020, and thus maintained his consistency in at least one feature of his political career.

Let this be a lesson to you when someone you support pivots. In the case of men with character, their strategic pivot is most likely consistent with an overarching goal, if not some prior statement or other. There is great value to being nimble in politics, and one ought not let himself be haunted by the “hobgoblin of little minds” if to do so would obstruct his path to power. Axiomatic program statements that produce predictable patterns of rhetoric and behavior are invitations for political opponents to set traps. They dare you to “say this unpopular thing and alienate the masses, or say otherwise and alienate your base!”

For those of us on the Right, we know all too well which choice our electoral candidates too often choose. Our candidates consistently choose to screw us over, secure in the knowledge that we have no better options. We are appropriately infuriated, if equally unsurprised, each time, and more than once this has prompted Republicans to sit out elections, handing control over to Democrats.

There’s a coherent line of thinking to this, of course. If a politician chooses to alienate his base to broaden his support, and the base does not punish him, then this invites repeat performances and defeats the purpose of being the base. On the other hand, being governed by the opposition party has yet to produce more satisfactory results, and leaves one with the distinct impression that they are damned, do or don’t. Met with such an unappealing choice, we opt to punish the treachery, if only to maintain our own internal consistency.

In my view, we on the Right need to find better means of influencing primaries, and holding the winners to account not for what they say, but for the outcomes they produce, on balance. We need to identify, influence, and nominate viable candidates whom we are certain understand the issues that drive us, but who are not so flamboyantly ideological that they scare the rest of the electorate. Once they are nominated, we have to support them almost no matter what they say or do, because modern political contests are nothing if not an aptitude test for professional deceivers. They need to be given room to operate, to be nimble, to be flexible, and to say whatever needs to be said, in order to win.

Even while in power,  they require the flexibility to stay there, and to expand their own influence. If they are to probe with their bayonet, they must be able to withdraw when they hit steel. If they know what we know, it hardly matters how much of our program they manage to implement, or in what time frame it is implemented. What matters, first and foremost, is keeping the other side out of power. Only after this is accomplished can we even contemplate getting our way. If the other side is in power, we are not merely disappointed by a lack of progress, we are terrified and persecuted and bankrupted. With our side in power, we then work to increase the power of our faction.

That brings us to the next and final principle chapter of Influence. The principle of Unity.

Cialdini distinguishes this from the earlier principle of liking for similarity with the following;

Automatically and incessantly, everyone divides people into those to whom the pronoun we does and does not apply. The implications for influence are great because, inside our tribes, everything influence-related is easier to achieve. Those within the boundaries of “we” get more agreement, trust, help, liking, cooperation, emotional support, and forgiveness and are even judged as being more creative, moral, and humane. The in-group favoritism seems not only far-ranging in its impact on human action but also primitive, as it appears in other primates and in human children as young as infants. Clique, run.

Thus, successful social influence is often pivotally grounded in “we” relationships. Still, a central question remains: What’s the best way to characterize such relationships? The answer requires a subtle but crucial distinction. “We” relationships are not those that allow people to say, “Oh, that person is like us.” They are the ones that allow people to say, “Oh, that person is one of us.” The unity rule of influence can thus be worded: People are inclined to say yes to someone they consider one of them. The experience of unity is not about simple similarities (although those can work, too, via the liking principle). It’s about identities, shared identities. It’s about tribe-like categories that individuals use to define themselves and their groups, such as race, ethnicity, nationality, and family, as well as political and religious affiliations. For instance, I might have many more tastes and preferences in common with a colleague at work than with a sibling, but there is no question which of the two I would consider of me and which I would consider merely like me. A key characteristic of these categories is that their members tend to feel “at one” with, merged with, one another. They are the categories in which the conduct of one member influences the self-esteem of other members. Put simply, the “we” is the shared me.

Consequently, within “we” relationship groups, people often fail to distinguish correctly between their own traits and those of fellow members, which reflects a confusion of self and other. Neuroscientists have offered an explanation for the confusion: asking someone to imagine the self or a close other engages the same brain circuitry. This commonality can produce neuronal “cross-excitation” of the two—whereby a focus on one simultaneously activates the other and fosters a blurring of identities. Long before the neuroscientific evidence was available, social scientists were gauging the feeling of self–other merger by asking people to indicate how much overlap in identity they felt with a particular other person. With that measure in hand, researchers have investigated which factors lead to greater feelings of shared identity and how the factors operate.

One way you know this book is above board is that Cialdini goes on at some length about the role that ethnicity plays in this. Though notably, with the exception of briefly mentioning an Italian immigrant to the United States who ripped off other Italian immigrants, he doesn’t describe White people as engaging in this ethnocentric behavior. He goes on at some length about an Arab used car salesman in Dearborn, Michigan who sold cars to other Arabs. He describes Bernie Madoff’s ponzi scheme, and how he used his Jewish identity to rip off other Jews, then promptly reminds us it is not specific to any ethnic group with the singular and vague mention of one Italian immigrant.

I do not need to spend much time telling this audience about the role shared ethnicity plays in persuasion. Race is a constituent element of identity, and identity determines the line between self and other. Individuals who come from a common environment, with a common gene pool, develop common interests, and common means of pursuing them. They develop ties which are unburdened by the differences that attend to genetic and cultural distance.

It is felt more intensely in some than in others, and at at different times under different circumstances. Much to our dismay, White people tend to be less moved by this than other groups, at least until we get to prison, or otherwise feel some shared threat to defend against. Cialdini has little to say about this phenomenon. We can at least consider ourselves fortunate that he isn’t filing the book up with nonsense about white supremacist conspiracy theories, but we won’t learn much from him about how to awaken White identity.

Not directly, anyway…

Cialdini offers an interesting analysis of political identity, from which I do suspect we can derive some useful information.

He begins by describing three kinds of lies. White lies, which are intended to protect others’ feelings. Black lies, which are intended to harm others’ interests. And Blue lies, which are intended to protect or aid the ingroup at the expense of the outgroup. Within identity merged groups, our typical preference for honesty can take a backseat to group interests, and such “Blue Lies” are consequently deemed morally superior to telling the truth at the ingroup’s expense.

Cialdini identifies this phenomenon as problematic, and one is tempted to agree with him, if only to maintain our own internal consistency. But years of experience in dealing with Leftists leaves your humble correspondent willing to ponder otherwise. If the other side is willing to abuse power, lie, threaten, riot, steal, burn, kill, and do every disreputable and illegal and degenerate act for the singular purpose of undermining my interests, then why should I put the truth above those interests, only to see the other side do violence to both?

I would go so far as to say that I should not do this. I should rather determine that a lie which undermines the interests of the Democrat Party is the greatest service to the truth that one can perform. The Democrat Party means war with Christian Russia in advancement of Ukrainian corruption. The Democrat Party means transgender propaganda for children who are too young to read. The Democrat Party means revisionist history, COVID cultism, climate worship, economic voodoo, child sacrifice, afrocentrism, and the inversion of all values, to the point where truth and lies cease to exist as concepts, because our language becomes so debased, that it is incapable of sustaining any meaning at all. With Democrats, there can be no truth, and in the final analysis, there can be no life. So anybody who is willing to forfeit power for the sake of truth is in the same position as the man who would forfeit his liberty for security. He will lose both and deserve neither.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Cialdini notes that “This kind of lying [for political gain] seems to thrive in an atmosphere of anger, resentment and hyper-polarization. Party identification is so strong that criticism of the party feels like a threat to the self, which triggers a host of defensive psychological mechanisms.”

Well, yeah. The Democrats want to open the borders and empty the prisons, only to fill them back up with anyone who complains. That is a threat to the self, and if you don’t form a group to confront that threat, then the threat wins. That group is called a political party, and just like you don’t burden yourself with moral philosophy when confronting an enemy in war, you don’t let the other side destroy you in politics just because one of your guys contradicted himself on the campaign trail.

But that’s not all, says Cialdini;

Besides approving of lies that promote and protect one’s party, additional defensive mechanisms are triggered by such fervent party identification. Individuals who possessed “fused” identities with their political party reported greater willingness to hide evidence of tax fraud by a politician from the party. Shown evidence of equivalent political inputs to their cities’ well-being, ardent party members convinced themselves that their party had made the stronger contributions. When asked to rank-order a waiting list of patients suffering from kidney disease as to their deservingness for the next available treatment, people chose those whose political party matched theirs.

People not only favor members of their political parties but also believe them more, even under bewildering circumstances. In an online study, participants were shown some physical shapes and asked to categorize them according to a set of guidelines. The more shapes they categorized correctly, the more money they were paid. When deciding how to best classify a shape, participants could choose to learn what another participant, whose political preferences they knew from previous information, had answered.

To a significant degree, they elected to see and use the answer of a politically like-minded participant, even when the individual had been performing relatively poorly on the task. Think of it: people were more willing to seek the judgment of a political ally on a task, no matter that (a) the task was irrelevant to politics, (b) the ally was inferior at the task, and, (c) consequently, they would probably lose money! In general, these findings fit with emerging scholarship indicating that political-party adherents base many of their decisions less on ideology than on loyalty—born of feelings of “we”-ness.

The phenomenon extends to seemingly far less dire matters, such as sports. Though, arguably, it isn’t the sport that is actually at issue. Here again, Race and Nation come into the foreground, says Cialdini.

In international football (soccer) matches, players from a referee’s home country obtain a 10 percent increase in beneficial calls, and the favoritism occurs equally among elite referees and their less experienced counterparts. In Major League Baseball games, whether a pitch is called a strike is influenced by the racial match between the umpire and pitcher. In National Basketball Association games, officials call fewer fouls against own-race players; the bias is so large that, researchers concluded, “the probability of a team winning is noticeably affected by the racial composition of the refereeing crew assigned to the game.” Thus, “we”-group bias corrodes the judgments even of individuals specifically selected and trained to be able to banish the bias. To understand why this is the case, we have to recognize that the same forces are operating on sports officials as on infamously one-sided sports fans.

As distinguished author Isaac Asimov put it in describing our reactions to contests we view: “All things being equal, you root for your own sex, your own culture, your own locality . . . and what you want to prove is that you are better than the other person. Whomever you root for represents you; and when he [or she] wins, you win.” Viewed in this light, the intense passion of sports fans makes sense. The game is no light diversion to be enjoyed for its inherent form and artistry. The self is at stake. That is why hometown crowds are so adoring and, tellingly, so grateful to those responsible for home-team victories. That is also why the same crowds are often ferocious in their treatment of players, coaches, and officials implicated in athletic failures.

Cialdini goes on to cite a study of romantic couples, in which the pair agreed to discuss an ongoing problem in their relationship and try to find a resolution in the presence of the researchers. These researchers noticed a pattern, in which one of the partners emerged as trying to persuade the other, and in doing so adopted one of three identifiable strategies.

In the first strategy, the partner tried to demean and coerce the other, which had the predictable effect of making matters worse.

In the second, the partner tried to lay out the facts and reason with the other, which proved nearly as useless.

In the third, the partner would often succeed, by raising the merged identity with words like “we” and “us” and focusing on the bonds that formed their relationship and shared interests.

Of this, Cialdini remarks;

Besides the demonstrated effectiveness of this unity-elevating approach, two more of its qualities are worth noting. First, its functional essence is a form of evidentiary non sequitur. Stating, “You know, we’ve been together for a while now, and we care for one another” in no way establishes the logical or empirical validity of the communicator’s position. Instead, it offers an entirely different reason for change—loyalty to the partnership.

The second remarkable quality of the partnership-raising route to change is that it provides nothing unknown. Typically, both parties well understand they’re in a partnership. But that implication-laden piece of information can easily drop from the top of consciousness when other considerations vie for the same space. True to its name, the partnership-raising approach just elevates one’s awareness of the connection. This basis for change fits well with the way I have lately come to view much research on social influence. The thing most likely to guide a person’s behavioral decisions isn’t the most potent or instructive aspect of the whole situation; instead, it’s the one that is most prominent in consciousness at the time of decision.

More examples are provided throughout the length of the chapter, but we have more or less made our point. Unity based in identity will outcompete truth and reason near every time because, as we’ve seen with other factors, persuasion is less about substance than about the way our minds process information. We make decisions because those decisions serve psychological demands, and while we are fortunate in that these psychological demands tend to closely approximate truth and reason, a compliance technician can skip truth and reason almost entirely if he can placate to those psychological demands.

Nationalists who stubbornly insist that race subsume all other constituent elements of a person’s identity, are not persuasive. One who asserts the primacy of race, and on that basis proceeds to attack a person’s cultural norms, country, religion, political party, or even sports teams, is headed solo to a gang fight. The outcome is predetermined, and unless he wants to play the rightly mocked conservative strategy of “losing with dignity”, he is going to have to behave like a white man, adapt to the reality of his circumstances, and do what is necessary to accomplish his goals.

In Conclusion

Even accounting for the copypasta, this is one of the longest things I’ve ever written, and even at that we have only barely scratched the surface of this subject. While I’ve included a few things from other sources, I’ve used one book as a guide because I think it makes a really good introduction to this topic. There is plenty in that book which we haven’t discussed, and there’s an endless amount of literature and other media about the art and science of persuasion. I plan to make this one of the central topics of discussion on the new show when I start putting that out, and I think you’ll find it both interesting, and impactful.

For all these years that I’ve been involved in media and politics, I’ve been frustrated, at times to the point of feeling hopeless, at the progress we have made in spreading our ideas and influencing the course of human events. It was for this reason that I started studying persuasion before my arrest in 2020. Realizing that it doesn’t matter how right you are, is a difficult thing to swallow when you get caught up in philosophy. Ideology can be exciting, but it became obvious to me a long time ago that it wasn’t what made the world turn.

Early on, I knew money was inseparable from politics. That is why I never was ashamed of trying to get paid in the course of my media and political activity. I was the first Alt Right paywall. I used to have accounts on every affiliate advertising market on the Internet. I pushed crypto, solicited donations, and sold Radical Agenda themed merchandise. When I went to Virginia in 2017, my revenues were going up every month. I had what I considered to be a pretty nice car, and my apartment was respectable.

When things hit the fan in Virginia, everything I had built was either destroyed or badly damaged. I had the truth on my side, but I saw that truth was not the determining factor in what was happening to us. Goodwin, Ramos, and Fields all went to trial and were convicted and sent to prison. The guilty pleas, including mine, followed. The Sines v. Kessler civil lawsuit, a complete and absurd fraud, dragged on for years, depleting resources and applying unbearable pressure to a political movement that had only just gotten started.

I kept saying to myself “How can this be happening? We’ve got the whole thing on video!” I thought the whole point of courts was to prevent this from happening!

But what is a court proceeding, ultimately? It’s a contest of persuasion. People who don’t have experience with the system, they might get the idea that it is very mechanical. The law is the law. It is written down voluminously, and if you follow the law, you win.

Nope. Sorry to tell you, that is not how it works at all. And for that matter, I don’t think that is how it would work even if we weren’t living in a cesspool of Leftist corruption. The goal is to convince the judge, and ultimately, a jury, that the law is on your side. The opponent is doing to same thing. The more persuasive story, or perhaps more accurately, the more persuasive story teller, wins.

It is the same in politics.

Money helps in both situations, for sure, but making money is no less a contest of persuasion. Nobody is going to pay you to be right, and for that matter, they aren’t going to pay you for a product or service, unless you can persuade them to do so. If you can persuade, then money will come, power will come, and victory, ultimately, will come. But not otherwise.


Artistically, I should now drop the mic and play the outro, but there are still a couple of things I want to talk to you about before I call it a day.

For those of you listening at the time of release, I’m sorry that it took so long for me to get this to you. It’s been two weeks since I last published a podcast, and I don’t usually take this long, but for the conclusion of the Radical Agenda, I want to make sure I am leaving behind something I can be proud of. I also, frankly, underestimated how much work it would take to do the show in this format, having gotten so used to phones filling up the airtime.

I’ve got my equipment set up to do live streams again, and I’m going to begin testing with Odysee and Entropy. I’ve got payment processing for SurrealPolitiks.com, and I’m looking at software to limit live audience participation features to paying customers. I think that can reasonably be expected to cut down on the disruptions, and make sure that your time isn’t wasted with dumb pranks. It will also allow me to produce on a more regular schedule, because it’s a lot easier to talk to people live than it is to write a two hour long script, record it, edit it, and then publish it.

While waiting two weeks to publish a podcast I doubt inspires many of you to shower me with dollars, I’ll let you know, if you haven’t already heard, that I set up a new GiveSendGo campaign that will allow you to make a monthly recurring contribution, if you would like to do that. You can find this at https://GiveSendGo.com/spm and you will see that it is trying to raise $5,000 per month to fund the new show. There’s also a lengthy pitch there, at about 1400 words, describing what I envision for the production, if you would care to read that.

You can send me stuff in the mail, too.

Christopher Cantwell
497 Hooksett Rd
Unit 312
Manchester, NH 03104

I love the cryptocurrency, and all my crypto public keys are available at https://ChristopherCantwell.net/donate

You may have seen a couple of posts I published about Substack. I signed up for it, you can find me there at https://Substack.com/surrealpolitiks if you’re into that system, but you probably won’t see anything there that I don’t publish on ChristopherCantwell.net, so, whatever works for you. I tried to set up a new Stripe account to use with that system, but less than 48 hours in they shut me down, so, you’re limited to the payment methods I’ve just mentioned for now.

SurrealPolitiks.com is live, and I have the payment system configured, pretty soon I’ll put up the last of the RadicalAgenda merch for sale. Stay tuned, I’ll let you know when that happens.

I’ll also do my best to get you another episode faster this time. You might have noticed that there’s no smoke alarm beeping in this episode. Sorry about that. The thing was out of my control because I live in a shared building and had to wait for management to deal with the issue. The beep wasn’t coming from my space, it was coming from a common area and I’m not supposed to screw with the system, so I put in a maintenance request and they finally fixed it.

Little by little, we’re making it happen, folks. Thanks for your support and your patience, thank you very much for tuning into the Radical Agenda, have the best weekend with the ones you love, and happy Valentine’s Day, I should add.

That’s all for now, go forth and persuade.

Radical Agenda S06E002 – Welcome to the Party, Pal!

Here at the Radical Agenda, we pride ourselves on thinking outside the box. Our defining characteristic as Right wingers is not so much our conservatism as our nationalism, and of course our unyielding reactionary contempt for the Left.

This is not to say that we lack any conservative impulse. We know as well as anyone that if something isn’t broke, there is no sense in attempting to fix it. In the name of so-called “progress”, Democrats keep trying to “fix” elections, race, and gender. In this pursuit, they seem to be getting exactly what they want, but the honest observer cannot say that they are making life any better, and they themselves seem more miserable with each successive victory. So, conservatism surely has its place as an element of one’s political repertoire.

But we also know at least two things about the present. It is intolerable, and it is the product of the past. Thus it would seem to follow, that repeating prior behavior is a roadmap to an intolerable place. So, with all due respect to tradition, we find ourselves determined to blaze new trails.

Then again, there is an argument to be made that nothing is really new in this world. A timeless bit of wisdom from the Bible, in Ecclesiastes 1:9, reads “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.

Many have fancied themselves inventors before they got to the patent office, and all experience has shown that even those of us who do study history, are no less doomed to repeat it. Or at least, something that rhymes with it.

Reconciling these paradoxes is itself a perennial issue in politics, and every other field of human endeavor. The old saying that “The more things change, the more things stay the same” is a cliche for a reason. Man perpetually longs to alter his circumstances, usually for the better. He does not reach a point of satisfaction and rid himself of all uneasiness and cease to act. Yet man is a natural creature, and thus he has what can be called “human nature”. This nature is a limitation on his capacity to innovate, and attempts to create change beyond a certain degree can only lead to that most common of human conditions, which we call death.

The term “progressivism” has become almost as bastardized in the modern common parlance as has “conservatism”. Far from seeking progress, self styled “progressives” are dismantling civilization into a Hobbesian hellscape, red in tooth and claw as much as in ideology. Marketed as Utopians, and often even granted this by their opponents, these Trotskyites are in fact incapable of happiness. Their concept of progress is entirely destructive, in that whatever is, must not be. They seek perpetual revolution, and it is only the destruction of the current moment, combined with the inevitability of the passage of time, that they are oriented toward the future.

People have come to think that conservatism and progressivism are distinct ideologies which encompass all the tenets of a political party. Indeed, many think of politics in the Untied States as being precisely this. There are the “progressive” Democrats, and the “conservative” Republicans, and based on your point of view, one of those parties is the good party, and one of them is the evil party. Either the good, progressive Democrats are trying to improve mankind toward his destined perfection, and those evil conservative Republicans keep thwarting their plans out of bigotry, or those good conservative Republicans try diligently to preserve our beautiful country, which those evil “progressive” Democrats are always busy trying to ruin.

This is, in a word, silly. Nobody really organizes their lives or thoughts in this way. We all want, in varying degrees, to progressively improve the things we see worthy of conserving. We change, in degree, but not in kind. Political extremists long for what is often described as “revolutionary” change, but whether they obtain the reins of power through ballots or bullets, the most they can obtain are larger or smaller degrees of largely cosmetic alterations to a fundamental and permanent order. They might kill lots of people and destroy lots of things. The people impacted by their zeal might have their lives turned completely upside down or snuffed out entirely, but in the end, one still must produce more than he consumes, and there are still two complimentary and opposite sexes, which cannot be altered by nebulous conceptions of “gender”.

All of which is to say, there are, however loosely defined, some limits on what is even conceivable, in politics. What is actually possible is even more tightly constrained, and what is probable falls inside a still smaller boundary.

Limits of Means to Power

To even find opportunity to act within these constraints at all requires obtaining political power. To lay hands on this prize, the means are fundamentally limited to three categories of action. Persuasion, deception, or force. None of which are mutually exclusive, and successful strategies typically combine the three.

Fundamentally, force is inescapable. The exercise of political power is the legitimization of force. Say what you will about the communists, but Mao was largely correct in his observation of power’s origin. Setting this aside, the difference between revolution and terrorism is who writes the history. For this reason, and others, history teaches us nothing if not that people can, and all too frequently do, obtain political power by force of arms.

But force does not negate the requirement of persuasion. The legitimization of force is a question of perceptions. No government can operate without a certain degree of enthusiastic public support, and a much larger degree of acquiescence. To rule, even with an iron fist, one must persuade the governed that the ruler is at least not the worst case scenario, and this can be a heavy lift if you’re running around killing everybody who talks out of turn. To even acquire the manpower and resources to topple the prior regime, one must persuade men to risk and forfeit their lives and freedom for the conflict, which is a greater burden to meet, though in smaller numbers, than obtaining the acquiescence of the general public.

Historically, deception has proved useful in such affairs. The study of revolution is near exclusively a study of communism, which has at its core the most dishonest of all conceivable political promises: that man may be freed from his own nature and that of his environment if he inflicts enough suffering upon others.

Elections, largely perceived today as the only legitimate means of obtaining power, are, when properly functioning, designed to be measures of persuasion. One asks the public for their votes, and tries to persuade them that he is the best use of this scarce resource. Typically, he is opposed by at least one competitor for this resource, who makes the contrary case.

One need not necessarily win the election himself to wield political power through persuasion. It is quite well enough, perhaps even preferable, to have influence over people who win elections, or  even to hold a position within the political apparatus or civil service. Every contributor to a newspaper or television news production, every social media star, is influencing both the electorate and the elected.

Perhaps another day we can do an entire episode on non-elected political power, but, in the final analysis, democratically elected governments are designed such that the policy makers are answerable to voters. Lasting, sweeping change, requires legislative authority. Judicial nominations, regulatory control, and enforcement discretion, all flow from elected executives. Thus we are met with the stubborn fact that some proximity to the electoral process is an inescapable component of any political strategy, with the possible but by no means certain exception of armed revolution, which we will now rule out for us, for obvious and not so obvious reasons.

Force is still necessarily a part of the equation, not only because the winner of the election will wield the power of the State, but because the loser will be physically removed from his office if he declines to accept the results. Unless he gets the armed forces to back him, but that involves force all the same.

While an election without deception is theoretically possible, we do not live in theory, we live in the empire of lies, in which truth is treason.

Deception, in addition to its role in the prior to categories of action, may also be the primary element of a political strategy, such as in the case of voter fraud or election tampering. It necessarily involves some persuasion, in that one must typically convince the governed that the deception did not occur or was not of outcome determinate scale. Ultimately force cannot be separated from it both for reasons inherent in all matters of State and for the high likelihood that one will need forcibly incapacitate those who detect the fraud, such as happened with the January 6th Defendants.

With our narrow and overlapping categories of action now defined, we have one more step to go before we attempt to apply this analysis.

Who Are We?

I keep on saying “we”. Who are “we” – or, perhaps better said – who is “us”?  What common goal defines membership in the group I reference for purpose of political action?

If you have been paying attention to me for awhile, you already understand that I am working my way up to advocating participation in the Republican Party. But since I do not consider myself to be on the same team as Adam Kinzinger or Liz Cheney, a Republican voter registration is not sufficient for our purposes.

Nor can we describe ourselves as “movement conservatives”. Not that most people who do, really can. Self described conservatives today, with a few rare exceptions, know little of William F. Buckley or Russell Kirk, much less Edmund Burke. The “free speech absolutism” mindlessly parroted by self described conservatives today in their complaints about social media censorship and Democrat tyranny more broadly, is not something that would fall from the mouth of one who had read God and Man at Yale.

Nor would one who had read The Conservative Mind be so in thrall to the “free market absolutism” mindlessly parroted by a rival faction of self described modern conservatives, in response to the same subjects. Conservatism, properly understood, does not consider itself powerless to stop a transnational criminal enterprise from wrecking the country, just because it files articles of incorporation, and allows people to buy shares of it on the New York Stock Exchange. These people sound a lot more like Murray Rothbard than Richard Weaver, and while we all owe Ron Paul a debt of gratitude, there are good reasons why people don’t vote for candidates who promise not to help them.

More to the point, as touched upon at the beginning of this discussion, conservatism is not a holistic political philosophy, but a constituent element of all political philosophies. This fact is what gives rise to the two factions just mentioned. Free speech and free markets are not compatible, and thus cannot be absolutist members of the same coherent thought process. These are different ideologies which merely have a constituent element in common.

Everybody wants to conserve something, and while it is an unfair oversimplification of conservatism to say that it merely protects the status quo, that has become its function as of late, and we have no interest in becoming the protectors of prior revolutions.

Certainly, none of us can be accused of being neocons, though I would argue we can learn more from them than most of my listeners would guess. Giving the devil his due, Irving Kristol and friends may very well have saved this country from a permanent Democrat majority, by shunning Misesian economic orthodoxy, and isolationist foreign policy. Given its ethnic origins, we ought not be surprised that neoconservatism paved the way for a rootless, corrosive, globalism, and all of its accompanying domestic ailments, but since it taught the American Right to come to grips with the New Deal and stop scaring voters by threatening social security, we might do well to tip our hats.

Speaking of the ethnic origins of neoconservatism, one way I could convey my point is by referring to “us” as “what was once called the Alt Right”. This shortcut would save me some keystrokes and convey much of my point. But the Alt Right lost, and while we can blame the disreputable acts of non-adherents for this fact, that is not going to change the outcome. Moreover, the failure of the Alt Right has more in common with the failure of conservatism than most adherents of either camp would like to admit.

While conservatism monomaniacally focused on “standing athwart history yelling stop”, the Alt Right’s myopic focus on the Jewish question left everything else blurry. Since the targets of this entirely reactionary contempt understand full well the implications of it, they were able to mimic its patterns, infiltrate the movement, predict the behavior of its adherents, and control, subvert, and ultimately eliminate them from the political contest.  Whatever the merits of this movement, we cannot repeat its errors.

Like conservatism, anti-Semitism is not a philosophy, much less a political strategy. It is a predictable reaction to a peculiar state of affairs with an identifiable cause. The present analysis makes no value judgements about it as one constituent element of a worldview, except to say that is what it is, one constituent element. Like conservatism, attempts to create an ideology out of a single constituent element results in social conflict among adherents, because they are not all actually on the same side. They simply have one constituent element of their worldview in common, and even their conception of that element can vary dramatically from one adherent to the next.

This was exploited to devastating effect against the Alt Right. A paper in the Journal Nature, described a strategy for “combating online hate” which proposed having social media platforms introduce artificial users whose purpose was to try and force interactions between what they called “hate clusters” with the explicit intent of causing them to fight and destroy one another.

Policy 4 exploits the fact that many hate groups online have opposing views. The policy suggests that the platform administrators introduce an artificial group of users to encourage interactions between hate clusters that have opposing views, with a view to the hate clusters subsequently battling out their differences among themselves. The authors’ modelling demonstrated that such battles would effectively remove large hate clusters that have opposing views. Once put into action, policies 3 and 4 would require little direct intervention by the platform administrators; however, setting opposing clusters against each other would require meticulous engineering.

While I am not accusing the organizers of the event of anything, it should come as no surprise to us that our downfall more or less began at the “Unite the Right” rally. As the pressure was ratcheted up in the wake of that event, the Alt Right became a circular firing squad, and never recovered.

Monomaniacal anti-Semitism is often perceived as a pathology, and not without some justification. Any honest observer of political movements centered on anti-Semitism has surely noticed if not confessed, that that whatever the merits of those movements, and whatever the percentage of quality people could be counted among the adherents, a substantial number of their adherents turn out to be among the worst sort of people. Better than Democrats any day of the week, but terrible nonetheless. A surprising number of those terrible people happen to be Jews, or  to be financed by Jews, themselves. This should tell us something about tactics if not ideology.

When centered near exclusively on a single outgroup, other problems go unnoticed, or at least uncorrected. Not the least of which are severe character flaws in adherents. Since anti-Semitism attracts violent resistance, this might be considered more feature than bug at some stage of the movement’s development, because prosperous well adjusted people tend to avoid activities that carry the risk of beatings, bankruptcy, prison, and murder.

This could be dealt with through competent leadership, but exacerbating this problem is the fact that the power wielded by its targets tends to fall heavy on precisely those leaders. This decapitates organized movements, and sets those deeply flawed, and now battle hardened, adherents, loose with no productive outlet for their contempt. This lends itself to “leaderless resistance” ideations, which is a thinly veiled euphemism for terrorism and other forms of criminal violence. Such acts are encouraged and even celebrated by the targets of anti-Semitism, in large part because it aids in bringing the force of the State down on those who would see them dislodged from power.

A successful political movement cannot simply “power through” such obstacles, and insistence on doing so is akin to the conservative pathological insistence on “losing with dignity”. There is no dignity in losing. Losing is what has facilitated our repeated humiliation, and we have learned all that loss has to teach us. These pathologies have to be overcome, and in our case that begins with a conscious decision not to outwardly center our worldview and action on the undesirable behavior of an ethnic minority.

To be clear, I am not talking about the familiar refrain of “trying to sneak up on the Jew”. Ethnocentric outgroups will always view us as their enemy no matter what we do, and we will not overcome their enmity by way of deception. If we are accomplishing anything, they will see right through that tactic and treat us identically to if we were holding torches and making Roman salutes. What I am talking about is goal oriented behavior, intelligent risk/reward calculations, and giving people who are not members of those ethnocentric groups the the ability to associate and do business with us without risking their lives and fortunes.

One does not typically insist on walking around in crime ridden minority neighborhoods preaching the gospel of George Lincoln Rockwell. Not least of all, because it carries the significant risk of being beaten or shot to death without any substantial chance of reward for that risk. It is not entirely dissimilar to say, that if one wants to use certain services for political purposes, or to develop contacts in a given organization, that he would be prudent not to introduce himself as a National Socialist. Not because of anything pertaining to the merits of national socialism, but because it would be contrary to his purposes. The more this individual wants to spread his ideas, the more restraint he needs to show in his actions, because changing other people’s opinions is an exercise of political power he has not yet obtained.

Obvious Race Realism

Of course, it is not quite so simple to just shut up about one’s political views, especially while engaging in political discussions. It requires more than an effort to infiltrate an organization for all but the most skilled operators to do something like this. One must actually reorient his focus, so that his interactions seem sincere, because they are.

Fortunately, I do not think this is nearly so heavy a lift as some might suspect. I have already done it. I had to spend three years in prison to do it, but I do not think that everyone need go through this. My understanding of the world, and how race interacts with politics, has not changed, fundamentally. I just don’t find it useful to spend a great deal of time focusing on the subject. That conclusion came in part as a result of a compulsory change in my routine media consumption, from the ecosystem of Telegram and Gab, to Fox News, conservative talk radio, the Wall Street Journal, and reading many books that had little to say about race. I consumed commercial media, and filtered it through my existing understanding of how the world worked.

There is a limit to how much useful information a person can consume on the subject of race. Reading the collected works of Kevin MacDonald, Adolf Hitler, and Charles Murray should more than suffice for this purpose. Once one has this information incorporated into their worldview, the aim ought to be to work it into the underlying assumptions of new information, and share the underlying assumptions by engaging with others on the more topical subject matter of the day, from this perspective.

This is a sort of reverse engineering of political propaganda, but if you think about it, this is how most people learn most things. By inference. If you sign up for a class, you might want to be told directly about the subject matter, but most people are not anxious to be preached to. They far prefer to believe that they figured the world out all on their own, and ideas formed in this way are more durable than those that are conspicuously inserted in the mind by others.

A powerful example of this is provided in the subject of the Ukraine conflict. Zelensky is willing to fight to the last Ukrainian, in large part because he is not a Ukrainian. Get that idea into the head of somebody who is skeptical of Joe Biden’s Ukraine policy, and soon you will smell the burning of the gears. You can’t explain this to the average person by starting the conversation with Holocaust denial. You have to meet people where they are, remain within their comfort zone, and then change the boundaries of that zone before you go outside of them.

Rules For Hegemony

We would all do well to learn from the tactics of the Left. They didn’t begin by trying to transgender the kids. They appealed to the values of normal people, and then gradually distorted those values to the point that even people who disagreed with their conclusions, tended to give them the moral high ground. Their recent excesses, in the form of race riots and classroom pornography, were born of the echo chamber that emerged from the hegemony purchased with prior restraint. Now they get to steal elections and burn down police stations on camera with no fear of harm to their reputations, much less being prosecuted.

Meanwhile, you can’t protest at the Capitol, count on the authorities to prosecute criminals who victimize you, or have a PayPal account.

They are winning. You are losing. We need to learn from them.

In his book, Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky says the following about the art of communication;

It does not matter what you know about anything if you cannot communicate to your people. In that event you are not even a failure. You’re just not there. Communication with others takes place when they understand what you’re trying to get across to them. If they don’t understand, then you are not communicating regardless of words, pictures, or anything else. People only understand things in terms of their experience, which means that you must get within their experience. Further, communication is a two-way process. If you try to get your ideas across to others without paying attention to what they have to say to you, you can forget about the whole thing.

Later in the same section;

In mass organization, you can’t go outside of people’s actual experience. I’ve been asked, for example, why I never talk to a Catholic priest or a Protestant minister or a rabbi in terms of the Judaeo-Christian ethic or the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount. I never talk in those terms. Instead I approach them on the basis of their own self-interest, the welfare of their Church, even its physical property.

If I approached them in a moralistic way, it would be outside their experience, because Christianity and Judaeo-Christianity are outside of the experience of organized religion. They would just listen to me and very sympathetically tell me how noble I was. And the moment I walked out they’d call their secretaries in and say, “If that screwball ever shows up again, tell him I’m out.”

Communication for persuasion, as in negotiation, is more than entering the area of another person’s experience. It is getting a fix on his main value or goal and holding your course on that target. You don’t communicate with anyone purely on the rational facts or ethics of an issue.

A great example of this for the Right is the news stories coming to us from school board meetings and elections in recent years, over critical race theory and transgenderism. Parents do not want their children to be indoctrinated with bizarre sexual nonsense from pedophile groomers. They do not want their children to be taught anti-White race hate.

But they don’t want to be branded Nazis or lose their jobs, either.

Anyone who helped those parents protect their children became their best friends, and anyone who stood in their way became their worst enemy.

Which category do you think you would fall into, if you showed up at that meeting, and used your time at the microphone to discuss the ethnic background of Magnus Hirschfeld?

There is scarcely any more persuasive figure in politics than a concerned mother. These scenes scared the life out of Democrats to the point they had their spies in the FBI target these mothers as terror suspects. When that headline broke, the public was rightly outraged.

These events have been fortunate for the Right, in that they are shifting the “spectrum of allies” discussed by Johnathan Matthew Smucker in his book “Hegemony How To

If we are presently too feeble a force to win the fight today, what can we do today so that tomorrow we will be a little stronger, and the day after that, a little stronger still?

Before we can wield power for change, we need to build and align that power. The addition of the word align is necessary here because it is not only a matter of building our own power from scratch. Certainly we do need to build some of our own explicitly progressive political organizations, but constructing a political force is just as much about aligning with existing groups and institutions.

To think about where we are now and where we want our trajectory to take us, picture a tug of war, in which one side seems to be winning handily. But when a few key actors switch sides, it suddenly shifts the balance of forces and momentum. In a case of a regime and its challenger, the old regime may suddenly find itself weakened, perhaps beyond recovery, while a challenger alignment finds itself potent, its strength ascending, the “tug of war” moving in its direction. Now, let’s complicate our binary metaphor. The problem with the idea of an actor “switching sides” in a tug of war is that such a complete defection from one pole to its opposite is unusual in the real world. While such dramatic conversions are not unheard of, they are quite rare and we cannot rely on such dramatic individual conversions. The good news is this: to win politically you don’t have to win over your most ardent opponents.

The “spectrum of allies” graphic below provides an instructive map of our spectral “tug of war.

Spectrum of Allies

Spectrum of Allies

Shifting the spectrum of allies is about moving people and groups—leaders, influentials, social bases, institutions, polity members, new and hitherto unmobilized actors, etc. —over just one notch closer to your position. Groups working on specific campaigns can use the above “spectrum of allies” as a strategy tool, by identifying (and then writing into the “pie slices”) specific social bases, institutions, and leaders that could potentially shift the balance of power. Perhaps the most crucial category shift is the pulling of passive allies into the active allies category, as this brings an influx of volunteers and resources, substantially increasing the alignment’s immediate capacity for collective action. For example, when pre-movement civil rights leaders and their small nascent organizations pulled (i.e., activated) black churches, students, barber shops, etc. from the passive allies to the active allies category, suddenly all of the pre-existing infrastructure, resources, and social capacity of those constituencies and institutions went to work for civil rights, dramatically boosting the burgeoning movement’s capacity and reach. Probably the next most important shift is in winning over neutrals, thereby pulling them into the passive allies category. The Freedom Rides were designed precisely with this in mind. SNCC leaders knew that many students in the north were sympathetic but inactive (i.e., they were passive allies). By creating a way for hundreds of these students to become actively involved—by riding in integrated buses to segregated southern states, and then lending a hand to voter registration drives—they not only increased the civil rights movement’s capacity by bringing in more active participants, they also caught the attention of the families, friends, and broader social networks of those northern students, thereby pulling many thousands of people— including many “politically connected” people—from the neutral to the passive allies category.

If an emerging movement or alignment succeeds in effecting important shifts in these categories (passive allies -> active allies, neutral-> passive allies), it may be approaching a tipping point, where passive opponents start losing their conviction-they are “neutralized”-and the active opposition eventually loses its base of support. If challengers can keep up their spectrum-shifting trajectory – if they can weather countermoves, counter-attacks, and perhaps repression – their opponents will eventually find themselves isolated and thus weakened to the point of retreat or capitulation. Of course none of this is easy. There are many obstacles, structural, cultural, social, and psychological-that tend to prevent individuals and institutions from aligning with and adding their energy to a collective effort or challenger movement. Overcoming these obstacles usually takes good planning, hard work, and savvy- and success is still never assured. But however hopeless the present situation may seem, we have to always remind ourselves that our success ultimately depends on a growth trajectory. Progressives will not- we cannot- make the kinds of changes we envision with only a small active force. There Is a danger of getting stuck on a “low plateau”- where our capacity is limited to that of a small number of .. usual suspects … We might even become comfortable on this plateau, where all the faces are familiar, and everyone thinks more or less like us. But we have to figure out how to climb higher.

There is a tremendous amount of wisdom in that passage, which we’ll address presently.

Party Politics in the United States

America has a two party political system. This is not a mere perception of the electorate. It is not ideological. That is the system we have. It is established in law and fact. Electoral districts are drawn based on territory and population, and within those jurisdictions, winner takes all in elections. If the winner gets one more vote than you, you are the loser, you lose completely, and there is no participation trophy.

The two parties are, at least in theory, adversaries, and on the rare occasions that they work together, one or both of their constituencies are typically furious.

This differs from other parts of the world and different times in history, with parliamentary systems and proportional representation. In these places and times, the people of an entire state or federation of states, vote for a party, and that party sends representatives to a legislative body that elects the executive. In these systems, minority parties can wield tremendous power by joining governing coalitions.

This opportunity does not exist in the United States.

In most parts of the country, the two parties have further arranged the laws to prevent independent and third party candidates from even getting their names on the ballot. Either through massive fees, or petition requirements, these candidates face obstacles which often prove insurmountable.

Even in places with relatively lax ballot access laws, where one need only pay a nominal sum to gain ballot access, even low information voters are informed enough about how the system works that they refuse to waste their vote by casting it for a candidate who has no chance of winning the election.

Media outlets, if we try to imagine honest ones operating in our political system, have no reason to convey the messages of inconsequential candidates because they are fundamentally unnewsworthy. Partisan news outlets, which it should go without saying are more common than honest ones, may occasionally make the strategic decision of promoting a candidate perceived to pull votes from their party’s opponents, in the hopes that the candidate may “play spoiler” in the election, to the benefit of their party’s candidate. But they will not grant the candidate so much coverage as to create a serious possibility of the candidate actually winning, because that is borderline impossible in our system, because their audience would likely change the channel rather than be inundated with irrelevant information, and because they themselves are invested in the two party system.

These challenges are exacerbated by campaign finance regulations, which limit how much a supporter can give to a candidate they favor. If the candidate himself is wealthy, he can spend as much of his money as he sees fit. If the candidate merely has the support of wealthy benefactors, he cannot spend their money on his campaign beyond a certain limit which typically is designed to be inconsequential. While campaign finance regulations are marketed as a means to prevent corruption in politics, the effect is precisely the opposite, by cementing the media’s position as gatekeeper, and granting electoral advantage to dishonest candidates who find more “creative” ways of using others’ resources beyond contribution limits.

Left and Right

The coherence of a two party system stems in part form the fact that, while there are challenges that attend to defining it which are beyond the scope of this reading, there has often if not always emerged throughout time and geography, what can be referred to as a “Left Right Paradigm” of politics. The terminology stems from the French Revolution, a situation the description of which I will provide as a quote from a post at TheConversation.com;

Left and right are old labels, dating back to the French Revolution. In 1789, the National Constitutive Assembly met to decide whether, under France’s new political regime, the king should have veto power. If so, it queried, should this right should be absolute or simply suspensive, for a period of time.

When voting, supporters of the absolute veto sat on the president’s right, the noble side. According to Christian tradition, it is an honour to be seated at the right side of God, or to the right of the head of the family at dinner. Those who wanted a highly restricted veto were seated on the left.

Thus, the layout of the room took on political significance: to the right, supporters of a monarchy that sought to preserve many of the king’s powers; to the left, those who wished to reduce them.

As a general matter, the Right is more accepting of hierarchy, while the Left is more intent on levelling. Either can be seen as more or less “liberal” than the other, in the classical sense, this being a relative term describing the degree of government coercion requisite to impose their respective standards on a given population. Your humble correspondent holds the view that the Right, however forceful it needs to be to establish order, will always be more “liberal” in this sense, because its aims correspond to reality and human beings are at least capable of living according to Right wing standards. This stands in sharp contrast to the Left, whose unrealistic fantasies lead to perpetual catastrophe, and are invariably met with demands for more State coercion with each successive failure, eventually giving way to an all pervading tyranny, as the levellers come to despise the citizenry for their rejection of the project.

This being the case, the Right, which is by no means of a single mind, must form what are often uncomfortable coalitions to defeat the Left. This is because, lacking any meaningful standards, the Left has historically had less trouble making the sort compromises electoral coalitions necessitate.

In the American two party system, we have a Left wing Party, nominally Democrat, more accurately described as communist. We also have a wholly inadequate Right wing party, called the Republicans, whom one might flatter by describing as speedbumps.

Reasonable people find this state of affairs intolerable, and demand alternatives. Should one present itself as viable, your humble correspondent is all ears, but this writer remains unpersuaded that the proposals presently on the table meet this standard. If we rule out the option of armed struggle, as any sane man must, at least while speaking under his real name,  our only means of influencing public policy is to influence the electorate, the elected, and those who derive their powers therefrom.

Third Parties

Since failure to name the organization will result in accusations that I am waging a thinly veiled attack on it, I should make specific reference here to the National Justice Party, or NJP. But most of what I am going to say has already been said about the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party on the Right, and of the Greens and other third parties on the Left. There is nothing new about independent political parties in American politics, and since I think the NJP does good non-electoral work, I would just as soon leave them out of this analysis. They are reluctantly brought up because people will assume I am talking about them if I don’t talk about them specifically.

There can be no doubt that the NJP has made substantial accomplishments, most of which I surely remain unaware of on account of the conditions of my incarceration. Among the successes I can name, they range from the charitable – raising money to purchase Christmas presents for White children, to the organizational – getting large numbers of like minded people to show up and act collectively, to the ideological – in the spreading and refinement of ideas. Within what might be described as the “far right”, the NJP doubtlessly wields social if not political power.

I can imagine that in due course, the NJP might have other accomplishments, such as serving as a useful legal and financial vehicle to accomplish goals not normally considered the purview of a political party, by taking advantage of legal privileges and immunities granted to this peculiar sort of institution.

I never begrudged the Traditionalist Workers Party for taking on the form of a political party, and I have no quarrel with the NJP for structuring its legal organization in this way.

So far as elections go, there are states like New York, which have the unusual feature of cross endorsement, where a candidate’s name may appear on the ballot for a single office more than once under different party lines. Usually, this means if you vote Republican or you vote Conervative, you vote for the same candidate. Nothing is lost by voting for the minority party, and Republican candidates seek Conservative cross endorsement so they do not miss out on those comparatively few party line votes. While this has not had the effect of rescuing New York from Democrat hegemony, it has earned the Conservative Party a seat at the table of Republican Party politics, wielding more influence than they likely otherwise would as a mere faction of the GOP.

But New York’s cross endorsement law is very unusual. In most places, third party candidates can only help those parties whose positions they oppose most vehemently, by attracting voters from the larger and more closely aligned party, to deprive that viable party the benefit of their ballot. The benefit thus naturally accrues to the viable opposition party, whose platform consists of open borders and transgender toddlers.

The NJP is not presently engaged in this sort of political activity. They are thus not prone to criticism of that sort of activity, yet. But from what I can gather, there pervades throughout the membership and sympathizers of the organization an understandable contempt for the Republican Party. Should this contempt manifest itself as an organized and successful effort to deprive the Republican Party of electoral victories, they will become a convenient tool of the Democrat Party. I hope they do not do this.

I have some personal experience with this sort of activity. Not long after my first steps in political activism, in the year 2010, I ran for the US House of Representatives in New York’s 1st congressional district as a Libertarian Party candidate. I originally intended to seek the Republican and Conservative Party cross endorsements as well, but being a political novice with the meager support of a near non-existent Libertarian Party, it quickly became obvious I would not have a chance of accomplishing this goal.

In fact, I never even made the ballot as a Libertarian. I had to run a write in campaign.

The vote totals were as follows

  • Tim Bishop (D) : 98,316 votes – or – 48.67%
  • Randy Altschuler (R): 97,723 votes – or – 48.38%
  • Write-in: 5,968 votes – or – 2.95%

New York does not read the write in votes unless the total number of write ins has the potential to alter the outcome, so I have no idea how many of those 5,968 votes were for me, but I am unaware of any other write in candidate in the race.

Tim Bishop was reelected with less than 50% of the vote, and shortly after this, Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law.

This did not improve my relationship with the Tea Party groups, many of whom understandably blamed me for giving this winnable seat to the Democrat.

At the time, I took credit for doing so. I felt powerful for having done so. I did not think Mr. Altschuler was a good candidate, and I still do not think he was or is. But the 2010 midterm elections were a big win for the Republican Party elsewhere, which Barack Obama subsequently described as a “shellacking”, and this shellacking likely saved us from his Cap & Trade carbon taxes, under which “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”.

Should the Libertarian Party have enjoyed more such “victories”, Barack Obama would have continued to have a free hand with a compliant Democrat majority for at least another two years. To advocate this with knowledge of the implications is a thinly veiled advocacy of accelerationist terrorism, and a willingness to harm the public in the hopes of distant future political gain. One who pursues such a strategy must be prepared to do so under guise of deception, because the public will not reward with political success, the persons or parties they see as having brought this misery upon them intentionally.

The Primary Challenge

Those dissatisfied with the Republican Party will state, in various versions, certain slogans familiar to anyone who has dealt with Libertarians in the past. Lines such as, “The Republicans do this” or “The Republicans don’t do that”. As if the Republican Party (or any other party) were its own agent with its own will.

The most cursory examination reveals the fault in this thinking. It is the same error made by anarchists who begin similar statements with “the government” in place of “the Republicans”. A Party can only only do as its participants direct it to do, just as a government only does what the party in control of it directs. One who advocates the abandonment of the Party due to the actions of those in charge of it, creates by his actions a self fulfilling prophecy, just as does the eligible voter who boycotts elections. He leaves control of the weapon to the very people he blames for his dissatisfaction, and according to a certain line of reasoning, forfeits his right to complain.

The more dissatisfied one is with the behavior of the Republican “establishment”, the more his rational judgement should guide him towards becoming it. Among the benefits of having a party system institutionalized, is that the rules for participation in the Party are established by law. Those laws  may vary from place to place, but they do not generally permit the party to disenfranchise eligible voters who register as party members, and thus with effort similar to what it takes for one to spoil an election, one can commandeer leadership positions in the Party apparatus.

Without even doing so, every Republican nomination for public office is subject to primary or caucus elections, in which, again, any voter who registers party affiliation is eligible to participate. It takes fewer votes to win a primary election, and fewer still a caucus, than it takes to win a general election. If you cannot win one of these contests, there is no reason to expect you can win a general election, and thus third parties are not only destined, but usually designed, to lose, and often to play spoiler. It is infinitely more viable a strategy to court registered Republicans to vote for one’s chosen primary candidate, than it is to encourage those same voters to abandon their party to support a non-viable third party or independent candidate. This is because the stakes in a primary are typically and correctly thought of as lower than the general, because most primary voters rightly consider any party member a better option than the candidate of the opposition party.

But, to court those voters, one must not be an enemy of the Party. If one’s stated purpose is the destruction of the Republican Party, he can scarcely blame party members for rejecting his bid for leadership or nomination for office. To pursue his course, he must endear himself to these primary voters, and to do this he must emphasize those points he has in common with them. He must appeal to their own self interest, and even their vanity. Where he differs from them on a particular policy position, he must be able to articulate not why that voter is wrong, nor even why his position is more correct, but rather the coherent reasoning which sheds light on the fact, that his position is more conducive to that voter’s non-negotiable demands, than alternative courses of action.

His candidacy must furthermore be conducive to the overall strategic success of the Party, because no elected official can conduct public policy without a governing coalition. He is rightly discouraged from standing on some espoused principle to the benefit of the opposition party. If he believes the party strategy is wrong, he can wield only so much influence as he has earned, toward changing it. To earn that power, he must have proven willing to pursue strategies he disagrees with for the good of the party, just as he will demand that other party members who disagree with him, pursue his strategy once he has obtained power.

Some might say the above stands in contrast to lived experience. The Republican Party’s critics on the Right point to nominations like Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Liz Cheney, and Adam Kinzinger, as evidence that the Party is hopeless. In this, they illustrate the error of their own thinking. The problems we all recognize with these names, is that they behave like, and come to the assistance of, Democrats. These “Republicans In Name Only” (RINOs) are disloyal to their Party, and are accordingly held in contempt by most Republicans.

That these RINOs manage to obtain positions of influence within the Party anyway, is a subject of considerable controversy, but it must be remembered that no informed participant in politics is aiming for perfection. This analysis does not conclude that having an R next to one’s name makes one a good person. We are seeking to move things in our preferred direction by whatever degree we can manage. If some Citizen of Utah is sick of Pierre Delecto marching with Black Lives Matter rioters, they should put on a suit, and put in the effort, toward seeing him defeated in a Republican Primary. Until that happens, the informed observer is compelled to admit that we would not be better served by an open Democrat in his Senate seat, or for that matter, Evan McMullen.

The Overton Window

If you’ve been listening to the Radical Agenda for any considerable period of time, you have heard me discuss the concept of the Overton Window at some length.

If you’re new to this concept, the Overton Window is the range of socially permissible discussion topics. Shifting the Overton Window means changing that range in a manner more favorable to one’s position and less favorable to one’s opponent. For example, it is currently permissible to discuss race through the lens of what has been called “Critical Race Theory” but not through the lens of genetic or biological determinism. There is an effort underway by parents of schoolchildren to make CRT an unacceptable frame of reference, and this is moving the Overton Window in a direction unfavorable to the Left. The people who are conducting this effort do not want to move the window all the way to biological determinism, but I am of the opinion that they will not be able to prevent this from happening, due to a certain natural progression of comprehension.

While our ultimate goal is the change in public policy, this is impossible without our proposed policy positions becoming first, acceptable to discuss, and second, widely accepted truth. Right now, one risks being assaulted and imprisoned on fake charges for discussing our ideas. I have proven willing to risk my life and freedom to change that state of affairs.

I take this so seriously, that I am also willing to admit when I was wrong.

My conception of the means by which to shift the Overton Window used to be that one ought to stake out a more extreme position than he actually holds. To push the range of allowable discussion by making, as forcefully as one can, a case that one has little to no expectation of achieving in any foreseeable time frame, in the hopes of achieving a lesser position, under the guise of compromise.

In this thinking, I was influenced by some words of wisdom by a man calling himself Bill Marchant, who wrote on a blog called Northern Reaction. In an August of 2016 piece titled “Don’t Punch Right“, Bill makes the following observation;

The idea behind that is that anyone doing something to the right of you is “good” and anyone doing something to the left of you is “Bad”. It does NOT mean “Don’t punch anyone ON the right”, because that would not allow us to criticise people like Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz. Those people are on “The Right” as it currently stands in the American political spectrum, but they are to the left of you and I. “Criticise anyone not exactly as right as me” is cuckservative logic and doesn’t work. “Don’t criticise anyone on the right” encourages a leftward shift as more and more “somewhat rightwing” people are accepted into what I will call the “mainstream Alt-Right” while noting the irony of that phrase. The only effective strategy, the one leftists have perfected is to not criticise anyone to the right of you. This pushes the Overton Window to the right.

So if you see someone criticise Milo because He’s gay or something, don’t defend Milo unless Milo is to the right of you and the criticism is coming from the left. Because criticism directed at Milo for being insufficiently rightwing pushes the Overton Window in the same way Milo’s existence does. Yes, Milo is probably pushing the mainstream further right on some issues, but defending him does nothing to further the cause besides allowing the cause to move leftward.

That does not necessarily mean you have to actively engage in criticism of Milo. I don’t always. But it does mean that you should let those to the right of you do it. Because that’s what works.

While there is a lot of wisdom here, it took awhile for me to realize the problems with this. Among them, that really awful people could shield themselves from criticism by staking out absurd positions like cheering on mass shooters, then accusing anyone who questioned the wisdom of such a course, of “Punching Right” or “Optics Cucking”. Combined with the general attitude in the Alt Right that piercing the veil of anonymity was the ultimate betrayal, this allowed people who did not sincerely share our views to turn us into cartoon Nazis, which had the effect of putting us so far outside the Overton Window that normal people had no idea what we were even talking about. All they knew about us was what they heard from Leftists, and this had the effect of moving the Overton Window back Leftward.

Bill figured this out before I did, but I wasn’t keeping such close track of his material when, in February of 2018, Bill wrote a piece titled “Bystanders, Language, and Rallies” in which he made the following observation;

Disclaimer: I’ve said, many times before, don’t punch right. And I’ve mostly kept quiet, as people to my right (I guess? I’m not sure how monarchism and national socialism interact on the ol’ spectrum) make what I believe to be unforced errors. I’ve spoken to a few of these people privately, but I feel like I’m obscure enough and this is an apolitical enough point that I can get away with it, just this once. Alright, enough disclaimers. On to the main event.

Middle America, even white, right wing middle America, doesn’t like Hitler. Shocking, I know, but it’s true.

The broad American public has ideological antibodies that, when you talk about Hitler, pop up and replace “Hitler” with “Bad Guy!”

This may be the most powerful example of these ideological antibodies, but there are many of these triggers. “Antisemite” = “Nazi” = “Hitler” = “Bad Guy!” I’m not going to list all of them. You know what they are.

You need to avoid hitting those ideological antibody triggers. Outside of very odd circumstances (like talking to teenagers on 4chan), you’re going to get the “Bad Guy!” label, and the person you’re talking to will discount everything else you have to say.

I’m not sure if this was intentional or accidental, but during Trump’s campaign, the Alt-Right learned how to short circuit this immune response. I’m going to use Pepe in August 2016 as my example. If you use a cartoon frog as a stand-in for Nazism, no one will believe you are being serious, and whatever else you say will be able to slip by with it. Crucially, though, this does not work forever.

There are three groups that you need to think about when you choose your language. There is your Ingroup (The people who are on your side), your Outgroup (Journalists, politicians, rootless cosmopolitans, whoever your enemies that will never join your cause are), and the Bystanders (Everyone who does not fall into the other two categories).

If you want to say things that would normally trigger ideological antibodies, it needs to be understandable to the Ingroup and non-threatening or unintelligible to Bystanders. Whether the Outgroup understands or not doesn’t really matter.

Pepe, in August 2016, was understandable to the Ingroup (The Alt-Right). Pepe, by that time, was also understandable to the Outgroup. But Pepe was a mystery to the vast majority of Bystanders. So when Hillary Clinton got up on stage and claimed that a cartoon frog was a symbol of evil racism, the Outgroup nodded along, the bystanders thought she was having a stroke or something, and the Ingroup laughed hysterically, because they knew how crazy she would sound to the Bystanders.

Fast-forward to today. By now, many of the bystanders know that Pepe is, in fact, used by the Alt-Right. And the Alt-Right is racist = Nazis = Hitler = Bad! So someone coming out today and saying that Pepe is a symbol of racism would get far fewer confused looks from the Bystanders than Hillary’s speech did.

Think about this in relation to the Alt-Right’s “operations” since Trump’s inauguration. Before Trump’s election, if someone called the Alt-Right “Nazis,” the bystanders would mostly be confused. “The old Nazis are gone. The Neo-Nazis are trailer trash types with tattoos on their faces. These guys don’t look or act like the old or new Nazis. Yeah, they say some similar things, but it seems to be mostly in jest.”

Then, after Trump got elected, some people decided it would be a good idea to start looking and acting MORE like Nazis. I’m not just talking about Richard Spencer saying “Hail Victory” in a speech. One weird incident does not make a movement Nazi-like. The problem was the rallies.

You know who has rallies? Nazis.

He goes on to complain about rallies at some length, but we’ll skip ahead a little bit. Marchant continues;

This article is mostly intended for those people who say “They’re gonna think we’re Nazis anyway, so we might as well embrace it.” No. That’s dumb. And I’ll tell you exactly why it’s dumb.

Who is “they”?

Joe Sixpack in Alabama won’t have heard of you, and certainly won’t be calling you a Nazi. The “they” that will think you are a Nazi no matter what is… The Outgroup! As I mentioned earlier, it does not matter what the Outgroup thinks! You will never convince the Outgroup to your side, that’s what makes them the Outgroup!

So, yes, you are correct, the Outgroup will always think you’re Nazis. But the Bystanders certainly won’t. And if you don’t look or act in a way that easily ticks off Nazi boxes in the Bystanders’ heads, the Outgroup will just look dumb for calling you that! Unless, of course, you wear swastikas, speak German, goosestep, rally in large numbers, and yell about Jews. Then the Bystanders will think that maybe the Outgroup has a point.

Think about this in terms of what I quoted from Smucker earlier in Hegemony How To. The “Spectrum of Allies” concept. Let’s say that the man Bill describes as “Joe Six Pack in Alabama” is neutral.

Your actions can either move Joe into the passive allies category, or the passive opposition category. Work harder and he can become active in either camp.

If you tell Joe you’re a Nazi, he’s going into the opposition column. It doesn’t matter if you’re right. It doesn’t matter if Hitler did anything wrong. What matters is Joe’s frame of reference, in which Nazis are not a 20th century German political party with legitimate complaints, but cartoon villains who murder the innocent because they are possessed by demons.

On the other hand, tell Joe that you are his fellow Republican; tell him that, just like him, you want to defeat those evil Democrats; that you share, rather than oppose, his values; and you have just placed yourself into Joe’s active allies category, quite independently of his decision making processes. This is great for Joe, who has always known he was right, and is happy to have someone recognize this.

Now that you are allies with Joe, you can have more meaningful discussions with him, and gain his trust. You might even suggest new ways of defeating the Democrats, like by fighting identity politics with identity politics.

Perhaps more importantly, the more people like Joe who you have on your side, the less power people like Mitch McConnell have over the Republican Party. Mitch McConnell is your active opposition in the Republican Party, and you will not render him your ally. You can, however, render him passive, or even neutral, if by attacking you he will incur the ire of people like Joe.

The recent Alabama Senate primary provides a brilliant example of our point.

In the 2022 midterm elections, Lisa Murkowski was challenged by fellow Republican Kelly Tshibaka. Alaska has so few Democrats as to make the general election a Republican Primary, because a Republican was going to win no matter what. The only question was, which Republican? It would either be Tshibaka or Murkowski.

This is hardly something the Senate Leadership Fund, McConnell’s Super PAC, needed to spend money on. The Democrats were defending the thinnest conceivable majority in the Senate (50/50 w/ VP Harris breaking the ties), but that year’s election had Republicans defending more Senate seats than Democrats. Allocation of campaign finances was crucial to determining who would hold the Senate majority, and if Mitch McConnell was a good team player, his PAC’s resources would have gone to defeating Democrats.

Instead, McConnell spent over $6.1 Million attacking Tshibaka to help Murkowski, who, it should be kept in mind, voted against Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, and for Ketanji Brown Jackson’s. Murkowski is notoriously disloyal to her Party, and Mitch McConnell’s decision to back her, while abandoning competitive contests like the Arizona race between Masters and Kelly, arguably resulted in Democrats increasing their Senate majority, at a time when Republicans had a chance to gain control over the chamber.

And it is small consolation that Republicans managed to eke out a thin majority in the House. Sure, a united Republican majority in the House can block the worst parts of Joe Biden’s agenda, but cabinet and judicial confirmations are a Senate power. So whatever your views on race, be sure and pray that Clarence Thomas remains in good health.

This presented a tremendous opportunity to attack McConnell from the Right, but only for those who were loyal Republicans. Since McConnell’s offense was in his disloyalty to his party, an outsider attacking him for it lacks standing and credibility, and is seen, rightly, as someone who is only trying to sow discord within the Party.

Put in Smucker’s terms, Mitch McConnell shifted his spectrum of allies in a disfavorable fashion. Active and passive allies of McConnell’s who supported him for partisan reasons, now have less partisan reason to support his efforts. Those allies are currently up for grabs, but only to people who can appeal to partisan interests.

Who can deny that our movement could benefit from obtaining power at the expense of Mitch McConnell?

Unfortunately, we are not today in a position to reap this windfall because we have made exceedingly poor investments of our meager political capital in the time preceding this tremendous opportunity. If we want to reap the next such opportunity, we have to change our behavior now.

Shifting the Overton Window cannot be done when one is so distant from the building that they cannot be seen with binoculars.

One must be able to participate in the discussion before he can propose a change of subject.

Nobody takes advice from their adversary.

Conduits of Influence

I will never win a popularity contest.

Maybe you will. As a writer with little measure of who precisely reads my material, it is impossible for me to say. But my statement is true for most of us.

Winning elections is a specialty, and it is one which has no necessary connection to expertise in public policy. Candidates are recruited on the basis of image, and groomed and trained by teams of professional manipulators. Millions of dollars are invested. Entire media empires are erected around controlling the outcomes.

You and I can aspire to such heights, but it will be quite a climb. Whether we ever reach that altitude or not, our goals are well served by getting our ideas in greater proximity to the people who are actually winning the elections and making bureaucratic decisions.

This happens, to some extent, organically. When you are spreading memes on social media, for example. The meme power of the Alt Right in 2016 was intense. We could all feel it, and we eventually started to see these ideas bubble up in unexpected places. We definitely influenced Trump and those around him, and Tucker Carlson has surely been impacted as well. They went on to spread those ideas, in a substantially diluted fashion, to millions of other people. Elon Musk has surely since been influenced. I probably shouldn’t get started on Kanye West…

This is huge stuff, and we did it while having fun. Imagine what could happen if we were more calculating?

In Trump, Tucker, and Elon Musk, we have some version of our ideas in the highest echelons of American life. They don’t just wield power themselves, they influence the masses tremendously. Just as importantly, they themselves are influenced BY the masses. Influence, properly understood, is a two way street.

If we try to think of this visually, we can picture beneath Trump, Carlson, and Musk, a certain faction of the Republican Party, particularly in the House of Representatives. People like Matt Gaetz, Chip Roy, and Marjorie Taylor Greene. They are more accessible than Trump and Carlson, but they have access to Trump and Carlson. Aside from the power they themselves wield, this makes them a conduit of influence to the former President and the top show in cable news.

I don’t know about you, but even they aren’t going to be coming to any of my parties anytime soon, and how Nick Fuentes gets these meets is beyond me. So, I would very much like conduits of influence to them, and this, I suspect, is very achievable.

There are people in our circles who attack Trump for any number of things, with varying degrees of merit to the complaints. Tucker Carlson gets less of this, but there’s always somebody who insists that if you’re not screaming about joooos all day, that you’re complicit in White genocide. Criticism is one thing, but to make these guys your enemy is insane.

Between you and them are millions of people we can influence. They are getting watered down ideas from up above, and their frame of reference is being made permeable to us by this. In 2015 they (and I) would have told you that tariffs were just tax hikes, and their views on immigration were largely moderate. But now they are keenly aware of “the other” and the idea that people who are “not us” are dangerous.

Probably 75% of them still think “racism” is evil and probably 95% still think it’s okay to “punch Nazis”, but they know that “Trump supporters” are “Patriots” and therefore “Good”.

Now, you can introduce yourself as a Nazi who hates Trump if you want to, but these people are not going to listen to what you say after that.

Better idea:

Be a fellow Trump supporter. Don’t pretend: BE!

Then, ask them if they’ve seen Tucker Carlson’s interview with Charles Murray on Fox Nation.

If not, offer to show it to them.

If they watch it, offer them a copy of Murray’s book “Facing Reality: Two Truths About Race in America” which, at 157 pages, is a lot easier to digest than “The Bell Curve”.

Another great intermediate book is Pat Buchanan’s “Suicide Of A Superpower: Will America Survive To 2025?“. The title of the book (published in 2011), asking if America will survive to 2025, makes this the perfect time to offer this to people. Anybody who has been paying attention to politics for awhile, has heard of Pat Buchanan, and unless they are watching MSNBC all day they don’t think he’s a Nazi. Many Trump supporters read Buchanan’s syndicated columns, and consider themselves to be on the same team as him.

So let them stumble across this bit of wisdom in his book, and then talk to you about ethnonationalism;

If ethnonationalism has been behind terrible crimes, have not great crimes been committed in the name of religion? Do we therefore decry all religions? “Nations are the wealth of humanity, its generalized personalities. The very least of them wears its own special colors, and bears within itself a special facet of divine intention,” said Solzhenitsyn.

We may deny the existence of ethnonationalism, detest it, condemn it. But this creator and destroyer of empires and nations is a force infinitely more powerful than globalism, for it engages the heart. Men will die for it.

Religion, race, culture, and tribe are the four horsemen of the coming apocalypse. But let us give the last word to Professor Jerry Muller: “Americans… find ethnonationalism discomfiting both intellectually and morally. Social scientists go to great lengths to demonstrate that it is a product not of nature but of culture…. But none of this will make ethnonationalism go away.”

That passage is from the last page of Chapter 8. Chapter 9 is titled “The White Party” and makes the case that the Republican Party is the party of White people and ought to embrace this.

Sound familiar?

Keep The News, I’m Here For The History.

I read a very interesting book in prison by Matthew Continetti titled “The Right: The Hundred Year War for American Conservatism“. Continetti married the daughter of Bill Kristol, and traces his political roots back to the American Enterprise Institute, and the Weekly Standard. He hates Trump and thinks conservatism has gone astray by failing to embrace the “blessings of immigration”.

While Mr. Continetti might not be the best source to take our cues from on what it means to be Right wing, his abhorrence of racism gave an interesting dimension to what was otherwise an excellent book. Hardly a chapter went by without some mention of race realism entering the conservative movement. As he describes it, the valiant defenders of freedom always defeated these monsters, even if it meant giving the country away to the Democrats in the process.

His descriptions of these conflicts were not particularly detailed. These sort of people never can be, because to do so would be to give away the game. Some could be summarized as “So and so did racism, and had to go bye bye”.

But as one who had already been informed about the nature of this conflict on the Right, the frequency of these realist insurgencies, which I had not been fully aware of, was inspiring to me. Our movement is not so new as many have been led to believe. We have been a repressed faction of the Republican Party for over a century, and it is only by joining forces with the opposition Party that our internecine rivals have kept us as such.

People like Mitch McConnell say there is “no place in the Republican Party” for us, and so many on our side believe him. The truth is, people like Mitch McConnell make these utterances aspirationally. This is something they would like to see become true, rather than something that actually is. They live in constant fear knowing that we could displace them at any moment, and that without constant effort on their part, we will.

Continetti’s book ends victoriously with the 2020 defeat of Donald Trump, and proposes a conservatism that is “acceptable to elites” going forward, so that this type of thing does not again become necessary.

That makes Matthew Continetti a bad Republican, and speaking as a Republican myself, I was rather enjoying the White Party. So I say Matthew Continetti and his “elites” can either show some loyalty, or go the way of the Weekly Standard.

This is our Party. We are not infiltrators. They are, and given their brazen double dealing under Trump, I figure it’s only a matter of time before your average primary voter figures this out.

Let us hasten the day.


Pay Me Plz

GiveSendGo Campaign


If you leave me a voicemail, I might play it on the air and respond to you. (202) 599-7386

Radical Agenda S06E001 – It’s The Espionage, Stupid

“It’s the economy, stupid” is a phrase coined by Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign strategist James Carville. You usually hear it uttered as a means of stressing the importance of economic issues to voters, but another, less popular but more accurate, interpretation, is that Democrats should avoid cultural issues because their staggering depravity causes them to lose these arguments.

This paradigm of politics, the division between culture and economy, personal verses commercial, dominates so much of popular political discourse, that one is almost tempted to believe that real people actually organize their lives and thoughts this way.

The most cursory examination, of course, reveals the contrary. There is hardly anything we take more personally than interference with our property, but only because it is intertwined in everything else that we value. Our cultural attitudes shape our economic activity. It amounts to making voters choose “Your money or your life”, as if there were a meaningful choice between the two. There isn’t.

This is not to say that people should not or do not part with, or forgo opportunities to acquire, money and other forms of property for “higher” aims. Of course, they should, and do. That is the whole point of the institution of property. To use, trade, consume, lend, give, or otherwise dispose of it in order to obtain some inner satisfaction.

Distortions such as the social vs. economic dichotomy are hardly accidental. In a tyranny such as that presiding over us today, anything to keep the public from attending to the meaningful issues of the day is of the utmost value to the people pulling the levers.

I have become convinced that those people, in the final analysis, are spies. It’s not the economy, stupid. It’s the espionage.

Espionage, Generally

Spies, by the nature of their profession, don’t like to be noticed, much less talked about. If they are doing their jobs well, they remain undetected. If they are detected, they are trained to halt transmission of the information of their detection. Deception, bribery, blackmail, coercion, and assassination being hardly beneath the dignity of this second oldest profession, they stockpile and deploy deceptions, carrots, and sticks, to craft, with the utmost care, the information environment in their favor.

This is power. The ultimate power. To design reality itself. One need not pay or coerce someone into doing something they otherwise would not do, if they can be convinced that a given course of action is desirable or inevitable.

The history of espionage is a fascinating subject. Prior to my January 2020 arrest, I read “Enemies: A History of the FBI” by Tim Weiner, which described in startling detail how the FBI has, from its inception, been an espionage operation using law enforcement as a cover. After September 11th 2011, this was made more or less official. The book describes J. Edgar Hoover’s “COINTELPRO” operation, in which the FBI infiltrated Left wing groups and subverted the subversives.

A noble enough effort, which was unfortunately picked up on and later used against right wing groups. Guys would go to meetings, and half or more of the people in the room would be FBI agents, trying to get the other attendees to commit crimes so they could be prosecuted.

In prison, I had occasion to read a history of the Mossad titled “Gideon’s Spies” by Gordon Thomas. “Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales; Spies, Lies & Blackmail”  by Dylan Howard and Melissa Cronin, described what could be discovered about the pedophile financier’s mysterious life and death, including his connection to American and Israeli intelligence agencies. Gerald Posner’s history of the Vatican central bank, “God’s Bankers” provided valuable context on the subject as well, since all the world’s spies throughout the long history of the institution, seemed to find the peculiar features thereof very useful for their trade. Charles S. Faddis, a former  clandestine services officer with the CIA, and frequent guest on Frank Gaffney’s “Securing America” radio program (one of my favorites), wrote a brief history of America’s Central Intelligence Agency in “Beyond Repair: The Decline and Fall of the CIA”. Less about espionage, but worth a mention as a peek at just how screwed up a supposedly elite government agency can be, is Carol Leonnig’s “Zero Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Secret Service”.

Espionage is the principle tool of successful warfare. Foreign or domestic. In his “The Art of War”, Sun Tzu famously said “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” Perhaps even more pertinent to the issue at hand, Sun Tzu, in the same book said “To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.” This is accomplished primarily through espionage.

It surely helps to have the enemy outmanned and outgunned. No sane man would deny this. But to even permit such a calculation, espionage is necessary. To know what you are up against requires acquisition of strategic information your enemy would rather you not be privy to. To access this information, you will need to use force or deception.

In Gideon’s spies, Thomas informs us that, “At the Mossad training school, instructors reminded students that from the moment man established himself as a new species unique among all animals, it was the moment when he first used his primitive language to lie; the world became his to create and destroy. It would be ever so.”

Deception is by no means free of cost, but it is typically far less expensive and than force. That which can be accomplished with a few breathes or keystrokes makes little sense to accomplish with loss of blood and treasure. If the enemy must be physically damaged to accomplish some aim or another, preferably, your enemy would destroy himself, or be destroyed by your other enemy. Ideally they would destroy each other. In the best case scenario, your enemy would think you were his friend while these things played themselves out.

“Intelligence” has become a euphemism for espionage, but not without some measure of justification. While the word “intelligence” intentionally and deceptively sounds much cleaner than “spying”, stupid people make poor liars, because keeping track of deceptions is cognitively demanding. The complexity of this task grows exponentially with the number of deceptions in play, and by the time you’re trying to convince an entire population that genetics and economics are superstitions of a bygone darker era, these demands necessarily exceed human capacity. Not that this stops people from trying, to which we are constant witness. And so, a successful intelligence agency is necessarily in the business of acquiring actual intelligence, as in, brainpower, as well as what is commonly termed intelligence in popular speaking, which is more accurately described as information or knowledge.

It is also in the business of diminishing the intelligence of enemy States. Again, I am not referring to knowledge or information (though, that too), but intelligence itself. The very capacity for the enemy to think. This is why we see immigration deployed as a weapon, and why communist subversives are so often the product of foreign sponsorship. To flood a foreign threat with new arrivals who have already destroyed their home country, has a predictable impact on the place where they settle. Communism, by its very design, sets the poor into violent confrontation with the upper and middle classes. Revolutionaries slaughter the “class enemy” and in the process, owing to the correlation between income and IQ, commit the Nation to brain death.

One does not often seek wisdom on the pages of the Daily Stormer, but it is occasionally found there. In a post titled “Communism Isn’t a System – It is a Tactic“, Andrew Anglin makes the following observation;

If the goal of communism is to abolish the state and create a workers’ paradise, then it is obviously a failure of a system. However, if the goal is to tell the masses of people that you’re going to abolish the state and create a workers’ paradise so that you can use them to kill all rich people, along with millions of others, then it is a tactic that has literally never failed anywhere it was implemented.

Communist leaders just feed low-IQ poor people a bunch of gibberish about a workers’ paradise and march them off to commit a slaughter so that they can completely cleanse the old elite and establish themselves as supreme leaders.

Every successful communist revolution has resulted in the entire ruling class being killed or driven out of the country. Millions of people always die.

The people that start the revolution are never the ones that finish it, and the ones that finish it are rarely the ones holding the cards when it’s finally over.

He goes on to draw some conclusions from this observation that I won’t endorse here, but the above observation does an excellent job of explaining much of the history of mankind.

As a brief aside, this is also why trial lawyers make the big bucks, and why a certain accent pronounces the title as “liar” without risk of misunderstanding the nature of the profession. What actually happened in a given dispute is borderline irrelevant in a courtroom. The task of a trial lawyer is to selectively feed information to the jury, and to prevent inconvenient information from reaching them, so as to form their perception of the dispute in favor of the client. This is cognitively demanding, because it requires constant processing of the information presented, contrasting this with one’s own knowledge of the facts, and imagining what that looks like to a dozen people who only know what has been presented. Honest people hardly stand a chance at this sort of contest. Their theory of mind is not nearly so developed as that of the liar. Honest people rely almost entirely on the truth, assuming naively that this is what shapes perception.

If our masters had their way, we would all be a lot more like jurors. Fed only that information previously approved by those selected to craft the scene. Ideally, we would follow silly instructions like “you may not consider this revelation in your deliberations”. Though, perhaps our masters would prefer some greater flexibility in the rules of evidence, than most courtrooms permit.

I have some experience with an experiment in this vein. The Communications Management Unit, or CMU. is a prison within a prison at the United States Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois. Communications are tightly restricted and monitored by an outfit known as the Counter Terrorist Unit, or CTU.

Counter terrorism, though often nominally carried out by law enforcement agencies, is necessarily espionage. Law enforcement involves investigating crimes that have already occured, so as to punish the perpetrators. Counter terrorism, by contrast, is necessarily involved in pre-crime, because nobody wants to wait until after the building blows up, and terrorists, often prepared to die for their cause, are not typically deterred by threat of punishment. Most of the prisoners in the CMU, accordingly, were put there by some kind of fictional FBI stratagem.

Within the CMU, the flow of information is so tightly controlled that one could be tricked into believing almost anything that wasn’t disproven by their AM/FM radio. Prisoners are not allowed to use the real time monitored communications systems to talk about other prisoners. The CMU at Marion houses approximately 50 men, and if all 50 of them were intelligence officers, the target of the deception would have little to no means of figuring this out, unless he happened to see an image on television of someone his fellow “prisoner” was falsely claiming to be.

The staff of the facility lie habitually, and not with any clear purpose to the deception. The consensus among prisoners was that these were psychological operations, designed to keep the information environment as polluted as possible.

But I digress… Back to warfare.

Armed conflict, even when waged successfully, is tremendously expensive. Unsuccessful warfare is a total loss event. It cannot be waged without the assistance of espionage, and the most successful espionage can accomplish the same things as high tech weapons systems at the social and economic cost of keystrokes.

This being the case, a government not heavily invested in espionage acts against the interests of its population no less than if it fails to maintain a military. This is not to say that an investment in espionage cannot so act. Obviously it can, and in our case, certainly does. Espionage is a weapon of war, and turned upon its own citizenry, acts with equal or greater effect. But if a well crafted deception or a single well placed bullet can avoid the expense of war, it would scream negligence for a government not to conduct such an operation.

This is all the more the case if one nation is militarily superior to the other, and the vital interests of the weaker cannot be protected by mere brute force.  In such a case, espionage and diplomacy are its only means of defense. With one being of hardly any value absent the other.

This, of course, is why countries always expel each other’s diplomats when things get hectic. There’s so much overlap between diplomacy and espionage that it only barely makes sense to distinguish diplomats from spies. Diplomacy, at the end of the day, is a straightforward influence operation. Negotiators attempt to alter a foreign government’s behavior by way of negotiation, and in no small number of cases, the threat of military force enters into those negotiations.

And, it should almost go without saying, strategic information is as useful in negotiation as it is on a battlefield. Even in something so straightforward as a payment is aided immeasurably by knowledge of what payment will suffice to accomplish the goal at hand. Absent this information, one is as likely to overpay as to fail to reach an agreement.

Better still, to lie successfully in negotiation is to obtain ends by discounted means. The ability to craft the information matrix of the negotiator in one’s own favor is to determine the outcome of the negotiation before it begins.

In the case of diplomacy, negotiations necessarily happen between people who act on behalf of others, in contrast to business deals where one may actually be negotiating with a principle agent more directly interested in the outcome. Strategic information in diplomacy may be so simple as knowing the weaknesses of the individual interlocutor. Does he have a secret he doesn’t want exposed? A peculiar appetite you are able to satisfy? If so, a diplomat may accomplish his aims by influencing the negotiator himself, as opposed to those he represents. This, in the case of Nation States, is almost always a far less costly affair. See, for example, satisfying Hunter Biden’s crack habit to obtain government favors from Joe Biden.

Social Espionage

Recent revelations from the so called #TwitterFiles, expose not only how the Pentagon used Twitter for “psychological operations” overseas, but how American intelligence agencies like the FBI and CIA, in addition to influencing Twitter to carry out their domestic information operations, in some cases took actual jobs at at the company. The so-called “Foreign Influence Task Force”, informed readers will not be shocked to hear, was primarily interested in domestic affairs. Anyone questioning the outcome of the 2020 election or pushing “anti-Ukraine narratives” was deemed a Russian plant, and when those accusations proved to be lacking in substance, Twitter employees sought excuses to carry out the government’s wishes anyway, and generally managed to find them.

These, mind you, are overt operations. This is, “Hello, I’m here about the content moderation job. Here’s my resume, where you’ll see I’ve been at the FBI for the last 15 years, and I think this makes me uniquely qualified for the position.” Among the larger troubles with finding out that your government is doing something that shocks the conscience, is not the revelation, but the knowledge that your government still has secrets which are far worse than the revelation at issue.

We’ve heard so much in congressional hearings about “algorithms”. A reasonable person might conclude based on watching those hearings, that this term was simply used to mislead the Congress by saying things they didn’t think would be widely understood, and it seemed to work. An algorithm is not some magical process, however. It’s a computer program, and behind every program is a programmer.

How many CIA trained programmers do you figure are working at Twitter? At Facebook? At Google? I’ll bet you a dollar it ain’t zero.

And why would the United States be the only government engaging in this activity?

Gideon’s Spies, though an interesting read, surely contained some disinformation. The book told several stories about electronic warfare which anyone who understands technology could spot as fake news. Some of the stories reminded me of Gilligan’s Island, in which the professor was always trying to make some contraption or another out of coconuts.

But we know about real Israeli electronic warfare. Most famously, the Stuxnet virus which was used to sabotage Iranian nuclear operations. In more recent headlines, the Pegasus smartphone spyware supposedly produced by a “private” company keeps finding its way into our newsfeeds whenever it is used against a journalist or a politician. Another ostensibly private information warfare campaign is conducted by Israeli Zionist groups, to edit Wikipedia in favor of their country, contra the Palestinians.

American intelligence agencies weren’t the only ones interfering with Twitter, and of this we need not speculate. Even before Elon Musk started leaking, Peiter “Mudge” Zatko told Congress that Twitter knew foreign spies were working there, and didn’t seem to mind. Zatko claims he tried to raise concerns about a suspected foreign agent to a company executive and was told, “Well, since we already have one, what is the problem if we have more? Let’s keep growing the office.”

That is exactly what seemed to be happening. India was able to place at least two suspected foreign assets within Twitter, and the FBI notified Twitter of at least one Chinese agent in the company.

But then again, one might excuse Twitter employees for doubting the credibility of FBI agents, who were in the habit of making false foreign interference claims.

Nobody seemed to mind the fake so-called “far right” accounts operated by the German government. According to a September of 2022 report in Breitbart,

Hundreds of fake social media accounts espousing far-right ideology on platforms such as Twitter, Telegram, Instagram and Gettr are being operated by the German Federal State, a report by a major mainstream newspaper in the country has revealed.

According to the report by Süddeutsche Zeitung, — one of Germany’s largest newspapers — Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution has been operating hundreds of accounts espousing extremist views for the purpose of infiltrating groups of interest to government officials.

The federal office has reportedly been paying civil servants to operate accounts posing as radicals on the left and right as well as the likes of radical Islamic extremists, anti-vaccination activists and so-called “Reich Citizens” — a term used to describe people who question or reject the legitimacy of the German Republic.

At least some of these fake accounts are involved in actively promoting the ideologies they are linked with, with one agent telling a reporter that it is important to “feed this bubble” of extremist ideology in order to gain the trust of targetted activists, some of whom are reported as being “neo-nazis”.

Those behind the accounts have also reportedly been granted permission to break laws in the operation of these accounts, with the journalist behind the report, Ron Steinke, saying that: “many people who are victims of right-wing online hate speech would probably be amazed if they knew what is now being posted and liked on behalf of the state.”

Along with employing people to operate the social media accounts, the German Federal government has employed psychologists as part of the project, who are tasked with both helping those operating the accounts to deal with the stress of their occupation, as well as to sniff out if one of the civil servants is themselves being radicalised.

Governments are not known to be the most innovative institutions. They are often picking up on strategies developed elsewhere. In an August of 2019 article at the journal Nature, researches proposed a four point plan for “combating online hate” which included creating fake social media users to instigate conflicts between “hate clusters” (see, any group not favorable to the Democrat Party) who hold different views.

Policy 4 exploits the fact that many hate groups online have opposing views. The policy suggests that the platform administrators introduce an artificial group of users to encourage interactions between hate clusters that have opposing views, with a view to the hate clusters subsequently battling out their differences among themselves. The authors’ modelling demonstrated that such battles would effectively remove large hate clusters that have opposing views. Once put into action, policies 3 and 4 would require little direct intervention by the platform administrators; however, setting opposing clusters against each other would require meticulous engineering.

An information warfare program indistinguishable from this one befell the Alt Right movement, and ultimately resulted in me doing some prison time. Remember this when somebody tries to drag you into senseless online conflicts with people who agree with you 80% of the time.

And what should concern us more than anything is China’s role in all of this, for it is far less conspicuous, which one can only conclude is the result of successful secrecy. We know plenty about Chinese espionage in terms of collecting information, especially corporate and technological secrets, but Chinese influence operations are surely going on, and it should worry us that we are not more conscious of these efforts.

China has more at stake in the United States than any other country, save for perhaps Israel, whose very existence arguably depends on American support. China is the world’s second largest economy, and has no intention of staying that way. While Russia seeks a multipolar world order in which peer Nations respect one another’s spheres of influence, China looks with envy on America’s privileged position, and seeks to take our place as the global hegemon. The best way for China to accomplish this goal is for Russia and the United States to end up in a military conflict with one another, in which both are irreparably damaged, and the only winner would be China.

In Peter Schweizer’s book “Red Handed: How American Elites Get Rich Helping China Win”, the author goes into great detail about what is publicly known about American political elites falling under the sway of the Chinese Communist Party. The Bidens, the Bushes, the Pelosis, the McConnells, to name just a few, all derive very substantial revenue from China, and would have their lifestyles diminished significantly if they were to be deprived of those revenues.

Now, maybe you think that these people are just such brilliant business wizards that Chinese companies had to recruit them from the other side of the planet and make them fabulously wealthy, just to make their operations possible. With the possible exception of the Bidens, Schweizer does not allege that what these people are doing is unlawful, just awfully conspicuous, given who they are and the significance of the revenues they derive from a rival country.

But Schweizer doesn’t obtain his information by digging through trash cans, tapping phones, following people around with a camera or blockchain analysis. All he can tell us is what is publicly available. The true depth of these ties remains hidden from us, and what we are able to discern from publicly available information is only our first clue as to what is really happening.

And even the money is only the carrot. What of the stick?

Today’s headlines are full of news about TikTok, the Chinese social media app that teaches girls to “twerk” and boys to become transgender, while its domestic equivalent celebrates academic achievement and other wholesome content. It is obvious to interested people that China uses TikTok as an influence operation, but most of the headlines today center on its potential abuse as a means of collecting information.

TikTok parent company ByteDance denies that it shares information with the Chinese State, but Article 11 of China’s National Security Law makes it clear that all Chinese citizens and “enterprises” are obligated to assist the State in matters of National Security; (emphasis added)

Citizens of the People’s Republic of China, all State bodies and armed forces, all political parties and people’s organizations, enterprises, undertakings, organizations and all other social organizations have the responsibility and duty to safeguard national security.

The sovereignty and territorial integrity of China brook no violation or separation. The safeguarding of national sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity is the common duty of all Chinese citizens, including Hong Kong and Macau compatriots, and Taiwan compatriots.

This is very similar to the Mossad’s “sayanim” which Gordon Thomas informs us in Gideon’s spies are “Volunteer Jewish helpers who live outside of Israel (singular: sayan)“. But don’t you dare mention dual loyalty. That would be anti-Semitic, and apparently, anti-Chinese.

Article 3 defines National Security Work, and is all encompassing, including culture and economy and political security;

National security work shall persist in a comprehensive national security view, take the security of the people as purpose, take political security as the foundation, take economic security as the basis, take military, cultural and social security as guarantee, take stimulating international security as a support, it shall safeguard national security in all areas, build a national security system, and march the path of national security with Chinese characteristics.

A June 7th 2022 report in Reuters states that the Chinese government is paying citizens for assistance in intelligence work;

BEIJING, June 7 (Reuters) – Chinese citizens can get rewards of more than 100,000 yuan ($15,000) and special certificates for tip-offs on breaches of national security under measures introduced this week, state media reported on Tuesday.

Rewards for exposing foreign spies or other security violations have existed for years in China. The new measures are aimed at standardising rewards and motivating the public at a time of intensifying threats from foreign intelligence agencies and other hostile forces, a Ministry of State Security representative said, according to a state media outlet.

“The formulation of the measures is conducive to fully mobilising the enthusiasm of the general public to support and assist in national security work, widely rallying the hearts, morale, wisdom and strength of the people,” the ministry representative said, according to the Legal Daily.

A June 17, 2022 report in the New York Post informs us of leaked audio recordings from ByteDance corporate meetings;

Fears that China could snoop on TikTok users were confirmed in leaked recordings from internal meetings held by the social media app’s parent company, according to a bombshell report Friday.

The recordings revealed that China-based employees of ByteDance repeatedly accessed data tied to US users — raising fresh concerns about TikTok, which once faced a ban in the United States because of privacy concerns.

Audio clips from dozens of meetings revealed 14 statements from nine TikTok employees who said that ByteDance engineers in China could access nonpublic US user data, BuzzFeed reported, citing material from more than 80 meetings.

The Chinese employees were capable of accessing the information from at least September 2021 through January.

The leaked recordings suggest that Beijing-based ByteDance’s ability to access US user data was farther-reaching than previously known — with one TikTok director stating at a September 2021 gathering that one unnamed engineer in China was “Master Admin” who “has access to everything.”

In a separate meeting that same month, a member of TikTok’s Trust and Safety department purportedly said that “everything is seen in China.”

And if you think information obtained from TikTok might be damaging, imagine the blackmail potential derived from four years of Chinese ownership of the homosexual dating app known as Grindr. A March 6th 2020 report in TechCrunch informs us that;

Chinese gaming giant Beijing Kunlun has agreed to sell popular gay dating app Grindr for about $608 million, ending a tumultuous four years under Chinese ownership.

Reuters reports that the Chinese company sold its 98% stake in Grindr to a U.S.-based company, San Vicente Acquisition Partners.

The app, originally developed in Los Angeles, raised national security concerns after it was acquired by Beijing Kunlun in 2016 for $93 million. That ownership was later scrutinized by a U.S. government national security panel, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which reportedly told the Beijing-based parent company that its ownership of Grindr constituted a national security threat.

CFIUS expressed concern that data from the app’s some 27 million users could be used by the Chinese government. Last year, it was reported that while under Chinese ownership, Grindr allowed engineers in Beijing access to the personal data of millions of U.S. users, including their private messages and HIV status.

Beijing Kunlun had agreed to sell the unit by June.

Little is known about San Vicente Acquisition, but a person with knowledge of the deal said that the company is made up of a group of investors that’s fully owned and controlled by Americans. Reuters said that one of those investors is James Lu, a former executive at Chinese search giant Baidu.

But that transaction was not completed. Mr. Lu, it turns out, was not entirely forthcoming in his disclosures. According to a March 29, 2021 report in Reuters;

When Grindr Inc’s Chinese owner sold the popular dating app to an investor consortium last year to comply with a U.S. national security panel order, the parties to the deal gave information to authorities that contradicted disclosures to potential investors and Chinese regulators, Reuters has learned.

They told the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) that James Lu, a Chinese-American businessman who is now Grindr’s chairman, had no previous business relationship with a key adviser to the seller, a man named Ding’an Fei, according to a Reuters review of the parties’ written submissions to CFIUS.

Fei, a former private equity executive, was acting as an adviser to Beijing Kunlun Tech Co Ltd, Grindr’s owner at the time, on the deal, the documents show.

“The investors and Ding’an Fei have at no time conducted business together in their personal capacities prior to the proposed transaction,” Kunlun and the investor group, called San Vicente Holdings LLC, wrote to CFIUS in a response dated March 27, 2020.

However, when Lu was raising funds to buy Grindr in the second half of 2019 and early 2020, potential investors were told by firms helping him raise the money that Fei was involved in the effort with him in various capacities, a review of four different fundraising documents shows.

The duo had also done business together in other ventures: Fei was a member of the board of a Chinese restaurant operator in which Lu served as chief executive officer, according to that restaurant company’s 2018-2019 annual report.

The discrepancies and omissions in the parties’ response to U.S. authorities, reported by Reuters for the first time, could prompt a new review from CFIUS, according to six former U.S. officials and lawyers familiar with the panel’s rules. If CFIUS were to find the statements were not true, it can also lead to civil penalties and criminal charges under the false statement provisions of the U.S. penal code, they said.

This looks an awful lot like trying to swindle the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, and threaten American national security, by shuffling papers across a desk.

Grindr was later purchased in 2022 by a SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company) called Tiga Acquisition Corp, and is currently listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol GRND. It is not immediately clear what, if any, ties the company has to China. But to me, “Tiga” sounds a lot like “Tiger” and tigers are a common feature of Chinese corporate branding. According to the website Tiger’s Tea Live, tigers symbolize power and fear in Chinese culture;

In the Chinese culture Tigers bear a greater symbolism – power and daring and a subject of awe and fear, more than just prized for its beauty and majesty. In China, the Tiger is considered the king of all beasts as it symbolises power and a great deal of nerve. The Tiger has always featured heavily in Chinese culture and tradition. It is also known as the king of the mountain.

Power could certainly be wielded, and fear could certainly be inspired, by the owner of a gay dating app that was willing to misuse its access to information. Given what we know about Democrat attitudes towards sex, we can make a reasonably safe assumption that if Grindr was used for political blackmail, it would fall primarily on one party. Though an obvious response to this would be that Republicans who were discovered using Grindr would have more to lose by such a discovery, and could be pressured more intensely, even if in fewer numbers.

And we also know that China has used trade policy to impact US elections in favor of Democrats. Cambridge University researchers published an analysis in January of 2021 titled “Tariffs As Electoral Weapons: The Political Geography of the US–China Trade War“, which concludes;

In response to President Trump instigating conflict over trade with China, the Chinese government countered by issuing tariffs on thousands of products worth over USD 110 billion in US exports. We explore whether China’s tariffs reflected a strategy to apply counterpressure by hurting political support for the president’s party. We also assess the strategy’s impact on the 2018 midterm elections and examine the mechanism underlying the resulting electoral shift. We find strong evidence that Chinese tariffs systematically targeted US goods that had production concentrated in Republican-supporting counties, particularly when located in closely contested Congressional districts. This apparent strategy was successful: targeted areas were more likely to turn against Republican candidates. Using data on campaign communications, local search patterns online, and an original national survey, we find evidence that voters residing in areas affected by the tariffs were more likely to learn about the trade war, recognize its adverse impact, and assign the Republicans responsibility for the escalating dispute. These findings demonstrate how domestic political institutions can be a source of vulnerability in interstate disputes.

So, whether it is by bribery, blackmail, or trade policy, we know that China is running influence operations in the United States. We know that Chinese citizens and enterprises are conscripted into Chinese national security operations. We reasonably believe these efforts are to some degree bipartisan, but that it should come as no surprise that a foreign nation who wants America weakened, particularly one that embraces communism, favors the Democrat Party to be in power.

So, if China has a “no limits” partnership with Russia, why are their puppets in the US Government all in for Ukraine?

Are Mitch McConnell and his fellow Democrats just so inspired by Ukrainian democracy that they don’t mind having their revenue streams taken away and their sexual deviancy exposed?

This, I doubt very highly. China is trying to get us into a war with Russia, and at this rate it looks like they are going to succeed.

Speaking of Russia…

Though an overwhelming majority of Democrats polled think the Russian government actually manipulated the vote count directly, that is not the mainstream view of the issue. We have been told by supposedly credible sources, that Russia “hacked our democracy” not by changing the function of voting machines, but by tricking dumb Americans into voting for Donald Trump with “trolls and bots”.

Typically, mainstream “respectable” conservatives treat this allegation with skepticism, either of kind or of degree. Either they say it didn’t happen, or they say that it was not of such a scale as to be determinative. In support of either claim, they point out that the sum spent on supposedly Russian advertisements was actually quite small, in comparison to otherwise “legitimate”ads.

According to Politico;

Facebook accounts with apparent Russian ties purchased about $150,000 in political ads aimed at American voters during key periods of the 2016 presidential campaign, according to a new analysis released Wednesday by the social networking company.


Facebook found some $100,000 in ad spending from June 2015 through May 2017 connected to about 470 accounts that were deemed as inauthentic and in violation of its internal guidelines. These accounts – associated with about 3,000 ads – were connected to each other “and likely operated out of Russia,” Alex Stamos, Facebook’s chief security officer, wrote in a Wednesday blog post.

While the “vast majority” of those ads didn’t reference any specific presidential candidate, or even the election itself, Stamos explained that the Russian ads that Facebook uncovered were designed to amplify hot-button social and political issues, such as LGBT rights, race, immigration and gun rights.

A quarter of the Russian-linked ads were also geographically targeted at specific Facebook audiences in the U.S., and most of them ran in 2015 before the first primaries and caucuses when the GOP and Democratic presidential fields were still packed with multiple candidates. While the amount of spending on the ads was nominal at best, the fact that it even occurred is likely to reinforce concerns expressed by some Democrats that Russia may have used Facebook to promote narratives that flattered Trump and bashed Clinton in key Rust Belt swing states that helped the real estate mogul take the White House.

Now, wait just a second. Do you mean to tell me, that these “Russian bots” were trying to help Donald Trump, by amplifying LGBTQ rights and race? Those sound a lot more like Clinton advertisements if you ask me. Although Trump campaigned against immigration and for gun rights, it wasn’t like these issues don’t have a Democrat side to the story either. Mind you, this is coming from Politico, which is not exactly known for its objective reporting, much less its far Right ideology.

Checking the source material, the Facebook blog post, the issue is obviously left intentionally vague. It doesn’t say what stance was taken on the issues promoted, just that those issues were promoted. Facebook only mentions that some ads were geographically targeted. It doesn’t say anything about the “rust belt” or any other specifics about what geography was targeted.

Those better informed, will call attention to the fact that these supposed Russian “bots”were, if anything, more prolific with Leftist themes on social media than anything supporting Donald Trump. According to this theme, the goal of the operation was not to support Trump, but to polarize American politics, and sow chaos.

One of the ads shared by Adam Schiff, of all people, was for a “Free Legal Night” for illegal immigrants. Another ad from “LGBT United” promoted an event in Kansas to support teachers who push sexual deviancy in school classrooms.

According to TechCrunch;

Russia focused on black Americans

Many, many of these ads targeted black Americans. From the fairly large sample of ads that we reviewed, black Americans were clearly of particular interest, likely in an effort to escalate latent racial tensions.

Many of these ads appeared as memorials for black Americans killed by police officers. Others simply intended to stir up black pride, like one featuring an Angela Davis quote. One ad posted by “Black Matters” was targeted at Ferguson, Missouri residents in June 2015 and only featured the lyrics to Tupac’s “California Love.” Around this time, many ads targeted black Facebook users in Baltimore and the St. Louis area.

Not exactly straight out of the RNC playbook…

The sources I’m referencing show some ads that are clearly designed to support Trump, but I’m not going to waste your time talking about them because we’ve been hearing that side of the story for six years. I can, however, share with you my assessment, that what is being shown to us by Democrats, is roughly 50/50 pro or anti-Trump.

Slate put it more bluntly “Russian Trolls Were Obsessed With Black Lives Matter“.

There were ads about white supremacy that targeted people interested in HuffPost’s Black Voices section. Another featured an image of a member of the Black Panthers with a baby on his lap next to a photo of three hooded members of the Ku Klux Klan holding a noose under the text, “I find it very disturbing that the Black Panthers were called terrorists and sent to prison while KKK still exists and legal.” Hundreds of ads were bought about American racism, laser-targeted to people interested in, to take a few examples, “Understanding racial segregation in the united states,” and “Martin Luther King, Jr.” and “Black is beautiful” and the “African American Civil Rights Movement (1954-68).” It seemed that the more politically aware and interested in American history someone was, the more likely they were to be targeted by this propaganda. IRA trolls seemed to be interested in reaching people who are deeply invested in political history and expressing their beliefs, particularly on the subject of race in America and institutional violence against black people. Hundreds of the ads were focused on police violence toward black Americans.

Of the entire Russian “bot” narrative, Buzzfeed says “This is, not to mince words, total bullshit.”

I spent hours trying to find an article I saw not long before my 2020 arrest, which broke down which news sources the supposedly Russian Twitter accounts were promoting. I couldn’t find it, but Law and Crime was able to determine that their favorite TV pundit was MSNBC’s Joy Reid, whom Tucker Carlson appropriately refers to as “the race lady”.  Reid’s entire existence is centered around stoking racial tensions in the United States, and there are few scenarios one could imagine in which she was promoted to help Donald Trump get elected.

But, here’s one the Democrats don’t want to mention…

Let’s just say for the sake of argument, ridiculous though it may sound, that Russia tried to help Donald Trump by giving in kind contributions to Democrats in the form of free advertising. How could this possibly assist him?

We know Russians aren’t stupid. In a post release interview with RT, Viktor Bout told Maria Butina that Russians pay too much attention to American politics. When Leftist media covers the supposed Russian propaganda targeting black Americans, they often remark about how well the propagandists understand American racial tensions.

So, if we are to take this at face value, the means by which Russia was assisting Donald Trump is to show Americans how terrible the Democrats really are. By deploying this tactic, these propagandists showed how truly vicious, dishonest, and violent the Democrat Party is, just by amplifying normal Democrat behavior. They brought into the open what you and I have known for a very long time, that the Democrats’ perpetual stoking of racial tensions is designed to sow misery and chaos, on the assumption that it will aid them in pursuit of power. Watching blacks and other Democrats run riot in 2015 and 2016, and watching their media coconspirators run cover, so disgusted Americans, that an electoral, though not a popular, majority, voted for Donald Trump in 2016.

Reasonable people might think this was actually benevolent, and, let’s face it, this would not be the most absurd thing to happen in American politics. Though, we must confess that is a rather high bar to set. Democrat dirty tricks are legendary, and a political party trying to win popularity contests by pushing transgenderism on children is nothing if not capable of thinking outside the box.

But if that put Donald Trump in the White House in 2016, why did Democrats embrace the riots in 2020? If they really thought racial tension was harming their chances of victory, wouldn’t they stop stoking them?

Let us contemplate a more mundane explanation.

In 2018, Democrat operatives created a fake Russian botnet to make it appear that Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore was backed by the Russian government, according to the New York Times, per a Fox News Report;

Democratic operatives, backed by a liberal billionaire and facilitated by a former Obama official, created thousands of fake Russian accounts to give an impression the Russian government was supporting Alabama Republican Roy Moore in last year’s election against now-Sen. Doug Jones.

The secret project, which had a budget of just $100,000 and was carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was revealed after the New York Times obtained an internal report detailing the efforts.

“We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet,” the internal report said. It also took credit for “radicalizing Democrats with a Russian bot scandal” after experimenting “with many of the tactics now understood to have influenced the 2016 elections.”

The Alabama project was funded by liberal billionaire and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman who gave $100,000 to the cause, according to the Times. Hoffman is one of Silicon Valley’s top donors to the Democrats, donating $7 million to various groups and campaigns in the last election cycle.

The money trickled down through American Engagement Technologies, a firm run by Mikey Dickerson who was appointed by former President Barack Obama to lead the newly-created United States Digital Service.

Now, $100,000 is not a lot of money in a race that spent $51 million, but recall that the supposed Russian menace only spent $150,000 on a Presidential race and Democrats literally called that an act of war.

The source of the money, another tech oligarch, tells us a great deal too. While I don’t know LinkedIn to be a hotbed of political activity, I’d be willing to bet Mr. Hoffman didn’t allow his power over the platform to go unutilized by Democrats.

More recently, Consortium News published a report in November of 2022 about a massive anti-Russian “Bot Army” operating on Twitter, and the implications are staggering.

The Adelaide University researchers unearthed a massive organised pro-Ukraine influence operation underway from the early stages of the conflict. Overall, the study found automated “bot” accounts to be the source of between 60 to 80 percent of all tweets in the dataset.

The published data shows that in the first week of the Ukraine-Russia war there was a huge mass of pro-Ukrainian hashtag bot activity. Approximately 3.5 million tweets using the hashtag #IStandWithUkraine were sent by bots in that first week.

In fact, it was like someone had flicked a switch at the start of the war as pro-Ukraine bot activity suddenly burst into life. In that first day of the war the #IStandWithUkraine hashtag was used in as many as 38,000 tweets each hour, rising to 50,000 tweets an hour by day three of the war.

This operation was already in place when the conflict broke out, unlike Russia’s. Which tells us something very interesting about Ukrainian influence efforts.

After being apparently left flatfooted, the #IStandWithPutin hashtag mainly from automated bots, eventually fired up a week after the start of the war. That hashtag started appearing in higher numbers on March 2, day 7 of the war. It reached 10,000 tweets per hour just twice over the next two days, still way behind the pro-Ukraine tweeting activity.

The #IStandWithRussia hashtag use was even smaller, reaching only 4,000 tweets per hour. After just two days of operation, the pro-Russian hashtag activity had dropped away almost completely. The study’s researchers noted the automated bot accounts “likely used by Russian authorities,” were “removed likely by pro-Ukrainian authorities.”

The reaction against these pro-Russian accounts had been swift. On March 5, after the #IStandWithPutin hashtag had trended on Twitter, the company announced it had banned over 100 accounts using the hashtag for violating its “platform manipulation and spam policy” and participating in “coordinated inauthentic behaviour.”

Later that month, the Ukraine Security Service (SBU) reportedly raided five “bot farms”’ operating inside the country. The Russia-linked bot operators were reportedly operating through 100,000 fake social media accounts spreading disinformation that was “intended to inspire panic among Ukrainian masses.”

Why would Russia be operating “bot farms” on Ukrainian soil? Sounds to me like the SBU was kicking down the doors of their fellow citizens who had dared to challenge the prevailing compulsory narrative.

But why did Democrats think being backed by Russia would hurt a candidate? Didn’t Russian backing just put Trump in the White House?

Well, obviously, they had done the same thing in 2016, quoting from the Washington Examiner;

Durham’s latest indictment centers on Democratic National Committee and Clinton Foundation lawyer Michael Sussmann. One of Sussmann’s other clients, only identified in the indictment as “Tech Executive-1,” approached Sussmann in July 2016, claiming he had information that could help create a “narrative” of Trump collusion with Russia. Tech Executive-1 would later say in an email that he wanted Hillary Clinton to win the presidency because he believed she would give him the nation’s top cybersecurity job.

Tech Executive-1 then used his connections with a cybersecurity firm helping the federal government to gain access to nonpublic internet data about Trump and six of his associates. Although Tech Executive-1’s employees later told their boss that the data supposedly linking Trump and a Russian bank “will not fly in [the] eyes of public scrutiny,” Sussmann nevertheless fed it to media allies upon whom he could count to build a false narrative that Trump was colluding with Moscow.

Sussmann, who had worked with the FBI during its investigation into the Russian hack of DNC servers, told the FBI he had information showing a link between Trump and a Russian bank. During the meeting, Sussmann insisted to the FBI that he was turning the information over simply as a concerned citizen and that he was not working on behalf of any client. He further claimed that cybersecurity experts had approached him about a possible link between Trump and a Russian bank, but he never mentioned the true source of the data, Tech Executive-1.

This was a monstrous lie and now it has been exposed. Sussmann had been billing Hillary Clinton’s campaign for his collusion with Tech Executive-1 the whole time. That is, he was working for her. If the FBI had known that Sussmann approached it on behalf of the Clinton campaign merely so he could dish dirt on her political rival, it might never have opened an investigation. But since Sussmann lied about his motives, an investigation was opened.

The Department of Justice inspector general would later conclude in 2019 that the link between Trump and Russian banks was utter fiction. But Sussmann had already primed the media with his false information, and they dutifully played their part in creating the Trump-Russia “narrative” that would distract and divide the nation for most of Trump’s presidency.

DC being a Democrat cesspool, Sussmann was ultimately acquitted at trial of lying to the FBI.

Tech Executive 1 is Rodney Joffe, who, like Sussmann, just so happens to be Jewish, and spent much of his life as a fraudster before he began getting lucrative contracts from the federal government, according to a Real Clear Investigations article titled “The Checkered Past of the FBI Cyber Contractor Who ‘Spied’ on Trump“. Joffe had been working for the United States government, and used that privileged access to deceive federal investigators at the FBI and the CIA, about fake links between Trump and Russia.

I’m not saying that the Russian Federation does not conduct influence operations in the United States. In fact, it would be irresponsible for them not to. What I am saying is that Democrats, whether they be elected Democrats, party people, bureaucrats,  or just the general type of scumbag who votes this way, all seem to glom onto the same lie and pursue it seamlessly.

And let us not forget the infamous, “dirty Russian dossier, bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton”, which was put together by a supposedly “former” British spy named Christopher Steele, and which the Clinton campaign was fined by the FEC for covering up in their campaign expenditures, per CNN;

The DNC was fined $105,000 and the Clinton campaign was fined $8,000, according to a letter sent by the Federal Election Commission to a conservative group that requested an inquiry.

Political candidates and groups are required to publicly disclose their spending to the FEC, and they must explain the purpose of any specific expenditure more than $200. The FEC concluded that the Clinton campaign and DNC misreported the money that funded the dossier, masking it as “legal services” and “legal and compliance consulting” instead of opposition research.

The dossier was compiled by retired British spy Christopher Steele. It contained unverified and salacious allegations about Donald Trump, including claims that his campaign colluded with the Kremlin to win the 2016 election.

So, let’s pick this apart a little bit. The Clinton campaign and the DNC were working with a foreign intelligence officer to create a fictional narrative that Trump was some kind of Russian asset, and it just so happens, that a bunch of Russian intelligence assets are trying to help Donald Trump by echoing Democrat talking points on social media?

Pardon my skepticism. I suspect this is just a high tech foreign sponsored version of what Democrats do every year, which is try to paint Republicans as racists, on the safe assumption that they’ll make themselves look weak, and alienate White voters, by running from it.

But how did they convince everybody of the existence of these Russian “trolls and bots”?

By running them through Ukraine.

Most Americans probably thought Ukraine was a city in Russia prior to 2014, and it probably would have been by the end of 2022 if not for American military aid.

If you want to convincingly paint Donald Trump as a Nazi, you’ve got your work cut out for you. The man is surrounded by Jews at all times, and he’s conspicuously popular among black rappers. The New York real estate mogul didn’t make his billions by being the enemy of banks and media, and his rightward shift in political ideology followed years of being a big donor to Democrats. While Trump’s talk of immigration and crime were painted by Democrats as “racist dog whistles”, his push for criminal justice reform and so-called “opportunity zones” in black neighborhoods were directly marketed to black voters, which scared the living hell out of Democrats, who cannot win elections without near unanimous support from this demographic.

So, to pull off this heavy lift, it might help to get some “Nazis” to help by echoing their support for him.

A 2014 article at the Jewish website Algemeiner.com, tells us an important fact about Ukraine’s Azov Battalion;

Among those going into battle from the Ukrainian side are some 500 trained fighters in the self-declared Azov battalion, backed by Jewish energy magnate and Dnipropetrovsk region governor, Igor Kolomoisky, according to Israel’s Ma’ariv daily.

As the conflict in Ukraine broke out, I was astonished to see Western media denying the existence of Ukrainian Nazis. Just a few months earlier, I had read an article about Azov Battalion in Time Magazine, and there’s probably not a White Nationalist in the United States who doesn’t know somebody who went to Ukraine.

A headline at CommonDreams.org, a climate change obsessed Democrat propaganda rag, reads “There Is No Wisdom in Pretending That Ukraine’s Neo-Nazis Don’t Exist” and goes on to tell us in March of 2022, that “The troubling history and dangerous U.S. relationship with the Azov Battalion and other extreme right-wing groups in Ukraine cannot be forgotten.”

Russian President Putin has claimed that he ordered the invasion of Ukraine to “denazify” its government, while Western officials, such as former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul, have called this pure propaganda, insisting, “There are no Nazis in Ukraine.”

In the context of the Russian invasion, the post-2014 Ukrainian government’s problematic relations with extreme right-wing groups and neo-Nazi parties has become an incendiary element on both sides of the propaganda war, with Russia exaggerating it as a pretext for war and the West trying to sweep it under the carpet.

The reality behind the propaganda is that the West and its Ukrainian allies have opportunistically exploited and empowered the extreme right in Ukraine, first to pull off the 2014 coup and then by redirecting it to fight separatists in Eastern Ukraine.

So, in Ukraine, we have Jews financing Nazi militias that fight Russia with US backing? Does any sane person want to tell me that there aren’t spies involved in this?

Continuing at Common Dreams;

In 2019, the Soufan Center, which tracks terrorist and extremist groups around the world, warned, “The Azov Battalion is emerging as a critical node in the transnational right-wing violent extremist network… (Its) aggressive approach to networking serves one of the Azov Battalion’s overarching objectives, to transform areas under its control in Ukraine into the primary hub for transnational white supremacy.”

The Soufan Center described how the Azov Battalion’s “aggressive networking” reaches around the world to recruit fighters and spread its white supremacist ideology. Foreign fighters who train and fight with the Azov Battalion then return to their own countries to apply what they have learned and recruit others.

Violent foreign extremists with links to Azov have included Brenton Tarrant, who massacred 51 worshippers at a mosque in Christchurch in New Zealand in 2019, and several members of the U.S. Rise Above Movement who were prosecuted for attacking counter-protestors at the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville in August 2017. Other Azov veterans have returned to Australia, Brazil, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden, the U.K. and other countries.

If you listened to Stage Six Episode Zero, you’ve heard me tell the story of Weev before, but for the sake of continuity in our storyline, please pardon some repetition as I add a few details.

As I was about to do a show themed on Tucker Carlson Tonight’s imminent debut on Fox News, a listener suggested I take instead a semi-famous guest who went by the name of Andrew Alan Escher Auernheimer, best known by his pseudonym “weev”. Auernheimer is a Jewish computer hacker who rebranded himself as a Nazi after he got out of prison for hacking AT&T.

On the show, weev quickly began advocating the extermination of most of the world’s population, praising Charleston, SC church shooter Dylann Roof, and generally praising racially motivated violence. This was not what I expected at all, but the show was live on the air, and I had long styled myself as something of a “Shock Jock”, so I tried to roll with it. Those who saw the video however, remarked that I was visibly uncomfortable with what was going on.

Weev was the technical mind behind the Daily Stormer, commonly thought to be the most popular neo-Nazi website on planet Earth. This perception, however, turned out to be a manipulation. Weev, had managed to use the skills that had landed him in federal prison to manipulate the site’s Alexa rankings to make it appear much more popular than it actually was. Before its retirement in May of 2022, the Alexa rankings ranked nearly all websites on the planet with #1 being the most popular, and typically going back and forth between Google or Facebook. The Daily Stormer was not the only site he performed this service for, and he managed to make them look comparable to major news networks in popularity.

The importance of this can hardly be overstated. Bloggers and journalists used the Alexa rank to determine the relevance of sources when they were putting narratives together. When a neo-Nazi website rivals the most popular news sources on the web, it confirms the superstitions Leftists hold about the world in similar fashion to a weeping statue. When that same neo-Nazi website endorsed Donald Trump, it was as if Jesus had returned to earth to address his followers.

I was less interested in affirming Leftist suspicions about racism than I was in promoting my entertainment product, but I fell for this Alexa rank trick all the same. Tucker Carlson was not driving traffic to my website. Daily Stormer was.

So here we have an American Jewish computer hacker, residing in Ukraine, associating with Jewish and American backed nationalist groups, using my show to promote racial holy war, and aiding the Leftist press in their fervent desire to paint Donald Trump as the second coming of Adolf Hitler.

After the show had aired, I was contacted by Andrew Anglin, the purported primary writer for the Daily Stormer. Anglin had been planning an armed march on Whitefish, Montana, in furtherance of his “troll storm” against Tanya Gersh, a Jewess who had attempted to extort Richard Spencer’s mother. Anglin told me he would not be able to make it to this event, and that he wanted me to lead it.

I wisely declined the invitation.

The event never ended up happening, but Anglin was sued by Gersh for his efforts nonetheless. After crowdfunding over $150,000 for his defense in the suit, and in the process beginning the financial deplatforming of the Alt Right, Anglin defaulted.

Today I suspect that Anglin was attempting to get me to do this event as a trap, owing to statements I had made in the past which were sympathetic to antigovernment violence. I would have made the perfect patsy for some kind of false flag attack that made our group look like terrorists, and I likely would have been injured, killed, or stuck in some sort of legal quagmire, such as would later befall me in Charlottesville.

Immediately after the Whitefish event would have happened, was the inauguration of Donald Trump. During this, Antifa criminals rioted and burned Washington DC. As bad as this was, I can only imagine it would have been far worse had the Whitefish event actually happened.

Then came the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August of 2017. Leading up to this, Weev published a blog post which would be used against us as evidence in the Sines v. Kessler civil litigation titled “Operational Security for Right Wing Rallies” which painted our perfectly lawful behavior as criminal conduct and instructed participants to destroy records and use encrypted communications. This was entered, despite its nature as hearsay, through a supposed “expert” witness on White Supremacy, who, when cross examined by me, stated that Weev was Jewish.

In the wake of the event, while I was out on bail, I told Weev that I was planning to talk to the FBI. This seemed perfectly reasonable to me, since we were not guilty of any crime, and I had body camera video of our planning meeting, which disproved the popular myth of a premeditated conspiracy on our part.

Weev took screenshots of this conversation and published them, claiming that I was “ratting everybody out”. Of course, to rat people out, one must be party to a criminal conspiracy, and to be party to such a conspiracy, such a conspiracy must exist. In this, Weev helped spread the lie that the Unite the Right right rally was a racially motivated violent conspiracy, which was the biggest lie told that year, and Weev no doubt understood this.

Why is a Jewish American computer hacker in Ukraine doing all of this?

I will posit a theory.

Weev was recruited by the SBU, the Ukrainian espionage agency descended from the KGB.

He did not support Donald Trump. He was helping the Ukrainian government paint Trump for a Nazi in the hopes it would prevent him from being elected. When it backfired, he was helping them to destroy his presidency by promoting racial violence in his name.

I was specifically targeted in this, because during my libertarian days I had made a great many statements in support of antigovernment violence. Whether I could be egged on to carry out violence, or whether something would simply be blamed on me, I figure was a matter of indifference to those responsible.

While I was in prison, I heard about Volodimir Zelensky firing the head of the SBU over claims of rampant treason within the agency. I asked a friend to send me more information about the story, and he sent me this piece in the New York Times.

What struck me about the article was not the primary subject matter, but this snippet;

The Security Service of Ukraine, known by its Ukrainian initials S.B.U., is the main domestic security and intelligence authority in Ukraine and the successor to the local branch of the Soviet-era K.G.B. With 27,000 personnel, it is Europe’s largest security agency, and faces calls for reform — by comparison, Britain’s MI5 has just 4,400 employees, according to the Atlantic Council.

While U.S. intelligence agencies have worked with the S.B.U., their main relationship during the war has been with Ukraine’s military intelligence service.

Why does the SBU have five times as many spies as Britain?

This “faces calls for reform” line is humorous when you inform yourself. That might be the understatement of the century. The SBU is a ruthless state sponsored criminal enterprise, and they likely inspire a great deal of envy in their American counterparts.

According to reports of the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU), SBU personnel are responsible for multiple cases of human rights abuses including forced disappearances, sexual violence, and torture.

According to a report by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights titled “Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine
16 May to 15 August 2017″;

During the reporting period, OHCHR documented the arrests and detention by law enforcement of individuals under terrorism charges, allegedly for running businesses and paying ‘taxes’ in ‘Donetsk people’s republic’. For example, four entrepreneurs who left Donetsk after the conflict began were detained by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) under allegations of terrorism for activities related with running businesses in territory controlled by armed groups

OHCHR documented the cases of eight individuals detained and tortured by SBU in Kharkiv in 2015. For example, three of these individuals were arrested separately in May 2015, handcuffed and had bags placed over their heads. They were taken to the Kharkiv SBU building, where they were interrogated and tortured separately for hours by methods including suffocation with a gas mask, dislocation of joints, electric shock, and mock execution. The detainees also received death threats and threats of a sexual nature against their families. SBU officers forced these men to sign self-incriminating statements and refused them access to a lawyer. They were transferred to a hospital where a doctor refused to document visible injuries. In another example, also in May 2015, a man was arrested by SBU. On the way to the Kharkiv SBU building, the perpetrators stopped the vehicle and tortured him with electric current. Upon reaching the SBU building, the victim was further tortured until he “confessed” to planning terrorist acts. As of 15 August 2017, all four of these victims remained in pre-trial detention. The Military Prosecutor’s Office has launched an investigation into these allegations.

As previously documented, sexual violence is most often used as a method of torture for conflict-related detainees. For example, a man detained in the Kharkiv SBU building in May 2015 was tortured for hours in an attempt to extract a confession. He broke down when a person claiming to be a doctor entered the room with a set of surgical tools and started pulling down his pants while threatening to cut off his testicles. SBU officers then took him to the investigator’s office where he was compelled to sign several self-incriminating statements. In another case, a woman arrested in April 2015 by Kharkiv SBU was subjected to various acts of torture, including threats that the SBU officers would hand her daughter over to the Right Sector or Aidar battalion, so she could “watch how they play with her”.

The UNHCR issued another report titled “Conflict-Related Sexual Violence in Ukraine 14 March 2014 to 31 January 2017” in which;

In many cases, sexual violence amounted to torture, causing severe physical pain and mental suffering. Rape, threats of rape, beatings and electrocution of genitals were often used as an interrogation technique. Such violations most often perpetrated against individuals, mainly men, detained by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and volunteer battalions. The majority of these incidents date back to 2014-2015; nonetheless OHCHR continues to receive testimonies indicating that such practice still occurs.

In May 2014, members of the “Azov” battalion, who claimed to be acting upon the orders of SBU, abducted a woman near her house in Zaporizhzhia region. They subjected her to threats and torture which lasted for four to five hours. Her captors, who were all masked, bound her hands and legs with zip ties tightened by a metal chain, beat her with their feet and with the butts of their guns and forced needles under her nails. She was also subjected to the ‘swallow’ torture method. One of her captors threatened to gang rape her by subjecting to oral and vaginal penetration. One of the perpetrators, believed by the victim to be an SBU officer, ordered him to stop. The victim was released on the same day.

On 23 December 2014, unidentified armed people arrested a woman at her house in Krasnoarmiisk district (Donetsk region) and took her to the town of Kramatorsk (Donetsk region) where she was kept for two days in a basement. She was threatened with sexual violence and forced to sign a confession, which was video-recorded, stating that her sons were members of the armed groups and that she had transmitted information to them about Ukrainian military vehicles. She was then transferred to the Kharkiv SBU premises where she spent almost two months, without any contact with the outside world. No official charges were ever brought against her and she was never presented in court. In February 2015, she was released.

OHCHR also documented a number of cases of women detained in 2015, who were tortured and threatened that their minor daughters would be raped in front of them. A woman arrested on 19 January 2015 by 10 masked men wearing camouflage uniforms, was kept for more than a week in the basement of an SBU building, where she was beaten and tortured with electric shocks and burning plastic. The perpetrators threatened to rape her daughter if she refused to confess of having supported the armed groups in 2014.

These lengthy reports contain far grimmer incidents which are unattributable to the SBU specifically, but we can expect the SBU isn’t advertising who they are whenever they rape and murder people in Ukraine.

According to the Daily Mail;

Kyiv has already opened investigations into 1,309 suspected traitors and launched 450 prosecutions of collaborators accused of betraying their own nation and neighbours.

Others are being tracked down and slaughtered by resistance fighters. A list passed to this newspaper by a Kyiv government source identifies 29 such retribution killings, with 13 more assassination attempts that left some targets wounded.

‘A hunt has been declared on collaborators and their life is not protected by law,’ said Anton Gerashchenko, an adviser to the interior ministry. ‘Our intelligence services are eliminating them, shooting them like pigs.’

The Washington Post, for example, tells us in a September of 2022 headline that “Ukrainian hit squads target Russian occupiers and collaborators

Since Russian forces invaded in late February and began seizing Ukrainian cities and towns, close to 20 Kremlin-backed officials or their local Ukrainian collaborators have been killed or injured in a wave of assassinations and attempted killings.

They have been gunned down, blown up, hanged and poisoned — an array of methods that reflects the determination of the Ukrainian hit squads and saboteurs often operating deep inside enemy-controlled territory. The unpredictability of the attacks is meant to terrify anyone who might agree to serve in the puppet governments Russia has been creating with an eye toward staging sham referendums and ultimately annexing the occupied lands.

A Ukrainian official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter, said one of Ukraine’s special services was involved in the attempt on Bardin’s life, though he couldn’t specify which agency.

“In my understanding, everything that is done to destroy the leaders of the invaders and traitors is done by our special services,” the official said. “You can say that three organizations are involved in this kind of business: special operations forces, the main intelligence department [of the military] and a special unit of the SBU,” Ukraine’s main internal security service.

Russian officials have also blamed Ukrainian special services for the car bombing that killed Daria Dugina, a right-wing, nationalist Russian TV commentator and the daughter of far-right Orthodox Christian ideologue Alexander Dugin, a strong supporter of the war. Ukraine has flatly denied involvement in her killing near Moscow.

The assassination campaign, while cheered by many Ukrainians, nonetheless raises legal and ethical questions about extrajudicial killings and potential war crimes, particularly when the targets are political actors or civilians and not combatants on the battlefield or other military personnel. And those questions cannot simply be waved away by pointing to the illegality of Russia’s invasion.

Video has emerged of Ukrainian forces executing wounded Russian soldiers, and executing Ukrainian civilians accused of collaboration then dumping them into mass graves with their hands tied behind their backs. The video of the civilian executions was posted to Telegram by Azov Battalion for the purposes of bragging, then was subsequently edited to blame the deaths on Russia.

These revelations would be troubling enough if they were limited to cases of providing actual assistance to the Russian military, but that’s not the case at all. The Ukraine government considers anyone who speaks favorably of Russia, or negatively of the Zelensky government, to be collaborators, along with anyone who takes so much as a teaching job in the occupied regions, or accepts Russian financial assistance.

According to Human Rights Without Frontiers, those charged with treason include a female teacher, a female deputy of the Mariupol City Council, and religious leaders.

A headline at Newsweek reads “Ukrainian Mayor Charged With Treason for Accepting Aid From Russia“.

Months before Russia’s military action, Ukraine announced reason charges against opposition figures in the Ukrainian Parliament, according to UkraineNU;

Both Viktor Medvedchuk and Taras Kozak are members of the Ukrainian parliament for the pro-Russian party Opposition Platform – For Life, and Kozak owns several Tv-channels, which were closed by the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky back in February. The President justified the need to close the channels to “fight against the danger of Russian aggression in the information arena.” Both Kozak and Medvedchuk were sanctioned, and Ukraine nationalized one of Medvedchuk’s oil pipelines, his most valuable possession.

Even former Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko was charged with treason, months before Russia’s military action, according to DW.com.

And as Zelensky jails his opposition, commandeers media for the State, executes and sexually assaults his enemies, and grants criminals license to do as they see fit, Democrats and entirely too many Republicans tell us that we are to shower him with cash and munitions to the detriment of our economy and military, all for the sake of “democracy”.

These people sound like fine friends for the CIA to make. So, what was the nature of US intelligence cooperation with the SBU before the war?

I could go on about the so called “biological research facilities”, American assistance in the 2014 coup, and all manner of speculations, but the truth is, I do not know the full answer to these questions. Vladimir Putin, on the other hand, almost certainly does.

My next door neighbor in USP Marion’s Communications Management Unit, Viktor Bout, denies the US Government’s accusation that he is a Russian intelligence asset, and I have no reason to disbelieve him. But Viktor was by no means surprised to find that treason was rampant throughout the SBU. In his telling, the SBU was thoroughly infiltrated by Russian intelligence. The Russian government would thus be in a position to know Ukraine’s state secrets, including its interference in US politics.

Not that one would have to necessarily infiltrate the SBU to figure this out. Peter Schweizer documented it at some length in his book “Secret Empires” discussing how the Biden family got rich off corrupt deals in the oil and gas rich country.

In early March, only days after the Russian move into Crimea, Secretary of State John Kerry visited Kiev, arriving with a pledge of $1 billion in American loan guarantees and offers of technical assistance. He also announced clear-cut American political and moral support for Ukraine.

Kerry spoke forcefully about the U.S. commitment to an independent Ukraine. But it was Vice President Biden who would end up being “point person” in the Obama administration’s policy toward Ukraine.2! “No one in the U.S. government has wielded more power over Ukraine than Vice President Joe Biden,” noted Foreign Policy magazine. Indeed, his power as it relates to Ukrainian policy extended far beyond just Washington; he was “considered the voice of the country’s western backers.” Biden consulted regularly with the Ukrainian president by telephone and made five trips to the Ukraine between 2014 and 2017.24 He did so at the same time that his son and his son’s business partners prepared to strike a profitable deal with controversial and reportedly violent oligarchs, Kolomoisky and Zlochevsky,
who would benefit from his actions.

On April 16, 2014, Devon Archer made a private visit to the White House for a meeting with Vice President Biden. We do not know the duration because, according to White House records, the meeting lasted until 11:59 p.m., the end-of-the-day placeholder when the meeting’s end was not recorded.

Less than a week later, on April 22, there was a public announcement that Devon Archer had been asked to join the board of Burisma. Three weeks after that, on May 13, it was announced that Hunter Biden would join, too. Neither Biden nor Archer had any background or experience in the energy sector.

As was the case with their deals in China, the foreign company, Burisma here, did not hide the fact that the son of the vice president and the financial manager for the family of the American secretary of state were joining the board. Far from it.

Politico wrote about it, too. In a January of 2017 post titled “Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire“, Ken Vogel informs us,

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

Let us recall the first annual impeachment of Donald J. Trump. The reader will recall that this took place after a call between Trump and Zelensky, in which Trump wanted Zelensky to show that he was fighting corruption in Ukraine by announcing an investigation into the Biden Crime Family’s obviously corrupt dealings in the country. Trump saw no point in providing military assistance to a kleptocrat just so he could fight Russia, a country Trump campaigned on improving US relations with.

Given what is now common knowledge about the Biden crime family, Trump’s corruption test was profoundly wise. If Zelensky was as he claimed to be, a corruption fighter, figuring out why a Ukrainian energy company was showering cash on a crackhead who didn’t speak the language or know anything about energy, seemed like a rather modest test of his bona fides.

Zelensky failed the test, and a parade of Ukrainian Jews, among them Lt Colonel Vindman, came before Congress in an attempt to overthrow the President of the United States.

Not that this stopped Trump from sending him weapons.

I was covering this circus on the Radical Agenda when the FBI broke my door down in the middle of the night, and dragged me off to federal prison for the next three years.

The charges on which I was serving time, as I discussed during Stage Six Episode Zero, were absurd. I was convicted of threatening a member of a neo-Nazi terror cell that I had repeatedly gone to law enforcement about because they were sabotaging my business and threatening my life. For years I had been followed by undercover agents and confidential informants for the FBI who were seeking any excuse to make a case against me. The alleged victim was threatened with public exposure if he didn’t testify against me, and paid for his cooperation. This is not law enforcement, it is blackmail and bribery. It was a total setup by the FBI’s Joint Terror Task Force (JTTF) and I do not imagine the timing of my arrest  (more than six months after my alleged offense) was a coincidence.

As stated earlier, counterterrorism is not law enforcement. The whole point of the enterprise is to incapacitate suspects before crimes are committed. Counterterrorism is covert surveillance and dirty tricks, otherwise known, as espionage.

“Mainstream” Espionage

But, you don’t really think this is limited to “social” media, do you? Why stop there? The legacy media needs subversives too…

The Daily Caller provides a list of 15 supposedly “former” spies who now work at CNN or MSNBC, though that list is from 2019 and could probably be updated. Alexander Vindman doesn’t appear to be employed by either network, which is odd, considering how often he is featured on MSNBC. Fox News viewers will doubtlessly recognize names like former CIA station Chief, Dan Hoffman, or General Jack Keane, who have so thoroughly discredited themselves by commenting on this Ukraine/Russia conflict, that they might end up working at CNN by the time this thing is over. Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe is regularly featured on Fox News, and former Acting DNI Richard Grenell went on to become a paid Fox News contributor.

And who could forget the 51 “Intelligence” Officials Who Lied About Hunter Biden’s Laptop?

CNN’s annual revenue is approximately $2 Billion a year, according to Zippia.com. Its richest on air personality is Anderson Cooper, at a cool $50 million in net worth. The next wealthiest, Wolf Blitzer, has half that. Less than a week’s worth of post-sanctions Russian energy sales could buy the entire network and all the property of everyone who works there. It’s a good thing CNN has such stellar patriotism and integrity, or they might sell out to a foreign country.

In theory, spies are supposed to answer to the elected branches of government. In practice, it’s beginning to look like the exact opposite.

It’s like that line in the Matrix, where Agent Smith tells Morpheus,

The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization. I say your civilization, because as soon as we started thinking for you it really became our civilization, which is of course what this is all about. Evolution, Morpheus, evolution. Like the dinosaur. Look out that window. You’ve had your time. The future is *our* world, Morpheus. The future is our time.

One could probably get into a lot of chicken or the egg type of debates about the order of operations to this. Did the politicians weaponize the intelligence agencies for political ends, and thereby begin their involvement in politics? Or did the intelligence agencies decide democracy was too important to leave to chance, and begin using their dark arts to control the elected branches? The answer is likely pre-democratic, and the progression of this state of affairs in the United States most likely involves a lot of give and take in both directions.

J. Edgar Hoover was reported to have kept extensive blackmail files on people, including but not limited to politicians. Ronald Kessler, author of “Secrets of the FBI”, says this about Hoover’s “Official and Confidential” files.

In my book “The Secrets of the FBI,” I quote William Sullivan, who became the No. 3 FBI official under Hoover, as saying: “The moment [Hoover] would get something on a senator, he’d send one of the errand boys up and advise the senator that ‘we’re in the course of an investigation, and we by chance happened to come up with this data on your daughter. But we wanted you to know this. We realize you’d want to know it.’ Well, Jesus, what does that tell the senator? From that time on, the senator’s right in his pocket.”

Some suspect Hoover of being a homosexual, but he still lived and ran the FBI in a time when morality really mattered in public life. That time is over. The principle problem with blackmail these days is that people have far less shame to exploit. In the current year, being a homosexual is just how you make up for being White in the Democrat Party. But this does not mean that politicians don’t have secrets, and if you think the moral code of our spies has improved over the decades, watching them on MSNBC once in awhile will disabuse you of that notion.

We cold not possibly forget Chuck Schumer’s famous line that “Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” as he told told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow.

Schumer wasn’t alone in warning of U.S. intelligence agencies’ penchant for politicized revenge. A little over a week later, Daniel Benjamin, who had served as the principal counterterrorism advisor for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, scripted the scenario for Politico Magazine, writing:

Leakers and whistleblowers won’t hesitate. What [former Deputy CIA Director] Morell and other intelligence veterans are too decorous to mention is that Trump’s treatment of his spies will also come back to bite him in the form of leaking and whistleblowing. The intelligence community doesn’t leak as much as the Pentagon or Congress, but when its reputation is at stake, it can do so to devastating effect.

Peter Strzok suspected CIA employees were behind inaccurate leaks to the press regarding possible Trump campaign contacts with Russia, according to an email the former FBI counterintelligence official sent to colleagues in April 2017. Strzok wrote “I’m beginning to think the agency got info a lot earlier than we thought and hasn’t shared it completely with us. Might explain all these weird/seemingly incorrect leads all these media folks have. Would also highlight agency as source of some of the leaks,

He later wrote to his lover/coworker, Lisa Page in a text message that “Think our sisters have begun leaking like mad. Scorned and worried and political, they’re kicking in to overdrive,” Sisters is a likely reference to the CIA, or other American intelligence agency.

Licensed to Kill

As illustrated in the case of Ukraine, another tactic of domestic espionage is to grant certain groups of people a license to commit crimes, including the most horrific sort of violence. From my jail cell, I saw this go on all throughout 2020 in the United States, in tandem with a bizarre and frightening propaganda campaign on social and mainstream media.

After career criminal George Floyd died of a drug overdose in police custody, the heroic officer who subdued him was charged with and subsequently convicted of murder. Instead of seeing this as justice taking its course, the same rioters who had terrorised me and my associates and the rest of America since 2015 took to the streets for their biggest campaign of mayhem yet. They murdered business owners and police officers, set fire to commercial property, residences, and federal courts. They surrounded a police station, laid siege to it, and set it on fire, forcing police to flee for their lives.

Did the Democrats decry “Russian interference” stoking these racial tensions? Didn’t they fear that this subversive activity would help Trump like it supposedly did in 2016? Of course not. Democrats supported this. Racial strife is their stock in trade. Dividing the country along identitarian lines proved so useful to them, that they started creating new sexual identities along which to cause even more trouble.

Kamala Harris promoted a bail fund, which helped lead to the release of people charged with murder, violent felonies, and sex crimes, including one alleged Minneapolis domestic abuser who was subsequently charged with murder.

MSNBC Anchor Ali Velshi, filmed in front of the scene of an arson, said of the Minneapolis riots “I want to be clear on how I characterize this. This is mostly a protest. It is not generally speaking unruly but fires have been started, and this crowd is relishing that”

In Kenosha, Wisconsin, when convicted sexual predator Jacob Blake violated an order of protection, and sexually assaulted his ex girlfriend, police were called to the scene to help his victim. Blake attacked officers with a knife, and the officers shot him. Blake survived his injuries, but was paralyzed.

Because Democrats are so enamored of sexual assault, they rioted again, claiming this too, was racist.

Police did not stop the riots. Democrat supported them. CNN famously described them as “Fiery But Mostly Peaceful“.

While law enforcement let this chaos ensue, Kyle Rittenhouse was forced to defend himself against Blake’s fellow sex predator Joseph Rosenbaum, and repeat violent felon Anthony Huber, among others in the crowd. Rittenhouse too, was charged with murder, but ultimately acquitted by a jury.

The riots continued, and the media smeared Rittenhouse as a white supremacist terrorist.

At the Democrat Nation Convention of 2020, where Joe Biden received his Party’s nomination for the presidency, former President Barack Obama described the riots as “Peaceful Protests“.

Did the “Russian bots” just go away?

Clearly the Democrats did not think so. The Democrats decried the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation”, their spies supported this obvious lie, their media lapdogs reported it to be obviously so, and the social media companies, which had been overrun with spies and political partisans, suppressed the story on this fake claim. So why didn’t they also blame the riots on this supposed foreign interference?

Foreign or not, why didn’t the social media companies suppress the riots like they did the laptop story?

Because this is what they wanted. They did not view it as the unfortunate consequence of an unjust society. They viewed it as an unalloyed good.

It is simply not plausible that such a campaign of violence and mayhem happened spontaneously, and avoided law enforcement scrutiny without help from the top. These riots were bloody organized, well funded, immune from prosecution, and supported by the highest echelons of American power.

The Democrats and the spies in their service understand all too well the power they wield, and they sure as hell know how to crush dissent.

But did they actually believe this was going to help them win the election? What on Earth could drive someone to believe that violent crime, looting, and arson, in support of counterfeiters, drug dealers, and sexual predators, was popular politically? Did they simply have that much confidence in their control over information, that they actually believed the population would not know what was happening or who was responsible?

This, I highly doubt.

One recalls a quote from a Russian who was anything but a bot. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn once said,

We know that they are lying, they know that they are lying, they even know that we know they are lying, we also know that they know we know they are lying too, they of course know that we certainly know they know we know they are lying too as well, but they are still lying. In our country, the lie has become not just moral category, but the pillar industry of this country.

They do not expect you to believe the lie. Only to acquiesce to it. And as long as enough of the population will do this, they can do as they please.

If the Democrats believed that Donald Trump was truly a corrupt power hungry dictator who would do anything to stay in power, they would certainly not leave to chance the integrity of our elections. But since they knew that anyone who was willing to cheat in the election would be on their side, they went about dismantling every security feature ever imagined, in the holy names of COVID and racism.

Molly Hemingway’s book “Rigged: How the Democrats, Big Tech, and the Media Seized Our Elections” really illustrated this perfectly without getting into all the crackpot stuff or venturing down any rabbit holes. Democrat lawyers sued over various election integrity measures claiming their were either racist or a COVID hazard, and in no shortage of cases, their collaborators in the various Secretaries of State offices, settled the lawsuits with consent decrees instead of fighting the absurd allegations. This had the effect of bypassing the legislatures, which is transparently unconstitutional.

And sure enough, they managed to put a vegetable in the White House, and obtain the thinnest of congressional majorities, by promising the public nothing but violence and deception.

In the wake of this, surely you all recall the cartoonish press conference with Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell, in which they allege the most outrageous of plots. Hacked voting machines, foreign servers, China, Venezuela. One is almost tempted to think somebody sabotaged Rudy’s hair coloring.

Say what you will about Powell and Giuliani, they didn’t get to where they were by being stupid. They were not incapable of thinking through the consequences of making up this story out of thin air. Yet the evidence they claimed to possess was not forthcoming. As Powell “released the Kraken” and Rudy visited legislative committees around the country, these most outrageous claims faded from view, and they were reduced to discussing statistical anomalies and matters of law.

What possessed them to tell these wild stories while the world watched?

One can only speculate, but it seems clear to me that somebody told them these things had actually happened, and for whatever reason, they believed it.

But what sort of person would it have to be, for you to believe they knew about hacked voting machines and foreign servers and an international coalition of spy agencies being involved?

Obviously, they were talking to foreign spies. A spy is the only source of information from which you could take such claims seriously, and if the spies were American, they would have just said “the intelligence community” told them, and call the guy a whistleblower. The fact that they preferred to be mocked into oblivion and jeopardize their law licenses, tells you that it would have harmed them more to name their sources. If they acknowledged collaborating with foreign intelligence agencies, then the Democrats, who were about to control all levers of political power in Washington, would have used that confession to pursue them as national security threats.

And how would Rudy Giuliani have come to make connections with foreign spies? I’m sure the Democrats would scream “RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA!” which tells you right away that this isn’t the case. If the Democrats say it, it’s almost certainly a lie.

But Rudy Giuliani’s activities in Ukraine featured prominently in the first annual impeachment of Donald J. Trump, and something tells me the friends he was making over there turned out to be less than loyal. The SBU fed him a line, and he bit, and the circus that ensued served to distract from whatever really happened to fraudulently elect our first brain dead President.

The people of this country didn’t fall for it. They were, in fact, outraged, and a number of them were willing to put their bodies and freedom on the line to stop it from happening. That collective will manifested itself in the events of January sixth, and spies were by no means taking a hands off approach to that event.

Well, perhaps I’ve chosen my words poorly. On the surface, it appears that this is precisely what they did.

Per a recent report in the New York Times,

Steven A. Sund, who was the Capitol Police chief during the 2021 riot, writes in his book, “Courage Under Fire,” that intelligence in the possession of the F.B.I., the Homeland Security Department and the Defense Department should have had those agencies “seeing red,” but they instead failed to warn the Capitol Police.

But, even taking this report for face value, inaction is itself a form of action. Recall that the whole entire point of counterterrorism is to intervene before events occur, and that the FBI is in the habit of entrapping Right wing dissidents using precisely this excuse. They surely didn’t stop doing this under the Trump administration, otherwise I never would have seen the inside of the Communications Management Unit. The Oathkeepers and Proud Boys would not have had to commit a crime for the FBI to take them off the street. If the FBI wanted to stop them, the FBI would have created a crime.

Which, more than likely, is exactly what they did on January 6th. The reason these people were not taken off the streets before the riot, is because the riot was the stratagem the FBI was using to take them off the streets.

And they really weren’t all that hands off, after all.

The Oathkeepers and Proud Boys were infiltrated with no fewer than 8 FBI Confidential Human Sources (CHS), including the Vice President of the Oathkeepers, Greg McWhirter.

During the trial of Stuart Rhodes for seditious conspiracy, McWhirter’s name was leaked to the New York Times, and prosecutors asked the Court to question Defense Counsel whether they had been responsible for the leak. This, I’d bet almost anything, is a case of Democrats accusing you of what they themselves are doing. McWhirter had been terrified of being identified in public as an informant, and this anxiety damn near killed him.

Prosecutors rested their case in the trial without calling McWhirter as a witness, and Defense Counsel, seeing this absence as conspicuous, called him themselves. McWhirter boarded a plane to come testify, but had to be removed when he suffered a heart attack, rendering himself unavailable.

Rhodes was subsequently convicted of seditious conspiracy, and awaits sentencing at the time of this writing. He faces up to 20 years in prison on that count alone.

You could be next.

There’s no upper limit on how long I could draw something like this out. I need to stop somewhere, and this is where I will conclude. We’re nearly 17,000 words into what used to be an unscripted production, and the longer I write the more I think I need to write. The more I search for source material, the more threads I find to keep pulling. I’ve tried to stick primarily to what was publicly accepted as true, and kept my speculations to a minimum. but the nature of espionage is secrecy, which means that for all the violence and deceit here discussed, what we’ve identified is only their failures. Their successes are still unknown to us, and that should be more troubling than anything.

In any political movement that challenges the status quo, one must have a healthy skepticism of the authorities. The people in power have an interest in protecting their position, and those who have been dug in for a substantial period of time come to think they have property rights in State power. They will thus wield that power against those who seek to take it away from them. But my assessment here is that it is not cops, or even federal law enforcement that we need to be concerned about, except to the extent that they are put to use by nefarious actors, though that happens all the time, sadly. We are the good guys in this struggle, and with some unfortunate exceptions, our guys tend to obey the law.

The threat to us, indeed the reason we are not in power today, the reason I and other law abiding people have accepted peril at the hands of the legal system as a fact of life, has nothing to do with law enforcement or any other legitimate domestic power of the State. We are imperiled not by cops, but by spies, foreign and domestic.

And beyond the dirty tricks that they have deigned to use against us, they have turned their dark arts against the general population. Globalism plus espionage amounts to a transnational criminal enterprise, that refuses to leave the outcome of elections to chance.

In the case of foreign countries, you can hardly blame them for this. In the current world order, Americans alone are granted the privilege of electing the world government. The supposed “rules based international order” is cover for a unipolar American hegemony that dictates terms to the rest of the planet with a combination of bribes and threats. Even a two year old can intuitively grasp the unfairness of that. If the future of a Nation is to be determined by the outcome of an election in another country, the government of that affected Nation would be negligent not to utilize every tool and weapon at its disposal to see that election go its way, or to outright steal it.

So we should not be surprised to see influence operations by foreign intelligence agencies in the United States. In fact, when we don’t see them, it ought to raise our suspicions, because it can only mean they are hidden from view.

If our intelligence agencies had not violated our trust, we might even go so far as to pardon their own influence operations designed to counter those of foreign countries, but what we have seen here is that they are not countering foreign espionage. They are collaborating with it.

We have been told that Russia interfered in our elections to see Donald Trump come to power. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that this is true.

Given what we know about how Hillary Clinton would have governed, given what we know about how Joe Biden has governed, we can only conclude that Russia would prefer to avoid war with the United States, and uses its influence operations to avoid that outcome.

In contrast, we know that Ukraine actively tried to help Hillary Clinton. We know that the Bidens were and are involved in all manner of corruption in Ukraine, and that, as a consequence of those corrupt dealings, Joe Biden is risking war with Russia at the time of this writing, for his own personal land of milk and honey.

We know that this accrues benefits to China, above all, whose government has made our political elites wealthy beyond imagination, and whose social media platforms have been weaponized to collect and to disseminate information against the interests of the United States.

And if I wanted to turn this into a lengthier research project, an audiobook as opposed to a podcast, I could spend much more time talking about Israel’s Mossad, their sayanim in the media, the ADL, the SPLC, AIPAC, George Soros, and any number of banking executives and central bank officials.

Leftism weakens a country. Chaos is its means and its ends, and every lever of power in this country is being wrenched Leftward in such a fashion that it is miraculous any of us still have the electricity to produce or consume this communication. That state of affairs is not merely due to a misguided population. It is due, in no small part, to intense manipulation by foreign governments, with the consent and collaboration, of our own.


I won’t keep you waiting so long for the next episode. Extenuating circumstances made this take longer than anticipated. I hope you think it’s worth it.

Instead of the old format’s open phones, I’m looking to answer listener voicemails on the air or possibly record calls with listeners offline and then play them on the show. Send me an email, or leave me a voicemail at (202) 599-7386 , and I’ll try to work you in, if you give me good radio. Especially if you’re a donor.




If you like what you’ve heard, please pay me at https://ChristopherCantwell.net/donate

Radical Agenda S06E000 – Reintroduction

This is one of those stories that begin with the protagonist getting out of prison. You’re tuning into Stage Six. We’ve been at this for almost a decade, but I’m just getting started. The Radical Agenda, on the other hand, well, let’s call Stage Six the end of the beginning.

The Radical Agenda was a live, uncensored, and mostly unscripted entertainment program. It began in 2014, after being rebranded from its predecessor, which was called “Some Garbage Podcast”. The Radical Agenda aired live three days a week at the time it went off the air in January of 2020, which was when its host and producer, Christopher Cantwell (yours truly), was dragged out of his apartment by the FBI.

More on that later, but for now, I’m going to break this episode up into two parts. I first want to primarily address those of you who have been listening for awhile, and then we’ll take a stroll down memory lane to reminisce and tell newcomers how we got to this point. After almost three years in federal prison, I am back. While I intend to make Stage Six the conclusion of the Radical Agenda, I have some exciting and ambitious projects I am eager to begin (or continue) working on, once I conclude the Radical Agenda, and we’re going to talk about that a lot, real soon.

This has to happen for a number of reasons, none of which I am particularly enthusiastic about.

The format of the Radical Agenda is that it is an open phones call in talk show. Stage Six cannot be that, because toward the end of Stage Five of the show, malicious actors, some of them State sponsored, made this completely impossible by subverting every call screening method I attempted to institute, and though they committed many crimes in the process, I was denied the protection of law by the United States government. This, as we’ll discuss in greater detail later, is the preferred method of persecuting political dissidents in the United States today. The authorities refuse to assist them when they are victimized by criminals, and then the dissident is held legally responsible for the predictable outcome of that lawlessness. This is sometimes referred to as “anarcho-tyranny”, but I think this wording fails to capture the full gravity of the problem. This is anything but anarchistic. It is State sponsored criminality.

I do not want to ruin the artistic integrity of this project. It is better that I end the show than try to pretend that something completely different is the Radical Agenda. I am producing Stage Six in an altered form because I want to conclude it on my own terms, rather than just abruptly leaving off when the FBI dragged me away.

Another reason I will touch on briefly is that the Radical Agenda brand has been completely blacklisted from the financial system, social media, and many vendors, service providers, and advertisement markets. The show never would have become what it had at its peak if I was not able to make a living by producing it. I worked very hard to produce this show, and I suffered a great deal in pursuit of excellence. Because it was a quality production, I put my faith, foolishly, in market forces to correct the wrongs being done to us. That faith was clearly misplaced.

Before my arrest, I managed to obtain services for other ventures of mine. Most notably the Outlaw Conservative podcast, Edgy Goodies, and Penned and Pronounced voice services. Christopher Cantwell is not completely incapable of doing business, but the Radical Agenda is. Christopher Cantwell thus has a future, and the Radical Agenda, sadly, does not.

Additionally, my ideas have changed in the last three years, and during the course of this stage of the show, we’ll discuss this in greater detail. I have done a great deal of reading, listening, and thinking. I’ve met some very interesting people. I have come to conclude that the Radical Agenda “jumped the shark”, if you’ll pardon the expression, at some point. The Radical Agenda blurred the lines between reality and fiction to the point that it became impossible for most people to determine what was hyperbole, rhetoric, humor, or advocacy. I myself became uncertain of this at times, and while I and others found this entertaining and intellectually stimulating, it did not advance my sincere political aims, which I take seriously enough to risk my life and liberty over.

I remain convinced that the United States is on the brink of catastrophe, that race and ethnicity play a central role in this, and that under the geopolitical world order of today, such a catastrophe cannot manifest itself strictly within the political boundaries of the United States. I daily endure a well educated and rational fear of death, destruction and misery, on a global scale, that makes Mao’s China look like Galt’s Gulch, and through that lens, a few years in prison appears to be the least of my problems.

Ask me what I would do to prevent this outcome, and my one word answer is “ANYTHING”. There is NOTHING that I will not do.

This show began with the idea that moderation was our biggest political problem in America. I figured people were too scared to take bold stances on the issues of our time, and that it took courage to push the limits of politics. While there is truth in this, it is not axiomatic total truth. Extremism verses moderation is just one dimension of politics and philosophy.

What I have learned from Joe Biden, is that a man can prove himself weak and timid and stupid by automatically assenting to the most extreme political ideas, as easily as he can by being a political weather vane, and groveling to consensus. Restraint, and discipline, are no less virtues than courage, and a man who cannot control himself, a man who has no concern whatsoever for the will and opinions of his countrymen, has no place in politics. In any honest political order, he is pushed to the fringes, and barred from participation, and rightly so. This is not to say extremists have no influence on the political order, as we’re seeing with the absolute lunacy of the Democrat Party, but if you think Joe Biden got more votes than any president in history, you’re an idiot, and of whatever votes he did really earn, he earned them by lying about how he would govern. Anybody with eyes and ears knows that the Democrat Party is being rejected by the people of this country. Nobody wants their kids to be propagandized with transgenderism and anti-White hate, and the next honest election we have, should we ever be so fortunate, will see them reduced to a permanent political minority.

I care too much about our people and our goals to let that continue happening to us. I mean to make our presence felt in this world, and that will not be possible if we endlessly indulge in fantasy violence and shock humor.  Our goal is to WIN, and if these crooks want to stop me, they will have to send an assassin next time.

Now, as regular listeners know all too well, I was prominently featured in a high profile civil trial in Virginia last year. I’m going to do a much longer segment on this in the future, but I have to touch on it briefly to further contextualize my motives for this change in tone. Those of you who listened to, or followed the alternative media coverage of, the Charlottesville Unite the Right case, know that I did something very important down there, but there seems to be a lot of confusion still about the verdict in that matter.

My codefendants put on a mostly negative case, which is to say, they simply called attention to the fact that there was no evidence of the central allegation of a racially motivated violent conspiracy. I, on the other hand, representing myself pro se, tried to prove that the Left was actually responsible for the violence, and I made fools of these people down there.

Now, if you tuned into CNN, or for that matter, read the Wall Street Journal, the headline was about some $25 million verdict holding us liable for the Plaintiffs’ damages. Like so much of what you see and hear these days, that’s not really what happened. The case had six counts. The first two counts were federal civil rights conspiracy claims, alleging a racially motivated violent conspiracy. The second count was Virginia Civil conspiracy, under which we could have been found liable for violating half a dozen Virginia state statutes, including the so called “hate crimes” law, which can hold someone liable for “racially motivated violence, vandalism, or harassment”. The fourth count had no conspiracy element, and held that a smaller number of defendants had themselves violated this “violence, vandalism, or harassment” statute, The 5th and 6th counts only applied to James Fields, and on account of his guilty plea in his federal criminal case, which he took to avoid the death penalty, there wasn’t much we could do for James.

The jury deadlocked on the first two counts, which tells you that they did not find us liable for a racially motivated violent conspiracy. The jury did find us liable on the 3rd and 4th counts, which tells you that they found us liable for something other than a racially motivated violent conspiracy, to the tune of millions of dollars, though most of the damages were actually held against Mr. Fields on counts 5 and 6, which the media conveniently leaves out of their narrative.

But if you’ve got a mind for legal stuff, you may already see the problem here. We weren’t sued for harassment, we were sued for a racially motivated violent conspiracy, and since the jury didn’t find us liable on counts 1 and 2, we were found liable for something we weren’t actually sued for. And, tellingly, during deliberations, the jury asked the Court a question: “Are words a form of violence under the 1st Amendment?”

Well, no, that’s obviously utter nonsense, even if it is an all too popular belief these days. You don’t get to show up at the Nazi party seeking confrontation, and then sue them when somebody calls you a name. That’s not how harassment works, and if they had sued us for harassment, the case would have been dismissed before trial. The Judge was pretty specific about this when he denied our motion to dismiss.

So I put in a post trial motion making this argument. Without counts 1 and 2, they don’t have the racially motivated violent conspiracy, and they can’t collect hate speech reparations as a consolation prize. I argue that the court should set the verdict aside, and either dismiss the case or order a new trial. I also argue that since my litigation was obstructed by the federal government, I didn’t get a fair trial, and in any case I needed more time to finish my motion because the government was preventing me from accessing documents.

A verdict is not a judgement. They are two very different things. Courts tend to issue judgements in line with what a jury finds, but that’s not always the case. Courts also tend to issue those judgements pretty soon after the verdict, and the magistrate Judge denied my motion for more time. I appealed his decision to the District Court Judge, and he has not ruled on that or on the post trial motions. It’s been over a year, and that is extremely unusual. It indicates that the Judge may agree with my point. Even if he doesn’t, these are solid grounds for appeal.

That means there is still a chance for us to salvage the narrative, and the truth, about what happened in Charlottesville Virginia on August 11th and 12th of 2017, and that is a prize I will not throw away for some cheap thrills and laughs. I want to win this case, and then I want to put together a presentation based on that trial which we can show to the uninitiated, and I can’t do that if we’re cracking jokes about gas chambers and fedposting like there’s still a 1st amendment in this country. That’s just not going to work. It’s either or, and I am quite willing, to quote Van Jones, to “forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends”.

Now, for those of you who are new to the program, allow me to reintroduce myself.

This show began as a doctrinaire libertarian production. In 2009, I had been given cause to consider the rapidly diminishing freedom we Americans once enjoyed, as a corollary growth in the size and scope of the United States Federal Government spiraled out of control. I sought answers to constitutional questions, and stumbled upon a series of YouTube videos by 2004 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik.

The series was called “Introduction to the Constitution”, and made what I still consider to be a compelling, perhaps irrefutable case that the government of the United States long ago forfeited any claim of constitutionality. So far outside the bounds of that framework has its apparatus strayed, that the vast majority of the federal government lacks any authority in the constitution. Lacking that authority, and generally lacking popular support, it resorts entirely to coercion and deception to accomplish its goals, and visits unceasing misery on its population.

Today, to me, and to listeners of the Radical Agenda, this is uncontroversial. America now operates in a post constitutional order. Obviously.

But for me, at the time, this was terrifying. I was filled with dread at the thought of my country hurtling toward some terrible cataclysm, on the order of the millions of deaths in Mao’s China or the Soviet Union or Hitler’s Germany.

I tried to discuss this with the people around me, and their responses were equal parts varied and horrifying. They either didn’t know, or didn’t care. Some simply refused to believe what I was saying, others said I was probably right but that it wasn’t worth getting worked up about. Most just didn’t want to talk about “politics”.

This radicalized me. I have, from this point on, been driven as if by religious fanaticism, although I cannot in good faith claim to believe in a deity, much less subscribe to any particular religious doctrine.

I started attending Tea Party rallies. I ran for the US House of Representatives as a Libertarian Party candidate. I moved from New York to New Hampshire to join the Free State Project. I volunteered for the Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign. I propagandized on social media and started a YouTube channel.

Once I started to earn a little bit of money from all this, I decided to make it my profession.

I traveled the country, recording and inserting myself into various events. I collaborated on projects with other media personalities. I started going to open mic nights at bars and doing standup comedy. I was invited to political events as a featured speaker.

I began “Some Garbage Podcast” with its self deprecating title because I did not take it very seriously. I had long enjoyed talk radio, beginning with Howard Stern, and later upgrading to Opie & Anthony, for which I purchased my first SiriusXM subscription. On the SiriusXM Patriot Channel, I discovered conservative talk, and became a regular fan of the Mark Levin show. But I didn’t think a long form talk radio show was a viable format for me.

My experience with YouTube had been that short videos got the most views, and my dwindling faith in my fellow man had me convinced that he could best be reached by means which did not challenge his attention span.

So I was rather shocked when Some Garbage Podcast quickly earned over a thousand regular viewers on YouTube. At the time, I wasn’t even producing it as a “podcast” technically. It was just a YouTube show.

After I saw it catching on, I decided to put the effort in. I spent more money on better audio equipment, I set up the RSS feeds and published it to iTunes and all the other major syndication platforms.  I set up a Patreon account, and told listeners that if I met a particular fundraising goal, I would start doing the show three days a week. This goal was met instantly, and so began our Monday, Wednesday, and Friday showtimes.

Throughout all this, I didn’t have much of anything to say about the subject of race relations. Like anybody, I noticed patterns, but I considered it impolite bordering on immoral to say anything about them. Most of the women I had dated over the course of my life were not White. My childhood best friend was Jewish. I knew scumbag White men, and upstanding black men. I knew then as I know today, that skin color is not a reliable means of judging individuals.

But I also considered it uncontroversial that black people were disproportionately represented in prison populations. I thought no more of it than their prominence in professional sports, and I didn’t hold it against Asian people when I observed them disproportionately represented in cognitively demanding positions. A mere demographic disparity is not evidence of a racist criminal justice system, any more than it is evidence of a racist sports draft or college admissions. I had no doubt then and I have no doubt today that America’s legal system is a dangerous purveyor of violence and injustice, but prejudice against blacks is not one of those many countless and egregious injustices.

So, I considered it offensive when I was accused of being a racist for saying so out loud. I had made a name for myself as a “police accountability activist” by video recording police and generally trashing law enforcement online, but I took issue with other activists who tried to make it about race. This was transparently dishonest and I saw the people picking this scab as nefarious actors who were trying to make matters worse, not better.

Within the libertarian movement, a radical leftward push was being engineered by a handful of loud voices. Among the top names on this list would be Jeffrey Tucker, Antonio Buehler, and Cathy Reisenwitz. Accusing people of racism, sexism, and homophobia was merely a tactic being deployed, one which I had come to recognize as a principle weapon of the Democrat Party.

When I stood up to them, the results were predictable. I was smeared as a racist, and at the time I found this deeply offensive.

I decided I should make some effort to understand what it was that racists believed, if only to be able to distance myself from it. Before long I stumbled across a video by Walter E. Williams titled “How Much Can Discrimination Explain?

Mr. Williams was terribly unlikely to be accused of being a White Supremacist. He did confess to engaging in a bit of discrimination, such as when he decided that, as a black man, he wanted to marry a black woman, but this could hardly be considered an invidious discriminatory animus. And although he did rule out the entirety of the White race in his search for a wife, he was generous and gracious enough to grant White folks a full pardon for our real and imagined transgressions, as well as those of our forbears. He even offered a certificate of this pardon, available as a PDF for download, which I proudly printed and framed and for a number of months hung behind my seat on the set of the Radical Agenda.

Something Mr. Williams said in that video really stuck with me. He explained that, in the name of race relations, Democrats had set about instituting all of these economic programs that were proving ineffective at best, and were arguably making matters worse for black people. He went on to say that, to fix these problems “it’s going to require that White people, show some backbone and courage, and not fear being called a racist.”

This made perfect sense to me. It seemed so terribly obvious that I was sort of ashamed that I hadn’t thought of it myself. And, since I generally had little regard for the opinions of others, I thought myself uniquely well suited to the task.

I had no expectation of it working, but I decided to fire off an email to Mr. Williams to invite him to be a guest on Some Garbage Podcast. I didn’t tell him the name of the show at the time, however, because I considered him a fairly classy guy and was reasonably certain he would decline an invitation to be on my “garbage” show.

I was shocked when he accepted, and I titled the episode “Pardon My Racism”.

I was so embarrassed to introduce this high profile guest onto “Some Garbage Podcast” that I decided after this episode that I would rebrand. But to what?

I had not long before stumbled upon an article by Murray Rothbard titled “Do You Hate The State?

It read, in relevant part;

Perhaps the word that best defines our distinction is “radical.” Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and antistatism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul.

That last line quoted, most of all, captured me. Something that “integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul”. This is what I wanted, above all, to produce. Something emotionally charged, and at the same time intellectually stimulating.

Thus was born the “Radical Agenda”. I could hardly believe the domain name was available.

I titled Radical Agenda EP001 “Patriots’ Day” in honor of that “Shot heard round the world”, making note of the day on which the episode had aired.

It didn’t take long before I was tested in my resolve to follow the advice of Mr. Williams to “not fear being called a racist”. Riots erupted in Baltimore over the death of a black criminal named Freddy Gray, right around the same time that Bruce Jenner decided to popularize transgenderism. Accordingly, I titled EP004 “Race Riots and Genital Mutilation”.

At the time, I wasn’t even all that worried about the riots so much as the racial theme fueling them. If the people of Baltimore found their government so intolerable that they would resort to force, this seemed reasonable enough to me, given the conditions of Baltimore. But it hardly seemed prudent to destroy private property over some criminal just because he happened to be black. That the local authorities saw fit to let this happen troubled me, but I did not fully grasp the weight of the matter yet.

More worrisome to me was the transgender craze that at that time had only begun. I am sure I was among a tiny minority of people who, at that time, could foresee what a total menace this was going to become in a few short years. I considered the popular support for Jenner’s delusion to be a threat to the survival of the human race. People thought I was blowing it out of proportion, but as it is now being thrust upon children in grade school and Disney cartoons, I believe time has already vindicated my apprehension.

For the sake of time, we are compelled to skip ahead quite a bit. There were many twists and turns on the road to my realizing that immigration was no mere market phenomenon. I saw millions of non-Europeans pouring into Europe. I came to realize that political attitudes were in part a genetically heritable trait, along with the cognitive capacity requisite of advanced civilizations. This was for me another watershed moment like when I first recognized the post constitutional order. Western civilization, and all that I valued about it, was about to be destroyed, and the only reason people would not act to stop this, was because they feared being called racists.

But I suffered no such hindrance.

We fast forward again, only slightly. To the 2016 Presidential Campaign. This caused me to realize that immigration into the United States was a plot by the Democrat Party to form a permanent majority in Washington, DC. Those sick, racist Democrats thought that by flooding the country with people they saw as cognitively inferior, they could replace the voters they had so badly abused over the decades, and dupe the remaining public into supporting their catastrophic policies. The primary victory of Donald J. Trump was at first celebrated by Democrats who sought this in the hopes of beating him in the general election. I thought they might be right, and became convinced that I was soon to die in a war against the Clinton administration. My most unexpected salvation from this horrible fate, came when Donald Trump was announced the victor.

I did not think this was possible. I had become convinced of a certain cycle of events, which I thought was a historical inevitability. It has been formulated several ways….

One was;

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.

Another phrasing went like this;

Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.

I was firmly convinced that a “You are here” sign could be placed right before the catastrophe in either of these phrasings. I did not think a peaceful democratic solution to these problems was possible.

Nor did I have any time to adjust to this possibility. Events just unfolded too rapidly to stop and think about it.

It was just after Trump’s victory that Tucker Carlson began his nightly show on Fox News. I had come to appreciate Carlson’s commentary well before this, so when it was announced that he was to start his own show, I titled the subsequent episode of the Radical Agenda “Tucked”, and the written show description was about my enthusiasm for this new production.

The gravity of this moment can hardly be overstated, because, at the very moment I was about to talk about this very important event, a listener suggested that I substitute, at the last minute, that theme for a guest who called himself “weev”.

Andrew Alan Escher Auernheimer, best known by his pseudonym weev, is a Jewish computer hacker who rebranded himself as a Nazi after he got out of prison for hacking AT&T. He fled the country, at some point ending up in Ukraine, and managed to insert himself in the central nervous system of the Alt Right movement in the United States.

I had no idea who this guy was before I had him on my show, and I was totally unprepared when he started praising Charleston, SC church shooter Dylann Roof, and advocating the extermination of most of the world’s population on my show. Being a self styled “Shock Jock”, I tried to hide my discomfort, but those who have seen the video will note that I failed at this goal.

I call attention to the gravity of this moment whenever I tell this story because it was a demarcation in time at which, if I were gifted a nuclear Delorean and able to traverse time correcting historical errors, this would be one of those moments I would correct.

I knew before Tucker’s first episode that he was going to change the politics of the United States in a positive way. I did not know how positive he would change it until years had gone by, but I knew Tucker Carlson was at least as important as Donald Trump before Episode 1 aired on November 14th 2016.

Weev, in contrast, spelled doom. In his telling, there were not enough White women of child bearing age to save the White race from extinction, without a culling of the non-White population. Political inclinations being in part genetically heritable, this would spell the certain doom of Western civilization absent drastic action. This particular angle was somewhat new to me, but it rhymed with my previous conception of inevitable cataclysm. I found it difficult to refute, saw nobody else making any effort to refute it, and incorporated this fear, though not his proposed solution, into my worldview.

Tucker Carlson would go on to become the most popular show in cable news, and at some times, the most popular show on cable. His impact on the Republican Party and American political discourse can hardly be overstated. Weev was (much later) exposed as a fraud and a liar and all but disappeared from the Internet.

But not before dragging me and the Radical Agenda off course.

After speaking with weev, I was contacted by Andrew Anglin of the Daily Stormer. Anglin showered upon me what was in hindsight conspicuously high praise. He had been organizing an armed march on Whitefish, Montana, to protest the behavior of a Jewish woman who had tried to extort Richard Spencer’s mother. Anglin explained that he was unable to attend his own event, and he asked me to be the leader of it.

I wisely declined, and the event did not take place. But Anglin was nonetheless sued by his target, and after crowdfunding a six figure defense fund, he defaulted on the lawsuit.

Today I am convinced that Anglin attempted to lure me into a trap, wherein I would either have been killed, seriously injured, or find myself in some sort of legal quagmire. This would not be the last time such a trap was set for me.

Just after that event was scheduled to occur, Donald Trump was inaugurated the 45th President of the United States. Raving Leftist criminals tore DC apart, rioting, burning and assaulting with seeming impunity. Richard Spencer was sucker punched by a still anonymous goon. Those charged in the mayhem eventually had their charges dropped.

Riots and assaults became a regular feature of American life long before George Floyd met his overdue demise beneath Derek Chauvin’s knee. This was the new normal for activists of the Right and supporters of Donald Trump as far back as 2016. But, as long as we were the ones being targeted, the public at large did not much seem to care.

By necessity we fast forward to August of 2017, the next trap laid for me. This time, I fell for it.

The Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, was portrayed in the media as a violent criminal conspiracy cooked up by White supremacist terrorists, whose only motive for living is to inflict pain on their moral betters. Like so much of what you see on TV, there was only the slightest fragment of truth in this.

As stated in a subsequent civil lawsuit, the violence that ensued in Charlottesville on August 11th and 12th of 2017 was no accident. It was the result of a plan concocted by racist criminals, but they could hardly be described as White supremacists.

On the contrary, the violence that day was driven by a fanatical invidious discriminatory animus against the White folks who dared to take a stand against the increasing bellicosity of the political Left.

It was nothing new. They had done this dozens of times before, and for that reason, that the pro-White demonstrators came prepared to defend themselves against the threats which the police and federal law enforcement were well aware of. Those preparations proved prudent, as the Antifa and BLM criminals acted according to habit, and attacked the permitted demonstration.

Your humble correspondent was pepper sprayed twice in as many days, deployed pepper spray in self defense, and was subsequently framed for crimes by Emily Gorcenski and Kristopher Goad.

I heard about a warrant for my arrest through a social media rumor. Uncertain of its veracity, I called the Charlottesville Police Department, but they couldn’t tell me if there was a warrant or not. So, I decided to livestream a video from my hotel room.

Traumatized by the events of the last two days, I was brought to tears. During this, I stated that we had done everything in our power to keep the event peaceful,  and I said “I’m not a fucking Nazi!”

For this, it should surprise nobody, that the lying vulture Left wing media branded me “The Crying Nazi”, and said that I was crying in fear of arrest, both of which were complete falsehoods.

I turned myself in not long after I confirmed the warrant and hired an attorney. I was held without bail for 107 days, during which I read many books, including Mein Kampf, The Bell Curve, A People that Shall Dwell Alone, Separation and its Discontents, and Culture of Critique. I was no longer offended to be called a racist. I considered it a positive good.

The case against me quickly fell apart. Video of the alleged incident proved that Goad and Gorcenski lied under oath. Not that they had to worry about being prosecuted for their crimes, Charlottesville coddles Leftist criminals. At my preliminary hearing, two of the three charges against me were dropped, with the Judge remarking in his decision that there was no evidence I had done anything to Goad or Gorcenski.

I sued Goad and Gorcenski for, among other things, malicious prosecution. But when I accepted a misdemeanor “time served” plea agreement on the remaining criminal charge to avoid trial, we settled the suit with a mutual release of all claims.

Social media and financial system censorship was nothing new, even before August of 2017. Those of us who dared to challenge the prevailing political narratives had long been aware of Facebook and Twitter intervening to see us suppressed, with varying degrees of brazenness to their interventions. Sometimes they would simply throttle or “shadow ban” other times they would temporarily prevent people from posting, and still other times they would permanently ban people from their platforms.

But the events of August of 2017 saw the gloves come off and the monsters who rule us from behind the scenes bore their fangs for all to see. Even the ACLU abandoned any pretense of standing for freedom of speech. We were not only banned permanently from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, but from PayPal, Stripe, Square, First Data, and countless other payment providers, reportedly on orders from MasterCard and Discover.

Almost nobody cared. For all the Left’s incessant whining about “systemic racism”, and America’s inherent wickedness, nearly all Americans were relatively content to let these reputed racists be abused in any way imaginable.

Perhaps the greatest of these abuses was pursued in civil court. While all of this was going on, an ethnocentric Jewish lesbian Democrat lawyer named Roberta Kaplan cooked up a bizarre conspiracy theory, and went about chasing ambulances. She sued the event organizers under state and federal laws claiming a racially motivated violent conspiracy on their part had caused the mayhem of that weekend. More on this later.

The truth would become available in due course to those who sought it. But they were few indeed, and the Leftist criminals who seek the destruction of this civilization were not disappointed in counting on that to be the case.

And so, bankrupted, silenced, wounded, and imprisoned, the Alt Right faded from view.

At which point, the Left visited all these same punishments, and then some, on regular people who wanted nothing more than to protect their children from State sanctioned sick sexual experiments and racially motivated anti-White harassment, theft, and assault.

All this, before COVID.

There is a reason the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution promises “equal protection” of the law. When most people conceive of an “outlaw” they think of a criminal, but there is a different definition of this term. One who does not enjoy the protection of the law.

This is precisely what happened to the Alt Right, and America would do well to correct this injustice. A famous quote by H.L. Mencken reads “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

The Unite the Right rally was a permitted demonstration, attacked by Leftist criminals who had done the same thing over and over again before that day and continued to do it over and over again after that day. The attendees of the rally were denied the protection of our laws due to their political views, and blamed for the predictable outcome of that lawlessness. That it was not stopped when it was done to us, explains why it was later done to regular people. The people who did it were rewarded with success, and you can hardly blame them for repeating a successful strategy.

But our persecution did not end there.

I returned to New Hampshire in July of 2018 after settling my criminal case. Three months later, Robert Bowers walked into the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, and opened fire on the congregants.

In my audience, there was a small group of listeners who would speak positively of Dylann Roof. Their shocking sense of humor was off putting to many, but I considered the temporal distance sufficient to consider it just that, humor. When the synagogue shooting happened in October of 2018, these listeners tried to use my platform to get others to follow suit, and I banned them from my platforms for doing so.

Immediately after this, the FBI launched a “Full Field Investigation” into me.

The Dylann Roof fans would not take no for an answer. They called me a sellout and determined to destroy my personal life and what little was left of my business. The harassed me relentlessly, threatened my life, and when they defaced my website in February of 2019, I reported them to the FBI. The FBI did nothing.

Three months later, in May of 2019, I reported yet another death threat to my local police department, and the detective who was handling this now routine problem invited me to come speak to him at the station, noting that the volume of threats I was receiving seemed to exceed the usual noise level.  While I was there, I told him what I knew about the groups that had targeted me. Outside, the FBI’s Joint Terror Task Force was taking pictures of my car.

The following month, in June of 2019, one of the criminals who had been harassing me made the mistake of using a recognizable account to do so. He leaked the resulting private text message onto the Internet, in which I was incautious with my words.

The FBI tracked this man down. They threatened to expose his online activity to the public, and told him that he could avoid this consequence if he testified that I had threatened his family. He agreed, and he was financially compensated for doing so.

In January of 2020, I was federally indicted for extortionate interstate communications. A federal magistrate issued an exceedingly broad search warrant which was to be executed in the daylight hours.

Ignoring the Judge’s order, the FBI broke my door down at approximately 3:00am, and went over my apartment with a fine tooth comb, looking for anything as small as a micro SD card, supposedly to find evidence of this conversation I never denied having. They took 17 perfectly legal firearms out of the apartment, and all of my electronics.

This is where we left off at the end of Radical Agenda Stage 5.

At the time of my arrest, I had been covering the first annual impeachment of Donald J. Trump.

What became obvious to me during the course of that circus, was that the Democrats had pulled on of the greatest scams in American political history.

The impeachment was supposedly for trying to extort Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelensky into announcing a fake investigation into Joe Biden over his son Hunter’s dealings with Burisma. One Ukrainian Jew after another was called to testify before Congress, one even invoked the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It was like an anti-Semitic cartoon.

That was when it dawned on me, that all of this nonsense about “Russian Collusion” was the ultimate example of Democrats accusing you of what they themselves are doing. It wasn’t Republicans colluding with Russia, it was Democrats colluding with Ukraine.

This would come to have profound impacts on American foreign policy, the world economy, and the future of mankind.

All of which will be discussed, as we pick up where we left off, with this Sixth and Final Stage of the Radical Agenda.