The Unite the Right event in Charlottesville made its mark on the psyche of the nation in August 2017. For most, it is cemented in their minds as part of national history, the nature of which has already been decisively settled. Those who depended on the MSM narrative have heard the event frequently mischaracterized as a "white nationalist rally," and often used to condemn Trump for supposedly calling Nazis "very fine people." (For a more accurate assessment of Unite the Right, please see our series of articles about the event).

Having satisfactorily convinced most Americans of the elite-approved narrative, the Fake News peddlers have moved on to other subjects. Consequently, most people don't know about the Charlottesville saga that continues to play out in the courts. That is unfortunate, because the case not only challenges the official narrative of the contentious event, but also raises important First Amendment issues.

On February 21, a decision was issued by the Fourth Circuit in the Kessler vs Charlottesville lawsuit, which event organizer Jason Kessler filed against the city for violating his First Amendment rights by orchestrating conflict in order to justify shutting down Constitutionally protected speech. 

The "heckler's veto" issue that is central to the case has rarely been raised in U.S. courts. There is a precedent set in the Sixth Circuit from a 2015 case in which a group called the Bible Believers, a group of anti-Islam Evangelicals left unprotected by police, were removed from a Muslim festival in Dearborn when the crowd became violent towards them. In this case, the court decided in favor of the Bible Believers, reasoning that the police could have taken other action that would have allowed the Bible Believers to exercise their rights to free speech. 

Unfortunately, with regards to Kessler vs Charlottesville, the judge granted the city's motion to dismiss the case. The ruling, which focused heavily on the obligations of police to protect, stated that "plaintiffs did not suffer any violation of an existing constitutional right." 

Really? As Kessler remarked after the ruling was issued, the rally speakers "never got to say one word in support of the [Robert E. Lee] statue." 

They will appeal the ruling. It is entirely possible this case could be argued before the Supreme Court. As tensions in this country increase, the right to free speech in potentially volatile situations will become an even more a critical issue.

Kessler's persistence in this David-and-Goliath case is laudable. He and his legal team have faced delay tactics, stonewalling of FOIA requests, and adversarial press. They have been harassed with excessive discovery request by some of the Usual Suspects who have also been a thorn in the side of the Trump administration. (He is also a defendant in a civil case stemming from Unite the Right which is expected to begin in the fall of this year.)

Despite the disappointing ruling, Kessler remains determined and optimistic. Noting that free speech is the most important issue in dissident politics, he declares that he intends to fight until all legal options are exhausted. Either we will win, or we will learn for certain that the courts will no longer uphold the right to free speech. If so, we must be prepared to make a populist appeal based on the facts of the case - that, he believes, we can win.

​I'm not a scientist. In fact, I struggled with the basic requirements of science needed for high school and college graduation. It's not my "thing." Even if you did better than me in your science classes, you are probably not a "climate scientist." Still, I think there are plenty of common-sense reasons to disbelieve the doomsday cult of environmentalism. 

Some of us are old enough to recall when "global cooling" was a concern. Then the fear was "global warming." You don't have to reach too far back to remember when Al Gore received worldwide praise for announcing the Inconvenient Truth that the polar ice caps would all be melted by the year 2013. (In case you haven't noticed, they're not all melted). The list of failed predictions goes back decades. 

Mistakes and re-calibrations do not disprove the notion of global climate change. The issue isn't that mistakes are made - it's that when the predictions don't come true, there is never an explanation given for the errors, or even an acknowledgement. There is no explanation why we should believe in the greater reliability of the new assertions. Given the laughably bad track record of past predictions, it's reasonable for us to be highly skeptical of new predictions. Still, full faith in the doomsday proclamations is expected - no, demanded - by people who are completely unaccountable for their own previously stated beliefs.

Global elites flock to Davos annually in private jets to discuss reducing carbon emissions. Al Gore lives in an expansive estate. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rides in an SUV from her apartment to her office at the nation's capital. The Obamas just bought beachfront property which we are to believe will be underwater in a few short years. Celebrity environmentalism advocate Leonardo DiCaprio has used private movie studio jets to squire models from coast to coast and vacationed on one of the largest yachts in the world. Rather than being scorned by environmentalists as a hypocrite and a poser, he is showered with awards, which he happily jets all over the world to collect. He is not adored because of his conscientious stewardship of resources, but because, like Tom Cruise with Scientology, he is a celebrity member of a cult.

Why don't the Davos attendees set a good example for the rubes by foregoing their luxury travels and accommodations in favor of a video conference? Why doesn't political "it" girl AOC make going car-less cool by lacing up a pair of designer sneakers and hoofing it to the capital every day? When is Al Gore going to downsize and embrace a minimalist lifestyle? People who were sincerely concerned about the effects their actions have on the environment would not shamelessly flout their own advice, yet the loudest advocates almost invariably do. 

Invariably, solutions to man-made "climate change" are beneficial, or at least not disruptive, to those who propose them. Vegetarians want you to give up meat. City dwellers want you to give up your car. Web designers want coal miners to find a new line of work. "The future of humanity is at stake - people I don't like must sacrifice things I don't care about!"

I have recently heard celebrities encourage fans to eat less meat and dairy and use less plastic. Aluminum drinking straws and reusable shopping bags are popular. But consider the many things which impact the environment that are NOT being discussed. To prevent the end of all human life, shouldn't people be willing to give up hormonal birth control and quality-of-life drugs which are flushed into the water supply? How about imported foods like bananas, avocados and coffee? Eating only locally-grown, in-season produce would cut down pollution from fuel and refrigeration. How much energy would be saved if everyone in the USA completely gave up recreational travel, or if non-essential businesses all closed after sundown? And we don't really NEED to upgrade our electronics, use climate control, or buy new clothing regularly. Making such drastic lifestyle changes would be a sacrifice, but it's better than facing certain doom in *checks watch* 11 and a half years. 

And - this is almost too horrible to contemplate, but the future of humanity is at stake - we could urge our fellow Americans to STOP BUYING CRAP THEY DON'T NEED. We are called to sacrifice for the future generations who cry out, "For the love of all that is holy, please don't buy another throw pillow!" Think of all the fuel and plastic waste that would be saved if every soccer mom in America stopped binge-shopping at Target! It would be a big sacrifice, but worth considering before we resort to CANNIBALISM as one Swedish professor recently suggested.

Now that I think of it, I have also never heard a politician or celebrity mention the waste of resources and environmental impact caused by our numerous and never-ending wars.

Ubiquitous "Greta the Climate Kid" has traveled the globe recently, haranguing world leaders about their inadeuqate response to the supposed climate emergency. The Swedish teen, who has the autism-spectrum disorder Asperger's syndrome, is daughter of an actor and a singer. Last month, with tears in her eyes, she angrily shrieked at the UN:

Our entertainment and political elites comprise the cast of the least enjoyable show ever.
 
The movies are fake. That's fine. They're supposed to be. But how much of what happens off-screen is fake?
 
"Pop Star A throws shade at Pop Star B" reads the headline. The next day: "Pop Star B claps back!" These headlines serve a purpose, beyond just entertaining silly people and annoying serious ones. They provide clicks for websites and attention for celebrities. Does it seem plausible, even likely, that "feuds" like this are not based on real events, but simply cooked up by publicists on a conference call with entertainment reporters? When fashion magazines helpfully "track down" where you can buy the adorable shoes some random celebrity was wearing while walking her dog, are they really sleuthing, or participating in a clever and indirect form of advertising? One wonders how many celebrity romances are the creation of agents to in order to generate headlines and develop crossover fans.
 
In many ways, the headlines are part of the show. If the deception only affected celebrity image management and advertising, it would be of little concern. But the Hollywood Show is used for much more serious, and sometimes sinister purposes, and its impact is both broad and high-reaching.
 
When I was younger, there were rumors of mysterious messages that could be heard when cassette tapes of certain artists were played backwards if the stereo settings were just right. A few boys who always wore black and stayed in trouble at school liked music by artists who shocked audiences with their offensive lyrics and antics. Dark and disturbing performers existed, but they were always on the fringes. That is no longer the case. Most people are aware that pop culture and music have been steadily degrading. However, most people of decency have disengaged from pop culture long ago, and they do not appreciate that flagrant and pervasive evil has become mainstream. Even worse, the evil puppets are shaking hands with people at the highest levels of government power.

We have seen it play out countless times. A young, seemingly wholesome actress or singer secures millions of fans, then her character steadily changes for the worse. This could be partially dismissed as growing up, or reacting to the influence of the Hollywood environment. But that doesn't fully explain it. The behemoth of cooperative companies that create and sustain each celebrity's persona could easily brush indiscretions under the rug, and transition the young ladies' reputation from wholesome teen to wholesome adult if they so chose. They do not. This predictable arc, in my opinion, is a purposefully managed transition.

Taylor Swift was introduced to the public as a wholesome-as-can-be, acoustic-guitar playing teen. A decade later, she appeared in a video as a dominatrix, and a satanic priestess surrounded by live snakes. This year, Disney's "Hannah Montana," Miley Cyrus, sang "I'm nasty, I'm evil" while wearing a red vinyl bodysuit with teeth at the crotch. These are only a few examples.

In 2016, a large amount of emails from the account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta was published by Wikileaks. Among the trove of data was a curious personal email from one Marina Abromovic, stating "I am so looking forward to the Spirit Cooking Dinner at my place." Amateur researchers quickly uncovered information about "performance artist" Abromovic, and this alarming and sickening practice.

Below are some photos of a Spirit Cooking event. In video of the event, which may be viewed here, Abromovic explains that the bowl of liquid she is holding is a mixture of blood, urine, breast milk, and semen. She proceeds to splash the contents onto an effigy of a child.

​
Here are some more examples of Marina Abromovic's "art."

Though not herself known to the general public until recently, Abromovic keeps company with many, many people who are household names. Some of the photos below were taken at a Met Gala event in 2012 that she hosted which featured simulated cannibalism.

One megastar who has often been seen with Abromovic is Lady Gaga. Known for her headline-catching, outrageous outfits and antics (remember the dress made of meat she wore to the 2010 MTV Video Music Awards?), Gaga is a household name. She considers Abromovic a mentor. "I'm obsessed with her! She's incredible!" Gaga gushed in an interview. The affection is mutual. Abromovic has called Lady Gaga "my best student." 

Below are photos from an art event (again, featuring simulated cannibalism), and stills from a video Lady Gaga released in support of the "Abromovic Method" teaching offered by the Marina Abromovic Institute.

Lady Gaga, whose real name is Stefani Germanotta, has sold tens of millions of albums and won nine grammy awards. In 2011, she met with Valerie Jarrett at the White House to discuss an anti-bullying campaign. She has performed for Presidents, including an Inaugural event for President Obama's staff in 2013, and she stumped for Hillary Clinton in 2016. "Mother Monster" is idolized by her fans, her "Little Monsters."

She often uses religious themes in her lyrics and imagery. For example, in the song "Judas," she sings "In the most Biblical sense, I am beyond repentance... Jesus is my virtue and Judas is the demon I cling to..." In "Bloody Mary," she sings "When Pontius comes to kill the king upon his throne / I'm ready for their stones."

In the rousing LGBT-pride anthem "Born This Way." she sings "I'm beautiful in my way / 'Cause God makes no mistakes / I'm on the right track, baby / I was born this way." 

What religion does she practice, you may wonder? Why she's Christian of course, according to the Washington Post. In fact, she's practically a modern day Jesus, certainly more so than those uptight, church-y types.

​In this fallen age, many people have no trouble viewing Gaga as a Christian, and I have personally encountered fans who insist she is a nice Catholic girl and I am being too judgmental. Earlier this year, "Pastor" Joel Osteen attended a Pride-themed Gaga concert. Oddly, I don't often hear Christians use the phrase, "I swear to Lucifer."

Beyonce and her husband Jay Z were frequent guests of the Obama White House, and the close friendship between the two fabulous couples was celebrated by the press. Michelle Obama even called Beyonce "a role model for us all."

It is hard to overstate the worshipful enthusiasm of Beyonce fans. The "Beyhive" is known for viciously swarming anyone who slights their queen. But it's not just devotion, it's more like deification. When she failed to attend the 2018 Met Gala, the "Holy Ghost" meme began trending on social media, when fans claimed to feel the presence of her spirit. More disturbingly, when an on-stage mishap caused Beyonce's ear to bleed during a performance, "Cut for Beyonce" began trending, with fans posting photos of their cut wrists with comments like "If the queen bleeds the hive must unify and leak our blood to restore her spirits." Are some of these posts tongue-in-cheek? Probably. But even so, the joke would not work if the obsessive nature of her fans was not widely understood.

Even other celebrities seem awestruck by Queen Bey. Singer Adele said, "Beyoncé is the most inspiring person I've ever had the pleasure of worshiping," and she is only one among many.

Do you think that "worship" is not meant literally? For some people, it is. In 2018, a church in San Francisco began offering a "Beyonce Mass," described as "a womanist worship service that uses the music and personal life of Beyoncé as a tool to foster an empowering conversation about Black women." Based on the scholarship of Reverend Yolanda Norton, the service is about "how black women find their voice, represent the image of God, and create spaces for liberation."

Frequently performing in goddess-like attire, Beyonce does not seem to mind being viewed as an idol. It is well-known that she attributes her live performances to an alter-ego named "Sasha Fierce." In one interview she speaks about the first time "I felt something else come into me," prior to a performance, and explains that "Sasha" can do things that she cannot do.

In the spoken introduction to her video for Hold Up, she speaks "I saw the Devil/I grew thickened skin on my feet/I bathed in bleach/and plugged my menses with pages from the Holy Book." Yes, you read that right. She said that she used pages of the Bible as a tampon.

This year Jay Z became the first rapper to be a billionaire. He is sometimes referred to as "Hova," short for Jayhova. He has been pictured wearing a shirt reading "Do What Thou Wilt," the saying of the late British Satanist Aleister Crowley.

Kim Kardashian, the then-unknown daughter of OJ Simpson attorney Rob Kardashian, burst onto the national stage in 2003 when a sex tape with a rapper was released. She managed to parlay this ignominious introduction to stratospheric levels of fame and fortune for herself and her family despite the fact that all of them lack any discernible talents or charm. The marriage of Kardashian to rap superstar Kanye West further cemented both of their places on the international stage.

Inexplicably, the duo are treated with reverence and awe by millions of people worldwide. In 2015, an artist released "The Book of Yeezus," replacing every mention of God in the book of Genesis with Kanye's name. ("Yeezus" is a nickname for Kanye and the name of an album he released in 2013.) The creators describe the volume as "the story of Genesis for the new age." Another person has established a "Church of Yeezianity" in 2014. Its website states "We are a forward-minded group who believes that the one who calls himself Yeezus is the highest living human being and he will help to usher in a New Age of humanity." I assume this is facetious, but the fact that it even exists is noteworthy. As for Kanye himself, his religious inclinations are unclear - sometimes seems to worship God, and others he seems to believe he himself is a god.

In 2018, a Brooklyn artist, who said she is "strangely fascinated" with Kim Kardashian, exhibited art portraying the celebrity as Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and a Satanic priestess.

Like Lady Gaga, the Kardashians are touted as a devout Christian family, and Kim has described herself as "really religious."

The daughter of Christian ministers, Katy Perry released a gospel album as a teen. When her career as a gospel singer didn't pan out, she explained, "I sold my soul to the Devil." Perhaps she meant that metaphorically, but the trajectory of her career seems to indicate that she meant it literally. Her first big hit in 2008 was "I Kissed a Girl (and I liked it)." Her performance of the song "Dark Horse" at the 2014 Grammys prompted even mainstream publications to wonder whether she had performed a satanic ritual onstage. One Christian singer even walked out of the event.

A number of her songs and videos promote disturbing themes. In the video for "Bon Apetit," a nude Perry is surrounded by chefs with knives who serve her up as a meal. The song and video for "ET" seem to promote transhumanism and beastiality. Perry sings, "You're so hypnotizing. Could you be the devil? Could you be an angel?...Futuristic lover, Different DNA...Infect me with your loving. Fill me with your poison." At the end of the video, Perry is shown standing on animal legs.

In 2014, singer Rihanna, who is a protege of the aforementioned Jay Z, made an impromptu visit to the Obama White House, calling at the gate to say, "Cyrus, let me in." In the above photo, she poses as Press Secretary.

Similar to the others, she has a penchant for goddess and anti-christian imagery. 

The above still photos do not fully convey the full impact of this form of entertainment. Some of the videos I viewed for this article were extremely mesmerizing. Most were stunningly beautiful, and at the same time viscerally unsettling. It is as if each one was a masterfully rendered artistic horror film. One can only imagine its affect on rootless young people who have been immersed in this kind of material their whole lives.

The celebrity of these performers is created and maintained by massive corporate machinery. Choreographers, writers, musicians, costume and set designers, promoters, merchandisers, publicists, artists, dancers, producers...the list goes on and on. A few of them are talented, but most are unremarkable, and would not be international superstars without this support. One wonders who chose to thrust these particular individuals into stratospheric levels of wealth and fame, and why.

The guileful forces of evil have had great success in the entertainment industry. Celebrities are conflated with deities. Christian symbolism and ideas are conflated with satanic ones. Every possible abomination has been normalized or even glorified. And worse, it is embraced by people at the highest levels of political power in the world.

How can any of this be good news?  It is good because we know that every bit of this was fully predicted in the Word of God. It is good because evidence that evil is real is also evidence that its antithesis is real. It is good because every step Satan takes towards power is also a step taken towards his eternal demise. It is good because it is further reassurance that the Bible is true, and for those with faith in the one true Savior, it has a happy ending.

The tone of MAGA supporters has changed. I've seen it on social media and the message boards. The exhilaration that was evident after the upset election of Trump, providing real and unexpected hope that the country would be saved from invasion, has been steadily dampening for the past two years. Some observers have noted that MAGA supporters have been going through the stages of grief: Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and, finally, acceptance. 

Americans are in different stages of the grieving process. For example, some are in denial, spinning wild theories about the elaborate, behind-the-scenes plans that are in place which will bring our lawless overlords to justice any day now. Some are in the bargaining stage. "If only Trump had appointed better people," or "Maybe we can still salvage the country through the courts." In my observation, there seems now to be an increasing sense of resignation. As the demise of the United States continues, evidence of anger and depression, and a sense of doom (the "black pill") are evident. Lately, I frequently see comments like "The US had a good run," or "Well, we're toast."

Some say that when a loved one dies after a long illness, grief is mingled with a sense of relief. A stage of the struggle has ended, and one may now turn to focus fully on the challenges ahead. The acceptance stage of grief is marked by an honest assessment of one's situation, acclimation to the new normal, and taking responsibility for making a way forward. I believe more people are moving towards the acceptance stage. One YouTuber I enjoy was asked how she manages to stay calm and chirpy while presenting her detailed research peeling back layers of corruption among the elites who are causing our civilizational rot. She explained simply, that with regards to the loss of Western Civilization, "I've already grieved."

As we face the loss of a functional government and society, what does it mean to make a new way forward? What is important, and within our control? How do we build outside of our collapsing institutions?

One simple first step is to cut the cable cord. For many people, television viewing is a comfortable habit, and while it is true that a few worthwhile shows do exist amidst the manure, is it really a good idea to spend hundreds of dollars a month for the privilege of allowing people who hate you to pump toxic sludge into your living room? Cutting the cord will not only save you money, but it will take away the crutch of spending time in a semi-vegetative state on the sofa, focused on superficial and sordid content created by some of the worst people on the planet. This frees you to pursue more edifying activities like spending time with your loved ones, reading, listening to music, pursuing hobbies or creative endeavors, improving physical fitness, or learning life skills. You will save money, and turn your attention to activities that better nurture mind and soul. What's the downside?

You can also "starve the beast" in other ways. Every week there is another company pushing an aggressively radical left-wing product or ad campaign. You could boycott the offenders, but even if you could keep track of every company deserving a boycott, their competitors are likely just as dedicated to the "globohomo" agenda. Instead, just get into the habit of buying less. Spend money only what you really need. When you do need to shop, try to buy second-hand, or from a co-op or locally owned business. You can enjoy simpler living, become more resourceful in meeting the needs of daily life, and revel in the fact that you are depriving the government of sales tax!

In a world where we cannot rely on institutions, it is helpful to depend as much as possible on oneself, one's family, and a community of trusted individuals of like mind. Focus on building and nurturing relationships. Learn from your elders and teach your children. Seek fellowship with like-minded community members, with the goal of building trust and support networks. Rekindle tribal bonds, the absence of which have left many of us without a sense of place or belonging. Doing these things will make you more fulfilled in the present, and more prepared to face an uncertain future.

Build, preserve, and maintain what you value. Most of us need to relearn independent life skills that the modern world has caused to become obsolete. Growing and storing food and raising animals. Building and maintaining shelter. Share what you know, and learn what you do not. Preserve your family history. Buy hard copies of literature and history books which the cultural police might wish to revise or blacklist as the revolution marches forward. We can all be flame keepers of our own little bits of knowledge, tradition and culture.

Most importantly, being Christian means that you are never, in any circumstance, without hope and a sense of purpose. Our world celebrates the superficial, fanciful, and ephemeral. Even if some do not realize it, people are in desperate need of those who will tell abiding truth, and offer hope, clarity, and wisdom. Sometimes it is necessary to speak boldly, but if you cannot do that, asking a thoughtful question or making a gentle observation is often enough to plant a seed of thought that will bloom at a later time. 

The fall of the empire will inevitably create distress and daunting challenges, but we do not need to wallow in despair. In the words of Wife With A Purpose, Ayla Stewart, there is a simple way to defy the forces of darkness and perversity that lurk all around: "Just be happy and normal!"

It may be true that the United States that we have known is "toast." We, its people, are not. 

Typical Southern responses to huffy pronouncements that our betters will take their ball and leave usually range from indifferent shrugs to "Good riddance!" or "I wish they would boycott my state!" Because of their staggering arrogance, these elites cannot conceive that the unwashed masses might actually prefer NOT to be graced with their presence or enlightened with their wisdom.

But what about their money? Milano tweeted her complaint about the Heartbeat Bill with the hashtag "#HB481IsBadForBusiness." That may be true, but as Bratcher said, "We don't believe in putting  a price tag on the value of a human life." It is unfathomable to our soulless ruling class, but there are quite a few things Southerners value more than money. Freedom, peace, community, traditional culture, and self-determination, to name a few. I have often heard members of the intelligentsia smugly say that Southerners "vote against their own interests." What they mean is that we vote for small government, when our relative poverty would make our states the beneficiaries of government programs. They don't understand that what we see as "our own interests" are not benefit checks, but the ability to live independently, free from government interference, and in a fiscally responsible manner that does not leave unnecessary debt to our children. They think that since we're turning down "free money," that either we do not understand, or that we are motivated more by racist hatred than self-preservation.

Thankfully, Georgia has a real governor, despite the best efforts of Milano, who had stumped vigorously for Kemp's opponent Stacy Abrams in the gubernatorial election. "I can't govern because of what someone in Hollywood thinks of me." Governor Brian Kemp spoke in response to the controversy. If more people like Bratcher and Kemp speaking up for Southern values, maybe we can get the Golden Swamp creatures to write us off for good!

White males commit more terrorism than any other group. Everybody knows this, right? If you try to debate terrorism on social media, the Smug Leftist will play his trump card: "ACKSHUALLY, statistics prove that WHITE MALES commit the most terrorism!"

This may not seem right to you, despite the fact that there are indeed headlines proclaiming that "fact." But you may be at a loss for how to argue the point, since numbers don't lie, right? Well, I'm here to help.

I spent several years of my life in government agencies' data analysis departments. I will tell you there is often political pressure on analysts to "prove" a certain point with data, and there are plenty of ways to manipulate or creatively interpret data to make it seem to point one way or another. Dishonest (or possibly dumb) journalists will happily tout a headline that a "study says..." something that they want to be true. Most people will simply absorb the headline, assume there is some truth to it, and move on. 

I'll try to give a quick summary of some of the common ways that numbers can lie:

1. GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT - This is a common phrase in  the world of statistical analysis. It means that if the data collection is no good, then the resulting data analysis will be no good. You must ask how the data was collected and by whom. Was it collected by trained, conscientious, and non-biased workers? Often the answer is no. It is wise to be skeptical of information collected by workers who have inconsistent training, a disinterest in data collection, or a motivation to skew data to secure agency funding or cover their own failures. Also, if you see the phrase "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF X" , you may want to ask whether there is no evidence because the data was never collected!

Self-reported data is also notoriously unreliable. People can have highly inaccurate self-perceptions. They may make errors when responding to surveys, or they may choose to fudge or even outright lie in order to achieve the result they prefer or avoid embarrassment. Compared to carefully conducted scientific analysis, such information can be considered "garbage."

2. TOTAL NUMBER VS PER CAPITA. This is an especially useful one with regards to the "White people are the worst" arguments. Because Whites are a majority of the United States population, we are likely to have "more" of any given problem if you simply count the numbers. The "Whites are the worst" argument often falls apart when you look at the numbers as a percentage of the group population. This may seem obvious, but it is easy to slip past most casual readers of mainstream media, especially if it confirms what they wish to believe.

3. APPLES TO ORANGES. A few years ago some media ran reports that children raised by gay couples are happier than those raised by conventional families. This is an example of the "apples to oranges" deception. The conclusion was based on a comparison from two separate studies: a long-term, scientific study of children in conventional homes versus a simple survey completed by gay parents who volunteered to be questioned. The data was collected from two separate sources, one with a much more reliable methodology than the other. They are simply not comparable, at least not if you're trying to be honest and accurate.

4. FUDGING DEFINITIONS AND CATEGORIES: A tremendous amount of mischief can be caused by this one.

Most people know that unemployment statistics have been manipulated by fudging definitions. When a person has been unemployed so long that they have fallen into despair and given up the search, they are no longer technically a job-seeker, and therefore not "unemployed" for statistical purposes. So, excluding the long-term unemployed from calculations may make employment statistics appear to improve, even though no positive change has occurred.

This kind of fudging is critical for the "real terrorists" ruse. Most of us think of mass-casualty shootings or explosions when we hear the word "terrorist." But does the study cited count other things as terrorism? Arson, vandalism, unarmed one-on-one scuffles? Most mainstream articles don't provide that level of detail, and most people don't think to ask. If a guy who happens to be in an all-white biker club beats someone in a bar fight, would that be counted as "white supremacist violence?" If a member of an Aryan prison gang knifes another inmate, would that count? These are examples of criminal behaviour, of course, but not what one normally thinks of as terrorism.

Also, what is counted as an extremist group? If you are reading this site, you probably know that the SPLC definitions are extremely biased, and elastic to the point of being useless. They may include completely peaceful advocacy groups and orthodox religious sects. When an article cites a growth in "extremism" it may sound alarming, but it could just mean that more people are supporting the Family Research Center or other organizations that the study's sponsor doesn't like. It could even simply mean that they have expanded the list of "hate groups" to include new things. 

You may even want to question the definition of White, as some studies include hispanics or people of middle-eastern descent in the "White" category.

5. IN WHAT UNIVERSE? One of the most important parts of any study is choosing the sample population. Who are you asking? Is the study based on a representative sample of the relevant population? For example, if the findings are based solely on the study of elderly Scandanavian vegetarian nuns, it may not be applicable to other groups. More realistically, If the sample is self-selected (for example, if it is conducted with people answering an ad asking them to participate in the study), the sample is not random, therefore introducing bias into the results. 

Leading up to the 2016 presidential election, many polls of "likely voters" showed that Hillary Clinton was consistently ahead. The trick was in the sample selection. Manipulating the proportion of Republican, Democrat, and Independent voters in the sample affected final results, and in a way that casual observers did not catch.

6. MISUSE OF OUTLIERS: A outlier is an extreme example that lies outside of the normal range of something. Including the "outlier" information in an average can be very misleading. For example, averaging the seven-figure salary of a CEO with the salaries of the regular employees would create a misleadingly high impression of the typical company salary. 

This tactic should be kept in mind when people spout statistics about gun crime. The national gun crime rate is high compared to many other countries, but if you take out the outliers, that is, the top 10 or so most gang-infested cities, the overall rate goes down substantially. Including the numbers from the outliers, in this case the dysfunctional urban areas, makes the overall national rate much higher. This misleading impression is helpful to those who would like to imply that a high rate of gun crime is nationwide problem.

7: PUSH POLLS: "Would you support a mandate that millions of illegal immigrants be ground into hamburger and fed to alligators, or would you prefer allowing those who meet certain reasonable requirements to stay in the United States?" SHOCK POLL! 99% of Americans support undocumented migrants becoming citizens!

This is an exaggeration, but you get the idea. Don't accept "survey says" pronouncements at face value. If you think the results are suspicious, dig deeper to find out exactly what questions were asked and to whom. 

There are many, many more tricks that can be employed by those who want to influence the public with biased "facts." It's never easy to discern the truth in our information-overloaded world, but hopefully this article can give you an idea of some questions to ask when the facts seem fishy.

The latest bit of evidence that reality is stranger than fiction is the emergence of the Yang Gang phenomenon that has been sweeping through the dissident right. Andrew Yang, a long-shot Democratic candidate from New York, has acquired a band of enthusiastic supporters among the internet meme lords and underground influencers that provided much fuel to the Trump candidacy leading up to his unlikely 2016 election victory. 

The reasons for the loss of enthusiasm for Trump on the right are clear. There has been little if any significant improvement with regards to his signature issue, immigration. Trump has also chosen a path of inaction regarding the wave of internet censorship that has banished many of his supporters to the far corners of the internet where they have faint hope of influencing mainstream discourse. Trump's failure to "drain the swamp" came into sharp focus for many at the most recent annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Most speakers were establishment GOP supporters who delivered boilerplate rhetoric about how socialism is bad and support for Israel is good. The convention was sponsored by Google, and invitees included representatives of leftist media outlets and Soros-funded organizations. Meanwhile, immigration patriots and independent journalists who support a nationalist, America First agenda were all but excluded. (One notable exception was Michelle Malkin, who brought the house down by fearlessly calling out the neocons who chose to exclude discussion of immigration from the conference entirely. I will be surprised if she is invited back to CPAC.) The business-as-usual CPAC was orchestrated by White House official Mercedes Schlapp, who was also reportedly responsible for preventing the "Angel Moms" from meeting with President Trump before the signing of his recent disastrous spending bill which put another nail in the coffin of the Wall promise. Some of Trump's high-profile former supporters, like Ann Coulter and Lou Dobbs, have declared that MAGA is a failure.

Trump does maintain some support among, for example, followers of the Q-Anon phenomenon. Q-Anon is an internet trend which follows the posts of a supposed government insider who provides clues regarding the behind-the-scenes efforts to bring bad actors to justice. Q-Anon enthusiasts insist that Trump's seeming failures and betrayals are all part of his "4-D chess" method. "Trust the plan," they advise. From a psychological point of view, the mental gymnastics required to maintain this faith are fascinating.

To most observers, however, failure to deliver is failure to deliver. Whether Trump was running a con all along, or has simply been ineffectual, may be debated, but more and more people are starting to conclude that the Trump Train has badly derailed.

Enter Andrew Yang. Yang first came to the attention of the dissident right when he spoke about how White Americans faced a declining population and plague of drug abuse. The fact that he mentioned issues affecting the People Who Must Not Be Named was extremely validating to shunned members of the dissident right who want the interests and needs of White America to be addressed. Nobody else is doing so. Trump constantly touts employment statistics for every sub-group of American people by name, except Whites. Recently Steve King of Iowa was censured, supposedly for his support of "White Supremacy," when he was really guilty only of allowing the New York Times to misrepresent his praise of Western Civilization. Just last week, the Democrats responded, nonsensically, to Muslim Congresswoman Ilhan Omar's criticism of Israel by condemning "hate" against a hodgepodge of victim groups that included virtually everyone EXCEPT White Christians. Only the Chinese-American Democrat dared mention Whites as a group in a sympathetic manner, thus putting him on the radar of the right.

Another Yang idea that was, surprisingly, met with enthusiasm by the dissident right was his proposal to grant $1000 a month to all Americans as part of his Universal Basic Income plan. This is certainly not a conservative proposal, but I think it is wrong to accuse the right-wingers who support this of "selling out." The support of Yang's UBI propsal is not so much a result of "selling out" as simply giving up. In despair that the Hail Mary chance to save the Republic, which Trump represented, has failed, they have concluded that America is dead, and therefore they may as well join the other vultures in picking over the carcass. The joyful memes depicted alt-right emblem Pepe the Frog being showered with money by a smiling Andrew Yang are, in my opinion, a form of gallows humor, of dancing while the ship goes down.

Yang has plenty of deal-breaking beliefs for most right-wingers, notably his opposition to gun rights, and he has been frantically distancing himself from the unexpected surge of support from the underground right. In any case, support for him is mostly facetious, and is not likely to amount to much in practical terms. The important point is that the semi-serious support of Yang by disaffected Trumpers is indicative of a vacuum of leadership on the right. The time is ripe for another leader to emerge who gives a voice to the Americans first forgotten by the GOP, then by Trump. As no obvious figure is on the horizon, some have latched on to the unlikely choice of Yang. Perhaps he may be thought of as the "rebound fling" by a lover who has been jilted by the one they once believed was "Mr. Right." Hopefully an actual "Mr. Right" will come along, but as of now, we're still looking.

​Were you on the internet in the early days? If so, you may remember that it felt free and undeveloped - something like the Wild West. It was exciting. There was an unconstrained, uncharted world to explore, with few boundaries and limitless possibilities.

For those of us who revel in the unfettered exchange of ideas, it was thrilling. However, the internet today feels more like Alcatraz than the Wild West. There are a relatively small number of information gatekeepers who keep a short leash on the users of their sites. Big Media and Big Social like to control what is known and how it is presented. The crackdown has been ratcheted up to an even greater level since the upset election of Donald Trump in 2016, which was possible in large part to the ability of independent reporters and everyday internet users to bypass the controlled communications of the legacy media. Our rulers were caught off guard once, and they do not intend to let that happen again.

The tactics for keeping troublemakers from influencing the rest of the population are many. They include banning or shadow-banning disfavored users, deeming content ineligible for advertising dollars, and putting a thumb on the scale for common search terms so they will return items meant to point users to the "right" opinion. Additionally, many sites have removed content sections from underneath their articles, citing "troll" problems. In other words, there were too many people expressing disagreement, pointing out bias, or enlightening other readers about omitted facts. 

Of course there are still some ways to express dissenting opinions, for example, you may develop and maintain a blog and manage to build a following while staying under the radar of the gatekeepers. However, this would be too much trouble for most people who just want to make occasional comments, and it's also an inefficient way to address topical or urgent issues.

Thankfully, the free-speech defenders of social media site Gab have come up with a "why didn't I think of that?" game-changing idea: They introduced their Dissenter platform, which provides users a new way to comment, without censorship, on ANY page on the internet. You can create an account at Dissenter.com, or log in with your Gab ID if you already have one, then enter the URL for the page on which you wish to comment. You can start a conversation, or join in if a discussion is already ongoing for the selected page. Dissenter also has extensions that can be added to a number of different browsers for easier use.

C: Can you give us some background on who you are and tell us a little about yourself?
 
ED: Sure. I’m from the rural Deep South. I enjoy the countryside, drawing, and telling stories. I’m in my twenties. I think that storytelling is a craft which is often underappreciated, and is generally something at which Southerners excel.
 
CC: How did you become interested in Southern history and identity?
           
ED: It was definitely my rearing. At an early age, I recognised there was something different about the South, even if the particulars weren’t worked out until later. Of course, family is the greatest influence, and my parents and grandparents helped form me. Like any proper culture, you’re in it before you realise just exactly what it is, it being so natural.
 
In later years, I was a member of the SCV along with my father and grandfather. There was a website called Southern Nationalist Network which was also really good (I remember Lewis Liberman did some graphics for it), but then it fell off the map, sadly. Then I found the Abbeville Institute and, more recently, Reckonin’, both of which are greatly needed. We need fellowship of like-minded people.
 
CC: What gave you the idea to create a graphic novel?
 
ED: Ideas are always floating around, but this one didn’t come concretely until 2015, after the terrible Charleston Church shooting. I was so disaffected by the various State governments’ spinelessness that I wanted to do something. Most Southerners, it seems, weren’t standing up for their flag, so I wanted to show in a simple way that it is a symbol for good. Superheros seemed an accessible way of telling stories, especially given their popularity both at that time and presently.
 
CC: I assume you're a fan of the genre. Are there other characters or series that you especially like?
 
ED: I was raised reading comics - all manner, mind you, not just superheros. But the superhero comics we did read were really good. Primarily, these were from the Silver Age (c. 1955-1970), during the heyday of the Fantastic Four, the X-Men, Batman, Green Lantern, etc.  Even then, especially during the late 60s, comics began to get kinda depressing. DC especially turned to more mature themes, like the drug problem. One Green Lantern/Green Arrow special in 1971 even had Green Arrow’s kid-sidekick do drugs (a vice which he ultimately kicks, but the inclusion was just strange). And then of course politics took a heavy hand in many. So when Obama makes an appearance in Spiderman, it doesn't really surprise me.
 
One enjoyable character was Cannonball, a Southerner from Kentucky who appeared in The New Mutants (an X-men spin off). Speaking with a drawl, he at one point remarks that he’s used to outnumbered fights, as his ancestor had served in the Confederate army (which I believe may be where his particular moniker came from - he could turn himself into a human cannonball). The early issues especially were well-written and with a good cast of characters.
 
Some contemporary superhero comics which are pretty good are those published by Arkhaven Comics. One of their characters is called Rebel, a girl from Alabama with superpowers. They’re really taking the initiative in trying to offer some alternatives to the mainstream comic book industry. I have a soft spot for them because they’ve been publishing the works of PG Wodehouse as comics - a really stellar job.
 
Of course, there’s a great site in the Digital Comic Museum, where you can read slews of old comics that are now in the public domain. There’s some really good stuff out there, often overlooked or ignored because it isn’t Batman.
 
CC: There are several other contributors named in the first book. How did you find artists and others to partner with for the finished product?
 
ED: There’s an online artist forum called DeviantArt where people can exchange ideas, post their own work, or hire others to help them. It’s all very freelance and flexible. Overall, the site is surprisingly Southern-tolerant, so far as symbols go (no purge yet). I had seen one artist advertising way back in 2014, I believe, and reached out to him the following year. I would have drawn the first few issues myself, but other duties impeded. Finding the colourist was much the same. I really wish we could found a forum of Southern artists, though there are online groups. 
 
CC: How long did the development process take?
 
ED: The first issue, because I wasn’t tackling it seriously and sat on it for so long, actually went from 2015-2018. When the thought finally struck me to crowdfund the printing, everything was done but lettering and editing. The actual development process (say for issue 3) takes maybe two or three months, from writing the script, turning in the pages of the script and references, and waiting around for the page roughs. Colouring is a quick return.  Formatting can be tricky and causes the most headache. But, with the experience gained from issues 1-3, the time span keeps getting less and less. I’d say three months tops for new work.
 
CC: I like how you name the dystopian setting "Vandal City." It really illustrates the destructiveness of the enemies of the Rebel. How do you plan to flesh out the "villains" of the series?
 
ED: Thank you, the name was fun to create. I was surprised no one had taken it yet.

Superheroes themselves are neat (and obviously the main attraction), but the good guys have good standards. They have to act in a way that, while maybe not predictable, is probable. They have to be good, and the reader should like them.
 
Villains, on the other hand, have a destructive freedom. They can be bad guys who are hated or bad guys who are loved. You can make them off-puttingly bizarre or as commonplace as you want. Not only this, but they serve as illustrations of ailments facing modern man, whether it be greed, ambition, or other errors. Take the diabolical distortions of tech-guru “Synicon" from a future issue:

Of course, at the end of the day, bad guys are bad no matter how much we enjoy writing them, and the writing itself should reflect that. If there are shades of gray, these should be rare.
 
CC: The nods to 1980s pop songs were a neat touch, that I, as a Gen-Xer, particularly appreciate. What gave you the idea for that?
 
ED: Glad they pleased! I’m a millennial myself, though I do enjoy earlier music. The whole first issue - especially the villain - was a little observance on culture. We have some outlandish punk-pop baddie attempting to take revenge on his former girl, who herself can’t find her place. The whole city is sort of a throw-away culture, cheap and artificial (like superhero comics generally, really). The Rebel enters in opposition to the noise with his own voice.

As for the name “Rebel Yell,” both it and the first villain, Gunther Glitz, were inspired by a particular artist, so it only seemed fitting to fill the pages with song references from that era.
 
CC: What do you hope readers get from Rebel Yell?
 
ED: I foremostly want them to enjoy it. Then I hope they can see our symbols as something good. Let them know they have a voice and are themselves something unique.
 
CC: I see that the second issue is in development. Can you give us any hints about what to expect in this next installment?
 
ED: The second issue was actually supposed to be launched after four or five other issues, but I decided to step up the date because of the continued destruction of our monuments. The issue centres on such vandalism. It’s not as heavy on story as the other issues, but rather spotlights a big brawl between our hero  and some modern urban redecorators. Expect some high energy.  
 
CC: What are your long-term plans for the series?
 
ED: I have a dozen issues of Rebel Yell scripted, three or four of which I hope to launch a year (all total, over a hundred pages annually). I hope to get enough of a base that we can expand into some other minor areas as well. I have a pop-culture magazine, reminiscent of the old gem Nintendo Power, that I’ve been working on. It’s about halfway through. I don’t know if there’d be much interest in that, but it’s fun nonetheless. ​

You can find out more about Electric Dinosaur and purchase Rebel Yell on his website here. You can help fund the next issue here.

By now everyone has heard about the discovery of VA Gov Ralph Northam's medical school yearbook page which includes a picture of two men, one in a KKK robe and one in blackface, one of which may or may not be Northam himself. (The timing of the release of the decades-old photo, almost instantly after Northam found himself in the center of a media firestorm for comments seeming to endorse infanticide, is curious, but that is another matter). 

Despite many calls for his resignation, from members of the public, leaders in his own party, various talking heads and celebrities, Northam has so far refused to step down. However, he has apologized for the errors of his past, and has acquiesced to doing penance in order to redeem himself. Northam's advisers have given him reading assignments, such as Roots, and “The Case for Reparations,” by Ta-Nehisi Coates. Among other things, Northam has also pledged to take a harder line on the removal of Confederate monuments, stating “if there are statues, if there are monuments out there that provoke this type of hatred and bigotry, they need to be in museums.”

This pledge is contemptible for many reasons. First, Northam readily concedes the Confederate monuments are symbols of "hate." Though Southerners are used to being accused of "hate" for celebrating their honorable ancestors and heroes, seeing an unprincipled and gutless fellow Southerner concede the point without dispute, for the sake of naked self-interest, is repugnant.

Second, what on earth do the monuments have to do with Northam's classless behaviour in his school years? Is he claiming that the supposed sins of his forefathers compelled him to wear unseemly costumes in college? Are the statues of great Confederate generals the proximate cause of his poor judgement? Furthermore, why should those who cherish and wish to preserve these monuments be expected to sacrifice to atone for the personal behaviour of Northam?

Of course, the assumption of the political class is that Virginia has yet to be cleansed of its historic sins. There is more work to do to fully eradicate the legacy of slavery and the poison of racism from the state. Purging reminders of its shameful past is an important step. The priestly class has so proclaimed, and to save his career, Northam is gladly genuflecting before them.

The the connection between Northam and the Confederacy is assumed by many to exist, however, those who honor the likes of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson bear no claim to Northam. If not for its growing population of Northerners and spillover from the DC swamp, the Democratic party would be irrelevant in the once lovely state. And I shudder to think how our devoutly religious forefathers would have dealt with anyone arguing the merits of late-term abortion. It is unfair to attribute the Northam fiasco to Southern history and culture, but it is being done nonetheless.