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.
GALLERY: Internet users are leaving the Trump Train, joining the Yang Gang.
Saddle up, Truth Tellers!
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.
There are many possibilities for using Dissenter beyond commenting on news articles. For example, the commonly used resource Wikipedia is known as a bastion of leftist ideology. Pages about controversial issues are often closely watched, and any efforts to put information supporting disfavored viewpoints are quickly thwarted. The new comment function could be extremely useful for Southerners vexed by one-sided, distorted accounts of our history. Today I ran quick check of some controversial issues in Southern history, and did not find any comments yet. Hopefully knowledgeable people can provide omitted evidence and correct misinformation. Of course, it will only be viewable to other Dissenter users, but anyone who is curious about alternative viewpoints can choose to look there.
So far the right people are getting angry, which is always a good sign. (I particularly enjoyed this indignant rant from Ana Valens in the Daily Dot.)
For the rest of us, those who aren't afraid of words and ideas, this new site provides a small return to the feeling of the Wild West. Yippee ki-yay!
Rebel Yell, A Hero for Southerners
In this piece, Carolina Contrarian interviews a young Southerner, known online as “Electric Dinosaur” (old ideas, new technology) about his new graphic novel series entitled “Rebel Yell” featuring a Confederate superhero.
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.
Northam's Dishonorable Deflection
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.
The photo of Nick Sandmann of Covington Catholic School standing face to face with a leftist activist near the Lincoln Memorial was on every news and social media site last week. The pictures from the incident reminded me of another viral photo from not long ago - that of Allen Armentrout standing by the Charlottesville statue of General Lee with a hostile protester making an obscene gesture in his face. (Contributor Dissident Mama's three-part series based on her interview with Armentrout begins here).
The Sandmann and Armentrout situations aren't exactly the same. Armentrout chose to walk into what he knew could be a volatile situation because he felt compelled to take a stand for something in which he believed. Sandmann did not think of himself as an activist making a statement, and wound up in a volatile situation unexpectedly. Armentrout had gained experience dealing with hostile protesters during the course of his pro-South activism, whereas the young Sandmann was inexperienced in dealing with such situations.
Still, there are parallels to be drawn between the two situations. Both young men were behaving in a peaceful manner when accosted. In the case of Armentrout, his Confederate flag and uniform were perceived as threatening and offensive by observers who attributed their own meanings to those symbols - racism, hate, slavery, treason. The fact that the bearer of the symbols did not mean anything of the kind was irrelevant. Likewise, Sandmann was defined by his "MAGA" hat as privileged, racist, and a white supremacist. I don't know anything about Sandmann's political beliefs, but I think it is much likelier that he simply wore the hat to show support for his country and President rather than because of a belief in some nefarious ideology. Whatever the real reason, it was irrelevant to his many attackers. THEY interpreted the MAGA hat as a symbol of something evil, and reacted accordingly.
Another similarity is that both young men relied on their Christian faith in the midst of the tension. Armentrout stated that "restraint from the Holy Spirit" helped him remain composed when confronted by the vulgar, hostile crowd. Sandmann said that he silently prayed, when confronted by drum-banging Native American Nathan Phillips, that the situation would not escalate further.
Both young men also experienced tribulation at the hands of the national mainstream media. After his Charlottesville confrontation, Armentrout was subjected to a series of predictably nasty and biased hit pieces from "reporters" who had no interest in understanding or sharing his side of the story. Sandmann was similarly defamed by national media outlets and personalities, though his ordeal was even more cruel because of his youth, the fact that he did nothing that he expected would invite attention, and that many of the accusations against him were blatant lies.
Shortly after the now-famous confrontation, Sandmann agreed to a nationally televised interview with Savannah Guthrie, in which she implied that he had invited the hostility that was directed towards him. ("Do you think if you weren’t wearing that hat, this might not have happened?") She also said "...there’s something aggressive about standing there, standing your ground..."
Sandmann replied, "I would say Mr. Phillips had his right to come up to me. I had my right to stay there." This is an obviously true statement, but it is still remarkable that he said it. Sandmann is a high-schooler who one week before had been an unknown private citizen, when he was thrust into a spotlight as the MSM villian du jour, subjected to heinous threats, insulted by public figures, and thrown under the bus by cowardly adults who should have defended him, like those of his diocese. This young man displayed more bravery and strength of character than the many far more powerful and seasoned public figures who obediently self-flagellate at the slightest criticism from the left.
"I had my right to stay there."
Armentrout said that when he stood still amidst the jeering crowd, attempting to emulate Christ by refusing to retaliate against those attempting to provoke him, it "made those people yelling at me even madder."
The young men both became the objects of hate mobs even though there was nothing blameworthy in their behaviour. Because of the fact that they did nothing wrong, we know that they were the objects of acrimony only because of who they were, or maybe more precisely who they were perceived to be. This is instructive for observers who may not have fully appreciated the amount of hatred that is directed towards young, White, Christian, Southern men, even when they are guilty of nothing, simply because of WHO THEY ARE.
Armentrout and Sandmann were both "triggering" and dangerous to the psyche of the leftist media because they chose not to bow, run away, or apologize, but to STAND, in effect to say, "This is who I am, and I have a right to be here." That is all it took to cause alarm. This simple, silent statement, made by otherwise unimposing young men, was all it took to shake leftists across the nation.
How powerful would it be if we were all to stand?
Calling Out the Captains
Militant Normals: How Regular Americans are Rebelling Against the Elite to Reclaim our Democracy by Kurt Schlicter, 2018 Hachette Book Group Inc.
Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution by Tucker Carlson, 2018 Simon & Schuster
I first became familiar with lawyer and former Army Colonel Kurt Schlicter through his Twitter feed, which he uses to cheerfully humiliate gun-grabbers, neocons, and other nuisances, and through his pull-no-punches and often hilarious TownHall column. Occasional Fox News guest Schlicter is a prolific author of both fiction and non-fiction. The book Militant Normals falls (mostly) in the second category.
Schlicter begins by describing his experience of the 2016 campaign season during which he gradually changed from a Trump skeptic to a Trump supporter. He also explains the process by which "Normals," defined as regular, patriotic Americans who would prefer not to think about politics too much, were pushed to supporting Trump by the failures and malfeasance of the elite class as those elites have become more and more openly antagonistic towards everyone else.
Normals, Schlicter explains, are willing to let the elites have the perks of being the elites, as long as they hold up their end of the bargain by honoring their nobless oblige and allowing Normals to have a modicum of safety, opportunity, and respect. As elites have become increasingly disconnected from the rest of the country, they have ceased making even symbolic shows of respect towards the values and contributions of the Normals. Instead, they have begun to display open contempt and to expose their desire to completely dominate their supposed inferiors.
One point that Schlicter makes is that "elite" does not necessarily indicate wealth or high class. Many powerless and unaccomplished people can instantly be, or at least feel, "elite" by adopting the preferred views and pet issues of the powerful. Conversely, wealthy and powerful individuals such as Donald Trump, who champion the values and causes of the common man, may be considered Normals.
In one chapter, a fictional vignette takes you through the life of a "Normal" from a small town who serves in the military after leaving high school, then returns to the United States to find job opportunities gone and his hometown less safe because of illegal immigration. The frustration of this Normal who just wanted to live his life in peace grows as his country inexplicably changes around him. Another fictional vignette helps the reader understand the mindset of the elite in a parallel story told through the eyes of a young man from a wealthy Los Angeles suburb.
Schlicter expounds on the many channels which the elite have used to do injury to Normals: unaccountable "experts," the judiciary, the military, and Hollywood, among others. He reserves a particularly thorough and vicious routing for the pompous shills of "Conservative Inc," which alone is worth the price of the book. The phenomenal and unlikely Trump campaign of 2016 is recounted, quite enjoyably, and explained as the comeuppance of the elites from the once complacent, but now militant, Normals.
Relatable and humorous, Schlicter's book is best suited for an audience of Normals. It would be most enjoyable and informative for moderates and mainstream conservatives who are not usually immersed in politics, but would like to better understand the changes in the country over the past few years that led to the ascendancy of Trump and MAGA.
Tucker Carlson's Ship of Fools takes a different tack on a similar theme. Most people are familiar with Carlson from his highly-rated Fox News show which he uses to dole out as much truth as is allowed on network television - so much truth that he has been the target of left-wing boycott campaigns and even an Antifa mob attack on his home. The book touches on many themes he addresses in his show, but with more breadth and depth than would be allowed in that format.
Carlson grew up surrounded by hippies in California, and though he didn't like them, he explains how today's leftists are much worse. In decades past, their ideas may have been wrong, but they at least cared about others. Now more wealthy and powerful, and with an exaggerated sense of their own virtue and abilities, they lack empathy with the middle class. Chelsea Clinton, for example, is showered with money, praise, and attention despite being wholly unremarkable other than her pedigree. Big businesses, once the nemesis of liberals, now nod to liberal causes in ways that cost them nothing of significance while raking in profits at the expense of exploited workers.
A frequent topic on Carlson's show, immigration, is also discussed in depth. While old-school Democrats might have taken the side of American workers against cheap labor-seeking big business, today their never-ending quest for more "diversity" causes them to ally with big business against the American public in their desire to import a serf class of immigrants. For the insulated wealthy, there is no downside. In fact, because of the moral framing of the issue, the elites even get to pat themselves on the back for being enlightened and compassionate. The once peace-loving hippies abandoned their anti-war stance when they realized force could be used for the "good" of social engineering. Carlson gives a good drubbing to the pundit class who is constantly agitating for others' blood to be spilled in their overseas wars. Liberal institutions like Berkeley and the ACLU that once lauded the principle of free speech have begun to oppose "hate speech," and many leftists now feel justified in using violence to suppress it. Journalists that were meant to hold those in power accountable have now become the gatekeepers of information that protect the ruling class.
Unlike Schlicter, Carlson tackles the issues of race and diversity. He points out that a ruling class that cared about the welfare of the country would work to de-emphasize racial conflicts. Our elite institutions are instead emphasizing them to the point where they are the center of our public conversation. A tsunami of anti-white activism and press has been the result, with the ascension of white identity politics as the predictable response. Elites gain power from identity politics, while the public endures the resulting tensions and conflict. Numerous other examples of the elites' failures and hypocrisy are examined by Carlson.
Both books could serve as a word of caution to the ruling class. As long as you continue to disregard the needs of the population, expect revolt.
Roseanne and the Death of Hollywood
Earlier this year ABC resurrected one of the most popular sitcoms of the 90s, Roseanne, after a decades-long hiatus. The era of Trump populism seemed like the perfect time to re-introduce the sitcom about the flawed but loving family of working-class Whites. The premiere opened with a bang, boldly addressing the ideological rift in America (and within some families). Roseanne's sister Jackie showed up at the door in an "I'm with Her" T-shirt and pussy hat, after having had a year-long rift with Roseanne over political differences. The show finessed the stresses of current American political conflicts with realism and humor. In a way, it was an affirmation to many Deplorables that our voice was heard, that we had a representation on the national entertainment stage, and that our views would be treated respectfully even if not fully embraced.
The rebooted Roseanne was not exactly a fanatical right wing polemic. Aside from the Hillary-loving Jackie character, the show introduced new Conner grandchildren including a black child and a boy who liked to wear girls' clothes. Even so, there was wailing and gnashing of teeth as the Usual Suspects complained that the show portrayed Trump supporters as something other than hateful racists. I even saw one blue check-bearing neurotic expressing horror that the show was "humanizing" Trump supporters. However, the show that dared to treat the disfavored half of the country with empathy quickly became a record-breaking ratings juggernaut. What a dilemma for our Hollywood elites!
I have mixed feelings about Rosanne, myself. She can be crass and inappropriate and she says plenty of things with which I don't agree. However, unlike most people in Hollywood, she is genuine. With her, what you see is what you get. For how many inhabitants of the Golden Swamp is that true? I don't think that she could accurately be described as conservative, but she is a vocal critic of the Clinton-Obama cabal and supporter of Donald Trump. In fact it was a supposedly racist tweet about Obama-ite Valerie Jarrett which gave rise her latest woes: her moment on the public whipping block for politically incorrect behaviour, and the substantial professional setback of being gracelessly dismissed from her own show. Roseanne's behaviour can sometimes be tasteless, but she has never been known as a racist, and I don't believe her attack on Jarrett was racially driven. No matter. Despite multiple public apologies and pleas to ABC to keep her job, she was fired from the wildly successful show she had created.
Roseanne agreed to sell her rights to the show so that a spin off featuring the remainder of the cast, The Conners, could be created. In the first episode of The Conners, it was explained that Roseanne's character, who had been taking pills for knee pain during the previous season, had died from an opioid overdose. Perhaps this choice of story line was a ham-fisted attempt to show sympathy with those suffering from the scourge of opioid abuse among middle and lower-class Whites, but knowing how Hollywood feels about normal Americans, it seems just as likely that the working class heroine's overdose death was meant as an insult to the audience.
Shortly before the premiere of The Conners, there were some news stories saying that the network was worried they had made a mistake by firing Roseanne, and they were concerned that spinoff would lose many viewers who were loyal to her. (Everyone in America who is not a Hollywood executive replied in unison, "Well, DUH!") The premiere drew about half the viewers of the premiere of last year's reboot, and some of those people probably tuned in for the curiosity factor. It doesn't matter that the show features solid comic actors John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf playing relatable characters, or that the writing is probably just as funny. When the PC police rejected the woman who was one of the few Hollywood proxies for the Deplorables, they rejected the rest of us, and the show became just another sitcom.
This whole incident is just another indication that Hollywood continues to disdain regular Americans. Hollywood continues to churn out material that is a stick in the eye of anyone in America with traditional values. Celebrities reveal their animosity towards their audience at every opportunity. The enthusiasm for the revitalized Roseanne show should have been a lesson for the entertainment industry about who Americans are and what they want for their entertainment. Unsurprisingly, they have still not learned.
Alt-Tech: Rebels vs the Evil Empire
You may have missed the testimony of Twitter's CEO Jack Dorsey last week in Washington, as it was overshadowed by the Brett Kavanaugh appointment hearings and its accompanying parade of deranged protesters. Though it got less attention, there was a bit of commotion surrounding the tech CEO hearings, too. My personal favorite part was watching Marco Rubio attempt to look tough while being browbeaten by Alex Jones. While at the capital, Jones also confronted CNN reporter Oliver Darcy, who had lobbied successfully to get Jones removed from several major social media platforms. During their exchange, Jones called Darcy, correctly in my opinion, "anti-American" and a "coward." In less than a day, Twitter, which has given itself the right to consider real-world behaviour when evaluating who may use their platform, announced that Jones was to be permanently banned from using their service, and also that all other accounts associated with InfoWars would be reviewed for possible terms of service violations. Shortly thereafter, the InfoWars smart phone app was removed from the iTunes app store. In all probability, Jones' enemies, intoxicated with the taste of blood, will continue their campaign to destroy his media empire by putting pressure on the domain registrars for InfoWars' website and the financial service providers which process money from their merchandise sales and donations.
I am not particularly a fan of Jones, but what is happening to him is alarming to me and should be to anyone who is paying attention. "De-platforming" has been a problem for individuals and small outlets for several years. But Jones reigns over a media empire, with millions of viewers and substantial merchandise sales, and even he has not been able to stop the virtual assasination. A small group of global Tech Titans have been able to cut him off from almost every possible avenue available to participate in public life, and, in a sense, make him a non-entity in the public realm, with no way to appeal the death sentence. It is terrifying to contemplate the extent of potential damage the Silicon Valley elites could do to other conservatives. What's to prevent Breitbart, Drudge, or Fox News being silenced in the same manner?
The problem is not limited to social networking sites. Payment providers like PayPal and fundraising sites like GoFundMe and Patreon have a history of removing promoters of conservative causes from their services. Just this week, Amazon removed nine books by "pick-up artist" Roosh from their online store. Livelihoods can be destroyed arbitrarily and without warning when pages are banned from Facebook, YouTube, or Google search. Often, these life-changing decisions are made with no meaningful explanation or means of appeal. The problem is common and growing.
A few people are standing up to the giants and fighting back. One of the pioneers of an alt-tech social network is Andrew Torba, CEO and founder of Gab, which was introduced as a free-speech alternative to Twitter. Since its inception, Gab has been in a continuous struggle against the Tech Titans. Just last month, Gab was forced to find a new hosting service when it was dropped by Microsoft Azure because of a complaint about "hate speech." The company has also developed smart phone apps, but neither the iOS App Store nor Google Play Store, who hold a virtual duopoly, will carry them. (Last week, Gab submitted an app for Google Play which attempted to adhere to their "hate speech" policy by blocking posts with objectionable speech with a message stating that the post did not meet Google standards. The app was seemingly accepted by Google play, but removed again within hours.)
Big Tech defends their de-platforming decisions with mealy-mouthed excuses about "hate speech" and "healthy public conversations." This is false claim is absolutely staggering in its brazenness. Check the archive at VerifiedHate.com to view a massive collection of threats and hatred directed at Whites, Christians, and Trump supporters that is spouted on Twitter, much of it by *verified* users who are affiliated with corporate media outlets. Twitter not only fails to restrict this kind of "hate speech" in any way, but grants it a modicum of legitimacy by giving "verified" status to the tweeters. Inarguably, the Tech Titans do not object to "hate speech" as long as it is directed towards the right people or ideas.
Predictably, Gab was (and still is) smeared as a site for "white supremacists." It is true that Gab built some of its early popularity by providing a haven for popular alt-right personalities that were among the first banned from Twitter. While early Twitter refugees did include some unsavory characters, many others were guilty only of using facts, humor, or charisma to effectively smack down leftist talking points, or of "getting the goat" of a random squeaky-wheel leftist user. But Gab is not an "alt-right" site. In fact, in the past few months, Gab has had thousands of new accounts created by people in Brazil and Kenya after political dissidents in those countries were de-platformed or found their communications stifled by Big Tech.
The influx of users from other parts of the world to Gab also illustrates an important point: Tech Titan's chokehold on the of the flow of information is a global problem. A handful of people can shift power in almost any part of the world by choosing which voices to stifle or amplify, and they are working against conservative and populists movements all over he world. It is not an exaggeration to say that the fight of alt-tech against Big Tech is a fight for the future of freedom in the world, and for some peoples, a fight for survival.
The odds against anyone fighting the Titans of Tech are daunting. In fact, almost impossible. But intelligent, determined and brave people have done the impossible before. With the help of God, we can do it again.
Memes and art by Gab fans.
Myths about Charlottesville
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
Left, rally attendee after being attacked by Harris, Right, Harris and companion in the Charlottesville crowd with weapons.
Nonetheless, the damning photo was taken and publicized in the following days, and self-proclaimed victim Harris raised $100,000 in online donations.
My point is, WE DON'T REALLY KNOW YET. Please pray that the entire truth will be brought to light, and that real justice will be achieved, whatever that may mean in this case.
The rally protesters I observed included young adults holding colorful signs about love and tolerance, a group of clergy persons singing songs, and an assortment of local people who were observing or protesting peacefully.
There were also Antifa. I have never in my life experienced anything like what they wrought that day.
There were more than a few people like this at the rally - busloads of them, in fact. Many black-clad, masked protesters were wielding pipes, bats, and a variety of other makeshift weapons. People like these are among the group that the media wants you to believe are righteous anti-racists and above reproach.
Thank the Lord in Heaven that we have the White House a President that tells the truth when it matters. Undoubtedly, there were good and bad people on both sides.
The Carolina Contrarian, Anne Wilson Smith, is the author of Charlottesville Untold: Inside Unite the Right. She is a soft-spoken Southern belle by day, opinionated writer by night. She loves Jesus, her family, and her hometown. She enjoys floral dresses and acoustic guitar music. You may contact Carolina Contrarian at CarolinaContrarian@protonmail.com.