The American Regime E-Book

An Anonymous January 6th Prisoner

• Herausgeber: Antelope Hill Publishing LLC
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023

Beschreibung

After being targeted by the federal government in the wake of the events on January 6th, 2021, the author of The American Regime delves into the study of history, philosophy, and politics to answer the singular question of our time: what precisely is the nature of the evil that now openly rules over America and, through the American empire, the broader world?

The great irony of our time is that while more Americans than ever understand that they live under an oppressive regime, the number of theories about the nature of that oppression, and about who exactly it is that is oppressing us, has only multiplied. Once one steps past the simple acknowledgement that the United States is no longer the land of the free, disagreement abounds.

The author sets forth to confront the most prominent theories of political power, searching for a single, coherent understanding capable of describing the nature of the modern Leviathan. With that goal, he challenges widely-held assumptions about history, power, decline, and collapse, identifying where others have gotten it right, and filling in the gaps where they have failed to identify a necessary element. In an era of lies and tyranny, the truth will indeed set us free-but only if we can identify that what passes for truth is often little more than the blind leading the blind.
Antelope Hill Publishing is proud to present The American Regime. This fascinating analysis of power in modern America is a worthy contribution to Western political literature and is indispensable when working to understand the world we live in today.

Leseprobe

The American Regime

An Anonymous January 6th Prisoner

T H E

A M E R I C A NR E G I M E

____________________________

W R I T T E N B Y

A N A N O N Y M O U S

J A N U A R Y 6 T HP R I S O N E R

A N T E L O P EH I L LP U B L I S H I N G

Copyright © 2022 by the Author

First edition, second printing 2023.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or used in any manner without the prior written permission of the author,

except for the use of brief quotations in a book review.

Cover art by Swifty.

Edited by Tom Edwards and Harlan Wallace.

Layout by Margaret Bauer.

Antelope Hill Publishing | www.antelopehillpublishing.com

Paperback ISBN-13: 978-1-956887-55-6EPUB ISBN-13: 978-1-956887-56-3

To the two Toms who made this book possible. Without them,

this would be an inferior work to that which is presented to the reader. Their knowledge, critique, and wisdom were invaluable.

I would also like to thank the family and friends who have

remained by my side, through thick and thin.

This book is dedicated to all the patriot dissidents held as political prisoners or otherwise repressed by the satanic regime which has seized power in the United States, but most especially the following:

ASHLEY BABBIT, an Airforce veteran who was shot in the neck, though she was unarmed, and whose murderer remains at large.

JOHN ANDERSON, a Marine Corps veteran murdered in prison by the state while being held indefinitely and illegally on fake charges. His murderers remain at large.

ROSANNE BOYLAND, who was beaten to death by Capitol Police, and whose murderer remains at large.

BENJAMIN PHILLIPS, hit on the head with a flashbang grenade. The police refused to help him while his heart had stopped. His murderer remains at large.

KEVIN GREESON, also killed by a flashbang grenade to the skull. The police refused to resuscitate him. His murderer remains at large.

MATTHEW PERNA, driven to suicide by the media and state because he trespassed in the “people’s house.”

To the prisoners and exiles of the RISE ABOVE MOVEMENT, whose only crime was to defend peaceful MAGA demonstrators from Antifa.

These are only a few. The regime’s many illegal acts of state terror are so numerous that they are difficult to count, but not a single one will be forgotten or unaccounted for.

I am proud of what I did. May these enemies of the people suffer many times what they have inflicted.

They will not replace us.

C O N T E N T S

Introduction

Part One: Our Place in History

1. Foundation Myths

2. On Meta-History

3. Themes of the American Decline

Part Two: The Nature of Power in America

4. Notes on the Cathedral Thesis

5. On Other Powers

6. The Elite

Part 3: The Hour of Decision

7. The American Regime

8. Reign of the Counter-Tradition and From the Ashes

Bibliography

I N T R O D U C T I O N

One morning, like over nine hundred other Americans and counting, I found myself faced with the reality of state power. For the great blasphemy of voicing our nation’s feelings in the supposed House of “Representatives,” my house was invaded and my family was traumatized by militarized political police. I was not the first. It sadly looks like I was far from the last. I thank God that at the very least the rabid lapdogs of the regime didn’t “accidentally” kill anyone when they came for me, as they did at Waco, or when they caused Christopher Kuehne’s wife to have a miscarriage after making her stand outside in the snow.1

To protect my identity, I can’t give more details now. The mere fact that I have exercised my First Amendment rights in writing a book would be used against me—so much for the “land of the free.” Free speech, like many of our traditional customs and rights, has come to exist only as a pathetic shade of its former self on moldering scraps of paper.

While I was neither the first nor the last to endure the wrath of state power when the American Regime’s shoddy veneer of legitimacy was discarded after January 6th, I do intend to be the first to turn around and reverse the full-scale rout that the right currently is in. Too many conservatives, having failed to conserve anything, as usual, have blubbered and begged for scraps off the table in the wake of January 6th. For what? For a few more months until they too turn into pariahs, and in the meantime are made to walk on the eggshells of what is considered to be “problematic” in our supposed democracy? For a few more dollars from their mega-donors? For the ever-elusive vote of senile NPR listeners? For the applause of leftists who openly despise them? So much for the “home of the brave.”

I admit that I have thought about slinking off to the woods and letting this dystopian nightmare collapse upon itself while quietly raising chickens. Like all of the political prisoners from January 6th, I have largely been abandoned outside of the dissident right. Even the most strident of mainstream Republicans seem to take the lukewarm stance that we should all be thrown in jail, but only after we have a fair trial and proper procedure is followed without being tortured via solitary confinement or other methods.2 “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot.” (Rev. 3:15) Why should I care about a nation that doesn’t care about me, or about the veterans, students, workers, family, friends, and neighbors who were and continue to be tortured and held in solitary confinement?

But when it became clear that the regime was going to throw everything at me in an attempt to permanently ruin my life in a hissy fit of spite, I decided to do the opposite: something more ancient and absolute than the desire to take the well-trodden path of least resistance awakened in me. This has become my personal hour of decision.

No, I was not the first to be targeted. But unless I am pleasantly surprised by someone else taking point between now and the publication of this book, I do intend to be the first to dedicate my life to undoing their evil works. Was this ordeal supposed to “deradicalize” me? If so, they have failed. As they would have it with me, let it be so with them. Others have, and will, suffer far worse than I have. But I intend to impose a hefty opportunity cost for their depraved acts of state oppression. I will not cower before corn-fed traitors and diversity tokens awkwardly roleplaying as Rambo. It is less what the regime has personally done to me, per se, and more who they and their lapdogs are, and why they are doing it, that has galvanized me. I will not debase myself before these lesser creatures, who are anathema to all that is good and natural.

But what is the American Regime, anyway? Is it not a distinct entity from the American nation? They call us traitors, but we are not. We are rebels. There is a great difference, though the misunderstanding between state and nation causes this subsequent misunderstanding. How can the historic American nation be treasonous toward itself? This, on its face, makes little sense. What we are witnessing is a divergence between these two structures, a divergence that must be accounted for if we are to properly address this accusation that patriots are traitors, and subsequently that internationalists are patriots. It is this peculiar entity, distinct from the body politic, which is to be examined in this work.

To explain this nebulous occurrence, I have first attempted to briefly summarize key moments in American history and how they specifically lay the groundwork for the current regime. It is necessary to examine which moment in time we are in, as based on the observations of history, sorting through the propaganda of pop history, to properly understand the regime. A fish can only obtain a basic understanding of reality if it knows more than just the nature of the water that surrounds it.

After this, the institutions that control our lives, as well as different models on how this array of institutions actually fit together into a web, are explored, as this is the meat of this study, since we are attempting to answer what this regime actually is. These separate models are often the source of division among those who essentially have the same goal, which is the critique and weakening of these very institutions. However, what I have found is that these models can be synthesized, and all have a great deal of truth to them. Thus, rather than focusing on the blind-spots of the separate theories of power as applied to the American Regime, I have attempted to streamline and connect them into the same language so that we might not get bogged in the mire of perfection.

Finally, not only have I attempted to synthesize the various models of power, but I have furthermore synthesized these models of power within my own model of meta-historical movement: two of the great foci of the modern, energetic right. I have combined this with some metaphysics, as among many great schisms that are rarely spoken of between the true right and left are not only the nature of history, but also the question of the parallax between ourselves and our ancestors, the ancients.

The left is content to judge the past based on post facto notions. I prefer to ask the more interesting question: what would they think of us? And where would they see us, and the regime, going?

PART ONEOUR PLACE IN HISTORY

1F O U N D A T I O N M Y T H S

“It is in general more profitable to reckon up our defects than to boast of our attainments.”

–Thomas Carlyle

As with all societies, in the United States our view of ourselves and our history creates a unique worldview that influences us in all aspects. It is important to understand that this worldview is not necessarily objective, but rather a subjective one specific to a group of people within a certain geographic zone at a particular time. For example, an Englishman likely has a far different view of the American Revolution than an American, and indeed, we would likely find that an American in 1920 or 1820 would have a much different view than an American in 2020. Our perception of history and its effects on our worldview are formed by foundation myths. These foundation myths form “truths,” and the people who are subjected to those “truths” have their opinions, historical as well as philosophical, constrained by them. Thus it is pertinent to explore these foundation myths, which are so formative to the American mind, in order to understand what has gone wrong in America.

I

Before beginning to understand modern America, we must start at the beginning. Every culture has a foundation myth. The Romans had Romulus and Remus, who, as the story goes, were raised by a she-wolf and went on to found what would become the Roman Republic. As for Americans, we have the Revolution for our independence, a story that has often been simplified down to one word: “liberty.” A foundation myth need not be wholly fantasy. Many, if not most, are based in truth. However, a foundational story necessitates an element of myth which characterizes a people. According to the American myth, after decades of subjugation by the British, we had enough of their repressive taxes and domination, and declared our independence from Great Britain, defeating them in battle by virtue of our superior spirit, and created the first free nation of the era, modeled after high classical civilization. Some oppressors were tarred and feathered, and the rest is history.

This, unfortunately, is largely quite imaginative with respect to the actual events. For decades, the American colonies lived in relative independence from the British Empire. However, during the French and Indian War, Britain was pressed with insurmountable debt as a result of protecting the colonies from French invasion. Due to this, some taxes were levied on the Thirteen Colonies in an attempt to make up for a small part of the debt which had been incurred by protecting the colonists.3 Rather than the colonists being grateful for the protection, this resulted in a boycott of the British Empire’s goods by Patriot Party-aligned colonists, the purpose of the establishment of which was mercantilism, which itself was to monetarily benefit the Empire and demographically benefit the Anglo-Saxon people by providing for, and defending, a place for the posterity of Albion to live at a time when a population boom meant a highly crowded British Isle. The colonists even colluded with enemies of the British—illegally buying tea from the Dutch rather than paying more for it to support the Empire, for instance. Eventually England removed the taxes except for those on tea, but nevertheless, the colonists refused to pay for this tea and continued colluding with the enemy for the purchase thereof. The British leniently began subsidizing East India Company tea to prevent the state-sponsored corporation from being bankrupted by the practices of the defiant colonies. As an aside, at that time British tea was actually cheaper than Dutch tea. This attempt at incentivizing cooperation between the Crown and subjects was not taken well and resulted in the act of protest known as the Boston Tea Party. No one was hurt, although the modern equivalent of around a million dollars in property damage was suffered by the traders. In modern times, the apparent parallels between protests like these and modern-day leftist protests should not be simply ignored. The colonies refused to pay back these damages, and other tea shipments were boycotted, causing more surplus tea to rot in storage.

During this era, the Patriot-leaning colonists vandalized the property of Loyalists, and tarred and feathered those who expressed the wrong opinion. Furthermore, they began seizing weapons from Loyalists and stockpiling these arms in places such as Concord, Massachusetts. As the British went to confiscate the often-stolen weapons which were being stored in preparation for revolt against the British, they were attacked at Lexington, thus beginning the War of Independence. The fact that the Patriots seized the weapons is a testament to the organizational abilities of the future rebels years before the war began.

During the first years of the war under General Howe and his brother Admiral Howe, the British did everything in their power not to destroy the rebel army, while still fighting to keep the colonies under Imperial rule. Throughout the early years of the war, there are numerous recorded occasions in which the Continental Army could have been completely destroyed and yet was not, due to the liberal Whiggery of the Howe brothers.4 By the time the British were ready to crush the rebellion in proper anti-partisan fashion (as was seen in Ireland), France, Spain, and the Netherlands declared war on the British Empire. The result was that it became immensely more difficult for the British, with their military now spread across the globe, to sufficiently close off its American theater. The rest is history.

What is the point of this seeming defamation of the Founding Fathers, whom those of the conservative movement revere as saints? Before answering this question, some nuance should be introduced. The Founding Fathers were hardly radical left-wing extremists. If we are to be honest, they were everything the modern left hates, and if they saw what it meant to be a “radical left-wing revolutionary” today, it should go without saying that they would be absolutely disgusted. The Patriots also had perfectly valid reasons for wishing to split off from the motherland of England. Religiously they were much different, for example, a fact that is reflected in the First Amendment to the Constitution. This is but one of the easier examples which can be used to demonstrate that, by 1776, the colonists had become its own, albeit similar, people separate from the English of England proper.

This is far from an ignoble story. It is one of self-determination and, of course, liberty and freedom. However, it is still necessary for the right to come to terms with the fact that the story of the Thirteen Colonies is not a right-wing story, but rather, a progressive one with some parallels to the modern left in terms of the historical cycle. Both groups behaved unreasonably and were never satisfied with concessions from a somewhat empathizing government, resulting in a shift in the Overton window (or in other words, the spectrum of acceptable political opinion shifted from the right to the left). Both were highly organized and willing to use violence against groups with rival opinions who supported the status quo of an earlier era. Both had a government which was all but aligned with them and, therefore, were able to act with less resistance than was to be expected, in contrast to the Irish of the eighteenth century and the American right today. And, regrettably, both these modern groups and the Founding Fathers propounded a situationally left-wing ideology. The founders claimed to be liberal, the Enlightenment philosophers they studied claimed to be liberal, and the proponents of their ideology today often claim to be “classically” liberal. Therefore, it seems silly and counterproductive for conservatives to concede this liberalism as the catalyst of their ideology. Entire books could be written on the subject of the other side of the Revolution, as indeed they have.

This is not to say that the Founding Fathers were evil men at all. Rather, they were expressing a legitimate reaction to what they saw as a foreign occupying force which no longer represented them. Over the course of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the colonists became a wholly new nation which saw England as alien to them, as has often been the case in the ancient world when colonies rebelled against their founding city, such as in the case of the war between Corinth and Corcyra in the fifth century BC. A true tragedy is that the foundation myth of America has been transformed from one of nationalism and self-determination into one of classical liberal ideals, partly due to the theme of “liberty” having somewhat changed in meaning over the centuries.5

The Founders were great men, among the greatest of the time, with legitimate grievances. However, if Americans are to reclaim themselves, it will be necessary to transcend a foundation myth with such subversive themes. That the central piece of the original foundation myth of the American nation is a radical revolutionary movement of agitators with arguably left-wing ideals, utilizing a Jouvenelian middle-low versus high revolutionary strategy, paints a picture of the true potential in this nation for a reactionary traditional ethos.6 Generally, there is nothing more traditional, by definition, than a foundation. Therefore, it is impossible for any spiritual or political awakening to occur which can be characterized as being further to the right of the origin story of the nation. Furthermore, even harkening back to the true ideals of the Revolution, which despite their flaws are still far superior to any political development in the US over the past 150 years, has been impossible for many decades. As America continually undergoes new foundations through new myths, the quality of the successive founders becomes more apparently lacking.

II

The second founding myth is that of the American Civil War. Founding myths act in a similar fashion to the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. While the New Testament reigns supreme in instances of contradiction, the Old is also often valid when no such contradiction is present. Such is the case with the second founding myth. The story of the Civil War is that the evil White Southerners wanted to keep Blacks as slaves and, when Lincoln attempted to force their hand, they seceded, attacked the North, and were defeated by the gallant, biracial army of the North. This depiction is, like the story of Independence, partly embellished. There are some obvious contradictions, like within the New and Old Testaments, which are apparent between the first and second foundation myths. First, we must touch on the inaccuracies.

To be sure, slavery was and still is an unfortunate fact of life in preindustrial society, one that will not meet its demise any time soon. It should be emphasized, though, that slavery was a necessary evil for much of human history, including long before the Atlantic triangular trade. It is also relevant that slavery, hardly an efficient system in modern times, would have likely been abolished soon after 1860 in the Southern states, simply because of its untenability as an economic system. The rise of abolitionist sentiment coincided with the rise of coal energy, which replaced slave energy.7 It is also worth mentioning that our modern comprehension of the history of slavery in America is mostly based off of abolitionist propaganda tracts such as Uncle Tom’s Cabin and other works fed to us at a young age in school. The “villains” of the story, of course, had no reasonable opinions, and their stories need not be told, according to a government and an information network that surely has the masses’ best interest at heart.

Furthermore, there is a fallacy invoked on the subject of slavery. While surely the modern person would not want to be an African slave in the antebellum South, this hypothetical modern man would also not want to be a serf during the same era in Russia, or an Irish manual laborer in the Northern US, or any manual laborer in the mid-nineteenth century, for that matter. Calling slavery inhumane by modern standards is unfair if it is not acknowledged that all lower-class labor up until, and even arguably during, recent times, even in the developed world, is inhumane. This produces a problem as to why slavery is considered an inhumane practice. Is it due to the labor, which was a normal way of living up until recently? Is it the bondage that slaves owe to their masters? If it is the labor factor, then should civilization be abolished to avoid any injustice lest anyone is forced to work for his daily bread? If it is bondage that supposedly causes the inhumanity, can this viewpoint really be defended within the context of a time when most people never traveled more than a few miles from their home, a phenomenon that produced a more cohesive society and closer personal relations than the atomized and “free” world of today?8 This is not to defend the ownership of other humans, which is wrong, but to put into perspective the period in which slavery was abolished.

There is a debate which continues to this day as to whether the Civil War was truly even over slavery in the first place. The correct answer is that it was over both slavery and states’ rights.9 However, the reason is clear why the left and the mainstream focus on slavery, as do conservatives, who at least used to focus on states’ rights. The liberal supports social justice while the conservative supports freedom and self-determination. After all, the conservatives intuitively see the contradiction between our first two foundation myths. Freedom and self-determination were two of the main values of the War of Independence. By consequence of the victory of the Union, these older values became subservient to the new and degenerated values of social justice and equality. Of course, Lincoln didn’t even want to free the slaves, nor did he ever believe in racial equality, preferring repatriation to Africa for the former slaves.10 However, a foundation myth is exactly that: a myth. And for practical purposes, modern interpretation is more relevant than what actually happened.

The fear of losing the freedom of home rule due to the heavy urbanization and population amassment in Northern states was a valid reason for Southern angst. After all, very few Southerners voted for Lincoln. Lincoln won with less than 40 percent of the nationwide vote while carrying virtually no Southern districts, most of which were easily carried by Breckinridge. Therefore, why was it right that Lincoln would be the president and have dominion over not only his supporters in the North, but also his enemies in the South? Especially relevant is the fact that states were much more autonomous at that time, the US often being referred to as “these United States,” emphasizing this pluralism. The Civil War historian Shelby Foote notes that “[b]efore the war, it was said ‘the United States are’—grammatically it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. After the war it was always ‘the United States is.’”11 If the will of Southerners could be swept aside in this election, in what other political issues would the rural South become irrelevant in the decision-making process due to the economic and demographic behemoth of the industrial, urban North? Thus, while Lincoln was not yet threatening to end slavery, the South could see the writing on the wall, and seceded from the North to maintain their freedom from electoral subjugation. Here again, the parallels between the past and the present are easy to see, and, here again, the conservative movement takes a position that is obviously counterintuitive. Just as Southerners feared in the 1800s, today, conservative America is dominated by the industrialized liberal centers. The difference today is little more than geographical. In 1860, the Northern states were generally industrialized, urbanized, bourgeois, and liberal, while the South was agrarian, rural, aristocratic/paternalistic, and conservative. This has evolved into an urban/rural distinction within states as the cities in all states have grown exponentially. However, the problem remains nearly identical. And yet, the position that the conservative movement has taken is that somehow “Democrats are the real racists,” as the South was Democrat-dominated many years ago, ignoring the more important and ideologically relevant characteristics of the Civil War.

American conservatives in the twenty-first century now idealize Abraham Lincoln simply due to the fact that he started the Republican Party. However, a modern Lincoln would likely be someone who would deny Republican states and localities their rights through federal decree. The Lincoln Club, a far-left organization masquerading as a Republican organization, is ironically an example of the true spirit of Lincolnism in our time. How can a conservative movement which now idealizes Abraham Lincoln, the destroyer of home rule and independence, some of traditional America’s most important and existential values, survive intellectually or practically? It obviously cannot and, as a result of these terrible philosophical positions that are adopted without much further thought, conservatives are easily outgunned by the radical deconstructionist left. Blunders like these are what allow the far left to manipulate contradictions of the system.

III

The next foundation myth of America is the Second World War in combination with the Holocaust. Once again, what truly matters in our study is the modern cultural interpretation of history rather than the true history itself. Pop history reigns supreme in popular culture—“pop” signifying mass consumption. The tale of America supplying the Allies before entering the war and boycotting Japanese raw material shipments before being attacked by Japan and then Germany, which now had a proper excuse to attack American shipping, is a much less propagandistic story than America fighting “fascism” and “racism” to save the Jews and other minorities from the clutches of the far right. However, this is what is understood by the public and what is taught in school. From here, there are some archetypes which the story portrays. The Jews and minorities in general are the utmost good, while the Nazis and Fascists are the utmost evil. It takes little imagination to stretch the concept until “minorities” becomes anyone who is not, like a Nazi, a straight White male. Therefore, the utmost good becomes all minorities, women, sexual deviants, and even simply abnormal people. “Nazi” is translated into straight White male, and anyone else who lies on the political right, while the Allies generally were on the left, such as the resistance groups, the USSR, the FDR administration, etc., and are used as mascots of a new and unrecognizable left wing.

In this case, the American right does not have a contradictory view in opposing the Nazis, who were an enemy of their nation at the time. However, where they stumble is in how they always allow the left to control the narrative completely. Rather than frame the war as perhaps a “Great Patriotic War,” as even the Bolshevik Russians—of all people—did, the war today is touted as war of a multicultural, multiracial conglomeration of democracies acting united against a block of White, traditionalist authoritarians—in defense of the Jews.

The right is once again playing by the left’s rules. While the communists under Stalin were “bad” (and many leftists may even contest this), the Nazis were far worse due to the racism, and especiallyanti-Semitism, of their policy of death and destruction—“racism” being another loaded word the left loves to use to undermine their opponents, who already agree on their historical framework and are thus already defeated in the debate room or strung along to their insane motte-bailey conclusions. The communists were, of course, much worse than the Nazis. Death is death, and motivation hardly matters. To say that racism is a terrible motive could be countered by the blatant racism of the Soviet regime in exterminating and deporting minorities who sought autonomy, such as the Kurds, Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Balkars, and others.12 If racism is evil, why is the institutional classism and racism of the USSR not also evil?

For our purposes, a simple look at the death toll under Nazism, even combined with the other fascist regimes of the era, comes nowhere near that of the USSR alone. And yet today Nazi imagery, rather than that of communism, has become synonymous with evil, despite the Cold War and even the anti-USSR consensus between the right and Western far left during the Cold War years. The colors red, white, and black, as well as the totenkopf, both ofwhich have their origins long before the Nazi era in Germany, are universal symbols of evil in American media.13However, today it is perfectly admissible to be a communist or socialist in polite society, especially in the country’s most influential positions of power where, in many cases, those of the far left sympathetic to Marxism may actually be in the majority.14 Minus a small amount of flak, it may even be socially acceptable to excuse the atrocities of socialist regimes or perhaps deny they ever happened.15 The opposite is obviously not the case with Nazism or fascism. A modern “fascist” could disavow every fascist regime, perhaps calling himself a “moderate fascist” or “fascist with a face,” who is against any wonton violence, and the results would be that this person would be banished from polite society, which makes little sense, as the whole point of “anti-fascism” apparently was to counter the perceived negative and destructive effects of Fascism during the 1920s through the 1940s.

Thus, we finally see the conclusion to the left-wing version of the Second World War: fascism, and therefore anything distinctly to the right, is evil, not because of the destruction and death that it causes, but in and of itself. At the same time, communism and socialism are admissible always and in spite of the death and destruction that they inevitably and admittedly cause. And the kicker is that conservatives actually tend to agree with this blatantly subversive leftist message. It has become controversial even in conservative circles to have the opinion that the USSR was more evil than NSDAP rule in Germany.

The most culturally relevant part of the Second World War and the subsequent foundation myth is the Holocaust, which continues to hover around the American mind today. There is a Holocaust memorial in just about every American city, despite the fact that it occurred on another continent. Many Hollywood movies have been made on the subject, but virtually none on the Armenian Genocide or the Ukrainian Holodomor. This constant stream of reaffirming media creates an environment in which Jews are seen as the good guys by default due to their victim status. Due to the migrant waves of Jews before, during, and after the war, along with their can-do-no-wrong status, leftists, largely of Jewish immigrant or first-generation immigrant origin, were able to form their own foundation myth over the next three decades.

IV

Our last stop on the time machine is appropriately the most recent past foundation myth that America has added to its stack up to the modern day, which is the civil rights era of the 1950s and 1960s. The theory of civil rights is today official American doctrine and arguably a state religion, even more so than the previous American legends, likely owing to its relatively recent occurrence. The watershed moments of this foundation myth were Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Hart-Celler Act, and the anti-war movement in reaction to the Vietnam War.

Today, civil rights has become part of the American national canon. There is no debate in mainstream politics on the validity or merits of these new rules as, after decades of enforcement, the very seams which America has been sewn with have become intertwined with civil rights law. In the case of most of these laws, the removal of them from the equation would mean a major disturbance in how modern Americans on both the mainstream right and the left understand their country.

To tackle this, we must start from the beginning with the first major legal action of the era: Brown v. Board of Education, which, although today taught a priori as a feat and step forward in legalism, was in fact a feat in the bastardization of the law. The Constitution has always been interpreted as saying that, as education is not an enumerated right of the government, the states will have control of education. And yet, with the ruling in this court case, the federal government has banned the states, in the case of school segregation, from legislating education in their own state. Today, as the left has taken control of all aspects of life, it is impossible to say this without becoming a pariah. This view on Supreme Court decision-making is not held by anyone in Washington, at least not publicly, and yet not long ago it was a mainstream opinion. In his famous book Conscience of a Conservative, 1964 Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater writes:

The federal Constitution does not require the States to maintain racially mixed schools. Despite the recent holding of the Supreme Court, I am firmly convinced—not only that integrated schools are not required—but that the Constitution does not permit any interference whatsoever by the federal government in the field of education.16

Goldwater was, of course, hardly a radical George Lincoln Rockwellite, but an ardent constitutionalist and libertarian, who in fact naively founded the NAACP of his home state of Arizona, desegregated the state’s National Guard before the national military, and was against segregation. However, as Jonathan Haidt has pointed out, conservatives value more than just equality.17 Goldwater’s gripe, one that should still be valid but sadly is not in the modern conservative movement, was the problem of the federal government encroaching on the issue of desegregation. By the right conceding such an existential issue as the very right to freedom of association, the left has taken an arrow out of the quiver of conservative thought, apparently never to be seen or used again, as the Overton window slides to the left, and only to the left.

The next and perhaps most important event in this era was the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by President Johnson, which banned discrimination in most aspects of life based on race and sex, though today it has been construed to ban discrimination against any type of sexual deviant or pervert, a caveat which was not expressed by those passing the CRA originally and certainly not intended by the electorate who voted for the politicians who passed the CRA. Once again, this has been held as a step forward for society, that the sacred right to freedom of association had been removed from the American people. A most conspicuous part of the law which was clearly aimed at creating public consent for the revocation of rights in favor of the wholly artificial “civil rights,” was the purely abstract legal notion of “public accommodations” created out of thin air, which is a blatantly misrepresentative term used to shield its true definition, which includes public as well as private facilities. Essentially everything public or private was banned from practicing freedom of association, at least for Whites. The only real exceptions to this today are clubs but, as culture is downstream from the law, it has become untenable today for these clubs to continue to operate. To ban discrimination by private individuals in their private business is quite literally “none of your business,” a notion which was only recently made a taboo talking point. People, liberal or conservative, discriminate every day in who we allow in our homes. With the sneaky use of the term “public” to mean “public and private,” America was tricked into revoking this right outside the home.

Today, like in the other foundation myths, American people across the political spectrum take this epochal change of culture and opinion for granted. “The Democrats are the real racists,” says the average conservative, not realizing that by saying such a thing, he has conceded that racial tribalism and favoring your own people (a human phenomenon present in any successful society, and often absent in dying societies) is an evil that the left is correct in wanting to be vanquished. How, then, does the conservative counter the liberal who believes the Founding Fathers, and just about every figure in the history of mankind, has been racist? Usually, he or she will say they were “flawed but good,” which is not a satisfactory answer. The real answer should be “Who cares if the founders were racist?” If the standard for having respect for a historical figure is that said figure must abide perfectly by modern sensibilities, there will be little respect for any figure who lived before our time. The left establishment that wishes to wholly destroy the past of Western civilization and demoralize its inhabitants unsurprisingly finds this to be quite an attractive option.

This cult of the “anti-racist” is hardly a legitimate inquisitive endeavor at finding the truth, but rather a cynical political weapon against Whites everywhere. This is further demonstrated by the fact that just about any “racial prejudice” by one group against another, even when neither are White, can, through sophistry, be used against Whites. The fact that lighter skin and pigmented eyes are sexually selected for and, as a result, the higher castes in most societies have lighter skin and eyes than the lower classes, even in societies which practiced this long before they ever met a White person,18 is clearly an example of supposed “White supremacy,” always sure to ignore the infinitesimally more brutal subjugation under other non-European warrior bands such as the Mongols, Manchu, Bantus, Comanche, Turks, etc.19 Blacks attacking Hasidic Jews in New York and Mexican and Black gang members murdering each other in Los Angeles can be chalked up to “internalized White supremacy,” I’m sure. There are an untold number of pseudo-esoteric word games invented by professors and used by their students in an attempt to seem intelligent by redefining words every other year and acting baffled when their adversary has not “read the literature” of some obscure, mediocre academic who was assigned reading in their sociology 101 course at XYZ State University.20

Again, the conservative has bought into a game created by the left, hook, line, and sinker. If you say, even in conservative circles, that you do not support St. Martin Luther King Jr., you will be amazed to find yourself a persona non grata outside of a few fringe groups. It amazes me that today, if you ask an elder if they were one of the tens of millions of White Americans who did not support the civil rights era legislation and action by the government such as the use of the National Guard, the 101st Airborne and their bayonets, and “busing” (which was seen as so extreme in that era that it was actually banned by name in the Civil Rights Act), you will seldom hear the affirmative answer. It seems clear that the oldest living generations have been shamed into pretending that they did not counterprotest against civil rights. It is naive to believe that, on the current trajectory, this pattern will not continue with subsequent generations.

The next stop in the era of civil rights is the Hart-Celler Act, which introduced the era of near-unlimited immigration, irrespective of the demographic consequences, to America. Once again, this was passed by Congress due to deception. Famously, Ted Kennedy testified that the passage of this new act would have no effect on the demographic makeup of the country.21 Less than sixty years later, White children are in the minority among their peers in America. In the cities, where just about everything important in America happens, Whites are a small minority, composing only 36 percent of the population as of 2020.22 The few that do live in the cities are usually those who, in fact, often have an outgroup preference, meaning that they dislike fellow Whites and prefer nonwhites, a wholly unique and unprecedented phenomenon.23

Today, Americans are taught that America is a “nation of immigrants,” equating the modern immigrants, many of whom come to America illegally, to the men and women of the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries who largely settled, not immigrated to, America, fought the “poor defenseless” Native Americans tooth and nail, and suffered from starvation and crop failure. Many died drowning in the Atlantic before ever stepping foot in the New World. Even after the settling of America, the European immigrants to the cities, such as the Irish and Italians, were a step above what we are used to today. They received no benefits, worked in harsh conditions, and some even starved to death as late as the Gilded Age. Many simply returned to their home countries as the harsh “dog eat dog world” of America wasn’t to their liking. They all, of course, had to go through an immigration inspection, and many were sent back after long voyages due to various illnesses and worry of potential illegal activity. There was a long period in which only Whites were allowed to enter America as prospective future citizens and, until 1965, there were quotas to keep the demographics of America stable. Despite this, America’s history has been rewritten, as happens after the assertion of all foundation myths, into something wholly alien.

The Hart-Celler Act ended America as it was pre-1965, and modern conservatives have once again bought into the liberal lie. America is not a nation of immigrants but a nation of settlers and, at best, a nation of White immigrants living beside an internal nation of Black descendants of slaves. While the US underwent a large migrant wave in the nineteenth century, immigration hardly defined the US then as it has since 1965. Even then, the introduction of White immigrants was protested, and it was not for decades that these immigrants were able to assimilate into White American society.

And yet, the conservative will seldom advocate for the pre-1965 system or even entertain the idea of a complete stop on immigration. That they don’t understand that it is in large part legal immigration that is causing every city in America, and many traditionally Republican states, to become swing states, or even deep blue states (such as the case in Colorado of the conservative Mountain West, and Virginia of the conservative South), is a testament to the incompetence and often the controlled opposition of the so-called representatives of conservative thought and vote in America. To see the droves of these critters fawn over the uncharismatic Jeb, the plastic Mitt Romney, the two-faced careerist Lyin’ Ted Cruz, or the weakling Little Marco paints an accurate picture of the corporate conservative America that has long abandoned the mass migration issue in any real capacity.

Today, conservatives are accused of being anti-immigration. Lamentably, this is not the case. Conservatives tend to reply, “I’m not against immigration as long as they come here legally.” The main immigration issue in the Republican Party is illegal immigration, which would be basically irrelevant compared to legal immigration were it not for the fact that Democrats have used an incredibly sly tactic of getting these illegal aliens status as legal residents for the end purpose of providing a “pathway to citizenship” for illegals and formerly-illegals. This they do by using some sob story to somehow claim that being able to bubble in some voting papers every other year is that much of an improvement over simply living here in peace, working, and paying taxes. It should be painfully obvious that the “pathway to citizenship” is a backchannel for the Democratic Party to pump out votes for themselves. They admit as much, though from the smarmy weasel look they make when one brings this up, it’s clear that they are not used to even this coming up in a discussion on immigration.

Finally, this era culminated in a true foundation myth, which continues to enamor the minds of generations of young Americans to this day, through the combination of civil rights with the counterculture and anti-war movement. As will be discussed in greater depth later on, it was here that the new academic and information elite, largely consisting of Jewish immigrants and second-generation immigrants, newly empowered by the Holocaust foundation myth, were able to truly form America into something new. The civil rights era legislation provided what essentially became a new constitution, providing legal backing, while the community organizing of the 1950s and 1960s provided infinitesimal opportunities to network with fellow left-wing dissidents on the streets and at elite American universities. Once the legal avenue was stable, culture was simply downstream from politics. And once subsequent movements popularized in this era such as second wave feminism, post structuralism, postmodernism, Black liberation, anticolonialism, etc., were solidified within elite circles, the seeds of the next foundation myth were already sewn.

V

But what is the next foundation myth of America? At the time of writing, the reader is indeed living in it. After countless race riots over the last few years, it should be clear that, once again, America is changing drastically and, already, the America of today is something completely different from what it was only a few years ago. The legalization of gay marriage (another issue the right has conceded) is but a microcosm of the new American experience. Some point to the beginning of this phase being the Obama campaign in 2012 blatantly switching its targeting from the White working class, as the Democratic Party usually did, to minority issues.24 Others point to the Gamer Gate controversy, a relatively obscure affair over leftist coverage of video games on gaming news websites. Whatever it was, clearly something transformed and divided the culture into two distinct camps in the early 2010s.

On the activist left was a coalition of oddities and professionally offended activists made up of students, “alternative lifestyle” advocates, and the self-righteous mass of professional and amateur agitators, often highly active on social media, especially Tumblr and later, Twitter. The term “social justice warrior” or “SJW” was created to label these people as a single category. On the grassroots right were the ruralites, the religious, and many in the White suburban working and middle class: generally those who led traditional lifestyles on the activist side. These two camps together are a minority of Americans today, but they are the epicenter of the culture war which only now the rest of the American people are being swept up in. Rather than calling the far left “SJWs” as many young people do, a common term used by all age groups on the right is “the loud minority” while the right is “the silent majority.” As time has carried on, the right has become less silent and more numerous (though never actually constituting a majority).

This culture war seemed to hit a tipping point with the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump. As a whole, politics has become deeply influenced by this culture war. For this reason, Donald Trump was able to win the White working class, much of which was either apolitical or Democratic-voting for decades. On the flip side, people like Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton had to change their position from a working-class message, to more of an elitist message targeting the upper middle class. The Democratic Party quickly changed gears from a mainly pro-worker and middle-class party to a party of the untouchable dregs of the lumpenproletariat and the bourgeoisie on the bottom, and a coastal elite of upper middle class and wealthy people on the top, comfortable enough to adopt the luxury positions espoused by the new Democratic platform. There is a tacit agreement between the top and bottom to squeeze the middle—seemingly a common occurrence during the consolidation of power—described famously in Bertrand de Jouvenel’s On Power: The Natural History of its Growth. Predictably, an upside-down caste system is forming, similar to the Soviet Union, where the lunatics come to run the asylum, in what can be called no less than a satanic inversion. And when referring to something as satanic, we are not necessarily saying that it is literally of a demonic origin in the spiritual or metaphysical sense (though religious people are free to subscribe to this view), but rather in the traditional meaning: that of an inside-out, upside-down, topsy-turvy morality which contradicts a perennial and natural understanding of the world which is universal to all civilized cultures from ancient Egypt to the West up to only a few years ago.

The 2016 election was a backlash (or as the Black Van Jones of CNN not inaccurately named it: “Whitelash”) to the open insanity of the left. In 2008, the year that Obama was elected, only a fringe of the American population supported gay marriage. By 2016, it had been made legal in every state by federal decree through the Supreme Court. In 2016, supporting the self-castration of the transgender community was also only something found on the fringe. Today, child castration is in vogue in the Democratic Party’s base. Pedophilia is now only accepted by the fringe. This, of course, has been coming since at least the 1960s (and if the reader wonders where this garbage comes from, he should really pay more attention to what they are teaching in the universities).25 “Existential philosophy” and “queer theory” are codes for trains of thought which lead to the acceptance of pedophilia.26 Within the Democratic Party, will there be a majority in support of “pedosexuals” or “minor attracted persons” (MAPs) in 2024? Or how about 2028? And if Republicans only barely defeat the pedophile party in these elections, while the culture nevertheless slides ever more to the left, will this be a victory or a defeat? By now, it should be obvious that this shift in the Overton window does not originate in the era of left-wing domination that we live in today but is part and parcel of the nature of history that has just been described. Theodore Roosevelt, a progressive of the turn of the century, would put any modern “conservative” politician to shame today. The left has won in the field of sexual deviancy in every aspect outside the legalization and acceptance of pedophilia which, credit given to the American people, is not yet tenable. Thus, for the time being, they have largely moved on to “racial injustice.”

The most prolific movement of this era is the Black Lives Matter movement, a completely astroturfed movement which venerates criminals of all races, though predominantly Black, who have the support of every institution in the United States, and whose main purpose is to act as the Brownshirts or Red Guard of the regime against what I have referred to as “traditional America” but what Łobaczewski simply called “normal people.” These protests were labeled “mostly peaceful” by the left and the media.27 It should be known that, in my experience in the right-wing protest movement of 2020, if there are counter-demonstrators who lack police protection, “mostly peaceful” becomes exclusively violent. They carry knives, pistols, clubs, razor blades, pepper spray, tasers, and who knows what else to “protect themselves” from the five sixty-year-old Trump supporters who counter them and attempt to protect the once majority-White and conservative city which they lived in for their entire lives. The reader can guess which side gets beaten half to death and which side is excused as “mostly peaceful.”

It is a mistake to believe that Black Lives Matter is simply a moral organization whose protesters sometimes get carried away and begin to destroy private property or harm private citizens. The first evidence of this is the fact that if BLM was a moral organization, they would have found a way to “organize” that wouldn’t cause mayhem and death in its wake. The leaders of this group are aware of this and yet continue to lead riots which are tacitly supported by the government, an inference that can be made due to their failure to stop or prevent them. Dozens have been killed by BLM’s riots and countless others have been injured and harassed.28 Rather than take responsibility for the actions of the “protesters” under their wing, they excuse themselves by saying that these rioters were not actual members of the organization (very few people are literally members of the nonprofit “Black Lives Matter”).

Even more damning is that while BLM does not take credit for their destruction, they also don’t seem to really condemn it, either. There is a reason for this. The destruction is part of their tactic. Not only do their members get to de facto legally loot businesses, but by using this tacit threat, they are able to extort support from the local populace. One look at any downtown city, full of pro-BLM propaganda on the windows of restaurants, will demonstrate this. It is a mistake to interpret this as BLM having the undying support of the people. The parallels between today and the famous Nazi flags “voluntarily” being hung outside windows when the German army entered Austria, or Soviet propaganda strewn about on the streets of a Soviet city, are eerie to say the least. It is in this way that the phenomena should be viewed. Businesses and especially restaurants, being the heart and soul of a city, are used to lull people into believing that supporting BLM is the normative, default state. It becomes “cool” to support Black rioters destroying the city. “Everyone else is doing it.” In reality, the only difference between the modern American “deep state” regime extorting support out of a city’s downtown and the Nazis or Russians extorting support from Viennese and Muscovite flag wavers is that, in the America regime, violence is exported to groups like BLM and adjacent organizations. There is a tacit quid pro quo, meaning that the government doesn’t enforce the rule of law on rioters, while the rioters unwittingly carry out the bidding of the government and big business.29 Mega-corporations undoubtedly look at a few smashed windows as just another operating cost, and one worth paying if it means the small business competition goes out of business from accrued costs.

It is unsurprising that BLM does not condemn its own rioters. Why condemn them when the US government and every business that matters in America support them? The media surely do not condemn BLM, unless your news is a right-wing source. It is here that we see why we are truly living in a foundation myth today. While the right believes that these issues are still on the table to be debated, the government and private sector has side-stepped normal America altogether, making support for causes like BLM and the aforementioned gay rights movement the official stance of the US government. While Trump was in office, a massive “BLACK LIVES MATTER” logo was painted on a street in DC.30 In California, to do burnouts on a BLM street mural was prosecutable.31 “Liberty Plaza” in DC has been renamed “BLM Plaza.” BLM and Antifa paramilitaries were allotted a space right in front of the White House balcony to protest every day and every night with personal bodyguards paid for by the taxpayer (that is, the DC Metro Police).32 Embassies such as the one in Seoul, South Korea, have massive BLM murals, and US embassies now raise the pride flag, a symbol of occupation and global homogenization (also known as “globohomo”). The same can be said for various other buildings owned by the US government all over the world. Even the Trump administration was extorted for pro-Black legislation which no Trump-voter asked for, as a result of rioting in DC.

The FBI also works hand in hand with BLM, Antifa, and sympathetic journalists, using them as their eyes and ears where the government possesses no agents or cameras to do their work.33 Tyrannical governments in the Soviet bloc and elsewhere also used their own citizens against one another. However, what is most disturbing is the fact that these governments had to threaten their populace to comply with acting as informants. In America, we have been subjected to such a spiritual, mental, and even physical deconstruction, that among the people there are many who simply enjoy using power to destroy others.

These are only some of the few ways in which we can see the government has embraced the new mythos. The new cringe-worthy advertising campaign for the military and CIA, glorifying homosexuality, minorities, and even mental illness and the antinomian riot movements of the new era, demonstrate this well.34

The ideology of BLM is also unsurprisingly evil. The left has mastered title propaganda. If BLM was called the “Black Nationalists for the Extermination of Whiteness” or “BNEW” (pronounced Be New) for short, they would get less support from the public. To say “I don’t support Black Lives Matter” sounds to the average person like “I don’t think any Black lives matter.” This is, of course, by design. However, the ideology of BLM is not “believing that Black lives matter and therefore they should not be murdered by police.” It’s not even about being proud to be Black, which there is nothing inherently wrong with. as long as Whites and other races are allowed to as well (Whites are most certainly not permitted to be proud of their race under this regime). What it really suggests contextually, however, is destroying Whites and promoting radical left-wing politics. The founders of BLM have claimed to be “trained Marxists” and famously, in a now-deleted page on the BLM website, said that the organization supports the destruction of the nuclear family, something that has ironically already happened in the Black community and is a major cause of the problems that afflict African Americans today.35 The current non-deleted demands of BLM on their website are no better, and basically amount to “give us power so that we can make sure White interests are never represented in government again,”36 something that unfortunately has already been largely granted, though they don’t yet realize it, as they are advocates of the “permanent revolution,” a mindset highly intoxicating to the pathological “rebel without a cause” who subjects society to perennial torment for reasons which normal people cannot fathom.37