Insanely Rich People Should be Stripped of Wealth

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
November 12, 2017

This is one of the many reasons that so many people are talking about turning over the reins of societal control to Neo-Nazi Aryan Psychopaths in motorcycle skull masks.

This is absurd and people have had it up to their eyeballs with the absurdity of this situation.

The Guardian:

The three richest people in the US – Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett – own as much wealth as the bottom half of the US population, or 160 million people.

Analysis of the wealth of America’s richest people found that Gates, Bezos and Buffett were sitting on a combined $248.5bn (£190bn) fortune. The Institute for Policy Studies said the growing gap between rich and poor had created a “moral crisis”.

The study found that the billionaires included in Forbes magazine’s list of the 400 richest people in the US were worth a combined $2.68tn – more than the gross domestic product (GDP) of the UK.

“Our wealthiest 400 now have more wealth combined than the bottom 64% of the US population, an estimated 80m households or 204 million people,” the report says. “That’s more people than the population of Canada and Mexico combined.”

The report says the “billionaire class” continues to “pull apart from the rest of us” at the fastest rate ever recorded. “We have not witnessed such extreme levels of concentrated wealth and power since the first gilded age a century ago.”

Except that the levels are way, way more extreme than that.

Forbes celebrated 2017 as “another record year for the wealthiest people in America”, as “the price of admission to the country’s most exclusive club jumped nearly 18% to $2bn”. That was a tenfold increase on the amount of money needed to enter the list when it first started in 1982.

Josh Hoxie, another co-author of the thinktank report, said: “So much money concentrating in so few hands while so many people struggle is not just bad economics, it’s a moral crisis.”

Yes. I agree with that. This is not really an economic problem so much as a social problem.

Of course, the study was done to attack Donald Trump’s tax plan – which is actually good overall, in that it lowers taxes for the middle classes and raises them for the poor AKA the coloreds – and a claim that the wealth inequality has something to do with racism.

That framing is nonsense, but the issue is real: why do these very few individuals have all of this concentrated wealth? What is the purpose of it? What are they able to do with these billions of dollars, other than play the role of pseudo-state powers?

You cannot spend a billion dollars on an individual lavish lifestyle. You cannot live in ten mansions and you cannot sleep with 100 high class hookers per day. You cannot drive 100 Italian sports cars. You cannot wear 1000 Gucci suits. You cannot eat 1000 steaks. This wealth is simply being horded. And the sole reason to horde wealth is to keep it in your own hands and out of the hands of others.

The left – and even some guys on the right – want to frame this as an economic problem somehow related to “capitalism.”

I don’t care about “capitalism” any more than I care about “socialism” or “communism,” but I can assure you, this is no more a failure of capitalism than tripping on a banana and falling off of a building is a failure to learn to walk – when you’re on the top of a building you should be careful and someone should have cleaned up that banana and there should have been a railing to keep you from falling. Except this analogy sucks, because there are a lot more factors involved in “capitalism” turning into 3 people having more wealth than 204 million people.

We have a mixed economy right now, with all sorts of regulations, but the regulations are used for the benefit of the super-rich and to the detriment of the middle class in order to create a situation where wealth is horded by a small number of people in a way that deprives the rest of the people of access to the benefits of the most materially wealth civilization in all of history. And it isn’t just the most productive – it is thousands of times more productive than previous civilizations.

Point being: in first world countries, there is enough to give everyone a very comfortable quality of life, where they want for nothing, being held by just a few people. The reason that these people are holding it is specifically to keep everyone else from having it, so as people continue to have to spin their wheels working at meaningless jobs selling each other things in order to survive.

This is different than historical eras, where it genuinely was an issue of material production – economics – and in order for the wealthy to maintain a high quality of life, others had to do without. I’m not going to make a comment on whether that previous system was morally correct or not, because that is now irrelevant. It is ancient history.

Solution is Futurism

Point blank, there is no economic solution to this problem because it is not an economic problem. The only solution is a solution implemented by the state where the people with astronomical wealth have it seized and given back to the people.

But the solution is much bigger than this. We have to leave the consumer model of civilization. We have to become post-economic, where labor is incentivized by something other than money. The purpose of billionaires is to maintain the current model of consumer based economies.

Money is a status symbol. That is the equation.

If you want to understand this concept, go to a mall and try on $99 Wrangler jeans, then go try on $990 Gucci jeans.

You will notice that they are basically exactly the same.

Probably also virtually identical to $30 H&M jeans.

And then understand that if the technology had been invested in 10 years ago, any pair of jeans – any single piece of clothing – could be made at your home on a 3D printer.

As much clothing already can be.

Making status equal money and then limiting the amount of money available to the people, you create a rat race competition with absolutely zero meaning other than nigger-tier “get dat muffuggen money muffuggah” material status.

That is not “capitalism” but “consumerism” – the latter has been made possible by the material wealth created by the former, but they are not the same system. And again, I am not shilling for capitalism – just so you understand.

What I am shilling for is post-economic National Futurism, where resources are simply distributed by the state and status is based on a measure independent of material wealth.

We really do not have any choice. Some version of an all powerful state entity that distributes resources to everyone is necessary for progress.

We need to get rid of Jews and other undesirables in order to make way for this futurist system.

Christopher Cantwell Got Totally and Entirely Kiked – Still in Jail

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
November 10, 2017

American Hero


Radio host and white racial advocate Christopher Cantwell had a hearing yesterday. He stood charged with three counts of violence related to using pepper spray at the Unite the Right Rally.

A tranny and a regular faggot went to a magistrate to file the charges against Cantwell and a warrant was issued (this is some weird process I wasn’t even aware of before this) and he was denied bail on fake claims that are disproved by video evidence. Meanwhile – I should remind you – you can attack a US Senator and break five of his ribs and get out on $5000 bond. Just so you understand.

We expected Cantwell’s charges dropped, given that the accusers had lied under oath and the whole thing is retarded.

They went through the video in court, and it was determined that the accusers had lied under oath – one of them admitted to it on the stand – but the judge decided to leave him to rot in jail longer anyway.

One of the charges was dropped and the other two were combined into a single charge.

It’s a charge relating to just discharging the pepper spray in a crowd. Not against any specific person. And the “malicious wounding” aspect has been removed. He was looking at a max of 60 years, now the max is 5.

It’s not clear whether he’ll get another bond hearing or not.

Basically, what this looks like is that the court knows that they’ve kept the poor bastard locked in jail for three months on fake charges and to dismiss all three would make it appear as though they were just politically persecuting this guy for no reason. Which is exactly what they are doing.

They know that he did nothing, that he will be convicted of nothing, but they are using the justice system’s processes of justice as a punishment.

If they send him to a jury trial over one of these charges, it looks better than just letting him out now and being like “whoops, we kept you in jail for three months for no reason, lol.”

It drags the whole thing out to the point where no one will even remember what it was about to begin with, and going to trial gives legitimacy to what is effectively unlawful imprisonment.

Cantwell went over this stuff yesterday on his Live From Seg podcast, which is recorded over the Charlottesville city jail phone with his friend Jared Howe.

If you haven’t yet, or if you have, donate to his legal fund.


It’s full, but he still needs money – more now that he’s gotta pay for more stuff.

And it’s important for us to do these legal funds for our guys. We need to show each other that we’ll be there to support each other.

And we’re not doing the Unite the Right type rally again. So hopefully, we’re not going to have more guys in jail any time soon.

ISIS Beard or Neckbeard? Texas Church Shooter “Preached Atheism”

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
November 6, 2017

Everyone saw this fatboy’s beard and was like “yo, looks like that fatboy converted to Islam and shot-up that church.”

However, it is now being suggested that the beard is not in fact an ISIS beard but a neckbeard.

The two are shockingly similar, so it is generally hard to tell what the fuck is going on with all that shit.

Of course, it is possible for someone to go from militant atheist to Islamic jihadist in a relatively short amount of time. That happens relatively often in the case of white converts to Islam. The issue in such a scenario is the intensity of belief, not the belief itself.

That said, I think that if he had converted to Islam, there would be some chatter of that by now. Unlike Stephen Paddock, this guy was not a recluse and he was on social media.

Daily Mail:

The Texas church shooter who shot dead 26 people and injured 24 others was an ‘outcast’ who ‘preached his atheism’ online.

Former classmates say Devin Patrick Kelley, 26, who stormed First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs in Texas and opened fire on Sunday, was ‘creepy’, ‘crazy’ and ‘weird’.

Patrick Boyce, who attended New Braunfels High School with the killer, told ‘He had a kid or two, fairly normal, but kinda quiet and lately seemed depressed.

‘He was the first atheist I met. He went Air Force after high school, got discharged but I don’t know why.

‘I was just shocked [to hear the news]. Still haven’t quite processed how he could have done that.’

Nina Rose Nava, who went to school with the gunman, wrote on Facebook: ‘In (sic) in complete shock! I legit just deleted him off my fb cause I couldn’t stand his post.

‘He was always talking about how people who believe in God we’re stupid and trying to preach his atheism’

Christopher Leo Longoria replied: ‘I removed him off FB for those same reasons! He was being super nagtive (sic) all the timd (sic).’

Michael Goff added: ‘He was weird but never that damn weird, always posting his atheist sh** like Nina wrote, but damn he always posted pics of him and his baby – crazy.’

Nava added to ‘I went to school with him. We had a few conversations here and there. It’s not something I expected from him.

Hopefully you generally don’t expect that anyone is going to shoot up a church and kill 26 people…

‘He was an outcast but not a loner. He was popular among other outcast. I haven’t spoke to him since high school.’

Another former classmate, who asked to remain anonymous, told ‘I grew up going to school with him… Always creeped me out and was different.’

She said she moved away from the area while she was in junior high and lost touch with a lot of people.

So that having been said, I doubt that “atheism” was the actual motive here.

I hate aggressive edgy atheists as much as anyone, but I’ve never heard of them killing anyone for their beliefs.

I would want to know if this guy was on SSRI drugs.

We never get a quick answer to that question, but basically all non-Islamic mass shooters have been on these drugs.

Note that he was skinny recently and gained a shitton of weight.

High school, 2009


That kind of transformation is typical of people on Prozac.

It seems he had a history of the type of behavior that would get one put on Prozac in the current year.

A former friend wrote on Facebook: ‘It’s scary to know this psychopath has been in my house. I can’t believe I was friends with this guy and I literally would stay the night at his place when we were kids.’

He added: ‘I ended up distancing myself from him in high school after he got in an argument with me in school and he tried punching me several times. Dude was crazy man.’

Cord Eubank Brown wrote on social media: ‘I cannot believe this. I went to high school with this maniac.

‘There were people I knew who stayed away from this guy for many reasons, which all make sense now. He just requested me on facebook recently.’

He was dishonorably discharged after committing a felony assault on his gf and their baby, meaning it was illegal for him to own the gun.

A LinkedIn account which appears to be Kelley’s states that he joined the US Air Force after graduating New Braunfels High School in 2009.

An Air Force official said the gunman was court-martialed in 2012 and discharged two years later.

Spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said Kelley was court-martialed on one count of assault on his spouse and another count of assault on their child. He received a bad conduct discharge, 12 months’ confinement and a reduction in rank.

Stefanek also said Kelley served in Logistics Readiness at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico from 2010 until his discharge.

Kelley volunteered as a teacher for Bible studies at Kingsville First Baptist Church, according to his LinkedIn which shows him posing which a young child.

He was married to Danielle Shields, and they appear to have a child together. She was previously a teacher at the First Baptist Church.

Kelley lived at his parents’ home with his wife and child and neighbor Mark Moravitz told ABC News he would sometimes hear gunshots coming from near that house late at night.

The gunman’s mother-in-law, Michelle Shields, also appears to have been a parishioner at the church and was friends on social media with the pastor’s wife.

It is not clear whether they were at the church at the time of the shooting.

Yeah, there’s the other thing – it could have been something personal.

It’s definitely a strange coincidence that his wife worked at the church if it was a random atheist terrorist attack.

Whatever the details turn out to be, it’s a nasty thing.

What is clear is that this has nothing to do with “TRUMP SUPPORTING WHITE SUPREMACISTS.”

So don’t worry about that one.

This will of course be used by the left in their cries of “WHITE PEOPLE ARE TERRORISTS TOO,” but that is the extent to which it is going to be tied to anything we’re trying to do.

Obviously, I would prefer if it turns out that he was an Islamic convert than just an insane white person.

President Trump’s Response

The President gave a good response, naming mental health problems and not guns as the responsible party.


President Donald Trump said Monday he believed the Texas church shooting was caused by a “mental health problem,” and not because of a problem with domestic gun laws.

When asked whether U.S. gun control measures could have been the key to the Texas shooting, Trump replied, “Mental health is your problem here.”

“This isn’t a guns situation,” he said, before adding, “This is a mental health problem at the highest level. It’s a very, very sad event.”

Speaking at a joint press conference in Tokyo, Japan, alongside Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Trump described the shooter as “a very deranged individual.”

Trump — who has received political support from the National Rifle Association — has consistently been against implementing more rigorous domestic gun control laws.

“Fortunately … somebody else had a gun that was shooting in the opposite direction,” Trump said at the press conference.

Gun control isn’t happening. It just isn’t in the cards. I almost don’t want to say that, because I like everyone to be on their guard with regards to that second most important of issues, but the reality is that there is no way it is going to be a problem in the near future.

Obama couldn’t force through gun control after Sandy Hook. There is no way Trump is going to do something now.

The Lesson Here

The fact of the matter is that we have a sick society and sick things happen in it.

The details are what they are, but the fact is, in a normal, healthy society you wouldn’t have this sort of thing going on.

Clearly, this guy had problems. He had problems with his wife, probably other family problems, he had various alienation issues and I suspect substance abuse issues.

All of that is a result of what the Jews have done to our country.

It’s time to eject the parasite and begin the process of healing.

Libshit Response to Texas Church Massacre

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
November 6, 2017

At time of writing, we still do not know much about the details surrounding the shooting.

We do know about the libshit response to it, however, which has been a mix of celebration of the deaths of white people and calling for people’s guns to be taken away.

Jews and non-Jews alike are calling for gun control.

Though it is mostly Jews tbh.



I’m sick & tired of “thoughts and prayers” for mass shooting victims. What we need: legislation & regulation. Start with assault-weapon ban.

It’s almost like they’re using these deaths to push an agenda through against the goyim.

Interestingly, the shooter, Devin Patrick Kelley, was dishonorably discharged from the military for committing a felony.

This means he was legally barred from owning a firearm. Meaning gun control would have had no effect on his actions, as all gun control does is take away legally-owned guns.

Also interesting, though we don’t know of any connections to Islam, Sunday was the 8 year anniversary, to the day, of the Fort Hood terrorist attack.

And Kelley did have an ISIS beard, for sure.

ISIS approved


Another very interesting fact: as soon as the shooter was named, Facebook cleansed his account.

Wonder why? 

PSA: Let’s Kill the Drama and Work Together to Forge a Path Forward

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
November 3, 2017

In the wake of of the Nationalist Front Shelbyville march, I and many others criticized the look of the march, in particular the military-like 1980s-style costumes.

Given the timing of the event, and the presentation of “this is the Alt-Right from the internet come to the real world,” and most importantly, the potential that more such costumed marches will take place, I didn’t feel as though I had a choice other that to say, “no, this is not the same movement that I helped build on the internet, and it is not something that I endorse or personally want to be a part of.”

I said that because I would not presume to tell others what costumes they can or cannot dress up in, we should go our separate ways. The reason I said this was so that people can understand that I am not going to give support to this type of costumed action.

That is the long and short of what I felt I needed to say. I have said this, a lot, to people privately, and I have said it publicly – it is important that we take the aesthetics and tone of our internet movement, which has been so overwhelmingly popular with the young, and create a real-world analog that jives with it. Despite that, those guys went ahead and did a costumed march, so I was put in the position where I felt I needed to say something.

I hated having to do that. There is nothing that I gain from that. I prefer, very much, to get along with everyone and simply ignore people that I don’t agree with.

Assuming that this group wants to push forward with costumed marches, I said “we should differentiate between that and what has come to be called the ‘Alt-Right’ on the internet.”

These costumed groups were around for a long time before the Alt-Right, and I have never had any reason to believe they would stop existing. However, I must admit that I never thought that they would converge and overlap. I never thought I would see one of the most prominent figures in the Alt-Right headlining a costumed march.

I fully understand the influence I have as the publisher of such an influential website, and I never want to take that for granted, and I certainly never want to use that influence to cause drama or infighting in the pro-white scene. People can accuse me of that, but then you would have to ask what I have to gain from that, why I would say anything unless I felt it was absolutely necessary.

My only other options in this situation were to either endorse the event or simply say nothing. I would have done the latter, as I have repeatedly, if the event had not been tied directly to the Alt-Right.

I feel very strongly that I gave the people I was criticizing two “outs,” while also making clear what I thought needed to be made clear. They could either say, “you know, you’re right, this doesn’t look great, we should reconsider embracing the image of 1980s costumed marches, in the future we’re going to wear normal clothing” or, “yes, we are doing different things and we should go separate ways.”

By claiming that I shouldn’t have said anything, or claiming that what I said was a malicious “attack” of some kind for nefarious reasons, what is being implied is that I am obligated to endorse costumed marches as the real world manifestation of the Alt-Right.

Once again: I was in a very awkward position. I feel that I responded in a mature and appropriate way.

Let’s Just Leave It There

If people involved in the costume marches want to offer defenses as to how dressing-up in costumes will lead to a stronger, more powerful popular movement, I think that is fine.

However, some of the responses so far have not been that. Some have been instead hostile, unrelated to costumes, framing what I said as an attack and saying “we’re going to attack you back because you attacked us.”

I am able to understand that people feel slighted. And that is fine. People put work into that march, and I’m certain that it didn’t feel good to get such a negative response to it.

I genuinely had no intention to slight anyone, but I can see how someone would feel that way.

However, I do not feel that there is anything to be gained from escalating this into some kind of massive argument about personalities or ideologies.

I can say with 100% honesty that if the Shelbyville marchers had simply worn regular clothing, I would not have felt the need to say anything. It was not about personalities or ideologies, it was explicitly about costumes. Technically, it was also about bringing weapons to the march, as that had been the plan beforehand. However, local authorities (thankfully) banned all weapons.

Obviously, I can’t stop people from turning this into a massive shit-flinging contest anymore than I can stop people from dressing up in costumes. But I want to say that I’m against it. And the best I can do here is refuse to participate in it.

Nothing can be gained from large public arguments.

I genuinely wish everyone the best, and if I turn out to be wrong, and costumed marches turn out to be a successful way to get millions of people behind the pro-white cause, then I will certainly embrace that. I will put on the costume and apologize to all of the costumed marchers that have felt slighted by my disagreement with their methods.

However, based on the datasets I am looking at, I think that it is very unlikely right now that costumes are going to lead to a movement involving millions of people.

And we do have the ability to form such a movement. Our ideas are currently much more popular than our movement is. What we need to do, in my view, is work to bridge the gap between the 55% of white Americans who feel they are being discriminated against and our current revolutionary political movement.

A Clear Agenda

We are not playing a game here. We can’t do things because they feel good or because they seem like maybe they’re a good idea. We can’t do things because “someone just has to do something.” We need to be calculated in our actions.

Some of these public debates are going to be necessary, because no one has ever done what we’re doing right now before (yes, there are historical parallels, but if they applied 100%, no one would have any disagreements about anything). Hopefully, we can keep these as civil and as peaceful as is humanly possible. Everyone should be able to agree to that. And we should be able to tell each other when we are losing the plot, and making things about egos rather than the agenda.

Criticism is fine. It is difficult to receive, I know, but it is necessary.

We should be able to make the case for what we are doing in a complete, logical and coherent manner. And we should feel obligated to make the case for what we are doing. Claiming that some behavior is above criticism, or claiming “at least it’s something,” are not valid explanations of actions.

Memes and Real Life

The meme war was something that we were able to win.

The Institute of Strategic Dialogue, a British think-tank founded by a prominent Jewish British MP, the late ((((((George Weidenfeld)))))), Baron Weidenfeld, recently published a paper entitled “The Fringe Insurgency,” which claimed that our memes – they specifically mentioned /pol/ and The Daily Stormer – were so effective that we must have employed leaked NATO psy-op techniques. Though I cannot speak for /pol/, I can tell you for a fact that I did not employ leaked NATO documents in my meme warfare. I simply figured out what worked best through an understanding of human psychology, an understanding of internet culture, and trial and error.

This resulted in The Daily Stormer becoming the first legal website to be kicked off the internet, and a new set of extreme rules to shut down memeing on social media. The authors of the think tank compare us to ISIS, and call for a global campaign to shut us down.

If we are going to do a real life movement, that same principle of absolute efficiency needs to be applied.

Regrettably, there is much less room for trial and error, and much more energy goes into trials.

That said, there have been plenty of trials so far this year:

  • Charlottesville: Police refused to honor our permit, attacked us, forced us into a street-war type situation. A guy crashed a Dodge. Multiple of our guys are in jail as a result of this debacle. The world saw a street-fighting scene which they did not find to be tasteful.
  • Gainsville: A weapon was discharged in a dispute with antifa, resulting in attempted murder charges for three guys.
  • Shelbyville: The movement generally disliked the costumes and being outnumbered and shouted down by counter-protesters was interpreted by some as looking bad.

I think at this point, we should have learned quite a bit.

The biggest and most important lesson is that large rallies on public property, where we know there is going to be confrontation with antifa, are not a good idea. Fighting antifa could be a good look, but only when we are defending something from them. When we plan an event and they show up to attack us, in the mind of the public, it looks like we’re just showing up to fight one another, and people hate that.

As far as the claim that “we have to occupy public space” like in Mein Kampf – the people saying this do not understand that we are currently in a different context. At that time, the DAP was an established political party seeking electoral victories. When the real intense street battles were going on it was the late twenties and early thirties and Hitler was running for President. So they were out in the street saying, “here we are, vote for us.” What are American rally-holders saying, other than “here we are”? Furthermore, all of the early rallies were held on private property – the beerhalls. Then consider the fact that we do not have anywhere near the number of people to actually occupy and hold space. The SA had 400,000 members by 1931.

Attempts to claim the public square right now are premature in terms of the political situation and premature in terms of numbers.

The amount of media attention surrounding Charlottesville could be seen as ultimately being positive. But overall, the goal of the public rallies is unclear, and it is also not clear that they are accomplishing anything.

So I would like for the assumption that any and all rallies are good to be dismissed.

The counter here from rally-supporters is that I am “discouraging activism.” For that to be the case, one would have to accept that large rallies are universally good, and that they are worth the massive amount of risk that goes along with them. Again: I do not accept that as a universal and absolute truth.

The Purpose of Real Life Events

Public Property Rallies

We have to understand what the purpose of these events is. Because of how serious this all is, I think that “to draw attention to X” is not a significant explanation. Because a rally is a big deal, it should be thought through as if it were a big deal, and there are so many negatives that to simply hope that the message you are trying to present slips through the cracks of the media into the consciousness of normal people is just not enough.

There are three purposes that public street rallies could serve:

  1. Gaining media attention and/or letting society know that you exist
  2. Disrupting society in order to force change
  3. Presenting yourself as a solution to a problem that is generally acknowledged to exist

Apparently, the recent rallies are intended to be a little bit of all of these things.

With media attention, we need to figure out exactly what we are trying to accomplish. We need to take into consideration how the media works, and control for that as best we can. That is to say, we must be able to understand that the media lies and distorts and then decide that the overall coverage will work in our favor, despite that, or we are doing more harm than good.

Gaining media attention is fine. But that can be done with much smaller events, which involve virtually no risk and cost nothing. Flashmobs do not result in arrests, they do not result in street fights. They do result in the same amount of media attention, generally. Orders of magnitude more per-manhour more media attention.

The Black Lives Matter “racial grievance march” model is probably not best suited for our movement. We have on several occasions now managed to create a large disruption, mostly by using the energy of our enemies, but everyone hates people who purposefully disrupt society. Furthermore, we do not have the numbers to significantly disrupt anything on an ongoing basis, so all we are getting is the hate without any chance of forcing change. This is, of course, open for discussion, and I invite those promoting this type of activism to explain what the purpose of it is.

Presenting ourselves as a solution to a problem makes sense, but only in combination with electoral politics. Otherwise, what is being communicated? “We will solve [x] if you [x]” – what is the second x in that sentence?

We also need to be realistic. Through the internet, we have convinced millions of people to take our side on these issues. I don’t think that is going to happen by marching through the streets, even with perfect optics.

Private Property Rallies

There is another way.

Rallies held on private property avoid disrupting society, and serve the purpose of creating an environment where people can actually hear what you are trying to communicate to them. You can also normalize the existence of a far right movement by maintaining visibility and progressively increasing profile.

In my opinion, rather than public rallies, energy for real life activism should be put into creating environments where normal people feel comfortable coming out and seeing what is going on, as they did with the Trump rallies.

The Trump rallies were all done where the people in charge were able to control who came in.

If we hold events on private property, we can decide who goes in, we can avoid the street-fighting, we can figure out what flags we want flown and so on. After a few of them are held successfully, more people will feel comfortable going to them (assuming there is no violence and we are not presenting ourselves in a way that turns people off).

In this way, we can build a grassroots movement that normal people feel comfortable embracing. They can come and see what we’re doing, hear what we have to say, and grow to support what we’re doing.

As such, I feel extremely strongly that private property rallies are the way forward. Renting space is cheap and easy, and the risk evaporates.

We can invite the media. We can allow people who disagree with us to attend. If they create a spectacle and try to disrupt, security can remove them. But, inviting everyone to come and hear what we say gives plausible deniability to everyone who attends, so people worry less being doxed. We can also have interesting Q&A sessions.

We could slowly build up momentum this way, holding events in different cities on a regular basis with regular speakers. It can easily be marketed to young people as “just come and hear what we have to say, what do you have to lose?” It can work in concert with an internet marketing campaign.

Obviously, this is not going to be easy. Figuring out the details of something like this is a lot harder than showing up and marching through the streets.

And before someone says “well, are you going to do it Anglin????”

No. I’m not going to organize any rallies. I work full time doing what I’m doing right now, and I’m very successful at what I do. I am publicly putting out suggestions for what I believe is a very clear way forward for our movement, because I have the ability to put out these suggestions in a place where people will read them. People can follow this advice or not, but it is now out there, and I think people are going to think about this advice the next time people do a racial grievance march that creates chaos in the center of a town.

The good news is, it’s November, and we have a while to figure this all out. And we must figure it out using the information we have, logic and reason, instead of ego and pride.


In conclusion, it is worth noting that the above mentioned think-tank study on our movement explicitly recommends using disruption along lines of division to break up the Alt-Right.

It reads:

Researchers and practitioners should increase their awareness of the points of ideological convergence and divergence between these groups and leverage them to move effectively disrupt their efforts.

What that means is that they are going to send in shills to stir-up disputes between persons active in the Alt-Right in order to “effectively disrupt” our efforts. And they are already doing that. Not all of these anonymous comments you see purposefully sowing discord are shills, some of them are just people with personal problems, but many of them are shills, and we you give in to ego and engage in these pointless conflicts, you are giving them exactly what they want.

So let’s get along as best as we are able and figure out the best way forward for the movement.

We only get one shot at this. And if we fail, that’s it.

No extra lives, no continues, game over.

If you’re not interested in winning, then bow out, go do something else.

I want to win.

Total victory.

Deranged Conspiracy Theorist John McTumor Attacks Trump and Condemns America, Accuses Others of Having Theories

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
October 31, 2017


John McCain has been a virulent promoter of bizarre, deranged conspiracy theories for his entire career. In the early 2000s, he was a key advocate of the conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein was building a nuclear weapon to attack America with, and that the only solution was to invade that country.

Most recently, he has, in an irate fashion, promoted the insane, baseless theory that Donald Trump “colluded” with Russia to “hack” the 2016 election.

Now, with that theory falling apart, exposed for the pure tinfoil nonsense that it was, he is on the attack, accusing others of having “conspiracy theories.

The Hill:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) took aim at the current political environment, including apparent veiled swipes at President Trump, during a speech on Monday night.

We have to fight against propaganda and crackpot conspiracy theories. We have to fight isolationism, protectionism, and nativism. We have to defeat those who would worsen our divisions,” McCain said at the Brigade of Midshipmen at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.

The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman added that “we have to remind our sons and daughters that we became the most powerful nation on earth by tearing down walls, not building them.”

Comparing the current state of nation to the early 1990s, which he described as “hopeful,” the 81-year-old senator argued that it was “time to wake up.”

“We are asleep to the necessity of our leadership, and to the opportunities and real dangers of this world. We are asleep in our echo chambers, where our views are always affirmed and information that contradicts them is always fake,” McCain said.

He also referenced one of Trump’s campaign mantras, “America first,” as he detailed the lessons learned from the rise of fascism and World War II.

“Our failure to remain engaged in Europe and enforce the hard-won peace of 1918 had made that clear. There could be no more isolationism, no more tired resignation — no more ‘America First,’” McCain said.

McCain’s remarks on Monday night come after he warned of “half-baked, spurious nationalism” during a speech in Philadelphia earlier this month.



This is certainly what McCain always believed, but did he have the nerve to say it so straight-forwardly before the tumor?

I can’t remember. But I think he did not.

He is tying “conspiracy theories” to “isolationism, protectionism, and nativism” – so what “theories” is he talking about?

The theory that bringing hundreds of thousands of Somalians into our country has harmed our nation? The theory that brown immigration in general has had a negative effect? The theory that sending all of America’s jobs overseas has led to economic hardships for the working and middle class?

What “theories” do nationalists have?

His basic argument that we have to destroy America in order to create a one-world global government system is at least internally consistent. Lots of people are arguing for this – that we must sacrifice our nation and sovereignty to create a glorious “new world order” type future.

But where exactly do “conspiracy theories” enter into the picture here, on the side of anti-globalists?

It would have been nice if he was more specific.

Anyway – whatever.

All of these people are showing their true faces, and saying, without any implicitness, that they want to destroy America for the sake of globalism.

And I don’t think this is a popular message. It certainly isn’t popular among Republicans, and I’m not really sure how popular it is among Democrats either.

But I’m glad it’s all out there on the table. They are saying “hey, we have to destroy America, and if you don’t agree with that you are evil,” and now the people can decide.

George Bush’s anti-nationalism speech was equally straight-forward, where he also pushed the “we have no choice” angle when arguing for the destruction of America. And to my knowledge, he does not have a brain tumor.

The concept of the “uniparty” has never been more clear than it is right now. There is absolutely zero difference between Republicans and Democrats. There used to be difference on social issues which are ultimately irrelevant in the larger scheme of things, but the GOP has since given up on that. Now, Democrats and establishment Republicans are making zero attempt to disguise the fact that they are a unified force working to destroy America.

It’s infuriating to me that the boomers who supported these people like Bush and McCain did so believing that they were not globalists intent on destroying America, when there were all of these people – like Pat Buchanan – warning exactly that. And in fact, the rhetoric of these neoconservatives, even back then, was not hard to interpret. No, they weren’t nearly as straightforward as they are being now, but it was never really a secret either.

Ah, well.

At least that age has ended.

We are going to do the Bannon plan, we are going to primary all of these shills, we are going to push forward with Trump nationalism. And in due time, that will lead to open white nationalism.

It is a good, solid plan.

Right now, the key goal of white nationalists needs to be infiltrating the GOP. We need to launch a massive program for this. We need to be filling whatever seats we can at the local level, and just swinging the whole machine our way as we work up to the state and national levels.

I am working on plans for this. Instructions of how to get it done.

It’s not going to be easy, but it’s not looking like it’s really going to be all that hard either. The party is filled with old people who are all dying off and there is no direction for the old establishment other than this McCain “fuck America” nonsense – it is wide open for us.

This is actionable, it has steps and phases, and it has a clear set of goals. That is what we need right now.

There is no other clear path to victory right now. Marching through the streets in Nazi uniforms and planning to overthrow the government is delusional and insane. No one is going to overthrow the government – at least not within the next 25 years – and people talking about it are either stupid or shills. And if no one is going to overthrow the government, the only option moving forward is to continue to create awareness among the people – as we’ve been doing – and to infiltrate the existing political establishment.

We should combine that with tactical real world activism that actually makes sense in terms of propaganda. Not “JUST DO SOMETHING” KKK goon marches.

I want to actually win. And the only way to define “win” is as “state power.”

Anyone else who wants to win and disagrees with me needs to present an alternative strategy for winning.

That is:

Goon marches lead to [BLANK] which leads to [BLANK] which leads to state power.