Archive for the ‘philosophy’ Category

The Left Hand Path and The Left Wing

Wednesday, November 30th, 2011

First of all it should be noted that the terms “left” and “right” are stupid terms in my opinion and my follow-up. I even used the term “third positionist” to indicate that I do not support this one-dimensional view of politics. But usually people who believe in class struggle against the ruling class are called “leftists,” so I’ll use the term here because it mixes well with the term “left hand path.”

The left hand path is a term for the dark religions. It can include the Occult but I am really focusing on theological variants of Satanism and Luciferianism.

The left hand path refers to “dark” religions including : Levay Satanism, Theistic Satanism, Symbolic Satanism and Luciferianism. Now on the surface it may appear that these religions inherently contradict Marxism because Marxism is a Communitarian philosophy not an individualist philosophy. In fact I was banned from SIN for trying to promote Karl Marx

I will explain how different philosophies can tie links to Marxist theory to resolve apparent contradictions, but first I would like to link you to content about serial killer motivations, because I am going to look into psychology and human motivation to make analogies in this post.

Holmes deburger mode and a post about it

There are 4 types.

Visionary : Kills because they have a psychosis which causes them to believe supernatural power are commanding them. Very disorganized and random.

Missionary : Kills to eliminate a group of people deemed undesirable. Kills very quickly with non-sexual motive.

Hedonist : Lives a deviant lifestyle (full of lust, crime, etc.) and the deviant lifestyle becomes intertwined with murder. Further subdivided into lust killers (sex addicts), thrill killers (compulsive risk takers), and profit oriented (hitmen).

Power/Control : A Jekyll and Hyde killer who wants to totally dominate the victim, and plans crime in extreme detail. Because he wants full control when he takes the mask off (and to avoid detection), he lives his life tricking people into believing that he is a regular guy.

Next I will explain various left hand path philosophies and how their philosophical links can be drawn to Marxism and how each link resembles the motivation of a different type of serial killer.

Levay Satanism and Marxism
Lavey Satanism is radical individualism. Lavey’s argument is that being a Satanist is about trying to be your own god to so to speak. In the Serial Killer taxonomy, this would potentially match with the “hedonist” killer who kills because it either feels good, gives them a thrill or profits them immediately. It could also match with the “power/control” killer due to the desire to feel that one is making his/her rules and controlling life and death.

I should note that I do admire the work of Jake Black but I did not copy Jake Black. Jake Black makes the case well for a Lavey Satanist philosophy and its compatibility with Marxism-Leninism. Basically he argues that individual greed is compatible with working class activism.

A quote:

Ironically, in order to fulfill my individual desires, I find it necessary to reject the limitations of individualism.

(In fact Jake Black can thank my link to him for boosting the front page of his website. Until I linked, he wasn’t number one in google for “satanic left.” He individually benefited from collective behavior.)

Symbolic Satanism and Marxism
A Symbolic Satanist does not believe the devil exists, but still identifies with the Judaic-Islamic-Christian (Abrahamic) Devil. It is sort of “if Satan did exist, I would side with Satan.” This is largely my view. In serial killer taxonomy it fits well with the “mission-oriented” category. You are of the opinion that the devil does not exist, but you are wishing to create a world in his image.

In order to be a Marxist and a Symbolic Satanist at the same time, a good belief system is that Satan sort of symbolizes the working class rebelling against the Upper class.

To quote “occupy.”

When they say CUT BACK we say FIGHT BACK

Well a Symbolic Satanist looking to synthesize his views with Marxism should find inspiration in the way that Satan is depicted as fighting back.

Devil Worship and Marxism
Devil Worship is when you believe in Satan literally. According to the serial killer taxonomy, it would fit good with the Herbert Mullin style motivation known as “visionary.” You hear voices in you head.

In order to be a Marxist and a Devil worshiper, you would just have to believe that Satan exists and wants you to be a Marxist.

Luciferianism and Marxism
Luciferianism differs from Satanism in that it believes that “Lucifer” is a concept that has roots in pagan religions and was only borrowed by the Old Testament, New Testament and Koran. I guess that’s the only difference. A Luciferian can probably still be either literal or Symbolic. Someone who engages in a Levay Style self-worship may also be a reader of ancient pagan iterations of Lucifer. So the philosophical ties between Luciferiniasm and Marxism are not much different from the Philosophical ties between Satanism and Marxism. It’s just a different set of religious texts that are used to depict Lucifer. Still, the philosophy could branch out in the same way.

A post on the 600 club tells us that some Luciferians do not consider Lucifer to be Satan. To them the pagan religions describe Lucifer better.

mabon2010 : It is tiresome to hear ignorant Christians rant on about Lucifer being Satan. A campaign is planned to re-educate those Christians of a second idea — that Lucifer is no Satan.

Those Satanists who claim to be Luciferians — no you are not. I am going to be kind when I say you are neo-Luciferians, but you are Spiritual Satanists who worship Satan, and have added another entity you claim to be Lucifer onto your worship as an afterthought.

Yet another Luciferian disagrees:

Dimitri : It is in the Christian mythology written and made clear that Satan and Lucifer are the same being. Lucifer was Satan before being cast out of heaven. That’s what they belief. They are not ignorant for the fact you want to see it otherwise.

8-19. Hail the termites.

Those who read this post may be interested in the Satanic Reds. They actually deny that they are Satanist and Socialist/Communist.

Marxism and “the state”

Tuesday, April 19th, 2011

One turn off regarding Marxism for me has always been the misunderstood notion that “the state will wither away” in the words of Engels. However after reading more, I do not think it is as ridiculous as what one might think at first glance. It is only under specific utopian conditions that the state can wither away.

Below are some good links:


Lenin distinguishes between the bourgeois state and the proliterian state which replaces it via revolution. Marx thought that the idea of capitalism dissolving peacefully was unlikely, and Lenin thought that this was totally impossible. The idea is that when the capitalist mode of production is replaced, then the state which is based on that mode of production should also be replaced. It is this secondary proliterian state that may wither away in a hypothetical setting, but as the links show, that was not a firm part of Marx or Lenin’s theory.

A key point here is that Lenin admits to the utopian nature of Communism. The argument is that socialism can be achieved by aggravating class antagonisms with the help of professional revolutionaries and philosophers, but that Communism is more of an ideal. As I posted earlier, Marx thought that socialism would occur naturally, but Lenin figured out that the working class must be guided. But even Marx himself knew that Communism, as opposed to Socialism, was a bit of a utopia. Marx may have been a scientific Socialist, but he was not a scientific Communist. He was a utopian Communist.

This revolutionized proliterian state will have legislation and constitutional material that orients to a new economic system and way of life. Take the American ideals: “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness.” Are those ideals not closely tied to free enterprise? Obviously the ideals of a socialist state would be centered around the rule of the proletariat, not human rights.

As far as my opinion goes, being a bit of an authoritarian and perhaps even a revisionist (I do not “follow” but study), I frankly do not see a stateless society as an ideal.

Vulgar Marxism vs. Progressive Nationalism

Wednesday, April 13th, 2011

“I am not a Marxist.” – Karl Marx

“There is no knowledge that is not power.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

A “vulgar Marxist” holds that man has no free will and economic forces just happen in succession. To a vulgar Marxist, ideas do not really change society. Ideas are just an illusion of free will. Scholars debate the extent to which Marx (and Engels) believed this. I am trying to settle the historical question myself, but I do not believe Marx was quite this rigid. It makes no difference in terms of my own viewpoints, but it is an interesting historical question.

I personally believe that economic forces are a reality, just like genetic forces, national forces, cultural forces, religious forces and ethnic forces. To an extent these forces are intertwined with each other. For instance Thomas Hobbes and John Locke argued that the social contract was created by man to create Governments, because the nature of wilderness caused life to be “brutish and short.” This means that man formed his Government in reaction to material conditions. However for every problem, there are multiple solutions, and even I believe Marx was too confident that society would move in a particular direction or that society would even address the problems. That being said, I do not believe Marx was as linear as he is portrayed both by ultra-Orthodox “Marxists” and by anti-Communists.

While the forces iterated in the above paragraph are relevant to my worldview, I believe that when man becomes more conscious of these forces, he or she actually increases in power and control and increases in ability to engineer society. This is a very pragmatic way of thinking, but also a way of thinking which argues that man subjects nature.  Yet I am arguing that if man is unaware of these forces, then man has less power.   Hitler was very opposed to this thinking, arguing instead that man is subject to laws of nature. In contrast to Hitler, Mussolini would agree with it arguing that the state (a literate political class) creates the society. Anton Lavey (a satanist thinker) would agree with this thinking as well.

Lenin seemed to reject vulgar Marxism as well. Lenin argued that the party must guide the working class. “Democratic centralism” is a rejection of vulgar Marxism. It contradicts the idea that revolution happens on its own.

Stalin as well rejected this viewpoint. He was quoted as saying “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” If only economics mattered, and ideology did not, then Stalin would not have made this statement.

So we can conclude that Stalin, Lenin and future Marxists revised vulgar Marxism. The question is did Marx and Engels believe it? I do not think so personally.

Utopian Socialists vs. Scientific Socialists

Monday, April 11th, 2011

Anyone who reads Marx knows that he writes about “Utopian Socialists.”

I would argue that Utopian Socialists are not Socialists at all. They are merely progressives who are stuck in the current mode of production. FDR could be considered a Utopian Socialist. He wanted to strengthen the economy, redistribute wealth and base society off of ideals, but he did not want tie his analysis and worldview to concepts which involved changing modes of production. Increasing taxes was not changing the mode of production, but a matter of administration within a mode of production that already existed. Increasing taxes may be Socialistic, but it is not Marxist.

Improving people’s quality of life could be considered Utopian Socialism. Arguing that the state should be revolutionized based on the antagonisms caused by class conflicts in Marx’s era is what Marx called Scientific Socialism.

You could argue that even Fascism and Nazism have some Venn Diagram overlap with Utopian Socialism. They want to change society to pursue an ideal, while working within existing means of production. Fascism is based on a strong state and imperialism, whereas Nazism is based on scientifically invalidated interpretations of race.

I personally believe that some Utopian Socialism is necessary after the Socialist Party takes power, in the form of technocracy. Technocracy is idealistically orienting society towards technological improvement and is not inherently tied to a mode of production. Technocracy is necessary to produce an abundance of resources, otherwise Communism will just be poverty. Whether this Technocracy occurs in the Capitalist, Socialist or Communist mode of production is a matter of debate. But the key is that the technocracy must occur after revolution, because a good economy will mask class antagonisms.

Modern Zionism vs. Normal Patriotism

Sunday, April 10th, 2011

I had a major “ah ha” moment. I was really really deeply trying to figure out why it is that Zionists are condemned for the nature of their founding, but American “patriots” are not condemned. Nobody today attacks European settlers for their conflicts with Indians. Nobody really associates American “patriots” with slave owners. I think some of this probably is due to extremist ideology and antisemitism, but I do not think this applies to most. Most people do not have an ideology which intentionally looks to degrade Jews. In my case, I at one point allied with a major Jewish organization because of some compelling videos and common objectives. Once I learned more about their true colors, I had to break the alliance.

I think the key here is that reactionary Zionism unfortunately has some unsettling trends. Most American “patriots” consider America or part of America to be their home, warts and all. They realize that America has done bad things and good things. They realize that American history is not perfect. They realize all of this, but they still consider America or part of America to be their home.

Zionists of the reactionary stripe, however, do not merely consider Israel to be their home and support its survival. They act as if Israel has never done anything wrong. This is more than upholding Judaism but it is seeing reality in a way that bends it to make Zionists always the victim. They act as if Israel has a get out of jail free card (to quote Nick Griffin) because of the holocaust.

I for instance find it very unsettling that the National Democratic Party in Germany defends and marginalizes the problems caused by Nazi Germany. It is one thing to love Germany even though it has warts, but it is another thing to deny that it has warts. In my opinion however, extreme Zionism has this tendency more than modern German Nationalism, which is different from Nazism. We must remember that the NDP is not the Major Party in Germany and even the NDP differentiates itself from Nazism.

As a side note, we must reject the idea that all forms of Zionism must be condemned even if they are progressive. During USSR, many Islamic powers openly collaborated with US imperialism against USSR. Currently however, it seems that Israel is acting in a way that cannot be considered progressive. Part of being progressive would be adequately acknowledging and atoning for the condition of Palestinians, even while still feeling nostalgia for the memories of the land.

Progressive Nationalism

Tuesday, April 5th, 2011

I have pondered why nations formed in the first place. My first thought was that nations are the result of the imperialistic conquering of tribes in ancient times. Now however, I believe this is simplistic. It is more likely that nations, identities, languages, cultures and separate human communities formed due to the lack of the capacity to globalize. The ability to travel did not exist the way it does today, societies were in different stages of economic development and religions were taken as literal truth. A Progressive Nationalist understands the effects and history of technological and economic development, as well as the natural consequences. As Marx concluded, new classes always arise.

If one accepts this view, it would seem to follow that one would accept the view that globalization is the logical conclusion of technology. After all, human beings were merely unable to globalize but now they are. However, it brings up the old saying; “Just because you can do something does not necessarily mean that you should.” There is a difference between aligning workers towards a common goal against an exploiting class and accepting the capitalist mindset that a human being is only an individual with no communitarian ties. Capitalist internationalism is not the same thing as labor solidarity. As far as the matter of race goes, Marx had views that would be considered politically incorrect by today’s standards.

Marxist-Leninists believe in international working class collaboration, but once a nation becomes class conscious, it can use its identity in a progressive sense. Implicitly, the Cuban Revolution used progressive populist Nationalism to fight Batista, though Castro likes to downplay this. Stalin implicitly appealed to national identity with his “Socialism in one country” and he did have separate nations internal to USSR, including a Ukrainian state. In addition, the Polish, German, Romanian and Hungarian Communist regimes were not even part of USSR, though closely tied in alliances. If those examples are not blatant enough, then Mao, Solath Sar (“Pol Pot”) and Kim Jong Il made the implementation of national characteristics an explicit part of theory. Terms that suggests this include “Socialism with Chinese characteristics”, “the Khmer Rouge” and “Juche.” The theoretical writings behind all three examples elaborate on the extent to which each implied that Socialism must be tailored to intersect with Nationalism.

Most Marxists do not interpret internationalism in the way that Trotskyites do. Trotsky’s view of internationalism included the literal forced intermarrying of races and he called it eugenics. It included fighting for revolutions without considering the material conditions on the ground. This is not a class conscious analysis. The typical Marxist line is merely a call for collaboration between workers against the exploiting class. Trotsky went off in a different and unmarxist direction because he was less concerned about protecting the working class and was more concerned with unraveling the fabric of existing communities. While we can acknowledge that Trotsky was a great war leader and an articulate writer, he was an opportunist and a Menshevik (and originally rejected revolution), he weakened the Soviet Union by dividing it and had he taken power he would have destroyed it. His warped and twisted interpretation of internationalism served as a perfect caricature of “evil Jew” to allow Hitler to take power and threaten the survival of individuals of Jewish descent, Slavic descent and the Soviet Union.

Progressive Nationalists, or Marxists who believe in the synthesis between a class conscious analysis and a positive national identity, must be enemies of Trotskyism and Hitlerism simultaneously. They must also seek to view the world scientifically and economically, but understand the value and utility of human communities. Nazism, Trotskyism and primitive Nationalism cannot be seen as compatible with class conscious and progressive Nationalism. Even though Italian Fascism is less crude than the other ideologies, it too has irreconcilable differences. Religious fundamentalists may sometimes fight for progressive causes, but religious fundamentalism itself is not compatible with thought that is anti-imperialist and economically/technologically progressive. A progressive Nationalist realizes that nations go through different stages of development like economies do and believes that future stages of the nation should be woven in class conscious fabric. Progressive Nationalists oppose the exploitative class wherever it is, even if the time for revolution is inopportune (such as the Middle East and America). Progressive Nationalists recognize their nation as a string of dominos against imperialism and perhaps can be considered pan-Nationalists. This is a mode of thought that rejects both nation wrecking ideology and reactionary ideology.

Because antisemitism seems to be the bread and butter of most reactionary ideologues, it needs to be picked apart in this important theoretical post. A surprisingly high number of people attack globalism as a Jewish conspiracy, often caused by “genetic programming.” In truly bizarre fashion, today’s internet dissidents go further than Hitler and do not only label Jews a race but a non-White race. They allege that Jews (who they view as non-Whites) lead Whites to globalization. A class conscious analysis of economics rejects the idea of blaming Jews as the cause of globalization. The desire to globalize society is a result of the uneven development of capitalism.

Historically, the fact that Judaism, Christianity and Islam exist in Europe and the fact that paganism existed in Egypt and predated Judaism in the Near East is evidence that the Mediterranean Sea was not the major demarcation point separating the races. Instead, the Ural Mountains and Sahara Desert were those points. While people lacked the ability to travel worldwide, it should be noted that empires crossed the Mediterranean Sea all the time and fought each other. When Carleton Coon defined his Mediterranean race, he attributed membership to every side of the sea and considered northern Europeans Nordics to be “depigmented Mediterraneans.” The point is that it did not take any special globalization to bring Judaism, Christianity and Islam from the Middle East to North Africa and Europe. Christianity, Judaism and Islam stem from the teachings of Abraham and Moses. Variations of this creed extended throughout all three Caucasian regions. Paganism also existed in all three continents, from Egypt to Rome to Russia. As a matter of a fact, Abraham fought against Jewish Pagans. Jews did not plunder Europe in recent history as antisemitic mythology alleges, but Europe derives its Caucasian origins from the Near East. Most importantly, Jews are not the cause of globalization, though the effects of nazism have lead Jews to embrace reaction-oriented ideas such as extreme free market capitalism, open boarders and a form of Zionism that is not progressive Nationalism.

Highly Recommended Readings

Friday, April 1st, 2011

Here are some recommended readings. I may post some excerpts later but not right now. The first listing is what set me on the course of understanding Marxism theoretically and the second dispels a lot of exaggerations and false characterizations of Marx. I always had an idea of what Marxist theory was, but now I understand it much deeper than before Free Media Productions existed.

The Great Political Theories V.2: A Comprehensive Selection of the Crucial Ideas in Political Philosophy from the French Revolution to Modern Times edited by Michael Curtis:

This is a book I started reading around 2009.

When attempting to understand Marx, it is not particularly helpful to read information that is not particularly important. This is high quality material that was custom selected and compiled into a section on Marx. To view this material, read pages 155 through 180. The intro by Michael Curtis makes some good points, but take it with a grain of salt. Notice how Engels praises Darwin in his intro to the Communist Manifesto and compares Marx to Darwin. People who say that Marxism is anti-Darwin are not correct. Also notice how Marx discusses modes of production and the negative consequences associated with various modes of production.

The Enduring Questions : Traditional and Contemporary Voices by Jerry H. Gill

This was a Philosophy book I had in college (I aced the class).

Read pages 526 and 527 where Jerry H. Gill comments about Marxism and dispels a lot of myths. Near the end he makes some appeals to “human rights.” I am not saying to listen to that part!

Why a Jewish state produces more anger than an Islamic State

Wednesday, March 16th, 2011

This is a class conscious analysis. Other explanations are not as deep. For instance the point that Jews are migrating into Israel at the expense of Muslims is an observation, but it is not an explanation.

I believe Iran is an example of how religion protects the ruling class from dissent, but I believe the Iranian leaders themselves are religious. There is no hypocrisy involved, but religion is protecting the ruling class. Without it, there would be more instability. Islam works very effectively because it is a religion that is universal. It is very easy to become a Muslim. You basically just have to say you are one. On the other hand, it is very hard to become Catholic, and if not born Jewish, it is hard to become Orthodox Jewish. So Islam is an opiate that is effective because the barriers to entry are low. It appeals to anyone.

I also believe Israel is an example of how religion is used to protect the ruling leaders from dissent. On the other hand, Judaism is a more divisive religion because it is based on blood in a way that Islam is not. So Judaism has to be balanced against the interests of global international capitalism because there is profit involved in doing business with non-Jews. Judaism may be an opiate for Jews, but it is not an opiate for Arabs. Because Judaism is an ineffective opiate for non-Jews (face it, nobody wants to worship the chosen people unless they become Jewish), Israel makes a lot of enemies. The same thing can be said about Hinduism. Indo-European South Asian Muslims frequently fight Hindus, and Hinduism is similar to Judaism in that it assigns membership based on blood. It actually is more restrictive than Judaism.

The bottom line is that Hinduism and Judaism divide people and thus insecurity leads to fighting, but Islam is easy to join and therefore your average person is more likely to incorporate it into the psychological system of justification. This is why Islamic states have less opposition than Israel. Islam offers an answer for anyone who wants it. Judaism does not offer much unless you become Jewish, and it is difficult to become Jewish. This should not be confused with saying that Islam benefits the working class, as that is definitely not what I am saying. This means however that basing a nation off of Islam is more stable than basing a nation off of Judaism. Both Israel and Iran have class distinctions, but Iranians are more likely to ignore them because they do not feel as religiously alienated as Arabs in Israel.

A key principle of my argument here is that some “opiates” are more effective than others because they are more mass appealing than others. The reason Israel is so desperately violent and clings to America for defense is because Judaism does not do much to comfort the non-Jewish population when the non-Jewish population faces hard times. If you are an Arab and you cannot find a job, the state religion of Judaism does not make you feel any better (without a conversion to Judaism). But if you are a non-Iranian and you cannot find a job, Islam still appeals to you and calms you down. Because America financially aids Israel, class distinctions become more obvious except perhaps for Israeli Arabs who do have a higher standard of living than Palestinians.

Earl Nightingale bashes the loser Crowd

Monday, March 14th, 2011

The Video

Obviously Nightingale did not oppose or seek to alter the price system as we know it, but his points here are solid about the loser crowd.

I do not agree with everything he says in the video, but he makes a good points.

There are parts 3 and 1 also.

Jared Taylor, Anti-Semitism, and the “expanded audience”

Wednesday, January 26th, 2011

Jared Taylor runs the website, magazine, and conference associated with “American Renaissance.” It is considered a “race realist” organization. It is known for having “nazis” / “Jew obsessives” on one hand and Jews (and people who oppose obsession with Jews) on the other hand.

The link

We can broadly define the expanded audience as people who either disapprove of making the Jewish question important or disagree with attacking Jews. These people usually do not post on vbulletin forums. We can define the “core audience” as people who are obsessed with Jews and (usually) post on vbulletins.

I think it is clear that Jared Taylor wants an expanded audience.

I think if Jared Taylor would have retained the expanded audience, he would have more explicitly denounced anti-semitism.

The whole idea of an expanded audience vs. a core audience can be compared to video game sales. Look at the people who buy guitar hero or “cooking mama.” They do not keep buying games like the people who buy say Metroid or Metal Gear Solid. In general, games which successfully target the expanded audience have high sales, but the people who buy those games do not keep gaming the same way veteran gamers do. The situation can also be compared to people who bought beanie babies. They were a huge fad and the company which sold them experienced enormous short term growth, but you cannot find these items easily anymore.

I think that is what happened to Jared Taylor. He brought in an expanded audience, but it did not last very long. It lasted one or maybe two conferences max. At his first conference, he had a bunch of Jewish speakers and Michael Levin was writing books for him. However, slowly the fad died off. I do not write this in a condescending way but in a realistic way. The “new people” did not stick around.

Now he is stuck with the core audience. I personally do not think he wants to be in this position. If he could expand the audience, he would. If he expanded the audience, he would further mainstream his position on Jews from avoiding the topic to explicitly denouncing anti-Semitism. The problem is that if he made that move, he would lose his core and lose it to gain nothing in return. You can compare American renaissance to a “business” that is trying to stay in business, and which is having trouble expanding, and is stuck with a core audience that they had hoped would be obsolete by now.

The question is why does Jared Taylor want to expand? Is it for his own greed, is it for the “good of his cause,” or is it because he fundamentally disagrees with anti-semitism? If you put Jared Taylor in a philosophy debate, would he have deep reasons why the arguments in favor of anti-semitism are wrong?

I will note that Free Media Productions experienced a similar dilemma. However, we lost our core audience (mainly “termites” who dislike mainstream society) and went with an expanded audience. We did bring in a number of vbulletin members, but they did not last very long. They were “a fad.” We had to accept that the way to reach a large audience was to focus on social networking, blogging and videos, not vbulletins. Eventually, we closed down the lyceum / firezone forum as it was no longer doing what it was supposed to do, which is to facilitate philosophical discussion. We kept an archive running however.

The majority of people who are “new to the free media productions” turn over quickly so we adapted by switching to different mediums which are designed for that larger “short-term” audience. They view the website, then they leave. Then someone else views the website. If you want an active vbulletin forum, the people who are willing to post on it long term are limited in total quantity. Free Media Productions has designed itself for an expanded audience, but it was a necessary move because the core became smaller and smaller after the original lyceum fell apart in 2007.

All of this leads me to a point. In order to get and retain an expanded audience, Jared Taylor would have to do something really really innovative. He would have to fundamentally restructure the organization, and make it something different then what it is right now. If he does not do that, he is stuck with the core audience.

SEO Powered By SEOPressor