Rethinking, Revising, and Rebranding Volume 2

Dear Friend,

Following up on my prior message, I think it necessary to address a criticism which might reasonably be anticipated from certain corners.

“You’ve sold out!” – “Optics Cuck!” – “You’re Scared!” – “You’re compromised because you’re in the CMU!” – etc… I was well aware that the United States Government was listening to the Radical Agenda. The FBI agent who contacted me before I turned myself in to Virginia authorities in 2017, was with the Joint Terror Task Force, and I knew his name and unit because he came sniffing around in 2012. I told the public that I caught the FBI reading my emails shortly after my release from the Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail.

It is not unusual for me to be speaking with the eavesdroppers in mind, and the fact that I face no new charges tells you something about the lack of interesting material in my ProtonMail account, which the FBI gained the power to access when they raided my apartment and decrypted my cell phone.

“Optics” generally is a thing worth concerning oneself with, as I stated during the great “Alt Right Optics War” of 2017/2018. For one to criticize me using my own words, they would have to be making the case that what I was doing was disingenuous, as was the case with Weev and Anglin in the aforementioned conflict. They weren’t trying to improve the movement’s image, and they certainly weren’t aiming at any meaningful reform. There’s a split in opinion on what happened there. Either they were adopting the language of optics to discredit people who were making a genuine effort, or they were using the legitimate concerns about public image to purge their internecine rivals. Likely, it was both. I am doing neither of these things.

In my case, I put as much effort as I could into shocking the hell out of people and being needlessly confrontational with the belief that I could do that without too much trouble if I obeyed the law. That turned out not to be the case. Circumstances are such that survival requirements compel us to be more mindful of how we are perceived. It is not mere want of social status or material comfort driving the need.

I could certainly think of more opportune moments to have “Sold Out” or given into fear, than this one. I genuinely feared for my safety at the CCA facility in Tallahatchie. Gangs ran that place and they had weapons. If you listened to So To Speak during my stay there, you’ll recall I made a point to tell them who I was, and that my buddy on the unit had a habit of showing off his swastika tattoo. Fear does not inspire moderation in your humble correspondent.

Legal trouble has certainly influenced my thinking, but if I was simply trying to avoid consequences, I should have kept shut my stupid mouth on August 13th 2017. I spent 8 months in Strafford County waiting to put a jury together, and while So To Speak listeners will recall I definitely calmed down some, this was a genuine response to what I saw happening in the world, and I said so then.

There is no point in trying to “Out Radical” the masked anarchists who are setting fire to federal court houses and murdering people in the streets over a junky who died resisting arrest.

When your political opponents make themselves unsympathetic to the public, there is no good reason to get in the mud with them. Condemning crime and violence is politically popular and conducive to maintaining one’s freedom, not to mention economic wellbeing. The George Floyd riots were the ultimate “I told you so” opportunity for those of us who had to face Antifa in Charlottesville, and I was sitting in jail when it happened, listening to Ted Williams on Fox News talking about the “Bugaloo Bois” and other nonsense about “Left and Right wing groups” being involved in the violence.

The bits of news I got about the remains of the “Alt Right” were not a whole lot more impressive. This nonsense with the Governor of Michigan, the Telegram idiots who supposedly planned to sell silencers to Hamas, the fools who rushed the Capitol and their “unindicted co-conspirators” who totally weren’t FBI agents. Granted, these were all FBI plots to take advantage of guys who were probably not serious and I’m guessing not very bright, perhaps mentally ill, but still nothing I’d want to co-sign.

There is a line to be drawn between the sort of habitual punching Right that we see from the likes of Mitt Romney and Mitch McConnell, and establishing some healthy boundaries for serious people to distance themselves from Internet trolls and straightjacket fashion models.

I drew a firm line in October of 2018. If you think it’s a good idea to shoot up religious institutions, you are not on my team. The fact that this line is what ended me up in prison, ultimately, says more about the FBI and my prior bad decisions, than about the quality of that line.

There were lots of people, some of them really good folks, who similarly distanced themselves from me well prior because of the stupid things I had said on the show. I accused them of the same criticisms I anticipated at the beginning of this message. Some of those people have gone on to have a much more positive impact on the world than I have, and they could not have done so without maintaining access to the human and material resources which their moderation helped to protect. Nothing about our predicament would be improved by them being in prison with me right now, but plenty more than my own comfort level would be improved if I still had freedom and a PayPal account.

Going forward, my guiding principle is to be honest about what is happening, without being needlessly controversial or focusing too narrowly on issues immune to change.

As mentioned in the prior message, this is perhaps best illustrated by the issue of “violence”. The ultimate expression of any political view is the enforcement of that view through State coercion. From time to time, we get reminders that not all governments are democratically elected (see Afghanistan), and that this coercion sometimes comes from private actors who consequently become the State. Focusing on this is a good way to get oneself labeled a terrorist and thrown in the CMU, and there is no benefit that even attempts to offset that risk, so there is not any good reason to do it.

Another example is the subject of race. If you listen to my interviews with the Stephen Lemons from the Southern Poverty Law Center, I told him that I aimed to “normalize racism”. To hear Robin Diangelo tell it, “racism” has always been normalized, hence “systemic racism”. Split the difference.

When I stumbled upon the subject of racial IQ disparities, and the heritable nature of IQ, it was like a key turning in a lock and suddenly all manner of things I did not understand now made sense. This category of information had been taboo for so long, and everybody was trying to solve problems which it explained so succinctly, without ever mentioning it, and hence they always failed. It was novel, and worth talking about. The “Jewish Question” or “JQ” was even more taboo, and given its complexity, a substantially more intellectually satisfying exercise.

However, if we were successful in discussing them, these things would eventually have to lose their novelty. They would at some point fade into the background as obvious facts of life unworthy of our focus. Beyond that point, harping on them is needlessly confrontational and divisive.

You can change the demographics of a given territory or political system through public policy. For example, the Democrat immigration agenda. Reversing something like this is more challenging, but hardly impossible. What you cannot change is race itself. You cannot make black people become white anymore than you can make men become women. Nor can you change them both into some middle ground third option. Trying to creates an unsolvable conflict, and thus it is used, along with feminism, by Maoists and Trotskyites to wage “perpetual revolution”.

The Left often seems like they are at war with the very structure of the universe and epistemology. Perhaps you have seen some of their seemingly more absurd grievance campaigns where they call things like “objectivity” and “merit” and the “scientific method” evidence of “White Supremacy”. This is critical theory in a nutshell. They see White people in charge, they conclude that White people “made the rules” for their own benefit, and thus they seek to destroy the “system” that White people “created”.

But this is no more a “system” than is gravity. White people didn’t “create” the scientific method, or objectivity, we discovered them. These things exist whether we care to acknowledge them or not, and the extent to which we master them is the measurement of our “merit” by which we advance in social status. We don’t bother explaining these things because to us they are obvious beyond any such necessity. That’s “systemic racism” to them. If we do explain it, that’s called “Whitesplaining” or “advocating White supremacy”.

It is not difficult to look reasonable standing next to people like this. In fact, you need to work really hard to look less appealing than them.

I am tired of putting in that effort, and this is why I am contemplating rebranding.

Christopher Cantwell
USP Marion
Tuesday, August 24th 2021 2:20pm

Let’s keep in touch! This site has been heavily censored by search engines and social media platforms. Please give me your email address so I can contact you directly.

Alternatively, you can follow me on Telegram