Embracing the Fringe

Get in, Jack. We're going to Hyperborea.

Anyone who has spent enough time researching alternative ideas and conspiracy theories online will come across a fantastical medley of so-called "fringe" ideas and theories. These range from extremely plausible and well-founded to truly irrational and "schizophrenic". It would be impossible to name them all, but there are the Tartarian Empire & great "mudflood" conspiracies, phantom time and new chronologies, Flat Earth theory and all its iterations, vague questions regarding the truth about Antarctica, theories about the elites involving reptilians and/or aliens, assertions that outer space is 'fake', those who believe all major mainstream reported news events are fake, etc… While I do not believe every fringe theory I come across, I think there are a number of reasons to embrace these alternative "fringe" ideas on principle. In short, the three main reasons are 1. to create myriad entry points of doubt in the establishment for people with various interests, 2. simply for the love of freedom of speech, thought, and speculation, and the impetus provided by radical theorizing to investigate that which was before taken for granted, and 3. for the grains of wisdom and metaphorical brilliance of a number of even the most irrational and schizoid of fringe theories.

Firstly, while some, perhaps, come straight out of intelligence think-tanks and get injected into the dissident right & anti-NWO conspiracy community for the purpose of confusing, misdirecting, and (of course) blackwashing the well-supported, rational theories and ideas out there, I think that the essence of these sorts of radical theories generally does more harm than good for the establishment. The essence of the fringe is to sow the seeds of doubt in all of the assumptions and premises most people take for granted. These assumptions and premises, which were programmed into people by the establishment's worldview manufacturing complex – the educational/academic system, Hollywood, news media, etc. – form the walls of a psychological prison. If someone has a single glaring flaw exposed to them, and they are shown how the entire establishment operates a consensus-making machine that silences critics and rewards parrots and bobbleheads, they are given a loose thread that could, with enough pulling, unravel the entire fabric that serves to legitimate the ruling elite. Everyone has different backgrounds and interests that predispose them to some field of inquiry, and by systematically revising and exposing the self-serving paradigms, theories, interpretations… and even the outright lies… perpetuated by the establishment in nearly every field, we cast a wide net that provides points of entry into the world of radical dissent for a wide variety of people.

Here I should clarify– I am not anti-truth. I do not wish to promote some kind of "noble lie" philosophy to counteract the deception coming from the elites. What I am saying is two-fold: in some cases the elites do outright lie, and we ought to expose those for what they are… but in other cases, we must recognize that certain paradigms pushed by the elites are, by necessity, interpretive and based on subjective premises, and in these instances– especially in explaining history– we should feel free to substitute our own beliefs and values as starting points instead of theirs.

At this stage of the game, we should not attempt to canonize an encyclopedia of "truths" that are presented as unquestionable in the same way the elites have… we should be encouraging thoughtful (and even polemical) debate, criticism, and exploration to undermine the entire worldview authoritatively promoted by the establishment and help destroy their aura of legitimacy for anyone bold enough to truly seek out their own answers.

This brings us to my second reason for embracing the fringe– my free-spirited love of speculation and debate. Few types of people in the 'dissident right' irritate me more than the dandy-scholars who's incredible thirst for academic credibility and authority makes them into thought police in our circles. They set themselves up as gatekeepers against 'schizo' ideas and theories because they themselves, despite ostensibly being 'dissidents', are religiously constrained by their own faith and servility to the establishment academic and scientific communities. These are the types of 'dissident right' leaders who always have to introduce their concepts as "defined by" or "explored by" or "elucidated by" [insert authoritative figure here] and routinely attack "conspiracy theorists" as kooky and 'bad for our image'. They crave the image of the respectable intellectual that is almost invariably inspired by the mainstream or even radical left.

When presented with "conspiracy theories" that aren't in some way acknowledged by the mainstream, they don't feel the need to even address the ideas, they simply hand-wave it away and ridicule the idea as "destructive to our credibility as a movement". I find this common practice truly perplexing, as it seems to ignore the glaring fact that just about every idea at the core of any genuinely pro-white worldview excludes us from so-called credible and respectable society. Being pro-white alone is irredeemable and freakish to the “experts” and popular intelligentsia, so pretending that we can obtain anything approximating any popular credibility is truly absurd… and that is if these influencers concerned with credibility are completely genuine– there is also the possibility that it's a ploy to create a limited hangout where certain topics are kept off-limits on purpose. I don't doubt that this is the case in at least a handful of instances in our circles.

Instead of bellyaching about "credibility"-- a purely subjective concept based purely on who one trusts or is willing to believe– we should be more concerned with learning how to actually think and analyze evidence for ourselves and draw our own conclusions rationally. A credible authority to you is a lying crank to someone else, but whether or not a certain theory is a rational possibility is an objective criterion. Reject the cult of “intellectual experts” that want to limit your horizons.

Furthermore, this process of independent rational analysis and investigation of the so-called 'fringe schizo theories' can be an impetus for uncovering or re-evaluating facts that are often ignored or taken for granted, as we shall see in some of the particular examples I will examine below. This is a general fact about any theory that contradicts 'common knowledge' narratives, because as soon as you recognize that the narratives you've taken for granted are not absolute truth, and you begin to parse the facts and construct a theory for yourself, you realize just how little you knew beforehand. Re-examining all the facts can seem tedious to those who have spent many an hour memorizing the narratives handed down to them through the mainstream, or even irritating to those who admire the 'great thinkers' from whom they have received their narratives… but it is a necessary step in freeing oneself from the indoctrination we all went through.

The third and final point I'd like to make before diving into a few examples is how many of even the looniest of these "schizo theories" have poetic truths embedded in them. I will expand on this in those examples, but suffice to say for now, there might be a reason that even David Icke-tier theories, like the idea of reptilian overlords, have the popularity they do.

.

.

.

Tartaria Mudflood theory