By Colby Malsbury

I don’t want to offer a comment on the outrage du jour: the Nathan Phillips/Nick Sandmann confrontation.

Why, you ask?

Because the oh-so-edgy alt-right most assuredly has fully embraced the concept of an acceptable Overton window of discourse, and they have crafted an acceptable template for all its devotees to operate in if they wish to retain the privilege of wearing that vaunted MAGA hat. Skunky Injun Man bad. Smirking Lothario White Teenager good. CNN say the other way around, so be sure to change your avatar to SLWT to show your solidarity with the ’cause’, whatever that might be. Got it, bub?

Of course, there is no denying that Nathan Phillips is one skunky individual indeed, and about as honest as a synagogue’s account books. Still, it’s more than a little premature to automatically herald Sandmann as our very own Gandalf holding fast the bridge of Khazad-dum against the rampaging Balrog. The ‘heroes’ of these mass-media spectacles often prove to be yuge disappointments later on – Ammon Bundy, anyone? And even if Sandmann (a most Ashkenazi surname, BTW – just sayin’) turns out to be an exception, what precisely are we celebrating? His grin? Hardly the pinnacle of resistance, that. But then, it was a sufficient show of defiance for the Sandmann family to retain the services of both Kentucky’s premier public relations firm and an ultra high profile ambulance chasing lawyer whose clientele has included Herman Cain and the family of JonBenet Ramsey, so I must be talking out of my aforementioned MAGA hat, I suppose.

But I’ve already written far more about this case than I intended to. Suffice it to say that this is no isolated distraction. This is very much in keeping with the errata clogging our newsfeeds day by day, which succeeds in dangerously increasing our blood pressure and not much more past that. And it appears to be yet another incident tailor-made for the premier social media forum of the current year: Twitter.

If you feel as though your experience on this illustrious platform is more than a little stilted, not to worry – you are absolutely correct. Part of this can be attributed both to its format and to its user base. While Twitter certainly had been around many years prior to Trump’s election, that event more than anything brought the site to the peak of its influence and reach. In the new age of ‘triggering’ brickbat that was lobbed back and forth to no purpose whatsoever between the left and thoroughly compromised alt ‘right’, Twitter’s 150-character limit and encouragement to jump aboard the HOT TRENDING ISSUE of the day before the zeitgeist’s attention span moved elsewhere encouraged a thriving culture of snarky one-liners and ‘doxxing’ of leftist pols and celebrities who were long established on there. Helping immeasurably with this fruitful endeavour was the format’s embrace by the God-Emperor himself, Donald J. Trump, who ensured his posterity with an inordinate amount of pithy tweets calling things he liked ‘big and beautiful’ and things he didn’t like ‘little and nasty’, and was rewarded with a sizable troupe of basement-dwelling minions ready to take up the cudgels in defence of such juvenile taciturnity. Fraudulent rightists like Richard Spencer, Milo Yiannopoulus, Jack Posobiac, and Stefan Molyneaux wrought lucrative troll careers as a result, and the whole happy morass continues gleefully deluded unto this day.

How can one Christian’s lone voice hope to echo through this valley of Hinnom? It can’t. It especially can’t because Twitter’s rigid structure was not designed for reasons of bandwidth brevity. Rather, it is the latest in a long series of attempts at mass mind control melded around the Cryptocracy’s favourite rubric of groupthink: the Delphi method.

For the uninitiated, the Delphi technique of group communication was originally crafted by the US military during WWII – Air Corps general Hap Arnold in particular – to facilitate discussion among panels of experts as to future trends in strategy, technology, political changes, and what have you with the aim of creating a system of ‘prediction by consensus’. As presided over by an all-important moderator to control the flow of discourse, the process was reputed to produce results that were accurate ‘within the ninety-eighth percentile’, or some similar benchmark of arcane statistical jargon. In the 1950s, the RAND corporation finessed the technique to its logical conclusion: intensively training the moderator in group dynamics so that, ever so subtly, he could sway the group to come to the conclusion that the moderator (or his puppetmasters) so desired. This innovation naturally led to its being accepted by governments, corporations, NGOs, etc to allow its participating eggheads leisure to come to the ‘correct’ solutions regarding everything from initial public offerings to climate change to Holocaust statistics to, more than likely, Super Bowl results. All bolstered by that magical phrase that made the hearts of a generation of Boomers go seemingly aflutter: ‘A panel of experts has concluded….’

Twitter is nothing more than the largest such gathering of Delphic sheep on record. And the moderator is none other than Orange Julius Caesar himself: our Donnie.

Oh, sure, the forum seems like a free-for-all, where outrageous redpilling is bandied back and forth at will (till you’re banned, at any rate – Mark Zuckerberg certainly doesn’t have a monopoly in that department). Tis all sound and fury signifying nothing, though. Delphi participants are also encouraged to say whatever they want as often as they want, as a skilled facilitator will be able to sway the rabble towards the answer he is looking for anyway, and they can go home secure in the knowledge that they ‘had their say’, and a whole lot of it.

Perhaps the simplest way to document the process is to use the four main components of Wiki’s entry on the Delphi method as a reference base:

Anonymity of the Participants
According to the article, this is done to ensure no one person dominates the process, and allows for tongues to be loosened so that discourse can flow more freely. Well, show me one Twitter user who doesn’t go by a clever moniker along the lines of DankOrangePepeDestroyerOfLibs, or the like. And rest assured: hiding behind such a snazzy name accompanied by an avatar from an obscure anime program is a sure guarantee you’re about to be treated to some thoroughly obnoxious doxxing.

Structuring of Information Flow
Delphi discussions are segmented into panels according to area of expertise and are controlled by panel directors, who gather all pertinent info and process it for the ultimate use of the facilitator. Any of the high profile Twitter users previously mentioned fit this bill nicely, with their legions of docile followers hanging off their every word and eager to please their chosen guru. A-list leftists also fit into this paradigm, as their spastic hyperventilation often makes its way back to the Great Facilitator himself, and he responds accordingly. (“Jim Carrey is very bad and very stupid for telling wonderful hardworking people that they should be flayed alive for not doing more to protect endangered species of algae.”)

Regular Feedback
According to Wiki: “The Delphi Method allows participants to comment on the responses of others, the progress of the panel as a whole, and to revise their own forecasts and opinions in real time.” The ‘real time’ speaks for itself. Commenting on the responses of others is effectively streamlined through the saturation of meme culture, an example of which can be readily seen in the alt-right’s robotic mantra of what constitutes ‘self-betterment’, whether said in irony (“Learn to code!”) or in all sincerity (“Lift weights! Learn to streetfight! Be like Chad!”) As for revising their own forecasts and opinions, this happens with regularity whenever a former villain of theirs manages to scale their rather attainable heights (witness Lindsey Graham’s sudden love affair with Trump after the passing of his alpha dominatrix partner McCain), or a former idol of theirs plummets into their fathomless depths, at least till he can reclaim his standing with another pithy tweet (witness the surly silence they engaged in as their latest amour Steve King posted a mellifluous tribute to Martin Luther King on his federally-mandated namesake day, as any good publican is wont to do if he wishes to retain his livelihood).

Role of the Facilitator
This brings us back to Orange Man. It is no exaggeration to say that the entirety of Twitter revolves around him and his faux-outrageous commentaries. He (or, more properly, his handlers) sets the discussion going on today’s issue, his supporters and detractors respond in proscribed manner, and an essential ‘trending topic’ vomits out its importance for a week or so. You would be hard-pressed to find so much as a macrame page that does not make reference to him from time to time. Suppose Trump should fall into disfavour with his acolytes over, shall we say, the wall that exists in hearts and minds but is bloody unlikely to appear in any more substantial form? No problem. For as Wiki says: ‘If consensus is not reached, the process continues through thesis and antithesis, to gradually work towards synthesis, and building consensus. ‘ The Hegelian dialectic fixes all! And Twitter’s format lends itself perfectly towards Trump’s throwing a measly bone to his base in 150 characters, that they might swoon over him again and we can move on to the next brainwashing…er, storming session.

You might ask: to what end does all this kabuki theatre lead? Nothing less than the maintenance of the existing power structure, that our current state of Satanic stasis may lie abed, taking up every inch of available space and suffocating us all. If the unperceptive wish to believe that their vain typing will foment the equivalent of an Arab Spring for whites any day now, all the power to them. What threat to international Jewry and their anti-Christian goy collaborators is a revolution that can be expended in white noise?

Eschew this stage-managed platform, Christian. It will not allow you to connect with like minds and build solid networks of true resistance. Let us say of the time God has granted us, with Paul, that we ‘have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain’ (Philippians 2:16). And that it took more than a smirk to distract we watchmen from our duties.