The left is coming for your ability to defend yourself from Tyranny.

Vermont moving to ban high cap magazines and raise legal age limit to 21.

So you can literally be drafted to go and die for jews in the middle east, but can’t buy a fucking gun to defend your wife and young family. Fuck this government, Civil War Now!

This is only going to end when we put a round in every liberals skull,  literally, its them or us people. Wake the Fuck up to your own genocide. 

Town Bypasses Constitution, US Citizens Given 60 Days to Turn in Guns Or Become Criminals

By Jack Burns

As the state promises gun rights activists they’re not coming for their guns, behind the scences they’re pleading for it to happen. And now the feared gun grab is occurring. Residents in Deerfield, Illinois have 60 days to surrender their “assault weapons” or face fines of $1000 per day per gun.

The gun ban ordinance was passed on April 2nd with residents left with few choices of how to dispose of their valuable “assault weapons.” Upon careful reading of the ordinance, residents will be left with revolvers, .22 caliber “plinking” rifles, and double barrel shotguns to defend their homes and families from criminals who could care less about the law.

Fines for not disposing of the weapons range from $250 to $1000 per day per gun for those who choose not to comply with the city’s ordinance. While a fine may seem reasonable to some, as TFTP has reported on multiple occasions, failure to pay fines always results in police action. It is not far-fetched to predict major turmoil and arrests in the event of non-compliance.

One example of the so-called “assault weapon” is the Ruger 10/22 which can accept magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Even though the 10/22 is not listed in the list of guns the village wants to see banned, the gun cannot legally be possessed in the village.

Residents have been instructed to either sell their guns, transfer the ownership to someone who lives outside the village, surrender their guns to Deerfield’s sheriff, or begin paying the fines.

Deerfield mentioned a number of cities where mass shootings took place, including Sutherland Springs, TX where 26 people were killed in the First Baptist Church. That shooting was actually stopped by a man who used the very gun Deerfield voted to ban. No mention was made of that fact in the ordinance.

Also included in the gun ban were semi-automatic pistols which can accept higher than 10 round magazines. That’s virtually all full size semi-automatic pistols.

Even though the village trustees ignored the pleas of residents to leave their guns alone, and passed the ordinance anyway, many residents were encouraged to ignore the gun ban and engage in civil disobedience.

((((((Joel Siegel)))))), a resident of Lincolnwood, warned the village’s residents that governments all across the world have moved to confiscate guns then turned around and ran roughshod over the people. He said, “There’s an ancient and honored American tradition called disobeying an unjust law…I have urged (people) to listen to their conscience and if so moved do not obey this law.”

Deerfield Mayor Harriet ((((((Rosenthal)))))) implied the students from the local high school helped sway her decision to bring about the ordinance. “Enough is enough,” ((((((Rosenthal)))))) said adding, “Those students are so articulate just like our students. There is no place here for assault weapons.”

The statement mirrors the knee jerk reaction to ban guns following a nationwide public outcry of students who supposedly feared for their own lives following the recent mass shooting in Florida.

Opponents of the gun grab vow to fight the action in court while others praised the trustees decision to ban semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns. Ariella Kharasch, a Deerfield High School senior said she wants more action to be taken on both a local and national level.

“This is our fight…This is our generation’s fight. We’re going to keep fighting and this is part of it. Change happens gradually step by step. The fight does not end at the borders of our village.,” Kharasch said.

Predictably, law enforcement and retired law enforcement members of the community are exempted from the ban. Currently, in the U.S., law enforcement kills around 1,200 citizens per year. Ironically, that number is actually four times higher than those who die from rifles.

As TFTP has reported, cops have killed 450 percent more people than have died in the past forty years of mass shootings.

Diversity Reveals Its Endgame In South Africa – Prepare Accordingly

by Brett Stevens

We know that diversity cannot work. Any group that wishes to survive will only be happy when its standards, genetics, values, and customs are on top above all other groups. It may take that further and realize that with the presence of any other group, it risks destruction by outbreeding, so all Other must go.

In South Africa, the white people tried to work around this problem. They did not hate their black workers and wanted to give them space in a thriving society. However, this backfired as it always does, because the more numerous workers will always overthrow their leaders and then, lacking the ability to lead, run that society into the ground.

California economic collapse is underway.

We can see this in progress in contemporary South Africa, where the minority-majority government has decided to confiscate land from white farmers despite those farmers being more productive than most farmers, white or black:

South Africa’s parliament on Tuesday passed a motion brought by the radical left party, Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), to carry out land expropriation without compensation, a key pillar of the ruling ANC government and new President Cyril Ramaphosa.

…In his first state of the nation address two weeks ago, Ramaphosa made a direct appeal to poorer black voters – the core of the ANC’s electoral support base – saying he would aim to speed up the transfer of land to black people.

Two decades after the end of apartheid, the ANC is under pressure to redress racial disparities in land ownership where whites own most of the land.

In other words, diversity will follow its usual course: one group is finally on top, and so it is going to supplant all the other groups, using the “egalitarian” methods of government to remove them. After all, once a law passes, it is the law, whether it is justice or not.

The action that Ramaphosa has taken is not pragmatic. If it were, he would be encouraging white farms, which produce most of the food for his region. However, he realizes that there is something more important: identity. For the black people of South Africa, who arrived late to take advantage of the white republic, to feel good, they must have control of their destiny and that means displacing everyone else.

This is in the heart of Most if not all blacks. There can be no peace, Proximity + diversity = Conflict

Diversity is not as simple as black and white. It means that every group will be jockeying for power because only when a group is in control is it safe from the other groups. Only one group can assume the position on top, and every group will fight for it, rendering the pluralistic multiculture into a war zone where only cruelty prevails.

South Africa anti-white riots

This requires us to accept the Machiavellian realpolitik of power, which states that power is intolerant, because one is either asserting power or losing it. Despite the tolerance rhetoric common in the West, these prison ethics determine who stays in power by refusing tolerance while preaching it for others:

Tolerance is rare and tolerance on the part of governments is practically non-existent. No ruling power ever has or ever will tolerate anything which is a direct challenge to them. They will not tolerate any sort of attack on that which they hold most dear. In Muslim countries, this means that anything anti-Islamic will not be tolerated. It is why, in Germany or Austria, questioning the Holocaust is not tolerated. It is why the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy would not tolerate opposition to their ruling parties. It is why Thailand does not tolerate disrespect toward the monarchy, because that is the foundation of their society. Liberal regimes today, be they republics or monarchies, tend to think they are immune from this. Not so. The rulers of Great Britain, for example, allow republican groups to attack the monarchy because the monarchy is not fundamental to their world view at all. Most European countries, the United States, Canada and so on do not have something so obvious as Islam in Iran or the King in Thailand but they very clearly have a narrative that is fundamental to their worldview and they will tolerate no opposition to this narrative.

Because of liberalism, they have to be more duplicitous about this than Chairman Mao on the left or General Franco on the right but they are just as intolerant as either of those examples were. They must show some restraint in order to maintain their charade but we have all seen the truth. If you challenge the narrative, you will be vilified, lose your job, perhaps even face criminal penalties. Your life can be destroyed for doing this because when it comes to that which they hold most dear, they are just as intolerant as any Spanish inquisitor, Soviet secret policeman or Nazi Gestapo agent. This is a fact of human nature. We can be tolerant but generally only for select periods of time and when all other options have failed. Even then, the tolerance doesn’t really stay but rather becomes unnecessary. The reason for this is that when something is tolerated for long enough, it generally becomes accepted and, even when it is not, the ultimate end is that people stop believing such differences matter and replace them with new ones. Religious tolerance did not lead to Protestants and Catholics truly respecting each other. It led to people just giving up on Christianity altogether.

Diversity speaks a great deal about tolerance, but really this is each group hoping to disarm other groups with pleasant words of tolerance while acting to subvert them behind the scenes. No group can “tolerate” competition, as to have competition within the same territory is to risk being destroyed.

South Africa anti-white riots

What is happening in South Africa has been predictable. The white settlers, imbued from birth with the idea of graciousness to the less fortunate, could rule over the blacks and, while brutally oppressing the unreasonable, bestow a decent life on all.

However, after apartheid died, the cultures that took over had no such illusions. Instead, each group is working for dominance, and the ethnic groups competing to rule Africa — Indian, Chinese, African, and Caucasian — are each attempting to subvert each other while maintaining a positive public face.

South Africa anti-white riots

In the end calculus, this proves that diversity cannot work. Diversity creates ambiguous power and incentives for subversion and passive aggression between groups, where having a clear winner (as in apartheid) suspended this constant competition for dominance.

Nationalism provides a contrast. It allows each group to act in self-interest, but channels that self-interest toward the group improving itself. Diversity and ethnic conflict reduce. That makes sense, but it will never provide for perpetual rule as our Leftist leaders desire, so it has been made taboo.

Diversity Never Works

History runs in cycles because human behavior follows a cyclic pattern. A truth is discovered, and then the only way to make a name for yourself is to assert the anti-truth, so people pursue the anti-truth as a way to succeed socially, and eventually it takes over and then is realized to be not true, so people begin the long process of crawling past convention, conformity and denial to reach the truth again.

Our ancestors knew that diversity never works because it cannot work. For us to believe in diversity, we must convince ourselves that different groups do not have different aims. Other than people giving up on their culture and heritage entirely, and agreeing to become generic citizens motivated by ideology and paycheck alone, there is no possibility of this happening, because culture is central to how humans understand their world and socialize within it.

Culture sets down a series of values, rules, and customs which are unique to a specific group. This enables them to both keep outsiders away, and police themselves for those who — probably through the rise of deleterious mutations leading to pathologies — are not going to be able to act in the best interests of the group. Culture is knowing what actions will be approved of by the group, and which will be censured, and enables people to understand how to find a place in their society.

On the other hand, diversity represents anti-culture. When you have multiple cultures in the same place, there can be no commonality except at levels that are both extremely simplified and very abstract. Anti-culture replaces culture with ideology, legal systems, economic systems, political systems and most of all, socializing, which now occurs without a sense of shared values except those of the abstract “systems” mentioned earlier in the list. Diversity destroys culture and to fully succeed in that, it has to destroy the genetic roots of culture.

Genetics underlies culture because culture is how human groups replace natural selection. Culture rewards those who uphold the values and ideals of the group; by definition, it excludes those who do not. People enjoy the idea of anti-culture because it frees them from the task of having to understand reality and their culture, and act according to it; without culture, they can do anything and as long as they follow the abstract and thus loose rules of the systems, they will be fine. But in reality, culture is both shaped by genetics and shapes genetics as Jonathan Haidt writes:

Cultural and genetic evolution are intertwined. The human capacity for culture — a strong tendency to learn from each other, to teach each other, and to build upon what we have learned — is itself a genetic evolution that happened in stages over the last few million years. But once our brains reached a critical threshold, perhaps 80,000 to 100,000 years ago, cultural innovation began to accelerate; a strong evolutionary pressure then shaped brains to take further advantage of culture. Individuals who could best learn from others were more successful than their less “cultured” brethren, and as brains became more cultural, cultures became more elaborate, further increasing the advantage of having a more cultural brain. All human beings today are the products of the co-evolution of a set of genes (which is almost identical across cultures) and a set of cultural elements (which is diverse across cultures, but still constrained by the capacities and predispositions of the human mind). For example, the genetic evolution of the emotion of disgust made it possible (but not inevitable) for cultures to develop caste systems based on occupation and strongly supported by disgust toward those who perform “polluting” activities. A caste system then restricts marriage to within-caste pairings, which in turn alters the course of genetic evolution. After a thousand years of inbreeding within castes, castes will diverge slightly on a few genetic traits — for example, shades of skin color — which might in turn lead to growing cultural association of caste with color rather than with occupation. (It only takes twenty generations of selective breeding to create large differences of appearance and behavior in other mammals.) In this way, genes and cultures co-evolve; they mutually affect each other, and neither process can be studied in isolation for human beings.

Diversity never works. It requires us to believe that different groups, each seeking to establish its own standards and genetics, can co-exist through the singular fact of dependence on a shared economic, political and social system. In doing so, it denies what makes each group unique, which is its system of values, its heritage, and its identity, or self-conception as a unit moving toward autonomy.

Since culture is encoded in genetics, and designed to accommodate those genetics thus effectively encoding them in culture, diversity necessarily possesses the ultimate goal of genocide: it seeks to replace a population or populations by mixing them, destroying the original genetic groups and their unique clusters of traits.

America is already lost.

We might refer to diversity as a form of ethnic vandalism which has already failed, like liberal democracy, as once-strong faith in it hasevaporated. Now that we have seen whatisontheendofthefork, we realize that diversity will do nothing but replace us, no matter what racewe are, and because of that, we have thought about identity and intuited that it is important.

Without social order, civilization becomes a giant shopping mall ruled by security guards in which your money is taken to subsidize a huge group of impoverished and angry people hidden behind the parking center. In fact, diversity is a tactic for seizing power, as we have known for longer than Christianity has been around. It is simply a dead-end policy enacted by dying nations in the hands of parasitic mercantile classes and mass culture.

We can easily end diversity and can see examples of the end of diversity in our world today. Those who experience it, dislike it; those who have suffered under it want it to end. Since the early 1990s, I have differed from the rest of the Right in that instead of criticizing specific ethnic groups, I have pointed out that diversity itself is the problem. We cannot place multiple groups together and not either destroy them, destroy ourselves, or as is most likely, both. This is true even with “nice” ethnic groups like Asians. Even ethnicdiversity is destructive but allows the Left to seize power, so it is popular on the Left, of course.

You will often hear people argue something ill-advised like, “All this diversity stuff is really just special privileges. What we need instead is to just treat everyone equally.” However, this is a variation of DR3: we are claiming that we are more egalitarian than the Left, which forgets that egalitarianism is the philosophical root of diversity. A better path is to realize that diversity never works, and diversity has failed again, and so now we are headed toward balkanization as a path to tribal/ethnic separation, an idea once known as nationalism. The people who argue for meritocracy miss the point, which is that homogeneity creates stable nations, and heterogeneity — diversity, multiculturalism, internationalism, and globalism; these mean roughly the same thing — creates unstable, self-destructing nation-states. We cannot use equality to get out of the problems created by equality; we have to reject equality, and embrace hierarchy instead, which requires a single value system and therefore cannot happen under any form of diversity.

JEWS ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM

Diversity is the direct result of egalitarianism, or the idea that all people are equal. Humans tend to rationalize future decisions based on their current situation, and in the 1940s-1960s, Americans became concerned about the fact that our founding documents claimed that “all men are created equal” and that our country provided “liberty and justice for all,” when in reality African-Americans, Hispanics, Chinese and Amerinds were relegated to the back of the bus. Since we were at the time fighting a Cold War against the Soviet Union, we decided to beat them by being more liberal than they were, and in so doing, sacrificed our social order. Starting in the early 1960s, diversity became a core tenet of the Left and, once they had successfully demonized any racial preference as “racism” and equated it with Adolf Hitler, the Left was able to batter down any resistance to its multicultural vision. This then spread to Europe and accelerated after the fall of Communism as the ruined West tried to re-define itself — rationalize itself — in some way that explained its decline as a positive thing.

Egalitarianism is a form of individualism. Individualism defends the individual against obligations outside of the self-interest, or in a utilitarian sense the desires, of the individual. Individualism is the belief that the individual should do what the individual wants without regard for impact on society, nature, other people, culture, heritage, values, and religion. This form of atomization, or separating the individual from any context except itself, creates a society where the largest possible group is a unit of one person. This addresses the fundamental concern of individualists, which is that they will be judged by their actions, which can fall short of either social standards or how reality works, reflecting an inability to understand reality on the part of the individual. Individuals know that every time they act, they can reveal an inability to understand reality, or a failing according to the values of culture, and so they advocate for equality, which defends the individual against the needs of nature, logic, history and the larger social group. This atomized approach appears to benefit the individual, but in fact it cuts them off from participation in anything larger than themselves, and so it creates empty, depressed, alcoholic, and frustrated people. The futility is crushing like gravity inside of a black hole.

Individualism, equality, hubris, solipsism, diversity, and democracy have made the West a living hell on an existential level. We expend ourselves at jobs that are mostly pointless, as if designed by a mocking demon, and then wait in lines for mediocre products and endless red tape. We are alienated from our community, and even from our own families, because everyone acts in the individualist style of working toward their own immediate desires by using everything else, including love and family, as a means to that end. Thanks to diversity, we have no culture, and therefore can have no purpose, so there is no way to restrain the mercantile takeover of our society, which spirals into oblivion because we have nothing in common except paychecks and staying on the side that won the Cold War. Even worse, we have committed ourselves to a series of illusions beginning with equality and ending in diversity, so most people are offered the unappetizing choice between admitting that we have massively failed and rationalizing the present, doubling down on the same ideals, and trying again because that way our egos can remain intact.

Contemporary people suffer by being forced to hover at the moment of transition between parts of the cycle. This is a gradual transition, so we are left with the assumptions of the past, but realizing that those are empty and deceptive, while waiting for them to fully fail so that we can move on to the next part of the cycle. The sooner we realize that diversity never works because it is paradoxical and designed as a control method, a means-to-the-end of power and nothing more, the sooner we can reject it and then start peeling back the ideas that justify it, throwing out the illusions and replacing them with wisdom, so that we can restore Western Civilization and escape this evil, tedious, and narcissistic era.

“Racism” Is Self-Preservation

Only Leftists care about “racism.” To a conservative, the fact that some if not most people prefer to live among their own is no more consequential than their choice of shoes or favorite beer. Welcome to freedom, liberty and every other term for allowing innocent choice.

Leftists care about racism because their goal is to destroy. They bargain through collectives, but these are designed to benefit the individual by separating cause and effect, in this case the performance of the individual and the reward it receives from society. An ideal Leftist society is “equal” so that individuals do not have to prove themselves.

That serves as an extension of the decline of societies, in which people fear life more than they are willing to engage with it, so withdraw into human social groups where each person is rewarded merely for being a person, which protects individuals from loss of social status or power because they contribute nothing or are incompetent. This appeals to their fear of being insufficient or inept, and so people are drawn to it because they fundamentally do not believe in their society and have trouble believing in themselves as a result.

The impetus behind this crowd hysteria originates in people rationalizing the decay of their civilization because they lack faith in other people to reward them for doing the right thing instead of the popular thing. At its core is individualism, or the idea that by making the individual part of the group, no one can make that individual anything less than equal to everyone else, which is required for hierarchy and the social order necessary to reverse our decline. In other words, instead of the social order of a thriving civilization, a mob of equals is created so that no individual will be below any other.

As part of this, any attribute which can make someone higher than another must also be destroyed. Their primary target is caste, manifested in the modern “class,” but inherent to the distribution of IQ and moral character through a population. To that end, they must remove religion, race, ethnicity, and even sex so that everyone is finally equal. This is a pathological pursuit which has no ability to reverse itself, sort of like a psychological endgame for civilization, and its appeal to people is that in a world where they feel helpless, they are at least given control over a subset of reality, the human social arena, in which they can feel powerful. This disease exterminates every human group over time through what we call The Human Problem: the tendency of any human group to focus inward on placating its members rather than orienting them toward producing results, which benefit all unequally.

For those who followed all of that, it means that anti-racism is a death impulse by those who wish to destroy civilization because they are underconfident and fear their own ineptitude. Good guys do not engage in anti-racism; they recognize the reality, which is first that people like to be with those like themselves — not just by race but by ethnicity, caste, religion, customs and political outlook — and second that anti-racism seeks to erase the original group through miscegenation in what amounts to a slow and passive-aggressive genocide. This is why conservatives, or at least coherent and realistic ones, do not bother themselves with anti-racism and believe that “racism” does not exist. There are only choices about whom to associate with and where.

In contrast to what the herd tells you, “racism” is not cruelty toward others, but defense of your own group. That requires being the master of other groups or having them be far away. The only way to survive being bred into a hybrid, in fact, is through xenophobia that is systematically and rigorously applied, which requires some amount of demonization of Otherness, although not necessarily any specific other groups. That in turn requires the ability to apply harsh standards to those who are Us, so that what is left are the strong and powerful representatives of that group; if you love something, you prune the weak versions of it so that you get more of the strong.

On a practical level, concerns over racism are dead, for now. The Obama-Ferguson effect — the tendency of minority groups to recognize that a mixed-race group will condescend to them, but not fully include them — manifests in more racial strife, not less, the more concessions are made. In fact, diversity causes every group to begin competing with others because the only way to avoid genocide by miscegenation is to dominate all of the other groups and demonize them to a degree that interbreeding does not occur. However, this current backlash against anti-racism is not a belief in itself, but a frustration with the failed policies that have spent billions over the past fifty years to attempt to fix a problem that is unfixable.

THEY NEED YOU DISARMED, CANT HAVE YOU FIGHTING BACK WHEN THE TIME COMES

The future for those who care about such antiquated issues as having a civilization and not a giant cultureless mixed-race bazaar can be found in the idea that it is time to start positively nurturing our culture, and withdrawing our focus from specific other groups. What we fixate on, we become; what we tolerate, we get more of. And so instead of being good stupid democracy-bots and trying to herd together as many people as possible, we can focus on the people who have actual ability and reaching them, and then aiming to disenfranchise the rest because like all good zombie voters, they will simply go back to sleep and quite happily vote for any number of pro-diversity items if those are presented with the right soothing language and promises of more social benefits.

Our future lies in snapping out of the modern dream where civilization consists of a government, social engineering and the welfare state, and lacks culture, heritage, customs, and values of its own separate from the ideology of that government. We are here to restore Western Civilization, and we cannot do that through the modern model at all.

The first step in this consists of converting “racism,” as expressed in the media, or ethnic resentment of other groups, into a dogmatic and principled xenophobia, where we stop caring at all about these other groups and whether they are good or not. Even if they are high-IQ angels, we do not want them among us, because any diversity is a path to our genocide.

Instead, we can dedicate our time to understanding who we are, both genetically and as a culture, and then enhancing the attributes of that culture in ourselves and society. This will require removing democracy, individualism, equality, and diversity, but those are only stops on the road to being a greater civilization than ever before.

Science Confirms It: Diversity Destroys Civilization

The analysis offered on this site of diversity does not look at the unique traits of groups, only the necessary idea that any group is constituted around a unique values system and in order to defend that, needs to have control over its destiny and the ability to exclude other groups. This means that more than one group in the same area causes social dissolution and civilization collapse.

In fact, for morethantwenty-fiveyears, the writers collected here have beenpointingoutthatdiversity destroys social order and is dysfunctional as a policy as a result. We cannot make it work because it is paradoxical and therefore will always fail, but will fail slowly, taking our civilization down with it as that society expends all of its resources to try to make an illusion into reality, although tyrants and rioting plebs love it because the perceived goodness of diversity gives them virtually unlimited power.

As if conjured up from our laboratories, confirms that diversity results in conflict (via Heartiste via hbdchick:

However, in countries where ethnicity is more strongly predictive of culture, as captured by a high χ2, violent conflict is more likely, and public goods provision tends to be lower. Our interpretation of this empirical result is that in societies where individuals differ from each other in both ethnicity and culture, social antagonism is greater, and political economy outcomes are worse.

In other words, wherever there are groups that have united genetics to value systems (“culture”) there is conflict if more than one occupies a space.

This should not baffle us because the same condition exists in nature. Wherever two groups attempt to co-exist, conflict expands until whichever group breeds more slowly is destroyed, as we see in the case of the brown anoles versus green anoles:

Although green anoles are very territorial, the invasion of the brown anoles have chased the natives into the treetops. The brown anoles, having few enemies, have taken over the former habitat of the greens, forcing them into new territories and farther from our sight. In addition to taking the natural territories from them, the brown anoles, especially mature males, will actually kill and eat the baby green anoles. Their populations are greatly reduced from former numbers.

The invasive species, which is less discriminate in its consumption and more aggressive, has begun bullying the native species, with disastrous results that resemble the constant ethnic conflict created by diversity:

The green anole and the Cuban brown anole both occupy the same niche, or place in the ecosystem. This means that they both live on the ground and in low lying branches, and eat the same food, insects. But the brown anoles tend to out-compete green anoles on the ground and lower boles of trees. They have even been described as being more aggressive than the native green anole. Instead of toughening up, the green anoles who used to occupy these lower spaces are now more commonly found feeding in higher, flimsier branches and leaves. This is considered a shift in behavior due to resource partitioning.

…Since the encroachment of the Cuban brown anole, studies have shown that our native green anole has begun to show some morphological and behavioral changes. What scientists have found, and what you can probably witness at home, is that the green anole is now choosing to live higher off the ground and they have developed larger toe pads.

As the newer group comes in, more voracious and less thoughtful, it displaces the more capable — and therefore less preemptively defensive through aggression — native group.

This resembles the flight of those who became Europeans into the far less hospitable climates to the North: when food is abundant, intelligence is not rewarded, and so the coarser take over from the finer. When each decision about survival becomes more difficult, then nature rewards the more intelligent finer species.

It also explains the clashes we have over diversity. One group is displacing another; that group, realizing that taking to the trees will only delay its demise by outbreeding, is finding its own identity in response.

This places us in a situation where the political conflict of diversity threatens our future. We have justified diversity as an economic program, but the inevitable conflict has destabilized us:

As rich countries have fewer babies, they need immigration to grow their prime-age workforces. But as the foreign-born share of the population rises, xenophobia often festers and threatens egalitarian policymaking.

…But there is a growingbody of evidence that as rich majority-white countries admit more foreign-born people, far-right parties thrive by politicizing the perceived threat of the foreign-born to national culture. That concept will sound familiar to anybody who watched the 2016 U.S. presidential race, but it’s a truly global trend. A 2015 study of immigration and far-right attitudes in Austria found that the proximity of low and medium-skilled immigrants “causes Austrian voters to turn to the far right.” The effect was strongest in areas with higher unemployment, suggesting that culture and economics might reinforce each other in this equation. Last week, the far-right Austrian party triumphed in the nation’s election.

In other words, exactly as the study — and common sense, and the parable of the anole — predicts, diversity creates endless conflict, and the only way to survive it is to end diversity.

Diversity Destroys Social Order

Following up on the work of Robert Putnam and Peter Thisted Dinesen, a new study from Sweden reminds us that diversity obliterates social order:

Respondents said they feel the least affinity with people with different ethnic backgrounds, who practice a different religion, or who were brought up in other cultures.

Overall, however, researchers said the study shows that “social cohesion is strong” in Sweden, because 95 per cent of respondents said they feel like a part of society.

The groups which were least likely to profess a sense of belonging to Swedish society were people on low incomes, and people who hold citizenship of nations other than Sweden.

In other words, we understand people like ourselves, because out of the ten million attributes assigned to a human being, we have the most in common with those like ourselves, and therefore do not need to ask, negotiate or legally arbitrate decisions. We can simply act as our instinct commands, knowing that we are roughly correct according to the values of our group.

When this condition is suspended — like breaking surface tension in water — then we no longer know that what we instinctively think is right to do will in fact be rewarded by the group. At that point, the only safe response is to not act, which creates a kind of “active apathy” in which people ignore disasters and threats around themselves and focus on social, political and economic symbols which unite the group instead because they are simpler and more universal.

Diversity never works. It always fragments a society, makes the citizens cowed and paranoid, and results in ongoing low-grade racial conflict culminating in the collapse of the society. No one wins, but the stupid monkey inside of all humanity will keep trying to win. That is just how he is wired.

For the past two centuries, our future direction has been determined by what people think is good because it beats back nature and asserts a human omniform in its place. When we exclude all forms but the human, we stop fearing natural selection, disease, randomness and other threats to the continuity of us as perceiving, choice-making entities. Diversity is just part of this human projection.

However, as liberal democracy fades away and tribalism takes its place, diversity is failing, and so we can finally see research confirming what common sense told us centuries ago.

They Admit It: “American Prosperity Depends On A Non-White Future”

Listen. Listen quietly. Wait patiently. If you take enough time, your enemies will tell you exactly what they think. Give them the space and they will eventually justify themselves to you, and then you can see the plan in full.

One of the leading business publications in the world, ((((((Bloomberg)))))) News offers us the clearest statement of white genocide ever offered in the media:

If the U.S. economy is going to prosper, it needs to keep taking in immigrants. Fertility is below replacement levels, and no country has discovered a way to raise native birthrates. That means that immigration is necessary for the survival of the Social Security system and the solvency of pension funds.

It is so blatant that you might have missed it: immigration is needed to pay for the pensions for Baby Boomers, and it is necessary because we are not having as many babies as occurred in that boom. Our largest and most Leftist generation ever is fading out, and in the ruins of a society ravaged by their political ideals, there is not enough wealth to keep them in a state of comfortable retirement.

They even tell you in the next few lines:

Immigrants will allow small cities to grow and expand their tax bases, instead of shriveling into ghost towns. Immigrants support the housing market and the stock market. They take care of elderly Americans and provide invaluable skills for U.S. corporations. Without continued robust immigration, the U.S. population will shrink and gray, and the country will start having the same problems as aging societies like Japan, South Korea, and East Europe.

They are promising yesterday its retirement funds by sacrificing today. As usual, drugged by the dogma of egalitarianism, business and voters assume that all people are the same, so they can move in a bunch of third world people and have America keep operating just as it has. They are relying on their laws, economic theories, Constitution, and police power.

We know this is true because Europe is doing the same thing:

Western governments are broke because of their social programs and yet cannot reduce them because the voters will panic and rage.

The demographic squeeze could be eased by the influx of more than a million migrants in the past year. If many of them eventually join the working population, the result could be increased tax revenue to keep the pension model afloat. Before migrants are even given the right to work, however, they require housing, food, education and medical treatment. Their arrival will have effects on public finances that officials have only started to assess.

There are many problems with the immigration plan. First, it stimulates overpopulation by creating an escape valve from the already-overburdened third world, which in turn causes people to breed more because the cause of that overpopulation is a Tragedy of the Commons style need to have a large enough family to subsidize each person in old age, so when that family leaves, they make more of them. Second, it destroys Western civilization entirely by ethnically replacing its one unique component, namely its people and their genetics. Third, it assumes that people from third world countries will produce at the level needed, when if they could have done that, they would have back at home where living is cheaper.

Now you see the Wall Street Journal and ((((((Bloomberg)))))) News telling you what the rest of the mainstream media will not: the great rush toward diversity has always been about ensuring an easy retirement for people raised on the socialist programs of the 1930s.

They were told back in the day that these programs could not sustain themselves; they paid out more than they took in, and investing the money only made it unpredictable as to how much would be there in the future. And so, our society slipped itself on the needle of stealing from everyone to give to a subset of the group. We are addicted to funding our retirees.

Socialism always kills societies this way. When you give out free things, people shape their lives around a negative incentive to save and be responsible. For them, it is easy; all they have to do is keep going to work for thirty five or forty years and then they retire with a pension or generous social security. It is a paradise for workers, much like Soviet Communism promised to be.

But like all our great human failings, this one starts with a simple pitfall. People who are working for the system, instead of working to achieve results, are not effective or efficient. They phone it in and do the minimum they must do in order to avoid criticism from others. In turn, the quality of output falls, and so does the value of the economy.

This rushes us into a death cycle. Millions work long hours at jobs doing tasks that ultimately are not necessary, just so their bosses can get promoted for being effective at the ineffective. They are taxed mercilessly and that money is dumped on the underclass, which spends it on consumer products. This puts money into fast motion, and causes the economy to switch to demand-based economics.

WOMEN ARE NATURALLY EGALITARIAN, AND THEIR POLITICAL ENFRANCHISEMENT IS PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Right now, we are being erased as a people so that a generation can get the benefits it voted for after being promised them by people who knew the scheme would never work. What do they care, they got their retirement benefits already, and all of them are hoping to be very dead by the time the bubble pops.

Look at what else they are celebrating:

But even more encouraging are the numbers on interracial marriage. Marriage is proof that diversity isn’t just creating tensions between new and unfamiliar neighbors, but positive and lasting social bonds. A new report by the Pew Research Center provides some amazing numbers. Half a century after laws against interracial marriage were struck down by the courts, the share of new marriages that are interracial has risen from 3 percent to 17 percent. For black Americans, the rise in intermarriage has been particularly strong.

With unique races gone, you will have nothing but your job, government ideology and consumer shopping. This will create the perfect citizens: a grey race of people without culture, values, heritage, customs or religion. The perfect raw material to be shaped by the machine of government and media.

Amazingly, your leaders think this is a good idea. To them, the voters are dupes — here they are correct: even smart people in groups vote like morons through compromise, the lottery mentality and gaming the system — who will approve ridiculous schemes. A politician realizes that either he offers free stuff, or the next guy will, and that guy will take the election. So they all lie.

THEY WONT LET YOU JUST WALK AWAY

We know this means the end of the chance for the West, shattered by two world wars, to rebirth itself. With the loss of its people, so goes the possibility of their civilization. And all of this to pay for votes, bought with social welfare entitlements programs we could not afford, so that people would feel comfortable in an obviously declining, unstable society!

The U.S. is becoming more integrated at the regional, neighborhood and household level. Americans say they like diversity, and they are voting with both their feet and their ring fingers. The future of the U.S. as a successful multiracial nation isn’t assured, but it’s looking more and more likely. And that should be good news for the U.S. economy, since it means growth won’t create noxious social divisions.

Listen again. They tell you their fears: they fear noxious social divisions, meaning that they know diversity will not work. This is why they are rushing toward intermarriage, because if you destroy all of the races, then you have no social divisions. In other words, the same reason why they wanted class warfare; they want to eliminate all conflict through pacifism, and make us all obedient sheep.

The only way out of this mess is to stand up against diversity and its parent theory, egalitarianism. You cannot say that all people are equal and not invite the world to come live among you. But a group composed of every race has no race, and a country for everyone is a country for no one. Oh well, at least the Me Generation will have comfortable retirements as civilization dies out around them.

WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE WEST IS A SOFT GENOCIDE

Soft Genocide

Diversity, or the policy of putting different ethnic groups with their different self-interest vectors into the same group, is a type of genocide, albeit a “soft” or legislative and slow-moving variety:

The United Nations (UN) defines genocide as:

Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.1

Diversity “inflicts on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.” When different ethnic or religious groups have been placed nearby, they have fought each other in a pattern that has been consistent since the dawn of time. Then, as we can see by observing the remains later, the two groups assimilate each other, and in the process lose what made them unique. These leftover groups never attain the characteristics of the original groups and generally fade away, like the ruins of a once-great civilization. This is what our leaders have in store for us.

WELCOME TO AMERICA, 2030.

Our leaders want this because it will make us easy to control. When religion, race and culture are out of the way, they can have a grey tribe with no values in common, which makes it easy to sell products to or manipulate with political ideology. They are the perfect consumers and perfect voters because they have no higher allegiances — like culture, heritage or belief — that conflicts with the government propaganda and advertising. As the Greek philosopher, Plato, wrote 2400 years ago:

And the more detestable his actions are to the citizens the more satellites and the greater devotion in them will he require?

Certainly.
And who are the devoted band, and where will he procure them?

They will flock to him, he said, of their own accord, if lie pays them.

By the dog! I said, here are more drones, of every sort and from every land.2

Those who rule over us are using the same strategy as the tyrant Plato describes: import new people from former colonies, or satellites, and use them to displace the existing population. This new population is chosen because it can be bribed with benefits, sometimes called “welfare” or “socialism,” and it will then always support the tyrant. The problem is, as Plato notes, that it requires bringing in foreign people from many lands. This effectively destroys the ability of a society to have any rules of its own, and through time and interbreeding, it is replaced by a new population.

THIS IS OUR FUTURE IF WE DON’T FIGHT BACK

In the meantime, the invisible rules which one made society livable, called “culture,” have been removed. You cannot have culture when the population is made up of people who did not grow up under this culture, and evolved in their own lands to have different cultures. Culture is in the blood because to succeed in a society, you must be compatible with its culture. After a few generations, only those who took to the culture naturally remain.

The loss of culture through loss of heritage makes society paranoid. People no longer trust each other, and for that reason, they no longer invest effort into the shared future that is our society. As Robert Putnam found:

New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.3

Add it up, and you can see that diversity destroys society. It does not matter which groups are involved and it is not their fault. Diversity destroys any society no matter which groups are involved. So if you think this is about a “bad” religion, ethnic group or race, you have missed the point. The point is that diversity will destroy us because it is genocide of all of our populations.

Like all egalitarian programs, its goal is to destroy those who might rise above the rest. This is the resentful and hence vengeful nature of a crowd of people, which is to scapegoat those who do not share its problems for its problems, allowing it to feel more comfortable with its own degree of mediocrity.

With soft genocide, those who wish to destroy populations have a new weapon: passive aggression. They can avoid direct action, but by offering up their insane ideas as normal and then reacting defensively, as if attacked, when others recoil from the insanity, they can use social guilt to manipulate those others into accepting the insanity.

The only solution is to articulate what is sane and insane, avoiding the emotionality of both hate groups and anti-discrimination groups, and instead to point ourselves toward the solutions that work for every group in every age, starting with a removal of diversity and a focus on excellence instead of scapegoating.

Its going to end only one way, and its not gonna be easy.

That Babylon Feeling

Almost everyone now knows what Moldbug tried to warn us about. Almost everyone feels like our current government has a lot of fakery going on. More than a bare majority believe at least in the concept of the Moldbuggian Cathedral (also called the “deep state” or “swamp”).

This was an unenumerated feeling that I could feel and taste around me. Nobody said it, but an awful lot of people just knew. “How many?” Fair question. Monmouth University offers us at least somewhat of a quantitative answer.

Just over half of the public is either very worried (23%) or somewhat worried (30%) about the U.S. government monitoring their activities and invading their privacy. There are no significant partisan differences – 57% of independents, 51% of Republicans, and 50% of Democrats are at least somewhat worried the federal government is monitoring their activities. Another 24% of the American public are not too worried and 22% are not at all worried. Fully 8-in-10 believe that the U.S. government currently monitors or spies on the activities of American citizens, including a majority (53%) who say this activity is widespread and another 29% who say such monitoring happens but is not widespread. Just 14% say this monitoring does not happen at all. There are no substantial partisan differences in these results….Turning to the Washington political infrastructure as a whole, 6-in-10 Americans (60%) feel that unelected or appointed government officials have too much influence in determining federal policy. Just 26% say the right balance of power exists between elected and unelected officials in determining policy. Democrats (59%), Republicans (59%) and independents (62%) agree that appointed officials hold too much sway in the federal government.

Monmouth says these results are troubling. I say the opposite. When you stick the thermometer into your mouth and the temperature comes back 103, you no longer sit around wondering whether you should stay home and see a doctor instead of shlupping it into the office. The results are not troubling, the causes and effects of these results are what the problems are. Failure to quantify and intelligently examine who or what constitutes this edifice of secret power can lead to some serious intellectual low pressure systems. D.C. Council member Trayon White Sr. offers us a cogent argument in favor of repealing The Voting Rights Act below.

Man, it just started snowing out of nowhere this morning, man. Y’all better pay attention to this climate control, man, this climate manipulation,” he says. “And D.C. keep talking about, ‘We a resilient city.’ And that’s a model based off the Rothschilds controlling the climate to create natural disasters they can pay for to own the cities, man. Be careful.

Does anyone think we’ll ever discuss the JQ intelligently after that particular reading from The Protocols? If there’s really a ((((((Rothschild)))))) plot against Amerika, it involves electing lots and lots of putzoids just like Trayon D. White Sr. Putting more information in the public domain and doing more of our government’s business in an open manner would cut down on the theories that (((Banksters))) have a weather machine or that the CIA invented and marketed crack cocaine or synthetic opiates.

Other wheelers and dealers who think One Second After is not necessarily an implausible work of fantasy are taking more discrete steps to hedge against their fears. Think of The Fortitude Ranch as The DC Cathedral’s secret monestary.

One of his members from the Baltimore area, speaking on background, said that he and others joined after “waking up” to the potential of a national crisis from an attack, financial meltdown or political violence. “For most of us, something rattled our cages and woke us up,” he said. Through memberships and his own cryptocurrency called “Fortitudes,” Miller has raised about $400,000 and established a ranch in West Virginia and Colorado with 10 others planned. An open house at the West Virginia ranch is scheduled for April 21-23. He said that for the West Virginia ranch, “most members are professional Washington area folks. They don’t have time to do this own their own.” The cost is about $1,000 per person per year to join.

What are these DC bigshots so worried about? It makes the uninformed wonder how implausible the Evil DHS takeover from the A. American novels really is. Should we all be building fortified compounds and coding up blockchain algorithms to ensure a valid medium of exchange? The Fortitude Ranch boom may be a hot tip or a chic overreaction to the growing ennui expressed so well by Peggy Noonan’s moment of greatness column “A Separate Peace.”

I think there is an unspoken subtext in our national political culture right now. In fact I think it’s a subtext to our society. I think that a lot of people are carrying around in their heads, unarticulated and even in some cases unnoticed, a sense that the wheels are coming off the trolley and the trolley off the tracks. That in some deep and fundamental way things have broken down and can’t be fixed, or won’t be fixed any time soon. That our pollsters are preoccupied with “right track” and “wrong track” but missing the number of people who think the answer to “How are things going in America?” is “Off the tracks and hurtling forward, toward an unknown destination.”

That desire to build a fortress or join one, that fear of the FEMA Camps, that belief in (((The Bagel-Muncher Weather Controller))) are all symptoms. The problem is that we’ve all gradually discovered, without being well educated: that the sled has crested the ridge and the rest of the ride is downhill screaming. It’s just that unempowered sense of existential ennui that gives us all that cold shudder that runs down your spine. You know the one. That Babylon Feeling.

Your gonna need a few of these. See you on the battlefield.

How The EU And USA Will Implode

by Brett Stevens

The New Right often gets overlooked in the flood of buzzwords, but its primary contribution was to match the subversion of Cultural ((((((Marxism)))))) with the idea of a cultural shift; if this blog has contributed anything to that, it is the Kantian idea that first people must decide to be good and only with that goal, can we make a cultural shift away from the selfish individualism that is the hallmark of liberalism.

One wonders where the New Right got this idea. Among other things, including writers from both Right and Left, the thinkers of the New Right may have observed the lessons of the collapse of the Soviet Union, which is here explained by the last leader of that decaying regime, Mikhail Gorbachev:

The Soviet model was defeated not only on the economic and social levels; it was defeated on a cultural level. Our society, our people, the most educated, the most intellectual, rejected that model on the cultural level because it does not respect the man, oppresses him spiritually and politically.

If you ever wonder why the West is panicked and manic about defining “oppression” to mean civil rights violation, here is why: they fear the day their people realize that oppression comes in many forms, and the creation of a wealthy but soulless hell in which the strong serve the weak is one of them. The rot of modernity has been well-chronicled by literature, film and philosophy, but no one has been willing to criticize what is a materially successful system, even as it erodes its population through sexual liberation, corruption, miserable pointless jobs, alienating crime-ridden cities and complete nonsense paraded as profundity by a junta of media, government and academia.

Despite the subtle horrors of modernity, most people could find a way out, and sold their souls for twenty pieces of silver that bought a suburban house, health insurance and plenty of watery beer to consume while watching important sporting events. This created an ugly modern psychology: you either “made it” and retreated to pay taxes to fund the disaster, or remained “beneath the wheel” and faced the dysfunction of the system at risk to your life. This explains the division of Western societies into a middle class and an underclass, with a few super-rich oligarchs floating above, completely removed from the daily experience of their citizens.

None of the ideological movements against modernity have succeeded because they fail to offer at least an alternate prosperity, or even better, an improved one. The lesson of history is that successful revolutions promise prosperity alongside ideology; the Leftists had their promise of wealth redistribution, and libertarians have the promise of getting your taxes back. None of these movements address more than the material, as the New Right noted, so by themselves they are unconvincing as ideological movements without a promise of enhanced prosperity.

To a Machiavellian observer, ideology serves as a justification for lifestyle. The undistinguished want everyone to be equal; the criminal want a concentration of power to exploit; the normal want stability and a feeling of well-being in the thought that they are treating others well. Modernity combines the first and third of those and makes them seem inseparable, which then makes it almost impossible to argue against, much as the ideal of Soviet Communism was that every worker would be provided for.

When that ideal revealed itself to be a form of camouflage for Machiavellian power, the citizens of the Soviet Union experienced a cultural shift:

A leading Soviet journalist and later a passionate herald of glasnost, Aleksandr Bovin, wrote in 1988 that the ideals of perestroika had “ripened” amid people’s increasing “irritation” at corruption, brazen thievery, lies, and the obstacles in the way of honest work.

Gorbachev again:

I would launch perestroika in exactly the same way today. “We can’t go on living this way.” That was our slogan. “I want changes,” Viktor Zoi, the pioneer of Russian rock music, sang.

People saw the man behind the curtain, and the system became separate from its promises. The third and first desires were separated, and then large numbers of people were willing to undertake the gamble of passive revolution, meaning that it occurred through (mostly) political means. Right now we are seeing the same thing in the West, where a vast program of civil rights and social welfare has been revealed to be the means of keeping leaders in power as each nation spends itself into insane levels of debt — and raises taxes, crushing small business and the middle class, much as its burdensome over-regulation does — to support this social/materialist agenda.

New perceptions contributed to a change in attitudes toward the regime and “a shift in values.” Gradually, the legitimacy of the political arrangements began to be questioned. In an instance of ((((((Robert K. Merton))))))’s immortal “Thomas theorem” — “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequence” — the actual deterioration of the Soviet economy became consequential only after and because of a fundamental shift in how the regime’s performance was perceived and evaluated.

When the man behind the curtain is revealed, and the noble ideals can no longer conceal the grim reality, change is in the air. Ironically, for the Soviet Union, a liberal state, it came through further liberalization: a revolt against the means of control, and not its purported goals. The nature of revolution to this date has been a steady shift Leftward, even in Leftist states, because people essentially want anarchy plus prosperity, forgetting that this abolishes social order and replaces it with oppression of one form or another. In our current age, we are seeing a revolt not against a regime, but against liberalization or at least its consequences.

As Mikhail Antonov declared in a seminal 1987 essay, “So What Is Happening to Us?” in the magazine Oktyabr, the people had to be “saved” — not from external dangers but “most of all from themselves, from the consequences of those demoralizing processes that kill the noblest human qualities.” Saved how? By making the nascent liberalization fateful, irreversible — not Khrushchev’s short-lived “thaw,” but a climate change. And what would guarantee this irreversibility? Above all, the appearance of a free man who would be “immune to the recurrences of spiritual slavery.”

In this quotation, we find the actual reason for the fall of the Soviet Union: people perceived themselves as enslaved by ideology, much as in the modern West we see how all of our governmental policies fail, and yet we cannot change them because they are expressions of our fundamental liberal idea, which is the equality of all people as a means of avoiding hierarchy and “restrictive” social norms.

Those who watch historical trends can tell that the regimes of the West are falling because of a lack of faith within their citizens. The elites who want the sick show to continue know that they can keep society afloat through perpetual liberalization, but now, that seems to have run its course because there is nothing else to liberalize and our problems still get worse. For this reason, the cultural shift must not be against specific governments, but ideology itself, replacing it with realism that allows prosperity for the competent.

The key to this shift in perception is to appeal to the basic need of the individual to feel existential contentment without a loss of material support. The spirit of the human being requires a sense of pride, but this is not possible under ideological regimes, because in them the nation and its people become a means to the end of ideology and its frenetic quest for pervasive equality. This creates a crushing loop where people pursue happiness through egalitarianism, but then must confront the reality of enforcing such an illogical prospect.

Both are reminders that in the modern world, economic progress is not a substitute for the pride and self-respect of citizenship. Unless we remember this well, we will continue to be surprised — by the “color revolutions” in the post-Soviet world, the Arab Spring, and, sooner or later, an inevitable democratic upheaval in China — just as we were in Soviet Russia.

Nationalism, culture and values provide the pride that equality never can. This is why these are demonized by ideological states, which try to destroy heritage, family and religion as a means of replacing them with ideology. This is why, much like the modern West, the Soviets pursued a suicidal path of ideological struggle which eventually removed all that sustained their people.

SPIEGEL: The third issue: You are criticized for having criminally underestimated the national question …

Gorbachev: That’s not true. I lived in a country in which the people spoke 225 languages and dialects, and where all religions existed. I grew up in the Caucasus, and I was familiar with the problems.

Diversity was our strength in the Soviet Union as well because ideology requires destruction of culture, which requires diversity. Diversity replaces a single way of living, with values system and culture, with the brutalist conceptions of the State. It naturally leads to a situation like the one the current West endures where the wealth of the nation is redirected into the ideological goal of roping others in to the same system, which in our case is globalism and in the Soviet case was international communism.

As one economist observed:

“The Soviet Union was a peculiar empire in that it didn’t simply exploit its colonies for material gain but actually provided for them,” says Gabriel ((((((Stein)))))).

Our peculiar empire has shifted from colonialism to a policy of gift-giving through foreign aid abroad and the welfare state, geared toward third-world immigrants, at home, as if following the Soviet playbook. This does not show a Communist influence so much as it demonstrates the inevitable end of all liberalism: a series of subsidy programs ever-expanding to keep the ideological state powerful, at the expense of both prosperity and spirit.

The days grow short in the West. Winter is coming; history shows us that Leftist empires end the same way, whether in ancient Athens or modern-day America and Western Europe. This is how the EU and USA will follow the Soviets into doom, but it is up to us to recognize that we do not oppose those governments so much as the principle upon which they are based, because it always ends this way. Until we revolt against the revolution as idea, we are doomed to endlessly repeat this cycle of optimism and failure.

Is California Lost Already and Is Civil War Inevitable – MGTOW

Is the Sanctuary State of California a simulation, a test run of a leftist plan to control the state, the country and the world? How immigration is being used to control the narrative and the people. Recognize the pattern which is repeating in most major cities across the U.S. and the world. Find out why would local politicians pander and cater to a non-citizen population. Recognize how the sanctuary state of California is being used as a political and social wreaking ball against the lawful citizens of the country.

Join me, Howard Dare for Is California Lost Already and Is Civil War Inevitable – MGTOW

School Staffer Arrested For Saying He Can’t Wait to ‘Execute Every White Man’ in Panther Revolution

By Chris Menahan

An in-school suspension coordinator at Harding High School in Bridgeport, Connecticut was arrested Wednesday after allegedly saying he “hates white people” and can’t wait to “execute every white man he gets his hands on” when the Black Panthers give the OK for a “revolution.”

From the Connecticut Post:

BRIDGEPORT – Harding High School was put in lockdown Wednesday after police said a school employee threatened to go on a killing spree. Carl Lemon, 63, an in-school suspension coordinator, was charged with second-degree threatening and breach of peace and was later released on $5,000 bond.

Here’s an idea of what his job consisted of:


Seems like they couldn’t have picked anyone less qualified.

Police said Lemon stated that he hates white people and couldn’t wait “for the panthers to give the OK and a revolution begins because he will execute every white man he gets his hands on.” Lemon also stomped on an American flag in a classroom telling the students, “This is what I think about it,” police said.

Police said the principal subsequently found an anonymous note in her mailbox stating, “Mr. Lemon talks about shooting whites a lot! He watches radical stuff during class. I am scared he will do something… he is crazy.” More officers were called to the school which was put in lockdown while Lemon was taken into custody, police said.

There appears to have been plenty of warnings about his behavior, but they let him off easy in leftist Connecticut, no doubt in the name of “fighting systemic racism.”

Lemon was previously arrested on charges of creating a public disturbance, disorderly conduct and harassment but those charges were later nolled or dropped. […]


This article originally appeared on Information Liberation.