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

Trump’s Border Plan: Beyond Military Deployment, ‘Catch and Release’ Could Be Unilaterally Ended

President Trump’s administration announced on Wednesday that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Defense Department will coordinate on a plan to send National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border.

The move will not give the National Guard the authority to act as temporary Border Patrol agents, catching and detaining illegal aliens, but rather it allows troops to take on logistical jobs so that Border Patrol is given more manpower to focus on arresting illegal aliens.

The military operation at the border may shape up to be similar to that of President George W. Bush’s “Operation Jump Start,” where 6,000 National Guard troops were deployed to the southern border.

Bush’s Operation Jump Start ended with National Guardsmen contributing to more than 176,000 illegal aliens being apprehended and about 320,000 pounds of drugs being seized, as Buzz Jacobs mentioned.

Breitbart News’s Chris Burgard was on the ground in Hachita, New Mexico in 2005, revealing footage of the troops’ operation in aiding the Border Patrol at the time.

Experts tell Breitbart News that the military at the border to assist Border Patrol is only the beginning of a larger operation that can be done by the Trump administration to help reduce the flood of illegal aliens continuing to pour into the U.S.

This week, Trump has complained about a caravan of 1,500 Central Americans who are set to cross the U.S.-Mexico border to request asylum. As Breitbart News explained, current law does not give the U.S. the authority to turn the asylum-seekers back to Mexico.

The “Catch and Release” program, where border-crossers are caught by immigration officials and then released into the interior of the U.S. while they await trial — oftentimes never showing up to their court date — has continued and even been increased by Congress with the approval of Trump.

Former immigration judge Andrew Arthur tells Breitbart News that to unilaterally, temporarily end Catch and Release, the Trump administration could set up tent cities along the southern border, similar to what President Clinton did in the 1990s.

The National Guard, Arthur says, has the authority to construct the tents on the border, giving immigration officials temporary detention centers where illegal aliens and border-crossers can be housed while they await their immigration trials, rather than being released into the U.S.

“Putting up temporary structures, that’s part of what the military does,” Arthur told Breitbart News. “I believe they could do this as part of their training.”

While border-crossers are detained in the tent cities constructed by the military, the Trump administration could send additional immigration judges and staff to the border, as well as more Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys. This, Arthur says, would speed up the court process and swiftly lead to border-crossers either being allowed to stay in the U.S. or being deported.

We’re Sending the Troops to the Border. That is Happening.

Andrew Anglin

Daily Stormer
April 4, 2018

The jig is up.

We’re dancing a whole new jig now, friends.

Fox News:

The $1.3 trillion spending bill signed by President Trump in March does not include a penny for the new border wall the president had promised during his presidential campaign.

And while legislators may have figured that would be the end it, Trump surprised many people Tuesday by announcing he might deal with the issue in a different way. As he put it, “I spoke with [Defense Secretary James] Mattis. We’re going to do some things militarily. Until we can have a wall and proper security, we’re going to be guarding our border with the military.”

The president, in particular, seemed concerned about a caravan of migrants from Central America currently marching through Mexico toward the U.S. “If it reaches our border,” said Trump, “our laws are so weak and pathetic…it’s like we have no border.”

While it’s uncertain how the president would deploy the military, or indeed, if he will deploy the military, his statements have created a controversy regarding how much power he has in such a situation.

He is 100% power.

This is one power that no one even questions.

Especially if he sends them inside of Mexico.

There is no single judge that can stop that.

Legally, the debate centers on two federal laws: the Insurrection Act and the Posse Comitatus Act.

The Insurrection Act goes back to 1807, and allows a president to deploy troops anywhere in the U.S. to execute federal law — generally, to put down lawlessness and insurrection. This power is limited, though it was used as justification for the Civil War.

The Posse Comitatus Act, originally passed in 1878, limits the federal government’s use of the military in domestic issues. It came about in response to the Reconstruction Era following the Civil War, when federal troops had been policing the former states of the Confederacy.

While the president is limited in how he may use federal troops, they have been called out in modern times on domestic issues.  Some examples:

— in 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas to support desegregation of schools.

— in 2005, President George W. Bush sent the National Guard into the Gulf Coast to help with relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina.

Two recent interventions dealt with border issues:

— from 2006 to 2008, President George W. Bush deployed the National Guard to aid Customs and Border Protection, though troops did not have authority as law enforcement officials and couldn’t detain suspects.

— in 2010, President Barack Obama sent the National Guard to the border, though with limited powers, mostly to fix infrastructure and work on surveillance.

The kind of military action President Trump is hinting at is considerably bolder, and many legal experts question how much power he has to commit the troops to such activity.

No, look – we’re not even going to have that discussion.

We’re going to send them to the Mexican side.

And there ain’t nothing Mexico can do to stop us.

They could try to send their own troops to… fight us… but then we would just start bombing Mexico city.

Mexico is a shithole. They do not have the ability to fight us. Any power that they do have is based on emotional blackmail and their alliance with American Jewry.

But we are bypassing all of that and going strait for the taco filling.

This is a precursor to Trump declaring martial law, as I have requested since mid-November 2016.

That is where this is going.


​California is moving towards Civil War

Ben Stein: “this is essentially a rebellion by the statr of California… It is very, very close to the beginning of a civil war. I hope it’s not with bloodshed. I hope it’s just with litigation. ”

This looks very much like April 12, 1861 when the Confederate military fired upon the Union installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina.
The constitution empowers the federal government, not state legislature, to decide when and how the federal lands are sold, Jeff sessions said. California was admitted to the union upon the express condition that it would never interfere with the disposal of federal land. And yet once again the California legislature has enacted an extreme state law attempting to frustrate federal policy. 
These unconstitutional laws passed by the state of California are not in the best interest of its citizens, they are a slap in the face of everything American stands for and clearly indicate we have a rogue state, an anti-american legislative body in Sacramento, working for the interests of Mexico.

Its high time the federal government step in before things spiral out of control and take measures to bring California in compliance. Clearly the stategovernment is out of control, they must be reigned in and brought under heal, arrests must be made, and charges of treason levied. 
California, under dominant liberal Democrat leadership, appears to be evolving into a rogue state, and many of its politicians privately hold alliegence to Mexico, much to the dismay of many of its citizens.  Defiance of federal law has now spawned efforts to secede from the Union.  Sadly, unabated liberalism could move this state on an irreversible path to ruin.  

Dismantling the state is clearly in order, and would represent a return to the values of the republic, and its people.

‘Exodus’ of the middle class from California – Collapse of California, you have been warned

The Golden State is losing its glitter, rapidly. California has the nation’s highest poverty rate. homelessness is rampant. State officials are focused on protecting illegal immigrants from deportation rather than reversing the flight of the state’s middle class.

California In Crisis: On The Verge of A Cash Collapse

California’s economy is roughly the size of Italy’s, but the state is broke, and there are no easy fixes — just painful cuts ahead. In a multipart series, we examined the factors that have brought the state to the brink of ruin. Will the federal government ultimately be forced to come to the rescue? And if not, will California drag down the national economy?