South Korea: Joint US Military Drills to Stop Now!

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
June 17, 2018

Of course they’re going to stop.

Trump and Kim are friends now, he said they’re going to stop, why would they not stop?

We’re in getting things done mode now.

Deal mode.

Reuters:

South Korea and the United States are expected to announce the suspension of “large-scale” military drills this week, with the provision that they would restart if North Korea failed to keep its promise to denuclearize, news agency Yonhap said on Sunday.

Citing an unnamed government source, the South Korean news agency said the suspension was likely to affect only major joint exercises, not more routine military training.

U.S. President Donald Trump surprised officials in Seoul and Washington when he pledged to end “war games” after his summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore last week.

Immediately after the announcement, U.S. forces in Korea said they had received no guidance on stopping any drills, and South Korean officials said they were trying to figure out which exercises Trump was referring to.

I am very excited about the whole situation.

I think it is all going to work out as planned.

Trump will be the hero who did the deal no president before him even tried.

Remember Rodman saying he went to Obama and Obama wouldn’t even give him the time of day with regards to trying to get this situation fixed. Trump wanted to be the guy who did it, he’s done it, he wants this as the first major part of what will, we hope, be a grand legacy.

Trump’s been tweeting on it.

Chuck the kike was claiming that nothing happened at the talks. That is the Jew line here. “Oh yeah but nothing happened, this isn’t really real.” I don’t know what else they can say, really.

The other thing is that Trump somehow gave something to an evil, evil Hitler man by meeting with him.

I mean, yeah, Trump’s time is valuable, but he was already spending time on the situation by dealing with the conflict. So wasn’t solving the conflict the best option?

Probably, nothing was going to happen.

But he says “potentially” – and yeah, there was always the potential for North Korea to attack Seoul with CONVENTIONAL weapons and blow the whole place to hell.

And their ability to do that actually meant that there was no possible military solution.

Bannon said that during some drunk impromptu press conference before he was fired from the White House (probably why he was fired) because Trump was playing like there was one – but there really was no such solution that didn’t involve Seoul getting btfo and millions dying.

The option was to either make peace or kick the can down the road. Trump picked up the can and made peace.

Jews of course love these boogiemen who allow them to fearmonger, push for military expansion that benefits globalism, so they are pissed off. They also love the whole “Evil Hitler Man” stuff – “Adolf Slope,” they called him. They didn’t call him that. But they love their “evil people out there planning to hurt you, goyim, need to invade the world to keep the goyim in safety.”

My take is this, just because North Korea gave up development of Nuclear weapons, doesn’t mean they gave up their ability to build them, they already know how to do this, they probably have a dozen or so sitting around somewhere, and hopefully they will continue to share this technology and knowledge with Iran and other nations which will be allies in the coming clash of civilizations world war. We need peace with the North to take away that play from the Chinese, who are the real threat long term. We also need to end this world police bullshit and bring our troops home, were gonna need them to invade California during the racial civil war that’s coming here.

Melinda Gates Bashes ‘White Guys,’ Says She’ll Discriminate Against Them

Melinda Gates says she will preference women and non-whites over men and white people, specifically for these immutable characteristics that have nothing inherently to do with business success.
Joy Pullmann

By

Melinda Gates has decided to enter the venture capital world by sending her money to people based at least partly on their sex and skin color, she said in a recent Fortune interview.

“It’s been incredibly disappointing to watch how few women-led businesses are getting funded,” Gates said. “Ultimately, if we want more innovation and better products, we’ve got to put more money behind women and minorities. That wasn’t happening, so I decided to step in and see what I could do to help a little bit.”

Here are other portions of her interview where Gates specifically says some criteria for how she invests in startups are race and sex. She clearly says she preferences women and non-whites over men and white people, specifically for these immutable characteristics that have nothing inherently to do with business success. “Over-index” is essentially a financial or data version of affirmative action.

I am specifically looking at funds who over-index on women-led and minority-led businesses.

I’m asking a lot of business questions about how they will go about their funding, how they will over-index on women’s businesses, and how they will hold themselves accountable for a great return.

Some of these big firms often believe in the white guy in a hoodie disrupting a whole industry. So we’re going to disrupt it by making sure we’re indexing for women and minorities because they’ve got great ideas.

Many of them think if they have one female at the table, they’ve done their job. Another big one is when they say that they have trouble finding women. Those are just excuses. They don’t know what investing in these areas looks like until they get several women who are partners in their firm.

A white man could easily make products that meet minority women’s needs and desires, and vice versa. Their race and sex has nothing to do with their drive and ingenuity. But Gates implies that they do, which is weird and patently stupid, to put it mildly.

It’s not only Gates who feels comfortable revealing her race and sex biases when deciding where to spend some of her billions. It’s industry publications, too. Here is how Business Insider characterized the interview, a headline reposted to the website of the longtime Microsoft-funded National Center for Women and Information Technology:

It’s by now automatic in our Alice in Wonderland world to see things like this and immediately imagine the social hypocrisy, not to mention cries of racism and sexism, if the scenario were reversed. What if Gates had announced she’s going to give “white guys” a boost in her investment calculus, merely for being white guys? Or what if she complained about a startup for having only one man on its board because then “they don’t know what investing in these areas looks like”?

There’s a good chance — only mitigated by the fact that her husband is one of the richest men on earth — that she’d be written out of public life and shamed by every publication in town. Of course, that’s far less likely when she, her husband, and likeminded people are funding lots of the outlets that cover their activities, either through charitable dollars or business investments. Great PR cover if you can get it.

Gates is, of course, merely one prominent person among many spending lots of time and money addressing what seems to be largely a feature, not a bug, of human nature under conditions of historically unparalleled social freedom. Yet instead of addressing real inequalities, such as the development-retarding home environments of children whose parents chose not to commit to each other for life or hiring practices at companies like Google that seem to purposefully tilt the playing field against whites, men, and non-leftists, companies like Microsoft, Gates, Apple, Pfizer, Intel, AT&T, and Facebook choose to address the actual structural inequalities like these with PR rather than equality.

They sponsor pseudo-academic conferences that generate “research” that amounts to narrative-pushing. They hire lawyers and PR people instead of considering the possibility that they are wrong. Obfuscating reality allows them to play politics without even admitting it is politics, much less truly investigating whether their politics fit human nature, even though mangling it even accidentally is highly dangerous.

Disparate Outcomes Can Signal Broader Possibilities

In the Fortune interview, Gates says “I think real change can occur when the VC community starts to demand that the people it invests in have diversity, the right values, and the right behavior.” When asked to “define diversity,” she responds, “I define diversity as when you have a mix of people seated at the table who look representative of our whole society.”

Gates is saying that venture capitalists — and other social leaders — should be demanding that business partners essentially conform to quotas based on neo-Marxist class distinctions, or Left-defined identity groups: sex, race, income, sexual behavior, ethnicity. Never mind whether the individuals whom Gates lumps into these groups believe their interests align with those of all the others. No self-determination allowed here. You are allowed to count precisely as much as identity politics-mongers decide you do, and according to criteria they choose, not you.

This is conformity, under the banner of diversity. Yet social research actually tends to find that a truly free society with better-equalized opportunities for all people sees a greater range — or, ahem, a greater diversity — of choices than do less-free and less-developed societies. Or, as a 2008 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology article put it: “differences between men and women in their personality traits become more extreme with the increasing development of human society.” The more people are free to do what they truly want, the more they are likely to create outcomes that drive rigid, Procrustean percent-equalizers insane.

This may seem to be contradicted by surveys like the below, presented at NCWIT’s conference last week, but such surveys may also just reflect that kids of any sex don’t know much about careers, period, and other research showing that women’s strong predilection for non-science pursuits appears to be natural and persistent despite millions spent to change that: “An analysis of women’s academic choices in 67 diverse countries and regions…reports that women consistently register lower interest in STEM education and careers compared to men. This fact has remained stable over the decades, despite most developed countries taking ‘considerable efforts toward understanding and changing this pattern.’”

Instead of considering evidence like this, Gates and those like her rush in and assume social crimes like racism and sexism. Guilty until proven innocent.

Affirmative Action Schemes Hurt Intended Beneficiaries

Furthermore, evidence from countries that have imposed class quotas on business boards have actually seen a decline in opportunities available to women and minorities. What either written or unwritten diversity quotas tend to do is secure opportunities for a select few people who are already at the top and fit the quotas’ arbitrary criteria. So far there is no evidence they actually increase opportunities for the artificially advantaged groups, and some that they reduce their opportunities and create dangerous social conditions by weaponizing and thus delegitimizing their promotions as artificial rather than earned.

Other attempts to rig finance and tech on women’s behalf are already backfiring, and Gates has even indicated she’s aware of this yet so far seems blind to how it applies to her new venture capital strategy.

“Guys in finance only hire who they can fire easily. Young men they can fire without a problem,” an anonymous female venture capitalist told Business Insider. “The unfortunate thing that happened in the #metoo movement is that men don’t want to ride the elevator with women who could pitch them for fear they would accuse them, let alone mentor that person alone.”

By weaponizing women as women, Gates is likely to reduce their opportunities by making them too political for others to work with safely. It’s already happening. If women could be hired and fired based precisely on their work, and nothing more, then they would have precisely equal opportunities. The outcome are up to individuals’ free choices. When women are hired based on their sex, it may appear an advantage at the outset, but it will in the long run disadvantage them by promoting them beyond their abilities and increasing prejudice against them for gaining what they did not earn.

Punishing People for Their Group Status Is Deeply Unfair

Lastly, Gates presents her strategy as a just corrective to an unjust current system, but is actually the opposite. By elevating women based not on their work but on their sex, she necessarily disadvantages men based not on their work but their sex. Of course, men can’t change that they are men.

Therefore, she is consciously and publicly discriminating against men for something they can’t change and that has nothing to do with their potential for bringing her financial returns or serving the market needs of anyone, including women and minorities. This is unfair, and unjust. If Gates or anyone else cares not about that, they may care about its sure potential to breed dangerous resentments.

Even if you do buy that women and minorities are not as frequently funded because of some kind of injustice somewhere, it only adds another injustice to disadvantage innocent competitors for capital because of it. The men competing with these currently politically favored groups did not themselves do anything to hurt women and minorities. Simply putting themselves forward in the same competition is not unjust, that’s just part of the game. So punishing them for the sins of others based on sharing some trivial characteristic is deeply unjust. It is an attempt to make two wrongs into a right.

Further, punishing people for the “sins” of their “class” is, quite frankly, of a piece with the ideology that ultimately led to the slaughters of the Bolshevik and French revolutions. If we don’t want to end up in an avalanche of those kinds of effects, maybe let’s start by not packing and tossing a snowball.

Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist and author of “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” out from Encounter Books in 2017. Get it on Amazon.

Bill Clinton: Media Treated Obama Favorably Possibly Because of His Race

President Bill Clinton sat down on CBS “This Morning” today along side his new co-author, James Patterson, to discuss their new thriller The President Is Missing. The story involves a president facing impeachment, which led to President Clinton giving his current opinion on the medi and his view on the ongoing Russian Investigation conducted by special counsel Robert Mueller. Mo Rocca asked point blank, “Do you think that the press has been fair to President Trump?”
“I think they have tried by and large to cover this investigation based on the facts,” Mr. Clinton said. “I think if the roles were reversed – now, this is me just talking, but it’s based on my experience! – I think if it were a Democratic president, and these facts were present, most people I know in Washington believe impeachment hearings would have begun already,” the 42nd president replied.
“If there were a Democrat in power right now?” Rocca asked his guests
“Yes. And most people I know believe that the press would have been that hard, or harder. But these are serious issues,” Clinton added.
Rocca then asked, “You hear from Trump supporters who say, ‘You know, the press slobbered all over President Obama, he could do no wrong. And now this guy can do no right. What gives, that there’s a kind of whiplash?'”
Well, they did treat him differently than other Democrats and Republicans,” Mr. Clinton replied. “That was the political press.”
When asked to explain why the media favored Obama, Clinton said, “You know, I don’t know. They liked him, and they liked having the first African-American president. And he was a good president, I think. I don’t agree with President Trump’s assessment of his service.” (Emphasis added)
This is not the first time that President Clinton has noted the mainstream media’s biased news coverage of Barack Obama. In the 2008 presidential primaries, Clinton called then Senator Obama’s presidential campaign a “fairy tale.” Clinton criticized the press for never taking Obama to task for saying he had better judgement than Hillary Clinton because Obama was the only one against the Iraq war from the beginning. This was not true.
“Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen,” Clinton can be seen saying in the following clip.
“I pointed out that he had never been asked about his statement in 2004 that he didn’t know how he would have voted on the war resolution,” Bill Clinton said the days after his remarks. “It disproves the argument that he was always against it and everybody else was wrong and he was right. I said ‘So that story is a fairy tale,’ and that doesn’t have anything to do with my respect for him.”

Decline and Fall of California – what does this mean for the rest of America?

Steve Hilton: Is Loony Left Gov. Jerry Brown killing California? What does that mean for America?

Exuberant Democrats – carried along by the self-righteousness of their authoritarian and puritanical identity politics zealotry, and self-confidence in the supposedly inevitable electoral annihilation of President Trump and Republicans in November – are starting to see a long-cherished liberal dream as an imminent reality: California as a model for the whole nation.

You’ll get the picture if you read a widely-shared article published earlier this year by Medium, written by tech guru Peter Leyden, headlined “The Great Lesson of California in America’s New Civil War.” The article is subtitled: “Why there’s no bipartisan way forward at this juncture in our history – one side must win.”

The article describes California as “the harbinger of America’s political future … a model for America as a whole.”

The fact that Democrats in California now have complete control of all statewide political offices, the state Legislature and local government in cities like San Francisco is touted as great news for “working people.”

The author celebrates the fact that political debates in California involve choices between different degrees of left, with other voices excluded – even though independents and Republicans still comprise a majority of voters in the state, according to the latest party identification data.

The vision of a Californiaized United States is captured in all its glory in the concluding paragraph of the article: “America can’t afford more political paralysis. One side or the other must win. This is a civil war than can be won without firing a shot. But it is a fundamental conflict between two worldviews that must be resolved in short order. California, as usual, resolved it early. The Democrats won; the Republicans lost. The conservative way forward lost; the progressive way forward began. … California is the future, always about 15 years ahead of the rest of the country. That means that America, starting in 2018, is going to resolve it too.”

Lest you think these are just the random ramblings of a Silicon Valley bubble-dweller, let me point out that the article was not just widely shared but publicly endorsed by such luminaries as the founder and CEO of Twitter. And I can testify from personal experience that this is exactly what members of the California liberal elite actually think. It’s just that few of them say so publicly.

So we’d better take this seriously. Democrats, as the old political adage goes, now want to do to America what they’ve done to California. It’s an alarming prospect.

It’s true that California is the world’s fifth-largest economy; possesses (in my view) unparalleled natural beauty and cultural diversity; and has a spirit of openness and adventure – not to mention great weather – that makes it the best place in the world. I’m a proud California resident and I wouldn’t want to be anywhere else.

But increasingly, it seems that many of the Golden State’s extraordinary advantages are being recklessly undermined by a governor who likes to think of himself as a beacon of rectitude – but who has a record of bumbling incompetence, special interest corruption and ideological extremism that places him firmly on the Loony Left.

Let’s start with the incompetence. It’s surely quite an accomplishment for Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown to have presided simultaneously over a massive splurge in public spending and a reduction in public services. Health spending has ballooned, but actual health outcomes have not improved. Meanwhile, California is on the brink of a fiscal crisis.

So where has all the money gone? That’s where the special interest corruption comes in. Brown has repeatedly used public money to reward his – and his party’s – paymasters in the public sector unions.

The generous pensions of public employees remain essentially unreformed – that’s the main cause of the looming fiscal crisis. And while workers in the private sector suffer wage stagnation, Brown has thrown pay raise after pay raise at powerful unions like the prison officers.

In interviews, Brown poses as a responsible grownup holding back the tide of mayhem that his more liberal successors will inevitably unleash. But Brown is ending his California career much as he started it: on the fringes, ideologically extreme and the modern-day symbol of the Loony Left. You see it in his extraordinary position on immigration, pandering to the Democrats’ extremist open borders base with his utterly irresponsible “sanctuary state” preening.

And you see it in Brown’s bizarre championing of Proposition 47, which essentially decriminalized the theft of any item under $950. His stance has been a social policy disaster, giving a green light to drug-fueled crime throughout the state.

Above all, Brown will be remembered for his colossal failures on the economy and poverty. California has the highest poverty rate in the nation, the highest level of inequality – and at the same time, the highest taxes.

The cost of living, particularly housing and transportation, is accelerating out of control for working people. It’s no surprise that the number of people moving out of the state has more than doubled in the last three years, with little compensating inward migration. Per capita, California is 46th out of 50 states in attracting newcomers from other parts of the country.

But the most shameful and vivid symbols of Jerry Brown’s failure must surely be the staggering, Third World-style homeless encampments on the streets of California’s big cities.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the homeless population in California rose by 14 percent from 2016 to 2017 to 134,000. In Los Angeles the increase was even worse – 26 percent in one year. In sharp contrast, the national homeless population increased by only 1 percent in 2017, to about 553,000, driven primarily by the increase in California homelessness.

What a grotesque epitaph for this self-styled champion of the people. The truth is that Brown’s rule has been great for the rich; grim for the rest.

Now it’s rumored that Brown, who will shortly complete his fourth term as California’s chief executive, is eyeing a national future. He has run unsuccessfully for president three times: in 1976, 1980 and 1992. Party insiders are convinced he wants a fourth go at that too. Given his track record as governor, that’s a frightening prospect for America.

Hubristic Democrats may survey their blue enclaves in the Golden State and dream of exporting their Loony Left revolution to the rest of the country. But any serious look at what life is actually like for working people in California should bring that fantasy crashing to the ground.

OUR TAKE

This process of decay which has eaten away at everything great about California at its peak is now spreading to the rest of American, its a demographic issue, racial at its core, a parasite class of mostly non-whites consuming the social capital created by whites decades ago, replacing our high trust society with a 3rd world culture of corruption, low trust, and racial Bolshevism. Without large scale system disrupting mass deportation of non-whites and their citizen-by-birth alone offspring, all we can do is prepare for the inevitable apocalyptic collapse and survive long enough to rebuild.

The Great Lesson of California in America’s New Civil War

Why there’s no bipartisan way forward at this juncture in our history — one side must win

By Peter Leyden and Ruy Teixeira

The next time you call for bipartisan cooperation in America and long for Republicans and Democrats to work side by side, stop it. Remember the great lesson of California, the harbinger of America’s political future, and realize that today such bipartisan cooperation simply can’t get done.

In this current period of American politics, at this juncture in our history, there’s no way that a bipartisan path provides the way forward. The way forward is on the path California blazed about 15 years ago.

In the early 2000s, California faced a similar situation to the one America faces today. Its state politics were severely polarized, and state government was largely paralyzed. The Republican Party was trapped in the brain-dead orthodoxies of an ideology stuck in the past. The party was controlled by zealous activists and corrupt special interests who refused to face up to the reality of the new century. It was a party that refused to work with the Democrats in good faith or compromise in any way.

The solution for the people of California was to reconfigure the political landscape and shift a supermajority of citizens — and by extension their elected officials — under the Democratic Party’s big tent. The natural continuum of more progressive to more moderate solutions then got worked out within the context of the only remaining functioning party. The California Democrats actually cared about average citizens, embraced the inevitable diversity of 21st-century society, weren’t afraid of real innovation, and were ready to start solving the many challenges of our time, including climate change.

California today provides a model for America as a whole. This model of politics and government is by no means perfect, but it is far ahead of the nation in coming to terms with the inexorable digital, global, sustainable transformation of our era. It is a thriving work in progress that gives hope that America can pull out of the political mess we’re in. California today provides a playbook for America’s new way forward. It’s worth contemplating as we enter 2018, which will be a critical election year.

Understanding the Context of the New American Civil War

This is no ordinary political moment. Trump is not the reason this is no ordinary time — he’s simply the most obvious symptom that reminds us all of this each day.

The best way to understand politics in America today is to reframe it as closer to civil war. Just the phrase “civil war” is harsh, and many people may cringe. It brings up images of guns and death, the bodies of Union and Confederate soldiers.

America today is nowhere near that level of conflict or at risk of such violence. However, America today does exhibit some of the core elements that move a society from what normally is the process of working out political differences toward the slippery slope of civil war. We’ve seen it in many societies in many previous historical eras, including what happened in the United States in 1860.

Two Systems at Odds

America’s original Civil War was not just fought to emancipate slaves for humanitarian reasons. The conflict was really about the clash between two very different economic systems that were fundamentally at odds and ultimately could not coexist. The Confederacy was based on an agrarian economy dependent on slaves. The Union was based on a new kind of capitalist manufacturing economy dependent on free labor. They tried to somehow coexist from the time of the founding era, but by the middle of the 19th century, something had to give. One side or the other had to win.

America today faces a similar juncture around fundamentally incompatible energy systems. The red states held by the Republicans are deeply entrenched in carbon-based energy systems like coal and oil. They consequently deny the science of climate change, are trying to resuscitate the dying coal industry, and recently have begun to open up coastal waters to oil drilling.

The blue states held by the Democrats are increasingly shifting to clean energy like solar and installing policies that wean the energy system off carbon. In the era of climate change, with the mounting pressure of increased natural disasters, something must give. We can’t have one step forward, one step back every time an administration changes. One side or the other has to win.

Two Classes at Odds

Another driver on the road to civil war is when two classes become fundamentally at odds. This usually takes some form of rich versus poor, the wealthy and the people, the 1 percent and the 99 percent. The system gets so skewed toward those at the top that the majority at the bottom rises up and power shifts.

The last time America was in that position was in the 1930s, during the Great Depression. We were on the road of severe class conflict that could have continued toward civil war, but we worked out a power shift that prevented widespread violence. Franklin Roosevelt, the so-called traitor to his class, helped establish a supermajority New Deal coalition of Democrats that rolled all the way through the postwar boom. The conservative Republicans who had championed a politics that advantaged the rich throughout the 1920s and promoted isolationism in the 1930s were sidelined for two generations — close to 50 years.

Today’s conservative Republicans face the same risk. Since 1980, their policies have engorged the rich while flatlining the incomes of the majority of Americans, from the presidency of Ronald Reagan through to last December’s tax overhaul, which ultimately bestows 83 percent of the benefits over time to the top 1 percent. Make no mistake: A reckoning with not just Trump, but conservatism, is coming.

Two Cultures at Odds

The differences between two economic systems or two classes that are fundamentally at odds could conceivably get worked out through a political process that peacefully resolves differences. However, culture frequently gets in the way. That’s especially true when pressures are building for big system overhauls that will create new winners and losers.

Two different political cultures already at odds through different political ideologies, philosophies, and worldviews can get trapped in a polarizing process that increasingly undermines compromise. They see the world through different lenses, consume different media, and literally live in different places. They start to misunderstand the other side, then start to misrepresent them, and eventually make them the enemy. The opportunity for compromise is then lost. This is where America is today.

At some point, one side or the other must win — and win big. The side resisting change, usually the one most rooted in the past systems and incumbent interests, must be thoroughly defeated — not just for a political cycle or two, but for a generation or two. That gives the winning party or movement the time and space needed to really build up the next system without always fighting rear-guard actions and getting drawn backwards. The losing party or movement will need that same time to go through a fundamental rethink, a long-term renewal that eventually will enable them to play a new game.

Today’s American Civil War

Trump is doing exactly what America needs him to do right now. He’s becoming increasingly conservative and outrageous by the day. Trump could have come into office with a genuinely new agenda that could have helped working people. Instead, he has spent the past year becoming a caricature of all things conservative — and in the meantime has alienated most of America and certainly all the growing political constituencies of the 21st century. He is turning the Republican brand toxic for millennials, women, Latinos, people of color, college-educated people, urban centers, the tech industry, and the economic powerhouses of the coasts, to name a few.

The Republican Party is playing their part perfectly, too. They completely fell for the Trump trap — and that’s exactly what America needed them to do. The Republican Party could have maintained some distance from Trump and kept a healthy check on him through Congress. Instead, they fully embraced him in a group bear hug that culminated in a deeply flawed tax law in the waning days of 2017. This mess of a law, thrown together without traditional vetting, is riddled with outrageous loopholes that benefit the crony donor class and line the pockets of many of the politicians who passed it. The law is hugely unpopular, and everyone who voted for it is marked for the election of 2018.

Perfect.

Now the entire Republican Party, and the entire conservative movement that has controlled it for the past four decades, is fully positioned for the final takedown that will cast them out for a long period of time in the political wilderness. They deserve it.

Let’s just say what needs to be said: The Republican Party over the past 40 years has maneuvered itself into a position where they are the bad guys on the wrong side of history. For a long time, they have been able to hide this fact through a sophisticated series of veils, invoking cultural voodoo that fools a large enough number of Americans to stay in the game. However, Donald Trump has laid waste to that sophistication and has given America and the world the raw version of what current conservative politics is all about.

The Republican Party is all about rule by and for billionaires at the expense of working people. Trump is literally the incarnation of what the party stands for: shaping laws for the good of billionaires and the 1 percent. His cabinet is stuffed with them.

The Republican Party is the party of climate change denial. Trump is the denier-in-chief, but there are 180 climate science deniers in the current Congress (142 in the House and 38 in the Senate), and none of them are Democrats. More than 59 percent of Republicans in the House and 73 percent of Republicans in the Senate deny the scientific consensus that climate change is happening, that human activity is the main cause, and that it is a serious threat. Another way to say it is that the Republican Party is in the pocket of the oil and carbon energy industry. Trump just cut through the crap and named Exxon’s CEO as our secretary of state to unravel the United Nations climate accords. No beating around that bush for the sake of appearances — Trump burned the bush down.

The Republican Party for the past 40 years has mastered using dog whistles to gin up racial divides to get their white voters to the polls. Trump just disposes of niceties and flatly encourages white nationalists, bans Muslims, walls off Mexicans, and calls out “shithole” countries.

Trump is just making clear to all what was boiling under the surface for decades, and that’s exactly what we need him to do. Why? Because America finally needs to take the Republican Party down for a generation or two. Not just the presidency. Not just clear out the U.S. House. Not just tip back the Senate. But fundamentally beat the Republicans on all levels at once, including clearing out governorships and statehouses across the land.

The Dramatic Collapse of Republicans in California

Could such as collapse of the Republican Party really happen? Won’t it take decades of trench warfare to put the GOP on the run? Not at all. A political collapse could happen very fast, as it did in California.

California was a model of governmental dysfunction in the 1990–2005 period, with Democrats and Republicans at each other’s throats and little being accomplished. The political atmosphere became so toxic that Democratic governor Gray Davis was recalled in 2003 and replaced with populist Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, who then proceeded to up the ante on polarization by pushing a series of conservative ballot initiatives in a special election in 2005. They were all handily defeated by the voters, marking the zenith of conservative Republican attempts to control California.

After that point, it was all downhill for the conservative GOP agenda in California. Schwarzenegger understood the sea change early and dumped right-wing populism and became far more moderate, going along with many progressive priorities. He soon started working with Democrats in the legislature on infrastructure, culminating in the passage of Proposition 1B in 2006 ($20 billion for roads and public transportation). Also in 2006, he and the legislature allocated an additional $150 million to stem cell research, supported a successful move to raise the minimum wage, and passed the Global Warming Solutions Act, which targeted a reduction of 25 percent in greenhouse gas emissions in the next 20 years. And in 2008, voters passed Prop 1A, authorizing $10 billion for high-speed rail.

Meanwhile, even though Schwarzenegger remained governor, the Democrats steadily expanded their majority in the state assembly. Then, in 2010, Democrat Jerry Brown was elected governor, and with the 2012 election, Democrats finally attained a supermajority in both houses of the state legislature. This was critical for overriding constant Republican filibusters and passing tax revenue laws (which still required a supermajority by Prop 13 dictates). The supermajority attained in 2012 was the first California legislative supermajority since 1933 and the first one for the Democrats since 1883. This is remarkable considering that in the dysfunctional 1990s, the state assembly and senate were closely divided between Republicans and Democrats, seemingly light-years away from the supermajority Democrats really needed to get things done.

Alongside these developments, Democratic domination of California representation in the U.S. House of Representatives steadily increased. Back in the 1990s, under Republican governor Pete Wilson, there was essentially parity between Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Today, there is almost a 3:1 split (39–14) in favor of the Democrats. Plus, they control both U.S. Senate seats and every single statewide elected office. There are no longer any Republicans able to mount a credible statewide election.

So, going from the zenith of right-wing populism to progressive domination in California did not take very long. That could easily happen in the country as a whole. The national GOP, after the 2016 election, controlled the presidency, the House, the Senate, and a strong majority of governorships and state legislatures. Since then, President Trump has become historically unpopular among American voters and the GOP Congress and its actions have become widely detested. Very quickly, their 2016 triumphs have morphed into a poisonous electoral environment where the GOP in 2018 is probably going to lose control of the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate, lose governorships and many hundreds of state legislative seats. And while the 2020 election is still a couple years away, an early forecast from political scientist Eric R.A.N. Smith has Trump (assuming his unpopularity continues) netting only 41 percent of electoral votes in that election.

In short, political change is slow until it’s very fast. The fall of the GOP is likely to be no different.

Life on the Other Side of Democratic One-Party Rule

There is life on the other side of that Republican political collapse. There is a clear way forward in the land of Democratic, progressive supermajorities. California is thriving right now, the economy is booming, state government budgets are setting aside surpluses, and the public is happy with its political leaders (as we have laid out in other articles in this series). California is leading the world in technological innovation and creative policies to counter climate change.

What about the need for checks and balances? Many Americans might be wary of trusting a political environment where one party has complete control of political power. How does society process the range of differences in political opinions in elections and in forming policies?

Californians faced those same questions and dealt with that new reality. In 2008, voters passed Proposition 11, which created a Citizens Redistricting Commission to redraw state legislative districts that over time had been heavily gerrymandered to protect incumbents of both political parties. That commission was insulated from politics and changed districts along more rational lines that took into consideration natural geography and longstanding contiguous communities. Then, in 2010, the voters passed Proposition 20, which applied a similar logic to congressional redistricting.

Alongside that effort, voters in 2010 also passed Proposition 14, a state constitutional amendment that established a top-two primary system in which all candidates, regardless of party, are placed on the same primary ballot, and the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, head into the general election. The immediate result was to bolster competition within almost all districts. In a district populated by Democrats, the voters still got a choice between, say, a more progressive candidate and a moderate candidate.

Politics in California today still has a range of political differences that get worked out within political bodies. The city council of San Francisco is made up of all Democrats but is often trapped in fierce policy battles between supervisors who are more left of center than their colleagues who are more moderate and supportive of the tech industry. However, everyone on that city council is a Democrat and would be considered a progressive Democrat in the national context. They all embrace creating a diverse society, fighting climate change, etc. The California Legislature holds a similar range of political opinions, from very left to pro-business Democrat, but they almost all operate within a worldview that shares much common ground — a worldview that is not shared by the few remaining Republicans still in the chambers.

In short, California has a supermajority of 60 percent of the population, and thus a supermajority of elected officials, who share a common vision of a general way forward. Their differences are worked out within the confines of that general vision. California Republicans, like their conservative national colleagues, don’t share that general vision, and so they have been pushed out of serious political discourse. They were beaten, and beaten badly. And they almost certainly won’t be part of that discourse until they go through a lengthy process of reform over many years.

The Final Battle Begins in 2018

America is desperate for a functioning political supermajority that can break out of our political stasis and boldly move ahead and take on our many 21st-century challenges. The nation can’t take much more of our one step forward, one step back politics that gets little done despite the need for massive changes.

America today has many parallels to America in the 1850s or America in the 1930s. Both of those decades ended with one side definitively winning, forming a political supermajority that restructured systems going forward to solve our problems once and for all. In the 1850s, we fought the Civil War, and the Republican Party won and then dominated American politics for 50 years. In the 1930s, the Democratic Party won and dominated American politics for roughly the same amount of time.

America today is in a similar position. Our technologies, our economy, our geopolitics are going through fundamental changes. We are facing new challenges, like climate change and massive economic inequality, that must be addressed with fundamental reforms.

America can’t afford more political paralysis. One side or the other must win. This is a civil war that can be won without firing a shot. But it is a fundamental conflict between two worldviews that must be resolved in short order.

California, as usual, resolved it early. The Democrats won; the Republicans lost. The conservative way forward lost; the progressive way forward began. As we’ve laid out in this series, California is the future, always about 15 years ahead of the rest of the country. That means that America, starting in 2018, is going to resolve it, too.

The Caravan is Now in Tijuana – These Animals are Trying to Get Into Our Home

Andrew Anglin

Daily Stormer
April 25, 2018

The Caravan, though a third of the size it was initially, has continued on and has finally made it to the bordertown of Tijuana.

These bloodsucking animals are attempting to enter OUR HOME and take what BELONGS TO US.

And they have an extreme sense of entitlement.

They believe they have a right to take what is ours.

CNN:

Busloads of Central American migrants arrived in this Mexican border city on Tuesday. And more are coming.

But it will likely be days before members of the group — which organizers say is about 600 people in total — head to the US-Mexico border to turn themselves in and ask for asylum.

They’re part of a caravan that convened at Mexico’s southern border weeks ago, then trekked through the country as part of an annual pilgrimage organized to bring light to the plights of migrants.

What plight?

The fact that the poverty-stricken country that they built is riddled with violence and crime?

But somehow isn’t a shithole for some reason?

I think everyone already knows “El Salvador and Honduras are really poor, violent countries.”

A large number of people in this year’s caravan are from Honduras. Among the reasons they’ve given CNN for fleeing the country: widespread gang violence, domestic violence, poverty, political repression after a contested presidential election and discrimination against the transgender community.

lol I seriously doubt the tranny thing is on the mind of a single one of these individuals.

What a joke, adding that Western issue of the day onto the whole “we don’t deserve to live in a shithole” bit.

US officials have already made it clear they’re skeptical of the migrants’ motives, warning that anyone with an invalid claim will be swiftly deported and that anyone who tries to cross the border illegally will face prosecution.

At the outset, about 1,200 migrants from Central America were part of the caravan. But some individuals and smaller groups have split off along the way. Some sought asylum in Mexico, saying the risk of trying to make it in the United States wasn’t worth it.

The members of the caravan arriving in Tijuana say they’re well aware of the risks, but decided to continue the journey because they had no other choice.

Except the choice in the last sentence. Seeking asylum in Mexico.

You also had a choice to remain in your shithole.

It’s not like there is a 100% murder rate. Lots of people there hanging out in jungle huts, eating fruits, sitting around.

Billions of people on earth live in shitholes. The option that you have in such a shithole is to attempt to make your country less shitty.

I know it’s easier to flee to a white country, but I don’t know how you expect people to feel sorry for you when that is your decision.

Angry tweets from US President Donald Trump didn’t sway them. Neither did the deployment of National Guard troops.

I understand that we may not be welcomed by all,” a 38-year-old woman from El Salvador told CNN on Tuesday. “But I don’t have an option. If I stay in El Salvador, I’m going to be killed.”

YOU ARE NOT FUCKING WELCOME.

THIS IS OUR HOME.

YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO ACCESS TO WHITE PEOPLE. WE ARE HUMAN BEINGS. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DETERMINE OUR OWN LIVES, OUR OWN FUTURES, WITHOUT YOU ANIMALS ATTACHING YOURSELVES ONTO US.

The Right to Access White People?

People need to understand that this is the context of the entire immigration discussion: the right to access to white people.

That is the bottom line of this entire thing.

These brown people are saying: we have a right to live around you, and to take advantage of the things you create.

The concept of massive nonwhite immigration into white countries is fundamentally a promotion of the concept of white supremacy.

They want to be within proximity to us.

As such, the anti-immigration position is “we have a right to be left alone” – which is in no way a “white supremacist” position, it is simply a “please just leave us alone so we can live our lives in peace” position.

So when they call you “white supremacist” for being against immigration, they are projecting their own ideological position onto you.

If white people were not supreme, then brown people would not have this obsession with wanting to be around us. If they were equal to us, they could figure out their own situations and make their own countries work.

Integration in the US was the same thing – Jews gave blacks the idea that they were failing because they didn’t have enough access to white people, and if they were given access to white people, it would magically up their achievement level.

Spoiler: it didn’t work.

But hey, it worked out for a couple of them.

Jordan Peele, for example.

He did pretty well.

Just Leave Us Alone

The Jews have to do endless mental gymnastics, going into bizarre realms of confused gibberish, to try to explain away the basic fact of what the Alt-Right and “racists” in general are asking for: just leave us alone.

That is all.

That is the only thing that any of us are actually asking for:

Leave.

Us.

Alone.

Call the White House

We got a good response when we called the White House last time about the caravan.

They broke it up, a bunch of of them gave up and dispersed, and Trump got aggressive.

No harm in trying to call again.

You can also write a letter here.

This is very much about making noise.

Whether they get the “asylum” or not, people are very angry. And people being angry is good for us.