The Alt-Right Returns to Charlottesville!

 

WE ARE NOT GOING AWAY

By Reinhard Wolff | redice.tv

Identity Evropa, along with Richard Spencer, Mike Enoch, and others, returned to Charlottesville to deliver speeches during a flash mob on Saturday.

The purpose of this event was to demonstrate that the Alt-Right is only interested in gathering peacefully and legally. The tragic events that took place at Unite the Right, therefore, were the fault of Charlottesville city officials, who told the police to stand down and forced right-wing attendees into mobs of unwashed antifa.

You can watch the demonstration here:

https://www.pscp.tv/RichardBSpencer/1yoKMpodMMexQ?t=4s

Or here:

 

Anti-Diversity Distinguished From Racialism, Human Biodiversity and “Racism”

http://www.amerika.org/politics/anti-diversity-distinguished-from-racialism-human-biodiversity-and-racism/

We know that diversity is dysfunctional because throughout history, we see no examples of societies which adopted diversity continuing to thrive after that point. In fact, all of them dove straight into third-world disorder and consequent erasure from history.

There are many arguments against diversity. Some are based on genetics, others on culture, and some on looking at current examples of diversity. These are often convincing, but a more fundamental argument can be made which we might call the “Machiavellian argument”:

Every ethnic group has its own agenda, which is to be dominant in any lands where it is present. The reason for this is that any ethnic group is unstable if it is not dominant, because one can only be dominant or conquered. There is no middle ground, but diversity pretends to be this, which more resembles a temporary truce than a long-term plan. Each ethnic group seeks to make its culture, values, language, standards, beliefs and behaviors into the norm wherever that ethnic group resides, because if it does not do this, those are quickly supplanted by either those from other groups, or the standard-of-no-standards that occurs when a standard is designed to incorporate the standards of multiple ethnic groups. Ethnic groups have their own self-interest, or goal of dominating so that they are not dominated, and no amount of laws, economic incentives or government propaganda can change that.

This means that it does not matter who the racial or ethnic minorities that make up a diversity society are, only that different groups be present. They do not need to have pre-existing culture; if cultureless people of different groups were put on a desert island, they would quickly separate by appearance, and invent a culture that makes each group feel as if it has a unique purpose and quite possibly, is the best group in the world. We know that all cultures do this, as do groups within cultures. As Tom Wolfe writes, this is the “fiction-absolute”:

Even before I left graduate school I had come to the conclusion that virtually all people live by what I think of as a “fiction-absolute.” Each individual adopts a set of values which, if truly absolute in the world — so ordained by some almighty force — would make not that individual but his group…the best of all possible groups, the best of all inner circles. Politicians, the rich, the celebrated, become mere types. Does this apply to “the intellectuals” also? Oh, yes…perfectly, all too perfectly.

The human beast’s belief in his own fiction-absolute accounts for one of the most puzzling and in many cases irrational phenomena of our time. I first noticed it when I read a book by Samuel Lubell called The Future of American Politics. Lubell was a political scientist and sociologist who had been as surprised as everybody else by the outcome of the 1948 presidential election. That was the election in which the Democratic incumbent, Harry Truman, was a president whose approval rating had fallen as low as 23 percent. Every survey, every poll, every pundit’s prediction foresaw him buried by the Republican nominee, Thomas E. Dewey. Instead, Truman triumphed in one of the most startling upsets in American political history. Lubell was determined to find out why, and so he set out across the country. When he reached a small Midwestern town that had been founded before the turn of the 19th century by Germans, he was puzzled to learn that the town had gone solidly for Dewey despite the fact that by every rational turn of logic, every economic motivation, Truman would have been a more logical choice. By and by Lubell discovered that the town was still predominantly German. Nobody had ever gotten over the fact that in 1917, a Democrat, President Woodrow Wilson, had declared war on Germany. That had set off a wave of anti-German feeling, anti-German prejudice, and, in the eyes of the people of this town, besmirched their honor as people of German descent. And now, two World Wars later, their minds were fixed on the year 1917, because like all other human beasts, they tended to champion in an irrational way their own set of values, their own fiction absolute. The question Lubell asked was very much like the question that Thomas Frank asked after the election of 2004 in his book What’s the Matter with Kansas? By all economic and political logic, the state of Kansas should have gone to John Kerry, the Democrat, in 2004. But it didn’t. Had Frank only looked back to Samuel Lubell, he would have known why. The 2004 election came down to one state: the state of Ohio. Whoever won that state in the final hours would win the election. Northern Ohio, the big cities of Cleveland, Toledo on the Great Lakes, were solidly for Kerry. But in southern Ohio, from east to west, and in the west was the city of Cincinnati, Ohio went solidly for George Bush. And the reason? That great swath of territory was largely inhabited by the Scots-Irish. And when the Democrats came out in favor of gun control, the Scots-Irish interpreted this as not merely an attack on the proliferation of weaponry in American life but as a denunciation, a besmirching, of their entire way of life, their entire fiction absolute. Guns were that important in their scheme of things.

For a group to be living the best of all possible lives, it would have to be the best group on Earth, and for that to be true, there can be no competing groups, which means that even if at a glacial pace, that group will work to subvert and conquer all nearby groups that are discernibly different. This is as much part of nature as natural selection.

The fiction-absolute guarantees that every ethnic group will act in self-interest, and over time realize that this self-interest includes conquest of others. This was once recognized as a principle of human nature, but even more, it is a principle of nature, and we see it in other species as well:

Slave-making ants—yes, that’s actually their common name—also stage raids on other ant species, notes Katy Prudic, an entomologist at Arizona State University.

…“There’s good evidence that chimpanzees conduct deliberate raids on neighbouring communities, and that this can lead to annexing of territory.”

For instance, during a ten-year study of a chimp family in Uganda’s Kibale National Park, the primates killed or injured 18 chimps from other groups and took over their land. (Related: “Chimp Gangs Kill to Expand Territory.”)

“The behaviour of chimpanzees is much more akin to a guerrilla band”—wearing down the enemy—than what we think of as a traditional battle, Newton-Fisher says.

Others point out that there are battles between groups within the same species, usually over who predominates in a certain territory, such as ants and termites whose competing colonies frequently go to war:

Insects, particularly ants, have become popular examples of this form of warfare, where tens of thousands of members from rival colonies will do battle, often tearing one another apart, and engaging in other strategies and tactics that might be seen on a human battlefield from the Middle Ages.

These insect battles, which are also seen in termites and other colony-based species of insects, are typically started over territory.

In other words, ethnic battles within species are common in the animal kingdom, and for the same reasons that human ethnic groups clash: only one group can predominate. That group gets to choose its destiny instead of having it chosen for it, and can set standards, cultural values, habits, cuisine, customs, language and other identifiers that support the fiction-absolute of its members.

Examined in the context of a logical racialist analysis of diversity, we can see how our refusal to admit that each group has self-interest dooms us to race riots, violent crime, political agitation and other forms of guerrilla warfare:

Race or any of the fashionable victim statuses may and must be substituted for sex. Further, race doesn’t exist. This is why strict mandatory quotas based on race must be enforced, to teach people that race doesn’t exist. There are thus no differences among people based on race. Yet Diversity is our strength, so ensuring quotas based on race, which doesn’t exist, will make outcomes better, outcomes which must be the same, since there is no such thing as race, therefore there can’t be differences in performance among peoples of different races. This is why Diversity is our strength.

All disparities are formed and held in place by power. Where there are more men than women in a position, or more whites than blacks, it is because of the power men have over women, or whites over others. Yet Equality says men and women and the races, which do not exist, are not inherently different, therefore this power must be illusory. This is why the men who think men and women are different, or those who say race exists, must be fired from, or kept from securing, their positions, so that they may not wield the dangerous power they by theory cannot have.

This sardonic view correctly deciphers the Leftist attitude toward race and diversity: the only idea of Leftism is that all people are equal, which enables the caste revolt they seek, so this means that diversity must exist in order to prove that we are all equal, which requires quashing anything and anyone who is not 100% on board with diversity.

In this way, even diversity logic recognizes that groups have different interests. In order to prove equality, diversity must be enforced, which means that some groups must be favored over the others in order to erase natural differences and make those groups equal, which makes diversity a weapon of the guerrilla war. It is a deceptive weapon, in that the end goal of diversity is a beige race, not any one ethnic group becoming victorious. Diversity will destroy whites, blacks and Asians as it has in the past, leaving behind populations like those in Latin America, North Africa, the Middle East and parts of near Asia where the people are mostly Caucasian, a good bit Asian, and traces of any other groups. This mixture corresponds to how well those groups do in a civilization, namely through commerce and productivity, and the mixing occurs as people find others on their socio-economic level and have children with them, even though they are of another race, mainly because the increased disorder of social chaos caused by a lack of trust then forces people to become insular on the basis of class.

This view liberates us from the notion that other racial and ethnic groups (even The Irish) are our enemies. Instead, they are symptoms of a broader problem, which is the adoption of diversity by a civilization dying from caste revolt. The actual enemies are the ideas of diversity, equality, and pluralism, and these create a civil war within the civilization that, being a guerrilla war, grinds on until there is nothing left to destroy:

The war for civilization is almost entirely between groups of whites, in fact mostly white Christians. The white Left has drawn in other groups, but mostly as auxiliary forces. The same battle would be going on, as it has been in much of Europe, if we were only dealing with white opponents. None of the multiculturalists I have known has been black; and calling white multicultural fanatics “race traitors” is a gross oversimplification because the object of leftist hate goes well beyond their own racial group. It now includes all normal people who have not been reconstructed by the managerial therapeutic state or are fighting the scourge of Political Correctness.

Our struggle is not a race war. It is a war against the collapse of civilization, and we cannot fight that directly, but instead can only orient ourselves toward a renewal of civilization. That process automatically excludes those who wish to, like parasitic insects, devour civilization for their own sustenance. There is no middle ground in this fight.

When we refocus our views on the failure of diversity along with other civilization destroyer programs, we reveal exactly why there is no middle ground: as in the struggle against Communism, or against any tyranny or power which serves itself, we are waging a war of ideas through culture. Through that, the necessity of our struggle becomes evident.

After Charlottesville, the battle lines are drawn and the sides are polarized. Those in the middle are realizing that to waffle makes them a double target, and they are looking for a side that will win so that they will not be targeted. Since our side is the only side that includes the survival of our civilization, and thus the comfortable life to which people aspire in the West, we will win over time.

The Theory of Diversity Explained

The new Chief Diversity Officer at WMBriggs.com

http://wmbriggs.com/post/22420/

Thanks to Google we are reminded that Diversity is the dumbest idea in the West, bar none. Even communism, even atheism, makes more sense. Diversity is our weakness. Diversity, based on the false ideology of Equality, will if it is not stopped destroy us.

There are no inherent differences in people, says the god Diversity, hearing whispers from the dark caves of Equality, caves which conceal the pit of Hell. This is why we need strict mandatory quotas based on differences that are not inherent.

Men and women are not inherently different, which is how we cannot tell men and women apart, except by self-identification, which itself must be based on a fiction since there are no inherent differences between men and women.

Men and women are not different, which is why we need quotas to ensure in this position there are equal numbers of men and women. The outcome of the position will not be changed if we have enforced equal numbers of men and women, because men and women are not inherently different. But since Diversity is our strength, the outcome under mandatory quotas will be better, because there are no differences in performance between men and women.

Race or any of the fashionable victim statuses may and must be substituted for sex. Further, race doesn’t exist. This is why strict mandatory quotas based on race must be enforced, to teach people that race doesn’t exist. There are thus no differences among people based on race. Yet Diversity is our strength, so ensuring quotas based on race, which doesn’t exist, will make outcomes better, outcomes which must be the same, since there is no such thing as race, therefore there can’t be differences in performance among peoples of different races. This is why Diversity is our strength.

All disparities are formed and held in place by power. Where there are more men than women in a position, or more whites than blacks, it is because of the power men have over women, or whites over others. Yet Equality says men and women and the races, which do not exist, are not inherently different, therefore this power must be illusory. This is why the men who think men and women are different, or those who say race exists, must be fired from, or kept from securing, their positions, so that they may not wield the dangerous power they by theory cannot have.

Further, our actions in enforcing Diversity—in hiring and firing and quashing and even forbidding the opinions that men and women are inherently different and that race exists—are not manifestations of power, because power is only held by those who are against Diversity. Under Diversity, there are only victims.

Now there are no inherent differences in people with respect to any outcome. Equality says this is true. And Diversity is our strength. There is thus no way to tell people apart. This is why under Diversity we must create and track categories which inherently make no difference in people’s performance in any act. These categories, such as sex and race, are potentially infinite.

We could and sometimes do track age, object of lust—especially object of lust—geographic location, birth place, height, weight, genetic predispositions, presence of certain diseases, hair color, participation in some previous act such as military service, and on and on. None of these categories are meaningful and all are held in place, and simultaneously discriminated against, by anti-Equality, anti-Diversity forces.

This unjust discrimination is why the precise same proportion of combination of categories that exist in all of humankind must be mandated and enforced to be found in any position. There thus must be, in any position, in every position, proportionally just as many old fat red-headed Kansas City faggots as there exist in the world. If there are not, then the structures that keeps this from happening must be broken. This will not be an exercise of power, only a reaction, because power is only held by those holding back Diversity.

Further, because there can be no inherent differences in the performance of any act between Kansas Citians and any other group, there cannot be any change in outcome once Diversity is fully in place. Yet because Diversity is our strength, there will be only benefits from mandating there be the exact same proportion of Kansas Citians here as there.

Also, when Muslims say they are coming to rape, convert, kill, rule, and eliminate all forms of Diversity except those directed toward Islam, they clearly do not mean it. This is why all forms of discrimination against Islam must be eradicated.

Because of the eminent importance of Diversity, we at WMBriggs.com, like at Google and every other major entity, will be hiring a Diversity Enforcer. So that when anybody claims to be troubled by what is written here, we can point to our black female lesbian Jewish Enforcer (who will be paid very, very well) to show how devoted we truly are to Diversity. And then you’ll leave us alone.

Saturday in Charlottesville

Looking at a French nationalist website Boulevard Voltaire this morning, I notice a repetition of the conventional American media account of what occurred in Charlottesville on Saturday. The news commentary explained that a white racist had run down and killed with a vehicle a thirty-two-year-old “anti-racist” demonstrator, Heather Heyer, while injuring other anti-racists who were protesting a “Unite the Right” rally in downtown Charlottesville. The supposed occasion for the demonstration, the removal of a twenty-six foot statue of Robert E. Lee, did not seem to interest the French commentator, although presumably if French anti-fascists were calling for dismantling statues of Charles de Gaulle or Joan of Arc all over France, the writer might have reacted differently. As an American observer of these events, who makes no bones about his utter revulsion for contemporary American “liberal” and “conservative” commentaries (which I find mostly indistinguishable), I think there’s more to the story of what went on in Charlottesville on Saturday than our authorized political sides want us to believe.

First of all, I find no heroes emerging from these events. The police showed no ability or perhaps no willingness to keep the two sides separated; and when they met it was inevitable that these armed partisans who hated each other’s guts would clash. Although the dismantling of Lee’s statue (in May a judge placed a six-month stay on this outrage) may have been only the pretext for obnoxious youth to raise holy Hell, the removal of Confederate statues and the renaming of parks and streets commemorating Confederate commanders is sheer lunacy. It should be opposed by all possible legal means. The NAACP and leftist cranks like Max Boot who push this agenda are the American equivalent of the Taliban. Are we supposed to do the PC cringe again when the usual pests demand that we remove the names of Jefferson, Madison and Washington from every city in this country because our country’s Founders owned slaves?

As for the bloody clash in Charlottesville, it’s impossible for me to read the account provided by neocon princeling John Podhoretz in the New York Post this morning without losing my breakfast. The villain for Podhoretz (as it always is these days when’s he’s not attacking critics of the Likud Party) is Donald Trump who refused “to denounce Nazis and white supremacists unqualifiedly and by name.” It seems that Trump had the “shamelessness” to suggest that there were two sides involved in the clash in Charlottesville. (Donald Trump has since unloaded all his fire on Pod’s target.) The anti-fascist and BLM protestors, according to Podhoretz’s doctored narrative, were merely “responding” to hate; and the president whom Podhoretz wouldn’t back against Hillary and whom he continues to denounce “refused to name the evil in our midst,” thereby showing “the behavior of a man whose moral sense is stunted.” On Saturday evening, Fox-news offered an interview by Julie Banderas of a Weekly Standard senior editor who scolded Trump for not treating the Altright in the same denunciatory manner as ISIS. Both, according to Ms. Torrance, were equally dangerous terrorist organizations.

Needless to say, I’ve never heard our authorized conservative opposition vent the same ferocious denunciations they’re now showing on anti-fascist vandals or on the Bernie Sanders supporter who tried to kill a crew of Republican Congressmen while practicing for a baseball game in Arlington, Virginia. Nor did the authorized leftist media agonize in the same way about left-wing extremism as Fox-news commentators did when they began screeching on Saturday night about right-wing dangers that are comparable to ISIS. The Left acted according to script, when their commentators tried to blame the attempted annihilation of Republican Congressmen on our right-wing extremist president.

But our bogus Right couldn’t leave their pandering to the Left with calls for special vigilance against a pervasive right-wing danger. On Fox’s Judge Jeanine segment we had the pleasure of listening to various Republican Congressmen from Virginia defining their “conservatism” as some kind of diversitarian globalist fantasy. One Latino Republican Congressman described the US as the world’s greatest multicultural success. All the Republican interviewees gave the impression that Charlottesville had been a sleepy serene college town, like a throwback to Monty Wooly’s “Halls of Ivy,” before it was invaded by neo-Nazis. These saccharine comments revealed little about the reality of life in an area controlled by the PC Left and led by a bona fide leftist radical from New York City, Mayor Mike Signer.

I’ve also come to doubt that the group organized by Richard Spencer et al was more responsible for violence than the anti-fascist side. From the film I’ve just seen it seems conclusive that leftist thugs were at least as ready to rumble as were the white nationalists and neo-Nazis. Whether or not the Left initiated the fisticuffs (and there’s a high probability that it did) those who led it were far from naïve humanitarians who were “shocked” by white racists. Moreover, both sides, including the white nationalists, integrated into their demonstrations basically decent people, who were simply reacting against something they found intolerable, such as a PC police state or neo-Nazi symbols. Such people were used by others on both sides who were looking for trouble. And the police did little to prevent it.

Finally I would observe as a representative of the independent Right that Richard Spencer and his friends did us a horrible disservice by contributing to the confrontation that took place on Saturday. Much of what Richard and other members of the Altright say about the growing indistinguishability of our authorized Right and authorized Left is entirely on the mark. But the way to combat this deplorable situation is not to team up with Nazis and encourage demonstrators to come armed to Charlottesville to protest the leftist Taliban. One has to create a counter-media to what our shared enemies have done and be willing to accept decent people, whatever their race, to combat left-wing totalitarians and fake conservative enablers.

The war for civilization is almost entirely between groups of whites, in fact mostly white Christians. The white Left has drawn in other groups, but mostly as auxiliary forces. The same battle would be going on, as it has been in much of Europe, if we were only dealing with white opponents. None of the multiculturalists I have known has been black; and calling white multicultural fanatics “race traitors” is a gross oversimplification because the object of leftist hate goes well beyond their own racial group. It now includes all normal people who have not been reconstructed by the managerial therapeutic state or are fighting the scourge of Political Correctness. At the very least, Richard and his comrades have diverted us from this fight and compounded this injury by playing a role in the violence that should not have occurred.

I can’t help asking this rhetorical question, at least parenthetically at the end. According to white nationalist protocol, am I supposed to ally with white cultural leftists against the very black African Cardinal Robert Sarah, who spoke yesterday in Brittany? The good cardinal affirmed his reverence for the Vendean martyrs who fought for their king and church against the evil French Revolution. Needless to say the ideology that Cardinal Sarah decried was far less radically leftist than what our fake conservatives proclaim as their global democratic agenda. The struggle to restore a decent society that we’re in cannot and should not be reduced to racial differences.

 

Recapitulation

A regular reader, contributor and freelance writer sent along a suggestion that could not be ignored: there needs to be a “simple guide to Amerika.” He is usually on point about direction, so here it is, notwithstanding the impossibility of explaining the complex in simple ways.

  • The root of all problems is individualism. Humans get a stronger signal from their brains that reality; this signal is shared through socializing; humans then form a bolus of angry people who demand that what is not real be considered real. At that point, illusion reigns, and the parasites close in.
  • Collectivism is a form of individualism. Collectivism means a group that demands that each individual within it be represented equally, which means that no individual can be excluded. In collective bargaining, like unions, they force equal compensation for the competent and incompetent, which is a form of the not-real because it is illogical.
  • Egalitarianism is the rule of collectivism. Egalitarianism means that the individual is equal, which removes hierarchy and the burden on the individual to act according to a natural or divine order. Discrimination and exclusion are the methods of evolution, or qualitative improvement, while universal acceptance (egalitarianism) is reversion to a mean.
  • Social pressures form the basis of human thinking. People are more concerned with appearance than reality because in human groups, appearance of goodness determines how much people like you, and thus, how much they will help you when you need it. Plato’s metaphor can be found in Book II of The Republic:

    Now that those who practise justice do so involuntarily and because they have not the power to be unjust will best appear if we imagine something of this kind: having given both to the just and the unjust power to do what they will, let us watch and see whither desire will lead them; then we shall discover in the very act the just and unjust man to be proceeding along the same road, following their interest, which all natures deem to be their good, and are only diverted into the path of justice by the force of law.

    The liberty which we are supposing may be most completely given to them in the form of such a power as is said to have been possessed by Gyges the ancestor of Croesus the Lydian. According to the tradition, Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the king of Lydia; there was a great storm, and an earthquake made an opening in the earth at the place where he was feeding his flock. Amazed at the sight, he descended into the opening, where, among other marvels, he beheld a hollow brazen horse, having doors, at which he stooping and looking in saw a dead body of stature, as appeared to him, more than human, and having nothing on but a gold ring; this he took from the finger of the dead and reascended. Now the shepherds met together, according to custom, that they might send their monthly report about the flocks to the king; into their assembly he came having the ring on his finger, and as he was sitting among them he chanced to turn the collet of the ring inside his hand, when instantly he became invisible to the rest of the company and they began to speak of him as if he were no longer present. He was astonished at this, and again touching the ring he turned the collet outwards and reappeared; he made several trials of the ring, and always with the same result-when he turned the collet inwards he became invisible, when outwards he reappeared.

    Whereupon he contrived to be chosen one of the messengers who were sent to the court; where as soon as he arrived he seduced the queen, and with her help conspired against the king and slew him, and took the kingdom. Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust.

    For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right. If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another’s, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another’s faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice.

  • Diversity is a form of egalitarianism. If the only requirement to be equal is humanity, all that is human will be included everywhere, which is why the Left adopted diversity as a means of spreading class warfare, wealth transfer and destruction of hierarchical and realistic thinking.
  • Diversity never works. The problem is not which groups are involved, but the fact of diversity itself. When different groups are placed in the same society, each acts in self-interest to assert its values and genetics, causing constant internal conflict and turmoil. Diversity ends civilizations.
  • Specific groups do not matter. This is not a platform for anti-Semitism.  Equality and diversity are the issues. Ending them includes the Jews just as it includes the Irish. Just like the Irish have to go back to Ireland, the Jews have to go to Israel, the Africans to Africa, the Asians to Asia, Mexicans to Mexico, and Southern Europeans to Southern Europe and Eastern Europeans to Eastern Europe.
  • Genetics is the basis of behavior, and thus culture. People cannot be “educated” (indoctrinated) into what they are not. Our traits are hard-wired and while we can achieve the appearance of change through enforcement of rules, people cannot be overseen constantly and revert to what worked for their ancestors. No two groups are compatible for this reason.
  • Civilization requires social order and qualitative improvement. The challenge to humans in dominating nature is that we would doom ourselves by, in the absence of external pressures, degenerating or losing ability. With social order, a form of hierarchy, people are encouraged to rise in quality, which is the opposite of equality where they are accepted as they are. Equality is anti-Darwinism.
  • People and races are networks of traits. There is no race gene. Multiple genes, with overlapping function, code for different abilities and inclinations. These networks of traits are quite complex and miscegenation and class-mixing destroy them, creating hybrids with few of the original abilities, and possessing those out of context, e.g. intelligence without moral goodness.
  • The cruelty of nature is realism. Nature operates to select for more efficient biological structures, including behavior. This seems brutal, but ultimately benefits both organisms and ecosystem, in which each organism serves an unequal role in maintaining an environment from which all benefit.
  • Culture is the human ecosystem. Civilization is the organization which implements culture; culture is the set of values and behaviors of a group. Culture thus arises from genetics and is destroyed when hybridization occurs. Culture represents an “inner force,” or one paired with intuition, among those whose ancestors lived within a group and were subject to its selection pressures.
  • Ideology is a replacement for culture. Ideology, along with the indoctrination and reward structures required to implement it, is a replacement for culture and other traits of a population. It uses social means to replace intuition and other inner forces.
  • Language is a virus that seeks to supplant natural order. People are able to use language to manipulate one another, and through this can get ahead with social/ideological means instead of by producing actual results in external reality. From Tom Wolfe:

    Evolution came to an end when the human beast developed speech! As soon as he became not Homo sapiens, “man reasoning,” but Homo loquax, “man talking”! Speech gave the human beast far more than an ingenious tool. Speech was a veritable nuclear weapon! It gave the human beast the powers of reason, complex memory, and long-term planning, eventually in the form of print and engineering plans. Speech gave him the power to enlarge his food supply at will through an artifice called farming. Speech ended not only the evolution of man, by making it no longer necessary, but also the evolution of animals!

    And William S. Burroughs from The Ticket That Exploded (1962):

    From symbiosis to parasitism is a short step. The word is now a virus. The flu virus may have once been a healthy lung cell. It is now a parasitic organism that invades and damages the central nervous system. Modern man has lost the option of silence. Try halting sub-vocal speech. Try to achieve even ten seconds of inner silence. You will encounter a resisting organism that forces you to talk. That organism is the word.

    And Friedrich W. Nietzsche in the document that kicked off postmodernism, “On Truth And Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense” (1873):

    But because man, out of need and boredom, wants to exist socially, herd-fashion, he requires a peace pact and he endeavors to banish at least the very crudest bellum omni contra omnes [war of all against all] from his world. This peace pact brings with it something that looks like the first step toward the attainment of this enigmatic urge for truth. For now that is fixed which henceforth shall be “truth”; that is, a regularly valid and obligatory designation of things is invented, and this linguistic legislation also furnishes the first laws of truth: for it is here that the contrast between truth and lie first originates. The liar uses the valid designations, the words, to make the unreal appear as real; he says, for example, “I am rich,” when the word “poor” would be the correct designation of his situation. He abuses the fixed conventions by arbitrary changes or even by reversals of the names. When he does this in a self-serving way damaging to others, then society will no longer trust him but exclude him. Thereby men do not flee from being deceived as much as from being damaged by deception: what they hate at this stage is basically not the deception but the bad, hostile consequences of certain kinds of deceptions.

    In other words, language is used to obscure the selfish motives of the individual which are cloaked in the idea of altruistic motives to help others. This is the essence of Crowdism.

  • The only solution is not methodological. Like its biological counterpart, a virus changes form to evade detection. The only solution is to have a strong sense of purpose and to aggressively filter out anything which does not support it, like deceptive or irrelevant language. This requires a caste system, where the most sensible, noble and intelligent rise above the rest.
  • Hierarchy requires inequality. Organizations — of which civilization is one type — collapse when their internal conflict, or competition for power, outpaces their action toward a purpose. To that end, eliminating conflict requires having “parallels,” or different domains of authority, in each of which is a singular line of command. In classical civilization, this was aristocracy for leadership, caste for social questions, and having respected wise people to oversee philosophy, mundane interpersonal conflicts, literature and the arts.
  • Democracy is designed to destroy hierarchy. With democracy, a form of utilitarianism, whatever most people think is a good idea wins out. There is no accountability to individual voters, and whatever costs are incurred are distributed among all voters, such that all feel little impact and many, who pay no taxes because they have little money, feel none. The main advantage of democracy is that it makes change within the system harder than ever before because of inertia of most people, the many existing laws which must be changed, and the necessity of working within the system itself, which tends to channel all new ideas toward the same old things. In addition, the individual voters is not accountable to standards, values or culture, but only a nebulous sense of self-interest which rewards using the vote to take from others. The end result is tyranny, as Plato notes, as the system becomes unstable and requires increasing applications of power to remain in control, as William S. Burroughs notes in Naked Lunch (1959):

    Democracy is cancerous, and bureaus are its cancer. A bureau takes root anywhere in the state, turns malignant like the Narcotic Bureau, and grows and grows, always reproducing more of its own kind, until it chokes the host if not controlled or excised. Bureaus cannot live without a host, being true parasitic organizations. (A cooperative on the other hand can live without the state. That is the road to follow. The building up of independent units to meet needs of the people who participate in the functioning of the unit. A bureau operates on the opposite principle of inventing needs to justify its existence.) Bureaucracy is wrong as a cancer, a turning away from the human evolutionary direction of infinite potentials and differentiation and independent spontaneous action to the complete parasitism of a virus.

  • Racial concerns are not about politics, but genetics. For every sub-species, and race and ethnicity are that to humans, one risk will never go away: that of being destroyed through outbreeding. Since people are thoughtless, especially at a young age, this can be easily achieved by importing foreigners and distributing them among them. Enough will interbreed to ensure that the original people no longer exists, and having lost the genetic networks of the original, the new group will make different choices about how it interpretations the customs, institutions, religion, language and politics of their partial forebears. Interbreeding is genocide, even “love”-based free choice. Any group which does not defend itself through uncompromising xenophobia will soon no longer walk the earth. Idiots fail to understand that while they may be able to dodge the vast slum of mystery meat genetics floating around them, their children and grandchildren will not. All it takes is an infusion of some dilution of the blood, no matter what it is, even “good” minorities like Asians, and what once was is soon gone. This is complicated by “hybrid vigor,” or a cancellation of some recessive traits, that makes the first generation still retain some of the aspects of the old. But after multiple generations, all that once was is gone, and no amount of education/indoctrination or institutional enforcement can make it arise in the new group. Culture comes from race; the root of all nationalist and identitarian politics comes from this realization.
  • Freedom is corruption. For an individual and a civilization to thrive, they must seek to do good. Freedom is the antithesis of that, namely that one can seek nothing and from it have good emerge through rules and incentives. The main reason that people desire freedom is to get away from the demands of parasites, who use guilt based in disparate impact (“we are both human, and yet you have more than I”) which is fundamentally a social trope in order to establish their desires as public needs, and thus force the rest of us to provide them with things and bear the socialized/externalized cost. This backfires, because in doing so they bring about tyranny or power that serves only itself, as Plato writes:

    The ruin of oligarchy is the ruin of democracy; the same disease magnified and intensified by liberty overmasters democracy — the truth being that the excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction; and this is the case not only in the seasons and in vegetable and animal life, but above all in forms of government.

    The only way to avoid this is to avoid extremes, and so to choose goodness instead of the option for goodness, and to implement it not by force, but by rewarding those who naturally seek it, so the genetic networks that remain afterwards are those which favor goodness.

  • Our enemy is Control. Control is the notion that humans can manipulate the world by reducing it to a fungible quantity of equals and then, by forcing those to do the same thing, maintain a strong power that serves itself. Control is different than authority and leadership because it consists of absolute rules, micromanagement, and most of all making all of society and nature into equal objects which succumb to the same incentives and threats. People love control because they like the thought of having a behemoth which will apply uniformly to all things around them, and therefore achieve absolute and universal results. This is why they want a tyrant or a metaphorical analogue of one, but in the end, because all things act in self-interest, they produce a monster no matter how benevolent their intent. The opposite of control is cooperation, which requires having a purpose and selecting those who can fulfill that purpose through organically-arising and unequal roles like those in an ecosystem, and sending the others away. When all are equally included, they become a mass used for manipulation, which serves only control.
  • Without leadership and ownership, every commons is a tragedy. A tragedy of the commons occurs whenever there is a resource shared by all, and each person has self-interest in exploiting it, whether that resource is the natural land, money collected from taxes, the direction of an organization, interpretation of culture, attention from others at a social gathering, participation in a musical genre or parking spaces in a neighborhood. Each person will take as much as they can, and soon the resource will be destroyed, as Garrett Hardin writes:

    The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

    As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, “What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?” This utility has one negative and one positive component.

    1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.

    2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of -1.

    Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another…. But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit–in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

    The only solution to this condition is to ensure that people cannot take as much as they want, only what they need. From that comes all human leadership and government, but only a pre-government form of leadership, aristocracy, solves this by ensuring that aristocrats own all the land and control all of the intellectual and social capital, so that every precious thing has a defender and none are submerged by the herd.

  • People are not equal. Meritocracy is an illusion because actual merit is found in abilities, which are genetic. People have abilities and moral character, and without both, are bad at any level; we expect more from those higher in the chain who make decisions about leadership, culture, social order and values. Very few are capable of doing this, probably less than one percent, because this requires not just high ability and moral character, but also an inclination to think about these things and surround oneself with them for years. The only working form of leadership is aristocracy for this reason.
  • Human history is measured by organizations. People like to think in terms of their own power only. They do not like to consider how little influence they have relative to that of the organization around them. But people act in organizations from hunting posses to gangs to corporations, and the structure of those organizations reflect the incentives on which people act and therefore, to what degree the organization survives and achieves its goal. The worst condition is “dark organizations,” where incentives become perverse or reward the individual acting for himself at the expense of the organization, and so an organization within the organization builds like a cancer, and eventually takes it over and destroys it for the purposes of the inner organization. Most great historical fears — Masons, Jews, Communists, Satanists — involve the fear of takeover from within, but most takeovers happen because organizations allow them and the people taking over have no idea this is what they are doing, mainly because their assumptions are invisible to them, but are conducive to ends other than those of the organization.
  • Inner traits matter more than outer traits. The fallacy of control and of modernity itself is that we can make people equals and then manipulate them to do the right thing, as defined from a human perspective. Power serves only to obstruct certain behaviors, and while it can reward others, it cannot instill them in the population unless they are wired for them, which occurs in degrees. Traditional societies used caste structures to place those who understood on top and to encourage others to emulate them. Even more importantly, a civilization needs to be a cooperative compact made by those who agree on its purpose, and have that purpose be not tangible, but a qualitative yet immutable intangible or “transcendental” like “the good, the beautiful and the true.” That desire for transcendentals begins with a desire to not just avoid bad, but affirmatively do good in all things, which fosters a mentality of consequentialism, or measuring actions not by human intents or purposes, but by their consequences in physical reality. With that, a study of reality — realism — emerges, and from that comes an ability to do good not just by what others think, but in long term results. It was the loss of this quest for virtue that began the downfall of Western civilization, as chronicled by Plato:

    When discord arose, then the two races were drawn different ways: the iron and brass fell to acquiring money and land and houses and gold and silver; but the gold and silver races, not wanting money but having the true riches in their own nature, inclined towards virtue and the ancient order of things. There was a battle between them, and at last they agreed to distribute their land and houses among individual owners; and they enslaved their friends and maintainers, whom they had formerly protected in the condition of freemen, and made of them subjects and servants; and they themselves were engaged in war and in keeping a watch against them.

    In other words, we are not striving for the right external pressures, but the right internal desires. Otherwise, we fall into desires of the body including the ego, and through that, become agents of our own destruction because those desires lead to decay.

  • Choice of religion is less important than “religious feeling.” Among the great religions, we find several traits in common that suggest they come from an Ur-faith that is not passed down so much as inferred by people across the ages. This is expressed as the Perennial Philosophy:

    At the core of the Perennial Philosophy we find four fundamental doctrines.

    1. The phenomenal world of matter and of individualized consciousness — the world of things and animals and men and even gods — is the manifestation of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being, and apart from which they would be non-existent.
    2. Human beings are capable not merely of knowing about the Divine Ground by inference; they can also realize its existence by a direct intuition, superior to discursive reasoning. This immediate knowledge unites the knower with that which is known.
    3. Man possesses a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal Self, which is the inner man, the spirit, the spark of divinity within the soul. It is possible for a man, if he so desires, to identify himself with the spirit and therefore with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature with the spirit.
    4. Man’s life on earth has only one end and purpose: to identify himself with his eternal Self and so to come to unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground.

    With that in mind, we can spend less time fighting over the titles of the religions we use, and more time focusing on the knowledge of those religions, cultivating it in ourselves. This is the master key through which we can unlock any religion, and since formal belief systems tend to become confusing and arbitrary, it makes sense to cut out the middle man and reinvent a kind of “pagan” faith composed of these core beliefs alone. It can then accept the other faiths in our history as books of wisdom, and stop trying to take them literally or debunk them on the basis of their metaphorical rather than material nature.

  • Evil and downfall are unintentional. If you believed movies, and no one with any wisdom does, you would think that evil consists of people who desire to be evil for the sake of power. In reality, that like all things in our modern era — the era defined by individualism — is inverted: people desire power, and control, and it makes them evil. However, the wrinkle is that most of them pursued power initially from the thought of being able to do good with that power, but in the end, it was the power who used them for its own ends, because in any form other than an absolute hereditary monarchy, power must be defended through politics which requires manipulating others and gaining as much power as possible. This fits with the general human pattern of ruining things because individuals show up, want to participate, and then make the thing into something convenient for them, which in turn obligates them to it, at which point they abandon it and it falls apart. Over and over again, humans discover new things and ruin them by projecting themselves into them and then allowing their collective need to destroy them. Bill Peet understood humanity too well.
  • The only solution is to design daily life around goodness. The Deep Ecology mission statement describes this general approach:

    Earth has entered its most precarious phase in history. We speak of threats not only to human life, but to the lives of all species of plants and animals, of the entire ecosphere in all its beauty and complexity including the natural processes that create and shape life’s diversity. It is the grave and growing threats to the health of the ecosphere that motivates our activities.

    We believe that current problems are largely rooted in the following circumstances:

    • The loss of traditional knowledge, values, and ethics of behavior that celebrate the intrinsic value and sacredness of the natural world and that give the preservation of Nature prime importance. Correspondingly, the assumption of human superiority to other life forms, as if we were granted royalty status over Nature; the idea that Nature is mainly here to serve human will and purpose.
    • The prevailing economic and development paradigms of the modern world, which place primary importance on the values of the market, not on Nature. The conversion of Nature to commodity form, the emphasis upon economic growth as a panacea, the industrialization of all activity, from forestry to farming to fishing, even to education and culture; the rush to economic globalization, cultural homogenization, commodity accumulation, urbanization, and human alienation. All of these are fundamentally incompatible with ecological sustainability on a finite Earth.
    • Technology worship and an unlimited faith in the virtues of science; the modern paradigm that technological development is inevitable, invariably good, and to be equated with progress and human destiny. From this, we are left dangerously uncritical, blind to profound problems that technology has wrought, and in a state of passivity that confounds democracy.
    • Overpopulation, in both the overdeveloped and the underdeveloped worlds, placing unsustainable burdens upon biodiversity and the human condition.

    As our name suggests, we are influenced by the Deep Ecology Platform, which helps guide and inform our work. We believe that values other than market values must be recognized and given importance, and that Nature provides the ultimate measure by which to judge human endeavors.

    People look for grand threats and extravagant solutions, but most commonly both threat and solution are mundane events, with equally everyday solutions. Our biggest risks are that we overpopulate, degenerate, suffer excessive entropy, become unstable, or die from loss of food, environment or hygiene. The grand fears of humanity have not played out, but our failure to adequately accept that these problems are threats has been consistently and increasingly endangering to us. Our solution needs to be to incorporate the mundane into our myths and solve these everyday problems by redesigning our lives around doing good, instead of chasing phantoms.

You can find more in the developing summary of a rather sprawling philosophy, but these are the basics for readers here to know as they attempt to parse the rest.

Charlottesville mayor says police chief told him to ‘stay out of my way’ during planning for white nationalist rally

In chaotic meeting, Charlottesville votes to shroud statues
A protester yells as Mayor Mike Signer listens during the Charlottesville City Council meeting Monday, Aug. 21, in Charlottesville, Va. Anger boiled over at the first Charlottesville City Council meeting since a white nationalist rally in the city descended into violent chaos, with some residents screaming and cursing at councilors Monday night and calling for their resignations. (Andrew Shurtleff/The Daily Progress via AP)

The Associated Press

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/richmond.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/e2/be2a1e28-aea6-585a-85d3-2aa80cf7f664/599e4a1c01937.image.jpg?crop=544%2C371%2C228%2C1176&resize=300%2C205&order=crop%2Cresize

Charlottesville Mayor Mike Signer on Thursday said he was denied access to security details before the deadly white nationalist rally earlier this month, claiming that his city’s police chief at one point told the mayor to “stay out of my way.”

Related image

In a lengthy Facebook post, Signer said the Charlottesville City Council was not given the city’s security plan for the Aug. 12 rally.

“During a briefing on the Thursday before August 12 with the Police Chief, the Fire Chief, and the City Manager, when I asked the Police Chief what I could do to be helpful during that day as Mayor, he answered, ‘Stay out of my way,’ ” Signer wrote in the post.

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/richmond.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/7/9e/79ea9270-f359-5ee8-8e8b-40f303383c44/599e4128d4d52.preview.jpg?resize=300%2C181

“Despite repeated requests, I was not allowed into the City’s Command Center (run by City staff) and was instead asked to be in the Emergency Operations Center (where fire, rescue, and other stakeholders were monitoring the situation).”

As the city continues to face a public outcry over what many feel was a lackluster police response to an event that carried high potential for violence and chaos, the council was planning a closed-door meeting Thursday, apparently to discuss personnel matters related to the police department led by Chief Al Thomas, who last year became Charlottesville’s first African-American police chief.

Thomas has defended the law enforcement response, but Signer made clear that the council intends to probe how city officials handled the situation.

Related image

“The events on August 12 have raised serious questions about the city’s handling of security, communications and governance,” Signer wrote.

Around mid-day Thursday, the council emerged from the meeting to say both Thomas and City Manager Maurice Jones still have their jobs, according to The Daily Progress. The city has said it will seek an independent review of how the rally was handled.

Image result for Chief Al Thomas
One thing I have learned, Never trust a nigger.

In the aftermath of the violence, many have questioned whether police were instructed to take a less-than-forceful posture at the rally, which swiftly dissolved into running street battles between white nationalist demonstrators and counterprotesters. The vehicular crossing of the city’s pedestrian mall where one counterprotester died when a rally attendee allegedly drove his car into a crowd was supposed to be closed on the day of the event.

Image result for Chief Al Thomas anti-white

Pointing to the city’s council-manager form of government, in which an appointed city manager oversees day-to-day government operations and reports to an elected council, Signer has said he has no control to issue commands to the police department.

“I simply don’t have that legal authority,” Signer said. “I couldn’t order a ‘stand down’ if I wanted to.”

Related image

Related image

Image result for Chief Al Thomas anti-white

Image result for Chief Al Thomas anti-white

http://images.complex.com/complex/images/c_fill,g_center,w_1200/fl_lossy,pg_1,q_auto/bbjusskmeaewr1vev68k/charlottesville

 

 

 

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/87ee6cc11490e877504fd5a61b6dcf7aea7135fa/c=423-0-2577-2154&r=x251&c=328x248/local/-/media/2017/08/16/USATODAY/USATODAY/636384914110989360-AP-TV-Eclipse.jpg

Its Just getting Started.

Rush Limbaugh: ‘We Are on the Cusp of a Second Civil War’

by JEFF POOR

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/08/18/rush-limbaugh-cusp-second-civil-war/

Friday on his nationally syndicated radio show, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh said given the state of affairs in the country, particularly in the wake of last week’s events in Charlottesville, VA, it could be said the country was on the cusp of a second civil war.

Limbaugh insisted much of the angst was being driven by forces from the outside wanting to see the United States cease being a “super powerful nation.”

Partial transcript as follows (courtesy of RushLimbaugh.com):

America is under attack from within. Our culture, our history, our founding are under the most direct assault I have seen in my life. And I’m sure it’s the same with you. We haven’t seen anything like this. You might even get away with saying that we are on the cusp of a second civil war. Some of you might say that we are already into it, that it has already begun. However you characterize it, though, we are under attack from within. And it’s being bought and paid for by people from outside America, in addition to inside.

I’m thinking of people like George Soros and any other number of international financiers whose objective it is to take the United States out and down as a superpower, to literally erase the United States as a powerful or super powerful nation.

Now, folks, in order to defend America, which I believe is incumbent upon all of us, in order to defend America, you have to begin knowing our history. If you’re gonna defend the United States of America, you have to know our history. You have to know the purpose of the United States of America. You have to know unequivocally and proudly the United States’ place in history. And that is why erasing and distorting our history is crucial for the left to succeed.

None of this that is happening on the left is random. None of the riots, none of the protests. They are not the result of the left being offended by individual acts. Antifa didn’t show up in Charlottesville because they found out something was going to happen that offended them. They showed up in Charlottesville to create mayhem and cause hell. They showed up in Ferguson, Missouri, to do the same thing.

They showed up in Baltimore to do the same thing — and wherever they show up today and tomorrow and next week, it’s by design, on purpose, has an objective and an agenda. And that agenda is to erase American history. That agenda is to distort, erase, and impugn our history. It is crucial if they are to succeed. Because, you see, if enough Americans can be persuaded that America, as founded, is unjust — if enough Americans can be persuaded that America as founded is inherently racist and immoral and illegitimate — then it will be all that much easier to erase America as founded.

The two go hand in hand, which is the objective of all of these groups on the left. Whatever they’re called and wherever they go and however they organize and whatever their day-to-day purpose, their objective is to erase the history of America. It’s to restate it, to recharacterize it in such a way as to convince a majority of Americans that their country is illegitimate and has been from the get-go — is unjust and racist and bigoted and has been from the get-go.

If enough Americans can be persuaded of all of that — that America is inherently racist, that America is and has been a lie — then it’s over. That is the objective, and we are in the midst of it. Sometimes you’re so close to the forest you don’t see the trees. That’s what we are in the midst of here: An ongoing effort to erase America by discrediting the entire premise of our culture, our history, our founding. The objective is to create in as many American minds as possible that America as founded is not worth defending. Serious times.

This is a very, very serious effort that is underway. Sadly, it has a lot of allies. It has a lot of people helping it that ought to be opposing it, but they are choosing what they think is the path of least resistance, which is defined by the media. You’ve got several Republicans who I believe are unwittingly participating in the effort to cast America as indefensible, particularly with Donald Trump as president. Trump as president is, in their view…

The attacks on Trump, the characterization of his presidency, is designed to show how really flawed America is. That somebody like this could be elected, that means it’s time to get rid of the Constitution. That means it’s time to get… Whatever made Trump possible, it’s time to change it and get rid of it. This is very, very serious stuff happening here, and it has the aid and support of the media, which means it has the aid and support of the worldwide left and the Democrat Party.

America’s profound morality, kindness, widespread prosperity, and design for equal opportunity should be self-evident. But that assumes that factual, historically accurate reporting in education is taking place, and we know that it isn’t. It is a shame and a near crime that the profound morality and greatness and kindness and widespread prosperity and equal opportunity that is America isn’t known. It is a crime that those characteristics of our country are in the process being recast and erased. We are getting hysterically inaccurate reporting.

We have been in the midst of hysterically inaccurate education for generations. America is unique. America copied no other country. Every other country was a copycat of others, with governments that denied individual freedom, denied opportunity, denied sovereignty. That’s what was copied. Tyranny was copied, nation to nation, people to people. That is the history of humanity: Living in tyranny, living under authoritarianism, living in poverty, living in sickness — until the United States came along, which copied nothing.

The United States and its founders rejected all of that tyranny, oppression, poverty. In America, the individual was the supreme power. That is being erased under the premise that the individual is corrupt. The individual is likely a racist or a transphobe or a homophobe or some other ill-prepared sack of humanity, and so we need to overcome the corruption that is the individual, that incomparable embrace of humanity that is the United States of America.

There’s no place on this planet that human beings would rather be than the United States of America. And yet people born and raised in this country have been persuaded that America is a sinkhole, a hellhole, a sewer, a garbage dump, or a dungeon, and they’re in the process of actually creating all of that — under the guise that civil rights, equality, and liberty. The incomparable embrace of humanity that is the United States is under attack. Leftists, Democrats seek control over 100% of the population. They accomplish this with lies, such as the Affordable Health Care Act.

They accomplish it with one lie after another. The lies being told today are the lies designed to convince people their country is not worth maintaining as it is, their country is not worth maintaining as founded because it was founded as racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic (you know the drill), immoral and illegitimate. Ignorant people will not remain free for very long. The media is working on a path parallel with school systems to actively and passively distort information to wipe out from the vestiges of our history and our memory any collection of stories that testify to the greatness of America and her people.

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

We need a civil war, its time we do what must be done and exterminate the marxist elements from the American landscape and remove the parasites. 

Are you ready? Do you have the will to do what must be done?