It Is Logical, Not Evil,To Be Anti-Immigrant

I’ve just heard something about Barack Obama’s Presidency that actually makes me give the guy a pat on the back instead of a kick in the ass. You see he deported more immigrants back out of Amerika than any other US President. How is it that he got away with this? We all know, Van Jones was good enough to explain this to us with regards to the British Petroleum Oil Well Explosion. So what do we call Barack !WHOSANE! Obama’s cruel, brutal, baby-crushing, marrow-sucking program of soulless deportation? I’d call it a pretty decent start. Pre-MAGA, if you will.

But JPW! Doesn’t that make you a pissing dickhead? “Sure!” I’d reply. “It makes the bladder gladder! Dicks get pussy. Whinging Liberal numbfvcks typically don’t.”

But isn’t it E-vil to be anti-immigrant? Doesn’t the chained ghost of ((((((Emma Lazarus)))))) weeps tear of lamentation over your callous, hard-assed nationalism? OK, let the bitch go for a whinge. Here’s why.

((((((Emma Lazarus)))))) didn’t pay taxes to support AFDC or SNAP. ((((((Emma Lazarus))))))’ daughter didn’t get the train pulled on her 12-Year-Old ass by an “Asian” Grooming Gang in Rotherham, England. ((((((Emma Lazarus)))))) wasn’t fired and replaced by somebody willing to do her job at half the minimum wage. She wasn’t informed by a sitting US President that this person who had just replaced her was doing a job she wasn’t willing to do. She never had a 24-year-old son skulking in her basement shit-posting to 8-Chan because he couldn’t legally find a job in the corrupted labor market.

((((((Emma Lazarus)))))) never spent 3:45 in an emergency room hurting and waiting for doctors and nurses to finish patching up some MS-13 thug who had no intention whatsoever of meeting any co-pay or deductible. She never paid more for her treatments or pharmacueticals to take up the slack for illegal aliens who used up these resources with no intention whatsoever to meet the deductibles or co-pays. ((((((Emma Lazarus)))))) didn’t have any .9mm bullets lodged in her house frame from having MS-13 thugs popping caps across the street at their trap house. None of ((((((Emma Lazarus))))))’ relatives spent years waiting to get through the INS bureaucracy while a bunch of people with no intention of playing by these rules jumped the line ahead of her family and took resources that her people could have used. Emma can take her precious New Collossus and go masturbate on it like it’s a sex toy.

Simone56 tells her own fans what happens to a group of women when a new race of immigrants floods across the border. About the only item she left off her rant was to tell Dear Emma to go indulge in auto-eroticism.

And then there are the societal impacts of immigration: A nation that succeeds is a nation that forms itself as much as possible into a coherent tribe. Bringing in large populations who are not invested in the good of the order is not going to be good for that order. A lack of skin in the game incentivizes destructive modes of behavior. Parasitism on the part of the newcomers, cynicism on the part of those being bitten by the mosquitoes, and a profound disrespect and contempt for the law by everyone involved in the sickening cycle are the only logical outcomes one can expect.

So why does this take place? Victor Davis Hanson explains how people make money off of our destruction as a society.

He also offers us a three step plan.

  1. Build The Wall: Make it physically challenging and expensive to rapidly move large groups of people into the country.
  2. Fine The Domestic Parasites: Aggressively prosecute, fine and punish any domestic industries that deliberately bring in large blocs of illegal aliens to perform cheap labor.
  3. Require American Citizenship or A Limited and Rare Temporary Visa To Work a Legitimate Full Time Job: Cut people who are not willing to work and live here permanently off from the benefits of our society.

I add step four as a necessary remediant:

  1. Skin In The Game Laws:: These laws are deliberately designed to make America a less welcoming nation to people who refuse to assimilate and join the tribe, so to speak.
    1. All legal and governmental transactions and paperwork occur in English and only in English. There is no prensa uno para Espanol por favor (or Vietnamese, Urdu, Tagalog, and Gaelic).
    2. All public secondary education will take place in English only, using English language texts, audio-visuals and signage. ESL is now a personal problem, not an excuse for a taxpayer-funded entitlement program. No public school may legally enroll a child who is not the documented dependent of a documented US citizen or Temporary Visa-Holder.
    3. All international transfers of American currency can only be executed by documented US Citizens from accounts owned by documented US citizens located in American Headquarted banks to recipients who can be validly documented to be legal citizens of other nations.
    4. All hospitals and medical centers are legally obligated not to treat non-paying patients who cannot furnish proof of valid US citizenship. All health-care related business will take place in English only.
    5. US jails and detention centers will deport all identified non-citizens back to their nations of origin rather than feeding and housing them at Federal or local government expense.
    6. The total number of people who will be permitted to seek citizenship in the US is limited by conditions in the US Labor Market and requires demonstrated proficiency in passing a citizenship exam that is given in English only.

We face a crisis of survival here. Immigration destroys nations. It is already destroying ours, and neither party has taken it seriously since “Operation Wetback” in the 1950s. This is not fair to us or the immigrants, who are coming here believing that they can get away with it despite the risks of the passage itself.

Now that we have seen how insincere our politicians are and how the number of people wanting to pour into our nation is so large that it will obliterate us, it is time to act. Good actions are clear, strong, and reflect our needs before those of anyone else. To fix immigration, stop it from happening.

Why Reparations Cannot Be Separated From Repatriation

People on the Left resist repatriation because they fear the end of their votes-through-diversity agenda; people on the Right resist Reparations because they think it unfair to throw even more money at the diversity problem. Both will be proven wrong because the two are linked.

Reparations, to a business person, symbolize the end of a deal that was successful for a long time: Africa sold us their slaves, we used them as labor and kept them safer than they kept themselves or would be at home, and then we decided that slavery was immoral so we abolished it.

At that point, cleanup is needed, and not of the crass and horrific kind that many imagine. If you take a group of people from their native environment to a new place with the promise of supporting them, which slavery did, then when you end that support, you have to fix the problem.

That fix has two parts: first, you give them some starter capital to get their lives going again; next, you return them to their native environment where they can thrive. Our stingy conservatives of the past refused to acknowledge this and simply make a one-time payment and relocation, causing diversity to become an even bigger problem.

If we are fair-minded, we realize that whether slavery was an evil or not, it ended, and that one does not simply end a business or social relationship in an inappropriate condition. The greedy North, emboldened by victory in a war designed to seize Southern agriculture to enable vertical integration of Northern industries, promptly refused all responsibility for fixing the actual problem, which was African dislocation.

Every tribe — comprised of an overlap of religion, race, culture, ethnic group, and values system — needs the ability to control its own future. Under diversity, it cannot do that, no matter how many affirmative action bills we pass, blacks we make President, or brown emoji we make standard on our phones. Once blacks were freed, they were condemned to a life of servitude to a system which they could not support because it was not theirs, and which would never support them because their needs were different.

Now, I am writing this on a Right-wing site, and so most of you want to hear a simple characterization of reality. You want to hear about how those Negroes are ungrateful, racist, and generally doing everything they can to screw up our great democracy. However, the root of the Right is realism, and as a realist, I must point to the more nuanced reality: diversity will never work. It never has in history. It will destroy all groups involve. The problem is not the dusky people, but the diversity that binds different groups together in hostility.

As Western Europeans, we have had a unique approach to existence. We avoid the insect-like individualism of the East and the unselfconscious impulsivity of the South, even ducking the symbol-worship of ancient religious cults or the rationalization from the material of the atheists. We have our own path, and it starts with seeing reality not as something that merely is, but an outpouring of goodness, and life as a gift. That gives us the will to dig into its knotty problems and to try to improve them without violating the basic patterns that are inherent to life.

Since that is our approach, we know that we cannot just wish a problem away. We cannot make an empty moral statement like “blacks should pull themselves up by their bootstraps!” or “whites should die out for the sins of slavery!” Instead, we need to roll up our sleeves, get in there, understand the issue, and then find a reasonable fix. After that, we can fine-tune, but it all starts with having a plan that is both realistic and aims for the basic goodness that we see in life.

As argued here before, reparations-with-repatriation is the only fair and realistic response to the horrors of diversity. We can end diversity with all parties coming out ahead, and it will cost us less than ten more years of what we have done for the past five decades.

Legendary Pan-African Nationalist Osiris Akkebala writes convincingly of this same truth:

The Honorable Marcus Garvey was A Black Afrikan Afrika Nationalist Pan Afrikan in Divine Style, he hesitated not, when the need demanded Justice be the prime objective for Black Afrikan People and Justice For Black Afrikan people, is Freedom, and Reparation for our Enslaved Ancestors is Freedom for Afrika and Unity for Black Afrikan People, no if and buts about that Divine Truth, you either acknowledge that Divine Truth or ignore such a quality of Truth concerning the need of Black Afrikan people.

…So, to not be active with a Garvey like mind when making claim to be in a fight for Justice for Afrika and the Black Afrikan people, which will only come from the collecting of our Enslaved Ancestors Reparation and you have no leadership with a Garvey like Mind to Divinely inform you about what the Black Afrikan is entitled too and has a plan of how to get what is already yours, which is not equality with Lucifer the Human Being, but to get Freedom, Justice, and Independence for the Black Afrikan People, to be enjoyed in Afrika being for the Black Afrikan people.

When we talk about justice, we cannot use the simplistic logic that says that it is taking from one and giving to another to create the perception of equality. Instead, we have to use the older definition: placing each person in the circumstance that fits their needs so that none are unjustly harmed.

For African-Americans, life after slavery has been unpleasant to the point that we have constant race riots, ethnic conflict, and political discontent. The same will prove true of every other minority group. Since our ancestors got this one wrong, the only solution is to fix it, and that solution is reparations-with-repatriation.

Affirmative Action Deathwatch Intensifies As Cultural Wave Pushes Back Against “We Are All One”

Some ideas affect our minds like highly addictive drugs. Take equality: speak it to a room, and you instantly have a majority, because what it signifies is that everyone will be given the same social status and so will have access to things they desire that they do not merit.

If all men are equal, the beautiful girl might take home the scrawny nerd. If all minds are equal, the plodding Joe might have an idea of genius instead of the genius having that idea. If all social classes are equal, the poor can go to the high class shops and pretend to be lords and ladies of old.

Somewhere in all of us is the desire for power over our life circumstances, where we want to be king for a day despite being born a peasant. We want the Cinderella story, rising from rags to riches, or the Revenge of the Nerds experience, where what we are becomes arbitrary and only what we desire matters.

We call this individualism, and individualism is the basis of Leftism:

Liberalism has always been concerned with security, albeit the security of the individual; institutions, including the state, are all established and sustained by individuals and instrumental to their desires. Indeed, liberalism cannot be understood apart from its normative commitment to individualism. The tradition insists that all persons deserve, and it evaluates institutions according to how far they help individuals achieve these goals. Nor is liberalism anti-statist. Liberal theory has paid particular attention to the state as the institution defined by its ability to make individuals secure and aid their commodious living…Liberalism’s history can be traced from the proto-liberalism in the Reformation to the emergence of the social contract theory and neo-theories, as well as liberalism’s focus on increasing security.

You may have read this before or noticed individualism as the root of Leftism through egalitarianism which ultimately is a cover story for the selfishness of the individual. The individual wants to suffer no consequences for his desires and actions, no matter how greedy, selfish, or perverse they are, and so wants to abolish the threat of loss of social status — in the informal hierarchy of human rank — that occurs when other people notice that his actions are unrealistic, immoral, or just dumb.

Leftism (the root of “liberalism,” which is actually an attempt to tame the extremes of Leftism) defends the individual in his desire to play the game of civilization. An individual seeks to (1) not lose rank for his choices or opinions, (2) still be able to do whatever he wants especially when it results in externalized costs including loss of social order, values, or standards, and (3) conceal the fact that the first is cover for the second. This is why every scam artist since the dawn of time has come on with a message of unselfishness, universal acceptance, equality, pity, love, joy, art, wisdom, the divine, etc. They know how to hack the human brain: tell it that you are not doing what you are doing, then make it a partner in your duplicity so that they are afraid to attack you and afraid to back out. This is the core of Leftism.

Once you are roped into Leftism, however, you have joined a runaway train because “equality” is a concept that expands to fit all situations. At first, it means that you treat people the same when they come to court, whether rich or poor. Few have trouble with that, mainly because few are rich. Then it becomes a demand that we treat people by exactly the same process — bureaucracy, in other words — because this is fair since then no one receives an advantage. You can see how this would please a troupe of monkeys or herd of sheep; no one gets to the fruit or green grass first, so I have a good chance of winning the food lottery!

Over time, however, Leftism expands to crazy places. Give it another fifty years and you have denied the genetic differences between social classes, races, and ethnic groups; you have 75 genders including one for people who love blenders in a Platonic way but find colanders sexy in a breathtaking way; anyone who can prove that they or their group failed at anything can point to whoever succeeded and say, “That’s rightfully mine!” Yes, you have entered a crazy time, and — wake up! smack — it will destroy you, your descendants, your civilization, and everything you value including “muh freedom” and “muh Constitution” unless you destroy it first.

For the last sixty years, since the hippies took over in 1968, we have been a conquered nation. The founding group of Anglo-Americans were exiled and replaced with the Napoleon Dynamite rag-tag of Southern, Eastern, Irish, and Mediterranean European peoples. This group, elected for its SAT scores and degrees instead of its applied intelligence and force of moral character, ran the nation into the ground by chasing the ideological agenda of equality and ignoring other issues.

They ignored our rotting infrastructure. They ignored the collapse of our job market. They ignored the falling value of our currency, and the rising uncertainty as social order collapsed. Now neighbors are strangers, cities are wastelands, men and women are alienated from one another, and just about everything — public or private sector — seems to be run by incompetent bureaucrats who specialize more in grabbing headlines than being effective in a way that is also good. This nation has collapsed from within, and few dare mention it but everyone is thinking about it.

Their biggest single weapon and largest goal has been diversity, or the intent to bring in enough different groups that there can be no culture, standards, values systems, beliefs, genetic heritage, and behaviors in common in this nation anymore. They want to destroy all that is organic, or naturally arising from the circumstances of survival, and all that is connected to our heritage; they want to destroy these things so that they can replace them with Leftist indoctrination. How do we know this? They did it before: the French Revolutionaries were “internationalists” who appealed to all workers of the world, as were the Marxists, the Leninists, and finally we got to the Soviets who explicitly endorsed diversity and tried to make it work by shipping people around the USSR and “naturalizing” them. When that failed, the Russians — and their allies, the Chinese — began to slowly back away from diversity, all the while criticizing the US for its lack of racial equality.

That criticism may have crushed America and Europe. In a desire not to appear unfair to African-Americans and other minorities, these two continents contorted themselves to be accepting of those groups despite the massive cost of diversity. Diversity meant there could no longer be a right way to do anything; we had to accept however any group did it. This ethno-pluralism guaranteed moral relativism and after that, standards collapsed and people raced toward lowest common denominator behavior in sexuality, family, business, and even daily comportment.

Look at films or news reports from fifty years ago. Well-dressed people on streets, acting orderly, participating in shared rituals like church and cultural holidays, able to converse with each other intelligibly, and spending less time on trivialities like red tape, who’s offended today, and other drama, show us what our society could be. Instead, in 1965 we chose to go the diversity route so that the Left could have a permanent voting base, which it got because no minority group votes for Rightists in any significant number. Apparently, the Right slept right through this while fighting its internal battle over trying to work with the Left (cucking) or outright fighting it.

What the Left fears is exposure: once one person speaks of the bare realities of diversity, everyone will know it, and they will start repeating it. This will tear down the web — immigration, both legal and illegal; affirmative action; civil rights; hate crimes law; disparate impact; advertising featuring minorities prominently; miscegenation propaganda in schools — because the hidden truth about diversity will stand revealed. Trump realizes, at some level, that the hidden truth of diversity is that it is designed to replace the historical heritage of Americans with mixed-race people just so they vote Leftist.

Trump has made statements which disturb the Left but strike everyone else as correct. For example, he has pointed out that Leftists are using immigration as a weapon because our laws, based on affirmative action, cause us to give preference to these groups:

“Democrats are the problem,” he wrote. “They don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can’t win on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters!” he wrote.

…”You have to stand for something and you have to stand for safety and security of our country. We can’t let people pour in,” he said. “Maybe it’s politically correct or maybe it’s not. We’ve got to stop separation of the families, but politically correct or not, we have a country that needs security, that needs safety, that has to be protected.”

Trump has taken a stand against the affirmative action view, which holds that if someone is not “privileged” like we are that we owe them a redistribution of our wealth including national citizenship, by pointing out that affirmative action results in the needy many overrunning the few, as we see in Europe. He pointedly referred to the threat of America, like Europe, becoming a “migrant camp”:

The United States will not be a migrant camp, and it will not be a refugee holding facility. Won’t be. You look at what’s happening in Europe, you look at what’s happening in other places; we can’t allow that to happen to the United States. Not on my watch.

…But just remember: A country without borders is not a country at all. We need borders. We need security. We need safety. We have to take care of our people.

For now, “our people” means people legally here, but the backlash is spreading further as other conservatives wake from their Ichabod Crane-esque stupor and point out that what we are seeing here is population replacement, not merely ethnic restaurants, and wants to avoid fundamental transformation of their nation into a third world mixed-race state:

The existential question, however, thus remains: How does the West, America included, stop the flood tide of migrants before it alters forever the political and demographic character of our nations and our civilization?

The U.S. Hispanic population, already estimated at nearly 60 million, is predicted to exceed 100 million by 2050, just 32 years away.

…And Trump is not backing down. Monday he tweeted:

“The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition. Crime in Germany is way up. Big mistake made all over Europe in allowing millions of people in who have so strongly and violently changed their culture!”

…We are truly dealing here with an ideology of Western suicide.

The Left has paralyzed our brains with the notion of affirmative action because affirmative action style thinking is pure egalitarian thinking: we want all people to be equal, so take from those who have more and give it to those who have less. That way, everyone is equal and no one wants, which since we assume want is the basis of conflict, means that we can have “peace.”

Against this view a new outlook arises which states that we do not owe anyone else anything. We owe it to ourselves to succeed, and others can see what we did and emulate us. We need to stand on our own, not replace ourselves with guilt for how unequal the world is, has always been, and is apparently designed to be. Our best path belongs to ourselves and if we succeed at it, everyone benefits.

We want identities of our own. This does not mean political identities, like “Communist” or “muh Constitution,” but civilizational identities, where we can say that we are a people with a common heritage, shared values arising from our shared genetics, and a shared destiny in becoming what we were always destined to be. We cannot have this with immigration, diversity, affirmative action, and any egalitarian programs because those will always prioritize the Other over us.

A vast change stalks the West. Europe and America are slowly coming out of the stupor of the past fifty years. As the first layers peel away, we see the beginnings of what will be a long path of throwing out bad ideas and replacing them not with moral or ideological ideas, but realistic ones. From this we will emerge stronger, with the possibility of creating a great future for ourselves instead of merely surviving what has obviously become a dying system.

In Brazil, a Nation Rapidly Losing a White Population (Replaced with Black and Brown People), Meteoric Rises in National Spending on Public Safety Met With Similar Rise in Violence

Diversity is Not a Strength, it is the destruction of Civilization.

If the United States of America future is to be that of Brazil, why not take a look at the state of the latter nation in the present, so we can see a glimpse of our glorious, non-white tomorrow! [Brazil’s Spending on Public Safety Soared. So Did Violence., New York Times, June 11, 2018]:

RIO DE JANEIRO — Brazil’s homicide rate soared over the past two decades even as the state and the public sector greatly increased spending on public safety, Brazil’s government said Monday as it reported results of a rare study measuring the economic impact of violence in the country.

Brazil in 2018 is a reminder diversity, multiculturalism, multiracialism and a declining white population is a recipe for civilizational decline at a catastrophic level

The cumulative cost of crime — including estimates of the loss of productivity and the cost of policing and incarceration — amounted to more than 4.3 percent of Brazil’s gross domestic product in 2015, the most recent year for which comprehensive data was available, according to the report.

From 1996 to 2015, the cost of violence in Brazil rose to more than $138 billion a year, from about $54 billion, a level government officials called unsustainable at a time when several Brazilian states are unable to legally raise their spending ceiling and others are broke.

The government put the total cost of violence during those two decades at $1.937 trillion.

“The numbers are striking,” said Hussein Kalout, the special secretary for strategic affairs, the division of the president’s office that conducted the study. “You can’t have a prosperous society with high crime rates.”

With 62,517 violent deaths in 2016, Brazil reached a record-high homicide rate of more than 30 per 100,000 residents, according to the latest annual study that compiles law enforcement and health statistics. (In the United States that rate dropped to five homicides per 100,000 people from eight from 1996 to 2015.)

That study, which was released earlier this month, shows that black Brazilians make up a disproportionate and growing share of homicide victims.

While black or mixed-race Brazilians account for just over half of the country’s roughly 205 million people, they represented about 71 percent of homicide victims in 2016. Violence was the leading cause of death for Brazilian men in their early 20s, the annual study found.

The cost-of-violence study, for the first time, put an official price tag on a life cut short in its early stages.

For each homicide victim between the ages of 13 and 25, Brazil lost roughly $266,000 in productivity, the government concluded. The cumulative cost of lost productivity from 1996 to 2015 — during which the number of homicides rose to 54,000 from 35,000 — was roughly $218 billion. That amounts to about four years’ worth of health care costs, the country’s largest expenditure, at last year’s level.

Diversity, multiculturalism, racial amalgamation and a declining white population doesn’t exactly bring about a utopia, does it?

In the case of Brazil, we have clear-cut evidence diversity, multiculturalism, multiracialism and a declining white population is no strength, but a recipe for civilization disaster.

Universal suffrage is universal suffering. Lesson Learned.

Let’s Finally Have That (Honest) Conversation About Race And “Racism”

From an ambitious Reddit thread:

Whenever there is some sort of racial crisis, whether cops shooting a member of a protected minority group or a minority group burning down Los Angeles, public figures tell us we need to have a conversation about race and “racism.”

We should probably have that conversation now, since the topic has come up.

/r/sjwhate is an anti-SJW sub; social justice warriors (SJWs) are the participants in the activity of enforcing political correctness on the rest of us. Political correctness is censorship of language so that it forces us to change our thinking to be more pro-egalitarian, pro-LGBTBBQHIV+ and pro-diversity.

If we look through history, we can see thatpolitical correctness has an ancient origin:

With the establishment of the Revolutionary dictatorship, beginning in the summer of 1793, the local Jacobin clubs became instruments of the Reign of Terror. (In 1793 there were probably 5,000 to 8,000 clubs throughout France, with a nominal membership of 500,000.) The clubs, as part of the administrative machinery of government, had certain duties: they raised supplies for the army and policed local markets. Often local government officials were replaced with members of clubs. As centres of public virtue, the clubs watched over people whose opinions were suspect, led the dechristianizing movement, and organized Revolutionary festivals.

In the West, this was our first experience with thought control groups who would arrest you for saying a politically incorrect thing or associating with people who did. What did they do? Oh, the Reign of Terror:

With civil war spreading from the Vendée and hostile armies surrounding France on all sides, the Revolutionary government decided to make “Terror” the order of the day (September 5 decree) and to take harsh measures against those suspected of being enemies of the Revolution (nobles, priests, hoarders). In Paris a wave of executions followed. In the provinces, representatives on mission and surveillance committees instituted local terrors. The Terror had an economic side embodied in the Maximum, a price-control measure demanded by the lower classes of Paris, and a religious side that was embodied in the program of de-Christianization pursued by the followers of Jacques Hébert.

During the Terror, the Committee of Public Safety (of which Maximilien de Robespierre was the most prominent member) exercised virtual dictatorial control over the French government. In the spring of 1794, it eliminated its enemies to the left (the Hébertists) and to the right (the Indulgents, or followers of Georges Danton). Still uncertain of its position, the committee obtained the Law of 22 Prairial, year II (June 10, 1794), which suspended a suspect’s right to public trial and to legal assistance and left the jury a choice only of acquittal or death. The “Great Terror” that followed, in which about 1,400 persons were executed, contributed to the fall of Robespierre on July 27 (9 Thermidor).

During the Reign of Terror, at least 300,000 suspects were arrested; 17,000 were officially executed, and perhaps 10,000 died in prison or without trial.

In the United States, political correctness arose in the 1960s as our “intellectuals” (eckshually) adopted cultural ((((((Marxism)))))):

We call it “Political Correctness.” The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural ((((((Marxism)))))). It is ((((((Marxism)))))) translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical ((((((Marxism)))))) the parallels are very obvious.

If we compare political correctness to the Jacobins, the parallels are also very obvious: think solely in egalitarian terms or your life will be destroyed (and when they get enough power, you will be jailed and possibly executed without trial).

We are fighting a deadly serious war here. If we lose, our society goes the way of the Jacobins, Soviet Union, killing fields, and Red Guards in China. Everyone will be forced to parrot the official ideology and starve together as we wage war on those who disagree.

How does this relate to race? We should read Plato on why diversity exists:

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

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

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

Tyrants need foreigners (“from every land”) who are poor/dumb (“drones”) in order to cement their hold on power. This is what tyrants do: like Ophiocordyceps they take over a society and turn it into a vehicle for the power of the tyrant:

Fungi of the genus Ophiocordyceps — so-called zombie ant fungi — need ants to complete their life cycle. When an ant comes across fungal spores while foraging, the fungus infects the insect and quickly spreads throughout its body.

Fungal cells in the ant’s head release chemicals that hijack the insect’s central nervous system. The fungus forces the ant to climb up vegetation and clamp down onto a leaf or twig before killing its hapless drone. It then grows a spore-releasing stalk out of the back of the victim’s head to infect more ants on the ground below.

Tyrants turn civilizations into zombies who serve the tyrant and then are destroyed. If you look at most third-world societies, you see the remnants of this process: racially-mixed people who are generally dumb because anyone intelligent was a dissident and got killed off or driven out.

Race is the major weapon of the Left, and they intend to use it to destroy our societies. They will eradicate culture, actual learning, faith, heritage, and even the family. Their only goal is to have power, and they justify it by claiming to offer equality to everyone; since equality does not exist in nature, this gives them a blank check to seize total power and “socially engineer” us into perfect zombie drones serving the Left.

/r/sjwhate is not a pro-“racism” sub, but it’s most definitely not an anti-“racism” sub. We see “racism” as an illusion because it consists of two things:

  • Noticing differences between races, ethnic groups, and social classes;
  • Having a preference for your own race, ethnic group, and social class.

We are not a “white nationalist” sub, mainly because white nationalism is incoherent. Nationalism — remember, Imperial Japan was a nationalist society — means the belief that a nation is defined by its ethnic heritage. Japan for the (ethnically) Japanese, in other words, and the same for other nations: Nigeria for ethnic Nigerians, Germany for ethnic Germans, and Korea for ethnic Koreans.

We do not take a position on race other than *realism*, or noticing how reality operates and acting so that we are in accord with its structure.

This requires us periodically to *fail to deny* certain non-politically-correct facts, such as:

To post here, you need to be fearless about reality and observing patterns within it. One of those is that race, ethnicity, and social class are genetic categories not “social constructs.” This includes social classes within the “white” group, an inexact category that tends to mean people of unbroken Western European descent.

Those who oppose us want to censor reality itself and force us to act against it by changing the language we use. That is the end goal of political correctness and social justice, and we are the few who dare speak up against this creeping tyranny of our time.

Thank you for reading.

If social media is as I suspect, this will be roundly ignored because it is too complete for the nattering neurotics to attack, and drawing attention to it unearths too many possibilities that cordycepted Leftists — on Reddit, Starbucks baristas and Whole Foods checkers — would prefer to hide.

Populism Means Hierarchy Which Means The Intelligent Are Back In Power

We live on the edge of vast change. An older has died after fifty years of supreme power; now, it has revealed that it has failed. Even more, it has shown us that it was never sincere and that its ultimate goal is tyranny, or leadership that serves itself instead of the future of our people, our culture, and our civilization. That realization makes us turn toward those things again, rediscovering their value.

Even more ominous, we are about 230 years into a system — democracy — that usually fails at the 250 year point. Since the French Revolution in 1789, the fortunes in the West have fallen, when we look at social order, but our bank accounts have risen thanks to our reckless use of technology. During that time, we have plundered the globe and left it strewn with human waste and litter, with its natural ecosystems weakened.

During the same time we have lost much of our culture. Customs are dead, as are graceful interactions, and art and literature are pale shadows of themselves, mainly churning out self-obsessed navel-gazing instead of accurate and insightful interpretations of our world and our souls. Architecture is ugly. Our cities look third world, streaked in filth and wracked by constant low-level graft and crime.

In 1968, a coup took over the West: the Western European people were replaced by others who were “white” in the sense of having mostly European DNA, but the root of Western Civilization was broken through the adulteration found in Southern Europeans, Mediterraneans, Eastern Europeans and The Irish (need not apply).

Across Europe, traditional governments and attitudes were thrown out and replaced with a new form of Marxism — called by some “neoliberalism” — that combined free markets with high taxes to fund a socialist welfare state. This carried on what had been the preferred form of government after WW1 but had been interrupted by the reaction to it through Right-wing forms of it like fascism and National Socialism.

With the Nazis defeated and dead, the Soviets seeming to be winning the Cold War, and the West tearing itself apart about diversity and the inequalities of race, Western governments threw a bone to the Left and adopted a Leftist program, at which point the newly-empowered student rebellions in the US and France led the way to deposing the families that had formerly ruled the West and replacing them with a new, mixed-white population.

From 1968 to 2018 was but fifty short years, much like from 1789 to 1989 — the end of the Reagan era — was just two centuries. During that time, Leftism had advanced in power, and now, people were expecting results from those who had made Utopian promises. In lieu of those results came systematic failures, first with the race riots of the 1990s and then, during the Obama years, with an intensification of racial animus not its reduction.

Twenty years past 1968, the students who were in the twenties during the Marxist revolution found themselves hitting their forties and by the nature of turnover, rising into power across the board. This enabled them, under the wings of the immensely popular Bill Clinton, to implement the precursor to their 1960s regime: a multicultural, tolerant, pluralistic, and thoroughly bureaucratic state… in other words, Soviet Lite.

Where the cry had previously been for fairness, the new group now revealed exactly what their agenda had always been, and screamed out for equality in the same way that the French Revolution-era Leftists did. In response to this new egalitarianism, populism arose, which looking past its misnomer is a desire for the spirit of the civilization to lead, not mob rule.

“Spirit” of course presents a troubling term. It cannot be perceived equally, so naturally implicates hierarchy: those who understand it can implement it, like shamans of the political zeitgeist, and the duty of everyone else is to follow so that we can avoid the crisis of Leftism and its Full Soviet endgame looming over our heads.

Hierarchy represents an opposite to equality. In equality, all share the same importance and some things are delegated to a bureaucracy to administrate as an external force to the group, so it does not have a higher social status than its citizens. Once we start talking about spirit, purpose, values, standards, customs, or beliefs, equality has gone out the window because there is a right way and there is a wrong way to go about living, which means that the anarchic “every way is right as long as a person wants it” has become abolished.

We are now seeing a backlash against humanism, or the idea that every human is equally important and their choices are magically not just valid but sacred, as people turn toward the idea of social order as a replacement for equality:

Strip away the activist language and what emerges is a human rights movement forced to refight and relitigate battles it once thought won. Human Rights Watch is not alone in calling for an all-hands-on-deck response from its supporters. In its own 2017-2018 report, Amnesty International states: “Over the past year, leaders have pushed hate, fought against rights, ignored crimes against humanity, and blithely let inequality and suffering spin out of control.” But, like Roth, the authors of the Amnesty report conclude that “while our challenges may never be greater, the will to fight back is just as strong.”

…Implicit in the liberal human rights narrative is the idea that once binding legal norms are set, realities on the ground will eventually conform to them. It is a legal approach that simply has no place for German scholar Carl Schmitt’s idea of the law as inseparable from politics, rather than above it. As far as the human rights movement has been concerned, once what the writer Michael Ignatieff called the post-World War II “revolution of moral concern” got fully underway, it was a matter of when — not if — an international system based on human rights would prevail throughout the world. But for the moment, at least, Brexit, Donald Trump’s presidency, and the steady rise of China have shattered the human rights movement’s narrative that progress is inevitable.

For over two centuries now, the right answer to any question has always been to help the underdog. The poor, the marginalized, those of minority race, ethnicity, or religion become useful justifications for any policy. If it helps the poor, it wins; if it does not, it will be construed as going against the dominant idea of egalitarianism, and therefore rejected as part of The Enemy.

During the last five decades, but especially since the late 1980s when the Left formulated diversity as a strategy against Reaganism, the correct answer has involved race, ethnicity, and religion in a pluralistic context — where we “agree to disagree” and keep multiple belief systems within the same society — and how expanding diversity always means a good thing because it is helping the underdog.

However, with the rise of minority-majority populations, the notion of “diversity” lost its appeal. It turns out that Machiavelli was indeed correct and every population acts in its own interests, which is to be a meek victim until it has enough power to beat down the other guy, much as Leftists did. Our continued racial warfare under Obama was not the sign of diversity being reduced, but increased in intensity.

Radical change means the fall of the old order and the rising of the new, which in our case means that liberal democracy will have reigned from 1789-2019 and then passed into history, joining Communism, National Socialism, and Fascism as failed modern experiments:

In March, Mines was one of several national-security experts whom Foreign Policy asked to evaluate the risks of a second civil war—with percentages. Mines concluded that the United States faces a sixty-per-cent chance of civil war over the next ten to fifteen years. Other experts’ predictions ranged from five per cent to ninety-five per cent. The sobering consensus was thirty-five per cent. And that was five months before Charlottesville.

…Mines cited five conditions that support his prediction: entrenched national polarization, with no obvious meeting place for resolution; increasingly divisive press coverage and information flows; weakened institutions, notably Congress and the judiciary; a sellout or abandonment of responsibility by political leadership; and the legitimization of violence as the “in” way to either conduct discourse or solve disputes.

…“When you look at the map of red and blue states and overlap on top of it the map of the Civil War—and who was allied with who in the Civil War—not much has changed,” Judith Giesberg, the editor of the Journal of the Civil War Era and a historian at Villanova University, told me. “We never agreed on the outcome of the Civil War and the direction the country should go in. The postwar amendments were highly contentious—especially the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides equal protection under the law—and they still are today. What does it mean to deliver voting rights to people of color? We still don’t know.”

The United States chose diversity as the hill that it wanted to die upon. Following notions of American exceptionalism and attempting to be a “city upon a hill,” America wandered straight into Leftist theory, at which point “good” became defined as ever-expanding equality, an event which apparently coincided with the arrival of ethnic diversity — at first, non Western European people who were still Europeanish — and accelerated after WW2.

This forced equality to define itself as a collection of ideas — feminism, diversity, globalism, LGBT special privileges — which have in turn made it easy for a backlash to occur, because all a critic has to say is that they no longer believe in equality as an affirmative direction which we must take. In other words, equality cannot be the basis of policy; we hope for it, maybe, but we do not act to socially engineer it.

Populism rose out of this from the realization that if we are not equal, we need champions to correctly apply policy instead of relying on what the herd says, because in a large enough group of people, “equality” is the only thing that most will agree on. To re-state Robert Conquest’s Second Law, if an organization is not explicitly anti-egalitarian, it will become egalitarian over time, even if branded conservative.

Our egalitarianism started in a political sense, but then because of policies we adopted, became financial dogma as well. The welfare benefits states of Europe and America committed themselves to pay out much more than they could reasonably take in, and much of our political infighting has involved trying to limit the constant taking so that the economy does not suffocate.

This created a situation where we thought entirely in terms of backward-looking materialistic concerns. We need to pay for programs we created, so we find ways to do that, instead of thinking about what future direction we want and whether we can simply discard the failing or change direction. Europe imported its diversity to tax it and pay for the social benefits paid to those who were born at the time when WW2 was ending, and America followed.

The Civil War that appears in our future no longer divides regions, but types of people. Some cling to the old order and want to believe we are all equal; others have escaped the equality mental fugue state and now no longer want to go down that direction. These two extremes cannot compromise, guaranteeing that clashes will accelerate in the future.

Within the framework of egalitarianism, we can only think in terms of people as nearly identical units who require the right propaganda, indoctrination, and memorization of procedures to do more. As our fascination with materialism fades, so does our belief in human uniformity, and with it, hierarchy is re-appearing on the horizon of our consciousness.