Saturday, January 28, 2017

There Goes Grumpy Uncle Pat, Making Sense Again

As someone who grew up watching Pat Buchanan on political talk shows and then slowly starting to back away from him because he was just a little too extreme, it is now kind of humbling that he keeps being right all the time. When everyone else was writing off Trump, Buchanan was still banging the drum for The Donald. I used to snicker a little when I read his stuff, that Pat is just so out of touch!

Now he just keeps on making sense and it is kind of irritating. He is like the grumpy uncle who comes to family get-togethers and rants about politically incorrect stuff and is generally embarrassing but keeps being right. In his latest piece What a Wall Says to the World he writes:
It is not only that illegal migrants take jobs from Americans, that they commit crimes, or that so many require subsidized food, welfare, housing, education, and health care. It is that they are changing our country. They are changing who we are.
In 1960, we were a Western Christian country. Ninety percent of our people traced their roots to Europe. Ninety percent bore some connection to the Christian faith. To the tens of millions for whom Trump appeals, what the wall represents is our last chance to preserve that nation and people. 
To many on the cosmopolitan left, ethnic or national identity is not only not worth fighting for, it is not even worth preserving. It is a form of atavistic tribalism or racism.
Not only is (White) ethnic or national identity not worth preserving, it is a moral obligation for the Left to destroy it. What Pat fumbles here is that the Left doesn't hate all ethnic or national identity, just White and European ethnic identity. I get that he can't or at least won't say that at places like the American Conservative, although he implies it, but I am quite sure he knows this to be the case. I don't know if the wall will do what we hope it will but I do know that it is better than not doing anything at all while illegals overrun entire cities and eventually entire states.

It is not just a wall on the Mexican border but also includes the need to manage who comes to this country in general.

I wish more people would look at Europe and see what happens when the tiny Muslim population suddenly grows and starts feeling their power and expressing their resentment toward the very people who have given them shelter. Sure 100,000 extra Muslims in a country the size of the U.S. can kind of blend into the background but as we keep letting them in pretty soon they start to take on self-identity that is opposed to the land they live in. Dearborn, Michigan is a prime example where Muslims have a sizable population and are already trying to create a Muslim environment in the midst of America.

A nation without a concrete identity and without borders is a nation that is doomed. Do we really want to take everything that makes America a place people want to live and others want to come to and throw it away?

The SJWs Are One Of The Best Recruiting Tools We Have

Rod Dreher writing at paleo-con journal The American Conservative posted something I found fascinating, Creating The White Tribe. It is basically two comments from TAC readers that express exactly what I have found in my own experience and journey, that the constant White bashing by the Left is pushing many people who formerly would never have even entertained some of the ideas of the alt-right to start giving them serious thought. This is from the second excerpt (emphasis mine):
I remarked to my wife a couple of weeks ago that witnessing the left’s histrionics for the past several months has made me more racist, more sexist, and more homophobic than I ever would’ve been otherwise. Now, I don’t like that about myself, and I try to self-critique and keep in check some of the more knee-jerk impulses (I must strive for Christian charity above all else, of course), but that’s obviously way more than the left is willing to do. What the left doesn’t get is it’s turning people like me—reasonably moderate, go-along-to-get-along types—into full-blown reactionary radicals. Ideas that I once would’ve rolled my eyes at I’m now willing to give a hearing. I don’t think I’m some paragon of rational thought and self-control by any means, but it concerns me that if I’m willing at least to entertain some of these ideas (critically and deliberately), what about the people who embrace them more impetuously or because their circumstances seemingly leave them no other option? If the left wants to make this all about tribes, I’m siding with my own tribe. That means the Church above all else, of course, but it may come to mean some of those other categories, too. What follows from all of this cannot bode well.
Boy, that sounds familiar! I want to re-emphasize that second bold line above:

If the left wants to make this all about tribes, I’m siding with my own tribe.

Unilateral disarmament in this cultural struggle can only end in a diminished White race and eventual functional elimination of Whites as a distinct people. For some people that is a worthwhile goal but I think if push comes to shove, an honest answer from most White people would categorically state that this outcome is bad for them, their family and the world.

I am seeing more and more of this, people starting to ask questions and make statements that as recently as 3-4 months ago would have been unthinkable. To paraphrase Admiral Yamamoto, the SJWs and the "Women's March" have awoken the sleeping giant of White America.

We cannot be content to just allow our culture and even our people be eradicated. I hold little hope for the Trump presidency as a stand alone success because of the erratic personality of Trump but the election itself and especially the post-election response has done more to awaken White America than almost any other catalyst. The question now becomes how we respond to those who, like some of Rod's readers (and for every two who write in I bet there are hundreds more silently reading and watching), are starting to give a serious hearing to our ideas. We might never get another shot like we have now and if we blow it because we are too concerned with being clever or edgy or if we spend all of our time on in-fighting and territory struggles we could miss this opportunity and consign Whites to the ash heap of history. If that happens we will only have ourselves to blame.

Friday, January 27, 2017

The "What Would We Do Without Illegal Mexicans" Fallacy

The topic of immigration reform and enforcement is one that generates a lot of noise and not a lot of rational thought. What about the poor children, the families "ripped apart" (because of the illegal actions taken by the adults)?! Christians in America have a Gospel obligation to support illegal immigrants coming here and staying here (no we don't)!

Perhaps the most obscene lie we are told is that we absolutely need these Mexican and other illegal immigrants because they "do the jobs Americans won't do". If we didn't have illegals, who would pick our veggies and cut up steers in meatpacking plants and care for our landscaping and clean our offices? This is a great tactic, even if it is dishonest, because you get to suggest a greater work ethic for illegals and imply that current American citizens are too lazy to do certain jobs.

It is pretty clear that the U.S. does not suffer from a lack of low-skilled employable people to fill low-wage and less desirable jobs. While it is true that we are woefully unprepared to replace a lot of skilled trades jobs in the future thanks to the "everyone has to go to college and get a four year degree" nonsense, it is absolutely not true that there simply are not enough people to do the jobs that the illegal aliens do.

For example, under the gross incompetence and criminal malpractice of the Obama administration, we have seen a plummeting of the workforce participation rate. Granted some of this is due to a ballooning population of older Americans who are in retirement but by any measure there are just a lot of able-bodied Americans who are not in the workforce.

I wish this were because more mothers were staying home to raise their own children rather than subcontracting the often thankless task of parenting to others. It is not. There were tons of reports about a startling and dangerous trend that made the news in 2016. The New York Times published a story in October titled Millions of Men Are Missing From the Job Market.
Economists have long struggled to explain why a growing proportion of men in the prime of their lives are not employed or looking for work. A new study has found that nearly half of these men are on painkillers and many are disabled.

The working paper by Alan Krueger, a Princeton economist, casts light on this population, which grew during the recession that started in 2007. As of last month, 11.4 percent of men between the ages of 25 and 54 — or about seven million people — were not in the labor force, which means that they were not employed and were not seeking a job. This percentage has been rising for decades (it was less than 4 percent in the 1950s), but the trend accelerated in the last 20 years.
Think on that for a second. We have more than one out of every ten men of prime working age, between 25-54 which mostly eliminates college students and early retirees, some seven million men who are not doing anything and not trying to do anything. This is more significant than the unemployment rate which essentially covers people out of work but looking. These men are not even looking for work. That is an average of 140,000 per state. Many of these are probably on disability, and many of those legitimately so, but according to this report a lot are also hooked on painkillers.

So we have tens of millions of Americans of working age who are not working. I would be willing to bet that even when you allow for people who are legitimately disabled and those who work outside of the normal employment world and don't show up in the numbers, there are still millions of Americans out of work.

On the other hand, we have an explosion in the welfare state. It is without question that the number of Americans and the percentage of the population that are at least partially dependent on the government for some or all of their livelihood is growing. I would say it is also obvious that this is intentional but that is a different topic for a different day. According to a 2014 story from in 2014 over 100,000,000 Americans were receiving some form of welfare:
What did taxpayers give to the 109,631,000 — the 35.4 percent of the nation — getting welfare benefits at the end of 2012? 
82,679,000 of the welfare-takers lived in households where people were on Medicaid, said the Census Bureau. 51,471,000 were in households on food stamps. 22,526,000 were in the Women, Infants and Children program. 20,355,000 were in household on Supplemental Security Income. 13,267,000 lived in public housing or got housing subsidies. 5,442,000 got Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. 4,517,000 received other forms of federal cash assistance.
We have that many people who are on assistance of some sort but we are told that we need illegals because they do the jobs that "Americans won't do"? It makes sense that if people were not being provided with an incentive to not work they would be more willing to do jobs that illegals do because they wouldn't have much choice otherwise. People make choices all the time. If I am given the choice between a steak and ham sandwich, I am usually going to take the steak. If someone else is offered a choice between staying home to play video games while receiving government benefits or losing those benefits and having to earn a paycheck working in tough conditions in a meat packing plant, which do you think they will choose? I wouldn't choose that, for me work is part of my identity and I was raised to see work as something to be sought out, not avoided, but that is yet another example of what happens when we try to manage a nation using one set of principles (the European Protestant work ethic for example) when that nation has a large population that doesn't believe in such guiding principles.

So I don't care to hear that we need Mexicans to do work that American won't do. Americans will do those jobs if you take away the incentive for them to not do those jobs and in doing so they gain both valuable work experience as well as a sense of pride (hopefully). I know plenty of Americans who will do whatever they need to do to provide for their families. If I had no other choice I would cut up hogs or pick vegetables or clean office buildings if that is what I had to do to provide for my family, a sacred obligation and privilege I have as a father and husband. I would imagine that many other Americans who share a similar background would do the same.

We don't "need" illegal aliens to do the jobs Americans "won't do". We need to eliminate the means by which so many American seem to think that they can sit on the sidelines while the rest of us work to support them and while people violate our laws to work in their place. If the lower class constituency of the Democrats suddenly find themselves competing with illegals for jobs that they need to pay for rent, food and other necessities, I guarantee you the immigration conversation in this country would change dramatically.

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Shut Up White People!

At the DNC Chairman candidates forum, some guilty, militant quasi-White broad named Sally Boynton Brown says her job is "shut other white people down" when they have an opinion. That comment drew applause and nods of agreement. Tell me again two things:

a) Do Democrats ever want another White person to ever vote for Democrat candidates? Clearly not. Their entire political strategy is to pack the U.S. with non-White voters and get them to vote Democrat with the promise of "free" stuff paid for by White tax-payers. Wealthy White liberals who can afford to live in gated, guarded communities will be fine but the rest of White America will be left at the mercy of others, told they have to pay for every service and be grateful for the privilege.

b) Why should White people think that trying to placate racial minorities will ever lead to harmony when it is clear that only complete capitulation and self-subjugation by White people with ever satisfy the forces of multiculturalism?

If we don't stem the demographic doomsday coming soon, there will cease to be a voice for Whites in America and those of us who remain will be bled dry, financially at first and literally at some point.

Monday, January 23, 2017

A Bit About Me

I figured it wouldn't hurt to put some basic information about me to give the rare reader that accidentally stumbles onto this page some insight as to where I am coming from. Hopefully as my writing improves and I get on more solid footing more people will intentionally come here to read my ramblings so I expect this to be a "living document" as I work out what I am pondering and I plan on moving this to a perma-linked location.

Without divulging too much in the way of personal information, I am a middle-aged White guy who lives in the Midwest and I have been married for quite a while. We have a large family, more than pulling my weight in the quest to stave off our impending demographic disaster.

Here is why I am as of right now on some issues of note. I am still in the process of forming my positions on some of these areas that I previously didn't permit myself to think too deeply about.


Nothing really matters more to me than my faith. When I identify as a Christian, I don't mean that I go to church on occasion or that I was "baptized" as a baby or that I mark "Christian" on surveys. I mean that I approach every topic via the lens of Scripture and my faith must inform everything I believe. I not only own a Bible (actually quite a few of them), I also read it regularly.

This has also been my biggest stumbling block to work through as I begin exploring topics of nationalism and racial identity. This is way to complicated an issue to bullet point but it is something I have thought a lot about, well before I started blogging in this new venue. In short I think that a lot of the common platitudes thrown around in Christian circles on issues of race are driven by poor exegesis, general Biblical illiteracy and heaping helpings of misplaced White guilt.


Believe it or not, I don't hate anyone. That makes no sense in our culture. Unless you bow and scrape at the altar of multiculturalism, you obviously hate everyone. Regardless of the dichotomy of unquestioning acceptance and obsequiousness versus outright hatred that our culture demands we accept and form every conversation through, I simply don't hate people because they are a different race or ethnicity or religion. I can prefer the company of people I share a common heritage and common values with and not automatically hate people who do not have that in common with me. I can also dislike aspects of other groups without hating them and even say that some cultures are superior to others in objective ways. None of that is hate.

Racism is the contemporary boy who cried wolf. When everything and anything is racism, pretty soon most people see nothing as racism because it is a meaningless term. In fact the result has been the precise opposite of what the public intent of pummeling the American people with White self-loathing and collective guilt is supposed to lead to. Instead of creating a perfectly flaccid society that stands shame-faced in line to pay reparations to people who were never slaves by people who never owned slaves, this constant drumbeat has instead made people so tired of being called a racist that they stop believing it. I am prime example of this. By indirectly calling me a racist over and over the forces of forced multicultural compliance have actually immunized me from caring about it and now I feel free to speak my mind because it just doesn't matter if leftists think I am a racist. In other words, if they are going to call me a racist no matter what I do, unless I abandon every shred of dignity and intellectual honest, then why should I care what they think at all? Hunter Wallace put it well in his post, The Real Racists Suffer From Negro Fatigue:
Rod Dreher’s readers are clearly suffering from an advanced case of Negro Fatigue. What is the diagnosis of Negro Fatigue, you ask? It isn’t *hating* black people so much as it is a feeling of exhaustion. It’s like you tried and you are done. More than anything else, it is a feeling of total indifference among White people to whatever radical black activists like Ta-Nehisi Coates or John Lewis are agitating about on any given day. Are you rolling your eyes when you hear ‘Civil Rights Icon’ John Lewis or ‘Civil Rights Leader’ Rev. Jesse Jackson? If so, you are coming down with Negro Fatigue.
John Lewis & Co. have maxed out the ‘racism’ card. They have spent their moral authority. It won’t be transferable to the next generation of ‘civil rights leaders’ like Ta-Nehisi Coates, DeRay and Talcum X Shaun King. White America has too much Negro Fatigue after eight years of Barack Obama. The Alt-Right is only the canary in the coal mine.
That is pretty accurate. Many, many White people have long instinctively understood that blacks and Whites are different, just as Asians and Hispanics are different from us and from each other. We also largely know that there are some pretty troubling and common characteristic among blacks, including a propensity to crime, especially violent crime, lower average IQs, serious issues with lack of impulse control, a willingness to take from society rather than to contribute, and on and on. When I was younger we talked about these issues rather openly, if in an admittedly less than subtle and nuanced fashion but as we have grown older these issues, which are still at least as serious and common, are shoved into the shadows so that it seems perfectly reasonable for the Department of "Justice" to focus on alleged police misconduct and abuse of power in Chicago (which undoubtedly exists as it does in every manifestation of the Federal government) while at home White people read about the DOJ report and wonder why the primary concern is not blacks murdering each other by the hundreds. Of course we don't say anything out loud. Even in my own home for the longest time we would often make a comment when blacks were predictably involved in some heinous crime and then sort of try to pretend we didn't actually say anything at all.

All that to say that while I don't hate anyone for their race or ethnicity or religion, not hating them does not require me to unreservedly and enthusiastically embrace everything about them. I do expect to write a lot about race because it is the biggest divider and the most serious issue we face, even after 8 years of a (half) black President or perhaps it is more accurate to say because of 8 years of a (half) black President. The normalization of sexual deviancy is a close contender in second place but race is still the greatest issue, not least because the shifting demographics in the U.S. mean more racial tension in the coming years while there is only a finite pool of perverts, homosexuals, pedophiles, etc. although I will grant that they are increasingly bold, vocal and capable of extreme viciousness.

One last rather sweeping statement. I am increasingly convinced that the various races, especially blacks and Whites, inhabit different worlds while supposedly living in the same country and that this cannot be solved by diversity training but rather by accepting and embracing our differences even to the point of being separate from one another.


Like virtually all Americans, I come from a family of immigrants, in my case, as is the case with most White Americans, European immigrants. My family and my wife's family came here in the 19th and 18th centuries. They came here on boats, legally and in the light of day. They learned English and worked and raised families. They did not sneak into this country, hiding from the authorities because they knew they were breaking the law.

Immigration is a multi-faceted issue. I am all in favor of creating very serious, criminal penalties for employing illegal aliens, perhaps a very stiff penalty for each alien in your employ the first offense and then 30 days in the local jail for the second offense. I guarantee that meat packing plants would stop hiring illegal aliens in a heartbeat if the managers and HR staff were facing a month in jail and a felony conviction on their record for doing so. The flips-side is the difficulty in stopping border crossers who often get sent back again and again with no consequences or who end up in detention centers on the American tax payer's dime for extended periods.

One of the biggest obstacles to keeping illegals out of our country is the seemingly endless supply of low paying jobs that "Americans won't do" so there is always demand for these illegals. In fact it is often stated that since Americans "won't do" these jobs, cracking down on immigration means no tomatoes for American consumers, no landscaping around homes or businesses and Chicken McNuggets that cost $10 per nugget. What I have always found weird is that we have all of these jobs that Americans "won't do" but we also have millions upon millions of Americans that we pay to not work at any job at all. How many men and women sit on the couch collecting government benefits and yet would laugh in your face if you suggested working in a work environment like a meat packing plant? It seems to me that if we a) have a high demand for certain kinds of jobs, so high that people risk arrest, deportation and even death to come get those jobs and b) we have an enormous surplus of labor that is currently doing nothing, both problems cancel each other out and solve themselves.

I don't know of anyone even remotely serious that is suggesting that we halt all immigration or that we send back people who recently legally arrived here. The immigration position most people seem to advocate is that we get serious about screening people we allow to come here, enforce the law for people who have overstayed their permit and be sensible in the numbers of people we allow in. This is a sovereign nation with legal borders, a nation allegedly founded on the rule of law. People who have as their first act in this country willful law-breaking have no place in America. I am not sure what to do about people who keep coming back repeatedly after being deported. I know what I would like to do about it but that would probably be considered inhumane.

The "Jewish Question"

This is a tough one because I haven't done enough research on it. I know that the JQ is supposed to be a make or break issue for a lot of people on the alt-right, etc. but it interests me less than questions of race realism, the ethnostate, immigration control, etc. Part of my issue is that as a generally conservative, patriotic American and especially as a conservative Evangelical Christian, the Jews are supposed to be our greatest friends. Israel can do no wrong, the Jews are God's chosen people, etc. For someone to question the disproportionate influence of Jews on Western cultural institutions or to suggest that maybe Israel is occasionally too heavy handed is tantamount to shoving a little old Jewish lady into an oven.

Like I said this is one that I haven't had as much time to think about compared to race and immigration.

Family and Gender

The "nuclear family" or traditional family or whatever you call it is one of the foundations of the White European society and culture. As it has imploded so has our culture. While the Negro social structure has been a dumpster fire since well before Daniel Patrick Moynihan's infamous report, more and more we are seeing White Americans adopting the same pattern of single mothers, deadbeat dads, generational dependency and general sneering dismissal of the importance of family. Girls raised by single mothers getting knocked up and becoming single mothers, grandparents raising grandkids, etc. are all symptoms of a sickness in our culture. Make no mistake, this is not unintentional. The effort to dumb down our society, to emasculate men and de-feminize women, to subsidize behavioral choices that were culturally shameful a few generations ago, the effort to separate children from the influence of their parents by storing them in government run propaganda camps/feedlots called public school and pushing moms into the workplace, all of this is a program designed to rot the core of our cultural foundations. Having said that, the greatest force for undermining the family is not public schools or atheism or feminism. It is self-emasculating men who refuse to lead their families. We have men like that, simpering and soft men who creep around our society and their own homes like house elves at Hogwarts, in spades. We need more men who act like men, like husbands and like fathers.

If the Alt-Right fails to champion the White family, it will be doomed to be just another flash in the pan movement.

Gender is not something malleable or subject to personal choice or whim. It is the most basic biological fact as even a cursory study of the natural world would confirm. Likewise human sexuality is clearly defined, and is binary. With rare physiological mutations aside, there are men and there are women. The basic survival and perpetuation of humanity depends on this, it is how we were created and how we flourish. Homosexuality, transgenderism, pedophilia, the entire universe of sexual deviancy that denies basic human created sexuality and replaces it with perversions that at their essence deny the created order subvert and degrade the essential building blocks of European culture and it is therefore no surprise that family and traditional human sexuality are areas of life most under assault by the progressives and globalists who want consumer sheep instead of free men and women.

This is why I don't get the infatuation about Milo. Milo is amusing because he is so un-PC and makes liberals nuts because he is a protected class but I can't see how embracing him serves the cause. He is sort of like a court jester, he makes us laugh now and then but you wouldn't want him to marry the princess (or prince in this case). Anyway, if we lose the White family, the party is over. A culture with lots of White degenerates is not sustainable and not remotely appealing.

The Ethnostate

This is more of a placeholder because I need to think a lot more about this issue and read a lot more before I can start to make a reasonably informed opinion on it.

So that is just a few of my initial thoughts. More to come!

Sunday, January 22, 2017

After We Deport The Illegal Aliens We Should Deport The "Celebrities"

Washed up slut-rocker Madonna was out trying desperately to show she is still relevant after all of these years at the Angry Liberal Chick Stampede For Abortion And Lesbianism yesterday in Sodom Washington D.C. Her entire claim to fame over the years came from being overly dirty and skanky, a talented singer who rose to fame and fortune not because she was talented but because she mixed her talent with tawdry lyrics and suggestive music videos. White middle class girls in the 80's could feel rebellious and naughty by listening to her music, just like White middle class boys in the 80's felt tough and edgy by listening to rap from N.W.A and Ice-T. Over the years she has become increasingly irrelevant as new pop tarts out slutted and skanked her, first singers like Britney Spears with her school girl outfits and then Miley Cyrus who performs simulated (I think they are simulated) sex acts on stage. At 58 and charging fast toward 60, Madonna can't keep up because she is just too old and unattractive these days so she resorts to the old female celebrity stand-by, shrill political comments. Yesterday she said something that if Toby Keith had said when Obama was inaugurated (did you know he was our first black President? Probably not, no one ever mentions that), Keith would have ended up in jail:
"Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House. But I know that this won't change anything."
So she doesn't blow up the White House, not because it would be wrong as the White House belongs to the American people and murder and property destruction is wrong, she doesn't bother because it wouldn't change anything. Gotta hand it to those progressives, they are so incredibly tolerant!

The contrast in media coverage is predictable. Just a google search of "Madonna" gives you this (as an aside, I feel like I should open an incognito window and get a penicillin shot afterward if I am going to google Madonna):

Yes, very powerful Rolling Stone. It is obviously edgy and brave to say exactly what people who adore you want to hear.

This comes after the Inauguration itself where thugs and unemployed nobodies with nothing better to do struck a blow for democracy by breaking some windows and sucker punching Richard Spencer before running away. Nothing says brave freedom fighter like some neutered "man" wearing a mask, hitting someone who isn't looking and then running away before Spencer knew what happened. Joke is on that guy, nothing he could have done would have given Richard more free publicity and probably a lot of page hits than hitting him on camera. It is weird how virtually all of the violence during the last election came from peaceful progressives and was inflicted on violent, intolerant people on the Right.

On the other hand President Trump tweeted this message this morning:

How odd. I thought Trump and his supporters were a threat to democracy and yet they are the ones being attacked in the street, women being spit on and attacked by other "women" at a "Women's March", people throwing stuff at ball attendees or punching people in the streets or breaking windows and setting cars on fire.

If I didn't know better, I might think that Trump and people on the Right, from neo-cons to Alt-Right folks, were the ones who were engaged in civil debate over actual ideas and the open-minded, tolerant, intellectual progressives were the ones trying to cause civil unrest and overturn the results of a perfectly legal election. That can't be the case though as everyone knows progressives are kind and loving and people on the right are all just wannabe Nazis.

Friday, January 20, 2017

Good Bye and Good Riddance

I freely admit that 8 years ago I watched Obama take the oath of office and felt a little thrill of assuaged White guilt. Look kids, our first black President! That has worn off as I realized that a) I don't have any responsibility for slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, etc. and as such I don't have any collective guilt and b) that events of the past are complex and in no way excuse terrible behavior today or change simple facts.

What I also know now is what became readily apparent very soon after Obama took office and has been our reality ever since. He has been an unmitigated disaster for the United States and there are lots of dead brown people in the Middle East and dead black men in Chicago who probably aren't hugely impressed with hope and change.

Just fiscally, our debt is nearly doubled and about to pass $20,000,000,000,000 and in return for that we get crappy education, a billion rules from self-important career bureaucrats, a ton of new food stamp recipients. Nothing was done to address the unfunded mandates or runaway spending or bloated, self-preserving bureaucracies.

He has emboldened perverts and deviants of all stripes. When he took office, men who sodomized other men for recreation were not able to get "married" nor were butch women who hated men able to do the same. Deviants men who liked to dress like women being able to use women's locker rooms and bathrooms wasn't an issue. If Hillary had replaced him, who knows what perversions would have been mainstreamed next? Pedophilia? Polygamy? Bestiality? The sky would have been the limit for the sexual fringes.

His incompetent and incessant meddling in foreign affairs gave us the spectacle of Benghazi and four dead Americans left to die horrible deaths. The "Arab Spring" has replaced dictatorships with chaos. Thanks to Obama and his sycophantic buddies in European capitols, the homeland of White European Americans is being overrun with hordes of Muslim infiltrators who are making it unsafe for White women to walk the streets in many cities and still Obama clamors for more. We have thousands of troops still in Afghanistan and Iraq and who knows where else fighting and dying a holding action until the inevitable surrender and return to power of the Taliban and other Islamic terrorists.

Lawlessness runs rampant in many of our cities as criminals have become emboldened by Obama's rhetoric. Black lives, we are told, matter but only if those lives are lost in the very rare occasions when a White cop shoots the black men, and typically that happens while the black man in question is armed and/or in the middle of the commission of a crime. Obama's hometown is a war zone with a couple of murders on average each day.

Race relations in general in this country are at a low point since the "Civil Rights Era". Far from a unifier, Obama proved himself to be a divider and a champion for reducing the White majority. We were badgered with White guilt and accusations of racism at every turn.

All in all, the last eight years have been a horror show for real Americans and especially for White men. I don't know for sure what the next four years hold for America and particularly for White men in America (i.e. the people who built this country) but it certainly can't be any worse.

Good riddance to Barack Hussein Obama, the man who did the unthinkable and toppled Jimmy Carter from his perch as the worst American President in modern history.

Monday, January 16, 2017

The Delicious Irony

So you might have noticed that today is Martin Luther King Day. It is also the launch date of, the new/relaunched venture of Richard Spencer, Daniel Friberg and Jason Jorjani. I am sure it is just a happy coincidence that this happened on MLK Day....

Our Multicultural High Holy Day Arrives!

It is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in America and all good Americans are duty bound to post some variation of a handful of safe and inspiring quotes from "Dr." King to show how aware they are of the pervasive nature of racism, and by implication their own guilt even if they have never discriminated against a black, and they absolutely cannot mention how irritated they are that the mail is not delivered, the banks are closed and their kids are not in school.

In America you can criticize anyone. You can be critical of the pope. You can be critical of the President, even to the point of fomenting insurrection and denying the electoral process like "Civil Rights Icon" John Lewis. You can be critical of entertainers and of sports figures, political figures and clergy.

You cannot be critical of Martin Luther King, Jr.. Not ever. You cannot bring up his alleged but pretty well documented marital infidelity. You cannot mention his proven plagiarism on his doctoral dissertation (thus my scare quotes around "Dr." when referring to King. If he had been White, he almost certainly would have faced some serious academic sanctions). You cannot bring up his calls for an early version of reparations. You can't bring up his quotes that talk about race riots and excuse the violence with "Yeah they are bad...but...racism." You cannot talk about his anti-capitalist positions. No, all you can really do is post quotes from his "I have a dream" speech, as if that is the only thing he ever said and is most representative of his thought. I actually prefer the unfiltered MLK. I think he was mostly wrong on most issues but at least the unfiltered King is a real person, not this phony media creation that can do no wrong. The real King was a reasonably intelligent guy and a pretty powerful orator but was deeply flawed as a person and tragically wrong on many issues. Even worse is the way his legacy has been monetized and exploited by his sycophantic "friends" following his death.

I wonder what Mr. King would think today? Would he still be blaming black crime rates on racism? Would he be like so many other race hucksters today who think that even though we have a (half) black President for another week, the guy who has been President for 8 years in America, racism is still the primary reason blacks are poorer and more prone to violent crime? Would he think that naming just one more street after himself or putting a Negress on a gold coin that most black women can't afford and will never see (I can't afford one either, even if I were so inclined to buy one) is going to somehow make things better? I doubt it. The rhetoric used by King and perfected by his carrion eating successors is based on "goals" that are intentionally amorphous enough that you can never actually attain them. This is by design. If you are always chasing the rabbit of "equality" that you will never, ever catch, knowing full well that people have never been equal anywhere, at any time in history, you can squeeze money from other people, productive people, without end. It is a perfect racket. People like Al Sharpton and Jesse "I cradled MLK's head in my lap while he died" Jackson have been milking guilty White Americans for decades, using guilt and extortion to leech hush money from Whites while at the same time doing absolutely zero to help their own people. Why should they help blacks? Every black who becomes self-sufficient is one less black they can marshal in boycotts or marches or riots. In other words, a self-sufficient black is of no use to them and is actually a hindrance. I would hazard a guess that people like Sharpton and Jackson were secretly kind of bummed when Obama became President because it meant they would have to work a lot harder to keep the "White man holding us back so he owes us money" narrative going and if there is anything Jesse Jackson hates, it is having to work.

So while I loathe the murder of King for a bunch of reasons, I also don't think that if he had not been assassinated we would see a lot of difference in America. There is simply too much money to be made by perpetuating the "racism is the cause of all of our problems" narrative. I am convinced that most of the social tension that we hear about and react to in the mainstream media is largely ginned up and to find out what is really happening you need to follow the money. That is also why we only get a carefully scrubbed and sanitized media creation of King. He is far more useful and of course far more profitable as a dead martyr to be molded and shaped into a money making machine than he ever could have been alive and talking.

Saturday, January 14, 2017

AmRen Reading List For The Alt-Right

Tons of media/social media outlets put out book lists every year. Most are not terribly useful and from most of the "mainstream" media outlets the books are going to be selected as much for how "diverse" and "multi-cultural" their viewpoints are as for how well written or useful they are. American Renaissance just put out their own list from a group of like-minded people, An American Renaissance Reading List. Not a terribly catchy title for the list but the content is pure gold, especially for people like me new to the cause. I like that it includes both fiction and non-fiction selections from most contributors. I tend to read a lot of non-fiction and the fiction I do read is mostly either worldview neutral or at least partly written from a hostile worldview so I am looking over the fiction suggestions to find some outlets for less serious reading that is still set in a correct worldview framework. I would welcome additional recommendations, especially for engaging fiction works, that will help me to continue to boldly stride down the rabbit hole.

I cannot overemphasize the importance of reading. On the Alt-Right or New Right or White Nationalist or race realists or whatever you call yourself, one basic fact is true and needs to be remembered. We have better ideas and we have the facts. The globalists, the race-deniers, the unlimited immigration evangelists, the leftist state slaves have nothing but emotion and misplaced anger so countering that can be important with equal energy but of at least equal importance is having better intellectual arguments that we have thought through. The screaming, violent leftists get the coverage on TV but when it comes down to one on one conversations on those rare occasions when you get a shot at someone who is not going to reject your line of thinking out of hand, you had better have your thoughts in order. Just spouting off about blacks being violent or that the Jews are behind it all is not going to get you as far as an argument where you have obviously thought through the big picture and anticipated the counter-arguments. There are both methods on display among the alt-right, from the more intellectual arguments from Jared Taylor, Kevin MacDonald and to an extent Richard Spencer to the more Wild West world of Gab, Twitter, YouTube, memes and other full contact arenas. It is necessary to engage in both worlds. We cannot permit social media to be a single viewpoint megaphone as so many fellow citizens consume social media in such enormous and typically uncritical volume. Our voices need to be out there pointing out the hypocrisy, the foolishness, the sheer stupidity and often that means mocking and trolling the hordes of unwashed angry feminists (redundant, I know) and effete, emasculated "men" craving the approval of women who hate actual men. It is obvious that our presence on social media is a threat because so many leftists are trying to hard to silence any dissenting thought. On the other hand we also need to be intellectually engaged to show those who assume that race realists, nationalists, etc. are all high school drop out angry white yokels who rant on social media when the Oxy wears off.

Check out the list above. Share on social media and elsewhere books you find intellectually stimulating and useful. Recommend good books to friends. Challenge people to read outside of their comfort zones. Winning minds is as important as winning hearts and as someone new to the club I was pleasantly surprised by how sound and intellectual so much of the material published on "our side" truly is.

Friday, January 13, 2017

The U.S. Treasury Has Solved Racism!

Well, time to take down the blog, disband the alt-right and for Al Sharpton to get a real job like he has always wanted (just kidding that will never happen)! The U.S. Mint is going to start minting one ounce gold coins with "women of color" imprinted on them, replacing racist White gal Lady Liberty. In case you were unclear, calling black women "women of color" is OK but calling them "colored women" is not. The more you know....

You can feel the black on black crime rate in Chicago and Baltimore going down already, can't you?

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, nearly a quarter of blacks in America are in poverty. So what better way to help "combat racism" than to put "women of color" on one ounce gold coins? As of yesterday an ounce of gold was selling for around $1200. I am sure that tons of "women of color" will line up to fork over $1200 for a coin instead of, oh I don't know, maybe paying rent or buying food or buying a new iPhone get the picture. So who exactly is going to buy these coins?

Rich White coastal liberals of course! Just think, you can buy gold coins as an investment and then during a conversation about how awful Trump and those dirty people in the Midwest are over white wine at a fabulous party with other rich White coastal liberals, you can drop a comment about buying the new "women of color" gold coin all casual like. You can get all sorts of leftist street cred for checking your "white privilege" and the quiet admiration from those same liberal friends for investing because nothing is really more important to rich liberals than to stay rich, especially to be richer than those dirty people in the Midwest who voted for Trump and minorities that you keep as far away from you and your family as possible.

I feel really good about this move, I always knew that the Federal government could solve racism through meaningless gestures.

Thursday, January 12, 2017

2017 Does Promise To Be Great...But....

Jared Taylor of American Renaissance fame published a brief video looking back at 2016 and forward to 2017 with a great deal of optimism. Check it out, it is only about 5 minutes long:

I agree with most of what he says, especially as it pertains to Eastern Europe. As I think through the idea of a white ethnostate, I am sorry to say I am not sure how it would happen on the North American continent because of demographic trends and the general self-emasculation of so many North American "men". But Eastern Europe shows a great deal of promise in places like Hungary, the Czech republic and Poland given their reasonable stance toward "immigrants" who want to subvert their culture, rape their women and/or just kill them (see for example Hungary Looks to 'Sweep Away' Soros -Linked Organizations) in addition to their existing demographics that are not on a downward slide toward White minority. It is ironic that as someone who grew up in the last twenty years of the Cold War with fallout shelter signs in my elementary school that I now look with hope at the former Warsaw Pact nations for the future and preservation of European culture.

Back to the video. As I mentioned, while I agree with much of what he said and I also agree that it is cause for celebration and optimism, I also think there is a great deal of need for caution. 2016 was the year that the alt-right exploded into the mainstream of American conversation, even when that exposure was usually peppered with dire warnings from mainstream media sources and staunch "conservatives" alike. Now that more and more people like me are taking the red pill and starting to more openly discuss formerly taboo topics you can be sure that the ponderous and putrefying but still powerful forces that dominate our current "culture" are going to turn their attention to killing this baby in the womb. I see a few serious issues that threaten to undo a lot of the progress that has been made to date. As I write this I am deeply aware of the fact that I am a) very new to the movement and b) have a lot of unlearning to do. But here goes anyway:

1) Attacks from the media

You can be sure that the mainstream media, now in open revolt and in declared war against Trump and more broadly against White America, is going to pull out all of the stops to sow dissent among the alt-right, White nationalist/identity, anti-globalism, "anti-immigrant" groups. Even more so, I see the media doing their best to keep people away from the alt-right and others by planting seeds of fear in the mind of "normies" and even among groups like libertarians, paleoconservatives and others who might be sympathetic to some positions and likely would be sympathetic to others if exposed to resources and networks. Especially of concern is the need for networks beyond social media. No one, at least not many people, want to feel like some lone crazed nut banging out screeds in his basement. We want to feel like we are part of something. My positions on immigration control, on recovering White European identity, racial consciousness, etc. are pretty meaningless in a vacuum. So expect the worst to be showcased and to never, ever, get a fair hearing.

2) Infighting

As a result of the media attacks on the movement and if we are honest some of the prickly personalities in the movement as well, infighting is a major issue. I have seen this in groups like Reformed Christians who seem to often be more concerned with purging insufficiently Reformed people out of the church than in reaching unbelievers. The same seems true with some of the purity tests, "I'm the real alt-right!" stuff I see a lot of, even as new as I am. Calling people who are not 100% with you "cuckservatives" might get a laugh and a lot of the time, especially with neo-cons and establishment Republicans, it might be true but if everyone who is not ideologically pure enough for you is your enemy, you pretty soon will find yourself being completely right and completely alone. I am not saying that people who support one issue but are dead wrong on everything else are compatriots and part of the movement, they can be allies of convenience on certain issues while there are some non-negotiable issues that need to be adhered to but someone who is with you on 90% of the issues is not your enemy and in fact with time and conversation can get even more on board. As people come to our webpages and read what prominent people write they are going to decide to go back to Fox News or keep reading in very short order. Let's not get so bogged down with our purity tests that we just look like a bunch of squabbling children who don't like Mexicans.

3) Moving past propaganda to practicality

Memes are easy, trolling is easy, talking to an echo chamber is easy. But seeing real progress taking place in substantive ways is much more difficult. Yippee Trump got elected, yippee Nationalist leaders are gaining ground in Europe but now what? That is where it seems things get kind of hazy. Some of the stuff I am passionate about, like taking more control of our White demographic destiny, are going to take a lot of time. The public leaders of the movement need to lead by example by having families. With more than 2.5x the average family size I did and am doing my part! This is actually one of the biggest issues I see for the future. What does this movement do for the next 2-4 years? What are the goals? Maybe this has been answered elsewhere and I haven't seen it yet but it often seems as if the mainstay of the alt-right is caught up in day to day stuff, responding to things that have happened in the latest news cycle instead of more "big picture" questions. Again, maybe (probably?) this has been addressed elsewhere but I haven't come across it yet because I am just as guilty many days of getting caught up in the daily news cycle.

That is a less than comprehensive list, just some off the cuff thoughts I had and banged out without putting a lot of effort into it. I am looking forward to 2017 in a way that I haven't in a long time. For many years I have watched the slow crumbling of our culture accelerating and it seemed as if no one cared but my wife and I. Today it is clear that a lot of people care about the future of our country, of our European culture and of our race. That alone would be an encouragement. Now we need to get past January 20th and the euphoria that will bring to many of us and prepare to go to war like we never have before. What we have seen coming out of the dominant cultural instruments of the day over the weeks and months since the election and even since the infamous and asinine "alt-right speech" of Hillary Clinton in August are nothing compared to what we will see in the next year. If you are serious about what you say, you had better be ready to get your nose bloody because this is a fight, quite literally, for dominance and for survival.

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

A Great Twitter Tool

Some super nice folks at a group that is looking for "500 Nazi Scalps" took the time to compile a list of the top 500 alt-right or otherwise politically incorrect Twitter accounts (i.e. "Nazis" and "white supremacists") and put them into a spreadsheet, even sorting them by number of followers. It has been an incredibly useful list for me, I have been copying and pasting the Twitter users and following anyone they have on their list but they compiled such a comprehensive list that it is taking me some time to get all of them followed. It is quite encouraging that they managed to come up with 500 Twitter users they apparently hate with over 1000 followers each, all the way up to over 23,000 followers for VDare. Anyway, download the spreadsheet and be sure to follow anyone on the list you are not already following. Thanks again for making such a useful spreadsheet!

But It Won An Art Contest!

In a city renowned for petty squabbles over silly crap, there is yet another round of foolish nonsense involving a painting hanging up in the U.S. Capitol that depicts police officers as swine and of course clumsily trying to reinforce the false narrative that cops just randomly shoot Negro youth. It appears to especially be trying to link the case of the thug Michael Brown in Ferguson, namely that he had his hands up leading to the "Hands up, don't shoot" nonsense which was conclusively proven to not be true but which still appears in the media and entertainment world incessantly because it is a convenient tool to slander White cops.

The painting was put up by Representative Lacy Clay, a black Congressman from Missouri allegedly because it won an "art" contest in his district. The picture is poorly done and about as subtle as a sledgehammer but that is what passes for art today, just as what goes on in Hollywood is considered "acting". Anyway three times now Republican Congressmen have taken the painting down, alleging (correctly) that it is insulting to the very police who keep people like Congressman Clay safe in the Capitol. As of this writing three different White congressmen have removed the painting and taken it back to Representative Clay's office, Representatives Hunter, Rohrabacher and Lamborn. Representative Clay apparently wants the Capitol police to file charges against Hunter, the original Representative to take it down, but shockingly the Capitol police have little interest in taking sides in a dispute where one side thinks they are properly depicted as pigs. Congressman Clay and other colored members of the Congressional Black Caucus protest that this is "blatant censorship" and after all it is just art:
Clay insisted he is not “anti-police” and said he “does not agree or disagree with the painting” -- arguing his intent is to defend the First Amendment rights of the 18-year-old artist, David Pulphus.

He argued the artist’s world view has been shaped by the “animalistic” behavior of police officers, particularly the recent, high-profile cases in which unarmed black males died in confrontations with police.
So the police act "animalistic" but the same is not true of Michael Brown who thuggishly robbed a much smaller store owner and then attacked a cop after being told to stop walking down the middle of the road. Who is really acting like the animal, the people who do stuff like Michael Brown and who shoot each other thousands of times in places like Chicago, or the cops who have to deal with them day in and day out, patiently and with great caution? The painting is clearly politically motivated and it is not a work of art but a childish provocation at the police. I wonder if Representative Clay would be so quick to defend a "work of art" hanging in the Capitol Building if it depicted black members of Congress as gorillas attacking each other or perhaps assaulting white women? I am no art critic but I would imagine such a painting wouldn't pass muster from Representative Clay. I also wouldn't want to see such a painting in the Capitol Building or really anywhere else for that matter.

You might wonder who this Lacy Clay fellow is? Well he is the son of William Clay, Sr. and seems to have simply inherited his father's congressional seat. Clay, Sr. held that seat for over 30 years and then his son stepped right in after Sr. retired. Never let it be said that the Democrats don't have nepotism down to a science. His son William Clay, Jr. aka Lacy, apparently graduated from college and was immediately elected to the Missouri state house, then the state senate and finally to the Congress. In case you are keeping score at home that means he has never had a real job since graduating from college. Clay won re-election in 2016 with over 75% of the vote.

Lacy Clay rousing the rabble
Anyway this is the same Lacy Clay who once told an effeminate Jewish liberal Congressman from a majority black district that he couldn't be a member in the Congressional Black Caucus cuz whites are not allowed.
As a white liberal running in a majority African American district, Tennessee Democrat Stephen I. Cohen made a novel pledge on the campaign trail last year: If elected, he would seek to become the first white member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Now that he's a freshman in Congress, Cohen has changed his plans. He said he has dropped his bid after several current and former caucus members made it clear to him that whites need not apply.
"I think they're real happy I'm not going to join," said Cohen, who succeeded Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., in the Memphis district. "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in. You need to be invited."
Cohen said he became convinced that joining the caucus would be "a social faux pas" after seeing news reports that former Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, had circulated a memo telling members it was "critical" that the group remain "exclusively African-American."
Other members, including the new chairwoman, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., and Clay's son, Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., agreed.
"Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. ... It's time to move on," the younger Clay said. "It's an unwritten rule. It's understood. It's clear."
The bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, a House aide said, but no non-black member has ever joined.
Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who is white, tried in 1975 when he was a sophomore representative and the group was only six years old.
"Half my Democratic constituents were African American. I felt we had interests in common as far as helping people in poverty," Stark said. "They had a vote, and I lost. They said the issue was that I was white, and they felt it was important that the group be limited to African Americans."
According to the Wikipedia article, Clay also said "Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept — there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives." Notice his dad was of the same opinion.

Now unless you are a properly subservient, "woke", self-loathing white you might be thinking that this sounds like racial exclusion and somehow shouldn't be OK. It almost sounds like segregationist policies from the bad old days. In fact his comments about not joining his little racially based leftist social club unless you change your skin color might seem to be the precise opposite of what MLK said, at least what he said in one highly publicized speech. You would be right.

But in 2017 that doesn't matter. Blacks can choose to associate only with other blacks for black self-interest and that is OK but Whites cannot do the same because of institutional racism and White privilege and a myriad of other reasons that serve to convince Whites to not be interested in White interests. Blacks can depict cops as pigs and it is art but if you were to depict blacks as gorillas that would not be art and would be racist. Thanks to the Obama legacy of 8 years of promoting racial strife, this is where we find ourselves. The real question is, what do we do about it?

(For more on the dishonesty of Representative Lacy Clay, see this article from Thomas DiLorenzo, My Associations with Liars, Bigots, and Murderers.)

Saturday, January 7, 2017

Does Diversity Make Us "Stronger"?

Of course it does, that is what we are told over and over! It is without question that diversity makes America stronger in every case and that having a multi-cultural society made up of people from every possible nationality and ethnicity speaking all manner of languages is the most critical principle that America was founded upon. That might have come as a surprise to the actual Founding Fathers who couldn't have possibly imagined America as it is today nor that in the very near future White people of European ancestry will become an overall minority in America. They seemed to think that liberty was to be the hallmark of America, not "diversity" but as Jared Taylor wrote in White Identity:
The idea that diversity is one of our country’s great strengths—perhaps even its greatest strength—now goes largely unchallenged. 
- Taylor, Jared. White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century (p. 33). . Kindle Edition.
Taylor goes on to show how instead of being an unqualified success and indeed our greatest strength, our forced and carefully crafted policy of "diversity" is actual one of the leading causes of friction, resentment, crime and violence in America. It is forbidden to say this of course because everyone knows that simply being diverse is always good and having more diversity is always better and that is a concept that gets far more airtime in our "education" system than outdated concepts like liberty, freedom, personal responsibility, etc.

Case in point. Fox News ran a story yesterday where the Army was congratulating itself for allowing Sikh men to wear turbans and beards and Muslim women to wear the hijab (after getting sued of course), arbitrarily modifying the U.S. Army uniform for their own comfort. I am all in favor of men having the right to wear turbans if they see fit and women likewise wearing a hijab just as I think Jewish men should be able to wear a yarmulke if they want and Mennonite and Amish women should be able to wear caps or headscarves. That isn't the point.

All well and good I suppose. I think the Army ought to be a lot smaller and should spend less time worrying about guys wearing turbans and trying to cook the books so women can qualify for combat roles even though our soon-but-not-soon-enough to be former Commander-in-Chief claims that "Women Are At Least As Strong As Men", even though when it comes to physical strength that is demonstrably wrong and more time worrying about actually defending America (instead of the rest of the world), like for instance the constant invasion on our southern border, but the trend of using the military as an engine for "social justice" and cultural re-education is a topic for another day. Instead I want to bring up a quote from the Fox News story:
"Military experts have always questioned why the U.S. military has restricted Sikhs from serving,” said Eric Baxter, Senior Counsel at Becket Law, which acted as co-counsel on Captain Singh’s behalf. “Our Army will be stronger and our nation safer with Sikhs serving alongside their fellow Americans.”
Ok. Why is that exactly? Who are these experts? Have military experts really "always questioned why the U.S. military has restricted Sikhs from serving". Always? I think most actual military experts are focused on more important topics like, you know, military stuff instead of social engineering on the tax-payer dime.

Based on my exhaustive research (five minutes on Wikipedia and a brief calculation using Excel), there are some 324 million Americans. There are around half a million Sikhs living in America. So it is critically important to make specific accommodations for a population that accounts for 0.15% of the entire U.S. population. Of those half are men so I think that means that 0.075% of the U.S. population are impacted by this policy change that undoubtedly involved millions of dollars and countless man-hours (oh so sorry, individual of indeterminate and fluid gender-hours) to respond to the lawsuit of one Sikh soldier, Capt. Simratpal Singh. Do "military experts" agree that this was a reasonable use of military resources? 

Why exactly does having the military open to Sikhs wearing turbans make us "safer"? Do Sikhs fight better than Whites or blacks or Hispanics or others? Does having men with turbans give us a strategic advantage? Of course not. There is absolutely no tangible benefit to having Sikhs in the military and they are statistically insignificant as a population. Having a couple of guys with turbans is not going to swing the balance in a firefight. I don't think anyone other than SJW types, and certainly no actual military experts, believes that we are "safer" with the passing of this policy. I am not saying that is a good policy or a bad policy since I am not a "military expert", I am just pointing out that it does nothing to make the Army stronger or the nation safer to have a handful of guys wearing camo turbans serving in the Army.

The big picture here is that there are entirely too many opinion-makers and culture-shapers who think that any and all diversity is universally a net positive. Implied in this although not always said is that the opposite is true and that White European dominance is a weakness in any and all cases. More White homogeneity is always bad, less White homogeneity is always good. Pointing out that in spite of civil rights victories over the last half-century culminating in the election of a half-black President, life is not great for blacks and other minorities in this country is probably grounds for hate crime charges. But the reality is the reality. Ask blacks who live in Chicago how hope and change worked out for them in 2016 and with the sky high unemployment of black men throughout the Obama administration. "Sure we can drink from the same drinking fountain as Whites but our men don't work, don't marry our women and shoot each other non-stop!" probably isn't what Rosa Parks had in mind although many blacks in Chicago seem to think that Obama gave them "hope" which apparently is code for "lots of dead black men killed by other black men".

The more I go down the rabbit hole the more I see that this is not coincidence or an unintended consequence. The culture revolution is working as intended. Whites are headed for minority status and most Whites are terrified of speaking out for their own interests. White men are checking out of the work force, emulating black men. The wholesale replacement of Whites in America is continuing at break-neck speed via illegal immigration and low White birth rates and having White commit suicide or die of drug overdoses just speeds up the progress. The sort of politically correct nonsense that celebrates Skih men being able to wear turbans and beards as a quintessential American virtue that strengthens our nation and military is virtually unchallenged by anyone in the mainstream of American thought. The only question now is whether the intellectual counter-revolution will gain enough steam in time to stop the seemingly inevitable devolution of American into a Third World nation before it is too late to preserve our culture and heritage for our children. Personally I fear it is too late for America which begs the question, if not here then where can we go? More on that soon.

Thursday, January 5, 2017

The Media Loves Economic Nationalism When It Happens In Mexico

In my occasional surrender to self-abuse marked by tuning in to National Public Radio, I heard a story by correspondent Carrie Kahn on location in Mexico where construction on a new Ford plant was abruptly halted in response to, at least in part, the threat by President-Elect Trump to levy stiff fees on products produced in foreign countries subsequently shipped to America. The news headlines were fairly clumsy but the gist was that instead of a $1.6 billion dollar investment in Mexico, Ford would instead invest $700 million in Michigan which would create around 700 jobs in a state that desperately could use them. Like the Carrier announcement right after the election, the news was met with enthusiasm by Trump supporters and bitterness from Trump detractors. Here is a sample from the NPR piece:
CORNISH: And rather than build the plant in Mexico, Ford says it's going to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in facilities in Michigan. That's going to add about 700 jobs there. But how are people in Mexico taking the news?
 KAHN: They're very upset, not taking it well at all. Like I said, the plant was already under construction, so that work has stopped, and those people are out of jobs. Once the plant was built, it was going to employ 2,800 people, so those are jobs that are not going to be here anymore.
 I stood outside the plant, trying to talk to some of the people that were leaving. Nobody really wanted to talk to an American reporter. But one of the guards there did tell me that the situation is very tense. People just got news of this, and they're just very upset.
 CORNISH: Do you get the sense that blame is falling directly on President-elect Donald Trump?
 KAHN: Overwhelmingly people are placing blame on President-elect Trump. They are very upset with him. I talked to about four or five people - all said the same thing. He hasn't even taken power yet, and he's already doing damage to us. I'll say it nicer than they said it to me. They feel like they're being blamed for a lot of situations that are going on in the United States that is not their fault, and they squarely place that blame on Donald Trump.
 They're also mad at their own officials who haven't - they say haven't done enough to stand up to Donald Trump and defend the working Mexicans here and the Mexicans that are living in the United States. They're as angry with their own officials as they are with Donald Trump.
So apparently NPR is deeply concerned about 2800 jobs not being created in Mexico but they really don't seem to care at all that 700 American jobs are being created, jobs that will presumably pay well and go to skilled workers who will pay a bunch of money in taxes and spend their legally earned wages in America. Of course those 700 workers are likely not going to donate to NPR so who needs 'em? This is par for the course and especially since those dastardly workers in Michigan delivered that state and in large part the Presidency to Donad Trump. I wonder when those 700 workers go to the polls in 2020, will they vote again for the guy who gets the credit for helping to create those jobs? After Trump won I had no expectation that he would ever win re-election but a few weeks before he even takes office I am starting to wonder if re-election is more likely than I thought.

Notice some of what Kahn says. The Mexicans were super angry and didn't even want to talk to an American reporter, even one from NPR doing a sympathetic story. A guard even described the situation as tense. What happens when a few more plants don't get built or even existing plants get shuttered? Also they want their government to "stand up to Donald Trump" both for Mexican workers in Mexico as well as Mexican workers in the U.S. and that is pretty telling. They see themselves as Mexicans who just happen to be working in the U.S. It isn't their country, it isn't their home, it is just a place to live while they work at better jobs than they could get at home. In contrast, I am an American who works in America because this is my home. I care about the long-term healthy of this country and I am concerned about where it is headed because I want America to be around and be what it ought to be for me, for my kids, my grand-kids, etc. 

Mexicans care about the economic future of Mexico and they should. The New York Times in a similar story talks more about the anger of Mexicans at their government
"Mexico loses thousands of jobs with no word on a clear strategy for confronting the next U.S. government which has presented itself as protectionist and, especially, anti-Mexican," the paper wrote. "Trump will try to recover as many U.S. companies that have set up in Mexico as possible. He will try to make them return at whatever cost, through threats or using public resources." 
"Ford's decision is indicative of what awaits the economies of both countries," the daily La Jornada said. "For ours a severe decrease in investment from our neighboring country, and for the U.S. a notable increase in their production costs."
Americans ought to care about the economic future of Americans in the same way but we are shouted down and shamed as xenophobic, isolationists, protectionists, etc. when American interests are given higher standing than the interests of other countries. It is a slow economic suicide, aided and abetted by the elites in this country who will retain their jobs as investment bankers, political officials, government technocrats, journalists, etc. regardless of what happens to Joe Six-Pack who loses his job because American policy makers and executives are more concerned about globalism than economic nationalism.

Globalism makes lots of promises that include the idea that Americans can just get new training and find great jobs in the knowledge economy even though we already push way too many kids into college that have no business being there and who don't benefit from a college degree except by having the student loan Gestapo banging on their door to recover tens of thousands in student loan debt that they had no business giving out in the first place. Labor unions bear a lot of blame here as well, as does the general degradation of the American work ethic, but the simple reality is that not every or even most high school graduate should go to college and we need jobs in this country for people without a B.A. in Women's Studies that can pay the bills.

The reality of economic nationalism is one of the glaring weaknesses in libertarianism, a political philosophy I have a lot of affinity for in many respects. The idea that globalism and free trade is always good for the average American worker is the libertarian article of faith equivalent of the liberal, statist articles of faith like the gender wage gap, "hands up, don't shoot" and the magical impact of the $15 minimum wage. The big problems with libertarian, no-border, "free trade" globalism is that it doesn't take into account human nature. American libertarians might be willing to sacrifice our workers on the altar of globalism but the rest of the world is often not willing to do the same to their workers. China doesn't have any qualms about screwing over American workers to favor their own economy, neither does Mexico or most other non-flaccid European style states. Our economic policies often look like the economic equivalent of Neville Chamberlain, a unilateral surrender in the hope of fair treatment from people who see that is laughable weakness. Mexicans don't care about globalism and the fate of American workers, they are just irate that jobs will be created in Michigan instead of Mexico and that reaction is a perfectly rational and reasonable one.

It will be interesting to see the struggle between the old guard establishment Republicans in Congress, many who are bought and paid for by foreign lobbyists as well as domestic corporations who profit from globalism at the expense of Americans and the new Trump administration. I have a ton of qualms about Trump but this is one area where he can really make an impact that benefits America and helps set the stage for his own re-election campaign.