Theoretically, it would be nice if we lived in a society where all the lowlifes were excluded from things like public transportation, the gym, bars and restaurants, the workplace and other public spaces.
In theory, the idea of a social credit score is great: a scoring system for all Americans to determine the quality of individual people in order to both ensure the bad people don’t ruin everything for the rest of us, and to discourage toxic behavior.
But that’s where the praise ends.
Because a social credit rating system would inevitably be abused to further disenfranchise and immiserate those with the Wrong Views–that’s you and me.
Hell, we’re already being financially blacklisted by the megabanking cartel, attacked in public and censored online.
A social credit rating system would only make it that much easier to make our lives miserable and discourage others from challenging the Uniparty consensus.
The problem isn’t the idea of a social credit rating system–the problem is who would be in charge of it, and how they would inevitably abuse the system.
Unfortunately, I’m sure you know where this is going: a social credit system in some form already exists here in America.
No longer a “conspiracy theory,” Fast Company just ran an article detailing the many ways in which Americans are already subjected to a Chinese-style social credit rating system:
“Have you heard about China’s social credit system? It’s a technology-enabled, surveillance-based nationwide program designed to nudge citizens toward better behavior. The ultimate goal is to “allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step,” according to the Chinese government.
In place since 2014, the social credit system is a work in progress that could evolve by next year into a single, nationwide point system for all Chinese citizens, akin to a financial credit score. It aims to punish for transgressions that can include membership in or support for the Falun Gong or Tibetan Buddhism, failure to pay debts, excessive video gaming, criticizing the government, late payments, failing to sweep the sidewalk in front of your store or house, smoking or playing loud music on trains, jaywalking, and other actions deemed illegal or unacceptable by the Chinese government.
It can also award points for charitable donations or even taking one’s own parents to the doctor.Punishments can be harsh, including bans on leaving the country, using public transportation, checking into hotels, hiring for high-visibility jobs, or acceptance of children to private schools. It can also result in slower internet connections and social stigmatization in the form of registration on a public blacklist.
China’s social credit system has been characterized in one pithy tweet as “authoritarianism, gamified.”
And it’s already here:
“Many Westerners are disturbed by what they read about China’s social credit system. But such systems, it turns out, are not unique to China. A parallel system is developing in the United States, in part as the result of Silicon Valley and technology-industry user policies, and in part by surveillance of social media activity by private companies.
The New York State Department of Financial Services announced earlier this year that life insurance companies can base premiums on what they find in your social media posts. That Instagram pic showing you teasing a grizzly bear at Yellowstone with a martini in one hand, a bucket of cheese fries in the other, and a cigarette in your mouth, could cost you. On the other hand, a Facebook post showing you doing yoga might save you money.”
These insurance scammers will never stop thinking of ways to avoid paying you out. But the insurance example is pretty tame and not all that surprising to learn about.
Nor is the fact that Uber and Airbnb not only have driver ratings but also rider ratings, which means you.
But this technology, called “PatronScan,” is something I’d never heard of before reading this article:
“PatronScan helps spot fake IDs—and troublemakers. When customers arrive at a PatronScan-using bar, their ID is scanned. The company maintains a list of objectionable customers designed to protect venues from people previously removed for “fighting, sexual assault, drugs, theft, and other bad behavior,”according to its website. A “public” list is shared among all PatronScan customers. So someone who’s banned by one bar in the U.S. is potentially banned by all the bars in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada that use the PatronScan system for up to a year. (PatronScan Australia keeps a separate system.)
Judgment about what kind of behavior qualifies for inclusion on a PatronScan list is up to the bar owners and managers. Individual bar owners can ignore the ban, if they like. Data on non-offending customers is deleted in 90 days or less. Also: PatronScan enables bars to keep a “private” list that is not shared with other bars, but on which bad customers can be kept for up to five years.
PatronScan does have an “appeals” process, but it’s up to the company to grant or deny those appeals.”
You can see how easily PatronScan will be expanded beyond just the bar and restaurant industry. It’ll be everywhere before long.
And these are just a few examples of the private company-enacted social credit scoring that we know of. We have a good idea of what big tech companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter and Amazon are already doing to discourage dissident political views, but I’m sure we don’t know the full extent of it.
Nor do we know exactly what’s coming next. For instance, this:
But the main thing the leftwing companies will come after is your money: expect a future where the wrong political views will cost you a well-paying job.
The choice will be simple: get in line with the Globalist Uniparty Agenda or live in squalor, barely able to feed yourself.
The Constitution is now basically irrelevant because it’s not the government doing the oppressing, it’s private tech monopolies
Apple, Louis Vuitton, Rolex, Mercedes-Benz, Lululemon, Hating Donald Trump.
What do they all have in common? They’re status symbols. People seek to obtain them and once they do, they proudly flaunt them to make it clear to everyone around them, “I’m a cut above.”
For the first five luxury brands I listed off above, that should be obvious. It’s not really a new idea that people today tend to derive a lot of their self-worth from owning expensive luxury brand items.
But the last thing on the list–“Hating Donald Trump”–now with that, it might not be so immediately obvious how status-seeking individuals have turned to politics in order to demonstrate that they’re Just Better Than You.
“In the past, upper-class Americans used to display their social status with luxury goods. Today, they do it with luxury beliefs.
People care a lot about social status. In fact, research indicates that respect and admiration from our peers are even more important than money for our sense of well-being.
We feel pressure to display our status in new ways. This is why fashionable clothing always changes. But as trendy clothes and other products become more accessible and affordable, there is increasingly less status attached to luxury goods.
The upper classes have found a clever solution to this problem: luxury beliefs. These are ideas and opinions that confer status on the rich at very little cost, while taking a toll on the lower class.
One example of luxury belief is that all family structures are equal. This is not true. Evidence is clear that families with two married parents are the most beneficial for young children. And yet, affluent, educated people raised by two married parents are more likely than others to believe monogamy is outdated, marriage is a sham or that all families are the same.”
Just as these college-educated white people are often seen wailing about “white privilege.” It’s all posturing. If they really felt guilty over their “white privilege,” they’d give away all their money and possessions and live in squalor as penance.
“White privilege is the luxury belief that took me the longest to understand, because I grew up around poor whites. Often members of the upper-class claim that racial disparities stem from inherent advantages held by whites. Yet Asian Americans are more educated, have higher earnings and live longer than whites. Affluent whites are the most enthusiastic about the idea of white privilege, yet they are the least likely to incur any costs for promoting that belief. Rather, they raise their social standing by talking about their privilege.
In other words, upper-class whites gain status by talking about their high status. When laws are enacted to combat white privilege, it won’t be the privileged whites who are harmed. Poor whites will bear the brunt.”
The author of the piece, Rob Henderson, brings up a great point: status-seeking affluent Americans and their luxury beliefs are hurting lower-class Americans. Who gets the short end of the stick when it comes to the affirmative action programs these affluent virtue signaling whites call for? Poorer whites. The upper class whites will be just fine: they’re not going to lose out on any jobs, their kids won’t get rejected by top colleges. Lower-class whites will bear the brunt to upper-class whites can feel good about themselves.
And why do you think so many celebrities are encouraging their kids to be transgender nowadays? It’s a social status thing. It’s hip, trendy.
Of course, because the celebrities are doing it, the Regular People want to do it, too. So of course affluent white women are making their kids transgender, too.
And of course, the ultimate “luxury belief” is hatred of Donald Trump. As expected, college-educated white women disapprove of Trump by a margin of 72-26:
Don’t think it’s a coincidence that affluent white women also care the most about what other people think. They’re the most status-conscious people in the country.
In a country where the entire public discourse revolves around race and racism, and where Racists are seen as worse than even murderers, being Not Racist is thereby seen as the height of goodness and virtue.
Hating Trump is really about standing against what Trump is said to stand for, Racism, in other words, the ultimate evil of our time.
“Racists” have become the Most Hated Subgroup in America today. Being called a racist today is like being called a witch in 1620s Salem, Massachusetts, a heretic during the Spanish Inquisition, a Jew in the Gaza Strip, or a Vichy collaborator during the épuration sauvage. “Racists” are public enemy number one.
And Donald Trump is considered to be the leader of the racists, the racist par excellence–the man who Made America Racist Again after we supposedly “Ended Racism” through the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.
Nevermind that racial tensions in America flared up well before Trump started running for President in 2015. Nevermind that the media and the racial grievance industry exploited the shootings of Trayvon Martin in 2012 and Michael Brown (Ferguson) in 2014 to stoke a racial hysteria centered on perceived discrimination against black people.
No, the media tells us: Trump alone revived racism in America.
And so it is that Hating Trump is considered a highly desirable status indicator–perhaps the most desirable status indicator.
Nevermind that Trump neither revived racism, nor is racism running rampant in America (well, anti-white racism is, but the media doesn’t count that), the liberal white women still believe it, and act accordingly.
“Once upon a time, you had meaning. You knew you had meaning because you had a mom and a dad who told you so, a God who loved you, and a community that needed you.”
Now people grow up often without one of their parents, no religion and no discernible community to exist and fill a role in.
“Once upon a time, if something happened to you, a significant number of people would mourn your death — not only because you were a good person and a good friend, but also because the community would suffer without your presence and skills. Now, the vast majority of people can barely count on one hand the number of people whose life would be truly altered by their passing.”
Isn’t it odd that people have hundreds of “friends” on Facebook and social media, yet the average person feels insignificant and alone? More doesn’t always equal better. In fact British anthropologist Robin Dunbar theorized in the 1990s that human beings are only really capable of maintaining about 150 personal relationships.
And that includes all personal relationships, from immediate family and best friends (closest) to mere passing acquaintances:
More “friends” doesn’t equal a better life. Close, deep relationships with a handful of people do.
“We have created a society that now offers almost none of the things that make people truly happy. Family, community, spiritual belonging — these are the foundational and primal building blocks of human happiness, and they are rapidly disappearing.
With the destruction of the family, the church, and the community, the reasons people have traditionally had for their very existence are in danger of receding into the past. And the outcome is predictable: isolation, depression, anxiety, despondency, drug abuse, and death.
…We have discarded those regulating social institutions that have helped people understand their value and place in this world for thousands of years. Their decline is not just mirrored in the rise of mass shootings, but more broadly in a host of statistics that reveal an epidemic of despair.
For example, between 2000 and 2017, the rate of deaths due to drug overdose increased 400 percent, from 3 per 100,000 to 15 per 100,000. The suicide rate has increased from 10.4 per 100,000 in 2000 to 14 per 100,000 in 2017. These horrific increases have literally reduced the life expectancy in the United States from 78.9 in 2014 to 78.6 in 2017.”
The reason drug and substance use has increased is because people’s lives are meaningless otherwise. They literally have nothing to do but get high. It’s a vicious cycle: their lives are boring and feel pointless so they get high all the time, and then their lives become even more boring and pointless because all they do is get high.
For what it’s worth, I’d say all this applies to alcohol as well. It’s not just drugs that people turn to in hopes of escaping the misery of their lives.
Drug abuse and overdoses, as well as suicides, are symptoms of the bigger problem, not the problem itself. They are the end-result of a spiritual crisis.
“These statistics mirror the death of the family and the decline of faith. Children born out of wedlock increased from 20 percent in 1985 to more than 40 percent in 2013, with crime statistics tracking this trend almost exactly. Church membership declined from 70 percent in 1998 to 50 percent today.”
It’s all related. Kids with absentee parents who grew up without religion are more likely to abuse drugs and have kids out of wedlock.
“Speaking with Extra host Renee Bargh about the deadly mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio that left more than 30 people dead and dozens more injured, Oprah said “I think what people are missing is a core moral center.”
“Churches used to do that,” the OWN boss continued. “It was a central place you could come to and there was a core center of values about a way of living and being in the world. Until we can return to that, however that is, in whatever form, we will continue to be lost.”
A religious country is a more moral country. The moral rules must be handed down by some supreme authority. It can’t just be the government. People have to truly believe in God and fear going to hell.
Recently, Steve Sailer suggested that the reason mass shootings are increasing in frequency is because fear of going to hell is declining. He’s 100% right. If you really and truly believed in hell, you would not carry out a mass shooting. But nowadays these sickos live out their twisted fantasies of killing people and then just shoot themselves, believing that’s the end of everything for them. They don’t believe they’re going to wake up on the other side to an eternity of fire and suffering.
The next problem is social isolation and the disintegration of our communities:
“Technology exacerbates this phenomenon by allowing and encouraging us to isolate ourselves. Technology allows people to live their lives completely alone. People can sit in front of video games and indulge in violent fantasies. They can view endless pornography or isolate themselves into ideological bubbles that reinforce their desperate ideas.”
Even the local pub where all the neighborhood dads would regularly gather after work is a thing of the past. Nowadays people barely even know their neighbors. Everywhere we go, we go in cars–isolated pods that get us from Point A to Point B without truly experiencing anything in between.
Millions of Americans–especially millennials–don’t live in the same state as their parents, and their kids will grow up largely without their grandparents in their lives. This is not a good thing. It’s not just trees that need roots; we do, too.
I remember learning in one of my college history classes that when America entered World War I in 1917, for many of the 4.8 million young men that were either drafted or volunteered, it was the first time they had ever left their hometowns. This gives you an idea of just how parochial America was a century ago. Could you even imagine that? The automobile had been invented a few decades earlier, but it wouldn’t really become widely available to the masses until after the war during the Roaring Twenties.
People stayed planted and close to their families back then. It’s no wonder communities were much stronger: the roots ran far deeper.
For centuries societies were patchwork quilts of thousands and thousands of tightly-knit rural communities, all ultimately united by an overarching national identity, a common religion and, as taboo as it is to say it, yes, race/ethnicity.
Our politicians constantly repeat the sacred dogma “Diversity Is Our Strength,” but the reality is that diverse nations do not and have not fared well historically. Below is a list of the 20 most diverse countries in the world.
Is there a single one that you’d like to live in?
Would you consider any of them “strong”?
Is Diversity Uganda’s strength? What about Somalia? India?
The reality is that ethnic diversity often leads to ethnic strife and/or dissolution. Look at Yugoslavia, for example: it was highly ethnically diverse federation that ultimately split up into seven different countries in 1992. And the break-up was not peaceful.
How many of the countries on that list are currently involved in some sort of civil war? Quite a few. Somalia is in a civil war. Central African Republic is in a civil war. Nigeria’s Christians are constantly terrorized by the Islamic militants of Boko Haram (now known as the Islamic State of West Africa, in other words a branch of ISIS). There are currently at least six different internal wars going on in the Congo. Liberia has experienced years and years of civil war over the past several decades. And in South Africa, the white minority is now being systematically exterminated and uprooted.
It used to be that nearly half of Americans thought “most people can be trusted,” today barely 30% do. I’m not blaming this all on immigration, but immigration certainly played a role.
And social trust is really the best way to measure and quantify the strength of our communities. The fact that social trust was much higher decades ago is how you know your parents and grandparents weren’t lying when they said you used to be able to trust people more back in the day, you used to be able to leave your door unlocked at night, etc.
If somebody ever demands some evidence when you claim American communities are crumbling, show them social trust levels.
Another major contributor to our sickness as a society was the Industrial Revolution, and the new world it created and thrust us into.
When this country was founded, over 90% of the citizens were farmers and therefore lived on farms. Your primary community was your family, and then the nearby town where you’d go to sell your harvest. Almost everyone was a farmer back at the founding:
The simple, self-sufficient life of a farmer is honorable, wholesome and fulfilling.
When your parents got too old to work the land, you were the one who ran the family farm. And kids took care of their aging parents back then, too: it was totally common for three generations of family to be living together.
But now the family farm is largely a thing of the past, which is crazy because it used to be the norm for basically all of human history up until about 150-200 years ago.
This leads to the next point, industrialization. Why did people move away from the farms? Because of the Industrial Revolution. The factories (i.e. jobs) were in the cities, so people moved to the cities.
The problem with the Industrial Revolution is not simply that it created a bunch of grueling, often dangerous jobs, but also that it both caused income inequality to take off (one rich factory owner, hundreds of grunt workers being paid low wages) and created mostly meaningless jobs for the masses–meaningless in the sense that workers are ultimately producing something on behalf someone else.
Farmers have inherent meaning in their work: they work the land so that their families can eat and selling their surplus to other local families that need to eat. They’re creating something real and tangible. They’re producing and selling their own product, and this is deeply fulfilling work. When you’re a farmer, you’re an integral part of your small community. Your work is important.
But the Industrial Revolution changed all that. Instead, people went to work in factories where they are disconnected from the end-result of their labor. All they have to show for their work is a paycheck. They haven’t really created anything for themselves, because they have been turned into a commodity: labor.
Nowadays most people work service jobs instead of agricultural and industrial, but service jobs have the same problem as industrial jobs: you’re just a cog in the machine slaving away for a paycheck, not producing anything real or lasting.
We might have been able to better manage the transition from agrarian society to industrial/service if it had been a more gradual process, but the problem is it happened very rapidly. For thousands and thousands of years, human societies were predominantly agricultural, and then in about 100 years we transitioned to an industrial society. We are not wired for this type of urban, post-industrial society, and yet we have been thrust into it nonetheless because our corporate overlords demand higher quarterly profits.
If you’ve ever felt like modern, urban society doesn’t feel natural, it’s because it is not natural. We are only the second or third generation of humans ever to live like this. In many ways we’re like animals in captivity–taken from our natural habitat and thrust into a new, unnatural one in order to serve a master. That’s why people are miserable.
Whereas in an agricultural society, each man is the master of his own domain growing his own food, and selling product that he himself created, the Industrial Revolution turned the vast majority of people into mere wage-drones.
It is inherently more meaningful and fulfilling to produce something yourself and sell it to others who demand it–far more so than simply toiling in someone else’s factory.
The point is, it is in the very nature of our post-industrial economic system to create a bunch of ultimately meaningless jobs. It’s gone way beyond the point of serving needs and fulfilling needs–today it’s mostly about generating profit for profit’s sake.
It’s no wonder so many Americans feel so empty: the point of their lives is simply to generate more and more profit for some multinational corporation. It’s hard to find fulfillment in making someone else rich.
Think about it: from birth to age 18, you are property of the school system, and the whole point of the school system is to prepare you to go to college and get a Degree, which will qualify you for A Job working for some company. The degree will also put you into $100,000 or more of debt so as to ensure you have to go get a job. Then you have to work a job you probably don’t like until you’re at least 65, meaning for the first 65 years of your life you are basically property of someone else. By the time you’re 65, the system has no more use for you and will allow you to go enjoy your retirement in Boca Raton. That’s your reward for giving them the first 65 years of your life.
Most of us really are wage-drones who literally exist solely to increase some big corporation’s quarterly profits. It’s no wonder people are miserable and feel like life has no meaning.
I don’t know how we’re going to fix all these problems. They are all the results of long-running trends that cannot be reversed overnight, or even in a decade. It took over 50 years for the percentage of out-of-wedlock births to get to where it is today:
This number is not going to fall dramatically overnight. I’d figure it would take at least another 50 years to cut the illegitimacy rate merely in half, and decades longer to get it back to where it was in the 1950s. It’s not even going down yet, meaning we haven’t even gotten to the point where the trend beginsreversing.
It took over a century and a half for America to transition from a 94% rural population to a 75% urban population. The “diversification” (others would call it “ethnic fragmentation”) of America began in 1965 and remains ongoing. The decline of organized religion in America is also a half-century in the making:
You cannot simply reverse these trends overnight.
But I do think we should start by going back to being farmers.
This country would be perfectly fine if like half the labor force quit their jobs to go become farmers–basically everyone but the doctors, nurses, police and firefighters, to be quite honest. It sounds outrageous to say, but when you think about the fact that in 1800 over 90% of Americans were farmers it really puts things into perspective. Most of the jobs that we consider vitally important today are only vitally important because we’re no longer an agrarian society.
Tens of millions of Americans’ jobs exist solely to bolster a big corporation’s quarterly profit margins, and millions more sit around pretending to work just to collect a paycheck. A 2016 study found thatthe average American only actually “works” three hours a dayeven though they’re at work for an average of 8.8 hours per day.
Don’t get me wrong, this would certainly hurt the big corporations’ bottom lines, but frankly who gives a fuck about them?
I know my answer isn’t the one people want to hear, but it’s the right one. In your heart you know it’s true: modern society has ruined us.
Don’t try to tell me that this:
is better than this:
Leave modern society behind.
Move out to the country, start a family, work the land, get in touch with nature, and find God.
According to the media, the “Give me your tired. . .” poem on the Statue of Liberty is the be-all, end-all of American immigration policy, so authoritative and unquestionable it might as well be part of the Constitution (even though the media doesn’t much care for the Constitution).
That’s why Ken Cuccinelli, the acting director of the Citizenship and Immigration Office, recently got himself into trouble with CNN’s Erin Burnett–for daring to question the holy dogma of THE POEM establishing America as the world’s homeless shelter:
“Erin Burnett was not going to let Ken Cuccinelli off the hook for his despicable rewrite of Emma Lazarus’ poem on the Statue of Liberty. Instead, she pinned him to the wall and watched him squirm like a worm on a hook.
There was a back and forth where he ultimately accused her of “twisting this like everybody else on the left has done all day today.” That accusation simply prompted her to bring receipts.
“You’re saying — it’s important — you’re saying it’s important to stand on your own two feet,” she said. Cuccinelli agreed with that.
Burnett then informed him (again) that the poem did not say that, and again he deflected, first blaming the NPR reporter for bringing it up (how dare they?) and then Burnett.”
THE POEM DOES NOT SAY THAT, BIGOT!
“She was having no part of his little dance, coming back to bring her receipts, after repeating how he had bastardized the poem to be one for ugly xenophobes instead of an inspiring invitation.
“However it came up, you said, ‘Give me your tired and poor who can stand on their own two feet, not become a public charge,” she reiterated.
Again, he agreed, unapologetically.
“The poem reads, ‘give me your tired your poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!’ Wretched refuse. That’s what the poem says America is supposed to stand for. So what do you think America stands for?” she asked.”
Replace the word “poem” with “Bible” and CNN’s Erin Burnett is no different from a religious zealot.
“Well, of course that poem referred back to people coming from Europe where they had class-based societies. Where people were considered wretched if they weren’t in the right class. And it was introduced — it was written one year — one year after the first federal public charge rule was written that says — I’ll quote it — any person unable to take care of himself without becoming a public charge, unquote, would be inadmissible in the terms that my agency deals with, they can’t do what’s called adjusting status getting a green card becoming legal permanent residents. Same exact time, Erin, same exact time. And the year is went on the statue of liberty, 1903, another federal law was passed expanding the elements of public charge by Congress. This is a — this is a central part.”
Decent response by Cuccinelli, but he is under no obligation to try to interpret the poem in a way that bolsters his stance on immigration.
The poem is pro-open borders, period.
But that’s okay because we are not under any obligation to agree with it or live according to its message.
We don’t have to care what Emma Lazarus thinks about immigration.
Anytime we talk about immigration, open borders propagandists like Erin Burnett will screech “BUT THE POEM! THE POEM SAYS!”
But who cares? Not me.
The important thing Ken Cuccinelli brought up was the “Public Charge” law, enacted one year before Lazarus’ stupid poem was affixed to the Statue of Liberty, which denies immigration to Lazarus’ exalted “wretched refuse” of other countries–i.e. immigrants who can’t take care of themselves and who are a drain on taxpayers.
Cuccinelli, who is spearheading the Trump administration’s effort to, not even enact but merely resumeenforcement of, the “public charge” laws already on the books, has real legal precedent on his side. Erin Burnett has a stupid poem on her’s.
In fact, Ken Cuccinelli and the Trump administration have 374 years of legal precedent on their side when it comes to public charge laws.
“The English colony of Massachusetts enacted the earliest American public charge laws in 1645. The arrival in the colonies of undesirables spurred other colonies to enact similar laws. “By the end of the seventeenth century American colonists were especially reluctant to extend a welcome to impoverished foreigners and the ‘Rogues and vagabonds’ that England had so graciously decided she could spare.” Many colonies protected themselves against public charges through such measures as mandatory reporting of ship passengers, immigrant screening and exclusion upon arrival of designated “undesirables,” and requiring bonds for potential public charges.
For example, a law enacted in colonial Massachusetts in 1700 kept out the infirm who had no security against becoming public charges. The law required ship captains to post bonds for “lame, impotent, or infirm” passengers who were “incapable of maintaining themselves.” The bond requirement sought to prevent the new arrival from becoming reliant on public relief. Without a bond from the captain, the vessel had to return the person to his home country.
New York adopted a law in 1691 that required an immigrant to have “a visible Estate” or “a manual occupation” or “give sufficient surety, that he shall not be a burden or charge to the respective places, he shall come to Inhabit.” Delaware in 1740 sought to exclude potential public charges, including “any such infant, lunatick [sic], aged, maimed, impotent or vagrant person;” the colony thus enacted a law whose title was to “Prevent Poor and Impotent Persons [from] being Imported.” Following American independence, states either automatically continued to enforce colonial-era public charge laws or reaffirmed those laws.”
Since the very beginning of this country, we have sought to avoid being saddled with unproductive burdens via immigration.
We don’t want immigrants coming here to take advantage of our public services.
It is not our side who are the radicals attempting to go against the American tradition on immigration.
It is instead the open borders globalists of the past 20-30 years who have decided to reverse centuries of American immigration policy in order to flood the country with poor third-worlders.
We are under no obligation to care what their stupid poem says.
Just because I don’t want my country to be demographically transformed does not mean I’m a racist.
Being opposed to immigration is not some moral failing on my part. It’s not because I’m racist.
It’s because I like my country the way it is. I don’t want an endless flood of foreigners pouring into it every year indefinitely.
I’m perfectly fine with Mexicans and Guatemalans and Indians and Africans. I have no problem with them. I seek no quarrel with them. I don’t spend my time writing screeds and manifestos about how my race is superior to theirs and about how much I hate them. In fact I don’t think about them much at all–that is, until they start moving into my country in large numbers.
I have no problem with the vast majority of foreigners, but that doesn’t mean I want them moving into my country in droves. Is that so hard to comprehend?
Why do we act like those two things are mutually exclusive? What is so mind-boggling about someone who has no beef with foreigners but also doesn’t want to import hundreds of thousands of foreigners into their country per year?
The whole underlying idea and attitude around mass immigration today is that it’s a given, the norm, the natural state of things, and that if I oppose it then there’s something wrong with me.
No, there’s nothing wrong with me. Why can’t everyone just stay put? Why is it so bad to want that?
We are not obligated to support mass immigration. We can oppose it and still not be racists, because it’s our country and we have the right to determine our own immigration policy.
My reason for opposing mass immigration is not because I’m racist against foreigners. It’s because they’re coming into my country in large numbers and I don’t recall ever voting on it. I don’t recall any presidential election where a candidate was promising Open Borders and won because of it.
In fact the one election where immigration was a central issue throughout the campaign was 2016, and the guy who wanted to Build The Wall won. This means that in the one case where you could plausibly argue that Open Borders was on the ballot, it lost.
None of us asked for this. None of us voted for open borders and mass immigration.
And yet the elite still slanders us as Racists if we oppose a policy that was forced upon us without our consent.
If someone enters my home without my permission and I tell them to leave, it’s not because I’m racist against them. I just don’t want them in my home. It has nothing to do with their race and everything to do with the fact that it’s my home and they weren’t invited in. I never wanted them there in the first place. It’s my home; I’m allowed to deny people entry and guess what? I don’t have to give a good explanation for it–because it’s my home.
Strangers don’t have the right to enter your home.
Calling you a racist for opposing immigration is a diversion, a way to confuse you and turn the tables on you and avoid the fact that tons and tons of people are entering this country uninvited.
The media acts like the only reason anyone could ever oppose mass immigration is Because Racism.
How about: “I like my country the way it is, thank you.” How come that’s not an option?
No, you’re a racist if you don’t want to surrender your own country to foreigners.
By this globalist Open Borders logic, they should have no problem at all with the European colonization of the “New World” following Columbus’ discovery of it in 1492.
The Indians who were here had no right to object to the European colonizers because to do so would be Racist against the Europeans.
Someone should go to a prominent leftist celebrity’s house and open the door to allow a stream of strangers in, and then when the celebrity leftist objects, respond, “I don’t see what the problem is. You must be a racist if you don’t want all these random people in your home.”
The “Racism!” attack against people in favor of restricted immigration is a non-sequitur.
I don’t oppose immigration because I’m a racist, I oppose mass immigration because I oppose mass immigration.
There is no moral obligation to support immigration. It doesn’t make you a good person to be for open borders, nor does it make you a bad person to be for closed borders. This is one of the biggest, most pervasive lies that has taken root in 21st Century Western Civilization: that being in favor of mass immigration is somehow a more virtuous stance than being against immigration.
What’s so wrong with me liking my country the way it is and not wanting it to be “enriched” with an endless stream of foreigners pouring in year after year, decade after decade?
At the very least I should at least be able to ask, “What’s in it for me? How will mass immigration benefit me?”
As Americans already living here, don’t we have the right to ask how opening our doors up to foreigners will benefit us?
No, apparently we do not. Apparently foreigners are entitled to move here. Apparently their desire to move to America supersedes our right to have borders and sovereignty.
“Well they’re just seeking a better life in America because they live in poor countries.”
So what? Just because they live in poor countries does not mean they’re entitled to moving to America. It doesn’t work that way. Just because we have something they want doesn’t mean we’re obligated to give it to them.
My neighbor has a pool, I don’t. Am I entitled to using his pool whenever I want just because I come from a place that doesn’t have one and I really want one?
Of course not.
I only get to use his pool if he lets me, if he invites me over. He has every right to kick me out if I climb over his fence and jump in the pool. I wasn’t invited. I have no right to use his pool just because I want to and I don’t have one.
And he’s not Raaaacist for not letting me use his pool because I’m not entitled to using his pool in the first place.
Just because I want a pool doesn’t mean I’m allowed to use my neighbor’s whenever I want.
It doesn’t work that way.
The same logic applies to immigration–at least it should apply to immigration.
But right now in this country, the choice is either be slandered as a racist or allow your country to be swamped with foreigners and eventually lost forever.
You’re either for open borders or a racist. That’s the rules the elites have made for us.
This is like if I go to a car dealership and say I want a German car, but the salesman tries to sell me a Korean car and then calls me a racist for not wanting the Korean car. “What, you don’t want the Kia? Are you racist against Koreans or something?”
No, I just wanted a German car. I have no problem with Koreans, or even Korean cars. I just want a Mercedes. “Well you’re not allowed to buy a Mercedes. You either buy the Kia or you’re a Raaaaacist!”
And how much immigration do I have to approve of to be Not Racist? What is the number, Uniparty elitists? I’d really like to know.
For instance, if someone is OK with 1,000,000 immigrants a year, does that make them Not A Racist? And if they’re only OK with 999,999, does that make them a racist?
Can you please explain what’s so special and sacred about the number 1,000,000?
Or is it simply Racist to want any sort of immigration cap at all?
Always ask them this question because it will reveal the truth–which is that they never actually pondered the question of how much immigration is enough immigration. The open borders radicals’ goal was never “cultural enrichment” or “greater diversity”–it is and always has been complete demographic transformation.
And then in the unlikely event that they actually do give you a precise number for immigrants, you can ask them to explain why exactly accepting a lower number of immigrants is racist.
Inevitably they’ll come to the point where they accuse you of just wanting to preserve the white majority in America.
But what’s so wrong with that?
Again: I’m a racist for liking my country the way it is and has historically been?
Millions of poor people from the third world can want to live in a white country but I’m not allowed to want to?
Ask the Globalists why they don’t want America to have a white majority. This one’s a trick question: because they’re racist against whites people!
You can’t say it’s racist to oppose the demographic dispossession of your own race. That is literally genocidal.
One side wants to continue and accelerate the demographic transformation of America, the other side simply wants to halt it.
And you’re telling me the side engineering a full-scale racial and ethnic cleansing via mass immigration is the side that isn’t racist?
For the record: the person who wants to maintain the demographic makeup of his country isn’t a racist, nor is he under any obligation to explain why. You don’t owe globalists any explanation for why you want America to remain a white country.
I’m not a racist. I just happen to like my country the way it is, and the way it has been since it was founded centuries ago.
We never voted on the globalist elite’s grand scheme to totally demographically transform America, and yet somehow we’re Racists if we object to it?
If you don’t want to demographically transform America, that makes you a racist.
Yet no one ever explains why the people who want to demographically transform America–by replacing its white historical majority with a nonwhite one–aren’t racists.
If I was in favor of endless mass foreign immigration to Japan so that one day its Japanese ethnic majority would be replaced, how doesn’t that make me a racist?
I’d love to hear that explained.
If I say Japan should have fewer Japanese people, please explain to me how it doesn’t logically follow that I’m a racist?
If you want to upend the demographics of a nation–any nation: Iran, Russia, Germany, Argentina, Australia, Malaysia, America, Congo, France–you are far, far more of a racist than I am.
I’m the one in the wrong if I say, “Iran needs more Africans.” The Iranian people don’t then have to prove they’re Not Racists by submitting to my wishes that Iran get an influx of African immigrants.
When you worry about disproving the charge of racism, you’ve already implicitly conceded the question of “Do we need more immigrants in the first place?” You’ve already accepted the premise that the only reason anyone can oppose open borders is because they’re racist.
Don’t even play the game. Reject the false choice entirely.
With their constant bombardment of racism accusations, the Elite has bullied us into submitting to their open borders immigration agenda. Wouldn’t want to speak out against it and open yourself up to charges of Racism, now would you? So we sit passively by and allow them to flood our countries with foreigners out of fear that if we object we’ll be called racists.
Elite: “Are you racists?”
Well-meaning citizens: “No, of course not.”
Elite: “Splendid! We’re going to let in 80,000 third-world immigrants a month, then.”
That’s how the elite jammed its Open Borders agenda down our throats: If you people aren’t racists, then certainly you’ll have no problem with a million Central Americans a year immigrating to this country.
No more. We don’t have to play that stupid game. We Westerners have the right to oppose the transformation of our countries.
We have the right to like our countries the way they are and not want to be “enriched” with greater and greater levels of “diversity.”
By the way, if diversity is such an obvious and self-evident good, and if immigration “enriches” us so much, then they do the elites have to force it on us undemocratically?
Also, is there ever a saturation point for cultural enrichment? Is there ever a point of diminishing returns?
I can see the plausible case for calling it “cultural enrichment” when a formerly homogeneous population accepts like a ~2% foreign minority.
But what about when continued immigration over a long period of time makes that ~2% minority into 10? And then when it becomes 20%?
Is that enough cultural enrichment? Aren’t we sufficiently enriched?
No, not according to our elites.
According to our elites, we can never hit the point of diminishing enrichment no matter how many foreigners we take in.
I have no problem with foreigners. I simply don’t want them moving into my country in mass numbers. People need to de-program their minds after years and years of Uniparty globalist propaganda and psychological abuse and understand: opposing mass immigration does not make you a racist.
I don’t have a problem with foreigners. I just don’t want millions of them moving into my country every year.
If I want to be surrounded by foreigners, I’ll go to a foreign country.
“In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.“
He couldn’t be more right.
This explains why inner cities consistently vote over 90% Democrat even though the Democrats have done nothing to improve the inner cities over six decades.
When I was younger, I used to think it was all about ideology. I was obsessed with conservative ideology and comparing socialism vs capitalism and stuff like that. I thought that was what drives people’s voting decisions.
What? Are you crazy? Texans are the most conservative people around. They’re not just going to change their whole worldview and become liberals? Never!
No, Texans as we picture them are not going to become liberals. It’s not going to be an ideological shift within an existing, static population.
What’s going to happen is that Texans as we traditionally know them are going to become the demographic minority in the state. The combination of mass foreign immigration and liberal white transplants from other states (like California) is outnumbering Texas’ traditional white conservative majority. No longer is the state full of Hank Hills. The Hank Hills are in the process of being outnumbered. That is why Texas will probably turn blue in the next 4-8 years.
Hank Hill is not becoming a liberal over time. That’s ridiculous.
What will happen is that the state’s demographics will change.
And so this leads me to the Republican Party nationally, which still insists that it’s not against all immigration, only illegal immigration. In fact the GOP loves legal immigrants and tells you every chance it gets–even Trump:
Trump is lying about the wall being under construction and he wants to flood the country with unprecedented numbers of legal immigrants.
"We want to allow millions of people to come in . . . We have to have legal immigration, not illegal immigration." pic.twitter.com/Pbh3I83kUS
“We want to allow millions of people to come in [legally] because we need them. We have companies pouring in from Japan, all over Europe, all over the world, they’re opening up companies here, they need people to work.”
Trump, just like the Chamber of Commerce and the big businesses that have traditionally controlled the GOP, wants “millions” of cheap foreign workers pouring into this country.
But does he realize that it’s legal immigration that will be the end of the Republican party one day soon if not massively reduced?
I’ve never seen a political movement actively campaign for its own demise, and pursue policies that will ensure its extinction in the near future. This is what Republicans are doing in celebrating legal immigration: ensuring their own doom.
It’s not illegal immigrants that have tipped so many states toward Democrats. Although many illegals do in fact vote, and Democrats today want to make it so all the illegals in this country (some 30 million of them, not the 11 million lie that has been repeated since the mid-2000s as if not a single illegal has entered this country since then) can vote, the real issue for Republicans is the legal immigrants who are already voting for Democrats in large numbers:
There is a fair amount of ideological diversity among white voters. This is a remnant of pre-Diversity America when elections really were about issues rather than race. This is why you see the white vote split like 60-40 these days.
But there isn’t ideological diversity among nonwhite groups. They all vote heavily Democrat because they believe it’s in their racial interest to do so. They would feel like race traitors voting Republican because they see it as the White Man’s Party. In 2016 Trump carried the white vote 57-37 over Hillary. But Hillary carried the non-white vote by a margin of 74-21.
Minorities vote Democrat almost monolithically. It’s not really about the issues, it’s about racial identity. This is the payoff for Democrats’ identity politics obsession, i.e. tying voting behavior to race.
Do you remember in 2016 seeing those signs “Latinos for Hillary”?
We’ve grown used to seeing this type of thing but have you ever stopped and thought about what “Latinos for Hillary” truly means? It is a frank admission that race drives voting decisions. “Latinos for Hillary” completely ignores the fact that there are male Latinos, female Latinos, young Latinos, middle-aged Latinos, old Latinos, rich Latinos, poor Latinos, middle class Latinos, etc. This is a total refutation of the idea that people vote primarily based on their economic interests. Otherwise, we’d see middle-class Latinos (and middle-class blacks and Asians) voting the same way as middle-class whites. “Latinos for Hillary” is the acknowledgment that race transcends everything and that voting for Hillary will benefit all Latinos no matter their gender, age and income status.
The only people who don’t see this are white conservatives. Well, some see it, but for whatever reason they ignore it or pretend they can change it.
Someone focused on ideology alone will never be able to understand American politics in the coming years. They will wonder why Texas, Georgia, Arizona and other states are flipping blue despite being ideologically conservative for decades. “Why are people in those states suddenly becoming liberals??? It does not make any sense!!” They’ll wonder.
But just because you’re ideological doesn’t mean other people are. Just because you don’t vote based on race doesn’t mean other people don’t.
People need to start realizing what’s going on and why.
“Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier who faced federal sex trafficking charges, died early Saturday in his New York jail cell in an apparent suicide, according to media reports.
ABC News and The New York Times quoted officials as saying that Epstein died in his Manhattan cell. ABC quoted three unidentified officials.
The Times, which said Epstein hanged himself, said his body was found at 7:30 a.m. Saturday, quoted unidentified officials.”
How wonderfully convenient for the Clintons and anyone else that was involved with him.
These people have the best luck!
I’m sure you’re all aware he had a failed suicide attempt a couple weeks back, which means he was placed on suicide watch, which in theory should have made it much more difficult for him to pull this off. But where there’s a will, there’s a way:
“It was not immediately clear how Epstein could have killed himself if he was under suicide watch after being found unconscious three week ago in his cell in Metropolitan Correctional Center. He had suffered injuries to his neck in what appeared to be a suicide attempt or jailhouse assault.”
This last line is important because we have a mainstream media outlet admitted that Epstein’s “failed suicide attempt” from a couple weeks ago may have been a “jailhouse assault,” aka a failed homicide attempt.
I would get ridiculed as a “conspiracy theorist” for saying that, but now we have USA Today saying it. When the mainstream media says it, it’s not a conspiracy theory.
“It was not immediately clear how Epstein could have killed himself if he was under suicide watch. . .” Not immediately clear how? Unless you were born yesterday, I’m sure you can put two and two together here: it was an inside job.
When you’re on suicide watch, they take away your shoelaces, your belt, your bed sheets and anything you might be able to use to hang yourself. You’re under 24/7 monitoring. The whole point of suicide watch is that it becomes much more difficult to commit suicide.
And somehow he was able to pull it off anyway.
“Suicide watch” does not mean watch him commit suicide.
On July 26, economist Martin Armstrong predicted in the wake of Epstein’s failed “suicide attempt” that Epstein would never see a trial. Armstrong was right:
“Jeffrey Epsteinwas being housed in the “10 South” unit, commonly known as the “HOLE” which is a 24- hour lock-down where they also keep terrorists which is very strange just pending trial. This is not about Epstein but who he could implicate. It has been called America’s Gulag and the Guantánamo hid in New York City nobody is allowed to know about. It’s where America violates human rights all the time but keeps as its dirty little secret. MCC 10 South is where the government keeps federal inmates, including alleged terrorists, to cut them off from the world with no regular access to visits or telephones. The treatment in 10 South is the worst a human being can endure and it will drive many humans to choose suicide to indefinite imprisonment under such conditions.
Most suicides in MCC take place where Epstein is being held so much so that a psychiatrist visits usually once every other week or so to check on the inmates held in this torture chamber. Epstein’s cell-mate was Nicholas Tartaglione, who is a former Briarcliff Manor cop that faces the death penalty in four drug-related killings upstate. He claims he was wearing earbuds when investigators went to question him about the incident. There is no possible way that a cell-mate would not have known if the other guy tried to commit suicide.”
Inmates are often killed by others as a cover-up so the government can blame them but strangely they manage to get some sort of deal. My bet is that Tartaglione will NEVER face the death penalty.
Remains to be seen whether or not Tartaglione gets being rewarded for taking Epstein out, but I’m sure he will be once this story quiets down and people forget about it.
I know the conspiracy groups are already blaming Clinton. But Epstein probably goes way beyond just Hillary and Clinton as the new New York play was entitled (which rumor has it the Clinton’s had shut down). This may rise well beyond that so I do not believe that Epstein will ever see a trial.”
Armstrong was correct.
So let’s just run down the main points of the Epstein story:
Billionaire pedophile with many very powerful friends is arrested on sex-trafficking charges.
Speculation grows that Epstein’s trial may result in many big names being implicated.
Epstein “kills himself” in prison before his case can go to trial, thus ensuring he’s never able to rat on his powerful friends, who will remain in the shadows.
All I’m saying is that this is the best possible outcome for all the prominent elites who could have been exposed if Epstein’s case had gone to trail.
If it looks like a cover-up and smells like a cover-up, it’s probably a cover-up.
Currently, “Clinton Body Count” is trending on Twitter:
People know what’s up.
I’m sorry if my past articles on Epstein following his arrest got anyone’s hopes up that this would ultimately lead to the exposure of elite pedophiles.
We should have known better.
They’re going to get away with it. We should have all knew they were always going to get away with it, now it’s confirmed.
Let this Epstein saga be a lesson: America is every bit as corrupt as any other country out there. Russia, China, Mexico, Brazil–all those other countries we look down on for being corrupt and run by gangsters, we’re just like them.
The crushing uniformity of the suburbs nationwide contributes to the rising levels of misery in our society. Lots of people have noticed that all suburbs basically look the same, and it’s quite unfortunate because when you travel to a different place, you want it to look and feel different.
But it never does. Every town is laid out the same. Maybe the only difference is that strip malls in tropical areas have terra cotta roofs and stucco siding.
You have no idea where this is, do you?
It could literally be anywhere in America.
And this, too:
It might be in suburban Kansas City. It might be in suburban Indianapolis. It might be in suburban Seattle. It might be in suburban Cleveland. We’ll never know.
I could tell you this photo is from Denver, and you’d believe me:
But it could also be from Charlotte, or perhaps Memphis. Who knows?
This is not good.
Most people don’t get to experience beauty anymore–not in nature, because most people don’t live anywhere near nature, and certainly not in architecture when most buildings today look like this:
Why do people love New Orleans’ French Quarter?
Because it’s a breath of fresh air from the monolithic, utilitarian drabness of modern architecture:
It’s aesthetically pleasing. It elevates your mood simply by looking at a picture of it.
Boston, one of America’s oldest cities, features a striking contrast between old:
That’s Boston City Hall. That’s what we built, compared to what our predecessors built nearly three centuries ago. Compare our architecture with theirs and you cannot tell me we have progressed as a people. Which generation do you think featured greater men, the one that built Faneuil Hall, or the one that built Boston City Hall?
Where I live, in Chicago, my favorite buildings are those built decades and decades ago, like the Wrigley Building, built in 1924:
And the Board of Trade Building, an Art Deco masterpiece built in 1930:
You can tell a lot about a people by the buildings they make. In fact, when we die off, our buildings will be the only things we leave behind in this world to give future generations a sense of who we were.
Preceding generations left us with buildings like this:
And the Treasury Building, completed in 1869:
And my personal favorite in D.C., the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which was actually built in the 1880s even though it was renamed for Eisenhower in 1999:
This, however, is what we will leave behind–the FBI Headquarters building, completed in 1975:
The Romans left behind the Pantheon:
We’ll leave behind the HHS Building, built in 1977, a poster child for “Brutalist” Architecture:
Britain has a similar problem with bleak, depressing modern architecture intermingled with (and overrunning) its breathtaking Gothic masterpieces. The great commentator Theodore Dalrymple has an apt quote in his book “Our Culture, What’s Left of It” that he intended for the British but could just as well apply to us Americans:
“The British are barbarians camped out in the relics of an older and superior civilization to whose beauties they are oblivious.”
It’s a harsh realization when it finally dawns on you that your generation is not the best that ever was. But how can we deny it? Just look at the aesthetic we’re going to leave behind compared to the one left behind by our predecessors.
So the question is, is our ugly, depressing and not-built-to-last architecture a result of our cultural stagnation and malaise, or the cause of it?