demographic transformation

You Can Oppose Immigration and Still Not Be Racist

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.

Get it?

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?

I’ll wait.

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.


Header photo credit: PragerU

The Democratic Debate Revealed Just How Far Along the Plan to Fundamentally Transform America Is

I caught a bit of the second Democratic Presidential debate. I usually don’t watch Democratic debates because there’s literally nothing they can say that will make me vote for them, but in this case I kind of wanted to see how Biden handled himself as the frontrunner, as well as how Bernie has changed over the past few years. Plus I wanted to see if Andrew Yang could possibly seize the opportunity to get out his message of free money for everyone and gain some momentum (he didn’t).

A few takeaways:

1. The Whore (Kamala Harris) was really off-putting. There’s just something about her that is repellant. She’s way too theatrical, over-the-top. I just felt like she was acting. She was so animated to the point where it felt unnatural. When she spoke, I felt like I was watching a robot whose “passion” and “bombast” settings were turned up too high.

2. The idea of Biden vs. the reality of Biden appear to be colliding head-on. For some reason he had become, in people’s minds, a “dignified elder statesman”–a wise, stoic old graybeard–over the past five or so years because after the 2012 election, he really didn’t get much media attention. But he is and always has been a total buffoon who can’t go five minutes without sticking his foot in his mouth. Biden is a doddering old man who has run for President and lost (badly) twice in the past, and I hope people are starting to remember why.

The guy has zero—absolutely zero—appeal outside of being associated with the Great Liberal Messiah Barack Obama. If Obama had not chosen Biden to be his running mate in 2008, and Biden remained in the Senate for the past 10 years, he would not be running for President right now. The only reason Democratic voters like him is because they can’t vote for Obama a third time, so Biden must be the next-best thing, they believe. Biden remains the front-runner, but will he remain so after he’s been in the public eye for long enough that people start to remember why they didn’t like him prior to 2008?

3. Really odd strategy for “Mayor Pete” to make his main message “Republicans Are Bad Christians Because They Are Against Open Borders.” Why does this guy keep bringing up the Bible and using it to attack Republicans? Who does he think this appeals to? Angsty 20-year-olds who just dyed their hair blue and came out as “gender non-conforming” to lash out at their parents? The young urban professionals who think they’re smarter than everyone because they Went To College and watch Jon Oliver? Lame.

4. Why was Andrew Yang unable to seize the moment and vault into the upper echelon of contenders? Well it’s probably because he wasn’t allowed to:

That’s absurd! What a ridiculous conspiracy theorist Andrew Yang is! We all know the Democrats would never rig a primary!

Ultimately, though, what little of the debate I caught told me everything I have to know about not only the Democratic Party in 2019, but the country itself.

The portion I caught was them all tripping over one another to show they were more Against Borders than the next. “I’m gonna let them all in!” “Oh yeah? Well I’m gonna let them all in AND give them free healthcare!” “That’s nothing: I’m gonna let them all in, give them free healthcare, and then I’m gonna abolish ICE entirely so the rest of Latin America is allowed to pour into this country behind them!”

The Democrats are not the party of open borders; they are the party of No Borders. They do not see a distinction between America, Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and the rest of Latin America. The debate proved that much.

At one point, the moderator asked Joe Biden point-blank if he thought people who had committed no crime other than crossing the border illegally should be sent back, and in a rambling answer he basically said no, they shouldn’t.

So the Democratic Presidential candidates are all on record saying it should not be illegal to move to this country without first applying for citizenship. Anyone on earth can be an American so long as they just walk across the border.

And the whole time I’m wondering: does this actually appeal to my fellow countrymen and women? There are people out there who actually agree with this?

I’m not the only one who thought this:

There is no pro-border Democratic candidate. They have no interest in winning “Middle America” as traditionally understood because they gave up on “Middle America” decades ago. They are the party of the wealthy and of the poor–everyone in between is of no interest to the Democrats.

But the larger point is that the definition of “Middle America” has changed.

What last night made me realize was that the Uniparty’s plan to demographically remake this country is pretty far along. It’s in advanced stages. When you have one party’s politicians fighting among one another over who will do the most to totally erase the border between our country and Latin America, you know things have gotten out of hand.

At this point all they’re really doing is arguing about how to best put the finishing touches on the demographic transformation of America. They’re all in agreement that America should be turned into an extension of Latin America, they simply disagree with one another on which one of them gets to oversee and accelerate the process.

But there is no disagreement on the fundamental question of “Should America simply fling open its door and allow potentially the entirety of Central America to migrate here en masse?” To that question they all answer yes.

We have already lost our country when one of the two parties’ presidential candidates are fighting among one another to be the most amenable and welcoming to illegal immigrants.

Even little Warmongering Ben noticed how obsessed the Democrats were with bending over backwards for illegals:

But little Warmongering Ben missed the point: those are mainstream positions. They might not have been mainstream positions in the America of, say, 20 years ago, but they are now. The Democrats have fundamentally remade our country.

Those candidates knew their target audience last night. Politicians only say something if it can help them appeal to voters and get elected. They wouldn’t be talking about opening the border if they didn’t think it would appeal to a large number of voters. And that’s the worst part of it: the realization that such a large number of voters—or, more accurately, “Americans”—are in favor of open borders.

The Democratic candidates were appealing to foreigners last night, straight-up. That’s their target audience. By “foreigners” I mean first or second-generation immigrants, legal or illegal. That’s the Democratic base. That’s who the Democratic Party now officially serves. Last night made me realize it.

At first I was going to say the Democratic debate shows that their party no longer represents America, but that’s not totally accurate: what it shows is that they have already succeeded in fundamentally transforming America. We are already living in post-America.

The definition of “American” has changed over the past several decades, and it is now becoming apparent. There are now enough foreigners living in America that the Democratic Party doesn’t even attempt to appeal to white Americans. Mass immigration has brought in so many foreigners over the past 40-50 years that the people who founded and populated this country for the better part of two-plus centuries are no longer even on the Democrats’ radar.

And that includes black people, too. Outside of their sporadic “Cops Are Racist!” outbursts, Democrats no longer really even pretend to care about black people because the black population is not booming the way Hispanic and immigrant populations are. In terms of economics, illegal immigration probably hits blacks the hardest. The media tries to downplay it, but it’s no secret that Hispanics and blacks don’t really like each other. In LA, Hispanic gangs are literally ethnically cleansing black neighborhoods. But the Democratic Party does not care. They take the black vote entirely for granted and focus on catering to the ethnic groups that are growing the fastest.

To us, the illegal immigrant-centric Democratic debate last night seemed bizarre and totally outside the mainstream. But that’s only until you realize that the definition of “mainstream” has changed along with the country’s demographics. Anyone who felt alienated by last night’s Democratic Debate needs to understand: you are not part of their vision for America’s future, or even its present. You are an obstacle, a hindrance to be done away with.

“I can’t believe these Democrats are talking so openly and brazenly about allowing illegals into my country!”

The Democrats’ reply: “Your country?”


One thing I did like was Bernie’s closing statement about taking on the money interests. On that point, I totally agree with him.

But, like Will said, he totally undercuts his whole “anti-establishment” message when he talks about how he wants to open up the border and shower illegal immigrants with free money, healthcare and government benefits.

Bernie is a fraud.

Invader Congresswoman Ilhan Omar: “This is Not Going to be the Country of White People”

Western compassion for the poor, destitute and downtrodden for the world is rewarded with this:

“Asserting that America “was founded on the history of Native American genocide, on the backs of black slaves,” she went on to brazenly state, “This is not going to be the country of white people.”

Imagine if a white Republican had made a speech in which he or she asserted, “This is not going to be the country of black people.”

Their political career would be finished and their reputation would be tainted for the rest of their life.

But since the last acceptable form of racism is racism against white people, Omar’s statement is a mere footnote.”

We opened up our country to ungrateful invaders who hate us. Not only do they hate us, they are actively working to facilitate the downfall of the white race. They are openly celebrating the fact that with each passing year, the white share of the population in America decreases.

This is how our kindness and compassion is rewarded. We open our doors to people who live in shithole countries, and this is how they repay us.

Imagine moving to China and boldly proclaiming that “this is not going to be the country of Asian people.”

Or moving to the Congo and stating, “This is not going to be the country of black people.”

That’s what Ilhan Omar did.

She is literally an invader. She is an enemy of the American people, and working to facilitate the downfall of America as it has existed since the Founding.

Why is she allowed to say these things? I thought we lived in a white supremacist country that brutally oppressed minorities?

If that was the case, Ilhan Omar would not only have never gotten away with saying that, she would have never even sniffed the halls of the US Congress in the first place.

Of course the idea that America is a white supremacist country is utter nonsense.

The reason Ilhan Omar is allowed to openly celebrate the fact that America will no longer be a white country in a couple short decades is that those who run this country endorse her views. The Globalist Uniparty Elite also eagerly anticipates the day white Americans lose their majority status.

Why? Why is there such an open obsession with eliminating the white race?

Because America as founded is (was) too hard for the Globalist Elite to exploit and subjugate. For most of the past two and a half centuries, Americans–and much of Western Europe–were born into freedom. They had the right to free speech, the right to bear arms–they were free from government tyranny.

In this regard, America and Western Europe were unique in the world: they were full of free Christian people and governed by mostly competent and mostly upstanding leaders. Their institutions were mostly moral, patriotic and rooted in traditional values.

All this made them exceedingly difficult for the Globalist Elite–which emerged in the past half-century, perhaps even as early as the end of World War II–to bring to heel and exploit. Free people who know nothing but freedom are nearly impossible for Corporate/Government Overlords to exploit and subjugate. They won’t allow it. So the solution became clear to the globalist elite: overrun and replace the free westerners.

Because America and Western Europe are historically white nations, in order for the global elite to subjugate them, the global elite had to replace their native populations with foreigners who are easier to rule and exploit. Demographic replacement erases the history, values and soul of a nation, and that’s exactly what’s going on.

The elites are obsessed with demographically replacing white people in America because white people represent the link to America as it was founded–free and Christian.



Why Revolution is Inevitable in America, Part II

Recently I wrote a piece on this site entitled, “Why Revolution is Inevitable in America.” It focused on the long-term political problems destroying America that the Uniparty Political Establishment simply will not allow President Donald Trump to address.

This one will focus on the long-term demographic transformation underway that will also contribute to a revolution.


Another reason there will be revolution: white America’s fate is tied to Donald Trump’s success. Building the wall is about more than stopping drugs and crime: it’s about stopping the demographic transformation of this country. If the Uniparty prevents Donald Trump from building the wall, ending chain migration, ending anchor baby policies, and ending the diversity lottery, then it will mean white Americans are destined to be demographically overrun.

Right now, the Uniparty is winning. Trump is losing badly on immigration.

And so another reason revolution is inevitable is that white Americans will not go quietly into the night. They just won’t. They won’t sit back and do nothing about their dispossession as a race. Some might, but already the increasing level of hostility towards whites in American culture–media, entertainment, education, in the workplace, and in daily life–has had the effect awakening white racial consciousness in a way not seen since the 1960s.

But unlike the 1960s, today there’s much more at stake: the prospect of a nonwhite majority America was not looming at the height of the Civil Rights movement. White Americans in 2019 face a unique, unprecedented, and probably existential threat. And each day more are realizing it.

This is why white people won’t go quietly into the night. The Republican Party may have changed and reoriented itself significantly with the ascendance of Trump in 2016, but there are still massive changes to come, most significantly the shift to an explicitly white identity politics party. The stigma around white identity politics will dissolve as more and more white people simply stop giving a fuck if they’re called racist for pursuing their own interests as a people (just as every other ethnic group in this country does.)

When the phrase “it’s okay to be white” is denounced as racism, that’s when lots of white people will say, “You know what? I’ve had it. Fuck this. I tried to be understanding and tolerant, I tried to ‘check my privilege,’ but now I see what’s really going on: it’s not about respect, it’s not about equality; it’s about destroying us. They want to destroy us AND forbid us from even mentioning or noticing what’s going on. We’re not even allowed to speak out against our own dispossession. Fuck this. I no longer care if you call me a racist, because it’s been in bad faith the whole time.”

And in case you’re wondering, the phrase “It’s okay to be white” is already considered racist and forbidden:

To make matters worse, it is a white woman enforcing the anti-whiteness. It’s sad to see how many white women are Woke™, anti-white zealots, but it’s purely a result of brainwashing. Uniparty propagandists in the media and Hollywood have exploited white women’s innate desire to virtue signal and be socially accepted to turn them against their own race. As a commenter on Heartiste put it:

“Of all the crimes the foe has inflicted on us, turning white females into our class enemies was the most unforgivable.”

But this is a whole ‘nother can of worms we’ll save for a separate post in the future.

Eventually the GOP will have to become the White Party. It’s unavoidable. I’m not saying I want this to happen; I’m saying it’s inevitable. I don’t want our nation to descend into a racial civil war, just as I don’t want our nation to devolve into a revolt against an undemocratic oligarchy, but that is the situation we find ourselves approaching.

This article–like last week’s–is not a wish list. It’s a prediction.

The GOP elites can only deny the demands of the party base for so long before there is a revolt, which is exactly what we saw with Trump in 2016. The GOP Establishment had gotten so out of touch with the base that the base finally said enough’s enough and nominated Trump, who actually understood what the party base wanted.

Eventually Republican voters will replace the globalist Uniparty quislings currently “representing” them in Congress in favor of politicians who are not afraid of embracing the white identity politics label. It is inevitable: if it’s what the party base wants, it will happen sooner or later.

The next step in the evolution (or devolution, because a nation moving from ideology to identity-based politics is devolving) of the GOP is its becoming the explicitly white party.

This does not mean the Nazi Party, this does not mean the Skinhead party (although those groups will have a small presence by mere virtue of their existence: they’re certainly not going to join the anti-white party, the Democrats). The vast majority of white Americans are not Nazis, nor will they ever be.

They will simply demand a party that fights for the interests of the white race, just as the Democrats fight for nonwhite interests.

You can be pro-white without being a Nazi. This should be obviously true but the media has spent a great deal of time and effort conflating Hitlerism (i.e. genocidal racism) with being pro-white, and many Americans have been brainwashed into believing anything but racial self-loathing in a white person is tantamount to literal Hitlerism.

Even the disinterested will be sucked into the fight. Even the whites that aren’t pro-white but merely neutral-white will be forced to choose a side: pro-white or anti-white?

To give an example of what I mean about the GOP becoming the White Party, take the matter of demographic transformation: the Democrats are committed to turning America into a majority-nonwhite nation in the near future. As the white party, the GOP will simply formally oppose this. They will oppose the decrease in the white percentage of America’s population, and support its increase. It’s that simple.

Democrats will push for more and more foreign immigration, Republicans will push for less and less. It will simply be a struggle to shape the demographics of America.

It’s not about extermination or concentration camps. The pro-nonwhite Democrats are working to decrease the white population without any death camps; there’s no reason to believe the pro-white GOP would push to decrease the nonwhite population with death camps. Again, this idea that white identity politics = Literal Hitlerism is a myth ingrained in people’s brains by the media. It’s untrue.

White identity politics is no more–or less–dangerous to nonwhite people than nonwhite identity politics is to white people.

Is there a way to avoid a racial revolution/civil war? I don’t think so.

You can’t convince nonwhite people to support Trump because our politics has become replaced by racial tribalism. No sane white person would vote for the Democrats because the Democrats are committed to the destruction of the white race.

But while Trump and Republicans are obviously nowhere near committed to the destruction of nonwhite people, if the Republican Party does eventually become a vehicle for white identity politics—the antithesis to the Democratic Party being a vehicle for nonwhite identity politics—then it will be virtually impossible to convince nonwhites to vote Republican, with the exception of black people (more on this later). We’re mainly talking about Hispanics and post-1965 immigrant groups.

The main case for why white people should vote for Trump is simple: “Do you want to become a minority in your own country or not?” Those are the stakes. But you cannot make this appeal to minorities.

You can try telling them about all the good economic developments for nonwhites under Trump (record-low unemployment for Hispanics, women and blacks, etc.) but they’re not going to really care. You can tell them Trump is against endless foreign wars, wants to secure peace with North Korea, rebuild our relationship with Russia to the point it was prior to the Soviet Union, and wants to end China’s dominance of us in trade. They’re not going to care. That stuff will not sway nonwhites to support Trump. It just won’t.

Our politics is not about economics, or even “political issues” in the traditional sense, anymore. It’s about identity.

At the end of the day, no matter how great a president Trump is for trade, foreign policy and the economy, it will all be overshadowed by the racial question: “Is he one of us?”

And to nonwhites the answer is no. And so Trump will never win them over in serious numbers.

Voting Democrat has become an integral part of being nonwhite in America, because being nonwhite has become an integral part of being a Democrat in America. Nonwhites would feel like race traitors voting for Trump. There’s no logical or political case I could make to them that would change that.

The nonwhite vs. white mindset now overrides everything in politics. Nonwhites believe (totally falsely, of course) that Trump is on a mission to do one thing and one thing only: destroy nonwhites. And if they vote for him, they will be contributing to the destruction of their race.

Again, obviously this is not true. But most nonwhites believe it. Their dislike of Trump is rooted in the fact that they believe he is a racist and is out to get them.

The media, academia, pop culture and lying Democratic politicians have done this. They are the ones that have fostered and promoted racial identity politics by convincing nonwhites they’re under attack.

There is no undoing it. It’s futile to try to undo this mass brainwashing and move America to a colorblind society. The horse has already left the barn.

The only thing we can do is acknowledge that the ruling elites have turned this country into a hotbed of racial tribalism and animosity, and behave accordingly.

If the future of America is to be defined by racial struggle, white people have two options:

  1. Fight back
  2. Surrender

There is no third option for “everyone realizes racism is stupid and we all decide to be colorblind, and only quarrel over ideological political issues.” The Uniparty elite has already taken us past the point of no return. Racial grievances and resentment among nonwhites have already been whipped up to such an extent that it is too late to undo it.

And so the question is, now that the media/Uniparty Establishment has all but guaranteed America’s future will be a racial struggle, are whites actually going to take their own side in it? Or will they just surrender and hope for mercy once they become a minority?

Just as with the struggle of the American People vs. the Uniparty, the racial struggle for white people in America has only two outcomes: fight back or be destroyed.

I can’t see how it doesn’t lead to a revolution.


I guess one way to possibly win over nonwhites is to ask them if they truly understand what it means to live a country without a white majority.

I mean just look around the world: where is there a country with a nonwhite majority where you’d actually like to live? If white people are so horrible, then why have nonwhites been flocking to white countries (i.e. America, Canada, Western Europe, Australia) for the past few decades by the millions?

Why does everybody in nonwhite-majority countries want to leave and move to a white-majority country?

It’s because white countries are the best places to live. They just are. This is an objective fact. It’s not my opinion.

If you don’t believe me, take a look at the results of this Gallup poll, which asked adults around the world if they want to leave their home country, and if so, where they would prefer to go. 150 million people around the world want to move to America:

Screen Shot 2019-04-17 at 2.29.11 PM.png

Of the over 640 million people worldwide that want to leave their home country, over half want to move to either America, Canada, Australia or Western Europe–all historically white nations built by white people.

(The only nonwhite country I could see being a nice place to live is Japan, but the Japanese do not view immigration like we do in the West. They do not believe in multiculturalism and they do not see diversity as a strength. They will never accept an outsider as one of them. You can become American, but you cannot become Japanese. So the option of immigrating to Japan is basically off the table.)

If this nation becomes majority nonwhite, it will become just like the nonwhite countries around the world: poor, dangerous, corrupt and miserable.

White countries are the best places to live. I’m sorry but it’s obviously and undeniably true. It’s an objective fact. It’s an observation, not an opinion. Even nonwhite people agree based on their migration patterns.

If you take away what made this country great, it will no longer be great. That’s just a fact. You can pretend that America’s greatness has nothing to do with it being a white country, but eventually, you’ll realize you were wrong.

In this sense, nonwhite immigrants who are already here should be for more restrictive immigration policies. They should want to keep this country great.

They should want to basically shut the door behind them when they come here, because too many immigrants will ruin it for everyone. They will soon find all the things they came here to escape have followed them.

You cannot completely transform America’s demographics and expect the nation itself to not completely transform as well.

Am I saying immigrants and minorities should want to remain minorities, and want this country to remain a predominantly white country? Absolutely.

Problem is, they’ll never go for this argument.

As for convincing black Americans to oppose demographic transformation, I guess you can ask them if they truly think they’ll be better off when this nation is 35-40% Hispanic.

While the media treats all nonwhite races as one and the same, in reality blacks and Hispanics don’t see themselves as the same. Many black Americans will tell you they’re fed up with the Democratic Party prioritizing illegal immigrants over poor blacks. And Hispanic gangs in LA have been “ethnically cleansing” blacks for decades, although you’ll never hear about it in the media.

This is not to say whites have historically treated blacks well, of course. America’s history between blacks and whites is widely known. But black people are as much a part of this country’s racial identity as white people are. It took a while for things to get sorted out, but American history has shown that black and white people can share a nation.

Yes it has been a rough road, but in the past 50 years, remarkable racial progress has been made in this country. For Pete’s sake, a nation that was at the time over 65% white and only 12% black elected a black president.

Black Americans could have gone back to Africa after slavery was over. They could have left whitey behind. But they didn’t. In fact, there was a “Back to Africa” movement organized by Marcus Garvey around the turn of the century, and it was a total dud.

As bad as life historically was for Black Americans, they never wanted to leave majority-white America, and things have consistently gotten better over time.

Even though things have appeared to get worse between blacks and whites since Ferguson in 2014, that’s largely a result of media propaganda designed specifically to turn blacks against whites.

So I guess the pitch for black Americans to support the “white party” would simply be: do you think Hispanics will treat you better or worse than whites do?

In other words, is it truly in black Americans’ interests to swamp the white majority with poor immigrants from Latin America and Asia?

If black Americans’ only goal is to destroy whitey, then by all means, keep on voting for Democrats.

But how will destroying whitey actually benefit blacks? How will making this country more like Latin America and less like America benefit blacks?

That’s something they ought to ask themselves.

Busting the Myth that We NEED Mass Immigration to “Fix” Our Declining Birthrate

This argument is often trotted out to argue for more immigrants:


On its face, however, the idea is nonsensical: if you’re concerned about falling birthrates, then why don’t you seek to promote higher birth rates among American citizens?

Why is the go-to “solution” to the “problem” always TONS AND TONS OF IMMIGRANTS?

Why is that always their first (and only) solution?

That’s how you know they have another agenda. If they actually cared about boosting the birthrate, they’d put forth policies that—stay with me here—actually boost the birthrate.

But they don’t. The “declining birth rates!!!” pseudo-hysteria is a sham. It’s a flimsy excuse to continue mass immigration, and it’s time to put it to bed.

Problem is, a lot of supposed “Market-Based Conservatives” have fallen for it, too. They seem to ignore the fact that Democrats exclusively benefit from immigration.

Don’t fall for the bullshit. Anyone pretending to be concerned about falling birthrates is just making an excuse to overrun this country with foreigners.

And who ever said a stagnant/declining population is a bad thing in and of itself?

First of all, population goes in cycles. Everything does. We’ll go through a period of booming populations, and then a period of shrinking populations.  No trend lasts forever. To say otherwise is myopic and small minded. It exposes a lack of historical awareness.

Fertility rates rise, fertility rates fall:


Look at Stage 5: the birth rate line is going back up. Things in this world go in cycles.

And has there ever been a documented case of a nation disappearing off the face of the earth because it simply stopped reproducing? Of course not.

Declining birthrates in the developed world are not part of some new phase in human history where we have stopped reproducing. It’s not the next step on the evolutionary ladder. People are still the same.

You want to increase birth rates? Enact a total and complete ban of online porn, which is rendering young men impotent at astonishing rates, and stop the illegal immigration, which keeps wages down.

People need to be financially stable to have children and settle down. It’s quite simple. But wages haven’t risen in decades, and most young people are broke. So they balk at the idea of starting a family.

And stop promoting “female empowerment,” for God’s sake. We live in a society where women are encouraged to forgo marriage and motherhood to saddle themselves with $100k in student debt so they can work soul-crushing jobs shuffling paper and making Power Points for multinational megacorporations, until they wake up in their mid-late 30s and lament the fact that they missed out on their prime fertility years.

What was it all for? So they could make $65k a year and have money to Buy Nice Stuff?

The reasons behind falling birthrates in the developed world are no mystery. But our political establishment has no interest in addressing these problems.

And these “economically-minded” Smart People fretting over the birthrate always point to Japan—Japan, Japan, Japan. If we don’t fix our falling population with Tons And Tons of Poor Immigrants, we’ll end up like Japan.

Japan has had a falling birthrate for years. Its population is has officially been in decline since 2011.

And yet, what’s so wrong with Japan?


I’ve been to Japan. Cernovich is correct. It’s very clean, very safe and has a strong culture. It’s a high-trust society with one of the lowest crime rates on earth.

This is what Japan looks like:


You could eat off that street. When I visited Tokyo, that’s what most streets looked like, too. But don’t believe your lying eyes: I guess Japan is actually a dystopian hellhole because its population is declining. The Economically-Minded Conservatives told me so.

Japan is safe, clean and culturally strong despite its falling population and notoriously strict immigration policies, which Smart Conservatives at Washington Think Tanks tell us are very bad things. Apparently Japan hasn’t gotten the memo.

Japan, due to its strict immigration laws, a homogeneous population with very few outsiders. That’s why it’s so clean and safe and has such high social trust.

Immigration would ruin Japan.

Its low birth rate and falling population haven’t had a material impact on the quality of life in Japan. It’s a very nice place to live with a high standard of living and one of the world’s highest GDPs per capita.

But mass immigration would ruin Japan, like it has ruined everywhere else.

The “solution” would end up being many times worse than the “problem.”

In fact, mass immigration to Japan would be a “solution” to a problem that doesn’t exist.

This myth that a booming population by any means is always good, and self-evidently so, must be dismantled.

Japan, a country Smart Economists point to as the “nightmare scenario” for falling populations, is in reality proof-positive that a falling population is nothing to fear.

“If we don’t boost immigration to increase our fertility rate, we’ll end up like Japan!”

You mean clean, safe and with a strong social fabric? Sign me up.

Ann Coulter had a good explanation for America:

Screen Shot 2019-04-08 at 11.39.06 PM.png

Undoubtedly the first option would be better.

In regards to our falling birthrate, we can either:

  1. Do nothing. Or:
  2. Institute pro-natal policies to increase the birthrate among American citizens who are already living here.

The idea that the only solution to our falling birthrate is to flood the country with poor foreigners is utterly ridiculous. And yet this is the consensus position of the political and cultural establishment.

The reason, of course, that they want to flood the country with foreigners is not that they are Super Concerned about the population decreasing.

It’s because they want to phase you out and replace you with new “Americans” that will vote overwhelmingly Democrat.


The Only Number that Matters in Elections

Last night I was for some reason going through the 2016 election exit polls when I stumbled across the only figure that matters.

No, it’s not the racial voting breakdown.

It’s the American citizenship question: “Were you born a US citizen?”


This explains why Democrats win the popular vote.

This explains fully why Democrats are obsessed with ever-increasing levels of immigration.

In 2016, 9% of the electorate was comprised of individuals who were not born US citizens but rather immigrated here and became citizens.

Those people went for Clinton 64-31.

The remaining 91% of the electorate–those born US citizens–went for Trump 49-45.

It explains everything.

Democrats cannot win with American voters.

So their plan is to swamp American voters with foreigners and win elections that way.

They will do everything they can to increase that 9% number. They want immigrants, not Americans, deciding our elections.

Swedish Leftists Admit Immigration is About Ethnic Cleansing in White Countries

The leftwing globalists always show their true colors eventually:

“Sweden’s ambassador to Hungary has received protests from the Hungarian government following Social Security Minister Annika Strandhäll’s incendiary tweet against Budapest’s policy to completely exempt mothers of four from taxes.

Strandhäll wrote that Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s demand for “more genuine Hungarian children” was offensive, “reeked of the 1930s” and effectively offset the benefits of feminism.

“What is happening in Hungary is alarming. Now Orban wants more ‘genuine’ Hungarian children to be born. The policy reeks of the 30s. A right-wing populist you need smokescreens for what this type of policy does to the independence women have been struggling for”, Strandhäll tweeted.”

But I thought declining birthrates in the West were a major problem?

According to the globalists, we need millions of migrants because we can’t increase our populations ourselves, organically.

In other words, because the native populations of Western nations are not reproducing adequately, we need migrants to ensure our populations increase at the same rates they did in the 20th century.

But when a nation like Hungary implements policies to increase birth rates in the native population, and expressly rejects the idea of importing migrants to increase the population, the globalists freak out.

Not importing migrants to replace your native population is Nazism, apparently.

The globalists are rarely so honest about their intentions: they want to ethnically cleanse white Western nations and replace their populations with third world migrants.

It was never about birthrates. It has always been about demographic replacement.

“Viktor Orban’s call for “Hungarian children” didn’t resonate well with the Swedish press, either. Sydsvenskan‘s columnist Sofia Nerbrand wrote that Orban “should be ashamed” of steps to stimulate childbirth in Hungary.

“Viktor Orban’s stated goal is that the Hungarian people will increase with the help of white Hungarian offsprings, not migrants,” Nerbrand wrote, calling this approach ‘unsavoury’. “Rhetoric and politics that put one’s own people first and shut out the others should have no place in today’s Europe.”

All but the most outlandish caricatures of modern leftwing globalists can parody their sheer lunacy. They are nearly impossible to parody because their actual, genuine statements equal and often surpass the parodies. You can’t tell the difference.

Globalists: “Your native population is growing too slowly. You need migrants.”

Orban: “What if we simply implement policies to increase the birthrate among our native population?”

Globalists: “No. That is not allowed. You MUST import millions of third worlders. Do not attempt to boost the birthrate among native Hungarians. Your population increase will come exclusively from migrants.”

They’re actually saying this now.

And how is this not ethnic cleansing?

They’re declaring that your population increase must come from African and Middle Eastern migrants alone, and that if Hungary attempts to boost birthrates among actual ethnic Hungarians, it is literal Nazism.

Fortunately Hungary doesn’t care what the globalists say:

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto called Strandhäll’s statement “unacceptable” and noted a big difference between Sweden and Hungary in terms of politics.

“Hungary spends money on families, while Sweden spends it on migrants”, Szijjarto said.

Europe now stands at a crossroads. Most of the major, Western European powers have already decided to take the path of open borders and political correctness, which will lead to multicultural oblivion.

Eventually one day, the Swedish people will be but a memory because their Feminist Government has decided that the future of their country is African and Middle Eastern migrants, not ethnic Swedes. Like the Phoenicians, the Celts and countless other ethnic groups no longer in existence due to conquest and displacement, the Swedes will exist only in the pages of history books.

But other nations, like Hungary, are rejecting this suicide pact foisted on them by powerful nations like Germany, as well as elite institutions and governing bodies like the EU and the UN.

The policy differences today between self-confident, nationalist countries like Hungary and suicidal globalist nations like Sweden will only become more apparent in the coming decades. But the time for choosing is now.

Rush: America is in a “Life and Death Struggle” Due to Mass Immigration

Based Rush. From his show yesterday beginning around the 14-minute mark:

“For the last 25 years, I see the United States in a sort of life and death struggle for its existence as we knew it.

I thought after the 1980s, after two terms of Ronaldus Maxiumus (Reagan), that we’d won. How could we have not? We had just had two terms of the most conservative administration ever. We had an economic boon. We had wages up, interest rates plummeting, virtually every economic mistake Jimmy Carter made was fixed, there were more people working than ever before, the Berlin Wall came down shortly after Reagan left office, the Soviet Union was no more, we rebuilt our military–I figured people lived through this, they’re going to finally see it, they’re going to finally believe it, they’re going to trust it [“it” meaning conservatism].

So why didn’t that last? I mean you had eight years where everybody alive knew that tax cuts led to massive prosperity for everyone–why didn’t that last?

I’ll tell you why: that is when the left began to import millions of foreign nationals via illegal immigration.

Not just illegal immigration but legal immigration, too. Rush hasn’t yet gotten to the point where he’s comfortable calling out the negative effects of legal immigration, but give it some time. He will.

Before we go further, I want to point out: simply acknowledging that legal immigration has had some very bad consequences for the GOP and the country does not mean you’re totally against legal immigration. You can still be fine with legal immigration while wanting less–even considerably less–of it.

We don’t have to end immigration altogether. We just need to dramatically cut it down to prevent massive, permanent demographic transformation. We need to get our demographics under control or else we won’t have a country anymore.

There is nothing immoral about wanting to reduce legal immigration. The idea that the only moral and virtuous position is to want as many immigrants as possible from all corners of the globe year in and year out indefinitely is a globalist lie. There is nothing immoral about restricting immigration. We Americans don’t owe foreigners anything. The idea that we do is a Globalist Uniparty lie to trick Americans into giving big corporations an endless supply of cheap labor.

Back to Rush:

“[The] Simpson-Mazzoli [Act], 1986, granted Amnesty for 3.6 million of them and that’s what opened the floodgates. The [memory of Reagan’s success in the 1980s] are overwhelmed and outnumbered by people who were not alive here, who were living somewhere else; they’ve been imported by the left by illegal immigration. Did you know one out of four people in California was not born in the United States?”

Actually, it’s closer to one in three. And if you count the real number of illegals in this country–30 million, as opposed to the laughably inaccurate 11 million number that has been used since 2005, as if not a single illegal has entered this country in 14 years–the foreign-born share of California’s population is probably even higher than 1/3.

“You wonder what happened to the Republican Party in California? There you go.

The electorate has been changed.

The makeup of our culture has been changed, by way of illegal immigration brought to us by the Democrats and a bunch of clueless Republicans who thought that because Latin Americans were Catholic they were gonna end up voting conservative! So they [Republicans] were on the bandwagon for keeping borders open for their own reasons. Gigantic miscalculation.”


First Tucker, now Rush.

While our Republican politicians continue to sell us–and the country–out in favor of big business, at least we can take small solace in the fact that our leading luminaries on the airwaves get it.

This is important because Rush gets through to Trump. Rush and Trump are longtime friends and golf buddies. I’m not sure how much they talk these days but Rush has a decent amount of influence with the President. Trump values Rush’s opinion.

Now, with regards to Democrats resuscitating their national political fortunes by way of mass immigration despite the success of the Reagan administration in the 1980s, the unspoken point is that in a “diverse”, post-mass migration society, economics don’t matter to voters. Not really.

What I mean by that is, their votes are not swayed by a good economy under a president of the opposite party.

If not for mass immigration, Reagan would have been the Republican FDR: an enormously popular and successful president whose lasting impact was reshaping the political landscape to favor his party for a generation. Under FDR and his successor Truman, Democrats won every Presidential election from 1932-1948. Not only that, they shifted the center of American politics toward the left in a major way so that by the time 1952 rolled around, the only way the Republicans could win was to nominate the hero of World War II, Dwight Eisenhower, and promise to leave the New Deal in place.

Republicans had first tried running against FDR’s New Deal in the 1930s but were clobbered every time. By the 1950s the GOP realized it would never win unless it accepted the New Deal as permanent and basically shifted left. FDR had permanently tiled the playing field of American politics to the left. He made it so that the GOP had to become the Democrat Lite Party because FDR’s policies were so widely popular. FDR’s policies were initially seen as liberal, but because of their widespread popularity, they became the de facto center of American politics. This is how you push the entire political spectrum to one side. What were previously moderate, centrist views became right-wing after FDR’s New Deal.

That’s what Rush is talking about with Reagan: Reagan should have been the Republican FDR–the one who pushed the entire American political spectrum to the right and made conservatism the new moderate centrism. What were previously right-wing conservative policies should have become mainstream consensus positions.

But instead, Bush 41 was a one-term President, and since 1992, it is the Democrats have won four of the seven Presidential elections and six of seven popular votes.

Instead of tilting the playing field permanently to the right through Reagan’s success, Democrats tilted it permanently to the left by way of mass immigration.

Whereas in the past Americans would vote based on which party was better for their personal finances, in a post-mass immigration America, political affiliation is not determined by this. Political affiliation is determined by tribe: Blacks vote Democrat. Hispanics vote Democrat. Jews vote Democrat. Whites vote Republican.

That’s just the way it is.

It’s about way more than economics. It’s about tribal identity. Democrats have succeeded in making voting Democrat an inextricable part of being black or Hispanic in America.

Why do you think black Republicans are routinely scorned as “Uncle Toms” by other black people? Because there’s a widespread belief that voting Democrat is an integral part of being black in America.

Hollywood and the Uniparty Media have succeed in convincing much of the country that white people still massively oppress minorities, and voting Republican is seen as a way to propagate “systemic racism” against minorities. Many minorities believe minority Republicans are voting to continue their own oppression.

It makes a lot more sense if you think of the Republican Party as the “White Party” and the Democratic Party as the “nonwhite party.” Why on earth would a nonwhite person vote for the White Party?

And if you’re wondering why many white people vote for the Nonwhite Party, you’ve stumbled upon the real problem in 2019, given that ~60% of the country is still white: the cultural left has indoctrinated and guilted a good deal of white people to believe they are morally obligated to vote Democrat, i.e. against their own interests. Self-loathing whites still remain integral to the Democratic coalition because there simply aren’t enough minority voters to carry the Democrats to victory on their own. Yet.

Dismantling and Replacing “Old” America

As our country grows more “diverse” and less American, this is the inevitable result:

“Over the past several years, we have seen a rising tide of assaults on statues and other works of art representing our nation’s history by those who are eager to squeeze that complex story into a box defined by the evolving rules of political correctness. We might call this the “monument controversy,” and what happened at Notre Dame [where 134-year-old paintings of Christopher Columbus were covered-up] is a case in point: a vocal minority, claiming victim status, demands the destruction, removal, or concealment of some object of which they disapprove. Usually, the official response is instant capitulation.

As the French writer Charles Péguy once observed, “It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of not looking sufficiently progressive.” Consider the frequent demands to remove statues of Confederate war heroes from public spaces because their presence is said to be racist. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, for example, has recently had statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson removed from a public gallery. In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio has set up a committee to review “all symbols of hate on city property.”

“Symbols of hate” of course means “symbols of whiteness.”

Roger Kimball goes on:

“But it is worth noting that the monument controversy signifies something much larger than the attacks on the Old South or Italian explorers.

In the first place, the monument controversy involves not just art works or commemorative objects. Rather, it encompasses the resources of the past writ large. It is an attack on the past for failing to live up to our contemporary notions of virtue.”

While this is the left’s usual stated reason for erasing American history, the true reason behind it is far more troubling than simply political correctness run amok.

It’s about erasing traces of American history to make the country more reflective of its new owners (nonwhite immigrants), rather than the old ones (white people).

Since 1965, the Uniparty Establishment has been working tirelessly to demographically transform America into a “diverse” international homeless shelter in order to make it more receptive to leftwing socialist policies.

Demographic transformation of a country necessarily entails wholesale cultural, linguistic, religious, political and yes, even historical, transformation.

Historical transformation–which comes after erasure–is necessary to ensure a place is completely transformed beyond all recognition, permanently.

A nation is defined by its history, in other words “who it was.” In order to know what someone or some place is, you must know what it was.

Erasing a nation’s history means it is simply a blank slate, a plot of land on a map, which can thus be remade into anything.

And that’s the point.

If you thought the historical erasure would stop with Confederates and Old Southerners, you were wrong. That’s just the first step. That’s the low-hanging fruit the Globalist Uniparty Usurpers can take with little pushback from the token opposition on the right at places like National Review, whose Editor was all to happy to capitulate on the matter of Confederate Statues:

Screen Shot 2019-02-20 at 1.01.14 PM.png

Yes, this is certainly standing athwart history and yelling ‘Stop!’

The so-called “Conservative Movement” has no interest in conserving American history because its member are more interested in being accepted by the Cool Kids.

But it’s not going to stop with the Confederate monuments. Already they’re coming for Christopher Columbus.

In 2017, “protesters” in NYC defaced a statue of Theodore Roosevelt and demanded the statue be taken down because it was a symbol of “patriarchy, white supremacy and settler-colonialism.”

And if you think they’re not coming for the Founding Fathers, you’re clueless.

The more immigrants that pour into this country, the less relevant American history becomes. Our history is not their history. Why should they have to drive down roads named after our Presidents, and send their children to schools named after our historical figures? Eventually, everything will be renamed.

Here in Chicago, there was talk a few years ago about renaming O’Hare International Airport after Obama. It didn’t happen, but is there any doubt this will happen in the future eventually? “Who was Butch O’Hare? *google search* Oh, some OLD ASS RACIST ASS DEAD ASS WHITE GUY?! FUCK HIM!”

Obama is the messiah of the New America, while a guy like Butch O’Hare represents the old America.

In Minnesota, Lake Calhoun, located in downtown Minneapolis, had its name changed to “Bde Maka Ska” last year. “Bde Maka Ska” is its “original Dakota” Indian name.

It’s not about honoring the Indians who were “here first,” but about dismantling all traces of white American history. John Calhoun, whom the lake had been named after for nearly 200 years, was an advocate of slavery, so of course that was the justification for stripping his name from the lake.

Because White Men = slavery, while Indians = morally flawless noble savages.

But removing the name of a Dead White Guy from a lake in Minneapolis was part of the wider, deliberate chipping-away at American history taking place across this country.

And it’s not just statues, lakes and buildings named after Dead White Guys. It’s Western literature that is being tossed in the dustbin of history, too:

“The English department at the University of Pennsylvania contributed to the monument controversy when it cheered on students who were upset that a portrait of a dead white male named William Shakespeare was hanging in the department’s hallway. The department removed the picture and replaced it with a photograph of Audre Lorde, a black feminist writer.

“Students removed the Shakespeare portrait,” crowed department chairman Jed Esty, “and delivered it to my office as a way of affirming their commitment to a more inclusive mission for the English department.” Right.

High schools across the country contribute to the monument controversy when they remove masterpieces like Huckleberry Finn from their libraries because they contain ideas or even just words of which they disapprove.”

The New Americans are dismantling our country before our very eyes. They are pulling the rug out from under us.

They are making the country more reflective of who they are, rather than who we are.

This applies to architecture as well. For ten years Muslim preachers in England have been demanding the Queen wear a full burka and that Buckingham Palace be affixed with minarets:

“The Queen forced to wear a burkha and Buckingham Palace turned into a mosque – that was the vision of Britain under Sharia law proposed by a Muslim firebrand yesterday.

Preacher of hate Anjem Choudary even showed mocked-up photographs of the palace sporting a golden dome and Nelson’s Column as a minaret.

He was speaking ahead of a central London demonstration that was planned for today.”

Here’s Choudray’s ideal version of Buckingham Palace:


Could they be any clearer about their intent to conquer Britain?

And American architecture is next. The neoclassical style of the Capitol, the White House and most of our famous landmarks around D.C. will one day inevitably be renounced as “white people” architecture.

Will the New Americans one day blow up Mount Rushmore? It sounds unthinkable but logically, it follows when you’re already defacing statues of Teddy Roosevelt and itching to do the same to statues of Jefferson and Washington.

The most important thing is: the faces on Mount Rushmore will come to reflect the old America, and the New America will not like that.

This type of thing has happened consistently all throughout history: when places change hands, they change names.

All traces of the old occupants and rulers are discarded and replaced with monuments recognizing the idols and icons of the new occupants and rulers.

Under Roman rule, the land today known as “France” was called “Gaul.”

When the red communists took over Russia, the city of St. Petersburg was renamed “Leningrad” after the patriarch of the Soviet Communist Party.

In Vietnam, Saigon became Ho Chi Minh City, named after the leader of the Vietnamese Communists.

Constantinople became Istanbul in 1453 when it was conquered by the Ottomans.

New York City was originally called New Amsterdam, reflecting its Dutch rulers. But the British renamed it after the Duke of York upon conquering it in 1664.

In 2003, what was the first thing the Iraqis did after being “liberated” by America? They famously pulled down the giant statue of Saddam Hussein.

The Uniparty Propaganda Media celebrated the toppling of the Saddam statue as a symbolic moment marking the official end of Saddam’s regime–and, of course, the optimistic dawn of a New Era of American-Imposed Democracy in Iraq.

The toppling of old statues, no matter where, marks the fall of an old regime and the its replacement by a new one. America is no exception.

There are countless more, and smaller, examples of names being changed and statues being toppled all around the world, all throughout history.

It is symbolic of conquest.

We may not have foreign armies marching on us and conquering us in the traditional understanding of the term, but we are being conquered nonetheless.

What we’re experiencing is conquest by way of mass immigration. The modern West may be experiencing the first-ever peacetime conquest in that our homelands are being conquered despite not being besieged by foreign armies and enemies at the gate

The end-result will be the same, however.