nationalism

Is the Coronavirus a Bioweapon?

Let’s see:

  • It kneecapped China’s economy (America’s primary rival).
  • Virus hit just before Lunar New Year in China, the country’s biggest travel holiday, for maximum impact.
  • Also spread in Iran, another of America’s chief geopolitical rivals. In particular, several Iranian politicians have contracted the disease. A prominent adviser to Ayatollah Khomeini died from the virus.
  • An Israeli company’s suspicious comments about producing a vaccine. It claimed it had already been developing a Coronavirus cure before the outbreak of the virus, and had decided to begin developing a Coronavirus vaccine out of “pure luck.”

There are claims that the virus actually originated in the US, rather than China. At least one Chinese official is publicly claiming that the US military brought the virus to China in Ocotber 2019 under the guise of the Wuhan Military Games, which took place that month.

Of course, while the disease initially hit China the worst and then Iran, it is now spreading rapidly in a lot of countries considered to be America’s allies. South Korea, Italy, France, Spain and Germany are all getting hit badly.

In fact the virus has largely plateaued in China, and Europe has become the epicenter, according to the World Health Organization. Based on the official reports from China, the worst is over for them:

It has plateaued in South Korea and it seems they largely have it under control there, but it is not under control in Europe.

So if this virus was an American bioweapon, there has been an awful lot of collateral damage. But this is all under the assumption that only cases and deaths matter. What if infecting a lot of people wasn’t the ultimate goal for whomever released the virus?

To the extent that people discuss conspiracy theories about the Coronavirus, they think along the lines of it being a weapon intended to kill lots of people.

But I don’t think that’s accurate. If the Coronavirus was indeed a bioweapon, and whomever unleashed it intended it to kill lots of people, by any objective measure, they have failed spectacularly at that. It’s tough to say with certainty just how many people have been infected by this virus given that we’re taking the official numbers at face value and assuming they haven’t been underreported by any country. But even if we triple the official numbers, that’s still not a lot of people in the grand scheme of things.

No, I think if this was a bioweapon, the real goal was something else. To figure out what that something else is, let’s look at what the virus has succeeded in doing:

  • Fear
  • Economic disruption

It has succeeded in spreading fear and disrupting the economy. If those outcomes were the actual goal of the coronavirus, then they didn’t even need an actual disease. They only needed a media fear campaign.

In fact, it seems that every year since Y2K there has been some media fear campaign over something or other:

ESI-cFEU4AE4hcs.jpg

And don’t forget Global Warming™, which has been an unrelenting fear campaign for the past 15 years.

Why would they want us to be afraid? A scared populace is a controlled populace. And it makes us more likely to give up our freedoms in exchange for perceived safety.

But there is one highly compelling reason that suggests the Coronavirus isn’t a bioweapon orchestrated by the elite, or the Pentagon going rogue, or what have you: it has exposed the structural deficiencies of the globalist world order. Open borders and free trade turn epidemics into global pandemics. Globalization means a virus in one country can spread to countless other countries and even bring down the whole global economy.

Pat Buchanan recently argued quite convincingly that the Coronavirus could end up delivering a knockout blow to the globalist ideology.

“In retrospect, was it wise to have relied on China to produce essential parts for the supply chains of goods vital to our national security? Does it appear wise to have moved the production of pharmaceuticals and lifesaving drugs for heart disease, strokes and diabetes to China? Does it appear wise to have allowed China to develop a virtual monopoly on rare earth minerals crucial to the development of weapons for our defense?

As for the “open borders” crowd, do Democrats still believe that breaking into our country should no longer be a crime, and immigrants arriving illegally should be given free health care, a proposition to which all the Democratic debaters raised their hands?

In this coronavirus pandemic, people now seem to be looking for authoritative leaders and nations seem to be looking out for their own peoples first. Would Merkel, today, invite a million Syrian refugees into Germany no matter the conditions under which they were living in Syria and Turkey?

Is not the case now conclusive that we made a historic mistake when we outsourced our economic independence to rely for vital necessities upon nations that have never had America’s best interests at heart?

Which rings truer today? We are all part of mankind, all citizens of the world. Or that it’s time to put America and Americans first!”

It’s probable that once the dust settles and this thing has run its course, the coronavirus will have done irrevocable damage to the credibility of the ruling globalist elite. Nationalist ideologies have already been growing in popularity since at least 2015, and the rapid global spread of this virus will only boost their appeal.

How many normal people have been red-pilled against globalism due to the coronavirus? More and more people are going to start rejecting open borders and free trade after seeing how a virus can spread around the world. The idea that China’s (or any other country) problems shouldn’t be our problems resonates with people on a very fundamental level.

Now, just because this virus destroys the credibility of the globalist elites does not mean it wasn’t orchestrated. It’s possible the military went rogue and did this on its own, believing it to be in its interests rather than those of the civilian elite.

Or maybe the globalist elite was on-board with the military’s plan and it was simply botched. Never discount the possibility that the elite can be incompetent sometimes. They may be powerful but they’re not all-powerful. They make mistakes sometimes. After all, they failed to foresee that 9-11 and their power grab after it (Patriot Act/mass surveillance, world policing, endless foreign wars, massive ramp-up in military spending, etc.) would backfire into a lot of the driving force behind the resurgence of nationalism and isolationism.

So what’s the verdict? I don’t know. I reflexively distrust the mainstream media/government narrative on just about everything, and the coronavirus is no different. But it’s tough to see how this benefits anyone. The economic impact in America (and everywhere else) is likely to be severe, and if anything, this only further damages the public’s faith in the ruling elite and its official ideology of liberal globalism.

But we haven’t yet seen the endgame. Maybe they’re planning on rolling out some sort of vaccine in the darkest hour that people will desperately accept. Or maybe they’ll use the virus to roll out sweeping policy changes regarding quarantines, lockdowns and other authoritarian measures, similar to the Patriot Act following 9-11.

It’s tough to say because we’re still in the middle of it. We’ll have to wait and see what changes the elite seeks to implement with the virus as justification.

 

The Coronavirus Shows Why it’s Time to Become Self-Sufficient

Mainstream public “intellectual” Steven Pinker might well have said one of the dumbest things of 2020:

The thought never even crossed Steven Pinker’s head that globalization is a choice, and that there is an alternative.

“Viruses don’t care about borders.” Yeah, assuming you continue allowing people to cross those borders.

Assuming you continue the system of global trade and reliance on dozens of other countries around the world for your supply chains.

It’s all by choice. It’s all so the global economy can be structured like this:

“Intellectuals” like Steven Pinker cannot conceive of any other way for the world to work. To him, modern globalization is and always has been.

To him, there is no conceivable alternative to a world where one break in the supply chain leads to cascading problems all around the world.

Bizarrely, he cites a global pandemic as the reason why “neo-nationalism” (gotta throw in that word association with Neo Nazis) doesn’t work. But this is a vulnerability of globalism, not nationalism.

Nationalism would be closing the borders so we’re not susceptible to a virus that originated in China. Globalism means someone in Argentina can catch a virus that started in China. What on earth is Steven Pinker saying?

Is he trying to claim that nationalism is simply a political ideology that nevertheless still accepts a globalized world? This guy doesn’t know the first thing about nationalism.

“Nationalist politics is rising all over the world, so an international virus outbreak made possible and exacerbated by the still-dominant globalist world order proves nationalism is futile and stupid.” This has got to be one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read.

If we actually lived in a world of independent nations rather than an interdependent network of “economies,” virus outbreaks in one country would be better contained and pose far less of a risk to other countries.

Globalism is why basically all of Northern Italy is under quarantine due to a virus that began in China:

“Italy reported a huge jump in deaths from the coronavirus on Sunday, a surge of more than 50 percent from the day before, as it ordered an unprecedented peacetime lockdown of its wealthiest region in a sweeping effort to fight the epidemic.

The extraordinary measure restricted movement for a quarter of the country’s population.

“We are facing an emergency, a national emergency,” Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte said in announcing the government decree in a news conference after 2 a.m.

The move is tantamount to sacrificing the Italian economy in the short term to save it from the ravages of the virus in the long term. The measures will turn stretches of Italy’s wealthy north — including the economic and cultural capital of Milan and landmark tourist destinations such as Venice — into quarantined red zones until at least April 3.

They will prevent the free movement of roughly 16 million people.

Funerals and cultural events are banned. The decree requires that people keep a distance of at least one meter from one another at sporting events, bars, churches and supermarkets.

The Italian outbreak — the worst outside Asia — has inflicted serious damage on one of Europe’s most fragile economies and prompted the closing of Italy’s schools. The country’s cases nearly tripled from about 2,500 infections on Wednesday to more than 7,375 on Sunday. Deaths rose to 366.”

Globalism is why the stock market is plunging, and we’re only at 500 cases nationwide here in the US:

In New York, 103 nationwide cases of Coronavirus caused a flood of shoppers to descend upon local supermarkets and empty the shelves:

Britain, too:

This is how quickly it happens. That’s all it takes to set off a panic and make people rush into the supermarkets to empty the shelves. Imagine if it was something worse, like a war or an invasion or an even deadlier virus.

This is one of the many rarely-mentioned downsides of globalization.

So what should you be doing?

Well, short term, if you have some extra cash lying around, I’d invest it in the stock market. There’s been a decent-sized dip in the market as I’m sure you’re aware. Might be a good time to buy. Of course, stocks are still highly overvalued in a big-picture sense, having fallen just 10-15% from all-time, human history highs. But they’ll likely resume heading upwards as this blows over. We’re not going into a recession or a cyclical downturn right now so I’m thinking the market should bounce back.

When is the right time to buy? I’d say now. Stocks were killed all last week and are getting slaughtered again today (down over 5% as of 11am c.t.) That’s a 19% drop from the market’s all-time high it hit last month. So I’d say the market has fallen about enough to warrant hitting the Buy button. It could fall even further, so I would gradually buy. Don’t spend all your money in one day, wait it out a bit and buy over the course of a few days in case it goes lower tomorrow. The strategy is called “Dollar Cost Averaging,” look it up if you want to learn more about it.

But the bottom line is that I believe the market gotten cheap enough to become attractive for bargain hunters. It might go down another 5-10%, but that would just be an even better opportunity to buy.

This tweet sums up the market panic nicely:

It’s funny but it’s accurate. Markets are in free fall because of the prospect that economic activity will likely slow down for a couple of weeks tops.

If you are considering buying stocks but are fearful given all the scary news headlines, ask yourself if we are witnessing the collapse of the US economy, or if this is just a temporary panic. If it’s the latter, I’d say this looks like a good time to buy. Look at some of the big name stocks that have fallen and start buying shares.

Again, the market still could go lower. The worst may not be over yet. But we’re pretty close to the turning point right now. Ease into the market and don’t spend all your money at once.

Big picture, however, you need to be making plans to become self-sufficient. Coronavirus has shown just how fragile our global system is to unforeseen events. You have seen how quickly the supermarket shelves empty out, and it should scare you. Most Americans only have a week or two of food in their houses at best, and the coronavirus should make us realize how vulnerable we really are.

We don’t think about this when the shelves are full, only when they’re already empty.

It’s time to get out of the cities and become self-sufficient. Global pandemics will affect the cities the worst. City-dwellers are dependent on the supermarkets for food. They’re tightly packed and live in close proximity to tons of other people, meaning it’ll spread fastest in cities. So get out.

When the shit really does hit the fan in the future, the city-dwellers will be the first victims. They won’t stand a chance.

Just as nations should start taking steps to become more independent and self-sufficient, so should individuals.

***

I don’t want jump the gun but it appears the Coronavirus has already long since peaked in China, meaning that although it will continue to spread around the world and peak later in different countries due to distance from the epicenter, it’s basically over. It’s no longer spreading uncontrollably:

“China is the origin of the virus and still accounts for over 80 percent of cases and deaths. But its cases peaked and began ­declining more than a month ago, according to data presented by the Canadian epidemiologist who spearheaded the World Health Organization’s coronavirus mission to China. Fewer than 200 new cases are reported daily, down from a peak of 4,000.

Subsequent countries will follow this same pattern, in what’s called Farr’s Law. First formulated in 1840 and ignored in ­every epidemic hysteria since, the law states that epidemics tend to rise and fall in a roughly symmetrical pattern or bell-shaped curve. AIDS, SARS, Ebola — they all followed that pattern. So does seasonal flu each year.

This is why I’m writing about it as if it has already blown over. Of course, China may well be lying about its figures, but I think it’s safe to say the virus has already long since peaked there.

Again, the worst is still to come here in America due to the fact that the epicenter is halfway around the world and there’s a lag because of it. But this is not going to be a global catastrophe of historical proportions. Society is not going to collapse. We’re going to be okay. Things should largely go back to normal in a month, two months at most.

But don’t let that be an excuse not to take any lessons from the Coronavirus. I hope it has made you keenly aware of just how vulnerable you are to mass panics. You should be taking steps to make yourself less reliant on full supermarket shelves.

Nielsen’s Firing As Homeland Security Boss is a Small Victory Against the Uniparty Swamp

This had to happen. There was no way the person in charge of securing the homeland could keep her job in the midst of the biggest foreign invasion of the homeland since the Alamo in 1836:

“Nielsen’s resignation as DHS secretary comes amid a surge of illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border and an expanded Catch and Release policy that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has been tasked with carrying out.

Catch and release has been expanded because there are so many illegals being apprehended at the border we literally don’t have anywhere to put them.

“During Nielsen’s tenure as DHS secretary, illegal immigration has increased nearly every month over the last year and a half. Simultaneously, the Trump administration has yet to construct a border wall on new land at the southern border that did not previously have barriers built by the Bush and Obama administrations.”

Those two sentences alone are ample reason to fire her.

“Most recently, officials with the National ICE Council accused Nielsen of “grossly” mismanaging DHS and failing to acknowledge that the agency had been operating an expanded Catch and Release policy for border crossers and illegal aliens for months.

Sadly, Nielsen, like so many of Trump’s Cabinet Secretaries and White House officials, represented the enemy within: the swamp rats who have infested this Administration and have largely succeeded in steering it away from the MAGA Agenda and towards the Swamp Agenda of the past 30 years.

“As Breitbart News chronicled, Nielsen previously served in the Bush administration overseeing a crisis team following the destruction of New Orleans, Louisiana, by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The Bush administration had waved federal regulations to allow an unlimited level of illegal immigration into the Gulf Coast to take low-skill jobs rebuilding the region. Nielsen previously chaired a World Economic Forum committee that authored a report praising mass migration into Europe. For her confirmation process to DHS, Nielsen worked with an assortment of allies that worked vigorously in the 2016 presidential election to oppose Trump, including Frances Townsend and Tom Ridge.”

Again: the enemy within.

She had to go.

There is a consensus brewing among Trump supporters that Trump needs to nominate former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach to take over Homeland Security, and I agree: Kobach is one of the few (arguably the only) prominent American politicians out there that is genuinely an immigration hawk.

That’s not an exaggeration, either.

Of course, Kobach’s genuine desire to stop illegal immigration and cut down on equally harmful legal immigration as well will probably prevent him from being confirmed by the Senate if he were actually nominated.

You know the Uniparty Propaganda Media would work overtime digging into Kobach’s past to find something, anything he said that they can present, without context, in order to disqualify him. His nomination fight would be highly contentious because the Uniparty will sense the threat of an actual, genuine Trumpian nationalist gaining power.

If that fails, they’ll just fabricate a sexual misconduct allegation against him and that should give the Fake Republicans in the Senate (Romney, Collins, Murkowski) all the cover they need to join their Democratic colleagues to defeat Kobach’s nomination.

This is why the Swamp cannot be drained.

This is why Trump’s agenda has gone sideways.

The Swamp is simply too vast and powerful to be drained by one measly President.

Virtually every “viable candidate” for a high-level government post has risen through the ranks of the Uniparty over the past several decades. The Uniparty filters out those who would deviate from its dogmas and their careers never get very far.

The only way to rise in Washington is to fully submit to and support Uniparty Dogma.

This is where there is such a scarcity of genuine Trumpian Nationalists available for him to staff his Administration with.

The only reason Trump himself was able to become President is because he avoided the political world until he was 70 to run for the only national office that was directly elected by the American people. In other words, the Uniparty could only try to stop him by spreading fear and lies among the people. It had no direct way to stop him.

I’ve said it before but Trump could only have ever become President: he would never have made it through the Senate as a nominee for a Cabinet post. The Swamp would never have approved him.

But while Trump was able to get elected, the problem is he’s been forced to staff his administration with Uniparty Members and Swamp Loyalists, because they’re the only “qualified” candidates for the top jobs.

Let’s hope Trump nominates Kobach and gets him through the Senate.

It’s a long shot, but it’s basically our only hope to get the border under control.

Is America a “Nation of Immigrants”?

We hear it all the time. “You can’t favor reduced immigration (legal or illegal, the Uniparty elites don’t even distinguish between the two anymore) levels today because that’s not fair, America is a nation of immigrants; it always has been and always must be, so you can’t shut the door behind you. Your family came here as Immigrants one day in the past so all present and future immigration is Good.”

It’s a compelling argument, and one I fell for myself at one point.

But it’s total bullshit when you scrutinize it.

The first question to ask is, were the Founding Fathers immigrants?

Simply thinking about the matter rationally for more than a minute reveals the answer: of course not.

Just because the United States as an independent political entity did not exist until 1776 (technically, 1781, the end of the Revolutionary War, or even 1789, the year the Constitution was ratified and George Washington became the first President of the United States) does not mean America didn’t exist before then. Sure, the thirteen colonies were property of Britain prior to 1776 but that doesn’t mean we weren’t always our own unique nation. After all, we had a whole ocean separating us from Britain, and it took months to get even a letter across it back then. America developed and matriculated on its own, not under the close tutelage and supervision of Britain.

Think about it: Britain owned a multitude of different nations around the world, but those nations certainly had their own separate identities independent of Britain. Did India only begin existing in 1947? Of course not. India (and Pakistan, because Pakistan was a part of British India and only split apart into its own country after Britain relinquished India) only gained its independence from Britain in 1947. It didn’t become a place after gaining independence.

Of course, Britain is inextricably a part of our national identity. No one can deny this. But that doesn’t mean America WAS simply Britain until 1776. If that were the case then they did England itself not rebel against the British crown when we did? And why are we different today? The American colonies were their own nation, despite being owned and heavily influenced by Britain.

The fact is, America as we know it was settled over 150 years before the Declaration of Independence. The Pilgrims arrived in 1620 and the British settled Jamestown as early as 1607. And of course we trace the earliest settlements in America back to Christopher Columbus in 1492, which we recognize as essentially the year America was first discovered by our precursors. I understand the Indians were here way before 1492 but virtually none of us descend from them and therefore we claim 1492 as our moment of origin. The earliest European settlers in America did not “immigrate” to an established country owned by the Indians, they moved here and established their own settlement, and eventually a country, on the same land.

The Great Samuel P. Huntington explains in his book “Who We Are”:

“Immigrants are people who leave one country, one society, and move to another society. But there has to be a recipient society to which the immigrants move. In our case, the recipient society was created by the settlers who came here in the 17th and 18th centuries. … They came in groups to create new societies up and down the Atlantic seaboard. They weren’t immigrating to some existing society”

The first Americans were not immigrants. What country was there for them to immigrate to? What government did they have to petition for entry?

The answer is obvious: they didn’t arrive in any country. They founded their own country upon arriving here.

America existed way before 1776. The time between the Declaration of Independence and the settlement of Jamestown was a period of 169 years. Back to the Mayflower was 156 years. In today’s terms, 156 years prior to 2019 would be 1863, the year of the battle of Gettysburg during the Civil War. Think of how far back in time that feels. That’s how far back in time the Mayflower was to our Founding Fathers in 1776.

By 1776, America had been a country for as long a period of time as the battle of Gettysburg is from us today in 2019. By 1776, America had been a country for 156 years, or only 87 fewer years (the span of one human lifetime) shorter than we have been a country to this date. That would be equivalent 1776-1932. Was America not fully its own unique nation by 1932? Of course it was. And it was its own fully unique nation by the time 1776 rolled around.

And as for the Founding Fathers themselves, how many were actually immigrants? It shouldn’t surprise you (though it will given the level of “NATION OF IMMIGRANTS!” indoctrination that has taken root in this country) to learn that only a tiny minority of our Founding Fathers were anything less than full-blooded Americans in 1776.

In her fantastic book “Adios America,” Ann Coulter notes that 48 of 56 of the original signers of the Declaration of Independence were American-born (pp. 52).

Let’s take a look at the major names from the Founding Generation:

George Washington was a third generation American. He never visited Europe in his entire life. The furthest he ever traveled from his home in Virginia was the Caribbean.

John Adams, our second President, was a fourth-generation American. His great grandfather moved from England to the Massachusetts Bay Colony (which would become Boston) back in 1638.

Thomas Jefferson was at least a third generation American. His great-grandfather was a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses in the 1650s.

James Madison, our fourth President and the architect of the Constitution, was a fourth generation American.

Benjamin Franklin’s father Josiah was British-born and moved to America in 1683 with his first wife, who died shortly after. Josiah remarried in 1689 and Benjamin was born in 1705. However, Ben Franklin’s mother Abiah Folger was born in Nantucket. Her family arrived in America in 1635.

John Jay was a third-generation American. Samuel Adams was at least a third-generation American.

Alexander Hamilton is the only one of the eight main Founding Fathers who was not American-born.

This country was not founded by immigrants. It was founded by Americans who simply wanted to gain autonomy and independence from the British empire.

Again: yes the American identity is inextricably tied up with British identity and our two nations share many common traits, but that doesn’t mean that we *were* British until 1776. Canada, too, has a ton in common with Britain but nobody says Canada *was* Britain until it gained its independence in 1867.

More from Coulter:

“Contrary to PC nonsense about America being a ‘diverse’ melting pot, America has never been a ‘nation of immigrants.’ Most Americans have always been born here. Even as late as 1990–a quarter century into Teddy Kennedy’s scheme to remake the nation–half of the American population traced its roots to the black and white populace of 1790. Nearly the entire white population of America from 1600-1970 came from a geographic area of the world about twice the size of Texas [Western Europe]. The entire black population came from an area of West Africa about the size of Florida.

Until Teddy Kennedy struck, America was never less than 99% white Western European and West African black. That’s ‘bi-racial,’ not ‘diverse.’

America only became a “diverse” country–a “melting pot”–after Ted Kennedy’s disastrous 1965 immigration reform.

This is all to say that anyone who tells you America is not a unique nation with clear and definable characteristics is lying to you. America is—well, was, thanks to the disastrous 1965 immigration reform—a predominantly white Anglo-Saxon protestant nation. That’s simply a fact. It’s not racist to say this, it’s simply the truth.

You can’t claim that America isn’t a white nation. You can’t say it wasn’t settled by white people. Those things are simply immutable and undeniable facts of history.

What about the second wave of European immigrants, the ones who came across the Atlantic to Ellis Island around the turn of the century? Don’t they prove that America is a “nation of immigrants”?

Coulter:

“The entire time it was processing immigrants from 1892 until 1954, Ellis Island only received 12 million immigrants. Please stop weeping about your grandfather arriving at Ellis Island. It’s irritating. And it bears absolutely no relationship to immigration today. Earlier immigrants proved their heartiness by vomiting all the way across the Atlantic Ocean to get here. There was no welfare, and certainly no welcoming committees of ethnic grievance groups.”

More the point, the “second wave” of European immigrants were genetically similar to those who comprised the first wave (i.e. the British and Dutch colonists). Below is a DNA map showing the dominant DNA haplogroups of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa:

DNA-borders.png

The second wave of immigrants came from largely the same genetic stock as the first, the red R1b group.

Now, none of this changes the fact that a sizable contingent in this country that’s trying (and succeeding) to change America from a predominantly white Western European-descended nation to a ‘diverse’ one, but they do so by lying to you and telling you America isn’t an inherently white nation.

While I disagree with people who want to demographically remake this country, I would at least have a tiny bit of respect for them intellectually if they simply admitted what they’re trying to do. I can appreciate intellectual honesty.

But we have a political and cultural elite that is trying (and succeeding) to change our country into something it has not been traditionally or historically, and all the while is lying about what it’s doing. They will not admit they’re trying to change America from a white country into a nonwhite one; they will always lie and gaslight you and say America is a nation of immigrants or that we’ve always been multicultural, or more often they’ll just scream “RAAAAAACIST!!!!” at anyone who has the audacity to claim that America is and has always been a white country.

To say America is a white country is no more controversial than to say Canada traditionally is a white country. Or Britain, or France, or Germany, or Sweden, or even Spain and Italy. To say America is a white country is no more controversial than saying China is an Asian country.

America is and has traditionally been a white country. It’s simply a fact.

Yet we’ve been raised and taught to purge this thought from our minds as if it were an unthinkable evil to even acknowledge.

It’s not.

If you would like to change that fact, then simply admit it: “I want to change America from a white country to a nonwhite one.”

Don’t try to obscure your intentions and pretend to be SO OUTRAGED and SO INFURIATED over anyone pointing out the glaringly obvious and undeniable fact that America is and has traditionally been a white country.

It’s not RAAACIST to say America is a white country, just as it’s not RAAAACIST to say Japan is an Asian country, or that Botswana is a Black Country.

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.

The Left is Ready to Stop Pretending to Oppose Open Borders

This is how it goes. First, the right accuses the left of wanting some policy goal (say, gun confiscation and repealing the Second Amendment) which the left pretty obvious wants. The left, however, knowing that said policy goal is wildly unpopular with the American people, vehemently denies they want the policy.

However, before long, the left will inevitably come out in favor of the policy goal they previously spent a good deal of energy denying they wanted.

Leftists in 2012: “Nobody wants to take your guns.”

Leftists in 2018: “Repeal the Second Amendment, and we’re coming for your guns”

rzew0pare3401.jpg

This guy is definitely gonna wrestle your guns away from you:

Screen Shot 2019-01-18 at 4.52.05 PM.png

Or maybe that’s a girl. I genuinely can’t tell.

At any rate, today, “We are coming for your guns” is the mainstream consensus position of the Democratic Party, even though several years back they vigorously denied it and claimed they supported and respected the Second Amendment.

When did they change their minds? Never: they’ve always wanted to confiscate all the guns and repeal the Second Amendment. The only difference now is that they feel safe showing their true colors.

It was the same thing with gay marriage: prominent Democrats insisted right up until the 2012 election that they opposed gay marriage and believed marriage was between a man and a woman. Then they all publicly came out in favor of gay marriage. They were always privately in favor it, and we on the right knew it all along, but by 2012 they felt as if it was politically safe for them to come out and admit it.

Socialism is another thing Democrats have always pretended to be against while privately being in favor. Then the proud and open socialist Bernie Sanders ran for President in 2016 and was quite popular, proving once and for all that, yes, Democrats are socialists. The party’s new face is Congresspersyn Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is proud to be a “democratic socialist”. Democrats are socialists. They’ve always been socialists, of course, but now they’re comfortable with admitting it.

And the Uniparty “media” claims we’re the ones who have taken an extreme turn.

The latest issue the Democrats are about to stop pretending to oppose is open borders. Someone named Farhad Manjoo wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times entitled, “There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders.” Remember the day January 16, 2019, because that’s the moment the Democratic Party took the first step toward formally and publicly supporting open borders (“formally and publicly” being the key words, because they’ve always been for open borders privately):

Screen Shot 2019-01-18 at 5.21.30 PM.png

Here’s an excerpt:

“The internet expands the bounds of acceptable discourse, so ideas considered out of bounds not long ago now rocket toward widespread acceptability. See: cannabis legalization, government-run health care, white nationalism and, of course, the flat-earthers.

Yet there’s one political shore that remains stubbornly beyond the horizon. It’s an idea almost nobody in mainstream politics will address, other than to hurl the label as a bloody cudgel.

I’m talking about opening up America’s borders to everyone who wants to move here.

Imagine not just opposing President Trump’s wall but also opposing the nation’s cruel and expensive immigration and border-security apparatus in its entirety. Imagine radically shifting our stance toward outsiders from one of suspicion to one of warm embrace. Imagine that if you passed a minimal background check, you’d be free to live, work, pay taxes and die in the United States. Imagine moving from Nigeria to Nebraska as freely as one might move from Massachusetts to Maine.

When you see the immigration system up close, you’re confronted with its bottomless unfairness. The system assumes that people born outside our borders are less deserving of basic rights than those inside. My native-born American friends did not seem to me to warrant any more dignity than my South African ones; according to this nation’s founding documents, we were all created equal. Yet by mere accident of geography, some were given freedom, and others were denied it.”

Fantastic reasoning: it’s “unfair” that most of the world was not born in America, the greatest country on earth. So let’s just let everyone in the world move to America!

This is how it starts. First an Op-Ed in the New York Times, then the rest of the Democratic Party elite will come out in favor of open borders. Right now, GOP virtue signalers and cucks are pushing back against the claim that the New York Times itself has formally come out for open borders, pointing out that it’s only an op-ed writer who has come out for open borders and he doesn’t necessarily speak for the NYT overall:

Come on. Stop denying what we all know to be true. I know Guy Benson and the rest of the Fake Republicans dream of one day writing for the New York Times, but this is just ridiculous.

Manjoo’s op-ed was the NYT testing the waters to see what kind of response it would get. If the response was negative, they could say, “Hey, it’s just an op-ed. Doesn’t mean it’s the official position of this newspaper. That’s one guy’s opinion. We just published it.”

But we all know better. Nobody publishes an op-ed unless they more or less agree with it. Outlets only provide platforms to those views which they seek to promote. Only a fool would believe otherwise. I know the disclaimer at the bottom of every op-ed says “this does not necessarily reflect the views of the paper at large,” but we all know what’s going on. The NYT very seldom runs op-eds by people who go against Uniparty dogma.

Eventually the NYTimes editorial board will formally announce the paper’s support of open borders. We all know it’s coming.

More to the point, we all know the left has always wanted open borders. 

Now, they’re finally audacious enough to admit it.

What could be the next issue the left “evolves” on? Pedophilia. I’m serious. You don’t have to look very hard to find SJWs and freaks on Twitter trying to argue that there’s nothing wrong with pedophilia. And Twitter isn’t exactly doing much about it, either.

If you think it’s ridiculous that pedophilia could one day in the future (10-15 years down the road) come to be openly embraced by the left, consider that in 1985 it was also pretty inconceivable to think that the Democrats would in just under 30 years make support for gay marriage their party’s official stance.

Summed up, the process for Democratic “evolution” on issues is as follows:

  1. “That’s ridiculous. Nobody wants x.”
  2. “Okay, maybe some of us want x.”
  3. “The Democratic Party now officially endorses x.”
  4. “Anyone who opposes is evil.”

Open borders is the next x. They’re about to go from, “You’re crazy. We don’t want open borders.” To: “Anyone who opposes open borders is racist.”

What will follow? It’s anyone’s guess. There are a number of contenders, including polygamy and pedophilia.

There’s also free healthcare and welfare for illegals (already happening in California and New York City), as well as voting rights for illegals, but I would say open borders automatically includes healthcare, welfare and voting for foreigners, no?

Another contender would be the War on Traditional Masculinity, but the American Psychological Association has already formalized the left’s opposition to that.

Perhaps they’ll come out in open support of white genocide next? “War on White People? Pfft. That’s absurd. White people have the most privilege!” Eventually, “Actually, the War on White People is Good and anyone who opposes it is Evil.”

The bottom line is that anything you suspect leftists truly want, they probably do, no matter how much they deny it.

***

Also, I keep seeing all this talk about how we need millions of foreign immigrants (presumably low-skilled ones) to combat our “population crisis” and ensure that we remain a nation with a steadily increasing population. From the Manjoo piece:

“Economically and strategically, open borders isn’t just a good plan — it’s the only chance we’ve got. America is an aging nation with a stagnant population. We have ample land to house lots more people, but we are increasingly short of workers. And on the global stage, we face two colossi — India and China — which, with their billions, are projected to outstrip American economic hegemony within two decades.”

Oh, no! Our GDP might not increase as much! Why is GDP the be-all, end-all? Why is GDP the measure of a nation’s worth.

Don’t get me wrong, to a large extent, GDP does tell you a good deal about the state of a given nation, but you can’t boil everything down to GDP.

“More people = more workers = more production = higher GDP = Everything Awesome” is how the globalist elite thinks.

We have a depraved culture of sex and hedonism, a crisis of masculinity, an opioid epidemic ravaging our communities, a spiritual and emotional void caused by superficial consumerism and obsession with entertainment, eroding family values and families themselves, and we are balkanizing into self-segregation along ethnic and racial lines.

And our elites think all we need is more immigrants to boost GDP.

On a related note, Britain apparently never got the memo that immigrants boost GDP. Britain’s GDP per capita (the measure that matters the most) declined by almost 20% in just four years primarily due to increased migration:

https://twitter.com/porter14159/status/1085707152835125248

Emmanuel Macron Pelted in Face with Egg, Surrenders to Protesters on Gas Tax

First, holy shit:

This happened yesterday. Make of it what you will.

Then, this morning, we awoke to news that Macron’s government would suspend the gas tax that has been cited as the reason for the Yellow Vest protests in Paris.

Paul Mirengoff of Power Line:

“The French government announced today that it will temporarily suspend the carbon tax plan that triggered weeks of protests nationwide. Two weekends of mass protests didn’t move the government. Only after the protests turned violent during the third weekend — owing to the behavior of thugs, not the main body of protesters — did the government relent, at least temporarily.

The announcement came not from President Emmanuel Macron, but from Prime Minister Édouard Philippe. He said, “No tax is worth putting in danger the unity of the nation.”

Really? Not even a tax that is supposed to help save the world from climate change? How nationalistic!

The tax hasn’t been revoked, just suspended for six months. This buys the government time, but does not resolve its dilemma.

Before long, the government will have to decide whether to continue putting the world elites’ conception of environmentalism ahead of the economic interests of French citizens and the interest of national unity.”

Paul makes a great point about nationalism vs. “saving the world”–Macron put his delusional quest to save the world ahead of the financial well-being of his people, and his people rose up in ferocious defiance. Macron then realized he could no longer keep ignoring and screwing over the everyday people of his country in his effort to virtue signal and please his globalist friends.

But the real story is what this portends for the future of Western democracy. Because we’ve just witnessed a major turning point.

In my view, the Macron government capitulated to the protesters because it felt there was a real chance the protests could turn into a full-scale national mutiny/revolution.

The last thing a democratically-elected government wants to do is capitulate to the demands of a mob. Doing so is a sign of weakness, plus it undermines civil democracy and persuasion–if you can get what you want by rioting, then what’s the point of voting, campaigning and debating?

The only reason a government will concede to a mob is if the government feels that if it does not, there’s a real danger of seriously losing control.

Make no mistake: this move by Macron was a last-resort effort to stave off what it felt could have been the administration’s ultimate undoing. He was backed into a corner. When he was pelted in the face by an egg, Macron realized that his physical safety was in jeopardy if he did not quell the mob.

It was a frank admission that the protesters had the upper hand. The French government was forced under duress to suspend this fuel tax. Had Macron not done this, he may well have been overthrown. Paris was full of tens of thousands of protesters and rioters, and at any moment they could have stormed Elysee Palace and forcibly deposed their leader.

The real problem, of course, is that the French ruling class allowed it to get to this point in the first place. Its continued disregard for the people was what ultimately led to this.

But make no mistake: this is a major moment in the history of modern Western civilization. We just saw the French government admit that it is no longer totally in control. That’s what a government admits when it capitulates to a baying mob.

It’s a tacit admission that the French government was fairly close to being overthrown.

Maybe modern governments aren’t so invincible and all-powerful after all.

That’s the real takeaway. Macron was faced with a choice: suspend the fuel tax or be forcibly overthrown.

We’re never really that far away from mob rule, even in the supposedly most advanced and powerful nations on earth.

When the Arab Spring was happening across the Middle East in 2011, I’m sure most Western governments and citizens figured, “That could never happen to us.” 

But it can.

Paris Protests: Might the French Actually Overthrow Macron?

Populist unrest is still alive and strong in the West, as hundreds of thousands of protesters and rioters stormed the streets of Paris in an expression of rage against President Emmanuel Macron’s gas taxes and his globalist agenda in general:

“France weathered its worst riots in decades Saturday as “yellow jacket” protesters continue turning parts of Paris upside down over concerns related to high gas taxes and the high cost of living.

French riot police closed popular tourist areas and fired tear gas as they tried to quell the chaos in the streets. At least 110 people were injured while protesters associated with the grassroots-driven demonstrations clashed with authorities and vandalized the Arc de Triomphe.

Much of the anguish stems from citizens’ disdain for French President Emmanuel Macron’s high gas taxes and overall war on fossil fuels. The beleaguered president denounced the violence in a statement crafted during the G-20 summit in Argentina.”

Awww, the US media’s Man Crush isn’t so popular with his own people 🙁 🙁

Recent polls show Macron’s approval rating down in the mid-20s. These protests are said to be the worst since 1968, so this is a significant moment.

Protesters adorned in yellow vests (according to Wikipedia: “The “yellow vest” was chosen as a symbol because all motorists had been required by law—since 2008—to have high-visibility vests in their vehicles when driving. As a result, reflective vests have become widely available, inexpensive, and symbolic”set cars on fire, vandalized iconic monuments, smashed storefronts and blocked off major streets over the weekend–at least that’s the media’s spin on it because the protests are against a fellow member of the rootless globalist aristocracy. You don’t see this sort of negative portrayal when the protests are coming from the Politically Correct Left. The Dem media doesn’t care about property destruction and strife when their minions do it.

The protests and riots are pretty simple: you’ve got a city, Paris, that ranks second-highest in the world in terms of cost of living.

Then, you’ve got an out-of-touch globalist President who believes Climate Change is the most pressing issue facing his nation (and the world, because Globalists are all about Saving The World), and so has instituted steep taxes on fossil fuels, further angering citizens who were already struggling due to high costs of living.

The consistent story of these globalist leaders is that they simply do not enact policies that benefit the regular citizens of their nations. Regular citizens consistently pay the price for their elites’ virtue signaling. From disastrous open borders immigration policies transforming Western Europe into Eurabia to punishing taxes to combat the nonexistent threat of “Climate Change,” these elites enact their terrible policies to gain the approval of one another, not to benefit their citizens.

I’m sure these protests, like virtually all others, began with legitimate grievances and then was co-opted by violent miscreants using the unrest as cover to loot and burn.

DtYkuzcVYAA0OMZ.jpg

But the larger story is that the Western elite is still painfully out of touch with the masses in their nations, and people are sick of them.

Globalist world leaders in 2015 celebrated their World Saving Paris Climate Agreement to much media fanfare, with little regard for the high taxes it would impose on citizens.

So what if it raised taxes on gasoline? What do the elites care? They’re rich anyway. It won’t have any material impact on their lives like it will the ordinary citizens.

Well, now those citizens have had enough. The gas tax was merely the final straw.

Most damning of all for Macron, many police officers are siding with the protesters:

https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/1069308643038896133

There’s a strong nationalist angle to these protests, too. Lots of flag-waving and nationalist displays:

DtZNR31WwAAz-C_.jpg

https://twitter.com/Syrian_Lion/status/1068843118437560320

The sheer size of these protests–nearly 300,000 people turned out–and their sustained nature, having gone on for over two weeks now, makes what’s going on in Paris a big deal. Daily Caller’s Joe Simonson, who was in Paris covering the action, called it a “genuine proletarian uprising.”

They’re in the capital in the hundreds of thousands raising high hell. And now we’re seeing many police officers side with the protesters. Is it just me or is there a real shot they stop demanding Macron step down and go depose him themselves? They have the numbers to do it. And with the police on their side, little is really stopping them.

I know–the thought of a populist revolution in a rich western democracy like France is totally unrealistic, right? Stuff like this only happens in the third world, right? Western democracy is eternal!

Until it isn’t. If you study enough history, it becomes clear that the unthinkable often has a way of coming to fruition. Less than a decade ago, similar situations (although in response to different outrages) in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere in the Muslim world led to the deposition of several deeply entrenched dictators, although NATO was mostly responsible for taking out Gadaffi in Libya so perhaps Mubarak in Egypt is the best comparison. Protesters overthrew the government in Tunisia as well.

I’m just saying that these protesters in Paris are a lot closer to overthrowing the government than most of us think.

All the ingredients are there: a disaffected populace that has been trampled on and left behind by out-of-touch globalists for far too long. The people are protesting and rioting in the hundreds of thousands in the capital. They have certain elements of the police on their side. Is it really that much of a stretch to wonder if they’ll use their numbers and police backing and simply storm the presidential palace? All they have to do is realize they can do it.

It’s always a surreal moment when the unthinkable becomes the inevitable. All throughout 2016 we were told that it was totally unthinkable for Donald Trump to become President, or for Britain to leave the EU. Then, when both happened, we witnessed a deluge of thinkpieces and political commentary telling us how we all should have seen both coming.

The point is, don’t allow the media to convince you something like Trump, Brexit or even a revolution is impossible. At best, the 27-year-old know-nothings comprising the media are ignorant of history, at worst they’re attempting to rig a political outcome in favor of the ruling class by discouraging its opponents.

Now, it appears these protests in France are largely grassroots and unorganized. They don’t seem intent on overthrowing Macron and replacing him with a leader of their own. The protesters don’t appear unified and I’ve seen reports that say they’re a mix of left and right, so they would have trouble uniting around a leader.

But my takeaway is that the elements of a popular uprising and revolution are there in France–right now, today.

They may not ultimately overthrow Macron this time around, but I think we’ve all learned that they could if they wanted. If they’ve got police on their side, or at least willing to stand aside, then what else is truly stopping them?

I’ve been saying this for a while now: the globalist political elite in the West had better start honoring its end of the social compact and giving the people what they voted for. If you continually tell the people to go fuck themselves and give them the Spaulding treatment (“You’ll get nothing and like it!“) then eventually they’re going to rise up and overthrow you. This is nothing new. It’s been the way of the world for millennia.

If they keep screwing the people over and rejecting their democratically expressed will, then it’s not a matter of “will they rise up and overthrow us?” but rather, “Which of the globalist leaders will be the first to get overthrown: May, Merkel or Macron?”

Right now, it looks like Macron.

Oh well–at least the American media still loves him.

Also: the American media, predictably, is totally uninterested in the use of tear gas on protesters by French police. I thought GASSING people was unacceptable and something only HITLER does?