On the Utility of Judgement

“Do not judge” is a common trope now used both by the socially conservative and liberal. Even if they have different intentions, the result is the same. Universal acceptance is the hallmark of our era, and its calling card is shame cast upon those who judge.

The irony of this is that people tend to conflate shaming with judging. Although they are similar in some ways their differences are important. Public shaming is designed to mold others to fit societal norms while judgment is a part of distinguishing yourself from others. When many speak on the utility of judgment, they are actually thinking of public shaming as a tool to shape society. In this format it is a “civilizing” tool of that carves out universalism itself. This molding of the masses has the opposite effect of judgment.

Judgment is a tool of separation that gives identity to those who use it to distinguish themselves from others. When judgment is externalized its utility is maintaining the borders between one’s in-group and a given out-group. There is no self without judgement and those who shame you for judging are trying to strip you of your boundaries, even if they don’t realize it. Physical and legal lines do not define a people, and without the social boundaries created through exclusivity there can be no “people.” You cannot champion some indefinite amalgamation of White identity without having standards that keep behaviors, and genes, from infecting the in-group.
(Common Filth did nothing wrong… lol this is a good example and I do not fully agree with the man, but I respect him).

The parallels between current forms of White nationalism attacking any constructive criticism of Whites is very similar to mainstream liberals and conservative Christians who attack anyone who judges; neither has an identity they are upholding, just a list of universal “no-no’s.” This is the core of why a nation is only a simulacrum of the tribe and is cursed to forever grasp superficial representations of what it has already lost to its intrinsic expansionist nature. True identity always starts locally and can only be built organically from the ground up; it is only civilization which imposes top down measures of assimilation through the implementation of shame to perpetuate a veneer of behavior that is meant to be mimicked in public. If you take a tribal people and tried to copy their behaviors in order to fit in, you would only further alienate yourself from them. There is no way that any outsider could authentically replicate even the most common of their practices because their conception of “self” has been built from birth.

From the outside it is impossible to see what they see in their identity and they will easily spot and judge those who are different no matter how hard they try. For example, the Sami people of northern Europe can’t be copied by donning similar dress or trying to learn their dialect – their identify is infinitely more complex than that of any nation’s. Since the Sami identity is so organic instead of top down they would immediately distinguish between other similar tribes of Sami and themselves – whereas you might see them as all Sami.

The revolution of civilization is one that’s against human identity and its corresponding nature, but the comforts of it draw you in and keep you dependent. It is your own temptations and need for security en masse which damns you. Most cannot even be bothered to judge their own family for self-correction but shrug that responsibility outward onto their society without regard for their inability to separate rights and responsibility. If you cannot sacrifice or stand for anything then you can’t complain when nothing changes. By placing the responsibility outward you expect others to fix your responsibilities and consequently give your rights away to an ever-growing civilization that has a life of its own and is destructive to those who uphold it.

The logical end of public shaming is universal acceptance. Because of its role in conformity, it invariably parallels civilization’s continuous evolution towards globalism. Globalism is inherently flawed because there is no one way that works for everyone, and even if there were it won’t be forever. Every species is in constant social and biological evolution, with sub-species at various levels of parallel and non-parallel development, so the idea of a single lifestyle being ideal for any long amount of time is to attempt to unnaturally freeze humans in time.

Civilization though isn’t natural nor stagnant. Civilization has taken on an evolutionary course of its own through its continuous cycles of destruction and forced rebirth over the last few millennia and has not been beneficial for those who uphold it when examined in aggregate. Instead of benefitting the species within it, civilization, through the hammer of shaming, serves to shape the people in a way which that works for the system itself. This stands in marked contrast to the 2 million years of local tribalism that humans perpetuated before the mistake of the agricultural revolution. The benefit it had was allowing trial and error to function towards logical ends. Either the local experiment works for the people attempting it (for a certain amount of time at least), it fails because of internal or external pressures and they organically modify it, or the people simply cease to exist.

Without real bonds on a local level, each successive generation has less of a foundation to stand on. In its place is the never ending societal call to proselytize to the masses and absorb new members, create new members, or both. Consequently every generation will continue to rebel from the last –left right left right– until it finally meets a nihilistic universal loss of identity where everything is acceptable that allows for expansion…and judging would only limit growth. The crater left from Universalist shaming dogma is the destruction of boundaries on an ideological level, before it undeviatingly demands the tearing down of physical ones. It starts with the lapsing of personal standards, and ends with your people being out-competed.

A tribe is made of the people within it and while they may feel “tied” to the land, the tribe knows it can migrate just as many species do. Territories shift between animals competing within a species and humans are no different in a natural state. At some point in civilization though, land itself became used to define the people instead of the people defining the land – just as nationalism is a simulacrum of tribalism, so becomes soil a simulacrum of blood. This continuous process we have seen through the centuries parallels the evolution of civilization itself. The larger it gets the more its boundaries change to encompass more, growing like cancer. Public shame within such a society kills local identity because such loyalties would work against the ever-growing civilization; whereas tribal alliance allows for the varying natures of varying peoples.

The only time that one should externalize judgment –differentiated from shaming– is to show your own how they are different from others. Through this the individuals within your group can define the boundaries of the self, determine the identity of the group itself, and (most importantly) define those which will always fall outside of the group in whatever varying degrees necessary; like a bullseye surrounded by rings. It is not top down, as it radiates from each individual “within,” and when expressed outwards it is not used to adapt the “other” but instead to keep them at a distance which does not interfere with the identity of your own. Organic identity allows members to show judgment in forms that the members will recognize and outsiders don’t, functioning as a distinguishing factor from the act of shaming.

Shaping the masses isn’t going to maintain organic identity because the effects maintain civilization. Personal judgment perpetuates an identity through the imposition of standards and limits on the self, extending to the in-group through both perceptible and imperceptible methods. It makes perfect sense that as civilization evolves into its final universalist form only those who judge are shamed… Shaming has always been a tool of conformity and expansion while judgment serves to define and separate – they are mutually exclusive.

Update On My Lack of Activity and Forecast for the Future

I’ve had article outlines in the queue since last year, a planned-out book (trilogy actually), and many articles already started or finished rough drafts this year that I have put on hold.  My apologies, there are a few things going on right now both in my personal life and worldview that have lead to this hold.

I am bit disillusioned with internet politics (and with social media in general which will eventually be an article and a part in my book, I find it very dangerous to our limbic system and addictive in a way that makes you feel you are doing something while paralyzing real action… it is the last nail in the coffin of over socialization and mob formations, regardless of stances they will all devolve and are not exempt from the negative effects which include narcissism and appealing to lowest common denominators and living in a fantasy world instead of forming real bonds and strength) and too much theory without meaningful action tied to it.  Since I view a strong foundation as a necessity for survival, I realized I needed to first focus on getting myself closer to personal goals of starting my own community/tribe before I engage in more theory.

There has to be a balance between theory and application, because one without the other is either dangerous by leaving you venerable in over-thoughtful inaction or reckless in thoughtless action.

I am happy to say that I am about to start my very immediate contribution to a future new tribe by soon having my first child.  I also decided to do a very accelerated self-paced program to finish my degree (and think I hit some type of record there lol with 51 semester units completed in 3 months).  I plan on using this degree (it has a very high earning potential) to help fund future projects towards my goals.  The last months I have spent with my face constantly in books so I can test-out of classes or learn more about having and raising my child, so I have not had time for my blog.

I do think things will settle down  by the end of this year since my degree will be completed by then and my child will not be as needy. I will resume/finish my articles in late fall and winter; hopefully finish my first book in 2018.  Having a strong foundation and local community is very important to my life goals and applying my ideals in reality, so I can only resume idea play once I am further along the road toward enacting them.

To any I have kept waiting for articles, my apologies and thank you for your patience.

I’ll leave you with a few words from   Thoreau: “You must live in the present, launch yourself on every wave, find your eternity in each moment. Fools stand on their island of opportunities and look toward another land. There is no other land; there is no other life but this.”

Israel is a Bargaining Chip

There’s suddenly mass hysteria manifesting as protests over a war that doesn’t actually exist – it is completely absurd.

This article is going to offer an alternate theory in contrast to the rhetoric of an impending conflict.

There is a large contingency of people in the Alt that think Israel wants to start World War 3.  They seem to be so obsessed with Israel that they have lost their sense of reason and are not looking at the situation in any objective way.  Geopolitics has now been boiled down to “how can we connect this to being the Jews fault?” without care for the fact that there are many groups at play in the complex world power-struggle.  This limits some on the so-called “right” to have such tunnel vision on Israel being the end to fit all narratives, instead of trying to understand the entire situation.
The people kvetching about the tomahawk missiles in Syria are reacting emotionally instead of first allowing enough time to pass to see what even comes of this. When the munitions touched dirt, no one could be sure of the effects, especially since most people are not privy to the sort of information that results in such decisions. Instead, the most neurotic have grabbed onto the perceived intent with no regard for the actual result.  The obsession with Jews is now so bad that it is causing debilitating, fatalist paranoia to redefine the meaning of “right wing.”  Even if a war is coming, going bat-shit crazy isn’t going to help anyone! These intricate fables people are weaving from their “trustworthy” news sources are as simplistic as they are biased, demonstrating more whimsy than intellectual rigor.

Among the people fitting the circumstances to a hypothetical is the circulating idea that Israel wants Syrian land.  Israel has been forced, by the US to give up huge amounts of land beginning with the 1980 forfeiture of the entire Saini peninsula, with the latest being Gaza strip under Obama.  Israel has such little land that is almost completely indefensible, making them more and more dependent on the US.  The idea of Israel surviving a World War between superpowers is laughable at best and the notion of them intentionally causing it would be the opposite of self-interest; self-interest being the one thing which Jews are constantly accused of seeking.

Instead of playing “where’s Schlomo?” let’s look at this from the opposite perspective. If Jews are such masterminds then why would they ever give up land to the point of being completely indefensible, while having the UN expand their enemies (through welfare) to paint Israel as “apartheid?” Is the plot just so they can go into a war they will never survive for not even as much land as they took repeatedly before having to give it up?

Let’s look at the political climate in the weeks leading up to the chemical attacks.  Trump was basically being painted as a Russian plant or puppet increasingly by both sides of the political aisle.  As absurd as this extrapolation was, the intent of it was to prevent any type of unity between Russia and Trump’s America because to do so would feed right into this trap.  Now let’s look at the political climate after Trump bullied a runway (PLEASE NO STEPPY) of our apparent lord and savior Assad (basically Christ to the Alt) while dining with the Chinese President – the left is spinning trying to figure out how they can avoid eating their recent words and still oppose Trump, Obama (who started the antagonisms of Russia via their proxy Syria) looks weak and incompetent for never taking decisive action, and Neocons are in a predicament that most are not fully realizing.

Trump managed (and I speculate maybe with Kushner’s contacts in both Russia and Israel) to turn the tables in a way that 1) doesn’t harm Russians, 2) doesn’t allow the “he is a Russian plant that they got elected” narrative to continue, 3) publicly saves face for both him and Putin by warning the Russians, and 4) gives Putin a bargaining chip as well to make the neocons fall in line: Israel.

Leading up to recent chemical attack and US retaliation, it’s important to understand the frame work between the US, Israel, Russia, Iran and Syria in 2017.  In early February, Israel became increasingly bothered by close Iranian military proximity on their Syrian border.  In response, the Russian Ambassador to Israel Alexander Shein stated, “On the whole, the role of Russia in Syria is accepted by our Israeli colleague with understanding.  The only reservation they have is for them it would be best if there were US-Russian cooperation in surmounting the Syrian crisis and fighting terrorism in the Middle east.”  Pressure was being placed on Israel, laying the foundation to use them as a bargaining chip to bring about better ties with the US, especially since Neocons are still so powerful in Congress and pander to their constituency on matters dealing with Israel.  The Russians basically said “if you don’t like Iran here that’s too bad, since the US won’t (or couldn’t at that time, Trump was still in a bind on dealing with Russians) work with us then we will continue to use Iran”.

On March 25th, it was reported that Netanyahu tried to appeal to the US and Russia about the threat of Iranian forces in Syria to their national security, and that they would have to carry out airstrikes when intelligence picked up threats close enough to their border (tying back into my earlier point that Israel is in a very compromising position because they can’t defend the majority of their land from strikes arranged in bordering countries, like a sitting duck).   “Netanyahu reiterated that the Israel Air Force will continue to execute missions in Syria to contain threats against the country, and said he made this clear to Russian President Vladimir Putin when the two leaders met in Moscow earlier this month.”  It is in Israel’s interest for the US and Russia to work together, the two super powers coming to mutually beneficial terms would help stabilize the region and placate antagonisms between Israel and Iran.  Ironically, these antagonisms didn’t exist until the US toppled the Iranian Shah in favor of a Saudi backed petro dollar – Israel and Iran used to be the best of allies.  Working with Russia’s expanding oil interests could move us away from sending so much money to destructive Wahabists (something Trump has mentioned in the past), as opposed to the current paradigm of trying to completely shut down Russia over their potential competition which requires increasing antagonism.  I digress, so back to topic…

March 27th, “According to the message, delivered via Russian mediators, attacks on Syrian military objects will be met with Scud missiles launched at Israeli military (IDF) bases.  If Israel attacks civilian infrastructure, Syrian missiles will be fired at Israel’s Haifa port and petrochemical plant.  The missiles will be launched without any prior notice, the statement said. The notice follows Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s March 20 statement that protecting its borders is the right and obligation of every nation.”  The funny thing is this tidbit of info was misrepresented in a tweet by “The Spectator Index” which stated: “BREAKING: Assad regime via Russian mediators says any future strikes by the US will result in Scud missile attacks on Israel”.  The retarded “right” took screen shots of the tweet and spread it around social media networks without looking any further into it’s credibility or context.  “WE FOUND HOW THIS RELATES TO THE JOOS LOOK NO FURTHER.”  (Side note: does the Alt want WW3 as long as it means Israel is hit?  Many were saying with this info that more missiles sent by the US would be a good thing to get Israel destroyed.  Sounds like all the fear of the Sampson option was a bit of projection of the Alt’s own motives towards Israel.)  If they tried looking for a source to the tweet, it’s easy to see that Assad’s threats weren’t in response to US missiles, but Israeli airstrikes before the chemical weapons were even used.

Israel’s indefensible size makes preemptive measures necessary, but puts them in very compromising positions with power struggles between way bigger fish.  Israel has been on increasingly good terms with Russia the past years, which is why this seems to be more about setting up future bargaining chips than anything else.  By gaining so much support with conservatives to try to survive as the left has given their land away, Israel is in a resulting position to be put under pressure as a proxy to US conservatives, similarly to the US funding rebels in Syria was really a proxy for antagonizing Russia over a potential threat to the petro dollar domination.

After the Trump response to Syria, in a joint statement Russia and Iran threatened that they will respond to further American military actions in Syria.  There was no direct mention of Israel, but it is inferred that they are more at risk by including Iran in combination with all escalations leading up to this in recent months and past years.  This has been a long poker game for show between US and Russian proxies to lead to a stale mate.

The irony is, Israel is probably in on this show as well or they would likely be very worried about war with Russia.  A week ago, Trump wasn’t going to be allowed to come to good terms with Russia from opposition on both sides of the aisle.  With one move and a little tension to get the public riled up, not only will Trump not be called a Russian plant and threatened with impeachment, he will look more competent and strong than the left who started all of this and be backed by the neocons on the right, dividing them from their anti-Russia alliance with the left.  This brilliant move made the impossible into the beneficial – those who were in opposition to forming better bonds with Russia and finding a solution in Syria will now want Russia and the US to make a deal.  This was the only way that the Syrian issue would be solved and the insane political whores across aisles in the White house would learn to get behind Trump.

Trump truly has mastered the art of the deal.

No one on the Alt seems to realize that Putin could have shot down those missiles – or if not all of the missiles, he could have substantially impeded the overall effectiveness of the barrage – and chose not to.  Why?  It was all a show.  That many missiles could have leveled a town, and instead they didn’t even put an airbase out of commission for very long.  The show they put on was far more for the masses and to create a scenario where they have to come to an agreement.  Putin is meeting with a US diplomat this coming week. He didn’t cancel.  There is no war coming, except in the minds of internet loons that are way too sure they can see everything in plain sight – they are more fooled by the mainstream media than the normies they think they are smarter than.

Instead of seeing this for what it is or could be, or even letting it play out before deciding, the alt “right” goes into hysterics lead by the nose of mainstream story lines like know-it-all children.  It is beyond embarrassing, it is weak, naive, and foolish.  No one stops to think: who else could benefit from Russia and US escalations? The so-called deep state? The Chinese who happened to be visiting at that exact time?  The UN? (Silly me I repeated myself thrice.)  No, no one else but Israel exists to the online paranoia cult; no one even stops to think that Israel would be completely obliterated in a world war.  How many people know the actual size of Israel now in its extremely diminished state? I bet none who are so obsessed with it look into that or how Israel became so small the last decades after repeatedly gaining land in battles, because anything that disrupts their all-or-nothing world vantage must be ignored…. The Alt has reached peak cognitive dissonance while claiming liberals are too emotional.

It is even more disgusting to see the retarded “right” freaking out about Ivanka.  Trump releasing a PR statement to give her some credit for the actions he is being praised for has far more to do with combating all the left’s criticism of her in the White House.  It also serves as another focus to take away any public suspicion that this might be a very beautifully and strategically mastered plan, by appealing to the emotions of certain demographics. Is the majority of the Alt so gullible that it thinks we are told the whole truth? When did it become antithetical to look for any strategy at play?  It’s equally funny and sad to see the alternative “right” following suit with leftists in response to a PR stunt meant to shut the left down.  That is how gullible and overly confident the mindless internet mob is.  They seem to be very democratic in actions even if not in theory.

Another aspect overlooked by many is that Trump’s Supreme Court pick was pushed through right away after this new assertion of dominance. (((Coincidence?)))  The Alt doesn’t seem to notice the shift in Washington DC following this show of force (which will only be more apparent once a deal is made with Putin, bringing stability to the mess created by Obama). All they can do is clamor about how Assad is a good guy.  Syria intervention was never about Assad, they were just a proxy for antagonizing Russia.  Geopolitics isn’t some ideal Mister Rogers world, it is a very cut throat game underneath all the mainstream shows the public is given and highly competitive narratives at play.  Assad will be alright as long as he listens to his overlords in Russia – this was never about him.  The ends of this are much bigger and more important than Assad or a perceived moral high ground – the playing field is not as easy to navigate as online simple politics promotes.

The UN has continuously reported over the past couple years that Assad employed chemical weapons.  This is the first time they’ve changed the narrative, which begs the question: if Trump had reacted a different way would the UN have kept consistent to their past narrative of demonizing Assad?  Maybe Trump knew something was coming and when trapped between two horrible options, he chose a third way out that no one was expecting. Or maybe he had been holding this plan to deal with the Obama caused Syria mess in reserve, waiting for the opportunity to put into action.  Either way, just imagine what would’ve happened had he not responded – impeachment could have started within the month; the groundwork having been laid by the prior Russian election-interference fiction.  The political elites probably thought he would have only one other option which would be to escalate things against Syria and Russia continuously – they expected him to fall in line or ruin himself running from it.

This scenario wasn’t just a way to thwart more Russian plant accusations or a show of power for its own sake, it was to ensure the political elites on both sides of the aisle would go from all energy towards escalations with Russia to instead wanting a deal with Russia, else risk political suicide themselves.  One week ago, would anyone have expected to see Neocons wanting to come to good terms with Russia while liberals simultaneously try to keep their asses from being crushed between two of their own stances?

The neocons for the most part won’t turn on Trump –especially those afraid of their constituency not re-electing him– either because Trump now dominates the support of mainstream conservative voters or out of fear for the bargaining chip Trump handed to Russia – Israel (which will be played up more in the future, and then look all the better on Trump for negotiations with Russia that were impossible before this stunt). Mainstream democrats will further disenfranchise their own consumer base if they try opposing the peace deals that Trump will bring about with Russia. Of course Democratic media might revert to a ‘Russia is anti gay’ or ‘anti women’s rights’ narrative but that’s working less and less as many of their (former) constituents realize this hypocrisy doesn’t apply to Islamists –not to mention how many liberals are more interested in their personal security than they are social issues (one of the reasons that Trump caught so many former Dem votes).

So this was a risky move, but not executing it would have left the possibility of further antagonism with Russia, with or without Trump at the helm. If he can pull this off without getting impeached for his action (which a Red congress that now has to think about reelection in their decisions and his new Supreme Court nominee will help mitigate when the left calls Trump’s actions anti-constitutional in their weird version of what that means) the high risks will yield a paradigm shift in US-Russian relations, the power dynamics of Washington, and who knows what else. As a successful businessman, I think President Trump can realize that the risks are worth the results, especially if the only other options were already deteriorating scenarios. He at least went from a “lose-lose” to a possibly huge win.

This is a theory of course, and all should be stoic as we observe the game unfold… but if in the next weeks or months Trump negotiates a deal with Russia that wouldn’t have seemed possible a week ago then it will be clear to see how we got here.  Until then try not to run around like a chicken with your head cut off over a war that only exists within your fear.  Usually people wait until there is a war to protest it, but I guess protesting imaginary wars is the new “Fashy.”



That Which Plagues Us – The Prescription, Part 3 of 3

The Prescription

The tv is not brainwashing your kids, you’re simply not parenting. Take some responsibility. If you can’t sacrifice your time or standard of living to invest in your children, then it is your fault if they are raised by the tv and exposed to the content and values therein.  You know what is on tv, the onus is on you to cut it out of your life and your children’s lives.  This era has the easiest living in recorded history but people are too narcissistic and greedy to give more of themselves to their own children if it means they themselves might have to live with less comfort or convenience. If you have a family member who is raising a child in an unhealthy manner, or is themselves living harmfully, and you can’t be bothered to take a dignified stand with your family, then you cannot blame anyone other than the person in the mirror. If people do not have responsibility for their children and families, then who does? Who SHOULD? You ought to be embarrassed to blame the tv when you sit idly by in comfort and do nothing so you can “keep the peace.”  Everyone feels so brave when they externalize their own shortcomings onto X group, but become quietly passive when it comes to their friends and family members. They prefer to shy away from any meaningful action in their personal lives, in favor of self-victimization.

It only costs your dignity and agency.

Are westerners so cowardly and incapable of meeting any opposition to not even take the risk of addressing an issue in their own family? Is being friendly in your home more important than the long term outcome of not addressing unhealthy behavior? This is why the tendency for tolerance towards those whom you have a close personal connection with leads to far more slippery slopes than any brainwashing ever could. If your sister is raising children in a lesbian relationship and you haven’t even voiced disapproval in an intelligent and calm manner, then don’t blame some abstract bigger picture.

It is common knowledge that those identifying as homosexuals tend to be far more chaotic and their lifestyle is less likely to lead to a fulfilling, life-long pair bond, and are incapable of naturally making a family but they will ignore this and demand their unions to be on-par with traditional marriage, because their acceptance is more important than what is healthy for society or themselves.  Their family members love them so they will wear their support of “gay marriage” like a badge of honor, as if the utmost importance in one’s life is public acceptance for every part of the gay family member they care about. The modern person thinks they cannot love someone while disapproving of aspects of them or while seeking to correct them.

Most will do anything possible to ignore their own (or those whom they love’s) shortcomings, when there is nothing more honorable to face. It is very rare yet healthy for people to admit a mistake or explain the bad result of something they did. These confessions serve as warning to future generations. They show that they care more about correcting a societal problem they didn’t catch in time for themselves rather than maintain an illusion of moral perfection. Having agency means you make choices with the info you have, but there is always going to be trial-and-error or unexpected results from unknowns that lead to bad consequences from good intentions. Everyone has to maintain agency to accept this reality. Negating brainwashing as the root of human ills isn’t saying you have no excuse not to be perfect, it’s the first step to long-term health for your line by confronting the imperfections that need to be worked on.

In earlier times, if you enabled family members to act in dangerous or self-destructive ways they would simply die out.  These times of easy living and comfort have allowed people to delude themselves into believing that the preservation of their life and bloodline is the responsibility of everyone else but themselves.  Race-realism is important, but do not let it become a scapegoat away from the self-correction of your own people.  You cannot possibly ensure the survival of your race if you don’t even have the mettle to confront your own siblings, let alone address the self-destructive culture your people have imbibed.  This is the problem with the modern era and its large-scale, top-down focus: people forget that strong foundations build healthy homes.  There will be no savior from on high; the huge global system itself is only a symptom of the problem… our lack of roots is the actual problem.  If you cannot sacrifice for your children and take stances against your own family members, there will be no chance of changing these destructive cycles.

Introspect on how much you have done to help your own before speaking of brainwashing by an opposition.  No one is asking for criminal charges, but social shaming or even calling-out is the least you can do. Reality is cruel, immoral, and unforgiving. People that make it past huge obstacles are not the type to expect others to save them or expect the world to be fair. You have to take an active part in saving your line, or you will only expedite its end. There will be no reversal of trends if people are all quiet for the sake of “getting along.”

When people negate their own agency, they are compelled to perpetuate their unhealthy behaviors by making peers either accept them wholesale or place blame onto something intangible like brainwashing in order to escape the uncomfortable necessity of conflict.  Slippery slopes come from everyone accepting the destructive behavior of those they love because no one can be bothered with confronting them.

Morality signaling doesn’t stem from brainwashing, it stems from hubris, artificial connections and social attention.  Victims’ morality comes from the sloth of those who only seek instant-gratification so they don’t have to work for what is healthy in the long run. The idea that life is supposed to be perfect, that the world is not supposed to be dangerous but instead a utopia, and that the reasons and hardships that make it so everyone isn’t “saved” must, by their reckoning, stem from some form of external oppression or a conspiracy to brainwash people.

Brainwashing is an excuse and counter-brainwashing is a false hope – both place top down power within a destructive system as the key to fixing problems supposedly created by the same top down power.  Those who put in effort for their own lines will have prosperity for their posterity.  There are no shortcuts that will allow for everyone to be saved, a fantasy which is itself regressive and unnatural.  Excuses are the invisible tombstones of all the lost lines in history.

That Which Plagues Us – The Patients’ Symptoms, Part 2 of 3

The Patients’ Symptoms

Historically when captors have tried to brainwash prisoners, the results have been less than spectacular. From the fabled “Manchurian candidate” to the CIA’s MK-Ultra program, there has not been a way yet devised to entirely dominate a person’s will. Having complete control of someone’s body and everyday activities still yields only a very a questionable level of control regarding the individual’s inner drive.  In the few instances we have record of, other factors were at play with the small percent that was supposedly “brainwashed” having been convinced they would be personally better off by turning to or against a given group.  If real mind control is not generally effective, even with the addition of mind-altering chemicals, this is indicative that during supposed “brainwashing” there is an underlying personal motivation at play.  It is not brainwashing that creates destructive behaviors, but temptations.  Past generations understood our range of potential nature and called destructive actions “sins”, and before that many of these were understood as destructive even in classical times without the use of the word “sin”.  The seven deadly sins, that were around long before electronic media, are a good example of how giving in to temptations lead to destructive actions.  Let’s shortly go over each one.

Pride’s most common expression is The percentage of the population expressing traits of narcissism is growing every generation and it propels the impulse to stand out, to be unique and different. You can’t brainwash someone into this. It is an effect of social isolation caused by the breakdown of “community,” leaving individuals to seek the next best thing via technology. Making effort-based, real-world connection is less common and seen as too much work, while a social networking is usually based far more off of superficial qualities and doesn’t force people to self-correct by allowing them to pick and choose their associates like toppings on a pizza. Nevertheless, these people FEEL like they’re truly connecting with others, and so they are bonded by the least important qualities yet remain isolated on a human level. Urbanization and its subsequent technological simulations of meaningful interaction have created the perfect breeding-ground for narcissism and special snowflake mentalities – which lends itself into a circular reinforcing cycle of destructive people who cannot maintain healthy bonds with friends and family. Narcissists don’t care about self-sacrifice for children, or working through hard times with a spouse, and they certainly do not want to put in effort for bonds when they can get immediate attention and instant approval. Attention-seeking behavior and morality-signaling do not come from “brainwashing,” they come from urbanization and through technological innovation have been exported to even the most rural areas.

Greed drives the markets that do not actually care about the nations they exploit. It has fostered an international form of corporatism produced from an extremely complex, ever-globalizing economy creating a machine to which the people are inherently means and not ends. This system wouldn’t work without individual greed, and this is not exclusive to one particular economic system, nor a specific span of time.  No economic system focuses on anti-materialism or anti-greed narratives, nor do any attempt to work outside of the larger globalist paradigm. They all push to expand and achieve decadent standards of living, only stopping to argue about distribution method and means of production. Individual greed stems from replacing bonding cycles with instant material gratification and this process has seemingly been an unrecognized, or underappreciated, problem since the dawn of civilization.

The very basics of survival within tribes create the bonding mechanisms within that tribe.  In hominid evolution, hunting was driven by both positive and negative reinforcement.  A tribe was hungry and worked together to track game then ate which stimulated satisfaction in the brain through dopamine among other things.  The hunger allowed the dopamine to re-sensitize and this balanced cycle helped keep the people balanced.  The people of a tribe were bonded through the oxytocin of shared experiences as a family units which prompted procreation and child-rearing.  The negative aspects or hardships were overcome by the strong bonds, which rewarded the tribe with even stronger bonds.  In the modern world, oxytocin fires off all over the place thanks to technological stimuli, which why people are becoming bonded to objects and fictional characters. This contrasts the layered bonding of a tribe, where the individual is like a bullseye supported by immediate kin which is supported by the rest of your tribe. Instead people get trips from cute pictures on the internet, random hookups with people selected from a user-interface menu, and validation from a sea of forum profiles.

Within civilization, the neurotransmitters themselves have become the end goal and money has become the means to achieving this evolutionary-produced “high.” The orgasm is the perfect metaphor for this; what evolved as an incentive to reproduce and pair bond (especially in women) has become just one more “thing” to collect.  Materialism is the fabled ‘chasing the dragon’ for the fix which is a part not balanced by the whole and on its own will never lead to emotional fulfillment.

Money for the sake of social power and pleasure further traps people within a process we are not meant to live by — far detached from biological reality and from other people.  Greed corrupts politicians, businessmen, and activists alike. Even regular people can become creatures who would rather live an extravagant individualistic life instead of having a family, or who seek a lucrative divorce in which they get the kids just for tax benefits, child support payments, and social attention.

Greed on a macro scale has taken on a life of its own with its avatar best understood as international trade, and the resulting material wealth goes hand in hand with power.  In the race to power, extreme war and wealth-disparity are inseparable.  This spreads by its own devices, opening up all people to this globalizing civilization while it unconsciously destroys tribal people and unique cultures.  A good example of this in the past was the race for all Western nations to open the ports of Japan, and those in Japan that supported this did so because they wanted the power to contend with those who would take advantage of them.  Greed becomes a trap in which by not participating you will become subject to the will of those who do, but by participating you destroy yourself.  It is a horrible catch 22. You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

Lust is seen everywhere. It is a cheap commodity now, whether through hubris or greed, to get a quick oxytocin trip with “no strings” (bonds).  People inadvertently break up their families because of their own lust.  No one values real bonds and it is not brainwashing that made them do this.  The easier society makes living the less people need each other.  In democratic systems, people will elect those that do not hold them to long-term commitments; because to not give their constituency instant gratification would yield a very short career in politics.  Horrible policies on adultery and no-fault divorce aren’t a top-down conspiracy nor the results of brainwashing; they are only possible because of the majority’s demand for these things to be accepted.

Envy goes hand in hand with hubris/pride and everything having a very superficial value. People feel entitled to the good in what they perceive of others without accepting the bad that comes with it or the hard work to get there.  This relates to all types of things from minimum wage to “equal rights.”  There would be no feminism or transgenderism without every single supporter’s envy of the other sex.  No one has to trick them into it because a victim-morality appeals by the benefits it promises.  Those who oppose it, now that it’s normative, do so not because of counter-brainwashing but from a focus on long-term functionality over short term gratification.  It is will-power and utilitarian (not false hedonistic “utility”, but long-term functionality) understanding that opposes temptation, not counter-brainwashing.

Gluttony drives unhealthy lifestyles. You can attempt counter-brainwashing through advertisements all day to try to get people to crave carrots like they crave high fructose corn syrup, but you will soon learn it’s the dopamine release brought on by bad foods that makes people desire them, not the advertisements inherently. Marketing doesn’t make you want junk food, it competes for what type or brand you will choose to quell your craving. Once a person indulges in something, even one who knows a given treat is unhealthy and isn’t subject to advertisements, they can still be enticed by it. This is the same for many other vices that trigger chemical reactions in the brain. To oppose your temptations, you must first acknowledge them and recognize you have the choice or agency to resist them.

Wrath and anger are often used interchangeably but wrath is a very specific type of anger. It is a vengeful anger and pairs nicely with externalized-agency.  People will rage and obsess over those they perceive as the root of their own ills, never looking at what they could be doing to themselves.  Wrath results from those who are not self-corrective.  Other types of anger can cultivate a righteous impetus, like fighting to protect your land from invasion or ending destructive cycles like homosexual pedophilia. These do not root from an externalization of agency onto other groups nor is the drive to them revenge for a perceived wrong.  There is an old saying that relates to wrath that goes “when seeking revenge dig two graves.”

Sloth expresses itself currently by seeking easy living or excuses for not doing what is in your capability because complacency is easier. This era has some of the highest widespread standards of living in Western history, but nearly no one is willing to sacrifice effort or their lifestyle for children – this is where sloth and greed meet.  When you can delve further into a subject but take the easy answer that feeds into your hubris and wrath, that is sloth.  You can be perfectly busy but still commit sloth, just as you can simplify your life to focus on what’s important and not commit sloth.  The road to sloth is to do what brings you ease or instant gratification or that which feeds into the other sins without facing the difficulty of seeking what is good and true. The notion of evil triumphing because good men do nothing shows why Sloth truly is the gateway to all other sins.

That Which Plagues Us – A False Diagnosis, Part 1 of 3

A False Diagnosis

Brainwashing is blamed as the cause of today’s leftism, but this is largely not true. Most ills in modern society are the doing of peoples’ own temptations, and the inability to stand up to loved ones creates slippery slopes from these collective temptations. Sure, over-exposure or early exposure to vices can normalize them or bring about the means to temptations that are already there, but that normalization is made up of every participant of the deviant action.  The problem with calling everything “brainwashing” is that it asserts that these horrible dynamics are created from malicious intent instead of the “victims” perpetuating them. It ignores how historically ineffective intentional brain washing attempts have been, overlooks how consumer-driven markets allow this to reach massive scales (not for some underlying scheme but simply for the bottom dollar), and obfuscates the problem by casting it as the all-knowing will of some external actor instead of the collective conspiracy of every single addict or true believer drawn to these destructive vices.

By misunderstanding the problem, you will misunderstand how to fix it.  There is no counter-brainwashing that will work.  The problem isn’t a top down one, it is made up of not just “leaders” but of every follower of each particular vice.  You don’t save people from themselves by coddling them or creating a victim narrative through externalization.  Cycles are not ended by blaming someone else and relinquishing people from the responsibility of their actions, no matter if they were part of a collective or not.  There would be no destructive leftist movements or lifestyles or addictions without every single person that makes up part of that collective or statistic.  No top down power structure will save everyone either because it’s simply the wrong direction for the given problem.

There would be no feminism without feminists. They are not “brainwashed” because they choose to accept narratives that appeal to them – especially the desire for power they perceive men to have.  People aren’t destroying marriage and pair bonds through cheating because they were brainwashed into it but because there are no consequences for their actions.  You do not fight this by blaming a tv show that shows cheating in a good light – because that show is a consumer driven product. You stop adultery by holding people accountable to social and/or legal consequences.  Cheating is only normalized by those who want it accepted. This is not brainwashing.

No-fault divorce isn’t some top down conspiracy that was created from nowhere. Democratic systems allow people to elect those who push for things they want. No-fault divorce benefits many people who do not want to be tied to the responsibilities of their actions.  Every person who breaks up their family for selfish ends and temptations is to blame for the collective loss of family values.  You cannot (reverse)brainwash people into family values, nor appeal to them based on instant gratification, but you can make people responsible for the consequences of their actions, intended or not, and demonstrate what is best for the long run knowing it is their choice to work for that or not.

It’s not that most can’t get past their “programming” it’s that people are not meant to live in massive cities or interact in online social networks. People are meant to sync with their tribe and that tribe will cease to exist if they promote self-destructive behaviors – civilization has replaced tribalism and taken on a life of its own, while creating a life for you that you are not meant for and is unhealthy. Being kind to those you love is always more comfortable than correction, so this acceptance of every illness in urban society only degenerates it faster.  Peoples’ collective temptations and impulses perpetuate part of the “programming” like a drop of rain in a storm, as do their loved ones who believe that “loving” them requires they not correct them and accept even destructive tendencies. By removing all agency from these people, it assumes it is someone else’s responsibility to fix them. Agency is seen as some all-or-nothing state of being, where if someone keeps doing something bad and doesn’t stop themselves, then they no longer have agency.  If they are part of a group committing destructive actions, then they are said to no longer have agency and must have relinquished their agency to some external actor who “brainwashed” them. This is pure malarkey.

For this to work, you must find someone else to blame –an absurdity to be sure. Agency is about responsibility and you don’t lose agency by refraining from hard work and facing the repercussions. Excusing such a person makes them even less likely to accept it is within their control and creates a circular cycle of externalization.  While everyone falls more and more into dysfunction, waiting for someone in an inherently corrupt power structure to save them, who will be functional enough to save others?  No one is saved that doesn’t want to be saved, and this is only effected by effort on their part.  This is the cold truth of reality.

If a person has a drug addiction you do them a disservice by excusing their behavior as a disease… as if this was done to them by outside forces. It allows them to use that as an excuse and crutch, or even as a means to get attention or pity. People should give them support to break the chemical addiction but should not coddle them. Appreciate their ability to stop and give positive reinforcement for this, but there needs to be disapproval and repercussions for continued destructive behavior. If they do not stop, they need to be made to suffer the consequences of their actions. The “disease” is not responsible for their life’s decisions – they are! By making them hold this responsibility they are more likely to overcome the obstacle instead of being defined by it. Agency doesn’t mean that someone is always going to do what is right for them, it means they make a choice even if some choose to not put in hard work or use will-power.  A collective of people might justify their choices, but numbers don’t make each person less responsible for their actions. The more excuses accepted the more excuses that will be made.

If people start to punish or demonize destructive actions and hold these individuals responsible, those who perpetuate the destruction will either change, leave, or soon cease to exist. If people are allowed to externalize the agency for their weaknesses, their destructive tendencies will only increase and they will for sure cease to exist in time, along with all those they influenced.  Everyone seems to give excuses for why they can’t take a stance against people in their personal life, as if being kind is the only form of care or love you can have.  If you love someone then you must love them enough to edify them and take a stance against unhealthy behaviors.  If you cannot stand the temporary disharmony in your family that will result from trying to stop their destructive ways, then you should be embarrassed to complain about how they are brainwashed into their beliefs and actions – they are coddled into them.  When met with no judgment or standards by their family or peers, people will continue down the path of whatever vice feels good…because they can.

Charity isn’t the only thing that starts in the home – correction, edification, and responsibility within your family must be started and maintained by your family, including you!  Your line is your responsibility from birth until death and in these times people forget this fundamental aspect of natural order.  In older times, not teaching and edifying your line could end you all; in easy times you still have to protect the health of you line or they will cease to exist. The world always has been a dangerous and unforgiving place – some things may change but in the end no one will save you if you are not willing to save yourself.

Antimoralism, Immoralism, and Moralism

Anti-moralism is misunderstood in common interpretations because the majority of people misrepresent it as immoralism.  Anti-moralism is not the opposite of moralism, it denies the absolutist premise of the moralist paradigm. Moralism and immoralism are reflections of each other, defined by opposition to the other – anti-moralism is the rejection of the foundation that both stand on.

A rejection of morality shouldn’t simply lead you to do the exact opposite of whatever is labeled as moral – this in itself still defines you by being the inverse of the mob’s morality – but to be able to use discernment so that you can focus on results and not just wallow in a sea of intent. Being an anti-moralist doesn’t mean you try to be immoral, it means you reject the intentions of morality as an end in itself. The moralist makes everything into absolutes and doesn’t respect the relationship between relative, objective, and absolute which bastardizes objective discernment.  Everything polarizes into extreme absolutes or complete relativity in ways that feed off each other.  We see this with liberal stances, like being against the death penalty yet making excuses for murder based on how “oppressed” someone is because their emotional tier system of morality places fairness above other types of morality.  The value system of morality is always subjective but is applied in an absolutist fashion.  There is no gauge to determine how important some morals are over others, this is why moralism can lead to inaction in the face of horrible cycles instead of ending them.

Some will make fairness their ultimate goal no matter if making unequal things equal or “fair” is impossible and leads to worse outcomes for all; others will hold all life universally sacred no matter how destructive that life is.  The moralist paradigm leads to the separation of ends and means – the means are all that matters to moralists regardless of the results they lead to.  Intentions are all that matters, and morality becomes and end goal in itself.  There are some immoralists that are reactive to this in that they place ends as more important than means, but the means they resort to in order to achieve such ends often prevent the desired end.  The intended ends are just as futile if the means are not in line to get there.

Means and ends are inseparable – the anti-moralist knows this, while the moralist paradigm only allows intentions, whether for means or ends, to matter.  The problem with this is that intentions will always be praised while bad results are deflected in ways that cause compounding dynamics between groups.  There will never be self-correction or agency as long as only intentions matter. Moralism and immoralism are based off of the same premise and are a false dichotomy because both of their ultimate conclusions converge at tolerance.

Reality isn’t an all-or-nothing and is beyond good and evil.  The moralist is focused on trying to find what is good and the immoralist is focused on trying to find what is evil, and both take their relative stances in an absolute fashion in response to each other.  When people seek to “understand” for the sake of moral rationalization toward preventing perceived cycles, nothing will ever be resolved because it results in an unintentional projection of their own agency and biases into the cycle itself. This is destructive and regressive to all who engage in it.  Moralism perpetuates this projection in a way that continually builds up excuses for destructive results (we see this with leftists and their focus on fairness or changing conditions for primitives) or results in inactivity to the point of self-destruction (many Christians will tend to lean this way, especially with issues like the exponentially expanded primitive world and preventing their migration by force like sinking refugee ships headed for Europe or actively fighting back against leftism) because intentions for their morality prevent the results wanted.

Morality will always lead to some type of tolerance, and immorality is asking for the tolerance of anything and everything destructive.  The two will continually collide in opposition to each other or implode by converging at tolerance on increasing scales to parallel the increase of technology and acquired knowledge of civilization.  The reason for this is that there is a direct causal relationship between the increase of the moralist paradigm (and immoralist reactions to it) and how easy life is for a person.  The less people must try to survive the more removed they are from reality and begin to indulge in hedonistic moralism.  Projection replaces discernment for those who are too displaced from the realities of life, natural selection, and the food chain.
An example (this picture is from a facebook page I like):

This picture is a good example of the common misconstruing of anti-moralism with immoralism.  Many will relate this picture to Nietzsche, but it’s far more reflective of people who claim to follow his work and instead take it out of context to their own ignorant ends. The cults of great men tend to completely bastardize the work of their icon because they either do not try to understand the perspective it was written through (instead using it as an excuse for their own desires) and/or are incapable of understanding the concepts altogether but engage in the field as a novelty. This is why it does a disservice to intellectual discourse (thinking) to approach these topics democratically by insisting every single person be able to read them, which is something Nietzsche mentioned in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

Is there a drought in the area and the other person or their family have limited water to survive? Then They should not be faulted for turning him away. In times of survival that’s necessary and natural.

Is this during a war? If so turn him back to his own men as to not take away supplies from yours.

Is this an illegal immigrant that’s continually invading your land? Withholding aid will deter future migration.

Is this person thirsty because they are running from something? Are they a known child molester or traitor to their own people? Give them a bullet instead of water.

In the context of this image, where it seems the person is withholding for no reason other than to mock the man and showcase (im)morality, I would not have any “moral” qualms with the thirsty man taking the water by force. In fact, it is quite respectable to see someone fight for life instead of roll over and beg the world to save them.

A Double Standard

“Obstruction of justice may consist of any attempt to hinder the discovery, apprehension, conviction or punishment of anyone who has committed a crime.”


The left has long been so out of control that their politicians and even their heads of law-enforcement have decided that they can pick and choose which laws they will enforce and which they will ignore.  This selective law-enforcement has long allowed them to administer de facto legislation.  All across the country, politicians from the local to the state to the federal level have not only decided to not apprehend criminals that illegally cross into this country but also have allocated funds from American citizens to help these illegals further their crimes in the way of permanent residency, licensing, education, and medical expenses.  This is illegal – politicians and sheriffs/police are committing the crime of obstructing justice by hindering the discovery, apprehension, and conviction of individuals committing crimes.  Politicians are further committing more crimes by granting illegal benefits to these criminals they should be apprehending.


Every single past and present politician or law enforcement agent that is committing, or has willfully committed, this obstruction of justice should be removed from their position and criminally charged.


The entitlement of these officials to disregard laws and make decisions that explicitly violate both the word and spirit of our laws needs to end.  Since Trump has been elected, they are so emboldened by their long-standing power play that they are publicly threatening to not follow the enforcement of immigration law.  The republican response of federally defunding these areas is not enough.  Not only should they be defunded, every single past and present law enforcement officer (sheriffs included) and politician that refuses to deport illegals, or has aided their stay in any way, should be charged with obstruction of justice and lose their position at the very least.


Right wingers across the country must demand their federal representation address this issue by responding with rage at our leftist political overlords, and demand justice.  They must do time for their crimes against this country they’re supposed to serve, as any of their constituents would have to.  The double standard in this country for the political elite must end – politicians and law enforcement must not only serve the law, but be held accountable by it.

‘Tis the Season

There seems to be an inverse relationship between how many toys a child has and how much they appreciate their toys.  The materialism of this era is out of control, and there is also an inverse relationship between how many materialistic comforts/possessions one has and their loss of instincts, including self-preservation.  The coddled, easy lifestyle and hyper-focus on happiness, instant gratification, and collectability leads people to always craving more.  It emotionally disconnects them from their community while solidifying a false idea about the road to happiness; ie. “When I’m no longer happy, I just need more ______. When I’m no longer happy, I just need more _____.”  Furthermore, it replaces the reward of hard work towards an accomplishment with serial consumption.   In this holiday season, a focus on what children actually need should be addressed, and it is not more toys.


It is better to invest time in the children you love, instead of money, so that they grow up into well-rounded and skilled adults.  This “season of giving,” you might want to replace toys with activities for the young members of your family and community.  Buy a child a month membership to learn a skill or sport and ask relatives to do the same.  Swimming, martial arts, horseback riding, crafts, archery, hunting, cooking, or pottery lessons, or even books about these or other technical activities would do them well; moreso than another Call Of Duty or Barbie Doll.  Talk to other loved ones and give them options for what activities you child would like that aren’t bought yet. Older generations will be more receptive to such ideas than the current generation of parents.  This way it lowers the expense on parents to provide recreational activities by allowing the whole family to give these experiences to children instead of presents they will soon care less about and be no better for.

Many activities are also things families can do together.  As a present to the entire family maybe go on a camping trip or learn a skill together.  Instead of buying individual items for each grandchild and grown child, send them somewhere or to something everyone can do together. “The family that plays together, stays together.”  Items that allow for activities are also great ideas for gifts; like canoes, roller blades, oil pastel sets, boxing gloves, or even clothes and safety equipment for sports or other activities.


There is nothing wrong with buying things for people, but realize what you give them reinforces what they are more likely to do in the future.   Before you give a present, ask yourself if what it reinforces in their life is productive to their future as a well-rounded person.  If you get them a poster of their favorite cartoon or video game character, what does that reinforce?  Does it reinforce the concept of spending more time indoors on a tv or computer screen?  Children do a lot of this far more now than in any other generation, there is nothing good that will come from encouraging more.  A good alternative might be a constellation poster that can make them more interested in the universe around them.  What does getting them a type of martial arts or sports membership or month pass reinforce in their life and future?  Self-discipline, self-reliance, and a healthy body.


It is not your ideals, or abstract theories, that define you but what you do in the world and how you affect it.  Everything you do with or for the people in your family and community affects the future, make sure to reinforce your values in reality for those around you.  The influence of affecting the children you love will be far more important to the future than the exchange of ideas alone.  This also will help to fund local individuals and groups who teach skills, sports, and activities instead of international consumerism that benefits globalist investors.  It is more important to enact your ideals into tangible reality than to over-develop your ideals and preach them to anyone who might listen.


There is a balance that must be maintained between ‘thought’ and ‘action.’ For ‘thought’ to matter it can’t remain in theory too long to stagnate but must translate over into action.  So many people become more aware of how overly complex and out of control the modern world is. Some become overwhelmed into inaction while others go too far into theory while mistakenly thinking they’re affecting the world.  A focus on self-improvement is the first step to affecting the world around you instead of letting the chaos of it consume you, but we are not solitary beings and all affect each other.  The best way to stay balanced is to enact theory in reality and stay intelligently grounded. So for this “Season of Giving,” reinforce healthy activities and interests in all those you love, especially the children.

An Unwitting Weapon

Somalis are literally “refugees” from themselves.  They are some of the most dysfunctional and destructive hominids on the planet.  Everywhere Somalis go, they earn a reputation for crime including theft, various acts of violence, and sexual predation.  They are so impulsive they can’t pass up any opportunistic crime in Europid lands that open up their doors to them yet act like victims at every turn, giving themselves false justification for their disgusting acts.

Why are Somalis given refugee status and allowed to enter the West?

The answer to this is quite simple, the United Nations is the cause.  The United Nations Humanitarian High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is a refugee agency whose emigration process has been streamlined to both the European Union and the United States.  At its inception, the EU was already under the “guidance” of the UN for refugee referrals, which were generally impossible to refuse.  The United States wasn’t so unquestioning about such “referrals” until the Refugee Act of 1980.  The original bill was proposed by Edward M. Kennedy on March 13, 1979 and signed into law by Jimmy Carter on March 17, 1980.  You can thank them and the rest of the democrats in the legislative branch at that time for the influx of Somalis and other third world “refugees,” allowed to come to the West and bite the hand that feeds them, while blaming and guilting you for it.  The worst part is, because of birthright citizenship, all of their children have been born Americans. This adds to the demographic crisis where less than half the children born in the US are Europid.

This is one of many insidious shifts the UN/World Bank has taken to cuckold the United States’ Federal Government.  If looked at in isolation this alone might not seem damning, but like the fabled camel this was one more straw straining its over-encumbered back.  The UN is a cancer that must be taken down.  With current demographic trends, this might be the last time that the US will ever have such right-wing-stacked legislative and executive branches.  Right-wingers across the country need to focus on pressuring representatives to defund the United Nations and revise or repeal all laws giving them power over the US.  Aside from the immediate effects, this would also set a precedent for the rest of the West including Europe.  You can react against primitives all day, but at this point it would be like trying to clean your house while it is on fire – all systemic hazards need to be extinguished before the house can be scrubbed and remodeled.