Category Archives: Western Civilization

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.”



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.

A Traditionalist Stance On The islamic Threat

Tradition is not the worship of ashes but the preservation of fire.” -Gustav Mahler

Idealistic morality based off of the Enlightenment period is now normative. It has permeated almost every political party and movement – they seem to compete for which will hold the higher morality based off of this ever-rebelling premise. The mainstream left vs right is disguised as opposing sides, when really they are just two ends of the same Globalist spectrum. The Conservatives are fighting an uphill battle by trying to hold onto Modernism, while the Progressives are pushing through to full scale Postmodernism, yet no mainstream groups are rejecting the slippery slope of Enlightenment-based dogma as a whole.

The anti-islam movement is very much in the battle for morality between two ends of this same spectrum. The lack of democracy, inequality, wealth disparity, political freedom, oppression of women’s rights, inability to coexist in multiculturalism, etc., are all very common mainstream arguments against islam.

The Enlightenment’s legacy pushes for pathos based morality; it is no wonder that the present era has developed extreme emotional hypersensitivity to prevent the exploration of their stances’ illogical outcomes – the further left on this spectrum the more absurd it gets. Their false sense of morality is unquestionable since it revolves around feelings and offense instead of ethos. The inevitable moral paradoxes create the need for “oppressors” and “perpetual victim” groups: the higher in victim status a group is deemed to be, the more that group will trump other victim groups when it comes to a conundrum of conflicting stances. Likewise in asininity, the groups deemed to be privileged “oppressors” are overlooked for any type of merit, thus instead of emulating the strong, more perpetual victim groups are created. This oppressor-victim mentality is even more enticing to the Globalist mindset because it comes full circle into feeding their self-proclaimed moral superiority – the social justice warriors can create the bad guys to fight off while giving them a ranking system to put their paradoxical “victim-groups” into a pecking order.

The (Post)Modernist ranking system is why the Left leads the Western appeasement of the islamic immigration invasion, while the Right needs to constantly push counter narratives for other victim groups as justification to oppose islam – a perfect parallel to show the enlightenment legacy’s spectrum from Left to Right are the flip sides to the same coin.

The world not only glorifies those seen as victims, but all must wait to champion or become victims in order to fight evil. The public outcry of the world when any use more than “proportional force” when fighting islam, is a telling sign of this era of absurdity.

Leftists don’t oppose islam even though it is the antithesis of all the idealistic views they hold, because muslims are a higher ranked victim group – they are among the least functioning, laziest, and most self-pitying, so they can put on a good show to shame the “oppressors” with.

The only thing oppressing islam is it’s own primitive and regressive ideology.

Globalist mindsets stand for everything at once and thus nothing at all, because there is no logical method to their pathos. Modernity holds their destructive, fictitious victim-oppressor paradigm as the highest importance, so the only place the Conservatives can oppose their left of the spectrum from is in defense of other victims. The only use a Traditionalist has for arguing this point should be to show the inevitable, paradoxical outcome of all rebellions stemming from the Enlightenment, leaving their lands susceptible threats like islam.

What weakens Western Civilization most to islam, is the destruction of it’s own superior traditionalism. The Western world is becoming more and more r-type since the Enlightenment period, thus on some subconscious level the rabid, r-type traditionalism of invading muhammadans is left as the only politically correct option to fill that void. There is a strong link between Feminist appeasement of islam and conversion or self-destruction of Europeans. This is why many Modernists do not have such high zeal in opposing islam, they have lost their own k-type vital force – Western Traditionalism.

Islam is not the root of all problems in the world, it is a deadly symptom that has run amok because of a weakened host. Islam is a destructive force that needs to be purged from the earth; not watered down, excused, assimilated, or any other fantasy Modernist ideals for dealing with this viper. It is the duty of the strong to vanquish the plague of Islam once and for all – Western Civilization must lead again.

Cease arguing against Muslims from a victims narrative that needs to wait for more victimization to counter with proportionate losses. The world must stand united against islam, but the West has to rise up to its duty and oppose the immigration invasion from the hordes seeking to destroy their posterity – for once the West falls, the world will follow. It is vital to destroy islam from a stance of strength, not weakness.

To find the resolve for what is to come ,Western Civilization needs a return to traditionalism so that their people may regain their vital driving-force.

The Postmodernist looks upon the islmic threat for a safe place to apportion blame and excuse them, or ignores the threat all together. The Modernist looks upon the islamic threat and is scared, sad, and worried. The Traditionalist looks upon the islamic threat and wants to take up a spear and plunge it through every last islamist in sight until the enemy is smote or one must embrace a glorious death in pursuit thereof. A revival of Western Tradition is the fire needed to purify the earth of the islam and the Enlightenment’s sickness that has festered far too long.

The Engineering of World Government, Part 2: Agribusiness Shift to Destabalize and Urbanize

The destruction of developing and Third-World countries’ ability to feed their people has been in the works for decades to motivate immigration invasions from these countries into the West. The least developed countries used to have an average of 36.7% of their GDP dependent on small farming, thus taking out their small farming completely destabilized those regions. A good example of this is the IMF loans given to Jamaica, which included requirements for opening up free trade with agribusiness there. Prior to this they were self-sustaining, but once agribusiness was able to flood their markets it ruined their family farms. The population began to urbanize and perform other work, which was short lived as a transitional phase to ease them into destruction by the globalists. The other IMF stipulations caused them to have too high of a minimum wage for their urban job market to be able to compete with Mexican sweat shops.


Mexico is another good example of this destabilization. Corn was the Mexican staple food, used for livestock, trade for other products in the world market, and to feed the poor masses with cheap tortillas. The Mexican Government used to subsidize its farmers to keep corn prices low, their masses fed, and their many small farms afloat. After Bill Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Mexican government cut those subsidies. Mexican officials claimed that NAFTA would allow small farm work to be replaced by urban manufacturing work brought in by international corporations, which incidentally cut off the job market in Jamaica.


Haiti was also once self-sustaining thanks to their huge network of small rice farms. Haitians were able to feed their own people and even engage in trade with the world market until Bill Clinton worked hard to convince their government to improve its economy by ending tariffs and bringing in free trade with the West, aka agribusiness. He later apologized for this “mistake” (as if it were not intentional, like deregulating Glass-Steagall, or as above, signing NAFTA).


The American government not only maintained but increased corn subsidies to kill the competition of Mexican small farmers and drown out other South American sugar-based ethanol production with massive corn-based ethanol production. The high levels of subsidization for rice in America were used to put small farms out of business in Haiti, pushing people to urban areas. The problem with flooding agriculture markets in developing and third world countries is that once they lose the farms and urbanize there is no realistic way for them to build another type of economy to continue to buy food. Now these places are destabilized, urbanized, and unable to feed their people, resulting in chaotic masses who seek to emigrate.


To make all this possible, globalists first needed to shift American family farms into agribusiness. In the 1930s the US had over 6,000,000 family farms housing about 25% of the entire population. Original farm subsidies were given to help sustain those family farms and provide low cost food for the nation. This made the American Dream possible; healthy families and a growing economy were the nation’s top priorities. Over time this has been slowly shifted to favor agribusiness and drown out the family farms. By 1997, 72% of farm sales were contributed by 157,000 large farms and less than 2% of the nation resided on small farms. The entire process of this shift has been done in increments over the decades, and is too tedious and lengthy to catalog in this article. However, the last few bills are of importance and will be briefly covered.


Subsidies have been majorly funneled into a few key crops for the purpose of overproduction and to hit developing countries with lower costs than the rest of the global market. This process is called international dumping. Most US subsidies now go to feed grains (mostly corn) at 35.4%, cotton at 17.7%, rice at 14.1%, soybeans at 7.6%, and dairy at 3.7%. About 75% of the total subsidies now go to the biggest 10% of farming companies.

Agricultural lobbies not only contribute huge amounts of money to many political campaigns, but also have many ties to Monsanto. It is not a coincidence that the most subsidized crops are also the most heavily produced as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). According to the Center for Food Safety, 85% of corn, 91% of soybeans, and 88% of cotton produced in the United States are GMOs. Wikipedia dates this as a few years old, and since then it has been estimated that over 90% of corn in the US is now GMO.


“It has been estimated that living expenses for the average farm family exceed $47,000 per year. Clearly, many farms that meet the U.S. Census’ definition would not produce sufficient income to meet farm family living expenses. In fact, fewer than 1 in 4 of the farms in this country produce gross revenues in excess of $50,000.” -The EPA (whose recent leadership appointments are linked to Monsonto).


Government boards set subsidies for farmers, and most family farms, who do not get a proportionate subsidy and have to sell at higher prices, cannot compete with underwritten monocultures. These disproportionate payment allocations are another way of hurting small farmers. Since 1970 over 90% of the $578 billion in commodity payments has gone to farmers raising grains, yet they are only 1/5 of farm cash recipients. Small farmers are paid less while the market price of food increases, since the subsidies no longer help the average cost of food for citizens. This causes a vast increase in cost of living for the middle class, who fund this with their taxes. This pushes more people into the plebeian dynamic of hatred toward those who sustain them, and makes more people dependent on globalists for food welfare to be used as puppets of class warfare against the middle class. After the veil is lifted, the lower class masses will be dead weight to the globalists – just a means to an end.


The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 was introduced and pushed through the House and Senate by Democrats. G.W. Bush vetoed the act on May 21st, 2008, but the House of Representatives was ready for that and overrode it the same day. The Senate made it law the following day. It was a $288 billion 5-year agricultural policy bill that was a continuation of Clinton’s 2002 Farm Bill. Bush saw it as being too generous in subsidizing the wealthy and cutting small farmers out of the loop by not using reasonable profit caps and wanted to prevent this from happening. He vetoed it because of the negative impact it would cause on small and poorer farmers, but his respect for the limitations of the executive branch wouldn’t allow him to stop the legislative branch.


Monocultures have a negative effect on the environment in ways that traditional small farms don’t. Bee colony collapse disorder is one of the environmental crises that massive monoculture farming contribute to.. Fear and environmentalism are promoted so that people blame the wrong target and see globalists as the answer since they’re the ones sounding the alarm on this issue; most people just don’t realize that it was the globalists/leftists who created these environmental issues in the first place. This is part of why Section 9003 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 included a grant of $250 million to build commercial-scale bio-refineries to produce advanced bio-fuels. The money never seems to lead to anything of help for the environment, but it does help bleed the system dry through bureaucracy and makes those in support of globalism feel that they are trying to do something to combat a problem they see evil capitalists and Republicans as having created. It creates another environmental crisis, like that of the bee colonies, that once again brings strength to the side causing it with the “need for human (globalist) rights”. The left claims to champion environmentalism, but has created and sustains much of the negative impact that leftists themselves decry.


The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, signed into law by Obama, included provisions to extend portions of the 2008 Farm Bill so that Harry Reid would have time to introduce a new Farm Bill. Food assistance for lower-class urban areas was a part of the 2008 Bill that was extended along with subsidies. This spike in food assistance to the lower-class masses has been funded on the backs of the middle class along with all the above subsidization. The new Farm Bill passed in early 2014 is going to strategically cut off much of this food aid to capitalize off of the ensuing chaos as a means to push for “solutions” and once again apportion blame for the hunger on the globalists’ desired targets. This parallels what is done with foreign aid in countries they destabilize – during the transition to urbanization and unsustainability, and then on to the rapid plebeian expansion phase, they are fully funded in foreign aid, then when they want to cause an immigration invasion (or other chaos) to escalate, that aid is downsized greatly.


The Environmental Working Group estimates that 10,000 agribusiness policy holders (called “farmers”) already receive over $100,000 in subsidies annually, with some making over $1 million. On the other hand, the bottom 80% of mom-and-pop family farmers collect only an average of $5,000 annually. These are only estimates, since the laws themselves keep the allocations secret to the public for the “privacy” of farmers receiving funds. It is even more disgusting that an excuse for the immigration invasion is that cheap labor is needed for picking crops at huge monoculture agribusiness farms that are already making a killing in profits and subsidies off the backs of the American people. The Agricultural Act of 2014 also ended profit caps for single-crop subsidies, so as to finish agribusiness’ farm-land grab from regular citizens. Crop insurance has been changed to ease this transition for the time being, so that the last family farmers won’t cry out to awaken any that might see the whole of this dynamic in time. Price loss coverage is now given to farmers if prices drop to a certain point for the monocultures, so it is almost just as profitable for small farmers to underplant or even not plant at all. Agriculture risk coverage is for “shallow losses”: any losses not covered by the other insurance are compensated for, removing the risk of low or no-yield harvests and removing the incentive to even try. This Act is the final phase of the takeover, and thus the war of maneuvering (strategy 4 in part 1) will amp up. The world will see all kinds of built-up escalations in Eastern Europe, the Far East, and the Middle East start to unfold, so that any who could notice or oppose globalist efforts will be too distracted or die off in the conflicts.


Many of the solutions proposed for all of this mess are also premised on a globalist narrative. The work of Anuradha Mittal of India is very good at showing the impact against developing and Third-World countries, yet her solution is unknowingly what the globalists desire. She wrote that “human rights” are needed in order to solve all of this in her book “America Needs Human Rights”. That is the whole reason for all of this destabilization and urbanization: to establish World Authoritarianism via “human rights”. Notice now how the narratives of different groups all tell of “human rights”; it is now becoming normalized in people’s minds. Rights and responsibility are inseparable; giving the globalists the control of “human rights” is the exact effect they desired when they took away the world’s ability to be responsible for itself nation by nation. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization is already in partnership with the World Bank for “solutions” to these food crises and destabilizations they have created around the world. This has all been done as a covert attack on Western civilization, since Westerners pose the only threat to the global agenda; the developing world and its people are just tools of attack within demographic and economic shifts.

To be continued…


Leftists need to feel morally superior to others.  Their idealistic stances – instead of hard earned actions – give them the self-righteous assurance that they’re good people.  They judge the character of a person by what that person believes in theory – the merits of one’s actions are given no standing.  Leftists outsource the burden of their “morals” to others as if this makes them selfless, but without self-sacrifice it is the epitome of selfishness.

Since their entire drive stems from pathos, it is no wonder that the left has developed extreme emotional hypersensitivity to prevent the exploration of their stances’ illogical outcomes.  This also prevents their false sense of morality from being easily questioned since it revolves around feelings and offense instead of ethos.  The inevitable moral paradoxes create the need for “oppressors” and “perpetual victim” groups: the higher in victim status a group is deemed to be, that group will trump other victim groups when it comes to a conundrum of conflicting stances.  This oppressor-victim mentality is even more enticing to the globalist mindset because it comes full circle into feeding their self-proclaimed moral superiority – the social justice warriors can create the bad guys to fight off while giving them a ranking system to put their paradoxical “victim-groups” into a pecking order.

One good example of this ranking system is the way the left is critical to western appeasement of the islamic immigration invasion.  One would think that leftists would oppose islam since it is the antithesis of all the idealistic views they hold, but muslims are a higher ranked victim group – they are among the least functioning, laziest, and most self-pitying, so they can put on a good show to shame the “oppressors” with.  Globalists stand for everything at once and thus nothing at all, because there is no logical method to their pathos.  This is why they must hold their destructive, fictitious victim-oppressor paradigm as the highest importance.

The masses are very prone to this trap – resulting in a range from leftist consumers, followers, activists, social leaders, politicians – that becomes self-perpetuating.  Rewarding the victim with positive reinforcement based on how “oppressed” people are will only push towards compounding regression.  Likewise, negative reinforcement of blaming the strong while apportioning them the burden of all perpetual-victim groups’ deadweight will accelerate the downward shift.  It is hard to take a stance against those with an idealistic globalist mindset in the social arena without appearing to be a cold, cruel person- harsh reality is hard to accept when compared to fantasy, feel-good jargon.  No one is going to win the heart of the average person who does not like (or lacks the ability) to use reasoning.  Falling for emotive persuasion is much easier on them.

Mob rule inescapably ensues.

The key difference between a republic and a democracy is that the former is designed to prevent against mob rule, while the later champions it.  The rise of leftism and the globalist mindset over the past century parallels the shift in voting that has turned the USA’s Constitutional Republic into a sham republic with democratic voting styles – a similar dynamic in the shifting of norms and rise of democracy can be seen around the same time span in Europe and the rest of Western Civilization.

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic” – Thomas Jefferson’s words have quite a haunting tone to them in modern times.

The mob cannot self-regulate; without an upward pull they will swamp civilization into a sticky mess.  By placing the vote in the mobs hands, all politicians will legally strive to facilitate the extended downfall of their people as it provides a very stable career opportunity.  Creating a mob of perpetual victims with no personal responsibility and the false pretense of moral superiority is bad enough without handing them the voting power of a nation.  Democratic voting styles basically give a fox the key to the henhouse.

The checks and balances of the United States of America were based on the idea that the most patriotic and responsible citizens would put people in positions to run the country.  The mob can’t allow for personal liberties, which is why the Bill of Rights is close to fully destroyed.  The constitution was not written for a democracy, but for a republic.  For it to function correctly, the government cannot be comprised of opportunists whose only loyalty is to expanding their pocketbooks and maintaining the approval of the mob.

Voting rights need to be redefined:


This shows that they are not just competent enough to make    wise decisions, but also that they’re responsible enough to get the test done.  This shows that voting and the wellbeing of their country are both top priorities. The country’s future is serious business, not for the simple minded or irresponsible.

2. RAISE THE MINIMUM VOTING AGE TO 30 (the one exception being active/past military)

Young minds are the most susceptible to emotional appeal and going along with peer pressure of the masses.  They are still working towards getting to a stable point of running their own lives and do not have the time or wisdom to focus on what is best for running a country. The 20’s are a time (especially in this era) for people to make their mistakes and grow – it is best they don’t apportion the consequences of that phase to the nation as a whole.  Those willing to fight for the country and go through such rigorous discipline and self-sacrifice earn the right to have a say in who leads them, so military voting age would remain at 18 as the exception.


Those that will fight or work for the betterment of their own lives and their country will create a much-needed upward pull.  There are many arguments against this that are based in pathos instead of logos.  This dynamic would give far greater voting power to the middle class, and not to the richest elite of this nations, as many with a globalist mindset will jump to thinking.  They tend to fear that this will lead to the “exploitation” of the “oppressed” by the 1%, when in reality the 1% is using the mob as a means to exploit and destroy the middle class.  This will create much incentive for people to work –  hard work builds character, appreciation, community, and understanding the value of things.  This will stimulate an upward pull for the economy and middle class expansion, and by encouraging many to be responsible and self-reliant they also earn their liberty.  Rights and responsibility are inseparable; the mob cannot give up financial responsibility without expecting their rights to be taken by an ever-growing police state.  These are the steps needed to build a strong citizenry capable of voting in leaders who protect and cultivate a strong country.


Those with a globalist mindset love to complain about all the problems, and yet when offered a long-term solution, like changing voting rights, they will not even consider it.  Leftists want everyone else to sacrifice for the greater good, yet they cannot personally sacrifice anything at all.  The feel-good, emotive ideals they push are the easy way out for them to feed their egos without working toward anything at all.  Selfishness has always been – and will always be – the driving force of leftism.


Three Steps to Neutralize the Islamic Issue

An overt conflict with muslims will only be necessary because the leftists in Western Civilization and Europe allow islam to pose a threat.  There is an easy way to remedy the clash of civilizations without direct large-scale conflicts between infidels and mullahs, yet ironically it is the leftists’ own idealism and political correctness that denies any possibility of preventing massive amounts of death for all. There is a simple way to deal with the islamic issue – coincidentally, it actually leaves the opportunity for muslims to start pulling their own weight in the world and survive, unlike the current path that will inevitably end with infidels worldwide needing to kill muslims or be killed.  That might not be easy to see yet because of heavy censorship and indoctrination, but will become much clearer in a few more decades if the current course of islamic appeasement policy and subsidized expansion does not change.

Three simple steps that would neutralize the islamic issue:

1. End immigration, amnesty, visas, citizenship, tourism, etc. for muslims outside of islamic countries.

2. End the oil trade, foreign aid, and any assistance of food, service, or military including all funds/manpower to the UN ((which are disproportionately allocated to muslim nations).

3. Wall off any borders shared with muslims to deny them access outside of their lands and do not intervene in their affairs/infighting.

The first step in this plan is pretty self explanatory.  The reason why there’s no distinction between islamic sects, or the level of their extremism/moderatism, is because it applies to any who identify with islam.  There are many reasons for this, one of which is subjectivity.  How are the terms extremist or moderate muslim even defined?  There is such a small percentage of muslims that are considered in the extreme category – yes, with their huge numbers that small percent works out to be millions of extremists – yet it is likely the word “extremist” is not applied to enough muslims.  This means that the tens of millions of muslims categorized as extremists is inaccurate; the number is probably closer to hundreds of millions if the term applied to those in favor of sharia law.

Regardless of estimates it is impossible to determine a distinct line between moderates and extremists muslims – it’s more like a spectrum than black-and-white.  Sharia law is an integral aspect of islam and all muslims who support it are going to deteriorate the culture and freedoms of Western Civilization.  Islam is simply incompatible with the West and Europe, using the freedoms of host countries against themselves in a slow shift.  Whenever there is a bendable object and an inflexible object pulled together by a force, the bending object will lose more and more ground.  Muslims cannot coincide with any people – even their own of different sects – because their purpose is to dominate, not assimilate.

The “moderate” category (however loosely defined) is as much of a problem as the “extremists” if not more so – the two go hand-in-hand.   The “extremists” are used to fear monger away freedoms with their overt attacks, and in the backlash “moderates” then play the perpetual victim group role which slowly erodes more freedoms and shames the host culture.  The way one can tell the “moderate muslims” are an enemy is after an “extremist” attack their concerns are about discrimination and protecting the reputation of islam.  The moderates do not assist in catching and fighting their “extremists”, they instead make excuses of victimhood or proclaim how those few are not a representation of islam, when in fact the “extremists” are following far more closely to true islam than the “moderates”.  An invader won’t grieve with the nation they are squatting in, which would be any true patriots first response – the moderate and extremist muslims are all invaders with a common end goal of domination.

The second step is essential and the only way that muslims have any hope of changing to actually be self sustaining, though that isn’t likely at least it is possible.  The only real economic strength of islam is their oil trade.  Even in that, their corruption is evident when some princes are driving cars made of real gold while their muslim brothers are starving by the hundreds of thousands.  Oil seems to only give free, easy money to the most greedy muslim fat-cats and fund terrorism; the starving populations are sustained by foreign aid.

Why are muslims starving in the first place?  The answer to that is their own primitive procreation practices and not valuing life or responsibility.  The foreign aid given to them doesn’t teach self reliance, but only continues the cycle of irresponsible procreation which compounds over generations putting too much strain of supporting this on the responsible populations these muslims are raised to hate.  This is unnatural and the bleeding hearts that push for dhimmi-style aid only exacerbate the dsygenic aspects of islamic primitive culture.  Leftists are under the delusion that islamic poverty stems from external oppression instead of their own unnatural subsidization of generations that should never have been born.

The need for aid will be even higher once all muslims are not enjoying domestic welfare and social programs in Western and European countries.   Eliminating oil trade will also cut off the income of their corrupt rulers and defund terror programs.  The same leftists who create this whole mess are also the ones that don’t want to drill domestically for oil to fix their own economies.  If these steps do not happen the rest of the West and Europe will continue to slide further down the immigration invasion spectrum to conditions of places like Sweden and England.  Muslims spread like cancer to other lands and these three steps are needed to remove the unnatural disease before it metastasizes.  Muslims must pull their weight in the world; reap the fruits of their own labor or lack thereof.  Step two puts their fate in their own hands, as it should naturally be.

There will be conflicts and infighting that follow, which is why the outside world can’t intervene, as is laid out in step three.  Even if there is a chance that muslims will make better societies for themselves, that will be a small sect and their herds need much culling.  The best possible result is them fighting for their own freedoms or way of sustainable life; the worst possible outcome is they will destroy themselves instead of the rest of humanity along with them.  This might all sound emotionally hard to accept, yet the reasoning is logically sound.  Europe and the West must start living in reality for their future generations, not idealistic fantasy.