Prepare your anus, you’re about to get a red pill suppository.

Disillusion // Dissolution

Disillusion // Dissolution

“We can dance, we can dance, everything is under control.”-Men Without Hats, “Safety Dance”

The insidious forces of globalism are knocking down every one of our cultural pillars in order to devour each individual polity into a global whole, or else construct a few super-states surrounded by a host of Balkanized tribal factions with a small cabal of string-pullers becoming unfathomably wealthy and powerful. There are several competing models presently at play under the globalist aegis, and this is before considering that there might be other groups with global designs, such as the Islamists and the “P-Left” Ocasio-Cortez types. Generally these groups can be considered “Useful Idiots” for the major globalist power brokers, but it does not make them any less dangerous, nor mean that they are able or willing to be controlled.

All, however, are thinking globally, and all view Western civilization as the primary impediment to realizing their aims and/or fantastical utopian delusions. The battle lines on the opposing side are sometimes difficult to discern, but this can actually be to our advantage. This “Coalition of the Fringes” represents competing interests sometimes working in tandem, other times in direct antagonism. Another advantage that those of us who are fighting to preserve Western civilization have is that we are also working in concert with a global consciousness, but the difference is Americans and Australians and Hungarians and Afrikaners and Norwegians are all providing mutual support so each may be masters of their own destiny. Much as the group is the guarantor of the individual’s rights, pan-Westernism is an acknowledgement of our common roots in tandem with a respect for and appreciation of our differences. Perhaps one could even call it a celebration of our diversity! We realize, though, that with the possible exceptions of Russia and the United States, we cannot go it alone. The forces aligned against us are simply too powerful.

To those who would sponsor some variant of the Kalergi Plan, any objection to the accelerating genocide, no matter how benign, must be crushed. Most recently in Northern Ireland, Jolene Bunting was suspending from the Belfast City Council for a period of four months for criticizing Islam and defending “anti-Islamization” leaflets that had been distributed by a group in the city. In Sweden earlier this year, what the British call a pensioner named Christina was handed a three-month prison sentence for criticizing Islam on Facebook, and who can forget the railroading of Tommy Robinson? The strengths of diversity are so self-evident that we need a police state to crush all objection to white demographic replacement with an iron fist.

We’ve been repeatedly told that immigration and diversity are at once strengths and revenge for colonialism. As regards the latter, this is an open acknowledgement that non-whites are harmful and impose a terrible social and financial cost on us, one so detrimental as to destroy our homelands. Regardless of the justification for mass immigration, the end result is demographic warfare. For Kelly M. Greenhill:

At first glance, the U.S. decision to escalate the war in Vietnam in the mid-1960s, China's position on North Korea's nuclear program in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and the EU resolution to lift what remained of the arms embargo against Libya in the mid-2000s would appear to share little in common. Yet each of these seemingly unconnected and far-reaching foreign policy decisions resulted at least in part from the exercise of a unique kind of coercion, one predicated on the intentional creation, manipulation, and exploitation of real or threatened mass population movements…Coercers aim to affect target states’ behavior by exploiting the existence of competing political interests and groups… and by manipulating the costs or risks imposed on target state populations. This “coercion by punishment” strategy can be effected in two ways: the first relies on straightforward threats to overwhelm a target’s capacity to accommodate a refugee or migrant influx; the second, on a kind of norms-enhanced political blackmail that exploits the existence of legal and normative commitments to those fleeing violence, persecution, or privation.

Viewed in this light, the West’s Camp of the Saints situation comes into much sharper focus. Obviously the mass migration of people is not “inevitable” nor is it “natural”—the “migrant crisis” of Europe and its analogues are quite intentional and are being perpetrated against us. If countries like Ireland, among the most ethnically homogeneous in the world, can be sold the lie that they’ve always been multi-cultural, then anyone can. Barring that, there’s always the aforementioned police state to enforce complicity. Simply importing sufficient “diversity” appears to usually be enough to do the trick, though.

Despite Robert Putnam’s optimistic claim that, “successful immigrant societies have overcome…fragmentation by creating new, cross‐cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities,” there is absolutely no evidence to support it, and plenty to refute it. When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust. “They don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions. The only thing there’s more of is protest marches and TV watching,” said Putnam. There’s also more crime.[1]

In all of the cities and towns he studied, Robert Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, “the most diverse human habitation in human history.” Quoting Steve Sailer:

While it’s a journalistic cliché to describe Mexican-American neighborhoods as “vibrant,” they aren’t. Some of this lack of social capital is class-related—Miami indeed has a vibrant Hispanic culture, but it’s anomalous because it attracts Latin America’s affluent and educated. In contrast, Los Angeles is a representative harbinger of America’s future because it imports peasants and laborers.

Peter Y. Hong recounted, “Those who live in more homogeneous places, such as New Hampshire, Montana or Lewiston, Maine, do more with friends and are more involved in community affairs or politics than residents of more cosmopolitan areas.” Unfortunately, though these words were written just seventeen years ago, they no longer apply to Lewiston, having been suitably “enriched” by Somali “refugees,” gangs of whom have taken to marauding in and around Kennedy Park, and savaging and killing locals, most recently a father of two. Considering Lewiston only averages around 1.5 homicides a year, this is no small matter; the Somalis have been responsible for virtually all of the lethal crime in the small Maine city since their arrival.

It wasn’t just Robert Putnam who found that “diversity,” largely vis-à-vis immigration, has a corrosive effect on social capital. Pace Julie Hotchkiss and Anil Rupasingha:

Higher levels of in-migration lead to lower levels of community social capital. In-migration may increase a community's demographic heterogeneity, which Alesina and La Ferrara (2000) have found to diminish the community's level of social capital. Additionally, communities with high migration rates may not bother to invest in social capital development (e.g., see Glaeser and Redlick 2009). And, since migrants are less likely to have close family ties in their new communities, high levels of in-migration may very well undermine feelings of trust (Kan 2007). While our findings are more in line with the studies cited here, they contradict findings by Lesage and Ha (2012) in which they report that in-migration has a positive effect on county-level social capital…Opposition to immigration can be shown to be rooted in economic competition, cultural prejudice, and redistributive financial pressures (Baerg, Hotchkiss, and Quispe-Agnoli 2018)…Loss in community social capital may be yet another source of opposition to immigration.[2]

Say it with me: Freedom is slavery, and diversity is our strength. Another benefit of ethnic and racial diversity is that it hinders innovation! Wait, what? Yes, that’s right: Bala Ramasamy and Matthew Yeung report in Applied Economics Letters that “ethnic diversity or fractionalization… has a negative effect on innovation.” Furthermore, to say nothing of the host of problems “diversity” causes or the environmental degradation that is always endemic to over-population, we are importing people who have proven that they do not care about the environment or about conservation whatsoever. Illegals crossing the border in Arizona alone discard four million pounds of garbage annually, destroying the natural ecosystem. Globally, nearly all of the world’s pollution, de-forestation, and environmental damage comes courtesy of the Third World and China. The supposedly “environmentally-conscious” Left is mum on all of this, but that’s to be expected from a bunch of vacuous and morally bankrupt charlatans. As Paul “RamZPaul” Ramsey writes:

The Republic was created with the assumption that educated and intelligent men could carefully debate the issues. The Republic is now run by a semi-literate mob that is unable to reason and lacks even a rudimentary understanding of history.

While this is largely true, there are certainly some immensely powerful figures who know exactly what they’re doing, and producing, or at least empowering, a depressingly ignorant voting population leaves said population highly susceptible to manipulation, charlatanry, and demagoguery. Further, quoting Revilo P. Oliver:

R.C. Collingwood in his Autobiography remarks that we really do not understand a statement until we have formulated precisely the question it was intended to answer, for a part of the meaning is contained in what the question excludes or takes for granted. The authors of the Constitution, for example, thought it necessary to provide that no state should ever become a monarchy, but thought it unnecessary to stipulate that the “republican form of government” guaranteed to the states should never degenerate to a rule of the mob. They took it for granted that no state would ever be formed of Indians or have a population of Chinese. They took it for granted that the culture of the nation would always remain Christian and Humanistic, assuming that the cultural tradition would be esteemed for its own sake, and that Buddhists and Moslems…would be no more common than elephants. And it did not occur to them that the people of the states would ever permit property to be endangered by a mass of irresponsible voters.

And yet here we are, and as Steve Sailer writes:

Because policymakers almost certainly won’t do what it would take to alleviate the harms caused by diversity—indeed, they won’t even talk honestly about what would have to be done—it’s crazy to exacerbate the problem through more mass immigration. As the issue of co-operation becomes ever more pressing, the quality of intellectual discourse on the topic declines—as Putnam’s self-censorship revealed—precisely because of a lack of trust due to the mounting political power of “the diverse” to punish frank discussion.[3]

Have you seen a college campus lately? To be fair, there are (some) “based” non-whites who share our views, and they include a number of what I call “Hamaduras” from The Camp of the Saints—Westerners in soul, spirit, and disposition, if not skin color. They are a minority of course, but there doesn’t really appear to be any other organized movement for them to call home. The Candace Owens/Sharika Soal/etc. “Escape the Democrat Plantation” version of conservatism is all well and good—for blacks. But it is its own kind of identity politics, one centered on a black identity. For those who truly are of the West, this kind of “conservatism” is not only unappealing, it is useless and often harmful.

As regards white conservatives, the issue with a Gavin McInnes and the Proud Boys and other similar figures and groups is that they spend too much time “disavowing white supremacy” and virtue-signaling to actually accomplish anything. They’re so preoccupied with how they’re perceived by a group of people that know no nuance and are incapable of differentiating Ben Shapiro from David Duke—or at least the mass of them are so benighted, and it serves a distinct purpose for the globalist puppet masters. From the Left, the Right appears as a fearsome monolith of White Supremacy, but there are many distinctions and sub-groups within the Right, many of whom are antagonistic and some of whom are surely controlled opposition. The media will call anyone from Joe Rogan to the right Alt-Right/Nazi/fascist/white supremacist no matter how aggressively they virtue signal or attempt to distance themselves from “us.” The Alt-Right tent from the Leftist perspective is gigantic, and it isn’t limited to just whites, either! It is certainly possible—and not at all ridiculous—to be a Clayton Bigsby in their eyes. Look at the recent treatment of Candace Owens.

The globalist aim is to have a bloc of progressives and aggrieved minorities—aided by the entire globalist apparatus from mega-multi-nationals to social media to government—pressing against the Right with their full force, and a fractured Right-wing incapable of mounting a proper defense, let alone to break out of the siege mentality and mount an effective offensive.

As far as other members of the so-called “Alt-Lite”—Jack Posobiec, Cassandra Fairbanks, and others—they have pretty clearly signaled that they are not ONE OF US! ONE OF US! in urging people to donate to the Heather Heyer Fund on the one-year anniversary of Charlottesville. Whether or not your sympathies lie with the Unite the Right folks, donating to a charity for a morbidly obese woman who suffered a heart attack to protest “white supremacy” or some such thing based on the fabrication that she was killed by a “white supremacist” is either colossally ignorant (to be charitable, if you’ll pardon the pun) or a nakedly obvious attempt to leech the productive energies from the true Right and diffuse them, similar to what the John Birch Society, the National Review, and other organizations and publications did for decades. These people are to be treated with contempt for they are no better in their duplicitousness than our avowed enemies.

In fact, as collaborators, they are our enemies. In their staunch opposition to “identity politics,” quoting Dr. Andrew Joyce:

Ultimately, the term “identity politics” is a civic nationalist misnomer designed to relativise the claim Europeans have to their ancestral homelands. Defending your homeland is not “identity politics”—it’s a war for survival.

It’s time we start acting like it.

[1] As regards aliens, one “fun fact” about non-citizen Hispanic men is that they’re overrepresented in criminality by a factor of six!

[2] https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/2018/CES-WP-18-32.pdf

[3] https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/fragmented-future/

Once You Pop, The Fun Don’t Stop!

Once You Pop, The Fun Don’t Stop!

Nacho Typical Mexican? and Other Adventures in Immigration

Nacho Typical Mexican? and Other Adventures in Immigration