Neither the election of Donald Trump, nor the Right itself, created this hatred. It only revealed it.
Fictitious terms and redefined words are disseminated proudly through the mainstream media. From white privilege to the wage gap myth and the false Black Lives Matter narrative, the media snap it all up with a patent sense of moral superiority. The brazen approach the media takes to telling us what to believe while assuming nobody will ever catch on to its manipulations is another manifestation of the Liberal’s total loss of touch with reality.
If you watched the 2016 election coverage, you are surely familiar with the crisis brought on the Liberal media by the loss of their power. Votes against their candidate were seen as indefensible acts of ignorance. The fact that Americans had the sheer audacity to go against what the media had been telling them to do enraged these people to the core. It brought them to tears on live TV; they were “literally shaking” out of despair.
Despite the Liberal pretentiousness and feigned sophistication, Liberals are clueless and emotional sheep. They are manipulated by each and every emotionally evocative news segment, played with concerto skill. The ease with which the media can twist the Liberal mind is yet more proof that Liberals are a herd of unquestioning, brainwashed sycophants.
Symptoms 1, 2, 4, and 5 from Cluster I are readily apparent. From Cluster II, symptoms 6, 7, 8, and 9, are seen.
Cluster I
1. Deceitfulness, indicated by repeated lying, grand exaggerations, or omission of contrary information, with the purpose to advance their chosen narrative and discrediting others.
2. Irritability or aggressiveness towards anybody that questions or opposes their views. Coupled with the inability to recognize they own hypocrisy, double standards, and doublethink.
3. Inability to adjust views when presented with information contrary to their own beliefs.
4. Frequent projections of their own traits onto others.
5. Difficulty in dealing with a loss of control or power, or a strong desire for control and power.
Cluster II
6. Appeals to altered and redefined definitions of words, or relies on fictitious terms for argumentation.
7. Consistent feelings of having been victimized or wronged, without any actual harm being done. Seen also as playing the victim after attacking others.
8. Intense sense of righteousness or moral superiority.
9. The inability to recognize the negative outcomes of their own actions. Often placing the blame on others.
10. Intense guilt or self-hatred, often manifests as hatred towards one’s larger group identity.
IX
Which Way Western Man? Salvos Against Mass Migration
There is a startling trend in worldwide migration: certain nations are allowed to remain sovereign homelands for their native peoples, while Western nations, particularly Western Europe and the United States, are required to keep their doors, money, and borders wide open for everybody the world over. At face value, the ideas of inclusion and openness sound very nice, yet they have an incredibly high cost. However, I am not making an appeal against immigration solely as regards the financial cost. I am appealing against the destruction of cultures, homelands being ripped away from their rightful owners, and future generations risking the loss of a cultural identity, heritage, or a future.
Japan for Japanese.
Algeria for Algerians.
Germany for everybody.
Korea for Koreans.
India for Indians.
France for everybody.
China for Chinese.
Mexico for Mexicans.
The United States for everybody.
If Liberals are not troubled by the idea that Japan is for the Japanese, Israel is for the Jewish, Mexico is for the Mexicans, but they are troubled by the idea that France is for the French and Italy is for Italians, then Liberals are in fact displaying tremendous double standards. They are effectively saying that some races and ethnicities have an intrinsic right to exist, to be left alone, to preserve their homelands, and secure the future for their children — but not Europeans. They are effectively advocating the invasion and eventual genocide of the white race and the white race alone. When diversity, multiculturalism, and open borders are all forced upon a group, and it becomes illegal for the members of that group even to speak out against the invasion, that is genocide. Intentionally creating a hostile environment for a group of people based on race or ethnicity is quite literally genocide, as defined by the United Nations in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide from 1948:
The United Nations legally defines genocide as;
Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part ; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
By the standards accepted by the United Nations itself, the current pogroms being enacted at the very highest levels of world governments, from the oligarchs down to the beat cops, are not simply anti-white, they are genocidal.
Only in white European nations, is the millennial custom of preferring native majorities to foreign minorities referred to as supremacist and seen as unnatural. Only in white European nations is multiculturalism praised and pushed. Only in white European nations are borders called racist. Only in white European nations, are people forced to assimilate to invaders in their own homelands, rather than the other way around. Only in white European nations are the native populations expected to invite the rest of the world into their lands. Only in white European nations is it unacceptable to be proud of your heritage. Liberalism has moved so far to the Left that Liberals are now outraged at the radical notion that white people, too, might have a right to exist in our own homelands, which our ancestors created.
If you think any of this is a bit far-fetched, I ask, can you name a single non-white nation which is embracing diversity and multiculturalism? I’ve looked. There isn’t one. If this realization does not make you question why this might be so, I’m not sure there is anything else to be said: you may not be very interested in globalism and population replacement, but I can promise, that globalism and population replacement are very interested in you.
Only in white European nations is white guilt and white hate promoted. No other region on Earth has a school system that tells their children that they are evil oppressors. Slavery, war, and colonialism are not unique to white European nations. Every group on Earth is guilty of having been involved at one point or other in the slave trade, in war, and in colonialism. In fact, those “evil white European” nations were the first places where slavery was ended, and indeed to this day they are among the minority of regions which have ended slavery. There are more slaves in the world today than there were in the entire history of the Atlantic Slave Trade.445
It is interesting, by the way, that there is virtually zero mention today of the Barbary slave trade, which enslaved over one million white Europeans over a course of several hundred years at the hands of Muslim and Jewish slave traders.446
Prior to 1965, the US’ immigration laws were designed to maintain the relative demographics of the nation. This was based on a simple idea that the people who built this nation and made it great had a right to see themselves and their posterity reflected in the nation they had created. This was an extension of the belief that a nation has a right to maintain its culture, heritage, cohesiveness, and sovereignty: for without a sovereign homeland and self-determination, people are never truly free.
Then the Immigration Act of 1965 was enacted. This act firmly established an anti-American, anti-white, and globalist immigration policy. The Immigration Act sought to change, and indeed
has effectively changed, the makeup of our nation in a totally inorganic fashion, by enabling people with no connection to our history, values, or beliefs to come to America, sponsored financially by US tax payers. Also known as the Hart-Celler Act, this legislation was nothing but another effort to destroy our culture by importing millions of people that would become dependent on our generous welfare system, the majority of whom would vote Democrat to keep the welfare checks rolling in. Critics of previous immigration laws, such as Emanuel Celler, referred to the prior laws as racist, exclusionary, and discriminatory, which is nothing but a typical Judeo-Leftist tactic to get his way by claiming some sort of tendentious morality. Billions of our tax dollars have been spent to help defend other nations’ borders, but we cannot defend our own without being called “racists”? There is absolute nothing racist about wanting to maintain your culture.
Our trouble didn’t stop with the Immigration Act: Jimmy Carter soon after signed the Refugee Act of 1980, which would increase the annual number of refugees from 17,400, as specified in the act of 1965, to 50,000 a year, the majority of which would vote Democrat and go immediately on welfare. The Refugee Act, like the Immigration Act of 1965, was introduced by Ted Kennedy, and was heavily lobbied for and influenced by Jewish organizations.447
We cannot have both a welfare state and open borders allowing over a million migrants to arrive legally every year. It is suicidal. As historian Arnold Toynbee wrote, great civilizations seldom die of natural causes or by murder, they die from suicide.448 Our act of suicide was allowing interlopers into this nation, people that we knew were snakes from the beginning. Our suicide is in our sitting idly by and naively taking for granted all that our ancestors had sacrificed, even as we passively let others work toward its destruction.
These policies of open borders and mass migration are obviously not for the benefit of Americans — not when we must fund over 50 percent of the invaders with our tax dollars.449 These policies were created by the Left in order to secure votes and power for the future, while destroying our homeland and people — perhaps the ultimate goal. If you look at immigration patterns pre-1965, you see a high amount migrants from Western and Northern European nations. When you allow migration to come from the Third World under the guise of diversity and inclusion, you end up with more welfare-users, more crime, more social dysfunction, and more societal decay. The same story is playing out everywhere it has been tried.
Another odd trend — many of the migrants to the United States are being resettled in the American Midwest, so that the Midwest is in consequence seeing the highest rate of demographic change. This is not organic. This is not a family of Somalis deciding one day to up and move to the middle of Ohio. This is part of the plan to turn key swing states into Democrat voting states; and those who are pushing this agenda are accomplishing it via forced migration and welfare programs. There is no cultural enrichment happening for the residents of these resettlement towns. They only thing they get from all this are groups of people who refuse to assimilate into our so called “melting pot,” people who cost us far more in tax dollars than they will ever contribute. There are cities all over Europe that already look like they belong somewhere in the Middle East or Africa. You’ll see far more people wearing the exact same “diverse” uniform of a black hijab and burka than you will see wearing European fashion. Nobody asked the residents of those European towns, or of these American ones, if they wanted these boatloads of invaders. They didn’t get to vote on whether their tax dollars should go to fund a relocation program to ensure their demographic evisceration. Nobody invited us to that meeting. We were never asked. If I wanted to walk around downtown and see the majority of people covered head to toe in black trash-bags, we would long ago have moved from my homeland to some Third World slum. Strangely, immigration seems to always go in the other direction.
This forcible imposition of “diversity” is a form of terrorism. It is weaponized migration. We are no longer free to associate with whom we wish. That right is being ripped away by open border policies, mass migration, foreign invaders, and state-enforced integrated housing. Nobody ever asked us if we were alright with the idea of our neighborhoods being turned into little Mogadishus, North Mexico Cities, and East Karachis.
In fact, when people do bother to ask the native people of Europe and America how they feel about immigration, most respond negatively. Over half of those surveyed in the US say they would cut immigration by half, or reduce it to zero.450 Of those surveyed in Europe, over half say migration makes their nations less safe, and makes their countries worse places to live.451 Alas, mass migration is forced upon us all the same. A recent Harvard-Harris poll revealed that 81 percent of Americans want reduced migration numbers, with 35 percent wanting under 250,000 migrants per year.452 The US currently allows in well over one million migrants per year, to contribute to the immigrants already there, who make up over 13 percent of the current US population.453 A massive poll of all twenty-eight European Union nations found that almost 80 percent of citizens want strict border controls, that Europeans feel mass migration is harmful to their nations, and they fear the rising tide of non-European migration.454
The vast majority of us do not want mass migration and state-enforced diversity. We never voted for this. Yet they call this occupation government a “democracy,” they tell us, “This is what democracy looks like.” Is it really? If so, perhaps this is why I and so many others view modern “democracy” as nothing but an illusion. At the present time, and for many years now, we have had no real democracy. Time and time again our voices have been silenced, our will thwarted, and our votes debased. Without asking, they opened the floodgates to alien races of interlopers who would vote against us, while they tell us this is how democracy must function. But democracy is only present when the will of the people is carried out.
I’ve been called many things for my views — most typically, “intolerant.” I won’t argue. I do not tolerate forced assimilation. I do not tolerate forced taxation to fund a hostile invasion. I do not tolerate perverse and savage ideals being imported into this great land. This land is not for the Liberals to give away. They have no right to do so. They never fought for it: they were the “persons inimical to the liberties of America,” as the Patriots called the Tories.
Do you think that if all the immigrants from Europe had voted Democrat, the Democrats would have cared to change the law in 1965? Do you think Liberals would be protesting and carrying signs that say “Muslims belong here” and “Make America Mexican Again” if Muslims and Mexicans voted monolithically Republican?
If the vast majority of immigrants voted Republican, did not need welfare, and supported an armed society, Democrats would have already built a southern wall that could be seen from outer space decades ago. Or imagine if Republicans began to flood New York and California with Right-wing Russians and Eastern Europeans that all voted Republican, respected traditional values, and loved the freedom to own rifles. I have the feeling that the Left, in such a scenario would suddenly take a keen interest in border control.
In fact, that’s not such a bad idea.
The Myth of the Melting Pot
“We are a nation of immigrants. We are a melting pot. Immigration is a basic human right.” Have you heard all of this before? These arguments supporting mass immigration are wrong, wrong again, and dead wrong, in no particular order. Nations exist for the protection of one thing, their most precious possession; their peoples. Japan is rightfully interested in the protection and preservation of its own history, values, culture, and above all else, its people. Nations do not exist for the betterment of individuals on the other side of the world, who do not share their history, traditions, or culture. But somewhere along the way, the Western world decided the contrary. That is a mistake that might destroy everything we have ever held dear.
We are not a melting pot of primordial ooze. Until the borders were flung wide open with the Immigration Act of 1965, the US was nea
rly 90 percent culturally and ethnically European.
“We are and always will be a nation of immigrants,” proclaimed Barack Obama, as justification for amnesty to illegal migrants.455 But there is an important distinction to be made regarding this ubiquitous claim that “we are a nation of immigrants,” and the distinction lies between the people that came to the US before the New Deal, and those who came after. The Legacy American immigrants (those who came prior to the New Deal) were quite an exceptional group of people. They did not come here expecting anything to be given to them. They had no welfare safety net, there was no inherent monetary incentive, and still they came to the United States. Prior to the New Deal, anyone who came to America knew it was up to them and their family if they were to succeed. And as a result America in those days attracted the most tenacious, the hardest-working, the most brilliant, and the most hopeful. American exceptionalism is no mistake. We opened our doors to those who had little prospect or hope in their home countries; all we offered them was a chance. And I’m glad those brave souls decided to get on those boats for the long journey to a foreign land. Though they did not know the language, had no family or friends here, and were penniless, they still were willing to take a wild shot in the dark. And their gamble helped make America great.
Each group of those immigrants brought something crucial to America: farming, culinary arts, the skills to build beautiful cathedrals; but most of all, the dream of making a better life through their own struggle. Which might just be the very essence of American exceptionalism. There was essentially a self-selection process prior to the welfare state, one in which only the hungriest had the desire to come to a new land. Far removed from the welfare tourists of today’s migrants.
Liberalism Unmasked Page 27