Stereotypes are the synthesis of data

I don't think different peoples are better or worse than other peoples; I'm no supremacist, white or otherwise.  I do however, strongly believe that different peoples need, like different families, to live apart where they can organize their society in harmony with their nature and they don't come into conflict with each other about what society should be like. 

Anyway... data to the rescue.

https://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/2019/09/why-we-profile.html

http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/2013/07/we-are-wild-animals-treat-us-as-such.html

http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/2012/10/self-policing-and-afro-american.html

A few Facebook updates...

I'm back on Facebook, for now, although I plan on deactivating my account again shortly after my son leaves on his mission, because I'll have run out of things to see that I really want to.

Here's a few posts I've made recently, and the links that they apply to, if they do.

A quick copy and paste note from the Z-man: "The most obvious example of how [founding myths] work is the Lincoln fetish we see with our ruling class in America. Both sides venerate Lincoln and the Gettysburg address, The Civil War has been cast as the second founding, a purification ritual that addressed the original sin of slavery and republicanism in the founding. Rather than being seen as a break from the founding, which is surely was, it is a continuation of it. Lincoln the usurper, is replaced with Lincoln the saint, who saved the republic. 

"The Gettysburg Address now holds more emotional power for our elites than the actual founding documents. At some level, Lincoln certainly knew he was a usurper and that speech is pretty good proof of it. He allegedly jotted it down without much thought, but it shows all the signs of a man who knew he destroyed the old order and was now tasked with creating a new one. Starting with a lie about his own motivations was the most obvious place to start. It was the usurper announcing his victory. 

"The great compromise after the Civil War was to allow the defeated to hang onto their heroes in symbolic form. In order to avoid a genocide, which is what abolitionists surely desired, the South was allowed to exist as a conquered people, but with their memories and some of their customs intact. Whether it was conscious or just an inevitable result of the war, a grand compromise evolved that allowed the South to retain its unique identity, but subsume it into the overall identity of the new nation. 

"Of course, this is why the current ruling class is obsessed now with erasing all traces of the South, by toppling over statues, desecrating graves and erasing images of the actual founders of the United States. These are people haunted by their own illegitimate claims on power, so they are removing anything that reminds them of a past in which they played no part. It’s also why the past is being systematically colorized to write in strangers to the family tree of America. 

"That’s why these acts are so compelling to the emerging multicultural ruling elites. For them, this is not about revenge or spiting people they hate. They are, in fact, a consecration of their own authority. They are symbolically giving birth to their new nation by destroying the old. For the usurper, the victim is only important in so far as he has what the usurper desires. It’s not vengeance that drives these people. It is a desire to mythologize and legitimize their own authority. 

"The implication here is that the die is cast. It is no longer a question of IF America is taken over by the coalition of the ascendant, but rather how long this process will play out and how it will end. There is no restoration of old white America. That door closed decades ago, when the borders were flung open to the world. If this emerging ruling elite is to be toppled, their power will need to be seized by a new usurper, a group that seeks power and legitimacy by whatever means are available."

And another:

Charles Hurt says it correctly: "[Donald Trump] represents all of these Americans that I grew up with, and that I live with, and that I know. This hot visceral contempt that these people have in the media for Donald Trump is not about Donald Trump. They hate these people that I know. They hate these people that I live with and that I grew up with." 

"Left-wing and partisan Democrats news media figures harbor contempt for Americans who work every day, provide for their families every day, help out their neighbors every single day, [and] who go to church. You can feel their contempt for these people, and you can sense it in everything they do." 

"My faith, my belief is in regular American people. I have no qualms whatsoever about leaving the American people in charge, and that’s what these people want to undo. They want to undo that. Regular American people [are] the only reason America is what it is."
"The Democrat Party’s leadership stands opposed to America’s founding and core principles. They hate America. They hate what it stands for." 

Let's stop pretending that political debates are done in good faith between people who just have honest disagreements about the details. The Left hates everything that America stands for. They hate freedom. They hate personal responsibility. Those two things scare them. They hate Christianity, and the European foundation of Western Civilization, and want to replace them. 

The Left, in a nutshell, is evil and destructive, and based on hate, envy, resentment and fear.

And the last:

This is what immigration is really all about. Americans must give up everything that has made America great so that Third Worlders can plunder it and Elitist Fake Americans can, in turn, benefit politically and economically from their presence at our expense. They don't expect to pay the cost of mass migration, they expect YOU to. Plus, virtue-signaling and peacocking about their "compassion" as they steal the livelihood and the inheritance of your children and give it away, while preserving their own (so they believe) is its own reward; it makes them feel good at no cost to themselves. They are traitors, in other words, enabling the largest invasion in the history of the world. They are kingmen. 

And what did Captain Moroni eventually have to do to invading hordes trying to steal the inheritance—both culturally and literally—of the Nephites, and the traitors and kingmen who enabled them? 

In general, people don't like me to point that out, and they think it's despicable that I would say this, and they don't really want to think about what the consequences of what has happened will inevitably have to be. Because they'd like to use magical wishful thinking to somehow assume that it will all work out and everything will be fine. But that response is both too emotional and too historically ignorant to be taken seriously. Sadly, the damage has already been done and while the consequences have only just barely started to catch up to us, there is a big-time reckoning coming and it will affect everyone in America today, whether you're an elitist Pharisee throwing your own people under the bus, whether you're a Fake American trying to steal a piece of the American dream, or whether you're just a regular, good, old-fashioned American yourself trying to preserve your heritage for your own posterity. Nobody will pass through the near future unscathed. It's already inevitable. The pieces have already all been put into place. Alea iacta est.

Middle Class Americans Must Sacrifice Their Suburbs to Aid Poor Immigrants

Memorial Day

I know I'm a day late, but maybe that's good, because my thoughts on Memorial Day are somewhat tangled and complicated.  I greatly appreciate those who are willing to sacrifice for their country and serve in the Armed Forces.  I understand the love of country and people and willingness and desire to serve them.  So my complication with regards to Memorial Day does not have anything to do with my respect for those who serve, especially those who have served in combat, or who were willing to serve when the likelihood of combat was high.

No, rather, it has to do with the following two points:

First, what is the job of the military?  To protect the homeland of the people, and, as the Oath of Service says, to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Neither of those are being done; we have been subject to a ridiculous invasion of bandit hordes who invade our homeland in massive waves, immediately sign up for welfare and other programs, get their kids declared "Americans" and live off of more of our largesse—all of which is another way of saying that they are using our own system to demand, and be paid, tribute.  They are literally bandits preying on Americans, and the Armed Forces does absolutely nothing to stop them.  The H1-B visa system is only marginally better; while not actually illegal, it is designed specifically to allow corporations to act like bandit captains themselves, preying on the American people that were, or should be, their customers and employees both.  Meanwhile, treasonous judges and bureaucrats in Washington (and also at the state and local levels, for that matter) mangle the Constitution on a regular basis, interpreting it to mean the exact opposite of what it says, or just plain ignoring it.  The Armed Forces does absolutely nothing about that either; military arrests and tribunals being necessary.

If the military isn't doing squat all on the only two missions that really justify it's existence, then why do we even have a military?  We'd do better disbanding it and going back to armed civilian militias.  I have a funny feeling that with armed civilian militias we'd get both our government and our population of invasive predatory Fake Americans under control rather quickly.

Which brings up the other point; without a standing military, our Federal government would be obviously unable to utilize it in fruitless wars of Imperialism and plunder.  See, on Memorial Day there's all kinds of talk about Freedom Isn't Free, and stuff like that, but there hasn't been a war fought for Freedom by Americans since the Civil War, and unfortunately, those who stood for freedom lost to those who stood for Imperialism and conquest.  Of course, because they lost, the victors have written a new Narrative, a dishonest Narrative, in which the Civil War was fought on behalf of the slave population.  This Narrative is a bigoted and racist one; it has cemented the hatred of the Puritan Yankee for the southerner and justified it (although dishonestly, if anyone knows very much about the history of the time. Read chapters 7-9 in particular, although honestly, you should read the entire work, even though it's obviously extremely long.)  It created a founding myth about Abraham Lincoln and America 2.0 that's every bit as legendary and fictional as the story of Romulus and Remus being raised by wolves, and it does so by continuing to villainize a portion of our own people into exaggerated caricatures

In reality, and that book is a condemnation exactly matching this point (among other things), there hasn't been a justifiable war fought by the American Armed Forces in well over a century and a half.  The blood of those who we celebrate on Memorial Day will cry out in condemnation against those who sent them to die under false or scurrilous pretenses.  And while that's certainly a cause worth Memorializing, Memorial Day has rather been coopted to try and harden and strengthen our resolve to continue in exactly these unjustifiable wars rather than remember these soldiers who were so casually and senselessly sacrificed by our hostile and malicious government in behalf of goals that do not even benefit the American people in any way whatsoever.  The Babylon Bee, a kind of Christian version of The Onion, aptly satirized this point by suggesting that in Honor of Memorial Day, John Bolton announced seven new unnecessary wars, with "Canada, Mexico, England, France, Russia, India, and California, all in honor of the memory of soldiers who have died in past American wars."  It went on;

"The best way we can remember the fallen is to launch a bunch of new wars and make more fallen," he said solemnly. "Remember the sacrifice of the soldiers who fought in foreign wars, so that we would have the freedom to launch more foreign wars. They died for your freedoms, they died for your sins. They died so we could attack Iran again." 

"Amen."

If you read about Just War theory, and read the Book of Mormon with an eye for understanding Just War theory, it becomes very clear that none of our wars were fought under the auspices of Just War theory in many years.  Even World War II, often called a just war, was not, and as the First Presidency at the time: Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark and David O. McKay said to the US Federal Government on the eve of the war,

However, we do thoroughly believe in building up our home defenses to the maximum extent necessary, but we do not believe that aggression should be carried on in the name and under the false cloak of defense. We therefore look with sorrowing eyes at the present use to which a great part of the funds being raised by taxes and by borrowing is being put. We are much impressed with the views of those military and naval men who say we are not militarily threatened. We believe that our real threat comes from within and not from without, and it comes from that underlying spirit common to Naziism, Fascism, and Communism, namely, the spirit which would array class against class, which would set up a socialistic state of some sort, which would rob the people of the liberties which we possess under the Constitution, and would set up such a reign of terror as exists now in many parts of Europe. We feel that our defenses should be built against this danger even more than the touted danger of foreign military invasion which many responsible military men tell us cannot come. 

(Also read chapters 15-17, but especially 16 from the link above.)  It's true that Freedom Isn't Free.  And we won't be free again until the zeitgeist reaches a point where people are truly willing to sacrifice in order to tear down and root out the corruption in our government, which has stolen our freedom, which even moreso than the land itself, should have been our inheritance from the Founding Fathers.

Old Facebook post

I reactivated my Facebook account temporarily because of an issue with my Instagram account (which I never cancelled.)  I decided to stick around briefly because of graduation and summer vacation and whatnot; I'll have lots of pictures and stuff to look at.

Anyway, found this that I posted in my "memories" thingy from two years ago.

Teaching moment: Earlier today, I got in a discussion with a liberal. Although I think she thinks that she scored some points, she actually made five grievous category errors that made it impossible to take anything she said seriously. I have no interest in calling this person out (and we're not facebook friends anyway) but if you are a liberal or a cuck and want to try to argue with someone about politics, avoid these errors if you want anyone to treat you like you're tall enough for this ride. 

Category Error #1: Trump/Russia is a thing, because of rumors. Now, granted—I don't mind following a good rumor to ground. There's enough evidence for both Pizzagate and Seth Rich to open serious investigations, although not enough to convict (that will have to wait until the swamp is sufficiently drained that they're not actively hindering the investigation) but until more evidence shows up, those are just rumors. I'm happy to admit as much. But when several prominent DNC operatives, including Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Yates and Feinstein have ALL publicly said that there is no evidence of collusion other than that they're sure that there MUST be because they simply cannot believe that Hillary lost otherwise, then you're entering into cargo cult delusional territory. If all you've got is rumors and you can't even admit that they're rumors, you've already lost before you started. 

Category Error #2: When I suggest that Donald Trump is the best president since Andrew Jackson and Calvin Coolidge, don't try to convince me by telling me that most people disagree with me, and all the cool kids really don't like him. What am I, a thirteen year old girl? C'mon, that's not even an argument. 

Category Error #3: When I suggest that Donald Trump is popular with Americans, and only Fake Americans are unhappy with him, you're seriously going to pull up a Gallup poll? The guys who confidently predicted on the eve of the election that Hillary had a 90-something percent chance of winning? Discredited! Especially ironic given that the whole discussion was happening in the comments thread of a post about how the media can't be trusted. Get some credible data from a credible source, not data from a source that's KNOWN to be non-credible. 

Category Error #4: Don't assume you know more about the election and political data than I do. I've actually dissected it by every category known to man. When I say that Americans (as opposed to Fake Americans) are happy with Trump, that's because I've gone an order of magnitude deeper into the data than that stupid Gallup poll. I read polls diced by age set, race, sex, religion, and many more categories. It's always dangerous to assume that because you have one data point that supports your thesis that that's all you need to know. It never actually ends up being true. 

Category Error #5: Don't try to demand that I define Fake Americans for you. It's a straightforward term, and everyone knows exactly what it means. This also ain't my first rodeo, I'm quite familiar with the tactic of trying to distract and the nitpick to death a tangent, and I'm not going to fall into a trap that obvious or clumsy. I know what Fake Americans means. YOU know what Fake Americans means. You're just triggered by it, because it's not exactly a flattering term. I deal with this stuff almost DAILY—someone who DELIBERATELY misses the point and tries to bushwhack me from the weeds with some minor pedantic detail that means nothing. Try it on that 13 year old girl; she'll probably fall for it. I won't. 

Seriously; if you're going to try this kind of stuff, bring your A game. 

And keep in mind the narrative of Captain Moroni and the Lamanite wars. When Captain Moroni had to lead his armies in defense of his people against a totalitarian, violent, savage horde of barbarians who had invaded their land and tried to seize the Nephites' birthright for themselves because they coveted it, he FIRST had to deal with the quislings and traitors among the kingmen. He marched on them with his armies and fought them, and when he defeated them, any who refused to renounce their loyalty to that failed, treasonous cause were immediately put to death. No trial. No appeal. Just the sharp end of a sword. 

Do you REALLY think that when it all hits the fan in America, which it inevitably will (and both the scriptures and the modern prophets have made this quite clear that it will—to say nothing about the political and economic inevitability that you can see even without the benefit of that) that we'll have someone as righteous and understanding and merciful as Captain Moroni that you'll have to answer to? 

You really might want to be careful about publicly proclaiming how much you enjoy stabbing Americans in the back in favor of the savage hordes of invaders. Someone awkward might remember it. 

Also keep in mind what the prophets have said about where you should turn for aid, and in turn, where you should be giving aid. There's a heirarchy: first, your family, then your friends, your local congregation and community, then you can turn to the national/federal level. 

It's very fashionable to go jet-setting around the world posting pictures on Instagram of doing something useless and pointless that really does very little for anyone in some Third World dump. Or better yet, agitate to bring them here so it's not so expensive to take fashionable pictures giving them your old clothes or whatever, without even having to fly to Africa or the East Indies or Central America. And while I'm sympathetic to the plight of people in Third World dumps, to some degree, these same people who take these fashionable pictures are not doing much to help their OWN people. Why is the highest suicide rate in the country middle-aged white men? Why are people with STEM degrees unable to find work in America, after getting expensive degrees to make them qualified? Or why are they getting laid off to be replaced by Indian H1-B visa workers?
There are people in your OWN COMMUNITIES who need your help, and you're ignoring them, because they're not fashionable to help. This isn't virtue; this is virtue SIGNALING, an altogether different proposition. 

Matthew 6: "1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. 

"2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 

"3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 

"4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly."

Anti-Christian blasphemy laws brought to bear against Christians

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7039783/Israel-Folau-SACKED.html

Israel Folau was today officially sacked from the Australia rugby union team for a homophobic Instagram post. 

The decision makes the devout Christian the first Australian athlete dismissed for expressing religious beliefs.  

Folau, 30, has the right to appeal and have his case heard at a second code of conduct hearing by a new panel. 

But he will reportedly skip that process and head straight to court to argue that he is being persecuted for his religion. 

In a press conference this afternoon, Rugby Australia CEO Raelene Castle said Folau was a 'great player' but that everyone has the right to be respected regardless of sexuality, race, gender or religion.  

After Folau was sacked, former Wallabies coach Alan Jones said Rugby Australia had 'internationally destroyed his name for quoting a passage from the bible'. 

[...] 'Our clear message today is that we need to stand by our values and the qualities of inclusion, passion, integrity, discipline, respect and teamwork.' 

Ms Castle said she had told all rugby players in Australia that RA supports their rights to their own beliefs. 

'But when we are talking about inclusiveness in our game, we are talking about respecting differences as well,' she said. 

'When we say rugby is a game for all, we mean it. People need to feel safe and welcoming in the game, regardless of their race, background or sexuality.   

'When players sign a contract with the Wallabies, they sign up to the values of the team and the sport.

As a recovering libertarian myself, I'm somewhat slow and loath to admit that this is probably true, but "free speech" is a failed concept, caused by secular over-reach.  In reality, nothing is ever "free" of course; freedom is constrained by the expectations of the community, and free speech as a concept, at least in America and much of the Anglo-world, was about the freedom to criticize political leaders without being persecuted by the government because of it.  You were never free to run around insulting people right and left and expecting no consequences, for instance.  Christianity used to maintain blasphemy laws within Christendom as well.  It's now obvious that lacking Christian blasphemy laws, society will eventually establish secular, SJW-inspired, Satanic blasphemy laws, and use them to persecute Christians and Christianity.

Of course, free speech worked quite well in America and in the rest of the Anglo-cultural world when our communities were not adulterated by non-Anglo-cultural individuals with non-Anglo-cultural values.  It's easy to blame the arrival in particular of the Jews (but also the Papist Irish and Italians, to a lesser degree) for this conflict, especially with their habits of 1) seeking out rentier careers such as judges who deliberately misinterpret what the Constitution actually says in order to favor their own cultural values, 2) took over other rentier careers to propagandize their own cultural values at the expense of the native cultural values, i.e., media, entertainment, academia, and politics, and 3) have hated and persecuted Christianity since the time of their Pharisee ancestors.  And that would be correct, but also insufficient.  They should be free to live according to their customs as well as they please, although they needed their own homeland in which to do so, so they could be unmolested by others in their community who did not share their values, and vice versa.  (Of course, now the Jews do have their own homeland again, established and maintained under the auspices of their culture.)

We let them come here.  We let them take those positions.  We didn't challenge their obviously anti-American, anti-Christian and anti-American bias.  While those who brought those calamities on us will certainly be responsible for their own sins in eternity, those who refused to stand with Christ, defend his values, and allow themselves to be swayed by the flattering words of temptation are also responsible for their own decisions.

Matthew 7: "13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. 15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Those who followed Nehor, or Korihor, or Sherem or any of the other anti-Christs during the Nephites time may not have been the instigators that those named individuals were, but they were still in gross need of repentance.

As an aside, the Church has itself just recently stepped into this issue a bit, obviously very concerned for the threats to righteousness and freedom that the SJW heresy represents.  I personally believe that while this position is of course correct, it will only work with a reasonably righteous people with a reasonably homogenous cultural context to work together.  That does not mean, of course, that the Church shouldn't establish a line in the sand for righteous behavior, because of course that is exactly its role, but as members of the Church, we should not be surprised to find that in our increasingly wicked world, finding those willing to abide by the precepts of righteousness will be increasingly difficult, and we should expect serious and significant challenges to successfully establishing or even maintaining society based on such precepts.  I just recently (yesterday even) finished reading Moroni chapters 7-10 and then turned around and started the Book of Mormon over again, but reading Mormon's words to his son Moroni, and Moroni's own words about conditions among the Nephites when they were fully ripened in iniquity was quite discouraging (no doubt considerably moreso to them than to me, but seeing the parallels with my own people was not fun.)

On the other hand, I don't believe that Americans are fully ripened in iniquity yet either.  I think many have been blinded and led away by false prophets of SJWism, and I think many in naivety and foolishness (and maybe to some degree lacking in courage) have made foolish decisions and made unwarranted assumptions of good intent of those who clearly do not have good intent, and this combination of 1) lack of courage, 2) naivety and blindness, and 3) failure to adopt the true, unadulterated Gospel and build their faith and hope on it will yet be the source of a great deal of suffering amongst our people.  But I can hope and pray that it will also spur them to remember their God and soften their hearts to accept the full Gospel represented only within the Church and that a portion of my people will be preserved in righteousness through the coming calamities.

Because in the meantime, even within the Church, there is a distressing separation of the wheat from the tares that is readily and easily observable.

Wolves in Sheeps Clothing

A lot of people of my acquaintance have been big fans of little Benny Shapiro.  I've noted for a long time that he's a snake in the grass, a Jewish supremacist who's idea of "conservatism" in America is to make sure that all (non-Jewish) Americans need to make sure to support Israel's goals with their blood and treasure.  Anyway, two points of view (that are largely in agreement with each other) about Ben Shapiro's recent debacle that should (but probably won't) be the end of his career.  As the Z-man says, it's Shapiro's Milli Vanilli moment, when it's been proven that they're fakers lip-synching their shows.

http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=17345



We've been warned to watch out for wolves in sheep's clothing.  Ben Shapiro (and Jordan Peterson, and a number of the rest of "Conservative, Inc.") absolutely qualify.

Also:  https://amgreatness.com/2019/05/16/ben-shapiro-destroys-ben-shapiro/

The Church on Socialism (and its many Hydra-like heads with different labels)

A portion of a letter written by the First Presidency to Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration about the New Deal and it's obvious ties to communism, socialism and fascism.  Fascinating stuff, for those who try to reconcile the theft of our rights and freedoms and virtue-signal about it even as they do so, regardless of political party (although of course, most of that apologia comes from Democrats, but Establishment Neoconservative Republicans are really not much better.  Both have thoroughly embraced the principles condemned in this letter, and sometimes using the dishonest and facile shield of a "private corporation" doing the oppression is OK, because hey, it's not the government.  This is beyond stupid.  Corporations are creations of the government; they literally can't exist except that law has brought them into being, and their lobbyists own most politicians and actually write the text of most bills). Bolded text has been highlighted specifically by me.  The notes following each highlighted portion are my own words maintained below.

Viewing all of these things it will be easy for you to understand that the Church has not found it possible to follow along the lines of the present general tendency in the matter of property rights, taxes, the curtailment of rights and liberties of the people, nor in general the economic policies of what is termed the “New Deal”. The great bulk of what these people are trying to do is, in final analysis, absolutely contrary to the fundamental principles of which we have spoken. It is the considered, long considered opinion of President Grant and those who are associated with him, that our nation cannot be preserved if the present governmental policies shall continue. We do not believe that any other great nation or great civilization can be built up or maintained by the use of such policies.* As we see one liberty after another encroached upon, we look with deepest anxiety toward the possibility of an attempt to take away religious freedom from the American people. We went through this experience in our early days. We know from the stories of our fathers and our grandfathers what it means to be deprived of the right to worship God according to the dictates of our consciences, and of the hardships and tragedy that accompany such a denial. We face this situation and this possibility, we repeat, with deepest apprehension. 

As we see it, there is no way in which we can, to use your own words, “preserve and perpetuate our freedom—freedom to govern ourselves, freedom of speech, and freedom to worship God according to our own light,” except we shall turn away from our present course and resume the normal course along which this great country traveled to its present high eminence of prosperity, of culture, of universal education, and of the peace and contentment which we enjoyed prior to the inauguration of the “New Deal”. 

These things are not matters of partisan politics with us. We care nothing as Church leaders about partisan politics as such, nor about the dominance of one party or the other. We grant to every man  the right to vote as he wishes, and we would not control his vote even if we could. But we do reserve to ourselves the right to tell our people what we think is right regarding politics as affecting the fundamentals of our government system, to warn them of the dangers that lie under the present  course, and to try to persuade them that their peace, their happiness, and their security do not lie along the path of the present trends of government. 

Truly, we do not believe that—again to quote your own words—we can “preserve and perpetuate our freedom—freedom to govern ourselves, freedom of speech, and freedom to worship God according to our own light” unless we turn squarely about and return to the old-time virtues, and reenthrone our liberties and free institutions. 

We have done in the past, we are doing now, and we shall continue in the future to do everything within our power to secure this turning about of which we speak. We confess to you that it has not been possible for us to unify our own people even upon the necessity of such a turning about, and therefore we cannot, unfortunately, and we say it regretfully, make any practical suggestion to you as to how the nation can be turned about. But the President of the United States could do it in good part if he were willing to exert his effort along that line, but this he appears not to be willing to do. 

We pray—and when we say we pray, we mean we offer a supplication to our God and your God who we believe can hear and answer prayers and does do so—that wisdom will be given to our national leaders to the end that we may face about and return to the old virtues. We shall continue our supplication and to our supplication we shall add such works as we are able to do, to bring this about. 

Now we have said all of the foregoing with a complete understanding in our own minds that we have said nothing or little of anything that may now be of practical value, but this much we feel we can definitely say, that unless the people of America forsake the sins and the errors, political and otherwise, of which they are now guilty and return to the practice of the great fundamental principles of Christianity, and of Constitutional government, there will be no exaltation for them spiritually, and politically we shall lose our liberty and free institutions.

Returning to our your original letter and our reply thereto regarding the selling of Defense Bonds. The Church as a Church does not believe in war and yet since its organization whenever war has come we have done our part. Our members served in the war with Mexico, not such much in the Civil War because we were so far away, but our members went into the Spanish-American War and they went into the World War, and the records will show that they acquitted themselves honorably. But, nevertheless, we repeat, we are against war. We believe that international difficulties can and should be settled by peaceful means, and that America’s great mission in the world is to bring this about. We believe that our entry into this present war by sending our men abroad (and this seems now to be deliberately planned) would constitute not only a mistake but a tragedy. We believe that the present war is merely a breaking out again of the old spirit of hatred and envy that has afflicted Europe for a period of a thousand years at least. We do not believe that this war will settle anything when it is over because we believe that the peace, whoever dictates it, will be primarily the outgrowth of hate, and hate never settled anything righteously. 

However, we do thoroughly believe in building up our home defenses to the maximum extent necessary, but we do not believe that aggression should be carried on in the name and under the false cloak of defense.† We therefore look with sorrowing eyes at the present use to which a great part of the funds being raised by taxes and by borrowing is being put. We are much impressed with the views of those military and naval men who say we are not militarily threatened. We believe that our real threat comes from within and not from without, and it comes from that underlying spirit common to Naziism, Fascism, and Communism, namely, the spirit which would array class against class, which would set up a socialistic state of some sort, which would rob the people of the liberties which we possess under the Constitution, and would set up such a reign of terror as exists now in many parts of Europe.‡ We feel that our defenses should be built against this danger even more than the touted danger of foreign military invasion which many responsible military men tell us cannot come. 

Perhaps we might close with a statement that should be unnecessary to make. We love America; we love the Constitution; we love the Government that has been established under it; we love our liberties and our free institutions; we believe in them; we believe that God actually ordained this in order that we, the Mormon people might be set up and established, for our revelations declare we hold the true plan of life and salvation. We wish to do all that is humanly possible to do to preserve our free institutions and this Constitution and the Government as it was set up under it; we do not wish knowingly to do one act or to say one thing that will tend to destroy these divinely given privileges and blessings. 

We trust you will pardon this long letter, but we feel we must say that you invited it. 

Trusting that the Lord will point out some way, will somehow bring about a rejuvenation of the American spirit along with a true love of freedom and of our free institutions, and for Constitutional government, we are, 

Faithfully yours, 

Heber J. Grant
J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
David O. McKay
The First Presidency

* You should be familiar with the policies of the New Deal and the philosophy behind them to understand the context here.  And it's not specifically the New Deal that he's talking about; he's talking about the socialist spirit which animated the New Deal, and which (ironically, as we were "fighting communism" during the Cold War) we normalized and adopted wholesale in America.  Few people even pay attention to the vast encroachment of the government into our lives these days, but back in the time of Heber J. Grant, the only interaction anyone had with the Federal Government at all, unless you worked in politics in D.C. was with the Post Office.

† Invasion, no.  This may seem like the prophet was wrong about the attack on Pearl Harbor, but he wasn't.  Even if you discount the various theories of advanced knowledge that FDR may have had about the attack, he was deliberately provoking a reaction from the Japanese because he desperately wanted to get involved in the war.  President Grant's warning is completely and entirely appropriate, even in light of what we know happened.

Moreover, when you see the war-like and bloodthirsty calls of the so-called conservative "Neoconservatives" who have had our army overseas fighting all kinds of wars in our "defense"; few if any of them wars in which we can point to clear defensive objective, we can see even how far the so-called Right has come from the wisdom of the prophet and the Old Right to which he, and almost everyone in America who wasn't a seditious de facto foreign agent belonged.

‡ You can see also that he wasn't fooled by the rhetoric that Nazism (spelled with two i's in those days, I suppose) was a Right-wing ideology.  It's absurd to think that a socialist ideology would ever be considered Right-wing, and yet, there you have it.  The only choices we have had during most of our life time in terms of political options, are Radical Leftism from a generation ago, and new Crazy Insane Radical Leftism of today.  There hasn't actually been an active Right in America in generations, in spite of the fact that that's the natural inclination of Americans.  But after generations of brainwashing and propagandizing, few even recognize what the Right is anyway, or they think that common sense normal Right Wing ideas are some kind of radical extremism.  This sad state of affairs won't change until people stop being afraid of dishonestly being called "racist" "sexist" "anti-semitic" or "extreme" and normalize those ideas all over again.

Americans and Diversity

Another Roissy post, cleaned up for language and presented by me.

For a long time, a super majority of Americans opposed increased immigration.  And yet, they got it, good and hard, against their wishes.

1/n Updated immigration-level preferences graph with some data from the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Interesting that support for increasing immigration was so low the very year (1965) that Congress loosened immig. restrictions, which led to one of the largest immig. waves in US history pic.twitter.com/z3iiJ7Q9l0

— Zach Goldberg (@ZachG932) April 9, 2019

More:

Support for increasing immigration was flat and low for decades until around 2000, when it slowly rose among cucks and shot upward among Democortezes.
Support among Whites:

Wow. Amazing to think that as recently as 1995, less than 5% of Whites OF ANY POLITICAL AFFILIATION supported open borders.

So…what happened?

First, note that a majority of White Americans STILL oppose open borders, even in this age of runaway virtue sniveling. Don’t let the insular chaimstream media gaslight you.

Second, the slow increase in open borders support began during Dumbya’s first term, just around the time of 9/11.

This makes no sense until you consider that a proper virtue signal needs a self-discrediting calamity to signal against. Whites in happy homogeneous nations don’t conspicuously virtue signal until there is Diversity in place to start the sanctimony feedback loop. It isn’t until status-striving Whites have a little misbehaving Diversity to exploit as props that they begin to posture against “racist” Whites who bitterly cling to outmoded concepts like wisdom and common sense.

9/11 wasn’t a wake up call; it was a woke up call. The worst of the White race — the benighted, self-righteous universalists — received a lesson from 9/11 that was the precise opposite of the obvious lesson intended. Instead of limiting the invasion of the types of people who plan, cheer, or otherwise excuse gross atrocities against Westerners, White liberals took it as an opportunity to “welcome” more of them here, just so they could ham-fistedly sneer about their elevated moral worldview.

Viewed this way, it’s not a surprise, then, that Moslem migration to the US in the fifteen years AFTER 9/11 was HIGHER than Moslem migration before 9/11. The Runaway Virtue Signal Train was hitting its straightaway stride.

Between the early 2000s and now, open borders hysteria and border denialism among Whites have steadily increased. It really increased in Dubya’s second term (a result of the constant cuckservative agitprop about “religion of peace” and “hard working Mexicans”?). There was a faint pause in the rise of open borders support when Obama was elected in 2008 (“What have I done” White anxiety?), but then it shot up again during the remainder of those dark years years, most pronounced among White liberals. By the end of Obama’s 2nd term, White cucks and moderates were having second thoughts about open borders, but White Dems…they were gonna ride their nation-wrecking religion right to the End Times.

Then Trump altered the cosmic balance.

A disturbance in the force rocked the White liberal self-regard. In response, the White liberals’ stated (as opposed to revealed) preference for open borders skyrocketed, and now sits close to 60% support. Moderates and conservatives also began to show increased support for open borders during this time, but still at very low numbers overall (<25%).

Don’t be disheartened, patriots. What you see is the death rattle of a wheezing Equalist religion on the cusp of total refutation. The body fights hard right before the moment of death, refusing at the very end, in one mighty spasm, to relinquish itself. Trump was the mortal blow to the reigning orthodoxy of Equalism; his symbology dwarfs that of any recent president. White liberals now had their Sith Lord against which to virtue signal like they have never virtue signaled before, and they let it rip with a fury, knowing someplace deep inside themselves that this was the last hurrah for the primacy of their distorted moral framework.

Cucks and moderates got caught up in the hysteria, as well, and one must marvel that they aren’t more converged given the weight of media propaganda and State repression aimed at dissidents to Globohomo doctrine. I am filled with optimism that non-liberal Whites retain so much sanity in the face of what must be history’s largest gaslighting campaign.

Bottom line: don’t expect those rising trend lines in support of open borders to continue much longer. We may be at, or near, Peak Virtue Signal, and when the bubble bursts on this hyper-inflated market the crash will be, in a word, spectacular.

PS The fact that the American public was dead-set against open borders for decades, but got open borders anyway, is proof that we are ruled by a malevolent elite and avaricious oligarchy that does what it wants and mocks our quaint attachment to “democracy”.

A tragedy for Western Civilization and Christendom

I am obviously not a Papist, but the fire at Notre Dame cathedral is a tragedy for Western Civilization and for Christendom nonetheless.  It was a supremely beautiful building, and represented generations of faith, flawed though it may have been, of those who built if and maintained it for many, many years.

Another thing I've learned: the Establishment story is always lying to you in some way.  This is especially true if the story is rushed out before it can possibly be known.  How in the world can they claim that the fire was "accidental" before it even stopped burning and therefore no investigation could possibly have been done?

Here's a grab-bag of quotes from various sources online, mostly Roissy.

If God wanted to send a symbolic warning of the West burning, this would be it. 

Or maybe it was a warning from the invaders and their cabal sponsors, to the effect of, “We’re here, and there’s nothing you can do to stop us taking command of your countries, retconning your history, and razing your monuments”. 

Either interpretation doesn’t bode well for native Westerners. 

The White West was the spire of humanity. It has fallen. 

We’ll rebuild from the ashes, but first, there is the long overdue separation from the corrupted facsimile of the West that holds us back. It’s time to let go of what we have become. 

Not that you would know this from watching chaimstream media news, but there has been a rash of cathedral and church burnings throughout France. One month ago, the second largest church in Paris, the Sulpice, burned. It was instantly memory-holed as an “accident”. 

(Shepard Smith of Fairy News actually cut off a French official who tried to tell his viewers that there have been numerous Churches desecrated in France.) 

Meanwhile… 

Laugh it up, vibrants, it’s all getting stored to memory. 

Twenty minutes into a fire at Notre Dame Cathedral one week before Easter and the French “authorities” said it was caused by a construction restoration accident. 

Whenever they frantically rush out the pat Globohomo-preserving excuse that can’t possibly have been the result of thorough investigation, your suspicions should be raised. 

It could be an accident, but if I had to put money on it…

(In case YouTube intervenes and cans this clip, here's a screenshot of what it had in it:

You can even see the [head scarf], so this is proof there is NO WAY this was an “industrial accident.” 

UPDATE: We know now there were no construction workers on site, and fire brigade wears bright red. This is a Mahometan saboteur. 

DEUSVULT asks, "In islam, it is forbidden and considered a sin to contribute towards the construction of a church. In fact, it is their duty to destroy churches and replace them with mosques. Who are the workers at Notre Dame?" 

I predict we will never get an answer to that question, and any intrepid reporter who dares to investigate will somehow find himself smeared by Globohomo media apparatchiks. 

Sallust eloquently reminds us of the material and symbolic loss of the Notre Dame fire, "In terms of material culture, the loss of Notre Dame is the biggest hit the West has taken in my lifetime. I can think of nothing destroyed in World War II that compares with it. Taking the long view, today’s loss ranks with the burning of the Library of Alexandria. Yet FoxNews is hosting a Bernie Sanders town hall; Lou Dobbs is talking about flags on the side of police cars in Laguna Hills; and the lead story on National Review is another piece of petty partisan crap by David French about Ihlan Omar. I have seen way too many stories in the European media–published with no apparent sense of self-reflective irony–about how the cathedral has been saved because–although its internal supports, its roof, its spiritual artwork, its interior, and its spire reaching up to heaven have all been destroyed–its facade (so well known to the tourists!) still stands. Is it any wonder that those who do not appreciate or even understand the fruits of our civilization are unwilling to defend the peoples and the lands that gave birth to that civilization?" 

Men have lost connection to God and purpose. 

Women have lost connection to men and their own femininity. 

Children have lost connection to their parents. 

Families have lost connection to their relatives. 

Neighbors have lost connection to each other. 

Countryside has lost connection to towns, which have lost connection to cities. 

And Westerners have lost connection to their ancestors. 

The unraveling of Western greatness is a story of disconnection. Of a Great Severing.

Zman writes of the by now banal double standard which applies to the defilement of White glories, "Imagine instead of a masterpiece of Western civilization, it was a mosque or a synagogue that caught fire and burned to the ground. Big tech would already be de-platforming all of us. The EU would rush through laws banning us from the public space.
Instead we’re going to get a week of stories about how accidents happen." 

*Whites utterly dispossessed from their homelands!" 

“Ah, well, accidents happen!” 

I would bet that the crews working on the Notre Dame Cathedral were mostly immigrants. Probably Tunisians and Algerians. The few French working the project would have spent their time making sure the Algerians and Tunisians did not try to kill one another. 

The price of cheap labor is your heritage. 

J.R. quips, "Any sufficiently retarded immigration policy is indistinguishable from terrorism." 

The best case scenario is that the fire wasn’t set on purpose, it’s just that all the Arabs and Africans doing the work were so stupid, lazy, and indifferent to quality and safety standards that it caught fire anyway. 

There’s frequently some animus inherent in gross incompetence, especially when the mercenary laborers are so alien to their employers. Yeah, an African “left” a lit cig on the floor, and that will be recorded in the books as an “accidental fire” but there would have been a callous disregard motivating that “accident”. 

When one small church in rural France burns, “accident” is a plausible cause. 

When a hundred churches and cathedrals all over France and particularly in its biggest city, Paris, burn during Christendom’s holiest weeks, ya gotta start thinking something other than a series of “accidents” are responsible. 

PS Some indie news outlets are reporting that Macron ordered that half the work force on the Notre Dame restoration should be Middle East migrants. I can’t vouch for that bit of news, but honestly would anyone here doubt it?

And I won't quote the Zman's full post specifically on the burning, but here's a link:  http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=17090

Alma and Helaman and Third Nephi

It's always amazing to me reading the Book of Mormon how quickly things go bad for the Nephites.  One minute they're repentant and righteous and Mormon as compiler/narrator is regaling the reader with praises for the peace that they had.  Within just a year or two, it all turns into a huge mess with apostasty, civil war, invasion, or other significant problems.  They just can't keep it together.  Even the longest time that they had, which is specifically signaled out, only lasts three generations.  They also seem to suffer from a very conspicuous, at least for us as observers from outside, belief that "it can't happen here," for whatever reason.

Then again, it's easy to see from the outside, yet difficult to see from the inside, even when it's happening to you.  America over my lifetime has turned into the Soviet Union.  It's even worse than the Soviet Union, because the founding population is so oppressed and so propagandized that it should be oppressed, that most people don't even bat an eye at their oppression.

From the most recent Z-man column:

America is a land that bans books, has political prisoners and condemns people to a form of internal exile where they cannot have a job or maintain a normal life. Ten years ago, if someone said Americans would lose their jobs because they liked something on social media, only the aluminum foil hat types would have believed it. Such things were considered impossible just a decade ago. In the 1980’s, these were the sorts of things that happened in the Soviet Union, which was why communism was considered evil. 

Yet, here we are, seeing things we thought impossible not so long ago. This is a clip from a television show aired on one of the legacy networks. The video is a naked call for violence against whites. Even after all of the outrageous behavior we have seen from the ruling class the last few years, no reasonable person would have thought this was possible even a year ago. Even the Soviets at the worst were not exhorting people to commit acts of violence against enemies of the revolution. 

Up until now, it was reasonable to think that the paleocons were right. The Left was using excited language in an effort to keep their coalition of non-white tribes focused on white men, rather than their many grievances with one another. That sounded logical and let’s face it, it is what most normal white people want to believe. After all, the implication of this line of reasoning is that the Left is struggling to keep it together. We don’t have to worry about facing them in a fight, as they will splinter and abandon the field. 

The travelling partner to this line of thought comes from the principled conservatives, who are always ready to create a new set of conservative principles to excuse the excesses of the Left. Without acknowledging the paleocons, they implicitly accept the argument, but add on that the more sober minded on the Left will see the folly of their actions and begin to rein in their crazies, before anything serious happens. This is when they accuse the dissident right of harming civility and appeal to the Left for bipartisanship.
It’s not hard to see why normal middle-class white people find this appealing. They live ordered lives and just want to be left to live those ordered lives in peace. What they don’t want to see is violence in the streets and they certainly don’t want to be asked to confront those violent crazies on their streets. The Danegeld gets a bad reputation, but it is easy to understand the appeal in the moment. The current version is the Prog-geld, where the civilized concede a little bit of civilization, in order to avoid fighting the Prog. 

This cycle where the Left commits outrages against civility and the white middle-class accommodates it, has led to where we are now. The people calling themselves the defenders of democracy tried to subvert the last Presidential election. The so-called social justice warriors celebrate a black movie star walking free after perpetrating a blood libel against white people. The defenders of open debate on the college campus, rush to suppress any opinion not on the increasingly narrow list of approved opinions.

I see this all of the time with many so-called happy conservatives, who just refuse to see what's happening, and refuse to believe what will inevitably happen, and surprisingly quickly, I believe, could actually happen here. It will.  It actually already is, although various cover-ups and memory-hole options make it possible for us to close our eyes to what's happening and pretend that it isn't.

That is an important clue. Spend time on social media and you see the people claiming to be the vanguard of the proletariat celebrating trillion dollar corporations stomping on poor guys holding the wrong opinions. The pampered Progressives in the ruling class imagine themselves to be the resistance against oppression. This justifies them using any means necessary to defeat their enemy. That video is a justification of preemptive violence, because they believe people like you are a threat to their well-being. 

It’s why it is time think about what is impossible today, in terms of social breakdown, as it will most likely happen tomorrow. The blood lust of the ruling class for whites not obediently walking into the void, is now undeniable. Their response to the 2016 election was to declare war on white America. In their minds, it is a defensive war and they are fully justified to use any means necessary to win. There will be no point where they pull back, fearing they have gone too far. Instead they will always seek to go further. 

Again, America is a land where books are banned, people are given long prison terms for holding unpopular opinions and the livelihoods of contrarians are destroyed. This is a land where gangs of roving mobs, financed by billionaires, commit violence against citizens without consequence. Now we have a major television network calling for violence against whites and celebrating violent acts against a specific person. All of this was thought to be impossible ten years ago. What impossible thing will tomorrow bring?

Before the First Coming of Jesus Christ, the Nephites had promised to put to death all members of the Church, and in fact, would have done so the very next day.  When he did come and the signs and wonders that were prophesied all came to pass, they had a stay of execution, but the repentance and righteousness didn't last very long.  At the end of Christ's ministry, a mere thirty-three years later, their supposedly repentant nation was in disarray all over again, the government overthrown, gangs and tribes wandering a post-apocalyptic countryside "slaughtering many."  And that's just the first wave; the Gadianton robbers, whom Gidgiddoni overthrew and destroyed in the 11-13th years after the sign of Christ's birth.  After that happened, there was yet another major apostasy and complete disarray of the affairs of the people in the 30-33th year.  Sigh. 

What will happen to America before the Second Coming?  We're already at the point where it's OK to run around randomly killing white people.  And how soon will it get here?

Losing My Religion

I read a lot of so-called "dissident news"—the new Samizdat, if you will, for our new Soviet empire.  (NOTE: Because of that, I won a bet I made in late 2016 that Trump would win.  I was one of the few who was not surprised.  My friend had to buy me dinner.  And it beats being wrong because you've been deliberately misinformed, even without the benefit of an exotic beef tips and hummus meal.)  Some of what I read is quite interesting, and I can link to it directly.  Some of it loses much of it's potential  audience due to its rude nature, so sometimes I take a piece and clean up its language and repost it on my own blog.  Sometimes, it says stuff that while empirically true, challenges the identity of nice-guy LDS and other Christian readers, who therefore reject it because of the existential threat to their own concept of self and their identity.  The following article, about liberalism as a cult which is losing its grip due to the rude intrusion of reality, qualifies as both the second and the third type.  I'll clean it up from the second point of view, but the third point of view will have to stand or fall on its own merits.  A lot of people won't like what it says in that regard, but as I said, it's empirically rather unassailable in most respects whether you like it or not. The statistics are readily available for those who desire to find them.

And for those who aren't bright enough to understand what that means; keep in mind that even the Lamanites were valuable to God, and he was pleased with their conversion and valued their souls as much as that of the Nephites.  But even after large numbers of them converted, they remained apart from the Nephites in the land of Jershon, and even from their own unconverted brethren, because of their separate identities.  Later, when the Nephites became wicked and the Lamanites more righteous, the Lamanites still practiced segregated living conditions, and Samuel the Lamanite, after preaching in Zarahemla, as it says in Helaman 16: 7-8 went back to his own homeland.  "And as they went forth to lay their hands on him [Samuel], behold, he did cast himself down from the wall, and did flee out of their lands, yea, even unto his own country, and began to preach and to prophesy among his own people.  And behold, he was never heard of more among the Nephites; and thus were the affairs of the people."

Just as different families live in different houses as part of the same peaceful community, different nations and peoples are at peace with each other when they live in different homelands, so they can practice the culture that best suits them without molestation or interference from others. Anyway, without further ado:

Witnessing The Death Of A Religion
April 11, 2019 by CH
How often does a generation witness the wholesale death of a religion? Not often, I’d guess, but it’s happening now, livestreamed and hashtagged in real time. The religion that is dying is Equalism, the doctrinal tenets of which are:

• the races are biologically equal
• the sexes are biologically equal
• any inequality between the races and sexes is proof of heresy, cultural corruption, discrimination, and White male animus, but certainly not of innate, evolved biological differences

Modern White liberals are fervent disciples and proselytizers of Equalism. Their xenophilic devotion to the Word of ZOG is total. Nothing to date has shaken their proclaimed faith, not even the death of their own children at the hands of the Exalted Other.

Note that I wrote “Word” of ZOG, not “deed”, because in practice, in their personal lives, liberals quite often betray their beliefs, and just as with any guilty soul liberals have constructed mountains of rationalization and sophistry to reaffirm their faith and prostrate themselves before the altar of their grotesque god.

Zealots who have lost the will to tolerate or “forgive” apostates are often the wildest transgressors of their stated beliefs. They project their own self-flagellating shame and guilt onto nonbelievers, because it’s a lot more fun to flagellate infidels.

Religions usually die genocidally or from low fertility leading to attrition of followers. Rarely do religions die from conversions. (What typically happens is that the converted leave behind hardier believers, by a process known as “boiling off”.) Sometimes religions are demographically altered via conquest or adoption, but even then the essential nature of the religion continues reverberating in its new form, and the closer the religion’s adoptive followers are, genetically and hence culturally, to its founders, the more generationally durable the religion’s essential nature.

We wait to see how the liberal religion of Equalism will die, but die it will, as must all Lies that can’t hide behind supernatural deniability. The liberal religion is entirely earthly; it has no sustenance from divine provenance or guidance. When earthly reality collides with liberal equalism belief, there’s nowhere for the liberal to find succor. She has no heavenly God to affirm her beliefs. She has had ¡SCIENCE! to comfort her, but real science has not had her, not for a long while. If anything, science is now the Equalist’s serpent, offering poison fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Race and Sex that she bites at risk of banishment from Gentrificationland.

So she must find comfort in Ideology, and in the ululating embrace of her all-too-human Affirmation Allies. Her Father then, is her ego, her Son of Man her purified POC, and her Holy Spirit her unassailable virtue.

But all three parts of that Trinity are conspicuously falsifiable. Destructible. Her virtue is belied by her superzip residence. Her purified POC is exposed as a charlatan upon close contact. Her ego…very strong, tough, but not impregnable….lacks any transcendence and is vulnerable to mockery and ostracism. Her ego is killable, which means she will do anything…ANYTHING…to guard her ego against the killing blow.

If the leftoid equalist’s ego is god, then don’t expect a peaceful surrender to apostasy. Any tentative steps toward reformation will be met with zealotry, bordering on zaniness. The death of the equalist’s god is akin to the death of the equalist herself. If her Ideology is her Identity, then abandoning her Ideology is abandoning herself, and all she has been, and believed, and perceived of herself for her entire life. Metadeath.

Remember, she has no succor in a divine being or a divinely inspired Word. She has nowhere to console herself when her ego dies; at the moment of ego death it’s the illimitable void for her, preceding her corporeal death. She will be a walking zombie, softly muttering liberal platitudes to a tiny coterie of the Ego Dead who mutually bolster each other’s self-conception as the world moves on from them.

So how do we know we are witnessing the death of the liberal religion?

By their screeching.

By their despotic overreach.

By their enthusiasm to burn the heretics at the stake.

Believers of the European ancestry persuasion whose religion is unchallenged, or who have an unknowable divinity to whom they can subordinate their egos, are generally good-willed toward nonbelievers. They may defend their beliefs when insulted, but they won’t hound their interrogators and try to destroy their lives. Their belief is strong and therefore sturdy against attack.

Contrast with White liberal believers in Equalism, a socially constructed religion which is daily challenged, and before which liberals cannot subordinate their egos, because their ego is their god. They lash out in a lunatic rage (what I call “wokebursts”) at heretics, chasing them from the public square and impoverishing them with the assistance of the State and Corporate priest caste. Liberal equalists lash out at heretics not because they strongly believe, but because they begin to doubt.

It’s the creeping doubt which drives them to tyrannical inquisitions against nonbelievers and skeptics. Liberals aren’t secure in their faith. They secretly, subconsciously worry that they have hitched their wagon to a false prophet. Their religious insecurity brooks no challenge or heresy, because it is paper-thin and fragile, and must be quarantined from even the cuckiest incursions of skepticism.

When one defends a fortress made of gossamer, the best defense is to prevent a single enemy from taking up arms against it. Once the enemy has amassed, it’s too late; the fortress will fall in an instant.T his is where equalist liberals are today: in that limbo between unchallenged rule and overrun by those who would cast off the shackles of freakqualism. The Lib Limbo is dangerous. It is Orwellian, dictatorial, oppressive. Evil. Now is when the brave dissident risks it all, running into the teeth of a Societal and State apparatus that has maxim guns pointed at him.

The liberal knows the maxim gun is the only thing between losing her religion and continued rule over her Fake Fiefdom. She will aim all her whiny firepower at the scattered dissidents to prevent an army forming on the horizon. Desperation compels her to a malevolence that would have shocked her in tidier times when her power was uncontested.

Along the theme of this post, Patrick McDermott wrote a good post titled “How White liberals will wake up“.

White liberals can be maddening. They proceed through life happily proclaiming their devotion to progressivism, completely oblivious to the brewing demographic dangers on the horizon. Indeed, most polls show them doubling down on their beliefs in the era of Donald Trump. If you try to warn them, they will stare at you blankly. If you are a friend or relative, count yourself lucky that they still tolerate you and your beliefs.

I’ve gotten that blank stare from liberals. It’s the look of someone whose brain function temporarily stopped; a glitch in the wetware triggered by unauthorized inputs.

As for doubling down, yes that’s what ferocious believers in a discredited religion do, when renouncing their faith is the only alternative. There will be many more wokebursts before this religion has loosened its grip on the liberal heart and mind. There may even be the ultimate wokeburst: war.

White liberals are neither evil nor irredeemable.

Oh, I wouldn’t be so sure of that blanket statement…

The road to perdition may be paved with good intentions, but most of them will awaken before we get there. Our collective struggle will be difficult, but they will be standing with us when we emerge on the other side.

I like McDermott’s optimism, but it’s more likely that the White liberals “standing with us” on the other side will be markedly fewer in number than the ones standing against us during the journey there. [ed. Many are called, but few are chosen.  Re-read the last third of Alma and all of Helaman and Third Nephi up until the arrival of the Savior.  It won't be pretty]

Understanding how white liberals will change requires first understanding how their minds work.[…]Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, first proposed in 1943 by Abraham Maslow, explains human motivation as the product of a variety of competing needs.[…]Two of the needs in this framework are particularly important for understanding white liberals: self esteem and love / belonging. These needs can be evolutionarily traced to our status as a social species.

McDermott goes on to write that as long as White liberals’ Physiological and Safety needs are met, they will focus all their mental and emotional energy on satisfying their Self-Esteem and Love/Belonging needs, and that this is why Right-wingers can’t dissuade liberals from their Equalism religion using logic and reason:

In today’s Western societies, anti-racism has come to be viewed as the morally correct position and racism as the ultimate evil. This creates substantial incentives for conformity in our racial views and rewards status-seeking behavior (sometimes referred to as “virtue signaling”) on racial issues. In those cases where this dominant moral paradigm conflicts with an individual’s other needs, such as the desire to live in a safe neighborhood, rationalizations provide the necessary cover so that white liberals can avoid guilt and cognitive dissonance while simultaneously engaging in hypocritical behavior.[…]As challenging as these barriers may seem, however, it gets worse. Research has shown that human beings are highly resistant to facts that challenge their core convictions. They will seize on any information that confirms their preexisting beliefs and if their beliefs are challenged, they will simply ignore or disbelieve the source. Stronger challenges to core beliefs can even backfire, causing people to double down on their original position. 

Troy Campbell, a researcher on the topic, explained it this way: “As causes become our identity, we don’t just believe we are right anymore; we need to believe we are right to maintain self-worth.” 

The Missing Ingredient: Fear 

Liberalism’s close ties to its own version of morality – combined with the universal human needs for self-esteem and social belonging – make this an exceedingly tough nut to crack. But crack it will. How do we break through these barriers? The answer can be found near the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy: the need for safety.

To change White liberal hearts and minds, attack their stunted amygdalae.

Most white liberals will not be convinced by rational arguments, no matter how strong or well-supported those arguments may be. They will only be convinced by threats to their basic safety. This, in turn, points to the real barrier. Most white liberals do not feel threatened.

Two points. First, I’m not certain liberals *can* be convinced by threats to their personal safety. Part of the liberal psychology is a twisted masochism streak, a sort of cognitive Stockholm Syndrome by which liberals come to identify with their own insecurity, considering it a good thing in their lives. Related, I’ve seen liberals almost glow with smugness when describing the hazards they face living in the urban playground. They are proud of their powerlessness and lurking victimization.

Second, it is true that most White liberals don’t feel viscerally threatened by encircling Diversity™…yet. Gentrification and segregation in microcosm have done a great job insulating liberals from real fear. This insulation CAN be breached if the Diverse Hordes become numerically preponderant, but we aren’t quite there in the places where it would do the most “good”. The rapid gentrification and relocations of vibrancy to the exurbs of the past fifteen years has succeeded in putting off the “Escape from New York” awareness level needed to scare urban White liberals straight back to sanity. Lower White liberal fertility and later marriage has also had a delaying effect on the return of liberal sanity, because they don’t have to concern themselves with “good schools” until a couple of decades spent in the anonymous sex hedonistic plunderdome has fully marinated their dismissive, sanctimonious attitude toward racial reality.

This gets to the danger of allowing liberals too much power to control the discourse. In general, liberals are less forward-seeing that are non-liberals. If IQ tests could measure foresight and ability to see long-term consequences from present-day actions, conservative Whites would blow away liberal Whites. Perhaps you wouldn’t even have to control for class or education to see this disparity.

The White liberal perception of reality can thus be reduced to a narrow range of “the black guy I know is cool” and “oh, it’s a shame about that murder, but it happened in a different neighborhood and he was stupid to walk around there at night”, which naturally leads to “yeah, let’s invite more Vigrants into our country because they’d all be cool and chill and it torments those awful White nationalists!”.

In contrast, the White Right-winger perception of reality is more inclusive of future possibilities and fallouts from current experiences. The Right-winger knows “one cool black guy” is not a stand-in for “30 millions blacks” and that a murder in another neighborhood could just as easily have been a murder in his neighborhood, which leads to “it’s not a good idea to bring more antagonistic foreigners into my country which I have to bequeath to my posterity”.

Most [White liberals] do not see a civilization that is crumbling around them or a brewing threat on the horizon. They see a thriving economy and a skyrocketing stock market. Yes, race relations are not perfect, but they think those problems will sort themselves out as soon as we solve the challenge of poverty and get rid of Donald Trump. Immigration is beneficial. There are no meaningful differences between people. Trump voters are just suffering from irrational phobias and “white anxiety.” Times are good. What on earth is there to be afraid of?[…]The sad reality is that few people who are living in a bubble are able to see it until it pops. The rare iconoclasts who are right too soon are usually viewed as social outcasts and misfits. The liberal bubble is about to pop, however. The signs are all around us.

Number one sign: the social media censorship and boycott swarms of any public realtalker.

The coming awakening of white liberals, which in the United States will probably occur over the next decade, will be primarily due to five factors.

Meat and potatoes time. McDermott lists these factors as “instinctual ethnocentrism”, “growing direct contact [with nonWhites]”, “cultural threat”, “explicitly anti-White rhetoric”,  and “political threat”.
He thinks political threat holds the most promise for waking up White liberals,

The fifth factor, political threat, may be the most important because, unlike the others, it cannot be avoided or ignored. The principal source of this threat is the nation’s changing demographics, which are empowering minorities and shifting the Democratic Party sharply to the left.[…]The reaction of white voters to such hard-left ideological swings is well-established. Two of the most left-leaning presidential nominees in modern history, George McGovern and Walter Mondale, were trounced at the polls. More recently, moderate Republican gubernatorial candidates have a solid track record of defeating far-left Democrats in deep blue states. What accounts for this? Many white liberals, particularly those with high household incomes, are not as far left as they think. 

White liberals may not feel threatened by the left today, particularly with Republicans controlling Congress and Trump dominating the news on a daily basis, but that will change in the coming decade. As the nation changes, the mainstream media and social media companies may try to clamp down on opposing views, but they are unlikely to repress the emerging voices of the far left, who will do far more to open the eyes of white liberals than conservatives ever could. They are our unwitting allies.

If you thought Trump 2016 was a bellwether, wait until Trump 2020. That’s the election which will tell us if White liberals are salvageable or if we have to go our separate ways.

One idea that needs to be a part of this discussion is the premise that White liberals  may very well be *ethnically distinct* from White conservatives. Albion’s Seed gets into this, and the basic theory is that America was settled by four different strains of Anglo Whites, which persist to this day in voting patterns, habits, moral outlooks, and social organization preferences. If so, then White liberals possibly see themselves as *ancestrally* distinct from White conservatives, or at least feel it in their bones even if they don’t consciously acknowledge or express it. A feeling like this could mean that White liberals convince themselves that White conservatives are just as “alien” to their way of life as are nonWhites. It isn’t true, but the narcissism of small differences and the liberal striver mentality of not wanting to be associated with “downscale” White cousins (and being embarrassed by downscale White culture and politics) empowers White urbanites to hold tight to their hatred of and bitterness against White flyovers.

And, of course, no discussion about White liberalism is complete without a mention of the disproportionate contribution of those [very special] “White” liberals, who are in fact racially distinct from goylibs and goycons. (If you’re feeling charitable toward the Jews (why would you extend them that which they rarely extend you, tho?), then you could substitute “ethnically distinct”.)

How will we know when white liberals have changed their views? It will probably not be immediately obvious. Most will not publicly proclaim their shift. There will instead be occasional calls for bipartisanship and arguments against the growing tide of identity politics. And then there will be silence as former liberals say less and less, daring only to whisper among friends about their growing concern about the direction of the country.

Ideally, the liberal ego slowly and peacefully conforms itself to the coming Train of Truth. Catastrophically, the liberal ego snaps suddenly, convulsing our shared nation in a festival of reckoning.

Over time, it is not unrealistic to assume that voting patterns at the national level will begin to mirror those of the South, where white support for Republican presidential candidates commonly reaches 80-90 percent. In the long run, however, it will not be enough. Demographics are still political destiny.

Does anyone outside of dissident blogs and besides Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson, and Stephen Miller understand the absolute certainty of this ugly truth?

The Soviet Union, one of the 20th Century’s two superpowers, was destroyed by its adherence to an ideology that ignored human nature. It should not be surprising that the world’s other superpower might also be destroyed by an unrealistic ideology, in this case one that willfully ignores the world’s long history of ethnic conflict.

Diversity + Proximity = War.

Equalism has been described as a “totalizing ideology”, which to me means conformism to it must be total or risk the wrath of the deranged priesthood and their mind-jacked foot soldier automatons. If so, then America’s anti-nature ideology of Equalism could just as assuredly destroy it as the Soviet Union’s anti-nature ideology of Communism destroyed its empire. Sad coda: The Soviet Union only lost ethnically different satellite states. The core Russia, comparatively homogeneous, remains and is by some measures growing stronger. In her eventual defeat, America would lose satellite *states* and *regions*. There would be Core Americas going their own way.

A comment from advancedatheist, including replies, deserves reposting here:

Working-class white American men tend to have more experience with blacks, Hispanics and other nonwhite groups because they compete for the same jobs and the same kinds of downmarket housing they can afford. 

Whereas more affluent whites have the wherewithal to isolate themselves from having to deal with POC’s and their dysfunctions. 

You can easily form misconceptions about the Other when you lack experience in dealing with them, so this can explain why better-heeled whites tend to hold unrealistic views about POC’s that blue-collar whites simply laugh at based on their daily reality of having to live among them.

One White-behaving POC can completely disorient a White liberal's worldview. So gullible!

UrbaneFrancoOntarian replies,

Completely agree. Growing up, I lived in a 90% white neighborhood. Very left wing, lots of nice white people. We had a few “people of colour” – the friendly Japanese couple down the street; the happy Indian family – even a mixed race couple! Beautiful! Everybody smiling and getting along. 

In school we were taught that white people are bad because of our “racist” past. We should feel bad for racism and treat all races with respect. Well, that made sense to me. I didn’t see anything wrong with the 10% of wealthy, well-adjusted minorities in our area. Racism is so stupid, I thought. These people are just like me! 

My white friends often snarked at our “lame”, “white” neighborhood. No diversity, no culture! 

Then came university…. 

Indians, Muslims, Chinese, Arabs, Africans. Wow, what a mix! Amazing diversity and spice! That’s when I started waking up. In small numbers, these people are okay. But in large numbers, they are invaders.

More precisely, “in small numbers, these people are deferential. But in large numbers, they are rapacious invaders”.

They hate us. They don’t care about “Canada” – they want our money and our women. Hostile foreign invaders. 

Petty fights. Religious/ethnic disagreements. Cheating, corruption and nepotism. Rap music. All kinds of degenerate things, 3rd world things, that I was sheltered from in my early, white, life. There is no culture, nor cohesion. Your skin colour, language, religion and ethnic group determines who you talk to and make friends with. Just like the 3rd world. 

This is our future. More of them are pouring in every day. I see the future now, because this level of diversity will soon spill out into every corner of North America. They will make Mexicans look like great people, believe me… 

I’ve tried warning people back home, but they just don’t believe me. “Well I work with an Indian and he’s a great guy!” “I had an Arab taxi driver and he was a great guy!”. More rationalization. Our blindness will be our downfall. 

White liberals are in for a rude awakening, of course. But when that happens, it will be too late. Our country is already gone. We just haven’t noticed yet.

The race is between Noticing and Dissolution. Tragically, enough Whites won’t notice until it’s futile to notice. At least, that’s the way to bet.

TTSSYF responds,

So much of life is driven by numbers or percentages. Just as the human body can tolerate small amounts of unhealthy foods, so can an otherwise healthy society tolerate small numbers of dysfunctional or unassimilable people. Both the body and society would be better off without these unhealthful inputs, but they can at least tolerate them and still thrive. Also, in the case of society at large, there can be intense pressure on otherwise dysfunctional or unassimilable people to suppress their nature and conform to the norms of the dominant population and make their presence even less of an issue (e.g., the few blacks who work in a predominantly white company will hide their resentment, if not outright hatred, for whites and save it for when they are at home and can speak in ebonics with black family members and neighbors; the lone Muslim family in the neighborhood will likely be friendly to the kafirs, etc.). But once the numbers and percentages change, all bets are off. And I am afraid we are on a collision course with this reality, which began with our importing African slaves but was held in check by their relatively small numbers, and which has been ramped up and likely made inevitable by the changes in the immigration laws in 1965, with our now allowing over one million legal immigrants each year from the Third World.

Quantity is its own quality.

And quality is its own quantity.

One Somali will impose a burden that a hundred Dutchmen could not.

Numbers and nature are of the essence, so it’s the height of insanity that White liberals eagerly press the open borders to the Dirt World pedal to the medal. The unrepentant destruction of their homeland is apparently worth it to them if it peeves the Deplorables.

Well, they had better enjoy the feeling now, because the bill will come due and they are gonna get a sticker shock like they’ve never had before.