Secret Combinations

Aren't always so secret. They actually get brazen when they're convinced that their ascension is inevitable.

President Benson once said that we can know more about current events by reading the Book of Mormon than by reading the news. And he was quoting, or at least reaffirming the concept, which had been said earlier by, if I remember correctly, Heber J. Grant (although I could be wrong and it's Joseph Fielding Smith.)

That said, the news is damning enough, although you have to know where to find it. There's a lot of things that are widely and in fact openly reported... but which most people still don't know and don't believe. Here's one:

https://gab.com/ChrisLangan/posts/107699059545987596

Very interesting. I just watched a video containing an old clip featuring a sycophantic interview of Klaus Schwab by CFR / Trilateral Commission / Bohemian Grove member David Gergen at some globalist shindig they put together. I'm still not sure I heard it correctly.

But first, what do the names Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, Justin Trudeau, Jacinda Ardern, Sergei Brin, Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg, Anderson Cooper, Leonardo DiCaprio, Ashton Kutcher, and Charlize Theron have in common? They're former Schwab proteges who were recruited decades ago as "Young Global Leaders", taught how to infiltrate the governments and subvert the constitutions and cultures of Western nations, and charged with cementing globalist domination and committing genocide against White Western majorities. This we already knew.

Here's the surprise: according to the interview, this dark distinction is shared by Vladimir Putin. Schwab found and mentored not just little Justine Trudeau and Teutonic Battle Axe Angela Merkel, but Russian dictator Vladimir Putin himself. I don't find it surprising that Schwab intended to mold them all into the tyrannical caricatures that we see before us today, or that their kindly "Uncle Klaus" deserves full credit for their antihuman mindset and every dastardly deed they've ever done. That much is common knowledge. What surprises me is that Schwab would take the risk of admitting it, especially in the case of Putin. It's not good for the kind of political theater in which these people habitually engage.

https://banned.video/watch?id=61f1a830c5d2221b863809b2 (Cue it up to 5:10.)

In short, Klaus Schwab is foolishly crowing about having trained and planted treasonous globalist agents in our governments, including the government of Russia, for the purpose of ensuring that our lives and destinies would be totally controlled by a gruesome gaggle of shifty, shady, power-drunk globalist vampires who wouldn't know what it's like to do an honest day's work if you dressed them in orange jumpsuits, put them on a chain gang, stuck picks and shovels in their soft pink-palmed hands, and cracked a bullwhip over their pointy little heads.

The set-up has been long in the making. Schwab and his fellow oligarchs are absolutely certain that they're going to win. Better hope they're wrong. A win for them means the total loss of basic rights, human dignity, and every kind of freedom for every decent human being on the planet.

At one time they could have tried to deny it. But at this point, they might as well deny that a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down (even when it's deadly).

American Soviets

I don't really like to reproduce someone else's post in its entirety, but sometimes there's nothing more to be said about a post than what was said in the post. That said, I'm doing a little bit of judicious editing and a handful of embedded editorial comments, just so I can claim to be making some kind of commentary on the post by focusing it a bit more on the topic that I think it's most importantly saying. The Z-man is completely correct in pointing out that if the Soviet Union was the evil empire 40-50 years or so ago, which arguably it certainly was, then the United States has become the new evil empire, and it is indistinguishable from the Soviets in most of the dimensions that actually matter.

Of course, that meant I had to include the old 80s dance classic as the soundtrack to this post...

At the end of World War II, the West was not unreasonable in thinking that the next great threat was the Soviet Union. While Stalin had been an indispensable ally during the war, the Soviets remained committed to exporting communism. Since sensible people at the time understood that fascism was made possible by communist subversion of the established institutions, communism was a serious concern. [ed. communism was always more dangerous than fascism. Fascist governments existed in Spain until the 70s, and persist in Argentina to this day. It was communism that was the great evil of the 20th century. Fascism was a more realistic, toned down version of communism. You'll have to do your own research on where you've been deceived about WW2. I recommend starting with the American Pravda series of articles by Ron Unz.]

It was not just in the wreckage of Germany where communism was a threat, but in every Western country. In his famous speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Mo., Churchill said, “Except in the British Commonwealth and in the United States where Communism is in its infancy, the Communist parties or fifth columns constitute a growing challenge and peril to Christian civilization.”

The speech is remembered as the “Iron Curtain” speech. It was intended to be a wake-up call to American elites about the reality of Soviet communism. It was such a masterful speech, it drew international attention and introduced popular phrases like “special relationship” into American public discourse. Russian historians date the start of the Cold War to this speech.

“America’s crusade to impose liberal democratic morality on Eurasia is viewed as hostile aggression.”

Churchill’s message hit the mark. The fight against Soviet communism was cast as a “long twilight struggle” against “the common enemies of man” in which normal people would “bear any burden year in and year out.” For a newly minted imperial class looking for a reason to exist, defending the world from communism was manna from heaven.

In fairness, the Soviets were committed to world revolution and they did underwrite subversive movements throughout the world. One of the assumptions of communism was that eventually, all the world’s people would live under communism. Therefore, supporting communist groups throughout the world was just betting on the winners, as far as the Soviets were concerned.

The inevitability of communism also meant that any alternative ideology was not just wrong, but dangerously wrong. An alternative ideology supposed the potential for an alternative ending. This not only called into question the universal truth of communist historical theory, but it also threatened to derail the project. From the perspective of the communists, their subversion was justified as a form of self-defense.

America did not always operate with the best of intentions during the Cold War, but there is no questioning who was on offense and who was on defense. For close to forty years, the United States defended the West from communist aggression and policed the rest of the world for communist insurrection. Of course, we know how the Cold War ended. The Soviet empire collapsed and Western democracy prevailed.

Fast-forward to the present and the roles are reversed. It is Russia on the defensive, trying to protect her way of life from an ideological opponent. Instead of promising a world of material equality, the West promotes a world of cultural equality in which all the world’s people are turned into consumers and the affairs of the world are managed by a class of experts. The “end of history” will be the universal managerial state.

Russia, on the other hand, sees itself as the protector of Eurasia, a world that is not quite Europe and not quite Asia. Along with most of the former Soviet republics, Russia rejects the universalism of the West. Liberal democracy has its place, but it does not fit the culture and traditions of Eurasia. America’s crusade to impose liberal democratic morality on Eurasia is viewed as hostile aggression.

This is why Putin views the recent events in Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan as part of an asymmetrical war on Eurasia. America overthrew the government of Ukraine in 2014 and tried to do the same in Belarus last year. Further back, they instigated unrest in the former republic of Georgia, which led to the Russo-Georgian War. Of course, it is clear that the West was instrumental in stirring up unrest in Kazakhstan last month.

The ultimate target for America is Russia. Not even the usual suspects in the State Department care all that much about their ancestral homelands in Ukraine, but it is a pressure point they use to undermine the Russians. The same is true of Kazakhstan, which has been willing to play ball with the West. The American empire will not rest until the rainbow flag flies over the Kremlin.

In isolation, these international shenanigans are not all that interesting, but they do suggest something about liberal democracy. Like communism, it cannot exist without an enemy and it cannot tolerate dissent. In order to maintain its own sense of legitimacy, it has to be involved in a great struggle. Now that the crusades against Islam have run their course, America has returned to an old foe to be that much-needed foil. [ed. we never fought any crusades against Islam. We fought a crusade against "terrorism" while naively believing that Islam was somehow separate from terrorism. We bent over backwards to delude ourselves about the hostile nature of Islam as an ideology, while coincidentally fighting some people who happened to be Islamic and who happened to either be in Israel's way towards regional hegemony, or who had something to offer the elitist class, such as access to money from the poppy trade in Afghanistan. Not that we would have been justified in fighting a war against Islam either, but ironically we would at least have been able to create a better justification for doing so than what we actually did.]

Like communism, liberal democracy has become doctrinaire and intolerant. Lost in the tumult of the Cold War is the fact the Bolsheviks were initially quite open to alternative opinions about Marx and Marxist theory. Over time that openness gave way to intolerance and then the terror of Stalinism. Even after his death, dissent was no longer tolerated in communist countries.

We see the same thing happening in Western democracies. Domestic intelligence agencies scan social media sites looking for unapproved opinion. Agents of the state turn up on the doorstep of unsuspecting citizens, asking them about things they posted online or were heard saying in public. Political crimes now carry harsher punishments than violent crimes in many places.

There is also that sense of inevitability that drove the communists. America operates on the assumption that liberal democracy is inevitable. Therefore, like the communists of the last century, they see any resistance as aggression. The attempt to overthrow the government of Belarus last year was framed as a defensive action. They were rescuing the people from authoritarianism.

Seventy years after Churchill’s speech warning Americans about the great threat of communism, there is a new threat to peace in Europe. This time it comes from the West and is seeking to devour the East. The Cold War ended when the Soviets finally went bankrupt trying to maintain the system. Perhaps Europe gets lucky again and this time it is America that goes broke trying to prove nature wrong.

Secret combinations

This was said in 1913 by Woodrow Wilson. More than 100 years ago now, by a person who was most likely himself a secret combination member of no small renown. As Jonah Goldberg pointed out many years ago now, he created the first fascist government in the world. But that doesn't make what he said any less true.

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

They know that America is not a place of which it can be said, as it used to be, that a man may choose his own calling and pursue it just as far as his abilities enable him to pursue it; because to-day, if he enters certain fields, there are organizations which will use means against him that will prevent his building up a business which they do not want to have built up; organizations that will see to it that the ground is cut from under him and the markets shut against him. For if he begins to sell to certain retail dealers, to any retail dealers, the monopoly will refuse to sell to those dealers, and those dealers, afraid, will not buy the new man's wares.

And this is the country which has lifted to the admiration of the world its ideals of absolutely free opportunity, where no man is supposed to be under any limitation except the limitations of his character and of his mind; where there is supposed to be no distinction of class, no distinction of blood, no distinction of social status, but where men win or lose on their merits.

I lay it very close to my own conscience as a public man whether we can any longer stand at our doors and welcome all newcomers upon those terms. American industry is not free, as once it was free; American enterprise is not free; the man with only a little capital is finding it harder to get into the field, more and more impossible to compete with the big fellow. Why? Because the laws of this country do not prevent the strong from crushing the weak. That is the reason, and because the strong have crushed the weak the strong dominate the industry and the economic life of this country. No man can deny that the lines of endeavor have more and more narrowed and stiffened; no man who knows anything about the development of industry in this country can have failed to observe that the larger kinds of credit are more and more difficult to obtain, unless you obtain them upon the terms of uniting your efforts with those who already control the industries of the country; and nobody can fail to observe that any man who tries to set himself up in competition with any process of manufacture which has been taken under the control of large combinations of capital will presently find himself either squeezed out or obliged to sell and allow himself to be absorbed"

Fake History

This is a great video. I don't condone many of the facets of the Nazis, of course (even while I presume that the Holocaust is largely a hoax). However, just because one side in a given conflict is bad, and the Nazis were bad news in many ways, that doesn't mean that their antagonists are the good guys. Even if their antagonists happen to have been us. The reality is that there were no good guys in the second world war, but a strong case can be made that the globalists represented by Britain and America, allied with the Soviets, were by far the worst of the bad guys who participated in that long, sad conflict. 

This is one of the hardest lessons for people to unlearn; the simplistic propaganda that they've been fed for, in this case, literally generations, is just that: propaganda, and there is little factual content in what they believe to be the true narrative of history.

Fake News is bad enough, although most people—even if they believe in the concept of Fake News still believe most of the Fake News in spite of obvious evidence that it's fake—but fake history and fake science are even more malicious in terms of our understanding of the world.

Corruption of the Soul

This is much of the text of today's Z-man post, which he calls corruption of the soul. What he really means is corruption within society. Sadly, he doesn't reach the obvious and inevitable conclusion that the corruption of Christianity is the cause for the decay in society. A highly Christian society, even an apostate Protestant and/or Catholic based one, but one which followed those virtues closely, would be immune—or at least highly resistant—to the rot that we have, described here by the Z-man. It's the lack of Christian virtue that has enabled the lack of civic virtue.

One way to measure the health of a society is to look at how the ruling elite of that society protects the things that are important to the society. Just as the management of a company cannot micromanage every aspect of the firm, the ruling class cannot make sure every rule and custom is strictly enforced. It has to focus its energy on the big items that make the society possible. From there this attitude will flow down to the lower levels who will enforce the smaller rules.

What the ruling elite of a society does by enforcing the big rules, especially those that manage the affairs of the ruling class, is set the tone. A disciplined ruling class reinforces the idea that the rules matter, and they must be respected. This attitude becomes a habit of mind for the people. On the other hand, a ruling class that has no respect for its own rules helps foster a culture of cheating. If it is okay for the bosses to cheat, then only a sucker follows the rules.

The easy example of this is the Roman Republic. When the families at the top of the social order strictly abided by the rules that governed patricians, the plebeians followed their lead in the minor things. The republican virtue that was necessary for their society was a habit of mind. Once the people at the top stopped enforcing their rules, the rest of the culture followed. Caesar was simply the logical end point of a process of decay that began long before he crossed the Rubicon.

In this age, things like the rule of law, the orderly transition of power and the respect for rational inquiry are the big items of society. Liberal democracies are supposed to be rule-based societies that seek to progress by advances in knowledge. That is done by allowing people to investigate the natural world looking for better solutions to the problems of life. These investigations are to follow a set of rules and ethics that reflect the general morality. Progress is orderly and open.

Recent events make plain that the rule of law has broken down across all levels of American society. The rich always have advantages in the law, but now they operate under a different set of rules entirely. America is now ruled by a pirate class that is free to do what they like to the people. Similarly, the orderly transition of power through the mechanism of elections has become a farce. No one involved has any respect for the rules of democracy and no one can trust the results.

Those seem like things that could be fixed once the geezers at the top of the political system are replaced by a new class of people. There is no guarantee, and the odds are not great, but it seems to most people that there is some hope of fixing these problems through a renewal of the liberal democratic spirit. On the other hand, the respect for rational inquiry and debate appears to be hopelessly lost. We are rapidly reaching a point where dissent is explicitly forbidden in America.

That in itself could be lumped in with the other bits of the system that need reform, but the corruption has gone beyond suppression. It is becoming clear that the culture of mendacity that plagues the political class has become the norm within the realms of science and medicine. A culture of rule breaking at the top of society has fostered a culture of dishonestly within the academic community. Even in the hard sciences the willingness to cheat and lie has become quite common.

A good recent example is the Elizabeth Holmes trial. Everything about her career and the company she created was a fraud. This was plainly obvious to many, but they remained quiet as there is no reward for enforcing the rules. Breaking the rules can make you very rich, so lots of people break the rules. The fact that the state is struggling to put this woman in a cage speaks to the legal corruption. The fact that she exists speaks to the corruption in the academy.

She is not alone. The chief executive of biotech firm Athira Pharma was forced out of her position when she admitted to faking her research. When she was a graduate student, she falsified her findings in a number of studies. Those studies set her up for funding to start the company. They were also used to obtain patents. Despite the fact she is a fraud and her company a sham, she only had to resign, and the company will continue on as if nothing important happened.

The elephant in the room on this topic is Covid. The idea of science has been so corrupted that it is now warping the language. Because the vaccines do not actually work as promised, the language is being changed to fit the crime. It used to be that vaccines provided immunity from infection by a specific virus. Now immunity means a sense of happiness that comes from compliance. You may still die from Covid, or you could become immortal. Who can tell anymore?

Science and its practical application have been the gift from the gods that has allowed man to move beyond his primitive existence. In modern societies it is the thing that is supposed to provide the limits on excess and steadily improve daily life. It is fair to say that trust in scientific and technological progress is the bedrock of modernity. It is the thing that we all trust to keep society anchored to reality. It should be the thing the ruling class protects at all costs, but that is no longer true.

In a world where you cannot trust the important things, the little things become nothing but a matter of opinion or convenience. If the people at the top have no respect for the rule of law, then the people at the bottom will have no reason to follow the law other than fear of punishment. The culture will become one where evading the spirit of the rules is the natural habit of mind. This corruption of the soul of society will corrupt the soul of the people, as we are witnessing today.

The last paragraph, although he doesn't draw this specific parallel, is what ended up corrupting the Jews into the Pharisees, who's corrupted religion devolved into what Judaism is today; little more than a tribal supremacy cult meant to justify the Jews doing whatever they want to do. 

Don't vote

Some research by the Z-man.

In reality, the system is entirely unresponsive to public will. The reason people voted for Trump in the Republican primary was they hated everything the GOP had become over the last decades. This lesson was entirely ignored by the party. The reason Trump won the general is the people were revolted by Hilary Clinton. Both parties not only ignored these messages, they mocked them.

The last two presidential elections have been the result of a process that started after the Cold War. The two parties have divided up the electorate into fiefdoms. This allows them to share power, with one party having limited control over one branch for a while, then turning power over to the other party. The House, for example, will no doubt flip to the Republicans in the 2022 midterm elections.

When you look at what will really happen in the midterm election, you see why it is best described as a ceremonial change in control. According to the Cook Political Report, “just 16 of 435 districts crossed over to vote for presidential and House candidates of opposite parties, down from 35 in 2016 and 108 in 1996.” There are maybe 25 House seats that could plausibly change hands in 2022.

If you dig into the partisan divide of House districts, what you will find is that very few seats will ever change parties, which is why incumbents win over 90% of their races. Of the 435 seats in the House, the two parties control close to 400 of them. Even accounting for changes in demographics and public sentiment, there are a maximum of maybe 85 seats that require party attention.

What this means is that the seats controlled by the parties will never have someone in them that is not fully vetted by the party. They get the seat because they will do as the party demands and in exchange have a seat for life. When Nancy Pelosi finally keels over, her replacement will be selected by the party for that seat. The freaks who line up to run will be dispatched so that the path is clear for the party candidate.

Counterintuitively, the seats that are listed as competitive will turn out to be the least competitive from an ideological and partisan perspective. A district that is 50­­­–50 will select a winner that is not offensive to the other side. Both parties know they need someone who has some appeal to the other side, so they seek out those who are good at playing both sides of the partisan divide.

Even if the people are so enraged at the establishment, they find a Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders in all of these competitive races, the result will be a minority caucus within the majority party of the House. If 85 Trump clones win in 2022, they will be a marginalized and ignored minority in the Republican Party. This has been the reality for genuinely conservative members of the GOP since 1994.

This is what the Squad is experiencing in the Democratic Party. They can make noise and get on TV, but they have no power in their own party. The best they get is to be a cat’s paw the leadership uses to harass the other party. Like the elections, this is mostly ceremonial, just a part of the theater of democracy. In the end, the leadership of the parties settles on a bipartisan deal that pleases their donors.

When people say the system is rigged, they usually mean that the parties rig the election results to get their guys in office. That certainly happens, but the real shenanigans are further upstream at the party headquarters. They work in tandem to maintain the two-party system, preventing a legitimate challenger, and they work together to maintain a consensus in Washington. That is where the game is rigged.

Even more devious, the frustration that arises from the unresponsiveness of the system makes the voting public more partisan. This is why the number of competitive seats has steadily dwindled over the last few decades. The unhappier people get, the more willing they are to accept the partisan narrative. Blaming the other side is easy and it seems to explain why the will of the people is always thwarted.

This makes people less open to appeals from alternatives and much more willing to vote for one side, as that gives them a chance to spite their enemies. The result is two camps locked in a fruitless struggle. Instead of the House being the most dynamic branch of government, it is now the least dynamic branch. We live in a tyranny of the minority exercised through the manufactured majority of party politics.

This immunity to the public will is why voting has had no impact on policy. In 2014, researchers looked at 1,800 policy issues over a twenty-year period. They examined the results of those policy disputes and compared them to public attitudes. What they found was that there was no connection between election results, public opinion, and the final policy outcome. Voting has no impact on public policy. It is purely ceremonial.

People vote because they think it is the right thing to do, so they stick with it even when they have concluded that the parties are corrupt. In 2022 disgruntled Republicans will turn out to vote against the party of Biden. That will make them feel good as they stand in line for expensive food or fill their tank with five-dollar gasoline. The Dionysian theater of democracy will allow them to vent their rage safely and impotently.

Meanwhile, the people in charge will continue doing what they want, safe in the knowledge that they are immune from the public will. John Adams said, “There never was a democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.” What he could not know is that democracy is tricked into killing itself by a clever minority that skillfully turns their virtues into vices to the benefit of the minority.

And some more commentary from another post of his on the same topic.

Donald Trump finally got the attention of Republican leaders the other day when he said that unless they addressed the 2020 election shenanigans, his supporters will not bother to vote in upcoming elections. This got the usual suspects out to denounce him as a Hitler plotting to do Hitler things. Regime media was flooded with boilerplate articles about how there was no evidence to support his claims. Some Republicans were sent out to denounce him for his dangerous rhetoric.

This little bit of drama is interesting in that it suggests that some portion of the electorate is making the next logical step. If you cannot get what you want at the ballot box, either because the vote is rigged or the choices are false, then why vote? If those conditions are true, then voting becomes self-sabotage. When you vote, you are endorsing the process and its results. Voting in a rigged election is, in effect, validating the rigged process and the people rigging it.

The fact that it has taken close to a year for anyone to reach this next logical step in evaluating the last election shows the power of conditioning. Everyone has been conditioned since childhood to believe that voting is a requirement of citizenship and not voting is therefore an abdication of duty. You cannot complain about the system if you do not participate in the system is the logic of democracy. The only acceptable participation is voting for one of the two parties.

It is a bizarre logic when you consider it. Popular entertainment is full of plots where the star is faced with two bad choices and refuses to accept them. Instead, he creates a third choice to save the day. Every business school trains students on how to think beyond the choices on offer. “Thinking outside the box” is considered to be the hallmark of the modern entrepreneur. People like Elon Musk are celebrated because they allegedly refuse to accept the conventional answer.

Only in politics is it that no one is ever allowed to question the options put forward by the two political parties each election. This exception to the rule of thinking outside the box is necessary because the system requires it. For example, if “none of the above” was an option in most elections, that would often be the winner. This is why it is never an option on the ballot. Otherwise, even the dullest Republican voter would begin to think that maybe he should have another option.

Of course, one of the weapons that the system has always used to prevent people from thinking outside the box regarding politics is hyper-partisanship. “If you don’t vote for more of the same, the other side will win.” This was the standard line from people like Jonah Goldberg in the Bush years. Staying home was a vote for the other side, so you had to hold your nose and vote for the Republicans. It was effective until 2006 when the odor was so bad that no amount of nose holding was possible.

The neocons conveniently forgot about that in 2016, but they went to great effort to avoid saying they would boycott the election. Even they saw the danger of unleashing that option on the system. Conservative Inc. was mortally wounded when they could not explain how their boycott of Trump was not an endorsement of Clinton. They were either voting for what they said was evil or they were boycotting the election, something they said was morally unacceptable.

That last bit has always been a lie. Boycotting elections has been a part of democratic systems since forever. During the Cold War, the United States government would encourage boycotts in places being subverted by communists. Alternatively, the protest vote has always been a part of the American system. Organizing people to throw their vote away on a ridiculous option is just another form of boycott. You are forcing onto the ballot the words “none of the above”.

Getting back to Trump and his boycott claim, he was never more than a wrecker, which is what the times require. He will never organize a boycott or even completely endorse such a campaign. He will talk about it. For good or ill, if he talks about something it becomes news. Just mentioning the idea of boycotting the midterm is more than enough to normalize the idea for unhappy voters. Sitting out, perhaps loudly sitting out the election, becomes the best way to participate.

If you look at the upcoming midterm, there are maybe 25 seats that are genuinely up for grabs with another 25 that might tip that way. The Democrats currently hold 220 seats and the Republicans 212 seats. The seats that will decide the House will be won with just over 50% of the vote in those districts. In other words, even a poorly organized boycott could prevent the Republicans from getting the House. It is a low cost, high reward strategy to send a message.

Now, even a highly organized national boycott of the midterms, where Democrat voters join in will change little in terms of policy. The people who control the two parties will remain in control. What changes is public perception of politics. This system requires the broad public to think voting matters. If they come to see that voting is just ceremonial, a play put on to keep them pacified, then the system cracks. At the minimum, it brings the system to crisis.

There are no easy answers to generational problems, but normalizing the idea of a boycott helps create a morality outside the prevailing orthodoxy. If 20% of people think that boycotting the system is the moral choice, they are in effect rejecting the morality of the established order. It is a peaceful revolt. Once people get used to revolting in their minds, they can revolt against the system. Normalizing the revolt of the mind is a prerequisite for any challenge to the prevailing order. 

I often feel like I'm on the bleeding edge of political and social philosophy. I'm saying stuff before its time. It's obvious to me, but it's not part of the zeitgeist until several years after I've said it. This is an uncomfortable place to be, because I find that I'm marginalized among people I know as some kind of radical... merely for saying something that they themselves will acknowledge as obvious a few years after I say it. For one small example, the Church didn't part ways with the Boy Scouts of America organization until Jan 1 2020, officially. I saw the inevitable writing on the wall in 2013, and had been more and more frustrated with the Church's affiliation with the group throughout the 2010s. (And this while I had a string of callings within the Young Men's organization of my ward and stake, as well as three sons who became Eagle Scouts through church-sponsored troops during this exact same era.) And after I had seen the writing on the wall in 2013, quite frankly, it became easier to see lots more cracks in the BSA's organization than I had previously perceived and realized that the rot in the organization was much deeper and more pervasive—and had been around much longer—than I would have believed before I opened my mind to the possibility. Whereas, meanwhile, I think most members in the Church didn't see it until the Church officially announced its separation, and some people refuse to see it even now. 

I'm confident that the Z-man's position—and mine; I'd independently concluded the same thing after the blatant election stealing in 2020 that there was no way to make any protest against the increasingly hostile and unresponsive system anymore through the ballot box—that refusing to grant the system legitimacy by participating in elections, is in fact the moral position to take. The relationship of the American people to its government has become like that of a battered wife to her abuser. It's time to acknowledge that the moral choice is to walk away for good. The government doesn't hit us because it loves us. It hits us because it hates us. 

And it hates us because our people have stood for freedom since the days of the Norman invasion of the land of the Anglo-Saxons, and have only led the world by example in the centuries since, up to and including the American Revolution. And because our people are Christian, and the gospel was restored to a scion of our people who was a literal descendent of Ephraim and from him and the rest of our people who joined the Kingdom of God on Earth, it started spreading to the whole world. Is it any wonder that those in the thrall of Satan hate us so much, want to see our legacy and even our very existence erased and replaced with more compliant slaves? That is the animus that is driving the increasingly erratic and blatant hatred against white people, especially Americans that is the defining feature of our age.

Diversity + Proximity = War. UN report confirms it

https://archive.vn/N8Hfd

Of course, they fail to come up with a workable solution, because they completely fail to be able to accept that different peoples living in different places where they can exercise their culture without interference is the only real path to peace in this fallen world. They are ideologically committed to the idea that we must have diversity. Especially white people must have diversity, which of course means brown, black, yellow and red people parasitically leeching off of white people while simultaneously justifying themselves with the worst kind of hateful, bigoted rhetoric imaginable. 

Racism is a hoax. The real problem in our societies isn't racism. It's envy and covetousness and the demanding, entitled attitude of minorities that they must have access to white people, white peoples money, and white peoples peaceful, prosperous societies. Rather than build their own functional societies, they simply want to come to ours and burn them down.

There is a simple fix to the problem of diversity. First, it requires recognizing that diversity equals real difference, though. It isn't just superficial, and different peoples are not interchangeable widgets. They're actually very different from each other. Once you can accept this—which in today's ideological environment is a heresy, in spite of its very obvious truth—then the old phrase that "good fences makes for good neighbors" can be applied. Different peoples shouldn't live in a mixed up melange. Without the practice of the gospel of Jesus Christ, that is a guarantee for conflict. Even WITH the gospel, as the Nephites and Lamanites regressing to their "natural man" tendencies after a couple of generations showed in third Nephi, conflict is inevitable with diversity and proximity. 

The "secret" to peace, although it isn't very secret, it's just denounced in today's backwards ideology, is to keep separate peoples separate so that they can practice their culture in peace without interference from anyone else. It's not a guarantee that you'll have peace, but it's a guarantee that you'll have a lot more of it than if you put different peoples with different ideas of how society should be operated in direct competition with each other by jamming them in the same geographical location.