Egalitarianism Is Anti-Libertarian

One of the greatest modern shibboleths is the concept of equality as defined by egalitarianism. Proponents would have you believe that their intent is genuinely good-willed. Their aim supposedly is to end prejudice and bigotry, to treat everyone equally.

However, their idealistic rhetoric does not match the brutal tactics they employ to carry out their vision for the world.

That is because when they speak of equality, libertarians often confuse that to mean “equal rights.” Their definition is far removed.

Libertarians speak of equality as the basis of how people should be allowed to interact with one another.Whether inequality results from this is not their concern, provided no rights are violated. Egalitarians see equality in outcome and circumstance as a human right.

The former is the foundation for human relations. The latter is the objective. One is descriptive, the other is prescription.

There are some libertarians who also espouse an egalitarian mindset. The problem is that their vision contradicts the natural order; the world is inherently unequal in regard to abilities, strengths, intelligence, culture, language, technology, and so on.

To make people equal, you must first violate their rights.

As author John C. Wright writes (bold emphasis mine):

Egalitarianism is the theory that if men differ in success or wealth or strength, popularity or fame or intelligence or moral fiber, the state must act to subsidize, reward, and uplift the failures, and also handicap and punish the successful.

Equality before the law means that each man’s innate rights to his property or liberty are protected with a blind indifference to rank or privilege. A pauper’s hovel is as protected from entry without a search warrant as much as a millionaire’s mansion. The notorious have the same right to trial by jury as the famous. The ill-spoken has the same freedom of speech as the eloquent, the fool as much as the wise cannot be forbidden from printing his views in pamphlets or newspapers, the sinner and the saint may each serve God in the denomination as beseems him best. And so on.

Equality means that each man’s home is his castle, whether hovel or mansion, and not even the king may enter without leave. It does not mean each man’s home is no worse than his neighbor’s.

Equality does not mean that, in order to make all housing equal, both pauper and millionaire now live in the same dormitory owned by Caesar and paid for by the millionaire. That is egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism, I say again, is the mere opposite of equality: the rich are singled out and subjected to special taxes, regulation, and suspicion merely because they are rich, in order to lower him to equal poverty with the poor. The fool must be subsidized at public expense on national public radio, because he cannot compete with the wise on talk raid. Black criminals and thugs cannot be pursued by the police, or shot when resisting arrest, because then the Democrat Party will organize and fund a riot, bus in thugs, and burn down neighborhoods, starting with the pauper’s hovels.

One would think that Kurt Vonnegut had the final word on the endgame of egalitarianism is in his short story “Harrison Bergeron” in which all people were required by law to be equally weak, dumb, and ugly.

Murray Rothbard rightfully described egalitarianism as a revolt against nature.

In “We’re Not Equal,” he writes (bold emphasis added):

Let us proceed, then, to a critique of the egalitarian ideal itself – should equality be granted its current status as an unquestioned ethical ideal? In the first place, we must challenge the very idea of a radical separation between something that is “true in theory” but “not valid in practice.” If a theory is correct, then it does work in practice; if it does not work in practice, then it is a bad theory. The common separation between theory and practice is an artificial and fallacious one. But this is true in ethics as well as anything else. If an ethical ideal is inherently “impractical,” that is, if it cannot work in practice, then it is a poor ideal and should be discarded forthwith. To put it more precisely, if an ethical goal violates the nature of man and/or the universe and, therefore, cannot work in practice, then it is a bad ideal and should be dismissed as a goal. If the goal itself violates the nature of man, then it is also a poor idea to work in the direction of that goal.

I would further add that egalitarianism is a modern day death cult, because when taken to its logical conclusion,  everyone must die. The only way for all men to be equal is for all men to be dead. Life is superior to death, ergo having some people alive and some dead creates inequity.

Everyone must be special, so that no one can be.

Anyone who wears equality – as defined by egalitarianism – on their sleeve might as well be wearing a swastika, because both ideologies resort to the same brutal measures to achieve their desired outcomes.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Hipster Libertarianism


I was going to hold off on addressing a certain phenomenon within libertarianism until a later day, but I was inspired to tackle it now after a slew of Facebook posts appeared on my news feed from well-known libertarian figureheads complaining – unsurprisingly – about other libertarians who are examples of this phenomenon.

Augustus Invictus describes his encounter with a “libertarian” nitpicking over the proper libertarian response to someone molesting his children, claiming that killing such a person is not permitted under the Non-Aggression Principle. (I would note that this “nuanced” philosophical point would have outraged the moral conscience of the Mafia, which was not exactly a brigade of Boy Scouts).

Cantwell’s short rant conveys a well-shared frustration I have with the libertarian movement – which really isn’t and won’t ever be a real movement.

Needless to say, the people these two men describe are not libertarians – I highly doubt “Mr. Libertarian himself, Murray Rothbard would have welcome such people into his home or at his meetings.

However, I have noticed in my own interactions with supposed libertarians a similar proclivity to restrain, restrict, and regulate the thoughts, ideas, opinions, and actions of other libertarians. They’re not interested in advancing the cause of liberty, but ensuring that libertarians behave in accordance with their mangled, idiosyncratic interpretation of the philosophy. They either turn a blind eye to violations of property rights committed by the modern Left or rationalize it somehow, then do an about-face and insist that right libertarians applaud state-financed importation of Third World peoples, a move certain to create ethnic strife and violence for the next generation.

So what is driving this behavior?

Enter The Hipster Libertarian

I was recently re-watching a great lecture/speech delivered by Jack Donovan at an American Renaissance conference a few years ago. In it, he discusses how “diversity” has actually lead to a lack of diversity in culture and art. Because art reflects values, anything in culture that conveys a sincere value, differentiating what is desired and what is not desired, is seen as subversive against the progressive god of diversity and therefore verboten.

This cultural void gave rise to the hipsters. Anything they promote or advertise is done in irony. They’re insincere, inauthentic, and disingenuous. Anything they espouse is something they are willing to disavow when necessary or convenient. They don’t believe in anything.

We’re seeing this hipster effect play out within libertarianism, in which people “practice” it in an safely ironic manner.

As I wrote a while back before the presidential election:

Frankly I’m beginning to suspect that a lot of “liberty lovers” really don’t want things to change. They don’t want the state to go anywhere. Fighting the state is their religion, adhering to the NAP through passivity is their doctrine. It is all about being “right” and virtue signaling to our enemies that we’re more righteous than they are.

Understand that libertarian hipsters aren’t libertarians. They’re anti-libertarians. They’re charlatans assuming the label for ironic effect. They don’t understand the NAP or its purpose, and they don’t care. They have no interest in reading Rothbard or Mises.

The philosophy’s only value to them is to apply it in ironic ways and frustrate true adherents by forcing them to justify everything they do while ignoring the injustice committed against libertarians by their enemies, particularly those with state power.

A common trait among a hipster libertarian is that they never take a stand for anything. They never proclaim a belief or conviction, and if they do, notice those views are always in alignment with conventional, mainstream thought on that topic.

Aside from that, their stance is always in opposition to someone else and the values that person seeks to preserve and uphold. They critique and nitpick. They’re also duplicitous. They make statements that infer, imply, suggest, indicate, and hint at something, but they never speak forthrightly. And yet, they’re quick to accuse anyone who correctly reads the tea leaves of being judgemental and misinterpreting their highly ambiguous point.

For the hipster libertarian, these discussions about the future of the West as a civilization are as serious, or trivial, as arguing over whether Han shot Greedo in A New Hope or whether George Lucas’ mangled edit of that scene decades later is the true version of what played out in the Mos Eisley Cantina.

To them, bickering over the NAP is just another insincere, frivolous conversation, the outcome of which will result in no change of character or attitude on their part.

More importantly, they will denounce both the libertarian label and anyone in the movement when it becomes expedient to do so. They’re a libertarian for the same reason they wear a fedora; it’s a trendy thing to do. But if it compromises their social standing among peers whose opinions they actually care about, they’ll remove both from their life.

This is why they are so opposed to any meaningful action by real libertarians. To them, it is all a joke, while libertarians who aim to change things are actually serious about it. What the genuine liberty lover regards as life and death matters, the hipster views as nothing more than live action role playing.

Moreover, they’re terrified of strength. They hate more than anything good men who are also good at being men – men who are willing to use violence to protect themselves and their loved ones. To a hipster, strength is frighting because it is the sign of a person beyond their control, a superior man.

These people simply need to be identified and socially ostracized by libertarians who are serious about acting out what we claim to believe. They are nothing more than anvils around our necks. The reality is that many of us libertarians can expect better allies among non-libertarians who, while not possessing a flawless political ideology, possess the moral clarity to perceive who our true and mutual enemy is and the mettle to do what must be done to oppose them.

As the great David Rocco said at the beginning of Boondock Saints 2:

There’s two kinds of people in this world when you boil it all down. You got your talkers and you got your doers. Most people are just talkers, all they do is talk. But when it is all said and done, it’s the doers that change this world. And when they do that, they change us, and that’s why we never forget them.

So which one are you? Do you just talk about it, or do you stand up and do something about it? Because believe you me, all the rest of it is just coffee house bullshit.

The time of the talkers is over.

The time of the doers is upon us.

Photo used with permission: Wiki Commons.

Posted in cultural marxism, Culture, libertarianism, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Best of (Fascist) Intentions


It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error (bold emphasis added).

So writes Ludwig Von Mises in Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition in a chapter titled “The Argument of Fascism.”

Of all his writing, this is probably the most misquoted statement by far. His detractors have no doubt used it to claim he had fascist sympathies and thus Austrian economics is crypto-fascist. But a lot of conservatives and libertarians also misunderstand the point he is making here and how it is applicable to what we will most likely witness in the United States within the next decade.

I’ve repeatedly here and elsewhere that there will be a nationalist/fascist party by 2020. We are seeing the process that will mold that party occur right before our eyes.

Mises’ points was that fascism is not the result of bad intentions, but of good ones – even if the solutions it proposes are directly responsible for its inevitable downfall. Those good intentions are only made possible by the Left’s war on private property and the natural order of things, and their unwillingness to allow more moderate solutions to the crisis they thrust upon society.

Contrary to what some may claim, fascism is an inherently right-wing ideology. Virtually all countries that had fascists in power first experienced social upheaval by communists attempting to overthrow the existing government. There is the action, then reaction.

Note I use the term “right-wing” to describe fascism and not free market or pro-liberty. It is a reactionary movement against leftist revolutionary actions carried out by communists and socialists.

If you don’t understand this relationship between the Right and Left and insist on viewing them from a freedom v. tyranny lens, then you will never fully understand how one creates the conditions under which the other can grow and thrive.

Communism created fascism, not the other way around.

Anyone who follows the liberty movement has noted the changing tones among men such as Tom Woods and Stefan Molyneux. Both have previously stressed the need for nonviolence among libertarians in response to violent leftist behavior.

However, every day it seems their rhetoric sounds more and more akin to a typical Christopher Cantwell rant. Cantwell made an excellent point on his podcast recently; when men of peace have given up on a search for a peaceful solution, then you know none will be found and violence is not far away.

We are at the tail end of a relentless 50+ war waged by leftists against the pillars of Western society, culture, religion, and politics. They have persecuted dissidents, banned them from social media, doxxed anonymous commentators, rioted outside of peaceful rallies and speeches,  and made death threats against those who challenge their beliefs.

They have done everything possible to bring ordinary life activities under the scrutiny of the state, which is now controlled by a man they could not hate more.

The more desperate they grow, the more violent they will become to even the slightest sign of opposition. Neutrality and apolitical posturing will do no good. You will either be with them or an enemy to be destroyed.

In a recent video, Molyneux contemplated whether or not there are any more arguments to be made, whether open conflict is the only option left.

Some may find his reluctance troublesome, but it’s probably because he knows that when the Saxon finally relearns to hate, it will not be a libertarian paradise they erect, but a fascist one. The reaction they spearhead will be swift, brutal, and terrible.

More importantly, the measures taken will address genuine problems left unattended for too long. To do nothing will be inconceivable. Ordinary people who otherwise would have never contemplated supporting such conduct will begrudgingly cooperate.

Reflecting on the Berkley riots, Roosh V made a salient point on Trump that indicates how this kind of government could arise. He could wait until the Left does something so horrific the country finally swerves to the Right and gives him carte blanche to do whatever he pleases (18:46).

If that occurs, I don’t know for certain what the government will look like a decade from now. Nor do I know what values the society and culture will promote.

But I can say this: even if this government addresses the many grievances we have voiced for decades, the means by which the West rectifies them will certainly come at a high cost for those who live through it. Moreover, it will sow the seeds for its own demise sometime in the future.

My hope is that this new regime, whatever it faults, allows at least one generation that has yet to be born a chance to know a life of peace, a life that was denied to we the living.

Further, my hope is that whatever they think of the government in place, they understand that many of those who allowed it to take over were full of the best intentions, and that their intervention, for the moment, saved Western civilization.

Perhaps the role we libertarians can play after this has come to pass is to continue teaching the principles of liberty as best we can, so when that generation finally rises to remove the fascist government they will not replace it with a leftist one, but with little to no state at all.

Posted in Central Government, communism, cultural marxism, Culture | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Right-Wing Solipsism

Right-Wing Solipsism

In my essay on leftist solipsism, I explained how relying only on one’s self to determine reality has given rise to college safe spaces, because for modern leftists their solipsism is all they have on which to base their perception of the world. I added that right-wingers would reject a safe space if offered one.

I had a reader remark that I was idealizing the Right.

Let me clarify that I do not believe right-wingers are innately immune to solipsism. What we are witnessing today is the result of the leftist imperative codified into mainstream society, culture, education, and media.  The default presumption is that leftist values – equality, tolerance, open-mindedness, elimination of all differences between race, sex, gender, and religion – are true.

A leftist, particularly in blue cities, counties, and states, can go their entire lives without encountering a single dissenting view on any of these beliefs, and if they do there is an entire state apparatus to counter it and offer reassurances that the leftist perception of reality is correct. College campus safe spaces are merely an extension of this reassurance writ large.

Right-wingers tend not to be solipsists because in our current post-Americana society there are simply too many contradictory viewpoints expressed from early education to the corporate workplace. Liberal parents do not prepare their children for a hostile college campus or instruct them on how to tactfully disagree with their professors. They send their children to school with the same certainty Christians send their kids to Sunday school, knowing full well their beliefs will be reinforced.

Much of the Alt-Right’s strength is rooted in this; the young men who comprise a significant portion of the movement were steeped in Cultural Marxism their entire lives. They know their enemies as well as they know themselves because they couldn’t avoid  learning about them.

However, there certainly was a time when the right-wing perspective was the dominant one in society, and this gave rise to their form of solipsism blinding them to other opinions outside of that limited paradigm. In fact, it was that very thing that enabled leftists to make a legitimate case for their ideology; accusations that the Right was bigoted and intolerant had solid grounding. That didn’t make the Left’s social, cultural, religious, or political concepts valid, but it allowed them to claim victim status. Once they gained power, they were able to use the power of the State against the Right, while simultaneously employing their dualistic strategy casting themselves as the perpetual victim.

Recently I’ve come across Internet memes comparing Jim Crow segregation, “White Only, Colored Only” facilities as a form of a safe space for whites. Putting aside the morality of these concepts, I think this is a false comparison. Afrikaners did not create apartheid in South Africa because they were afraid of what the Africans thought or said. Jim Crow laws were not set up to protect white Southerners from the possibility they might hear conflicting viewpoints. The purpose of these institutions was much more pragmatic and tribal in nature. They were meant to ensure that their ethnicity’s imperatives were promoted, preserved, and protected by the state against any competing interests by rival groups.

To quote Don Ciccio from the Godfather Part II, it wasn’t words that people feared. It was what would happen if a competing tribe got into power and used it to advance their interests of their tribe at the expense of others. We need only see what is happening in South Africa today to know that however unjust apartheid was, those who perpetuated it had incentives to maintain it beyond mere racism.

The problem is that these concerns, if not properly contextualized, become the only basis from which a right-winger bases any of his ideas on how they can be addressed and rectified. More importantly, it makes them incapable of articulating their beliefs to others because they lack the capacity to empathize with anyone whose life experience is different.

We see this in the form of real Neo-Nazis, actual white supremacists, and genuine anti-Semites (and no, Richard Spencer and much of the Alt. Right don’t fit any of these descriptions).

These people have much in common with their leftist counterparts; nothing in life is their fault. Someone else is always to blame, whether it’s Jews, blacks, Mexicans, or some global cabal of bankers and financial elite.Anyone who disagrees or doesn’t get on board fully with their view is seen as a threat to their perception of reality and is therefore dismissed as a race traitor, cuck, shabbos goy, or sheeple.

This isn’t to say all their complaints are invalid, but their solipsism makes them incapable of considering the possibility that their holistic worldview is terribly incomplete, because it’s based only on what they know within their self.

Yet, these people are few in numbers, for the reasons I stated above.

That can and will change, once the Right finally reacts to the Left’s 50+ year conflict against the natural order. I probably don’t need to tell you this, but when the fight is done and finished, the Right will be in no mood for tolerating any form of leftism. Free speech and free press will not exist. Whatever government is in power will most likely engage in a purge unlike anything we’ve ever seen in American history. Colleges will be shut down or forced to propagate nationalist rhetoric. The same with public education.

It’s impossible to say when, but eventually it will get to the point where the situation has completely reversed, and leftists are now the dissidents in fear of persecution and loss of employment for espousing anything outside of the right-wing imperative. That is when we will see the rise of solipsism within the Right again, and the cycle will repeat itself with the same predictable timing as the four seasons.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Leftist Solipsism

Listen, if you dare.

In a recent essay I discussed the dualistic political strategy the Left employs. Today, I want to discuss leftist solipsism and how it explains their incapacity to see the irony in their opposition to men such as Donald Trump.

Solipsism is the idea that all that can be known about life is found within one’s self. For someone who relies on solipsism, their self is the center of their reality, and by extension the whole of reality. If they do not know it from knowing their self, then it does not exist. They determine the validity of an idea or concept by examining the self.

It is not hard to see how this becomes problematic if your goal is to have a holistic understanding of life. It is impossible to be solipsistic and, at the same time, have any sympathy or empathy for people outside of one’s internal concerns. Solipsism can certainly aid an ambitious person who might otherwise be less so due to selfless inclinations. However, it also makes a person ignorant, wittingly or not, of other people’s perspectives, and therefore makes them unable to understand how those people think. For a solipsist, their own life experience is the universal experience. This makes them unaware, or indifferent, to how their political beliefs and the politicians they support impact others who hold alternative views.

It explains much of the seemingly autistic leftist behavior of late. Note that I use the word autistic not in any clinical or medical sense. Just as autistic people are unmindful of social context, leftists are obliviousness to the political context of a situation, because much of it exists outside of their immediate world. They cannot appreciate how a political stance that benefits them might be harmful to another; and if it does, they rationalize those issues away to preserve their beliefs. Ultimately, this rationalization is based on a form of solipsism.

If there is anything the Left is not, it’s introspective. The ability to examine one’s self from a critical lens requires stepping away from that self so that you can analyze it dispassionately. It also makes it impossible to change one’s opinion or perception of things even in the face of contradictory information. Perhaps it is why, as Vox Day has declared, social justice warriors always double down. There is no other option for a solipsist who encounters resistance.

As any right-winger can probably tell you, the Left has reacted to the rise of Trump as though the likes of him have never before been seen in American history. He is simply carrying out a right-wing vision for America through the same political mechanisms his leftist predecessors have  employed.

The Left’s solipsism also makes leftists incapable of perceiving the blatant double standards they apply to their enemies. They cannot see the connection between their political activities during the years prior to Trump, when they were in control of the federal government, and the consequences now he has assumed the power they helped amass.

As Tom Woods recently put it.

The left is in my view getting pretty much what it deserves, after having brought nearly all of life under the purview of the state. Not one tear should be shed for them.

And the double standards are ridiculous. Left-liberals who had precisely zero to say about Barack Obama’s connivance at the starvation of an entire country — Yemen — are hysterical about temporary immigration restrictions. I don’t know precisely where on the scale of state enormities those rank, but I’m fairly certain it’s somewhere below starvation.

Ashley Judd’s ear-scratching rant in the video at the beginning of the essay is a reflection of many forms of solipsism. Not only is she a politically autistic feminist, but she cannot look beyond her own interests as a feminist woman.

A while back Rollo Tomassi at the Rational Male quoted an infamous statement by Hillary Clinton representing the height of gynocentric-based solipsism.

Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.

Rollo explains that Clinton was wholly blind to men’s virtual monopoly when it comes to waging war and the indescribable suffering it often entails because the plight of men does not exist within the self of a woman.  This does not mean women are incapable of acknowledging how awful war is to the men who must wage it, often against their will. It means that to do so, a woman must be able to look beyond her own self. This cannot happen if they rely solely on solipsism to derive truth, facts, and objective reality.

The idea that men losing their lives in warfare would make them victims at all (much less the primary victims) isn’t even an afterthought; all that matters is the long term security and continued provisioning of women and their imperatives.

Rollo defines female solipsism as “female-specific obliviousness to any concern – or lesser prioritized concern – of anything outside their immediate existential needs.”

Solipsism regarding political matters is plainly seen when we look at how leftists speak of themselves in the aftermath of the presidential election. For any objective person with sufficient intellectual honesty, the only conclusion you could draw is that the world they describe is a literal reverse of the one that exists. This fits with another one of Vox Days’ rules on SJWs is that they always project.

In a follow-up essay, Rollo made another great observation about solipsism that equally applies to leftists.

Women’s mental point of origin (solipsism) presumes the entire world outside of her agrees with her imperative and mutually shares the importance and priorities of it.

As anyone who has proposed right-wing ideas to leftists can tell you, their response isn’t so much outrage or indignation but physiological trauma. That there are actual people out there who disagree with them, in contradiction of this long-held presumption, can cause self-doubt as to whether they have a proper grasp of reality.

With that in mind, perhaps we can see the origin and true nature of college campus safe spaces . For a right-winger, the entire notion sounds bewilderingly preposterous. Even if offered a safe space for right-wing ideas, they would reject it and find the very idea infantile and insulting. However, for a leftist, the purpose of a safe space isn’t so much a sign of emotional immaturity on their part, but an innate desire to protect their mental point of origin and the presumptions it carries, in which everyone shares the same values.

The idea that pro-lifers, gun rights supporters, pro-traditionalists, and pro-Westerners have rights just as much as leftists do, and those rights have been undermined and violated repeatedly in the last eight years, is not given a single thought. Leftists do not care that while Trump’s rallies were either canceled or had violent, criminal protesters attacking innocent people, Clinton supporters gathered without a scrap of fear from nonexistent right-wing mobs hunting them down in the street.

Yet, to hear them tell it, you would think the reverse were true.

Try bringing up this fact to a leftist and see the response on their face. Chances are, their expression will convey the rationalization process occurring in their mind as they attempt to process these undeniable facts through examination of their self.

To paraphrase Rollo’s comment above, the fact that Trump supporters did not riot or protest at Clinton rallies and behaved much more civilized in comparison isn’t even an afterthought; all that matters is the long-term security of the leftist agenda. The Vision they have for society is their highest priority and therefore must remain paramount above all else. Truth and reality are secondary in the grand scheme. They pretend to care only to avoid open conflict as the Right would prefer.

In the short-term, this has a very alarming implications for the future of our country.



Posted in free speech, general political thoughts, political campaign, political correctness, president, presidential campaigns, society, The Matrix | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Bastardizing Americana

Le Chateau writes in We The Chattel

This is a more accurate graphic depiction of the message delivered by Shepard Fairey’s original poster, which Steve Sailer identified as the Orientalist hijab fetishism of White male liberals who fantasize about a submissive hot babe underneath the tents, and of White female liberals who fantasize about submitting to a strong swarthy non-liberal man. A […]

What I find most repulsive about the original photo this satirical version is based on, is that it represents a bastard Americana, the product of the blank slate movement that fights to de-link the idea of America with the great and noble culture cultivated by the Anglo-Saxons destined to settle North America and create the original 13 colonies.

This woman pictured has nothing in common whatsoever with the Founders, whose heritage she tacitly claims to champion; she shares neither their language nor their religion nor their culture nor their customs nor their traditions nor their values nor their aspirations nor their race.

Just as the Left wants to remove any meaning in masculinity, they seek to do the same with the concept of America and Americans. When everyone can be an American, the term has no meaning.

Posted in cultural marxism, Culture, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Don’t Go To Protests (Unarmed)

This video is yet another example of the Left’s dualistic victim/oppressor strategy. Even as their victim is attacked, the protesters scream “peaceful protest!” should anyone decide to intervene.

Do not go to leftist protests or rallies. Do not attend demonstrations where violence is likely. And if you’re going to do it despite my warnings, for the love of God carry a firearm and be prepared to use it.

This pro-Trump demonstrator may have survived, but others won’t be so lucky. And I promise you sooner or later they will begin killing out of sheer desperation. They are an animal terrified of imminent death.

The fight will come, but make sure it is ground of our choosing.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments