2 May 2017
The Open Boarders Society
(or Cucking Is Our Strength)
You wouldn’t think that in this day and age husbands would object to other men wanting sex with their wives. Especially not, given that matters often transpire in the couples’ own homes where the wives are best served and the husbands have view of the symbiotic arrangements. The openness and symbiosis of the arrangements in the marital homes, of course, is what defines our Open Boarders Society.
Now, everyone’s familiar with the rationale for our open boarders. Through both logic and morality, we’ve demonstrated time and again that it’s best for wives to experience a diversified sex life. And yet, no matter how compelling our arguments, we still hear those adulterophobic objections from querulous husbands.
Some think this adulterophobic baggage represents a failure of our society’s basic institutions. They argue that the leaders of our institutions lack all virtue save a pious devotion to maximizing their wealth. Even the integrity of modern marital parameters falls before their selfish and shortsighted parochialism. But I think such a charge cannot stand a fair analysis.
First, let’s consider our educational institutions. What school in America fails to teach its students that we’re a nation of adulterers? None that I know of. Sure, there may be some unaccredited basement conclave propagandizing adulterophobic drivel. But no one recognized as a legitimate teacher can be found in such a setting. No taxpayer funds support such “schools.” And no “graduates” of such venomous dens would ever be hired for a good-paying job.
That brings us to the suppliers of jobs—our business institutions. Who can deny the outstanding economic arguments they have presented for the Open Boarders Society. Time and again, the leaders of our businesses have pointed out that modern marital parameters involve no more than bringing single men in to supply an unmet need of willing married women. Labor studies show that after several years of being threatened with charges of spousal abuse and marital rape, the average married man loses sexual interest in his spouse. He then stops performing his sexual duties in an enthusiastic manner. An adulterer, however, is new to sexual union with the wife. Thus, he always performs enthusiastically even as he submits to her total control over initiation of the act.
Our religious institutions, the churches, have long recognized the moral supremacy of such female control. That the male shall serve and the woman control in all matters sexual and economic has been their marital message since the long-discarded days of patriarchal rule and scarlet letters. Ministerial comfort for the adulteress and shelters for those who run afoul of archaic laws prohibiting free travel into the marital bed define our modern ecclesiastical practice.
Of course, because of those few archaic laws, our governmental institutions cannot be found faultless. Still, they have much to proclaim as supporters of modern marital parameters. The previously mentioned spousal-abuse apparatus certainly promises hope for future advancements. Already, husbands can be dispossessed of their property—both real and personal—without any negative examination of their wives’ sexual gratifications. Advancements are still needed to offer the same unassailable protection in matters of child custody, but common practice is already on our side.
Nothing, of course, so supports the Open Boarders Society as our entertainment industry. There, we find every form of drama, song, and art recognizing the needs of married women (while sometimes even espousing the gentle blamelessness of men who serve them.) The scene of a wife finding the richness that a new partner brings to her animates many a script. And nary a condemnation bedevils her decision so long as her extramarital partner is properly servile to the female role. This is the truest celebration of marital diversity that any culture can offer.
Our look at the key institutions of society, therefore, does not confirm that they have failed us. To be sure, our brief analysis highlighted only some of their strong points. A more thorough analysis would reveal weaknesses as well—especially during the long and painful history preceding our enlightened ways. For well we know that the richness our modern wives treasure was once instead a baron sameness, a uniformity of experience foisted on them by narrow-mindedness and adulterophobia. But that has passed, and today most of us cherish the modern marital parameters.
What, then, are we to make of those men who denounce the modern? If they draw no support from our contemporary institutions, from whence do their shrill voices arise? Are they just echoes of the ancient? Or are they an indelible stain of evil that permeates all times and can, at most, be circumscribed by bold and strong institutional leadership?
The answer, I think, must be the latter. For we all know that hypocrisy’s an elemental evil, and we all know that nothing so defines those querulous husbands. After all, they themselves established sexual relationships with their wives but now they complain about other men doing the same. And these other men are doing little more than seeking Guest Lover Status in the marital home. They’ll perform an otherwise unfulfilled service for a time, and then they’ll leave. That husbands would object to such win-win arrangements proves that they’re incorrigible adulterophobics.
And that’s really the unpleasant truth we must confront. Adulterophobia is an imperishable affliction. The best we can do is to contain it. That means passing stricter laws against its expression, and providing more support for its victims. Certainly, we know its victims deserve apologies for adulterophobic remarks and other hate speech. And we know the victims of adulterophobia deserve free medical care when the performance of their services results in social diseases. Probably too, they should receive worker’s compensation if those diseases prevent the establishment of Guest Lover Status with other partners. The cost of these programs could be financed by a tax on all married men. In no event, should husbands be allowed to escape their financial obligations.
And that’s probably the best we can do. We must recognize that the scourge of adulterophobia cannot be eradicated but only controlled. We must recognize that our commitment to open boarders demands that control. Our longing for justice and fair play cries out for that control. And our joy at bringing happiness to people who just want to better their lives will demonstrate for all that we live by the most noble principles.
* * * * * * * * * *
20 February 2017
Literally, My Affidavit
Comes Now Affiant Who Declarath:
1) My name is Pozzed Victim.
2) I hold a needs-based scholarship in Narrative Studies at Astrochimp University.
3) I have never personally received money from George Soros, nor have I ever heard of George Soros.
4) On a night appropriate for the current news cycle, the following transpired:
I was returning alone from an honors study group examining the institutional racism of NASA in the 1960s. Though it was a dark, moonless night, I did not feel uncomfortable walking alone because White supremacy has conditioned me to a life in the shadows.
Nonetheless, I tensed up when I spotted four White males fifty yards ahead of me. Though I’m accustomed to the racist presence of Whites, these men signaled something especially sinister because they were lurking in the darkness just beyond the Holocaust Quad. It was almost as if they waited to pounce on any innocent they found outside the boundaries of the Quad’s safe space.
At the moment I spotted them, I was well short of the Quad, and I feared them catching me before I reached it. But only ten yards to my right was the safe space around the MLK statue, so I quickly dashed to it. When I reached it, my heart was racing, and my breathing heavy. After a minute, I settled into a state of controlled apprehension.
Normally, I lament the loss of academic standards caused by the admission of Whites to the university. On this occasion, however, I turned it to my advantage. They were in pitch blackness, and I was under the brilliant lights illuminating the MLK statue. In their ignorance, they probably thought that allowed them to see me while I was unable to see them.
But I reversed the tables by applying the principle of minority refraction I had learned in my advanced physics class. Looking upward toward the spotlights at a 45 degree angle, I let the blinding light hit my eyes and reflect out toward the four men.
At first, I just looked the men over as a group, scanning for weapons. I didn’t see any guns, but I noticed that two were carrying picket signs. The signs were turned at odd angles, so I couldn’t read them. Another man held one hand slightly behind him as if he were pulling something. It seemed to be a low lying object several feet long.
After a quick overall assessment, I immediately zeroed my eyes onto the eyes of each of the men. One by one, I reflected the blinding light of the spot lights directly into the eyes of the men. Standing in the shadows, their eyes could not tolerate the brightness, and they temporarily lost their vision.
With them in a state of temporary blindness, I dashed from the safe space of the MLK statue toward the safe space of the Holocaust Quad. Weighted down with my real-tree books, I wasn’t as quick as I might have been, but I still made it.
After my dash of perhaps ten to fifteen seconds, I was triumphant but winded. I bent over to catch my breath and reflect for a moment on the need for these safe spaces on our campus. How unbearable life would become if Whites were allowed to go anywhere they wanted. And yet they complained because they lacked untrammeled control of everything, begrudging us a few dozen safe spaces. And now, having taken everything else from us, Whites were culturally appropriating our life in the shadows!
With my breath back, I stood up straight and looked toward the men. By this time, they’d recovered their vision, and they were staring back at me from a distance of perhaps twenty-five feet. That may not seem like much, but the boundary of the safe space separated us. I knew they couldn’t cross that boundary because their White privilege ankle bracelets would deliver a lethal shock if they tried.
In my place of security, I stared down the men with the hope that they’d acknowledge their present powerlessness and go away. During those few triumphant seconds, I saw one of the picket signs at a favorable angle. It read: Not Our Professor.
Oh no! These were the White supremacists trying to deny Professor Shalom’s right of free speech by making his course elective. Even worse, they claimed that he didn’t deserve a Nobel Prize for discovering that the White race is the cancer of humanity.
My shock at realizing the depravity of these men was unfortunately matched by recognizing their faces. These were the same four men who had violently assaulted me with unsupportive glances on a previous occasion. And now, they walked toward me in a manner suggesting they intended to enter the Holocaust Quad. Could they be ignorant of the lethal consequences of such a trespass?
Anticipating the shock that would stop these supremacists in their tracks, I looked down at the boundary of the Quad. Methodically approaching that boundary, I saw the measured gait of the two men carrying picket signs and the somewhat stained movement of the man pulling a red wagon. The fourth man walked carefree, and it was on him that my eyes froze. He wasn’t wearing his White privilege ankle bracelet!
I had hardly confirmed the unadorned ankles of the other men when I witnessed their sacrilegious entry into the Holocaust Quad. I was both terrified and disgusted. What combination of illegality and insensitivity must govern these men to remove the restraints lovingly placed on them by the university administration?
Deciding love had failed, I quickly reverted to tact and welcomed the men. In my most polite voice, I said, “Good evening, racist, sexist, anti-Semitic homophobes.”
Unfortunately, my overtures were met with sarcasm by the apparent leader of the group. “That’s very welcoming for some, but what about the rest of us?”
“Look, I tried to be inclusive, and I’m sorry if I didn’t remember that some of you like to be called fascist questioning.”
That momentarily calmed them, and I took the opportunity to look them over, starting with the missing White privilege ankle bracelets. Moving upward, they all wore jeans with extra-long pant legs turned up to form six-inch cuffs. They all wore white T shirts. And naturally, they all wore red Trump hats, with the only distinction of theirs being that they were embroidered with the acronym MAGA instead of the actual words.
I drew hope from the calmness, but the moment was short lived. When I focused on the man pulling the red wagon, I noticed that not only was his wagon a Radio Flyer, but it was hauling a nuclear bomb. No doubt, this group was plotting a return to the 1950s when White boys were given nuclear bombs as Christmas presents.
Partially stunned and partially angered, I asked, “How did you get such a thing in the current year?”
“We bought it from the Clinton Foundation. Everything was marked down in their going-out-of-business sale.”
“But that was meant to start WWIII,” I protested. “You can’t divert it for reactionary purposes.”
Instead of answering me, the men just laughed. As the leader derisively pointed his finger at me, the men with picket signs set them down. And then, one by one, the embroidering on each man’s hat changed. In each case, the A in MAGA transformed into an E, thus changing the exclusionary acronym MAGA into the frightening word MEGA.
At the signal of the leader, the two men who had put down their signs walked to the Radio Flyer wagon and picked up the nuclear bomb. Then the leader delivered a karate chop to the middle of the bomb and split it into two equal pieces. That placed one half of the nuclear bomb in the sole possession of each of the two men.
Carrying their halves of the bomb, the two men walked up to me and spilt the gunpowder out of their halves onto the concrete around me. After a few minutes, I was completely encircled by gunpowder.
Looking down at the gunpowder and then at the sneering men, I shouted, “This marginalizes me.” I stamped my foot in anger. “You’re denying the authenticity of my experiences.” I was so angry, I stamped my foot again and again and again.
With one of my foot stamps, my sole caught a small loose pebble on the sidewalk. The force of my stamp scraped it along the concrete and created a spark. In an instant, the spark ignited the gunpowder, which of course, triggered a nuclear explosion that instantly killed all of us, thus giving rise to the need for this affidavit.
The foregoing is REAL FOR ME and This I Do Swear as a Self-Authenticating Oath pursuant to the guidelines invented by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
/s/ Pozzed Victim
After Oath: I will not subject myself to police interrogation regarding this incident because doing so would inflict emotional harm of such a degree as to literally kill me a second time.
* * * * * * * * * *
6 February 2017
Putin Hacked the Super Bowl
(or Winning Is an Athletic Construct)
I just started watching the NFL last fall when I heard that BLM was finally getting its place on the field. I know there’s an honorable history of empowering rapists of color. And yes, induction into the HOF favors those with illegitimate children from at least two different women. But the NFL has steadfastly refused to denounce laws against murder, and I cannot tolerate such institutional racism. One has to draw a line in the gutter somewhere.
Naturally, I was pleasantly surprised when I heard that for the first time in five hundred years, Whites were finally told to shut their mouths and listen. Listening, of course, is something Whites never do (save February when there’s a token 28 consecutive days of it.)
Unfortunately, my hopes were dashed when I tuned into my very first football game. There, I saw that I had been fooled by the supremacists once again. During the game-opening ceremony, the NFL was making some of the Black players kneel while Whites stood proudly over them. And instead of giving voice to POC, a singer belted out a tune with words penned by a dead White guy!
I suppose you already know this, but just in case, let me tell you that the Star Spangled Banner is racist. It was written during the War of 1812 as a paean to the very worst instinct man has ever known— love of nation.
During the War, peaceful British protestors visited Washington DC. Rather than welcoming the strangers in their midst, President Madison and his generals met outside town to plan an attack on them. Then at the first sight of her arriving guests, First Lady Dolley Madison hastily abandoned the White House.
Such was Dolley’s desire to avoid contact with “the other,” she frantically fled even as a warm White House meal awaited her. So after the British lovingly knocked on the door to no answer, they had to scrounge up their own china, serve themselves, and then conduct their own tour of the house supposedly built for all the people.
As might be expected, a few things were identified as of significant cultural value to be shared outside the proprietary confines of the White House itself. Also, a few things were broken, a few sparks flew, and some of the rooms were lovingly decorated with fire. The motto Warmth Trumps Coldness was sewn into the ensign they raised.
Less than a month later, in September of 1814, the peace-loving British fleet visited nearby Baltimore. But instead of welcoming the poor, tired, huddled ships yearning to breathe smoke, Americans yelled, “You don’t belong here. Go back where you came from.”
As any Tolerance Studies professor at any university will tell you, the downtrodden but hopeful British visitors were only seeking a better life for their musket and cannon inside Fort McHenry. Their slogan Make America British Again was but an offer of cultural enrichment. Yet despite such peaceful intentions, violence erupted.
During the siege, Francis Scott Key was held in a state of diplomatic arrest in a British ship in the harbor. When he saw the American storm flag replaced with the larger garrison flag, he knew that the gates of Fort McHenry had held. He was then inspired to write his poem “Defence of Fort M’Henry” which we know as “The Star Spangled Banner.”
With apologies for the boring history lesson, I hope I’ve conveyed my disgust at the NFL for its pre-game renditions of The Star Spangled Banner. We know what those 1814 Americans were fighting for— borders! Yes, the right of a White nation to determine who might become part of it and, indeed, even who should visit it. As we all know, that’s xenophobic, racist, and supremacist.
Given my boundless love of love, and my admitted ignorance of football, why did I even watch the Super Bowl? The commercials, of course. Where else but the Oscars can you find something as gay and prog as Super Bowl commercials? OK, during the halftime shows, and movies, and everyday TV, and in your own corporate PR department, etc. But they don’t unite us one Sunday a year with messages no one is allowed to challenge.
I was understandably thrilled with this year’s Super Bowl commercials. I had already heard the pre-game buzz about the Budweiser ad, and when I saw the real thing, I wasn’t disappointed. But I hadn’t known about Audi’s and 84 Lumber’s commitment to curing the disease of Whiteness, so I was as pleasantly surprised with their commercials as I was with the first three quarters of the game itself.
Nonetheless, I do have a few suggestions for the loving folks at Audi and 84 Lumber. Audi could emphasize how multimillionaires at inclusive corporations can provide their children wheels for getting to their peaceful protests. There’s no need to drain the meager funds of George Soros when SWPLs can cover basic transportation costs, and Audi should make it clear that the 1% have to chip in their fair share.
84 Lumber showcased a disadvantaged, hopeful mom and her nina trekking carefree and secure through scrub and desert until they encounter the rape of a border wall. Rather than libeling Mexico as crime infested and incapable of providing necessities for its own people, this commercial dramatized the truth of White racism with its refusal to welcome all of the world’s poor.
However, this wonderful commercial could be improved. It implies that a cis-looking White man driving an old pickup has delivered the lumber and hand-built fortress-style wooden gates for the racist wall. How many ways is that unrealistic?
First off, White men can’t build anything. Why do you think Mexico has to send their poor women up here? Minority women are always needed to create great civilizations. Get a-board, 84 Lumber. Even Audi knows that girls kick butt in Ben Hur soapbox races.
Secondly, White men who drive pickups with a bed of building supplies want a border wall without gates. Once again, think of your Audi brethren. Let’s have the cis-looking White man deliver building supplies in an Audi. After all, a pickup is only an automotive construct, so an Audi can carry anything a pickup can.
And how about a joint commercial where a peaceful protestor drives his Audi to 84 Lumber to buy the pole used to defend himself against the ribs and skulls of hateful Berkeley pedestrians. For the money spent on a single Super Bowl commercial, Audi and 84 Lumber could finance the transportation and poles of thousands of peaceful protestors. And probably throw in a few trunkfuls of pepper spray for dealing with those hateful blondes who wear triggering MAGA hats.
I hope that doesn’t sound too critical because I want to enthusiastically congratulate the inclusive messages of this year’s commercials. As I noted at the beginning, my problem is with the NFL and the message of exclusion it projects with The Star Spangled Banner. Even without forcing the Black players to wear funny hairstyles and kneel down, a song about White people enforcing national borders is unacceptable in the current year.
And if the choral disgrace of the opening ceremony wasn’t enough, the conclusion of the game really triggered me. As you know, the NFL declared the Patriots the winners. Their stated rationale is that the Patriots had 34 points and the Falcons only 28 points. Well, that might be true, but that was only the score at the very end.
Actually the game was a scoreless tie for the first 17 minutes and 40 seconds. Then the Falcons led until the final 57 seconds of the fourth quarter. Then the game was tied for those final 57 seconds and the entire 3 minutes and 52 seconds of overtime. As per the rules, the game automatically ended when the Patriots scored a touchdown in overtime. Accordingly, the game ended without the Patriots having been in the lead for even a single second.
Now, how can a team that wasn’t in the lead for even a single second be declared the winner? What kind of patriarchal, racist, cis-gendered, oppressive game allows such a result? This smells of Donald Trump — who we know was rooting for the Patriots. And since Putin hacked the Presidential election for Trump, is it not a fair conclusion that Putin hacked the Super Bowl rules for the Patriots?
Just for the sake of argument, let’s say that the Patriots were in fact the winners of the scoreboard. That still doesn’t grant legitimacy to their championship because that’s only the board score. How about the popular score? After all, the game was tied for 18 min and 37 seconds of regulation and 3 minutes and 52 seconds of overtime. That leaves 41 minutes and 13 seconds, and during that entire time, the Falcons held the lead. In other words, the Falcons crushingly won the popular score.
Even if we say that the millisecond during which James White broke the plane of the goal to end the game actually constituted a full second, that still means the Falcons won the popular score by 41 minutes and 12 seconds. That’s a crushing victory in the popular score compared to the Patriots measly 6 point victory in the board score.
With victory so divided, I think it’s obvious that winning is just an athletic construct, and it’s only fair to have the courts decide which team should be declared the Champions of Super Bowl LI.
We know there are good judges who make it up as social justice demands. One set of rules governing Presidential authority for Democrats, and another set for Republicans. Whatever it takes to fight racism, xenophobia, and hate speech. And if we fight hate speech, why not fight hate scores? It’s who we are, and if not, at least it’s who the inclusive corporations want us to become.
* * * * * * * * * *
6 November 2016
Wednesday Morning Dead
Saturday Night Live may have foretold Wednesday’s narrative in the MSM. In its cold opening, Alec Baldwin and Kate McKinnon portrayed Trump and Hillary in a faux debate/joint interview. While both Baldwin and McKinnon are talented comedic actors, neither did a passable job impersonating their targets.
Baldwin’s the better of the two though his voice sometimes impersonates other impersonators of Trump. The problem with impersonators of the first order is that they can’t capture Trump’s essential timbre. The Darrell Hammond impersonation is good, but it relies on softening and slowing Trump’s speech. Jimmy Fallon more or less copies Hammond’s style. Hammond, of course couples his voice work with excellent gestures and facial expressions—all of which complement a first-rate makeup job.
Baldwin begins his butchery by dragging up as a caricature of Trump. His leftist politics overwhelm his acting bona fides. Instead of wanting to look like Trump, he wants to attack Trump through his looks. So his drag transforms the sometimes sour aspect of Trump’s expressions into outright meanness. This primarily comes from the anger put into the inner eyebrows, but it’s complemented by Baldwin’s determined lock on a nasty expression.
Baldwin’s failure on Trump’s voice likely stems from his lack of skill as much as his politics. To his credit, he tries to capture Trump’s tempo and assertive speech patterns. But since the purpose is obviously to accentuate meanness, Baldwin forgoes his own limited ability to capture the timbre. He also makes suboptimal use of Trump’s mispronunciations by highlighting them rather than blending them, by doing a caricature rather than an impersonation.
If Baldwin leaves one rummaging Youtube for the work of an actual impersonator like Rich Little, McKinnon leaves one wondering if there was an old Twilight Zone where only those who did the worst job made it to the stage. McKinnon’s a funny girl in skits, but her Hillary is so bad, it’s a self parody. Even accepting the maxim that it takes talent to sing off key, nothing about McKinnon’s bad portrayal would change for an equally bad portrayal of a completely different character.
McKinnon might as well be doing Miley Katy Beyonce. Her voice is equally fit/unfit for any of them. It captures neither the timbre nor age of Hillary’s voice. Hillary’s an old bag who sometimes can’t even make it from a curbside piling to the bed in her limousine. While her debate work doesn’t suffer that lack of energy, it’s still the performance of an old woman—not a 30-year-old who somehow skipped away un-Berned.
Tellingly, a web search would turn up dozens of articles hailing McKinnon’s impersonation of Hillary as “spot on.” Back to the Twilight Zone’s famed irony. What they do with policy, they do with entertainment. Trump is mean because he’d build a border wall, and Hillary’s a saint who’d welcome enriching immigrants. Trump’s an authoritarian who proclaims America First, and Hillary’s a loving humanitarian who’d make Russia back down with nuclear WWIII.
SNL’s latest skit supplies its usual dose of biweekly irony by portraying the media as partial to Trump and unfair to Hillary. Yes! Really! It has to be watched to be believed. A year and a half of Trump bashing—racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic—that you didn’t really hear. No, you literally didn’t hear “literally Hitler.” And the last week of pussyfooting since WikiLeaks embarrassed the FBI into distraction-action was really unfair, unending innuendo against poor Hillary.
But SNLs cold opening of November 5 may well be a glimpse into the globalist strategy for the cold morning of November 9. They know the polls have been cooked, and Tuesday’s not going to crown Lady MacBeth. So they plan to portray Hillary’s defeat as a result of the reopened/closed/ongoing FBI investigations.
Globalists would like to convince the public that the FBI action was an unfair October surprise. But if Trump’s victory is a landslide, they’ll probably throw that charge under the bus right along with Hillary. No one actually loves Lady MacBeth, and if her crimes can no longer be hidden, she’s quite dispensable. Move on to Plan B.
Plan B is convincing Americans that Trump won because Hillary really is a crook. Trump didn’t win because the voters support his policies. So forget about stopping immigration, war, and free trade because the people didn’t vote to stop those things. No, they voted against corruption.
If a Trump victory can be defined as a referendum on corruption rather than a referendum on his America First policies, then the Overton window remains unshifted. Invade the world, invite the world. Import unskilled labor, export factory jobs. In essence, retain the policies on war, trade, and immigration that promote globalism and destroy nationalism.
Whether SNL actually receives instructions from globalists such as George Soros is unknown. WikiLeaks has proven that media figures did in fact receive instructions from the Clinton campaign. And Soros has been shown to be involved in BLM, massive immigration, and color revolutions. So it’s not a stretch to believe that he or other globalists would try to manipulate American opinion through entertainment. In fact, globalists own Hollywood and television and do this all the time.
Regardless of outside influences, SNL betrayed its belief in a Trump victory with a very telling ending to its cold opening. There, to the acclaim of dozens of MSM hacks, Baldwin and McKinnon “came out of character” to remind everyone to just get along.
If the show producers thought Hillary was going to win, there would have been no such ending. When cultural Marxists win, they say that justice demands skinning the enemy alive. But when they lose, they remind us that Jesus wants us to forgive our enemies. Since the cold opening ended with a variant of the latter, it’s clear they’re pessimistic about Tuesday.
Saturday Night Live is predicting Wednesday Morning Dead.
* * * * * * * * * *
22 September 2016
To D Or Not To D: That Is The Crux Of The Debate
With Hillary’s alt-right speech temporarily clearing the frog in her throat, it’s a good bet her strategy for Monday’s debate is to hang Trump with the racist label. Hillary may work alone, or Lester Holt may join in, but Trump’s not getting ninety minutes of face time without having to choose between Whiteness and cuckness.
Trump’s recent history indicates a propensity to stake out a middle position. When asked to disavow David Duke in a February interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Trump came up with the instant classic that he didn’t know anything about David Duke. It hardly took an adversarial media to drop jaws on that tactic, and by the next morning, Trump was blaming the media’s earpiece the way Reagan once blamed the rotors of Presidential helicopters.
With the rotor wash cleared, and the decibels adjusted, no one expected any earwax excuses, and Trump obliged their expectations by disavowing the support of David Duke on the Today Show while emphasizing that he had previously disavowed said support at a press conference the day before the Tapper interview.
Once upon an election, that would have exhausted the topic. But here in 2016, we have our third consecutive Presidential race about race. The first two were made so by the Democratic strategy of implying (when not outright charging) that a vote against Obama was a vote for racism. As those controlling our institutions make clear, only Whites are racists, so votes against McCain and Romney — no matter how explicitly couched in racial language — were not votes for racism.
Unlike the last two cycles, however, this one’s got both sides engaged. Clinton and the media are acting predictably for the Democrats and the Democratic mouthpieces that they are. Joining their side for novelty, if not globalist, anti-White shekels, are Libertarians and Republicans Against Trump — the latter being those who since 1992 have equated the single word Hillary with ultimate evil. Ah, but 24 years is a long time to hold a grudge (even if 40 years is not long enough for David Duke’s departure from the Klan).
Yet despite the piling on, Trump would have it no other way. His candidacy’s meteoric rise originated with the strongest denunciation of open borders since Pat Buchanan’s presidential aspirations. For those of tender years, it must be noted that Trump himself denounced Buchanan in 2000. Buchanan — “that disaster” — ran against open borders and free trade in 2000 after having run against open borders, free trade, and affirmative action in 1992 and 1996. Lest tears be shed for Pat, both he himself and Trump had attacked David Duke’s Louisiana gubernatorial campaign of 1991. And need it be noted that Duke’s platform opposed open borders, free trade, and affirmative action?
So Trump’s message is nothing new. It’s essentially the same message as Buchanan’s and Duke’s. It appeals to Whites who oppose politically correct racial lies — especially the lie that millions of non-White immigrants will enrich the United States.
Trump’s uniqueness comes not from his message, but from his command of the message. His celebrity, money, connections, tough skin, love of debate, and craving for attention allow him to articulate the message with an effectiveness that baffles his opposition. They know his support comes from implicitly addressing White concerns, and yet they flail about trying to demonstrate that the implicit is actually explicit. Hence, the attempted David Duke linkage which Clinton has recently modified to an alt-right linkage.
The upcoming debates will be the last chance for Clinton to link Trump with an explicit White agenda. Given Trump’s command of the implicit White agenda, one might think he’d just accept the linkage. After all, most of its proponents are able to articulate it without expressing hostility toward non-Whites. Even Duke, the Establishment’s bete noire, emphasizes that he only wants Whites to live peacefully in their own White-controlled societies and wishes the same peaceful existence for non-Whites in their own societies.
Nonetheless, Trump’s repeated disavowal of Duke this election cycle makes it clear he will not accept linkage to an explicit White agenda. Further, Trump’s 2016 disavowal repeats his 2000 condemnation of Duke and his 1991 condemnation of Duke. So if Trump’s strategy remains unchanged, when Clinton plays the race card by referencing the alt-right, Trump will reject any affinity for such racial views. Since Trump’s 2016 words track with his words from 1991 and 2000, Whites might call this strategy CH3 (Before the C hags, three times you will deny me).
An alternative strategy might be called D4 — Don’t Disavow David Duke. As previously noted, Clinton is actually more likely to attack with the alt-right rather than the shopworn David Duke. However, Clinton’s hagging will be to the same effect. But if Trump is really the strategist some think, he’ll discard his CH3 and spring D4 on the unsuspecting prey he has lured to his trap.
When the C hags about love, tolerance, hate, or any of the hundred other ways of attacking White dignity, Trump goes on the offensive. Harkening back to the tactic he used on Megyn Kelly, Trump admonishes Clinton for playing the race card. Instead of disavowing the alt-right, Trump says that he and “frankly, the American people” are tired of cheap opportunists playing the race card.
America faces serious problems with riots and policemen being murdered because opportunists have aroused such racial hatred that murderers feel elected officials will support them. America has suffered terrorist killings after terrorist killings because racial opportunists tell them ordinary Americans are evil for putting the security of America ahead of the desires of hostile immigrants.
Will Trump choose the old path of CH3 or the new way of D4? That is the question, and how it’s answered will predict much of Trump’s governing philosophy during his Presidential term.
* * * * * * * * * *
19 September 2016
Woke Whites to Meme UN Plan for Ecological Disaster
Today, 19 September, the United Nations General Assembly is holding a high-level plenary meeting to refine its strategy for shrinking the habitat of the White race. Round Tables will address facilitating the entry of invasive races, breaking down the localized structures of native Whites, and strengthening the narrative of White displacement as an actual benefit to the displaced Whites.
In addition the High Level Summit, ten side events fill out a schedule dating from 13-23 September, and tomorrow, US President Barack Obama — a Black known for pursuing all avenues of White displacement in America regardless of their legality — will headline a Leaders’ Summit on Refugees.
These international initiatives follow on fifty years of racial encroachment in America which has lowered the native White population from 88% down to 62%. Britain has likewise experienced a long, steady decline of its once nearly all-White population with its largest city now under both demographic and political control of invasive races.
European lands, particularly those with generous welfare programs such as Germany and Sweden, have seen White habitat abruptly overwhelmed with non-Whites. The cultural underpinnings of peaceful White existence has been threatened throughout the continent.
The unique niche of the White race in human civilization makes it the source of nearly all major scientific discoveries and technological advancements. Through sharing or industrial espionage, other races have contributed improvements and refinements, but the advancement of human civilization would grind to a halt without the source intellect of the White race.
Aesthetically, the White race is the source of mankind’s highest art with a combination of passion and intellect evident in its best music, painting, and sculpture. The White female, herself, is the embodiment of the world’s greatest beauty and the indispensable inspiration for the male of her race. Accordingly, the dominant elements of White culture traditionally aspired to meld beauty and sacredness through religious beliefs honoring an ideal of female purity.
Cultural invasion of a hundred years duration has corrupted White entertainment and education to a degree perhaps describable as a moral hiatus. The higher ideals of ascendant White culture no longer dominate. Nonetheless, a floor of legality still supports acceptable behavior, including sexual behavior. But with racial invasion, legality itself inverts. Instead of a floor of support, Whites find a ceiling crashing onto their customs and persons.
Heretofore ordinary public behavior by White females has subjected them to sexual exploitation by non-Whites in Germany and Sweden. The latter — once the queen of feminist-styled consent with its warrant on Julian Assange — now serves as the slave of non-White demands. In both lands, native Whites are taxed for government programs that instruct the racial invaders in techniques of copulative conquest.
In several English towns, thousands of young White females were seized and held for the breeding and sustenance of invasive races. Government authorities there and elsewhere prosecute White defensive measures while abetting the aggression of the invasive races.
Miscegenation itself will in sufficient numbers erase the White race from the ecological mix of the planet. Whether this is the goal or the unintended consequence of reckless migration policy might be debated where it not accompanied by legal measures such as those sought by the United Nations. Those measures presume the unacceptability of continued White existence by condemning any manifestation of racial discrimination or xenophobia. By definition, miscegenation is the only alternative to racial discrimination, and any defense of White habitat meets the UN standard for xenophobia.
The loss of White habitat and the eventual extinction of the White race are paradoxically endorsed by some members of the White race itself. Greedy and ambitious financial and governmental elites think only of their personal, short-term gain and care nothing about the ecological disaster of destroying the White race. When it suits their interests, they readily partner with non-Whites to facilitate migrant invasion of White habitat.
Additionally, non-elite Whites working in governmental, educational, or corporate sectors often support migrant invasion as an implicit condition of their continued employment. But some Whites with no financial incentives also support encroachment of their habitat. This typically results from indoctrination with universalistic principles such as the equal dignity of all men, followed by the subsequent distortion of those principles for predatory purposes such as open borders.
To understand the centrality of universalistic principles to the White race, one must understand the unique culture Whites create to facilitate their achievements. Whether by instinct or a more thoughtful process, Whites understand that their greatest contributions to human civilization disproportionately flow from their superior stock, their outliers. And those outliers evolve from their distinctly White culture where high trust is merged with admiration for individuality and respect for idealism. Oriental races with high trust societies merge it with conformity, and are thus culturally unfit for nourishing the genius of a creative elite even if it could be assumed they possess a creative component on par with the White race.
As in many things, strengths are also weaknesses, and the White culture that nourishes its creative elite simultaneously signals sustenance for parasitic invaders. With its admiration for individuality and respect for idealism, White culture of necessity signals its proclivity for universalistic principles such as the equal dignity of all men, as this allows those who don’t quite fit the pattern to nonetheless amiably situate themselves within the high trust society.
But high trust societies are the product of only the White and certain Oriental races. Removing the racial component fractures the trust, and this is the weakness that the White race alone exposes to its would-be predators. Universalistic principles allow Whites within their own exclusive habitat to advance civilization for their own benefit and for the benefit of all humanity. But universalistic principles in the control of an immoral elite allow the imposition of habitat encroachment and race mixing under the guise of brotherhood, humanitarianism, migration rights, or some similar Trojan Horse, and this is the deception that fools many ordinary Whites into supporting their own destruction.
The looming ecological threat to the White race is a double-barrel blast of non-White invasion and a legal attack thwarting the racial defense mechanisms of White populations. In the Outcome Document to be adopted, the UN condemns racism, racial discrimination, and xenophobia knowing full well that those concepts were created to destroy both White habitat and the cultural patterns that allow Whites to flourish in exclusive proximity to members of their own race.
Given this support for both a decades long invasion of America and an abrupt invasion of Europe, little doubt exists that sanctioned concepts such as xenophobia are intended only to infect White defense mechanisms. Only Whites incur the onslaught of distorted universalistic principles. The aggressive, self-interested behavior of the invasive races draws not so much as a scolding finger for its wanton despoilment of White habitat.
In a sense, this UN initiative is but a continuation of the reckless ecological policies of the last fifty years. But as its own language makes clear, the UN now proposes to codify these policies as international law so as to outlaw the growing White consciousness it labels racist and xenophobic.
Not insignificantly, this initiative attempts to counter the White genocide meme. As the proponents of that meme demonstrate, the UN’s own definitions encompass practices leading to a gradual extermination of a population. Destroying all White habitat with an overwhelming repopulation of invasive races would in fact lead to the disappearance of the White race.
Accordingly, the UN ought to recognize the destruction of White habitat as genocidal. But given that it’s White genocide, the UN’s response is to overwhelm the meme by ignoring the genocide and framing the racial invaders as helpless victims.
Before the internet, Whites were voiceless against such hostility and hypocrisy. Their governments worked hand-in-glove with an anti-White media to promote the policies now threatening their territory, their culture, and their continued existence as a race. But as the White genocide meme itself demonstrates, the flow of information has changed, and Whites are not so voiceless against their hostile elites. Today, they meme of racial invasion, and tomorrow they’ll dream of reclaiming their native habitat.