The Fascists Have Won

th (3).jpg

There are a lot of good series on TV recently depicting post apocalyptic dystopian societies. You have the handmaids tale and my personal favorite the 100. This is my pitch for a dystopian setting.

Imagine a world where the highest court in the land said that the color of ones skin determines ones eligibility for higher education.

In the same world companies would be celebrated for using the same criteria to determine your ability to do the work they need.

Imagine in that world every race had an organization advocating for their interests except one.

Every other race had the right to march and protest and are celebrated for it. If the taboo race does it they are beaten and dispersed.

All other races have the right to vote in lockstep. If the taboo race does it they are declared racists. If the taboo race win an election it is assumed they do it by cheating.

In this world any ideas presented have to be approved by a central committee first.

People who go against the pre-approved set of philosophies can get services denied to them and can be terminated from employment.

Social media and other forms of modern communication are available only for people who prescribe to the pre-approved philosophy.

All the evils of the world are blamed on this one race of people while every other race is celebrated for their contributions.

I call this America 2017.

The left says the right is fascist all the while setting up their own fascist regime.

The Truth: Racism in Virginia


In the aftermath of the events in Virginia the mainstream media were united in their message. They uniformly asked how was it possible that in this day and age this many people were joining organizations advocating for the rights of whites? This was their attempt to push the blame on the tragedy on President Trump. The truth is the answer is much older than that. Trump has only been in power for around half a year after all. The media did stumble upon the answer and it is racism.

Before I proceed I would like to stipulate two things that I think the left and the right can both agree on. First that there is a difference between how wealthy people are treated and how poor people are treated. You could take a person who hates African-Americans and he would still be deferential if someone like Oprah told him that he would invest in his business. Police would be more likely to be lenient to someone who could afford the best lawyers no matter his color than someone who could not. Second if you target any race for widespread discrimination they will form their own groups to resist this.


When the entire issue of affirmative action was pushed into the limelight by the Trump administration the Democrat controlled media was quick to point out that it was not because of minorities that Asians and whites were losing out on university slots it was instead due to other whites. They argue that whites tend to be legacy admissions and have a much higher rate of being accepted into the alma mater of their parents than other people. What the media misses here is that these legacies are all uniformly wealthy. After all the entire reason universities give them special treatment is to get donations from their parents. Rich white people have the legacy back door. Minorities have affirmative action and scholarships which exclusively cater to minorities. What do poor white people have?

This is not limited to education. Consider criminal justice. If you get arrested and you happen to be African-American or any other minority it is very likely that there is an organization whose sole purpose is to provide representation for you. If you are a rich white person or a rich person of any color for that matter you have access to the best legal talent money can buy. If you are a poor white person what do you have?

How about employment? If you are a rich person then you are most likely doing the employing yourself. If you are a minority then you have a better chance than average since the employer would like to prove that they have a diverse working environment. What about if you are poor and white? For that matter if you cried racism when you are poor and white what would happen? How hard would people laugh?

I do not deny that some white people profited from racism. They were able to build their wealth on its back. What does this have to do with most white people? Is the immigrant from Ireland just as guilty as the plantation owner in slavery days? How about the poor white kid who worked in the northern factories? Are his descendents able to get a head start on life because of his work? The truth is when you tell a race of people that they do not enjoy the same rights and privileges that other races of people do they will form organizations that advocate for their interests.


At this point I hope I have convinced you that there is a difference between how poor white people and rich white people are treated. If everyone were a rich white person then you could discriminate against them and they would not mind as they have the means to get by. Instead we have an entire class of people unfairly discriminated against. I would like to go further than that. I would like to argue that the racism poor white people face is worse than any racism minorities currently face. If I were to organize society into layers of privilege I would place rich white people on top as they were able to build their wealth thru the racism of the past and pass all the advantages to their family and poor white people in the very bottom as they were not beneficiaries of racism before and are unfairly targeted by affirmative action now.

I divide racism into two categories. Note that this is simply a personal division that I use. Residual and Institutional. Residual racism is racism that a single person may possess but is frowned upon by society. Society will try its best to stamp it out. Institutional racism is racism that is encouraged by society. This can be thru laws, social affirmation, or thru other means. A good example would be slavery when it was still legal. Very few people questioned it or even thought they were racist when they owned slaves.

Consider this example. A black person is told by a university or potential employer that he did not get the slot he was applying for partly because of the color of his skin. Society would explode. Boycotts, social backlash, and any number of other things would happen. A lawsuit would most likely be filed and government would use its institutional power to fine the offending party.

Consider another example. A poor white person is told by a university or potential employer that he did not get the slot he was applying for partly because of the color of his skin. Society would not explode. In fact with the most recent Supreme Court decision it is the law of the land. A person can be denied entrance into university partly because of the color of his skin. Society would even go out of its way to reward institutions like that for promoting diversity.

Final Thoughts

Due to its institutional nature people practice racism against poor white people all the time without realizing it. Once society decides to discriminate against the less wealthy majority of an entire race of people and shame them when they cry racism is it any wonder that they decide to fight back?


Proof: Leak not Hack

th (2).jpg

I do my best to make original content for this blog which is why I rarely link to anything outside of it. I am breaking this rule today because this issue is too important. I shared a link yesterday to an article providing forensic proof that the DNC files were obtained via leaks and not by hacks. The main response I got is that the article was too complicated and difficult to understand which is a fair assessment. Like I mentioned however it is too important to leave it at that. I will try to explain the article in simpler terms today.  This is a link to the article forensic proof.

In short the article claims that the speed of transfer is too fast for it to have happened over the internet. It could only have happened if someone accessed it over a LAN. This means that it could not have been a hack, done over the internet, but a leak done in person.

Transfer Speed

When you transfer data from one device to another it is slower when you go through the internet than when you transfer it in person like from a flash drive. This is mainly because of two reasons. First when you transfer data over the internet there are multiple layers of connections you have to pass thru which slow down the connection. As opposed to having a flash drive where the only connection is in between the device and your computer.  Second if you’re using the internet to transfer data it like you are making a delivery thru a crowded highway. Other users are on the road and you are only as fast as the conditions of the road will allow. If you transfer data directly from one device to another it is like you are using a private highway.

Let me provide a real world example to make things clearer. When you download porn via torrent and you only have one seeder it is very slow. Your computer has to connect with his and the speed of transfer depends on the quality of both of your internet connections. If you were transferring from a flash drive then these factors would not matter.

The forensic analysts determined that the transfer rate was 23 MB/s. It could not have been done thru the internet especially when the hacking computer is supposed to have been located all the way in Romania. Check the link provided earlier for the exact methodology used.

Seth Rich

In response to this the left will try to make this all about the murder of Seth Rich. In our hearts Republicans know that Seth was murdered most likely by the Clintons. In the same vein we also know that proof for this will never be found. By making the conversation about the murder they can ignore all the evidence regarding the leaks.

In any case we now have scientific data driven evidence available to the public that the data was obtained from a leak and not a hack.

What evidence have you seen to show otherwise?

Are Democrats Racist?


When you talk to Democrats they will tell you that the only reason that the GOP exists at all is because of racism. Any action they disagree with is quickly labeled as racist. When you talk to Republicans they will tell you that it is Democrats who are Racist because of how their policies work in the real world. Lets take a look at how these policies affect minorities.


Meet Christian. I have retracted his last name to protect his anonymity. Christian is an African-American and his lifestyle is that of a stereotypical nerd. He studied hard in high school and managed to graduate. Due to affirmative action he was able to secure a slot in Harvard. He thanks Democrats every day for the opportunities he feels their party has given him. This is where things took a turn for the worse. He found it very hard to cope with the coursework. He was used to being the smartest kid and he was now at the bottom of the class. It did not help that more pressure was put on him with all the student loans he had to take in order to afford college. He eventually cracked and dropped out. He is now equipped to face the future with his high school diploma and a mountain of student debt.

If Christian were an Asian or White he would not have qualified for Harvard and would have gone to a less challenging university instead. He would be well on his way to graduating and finding decent employment leading to future generations of African-Americans with better prospects and economic standing.


Say hello to Jamal. He is a typical teenager. Like girls, playing online games, and basketball. He hangs out with his friends in the weekend and picks up part-time jobs when he needs money. In short he is living a happy childhood. He thanks Democrats that they keep the racist police out of his neighborhood. One day while walking home he was shot by another youth. His funeral was last week.

The police were afraid to go to his neighborhood. They know that if a situation happened and they were forced to defend themselves against a gentle giant or some other entity their life would be turned upside down for doing their jobs. If Jamal were white the police would have been patrolling his neighborhood and would have been able to prevent the shooting or get him aid promptly after the event. Jamal literally died because he was black.


Welcome Pedro! He is a latino born to parents who legally migrated from Brazil. He is proud to be an American and is proud of Democrats for helping bring more South and Central Americans to the country even if they have to do it illegally. Due to various reasons Pedro was not able to finish High School. He attempted to work in construction and even as a waiter just to get a start somewhere but he always found that employers preferred illegals for those positions as they could be paid less. Out of work and out of luck he eventually joined a gang affiliated with MS-13.

If Democrats had prioritized Americans like him over illegal immigrants from Central and South America he would have been able to find employment and gangs like MS-13 would have been kept south of the border.


Jeffrey is a father of two. Due to some complications his wife passed away a couple of years ago. He is trying to raise his two children on his salary but is struggling. He thanks the Democrats for providing an economy with full employment and he blames the evil Republicans for keeping his wages down.

Jeffrey works as a programmer for a popular company. Since there are very few out of work programmers available his salary should have been rising pretty quickly. Instead of increasing his salary or hiring more workers his company opted to hire more h1-b visa holders instead to keep costs down. If Democrats would have prioritized him first his life would have gotten better.

Just a snapshot of four lives all ruined by the racist policies of the Democrats.

4d Chess: Affirmative Action

th (1).jpg

As an issue the arguments for and against affirmative action in college are simple so it is boring to discuss it. Instead I will focus on its political ramifications for this article. As a political move it is nothing less than a masterstroke plain and simple. It unites the Republicans and divides the Democrats creating opportunities for us to break apart their coalition.


As of right now Republicans are broadly divided into three groups. The economic nationalists under Trump who may not be that socially conservative. Those who fashion themselves as “principled conservatives” who supported Cruz during the primary. Lastly we have the establishment class who supported Kasich till the end. While the Trump and Cruz factions have mostly reconciled the establishment faction is still rooting for the presidency to fail. The stances on immigration and trade that the base demands are just simply against their financial interests. The best thing about the affirmative action issue is that whichever faction you belong to you would most likely be against it and would support its removal from the college application process. In essence it gives Republicans a reason to unite behind Trump.


Republicans face a common problem that victors face. They have been so successful and Democrats have been driven to their lowest level of power since the 1920’s that it is difficult for them to win more seats. Conversely the Democrats have an easier time winning just because the Republicans are defending so many seats. In order to expand their map further Republicans will have to break into the Democrat coalition and win away some of its members.

This is where affirmative action comes in. In the modern era the Democrats are defined by identity politics balancing the interests of its member factions. The GOP establishment has always gone after Latinos because that fits their financial interests but the immigration stances required to woo them are anathema to the base. African-Americans have been brainwashed to such an extent that the only a terms worth of results will have any impact on them. The best we can hope is that they stay home on elections. So it comes down to Asians.

Affirmative action really is discriminating against Asians. Most important from a political standpoint is that it is discriminating against Asian youth. No culture places more importance on the schooling of their children than Asian culture. Asians, particularly East Asians, place an unhealthy amount of importance in grades and the schools which their children go to. My personal belief is this comes from the Confucian influence in their society where college and governmental service exams become the most important parts of the year and students have their entire educational experience crafted to reflect that. Tutoring, Cram schools, and other extra curricular included. It is not a coincidence that the term tiger mom started with Asian moms.

If anything gets Asians off the Democratic plantation it is this issue. After all we are addressing their most important concerns. If successful this opens up races that Republicans were not competitive in before as well as forcing democrats to compete for seats they once thought were safe. All because we did something that we always wanted to do but establishment politicians never had the courage to try.

The Red Pill: Volume 1


It is no secret that the liberal voter base has been brainwashed by the media. Any information they get from a Republican source is immediately discounted. As part of my efforts to arm the right I am starting a new series of articles of the best talking points to use when Red Pilling liberals.

Deregulation and Dodd Frank

Whenever I try to red pill a liberal this is the point I bring up first. Liberals have been raised to believe that there are only two motives when Republicans act. They are either racist or being bribed by the rich. Dodd Frank is the perfect issue to shake their belief in this. Once their core belief is debunked it is much easier to counter the others.

When you ask a liberal why they support Dodd Frank they will always say it is because they oppose big banks and think they are too big to fail and are a danger to the economy. Republicans have been bought by the big banks and are putting the economy in danger because of their greed.

We now hit them with the facts. Under Dodd Frank 4 banks grew from controlling 11% of the banking industry to 43% of the industry. Too big to fail got to become to ginormous to fail. Before Dodd Frank there were 13000 banks in the US and after there was 6500 banks. Their law to combat the evil big banks wiped out half the competition of the evil big banks. Under Bush hundreds of new banks opened every year leading to more competition. Under Obama a grand total of 3 new banks opened. Their law to combat the evil big banks is protecting them from competition. You can then hit them with the fact that since there are fewer banks they offer fewer benefits to the customer because of reduced competition.

At this point ask them is the economy safer now or before Dodd-Frank? Be sure to bring a jar for all the liberal tears.

White Guilt

One of the reasons liberals put up with affirmative action, illegal immigration, and other things like that is they have a fundamental belief that the people of Europe have exploited the rest of the world throughout history and we are obligated to pay the rest of the world back for it.

To successfully debunk this we have to rely on history. Pay attention to all the major conflicts between Europe and the Middle East. With very few exceptions they all involve the West desperately trying to defend against an invading East. We have Thermopylae and Salamis during the Persian invasion. Then we have the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire to the Turks. The conquest of Spain by the moors. The battle of Lepanto to defend against the Ottomans. The defense of the Russians against the Golden Horde. The antics of Vlad the impaler to safeguard his country against the Ottomans. In fact as recent as the early 1900’s Greece and other countries were defending themselves against the Ottoman Empire prompting the start of the Balkan Wars.

In history the West has really only been able to hold lands in the East for extended periods of time two times. The first was during the height of the Roman Empire and the second was during the initial portion of the Crusades. The reason is relatively simple. The West usually devolves into various political entities that fight each other. While the East periodically gets united by a great conqueror or country. Persia, Genghis, and Tamer the Lame are good examples. The two times I mentioned where the West was able to make gains they were united by Religion or the Romans. If the West were the historical aggressor then the roles in these battles should have been reversed.

The dominance of the West has been a relatively recent development historically speaking. Certainly not long enough to attach an everlasting guilt to a whole race of people. This is one of the cornerstones of liberal theology and they will not be able to accept this easily. Ask them one thing to make your point. Western civilization can trace its roots to the Roman Empire. The capital of the Roman Empire for the longest time was Constantinople. Who holds it now? Why would the West lose its capital if it was supposed to be exploiting the East?

More to come in coming articles!




The Difference Between Wikileaks and Media


Yesterday wikileaks released an audio recording from Seymour Hersch where he confirmed that Seth Rich gave some confidential files from the DNC to Wikileaks. The left would like you to focus on the murder of Seth but that is not the main reason why this is relevant. The most important thing is that this is evidence that it was actually a leak not a hack. It is very important to remember that the intelligence agencies have a vested interest in destroying the reputation of Wikileaks and presenting them as a Russian front as they are the only organization that has held them even remotely accountable for their actions.

The main reason for this article today is to address one issue the left brings up. Why do nationalists and conservatives believe the leaks presented by Wikileaks but do not believe the anonymous information presented by the press?

It is not hypocritical or partisan to believe one and not the other. There is a distinction between them. Wikileaks does not make claims nor does it process the data. It presents the data leaked to them to the public and allows us to arrive at our own conclusions. The people involved are clearly named and, since they are usually public figures, have every opportunity to respond.

Reporters on the other hand give us information that anonymous sources have told them or from documents that they alone have seen. They ask us to give them 100% of our trust sight unseen. To justify this trust they cite the reputations of their respective institutions. The irony of this is all of these organizations have had to retract stories just this year while Wikileaks maintains its perfect record of never having to retract a single story since it was founded. Even on the standards that the media want us to use their credibility pales in comparison to Wikileaks.

When presented with an organization that presents the data to us and allows us to reach our own conclusions as opposed to one that insists on doing our thinking for us it is not strange for there to be higher trust placed in Wikileaks.

It is not a conspiracy, people being uneducated, or any other reason the left gives to explain away unwanted truths.

The CBO is Wrong on Healthcare


The CBO has released their score on the potential repeal of Obamacare. According to them millions of people would lose their health insurance and costs for premiums would rise. Democrats are upset that Republicans don’t believe the numbers. This is because the numbers do not make logical sense. People have an inherent bullshit detector that can tell when they are being lied to or when certain facts are hidden. For instance for the year leading up to the election economists, the Obama admin, and the mainstream media has been telling people that we are at full employment. No one believed them and people elected Trump instead as well as giving historic majorities to Republicans. When you tell people there is full employment they expect that their wages would go up as well as there would be more competition for limited labor. When that did not happen people figured out it was a lie.


The CBO fails using the same logical standards. The entire reason Obamacare exists is to give people with preexisting conditions insurance. By definition people with preexisting conditions are sicker than the general population. Which is why insurance did not want to work with them in the first place. If you include them in the calculations then everyone has to pay higher premiums to keep the plans solvent. If you remove them from the calculations, like for example by repealing Obamacare, then the premium everyone else pays would get lower as a result.

Benefit of the Doubt

If you read the reports prepared by the CBO on both Obamacare and its repeal you can see why they make this error. Every projection and fact given by the Obama administration was treated as gospel truth and the CBO based their score on this. Since they were heavily biased towards the Obama administration the report they published was proven to be wrong. In contrast the CBO disagrees with everyone of the assumptions used by the Trump administration when it formulated its bill and repeal.

The proof is in the report itself. Hidden deep within the report is an admission that the only reason a lot of people would lose insurance is because they were forced into it in the first place by the individual mandate. If they were not forced to buy the insurance they would not purchase it because of the high premiums. If this were Obama they would have then stipulated that the people who lost the insurance voluntarily would have found their own insurance which would be at a lower cost than obamacare because there would be no one with preexisting conditions driving up the cost.

If you haven’t figured it out yet the CBO decides whether it supports a bill or not and then makes up assumptions to provide the data to reach its predetermined conclusion.


At this point in time Republicans would be crying about the CBO being biased towards the Democrats. That’s not exactly true. The government will always be biased towards giving the government more power. People like George Washington who refuse power when handed to them are incredibly rare. This is why we have a hard time removing any regulations, even redundant ones. Take Dodd-Frank for example. By any objective standard it has failed to rein in big banks as they are four times as large now as they were when the regulation started now controlling nearly half the entire banking industry. Yet government still rates it favorably.

Like any living organism government will protect itself. It will always tell you that it is needed and needs to be expanded. It is up to we the people to hold our elected representatives to their promises.

The Truth About Minimum Wage

th (3).jpg

Republicans, both nationalists and conservatives, have been crowing about the recent failure of the minimum wage increase in Seattle. While it is always nice for our world view to be validated I feel this article is necessary so that we will not be misunderstood. After all Democrats are always eager to paint conservatives as the tools of big business even while they passed Dodd-Frank which concentrated 43% of the banking industry in 4 banks and Obamacare which doubled the profits of the insurance industry at the cost of rising premiums and deductibles for the middle class. Republicans, like everyone else, do want wages to go up. We just believe that raising the minimum wage particularly the federal minimum wage is the wrong way to go about it.


Before I give our view I will debunk the points made by Democrats first. Whenever any policies are discussed the left will always bring up Denmark, Norway, and Sweden as their perfect utopias. Ask them point-blank if these countries have a federal minimum wage. As small as these countries are they have realized that a nationwide minimum wage might be apt for one location but would not work for another. In the context of the US a federal minimum wage designed for New York would price rural businesses out of the market but a minimum designed for rural areas would not be livable in New York. This is why these countries have minimum wage negotiated per industry instead of for the entire country.

Arbitrarily raising the minimum wage does not work either. A variant of that was tried in Venezuela in Petroleos de Venezuela, their national oil company. You may recall that just prior to their crisis they were also hailed as a model socialist country that the US should follow. Venezuela eventually nationalized the oil company. When they did they hired more people and increased their wages. The problem was they did not produce more oil nor did they sell it at a higher price. You just had more people doing the same amount of work at higher wages. This was not a problem while oil prices were high. When they bottomed out this became part of the reason we see the chaos we do in Venezuela today. Incidentally this is also why Trump is dangerous to Putin. More production by the US of oil and natural gas could cause a glut in the market which would cause worldwide prices to drop and ruin the Russian economy.


As Republicans we do believe in the free market. Even nationalists believe in a free market just one bound within the nation. Labor like anything else is a commodity and follows the rules of supply and demand. When the supply of available labor is high then the price is low. In addition when the demand for available labor is high then the price for labor will increase as well.

We believe that instead of setting random numbers as the minimum wage the government should instead set policies that will help lower supply of labor and increase demand for it. This way the change to wages will be organic and something the companies themselves would have to do in order to get the best of the available labor. We think this will be safer as in leaner times companies will not be forced out or forced into bankruptcy by wage levels it can no longer afford.

On a related note this is why the people don’t believe the Democrats and media when they tell them we are at full employment. If we are at full employment wages are supposed to go up but they are stagnant. The Trump administration is doing things that we believe are necessary to change this. The best example is addressing illegal immigration. The slave labor provided by illegals and those provided by those with work visas such as H1-b increase the amount of labor in the pool. With more labor available potential employees have less power to bargain for higher wages. Removing regulations and providing tax reform also increases the amount of businesses in the US increasing the demand for labor therefore making each individual worker more negotiating power.

To sum everything up Democrats believe in legislating wage increases no matter what conditions on the ground dictate while Republicans believe in creating conditions necessary for the wages to increase.


Impeach Tyrion

th (2).jpg

When the book and television series first started I liked Tyrion. What was there not to like? A base dwarf with a heart of gold and the wits to match anyone. The farther the show goes the more incompetent he becomes. As a hand of the queen he has proven to be a dismal failure. Its time to retire Tyrion so we can remember the good times instead of the bumbling dwarf he is on the way to becoming.

Just a short summary of his time as hand.

Landing at Dragonstone

This has to be the biggest blunder Tyrion has made. The original Aegon landed at Dragonstone because he had very few troops with him. His military assets consisted of pretty much his 3 dragons. When he fought the Lannisters and Gardeners at the Field of Fire he was still massively outnumbered even with the defecting Riverlanders flocking to his banner. Dragonstone made sense because he needed a defensible starting point.

Dany is starting with 100,000 dothraki bloodriders and 8000 unsullied. A force that is unmatched anywhere in Westeros. At the height of his power Tywin Lannister had 60000 troops. 30000 under him and 30000 under Jaime. Tyrion managed to land the dothraki in the one place in Westeros that they could not deploy out of and require additional waterborn transport to be effective.

On a related note the only reason Euron is even relevant is because Tyrion chose an island as the home base for the Dany faction. If they landed anywhere in the Stormlands or even in Dorne Euron would have to challenge them on land to be useful to Cersei, throwing away his biggest advantage.

Losing the Iron Splinter Fleet

To compound his decision to stick his army in an island Tyrion decided to send the Arya Iron Fleet off to Dorne. At this point it gets intercepted by Euron who is in the same area and they lose the entire fleet as well as the leaders of Dorne. With Varys in tow there was no way that they were unaware of a gigantic ironborn fleet was hanging out in Kings Landing. Not to mention Arya already warned them that Euron was against them.

As a result of his blunder the dothraki have lost their transports towards Westeros proper and the army from Dorne is now questionable. After all the leaders they were supposed to rally around are lost. With Tarly taking up against Tyrell and the sand snakes defeated it is not even likely that the Targaryen forces can lay siege to Kings Landing.


There is quite a bromance going on between Jon and Tyrion. It even seems like Tyrion is angling for Jon to be the future husband of Dany. The problem is that as of right now the only redeeming factor for Jon is that Tyrion likes him. As an ally he is worthless and is actually a drain on whoever he teams up with. As of right now the Vale should be ready and willing to take the fight to Cersei. Instead since they allied with Jon they will now be wasted against the undead. Any forces Dany sends with Jon will meet with the same fate.

Impeach Tyrion now!