The New Korean War


For the record I fully support an armed intervention in North Korea. In my opinion the US has tried every other option and all of them have failed. Bill Clinton tried complete and total submission. Offering a yearly tribute in oil to North Korea as well as offering to build their nuclear program with American aid. Undisclosed provisions in the deal suggest that the North Korean leaders could have personally gotten something as well. It did not work. Bush Jr tried belligerence with economic sanctions. Stopping the tribute provided by the Clintons and then using the UN to contain North Korea. The regime did not care. Obama tried ignoring North Korea. That did not work. Now it is very likely that they have nuclear weapons as well as the means to deliver them.

Equally important is that I am confident Trump is the best man for the job. In my opinion Bush made two very critical mistakes in the Iraq war which could have changed the flow of history.


This is the first mistake. When Bush was making his case for the war in Iraq he led the public to believe that it would have been an easy task. The US military would overwhelm the Iraqi army and their resistance would crumble. Even if this was the case he should not have said so. One of the most important strategies to managing expectations is to underpromise and overdeliver. This allows you to have a margin of error in case things turn out worse than you expect. In case things work out better than you expect then you can always congratulate the troops for doing a good job and keeping casualties to a minimum.

At this point I would like to direct you to the tweets of President Trump during hurricane Harvey.  At all times he was pointing out how big and terrible the storm was while praising the capability of Texas and the American people to get through the disaster. If you think that the storm is huge then you mentally prepare yourself for lots of damage and suffering. When things turn out to be less damaging than you expect then you can always give credit and praise the first responders.

When we finally go into North Korea Trump will be using this tactic.

Nation Building

This is the second and most critical mistake from Iraq. The US army is actually very good at conventional warfare. I divide the Iraq adventure into two episodes. The first is when we actually had an Iraqi army to fight and the second was when we were fighting the insurgency. The US was actually very successful during the first phase. In fact it was so successful and so widely covered that the entire thing felt like a video game instead of an actual invasion.

Things went south went we stayed instead of pulling out right after. As a nation the US is not equipped to handle insurgencies. We just do not have the moral fortitude to do the things required to defeat an insurgency or to sustain a campaign of attrition. Part of being able to implement successful operations is understanding your own limitations. If we pulled out right after unseating the Iraqi then we would have been able to declare victory. What ever happened to Iraq after would have been a thing for the foreign section of the nightly news instead of a national concern.

I am very confident that President Trump will not make this mistake. Nation building seems to be the last thing in his mind nor is sacrificing military efficiency for humanitarian concerns which is another good thing.

I am fully aware that leaving Iraq or in this case North Korea right away may cause a humanitarian crisis. I would rather the world deal with a humanitarian crisis there, after having achieved the downfall of the Kim regime, than have the United States deal with a humanitarian crisis here after LA gets nuked.


Who is the Anti-fa?

antifa on campus hero.jpg

With their recent coverage in the news it is important for everyone that we understand who Anti-fa is, what they stand for, and which major political figures have been supporting them.

Anti-fa is of course short for Anti fascist. They are a group which believe in opposing fascism by any means necessary. They believe that fascism must be stamped out in its infancy before it takes root. To Anti-fa physical violence, intimidation, and suppression of free speech are all valid and legitimate tools to combat who they deem as fascist. One of the defining traits of Anti-fa is they have very little in the way of central leadership so each particular “cell” (for lack of a better term) determines who or what is fascist too them. Another defining trait of Anti-fa is they have widespread political support. The alt-right has been denounced by nearly all major politicians of both parties. In contrast nearly every major Democrat has expressed support for the actions of Anti-fa. Even Republican leaders such as Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney have cleared Anti-fa of any wrong doing with their statements.

Since every division of Anti-fa decides for themselves what defines fascism they have declared a lot of events as fascist. In college where conservative speakers such as Ben Shapiro or even the more controversial Milo have been scheduled to speak, Anti-fa has been on hand to prevent the event from taking place. Sometimes it is thru physical threats, actual violence, or blockading the entrances. Even their presence sends a chilling effect as conservative speakers are forced to pay huge sums to provide adequate security for their talks. In political campaigns they have decided that the Trump campaign and its supporters are fascist. They were on hand to break up the Trump rally in Chicago during the primaries. In Arizona they even forced President Trump to enter one of his rallies thru the back. In California there was even a rally by Trump supporters where Anti-fa used pepper spray on children. Even Republican town halls discussing the potential changes to Obamacare were also protested or demonstrations against planned parenthood.

To date I am not aware of any demonstrations against any political activities done by the left which goes a long the uniform support they draw from Democrat politicians. On the other hand it seems like the definition Anti-fa uses for fascist has been expanded to include any activity which furthers the Republican agenda. This makes the refusal of mainstream Republican political leaders such as Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and Mitt Romney to condemn them very strange. To date it looks like President Trump is the only major political figure to condemn violence caused by Anti-fa.

To sum everything up. Anti-fa is an organization supported by Democrats and establishment Republicans which violently suppresses anything they deem as fascist. They have also determined that anything having to do with conservatives is fascist.

4-D Chess: Charlottesville


The other day Ben Shapiro was explaining that it was a major political mistake for President Trump to keep bringing the conversation back to Charlottesville. He mentioned that Trump already got past the issue and keeps returning the conversation to it by relitigating it. This shows that while Ben is able to defend principles on the right well he has very little political instinct.

There is a reason that President Trump wants these events in the news. The more this is in the news the more exposure groups like Anti-fa get to mainstream Americans. It would not be a surprise to anyone to see that before these events very few people knew they existed. The mistake Ben and the media on the left make is that they assume people will view the events of Charlottesville in isolation. The CNN panel with the Trump supporters the other day got heated when the supporters said they did not have a problem with the response of Trump to Charlottesville. They specifically cited violence in other places where Anti-fa was involved while the moderator kept trying to limit the conversation to the events of that day. The mistake that Shapiro and the liberal media both make is that people do not look at these events in isolation. When they look at the KKK and neo-nazis they remember their history. When they look up Anti-fa they will see everything they participated in. From the riots in Illinois that prevented a Trump rally in the primaries to blocking Ben Shapiro from giving his speech in Berkeley. They may even see the rally in California where they used pepper spray on the child of a Trump supporter.


Every single Republican has denounced the KKK and Anti-fa. In contrast most major Democrats have defended the actions of Anti-fa. The longer Anti-fa is in the news the more Democrat politicians have to defend them. The Republicans are actively dissociating itself from extremists on the right while the Democrats are embracing them. It is important to note that the only reason Democrats are forced to defend Anti-fa because Trump has taken a stance that both sides are to blame for the violence. If they were to condemn Anti-fa then they would be in agreement with Trump and that is something they cannot do.

In short this issue forces the Democrats to tie themselves with Anti-fa. I would wager that most mainstream Americans would be horrified at their antics.


For Republicans the issue is very similar. Anti-fa has attempted to shut down free speech on the right many times. Charlottesville is only the most famous attempt and the one the media will focus on the most because they were up against identifiable neo-nazis. Republican politicians have a choice. They can either side with Trump and condemn the organization that have been targeting every gathering of conservatives with violence or side with the left in defending Anti-fa. Even silence will be taken as a stance for Anti-fa as it is the Republican voter that they have been going after.

In essence the Republican establishment have been given a chance to defend their base from those wanting to restrict their right to free speech or not. Come primary time who do you think the voters will side with?


Shapiro and the mainstream media can never understand Trump because in their mind he is nothing more than a buffoon who got lucky by beating Clinton. Suppose Shapiro was advising Trump during this period of time and his advice was taken. Trump condemns the KKK and Neo-Nazis exclusively and keeps silent about Anti-fa. At worse the media would still have blamed Trump for having emboldened them just by his very existence and at best we would have the status quo maintained. Instead because of his response we are now in a situation where the left is being forced to tie their brand closer to their very worst members every day.

Book Burning and the Left

th (5).jpg

With the recent controversies with the lefts call to remove historical statues ranging from Robert Lee, Christopher Columbus, and even reaching up to George Washington in some cases there have been some comparisons made between this and the Cultural Revolution promulgated by Mao in China. Several conservative thinkers have compared this to the period when the Chinese Communists would burn books. Make no mistake the left have been “burning books” but this is not it and it has been going on for a while now.

In the modern era there is very little merit in burning physical books. After all everything can be uploaded online within minutes. Therefore you have to achieve the same objective using different methods. When you burn books that you do not agree with what are you actually trying to do? In essence you are trying to keep information about different ideologies or perspectives away from your populace. It is a tacit admission that you think your ideas are so weak in open debate that the only way you can win the argument is to make sure that only your side gets presented. Making sure that only your side gets heard is the essence of modern day book burning. Lets take a look at how this is happening.


From a simple site sharing videos Youtube has evolved into something else. It has in effect become a tv channel where you can watch anything you want for free. Sports highlights, Cartoons, and most important for this article news and political commentary. In Youtube there are channels that lean left and those that lean right. Young Turks and Secular Talk are good examples on the left and Louder with Crowder and Ben Shapiro are good examples on the right. The people making these videos rely on them to make a living to continue making more. Yet we have a constant stream of conservatives claiming that Youtube had demonetized their videos. Instead of getting a portion of the revenue whenever someone watches their videos they get nothing. Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Diamond and Silk, Infowars, and various other outlets have raised this issue. On the other hand very little on the left are affected.

What happens when you remove the financial reward for the right to make videos but provide it to the left? Eventually those on the right stop making them as they have to look for other ways to make ends meet. Ensuring that only voices on the left are heard.

Social Media

Everyone is on social media in some shape or form these days. It has been reported that a lot of Americans get their news and commentary from social media first before actual news stations. It has also been well documented that voices on the right have been routinely banned from twitter, facebook, and other outlets while voices on the left are not affected. Of course when you ban everyone on the right you ensure that only those on the left have the privilege of free speech. I use the term privilege deliberately here. We are entering into a society where only voices on the left have free speech while those on the right do not have it.


Colleges are supposed to be educational institutions where you are exposed to many different competing ideologies so you can learn about the world. Conservative pundits like Ben Shapiro used to speak in these places all the time. Yet increasingly they have been blocked as hate speech. On the administrative front they are asked to put up huge amounts of cash to pay for extra security and on the street are met with protesters physically blocking them from the venue on the day of the event itself. On the other hand you have known terrorists on the left able to speak without any difficulties.

Instead of actually confronting the ideas in honest debate the goal is to silence it so only one side is heard.

These are only a few examples. Once you pay attention to this you will see much more. We economic nationalists on the right have been fighting this tooth and nail and will continue to do so. We understand that this is more than just an isolated issue of one pundit or another but rather a coordinated assault to condemn all thought on the right as anathema. We will resist the attempt to suppress the free speech of every single person on the right with everything we have. Our elected establishment Republicans don’t even acknowledge this as an issue. Which side will you support?

The GOP has lost its base


One of the benefits of Bannon leaving the administration is that it sets up an ideological divide between the economic nationalist policies Trump ran on and the establishment Republican priorities the current politicians in the Senate and the House want him to pursue.

Five thirty eight recently published an article where they cite a survey in 2016 by the Cooperative Congressional Election Study. They look at the policies put forth by Bannon and Trump during his campaign and distilled them into 5 questions asked in the survey. A quick note to all the liberals reading here. Do you see how fast you can actually understand the philosophy behind the Trump movement once you get past the autistic screeching about racism? These are the five questions.

  1. For or against the Trans Pacific Partnership?
  2. The US should send troops to help the UN uphold international law.
  3. The US government should identify and deport immigrants in the US illegally
  4. Their local police should receive a grade of A, B, C, D, or F?
  5. Their state government should increase spending on infrastructure.

The study found that 15% of all people who voted for Trump in the general agree with him in all 5 questions. 50% of people who voted for Trump agree that the US should get out of the TPP and be involved in less foreign interventions. 45% agree that the police is doing a great job and that illegals need to be deported. 40% want more infrastructure spending and to get out of deals like the TPP. What is most dangerous for the GOP is that only 2% of people who voted for Trump agree with none of these five statements.

Let us take a look at the stance of the establishment GOP on these issues. We know that they generally favor things like the TPP. They have expressed their desire for amnesty and other things that reward illegal immigration. Mccain and Graham are good examples of the stance of the GOP establishment towards war. On these issues where 98% of Republican voters agree on the GOP establishment is outright against 3. The stance of the GOP on infrastructure is very debatable as well. It could very well be that the only thing the GOP establishment and its voters agree on is the good job the police are doing.

The lesson is clear for the Republican politicians. Republicans don’t agree with your policies. You are getting voted for now because you are marginally better than the democrats but the minute someone like Trump offers any sort of alternative your base will leave you. It will happen over and over again until you realize you have to do what people vote you in for.

The lesson is clear for Trump. If you govern like a standard Republican. If you govern like a JEB! you will lose reelection. People voted you in for a reason and if that is not achieved we can always look elsewhere.

Most importantly the lesson is clear for economic nationalists. The Republican party is now our party. The Republican voters agree with our beliefs and not with the beliefs of thinkers like Ben Shapiro and their current crop of intellectuals. It is our party now. Run for local office as a Republican. Connections and funding be damned. The voters agree with us. If you make enough of an impact the funding will follow as you as people will always back a winner.

If you are reading this and think of us as racist. Then I urge you to look at the questions as determined by five thirty eight, who I consider to be left leaning, then you may be an economic nationalist too if you agree with us on any of them. You will just have to get used to the autistic screeching outside your door.


The Brilliance of Bannon


When I first heard Steve Bannon was fired from the Trump administration I could not believe my ears. Politically speaking it made no sense. It handed a great victory to the Democrats and their allies in the media, which only further emboldens them, and plants a wedge in between the new economic populists in the GOP and its traditional conservative base. There does not seem to be any benefit to the decision. The story currently being given where Bannon is leaving the administration to fight its enemies at the head of Breitbart does not sound logical either. There is nothing Bannon could have done outside the administration that he could not have done inside it. I sincerely doubt he gave up all ties to Breitbart when he left just as I doubt Podesta or other political operators still have ties to the Washington Post and other organizations they used to have leadership roles in.

If you have been reading my articles it should be no secret that my views closely align with Bannon and I am deeply disappointed by his termination. I will pause now to cue the autistic screeching about racism from any liberal readers I may have. Over and above politics Bannon leaving the White House should be of concern to everyone. Out of every major political figure in America today Bannon is the only one who grasps the true state of the country and its vulnerabilities. It may offend some of my readers but I include President Trump in this statement. Trump understands that things are bad but in my opinion he does not fully understand how bad things are and how close to the brink we are.

I encourage everyone to read Steve Bannon’s latest interview if you have not already. In it he speaks of an all out economic war with China and about the United States being in a unique inflection point in history. He says that we are currently fighting a war to see if the hegemony of the United States will continue on to the next half of this century. He mentions that the next five years is critical as if we don’t act now we will have passed the point of no return and Chinese victory will have been assured. This is not alarmism. History is full of these inflection points. Some of them violent such as in the case of Islam and Persia or Rome and Greece. Some of them non-violent as in the case of the transition from the hegemony of the British Empire to the American one. Historically speaking America has not even been in charge for that long. Rome had a thousand years, Britain had a few centuries, America is barely completing its first.

Economic Advantage

This is the heart of the issue and one that needs to be understood the most. If you ask people, even nobel-prize winning economists, where the economic advantage of America lies you would get many different answers. Most will say something along the line of technology. Silicon Valley and the various other places computers and the programs that go along with it are developed. Others will say in the military hardware. After all more than half of America’s exports have to do with the military industrial complex which provides jobs for hundreds of thousands of Americans. Still others will say in the service sector or management. They are all wrong.

The primary advantage America has over its competitors is consumer spending. If America and China were to stop trading tomorrow America would still be able to find cheap goods. It is no secret that Vietnam, Malaysia, and other south east Asian countries already have the capability to produce goods at much lower prices than China. Companies are just kept in China because the Chinese government makes access to its market contingent on providing employment for its people. The US seems to have the opposite policy. On the other hand the Chinese would not be able to find a market that could purchase their goods at the price the US can. They have already expanded into the EU and other places that could have done it.

The reasoning behind this is simple. Americans are paid more than their counterparts and on top of this there is a well-developed financial system where almost everyone has access to a credit card. This allows people to have more purchasing power than their wage level would suggest. This may surprise some people but in less developed economies like China, India, the Philippines, and other places like that less than half the populace has access to a credit card. This means that they can only spend what their wages and savings will allow which is not a great amount to begin with. Couple this with the fact that there is social security and other forms of assistance that is lacking in other countries and Americans have more money to spend than anyone else.

This allows America to impose trade rules that are supposed to work to its advantage as a condition for access to its markets. Similar to what I described with China in the previous paragraphs. Unfortunately this is not the case as everything we have done in the economic sphere leads to the erosion of this advantage.

There may be some readers who have realized this already but wonder what this has to do with the inflection point I discussed earlier. What far fewer people realize is the system is collapsing. Consumer debt is rising at unprecedented levels. Last I checked the level of consumer debt is already past the entire GDP of China. Banks have announced record numbers of charged off accounts and have projected increasing numbers of charged off accounts for 2017. A charged off account is in essence an account that can no longer afford to pay and is sold to a collections agency. Consequently this has also tightened the eagerness of banks to increase existing credit limits or lines of credit or approve new ones. Banks will never provide data for this but I encourage you to ask people around you when the last time their bank increased their credit or approved a new card. Not to mention lowered interest rates. In the quest of our politicians to provide the cheapest goods possible for the people they have allowed the outsourcing of jobs at record pace and the replacement of onshore jobs with illegals and H1-B visa holders. Ensuring that the people who have access to these cheap goods can no longer afford them.


At this point you may be thinking well what about the military? Surely American hegemony would still continue even when the Chinese beat the US in the economic field. You would be wrong. A huge military is nothing without a strong economy to back it up. Carriers need to be maintained, new technology developed, and most importantly troops need to be paid. Russia or North Korea is a great case study on what happens when there is an expensive military to sustain without an economy to support it. This is also the reason why I supported an alliance with Russia as a means to contain China. Similar to how China was used in the past to contain Russia. At its current state Russia will never be in a position to threaten American hegemony but China will.

Historically speaking Rome did not last a thousand years because it had an outstanding military. In fact in most of its battles with Persia it ended up on the losing side. Rome lasted because they had an economy that could lose a fully equipped army of 50000 men one day and turn out another fully equipped 50000 men the next. This may offend some people but it also needs to be said that America did not win World War 2 through superior generalship. It won because it massively outproduced its opponents. Japan produced a total of 2 new carriers for the entire duration of World War 2. I will leave it to the reader to find out how many America produced.

The next level of analysis is even more disturbing. What happens when a nation finds it can no longer afford its military? Does it disband it? Or does it use that military to seize resources from other nations to keep its system going?


It always comes down to this. I have already provided you with data as to why I believe the choice is binary. We either proceed with the agenda of economic nationalism with Trump and Bannon at the helm paving the way for a new century of American hegemony or we end up living under Chinese hegemony instead.

If you believe America is a racist country and Bannon is a white supremacist then you do. Nothing I say will change that. The only thing I will say in defense of America is I have not seen any other countries with active jurisprudence effectively saying that it is acceptable to discriminate against asians and whites in favor of blacks and latinos in some matters.

If you believe America is racist then you are in for a shock once China becomes the dominant power. I have seen beloved children cast out of the family for the sole reason that the person they chose to love was not ethnically Chinese. I have seen hard and talented workers denied promotions because people who were not Chinese could not rise above a certain level in some companies. This does not stop there. Criminal Justice, economic opportunities, bullying in school, and others. I will repeat people who believe America is racist have no idea what the next superpower is capable of.

I will continue trying to fight the good fight but with Bannon’s ouster I have lost any hope that America will continue its hegemony into the later half of this century. After all it is very hard to solve a problem if you fire the only person who actually knows what it is. My only consolation is that millennials who have screeched so hard about racism will live long enough to experience a world dominated by China.

Are You a Nazi?


With the mainstream media seeing Nazi’s everywhere they turn I thought it would be useful to design a quiz so that people can identify whether they are a Nazi. After all you may be one without realizing it! The quiz is simple. Just answer yes or no and tally the number of times you answered yes.

  1. The color of your skin should be a factor in potential educational opportunities. (yes/ no)
  2. The color of your skin should be a factor in employment opportunities. (yes/no)
  3. The color of your skin should be a factor in loans, scholarships, and other forms of economic assistance. (yes/no)
  4. Freedom of speech is a right only certain people should have. (yes/no)
  5. Your political ideology should  be a factor in termination of employment. (yes/no)
  6. A nation does not have a moral and ethical responsibility towards its own citizens first before others (yes/no)
  7. Political affiliation should be a determining factor in eligibility to speak in college campuses (yes/no)
  8. Certain political ideologies should be banned from social media (yes/no)
  9. The color of your skin should dictate how you vote (yes/no)
  10. The remedy for free speech you don’t agree with is to silence that free speech (yes/no)

Check your score below.

10 Yes – You are the perfect Democrat. You care deeply for the plight of minorities and should be held up as an example for all

7-9 Yes- You are nearly there but you need more empathy for your fellow man. Think about how much slavery has hurt them and sacrifice more.

4-6 Yes- You should be ashamed of yourself. You may not be a Nazi but you are definetly a Nazi sympathizer. People like you embolden them and make them stronger.

2-3 Yes- You are almost a full-fledged Nazi. You are just too cowardly to get a tattoo. Racist!

0-1 Yes- Why are you even reading this blog Nazi? Don’t you have some jews to kill or something?

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?