The White Pill on Daca

th (2).jpg

There has been plenty of negativity going around about what is happening regarding DACA. I have seen people who used to have plenty of faith in Trump withdraw their support just on this issue. I wanted to write this today as a white pill to all the negativity floating around.

Reality

The first thing we have to remember is that there is only one thing that has actually been done regarding DACA so far. That is DACA is ending in 6 months. No matter what Trump gets credit for this. DACA would not even be on the table without Trump. Everything else has been things that have been reported by the media. Schumer said this, Trump said that, unnamed source said this. Let me remind everyone that we just had the media report that the US was staying in the Paris agreement which turned out to be fake news.

Don’t get me wrong. Trump could reinstate DACA in the end or congress could pass the Dream act without significant concessions to the Republicans. I fully realize this possibility. If that happens then we can take a look at what law or EO is passed and condemn it if necessary. Until then the only thing that has actually happened is that DACA is officially ending and that is a positive.

Base

One of the best developments to come out of the DACA issue is that the feelings of the Republican base has been made clear. Everyone can see that any deal on DACA without major concessions will be a cause for major reprisals from the Republican voters. This is the reason why Paul Ryan and Mcconnell have gone out of their way to point out that any deal they reach will have the blessing of President Trump. This is very useful to our agenda since it proves that the Republican base cares more about the priorities of its nationalist side more than those of the establishment.

Hitler

One of the running narratives of the left is that Trump is literally Hitler. Their leaders have called for him to be resisted at every turn. Except now, if the media is to be believed, Chuck and Nancy are apparently willing to work with Trump on DACA and other issues. Why would anyone work with Hitler on anything?

There are liberals for whom Trump is Hitler and that will not change. There are others who get  their cues from their leaders and will begin to question the logic of the whole narrative.

Congress

My greatest hope for the rumors about DACA and what was done with the debt ceiling is that it would push congressional Republicans further to the right. In the past they had little reason to accommodate President Trump because Democrats would not work with him. Now that they have proven they are willing Republicans have to give Trump some of what his base wants. Paul Ryan showed us that this is working when he says the wall will be fully funded. Of course we have to wait for this to be actually done.

Last Thoughts

The most important thing I want everyone to remember is not to condemn Trump for something he has not done yet. Coulter , Hannity, and other people who have supported Trump since the start have already begun condemning him for something that only the media says he has done. This is not the first time that they have said Trump did something that he did not do.

As of right now DACA is ending in six months. Period. Full stop. Trump gets credit for that. Period. Full stop. If something happens after six months then we can take a look at that and withdraw our support if needed.

Advertisements

Trolling to Educate the Left

th (1)

Today I want to discuss how to use trolling to educate the left. The most crucial thing to remember about trolling is that it has to look as innocent as possible. The purpose of it is to be able to draw a response from the audience which will let them come to a moment of self-realization. This is similar to the socratic method used in law school.

The best example I can provide for this is when the left accuses me of racism. Im sure everyone from the right has been accused of racism at one point or another.  At this point I only ask one simple question.

Should the color of your skin should be a factor in determining eligibility for higher education. (yes/no)?

Of course you can imagine the autistic screeching I have to endure after I bring this up because it blows the narrative out of the water. Almost everyone from the left would answer in the affirmative and almost everyone in the right would answer in the negative.

Make no mistake the moment you answer yes to that question you are a racist. Period. End of sentence. Anything that you say after that is merely justification for being a racist.

If you are a liberal reading this I understand you have all sorts of justifications for answering yes. They all boil down to “People were racist in the past so I have to be racist now to correct it”.  If it makes you feel better you can be a noble racist. But you are still a racist.

Of course in their eyes everyone is a noble racist. People are always the heroes in their own stories. They are rarely racist just because. There is always some justification for racism to make it a moral good. To make it noble. The black people just cannot take care of themselves. We need to bring religion to the heathens. We need to correct previous injustices.

A is A

At this point I would like to bring in Ayn Rand, one of my favorite authors. Her thoughts on morality is something that everyone should read. The reason why liberals fall into this trap is because they have no moral absolutes. One of the most important points Ayn Rand makes is that A is A. Racism is always racism. Almost all liberals practice morale relativism or in certain conditions A can be B. For example if you are racist for noble reasons then you are no longer racist.

You can use this on a variety of topics not just racism. Here is another question which will generate some autistic screeching.

Are people accused of Rape entitled to due process and a fair trial? (yes/no)

This of course refers to the Dear Colleague letter just repealed by Devos. To those who don’t know Democrats removed the rights of people accused of rape in a college campus to a jury of their peers. They also lowered the standard of evidence from “guilty beyond reasonable doubt” to “preponderance of evidence”. Of course all the major Democrats like Obama and Biden support it.

I hope you have the same enjoyment as I do triggering liberals into self-awareness.

 

How Obama Wiretapped Trump

th (1)

The Washington Post recently came out with an article that says the DOJ states there were no documents showing that Trump Tower was wiretapped. They would like to focus on the strictest definition of what Trump said because to widen it would mean we would have to look at the biggest scandal since Watergate. At least Nixon had the shame to use criminals instead of the government.

Why did they not ask if there were any documents showing that the Trump campaign was under surveillance? The simple answer is because it would have come up positive. Let that sink in. The administration of the Democrats had the campaign of the Republican candidate under surveillance using the powers of the government.

Timeline

When I first brought up the fact that Obama wiretapped Trump there were some gaps in the story which we filled in using logic. At this point the only gap that exists is whether or not Obama explicitly gave the order to wiretap the Trump campaign. Everything else has been confirmed. Here is the timeline for easy reference.

1. During the primaries never Trumpers start work on the Steele dossier. This is then later on funded by Democrats.

This dossier alleges that Trump watched Russian hookers pee on a bed slept in by Obama on tape and that one of Trump’s associates had a meeting in Moscow, when multiple eye witnesses place him in the country at the time of that meeting, among other things.

2. The suspect nature of the dossier did not matter. All it was needed for was to provide justification for FISA warrants for associates in the Trump campaign. There is no one to challenge it in the FISA court as only the government is represented.

The secret FISA courts have so far rejected 9 out of 35000 requests from the government. They rejected this request twice. Obama had to shop around for another judge to approve it on their third attempt.

3. As of now Trump campaign members are now officially under surveillance. It would have been impossible to listen in on people involved in the campaign without picking up information of political value.

At this point it is worth noting that Trump would have been factually correct. When these members were in Trump Tower, and they were at certain points, then the people spying on them could listen to conversations inside Trump Tower.

4.The Democrats now have the information in raw form which needs to be processed. This takes place when Susan Rice requests for the names of the American citizens in these documents to be unmasked.

The media insists that the reason this is so is because there was a need to know who the people were for further investigation. This is false. FBI agents themselves were the ones conducting the surveillance. Administration lawyers drafted the FISA requests. They already knew who the people under surveillance were. The reason that requests for unmasking take place is so that you have a record on paper saying that this person did that instead of redacted did that.

5. Once the names are redacted they can be used for anything. They can be used for further charges. They can be leaked to the press. They can be passed on to Clinton campaign officials.

It is also important to remember that at this time Obama relaxed the rules of sharing between government agencies which means more people would have had access to the unmasked information.

A Rose by Any Other Name

I suppose it would have been more accurate to say “the obama administration abused the FISA courts to put the opposing campaign under surveillance and then used this information for political purposes in a scandal of a scale that dwarfs watergate” but that is a mouthful. Obama wiretapped Trump is much more simple, direct, and covers the essence of what happened.

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.

Youtube

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.

College

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 Brilliance of Bannon

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.

Military

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?

Racism

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?

images.png

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

th

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.

Racism

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.

Institutional

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?

 

Are Democrats Racist?

michelle-racism-02.jpg

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.

Christian

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.

Jamal

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.

Pedro

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

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.

The Red Pill: Volume 1

images

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!