Yugoslavia’s Warning to America - The XX Committee intelligence, strategy, and security in a dangerous world

Clutter and Clean Cycles

Thanks to all those Americans born everywhere from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, even those who are enamored of diversity are beginning to notice that ethnically heterogeneous societies don't tend to survive economic crashes very well:

While it is difficult for anybody who knows the Pentagon well to imagine American generals and admirals getting together to overthrow the civilian government — that would require obscene amounts of PowerPoint and might endanger top brass golden parachutes with Beltway Bandits — the notion of a Civil War 2.0, however terrifying it may be, needs to be faced squarely, if we wish to avoid that awful fate.

America in the 21st century runs little risk of becoming Honduras Grande, but if current politico-economic trends continue much longer, we might well wind up a lot like Yugoslavia. That statement is sure to be controversial, since few Americans, citizens of the global hegemon and to many of them a most exceptional country, like to be compared with a relatively small Balkan federation that collapsed into wars and genocide a generation ago.

Yet the collapse of Yugoslavia offers several cautionary tales to Americans today, and if they are wise they will heed them and set the United States on a correction course before it is too late. As one who witnessed the dreadful collapse of Yugoslavia and its terrible aftermaths — including the seemingly permanent impoverishment of Southeastern Europe, mired in crime, corruption, and extremism — I would very much like America to discover a far happier fate. However, some of the parallels are eerie and troubling....

Managing this increasingly fissiparous country as economic prospects diminish will challenge the most gifted politicians. Indulging in ethnic resentments as a substitute for solutions to vexing politico-economic problems only makes things go from bad to worse, sometimes rapidly and painfully. With both our parties increasingly beholden to Wall Street at the expense of Main Street, average Americans of all backgrounds will not be happy that they are bequeathing a life of less affluence and opportunity to their children. In such a time of troubles, playing ethno-racial political games as a substitute for reform is deeply irresponsible.

It would be nice if Democrats and Republicans played better together, particularly on the budget and borrowing money. It would be especially nice if they seriously addressed issues of rising economic inequality and diminishing opportunities for average Americans.  But it is imperative that they not fan the flames of ethnic and racial resentments if they wish to avoid a terrible outcome for our country.

The nation is already broken and divided. What is now being done to the nations of Europe was already done to the USA back in 1965. There is no longer an Anglo-American nation with a moderate admixture of other European nations, now it is a merely a political entity with dozens of rival ethnic and religious interest groups jockeying for power and a share of the income redistribution.

As with Yugoslavia, the structure will hold so long as it doesn't come under excessive financial stress. This is why I have long predicted the 2033 timeframe, as I thought that's about when the US dollar will fail as the global reserve currency. Considering the current state of China, it's possible that timeframe is too optimistic, but regardless, there is still time to prepare for the Yugoslavication and dissolution of the USA.

Choose your location carefully, and with an eye to the future, as who and what you are is likely to matter with regards to your ability to remain there. I can assure you that the idea of ethnic cleansing and forced relocations on the North American continent is neither a new nor an unthinkable idea. Just ask any American Indian.

Just as there are economic boom and bust cycles, there are longer-term demographic clutter and clean cycles. We are at the peak of the greatest demographic clutter cycle in human history, one that has lasted nearly 200 years. This tends to suggest that we are in for the mother of all clean cycles.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/03/clutter-and-clean-cycles.html

http://20committee.com/2015/03/02/yugoslavias-warning-to-america/

An Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right - by Allum Bokhari and comments from Vox Day

We are the spectre

Allum Bokhari thoughtfully provides establishment conservatives with a Guide to the Alt Right:

A specter is haunting the dinner parties, fundraisers and think-tanks of the Establishment: the specter of the “alternative right.” Young, creative and eager to commit secular heresies, they have become public enemy number one to beltway conservatives — more hated, even, than Democrats or loopy progressives.

The alternative right, more commonly known as the alt-right, is an amorphous movement. Some — mostly Establishment types — insist it’s little more than a vehicle for the worst dregs of human society: anti-Semites, white supremacists, and other members of the Stormfront set. They’re wrong.

Previously an obscure subculture, the alt-right burst onto the national political scene in 2015. Although initially small in number, the alt-right has a youthful energy and jarring, taboo-defying rhetoric that have boosted its membership and made it impossible to ignore.

It has already triggered a string of fearful op-eds and hit pieces from both Left and Right: Lefties dismiss it as racist, while the conservative press, always desperate to avoid charges of bigotry from the Left, has thrown these young readers and voters to the wolves as well.

National Review attacked them as bitter members of the white working-class who worship “father-Führer” Donald Trump. Betsy Woodruff of The Daily Beast attacked Rush Limbaugh for sympathising with the “white supremacist alt-right.” BuzzFeed begrudgingly acknowledged that the movement has a “great feel for how the internet works,” while simultaneously accusing them of targeting “blacks, Jews, women, Latinos and Muslims.”

The amount of column inches generated by the alt-right is a testament to their cultural punch. But so far, no one has really been able to explain the movement’s appeal and reach without desperate caveats and virtue-signalling to readers.

Part of this is down to the alt-right’s addiction to provocation. The alt-right is a movement born out of the youthful, subversive, underground edges of the internet. 4chan and 8chan are hubs of alt-right activity. For years, members of these forums – political and non-political – have delighted in attention-grabbing, juvenile pranks. Long before the alt-right, 4channers turned trolling the national media into an in-house sport.

I leave it to you to decide whether we belong with:

• The intellectuals
• The natural conservatives
• The meme team
• The 1488ers 

Regardless of their merits and demerits, all of these alt-righters are to be preferred to the cuckservatives and the GOPe sellouts.  I've been called "an alt-right figurehead" and I am perfectly fine with that.

And if you're going to call me a nationalist, that's fine. Just make sure that you get it right and call me a "red nationalist".

Vox Popoli: We are the spectre

Full text at:  An Establishment Conservative's Guide To The Alt-Right - Breitbart

Campus Lunacy - by Sir Walter

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni publishes occasional reports on what college students know. Nearly 10 percent of the college graduates surveyed thought Judith Sheindlin, TV’s “Judge Judy,” is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court. Less than 20 percent of the college graduates knew the effect of the Emancipation Proclamation. More than a quarter of the college graduates did not know Franklin D. Roosevelt was president during World War II; one-third did not know he was the president who spearheaded the New Deal. But it is a little mystery why so many college students are illiterate, innumerate and resistant to understanding. Let’s look at it.

Student activists at Brown University complained of emotional stress and poor grades after they spent months of protesting for various causes. They blamed the university for insisting that they complete their coursework. One of the objects of their protest was an op-ed in The Brown Daily Herald, the university newspaper, that was deemed racist because it defended the celebration of Columbus Day. Brown University’s faculty recently took care of that and renamed Columbus Day “Indigenous People’s Day.”

Professor Salvador Vidal-Ortiz of American University told his students that capitalism dehumanizes brown people and black people. If his students had one iota of brains, they might ask him why it is that brown and black people all over the world are seeking to flee to countries toward the capitalist end of the economic spectrum rather than the communist end. Campus Reform reports that Vidal-Ortiz, during the Q&A of a book talk at the University of Virginia, said he tells his students that though he is light-skinned, he refuses to be called white. “I will not be labeled as something that I know is violent,” he said.

College administrators are short on guts and backbone. But there is a glimmer of hope every now and then. Young Americans for Liberty at Rutgers University invited Breitbart News’ technology editor, Milo Yiannopoulos, who is a homosexual, to give a lecture. Yiannopoulos describes his lecture tour as “The Most Dangerous Faggot Tour.” His lecture was titled “How the Progressive Left Is Destroying American Education.” There were about 400 students who attended his lecture, plus there were protesters who smeared themselves with fake blood. Despite student opposition, Rutgers University President Robert Barchi called on his university to stand up for free speech, saying, “That freedom is fundamental to our university, our society, and our nation.” That was also Yiannopoulos’ message, namely: “The purpose of the university is to interrogate new ideas, discover ourselves, meet new people and explore the world. What it ought to be is a free space without trigger warnings. In my view, anyone who asks for a trigger warning should be expelled. What they’ve demonstrated is that they are incapable of being exposed to new ideas.”

Then there is Dr. Everett Piper, president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, who bravely told his students, “This is not a daycare. It’s a university.”

Stanford University’s board of trustees is to be congratulated for not caving into the diversity crowd in its selection of highly distinguished scientist Marc Tessier-Lavigne as university president. Students furiously denounced the choice because Tessier-Lavigne is a white man. The student-run Stanford Political Journal wrote: “We believe the Search Committee intended to select the best possible candidate, and, of course, white men should not have automatically been precluded from the search. However … it would have been fitting for Stanford to select a president that deviates from the traditional white, straight, male mode.”

The University of Missouri System’s board of curators is also to be congratulated for firing professor Melissa Click, who was videotaped intimidating a student reporter during demonstrations that led to the cowardly resignations of the system’s president, Timothy M. Wolfe, and chancellor, R. Bowen Loftin. Her firing was not a result of administrator and faculty decency. Private donations had plummeted, and Missouri lawmakers were proposing an $8 million cut in the system’s budget. That proves what I have always held: Nothing opens the closed minds of administrators better than the sounds of pocketbooks snapping shut.

Campus Lunacy - LewRockwell

An ominous pattern in Syria - by Vox day

Consider the following facts:

1. Russia has withdrawn elements of its tactical forces in Syria, while leaving most of its anti-aircraft and strategic air strike capabilities in place.
2. ISIS lost control of Palmyra to Assad and the Syrian army.
3. For over a month, there have been repeated stories about a joint Saudi-Turkish alliance preparing to invade Syria, ostensibly to fight ISIS, but actually to attack Assad and the legitimate Syrian government.
4. The US government just withdrew all family members of U.S. troops and diplomats from its installations in Turkey, ostensibly out of fears of terrorist attack.
5. The NATO treaty requires the USA to defend Turkey if attacked.
6. Donald Trump has, for the first time in decades, raised serious questions, in public, about US membership in NATO.
7. ISIS is a creation, at least in part of the USA, and the US military made no serious attempts to defeat ISIS in Syria whereas the Russian-Syrian-Iranian alliance managed to repeatedly defeat ISIS and drive it back in just 22 weeks of operations.

What does this suggest? I think it indicates that all sides are preparing for a Turko-Syrian war, which may be a proxy for a US-Russian war in the same way that the war in the Crimea was. I'm not certain whether the US is actively on the side of Turkey or if it is washing its hands of what looks like an increasingly unstable pair of proxies in Turkey and the Islamic State. For the sake of global stability, I sincerely hope the latter is the case.

There are some indications that the US has wisely decided to stay out of it. Just over a month ago, the American Free Press reported:

Moscow has made it clear to Washington it will retaliate if the Turks send forces into Syria. Moscow has made it clear to Washington it will retaliate if the Turks send forces into Syria. The Russians are convinced the Saudis are pressing Turkey to so something militarily before Russian airpower eliminates all the extreme Islamic groups the Turks and Saudis have been supporting. The source says NATO leaders in Europe have told Washington that Turkey and the Saudis will have to go it alone if they engage Russia.

Also, the fact that the US refused Turkey's demands that it cut ties with a Kurdish group fighting in Syria bodes well for avoiding a US-Russian war. The fact that Turkey might also be facing a civil war in its south may be an important factor in its apparent decision to get directly involved in Syria before the government forces wipe out ISIS there.

In any event, the recent withdrawal of Russian and US personnel suggests that things are likely to heat up in Syria soon. It is worth noting, too, that these recent events show how insanely wrong John McCain was to advocate expanding NATO to include Ukraine, as that would have either a) shattered NATO or b) triggered a US-Russian war last year. The fact that the USA appears to be leaving its NATO ally Turkey to go to war on its own tends to indicate the former.

Vox Popoli: An ominous pattern

Who is the Ruling Class? A refresher by Jeffrey Lord

The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America and What We Can do About It. Says Codevilla, in a pluperfect description of Kerry and all those foreign leaders who agree with him that the GOP presidential primary is “an embarrassment”:

Today’s Ruling Class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters — speaking the “in” language — serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money, because as government has grown, the boundary between it and the rest of American life has become indistinct.… 

[The Ruling Class] has defined itself by the presumption of intellectual superiority…. This presumption is key to understanding our bipartisan Ruling Class. Its first tenet is that its members are the best and brightest, while the rest of Americans are retrograde, racist, and dysfunctional unless properly constrained. 

Full text at:  http://spectator.org/articles/65909/john-kerry-gop-elites-and-embarrassing-ruling-class

Green Europe Lets Its Poor Freeze To Death - By Dr. Benny Peiser

The latest story on “green energy” here at the German online FOCUS magazine actually shocked me. Europe’s energy policy is, under the bottom line, costing the lives of tens of thousands of citizens – all at the holy altar of “climate protection”. FOCUS reports: In 2014 in Europe there were about 40,000 winter deaths because millions of people were unable to pay for their electric bills – the so-called energy poverty currently impacts about ten percent of all Europeans.  In the past 8 years the price of electricity in Europe has climbed by an average of 42 percent. The consequences of energy poverty are profound: tens of thousands of deaths every year, millions losing their power.—Pierre Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, 29 March 2016……..

European global warming policies are hurting the continent’s poor, according to a Manhattan Institute study published Thursday. Europe has tried to fight global warming with cap-and-trade schemes and lucrative financial support to green power since 2005. Though well-meaning, the continent’s environmental efforts have only made life harder for Europe’s poor. Between 2005 and 2014, residential electricity rates on the continent increased by 63 percent according to the study.  European-style global warming policies hurt the poor 1.4 to 4 times more than they hurt the rich, according to a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research.—Andrew Follett, The Daily Caller, 25 March 2016…..

Full text at: http://canadafreepress.com/article/green-europe-lets-its-poor-freeze-to-death

Civilization or immigration - And Germany opts for the latter. by Vox Day

A society can only choose one. And Germany opts for the latter.

A central German regional railway is launching a special women and children only area for their trains, a move which has triggered controversy.

The announcement from the central German Regiobahn line came earlier this week, with the network stating the new compartment on their Leipzig and Chemnitz would admit women and young children only.

To ensure maximum peace for those choosing to travel in that compartment not only would it be sandwiched between the service’s two quiet coaches, but it would also be next to the on-board office of the “customer service representative. Traditionally known as a train guard or ticket inspector, the company said “the local proximity to the customer service representative is chosen deliberately”.

Yet despite the recent mass sex-attacks in Germany, and the official advice to young women that the best thing to do is to keep groping migrant men “at arms length” to prevent rape, the railway denies the segregated trains has anything to do with sexual harassment.

This denial has caused lively debate and controversy on German social media, reports Süddeutsche Zeitung.

The launch of women’s only compartments puts Germany in a club of other nations who need to segregate the sexes on journeys including India, Mexico, Brazil, Egypt and Indonesia.

It's fascinating, is it not, that a society which will not permit the rejection of the modern equality mandate on the grounds of demographics or economic growth or religion or the national interest or even simple reality will so readily throw it out in the interests of foreign invaders. Apparently fear of being accused of racism trumps everything now.

What we are witnessing is literal de-civilization. It is astonishing that so many people across the West are not only fine with this, they are downright proud of it.

Labels: decline and fall, immigration

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/03/equality-or-immigration.html

German Railway Launches Gender Segregated Carriages In Wake Of Sex Attacks

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/03/26/german-railway-launches-gender-segregated-carriages-in-wake-of-sex-attacks/

On the Path of Submission to Islam - By Dan Calic

While many think fundamental Islam’s initial overt salvo against the US was 9/11, it actually began with the takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

However, what wasn’t known until after 9/11 is that Muslims had hatched a plan to take over the US and the West back in 1982. Indeed, in November 2001 Swiss authorities discovered a document known in counterterrorism circles as “The Project.”

From an article written by Patrick Poole here’s what is known.  A Swiss villa owned by Youssef Nada, Director of the Al-Taqwa Bank Lugano was raided on Nov. 7, 2001. Nada had been active with the Muslim Brotherhood, (the grandfather of Muslim terrorist organizations) for decades. The raid was conducted by Swiss authorities at the request of the White House.

Included among the seized documents was a 14-page plan written in Arabic outlining a specific strategy designed to bring about worldwide Islamic domination.

One might think the discovery of such a document would be the lead story in major news sources throughout the free world.  However, because political correctness generally supersedes truth, and media is largely controlled by liberals, whose mantra is political correctness, “The Project” saw very little public light. Yet, the lack of media attention does not and should not diminish the significance of its content.

For example, here are some of the plan’s goals:

• Networking and coordinating among like-minded Islamist organizations
• Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of moderation
• Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations and redirecting their goals in line with Muslim Brotherhood goals
• Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn’t interfere with Sharia law
• Establishing financial networks…to fund the conversion of the West
• Conducting surveillance, obtaining data….
• Monitoring Western media to warn Muslims of plots fomented against them
• Build networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations…dedicated to Islamist ideals….
• Using Western institutions until they can be converted into service of Islam
• Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically elected institutions on all levels in the West
• Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world
• Inciting hatred by Muslims against Jews and rejecting any discussion of conciliation and coexistence with them
• Develop a comprehensive 100 year plan to advance Islamist ideology throughout the world

These are just some of what is included in The Project. To read an English translation of the entire document click here

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/03/on_the_path_of_submission_to_islam_.html#ixzz44JjJ6LX2
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Donald Trump is the only candidate seeking to put America’s interests first, especially in the areas of trade, defense, and immigration. - By Timm Amundson

(This article by a small business owner is the best I have seen in a while about the reality we face as a country.)

Since I consider myself a traditional conservative, many friends of mine, on both the Right and the Left, are puzzled by my unwavering support for Donald Trump.

Their bewilderment is understandable. Trump is often rude and obnoxious. His demeanor can be arrogant and dismissive. At times, he comports himself as reckless and willing to lash out prematurely, prior to fully understanding all of the facts at hand. To put it simply, he is a “wrecking ball.”

Furthermore, Trump isn’t even a pure conservative in terms of policy; he is a populist. His statements over the years regarding such areas as limited government, religious liberty, states’ rights, and abortion have been inconsistent at best, and in some cases, have steered firmly to the left.

Still, given all of this baggage, I have my feet planted firmly in Camp Trump. But why? How can a principled, pragmatic, deliberate conservative be drawn to such a candidate? It is because I believe conservatism doesn’t stand a chance in this country without first delivering a very heavy dose of populism.

Populism Versus Conservatism

Populism, at least Trump’s version of it, is a platform built largely on the principle of economic nationalism. It focuses on three primary policy areas: trade, defense, and immigration.

Trump’s description of the problem for each is very clear: 1) our trade policy has decimated our manufacturing base, leaving millions of Americans economically stranded; 2) our defense policy has engaged us in conflicts around the globe that in many cases have actually made the United States less secure, and have added considerably to our bloated national debt; and 3) in 1986, Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to approximately 3 million illegal immigrants, on the condition that our borders would be secured and illegal immigration would be dramatically curtailed. Since that time, at least 11 million (and likely many more) illegal aliens have entered the United States, effectively suppressing wages for many working Americans, and adding tremendously to the cost of our education and public assistance programs.

Since our nation’s founding, the principle of national sovereignty has been the preeminent and driving force for what it means to be an American conservative.

Do Trump’s positions on these areas alone define him as an unabashed conservative? No. As enumerated above, several other categories need to be added when determining whether an individual is decidedly conservative or liberal. But are Trump’s positions on trade, defense, and immigration not conservative? Absolutely not!

His stance on these issues, when taken together, represent the most important plank in the history of American conservatism. That is the vital importance, and in fact primacy, of national sovereignty. In fact, since our nation’s founding, the principle of national sovereignty has been the preeminent and driving force for what it means to be an American conservative.

It is the position that as “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” we are not only entitled but obligated to define and protect our own country, our own principles, and our own culture, independent of those nations and societies that claim the same rights and obligations.

This is where this author believes the battle line needs to be drawn within the Republican Party: between those true conservatives who consider national sovereignty preeminent, and those who profess to be conservative, only to advance their own ideological or avaricious priorities.

Stop Tarring Us for ‘Isolationism,’ ‘Protectionism,’ and ‘Nativism’

No individual has done a better job of articulating the schizophrenic dilemma the Republican Party finds itself in today than Pat Buchanan. In fact, it was Pat, who, when running for president himself in ’92 and 2000, accurately predicted what we are facing today. He summed up perfectly the forces that have driven America into its current state of hopelessness when he described the culprits as “two wings on the same bird of prey,” that being the established power structures of both the Republican and Democratic parties.

We have spent trillions of dollars and lost thousands of American lives in foreign conflicts that have done little in securing order and peace.

Pat also reminded us that, on more than one occasion, Bush 43 emphatically denounced the populist platform long before Trump’s candidacy. Bush defined populist positions on defense, trade, and immigration as “isolationist,” “protectionist,” and “nativist,” respectively. In 1991, shortly after the Gulf War, his father, George H. W. Bush, proudly announced to the entire world that we were entering a “new world order” (Bush’s words, not mine).

Since that time, under two Republican and two Democrat administrations, Americans have witnessed the following:

1) In the name of national defense and America’s obligation to lead the free world, we have spent trillions of dollars and lost thousands of American lives in foreign conflicts that have done little in securing order and peace, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, our intervention in places like Iraq and Libya has done a great deal to foster chaos, and create avenues through which malicious regimes and terrorist groups continue to grow and thrive.

In an effort to revive Woodrow Wilson’s mission to “democratize the world,” we have taken the presumptive and arrogant position that the United States has the right to dictate the political make-up of cultures and countries different than our own. We are doing all of this with money the country doesn’t have, and largely at the behest of other nations that refuse to participate, financially or otherwise. Americans of nearly every political and philosophical persuasion have come to realize what a misguided policy this has been.

Is this really a position of “isolationism,” or one of simple common sense?

2) In the name of free trade, since Bush 41 both parties have worked closely together to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement, establish the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade II, form the World Trade Organization, and grant Communist China most favored nation status in trade. What has this gotten us? Well, since 1991, our accumulated trade deficit approaches $12 trillion! Tens of thousands of manufacturing plants have closed, and millions of American jobs have been sacrificed for the sake of globalism. Now establishment Republicans and Democrats are locking arms once again to promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

The overwhelming majority of Americans understand that what truly lacks compassion is when a society attempts to absorb people it cannot properly and effectively assimilate in a fair and just manner.

Mitt Romney tells us Trump’s position would incite a trade war. Really? Since ‘91, our trade deficit with China alone exceeds $4 trillion, and he’s afraid of a trade war? Can he not see that we have been in the middle of a trade war for decades, but one we simply choose not to fight? It’s clear by now that fair-minded Americans on both sides of the aisle understand you can’t have true free trade without true fair trade.

Is this really a position of “protectionism,” or one of simple common sense?

3) In the name of compassion and human rights, today, our southern border has become a piece of Swiss cheese. The argument to secure our borders and deport, at least temporarily, those who are here illegally, stems from the simple fact that we are a nation of laws, which, everyone is required to abide by.

Bushes 41 and 43, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama would all consider this position as lacking in compassion. But the overwhelming majority of Americans understand that what truly lacks compassion is when a society attempts to absorb a group or groups of people it cannot properly and effectively assimilate in a fair and just manner. They realize, among other things, that when we fail to address this issue firmly, we are helping to drive down wages for hard-working Americans; we are further stressing our overworked public education system; and we are taxing our public assistance programs to an extent that our local, state, and federal governments are increasingly less capable of addressing.

Finally, if establishment Republican and Democrat leaders are unwilling to strictly enforce laws related to those people who are here illegally, on what grounds do they claim authority to enforce laws pertaining to this country’s legal citizens?

Is this really a position of “nativism,” or one of simple common sense?

In these three critical areas, the Bush and Romney camps have not only disavowed the core basis for conservative thinking, they have also turned their backs on American sovereignty and the American middle class. They are not conservative leaders, they are false prophets.

We Have Met the Enemy

In 1970, cartoonist Walt Kelly, in the comic strip Pogo, paraphrased a quote of some historical significance with the line: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” No better description could be applied to the power base of the Republican Party. The party has long been dominated by two closely aligned factions that represent little affiliation with conservative principle or patriotic zeal: the Chamber of Commerce coalition, and the neoconservative crusaders.

The party has long been dominated by two factions little affiliated with conservative principle or patriotic zeal: the Chamber of Commerce coalition, and the neoconservative crusaders.

By its very title, it should surprise no one that the Chamber of Commerce lobby places as its top priority the almighty bottom line and corporate profits. Thomas Jefferson said it best when he declared: “The merchant has no country.” This was not an indictment against free enterprise or the aspiration of individuals to prosper and grow rich. It simply recognized the immutable fact that business decisions are driven chiefly by the principle of profit maximization, and that a business enterprise will always follow this maxim, whether it is realized in China, Mexico, or the United States.

Many transnational corporations and big business and financial concerns have profited greatly through foreign production and financial multilateralism, while America’s manufacturing base has been pulverized and the American middle class has been punished. A populist message that threatens to renegotiate trade deals and treaties and bring production and jobs back to the United States absolutely terrifies the big business boys. They will go to any lengths to ensure this does not take place.

As for the neocons, their position is just as self-serving. The neoconservative movement began primarily with a group of leftist ex-Trotskyites, who comfortably made their home in the Democratic Party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the ’30s. Their foreign policy adamantly opposed the imperialistic adventures of Russia’s Joseph Stalin, while their domestic policies remained firmly progressive.

In the late ’60s they began moving to the Republican Party, when the anti-war messages of Gene McCarthy and George McGovern compelled them to align with the party that was more in line with their pro-intervention position. The transition was effectively complete by the end of the Carter administration, when the vast majority of neocons made the Republican Party their permanent home.

Neocons are practically single-handedly responsible for the mess in which we find ourselves today in the Middle East.

This group of political gypsies has always placed limited emphasis on domestic policy. Their primary mission in recent decades has essentially been to define and direct America’s leading role in the “new order” that Bush 41 ushered in, back in ’91. Importantly, by that time the Soviet empire was on its way out. They then turned their sights on the Middle East. They are practically single-handedly responsible for the mess in which we find ourselves today in that part of the world.

The idea that a populist candidate would offer up a more pragmatic and limited interventionist foreign policy terrifies them, as well. Just like the big business boys, they will go to any lengths to ensure this does not take place.

These two factions, by far the most influential and powerful in the Republican Party, are not only responsible for subverting the traditional conservative underpinnings of the party, they are endangering the future viability of the party altogether. The story becomes even more sordid when you consider how closely linked the two groups are in terms of defense spending and military intervention. Can you say “military-industrial complex”?

Donald Trump’s Slippery Road Ahead

Some might think such an impassioned show of support for Trump populism would be accompanied by a commensurate level of hope and optimism. Sadly, I cannot offer that. Until recently I actually thought Trump would have a much easier time winning the general election than the Republican nomination. I felt the Republican establishment would do anything, including try to force a brokered convention, to stop him. But if he could somehow find a way to get over this giant hurdle, his populist message of fair trade and limited military intervention would woo enough Independents and blue-collar Democrats to take him over the hill against Hill.

There is no doubt that these establishment turncoats will pull out all the stops to ensure that Hillary Clinton becomes the forty-fifth president of the United States.

But now that we see how incredibly pernicious the Republican attacks on Trump have become, there is no doubt that these establishment turncoats will pull out all the stops to ensure that Hillary Clinton becomes the forty-fifth president of the United States. This is because, contrary to her campaign rhetoric, she has demonstrated time and again, through action and deed, she stands tall with the Chamber of Commerce clan on trade policy, and stands even more firmly with the neocons on foreign policy.

Whether this unholy alliance is solidified through the promotion of a faux third-party candidate, or an even more devious form of subterfuge and attack, remains to be seen. One thing is for sure, though: Trump would have to defy all odds to emerge the winner.

But this is why conservative support for Trump is more important than ever. If the center or establishment wings of the two parties come together as a result of Trump’s candidacy, and Trump gets trounced, this will undoubtedly result in a tectonic shift in party politics. The likely outcome will be the formation of a populist party, which will find a home either under the Republican banner or a separate, independent party.

Either way, the Republican Party, as it was once known, will cease to exist. This is where it gets really interesting. In such a scenario, the driving force of this populist movement will either be fundamentally conservative (Trump supporters) or progressive (Sanders supporters). The internal battles will be ugly and brutal, and the only glue to keep these otherwise opposing groups together will be their unified policies on trade, defense, and immigration.

As the fight for this new party identity wages on, it will require a significant number of informed and principled conservatives to lead the charge for the A Team.

Okay, But Still—Donald Trump, Really?

When I measure Trump against someone like Ted Cruz, I have to admit I’m a little torn. Cruz is a true constitutionalist, a rare politician who understands very well that our nation was founded by a courageous set of traditional conservatives like Washington, Adams, and Hamilton, and an equally brilliant group of classical liberals, such as Jefferson and Franklin. It was the oftentimes contentious and combative debates between the two factions that gave us the remarkable framework for government that we call our Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.

If we consider Cruz’s position prior to the campaign, he has been far more allied to the neoconservative platform.

Cruz is a conservative, and an incredibly talented constitutional lawyer. I respect and admire his courage to take a sound and principled message to the American electorate. Unfortunately, I think his positions, specifically on trade and defense, are suspect. He has denounced TPP, but his decision wavered until he fully realized which direction the wind was blowing with the base.

He has also stated he is opposed to “regime change,” giving him lots of wiggle room in terms of military intervention. In fact, if we consider his position prior to the campaign, he has been far more allied to the neoconservative platform. In both of these areas, he has demonstrated a relatively shaky position, at least in comparison to Trump.

So, although I have serious questions regarding Trump’s position on a number of issues, I believe his core populist platform is the soundest and surest way for America to begin rebuilding her neglected middle class and restoring her sovereignty. Without these two imperatives in place, a true conservative message doesn’t stand a chance, as more and more Americans today, particularly young voters, are lured into a solidly entrenched progressive philosophy.

Every society, in every age, is composed of some combination of the haves and the have-nots. It is the primary objective of any civilized and compassionate culture to maximize the former and minimize the latter. A free and democratic nation is doomed when the have-nots become the majority.

A free and democratic nation is doomed when the have-nots become the majority.

This is because those whom the majority brings to power in the name of progressivism will always work to “rob Peter, to pay Paul.” Then the downward spiral of socialism begins. As history has shown us time and again, it is destined to meet a tragic end. As Margaret Thatcher said: “Socialism is just fine…until you run out of other people’s money.”

America is at a very dangerous tipping point. Due in equal measure to both progressive and globalist policies, the have-nots are quickly outnumbering the haves. If the scales are not rebalanced in a very short period of time, we’re in big trouble.

With all of its faults, America is still the most generous nation in the history of mankind. For over a century she has been the engine through which so many other countries around the world have been saved, both economically and militarily. Through sound guidance and by example, she has proudly and effectively promoted the principles of free enterprise, and demonstrated the prosperous results of market-based economics.

But, over the last 25 years in particular, in the name of globalism and the establishment of a new world order, the cost of America’s generosity and influence has been placed squarely on the back of the American taxpayer, and it has had a devastating effect on the backbone of our society—the American middle class. America will always remain a loyal ally and a defender of freedom, and a fair and proactive international trading partner. She will always open her arms wide to a healthy and legitimate process of immigration. But she can no longer afford, financially or philosophically, to be the world’s disproportionate benefactor. Our political leaders need to take a stand.

Sadly, but resolutely, I believe we need to take a “wrecking ball” to American politics today. That ball has to be in the form of a candidate who is willing to do whatever is necessary to bring our middle class back to the “family of haves” and restore our country’s sense of independence and sovereignty. I believe Donald Trump is the most qualified to lead this movement and to begin returning America to all Americans.

Why I Support Donald Trump

Timm Amundson is a small business owner and conservative polemicist from Chicago, Illinois.

An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America - by Mohamed Akram - May 19, 1991

May 19, 1991

View the full document

Summary:

This May 1991 memo was written by Mohamed Akram, a.k.a. Mohamed Adlouni, for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood. In the introductory letter, Akram referenced a "long-term plan…approved and adopted" by the Shura Council in 1987 and proposed this memo as a supplement to that plan and requested that the memo be added to the agenda for an upcoming Council meeting. Appended to the document is a list of all Muslim Brotherhood organizations in North America as of 1991.

Notable quotes:

·         Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims' causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims' efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic state, wherever it is.

·         In order for Islam and its Movement to become "a part of the homeland" in which it lives, "stable" in its land, "rooted" in the spirits and minds of its people, "enabled" in the live [sic] of its society and has firmly-established "organizations" on which the Islamic structure is built and with which the testimony of civilization is achieved, the Movement must plan and struggle to obtain "the keys" and the tools of this process in carry [sic] out this grand mission as a "Civilization Jihadist" responsibility which lies on the shoulders of Muslims and – on top of them – the Muslim Brotherhood in this country.

·         The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Proecess" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.

An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America :: Archive Documents :: The Investigative Project on Terrorism

“When was the last time a world leader did something really bold?” - by Taki Theodoracopulos

I’ve just reread Adam Zamoyski’s magnificent Moscow 1812, which I read when it first appeared ten years ago. I can never get enough of it. The courage, the glory, the suffering, it’s all too much. Germans and Poles, Frenchmen and Russians, Italians, all covered themselves with glory…….

Mind you, Napo never won anything important again. Mother Russia had defeated him as it defeated Hitler 130 years later. Which brings me to the present. Unlike the clowns of the EU and the bungling Americans, Uncle Vlad did a Kutusov, went into Syria, avoided the risks of getting bogged down, and, having lost only one aircraft that was shot down by a NATO power supposedly on his side, departed the quagmire with maximum results.

Yet that fool of a foreign secretary, Hammond—never have I seen a man who looks more like a boring accountant—warns us not to cheer because it would be like praising a man who stopped beating his wife. Well, I don’t beat women in general or my wife in particular, so I wouldn’t know. What I do know is that Putin is authentic and authoritarian, the type who wins wars, a spontaneous and courageous leader who has shown up the West as a paper tiger. Let’s face it. When was the last time a world leader did something really bold? And he didn’t declare mission accomplished, either, a declaration that has proved fatal in the case of Iraq and Libya. This is the man the clowns in Brussels tried to bluff with Circe-like songs to Ukraine, so he took back Crimea as a bonus. His standing by Assad has shown up Uncle Sam yet again as an unreliable ally when the going gets tough.

No matter how hard the Americans and Europeans have tried to show Russia as a busted flush, the joke’s on them. And by leaving the playing field, Vlad has shot across the Assad bow, warning him to negotiate or else. Just compare Putin’s stance in Syria with that of Uncle Sam in Yemen. The latter is a humanitarian disaster that rivals that of Syria.

Full text - Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/over_two_centuries_ago_taki/print#ixzz44EFbpZpr

Idolocracy and idiocracy - by Vox Day

I saw part of an episode of American Idol last night, and what struck me immediately was that it, and the commercials run for its viewers, was entertainment for retards and children. There was an Angry Birds skit/commercial that was very nearly as embarrassing as it was insulting to the intelligence of the audience. As near as I could tell in the 10 minutes or so that I managed to endure it, it looked as if it was aiming for an audience with an IQ of around 85-90. This makes commercial sense, of course, given the fact that I've calculated the average US IQ has fallen at least four points based on demographic change alone.

I thought my calculation was pessimistic for the long-term fate of the USA, but it turns out that the situation may well be considerably worse. If Bruce Charlton and Michael Woodley are correct, idiocracy is already here and there appears to be no way to reverse the course of the intellectual decline short of either a) a cataclysmic collapse and rebuilding of Western society or b) totalitarian scientific eugenicism on steroids.

It has been a fascinating, and I must admit horrifying, three-and-a-bit years since Michael Woodley and I first discovered the first objective evidence that there has been a very substantial decline in general intelligence ('g') over the past two hundred years - the evidence was posted on this blog just a few hours after we discovered it:

Since then, Michael has taken the lead in replicating this finding in multiple other forms of data, and in a variety of paradigms; and learning more about the magnitude of change and its timescale. His industry has been astonishing! 

We currently believe that general intelligence has declined by approximately two standard deviations (which is approximately 30 IQ points) since 1800 - that is, over about 8 generations.

Such a decline is astonishing - at first sight. But its magnitude has been obscured by social and medical changes so that we underestimate intelligence in 1800 and over-estimate intelligence now.

On the other hand, magnitude and rapidity of decline in world class geniuses in the West (and of major innovations) does imply a decline of intelligence of at least 2 SDs - so from that perspective the rate and size of decline is pretty much as-expected.

So much for the quaint notions of a shiny, sexy, seculatopia where reason and logic would reign over all. If they are right, we'll be fortunate if our great-great-grandchildren don't return to the trees and seas, a-grunting as they go.

To a certain extent, the crisis facing the species is similar to that of Nigeria, only writ large. Whereas the Nigerian population used to be limited by high child mortality and was able to feed itself, the importation of Western science and medical care reduced the child mortality rate, caused the population to explode, and has rendered the nation both unable to feed itself, and less intelligent on average as well.

In the West, one need only compare the difference between the popular books of fifty, one hundred, and two hundred years ago with today's bestsellers to observe that there has been a prodigious decline in reader's tastes, despite the fact that the less-intelligent half of the population doesn't read at all.

These changes are not merely dysgenic and dyscivic, they are dyscivilizational. Which causes me to suspect that the future trend is not merely going to be nationalistic, but highly eugenicist as well. The first nation to ensure its homogenuity and solve the declining intelligence challenge will have a significant advantage over all the rest. The only upside that I see is that there should be no desire whatsoever to attack and rule over other nations and populations, although that carries some potentially ominous implications too.

I certainly hope they're wrong, because it's enough to make even a hard-core atheist science-fetishist want to say: "Come, Lord Jesus, and soon!"

Vox Popoli: Idolocracy and idiocracy

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-destruction-of-common-sense-and.html

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/convincing-objective-and-direct.html