Thursday, March 26, 2015

The American people failed to stop mass immigration after WTC 911. Will Europe be able to stop mass immigration or will the plutocrats and corporations win over there, too?

Steve Sailer speculates that the recent Muslim atrocities in Europe will allow the European people to stop mass immigration.

Yes, the muslims have committed some pretty serious mayhem in europe recently, but muslim immigrants perpetrated a far more heinous crime in america in 2001--the WTC 911 incident. And after WTC 911 there were many who predicted that america would crack down on immigration because of it.

But, in fact, we have more immigration than ever now.

Yes, the white people of europe may indeed win the immigration war that we americans lost.

But why?

Why were the american majority unable to stop mass immigration after the WTC 911 incident?
And why are the europeans more likely to be able to win this war against immigration?

First, americans have been divided and pitted against each other far more than have the europeans. Liberals attack conservatives and conservatives attack liberals. Neither side understands who the real enemy is. Europeans understand that whites are not evil and that the big corporations and plutocrats are evil and that they are behind mass immigration.

So, europeans know who the real enemy is, at least to a much greater degree.

Second, europe is still governed primarily at the nation level. And each nation of western europe is much smaller than the USA. Smaller means more democratic. The people have more control of their own government there.

Third, european nations are more homogenous. The USA is about 65% white. All the western european nations are much more white than that. More homogeneous means more united. More united means the people have more control.

Still, even given the advantages that the white europeans have that americans do not have, I would not be surprised if the european people are helpless to stop mass immigration, just as the american majority have been. The corporations have constructed a pseudo-democratic federalist mega-state called the European Union, just as the founding "fathers" did in the USA over 200 years ago. That federalist state may have already stolen enough democracy to prevent the european majority from stopping mass immigration.

Also, you underestimate the power of propaganda, and the degree to which the corporations are able to mold the culture through the educational curriculum. More and more europeans are having to attend college to get a career. Education is propaganda. Through education the corporations are able to shape and mold impressionable young white minds to make them ashamed of whiteness and indoctrinate them into submitting to multiculturalism.

Sunday, March 15, 2015

Mona Montgomery, youtube vlogger, has an interesting perspective on the "Oklahoma Frat Boys Singing" media fracas

Mona Montgomery has a youtube vlog on the racist frat scandal.

I like her slant on this. She looks at this from an anthropological/biological perspective that is highly unusual. Her perspective is that young white males are racist because they are about to breed and that racism is an effort on their part to preserve and protect the female breeding stock of their own race, and that such efforts are just natural and to be expected, at least in a biological sense.

I am not sure if that explains the SAE frat boy scandal, but it is good to see a anti-multiculturalist try to explain things and provide some background that might explain the forces in play when it comes to the conflict between the corporate media/government/hollywood/academia and their politcally correct, multiculturalist propaganda versus the white working class of America.

Usually, the typical anti-multiculturalist/Dissident Right blogger/vlogger will just blame liberals and professors and Social Justice Warriors or whatever. But there are other forces in play here. And, no, I am not referring to jews. I am talking about biological forces, ecological forces, social hierarchical forces and so forth.

Also, Ms Montgomery is 72 years old, and her lifetime of learning obviously informs her vlogging. She is the best anti-multiculturalist blogger/vlogger around.

Sunday, March 1, 2015

Regarding the differences in the Propaganda Regimes of the USSR & Red China vs. the Propaganda Regime of America

I posted a reply to a comment on Sailer's blog, but as is often the case, he is delaying the approval of my comment.

So, I am posting it here:

you wrote:
But the communist utopian idea is what allowed “the proletariat” in many unfortunate places to be led down the road to hell.

Yeah, maybe that's why I said this:
"But the ideas of socialism/communism were mere labels used to garner support."

you wrote:
It is the idea that human nature is changeable into something that will make a system work.

It is not human "nature" that the propaganda-regimes of Red China and Soviet Union sought to manipulate through their extensive propaganda regimes. No, it is human behavior that they sought to change/alter/manipulate.

And it worked, to a certain degree. Human beings are evolved to be able to modify their behavior according to the rules of the tribe in which they live. That is what culture is: the rules of behavior and thought and philosophy of your tribe.   That is human nature: to live as the rules of your tribe prescribe.

The Red China and USSR sought to manipulate the behaviors of their subjects through their extensive propaganda regimes.  Propaganda, aimed at their subjects, especially in youth, can to a certain degree, affect behavior, even decades later.

These large, undemocratic propaganda regimes were run primarily for the benefit of the elite.

you wrote:
It is the opposite of the truth, that a system must be designed to work with human nature as it is (capitalism.)

No, the USA is also a large propaganda regime run primarily for the benefit of the elite. Yes, more of the fruits of our labors accrue to the workers than was the case for the workers in Red China and the USSR.

you wrote:
The claim that “there never really has been a true communist country,” is exactly the garbage taught by my bearded professor in political science 100 at a top university more than three decades ago, and it smells just as bad now as it did then. Still, it convinced a large number of gullible freshmen.

Communism can only exist --and has only existed--in communes.

What is a commune? In reality, throughout history, much of mankind has lived--and to a great degree prospered--in communes, at least of a sort. These small, insular, long-term, highly integrated and interrelated tribal structures were partly responsible for the success of the species. But a nation is far too large to be democratic enough to be successful as a commune. In a commune, tribal leaders are kept in check easily. Not in larger units such as nations. 

Yes, obviously, the propaganda regimes were of red china and the soviet union were able to use the lure of the utopia of communism to influence behavior of the subjects for a number of decades. The elite got rich off the labor of their subjects. Then it fell apart. Obviously.

But the USA also uses propaganda to influence behavior and thus increase the wealth of those at the top. Yes, we get more of the fruits of our labor. But we also have to work much harder. Haven't you noticed that? Maybe your mind is under the influence of the propaganda of the elite?

And the idea infuses our misguided efforts to retrain people who are genetically different to all be the same and to be better than they really are. The idea fools the influential and their followers into thinking that everyone and everything is relative, that nothing and no one is better than anything or anyone else in any regard. The idea makes everyone poorer and destroys what has been built by the better part of humanity. The idea is ruining America and the Western World.

Ah, you refer to the multiculturalist propaganda regime of the USA!

Yes, just as the elite of the propaganda-regimes called the USSR and Red China generated propaganda to cause their subjects to behave in ways that funneled wealth to those elite, so also do the elite of the USA (the USSA? LOL!) also generate propaganda to affect the behavior of their subjects so as to increase the wealth of the elite.  Similarly, some species of ants manipulate aphids so as to milk them. So too do ticks suck blood from mammals. Homo sapiens has domesticated cows and goats and sheep, etc so as to get milk, meat etc.

How does multiculturalist propaganda generated by those at the top of American society help funnel wealth to those at the top?  Multiculturalist propaganda helps get more workers into america, get more workers into american workplaces and working, get more shoppers into malls etc. That increases GDP and sales and depresses wages via increases in the supply of labor. This makes those at the top richer.

Same end goal as the propaganda regimes of the USSR and Red China. Just different mechanisms, at least to some degree.

The USSR and Red China used the writings of Marx etc to sell their regimes.  Socialist utopia propaganda, yes, indeed. Harkening back to and exploiting our true history and nature of living in tribal communes. But that organization cannot translate to the nation. THe nation is too large a unit to have enough democracy, coherency etc to succeed as a commune. Obviously!

Propaganda. It works. At least to a certain degree.

See for example, the advertising airship of Blade Runner:
"A new life awaits you in the off-world colonies! A chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!"

Similarly, the USSA uses a large body of pro-capitalism propaganda, propaganda that exploits the history of colonial america, where colonists exploited a rich land laid relatively bare and depopulated by diseases such as smallpox. That land rush exploitation history is the basis of the capitalist propaganda regime of the USSA. Combine that tapestry thread with the new thread of multiculturalist propaganda designed to help the elite increase the size of the herd via racial integration and mass immigration, and you get an idea of what the USSA is all about.

you wrote:
There never has been a true perpetual motion machine either.

Quite true. But sadly irrelevant.

Saturday, February 21, 2015

Back-up posting of my comment left on Sailer post on 2-21-2015

Steve Sailer claims he moderates his comments on a "whim", but what he really wants is an echo chamber. Once again, my comment on one of his posts has been censored by Sailer. What he does is not allow any of my comments that are critical of him until some time has passed, say, a day or two. Then he typically allows my comment to be posted. I suppose he feels that an echo chamber of his adoring fans will facilitate donations.

leftist conservative
• Website     
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
for the 1000th time I ask “Why?” on a Dissident Right website
yes, you have correctly pointed out (for the 1000th time) that anti-white multiculturalism is the dominant ideology of the upper class and, not coincidentally, that anti-white multiculturalism is also the dominant ideology of the media, of academia, of government, hollywood etc.
But once again you avoid asking “Cui Bono?”. Who benefits?
Who benefits from the fact that anti-white multiculturalism is the dominant ideology of america?
How did it comes to pass that anti-white multiculturalism became the dominant ideology?
What forces propelled anti-white multiculturalism to the top of the ideology heap?
Pure random chance?
Why did the upper class and the mega-corporations (that are run by the upper class) adopt this ideology?
The Dissident Right does not like to ask these questions.
I look around this world of ours, and I ask questions. That is what I do.
Why does the arctic fox have long white fur, whereas the southern fox has short red fur? Why?
Why did anti-white multiculturalism pass through the filter and become the dominant ideology? Why did it out-compete all the other ideologies?

Wednesday, February 4, 2015

Both the Social Justice Warriors of the Left and the Dissident Right pretend that political correctness has nothing to do with money

I posted the below comment to steve sailer's post on
Let's see how long he delays posting my comment or whether he will post it at all.

you think political correctness is bad.
So do I.

You think liberals like winning more than getting social justice.
So do I.

But you didn't really mention why liberals <i>can</i> win in this war of political correctness.
They can win because they have all the powerful institutions on their side. Government, academia, the media, hollywood, the supreme court, congress, the president (GOP or Dem), giant corporations--all these powerful and rich institutions are also excruciatingly politically correct.
And in fact it is not these social justice warriors that are the source of and power behind political correctness. It is those rich and powerful institutions that are the source of and power behind political correctness.

Isn't that right?

You did not mention that, and liberals also prefer not to notice that they are not really "fighting the power" when they stand up for nonwhites and fight against white males.
All the powerful institutions in america are right there with them. But you did not mention that fact in your column. Like liberals, you prefer not to mention the rich and powerful "man behind the curtain" that is pulling the levers that generate and enforce the dictates of PC.

Now you have mentioned before that liberals when commenting online "speak power to truth". A nice turn of phrase, there.  And it is actually a tacit acknowledgement that political correctness is actually a tool of the rich and powerful. But it is just a tacit acknowledgement. You won't come right out and admit that PC is produced by and for the rich and powerful.

This war of conservative vs liberal war of political correctness is carefully maintained and tended and kept within certain parameters. Both sides have this certain taboo--the liberals say they are against the rich and for the rest of us. But they ignore the fact that the rich and powerful and the source of political correctness and also its enforcer. It is not the SJWs that are the enforcer. They are merely the tool. It is those rich and powerful institutions, owned and and/or managed by the rich and powerful that are the real power. And likewise the conservatives like to pretend that the enemy is the liberals, the SJWs, the gib-me-dat minorities, etc. They don't want to see the man behind the curtain, either. Both sides maintain this impolite fiction, this suspension of belief, and thereby maintain the imaginary boundaries of this little war. And everyone who plays along will benefit.

Now, you and the Dissident Right will admit that immigration is pushed by the rich and powerful in order to get cheap labor. Well, you admit that occasionally. And you really have to...because it is just so obvious that you must admit it.

Most of the time you pretend that mass immigration happens because the Democrats want more democrat voters. Despite the fact that mass immigration would only lead to more democrat voters many years if not decades down the line. So all these Dem politicians are for mass immigration because they are just so darn loyal to the Party that they will back mass immigration because they want to grow the voter base long term. Yeah. That's a good one, there.

So, no, the Dem politicians back mass immigration because Big Business wants it. And that is the same reason GOP politicians in general only pretend to be against mass immigration. The money and power of Big Business.

But let us return to political correctness.

Political correctness and mass immigration. How are these ideas linked? The Dissident Right and the GOP extended phenotype (e.g., talk radio, etc) will occasionally admit that mass immigration is pushed by big business because of the profit motive. But they will not admit that political correctness is also pushed by big business.

But the fact is that the big business profit that drives mass immigration can only be realized through political correctness. Political correctness is the lubricants that greases the rails and enables the profits behind mass immigration to be realized.

Political correctness instills white guilt and keeps many (just enough) whites cowed and subservient, just cowed enough to manufacture consent for mass immigration.
Political correctness allows big business to get all those immigrants into the workplace earning, earning so they will spend. You see, the profit from mass immigration is not only from cheap labor, but also a supply of consumers.

Now, the question is, why does the Dissident Right and the GOP extended phenotype play along with this game and pretend that the "other side" is just SJWs? A question for another day...

Friday, January 16, 2015

Is there a class war going on?

  1. yes, there is a class war, one being waged by the upper class, the mega-corporations against the white working class majority.
  2. Mass immigration, combined with multiculturalism, political correctness, racial integration, affirmative action, these are the weapons of the plutocrats and the mega-corporations, the weapons being used against the white working class of the western nations.
  3. Mass immigration, combined with multiculturalism, political correctness, racial integration, affirmative action, etc are used to fragment the unity of the populace, thus diffusing and weakening the expressed common interest of the electorate. Thus weakened, the majority cannot unite against the plutocrats and mega-corporations.
    This is called the ‘divide et impera’ strategy, and it is the one created by the so-called founding fathers over 200 years. Madison et al used it to weaken democracy and allow the rich to rule america.
    In those days, the unity of the populace was weakened by the formation of the USA from the several states, thus enlarging the voting districts and creating more factions in the populace. Madison wrote that by enlarging the voting districts (through creation of federal voting districts, which are larger than state voting districts), the larger districts would have more factions, thus making it harder for the people to unite. This would, as madison put it, “protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.”
    The core idea was to dampen democracy. The separation of powers, and checks and balances created in the constitution would also help to dampen democracy. Less power to the people and more to rich people like madison, washington, morris etc.
    Same idea is being used today. But instead of enlarged districts to create factions and prevent electorate unity, the idea is to create factions through mass immigration combined with multiculturalism, political correctness, racial integration, affirmative action, etc.
    Same as it ever was….

Sunday, January 4, 2015

the rules that tell us what it means to be a Good Person were put in place by Big Money

Peter Frost is a blogger over on His posts there come close to truth about the connection between multiculturalism and the drive for increased corporate profits, growth and GDP.
I posted my response below to his latest blogpost:

Your articles and posts are the only ones I have seen that come close to the truth, at least as I see it.
The fundamental truth here is that multiculturalism/political correctness/affirmative action, etc all work to increase corporate profits and the wealth of the upper class.
Multiculturalism/political correctness/affirmative action etc work hand in hand with mass immigration to produce growth, increase GDP, depress wages, and increase corporate profits and upper class wealth.
I think your general thesis here more or less agrees with what I have said above, although I have said it more directly and bluntly.
Another comment above dissented from your general thesis (that multiculturalism+mass immigration is  the Order of the Day because it makes corporations and plutocrats richer). That dissenter stated that people do not behave because of money. In a way, that is very true. People often behave as they do because they want to be seen as a Good Person.  But that dissenter misses a very crucial linkage--cultural rules tell us what it means to be a Good Person. Those cultural rules were in large part put there by the forces of the upper class, of the corporations.
The corporate entity, as a large aggregation of Capital, is a powerful force of nature in the human social ecosystem. It molds and shapes our culture, just as an ice age will mold and shape the animals living in the ecosystem.
And what cultural rules were promoted to the top by the upper class and the corporations?
Well, cultural rules that make the upper class and the corporations/plutocrats richer.
Corporations do actions to gain more money. That is a legal prime directive of the corporate entity.
Here is the causal chain that created multiculti/PC+mass-immigration:
1) Big Money gives grants to writers/activists/professors. What sort of writers/activists/professors get grants? Well, writers/activists/professors that do things that promote the interests of corporate entities, in general.
2) Said writers/activists/professors generate ideas. What ideas? In general, the ideas they were paid to generate. Corporate-centric ideas. Such as, well, whites are bad and evil, and nonwhites are rich and diverse and good, and if you are a white person then you must bend over backwards to prove you are not an Evil Racist.
3) Said corporate-centric ideas then percolate into the culture via the educational curriculum, the entertainment industry, etc.
4) Said corporate-centric ideas then form the foundation of our culture, the same culture that has rules telling us what it means to be a Good Person. Thus, when ordinary white people do and say and think things that are inherently anti-white, then, yes, they are not saying and doing these things because of monetary reasons. But the cultural rules that make them behave this way were put there by  Big Money because those rules and the ideas behind them make Big Money Bigger.

Multiculturalism and anti-white ideology combines with mass immigration from "developing nations" to produce growth, increased GDP, depressed wages, more consumers and ultimately higher corporate profits and increased upper class wealth.
Multiculturalism and anti-white ideology raises the social status of nonwhites and foreigners and thus facilitates their entry into america and the West and into the workplace and the neighborhoods. More human livestock for the livestock ranch that is america.

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

my response to the latest ramzpaul video

ramzpaul, the dissident right vlogger, has another vlog out:

My response:
Yes, we whites are being attacked psychologically and economically by the elite and their foot-soldier immigrants and nonwhites. But once again you offer little more than superficial, cargo-cult analysis here. This superficial, cargo-cult analysis can only take you so far. Let me explain.

The biggest thing you and the rest of the so-called Dissident Right are missing is that you fail to understand 1) how culture affects human worldview and behavior, 2) how propaganda affects mankind and the culture, 3) how the cultures of america, the liberal political tribe and the conservative political tribe have molded and shaped and domesticated by those at the top, 4) how the makeup and structure of a nation or state may be used as a bulwark and protection against those at the top.

First, mankind is evolved to be able to hear, understand, internalize and re-transmit ideas handed down to them from the tribal leaders. That was how man survived on the savannah 100K years ago. Ideas about how to survive, how to trap the antelope, how to defend the tribe against raiders, etc etc. were crucial to the tribe. So man evolved to be able to hear and carry out the ideas of the leaders. Same model as the ants, termites and bees. The sociobiologist EO WIlson called us the ant-like primate.

But now the elite use propaganda to make us behave in ways that make them money.

They use propaganda to exploit our innate ability to hear, ingest and internalize the ideas handed down to us from the tribal leaders.

Culture is a set of ideas that tells humans how to behave and what it is to be a "good person". Everyone wants to be a good person and live by the rules of their peers.

One way the elite control us is by molding and shaping the culture of the nation, and of the two main political tribes, liberal and conservative... They used their money to mold and shape the ideas in the culture. This started decades ago by using the large nonprofit institutions to give grants to writers, professors and activists whose ideas and work were conducive to making the rich richer.

What makes the rich richer? Well, a less united nation and culture makes the rich richer for one. How do you make the nation less united? More factions in the populace. What sort of factions? Well, race and culture and nationality and language factions, for one.

Another way the rich (and the corporations) get richer is by increasing the supply of labor faster than the demand for labor grows. Supply and demand of labor. You grow the supply of labor and you depress wages. How do you grow the supply of labor? Multiculturalism and feminism and mass immigration. If you shape the culture of the nation so as to make whites feel guilty about racism, you encourage and even mandate the inclusion of nonwhites and females into workplace and thereby grow the supply of labor.

Mass immigration from "undeveloped" nations takes this idea and puts it on steroids.

So the ideas of multiculturalism and mass immigration, along with white race guilt are pushed on the nation, starting with the education curriculum, where these ideas are used to mold the world view and perspective of impressionable white youth in school.

Making whites feel guilty about race helps to manufacture consent for racial integration, multiculturalism and the factionalization of the nation, as well as the depression of wages through labor supply flooding.

A nation, state, voting district, neighborhood or workplace divided by race, culture, nationality and or language is united and therefore more susceptible to control by the elite.

Factions weaken the population.

Diversity is strength...for those at the top. But diversity is weaker for the worker citizen.

The thing is....who controls the government? The majority bloc or the elite?

A united, homogeneous majority bloc can stand against the elite.

A nation, state, city, or voting district divided by faction cannot control the government, and thus the elite control.

Mass immigration, racial integration etc divide the populace and thus allow the elite more control.

I have told you how the culture of the liberal political tribe has been subverted and domesticated by the elite, how liberal culture has been made into an anti-white propaganda weapon. But now let us turn to how the culture of the conservative political tribe and how it has also been subverted and domesticated.

First, the obvious--the rich are not your friend.  Big business is not your friend. Just like a used car salesman is not your friend. Yes, it is an adversarial relationship. Capitalism is a tool, but one that must be controlled to be useful. Perhaps you have some inkling of the poison injected into the bloodstream of the conservative political tribe regarding capitalism.

Second, constitution-worship.

The federal constitution is the tool of the elite. Always was and always will be.

Look at the rest of the white western nations--canada, australia, germany, sweden, iceland, denmark, norway, italy etc etc.

Almost without exception these nations have parliamentarian governmental structures. That means the real power of the government is put into the hands of politicians elected from small districts. Smaller districts have fewer factions. That means the people are more united and can better control their politicians, hold them accountable.


Parliamentarian nations have more democracy.

Democracy is a good thing.

All those small white western nations? They got it going on. You know it, too. Admit it.

So, moving forward. ...what is the path forward?

Bring power back to the states where the populace is more united and can better control the government. The federal govt with its separation of powers, federalist, presidential structure is inherently undemocratic. Factions grow as voting district size increases.

Make voting districts smaller by putting the power back in the hands of the states.

The GOP now controls almost two thirds of the state legislatures. That means the GOP is close to being able to call a constitutional convention of the state legislatures. At such a convention, the state legislatures could modify the federal constitution and take power back from DC and give it back to the states.

What powers? Immigration, affirmative action, religion, etc etc etc.


Sunday, December 28, 2014

how to fight back against the multiculturalist/mass immigration regime of the globalists

Over at steve sailer's blog, mr sailer wrote about the recent power play in the swedish legislature, where the mainstream parties have collaborated to shut out the up and coming populist party of Sweden Democrats, whose platform is based primarily on an anti-immigration stance. This is the link for this particular steve sailer post:

Yesterday, I submitted a comment to that sailer blogpost where I replied to a particular comment there. But apparently my submitted comment was not good enough for mr sailer, because my submitted comment has not yet appeared. I would not be surprised if mr sailer does allow the comment to appear, but much later on. He does that a lot. Mr Sailer blogs for money. He asks his readers for donations, and apparently he believes that a circle jerk, echo chamber atmosphere is more conducive to donations from the commentators. My comments are not generally welcomed there by many of the commentators who post there, most likely because I do not fit into the circle jerk dominant groupthink there. So thus the censorship by mr sailer. Anyway, in the interests of circumventing mr sailer's censorship, here is my submitted comment, exactly as it was submitted:

Massimo wrote:
Mass immigration triumphs over democracy. This is beyond horrific. It’s like the whole world is a sick joke. I wish this crowd had some plan of action to combat this.

Lucky for you that LeftistConservative is here to save the day!

First off, you have to understand the forces in play. Chomsky already explained the process of manufacturing consent. His book on the process showed how the newspapers were used to manufacture consent through propaganda. But in the case of multiculti/mass immigration, the process is much more fundamental and pervasive. Propaganda is used to induce white guilt in school from an early age. The problem is the influence of the elite/upper class/corporations on the educational curriculum, starting at the elite colleges and then working its way on down to elementary school and seeping into the entertainment industry.

But understanding the process of manufacturing consent is not sufficient. Understanding how the structure of the nation and the government plays its role is also necessary.

A good example for the start of a discussion would be right in front of us. Sweden vs the USA. Comments here despair of the future of Sweden. Umm...Sweden is at least able to fight back to some degree. They are much much further ahead of the USA in the fight against multiculti/mass immigration. In Sweden right now the powers had to scramble to come up with some solution to stop the populist surge against multiculti/mass immigration. The powers have succeeded this time. But the grassroots surge in europe is growing.

Can you say to me that the powers that be in the USA are in the same position as they are in sweden? Or in Denmark? Or in switzerland? The people are fighting back there.

Not here. Not even close.

Now, back to the idea of understanding the forces in play. What about sweden let them fight back? about a little compare and contrast? Maybe the smaller size of sweden lets the white majority be more unified? More unified populace means the elite have less power and the people more power.

Maybe their parliamentarian system of government allows more power in the hands of politicians elected from small districts? Small districts are more unified and better able to hold their politicians accountable.

So maybe we make the USA more like sweden? How? By putting more power back in the hands of the states? Individual states are smaller than the USA as a whole...more unified, more coherent.

How do ya do that? Well, since the GOP swept the 2014 midterms, the GOP is now very close to being able to call a constitutional convention of the state legislatures. At such a convention the state legislatures could revise the constitution to put more power in the hands of the states. Voila!

Or, we could just continue to slam those rotten marxist commie liberals. It's all their fault!

Sunday, November 16, 2014

ISIS beheadings all same-same Trayvon Martin and Ferguson, MO

This is a reply I made to some halfwit commentator over on the breitbart site regarding the latest ISIS beheading of some american.

We should indeed greatly reduce the population of all foreigners in america. Greatly reduce!

But the neocons are trying to start another war in the middle east for fun and profit. Or rather they want to increase and prolong the war currently being fought there.

I suspect that the ISIS is being funded by certain entities associated with the West.

What I find really frustrating is how easily so many americans are manipulated by propaganda. I refer here not only to the many americans who are now salivating for war because of these beheading (and how CorpGovMedia has deliberately (and easily) worked so many americans into a blood frenzy over these beheadings), but I also refer to the other political tribe in america--the liberals. They also are periodically worked into a frenzy by CorpGovMedia using propaganda. For example, the Trayvon Martin and Ferguson MO fiascoes.

Let me put that more plainly for you--the ISIS beheadings are playing the same role for the Right as Zimmerman/Ferguson played for the Left. The thing that CorpGovMedia does is generate propaganda to work a certain (small) fraction of the populace into a blood frenzy, and then that blood frenzy is used to manufacture consent for certain anti-populist,  elite-centric policies designed to make corporations more money.  In respect to the ISIS beheadings, the blood frenzy engendered therefrom is used to manufacture consent for more military spending. In the case of the Zimmerman/Ferguson race-baitings, nonwhites are deliberately worked into a frenzy, and the resulting media coverage puts a number of whites on the race-defensive--it creates white race guilt in many americans. Not that many, but just enough to manufacture consent for more liberalization of immigration policies, such as not deporting millions of illegals. More illegals in america means more profits for corporations.

But why do I write this stuff? Pearls before swine, indeed. Now, turn, and rend me again....

Thursday, November 13, 2014

my response to steve sailer's post on 11-13-14

On 11-13-2014 Steve Sailer made this post and here is a quote from it:

Steve Sailer wrote:

For the Diverse to feel validated, the unDiverse must be repeatedly invalidated. Thus, the reigning mindset is anti-StalePaleMaleism.

I posted this in response, and now let's see if he will timely approve my response. Just in case he does not timely approve it, I will post it here.
But what about the fact that anti-StalePaleMaleism puts white males on the defensive with regard to race and thus makes it easier for the corporations/gov’t/media to push all those nonwhite foreigners into the workforce and thus depress wages?

But you don’t seem to be interested in the financial aspect of anti-white multiculturalism. You seem to prefer to simply attribute anti-white multiculturalism to those oh so evil liberals who need to feel “diverse and validated,” right? It never goes beyond the liberals vs conservatives battle, right?

The fact that corporations benefit from anti-white multiculturalism is simply a coincidence, right? The reason anti-StalePaleMaleism exists is so that the Diverse can feel validated, that is what you just said, right?

It is all about the liberals vs conservatives battle! Any other rationale is foreclosed by your statement above. I say otherwise. I say that anti-StalePaleMaleism/anti-white-multiculturalism has risen to the fore because it allows the corporations to put the white majority on the defensive and arouses the white-race-guilt installed in their minds via the educational curriculum. That makes it easier for the corporations to use the government to cram more millions of nonwhite foreign labor into america. Cuz if you are white and against immigration, you must be racist, right? The Dissident Right however prefers a simpler analysis, one that ignores the multinational corporations behind the curtain.

The question is why the Dissident Right ignores the multinational corporations behind the curtain with respect to anti-StalePaleMaleism/anti-white-multiculturalism.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

This is my response to Steve Sailer's post on 11-11-2014 (posted here due to censorship):

This is my response to Steve Sailer's post on 11-11-2014 (posted here due to censorship):

Sailer wrote:
"That’s because the hoopla of a campaign for the White House brings to the polls the kind of fringe voters who don’t really grasp concepts like the Separation of Powers"

You mean people like Steve Sailer? The Separation of Powers is meant to help keep the majority working class from having much control over their own government. So said our oh so benevolent founding fathers.

But some wrong-headed people think we the majority ought to have control of the government! That way, we could do things like, oh, stop mass immigration and stop discrimination against whites. But I like that Separation of Powers thing which helps keep the power of the government away from the grubby paws of that nasty old majority (which is white, by the way). Most of the white majority do not like having mass immigration and discrimination against whites crammed down their throats, but that is just tough, right?

Let's look at some other nations similar to the USA, nations which have a much weaker separation of powers, and see if we can tell what the difference is, and how a weaker Separation of Powers affects things!

What other nations am I referring to? Well, every other majority white western nation, that is what I am talking about. Canada,  australia, NZ, UK, Germany, sweden, france (to some extent), netherlands, norway, etc etc etc. Do I need to keep going? Our cultural cousins, that is who.

All these other white/western nations have a weaker Separation of Powers than the USA.  Why is that so? Well, all those other white/western nations have something called a "parliamentarian" system of government. Ever hear of that? Well, that means the power of the government is mostly in the hands of the lower house. In fact, typically the lower house elects the prime minister (and can dump the prime minister whenever they feel like, in many cases). That means the people have more power (the members of the lower house are elected from small districts, which means the common interests of the electorate are less divided; and also small districts means money has less influence. Nasty, that democracy thing, huh?)

Let's see if we can see what effects this weaker Separation of Powers has on those other nations! Well, for starters, all those other nations get to spend a lot less of their taxes on the military. Gosh, I really like paying trillions of dollars for useless fighter jets, though! Won't someone please think of the corporate profits?!

What are some other effects of that nasty old "majority rule" democracy thing that happens in all those other white western nations that have a weaker Separation of Powers? Well, they have a simple national healthcare system. But I like being extorted for medical care! Aren't we lucky that we have a strong Separation of Powers? Keeps the people from using the government from creating a cheap, simple national healthcare system. Won't someone please think of the corporate profits?!

And, lemme see, all those other nations have cheap (or even free) universities. But I like having our youngsters saddled with debt! Makes them have to work so much harder for so much longer. Debt slavery is a good thing! Won't someone please think of the corporate profits?!

What other effects are there of this democracy-dampening strong Separation of Powers? I will let your congenial readership answer that question....

As for the idea that the media is conspiring to gin up black anger so as to increase black turnout, I doubt it. You need to understand how physical systems work. When there is an ever-present set of forces in a system, and a sequence of potential triggers/catalysts that interact with that system, statistically speaking, from time to time, the triggers/catalysts will cause a cascade event to occur. Some astrophysicists speculate that this is how our universe began. Out of nothing comes something. Random fluctuations in nothingness will --statistically speaking--create something after a certain period of time. Viola, the universe appears!

How does this figger into the Ferguson Race-Baiting Fiasco? Well, let's look at some of the forces involved: Journalists have a certain professional culture. That culture requires them to bend over backwards to accommodate nonwhite claims of racial discrimination by whites against nonwhites. That is a force that is ever-present in our political media universe. There is also a continuous series of potential triggers/catalysts that interact with/impinge upon this media-political universe. Such as? Well, you yourself have pointed out in the past that this is a big nation, and when police have guns, bad things are going to happen from time to time.

Now, the thing is that there have been lots of incidents similar to what happened to Michael Brown, both to black and white and brown kids. It just happens. Statistically speaking, in a nation of this size, it will. Of course the media is not going make a big racial deal about it when it happens to a white kid. But when it happens to a black kid, the potential exists for the hyper-racially-aware, politically correct media to make a Race-Baiting Fiasco out of it.

Probably, in the past year or so, there were several similar cases to Brown's case that did not break through into public consciousness. Brown's case did. Why? Random chance. Which helps explain why the Brown case is another Trayvon-esque fiasco. The case was not vetted for validity, as would have been the case had it been a conspiracy. It just happened, just like the random fluctuations in nothingness may have created our universe. The PC culture of the media, where journalists have fought tooth and nail to get a real journalist job, and are by gosh not going to make any error that would endanger that job, are going to adhere to the PC rules of the media culture and are going to bend over backwards to cater to any calls of racism from blacks.

Any hoo, there is more to it than just that (corporate profits are involved (imagine that!)), but I don't feel like writing any more.

Steve Sailer wrote:
"Have you ever noticed that basically everything you are supposed to believe in these days—feminism, diversity, etc.—turns out in practice to just be another way for hot babes, rich guys, super salesmen, cunning financiers, telegenic self-promoters, and powerful politicians to get themselves even more money and power?"

My response: these exploiters of political correctness get money and power by being noticed by the mass media. Mass media attention makes you money. Money! Money! Money! ...quoth the O'Jays. Some people ....barely need it...Some ta have it!

So how does one become noticed by the corporate media? Well, by working within the system of political correctness and adding your own special little twist to it.

The corporate media rewards adherence to political correctness. The corporate media punishes those who violate political correctness.

If you want to get media attention and get rich and famous you need to be politically correct. You need more than just that, but political correctness is a necessary prerequisite.

The question is why is this the case?

Why does the corporate media, which is funded by advertising purchased primarily by large corporations, reward political correctness and punish political incorrectness?

I am going to go out on a limb here and say...Money! Money! Money!

Let me be bold again and speculate that over the decades the media culture has been shaped and molded by the corporations that feed them. Yeah, I am really going out on a limb there.

What do corporations want? Money, maybe? How do they get money? They buy labor and use that labor to produce goods and services (I knew that business class in high school would pay off!).  How can they increase profits? about by lowering labor costs? How do the corporations lower labor costs? How about by increasing the supply of labor faster than the demand for labor increases? Well, how do you increase the labor pool? Hmm... through political correctness, which raises the social status of females and nonwhites and which results in changing the culture, which results in supreme court decisions mandating affirmative action?

Thursday, September 18, 2014

on scottish independence

polls show the scots are against mass immigration.
But of course the white working class everywhere is against mass immigration.
But the smaller white nations of western europe are the only place the whites are able to control their own government to the degree necessary to fight back against mass immigration. Denmark and Switzerland are example of how small white nations have begun to fight back against mass immigration.
Smaller white nations are decentralized compared to larger white nations. Having small governments helps the majority control the government. Isn’t decentralization of government part of the standard conservative dogma? But strangely none of the prominent political pundits, journalists or bloggers –liberal or conservative — have much good to say about scottish independence. And as for american secession, why, that is simply unthinkable.
The white working class scots are against mass immigration, according a poll. With independence, their government may be small enough to stop mass immigration. The establishment don’t like dat, not one bit.
The white working class scots also like a strong welfare state. Imagine that–being against mass immigration and for a strong welfare state at the same time! The establishment don’t like dat, not one bit.
Seems like all the prominent political pundits, journalists and bloggers –liberal and conservative — are closing ranks against scottish independence. And as for the unthinkable idea that america could disempower washington DC and empower the states, why, that is just….((point and sputter!!)) …unthinkable!!!
I really really hope the Yes vote goes through….

Friday, September 12, 2014

The Long Game

The post below is a post made by me in response to another post here:

I am responding here to a comment stating that white nationalism is being shaped by wealthy people.

Interesting comment.

What you are saying, if I understand you correctly. might be said to align with my "unified field theory" of the origin of movements. What is that?

Well, here goes: all large scale grassroots movements actually come from Big Money.

Let me summarize what I believe about the origin of christianity, the origin of the USA, the origin of the Hitler & Nazism, and the origin of american leftism/civil rights era/multiculturalism.

1. The new testament was written by the roman emperors in order to pacify the militant jews. The flavian roman emperor dynasty created the new testament in order to domesticate the jews. This theory is put forth in Atwill's fascinating book CAESAR'S MESSIAH.

I highly recommend it. Basically, the new testament was a government propaganda project. The romans had done before. It was their modus operandi

when it came to domesticating conquered tribes. The Romans would meld/mix the conquered tribes' ideologies/religion with those of the roman empire.

So the new testament was written by the Flavians (who were basically plutocrats) in order to incorporate the roman empire into the jewish faith and mythology. That way the jews would come to accept the empire and would "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's." It did not really work all that well--the jews rejected the new testament. However, they did create christianity. The old testament was basically a mish-mash of earlier myths and religions (see the "agriculture-based, rising and dying redemption-
oriented god-men" idea from Fraser's book THE GOLDEN BOUGH). Also see the website of Archaya S.

2. The creation of the USA was accomplished by the rich and powerful founding fathers. Madison, the father of the constitution, was worth 100 mill in today's dollar's once he got his inheritance. His backers were basically the richest people in the colonies (washington, morris, et al).

The basic idea of the constitution and the USA as created from the several states was taken from Montesquieu. Madison's idea was the divide et impera principle translated to a pseudo-democracy. The ideas of madison are expressed primarily in 3 documents: 1) federalist paper 10; 2) his notes on the constitutional convention; 3) his 'divide et impera' letter to

The idea was an acknowledgement that democracy was there to stay in america, but the founding fathers created a constitution that would dampen and weaken democracy through the structure of the new federal government.

What was happening was that in the several states, the people were taking control and using the the state govts against the rich. So the founding fathers got rid of the articles of confederation and installed the pseudo-democratic constitution. The principle was to divide the populace by creating larger voting district (president, senate and house). The larger the district, the more factions in that district, and the less able the people would be to unite and discover their common interests, to quote madison. Thus, madison wrote, the structure of the fed govt would "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."

For more on this, see Dr Jerry Fresia's book TOWARD AN AMERICAN REVOLUTION (located online now), and Dr. Woody Holton's book UNRULY AMERICANS.

2. American multiculturalism is the result of projects seeded by non-profit foundations started by the plutocrats almost 100 years ago. Let me set the stage for you: 100 years ago, in 1914, the american elite/corporations/plutocrats were pumping in millions of cheap labor worker consumers from southern and central europe. But Bolshevism threatened to ruin their party. The new immigrants were really big on socialism and anarchy, etc. See for example the haymarket incident. So american business became afraid that socialism would spread to the USA. See the "red scare" political cartoons from about 1920 and thereabouts to see how american business used propaganda to demonize the socialist/populist
ideology brought in by all these immigrants. 

The result of the red scare propaganda campaign by american business was the immigration moratorium of the early 1920s. The elite stopped mass immigration at that time in order to keep socialism from spreading. And it was spreading--by about 1920 or so, about 25 percent of the representatives in the new york state lower house belonged to the socialist party!

So, the elite stopped their flow of cheap labor. And that immigration moratorium led to the golden age of american labor. Jim Crow kept the blacks out of mainstream jobs and kept the blacks from getting politcal power. So effectively america was a homogeneous white working class paradise. See for example norway, sweden, denmark, austria, etc, but before the tide of third world immigrants. White working class utopias, or at least as close as we can get. The best, in other words. And by the 1950s it was possible for a white man to support his family in a nice home. The supply of labor was restricted, driving up wages.

But the elite don't like working class utopias. So they put an end to that by creating the civil rights movement. And that culminated, decades later, in the multiculti-mass immigration nightmare of today.

How and why did the elite (the plutocrats, corporations, american business in general) create the civil rights movement?

Why? Money. Why else? How does the american corporate/plutocratic regime make more money? One, by weakening the working class majority control of the government. Two, by increasing the supply of labor faster than the demand for labor. Three, by increasing the number of consumers.

So how did the elite do that? Civil rights. Through racial integration, the elite increased the number of factions in the populace. More factions means a less unified public, which means the public is less able to hold its own elected reps accountable. This goes back to the factionalization principle used by the so called founding fathers.

Also, racial and gender integration in the workforce increased the supply of labor, dampening wages. Also, civil rights means more consumers. More sales.

So, more money for the elite.

The civil rights movement was created by the elite foundations, getty, rockefeller, ford foundations etc. They funded activists, writers and academics who had a focus on elevating the social status of women and minorities. All that money snowballed over decades to create fakeLeftism, multiculturalism, etc.

For more on this see Dr. Roelofs' book FOUNDATIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY: THE MASK OF PLURALISM. Also see James Petra online essay on the cultural cold war.

4. The nazi regime was created by the upper class. It was primarily the brain child of the germany army officer class. Understand that 100 years ago in europe the office corps was of the upper class, usually the second or third son of the upper class families would go into the army. So the officer corps in germany had upper class alliances. So, by 1919 the german army was defeated, germany was an economic mess, and bolshevism was raging in europe. The german army officers saw that it was likely that populist leftist workers parties would do in germany what they were doing in eastern europe. So they decided to subvert that inevitable revolution.  They did so by creating a propaganda army. THey hired people to spy on the nascent working class parties. One of those people was hitler.

The real truth is written in a article called "I was hitler's boss", written in the 1930s by an anonymous author. The well known Hitler biographer Kershaw has named the author--it was Karl Mayr, a german army officer who hired hitler into the german army propaganda wing after ww1.

Mayr wrote that hitler was a pauper at the time, homeless, or about to be homeless, and could not have cared less about the jews.

However, the german army officers needed a scapegoat for their counter-revolution. The officer leadership, not Hitler, decided to make jews the scapegoat, and this was decided before hitler was hired as a low level functionary. They wanted the jews because the jews were academics and were therefore a key part of the intellectual foundation of bolshevism, which is what the army officers and the german upper class were really afraid of--they were afraid of a socialist revolt that would take their property.

So they built a counter revolution. This was not hitler's doing. It started before he even got hired. He got in at the bottom, and his talent for oratory promoted him. He was a talented orator because he had only one testicle. That deformity made him an outcast as a lad in his small town. So he would wander the countryside as a boy making speeches. Anyway, hitler got hired and incorporated into his speeches the anti-jew idea given to him by his bosses.

The rest is history.

Hitler was a pawn, in a way. He was the horse the upper class rode in order to divert german working class anger away from socialism. Read that sentence again, cuz it is important with respect to what is happening with the Dissident Right today in america.

Right now we have the american white working class being demonized and filled with white guilt by the multiculti propaganda regime of the elite.

American workers are being marginalized by mass immigration and an increasing lack of control over their own government. Remember, the more diverse a population, the more factions therein. More factions means less unity. Less unity means less control over the gov't by the majority.

So the corporations have more and more control.

Something's gotta give. The white guilt, pro-immigrant, pro-nonwhite propaganda is becoming more and more obvious. The GOP is ostensibly pro-white, but in reality offers only lip service. What is the path forward? A combination of pro-white and anti-corporations, combined with anti-immigration. The Dave Brat phenomenon shows a taste of what is to come.

That nascent white populism offers a way to beat the elite. Brat is anti-immigration AND anti-corporation. This is new. This scares the elite.

But we have a number of nonprofit foundations funded by the elite that want to keep conservatism untainted by anti-corporation ideology.

So what is happening in the Dissident Right movement is that we are being molded and shaped, ideology-wise. Populist economics is being demonized in the Dissident Right realm. Shaping the future is what they are doing,  White nationalism is being steered away from economic populism. They know it is coming, but they want to shape it before it happens. This is the way the elite always operate--it's the Long Game.

Saturday, July 26, 2014

why civil rights are going away

Another internet idiot is moaning about the loss of civil rights.

oh, gosh. Looks like this is yet another idiotic internet blogspot that is going to require a rather lengthy LeftistConservative special rant. Ah, well, someone's gotta do it.

OK, now pay attention. I am only gonna say this once.

The 'civil liberties' thing was an artifact, a side-effect of Capital's war on Labor with respect to Capital expanding the pool of workers and consumers available for the grist mill of Capital. Read that sentence again. Ya don't understand, do ya? No surprise there. Please allow me to expand upon that.

There is a war going on, brotha. It's Capital vs Labor. Capital is winning, big time. But not in the way you think. The whole civil liberties thing really took off when Capital decided to expand the pool of labor and consumers starting, oh, 70 or 80 years ago. In effect, Capital launched a new offensive in that war about that time. As a result of that new offensive, an entire body of civil liberties laws and judicial rulings came in being, were put in place.  The purpose and effect of that body of civil liberties laws and judicial rulings was to elevate nonwhites (black, in particular) in social status and to "integrate" them into white mainstream society. As a result of this "racial integration," the pool of available labor expanded. More supply. That favors Capital. More earners == more spenders. That favors Capital.

Also, a racially integrated society that has minority members in substantial numbers fully integrated and voting means a more diverse society. More diverse== more factionalized. More factionalized == less unity. Less unity means the populace has less power to unite and control the government. That favors Capital.

So, a major tool of Capital in its battle to racially integrate was the body of civil liberties laws and rulings. Civil liberties help prevent the white majority from stopping racial integration.

Now, to the present day. Capital won that battle against Labor. How? Through propaganda used to change the culture over decades. You start with academia. You give grants to academics and activists etc who promote racial diversity, racial integration, and who write books and other materials that make whites feel ashamed of slavery. Never mind that the 1860 census shows that only 1.5 percent of all americans owned slaves (and that you had to be well off to own a slave, in general). Nope. Capital used used its money to create white-guilt propaganda to change the culture, which all snowballed over decades and raised the social status of nonwhites. Nowadays, in many white schools, blacks are seen as the "cool kids" and are highly sought after as friends.

So, now that battle has been won. And now Capital has little use for civil liberties. Well, maybe they have less use for them. Capital is still very interested of course in making sure immigrants of all colors and flavors are protected and feel comfortable coming here.

Anyway, I know you don't understand. But that's just tough...

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

what is a strong woman?

a strong woman is one who has been enabled via the establishment to have the confidence to go out there and compete with men for jobs in the workplace and to do well in the workplace. By working, women increase the GDP and increase corporate profits. That makes rich investors richer. But the problem is that women are not evolved to compete with men. That is a problem for the corporations in their insatiable quest for ever more labor and consumers.

Now, how does the establishment enable women to go out and compete in the workplace? Well, for one, laws and judicial rulings that discriminate against men. That helps women.

Also, propaganda empowers women and fills them with the confidence needed to compete in the workplace with men. You go, girl! Etc.

It's all for the benefit of corporate profits. More workers, more labor, more consumers, lower wages, supply and demand, etc.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

The Tea Party Victory over Eric Cantor

a great thing...CorpGovMedia is really shaken by this one... cantor was an enormous sellout. He was pretending to be against immigration even while he was preparing to sell out his constituents and allow 'immigration reform.'

I was watching an interview with Brat. He launched into what appeared to be the standard GOP anti-welfare spiel. HE started talking about raising the retirement age and all that GOP nonsense.

That is what I really hate about the GOP the most--their anti-welfare state spiel. He started talking about the entitlements (SS, medicare, obamacare etc). But then Brat said something new. He proposed that we bring these programs down to the state level. Now that is something I can get behind. I sincerely believe that in most states if the federal entitlements were brought down to the control of the states that these entitlement programs would actually be more well funded and more generous. The GOP think that by bringing control of the entitlements programs down to the state level, that would lead to less generous entitlements. They think that the fed govt is too generous. Actually however the people want more generous entitlements. And if brought down to the state level, where the people are more in control of things, that is what would happen.

That is perhaps the core GOP misconception--that by bringing things down to the state level it would bring about shrinking of the welfare state. Wrong. The undemocratic nature of the fed govt is why americans don't have real universal healthcare and have less generous welfare state than the other white western nations.

quoting Dave Brat:

“The entire amnesty and low-wage agenda collapses if Cantor loses — all the billions of special interests dollars, all the favors, all the insider dealing — all of it is stopped in its tracks tomorrow if the patriotic working families of Virginia send Eric Cantor back home tomorrow.

Tomorrow, the middle class has its chance to fight back.

Tomorrow, the people of Virginia can show up to the polls and defeat the entire crony corporate lobby.

Tomorrow, we can restore our borders, rebuild our communities, and revitalize our middle class.”

The GOP is against low wages and the "crony corporate lobby"? Maybe we are seeing the start of a radical shift in the parties, such as when the Dems sold out the white working class in the 1960s and shifted allegiance to the white upper class and their cheap nonwhite scab labor. Now perhaps the GOP is actually going to support the economic agenda of the white working class, which is centered around labor supply and demand.

There is a revolution going on, bitches.

Thursday, May 29, 2014

The media is now even admitting it outright--immigration reform is all about cheap labor

 The wall st journal site just ran a story showing that eric cantor is getting ready to sell out american workers via immigration "reform". Apparently House GOP leader Cantor is having some latino politician from the Dems come into Cantor's district and give speeches about how Cantor is the only thing stopping immigration reform.

 A quote from the article:

What all this theater is leading to is, in fact, immigration reform, which will be meted out in some kind of compromise between House and Senate leaders.
It’s unequivocally good news for investors: More immigration equals cheaper labor, whether that’s provided for picking corn or processing computer code, with a possible rise in aggregate demand to boot. 

 CorpGovMedia and the elite have us so divided and weak that they can pretty much just do whatever they want. They are now just coming out and admitting it--immigrant labor is cheap labor.

The elite and their pet media are almost gloating now and even rubbing our noses in the complete domination they have over us.