So far, Peach Mints Day Two has not fallen apart. It has not, however, managed to deliver what it needs to, which is a strong and credible case for removing Trump from office, and that has its supporters worried. Early viewing of the people out there in the world: fewer minorities, more white people, more civility. This happens whenever the Heritage Side (which includes the Republicans, sort of and kind of) is winning out over the Replacement Side (comprised of special interests: neurotics, single box wine women, pajama boys, homosexuals, transsexuals, feminists, and minorities). In my view, that accurately summarizes what is going on. The Democrats, a party of lawyers, are introducing ambiguity in the big lead-up to making their case, but the problem with doing this is that everyone gets lost in the details and nothing of solidity forms. That is why it is a better tactic when defending than attacking. While this drama plays out, Trump continues tweeting to egg them on, knowing that the more the Left becomes an over-inflated self-satire, the greater his victory will be.
Civil rights required disparate impact. If people were equal, and we needed to treat them equally, then if results were unequal, something was wrong and someone was to blame. “Disparate impact” says that if a Black person and a white person are doing the same things, but the Black person ends up with less money, power, or social status, then “systemic racism” is involved and someone must pay. That is the bottom line: someone must pay. It is a shakedown, designed by our government to destroy anyone who, like the South, affirmed differences between social classes, races, religions, sexes, and ethnic groups like the uncivilized and primitive Irish. In this instance, a Black woman finds that she and other Black people are getting paid less by “woke” Netflix. Why, one might ask? It probably has to do, as in most cases, with the market. If you are a lesser celebrity, the world does not owe you millions simply because you are Black. I am sure that Dave Chappelle would not have this problem, although he might not choose to work with the politically correct and intolerant dogma-harridans of Netflix. On the other hand, now that Netflix has real competition and its attempt to cultivate a “woke” audience has failed, perhaps it will do as all things do and look to self-interest, leading to less of that nonsense.
Social media increasingly has to deal with the havoc of diversity, namely that since there is not one standard of behavior, there are many, and since each is specialized for a way of life, it necessarily clashes with the others. Posting “plus-size queer bodies” may seem appropriate for urban London, but it bothers Muslims, Christians, and wholesome middle America types who do not want to see this biological horror scrolling across their screens. The fitness movement people loathe obesity, the religions detest homosexuality since it goes against their method of finding inner peace instead of outer distraction, and every other ethnic group is competing against both any other ethnic group and the ideal of the mixed-ethnic group, so even content which is politically correct and therefore assumed to be “safe” in fact alienates a lot of people. Social media is going to have to go to types of streams, where they identify a user by their special interest tribe and then filter out everything but material that this tribe likes. This goes against the idea of the internet being a cornucopia of everything, but like gay districts or Chinatowns, allows people to find others like them. That seems to be a theme of the twenty-first century: the system has failed again, which means that we are out of systems to try and that all systems are going to fail, so find people like you on an innate level, and form a niche community there.
In India, consumer spending is falling; the same is happening in China. It turns out that globalism was a wealth transfer program, and ending it will cause these places to adjust their economies to their own needs, instead of growing recklessly to address the needs of the West. This makes for a win on all fronts. It stops a potential population disaster; it reduces pollution; it returns the principle of reality and ethnic self-determination instead of relying on the global Ponzi scheme to fund everything. This in turn weakens Leftism, which is a philosophy of many people with nothing in common and not smaller groups which share a purpose. As globalism falls, so does diversity, and with it goes Leftism, followed by liberal democracy.
Federal judge reverses Obama-era practice and says that there is insufficient evidence that ISIS bride was born while father was a diplomat. For that reason, since he was not of legal status, she is not either. In addition, the ruling holds that sending her money would constitute “providing material support to terrorism,” paving the way for the US to reject doing anything which would result in money in the hands of those who are associated with terror.
Minority renters think it is unfair that homeowners, who lost the much of the value of their homes and have continued to pay the property taxes that fund the schools that the renters attend, get most of the federal disaster aid for those afflicted by this flood. If you listen to the pitiable voices, you end up destroying that which keeps everything going for everyone so you can make a handout to those who suffered a far lesser misfortune. However, at least under the Clinton and Obama years, any lawsuit that had minorities involved seemed to win, so we are now testing this new doctrine. If we remove “white” and “minority” from the picture, and view this as homeowners versus renters, it becomes clear what the court would say: protect the source of income and the people who pay out far more into the system. Will it withstand the great ethnic pity subsidy?
Diversity seems simple when it consists of a majority group and one minority group. You blame the majority for everything and force it to accommodate and raise up the minority. Then more minority groups arrive, and now you not only have racial violence between those, but these groups are competing for their share of the largess. The only way out of this is to end the subsidy entirely, at which point every group must provide for itself, and we see what endures.
The future belongs to those who recognize that any dogma is captured by its audience. No matter how well-meaning a belief system is, people adopt it because they can use it, and this means that those which are voluntarily adopted widely are those which provide the least amount of restraint. It also means that when this organization becomes completely taken over by those individualistic interests, it loses appeal for those who need something larger than the individual, and then it seeks new audiences. Those audiences in turn transform it. The Church is about to become a container or envelope for the beliefs of the world, each seen as prophets within the broader framework of the general Christian idea. This shows Christianity coming to a point of view such as the Hindus, who view all believers as a variety of Hindu, and will ultimately lead to the formation of a new religion to hammer out all these doctrinal disagreements.
If a white man did this to a Black men, the white fellow would go to jail. This means that Garrett must go to jail for there to be any fairness, and if there is no fairness, we will make “justice” fully into a racial head-count, at which point any form of injustice will be normal so long as it does not conflict with the needs of its local demographics. We are about at this point; the idea of universal justice, laws, rules, standards, values, and political systems is dying as a result. While this shows how destructive diversity is, it also shows the death of a series of illusions that have plagued humanity for some time.
As diversity descends into chaos, people are willing to consider the previously unthinkable step of supporting anti-diversity parties. Since civil rights was used to further the power of the Left and liberal democracy worldwide, these will fall as well, leaving us at the state where we were before The Enlightenment™: convinced of the importance of social order to benefit the individual, instead of individualism that erodes social order. As the gentle, well-meaning, and above all else public image conscious (this is how you raise monetary value, after all) Northern European states swing toward the Right, others will follow, since the most precious examples of diverse permissive Leftist order have reversed themselves.
Yvette Felarca and two conspirators, who kicked off violence against Right-wing protesters, get 90 hours of community service each for aggravated assault and conspiracy to commit aggravated assault. We now have a fully dysfunctional justice system with one standard for minorities, and a far harsher one for whites. Reconsidering civil rights law yet? We should: it always favors the “disadvantaged,” because in order to make things equal, you need one party with less and one party with more, and you always take from the latter to benefit the former. Eventually you end up with nothing but the disadvantaged and a few wealthy people who cackle, “I told you so,” shortly before they sell all of you into slavery for being utter idiots at the polling stations. In the meantime, the Left wants to sue the far-Right for having agreed to show up in Charlotteville together over IMs. Utterly no investigation went into Felarca’s use of her text messaging in the moments prior to the bike lock attacks, which normally would have resulted in felony charges and decade-long prison sentences but instead became three years of probation. The double standard is real, and it reveals the intentions of government to achieve permanent rule through the demographic replacement population of foreigners.
New designs for the Notre Dame cathedral involve “contemporary” ideas like a strip mall glass box and a Muslim minaret. Not surprisingly, many find this stupid. In reality, France has a binary decision here: remake a classic monument that thousands visit daily, or destroy the value of that monument despite the fact that everyone “in the system” will cheer on the precious, iconoclastic, novel, and daring “new” way of doing things that it does to everything else. The system rewards weaklings who go along with trends instead of standing up for value and realistic thinking, which means that all of its decisions are terrible and it needs to be ignored.
We consider it a brutal crime to remove foreigners, yet ignore the constant low-grade crime caused by diversity. This will change in the twenty-first century, when legal relocation of foreign populations will become seen as a greater social good than “tolerance” which destroys the host society.
Before we all panic:
Chinese authorities have previously reported cases of the bubonic plague. In 2009, there were 12 confirmed cases of the plague; three people died. The following year, China claimed seven confirmed cases of the plague and two deaths. In 2014, there were three confirmed cases of the plague, and three people dead from the fatal disease, according to Chinese government statistics.
We are about overdue for a world-clearing plague followed by an ice age, but it will most likely be a mutated flu virus that carries us off. Imagine a world of only a billion people or, better yet, a world of the 200 million people who knew to get the heck away from others when a plague hit. Urbanization could simply be a way of concentrating targets for the great harvest of souls.
Politicians sold voters on all of these “free” programs, but voters like them for the usual Jacobin revenge fantasies, namely that “the rich” would pay for them. It turns out that the costs get passed down to the consumer, who also ends up paying exhorbitant taxes if he is anything more than an impoverished person in a dingy city apartment, and wages also fall because of the higher cost to business. We will have to remove these extra-market costs like regulations, taxes, unions, and affirmative action in order to have the possibility of normal lives again.
During the twentieth century, people placed great faith in “systems” where rules constrained the behavior of others. As time went on, we found out that these systems were in fact administrated by people, and these people creatively interpreted those rules to benefit themselves and their own group at the expense of others and the intangible shared entities like nature, heritage, culture, and continuity between historical past and long-term future. This even extends to our new digital space, which seems like a cyber realm but in fact resides on physical gear that is owned by someone and is administrated by whoever they hire, usually at the lowest wages possible. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg of the abuses that followed.