IsaacGage860

I think that Stefan should do a movie review on the documentary 13th to clarify what BLM really stands for. In previous videos he has discussed Nixon and people within his administration admitting to destroying the black community with racist "tough on crime" rhetoric. I think it would really help to clear the air on this whole "BLM is completely racist" narrative being spread around. Of course I don't hold you to this just a suggestion and feedback. I also cannot force anyone who reads this post to critically analyze the documentary without all of the prejudice and bigotry that most have regarding BLM. I just want it to be abundantly clear that I believe racism in all of its forms is completely disgusting and regressive. I am an anti-racist which means I do NOT condone what happened in Chicago before anybody jumps to that conclusion. That is exactly the same type of bigotry and prejudice that the radial fringe of BLM associates with Whites. I want a world where no innocent civilians get caught in the crossfire and targeted by radical extremists in both BLM and in the Alt-Right. It is irrelevant whether the victims are Black or White or any skin color for that matter. Lets just stop the irrational hate. Is that really so much to ask for?

Ok so they do not invent anything, but who cares about that? As long as these people are not actively trying to undermine the society I do not see the issue here. And if they do try to do that you remove the problematic elements but keep all the best ones. You cannot just deport all Blacks because they look similar to people from Sub Saharan Africa. That is similar to arguing for expelling all Whites from South Africa because "evil Whitey" It's a ridiculous positron on its face. That is the most irrational thing I have ever heard. We have this thing called self defense and because a lot of people have guns in this country I am 100% certain the undermining of American values by "subhuman" Blacks will never happen. Are you saying that everyone who doesn't invent something is useless? What is your definition of invent? Is it something that can only be done by the highest intellects?

If race realist means Nihilist, then no. The power of education, specifically philosophy, and patience is one that is often underestimated by people with this mindset. Ok so Haiti looks like Africa right now and other African countries are also struggling but so what? Does that mean Capitalism and Western Values can never permeate these regions? I guess I am just not interested in people who simply give up because it seems hopeless. What progress has ever been made with that attitude? Just imagine if the abolitionists had said people would never understand why slavery was wrong and given up on that basis.

That's what I am working towards as well, Free Market Capitalism. I know that it is possible with enough dedication. Of course I empathize with the White people who are experiencing hardship. But it is not just whites who are under attack here. The Prison Industrial Complex eats Blacks alive. Propaganda and "tough on crime" rhetoric spoken by Nixon and Reagan played a very big role in turning the Black community into what it is now. The documentary 13th on Netflix explores this very real phenomena. It used to be different back in the 50's and 60's before huge government got involved and tried to "help" and it can be different again. The disdain against Whites is also not entirely unwarranted here. Just as the fringes of the Alt-Right do not speak for the entire movement, so too do the fringes of BLM not speak for the entire movement. BLM does not mean only Black lives matter just that they matter in addition to everyone else. The narrative that has been built up that takes words and actions associated with a few individuals and then says that speaks for the whole movement is irrational. I believe both movements share the same end goal, reducing the massive influence and power of the of the government. I think we have all gone through too much ridiculous racism both black and white for anyone to want to try and grab the power of the State. The problem is that the radicals on both sides have polarized and disenfranchised the centrists. I am not accusing you of doing this btw. I just want the hatred to stop.

Recently on Stefan's YouTube channel I got into a scuffle that I must admit I was not proud of. For the sake of privacy I will not furnish this individuals name but he was quite irrational in his hatred of other human beings. I understand that African Americans coming from Sub Saharan Africa clearly do not have the highest IQ quotas because I have heard Stefan make the case repeatedly and compellingly. What is irritating is that most people in his comments are not interested in finding solutions whatsoever. When Stefan expresses his frustration he at least puts forward educated speculation as to what the root cause could be and offers concrete solutions. He also consistently makes the case for the NAP and peaceful parenting which I have been disseminating and articulating like my life depended on it through Facebook, Instagram, Gab, Minds, Twitter, and YouTube. These people did not have the same dedication to reason and evidence as Stefan does. I guess my question boils down to this, is it worth spending my time trying to persuade these people? I find myself often being dragged down to their level because I feel like I must defend my integrity. Have I become irrational? Feedback is greatly appreciated.

There is always the occasional troll or deliberately incompetent person who decides to weigh in on this stuff. Sometimes people learn better through writing then through auditory cues.

While I'm on the topic of spanking children and how it is a violation of the NAP, allow me to make an analogy. First of all, philosophy is not democratic and science is not consensus without rigorous inquiry into an academic question or issue. It is reason and evidence that matters. Who cares what the majority thinks? At one point in time people thought the Earth was flat, or that serfdom and slavery were moral. Just because people believed it for centuries doesn't make it correct. ‍♂ Come on people, this is pathetic. I'm really not trying to belittle or demean but this is just historical bigotry and intransigent inertia. For those people who spank their children, how do you know that choosing not to do that and instead use negotiation and diplomacy won't work? Saying that children are not old enough to understand complex moral rules is not a valid argument. All that says is that you're lazy and haven't bothered to ever question anything a so called "authority" has told you. If violence against children is a legitimate way of teaching responsibility and that there are consequences for recalcitrance then why don't we raise our kids under a radical interpretation of Sharia Law? Heretics and blasphemers of Sharia are struck or whipped for disobedience. Women who are raped have to have multiple male witness testimony to exonerate HER of wrongdoing. This a valid comparison because violence is violence is violence. Ex post facto justifications do not change this fact. To take another example, we all know that at some point the balance of power shifts away from the parents and to the now grown child. If using violence to teach there are consequences for mistakes is a valid form of discipline, then what happens when your geriatric ass forgets the keys in the refrigerator or something else. Do your children or other caretakers get to hit you? Of course not, everyone considers this abuse. So why is it ok to use these tactics on children. Remember, individual anecdotes and personal testimony do not negate statistical trends. In the spirit of putting my money where my mouth is, these are four studies that corroborate my claims: http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking.aspx https://news.utexas.edu/…/risks-of-harm-from-spanking-confi… https://www.psychologytoday.com/…/research-spanking-it-s-ba… http://www.iflscience.com/…/spanking-leads-angrier-and-mor…/ I welcome anyone to offer counter arguments, but please stick to actual arguments. Personal incredulousness and anecdotes are not arguments.

This is a "debate" between Peter Joseph and Stefan Molyneux over the merits of an Anacap stateless society and a RBE (resource based economy). Both agree on the glaring flaws of the current system. Where they diverge is on the solution. Molyneux argues that the removal of the State and the initiation of the use of force is the way we begin to work towards a more prosperous and peaceful society. Joseph argues that even without a State, the free market would still have plutocratic overlords who would continue to oppress humanity through absolute control. He also argues that because we have so much technology at the moment and that because it will only continue to expand, there is no need for anyone to be entrepreneurial anymore. Basically we can just hand out free stuff due to our abundance. This view is fundamentally wrong for a number of reasons that are easily explained with basic economics. A foundational concept of economics is the idea that humans have near infinite desires or needs, but we have noticeably scarce resources. In other words, scarcity is a constant of the human condition. No amount of "technology" is ever going to erase this reality unless someone creates a machine that can make food and water out of anti-matter. Until such a time, we are constrained by what the Earth can provide to us. Peter wants for there to be free access to the world's resources so that anyone can fulfill whatever need they have at the push of a button. I like to draw a comparison between Star Trek or Wall-E whenever I hear this argument. The problem with this is again human desires are near infinite. If you tired to institute this there would be massive demand with the same fixed amount of supply. People would want to have fleets of Mercedes, Lamborghinis, maybe a few estates, and all other kinds of stuff. Joseph argues that at some point people would realize that they need not steal from others because there is plenty to go around. The major problem with this is that it is a vague timeframe, when exactly will people realize this? 1 year? 3 years? 10 years? Also, if you are not using price signals to allocate resources, how is it done? Might makes right? Genetic superiority? It will never work because eventually you get old and people who are younger than you assume the mantle and reverse everything you worked to build. Similar to ritual of exchanging the "One Ring To Rule Them All" every four years in America, the problem with central planning is there is always the possibility that somebody you don't like will be granted the prerogative to determine how your life will play out. There is also the issue of who will build all of these machines that will do all the work for us. If this is indeed the goal behind the RBE then people who are engineers and scientists are going to have to forgo quite a large portion of their lives in service of building this future society. These people are not going to undergo such a huge project without compensation. I probably sound like a broken record at this point but this idea is essential: There is no such thing as a free lunch. Lets assume these scientists are not going to be paid with money. If that is the case how will they be compensated for their efforts? I would imagine they would demand ownership rights, after all it was their intellectual rigor that brought about the transforming of society. The idea that people are just going to do this out of the kindness of their hearts is simply delusory. Even non-profits and charities have to solicit donations or some other form of currency in exchange for their services. Nothing is for free, there is always a cost. This debate can sort of serve as an intelligence test. If one truly believes that anything can be free, I would invite you to open up a health clinic or any other kind of business and not charge anybody for your services period. You may notice that people will begin to overconsume whatever it is you have to offer to point of there being dangerous shortages. I mean just look at what happens when someone goes onto a college campus with "free" anything. So in conclusion, a RBE sounds really nice on paper and within the realm of abstractions, but when put into practice it hauntingly resembles Communism. RBE advocates argue that the only way this can ever work is if everyone is on board. A series of questions I would ask them is this: " How do you get people on board with this? With force and coercion? Or through voluntary exchange and a respect for property rights? If people do not sign on to this, what is your reaction? And finally, if these ideas are so wonderful and superior to the current system why are you still debating the merits? What is stopping you from building this paradise?"

Well this is how marketing works. If you are promoting a business, yes you have to work quite hard to maintain a positive PR reputation or you risk losing profits which is not good for shareholders. I can understand the criticisms from this video but this is part of the way that people interact in the 21st Century. Imagine the world without the Internet. You would not have been able to share this video on this platform.

Trying to proselytize principled Ancaps on the rationale for Trump is like trying to explain to a far Leftie that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Frustrating if I were to use a word. I don't mean to belittle or demean people here but come on. It's lower taxation vs. more of the rich "paying their fair share." More regulations vs. reduced regulations. Free markets in education and healthcare vs. continued government monopoly. Coercion vs. voluntary exchange. Will Trump be the person to usher in Ancapistan? Clearly not, but it's Trump as opposed to her royal highness Hillary Clinton. I think I know who I'm going with as the electoral college showed us.

Yeah I just listened to that conversation today and the caller was very keen on hijacking the discussion as if it were his call-in show. He had his script prepared and when Stefan didn't follow along he got triggered. Typical, nauseating, and boring tactics from a Sophist. The unfortunate part is he sounded semi-intelligent in the beginning but then just HAD to get his talking points in. I remember specifically when Stefan was discussing the principle of lying as it related to public officials because the caller had brought it up and then the caller becoming vitriolic at having his narrative interrupted. All I hope is that the caller listens back to that "debate" if we can even call it that and discovers why Stefan and Michael were right.

Here's something that has fascinated me for quite a while now. I speak for myself when I say this. It's interesting that people on both the Left and the Right can be opposed to and decry monopolies in the private sector but at the same time support the government. If anything, the government is the largest monopoly ever to exist in human history. Take a moment and think about why that is. Here are a few reasons why the government is the single largest monopoly: 1. Control of Money: National governments in most countries have the authority, indirectly through the proxy of their central banks, to issue currency and determine its value. When governments control the printing of money they also have to control the interest rates. Interest is referred to as the "time cost of money." For example, whenever somebody takes out a loan from a bank the borrower is expected to pay back principal plus extra money accrued over the life of the loan which is the interest. Depending on the interest rate a central banks decides to set, borrowing money can either be very costly or very cheap. This give governments pretty much an exclusive monopoly over all economic activity within a country. Those who control the money supply ultimately determine the economic decisions of the citizens. 2.The Rules of the Game: The legislative branch of the federal government has the prerogative to draft rules and regulations that govern the activities of the general population. I would urge people to not take me out of context here: I do not believe there should be NO rules whatsoever. I do believe, however, that bureaucrats and politicians within government are just as ill equipped to write rules as Joey the plumber who lives down the street. Politicians are not autonomous, artificial intelligence robots that can plan for decades into the future for what a modern economy will look like. For crying out loud we can barely predict what the stock price of Apple will be in 10 minutes. Never mind planning for the intricacies and complexities of a 21st Century economy, that is just ridiculous. Often I get accused of not knowing everything. Exactly! That's the point, I don't know the best way to run society. But if I don't know then neither do these sleazy, corrupt politicians being voted into office year after year. You cannot just say that I don't know everything and then say "But yeah man those politicians they know everything, we just have to get the right guy/women into office." To do so would be to set up an arbitrary category of people in society, call it government, and the acquiesce all of our rights to this entity. If we wish to remain morally/philosophical consistent and universal, this contradiction cannot be allowed to stand. This notion is simply delusory as there is no "anointed" man or women or group of men or women. There are simply human beings trying to make the best decisions on how to efficiently distribute resources in society. The idea that any one person would be able to know exactly what everyone in a country wants done and then be able to deliver on that promise would be to pretend that we have infinite resources on a finite planet like money, natural resources, time etc. it's just we aren't trying hard enough. Is it any wonder then that despite all of the new regulations being imposed on say the financial sector the lobbyists and special interest groups continue to find ways around it? As a learned man once said and I paraphrase here: "If you make corruption the source of someone's income, don't be surprised when they become really good at being corrupt." 3. Declaration of War: At the drop of a hat, at any moment, governments can commit citizens to war that can last 15 years. These protracted wars of attrition accomplish nothing and only lead to continued feelings of resentment between countries. The idea that we can solve violence with more violence is one thing that baffles me about discourse in this country. Make no mistake, I am grateful for American veterans who have themselves. What I question is why the strategy of preemptively initiating force and aggression in countries that pose no threat needs to continue? We've tried that regime replacing method for the last 15 years, basically for as long as I have been alive, and the Middle East is not a shinning beacon of Western ideals yet. How many more Hellfire missiles and drone strikes is it going to take before Iran or Afghanistan is a Constitutional Republic? Is there really no other way? Also it's quite easy for politicians to sign off other people's lives to war they are too old to participate and their children are exempt from the Draft. Similar to the moral hazard that happened in 2008 with the housing crisis, it is very easy to make decisions that do not appear to directly affect you. It is other people who must pay for the consequences of your actions whether you are the person voting for the war or the politician who sponsored the legislation. It's all immoral and just plain misanthropic. To conclude, these are just three reasons why governments are not fit to literally shape the course of human history. Perhaps I have proselytized a few of you out there in the inter-web. If I have, feel free to share this essay with as many people as possible. The truth must be spoken at all costs. If you don't see me posting within the next couple of days, I have probably been arrested and sent to room 101 for my re-education. Live long and prosper my fellow human beings. May the light of philosophy finally shine bright in this age of delusion and darkness.

For what it is worth my definition of the West can be summarized in two quotes by two Western economists/philosophers: "The only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence" (The NAP) -Murray N. Rothbard and "What kind of society isn't structured on greed? The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm; Capitalism is that kind of a system." -Milton Freidman Basically all of the negative things that people have said the West is currently defined by wouldn't be there because there would be no State and therefore very little to no initiation of the use of force.

I remember in high school we had these "career clusters" that each of us picked before we started school. It was basically like training us to have the skills needed for the workplace. The clusters included IT, Health Science, Architecture and Construction, Automotive Tech, and Broadcast Journalism. I was involved in the 4 year IT program and certainly the Comp Tia A+ certification was basically essential. Also having a Cisco Networking Certification was desirable to employers as well. If you are into IT there is a veritable array of different career options. You could go into Cyber Security, Software Engineering, Networking, Cloud Computing, Hardware Engineering, the list is endless and all are always going to be valuable in the 21st Century. I would learn how to program and write computer script, or learn the fundamentals of Network infrastructure (IOT; Internet of Things, IOE; Internet of Everything, IP V6 etc.) Be warned, there is quite a bit to learn about this stuff. It is not for the faint of heart. Although because you are inquiring about it, I am assuming you are aware of this. Good luck with your future endeavors.

The absolutism comes from the overwhelming majority of people who still support the State without a second though. Perhaps I could have rephrased but I do not hold these views, you do not hold these views, most people on FDR do not hold these views, but we are specks of sand in a desert of delusion. I am all for viable alternatives as the current system is completely insolvent and unsustainable. The challenge is changing the way people think. The government has all of the guns and if enough people decide that pointing guns is the way to go that's what happens. Recently I having been going back and forth with my mother over philosophy and the government. If I am diplomatic in my approach to explaining freedom all she has to do is say "I think you are wrong" and that's all she wrote. If I grow weary of being misrepresented/attacked and choose to become condescending and satirical in response, she simply doubles down and gets louder. The ideas she supports such as big government and taxation of the rich are clearly stupid. So far I have avoided calling her stupid but its like she gives no thought whatsoever to anything I say. Because these ideas result in the continued and very real death of millions of people, and I have very little patience for idiots, it is very difficult to remain civil. Especially when it is her who initially escalates into a full Blitzkrieg style air strike of feels. I am backed into a corner. If I concede she walks away thinking she has won, if I escalate as well, she doubles down. Dammed if I do, dammed if I don't. The issue with all of this is I know she is smarter than this. What I can't figure out is if she has just been horribly traumatized by past childhood experience in which case I would want to focus on that, or if she is knowingly being disingenuous and just evil. What do you think about this? How should I approach this challenge?

This was mostly a reaction to Berlin and the ambassador to Turkey being killed. If guns and bombs weren't solving the solution before, they won't magically become the solution 5 years later, that's not how violence works. I am an Non-Interventionist. I want everybody to go back to their corners and start resolving disputes with peaceful negotiation and discourse. I am not some Right-Wing Nationalist, that is simply the opposite extreme of Left Wing Multiculturalism. Thus, the pendulum never stops swinging.

Yeah I've taken quite a bit of shit, but I realize that crucifying Europeans on the altar of diversity has historically not gone over very well at all. I am reminded of Churchill and WW2. Not something I would like to see unleashed upon the world if we I can help it. Europeans are very generous, jovial, patient, and compassionate until they aren't, then it becomes a real shitstorm, and with nuclear weaponry it could result in the end of humanity. I think I can handle being called a "coon" and "shill for the White" given the alternative. As I stated in my Saving The West essay, these are merely words coming from people who are irrelevant.

What I mean by the West is everything you listed initially minus the taxation, central banks, welfare state, national debts and all the other nonsense.We are all natural born Anarchists. The State has to work quite hard to indoctrinate that out of us so that we never question their power. More people are beginning to question, but they still have all of the guns. As long as there is the "One Ring To Rule Them All" and everyone wants to get theirs hands on it, there will never be Anarchy because everybody wants something for nothing. Maybe, just maybe Trump can buck the trend. I am holding out hope because the alternative is to continue pontificating from the rooftops while staying locked away in an ivory tower. I already know how some people here believe that this will not be the case and have heard the argument made a million times, so there is no need to repeat it.

The Culmination Of A Year's Worth Of Philsophical Study: I realize I am beginning to sound like a broken record here, but the truth never goes out of fashion. In this essay I am going to be covering a breadth of topics beginning with an explanation for Trump that will perhaps offer a counter narrative to mainstream media. I will also discuss race, peaceful parenting, and what to do about government. Let's begin with the explanation for Trump. For those people who may still believe that Trump will be an authoritarian, perhaps I can persuade you otherwise. At first glance, Trump supporters to most people seem like bitter, angry, resentful White supremacists. This is a pejorative statement that has been debunked time and time again. Every movement has is fringe, radical components. However, these people do not speak for the movement as a whole. Often, Trump supporters are told not to paint with a broad brush and lump every Muslim, Mexican, African American, or other minority into the same category as certain movements associated with those groups. So, if this is the case, why then can the same standard not be extended towards White men? Seems awfully hypocritical to have one standard for one group and a completely different standard for another wouldn't you say? I have faith that President Trump will not be an authoritarian because there so many people who threw their entire support behind the man (myself included) who respect the Constitution far too much to continue to see it bastardized. Should Trump ever step out of line, and I speak for myself here, you can be sure that I will be quite vocal about it. The reason I believe Trump will be different than the typical career politician is because Trump has been in the private sector for basically his whole life up to this point. In the private sector, you have to listen to customer feedback if you want to keep earning profits and continue providing value. The body politic are the customers in this instance and Trump the C.E.O or Board of Directors President. I wouldn't count the man out just yet, he might just surprise you. Next up on the list, the one thing everyone wishes we would stop talking about for justifiable reasons: race. In terms of race relations in America. If we are ever going to reach a meritocracy in this country, continuing to split everyone up into arbitrary categories and playing this Identity Politics game based on characteristics nobody can change hardly seems like a progressive position to take. Unless you are Micheal Jackson, most people will not be altering their skin color anytime soon, nor should anyone feel as if they have too. Black people have a right to be proud of their heritage, Latinos have a right to be proud of the heritage, Natives Americans have a right to be proud of the heritage, Asians have a right to be proud of their heritage, and Europeans have a right to be proud of their heritage. And no, for all of the race baiters out there, white people celebrating their heritage DOES NOT= white supremacy or racism. This is such a tiresome narrative to debunk day in and day out so could we just say that everyone has a right to be proud and that #AllLivesMatter? I do not understand how Black people are excluded from this sentiment. Are Blacks not human now? Martin Luther King Jr. put it best: "I have a dream, that one day my children might be judged not on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character." Wouldn't it be nice if we could all just take a breath and stop with the endless stoking of racial resentment. I now for sure that I want to move past this. The question is what do you want to do? Now I will transition into peaceful parenting. There no doubt will be some among you who read the previous paragraph and ask: "What about the connection between race/IQ?" I haven't forgotten that perspective and will address it now. The thing about IQ is we know now that environment plays a major role in how much a child's IQ grows. Questions parents often ask themselves when choosing a community are: "Is this a nurturing environment for raising my child?" and "What can I do to make it better so that I can raise a well-adjusted, curious, wonderful bundle of joy?" I am not yet a parent so I am not the authority on parenting. Nor would I ever try to force people to raise their children in a certain way. However, according to the vast preponderance of research done on childhood development, psychology, and Western philosophy, peaceful parenting has come out on top as the absolute best way to raise children and consistently delivers excellent results. One issue that I believe we as a nation, and planet need to address urgently is the prevalence of corporal punishment as a means of disciplining children. If what I said about environment is true, then using violence to raise a "well behaved" should never even enter the minds of parents who want a peaceful child who uses their words and not their fists to resolve disputes. I don't want to come of as contemptuous about this but it is not difficult to figure out. If you choose to raise your child with violence, that child internalizes that lesson. For the rest of of their lives into adulthood, that child will continue to view violence as a legitimate way for solving disputes. It's no wonder that we have such violent youth joining gangs and being involved in turf wars in the Black inner city community! It all stems from the home. It's quite astonishing to hear people complain about how crime ridden a neighborhood is but not have the self-knowledge to examine their own actions choices to discover who is at fault. If we want a peaceful society, parents, particularly in the Black community need to stop blaming "whitey" and take personal responsibility for how they raise their children. I am sure that this is the only way we will ever address these inequalities that we find between the Black community and everyone else. This argument also extends to the impoverished White, Latino, Asian (rare), and Native American communities. It's all in the parenting folks. And now last but not least the issue of government. When it comes to discussing government, often the discourse in this country is split along party lines. In other words, who can get their hands on the "One Ring To Rule Them All" so that they can force their will onto others. Most people here disagree with the idea that government is force. The argument I here almost every time is that government is a necessary evil in order to provision the equitable and just distribution of resources in society. People argue that for this reason, government has a legitimate monopoly on the initiation of the use of force. This argument sounds compelling from a purely pragmatic standpoint, but in terms of moral philosophy, it falls apart repeatedly and consistently. I could spend the rest of my life detailing the evils of government and why a voluntary and peaceful society based on free market Capitalism is clearly superior, but because I have already written and argued at length on this topic, I feel it is inappropriate for me to launch into it again here. This essay is long enough as it is! I will refer anyone interested for more information on Western philosophy and Capitalism to my Minds profile: @IsaacGage860 for more information or my Facebook profile if you can stand the memes. I would like to thank all who continue to take the time to read my essays. Although I may not receive direct feedback, I have the feeling that at this point I have reached most of you at some level. If not, then I quite literally have no idea what more I have to say in order to potentially proselytize you towards the Light side. In any case, thank you for all of the people still remaining who did not give up on me despite my errors in judgment and perhaps sometimes harsh tone. I would certainly not be the person I am today without input from all of you. I would also like to personally thank Stefan, Michael, and all who make Freedomain Radio possible. Had it not been for you guys and significant philosophical intervention, I may very well still be a cultural, and economic Marxist today. I am forever indebted to you. #TheWestIsTheBest ❤️

Saving Western Civilization: If I'm going to be honest, it baffles me that I, a 1st Generation Kenyan immigrant with not a drop of European blood or strand of European DNA, has to explain the dangers of demographic and cultural suicide of Europe to people with Dutch, Irish, German, British, French, Austrian, Norwegian, Polish, Swedish and every other type of European ancestry. Have no fear my European brothers and sisters in philosophy. I will continue to pontificate and proselytize for Western civilization until I am six feet under. You can be assured of that. Still, can somebody explain this paradox to me? I don't understand... Europe may actually fall within this century. It sure would be real nice if Europeans could MAN THE FUCK UP AND NOT SUBMIT TO THE MALIGNANT CANCER THAT IS RADICAL ISLAM. I'm not a European, nor do I have European ancestry. However, as a grateful, red pilled 1st Generation immigrant I understand that if Europe collapses, the foundational buttress that holds up the glittering and beautiful monasteries and cathedrals of Western Civilization will crumble and wither away to nothing. The rest of the world will soon follow suit. America will then become the sole bastion of Western ideals on the planet. Don't get it twisted, America is formidable and steadfast but even we cannot endure a 21st Century Crusade coming from all sides indefinitely without support. Europe, you MUST PRESERVE YOUR INHERITANCE. Most people in Europe today either did nothing or very little to earn the freedoms you take for granted. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUT YOUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE AT RISK FOR THE SAKE OF NOT BEING CALLED RACIST OR ISLAMAPHOBIC. THESE ARE WORDS THAT CAN BE IGNORED. SWORDS BEING PLUNGED INTO YOUR HEARTS, NOT AS EASY TO IGNORE. If you cannot withstand the social ostracism and disapproval from people who were never really your friends to begin with then what the FUCK ARE YOU EVEN FIGHTING FOR AT ALL? Your time grows short, it's time to make a decision. Submit you and your children's wellbeing to the whims of foreign invaders or grow a set of balls and tell your women to FUCK OFF and let the MEN do the danger forecasting decision making. I trust you will make the correct choice for there is only one choice to be made. Just like in the 20th Century when our parents and grandparents faced a battle of economic ideas between a choice of Communism vs. Capitalism, in the 21st Century we now face a cultural battle of ideas between the West and Radical Islam. Will we submit and allow our children's futures to be Hell on Earth? Or will we fight to preserve the one civilization that has stood the test of time and has consistently come out at number 1 in virtually every regard? What risk do we actually face today? Being called mean names? Having pejoratives attached to our positions as if they were actual arguments? People who questioned cultural hegemony in Medieval times were subject to crucifixion and being burned at the stake. We face no such threats in the modern world. My fellow Alpha males, we just survived the biggest shitstorm of an election cycle with relentless attacks from the mainstream establishment. Trump withstood the screeching hyenas of the Leftist echo chamber press and WON DECISIVELY. It is time to leverage this momentum for all that it is worth. If we are going to shrink away from pathetic attacks like the Cuckservative establishment has done after all of the shit we have just been through, what the hell is our purpose in this world anyways? I ask all of you to remember why the West Is The Best this upcoming year. The war for the preservation of the West has been ongoing for centuries but this is a critical juncture. If we fail to proselytize through words now, we will be proselytizing with bullets and bombs later. I am stepping up to the plate, the real question is will YOU? #TheWestIsTheBest Please share this far a wide. It is long past time the West woke up from this open borders, multicultural, Kafkaesque madness and delusion.

Something profound has occurred to me during my journey towards the truth and self-knowledge. If the abolitionists of yesteryear had allowed the slave masters to beat them into submission with trigger warnings, safe spaces, and micro-aggressions, I would still be in chains and tending to fields. This is a broad, general PSA to all current friends and all potential future friends. If at any time you find my rhetoric and tone to be "inflammatory" "incendiary" "hateful" or "offensive" you are welcome to stick your opinion straight up your ass and hit that unfriend/unfollow button. The preservation of Western civilization and society for future generations is far bigger than me and others opinions of me. Take note because this is the one and only time I will be saying this. #MAGA #TheWestIsTheBest #RedPillGeneration

Hey ladies, you know what would make 3rd Wave Feminism useful? Maybe you could actually try focusing on the genuine rape culture coming out of Sub Sharan African and the Middle East. If I recall correctly, when 60 Minutes correspondent Laura Logan got sent to Egypt to cover the Arab Spring, she was gang raped by a horde of Muslims practicing Sharia. It would seem that perhaps there are bigger fish for feminism to fry elsewhere in the world at the moment. I don't know, genital mutilation and women being treated as second class citizens may be bigger existential threats to women's rights and NOT the West where women are pampered and comfortable beyond belief. Comfortable enough to sit in the cozy, air conditioned offices that MEN built so that you can take a slow steaming dump all over men as a whole. Now you don't have to listen to my advice but I would highly recommend it, that is of course if you bitches even care about women's rights at all. If not, by all means continue complaining about the "rape" culture in the U.S. and teaching Western men not to rape as if we need any kind of formal instruction. Maybe it's also time to start showing a smidgen of gratitude. Last I checked it was WESTERN men that fought along side women for their Suffrage. Western men are also responsible for the scientific method, freedom of association, Capitalism, the Protestant work ethic, freedom of religion which is pretty major, freedom of speech, and all the other wonderful rights and freedoms that so many take for granted today. If there are not men to guard the gates, you may find that Muslim invaders who are not particularly sympathetic to Western values, especially women's rights, will be flooding into your countries. And of course you are most likely going to go running to Western men to make the scary men go away. In order for that to happen, you damn well better start being grateful for all that men sacrifice and do. Or better yet we could avoid the situation all together and once again regain control of the borders of our countries. The simple reality is that you cannot have a Welfare state and unfettered immigration from the 3rd World at the same time without assimilation. The sub 70 IQ populations will simply inundate the social safety net of the countries they migrate to in the pursuit of "free" stuff. The men, who are the ones that bear most of the burden of taxes are going to be the ones paying for these free loaders and are going to have to forgo their retirements and benefits that they have been working their whole lives building up in order to appease your moral conscious for all of five seconds. Doesn't sound like a fair tradeoff for the men who give up quite a bit in order to have a family wouldn't you say? After all its women who control access to the precious scarce eggs, male sperm is much more numerous and therefore expendable. This is part of the reason why men are registered for the Draft and why women are not required by law to do so. I would love to see you try and whinge about the horribly oppressive patriarchy to Jihadists. Let me know how that works out for you. So TL;DR PSA to all 3rd feminist women: If you tell men that they are nothing more than patriarchal rapists and treat them like punching bags for your bitchy rants, the genuine rapists and patriarchs will show up and have their way with you. I don't think you want this to happen, so I believe an apology is in order. I and most other man eagerly await your sincerest apologies for treating us like shit and your promise to improve your behavior in the future. Sincerely, Cis-Gendered, Privileged Patriarchs At Large

I am beginning to wonder if Europe will ever wake up from this nightmare of multiculturalism and tolerance for intolerant groups of people.....

It is quite unfortunate that this message to this day has to continue to be repeated Ad Infinitum, but I will go to my grave pontificating it if I have to. Just today there was a terrorist attack at a Christmas market in Berlin, Germany and the Russian ambassador to Turkey was assassinated by a gunmen shouting "Alluha Akbar" . I imagine the response from the sanctimonious Left is going to be to continue to try and flood Europe with refugees. If these event does not strengthen and firmly solidify the Nationalist uprising that has been occurring in the West for the past year, I do not know what will. Say what you want about religion, but this is why not only Christianity but freedom of religion as an idea exists and is celebrated in the West, and why Radical Islam will simply never be compatible with Western Ideals. However, this is not only an indictment of Radical Islam but also of massive national Western governments and the continued, relentless initiation of the use of force against innocent civilians. I believe these events present a very compelling case for why the West should stop being involved in destabilization of the Middle East via arming terrorist factions. Violence only begets further violence as is the case with parenting and the cycle of abuse. Can we please just put the fucking guns and bombs away for once and try freedom and peace for a change instead? #RestoreTheWest #RejectRadicalIslam #NonInterventionism #TheNAP