Category: Uncategorized

Boers out, Chinese in

I expect it won’t be too long before South Africa’s blacks are pining for the good old days of Apartheid. This period of black self-rule appears likely to be more a brief racial interregnum than anything approaching genuine independence.

There has been some confusion in the energy industry this past week after the announcement that a new coal-powered power plant is planned for Limpopo. According to reports, President Cyril Ramaphosa inked a deal with the Chinese to build a new 4,600-megawatt coal power station during his visit to that country.

This came as a shock, as the brand-new Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) does not include any new coal-fired power plants. It has since emerged that the planned new power plant, called the “Power China International Energy Project”, won’t produce electricity for South African households and business – it will only be used for a massive new Chinese-controlled industrial park.

Earlier this year, nine Chinese companies committed to invest $10 billion in the Musina-Makhado special economic zone at a signing ceremony in Beijing.

Meanwhile, the remaining white South Africans are wondering if they should fight or flee. A South African reader writes:

The previous president (Zuma) was ousted amidst a cloud of corruption, and there are currently parliamentary enquiries into “state capture” by Zuma, his cronies and his super-rich Indian friends the Guptas, including a shady nuclear power deal with the Russians. Even the white South Africans managed to have mass protests against Zuma, and they were all overjoyed when he was replaced with Ramaphosa. Ramaphosa made millions in business – crony capitalism, one suspects – since 1994, and was part owner of the Marikana mine where striking miners were killed by the police a few years ago. Obviously, whites thought he was a coconut and would save them.

But since coming into power, Ramaphosa has been all about expropriating without compensation land from whites, and borrowing like mad from the Chinese. Now every white I speak with will say Zuma was a thief and Ramaphosa is a communist selling his land to the Chinese, but barely any will say – if they even realise – that identity politics cares about them, even if they don’t care about identity politics. The rainbow nation non-racial cuckery runs deep in way too many. Whites keep thinking that all South Africans should care about all other South Africans, while the other tribes think whites should pay.

I’ve also seen first hand how the Chinese operate, having worked abroad on a Chinese operated plant. The owners of the plant and their employees cannot operate the plant, nor maintain it. Everything is done by the Chinese contractors, whose ability to speak English diminishes the more you ask them for information and training. They have the plant owners held hostage, because if they lose the contract they go back to China with all the knowledge and skills required to run this billion dollar project.

Lastly, of those white men who acknowledge racial war in South Africa is imminent, they almost all seem to be in favour of fighting. But I also suspect that 99 percent of them are just windgat – loud-mouths who are more bark than bite. I’m torn between the wisdom of running away to a whiter, safer country with my family; and saying “if you just keep running away, eventually there’ll be no place left to run to” and staying to fight. I’m sure the latter is correct, but some positions just aren’t defensible, and South Africa is probably not viable for whites absent balkanisation. Emigration is almost certainly the wise option, but I also know it’s not feasible for all four or five million whites.

It’s probably too late to fight now. The time for the white South Africans to fight was when they still had nukes and control of the army, not when they have no nukes, no army, and the Chinese have decided to colonize the land. At this point, the Boers wouldn’t just be fighting the ANC, they’d be fighting the Chinese Red Army defending its very material investments in China’s new colony-to-be.

The problem, of course, is that who would want the white South African emigrants? They have proven to be wholly undesirable in any democracy; look at how they celebrated the accession of Ramaphosa to power. Even after losing their own country, they are reliably proving to be more foolish on matters of race and ethnicity than the average white American Democrat, who at least still has the sense to try to keep his children out of vibrant neighborhoods and school districts.

Lest you doubt the Chinese are serious about colonizing Africa:

In what all but amounts to turning Harare into a satellite outpost of Beijing, China has reportedly deployed and installed a dreaded new generation of surface-to- air missiles (SAM) in Zimbabwe, in what is seen as direct preparation for defending her vast economic interests in the country, with a possible signal of ratcheting up future gunboat diplomacy against the competing West.

The irony is that the same white idiots who complained about white imperialism and Sun City are going to declare that the white man has an obligation to rescue the black man from the yellow man. But the white man has laid down his burden and he no longer has the ability to shoulder it.

Statement on social justice

Christians are finally beginning to realize that their churches, and their church leaderships, have been infested and converged by Satanically-inspired SJWs:

In view of questionable sociological, psychological, and political theories presently permeating our culture and making inroads into Christ’s church, we wish to clarify certain key Christian doctrines and ethical principles prescribed in God’s Word. Clarity on these issues will fortify believers and churches to withstand an onslaught of dangerous and false teachings that threaten the gospel, misrepresent Scripture, and lead people away from the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

Specifically, we are deeply concerned that values borrowed from secular culture are currently undermining Scripture in the areas of race and ethnicity, manhood and womanhood, and human sexuality. The Bible’s teaching on each of these subjects is being challenged under the broad and somewhat nebulous rubric of concern for “social justice.” If the doctrines of God’s Word are not uncompromisingly reasserted and defended at these points, there is every reason to anticipate that these dangerous ideas and corrupted moral values will spread their influence into other realms of biblical doctrines and principles.

We submit these affirmations and denials for public consideration, not with any pretense of ecclesiastical authority, but with an urgency that is mixed with deep joy and sincere sorrow. The rapidity with which these deadly ideas have spread from the culture at large into churches and Christian organizations—including some that are evangelical and Reformed—necessitates the issuing of this statement now.

In the process of considering these matters we have been reminded of the essentials of the faith once for all handed down to the saints, and we are re-committed to contend for it. We have a great Lord and Savior, and it is a privilege to defend his gospel, regardless of cost or consequences. Nevertheless, while we rejoice in that privilege, we grieve that in doing so we know we are taking a stand against the positions of some teachers whom we have long regarded as faithful and trustworthy spiritual guides. It is our earnest prayer that our brothers and sisters will stand firm on the gospel and avoid being blown to and fro by every cultural trend that seeks to move the Church of Christ off course. We must remain steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord.

The Apostle Paul’s warning to the Colossians is greatly needed today: “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8). The document that follows is an attempt to heed that apostolic command. We invite others who share our concerns and convictions to unite with us in reasserting our unwavering commitment to the teachings of God’s Word articulated in this statement. Therefore, for the glory of God among his Church and throughout society, we offer the following affirmations and denials.

It’s a cuckservative statement, weak and Biblically suspect on race, nations, and women, but it’s otherwise rather good. The denials tend to be stronger stuff than the affirmations. Regardless, the fact is that tolerance, equality, progress, inclusivity, and diversity are not merely wrong, they are evil, and can be clearly observed to be so by their fruit. Given what has been done to the Christian church, inside and out, in the name of the gospel of anti-racism, it’s rather remarkable that so many Christians continue to cling to the idea that racism is not only a sin, but the greatest sin of all.

I suspect Christians would better understand their current theological plight if Judeo-Christianity were referred to by a more historically and theologically accurate name: Phariseo-Christianity.

In any event, it is long past time for Christians to expel the SJWs from their midst. Let the inquisitions, the unseatings, and the excommunications begin!

Insufficient inclusivity

The King in the North slams Marvel’s toxic heterosexuality:

Kit Harington has slammed Marvel for its lack of gay actors.

The 31-year-old star – who is best-known for his role in Game Of Thrones – has called on the studio to take a lead on the issue of diversity.

‘There’s a big problem with masculinity and homosexuality that they can’t somehow go hand in hand,’ the star told Variety magazine.

‘That we can’t have someone in a Marvel movie who’s gay in real life and plays some super hero. I mean, when is that going to happen?’ he added.

I couldn’t agree more. I think Marvel should retcon all its superheroes and make them all gay, transgender handicapable individuals of color.  Diversity is strength! Fat is beautiful!

A meager ONE or TWO LGBTP characters is NOT enough, Mr. Feig!

Also, LISTEN TO DAVID BAUTISTA! Bring back James Gunn!

9/11: an explosive hypothesis

17 years after the fact, Ron Unz is increasingly inclined to conclude that Israel was responsible for the deadly 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington DC:

We would normally expect that terrorist attacks resulting in the complete destruction of three gigantic office buildings in New York City and an aerial assault on the Pentagon would be an operation of enormous size and scale, involving very considerable organizational infrastructure and manpower. Yet in the aftermath of the attacks, the US government undertook great efforts to locate and arrest the surviving Islamic conspirators, but scarcely managed to find a single one. Apparently, they had all died in the attacks themselves or otherwise simply vanished into thin air.

But oddly enough, without making much effort at all, the American government did quickly round up and arrest some 200 Israeli Mossad agents, many of whom had been based in exactly the same geographical locations as the purported 19 Arab hijackers. Furthermore, NYC police arrested some of these agents publicly celebrating the 9/11 attacks, while others were caught driving vans in the New York area containing explosives or their residual traces. Most of these Mossad agents refused to answer any questions, and many of those who did failed polygraph tests, but under political pressure all were eventually released and deported back to Israel.

There is also another fascinating tidbit that I have very rarely seen mentioned. One month after the 9/11 attacks, an Israeli intelligence officer and a local Jewish activist were caught attempting to sneak weapons and explosives into the Mexican Parliament building, a story that naturally produced several banner-headlines in leading Mexican newspapers at the time but which was totally ignored by the American media. Eventually, under massive political pressure, all charges were dropped and the Israeli agent deported back home. I remember first encountering this extremely suspicious incident in the early 2000s on an fringe Hispanic-activist website, and the scanned front pages of the Mexican newspapers reporting the dramatic events were once available elsewhere on the Internet, but after all these years I can no longer easily locate them. The details of this incident are obviously rather fragmentary and perhaps garbled, but certainly quite intriguing.

One might speculate that if Islamic terrorists had followed up their 9/11 attacks by also destroying the Mexican parliament building a month later, Latin American support for America’s military invasions in the Middle East would have been enormously greater. Furthermore, any scenes of such massive destruction in the Mexican capital by Arab terrorists would surely have been broadcast non-stop on Univision, America’s dominant Spanish-language network, fully solidifying Hispanic support for President Bush’s military endeavors.

It has to be admitted that this incredible hypothesis would explain more than a few anomalies surrounding the Official Story, which we already know has to be false due to it being the mainstream media narrative. Just to name one, the sudden transformation of the neocons from defeated mercenaries tied to John McCain to the lords of Bush 43’s foreign policy has hitherto been inexplicable. The hypothesis certainly fits the means-motive-opportunity heuristic that has never made any sense when applied to Osama bin Laden, who denied responsibility, to say nothing of Saddam Hussein, and it also fits the historical pattern of Israeli false flag attacks blamed on Arabs, a pattern that, as Unz notes, goes back to the 1946 attack on the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.

The hypothesis may also help explain the strangely intense hostility that the media harbors for Q, as well as why Q rather bizarrely brought up Israel as a problem for the Trump administration that is even bigger than North Korea’s nuclear weapons. Q has repeatedly pointed out that the American public is not ready for the unvarnished truth, and while most of us have assumed he was simply talking about pedophiles and Satanists in high places, the possibility of an official declaration from the White House that 9/11 was an Israeli false flag would tend to fall in the category of truths that the average American would find very hard to accept, especially in light of the inevitable media firestorm that such an announcement would ignite.

As a strong supporter of Israel, I have to admit that if it eventually turns out that Israel was, in fact, responsible for attacking New York City and Washington DC, I don’t know if I will ever be able to forgive them for failing to launch a few missiles at Hollywood as well.

Anyhow, I don’t know who is responsible. At this point, it wouldn’t surprise me if it turned out to be a secret Mormon-Scientologist alliance formed to immanentize the eschaton. But the truth is what it is, and history is what happened, regardless of what we happen to believe today. About the only parties we can be certain were re not responsible are Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and al Qaeda.

Existential threat or ineluctable reality

Peter Grant addresses identity politics in the USA:

I’ve been watching the growing rift in American society for years.  It’s particularly evident in larger cities, but it’s also happening in smaller towns and rural areas.  It’s a growing intolerance with those who hold different views, a refusal to admit that the “other side” might be right at least sometimes, a dogmatic insistence that it’s “our way or the highway” when it comes to politics, law enforcement, immigration, economics, whatever.  There’s less and less willingness to compromise.  Many commentators have begun to speak openly of the possibility of a new civil war….

The biggest problem I see is that very few of those on either side of our societal divide have any conception of just how bitter, vitriolic and savage internecine conflict can become.  I have all too much personal experience of it in Africa.  Don’t think that things will be better here.  They won’t.  It’s part of the human condition, and race has nothing to do with it.  It’s all about one’s “tribe” – and that can be cultural, or social, or whatever, but it’s the primary group to which (or to whom) one owes allegiance.  It’s those for whom one is willing to kill, and those for whom one is willing to die.

The modern name for tribalism is “identity politics”.  Beware anyone trying to make you think, and act, and live in terms of “identity politics”.  They’re trying to get you to be tribal, rather than national, in your outlook.  They’re trying to divide and rule.  Division is their strength.  By exploiting divisions between groups, they come to power – and then they rule until someone else does a better job of identity politics, and takes over from them.

Tribe can drive good things – unity, working together, a sense of community.  But there are also negatives.  Tribe drives hatred.  Tribe drives war.  Tribe drives atrocity.  It’s been that way since the dawn of the human race, and it’s unlikely to change.

Peter and I have talked about this, and here is where we tend to disagree, to the extent that we do.  The core problem, as I see it, is that when Peter says to beware of those “trying to get you to be tribal, rather than national, in your outlook”, he contradicts his statement that one’s tribe is “the primary group to which (or to whom) one owes allegiance.”

By his own definition, and by the very etymology of the word, the nation is the tribe. The problem is not sub-national identity politics, but rather, the conflict that is structurally intrinsic to multinational political entities that masquerade as “nations”. The USA functioned very well when it was a loose confederation of different nations rather confusingly called “Sovereign States”, it no longer functions at all well as a pseudo-democratic centralized imperial financial satrapy ruling over a multitude of nations wearing the skinsuit of the former political entity.

What was the American Revolution if not the division of one English tribe into two? To claim that America is a superset that includes the Anglo-American nation rather than a subset of the English nation simply doesn’t withstand historical scrutiny.

All “identity politics” means is “inter-tribal competition for power”. The African-Americans are not going to stop putting their own self-perceived interests first. The Jews certainly are not. The Hispanics are not; neither are the newly self-discovered trans-Asian alliance. All of these identity groups and more are consciously working together in opposition to white American and heritage Anglo-American interests, so white Americans can either embrace identity politics and pursue their own interests or they can reject identity politics, and in doing so, submit to the various groups willing to do so.

Those are the only two options. The option to not play the identity politics game was made when the 1965 Naturalization Act passed Congress and was signed into law by the President. Identity politics are an existential threat to the USA, but they are also an unavoidable reality.

Peter rightly warns of the perils of a post-Apartheid multinational society, but in my opinion, that form of breakdown is to be vastly preferred to the perils of a post-Tito multinational society. As a general rule, the more interwoven and integrated the various nations are, the uglier the inevitable transition to homogeneous nation-states will necessarily be.

EXCERPT: 4D Warfare

The following is an excerpt from the newly released 4D Warfare: A Doctrine for a New Generation of Politics by Jack Posobiec:

In a discussion of perception management, its probable impact needs consideration: What is the impact of this deception on adversary leaders? Does it influence their operatives? Does it modify the information they believe to be true? And should adversary operatives or some other element of the adversary coalition play a more active role in combating the impact of perception management on adversary leaders?

The CIA defines deception as, “an action or set of coordinated actions intended to mislead through the creation or perpetuation of false perceptions with the objective to induce the opponent to act, or react, in a way prejudicial to his interests.” The purpose of deception is to cause an adversary to act in a way that is not in his best interest, without the adversary realizing what was done to him and, more importantly, who did it.

CIA-defined denial includes the routine operational security known as OPSEC, such as practiced by military forces. It also includes withholding information that is deemed sensitive at the time. Denial, strictly speaking, is not deception, but denial activities are usually part of any major deception operation. Denial measures are generally intended to promote uncertainties and confuse assessments, whereas deception is intended to lead an opponent towards erroneous conclusions. Therefore, denial tends to involve more passive measures while deception is usually more active.

As a term, “deception” carries a lot of baggage. Nobody wants to admit that his judgment is flawed or that he’s been misled by undetected deception. Being deceived suggests we are naïve or have not devoted significant time and energy to understanding the problem. But it is important to grasp that deception is designed to create a component of ambiguity that renders your judgment less effective. Deception is designed to affect the judgment of adversary operatives, especially as it concerns their analysis of your goals. In short, deception helps you to achieve your goals by confusing your adversaries about what they truly are.

Disinformation is best described as the dissemination of false, half-true, and misleading information. Disinformation is often combined with truthful information and is designed to achieve a specific objective. Disinformation is similar to propaganda, but not synonymous with it. Propaganda is overtly aimed at a mass audience, either foreign or domestic, and it is not necessarily deceptive. In contrast, disinformation is aimed only at specific targets, is deliberately deceptive, and is usually utilized in a covert manner.

Strategic deception involves large-scale deception programs designed to achieve major national objectives. Such a program involves multiple deception plans and a wide array of deceptive techniques. One of the greatest examples of strategic deception is the deception operations carried out by the allies leading up to the Normandy landings in 1944. These deception operations tricked the Germans into thinking that Calais was the mainland landing area rather than Normandy. They achieved this objective through the use of fake uniforms, fake communications, fake documents, and even the death of a fake soldier.

The Normandy strategic deception campaign was so successful that it was not until several days after the Allied landings that the German High Command realized that Normandy was, in fact, the primary invasion site.

Deception operations successfully target multiple cognitive biases that all humans exhibit to varying degrees. Some of these include biases and estimating probabilities, availability bias, anchoring bias, overconfidence bias, biases in evaluating of evidence, oversensitivity to consistency, absence of evidence, persistence of impressions based on discredited evidence, the perception of causality, casual explanations, and internal-versus-external causes of behavior. Because people tend to cling to their beliefs, they tend to see patterns where none actually exist. They also tend to assume that the simplest solution is the correct one, tend to trust the last thing they heard, and dislike having their biases challenged. Deception operations take advantage of all these tendencies.

Psychologists argue that individuals are most likely to follow their predispositions when they are relaxed or when they are very tense. In the first case, facing no urgency to make a decision, individuals see no disadvantage in going along with their original predispositions. On the other hand, when pressed to make important decisions in a hurry, people tend to fall prey to what they subconsciously choose to see. In this state, moderate tension, or vigilance responses, are elicited that overcome predispositions and confirmation bias. Individuals are then more open-minded as they seek out information to make a rational decision.

This dichotomy means that those intending to change a target’s beliefs through deception should confront a target with the need to make an important decision, while avoiding placing the subject in a crisis situation. In Operation Mincemeat, the British presented the Germans with a variety of clues suggesting that Sardinia would be invaded some time in the coming months, but not any time soon. Hitler and his intelligence officers were given excuses to doubt their previous expectations about an Allied invasion of Sicily. They were given time to reassess the situation and put together an alternative scenario incorporating Sardinia. Had the British pushed the Germans into a crisis decision-making mode, the Germans probably would not have shifted their forces in the way the deceiving British intended.

Mailvox: the state of Sweden

An email from a Swedish reader providing perspective on yesterday’s state elections.

Here follows a local perspective on the Swedish elections, and I hope you find it of use.

(1) I agree with you – SD cucked too much on immigration, but SD have cucked up in other ways, such as (2) expelling their youth organization (which then became AFS), and (3) expelling other “extremists” from their ranks. (4) The power balance in the leadership of SD shifted to the liberal and civic nationalist faction after the 2014 election, and (5) they’ve let themselves be converged through the implementation of (((“värdegrund”))), which is the Swedish equivalent of Codes of Conduct.

(6) The party leader, Jimmy Åkesson, who was always pushing the party in the direction of civic nationalism for it to become more “acceptable”, suffered a burnout depression 2015, and AFAIK he’s still on anti-depressants, which IMO seems to have taken the fire out of him. During and after his convalescence, the balance of power in the party leadership seemed to shift, as mentioned before.

(7) SD has also had huge problems gaining suitable candidates for both local and national functions, and there has been hugely publicized shows of incompetence. (8) They’ve also had problems with reps doing underhand financial stuff, and though it’s been nothing worse than what the reps of their opposition does, the red/green/liberal (((media))) has had too many field days. Add on top of this that (9) some of their most effective and loyal representatives have been evicted from the party. Many of the normies of the working class who aren’t unambiguously and overtly affected by the immigration yet, don’t really see that much of a difference between SD and the other parties any more. To them, they’re mostly just politicians, and to some more or less significant extent, they’re right about that.

Sad, but this election doesn’t really matter, because unless SD had gained 30 percent+ and AFS had gained entry to the Riksdag, which was unlikely to begin with, nothing much would have changed anyways. The SWPL middle class are isolated in their nice, mostly ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods. They drive their fancy Priuses to their nice jobs where they have a few GoodBrowns for colleagues. How they love mentioning their GoodBrown colleagues when talking about immigration, as if they’re somehow representative of the majority of immigrants.

The truly interesting times™ will be when SHTF in the next 4-8 years, and the SWPLs become personally affected. Already, non-western immigrants, up to the 3rd generation are moving into previously homogeneous areas, and their ways are sufficiently different to cause irritation and low level conflicts. What’s more, the establishment is literally spraying the country with reception centers for “refugees”. This is also true of currently nicer areas. When their wives, sisters and daughters get raped, their sons beaten and robbed, things will change. (((The media))) doesn’t write about immigration much any more, and are trying to give the impression that the crisis of 2015 ended. It hasn’t.

My hope is with the <20 year olds. When the Zyclonistas come of age (who are mostly very uncucked already), the fight will begin. They don't give a shit about pretty words and feelings. They (((know))).

Darkstream: the concept of the “right-wing” SJW

From the transcript of the Darkstream:

I don’t know what “right-wing SJW” signals to you but what it signals to me is that the person who is talking does not understand what an SJW is. They do not understand that social justice actually means something. You know, it is a complete oxymoron. To use the term “right-wing SJW” is every bit as nonsensical as the term “right-wing communist”; there are no right-wing communists. Now, you can argue all you want about the Nazis being right-wing or left-wing; I think it’s very obvious that the National Socialist German Workers Party was, like all socialist parties, like all workers parties, a party of the Left. I studied their ideology, and if you go over the 21 points of the Munich Manifesto, you can see that the National Socialists were considerably to the left of the American Democrats. That’s why it’s always been totally absurd to claim that Republicans or libertarians are Nazis, but there is enough common confusion on that score that you can understand where it happens.

And yet, you never see the same thing happen with communists, and nobody ever says, “oh, well, you right-wing communists“, and so it’s interesting to me to hear about that, especially in this recent run-in with the self-proclaimed moderates in the comics industry.  More than a few of them accused us, and me a particular, of being a quote right-wing SJW unquote, but if you understand what SJW stands for, if you understand what social justice is, then you realize that it’s the same as saying you’re a right-wing/left-wing warrior.

It’s intrinsically nonsensical, and let me explain for those of you who have not read SJWS ALWAYS LIE, which is, as even people who don’t like me very much will tell you, the go-to book on the subject. Social justice is about the convergence of all individuals and institutions towards what they consider to be the maximum possible justice for everyone,  and so “social justice warrior” does not refer to tactics, it does not refer to techniques, it refers to objectives. And the objectives of the SJW are absolutely antithetical to the right wing in general, and to right-wing extremists in particular

Alot of people don’t realize that the concept of social justice goes back to the 1800s. That’s right. A commenter said social justice is socialist justice. Many figures on the right have condemned it, probably the best example being Friedrich von Hayek. He wrote a really good essay on the subject back in 1971, so this is all going back much further than most people realize, and what we’re seeing in the SJWs today is really just the ultimate realization of what John Stuart Mill was advocating back in, whatever it was, 1851. So if you look at what social justice stands for, it stands for the very things that we’re now seeing from the tech companies, it stands for all of the corporations, all of the organizations, all of the Boy Scouts, all the churches, everything, being used to enforce the principles of social justice. Now, of course, what social justice specifically stands for has a tendency to mutate at any given moment. They used to be concerned about gay marriage, before that they were concerned about women in the workplace. They were concerned about black quarterbacks, now they’re concerned about black coaches. The specific target frequently evolves, but the general objective of forcing everybody’s opinion, and everybody’s thinking, and everybody’s actions to conform to the narrative, that is the primary objective.

Obviously that is not what we on the right wing support or stand for. We don’t accept any of it. Social justice, and especially the convergence that it entails, is diametrically opposed to all of us who value Aristotelian logic, value Christianity and Christian morality, and so it is absolutely insane, it’s nonsensical, to confuse the two or to conflate the two. Now, you can say quite reasonably that we don’t want politics in our comics. I don’t think that is very plausible for comics that are going to have any relevance to current events or to the interesting philosophical and ideological questions of the day, but that’s not a nonsensical statement, it’s just a self-limiting statement.

As I mentioned in the Darkstream, we have taken the opportunity of the recent unpleasantries to update our Dark Legion Comics logo, and we will be replacing the ComicsGate Comic logo on the current Gun Ghoul graphic novel with it later this week. We have already replaced the original Dark Legion logos on the digital editions, and we will replace the original gold Dark Legion logos on Chicago Typewriter and Rebel Dead Revenge when the production schedule permits.

China plays the debt card

I’m not sure which is more amusing, the consternation of the anti-imperialists who are tempted to shoulder the White Man’s Burden to protect the Africans from themselves or the hypocrisy of the IMF for worrying about China engaging in the debt-trap diplomacy they have been utilizing in Asia and Latin America for decades:

Zambia is reportedly in talks with China over a possible takeover of the country’s electricity company, ZEWASCO, after defaulting on loan repayment. This is according to a report by Africa Confidential titled Bills, Bonds and even Bigger Debts claiming that Zambia risks losing its sovereignty to China which is bound to seize its national assets once the government defaults on loans.

“A major worry of the IMF and US is that China’s BRI strategy is first to encourage indebtedness, and then to take over strategic national assets when debtors default on repayments. The state electricity company ZESCO is already in talks about a takeover by a Chinese company, AC has learned.

“The long-term outcome could be effective Chinese ownership of the commanding heights of the economy and potentially the biggest loss of national sovereignty since independence,” the report read.

It’s a bit ironic that SJWs in a post-imperial West that has been in decline for nearly 70 years are still actively attempting to destroy it while remaining entirely blind to the fact that a much more numerous, more unified empire is expanding in its place.

The right questions

Tucker Carlson is asking them on Twitter, even if he doesn’t appear to grasp that mindless tribalism is both natural and inevitable, and division is not created by politicians, but is the inevitable consequence of immigration and demographic adulteration of the American nation.

The organized left is lying about a segment we did on Friday night. Our topic was “diversity is our strength,” a phrase our leaders use to end conversation rather than spur it. You hear it all the time. We asked, what exactly does it mean? Is it true?

Here are the words from our segment: “How precisely is diversity our strength? Can you think of other institutions, such as marriage or military units, in which the less people have in common, the more cohesive they are?”

“Do you get along better with your neighbors and coworkers if you can’t understand each other, or share no common values? And if diversity is our strength, why is it OK for the rest of us to surrender our freedom of speech to just a handful of tech monopolies?”

These are the questions our leaders out to be asking every day. How does a nation of 325 million people hang together? What do we all have in common as Americans? Why should we remain a country? Nothing is more important than answering this.

But our leaders aren’t even asking these questions. Instead they’re trying to silence anyone who raises them, while at the same time promoting mindless tribalism for political expedience. Division keeps them in power.

What’s at stake isn’t a cable news segment. It’s the existence of rational conversation in America. If they can prevent you from asking honest questions, there’s nothing they can’t do. More on this tomorrow night.

If you want to save America, eliminate Diversity. Those who have been celebrating Diversity have been doing so with the express intent of destroying America. The challenge is that you’re going to have to abandon your false faith in equality of any and every kind if you’re going to even begin to try to salvage some remnant of America.