Winning the Battle Against Trannie-Norming

This is an easy win. Take it one Leftist at a time.

One of the best breaks we have had in the culture war since Donald Trump was elected is that the Left has chosen transsexual rights as the hill on which they wish to die. This is a completely disgusting an indefensible position, so for us it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. I mentioned in the previous post that I have personally convinced die-hard left-wingers to abandon it in the course of a single conversation. Part of this relies on forcing them to make a choice between different aspects of libtard dogma. When they see that one of their sacred cows is under assault from a new sacred cow, they will, so to speak, cut the new cow out of the herd. Remember, we win when we force them to adhere to their own standards.

Here’s my argument: If someone is biologically born as a man or a woman, and they reach adulthood, then they must have gone through puberty. When puberty occurred, their brain was basted in either testosterone or estrogen. These are the hormones that make us act like men and women, respectively. Since they love to pride themselves as people who love science in a sexual manner, they will certainly not argue with this. So, if these things make us act male or female, and your brain develops while being basted in the hormones associated with a particular sex, then your brain is not the brain of a person of the opposite sex. At this point, they might try to say there is no difference between male and female brains. There is. Science says so. Again, make them adhere to their religion that worships science.

A man who thinks he is a woman is not basing this on anything other than what his conception of a woman is. Feminists love to say that men don’t understand women at all and that the female experience is markedly different than the male experience. If this is true, how could a man ever think that he was a woman? The only thing on which he can base this belief is what he thinks a woman is like, as a man. Are women really nothing more than dresses and hairstyles? This is exactly the sort of thinking that feminists have railed against since the sixties. Are they going to use it to justify transsexuals? Even they see the stupidity in this.

Now, if you have them on your side at this point, or even if you don’t, you can move in for another kill shot. Point out that thinking you are the opposite sex should be considered a mental disorder, and it for years, it was. Technically, I believe it’s still is according to the DSM-5. If they try to tell you that standards change, ask them what groundbreaking research discovered that you could actually be a sex other than the one that your chromosomes assigned to you. Obviously, they will not have an answer, because no such study exists, because it can’t, because it’s bullshit. Next, ask them how serious a science is if its tenets can change based on social opinions, particularly opinions held by a small number of people. This is a good time to remind them that their beliefs are way out there and do not conform with those of most people either in the country or on the planet. They will probably not admit that psychology is a total crock. But it does not matter. You will have planted the seed of doubt. Anyone who was on the fence or sort of neutral who overhears the argument is going to jump to your side because you are obviously displaying knowledge and thought that shoots holes in your opponent’s argument. So if you know any libtards who like to believe that transsexuals are totally normal and totally right, go ahead and have some fun with them. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain. The more we do this, the more normal people will start coming around to our other opinions, and the more libtards will look like the idiots that they are.


Make the Military Great Again

There is no shortage of great things about President Trump. I have already started referring to him as the greatest president of my lifetime. But one of my favorites is that he is restoring masculinity to the military. He isn’t flawless and he still has some room to improve, but he has shifted the momentum, and that’s a big deal.

Mad Dog Mattis is a great general. As Secretary of Defense, he has overstayed his welcome. He is still a swamp creature, but speaking as a Marine, I love the bastard. I love the fact that liberals hate him. I love that he says point blank that some people need to get shot and makes no bones about the military’s job being to kill America’s enemies. It’s about time the public was made acutely aware of this, and more importantly, it’s vitally important that people in uniform know this. Believe it or not, some of them don’t. He’s served his purpose, and now needs to leave gracefully.


The best move regarding the military thus far is the banning of transsexuals from service. It’s horrifying that this even had to be a thing, that it wasn’t inherently understood that freaks who mutilate their genitals are unfit to represent the country and not mentally strong enough to be in combat. But you live in the world you have, I suppose. I have personally, in the course of a single conversation, convinced die-hard liberals that transsexuals are nuts and that the whole thing is bullshit. It’s too much even for them to swallow. But, they have chosen to go out on this limb, and we must saw the end of it while they are on it. Those advocating this shit need to be forced to explain it. More on that another time.

Next move? Kick women out of combat roles. They are inherently unfit for them, and it’s bad for society. If a woman is in the type of physical shape she needs to be in to serve, unless she’s an Amazon, she will weigh less than 140 pounds. She will be inherently weaker than the men in her unit. She will barely be able to function under the weight of her own gear. I’m not exaggerating. When I was in Iraq, a female we worked with was killed in a firefight because she took the protective inserts out of her flak jacket. Why? Too heavy for her. The chances of such a creature being able to drag a wounded man to safety, a man who probably weights north of 180 pounds with his gear (at a minimum), are about the same as those of a gerbil making it out of a bathhouse alive. Think of the moodiness a woman goes through when she’s ragging it. Now add the attitude that a man should never be allowed to hit her, no matter what she says or does. Then put her in a forward area with a high level of mental stress. Sound like a good idea? Of course not, because it fucking isn’t. Women are unfit for combat duty, and really, for the military in general.

Kick ‘em all out. No women. No homos. No trannies. No pussies. Make asskicking great again.

What About the Economy?

We must address economic issues to be viable as a movement.

The Hesperian/Alt-Right movement has clear views on culture and citizenship that can readily be translated into immigration policy. However, there has never been a widespread consensus on economic ideas that could be translated into sound economic policy. If we have any hopes of moving the needle and eventually achieving victory for our most important goals which involve protecting the culture, we need to have an economic policy that is effective and benefits American society as a whole and the working and middle classes in particular. We are never going to win over large swathes of the wealthiest Americans. They already have two parties who represent their economic interests to the exclusion of all others. In terms of dealing with the wealthier Americans, we will have better luck winning them over with social issues. We will be most effective if we try to simply not alienate them with our economic policies.

Is the Alt-Right capitalist? Is it socialist? Fascist? Communist? I would submit that we are absolutely not communist, fascist, or socialist. It is not possible to have Alt Right views and respect traditional American culture and at the same time be socialist or communist. Outside of New England, there is no historical precedent in American culture for anything even vaguely resembling Socialism or communism. Or fascism, for that matter. Realistically, the Yankees are on their own in terms of those styles of government. But what about capitalism?

For starters, we should reject the term capitalism on its face. This is a Marxist term and we should not be allowing our enemies to define the argument. Remember, Marxists are never, EVER our allies. What about a free market system then? Certainly this is in keeping with American tradition and has shown the greatest ability to provide material benefits to people living under such a system. The problem here is that it becomes relatively easy to corrupt. It also does not offer any sort of protection in a rapidly changing world. We must be realistic. It’s great to have some libertarian lovefest and talk about how free markets solve everything. There is a kernel of truth in that. However, the free market does not offer any sort of protection when it comes to foreign competition or worker replacement by automation. The first is easily addressed by the Hesperian views on immigration. The latter quite frankly could be addressed by returning to traditional Republican policies of tariffs and restrictions. These policies worked well for the United States between the years of 1833 and 1913. It was during this time when our nascent industry was still well behind that of Britain and Germany that such policies enabled us to play catch up. We could start with such policies. But is it enough?

We also need to have a clear position on organized labor. Personally, I can see both sides of the argument. Unions nowadays are nothing but paid lobbyists for the Democrats and are actually injurious to workers in terms of rights and benefits. They do However, if you got rid of unions today, you would have to bring them back tomorrow because in that brief window of time, our overlords would be right back to viciously exploiting workers. Yes, I know that sounds communist of me. But the truth is the truth. Marx didn’t catch on because he was talking about things that were theoretical. He resonated because workers in Europe were being taken advantage of. Considering the fact that a tremendous amount of support for the Hesperian movement is based on the kinds of people who would benefit from unions, it would be wise to support them, and wrest control of them from the Left. There is a real opportunity to do so if we can reframe workers’ interests away from things like vacations and insurance plans and more toward job protection, and by pointing out that the interests of the Left’s leaders are diametrically opposed to the interests of the average American worker. The big advantage we have over the Left is that our goals and ideas are what we actually believe, and we are not trying to hide it. A huge part of our movement is about being able to speak the truth freely. Never underestimate what a strong card the basis in honesty is for our side.

What I am tentatively suggesting here is a relatively free internal market with strong tariff protections to benefit American workers and American-based corporations. Of course, tax cuts for middle-class Americans as well as American based companies that hire Americans would be a good thing, because it would serve to starve the Beast. Additionally, we need to support the idea of unions as a further protection of American workers in a global market. Lastly, our well-articulated stance on immigration can double as a major plank in our economic policy. Labor, like anything else, is subject to market demands there is no reason for us to be importing millions of Third World parasites when automation is going to render a substantial number of jobs obsolete. So, tariffs, internal free markets, unions, no immigration. It’s the start of a coherent economic policy that goes along with our cultural policies.

Footnote: Some Senators have introduced the RAISE Act, which would switch us to a merit-based immigration system with no diversity lottery.

Who Has Claim to America’s Past?

Us. And them. But our claim is better.

Let me preface this by saying that I love America and actual Americans, and I especially love America’s history. Since I do consider myself an expert on its history (and I have the credentials liberals love that prove it), I figure I should comment on it a bit. Specifically, how that history applies to the present, because to my way of thinking, that’s one of the most important things about history.

Contrary to popular belief, America’s original colonists were not here for freedom. At least, not entirely. The English people had considerable rights already. A great deal of what we have in the Constitution is just a clarified and deliberate reiteration of what had been considered the Rights of Englishmen as laid out in the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and a handful of important court cases as well as English tradition. Trial by jury, no taxation without representation, common law, habeas corpus – this was old hat when we wrote it down. We took a lot of it a step further, particularly the representation and religious freedom parts, but even freedom of speech was old school for English-speaking peoples by 1789.

Regarding our original settlers, the first people who came ashore in Virginia were looking for wealth, not freedom. Whether the lost colony of Roanoke or the Jamestown settlement, those Limey bastards were all about the Benjamins – well, not Benjamins, since that shit didn’t exist yet, but they were here to get rich. If you remember, John Smith had to implement a “you don’t work, you don’t eat” rule to get them to stop digging for gold and start sowing fields. They never found gold, but instead got rich by essentially acting as Britain’s drug connection. Tobacco was such a hit in the international market that it was used as currency in Virginia and Maryland, and goods were valued in tobacco. Think about that the next time you hear some bullshit about the War of Drugs. Oh yeah, and they did it with semi-slave labor in the form of convicts and indentured servants, and when that dried up, they switched to outright slave labor. Two-thirds of Britons and 99.99% of black people who came here did so in an unfree status. Thank God it hasn’t led to any problems in modern times.

What about the Pilgrims, or the Puritans? Yeah, they were here for religious freedom. Freedom to worship exactly as they said to, no deviations. Roger Williams had to go found his own colony because he wanted to argue religion with the Anti-Fun League in Massachusetts. Anne Hutchinson was told to get to steppin’ for challenging Massachusetts orthodoxy. She was  proto-commie fuck, though, and got what she had coming at the hands of some Indians. During the Revolution, George Washington had to outlaw Pope’s Day (or Guy Fawkes Day) where New England Protestants burned effigies of the pope because his Catholic troops from Maryland (Smallwood’s Militia, who were some of his best troops) threatened to quit. So no, they were not interested in religious freedom in the total sense of it.

If you have not read Albion’s Seed, you should. The author, David Hackett Fischer, points out that America was populated by extremely different strains of Englishmen (and some Germans), who were largely at odds with each other. Specifically, he names the Puritans, the Quakers, the Cavaliers, and the Scots-Irish. They all had competing visions for the country and extremely different visions for its development. That is reflected in the Constitution and its original interpretation as creating a relatively weak central government that was in many ways subordinate to the States. That’s why if you read things from before the Civil War, they usually say “the United States are,” but after the Progressive Era, they often say “the United States is.”

As I pointed out before, the Founders were by and large not overly religious (with some exceptions like Lyman Hall and Reverend John Witherspoon, of course) and many may have wanted a secular state with no Christian identity. So what was our country founded on? Our country was not about equality of outcomes. It was never meant to be a melting pot. It represented a compromise that would enable different groups of people who very often were at odds with one another to band together based on common heritage and interests for mutual protection. It was not necessarily trying anything radically different; it simply created a new government to better provide the traditional rights to a people who traditionally had them. While that is a fantastic goal, like all revolutions, it also contains the seeds of its own destruction.

To have a country founded for the preservation of rights, safeguarding those rights must become a principal concern. For many people, this is not enough. They want more. This is almost certainly the case for people from outside who moved here because the system of laws and customs in America allowed the industrious to get ahead financially. After a while, the Cavalier mindset of profit and the New England desire to dominate people’s private lives “for their own good” became dominant because they inherently seek to expand and dominate while the yeoman farmer attitude popular elsewhere sought only to survive.

The result is quite the national personality disorder. Liberals like to claim they are following in the footsteps of the Founders. To some degree, they are. Neocons like to claim the same. They are right, too, but like the libtards, not completely. What about the rest of us? What about the Scots-Irish in Appalachia? Mid-Atlantic middle-class folk? Irish and German and Polish and Italian-descended people who have for generations spoken English and fought for this country? We have a claim to the Founders, too. We just have to be specific about which ones. The Civil War was largely an internecine struggle between competing Anglo-Saxon interests. The next one will largely be the same, although there is a great deal more being wagered, and the cost of losing, for us at least, is a lot higher.

After the First Civil War, America was still largely Christian and most of Americans’ traditional rights were still intact. I say First Civil War because we are in one right now, albeit in the cooler phase like the one that preceded the First. Our current struggle is about issues that are of even greater importance. Now we are struggling for our very survival. We face demographic replacement, abolished rights, and religion completely subordinate to anti-Christian secularism. We have to stop arguing salon-style bullshit about philosophical differences and reconciliation. The time for that was over in 1965 when our demographic doom machine had its gears set in motion. We need to stop worrying about what George Washington would say about what we’re doing. We need to acknowledge some hard truths. Namely, we need to admit that libtards are our countrymen, but they have betrayed us completely. We need to accept the fact that if we are not bold and drastic in our efforts, we will be overwhelmed and crushed. We need to acknowledge that this is going to end in violence and stop fretting about that. We didn’t start the war, and no matter what they Fake News and its hydra-like affiliates tell us, we have the moral high ground. We have to stop worrying about upsetting people. To steal a line, this is a revolution, dammit. We’re going to have to offend someone.

You might be thinking that you didn’t want this. Well, tough shit. As proto-commie yet sound revolutionary Thomas Paine said, “I prefer peace. But if there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.” Stand up, knuckle up, buckle up. It’s nigh time for us to assert the supremacy of our claim on America’s heritage.

Do Americans Need Democracy?

Consider, for a moment, the French. I know, I know, I can’t stand them either, so I’ll keep this consideration limited. Specifically, think of their government. France was ruled for roughly a thousand years by kings. Starting in 1789, they attempted to create a republic, but being French, ended up with an authoritarian empire. In between the fall of the ancien regime and the rise of Napoleon, proto-libtard assfucks like Robespierre sent thousands upon thousands of innocent Frenchmen to their deaths and attempted to destroy the Catholic Church and replace it with the worship of “Reason.” Presently, the frogs have an oligarchy masquerading as a democratic republic. What’s my point? Through the entire journey over the course of a millennium, they remained French. They spoke French, they stayed Catholic, they kept the same bad manners and kept not bathing. No matter what the laws were or who made them, the French were and at least for now still are the French.

What about America? If we’re honest, we have not had a republic for nearly a century. When Woodrow Wilson created the Federal Reserve, he effectively turned control of the country over to an international banking cartel. As Mayer Rothschild said, “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws.” Maybe we’re an oligarchy, maybe a kleptocracy, or a plutocracy. Yet despite this, and despite wave after wave of immigration from the 1850s through the 1920s, the American people retained their culture. How did they accomplish this? There are several factors. First, actual Americans had the financial and political power, and getting a share meant immigrants had to buy in. Secondly, Americans believed America was great and had confidence in their culture. Third, Americans had the birthrate to maintain a country. Fourth, certain groups who actively work against America were not present in large numbers. Lastly, as the old saying goes, there is a lot of rot in a country. It took a long time to get from the Federal Reserve to the point where healthy immigration restrictions were removed in 1965, and quite a stretch from that point to the damage to the racial and cultural composition of the country which we see now.

Immigration in the past was very different than it is now, though there are similarities. As far as differences, in the past it wasn’t easy for the immigrants. Some people like to whine about how hard their ancestors had it. Let me be clear: if your ancestors felt uncomfortable because Americans didn’t like people acting unAmerican in America, good. And fuck ‘em if they complained. There was pressure to succeed and assimilate or get the fuck out. Most people don’t realize that roughly half of all immigrants from Italy to the United States went back, and Ireland allowed the descendants of those who left during the Potato Famine a generous right of return. Americans insisted on American culture.

And yet, despite all of this, we still celebrate St. Patrick’s Day (also known as Amateur Drunks Day) and watch movies about the mafia. Despite all the pressure on immigrants to assimilate, and despite the total lack of any sort of welfare state, despite government crackdowns on immigrant criminal scumbags like Sacco and Vanzetti (who were absolutely guilty), we still hear shit about “Irish Pride” and “Sons of Italy.” Here, immigration in the past is very much like immigration now. The idea that immigrants from cultures completely foreign to the West, coming in massive numbers to a generous welfare state that enables them to outbreed the Americans paying for it, with constant, easy access to the Old Countries, are ever going to assimilate or actually “become American” is insane. Even if we used the strategy Alfred the Great used on the Vikings and forced immigrants to speak English and interbreed with the native population, we wouldn’t have enough Americans to pull it off. Rather than absorbing, America would be absorbed.

Now consider America as of July 3rd, 1776. Were the people very different culturally than they were the next day? No. How about after the treaty of Paris? Probably not. Washington Irving’s opinions to the contrary considered, Americans were Americans.

Let me ask the question, then: do we need Democracy to be American?

Americans were at once pious and impudent, prone to government intrusion but scornful of such intrusion, freedom-loving and slave-owning. Above all, Americans jealously guarded their Natural Rights. So long as those rights are protected and vigorously defended, does it matter if that defense comes from a king, or must it be a republic? Is our court system any less corrupt, less overreaching, or less arbitrary than a king? Do all people need to vote? These are questions that must be asked and answered. We are coming to a point where we have to decide, once and for all, who is American, what that means, and how Americans will be governed. As a Virginian once put it, “…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The Republic got converged. Whither next, my fellow Americans?