A Collection of Comments (Part 2)

This article will be updated regularly with new comments.

#1 (In response to this blog)


What do you think about states’ rights and movements for succession? Malcom said that what blacks needed was their own nation, do you agree?


Yes, yes I do. I hope to publish an essay on this in the future.

I think the idea of state’s rights in America has had demonic effect.


It seems to me like your two responses are contradictory. To me, the purpose of states’ rights is to provide greater autonomy and therefore greater self determination for distinct groups of people. The problem with one-size-fits-all government is that it is inevitably contrary to the preferences of minorities. Since every individual is a minority in some respect, it is inevitable contrary to the preferences of all people. This effect can be mitigated by restricting the scope of laws as much as possible. Since the system that works for the white majority will often not be ideal for a black minority, it makes sense that they should be able to tailor policies to their unique set of interests. This is why I am in favor of greater autonomy for distinct nations of people that exist within the United States. Can you explain to me how, in light of this, you see greater autonomy for, say, Georgians as “demonic” but for blacks as desirable? If it is not possible to give a concise answer, I don’t mind waiting on that essay you mentioned.


Because the history of increased autonomy for Georgians has led to situations where a White mob could hang a Black woman who is 8 months pregnant up side down, use her for target practice, cut the fetus out stomp it to death then light her on fire. See: Mary Turner Or, take a Black man, skin his face, castrate him, light him on fire then sell pieces of his liver for tasting. See: Sam Hose I could list similar atrocities in every Southern state, atrocities which the federal government claimed to have no power to stop in the name of “states rights.” In every state, Blacks have either never been the majority, or, a minority of well armed incredibly violent Whites were able to impose minority rule while the national government did nothing. If we had a Black majority state now, things might be different, we’d probably still have to fight it out. But, the fact remains, history reveals there to be nothing contradictory whatsoever about by position.


I would argue that the examples you provided illustrate the need for recognition of a black nation since, as you said, blacks are everywhere the minority and therefore cannot hope to have their interests protected by a hostile white majority. Similarly, the people of any given state are a minority at the national level and therefore cannot hope to have their interest protected unless their interest happen to align with the majority, which is unlikely.


The difference is that every state is guaranteed representation in proportion to its population in the national legislature, we have no such guarantee. Most states share enough interests with enough other states to be able to wield influence as a bloc. As a prelude to separation, I support creating a Back majority in five of the former confederate states.


If Malcom had gotten his black nation and it had been given proportional representation on the national level, it would still have had no recourse in the event that it’s interests were overridden by a white majority. Surely this is unjust? How do you propose to create a black majority in five states?


The difference between Georgia and Black people is that that while Georgia can be overridden, there is still a sense of national unity among Whites. That’s why bringing White Southerners back into the fold was a bigger priority than making sure Black Southerners weren’t being butchered and re-enslaved. Yeah states can be overridden, but, I can’t imagine White New Jersey standing by as the people of White Georgia are being butchered, there’s a national identity which creates enough sympathy between the states to allows them to broadly protect the interests of all. Which is why I resist the analogy between us and states. Well, we’re moving back South already, in Mississippi and South Carolina we were the majority before the Great Migration, about 52% of us live in the South currently. In most deep Southern states we make up at least a quarter of the population. In Mississippi we make up 40%. If between 2 and 3 million of us move to NC, SC, GA, AL, LA and MS, we’ll constitute a bare majority, which we can build on.


It might surprise you to learn that the primarily white New Jersey not only stood by but contributed about 90,000 soldiers to slaughter white Georgians and their white Confederate allies. What’s more, the reason they gave was that they were protecting the interests of blacks.


It might surprise you to learn that I am aware of the American Civil War, though I’m not sure why it would. And if New Jersey said they were protecting the interests of Blacks, they disagreed with president Lincoln who said he’d be willing to save the union without freeing a single slave and the Irish immigrants who rioted in New York and burnt down a Black orphanage because they didn’t want to serve for what many saw as a “nigger war.” In fact, it was so hard to get enough enthusiastic White recruits, that the federal government finally relented and allowed Black men to serve, 216,000 enthusiastically signed up, including 90,000 that had escaped slavery. As for the 116,000, keep in mind, that the free Black population when the war started was only about 400,000, which probably make these number remarkable in the history or warfare for a population which, unlike Whites, wasn’t liable to being drafted. But if I yet take you at your word, I struggle to figure out what happened in 1861 that suddenly made Northern Whites become rabidly consumed with concern for the rights of Black people, after 250 years of slavery, left them largely content to settle the matter slowly in the legislatures, if at all. I struggle further to figure out why this grand humanitarian impulse, born in 1861 apparently, would’ve been dead by 1877 when the federal government withdrew soldiers from the South leaving us open to butchery, rape, bombing and general dehumanization for almost a century. I further wonder, why, if these impulses didn’t die in 1877, they weren’t made manifest when Blacks fled North, seeking opportunity, and were subjected to ghettoization, exclusion from most of the labor market, predations by racist banks who profited by exploiting Black dreams of home ownership and mob violence. I wonder why an anti-lynching bill wasn’t passed as over 10,000 people (probably more, investigating these killings was a good way to be killed yourself so the numbers are sketchy) were butchered by mobs with the collusion of state governments, I wonder why after decades of Black activists, ministers and children being murdered in Mississippi, it took the death of two White northerners to get the country up in arms. The state divisions come far after and are deeply subordinate to the basic ontogeny of American Whiteness from which we have always been excluded. You grossly overestimate the relevance of identities based on state.



Trey Gowdy: A Short Bio


Today, the Benghazi Committee released it’s long awaited final report. For anyone wondering “Who is Trey Gowdy?”; here it is in a nutshell.

Life and Early Career

Harold ‘Trey’ Watson Gowdy III was born on August 22nd of 1964. He grew up in Spartanburg South Carolina and still lives there to this day. Trey says that he learned the value of work early. He delivered papers as a teenager and later worked at a grocery store. He Graduated from Spartanburg high school in 1982 and then went on to earn a Bachelor of Arts in History from Baylor University in 1986. In 1989, Trey earned his Doctorate in Law from the University of South Carolina.

Trey got his career started as a clerk in the South Carolina court of appeals and worked several other low profile jobs in his early years. His was first recognized for major achievement in 1999 when he was awarded the Chief Postal Inspector’s Award for his prosecution of Mark Jay Allen, a suspect of multiple armed robberies.

In 2000, Gowdy ran against, and defeated, incumbent candidate for 7th Circuit Solicitor Holman Gossett. Although both Gowdy and Gossett belonged to the Republican party, Gowdy was able to set himself apart with an online campaign which received considerable attention. Despite an impressive 33% violent crime decrease credited to Gosset’s “aggressive” prosecution record by a local paper, Gowdy won the position and kept it until 2010. The position of Solicitor in the South Carolina government is as a prosecutor for one of sixteen Circuit Courts. The Solicitor of the 7th Circuit represents the state in criminal cases filed in Spartanburg county and Cherokee county. During his time as Solicitor, Gowdy created a Violence Against Women Taskforce using a grant from the STOP Violence Against Women Act. As a Result, three prosecutors, a victim advocate, an investigator, and one secretary were committed to work specifically with domestic violence cases. Despite this, Gowdy was criticized for having a higher rate of domestic violence case dismissals in 2005 than in the previous four years. Gowdy responded to criticism by saying that that rate was a “meaningless barometer of success”. Gowdy was also responsible for launching a Worthless Check Program which is intended to provide restitution to victims of check fraud.

In 2010, Gowdy sought the nomination of the Republican party for the position of House Representative for South Carolina’s 4th congressional district. Before Gowdy, the seat had been held by another Republican, Bob Inglis, for three terms. However, Inglis became the recipient of a great deal of criticism from his constituents for being one of only 17 House Republicans to oppose the troop surge and for his support of efforts to combat global warming. Gowdy beat Inglis with a campaign platform centered around opposition to Democrats on issues such as the troop surge, the bailouts, and global warming. Gowdy presented himself as an outsider and promised not to be changed by Washington. In the general election, Gowdy was sure-to-win. Compared to his Democratic opponent, Paul Corden, Gowdy raised nearly forty times as much money for his campaign. Gowdy won the seat with 65% of the vote.

While serving in the 112th Congress, Gowdy sponsored legislation which allows state and local law enforcement agencies to seek assistance from the Attorney General in cases where violent crimes are being investigated. That bill, HR 2076, passed through the House with overwhelming bipartisan support and then through the Senate with unanimous approval. The bill became law in January of 2013.

Gowdy also introduced the Former Presidents Protection Act which grants secret service protection to former presidents for life and to their children until the age of 16. This bill was also well received and passed easily through both the house and senate before becoming law in January, 2013.

In addition to his introduction of legislation which was well received on both sides of the isle, Gowdy so-sponsored some Democrats’ bills, including HR6379 which was introduced by the House Representative from South Carolina’s sixth district; James Clyburn. This bill dedicated a post office to Curtis Inabinett, the first African-American mayor of Ravenel, SC and later a member of the Charleston County Council.

Towards the end of his first term, Gowdy was involved in an incident where a woman at his church was arrested for illegally carrying a firearm. The arrest came after Gowdy told police that she had threatened him with the gun. A spokesperson for Gowdy’s office denied that there was any prior relationship between the representative and the woman who threatened him.

In 2012, Representative Gowdy ran for re-election and received nearly 65% of the vote. Gowdy was not challenged as the Republican candidate but ran against two other parties in the general election; the Democratic Party and the Green Party. In the course of his campaign, Gowdy was able to raise much more money than his campaign spent, creating a ‘war chest’ fund which strengthened his incumbent position. The greatest contributions to Gowdy’s campaign came from health professionals, the insurance industry, and the entertainment industry.

To this day, Gowdy continues to serve as Representative for South Carolina’s 4th district. In addition to his duties as a congressman, Gowdy sits on the Ethics Committee, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and a Select Committee on Benghazi.

Benghazi Committee

On the eleventh anniversary of the September 11th World Trade Center attack, an armed group attacked the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi, Libya. Four americans were killed, including one ambassador. The following morning, Secretary of State Clinton made a statement offering consolation to the families of victims, condemning the attack and promising to bring those responsible to justice. In order to determine what went wrong in Benghazi, Secretary Clinton established an Accountability Review Board consisting of four members appointed by the Secretary and one member from the intelligence community appointed by the Director of National Intelligence. This Board reviewed the events of September 11th and 12th and made twenty nine recommendations for policy improvement. All of the recommendations were accepted and Secretary Clinton ordered that they be implemented.

The Republican reaction was criticism of the Obama administration’s approach to security in Libya. Fox News was quick to suggest that the administration should have seen this threat coming and had ignored pleas from “our people in Libya”.Clinton’s response after the fact was regarded as ‘too little too late’.

By 2014, the issue had received enough attention for Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner to propose a special committee be formed to investigate all policy decisions which may have prompted the attacks or impeded the United States’ ability to respond effectively as well as other relevant information. The proposal was rejected by nearly all Democratic House Representatives but the Republicans were able to pass it anyways.  To chair the special committee committee, Boehner appointed Trey Gowdy, stating “This is a big job, but Representative Gowdy has the confidence of this conference, and I know his professionalism and grit will earn him the respect of the American people.”

On September 11th, just a few months after being appointed to the special committee, Gowdy made the following statement about his intention and the purpose of the committee;

“Today we honor the memories and lives of those we lost in New York, Washington, D.C. and Shanksville, Pennsylvania. We also honor the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods. It is for them that we must establish all of the facts of what happened in Benghazi, beyond any reasonable doubt. And it is for the American people, and those who serve our nation overseas—to restore their faith and confidence—that the Committee will establish the facts in a fair and impartial manner.”


A week after this declaration, Gowdy and his committee held their first hearing. The hearing began with an opening statement from Gowdy and then a series of questions from the ranking Democrat, Elijah Cummings. Cummings’ first line of inquiry concerned the status of implementing the policy changes recommended by the ARB Report. The first witness, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Gregory Starr, confirmed that the number of security personnel in Benghazi had been increased, new training was implemented, and twenty two of the recommended changes had already been fully implemented while the remaining seven were under way.

One might think that the testimony heard in the Benghazi committee’s first session would be enough to show that the State Department had responded effectively and was taking measures to correct deficiencies. In fact, this is the position that was taken generally by Democrats and was parroted by at least one left wing propaganda outlet. However, in a letter to the ranking member, Gowdy expressed his intention to continue on with the investigation and asked for Cummings to continue cooperating in a bipartisan effort to uncover the truth, whatever that may be. Gowdy reminded Cummings that their select committee had already been granted authority to subpoena witnesses and pointed out that no objections from the minority would un-do that. However, in the spirit of cooperation, Gowdy promised to give Cummings and the other members of the committee ample opportunity to contest subpoenas before they were made public.

To this date, the investigation by Gowdy’s committee continues, making it the longest congressional investigation in history. It also continues to receive criticism from Democrats. As recently as April 5th of this year, Minority Leader Harry Reid declared on the floor of the senate that Gowdy’s committee is a “partisan committee masquerading as an independent body.” Democrats have complained that the committee has intentionally fueled controversy with its subpoena of Hillary Clinton and attempted to embarrass her before the next presidential election.

Gowdy and the Tea Party

As Americans become more impatient with their political system, many who see no hope in either of the major parties have taken to identifying as members of the Tea Party, in reference to the Boston Tea Party of 1773. In 2004, a website was launched to give a face to the organization and lists the fifteen non-negotiable beliefs of the movement which include the right to gun ownership, the illegality of un-approved immigrants, and the importance of balancing the federal budget. Some politicians have explicitly associated themselves with the movement but, despite being popular among Tea Party members, Gowdy has never declared any involvement in the movement and continues to identify as a Republican.


Gowdy vs Justice Department

Gowdy, along with several of his house colleagues, has been critical of the Department of Justice’s ‘Smart on Crime’ initiative. That’s because, in an effort to reduce sentencing for nonviolent drug offenders, the Attorney General’s office issued a memo instructing prosecutors not to charge suspects with possession of  an amount of an illegal substance which would require a mandatory minimum sentence unless the suspects are violent or part a criminal organization. According to Representative Gowdy, if the Department of Justice wanted to avoid jailing non-violent criminals, it should exercise prosecutorial discretion and simply not prosecute drug cases. However, by choosing to prosecute and not applying the law as defined in mandatory minimum legislation, the DOJ undermines congressional authority.

Seemingly in response to the DOJ’s behavior, Representative Gowdy introduced the ENFORCE the Law Act of 2014. If this legislation had passed, it would have empowered either chamber of congress to initiate a civil case against the executive in the event that the executive issued orders which conflicted with the constitutional requirement that it executes the law. Unfortunately, after being passed through the House of Representatives, Gowdy’s bill died in the Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary.

Gowdy’s Position on the 2016 Election

In December of 2015, Gowdy officially endorsed Marco Rubio for President. Gowdy said that he could trust Rubio with the presidency because he has been consistent and kept his campaign promises. Gowdy also praised Rubio’s fiscal conservative tendencies, citing the occasion when he received an old campaign tie, worth less that the paper it was wrapped in, as a christmas gift from the Senator.

GOP front runner Donald Trump has responded to Gowdy’s position with a predictable volley of insults. Trump accused Gowdy of mismanaging the Benghazi investigation, calling it a “total not-good”.

The end of the Road

After serving four terms in the house of representatives and having earned the respect of many on the right, Gowdy has decided not to seek re-election. After his current term ends, Gowdy plans to return to his family and to his beautiful home state of South Carolina.

American Red Cross: Witch!

The Church of Leftism is so hyper-intolerant of anyone who ventures outside of the politically correct circumscriptions they have established that they are now going after an organization which exists solely to provide lifesaving services to those in need. The Church’s inquisitors (who have come to be know as ‘Social Justice Warriors’) take it upon themselves to seek out and denounce violators of the social circumscriptions.

Last Monday, a social justice warrior managed to take offense to this poster;


A twitter account called John Sawyer complained;

Hey, , send a new pool poster to bc the current one they have w your name on it is super racist

This caused enough outrage that the American Red Cross has promised to replace the poster with new, more politically correct version. I understand that the Red Cross is just trying to save lives and is not out to make a stand for freedom of speech but what precedence does this set? It’s not enough that the poster includes a black life guard and represents at least three ethnic types? Black people are being persecuted if they can’t get one of their own labeled ‘cool’ on a childrens’ safety poster? Give me a break!

Please share your thoughts in the comments section below.


An Open Letter of Congratulations.

Well, you did it. You refused to bend a knee to Germany. You shrugged off the campaign of fear and asserted your sovereignty. Those of you who turned out to vote should be proud. If the referendum had failed, there would have been no second chance.

Although there is plenty of cause for celebration, there are sure to be challenges ahead on the road you have chosen. The European Union may try to get you back. Scotland may threaten to leave again and, this time, actually do it. Germany will try to punish you for pulling the rug out from under its feet. Keep heart, you have chosen the right path.

Tonight, I’ll share a toast to England. Next week, I may even refrain from cursing you for your behavior in the 18th century. Just this once 😉

What is a Racist?


Its unclear what anyone means when they call Donald Trump a racist. If we accept the definitions provided by Google’s dictionary; it would imply that he has either taken some action against someone because of their ethnic type or that, while he has not acted on it, he regards belonging to some ethnic types as sufficient grounds for disliking someone. Although I searched, I have not been able to find any evidence to support a claim that Trump is guilty on either charge. What I have seen repeatedly is reference to some comments made about America’s immigration policy. The reference is often accompanied by the assertion that Trump “hates Mexicans”.

My initial concern is that ‘Mexican’ might not count as an ethnic type. I understand that there are several distinctions to be made between the groups of people who inhabited the lower peninsula of North America prior the modern United Mexican States. In addition, whatever ethnic distinctions there are to be made between the people of this region, those titles do not respect national boundaries.

Lets say we were to expand the meaning of “racist” to include a dislike of or actions against people based on nationality. Trump has never declared a loathing or even a grievance against an entire subset of people. In fact, you would be hard pressed to identify a demographic for which he has not declared he is in a mutual, loving relationship.

What trump actually said was:

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

The story that I pulled this quote from challenges the validity of his comment. They cite some research which supposedly demonstrates that there is no higher rate of criminal activity among immigrants than among native born citizens. Criticizing his comment in this way acknowledges, though not explicitly, an important point: Trump’s focus is not on pigmentation or nation of origin in and of itself. Instead, even if he is incorrect, he is attempting to utilize identity type as an indicator of something else.

For the sake of argument, lets imagine that Trump’s comment was something more like “We should not allow any Mexicans to enter the United States.” Could we say, based on this comment, that Trump believed that Mexicans where inherently inferior? Well, it is hard to know what is meant by “inherently” in this context since nationality is not necessarily a permanent condition.

Let’s stop talking about Trump in particular and just focus on the issue of ambiguous language. For the sake of example, lets look at a hypothetical policy. The policy is : no red haired people can cross a checkpoint. Does this policy count as racist? If your first instinct is to say ‘yes’ because it involved distinctions in pigmentation, think a little further. Is it the case that policy makers have a belief about the inherent inferiority of red haired people? It might be, but I think it’s too early to judge.

Now I will introduce some more information for you to consider. The policy makers are in charge of physical security in a walled city where the inhabitants all have black hair. In most of the neighboring lands, red hair occurs in roughly 5% of the population. In addition, the city suffers occasional attacks from a nation to the west. In this hostile nation, roughly 80% of the population has red hair. Equipped with this knowledge, the city guards cannot be certain that no people with black hair pose a threat. However, they can deduce that any person with red hair is not native to their city and that they are more likely to be (though not certainly) hostile.

Notice that the guards of the city are attempting to use statistics to improve their defensive strategies. This does not necessarily reflect a belief that pigmentation is responsible for hostility or inferiority.

So, are the guards racist?




Will Paul be Johnson’s Goldwater?

In 1964, Barry Goldwater was the republican candidate for president of the United States. He was crushed by Lyndon Johnson in the electoral college; 52 votes compared to 486. However, Goldwater’s campaign was a turning point in the history of the Republican Party. He campaigned on a promise of preserving and extending individual freedoms for American citizens. Though he failed to be elected, his message inspired many.

During the subsequent administrations of Johnson, Nixon, and Carter; the American people watched the government grow and liberty recede. There was plenty of blame to go around. After all, it was Nixon, a Republican, who allowed for the creation of the EPA and ESA; both major expansions of federal control.

Finally, the American people had had enough. When the charismatic Ronald Reagan offered them Goldwater’s message once again in 1980, he received landslide support. All but three states were won by Reagan in his race against the incumbent President Jimmy Carter. Reagan lost only Minnesota when he ran for re-election in 1984 and is still a beloved figure for most conservatives. He was the last best president in our history.

I cannot help but see some parallels between this series of events and what I have seen in the last few presidential elections. After President Clinton’s liberal administration was replaced by Republican George Bush, many liberal minded conservatives were disappointed with the same ole’ big government and bailouts for the banks. President Obama has taken us further away from the liberal ideal than we have been at any time in modern history.

All the while, Ron Paul was fighting the good fight and losing even worse than Goldwater did. However, like Goldwater, Paul’s message has reached many of us and inspired a new generation of pro-liberty Americans. Now, the Libertarian party is coming into it’s own.


I feel like this image encapsulates the outlook of many Americans and it means opportunity for a new voice.


The major obstacle for third party candidate has always been the funding and advertising system which favors the major parties. However, Trump’s campaign seems to be out of money. In addition, Gary Johnson (the Libertarian candidate) is polling in the double digits. With just a bit more progress, he will be eligible to participate in the televised presidential debates.

As for Hillary, I think the odds are against her. It seems more appropriate at this point that she should be drawn and quartered than sworn into office. Even the liberal media isn’t letting her off the hook anymore.

The Cave Analogy Revisited


The analogy of Plato’s cave involves a man who breaks free of his restraints and emerges from the cave where he has always been held captive into the daylight where he can perceive depth, color, texture, etc. He returns to the cave and attempts to share an account of what he has seen with the prisoners who are still restrained. They cannot imagine what it was like for him to perceive ‘reality’. So, it is implied that the conception understood by the escapee is more accurate a depiction of reality than those held by the other prisoners.

Imagine; a variation on this analogy wherein the other prisoners are also able to perceive the world outside the cave. Maybe with the help of a camcorder or perhaps they are also freed. Can the prisoners then be confident that they share a perspective which allows them to perceive the world more accurately? What would that mean about a scenario in which the sequence of their experiences was reversed? Is it just as likely that men who were free until adulthood would regard imprisonment with the conditions described in the original analogy as enlightening?

What if you were to present to a person in the condition of ignorance a palette with the three primary colors and attempt to explain how all things appear as some combination of them when exposed to light? If I ask you whether or not, after convincing him, you had made given him a more accurate way to understand things: wouldn’t this be the same as asking you whether or not it had given him something useful?

When we deal with the abstract, we do not rely so much on our senses to construct impressions for us. Instead, we invent distinctions like color, the distinction between genders, between good things and bad things. To whatever degree these abstractions allow us to interact with and predict consequences within the physical world, we should regard them as sufficient. We should also be mindful that perceiving the world through various lenses only makes sense if it aids us in some way.


This is optional but not recommended.

The left craftily introduces distinctions while feigning objectivity. Their audience is meant to feel as though the messages they receive do not contain moral assumptions. However, relaying an abstract concept is a sort of endorsement in itself. They are saying “Hey, there are 10 different gender categories. One of them applies to you, or maybe more than one. I’m not telling you how to feel about it (sometimes) but you should know the distinctions.”

The problem is that all these social constructs are only perceived social realities. I think it is a bit ironic to make this point as a criticism of the left since it is the same point they use to deconstruct the social norms which have contributed to the success of many western nations. While it is true that things like traditional gender roles are socially constructed ideals, it is also true that things like multiculturalism and classlessness are socially constructed ideals.

Once we acknowledge that our ideas about people and society are no more than tools, we can focus on results. When individuals realize that they cannot be made to possess every material good or social opportunity that appeals to them, it is possible to accept limitations as a feature of life. If individuals dwell on inequity, there can never be an end to the conflict. We need to advocate for social norms that facilitate cooperation and good will. We need to take responsibility for our lives, even when some things are out of our control.

An Open Letter to My Limey Cousins

Image by Ben Garrison

The set of ideas espoused by what Americans call ‘the left’ is toxic. For any culture to ingest these ideas is suicide by pain of poison. Victims of this poison include Catherine’s Russia,  Napoleon’s France, and Bismark’s Germany. Merkel has poisoned(1 2) the well in the village of European states. The great nations of the United Kingdom must now amputate a rotting limb.

Between the first and second world wars, the French nation lost it’s will to survive. It’s death rattle was the words of pacifist spokesman Jean Giono who said “What’s the worst that can happen if Germany invades France? Become Germans?” Three years later, the Nazis invaded and there was no will to resist them. Unfortunately for the young and mighty German nation as well as the Russian Empire, the symptoms of the late France were contagious. Germany succumbed to a nationalist strain of disease and Russia to a universal strain which was more natural to it’s expansionist tendencies.

The European Union is Hitler’s legacy, nursed back to health by well meant idealist policy makers of the United States. This Frankenstein’s monster threatens to swallow up the legacies of Margaret Thatcher, Winston Churchill, Isaac Newton, John Stuart Mill, Edmund Burke, and Robert the Bruce. If a vote does not pass to to free the United Kingdom from it’s clutches; I will mourn it’s fate. As the American ship takes on water and a dedicated crew struggles to keep it afloat, we are also praying for our cousins across the pond. If it is our fate to decline to the point of failure, I would take some comfort in knowing that the flame of civilization was kept alive else where.


Trump’s Get Rich Quick Scam

-Video from Metalocalypse

We’ve all heard about get-rich-quick scams. They prey on our laziness and desire to get where we want to be without the time and effort required by other means. Whether its the prince of some obscure nation who just needs your bank information or an investment that can’t fail. You’ve probably been solicited to invest in some of these things and were wise enough not to. Still, every day people are tricked into pyramid schemes and the like. In the most regrettable instances, people’s livelihoods are destroyed by con men.

Recently, folks have been making a lot of noise about the large sums of money swindled away from the victims of Trump University. The program, which promised to educate it’s students on the business of real estate, charged tens of thousands of dollars in some instances. Students of the program have complained that they weren’t given any special skills or knowledge that justify the investment. Some have said plainly that Trump’s school is a “scam” and a “fraud”.

I find it a little ironic that many who are eager to point a finger at Trump and call foul have no problem with a similar, much larger, ‘education’ scam. The University system has been at this much longer than Trump. To date, millions of young people (and often their parents) have been fooled into devoting enormous energy and resources into attaining so-called Mickey Mouse degrees. This includes college majors such as Media Studies, Art History, and Women’s Studies. Victims of these scams are left with empty pockets and no real marketable skills. It’s all the more tragic that the government endorses it. So where is the outrage? Why pick on Trump? At least he doesn’t get revenue through taxation.