RNC vs. DNC

The atmospheres of this year’s Republican National Convention and Democratic National Convention were paradoxical in nature. While the biased media harped on the “darkness” of the RNC, and the “unity and uplifting spirit” of the DNC; the true environments of each convention were exactly the opposite. The DNC portrayed a dystopian future that will only get worse. On the other hand, the RNC of Donald Trump exemplified the American Spirit that once sent man to the moon, and may one day, as Peter Thiel stated, send man to Mars.

The exterior conditions of the DNC felt like something from a sci-fi novel, as the raging hordes of disgruntled Bernie supporters charged the fences that kept them away from the convention building. The protests at the DNC, which were ignored by reporters, were much larger and more violent than those at the RNC. They were also much more disturbing. The anarchists burned multiple American flags, and there were many arrests. The sheer amount of fencing (which is ironic since the Democrats are so opposed to a border wall) gave the feeling of a castle sieged by hungry peasants, while the nobles wine and dine inside. Speaking of inside, the feel inside the convention was discomforting to say the least. This was the full course of cultural Marxism served by the modern Left in a painfully obvious attempt to make white males feel bad about themselves. Every degeneracy was on display as we were given speeches by multiple illegal aliens, the mothers of thugs who were rightfully shot by cops, transgenders, and fat, disgusting feminists. Every obscure demographic came together to take a massive shit on the builders of this country, white males. The supposedly optimistic tone of the DNC totally failed. The Democrats seemed completely out of touch, so much that they barely even mentioned ISIS, who have just this week murdered a French priest in cold blood. They talked about how “America is already great”, yet they still proposed new policies. I got a Soviet Union-type vibe from this convention, there was something genuinely disturbing about the forced equality it espoused. In an attempt to make people feel good, I believe this convention will do the opposite. It will expose the Democrats for the liars they really are. The average white American sees the world burning around them, while these pampered freaks say that everything is alright. The average white American sees that homogenous life is better and happier, not a mixed bag of identity politics and pandering.

The RNC was different. The speakers did not lie or pander; they were straightforward. Donald Trump spoke clearly and proficiently about the problems our nation faces, and laid out solutions. Donald Trump said what everyone knows-that everything is not alright. The RNC speakers were attractive and inspirations, and while they may have had dark words to say, their personas beamed with light. The Trump children stood out as particularly impactful speakers. Meanwhile, on the convention grounds, protests were minor and few, the police did an excellent job, and conservatives from all around the nation had a week of fun and fellowship. The RNC offered a vision of hope. The RNC offered a future where America can be great again, and rediscover what made it great in the past.

Something is rotten in the state of Germany

Over the past week or two, there has been an absolute explosion of Islamic terrorism in Germany. The sheer lack of time between these events is crazy, as it shows that Muslims are getting more bold in their aggression. I want to go over these few attacks and their impact on Europe, and why I think this explosion of terrorism has occurred.

The first attack in Germany, after Nice, France, was in Würzberg, Germany where an Afghan refugee attacked Germans on a train. Fortunately, there were no deaths, and the police were able to kill this psycho before he murdered anyone. The significant thing about this one was this person was actually a refugee let in by the irresponsible German government who was living with foster parents. Two foster parents who I assume were red-pilled quickly after. The two warnings this attack gives is proof that some refugees are dangerous, and also proof that young Muslim teenagers are not assimilating.

After Wurzberg, another attack occurred when a Muslim stabbed a mother and her daughter for being “inappropriately dressed”. It is notable that now whites cannot even dress how they want without fear of being attacked by Muslims. Quickly after this there was another attack this time by a Syrian refugee with a machete. He killed a pregnant mother. These two horrible attacks on women will hopefully wake up so called “feminists” of the danger of importing people who treat women awfully. But we all know these Leftists will not see the danger. They will just keep letting it in.

Then there was Munich, where an Iranian shot and killed 9 people in a mall. Another proof that strict gun control is ineffective against criminals. This one seemed a bit more complicated in motive than the standard Islamic attack, but I think there was at least some Islamic influence. According to some witnesses, the Iranian shouted “Allahu Akbar”, but others say he was inspired by school shooters. But, regardless of the influence of Islam, this person should not have been in Germany in the first place. It is so absurd that he is called a German by the media, when anyone with eyes could tell he is not German.

And lastly, was the big one that was thwarted. A successful example of how racial profiling saves lives. A suicide bomber tried to get into a music festival but was denied, he then went to a restaurant to blow himself up, killing no one but injuring ten. This situation was extremely disturbing, but thankfully avoided.

I think what we are seeing is the real time effects of Germany’s insane immigration policy. Germany let in the most migrants, and after a few months of getting adjusted, the terrorism has begun. This is only the start, and I imagine when a Nice-style attack happens in Germany, all hell will break lose. The scariest part is I don’t know if Germans will even fight for their country. They are so cucked by the shadow of Hitler that they are scared to death of standing up to their own death.

The Religion of Egalitarianism-Part 1

Yesterday, Iowa politician Steve King sparked controversy at the RNC by stating the historical fact that white people created most of Western Civilization. Somehow, somewhere along the way, it became racist to tell the truth about history. Leftists were quick to call King a “white supremacist”, ignoring the fact that he was simply defending himself against an anti-white racist complaining about “old white men”. As Steve Sailor said in his blog, this was an “emperor has no clothes” moment. Everyone on that panel knows what King said was true, yet they acted outraged nonetheless. It still blows my mind that what King said, which was respectful in tone and not derogatory to anyone, is called racist. It just proves the word has no meaning anymore. Using this story as a starting point, I want to explore how radical egalitarianism, or what I call Leftism, has become a religion.

It should be quite alarming to any rational person that historical facts that are positive to white people are called racist. It is undoubtedly true that whites invented practically all modern technology, philosophy, literature, art, and civilization. There is a reason why people all over the world want to migrate to the West. There is a reason why the standard of living is so much higher in the West. It is why the global elite see Western doctors when their sick, and why rich foreigners send their children to American and European universities for education. The Leftists who deny that whites have made the greatest contribution to history always threaten to leave for Canada or Europe if a Republican is elected president, not Africa or the Middle East. Saying that Western Civilization is the best is not racist, it is a fact. It is extremely disturbing that this is somehow controversial today, but when you view egalitarianism as a religion, rather than a belief or a value, it makes sense. Imagine confronting a devout Christian, who believes that the Earth is 5000 years old and denies evolution. It would be practically impossible to convince them otherwise (especially if they were middle-aged or older), and they might accuse you of being a heathen or tell you that you are going to hell. While Christians today tend to be polite and don’t name call, in the past there were Christians who shut down men the truthful voices of men like Galileo and Copernicus. Does this situation ring a bell? Both Christians (and devout people of any faith) and radical Leftists believe in alternate histories. The religious believe in a historical fantasy where men walked the earth with dinosaurs, while the egalitarian believes in a historical fantasy where Africans were developing super-computers in the 2nd century. I am exaggerating the outlandishness of both parties claims, but the claims they make are similar in the detail that they are simply not true!

I think some of the founders and early believers of egalitarianism don’t believe their own revisionist history. They know the truth about human history but they wish to not bring it up to avoid causing discomfort. I understand their logic, even though I don’t agree with it. And I think it is fine for them to think that way. But then they attack white people and expect us not to fire back. Steve King did not just say this for no reason, the other panelist said something completely racist against whites so King defended whites. It would be one thing if King was just trying to be a dick, but he wasn’t, he was defending his, and millions of Americans, race. We used to have a saying that said if you can’t take it don’t dish it out. If your going to actively trash white men for a living, don’t be surprised when the white men defend themselves. But that was a tangent. Back to the point, and a scary point it is, is that I think many in the Millennial generation (the ones who are Leftists) actually believe this revisionist history. Now I haven’t been to many college history lectures (no one has, really, even a history PhD has only taken courses at a few universities at most), but I suspect they teach more like Howard Zinn than Herodotus. I suspect they diminish the accomplishments of whites and boost the accomplishments of non-whites, all subtly in their sophistry to create a generation that believes that what Steve King said was false. And if the Leftists in academia can rewrite history for these kids, they can control them, and that is what is so dangerous about this. If you ask the average, normal person about the American Revolution they will probably tell you about George Washington and the Constitution. But if you ask the average SJW they will tell you about the role of women and slaves in the Revolution. This view of history is Marxist in origin and extremely appealing to entitled people. It says that your insignificant ancestors were just as important as George Washington. But that is bullshit. I am not related to any great historical figures. Most of my ancestors were probably unimportant, poor peasants. And that is okay. Because I am not a narcissist. But a narcissist would be utterly offended if someone made the claim that their great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather was insignificant. And with narcissism being on the rise in our population, one can see why many are adopting this view of history. A narcissist feels good by hearing the slave, or the housewife, or the common man, was just as important as Napoleon or King Henry, but that is simply not true, and believing some crap like that not a good thing.

I am not personally very religious. I identify as a Christian culturally, but religion plays a very minimal role in my life. Nietzsche wrote about God being dead and what would happen after the end of Christianity in the West. I do believe that most people cannot function without a sort of religion and that radical egalitarianism is something that has, in a sad sense, replaced Christianity in the West. I don’t think it will last, because it is so at odds with all human nature and history, but it has acquired many believers. I want to keep exploring this theme of radical egalitarianism as a religion in the future, as more similar events rise in the news cycle! Thanks for reading!

 

White Lives Matter

July 17, 2016-This article was written July 7, immediately after I heard the news of the Dallas Police Shootings. Sadly, the future violence I predicted came to roost this Sunday as a black radical extremist shot three police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 

Tonight, the words became blood. The hateful rhetoric spoused by Black Lives Matter came to its logical conclusion, and four Dallas police officers are now dead. Seven more are injured, gunned down in the streets amid a protest. Racial tensions in America are already at an all time high, and this tragedy in Dallas will only boost them to even greater heights. The reactions of the public can already be predicted. The faux moralists on the Left will try to shift the focus onto guns, as if an inanimate gun can just spontaneously come to life and shoot a police officer. The cuckservatives will preach about “unity” and “coming together in the wake of tragedy”, yet they will not engage in any meaningful discussion on race, because it makes them feel bad. But worst of all will be the despicable reactions of some black people and Leftists, who will feel that the actions of this terrorist were justified. It will only be a matter of time before Leftist online news outlets and MSNBC start to spin this story into an anti-white narrative. Black twitter already has. The catalyst for these protests was the recent shooting of a career criminal named Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. A sex offender who had been arrested dozens of times was shot by police after resisting arrest and attempting to pull a gun on the officers. In retaliation for the death of this thug, blacks and Leftists all over the nation came out into the streets of our once great American cities to “peacefully” protest “police brutality”. But the protests in Dallas were not peaceful. Tonight, we have witnessed the culmination of black anger against white America. How did we get to this point? Why is nothing changing? What can be done to improve race relations? These are the questions that normal, unawakened people are asking tonight. But some White Americans are beginning to realize that they are tired of asking these unanswerable questions. And they are beginning to ask new questions, more specific questions. And these questions are not about guns, or police brutality, or coming together. They are about race.

All sane white Americans know deep down that there is something very wrong with black culture. On the surface, it is the vulgar rap lyrics, the sagged pants, the slurred language, the tattoos, and the general glorification of gang culture. Under the surface, it is the massive amounts of poverty, illiteracy, drug abuse, and cultural problems that plague the black community. And on the societal plane, it is the outstanding crime rates. Black males have crime rates that greatly exceed any other demographic in such an extreme way that it is impossible to deny that something is very wrong with their culture. Many whites, mainly in the south and in rural areas, will bluntly admit this, but even the wealthy white liberals, who are completely brainwashed by the Leftist egalitarian religion, subconsciously admit it. Yes, they would never openly remark on black criminality or antisocial behavior. Yes, they claim to be for equal rights, and yes, they do consider racism to be the worst sin a person could commit. Yet, the actions of these white liberals betrays them. Their actions admit that they have an understanding of the black problem. They admit it with their 99% white neighborhoods. Many of them even live in states with an overwhelmingly white population. They admit it when they send their children to private, nearly all white schools. They admit it when they stay away from the darker parts of town. The women admit it when they clench their purses a little bit tighter when a group of black youths walk by. While they speak loudly of civil rights and racial equality, their actions betray them. As the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words, and their actions expose them. Most of them probably do not even realize this though, and as long as they are ignorant of their own consciousness, they will never be the ones who find a solution to our nation’s racial problems. So what is the root cause of black criminality? This is a question that has been debated by men much smarter than me for decades, so I will not attempt to answer it here. But it is evident that nearly 60 years after the Civil Rights Movement, the conditions of black Americans are not getting better, but are getting worse. The Civil Rights Movement was a change that felt good, it felt right, and it felt moral. But the truth is that most blacks lived happier, safer lives under segregation. The peak of truly great black art and culture was the Harlem Renaissance, a movement that occurred during the 1920s, nearly 40 years before Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. Under segregation, there was much less crime for both races, black and white. There were more black fathers staying faithful to their wives and being active in the lives of their children. There was a vast respect for Christianity, the religion they adopted from whites, and a general fostering of social attitudes. But today’s post integration black culture is a direct opposite to those things. It is almost as if blacks, now being in an integrated society, had to find a way to create a culture different than whites, to stand out. Yet, by any objective standard, they have failed. In an attempt to compete with white culture, they have created a culture that is opposite of all the things that made white culture great. The majority of white men are faithful to their wives and children, the majority of black men are not. White men generally don’t break the law, especially in the cases of homicide and assault, black men generally do break the law, and specialize in homicide and assault. White men generally are educated and employed, black men are generally neither educated nor employed. This is not racist, these are just the facts. It is no longer derogatory to say blacks should just mimic white culture. Perhaps if they did this, after reaching success this way, they could branch out and create a new, successful subculture. But this black culture is a failed culture. Would not everyone be happier if black people basically acted like whites? Blacks would live longer, healthier, and more content lives. They would get better jobs and better educations. They would have better family lives. Ben Carson is commonly accused of being an “Uncle Tom” and “acting white”, but in reality Carson is much better off personally than the average negro who “acts black”, and is also much more productive to society. Neither is it racist to prefer blacks that “act white”. “Acting white” is more or less a synonym for behaving in a civilized manner. “Acting black” is being a savage.

But the facts in the above paragraph are not what is awakening white America today. What is awakening white America is the resentment of blacks towards whites that is evidenced by what happened tonight in Dallas. In the back of the mind of every normal white person, even the ones that go out of their way to help the black community, is this: Why do they hate us? It is apparent that this resentment is at an all time high among blacks. And I hypothesize that the root reason may be just plain jealousy. It is not unbelievable that the average African-American with an IQ of 85 will feel oppressed in a society that functions on a much higher IQ plane. The correlation between IQ and success in society can be proven through the general wealth of even smaller minorities than blacks, like Asians and Jews. Neither are white, yet both these races, who have very high average IQs, are successful in white society. It is a sad fact that in the modern United States, having a low IQ is a for sure way to ensure a life of poverty and unhappiness. I am sure that the resentment starts on a different level for every angry black, and it is not hard to understand why this jealousy festers. Imagine the black child, forced into a white school system, one he cannot intellectually succeed in, forced to drop out of high school. That is not a very fun situation, and I empathize with that child. But this is no excuse to hate whites. I am sure it is depressing for a black to see that even with the help of Affirmative Action, their race cannot compete with whites on any objective intellectual level. And that is just one imaginary example of how black resentment starts. And as the world gets more technologically progressed, this divide will grow even starker. And while this is tragic in a way, it is just life. Evolution made the races into what they are, and nothing can change that. If the black community truly wants to change, they must stop the anti-white and anti-police rhetoric, and focus inward. While they cannot change who the fundamentally are, they can change their attitudes if they work hard enough. With proper guidance, black fathers would stay with their children, black youths would stop joining gangs and selling drugs, and black culture would stop glorifying the “thug life”. But this will probably never happen. The victimization and blame seems to becoming more deeply ingrained in the black psyche. At least I cannot see it coming any time soon. And whites are beginning to wake up.

America is getting tired. We are tired of playing along in this silly game of equality and egalitarianism. There is nothing equal about the white violent crime rate compared to the black violent crime rate. We are tired of the virtue signaling. We are tired of trying to see the other side of the story. We tired of pretending not to see what is going on when it is so obvious that even a blind man could see it. We are tired of black crime. We are tired of black outrage. The fact is we don’t need them, they need us. We put way more into the system then we get out. They take out way more into the system than they put in. We are tired of ruined schools. We are tired of ruined cities. We are tired of Obama. We are tired of them taking a massive shit on what was once a great country. And we are tired of being called racists every time we shine light to the problem and attempt to help them fix it. These iconic racial events are changing the mind of the average white. The images are becoming ingrained in their minds. Ferguson up in flames. Blacks lives matter shutting down the highway. Five officers dead in Dallas. Racial egalitarianism is dying, and the Left is losing.

The Anti-White DNC

It is common knowledge that the demographic Hillary Clinton will perform most poorly with this November is white males. But I think there is still one demographic that hates Clinton even more, and trust me, as a white male, that means a great magnitude of hatred. That group is police officers, specifically white male officers. I think that even non-white officers will turn out in massive numbers to vote against Clinton. Obama, with his constant criticism of police and accusations of racism, has already turned law enforcement officers against the Democratic Party completely. Hillary has no better track record, and is just as quick to put the blame of black crime on whites. But the Democrats really put the nail in the coffin when they announced that some of the main speakers at the Democratic National Convention this year will be the mothers of blacks who were supposedly killed by “police brutality”, including the mothers of Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin. By giving a platform for these women at the DNC in Philadelphia, the Leftists have completely given up even the veneer of supporting our officers.

This idea of letting the mamas speak at the most publicized Democratic event is completely stupid, but I have tried to analyze their rationale behind it. Hillary has completely given up on the white vote, and is going all in for the black vote. She needs an energized black bloc that will vote comparable to how they voted for Obama when he ran in 2008 and 2012. I am very skeptical that she will get Obama numbers, because I think most blacks just don’t like her. But that is besides the point. Clinton knows that she is going to get historically low numbers of votes from white males, and is not even going to make the appearance of appealing to them anymore. I doubt that she will pick a white or male running mate, because we all know there is no point in even trying to get us to vote for her. We are solidly behind Trump, and will come out in droves to vote against Clinton. Having the mother of Michael Brown is a sure way to piss off whites. It is really sad that people still consider Brown some kind of victim, when it was undoubtedly proven that he attacked Darren Wilson and tried to steal his gun. He was a thug, and the officer had a right to defend himself. If Brown had succeeded in killing Wilson, does anyone think the Democrats would have Wilson’s mother speak at the DNC? Of course not, because if Brown had killed Wilson, we would not even know the name Darren Wilson. On top of that, if whites happen to google this woman after seeing her speech, they will find out that she herself was involved in the looting during the riots in Ferguson! These Democrats are not very smart; they have literally picked the worst possible mother to have a main speaking slot at their convention.

Now I am sure that the black mom’s speeches will be written for them, and I am sure they will laced with anti-white and anti-cop rhetoric, along with a large portion of shilling for gun control. Making the speeches about gun control makes no sense, because that would basically equal the proposition of taking guns away from cops. Nonetheless I think that the speeches will still be heavy with this rhetoric, and this is going to enrage police officers. If I was a police officer a Hillary Clinton presidency would literally make me fear for my life, because if she got a Democratic Congress and became even more influenced by Black Lives Matter, there would be a significant chance she would try to disarm the police, effectively making them sitting ducks for violent criminals. I was sure that the Leftists would eventually try disarm the cops, but I didn’t think they would start implying it this early. The writing is on the wall though, and everyone in law enforcement knows it. But this also scares normal whites because we know that Clinton will try to take our guns away as well, along with taking away the cops guns! I thought the logic of gun control was that police would have guns, just not citizens, but these liberals are even trying to take guns away from cops! This is a blatantly anti-white policy that will result in massive spikes in colored crime and violence upon whites.

Hillary even risks turning off middle class, decent blacks with this platform. They know that the cops are essential to a functioning society. The only people who could possibly support Hilary’s insane ideas are naive white liberals and thugs. And thugs won’t show up to vote. Hopefully though, this mistake will further energize whites to get out and vote for Trump and pound deeper into the white mind that Hillary is a serious threat to us. Even normal, apolitical whites are beginning to see the anti-white nature of Clinton’s campaign. Having Michael Brown’s mother speak at the DNC makes it pretty damn clear.

Nice-Initial Thoughts

Unfortunately and unsurprisingly, Islamic terrorism has once again reared its ugly head. Tonight in Nice, 80 French citizens are dead after a radical Tunisian Islamist drove a truck into a crowd watching fireworks on Bastille Day. This tragic event is just the latest in a long line of attacks on French soil. Anyone who still doubts the dangers of Islam is either delusional or complicit in the terror. When will this madness stop? When will the French people wake up and defend their homeland against the invaders? Will it be after tonight?

The (((media))) is already attempting to downplay the religious aspect of the murders in France tonight. Just on (((CNN))) alone, I have already heard the bullshit arguments that are parroted after every attack. They spout on about “moderate Muslims” and “Muslim victims” and “assimilation”, constantly ignoring the elephant in the room, the fact that, for whatever reason, Muslims are the perpetrators of all these attacks. That fact alone is enough justification for them not to be let into the West. Yes, there are peaceful Muslims, but enough of them are not peaceful that it makes them a significant threat as a group. Besides, no Muslims belong in France in the first place. No Muslims have any right to be in France. France is for the French, not Muslims.

Anyone who is reading this blog already knows the truth about Islam. You probably already know about the radical views of most Muslims worldwide. You know about the huge amounts of crime and terrorism they commit. You know about the no-go zones. You know about the Migrant Crisis. You know that they don’t assimilate. There is no point in me going over these facts, so instead I will give my thoughts on which direction I think, and hope, the wind is blowing.

I hope, for the sake of all whites, our children, and the amazing civilization we have created, that the political tide is turning. Westerners across Europe and America are waking up every day. Leftism and political correctness is being exposed as not only stupid, but deadly. Whites are beginning see the true colors of cuck politicians like Obama, Clinton, Merkel, and Hollande. We see them for fools and traitors, who care nothing about our culture and heritage. Just today, new polls show a strong trending of support towards Donald Trump in America. I expect that Trump will only rise in the polls after the Dallas Massacre, and now the tragedy in Nice. I remain optimistic that Trump, along with Right-Wing parties like National Front and AfD, will be elected into power. I remain optimistic that once whites wake up about the dangers of Islamism, they will also wake up to the fundamental dangers of multiculturalism and radical egalitarianism. Diversity plus proximity always ends in conflict, and tonight we saw that bloody conflict before our eyes. Unless we name this problem and take action against, our culture, heritage, and race will die. But we will name the problem, and we will fight it, and we will survive and prosper. Stay optimistic, my friends.

 

 

The Weak West

I always find it amusing when European Leftists try to berate Americans by claiming that “the rest of the world is laughing at you”. This statement might be technically accurate, but not for any reason these liberals think. These Leftists who constantly chide Americans about their supposed “Americentrism” are actually very Eurocentric in their criticism. The only countries that laugh at America for the motives they imagine are the Western European liberal democracies that they themselves live in. While Europe may very well be laughing at America from the Left, the real rest of the world is laughing at American and Europe from the Right. The most ironic part about this is that the biggest laughing stocks on Earth right now are the nations of Western Europe. At least America has a few distinctions that make us far less comical than Europe, chiefly our military might. The truth is that for everything the world laughs at America for, it laughs at Europe for the same reasons amplified tenfold! Many countries of the world that are doing the laughing are far worse off than the West by any objective standard, but that is not the reason for their condescension. They are laughing at us because our culture has become so degenerate. They are laughing at us because our leaders are so weak. And they are laughing at how radically far to the Left the West has gone culturally.

As the West began its march to the Left, the rest of the world only laughed behind closed doors. But now, with inept leaders like Obama and Merkel, they openly mock us. After the Dallas Massacre, Vladimir Putin classified Black Lives Matter as a “hate group” in Russia and placed them on a terror watch list. While BLM is certainly a dangerous group that is causing turmoil in America, I seriously doubt that there are enough black activists in Russia to make the movement a serious threat to the country. It may still be a good precaution to take, but I believe the true motivation for Putin’s was to simply highlight the cowardice of Barack Obama in front of the entire world. In the eyes of the world’s majority, Obama is more or less an active supporter of BLM; the world accurately believes that he has zero control over these thugs that are causing mayhem in the most important American cities. Could anyone imagine BLM shutting dow major roads and chanting about killing police officers (and actually doing it) in Russia? China? Japan? the Middle East? Of course not. If they or a similar group were to attempt their antics in one of those nations, or any nation outside the West, they would be crushed immediately and effectively. This move by Putin was a subtle and clever way of calling out Obama, and showcasing his weakness and lack of authority to the entire world.

But I can name one country where BLM would be able to easily get away with their misbehavior. Germany! Under Angela Merkel, the minority Muslim population act in ways that can be seen as parallel to those of BLM. But Germany, to the world, appears even weaker than the United States. The migrant crisis is a testament to the weakness of Western Europe. While the world chuckles at the U. S. allowing floods of Mexicans through the Southern Border, they laugh out loud about Europe allowing hordes of Muslims (many of whom are terrorism threats) into their countries and then actively supporting and granting them amnesty and asylum. Merkel’s Germany has been at the forefront of this movement, granting asylum to millions of migrants. The same migrants who have committed mass sexual assault of German women at a Cologne music festival, which the German government attempted to hush up. Yet the truth came out, and some of these men went to trial. Recently, two of the foreign rapists were found not guilty in court, and after leaving the courtroom they immediately broke into grins of laughter, presumably over the clear cuckoldry of the German legal system. These men know damn well that Germany is so plagued with white/Holocaust guilt that they can practically get away with any crime they wish to commit there. Instead of prosecuting and deporting migrants, Merkel attempts to implement more restrictive laws on natives Germans to curb immigrant crime. Another example of the Muslim invaders literally laughing in the face of Germany was a viral video of a group of young Muslim migrants gathered together in a town square chanting Anti-Semitic slogans and praising Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Germany has strict and severe laws about supporting Nazism for its own citizens. Any native German who publicly praises Hitler would go to jail and face many other consequences. Yet Muslim refugees are allowed to have public gatherings and loudly shout their love of the Führer in plain sight. Now I assume these Islamic men are at least a little bit Anti-Semitic and might sympathize with Nazism, but that was not the real reason they got together to say these things. Their action was a “fuck you” to Germans, a gesture saying that we know we are above the law, and we will break your most sacred laws with impunity, and you won’t do anything about it. It was a power play. Germany is a country that is cucked beyond all reason, and the Muslim invaders know it.

Those are just a few examples of many instances where the globe openly disdains the West. And there is a new one practically every day. But can we really blame them for mocking us? Our governments are crippled by political correctness, so severely that common sense racial realities are either ignored or denied. Our leaders cannot even bring themselves to utter the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism”. Our borders are unenforced and open to basically anyone who wants to get in. Our culture is a decadent one, where homosexuality and every kind of degeneracy is not only tolerated, but celebrated. It is evident to any unbiased observer, that until the West throws off the shackles of Leftism, it will continue to be the object of ridicule to the entire rest of the world.

Laws of A Nation

The fear of being the next Darren Wilson is one that strikes the soul of every white police officer in this day and age. The tale of Ferguson is strangely symbolic, and interesting to juxtapose against the Trayvon Martin Case which preceded it. After George Zimmerman’s shooting of Trayvon Martin, white Americans saw Barack Obama’s first reaction to a racial encounter. Stating “If I had a son he would look like Trayvon”, Obama took the side of the black before the facts of the case were even examined, the same facts that led to Zimmerman’s eventual acquittal. After the truth about the Martin case and the media’s distortion of it was exposed, many whites began swallowing the red pill about race, but few finished. After Martin, most whites thoughts that it would be a long time until another major racial incident. Boy, were they wrong. Several racially fueled disputes began popping up in the media after Martin, the main one being in Ferguson, Missouri. I think Ferguson red-pilled a lot more whites than Martin did, but I think it had a special effect on white police officers. In Trayvon’s case, the psychological effect was not as strong. It seemed so distant. Zimmerman was a strange, eccentric character. He was neither white nor an actual cop. However, Ferguson, I think really hit home to white officers, and made them realize that the political tides were turning against them. Darren Wilson was more or less an average white guy. Even his name is generic; it sounds like someone you went to high school with. Yet to this day, Wilson, who did nothing except defend himself from an attack by Michael Brown, cannot find a job in a police department. After Ferguson, most whites knew something was in the air. And as more cases came in, and more officers got blamed (and generally unjustly), the fear became a reality. It is this reality that is causing our police officers to rightly be afraid of enforcing the law against blacks, and this devastating reaction could lead America into violence and chaos.

In response to criticism and protest from Leftists and black extremists, the law in the United States exists in a state of limbo. Racial uneasiness is making police more hesitant to enforce the law, and the Black Lives Matter is a fundamentally dangerous movement to whites and law-abiding blacks. Their vague demands are absurd and if they were implemented they would cause anarchy. If police cave into BLM’s demands for less arresting and targeting of blacks, crime in black majority neighborhoods would skyrocket to exceptional levels. This is not hypothetical; it is already happening in cities like Baltimore and Detroit, where police do not patrol certain parts of the city in fear of retaliation from blacks. The Ferguson Effect has been documented, showing that crime has risen, presumably since officers are less likely to arrest and stop blacks. Some BLM activists call for cops to abandon black areas completely, and I am sure many officers would love to never go back to these shit holes again. Cops probably do not enjoy going to the ghetto and putting their lives in lethal danger every day. But if black neighborhoods effectively became American no-go zones, the crime in those areas would rapidly seep into the whiter parts of the cities. Blacks would have free reign to commit crimes, and then retreat to their neighborhoods with no fear of the police arresting them. This is what happens in Europe with the Muslim population, and explains how one of the Paris bombers has able to hide out in Molenbeek for four months before finally being apprehended. Using logic, it can be deduced that if cops stop policing the ghettos, then whole cities will become ghettos. If black terrorism continues, there will be no way to stop this from happening. When conditions get bad enough, the police will just stop trying to make the city safer, and I cannot blame them. They have families and lives they want to live; they do not want be killed by some thug in the streets of a hellhole neighborhood. And when the cops refuse to serve and protect, and when it becomes too dangerous for any reasonable person to become a cop, a crime wave of horrible proportions will be unleashed upon the country. The Ferguson Effect has soundly disproved any idealistic Libertarian claims that the lack of government force would not lead to lawlessness. In a multicultural society like ours, the absence of law enforcement would lead to mass chaos. It is chilling to see politicians like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama spouting openly anti-police rhetoric, alongside anti-gun rhetoric. With a diminished police force, and no guns, average white citizens would be sitting ducks for colored crime. Leftists are not unintelligent, they know criminals and terrorists will always find a way to get guns, even if they break the law to get them. And they also know that white people would probably follow the law, thus not having guns. These people are not merely stupid, they are inciting violence against whites. The elite wants to take away the rights of whites to defend themselves against the lawless hordes, that the Left riles up and releases upon them.

As the risk of becoming a police officer rises, fewer young people will be attracted to the career. The competency and effectiveness of our police departments will plummet in result. The men who would have become the good cops of tomorrow will see the lack of respect and insane danger involved and disregard the profession. After this, police departments will have to lower the standards to get on the force, and the occupation will become polluted with people who are either incompetent or corrupt. We can look across our Southern Border to see what kind of conditions correlate with corrupt law enforcement. The Mexican police are known globally for being crooks and it is common knowledge to all Mexicans that they are very unethical. In turn, Mexico is a lawless nation, which is practically ruled by the brutal drug cartels. It is not a coincidence that countries that have an extremely crooked police force are generally banana republics. America is at a contradictory point, one where we will decide if our laws will be enforced or not. If we become a country where the people who commit the most crime (blacks and other minorities) can break the law with no consequence, it will be the end of America as we know it. Regardless of what Leftists say, borders and laws are two essential components of a real country. There has never been a nation that survived internal lawlessness.

Lex Rex or Rex Lex?

In the early 17th century, a rather insignificant Protestant minister named Samuel Rutherford wrote a book titled Lex Rex. The term “Lex Rex” translates into “The Law is King”; its inverse “Rex Lex” translates into “The King is Law”. Rutherford was a thinker of the same strain of thought as John Locke and the Founding Fathers of the United States, generally believing in the ideas of Classical Liberalism and Democracy. The concept of “Lex Rex” was very much a reactionary one in its time; it rebelled against the infallibility of the king. To the humanistic liberals of the 17th century, the king was a man who was endowed with the same natural rights as the common man, and subject to the same common law. The king was not in any way a god to these men, nor was the king fated by god for a divine purpose. Many of the Enlightenment thinkers rejected Christianity and the divine right of kings, which had helped maintain the power of the king consistently for many centuries. The reactionaries who developed the intellectual underpinnings of classical liberalism had firsthand experience of mass injustice in the hands of a single monarch. This must have had a profound impact on their worldview, causing them to idealize systems of limited government, checks and balances, and separation of powers. All these ideas can be broadly grouped together as a “dispersed power” of a bureaucracy, rather than a “central power” of a king or dictator. But today, in the modern United States, we can plainly see that the “Law” is not “King”, as Rutherford would have hoped for. In fact, this week the “Law” was overpowered by a group of individuals in the case of Hillary Clinton. The facts of the Clinton e-mail scandal, which are widely known, bear proof to the fact that Clinton clearly broke the law, regardless of intent. Yet today, to no one on the Right’s surprise, it was announced by the FBI director that Clinton will not be indicted, and thus will not face charges for her crime. By following logic we know that Clinton broke the law, we know that she will not be sentenced, and therefore she is above the laws of our country. Clinton has proved that our leaders have zero respect for the laws they create, and face no consequences for violating them. In the 21st Century, it is not a king who is abusing his absolute power, but instead a group of lesser bureaucrats, and the main cog of the whole scandalous system, is somehow running for President of the United States.

The concept of “Lex Rex” is dead in America, but does that mean that “Rex Lex” now prevails? Not exactly, since there is no king or absolute monarch here. But for all intents and purposes “Rex Lex” is the truth in America, if you replace “Rex” with the upper echelons of the government, the media, and academia. Although these institutions lack absolute power individually, when their lesser powers are converged together they produce an effect that might as well be termed absolute. Hilary Clinton alone did not withstand the heat of the law, it was only with the help of the Leftist system that she avoided consequences. The FBI director made it clear that other people in the past who had done the exact same as Clinton have gone to jail, and that future law-breakers will also be properly judged, yet, in carefully filtered words, he announced that the status of Clinton exonerated her from any negative effects of her illegal actions. Interestedly, the director also remarked that many people communicated with Clinton via her unsecured e-mail server, which is also a violation of federal law. These people, who can be deduced as high-ups in the government, witnessed illegal activity and failed to report it. It would not surprise me if the corruption in our government is so deep that the FBI refused to indict Clinton because it would set in motion a house of cards that would lead to the eventual reveal of illegal actions by even Barack Obama himself. And our (((overlords)))) who are banking of a Clinton victory this November could not even win the election in light of a massive government scandal far worse than Watergate. Clinton and Obama are flashy names and easy targets for us Right-wingers, but the rot is more than those two individuals. If it was just these, then perhaps the FBI would put them behind bars for their crimes. But it is far more likely that there is such a large quantity of powerful individuals involved, both Democrats and Republicans, and that so many our guilty in this vast network of shady dealings, that, regardless of personal affairs, they all have each others back in this. The Law is not the King in this day and age, and our Law is something our highest public figures do not even find worth following. The gross negligence of Clinton is repulsive from whatever angle you look at it. If it was true that it was mere ignorance that caused Clinton to not understand how to perform basic functions of the role as Secretary of State, then she is a low-IQ fool who should have never been in that position in the first place. If she was aware of the protocol but decided not to follow it because it inconvenienced her, then she is entitled and frankly quite lazy, as it would not be very difficult to fix the problem with all the resources she had at hand. Even if there was no foul-play or corruption, as Secretary of State she should have been a law-following example. But does anyone really buy that Hillary Clinton, a woman who has crawled to the top of the political food web, is too stupid to either properly manage her e-mails or at least ask for help from a specialist? If so, it was not mere ignorance, it was malice, and she was clearly acting illegally, to cover up facts that she did not want others to know. So she is either a fool, a person who thinks she’s above the law, or a criminal, none of which bodes well for her.

What would Rutherford think of this fiasco? What would our Founding Fathers think? In my opinion, they would be abhorred by the behavior of our massive government, and would consider this government far more egregious than King George ever was. And if this is true, if it was possible to go back in time and bring back these men, and they validated my prediction, what would that say about the state of modern democracy? Or was America’s democratic system bound to collapse into its sorry modern state eventually? These are questions that have no real answer. The point is that this scandal serves as a reminder of something the inventors of Lex Rex did not truly account for. When you have one corrupt monarch, generally the monarch is the stem and root of the corruption, and thus his death and the ascension of a new ruler can fix the problem. An absolute ruler serves no one but himself, and complete selfishness is quite simple to defeat, compared to the complex web of corruption in the massive bureaucracies of the 21st Century. These groups have thousands of shadowy members, all acting in their own self-interest, but also intermingling with each other in deals and trades, making an almost indestructible chain of corruption. It is easy to clean a shirt with one wine stain on it, but a lot harder to clean a shirt that you poured an entire bottle of wine on. One good man can put a bullet in the head of a mad king, but what can anyone possibly do when a government has gone mad? Law is King, this is true, but I would rather have a king that believes it, then an administration that does not. It is also interesting that it took a certain amount of time before any real opposition to monarchs took place in history. When the king is wise and just, and all the citizens believe the king is wise and just, no one ever contemplates Rex Lex or Lex Rex, because these concepts are interchangeable. But when kings began to turn against their people, or maybe the people against god, men began to question the king’s authority and rule. Let’s take an example of a great king: Louis XIV, the Sun King of France. In the summer of Louis’s rule, the average French person was content. There was no revolution in the air, men were proud of their king, and their king was, for the most part, a good king. One under appreciated aspect of monarchy is the greatly positive impact on the psychology of a people. People under a king have a strong sense of culturally happiness and belonging, because the king is not merely the symbol of the government and its power, but also of the culture and history of that people group. This is impossible for large bureaucratic, diverse government that are distinctively not resemblant of the original settlers of the land. Even a Leftist would admit that Barack Obama is not a image of the United States, its history and culture, in the same way Louis XIV was of France. The French were proud under the rule of Louis XIV, but I can think of few Americans (in the original sense of the term) who are proud of Obama’s America.

Let’s take a white pill, and look away from the fact that the elite in our society can break any law they wish with impunity. Perhaps this will be the issue that finally sinks Clinton, causing the American people’s mistrust of her to sky rocket, and cause a surge for Trump. People generally don’t like criminals very much, but what people like less is criminals who get away scotch free. Especially wealthy and powerful ones. Donald Trump is already hammering this point into the psyche of his audience, and I am sure it will at least have some effect. If Trump can successfully create an image in the minds of Americans that Hilary is unaccountable to laws that ordinary folks would be, it might very well be just as damaging to her as an indictment. Most realistic people on the Right were not expecting an indictment from the FBI anyway, because we realized that nepotism and corruption is so prevalent in our government agencies. And even if the FBI indicted, could we seriously trust Loretta Lynch to actually prosecute Clinton, paving an easy path to the White House for the Left’s greatest nightmare, Donald Trump? Although it would be very gratifying to see the fall of Hillary Clinton, we must now adjust to reality and focus on winning the election. If Trump gets elected, which I believe he will, the shift in American and global politics will be cemented for the Right. Under a Trump administration, perhaps Lex Rex and Rex Lex would not be discussed so prevalently, and justice would be served to all law-breakers. One day, Clinton’s chickens will come home to roost, but today is not that day.

Why I Am A Traditionalist

In the modern United States, there are many labels used by the population to signal their political affiliation, and these terms carry with them various connotations. Many people who could be ideologically grouped in one group may refuse to identify as the said group because they do not want to be associated with those connotations. What makes this fascinating is the constant changing of the meanings of these words. A liberal in 1776 is not even remotely similar to a modern liberal, or even a modern conservative. A conservative in 1968 is not very similar to a conservative today. A 1992 Democrat is worlds away from a 2016 Democrat; and a 1900 Republican is different than a 1980 Republican. The point being is that these terms: Democrat and Republican, Liberal and Conservative, Progressive and Libertarian, and so on, are constantly changing. When I am personally asked my political affiliation, I answer “Traditionalist”, which is, in my opinion, a powerful, cunning, and truthful label, and I will briefly discuss the problems of other affiliations, and why Traditionalist is such an appropriate label for myself and others who share my views.

I am totally opposed to all forms of modern Liberalism, which are twisted distortions of the Liberalism practiced by our Founding Fathers. I call 20th and 21st Century liberalism, “Leftism”, since it is so radically different than any of the Liberalism that originated in the Enlightenment. Leftism is a movement primarily inspired by Karl Marx with strains of the worst parts of American culture mixed in. Leftism is not as much of a political affiliation as it is a religion, whose members are the descendants of the witch-hunting Puritans bred with the most radical Communists. The methods of the modern Left are almost completely identical to those utilized by the Puritans in Massachusetts Bay Colony. Just as the 1692 zealots made vague claims of witchcraft and satanism in order to both satisfy their animalistic, violent urges, and also, of course, to rid themselves of troublesome individuals, the Leftists of today make even less substantiated claims of racism, sexism, etcetera, to ostracize and destroy the lives of those who do not agree with their politically correct dogma. It is hilarious that Leftists claim to be on the “right side of history” (which is a completely irritating phrase to begin with), when 99% of the people who have ever walked on the face of the earth would be totally opposed to the tenets of the Modern Left. Contrary to the Leftist doctrine, most people throughout history have preferred Nationalism to Globalism, maintained traditional values, and were very in tune with the natural, evolutionary differences which make human beings who they are. To a Leftist, 99% of human beings who ever lived, would be racists. But the topic of this essay is not Leftism (I will save that for another time); it is Traditionalism. Yet, we must tackle another dragon, and that is Conservatism.

In the most literal sense, I would properly identify myself as a Conservative, but unfortunately this label has been twisted into something entirely different than traditional conservative thought. The face of modern American Conservatism is the Republican Party. I am not necessarily a Republican (although they are the best hope the Right has, and are useful for some things), and I do not particularly care for the modern or historical GOP (even though they are still worlds better than the modern or historical Democratic Party). In my opinion, American Conservatism peaked under the presidencies of Harding and Coolidge in the 1920s. After WWII, when the world’s lust for globalism reached its height, the American Right started its descent into intermixing and dabbling in Leftism. There were a few exceptional periods such as the McCarthy Era, the Goldwater and Buchanan presidential runs, and now Trump, but, in general, post-war Conservatism has been a pissing contest between self-proclaimed Conservatives to see who can be seen as more progressive by the Leftists. A stunning example where this appeasement came to a head was George W. Bush’s remarks that “Islam is a religion of peace” after 9-11. Unable to criticize a culture that fosters unfathomable hate towards the U. S., our elected leader pandered to this destructive ideology that has no place in America in any real way. But in Bush’s defense, Obama’s zeal for Islam is something that cannot be explained away by mere virtue signaling and is much more troubling, especially coming from Obama, an explicitly Anti-American president. Nor do I have any respect for Republicans who support open borders and amnesty programs, such as Paul Ryan. These Republicans are traitors to their base, and care more about abstract ideals such as “free trade” than the actual well-being of their constituents. The modern Republican party even degrades the character of their primary base, which is whites, and prefers to pander to groups of minorities who have no intention of ever voting for the GOP anyway. What has the GOP done to fight the prevailing liberal stereotype that Republicans are uneducated racists? I am, however, a strong advocate of Donald Trump’s candidacy, and realize the necessity of the GOP as a vehicle to drive Trump to the White House. I believe I could basically agree with the tenets of a Trump Republican Party, even though I have no affinity for the Republican Party as defined by Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. Until Republicans accept their fate and begin to emphasize with the concerns of their members, and also put to end to the Leftist dogma of virtue signaling and trying to court racial minorities, I cannot call myself a Republican. If Trump changes this, then I will be much more comfortable with labeling as a Republican.

Many people who are not Democrats or Republicans tend to be Libertarian types, combining the fiscal conservatism of the Republicans with the liberal social ideals of the Democrats. While I agree with quasi-Libertarians like Ted Cruz about the importance of the military and social conservatism, I am not such a big fan of the over-idealistic ideology of Libertarianism. The fetish for the infallibility of the Constitution is a staple of Libertarian thought, and the document is spoused like it is the literal Word of God given to Moses on Mount Sinai. While I agree with anyone who says the Founding Fathers were geniuses who founded one of the most exceptional Republics known to man, which I wish can be saved, I also recognize that the Founders never anticipated the demographic changes and the societal changes that mark modern day America. Maintaining the core of the Constitution, such as the 1st and 2nd amendments, is essential to the survival of our country, but we must not be shackled by the Constitution, especially since our Leftist opponents flagrantly abuse and disregard the document. Many of the Left’s “Constitutional” legislation and policies would cause the Founders to roll over in their graves. The Founders never intended for universal voting rights. They never intended for mass non-white immigration. The never intended for gay marriage. Yet all these things are considered “constitutional” by the legal minds of the Left. The Left has been aggressive in pursuing their desires, while the Right stands frozen, scared of violating laws of constitutionality. There is no responsibility to fight honorably against a dishonorable opponent. The Constitution is an excellent form of government, but it was intended for what was to be a White Republic, not a Multi-Cultural direct democracy. While Libertarians thinkers admit that the size of government has massively expanded to a preposterous and dangerous size, they refuse to admit that it is they who are guilty of allowing this, in so many ways. A striking example of one of Conservatism’s most crucial blunders was the Liberal takeover of popular culture. The Leftist’ have successfully appealed to the masses; they control Hollywood, the Media, Sports, and the moral zeitgeist. And the Right just let them take it, they offered no opposition. When Republicans were challenged with a charismatic enemy in 2008 and 2012 (Obama), they did not put up an equivalent Republican option, they could not find a candidate to invigorate the party. Now McCain and Romney, despite all their flaws, would have clearly been better choices than Obama, yet how does the Republican Party expect the uneducated masses to get excited for these men? Unfortunately, when it comes down to it, most “Americans” prefer a pretty face talking about “Hope and Change” than an old man preaching about the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Just look at the base of the Libertarian Party and it is painfully obvious why these misfits will never take power. They are nerdy, ugly, and painfully unlikeable. The common people would rather be associated with the political party of George Clooney (Democratic, if you don’t know), than some pimply faced loser watching anime and playing computer games in his mother’s basement. The culture war needs to be won soundly by the New Right, and I think that with the rise of meme culture this is already happening. Both the older and younger generations are infatuated with social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, which encourage extreme political polarization. We need to make sure that this favors the Right, and so far, we are winning, despite the attempted censorship of people like Mark Zuckerberg and his progressive allies in Silicon Valley. But the internet pales in comparison to our candidate for president, Donald J. Trump, who is an American cultural icon. The star of The Apprentice, who is full of charisma and likability, has beautiful children and wealth beyond the common man’s fantasies, Trump is finally the dream candidate for people on the Right, a figure to excite and exhilarate the base in the same way Obama excited liberals. To put it simply, the Right loves him more than they loved Mitt Romney, and the Left hates him more than they hated Mitt Romney. Trump is just what the Right needed, a strong leader who has no concern with appeasing Leftists, the first Republican to do so since Ronald Reagan. In contrast, Hillary Clinton is dreadfully unlikeable, and is reminiscent of a cat lady at best, and a comic book villain, at worst. Unlike Bernie Sanders, who rallied the young Leftists, these same Leftists will either dutifully vote for her, or forget to vote at all.

So why should “Traditionalist” be used as an identifier for now? The Leftist world has waged war on that word, “Tradition”. At every turn of the fight, Leftists have attempted to destroy any American or European tradition. The Left is waging a war on the Anglo-American culture that has consistently given the best humanity has to offer. A striking but small example of how the Left is attempting to undermine traditional American culture is the announced replacement of Andrew Jackson on the twenty dollar bill. He will be replaced by the black woman, Harriet Tubman. This change is the natural conclusion of the Leftist character attack that has been waged on President Jackson for many years. The Left has revised history so now the average high-school or college student is given the impression that Jackson was some kind of genocidal, racist maniac, and a figure we should be ashamed of. But contrary to the Leftist revisionist history, real history is much more complex and nuanced than their black and white worldview. The Leftist’s rail on about the Trail of Tears (even that name is an appeal to pathos), but never mention the adoption of an Indian son by Jackson, they never discuss the cultural attitudes toward the Indian question during the time period. They never mention the atrocities committed by Native Americans on the white settlers. All they care about is destroying the reputation of a traditional American icon, Andrew Jackson. But they won’t stop at defaming Old Hickory. They have already starting criticizing and slandering George Washington and Thomas Jefferson because of their ownership of slaves. And today it is a radical Marxist professor blaspheming Washington and Jefferson in a college classroom, but tomorrow it will be the erasure of our heroes from history all together. This is why I am not a conservative, but a traditionalist. For what exactly is the modern conservative attempting to conserve? It is unspecified and depending on who is asked, this may change. The proponents of mass immigration, based on its benefits to the global economy, certainly are not concerned with conserving our traditional heritage. And that is just one of many examples. But, as a traditionalist, it is clear and up front what I am wishing to conserve. Western Culture. Christianity. The American Tradition.