Representation games

At some point, even people who are trying not to notice how frequently (((they))) show up in media and entertainment and politics are going to start looking ridiculous as well. We're not quite there yet, but if the current trends hold, then it won't be much longer.

Current President Donald Trump was said to have been antisemitic when calling out Adam Schiff, a congressman who has been trying to get Trump out of office since the day he took it.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/aoc-accuses-trump-anti-semitism-over-attacks-lyin-shifty-schiff

Per the accusatory tweet:

Understand that Trump is engaged in deliberate, atrocious, targeted antisemitism towards Chairman Schiff.

Then ask yourself why no one cares to denounce it - esp when his accusation of it towards others drove full news cycles earlier this year.

The article linked then goes on to describe how almost the entirety of Trump's political opposition is Jewish. This is supposed to make it seem like Trump has it out for modern Jews, but ends up pointing out how many Jews have problems with Donald Trump.

For example:

Since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced an impeachment inquiry on September 24, President Donald Trump and his acolytes seem to have borrowed a page from the Daily Stormer playbook. And here’s the thing: As with the president’s outrageous insistence that foreign governments dish up dirt on Joe Biden and his son, they happen to be banging their anti-Semitic drum in plain sight.

...

To be clear: More than 200 House Democrats have signed onto an impeachment inquiry and yet the president chose to target only three of them by name, two of whom are Jewish: Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler, chairs of the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees. The third target was — surprise! — a woman of color, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Shamefully, he attacked all of them as “savages.”

How is such rhetoric not racist?

Here's the thing: Nancy Pelosi is the daughter of a Jewish lobbyist.

Chuck Schumer, often seen hand in hand with her, is also Jewish.

As the article would later point out, Jon Stewart is also Jewsih, but only ethnically and is "irreligious".

Why do I point this out? Well, when the article mentions that there are over 200 Democrats, Trump went after the ones who have been in the media, given the limelight. Of all the people on the list, not every one of them has national exposure in the news. Schiff and Nadler are both ranking officials in their respective political associations, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties respectively. Both of them are leaders, not simply random supporters that have been singled out. By their own actions on the political stage, they have drawn attention to themselves and what they are trying to do. And they're both Jewish.

So, were Trump to put forth any sort of criticism at all related to any of these rather well-known figures in the political and media arenas, he could be accused of being anti-Semitic simply because at some level he disagrees with or opposes people who are Jews, whether ethnically or religiously or both. Inherent in this is the implication that Jews are not capable of doing anything wrong, that to disagree with or oppose them is some moral evil, that they are above reproach.

Now, given all this, what did God say about Israel again?

When the Lord began to speak by Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea:
“Go, take yourself a wife of harlotry
And children of harlotry,
For the land has committed great harlotry
By departing from the Lord.” - Hosea 1:2 (NKJV)

And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. - 1 Samuel 8:7-8 (NKJV)

Even Jesus got into it as well, the damnable anti-Semite!

For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— then he need not honor his father [a]or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:

‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ” - Matthew 15:4-9 (NKJV)

It gets even better later on.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. - Matthew 23:15 (NKJV)

Why is that "great"? Well, you do know who founded Rabbinic Judaism, right?

While there have been Jewish groups whose beliefs were claimed to be based on the written text of the Torah alone (e.g., the Sadducees, and the Karaites), most Jews believed in what they call the oral law. These oral traditions were transmitted by the Pharisee sect of ancient Judaism, and were later recorded in written form and expanded upon by the rabbis.

Rabbinic Judaism (which derives from the Pharisees) has always held that the books of the Torah (called the written law) have always been transmitted in parallel with an oral tradition.

Yup, you're reading that right. The sect of the historic Hebrew faith which is responsible for modern Judaism is the same one that Jesus Christ called a "son of hell". He didn't do that just once either.

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. - John 8:42-44 (NKJV)

Pointing out that Jews are like their father, and that their father is the father of lies, is anti-Semitic.

So Jesus Christ was an anti-Semite. And Donald Trump is an anti-Semite. Also those who reject the works of modern Judaism, or ethnic Jews, are anti-Semitic. Everyone who doesn't bend the knee and serve those who now call themselves Jews is anti-Semitic. It's a term that has become so ridiculously overblown and overplayed that people cannot any longer ignore the inherent supremacy implied by those who accuse others of being anti-Semitic, and thus demanding penance, if not subserviance, to Semites as a consequence.

Jews are no longer God's chosen people, by their own choices, and their resentment of all that reminds them of this is growing ever more apparent.

Like a small child whose approval of their parents relies entirely on the parents doing what the child wants, the harlot Israel is still demanding that everyone, including God, serve them on their terms. Their arrogance and hubris sheds new light on historical events where, again, they were not the majority of representatives in Germany or the Soviet Union, but they were the figureheads. They were in front of people, championing causes, and placing themselves in positions of power and influence.

So keep this in mind the next time someone whines about anti-Semitism. These are a people who rejected the God who loved them, whose hypocrisy even Jesus Christ called out plain as day, and who still to this day believe that they will someday save themselves from the damnation they are entirely responsible for in the first place. These people are not superior in any measure, they are sinners in need of a savior, and they will be crushed once again by the burdens they try to place upon their shoulders.

Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you. - Revelation 3:9 (NKJV)

Pray for Jews to surrender their pride, to declare Jesus Christ as Lord, and to believe that God raised him from the dead, so that they can be saved. Otherwise all that awaits them is devastation, whether in this life or the next, because they are still living in the flesh, and being good children of their actual father, perfecting themselves in lies and deceit and manipulation.

Daddy's little girl

One of the topics I have seen of late coming from the "black pill" crowd is that President Trump has decided to leave significant campaign promises left unfulfilled because he's brokered a deal with the "real" powers that be to ensure his daughter gets to be President at some point in the future.

There is a Swedish proverb that is relevant, "Those who wish to sing, always find a song."

It might be worth taking a trip to a few years back and remember when similar types of aspersions were being tossed about.

Clown Genius - Dilbert Blog

For years people have tried to find ways to dismiss and discredit Donald Trump. It doesn't seem to matter, does it? That article, from four years ago, if you look at all that has, or hasn't, happened in the meantime, the hindsight can be useful.

People have been theorizing incorrectly about Trump for a long time. While this track record should dissuade, people forget who said what, who claimed what, and that forgetfulness can be exploited by people who want to sell the latest reason to dive into a purely emotional experience.

Being miserable and upset is, apparently, all that some people can feel anymore. As such, they are determined to remain in such a state, but get lonely, and want others to join in with them.

Now, this doesn't mean they are wrong, but it does mean that extra scrutiny needs to be applied to claims made because at even the hint of negativity, these people's brains light up at the opportunity and they'll jump on it and ride it as long as possible. They'll take small things and act as if they're big, if that's what it takes to get their emotional high, or low as the case may be.

In this case, if someone wants to build a case, they'd need to show a history of behavior to establish Donald Trump's patterns, and how this would be an extension of that pattern just playing out once again.

The people I've seen don't do that, so while it's possible someone is, for all the pointing and shrieking I've not seen a source which has been able to provide any conclusive evidence.

Certainly in hindsight, with more data, we'll know for sure, but part of making good predictions and judgment calls is in collecting the pertinent data ahead of time and making choices on what to do now in light of it.

Oh right, don't suggest people do anything, because you might be a fed in a honeypot looking to nab someone, so all we can do is endlessly attempt to diagnose the same problems over and over and over...

Protect the nation that cared from the other nations that clearly don't

A simpler solution to the current war of attrition at the United States border with Mexico would be to treat the illegal immigrants as what they are: foreign invaders.

According to Carl von Clausewitz, "War is the continuation of politics by other means."

We saw this with the Civil Rights movement in the United States, where failing to enact change through voting and election, activists turned to alternatives. MLK is contrasted with Malcolm X as two different sides of the same coin, with MLK having cultivated a public image of nonviolence while Malcolm supported more aggressive actions, both in the name of racial equality.

What they were doing was seeking to amend the empire to benefit blacks in the United States, much the same way that the Irish and Germans did before them, and the Hispanics and Asians would do after, and their efforts all provided a precedent for equality on even less tangible terms, such as religious belief and sexual preferences, to where we are today where one's preferred view on reality is given credence, such that a person who identifies as an animal or supernatural being genuinely expects to be accommodated.

The dynamic at play is one which exists in a multi-cultural empire, and that is identity politics.

Identity > Culture > Politics

When a people share identity and culture, the disagreements occur on the plane of politics, and this is why so many people believe that the United States is a "nation of immigrants", or a "proposition nation", or a "nation of ideals", because people are ignoring that prior to 1965, it was also essentially all white, of British descent, and Christian.

When one wants to come to an agreement, things that are shared can be skipped past. If both parties already agree, they don't need to go back over those things, but will instead spend their time discussing the things they disagree on, the topics where something isn't shared.

If everyone is white, of British descent, and Christian, then there is a huge amount of common ground when it comes to values, morality, ethics, rituals and traditions and so on, which will never need to be re-hashed, agreed to all over again, because those things are baseline to being alive at that time.

Parents who are white, of British descent, and Christian will bear children that are white, of British descent, and Christian, and will naturally create a culture that is resonates of being white, of British descent, and Christian.

But what happens when someone who isn't white, of British descent, and Christian tries to live in such a country? They will not only be at odds with the politics, the downstream discussion, but they're also going to possess a different culture, and will also likely possess an entirely different identity as well. They will break laws that seem arbitrary or trite, they will commit social faux pas out of ignorance, and they will view the practices and traditions of the people around them with an extremely skeptical eye.

Now, this doesn't say that any particular trait or practice is good or bad, just that they are different, and that historically such differences were what formed a distinctive nation in the first place.

People who shared blood and God, or gods, had their own way of going about things which was distinctively theirs. They would have allies and associates that may share some of these things, but because they did not share all of them, they were still a separate nation.

Israel existed in Egypt for hundreds of years and yet they did not become Egyptians, but still retained the distinctive characteristics of their nation.

In the same manner, when even legal immigration laws for the United States were changed in 1965 to lift the racial restrictions, there were many nations that saw an opportunity to make use of the wealth and resources that existed in the United States to benefit their own nations, and all they had to do was relocate themselves physically in order to gain such access.

Where before 1965 the only nations present were largely descendants of Europeans or the slaves, after 1965 even more nations joined the mix, and the groundwork laid by the blacks would serve as a template for other nations to try and carve out their own place in the United States empire.

Now, the reason the United States was an empire is because of the first Civil War. Tensions between the "North" and the "South" grew because there were two different nations supposedly being served by the same central government. The "North" sought political unity with the "South", while the "South" sought to retain its own distinctive character and preserve its own nation.

When the "North" defeated the "South", what formed was an empire, similar to Rome's, where superficial distinctions of conquered peoples were allowed, but by force of power many different nations would serve a single state, a single government. While the issue of slavery is used as a catalyst to try and paint the "North" as "good" and the "South" as "bad", the practices were already on their way out the door, as slave labor is simply never really capable of keeping up with technology and dedication. On economics alone, slavery was going to be destroyed,, but it wasn't happening fast enough, and the unity of the states was at stake.

Instead of allowing the "South" to exist independently, the "North" conquered it, and this created the empire of America, and that empire would grow worldwide, given that the United States has military bases around the world, and is the primary supporter and enforcer of the United Nations. Like conquering of the past, the threat of punishment and destruction was offset by a shared monetary system and promises of favorable treatment, and this was supposed to be an acceptable exchange.

And folks wonder why there are people in the "South" who are still upset. They were a conquered people, their distinctiveness outlawed, and they were then forced to abide by the rules of their conquerors on penalty of death.

So the "Civil War" of the United States wasn't really a "nation divided", but the exposure of, even at that time, at least two nations connected by a single government.

And that hasn't changed, but has only gotten worse, since 1965, because each nation that arrives is under the same expectation.

There will be one nation that ultimately serves the state, that defines the values that all the other nations they have conquered adhere to, and every additional nation that came under the jurisdiction of the United States government put even more pressure to remove that which was white, of British descent, and Christian.

The minorities, nations unto themselves, did not seek to conquer from scratch, but to wrestle controls of the mechanisms of conquering, and end up in essentially the same result without nearly the amount of bloodshed and sacrifice of their own people.

War, in other words, but without bullets and blades.

To conquer and rule and have others serve your nation.

Now, the reason that so many foreign nations had no problems accepting these extremely loose terms is that there was no expectation that they change their identity, and so even if they were subservient to those who were white, of British descent, and Christian, they still fared orders of magnitude better than anyone else in their nation in their homeland.

When the Samaritan woman referenced the scraps that fell off the table for the dogs to eat, if the kingdom is sufficiently prosperous, then even the scraps will be of such a quantity and magnitude that "subservience" in the new system will still leave one better off than "freedom" under the old system.

Sure, there will be problems with practices, rituals, and clashes with law enforcement, but even so, it's still better than what they had before.

Until these various nations think that they can do it better.

Until these various nations think that the wealth they enjoy by proxy could be enjoyed in fuller measure if they were at the table instead.

And so that is what the last half a century of political chicanery has been. All the non-white, not of British descent, not Christian nations seeking to "take their place" and reap the rewards.

Only that without the white, of British descent, Christian people at the helm, the whole system breaks down and begins to look just like the homelands that these various nations abandoned, because if those nations could have created such a civilization, they'd already have done it in their homelands and they'd not have had any reason to escape them for something better in the first place.

In their greed, they seek to take the helm and steer the ship as they see fit, not realizing that they lack the fundamental characteristics to keep the ship sailing correctly at all, let alone to find even greater treasures and enjoy even greater wealth.

Each of these nations then is not seeking to benefit anyone else but their own. Where white, of British descent, and Christian people altruistically offered help to the rest of the world, their offers are swatted aside in arrogance and in ignorance by people who think they can do a better job, but are literally too stupid to understand why they cannot.

The altruism of even the two American nations is drowned by the insatiable avarice of the rest of the world, the greed which undermines the homelands of so many nations and directly prevents them from ever gaining any semblance of advanced civilization, let alone civilization at all. Where the "North" and "South" disagreed is downright trivial compared to the disagreements they have with Hispanic, African, or Asian nations.

So the people who jump the borders, what are they? They are soldiers, even if they do not carry guns. They are agents for a foreign nation, seeking to benefit their own nation, never thinking of the consequences to anyone else. They are selfish, they are ignorant, and they have more in common with locusts from a biblical plague than people.

But they are people.

And their plight does demand an action.

But that action is not invading and undermining another nation's homeland.

Soldiers are killed by their enemies during times of war, until a victor has conquered or the participating "sides" lack the resolve or resources to keep fighting.

Instead of deporting, we should be executing.

Instead of encouraging legal immigration, we should be repatriating people to their homelands.

If the civilization that solved to many problems and fostered so much technological advance is to survive, what made it distinct cannot be drowned out by the hunger of peoples who reject the core characteristics for themselves. If a nation does not want to adopt a trait, they should be free to reject it, and live in the consequences that come from it in their own lands.

No nation has the right to extinguish or steal from another.

No nation has the right to rule over or conquer another.

Such actions are acts of war, and should be resisted with lethal force.

And it is for this reason we'll see a Civil War 2, only that the distinction between the nations will be much more stark in contrast.

Instead of disagreements on politics, or even culture, we're going to see identity and race come into play. The nations will redefine themselves to avoid being swallowed up, and those that define themselves and fight will retain some portion of the existing territory for themselves.

So long as they can hold it.

We can't avert this path, because even should we do what we should, the outcry and backlash would ignite the war all the same.

We're on a path with no other options. No way to escape the inevitable. We've cast out bet and thrown the dice.

Be ready to act regardless of how they land.

Election results roundup and general political level-setting.

Washingtonians are convinced on gun issues, but not climate change. Win some, lose some, I am just glad I've got no purchases planned related to anything now under much closer legislative scrutiny. For those that figured they could wait just a little longer, please do tell us the stories of the loops you'll now have to jump through, and also help us know what you did to help avert the legislation passing other than voting "no".

I do not suffer under the delusion that I can control the outcomes, or that my efforts will change the direction of where things are going, I can just do my part and observe what is happening and adjust my plans to match.

Even so, and this will be a separate post, I am doubtful that the weapons most folks have chosen are necessarily the best for the circumstances they'll actually face, but I'll save that for a "Spotting an r-strategist: Gun Edition".

As of about 8AM PST, it looks like Democrats have won the House, and Republicans held the Senate. Numbers are still fluctuating and sources disagree on what the specific number of seats apparently is, and this is before any recounts or anything else.

Smarter political commenters have been all over the board. Some folks decry the loss of the House, others don't see it as a big deal, and others see it as an actual win, in that the more open opposition within the legislative branch the easier it is for President Trump to show how far down the path of identity politics we've come even in the two years since his election.

The version that sticks with me is that things are going to get more polarized, and the number of people on "the right" is nowhere near what people want to believe, so permanent changes to the direction of the country are not going to occur through the ballot box. Popularity is never something that is of immediate priority for those who trend towards a K-selected reproductive strategy, in that there simply isn't enough free time to banter about such otherwise arbitrary matters.

On the national level, we have an electoral college to try and prevent prevent states which are dense from determining the political future of states which are not. At the state and lower levels, however, no mechanism like this exists.

A case in point is seen if you look at my current state as a whole versus the county level. In Washington, there are not really that many more "blue" counties than "red", but because the quantity of voters in "blue" counties is orders of magnitude greater, they determine the political direction for the majority of the state in a way that the electoral college prevents at the national level.

This is why Democrats focus on states and "flipping" them, and using the same population tactic, but it obviously takes a lot longer. They can't get away with the same exact tricks they can at the local or state level, but they can still make use of Fabian tactics to undermine the electoral college and make it a moot point.

Washington and Oregon, let alone states like California, were all "red" states roughly 40 years ago. All of these states saw massive migrations of people from outside the state, their populations did not grow very much from people having children, evidenced in that their fertility rates are still dropping. What this demonstrates is that, for those who wanted to look and see, there was recent evidence "demographics is destiny" that could not be denied.

When you take someone who is not from Washington and let them make policy decisions, their priorities will be different from someone who is from Washington. This is especially true because of how many high-tech industries there are in the state and the emphasis on "Diversity & Inclusion" that is so prevalent in companies that are still around today. You can't get "Diversity & Inclusion" hiring Washingtonians, people naturally acclimated to rain and changing seasons, you have to import them from somewhere else, and those people are going to get "their say" in the state's political future.

What we can take away from this is that people who are not from an area should not have a say in the future of that area until they have sufficiently assimilated into that area, and I don't mean just immigrants from another country. If you move to another state, or another city in that state, why should you immediately have the same weight and say in the future of where you now currently reside as those who had already been living there?

This becomes especially true when modern "careers" have people moving on a regular basis, never really being able to stay in the same location for very long, and for this discussion a "long time" would be a single generation. Folks move to follow jobs, and being able to stay in the same house for decades is the exception, not the rule.

In getting back to the election results, we're seeing more polarization, although because of how neighborhoods have been mixed due tot he aforementioned workplace dynamics, that polarization doesn't have decidedly clear physical borders in every case.

That will continue, and the divisions which were used to gather political power will only grow more and more important as the grabs for power become more and more desperate, for all involved. If not for social media, this would have spilled over into the "real world", but as of yet the majority of the reactions by both sides have been digital, not physical.

Each side is waiting for the other to make mistakes to justify acting, all the while playing games with useless voters in the middle who pride themselves on indecision.

This mid-term election has showed that aggressive action, outside the polling booth, is what will produce tangible results. That in order to grab power, at this stage in the political game, those on "the right" need to be acting with boldness and confidence.

"But that's not legal!"

If your opponents aren't abiding by laws, it is suicidal to try to fight with one arm behind your back, and God does not look favorably on suicide.

"But you should take the high road!"

If the road you take does not produce results, then any labels applied to it don't matter. Supposedly superior ideals which cannot be manifest are not actually superior when compared to that which can be manifest. The rest is hubristic chest-thumping about how you're going to deny gravity.

"But you'll be called ___ist!"

If you aren't already, just for existing and holding to your views, let alone proselytizing them, then you don't stand up for anything that matters in a way that matters. The only permissible views on the current social agenda fall under agreement or irrelevance. If you disagree on something that matters, and in a venue which matters, whether for good reasons or bad, you will be treated as a hostile threat, and the opening volley is almost always character assassination, due to how easy it is to cast aspersions.

"But what about ____, they're not like the rest!"

Individuals which do not conform to stereotype don't change the stereotype. They're noteworthy because they're exceptions to the rule, not because they mean the rule doesn't apply. The era of being able to measure an individual on their character ended when the demographics of an individual became a means to political power, and won't return until demographic variances are eliminated. Eliminated. Eliminated.

This is the unfortunate end result of identity politics, is that once the distinctions have grown in importance, they don't stop being important until the distinctions stop existing altogether.

So while there are bloodless ways for that to occur, they aren't painless, and for a society fixated on pleasure, we'll invite the most bloody solution at the very last moment possible and then bemoan the apparent inevitability of such tragic circumstances.

The United States will fall unless it has a cohesive identity, and the "last resort" is a hot Civil War. We're cold right now, war is politics by other means and all, but that's where we're headed.

In the past I have doubted that a religious identity would be easy enough to identify, but I am happy to be wrong on that.

The only competing identity other than religion is race.

So the United States can unite on race and/or religion, or enter a hot Civil War where those belonging to the race and/or religion with the greatest will and ability to survive will get to rebuild from the ashes after eliminating all competing races and religions.

Or we could deport everyone who is only here because of Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, whether here legally or illegally, which might start the hot Civil War all by itself.

Either way, it seems inevitable that we're headed for another hot Civil War and the only question is how the "sides" will be determined. All the paths to avoid Civil War require massive changes which few are suggesting, let alone getting much support for.

This election is a reminder that Trump may buy us some time, that through material wealth we might keep people busy and distracted long enough to finish our own preparations, but that's all it is. We've been bought just a bit more time, and we need to make the most of it.

So what will you choose to do in this time you've been afforded?