Future Last White Man

@Milajoy That's a rounding error compared to the 100 million invaders currently present in our homeland

The numbers just got updated. Since inauguration day the Trump administration has DEPORTED 658,000 illegals. 2.4 million more have self-deported (because they're smart). That's over THREE MILLION GONE. Who voted for this?

US has let in 4,499 refugees since October - all but three were South African bbc.in/4szP2BO

Biggest threat to America

@ksorbs We are looking forward to doing away with this particular farce they call "government"

I don't think people truly realize what is coming if the Midterms end with a blue wave.

@Sinsbyvant @DeIudedShaniqwa Imagine not understanding how mind raped you just got

@DeIudedShaniqwa Whole comment section is racist asf its called “scuba” and it originated from a touchdown celebration by the patriots it has nothing to do with a gun— imagine talking shi and saying racist comments to the current gold medalist olympic champion of figure skating from San Fran lol

What is this nigger gesture called?

@OlliesVollies @DeIudedShaniqwa Because they can't swim?

@DeIudedShaniqwa Its called "scuba" and its funny because its making fun of blacks

@FilthyFrank659 @centristpeater

@centristpeater The problem with maga is like they are so dumb it’s hard to tell if it’s raigebait or not, cause there dumb enough to believe this shit, but also they love posting fake shit for views 😭

🚨 “Ex-woke” Olympic figure skater Alysa Liu in hot water after video surfaces of her doing the viral “Stinky Immigrant” TikTok trend.

@Josephverzi1 @centristpeater Scuba divers have an air supply and goggles, it makes no sense. How does covering your nose and waving a smell away equal scuba? Stinky immigrant makes more sense

@centristpeater It’s called skuba like you’re skuba diving

@mainpersonhere @UziCryptoo @MeghanMcCain Here you are complaining

@UziCryptoo @MeghanMcCain All this can be said about GenX as well, but they ain’t complaining

The life of a millennial: - Graduated into the Great Recession - Entry level jobs required 3 years experience - Pensions replaced by the 401k - Promoted at work meant a 2% raise & 200% more responsibility - Felt stability in life then a pandemic - Highest inflation in 50 years deleted pay raises - Home prices doubled overnight forcing permanent renters - Childcare costs 1 month of rent - Juggling aging parents, young kids, burnout from work & the cost to live - AI causing mass layoffs during peak earning years

@missyoumike @UziCryptoo Our parents could buy new cars and houses with a warehouse job.

@UziCryptoo Good thing they didn't experience gas shortages, 14% mortgages, 21% auto loans, $4 minimum wage, and minimum 20% down payment required to buy a home like their parents did.

@crusaderBAR @anontweethandle @UziCryptoo You're too busy gargling balls to respond

@anontweethandle @UziCryptoo I’d sooner gargle broken glass

@oelma__ I can reject a woman for lack of a hymen, let alone kids

Can you reject a good woman just cuz they got 3 kids with different fathers??

@iambecometechd1 @X9_redux This is correct, I've tried.

@X9_redux No white man will make it through voir dire

I just want to remind everyone when the Vigilantis step up. Do your jury duty keep your mouth shut and remember Jury Nullification is the weapon.

@X9_redux They won't let any White men into the jury believe me I've tried

@elonmusk @boringcompany You see, your issue is that you keep trying to SOLVE the problem instead of profiting from it. Politicians and contractors don't have that issue

The @BoringCompany could build a Hyperloop tunnel from downtown SF to downtown LA for <5% of this cost and it would be a technological marvel exceeding any high speed rail on Earth

@mswillowcohen @joeybeastmarket 1000% I am considering a new project that makes a leaderboard tracking which judges have caused the most murders by releasing animals back into society. If you have an data source ideas I'll get started. 🎵 Making a list. Checking it twice 🎵

@joeybeastmarket Let’s <redacted> any nïggers who <redacted> a White person and got released for being a retärd. Maybe the judges who released them should be <redacted> next to them.

The reason violent speech is banned on this website (for white people) is because we all individually know violence is the answer for the issues we face but we cannot be allowed to realize we all feel the same

Permission for Revolution I've been thinking a lot about the innumerable failures of present-day regimes in the West and what it would actually take to spark actual revolution against them. Curtis Yarvin, for example, does not believe that any such spark will ever ignite. Rather, that we will gradually South Africanize and retreat into fortified compounds as Whites in South Africa have largely been forced to. Similar criticisms have been raised that America's 2nd Amendment has utterly failed to produce any kind of action against what I imagine most of my followers would agree has become an overtly tyrannical regime. In that spirit I've been thinking through something like the following: - Why has overt tyranny not produced meaningful extrajudicial resistance from the Right (while the Left is demonstrably willing to use violence liberally)? - Is there any hope within the current system? - What, if anything would/could change this disposition? - What avenues are available to actually enact meaningful regime change? I'd like to share my thought process here in the hopes of opening a strategic dialogue. I'm not calling for anything particular here, but rather I'm trying to evaluate a high level some of the strategic imbalances and what could plausibly correct them. This will be a long post but I hope it will be worth your time. Why has overt tyranny not produced meaningful extrajudicial resistance from the Right? I think there are several key factors that play into this including: 1. The disposition of the Right in general is more law abiding than the Left 2. Continued belief in the ability of the system to reform itself, and the "sacredness" of the system's rules. 3. Asymmetry with "having something to lose" compared to the Left. 4. Effective endorsement of Leftist violence by the state, and extreme crackdown for even non-violent Rightist organization by the state. To elaborate in more detail, in order: 1. The Right is generally understood to be more "ordered" than the Left, such that operating within the norms of polite society is the standard for the Right in a way that is not necessarily true of the Left. The Right does not want to engage in vigilantism, it wants the state authorities to uphold order via officially sanctioned means. In other words, the Right generally prefers official approval for the use of force as it prefers to operate within an "ordered" structure. 2. This disposition plays directly into belief in the system. We love the Founding Fathers and there remains a belief in the system they constructed for us because that system did in fact serve us exceptionally well for a very long time while the demographics of our country remained mostly inline with the demographics of the founding population. There is therefore an extreme reluctance amongst many on the Right to accept that perhaps this system is no longer functional because of this demographic change, particularly because many on the Right continue to share the false axiom of human universality (or at least do not accept that different demographic populations cannot be effectively ruled in the same manner). Although this is largely going away amongst the young Right. But in any case, this continued faith in the system itself and the procedural rules it outlines stymies any kind of extrajudicial action because reform within the system, if it could be successful, is objectively better for everyone than extrajudicial action. Which naturally begs the question, is tangible reform of the level necessary to save the nation possible within the system? But I'll get to that later. 3. Further playing into this asymmetry is that the Right, broadly speaking, have more to lose than the Left. The Right are more likely to have successful careers or families that would be at stake if one acted extrajudicially. They are therefore additionally primed to prefer reform within the system as opposed to outside of it. 4. Possibly the most consequential asymmetry of all is of course the current regime's disposition towards Left and Right extrajudicial actors. The Left has massive NGO networks that take our tax dollars and use them to fund their political behavior, both peaceful and violent. But focusing on the violent side of the Left, they can rely on judges to minimize their penalties. They have legal services covered by the NGO network. And the wider system itself may actually reward their violence as "activism." See the case of Angela Davis, who was involved in the hostage taking and ultimate execution of 4 people at the Marin County courthouse, but went on to be a celebrated political figure. Contrast this with the state's handling of the Right, which would see someone like Randy Weaver, who just wanted to be left alone deep in the woods, but had his family slaughtered by the state over a bench warrant. It is unthinkable to imagine the ATF Ruby Ridging the John Brown Club, but if you are on the right the state will go out of its way to infiltrate any attempt at even peaceful organization and activism. The Right is thus aware that any action or organization is substantially more risky than that of the Left due to exceptionally different treatment by the state, and thus individuals on the Right rationally decide against it. And so that leads us to the pertinent question. Is there any hope within the current system? To meaningfully evaluate this we would need to understand what is the actual end state that we want. There is notoriously more diversity of thought on the Right than the exceptionally narrow dogma of the Left, and so there is not strict agreement about a precise "victory" condition. With that said I think the most critical sentiment, the thing that seems to unite the various factions of the Right, is an agreement that the current state fundamentally does not represent the interests of the American people. This manifests in a few forms, but it is inclusive of: - Demographic insecurity (i.e. replacement, and downstream consequences like opportunity loss, ethnic cartels, etc.) - Overt state-sponsored discrimination against the White "majority" (DEI, etc.) - Policy driven by foreign interests (Israel lobby, etc.) There are of course other issues, such as abortion, that have broad conformity on the Right, but I believe the fundamental question of the day is whether the state understands its primary function is to represent the interests of the American people, or whether the state is captured by foreign and/or post-national interests. "Victory" would therefore be an unambiguous reassertion that: 1. The state is capable of accurately identifying the American people (and that this is even a question is damning). 2. The state correctly understands that its primary responsibility is a fiduciary duty to specifically the interests of those American people exclusively. So is there hope that within the current system, the above 2 points could be realistically achieved? On point 1 we have a very direct litmus test in the Supreme Court's evaluation of Birthright Citizenship. I am of the belief that if the Supreme Court correctly rules against Birthright Citizenship, it is not in and of itself a silver bullet that conclusively proves the answer "yes," but it is absolutely a very strong point in favor of meaningful reform being possible, because it establishes a baseline understanding by the state of who the American people actually are that is at least grounded in something agreeable. Conversely, if the Supreme Court gets this question wrong, and rules that a child born to a CCP birth tourist is, in fact, an American, entitled to the same rights and privileges as you or I, then the state will have demonstrated irrevocably that it is no longer capable of recognizing the particular demos to whom it has a fiduciary duty. Reform of such a catastrophic ruling would necessitate a constitutional amendment and there is no chance whatsoever of that happening any time soon. Such a ruling would therefore be immediately damning of the entire state. I would argue that such a ruling strictly precludes reform within the system because the system will have effectively announced its defection from its responsibilities to the American people by way of failing to comprehend who they even are. This ends state legitimacy as an authority for the particular American people, and almost demands an immediate construction of a parallel decision making apparatus that is actually capable of acting in our interests. But let's assume that the state does ultimately understand who the American people are. The next question is then whether it is capable or willing to act in specifically the interests of those people. The Uniparty, as embodied in the Democrats, and "Republicans" like Dignidad Act sponsor Maria Elvira Salazar are overtly hostile to representing the American people in particular. So much so that at the State of the Union, functionally the entire Democrat party announced their disagreement with the statement "The primary responsibility of the American government is to secure the safety of the American people." The Uniparty has therefore explicitly stated that their perceived allegiance and responsibility lies not with the American people in particular, but rather with foreign actors/interests. Meaningful victory defined as the reassertion that the American state is primarily responsible to the particular interests of the American people therefore almost necessarily requires the strict elimination of the Uniparty as a political faction with power over the American people. On Post-Liberal X we sometimes make comments that appear flippant like "we must ensure the Democrats never have power again" but with victory understood in this manner this is literally true, not a hyperbolic statement. Because the Democrats and Uniparty operatives in the GOP overtly and publicly acknowledge their allegiance is not to the American people, their complete expulsion from power is a necessary prerequisite to correcting the system. This would appear to me basically impossible through normal means. Particularly with the demographics having already been changed as they are, and how polarized we've become, the idea that we might see a nationwide sweep for an anti-Uniparty faction that eliminates the Democrats from power in totality is basically unthinkable. Couple that with how the Uniparty is entrenched in non-elected positions within the bureaucracy and "voting our way out" seems unthinkable. Further, even when a candidate gets into office on promises of addressing our concerns, as Trump did, we can still see that foreign influence guides his judgement. I will concede that it is possible that what we're doing in Iran "could" be in American interests. If Iran is actually 5 minutes away from an ICBM, there is plausibly a justification for this. But even if you support what's happening in Iran, you must concede that wider perception increasingly views this as action ultimately in Israeli interests, rather than American interests. And that these actions are using considerable political capital which diminishes Trump's capacity to take more direct domestic action, which is the primary reason Trump was elected. I don't want to disparage Trump. He's infinitely better than any other option we've had in my lifetime. But the fact remains that significant portions of the coalition that brought him to power are increasingly frustrated with our adventures in Iran while the more necessary domestic reform appears stymied and sidelined. This is further exacerbated by a wider GOP that flagrantly refuses to do what its constituents want, blocking things with overwhelming support that favor our interests like the SAVE Act, and putting forward things overtly against our wishes and interests like the Dignidad Act. We must therefore additionally ask how realistic is it that at least the GOP can be brought to heel? For if there is going to meaningful reform within the system, at a minimum we will need one political party that will actually advance our interests. But once again the cards are not in our favor, and this is in part a consequence of the aforementioned asymmetry in capacity for extrajudicial violence. The GOP Uniparty are actively incentivized to defect against you because your ability to punish them in a game theoretic defect-defect scenario is basically zero within the confines of the law. Imagine you are Thune doing everything possible to sabotage the SAVE Act. Within the confines of the law all we can do to Thune to punish him for betraying us on this issue is primary him. Most primary challengers don't even win, but let's assume we do successfully primary him. Having betrayed the people for the Uniparty's interests, he will be rewarded in the private sector without question. He will have some comfy consulting gig or something along those lines set up for him so that he is financially set for life for his betrayal. His only penalty will be losing his seat, but that's ok, because he already served his purpose and got his reward. Our "stick" is meaningless. The Uniparty's carrot is a very juicy carrot. Contrast this with the Left and their willingness to use political violence, and you have someone like Melissa Hortman, Democrat state legislator in Minnesota assassinated for breaking with the party and aligning with the Republicans. For another parallel you can look to the UK and how willing the state is to trample on the law-abiding British, while they bend over backwards to never step on the toes of the Muslims, even when their behavior is objectively unacceptable as in the Rape Gangs. Why are they like this? Because when one side is willing to enforce compliance with their agenda by violent action against state officials, and the other side obeys the law and will not do such a thing, the political class becomes personally incentivized to betray the law abiding class in favor of the violent class at every opportunity. The asymmetry in willingness to use extrajudicial vigilante policing of politicians thus further aligns the state against the American people and their interests. All this to say that if "victory" is defined as the state accurately identifying the American people, and then understanding it acts with a fiduciary duty specifically to those American people and their interests, victory strictly achievable exclusively by action within the system appears borderline impossible. It's a tossup whether the Supreme Court will accurately define the American people, failure to do which instantly delegitimizes the state in full imo. But even if we win that battle the structure of the system is already so thoroughly aligned against any proper embodiment of the American people's interests that meaningfully realigning the state to those interests appears basically impossible by normal means. But at the same time, due to imbalances in disposition and structure, it also appears unlikely that American patriots are likely to "rise up" in any meaningful sense. And Elite Theory supports this. Which brings me to What, if anything would/could change this disposition? It is exceptionally unlikely that even in the scenario that the Supreme Court rules against us on Birthright the American people will collectively rise up in some kind of "January 6th but real this time" scenario. While we may start to see some degree of individual actors taking extrajudicial action against the state (most likely targeting lower level targets like activist judges - it's not difficult to imagine a disgruntled parent assassinating the judge who released the 30x felon that killed his daughter for example), the Right is not coordinated enough to launch some kind of mass rebellion. At least not from the bottom up. Elite Theory suggests that for a meaningful political revolution to occur, it needs to be top down. There need to be people in positions of power or authority who act as a coordinating locus for the Right's discontent who are willing to "lead" a revolution for one to actually occur. Many hoped that Trump would fill that role, but he isn't really that guy. He may, however, have opened the door for that guy. Because more than anything what Trump's Presidency demonstrates is the reality that we do not have a functional democracy that is responsive to the people, and the degree to which the state has become overtly hostile to both the interests and preferences of the American people. Again, take the Birthright case in the Supreme Court. No other President would have challenged this idea, and thus compelled the Court to rule on it. And if they fail to answer this question correctly, I genuinely believe it will irreparably damage the legitimacy of the state as it exists today in the eyes of huge numbers of Americans for the naked absurdities the wrong answer will produce. Having revealed the extent to which the American state has become subversive to American interests, it becomes increasingly possible for a candidate to run on a platform that says something to the effect of "the courts have demonstrated they are entirely unfit for purpose, the Democrats have overtly signaled their primary allegiance is not to the American people, and it is thus my intention if elected to ignore the courts no matter what they say, purge them, remove Democrats from office on the grounds they have declared themselves to have illegitimate foreign allegiances, ban foreign lobbying immediately, expel foreigners en masse including by use of military force" and so on. In other words it becomes increasingly possible to run on "overt regime change achieved by emergency powers." Such a thing would in practice almost certainly lead to overt conflict, but I am of the belief that our future is basically overt conflict or surrender due to the demographic realities the Uniparty has forced on us. An alternative version of events might see a figure in a position of high level authority overtly declaring the state as illegitimate (i.e. if Democrats cheat or leverage illegals voting to secure power outside the actual consent of the American people) such that a similar crisis is triggered. In these cases, unlike the bottom up scenarios, a competing authority would act as a lightning rod and most importantly an official permission structure for the Right to begin to engage in direct action. Put another way, if there is a perception that we have official leadership granting us explicit moral authority for revolutionary action against an increasingly perceived-as-illegitimate state, the reluctance of the Right to engage in direct political action could be overcome. Because as we discussed, the Right wants to act within authority. And so it necessitates some high level authority to overtly challenge the system, but if they do the Right may well answer that call and be willing to take direct action because I think many of increasingly recognize that that may be what it takes to save our nation. Our discontent is real and actionable, the legitimacy of the state is in the dumps, but we need to feel a kind of mutual permission to go beyond the status quo. And that permission can come from each other to a degree. We can, for example, find agreement amongst each other that as the state fails to maintain legitimacy, "reasonable" vigilante action against people that murder or rape us and are let off by activist judges are "understandable crimes" or "without moral condemnation." But to meaningfully take mass action against the illegitimate system writ large, it demands high level defection from people already in positions of power or influence. Which brings us at last to What avenues are available to actually enact meaningful regime change? I remain highly skeptical that true regime change strictly through the Democratic process is possible. I don't want to discourage any efforts on this front, because if successful against my expectations this is the best case scenario. To the extent that we can primary RINOs and effectively perform a true American primacy hostile takeover of the GOP, we should. But already manifest changes in the demographic constitution of the country and the non-elected nature of the most powerful organs of the state in the various bureaucratic agencies and judiciary severely limits the ability for elected officials to actually materially change anything. More than half the government is aligned with the Uniparty and will continue to advance Uniparty interests. And any failure on the Supreme Court could majorly undermine all reform efforts. Further, systemic asymmetries like the tax-funded NGO complex that financially supports the Uniparty, and the deliberate efforts of the state to support Uniparty-aligned organization while disrupting Patriot-aligned organization efforts all disadvantage us while working within normal politics. But growing discontent and increasingly brazen displays of overtly traitorous behavior by numerous organs of the state opens the door for high level defection and mutual permission to go beyond the system writ-large. As the courts overtly discredit themselves, voices that say "I will ignore the courts and do what is necessary" become more reasonable and we can grant these powers by our consent and moral authority. If someone runs on "ignoring the courts" and we elect them anyway we are granting them the moral legitimacy to disregard the entrenched interests of the system that work against us so that they can either be meaningfully reformed in a real sense, or replaced with something else that actually fulfills the singular function of the state, which has always been to govern in the interests of the American people. A function that the state increasingly more obviously no longer performs, hence its illegitimacy. The rules are only the rules so long as we consent to them. As those rules become warped to explicitly advance the interests of foreigners over the American people, as the state continuously abandons its singular responsibility, we can simply withdraw consent and say "no, I will support action outside this system, actually." But for the disposition of the Right this needs to come in the form of an alternative authoritative body. Not rogue actors acting stochastically as suits the Left. We therefore need leaders who will declare an overt understanding of the gravity of our situation, and a willingness to do whatever it takes to resolve it. I see a few promising Congressmen/Senators who might be such men. I hope, for the sake of the American people, they are such men.

@joeybeastmarket Violence doesn't work! America was not founded on political violence! (it was)

@Stormi_luv Women belong at home with the kids

Men, be honest: would you date a woman who makes more money than you?

@BreannaMorello Trump is cooked

Mike Lawler was endorsed by President Donald Trump. Lawler is for amnesty.