Dirt

What happened in Belfast last night was extremely predictable and entirely preventable but arrogant politicians in Westminster took it for granted that they could do whatever they wanted and the public would never meaningfully fight back. But this backlash was inevitable because what the British state (and other states of the West) are asking of their people is a completely unreasonable moral atrocity. It is not just that the imported foreigners are individually dangerous and commit large amounts of crime. This is a problem and a reason to oppose mass migration itself, but the deeper issues are that mass migration threatens the very continuity of a people, and mass migration has severed the relationship between the state the people. On continuity, the issue is quite simple. The mass importation of foreigners, whether intentional or not, in practice has established a kind of neo-colonial presence in Western countries which has also resulted in the erasure and ethnic cleansing of the native population from their historical homelands. Where the foreigners are brought in en masse, the locals are pushed out. Particularly in a place like England, this can mean people pushed out of a place their family has called home for literal millennia. The question is thus existential. "Will we exist in 100 years time? Will we still have our own country in 100 years time? Will my children have a homeland?" Existence is non-negotiable. The continuity of the British people is simply not something that the state has any wiggle room to debate with any kind of legitimacy. And yet its policies in practice push an agenda that directly threatens that continuity of the British people, and they refuse to hear any criticism or reason on this point. Having forced the people to evaluate existential questions, they have concluded correctly that on present course the state's behavior will lead to their slow decline and ultimate evaporation, and they are thus lashing out to veto the state. "Our continuity is not negotiable, and if you threaten that we will fight back." It's both reasonable and extremely obvious that people would ultimately react this way. And on the relationship to the state, the state has made it very clear and explicit both in its observed behaviors and its official posturing that White British occupy a position of inferiority to non-White imports with respect to the application of the law. In other words that there are a different set of rules for different populations, and the White British are subject to the harsher, more tyrannical set of rules. This is in their own country, in their homeland, under a governmental body that was originally constructed with the singular purpose of advancing the collective interests of the British people. There is no possible case where subjecting the British people to second-class citizenship in their homeland can be in their interests. The mass importation of foreigners has thus fundamentally subverted the relationship between the British people and the British state such that the state has effectively taken on a new demos whom it actually serves instead of the British. This renders the state unfit for purpose at the most fundamental, ontological level. It is not doing the singular thing it was established to do. On the contrary, it is actively complicit in egregious crimes against the British people. (the Rape Gangs and their slow ethnic cleaning by replacement). The state is thus directly in perfect opposition to its raison d'être. And being so maligned the state can rightly be concluded to be illegitimate. A government that by design puts the British people last in every consideration is objectively not legitimate as a decision making apparatus for those same British people. It is not reasonable to expect people to passively tolerate such objectionable circumstances. Particularly as the state never had the consent of the governed to do any of this. It was a profound betrayal. The conditions imposed by the British state are thus completely intolerable and that an outright hostile rejection of that state's authority would follow was a foregone conclusion. It was just a matter of when and how. There was a political solution once upon a time. If the state had listened to its people, stopped replacing them, and continued to represent their interests, none of this would be happening. This is a crisis entirely of the state's own making and if they continue to insist that we perpetuate this failed experiment in multiculturalism the rebellion will only escalate.

A judge’s obligation is to administer justice without fear or favor. The reality is that Barrett appears to have a great deal of fear, and it strains credibility to suggest that those concerns have not affected her judicial reasoning.

How does a civilization accidentally create the very people who want to destroy it? Has there ever been a phenomenon like this before? Did the Romans ever have to deal with an enormous minority of Romans actively trying to sabotage the empire and dismantle it from within?

Lorenzo Salgado Araujo called Houston home for 35 years. On Tuesday, an ICE agent shot and killed him. His family learned of his death from a video before anyone bothered to knock on their door. New York City stands with the Salgado family in demanding a full, independent investigation and real accountability. To the Salgado family and any immigrant family in this city living in fear: we grieve with you and we will continue to stand beside you in the pursuit of justice. Abolish ICE.