D.F. Mulder2018/12/020 Comments

 

Free Market Fundamentalism Is Not Conservatism

Market fundamentalism is not conservatism. In some social and cultural contexts, market fundamentalism can be downright revolutionary. The conservative establishment's obsession with free markets and economic concerns is both foolish and not what it purports to be, namely genuinely conservative.

If we examine the record and history of conservatism carefully, we will quickly discover that the ideology of laissez faire capitalism was always a means to an end. Early conservatives defended free markets because the idea was that if government did not meddle in markets, people would be free to make free decisions as free people, and thus traditional culture and traditional mores would not be disturbed.

Unfortunately, the premises underlying this argument are false, and have always been false. This absolutistic pro-market position presumes that markets can't be ideological all on their own, either because powerful market players are imposing an ideology upon the market, or the state of the law is directly or indirectly imposing an ideology on the market. The problem is, real markets, as opposed to theoretical markets, can indeed be highly ideological, especially when the rich and the powerful use their wealth and power to keep ideological adversaries down and out. Sure, market forces have a tendency to suppress ideology, but they don't typically root it out, especially when it is systemic, legally enforced, or being driven by the ethnic or ideological biases of the masses (consumers) or dominant market players.

Another faulty premise underlying this pro-market position is that society is stable. This is an unsafe presumption in many contexts. Western society is not stable. It is highly unstable, indeed accelerating toward collapse in all likelihood. When societies are stable, keeping your hands off the market may indirectly be preserving a people and conserving their traditions. However, when societies are unmoored, keeping the government's hands off the market may be permitting society to continue its wayward drift, it may be enabling corporate tyranny, widespread censorship, sexual exploitation, social degeneration, or an oligarchic assault on democracy. When society itself is in revolt against tradition, keeping your hands off of the market may be inadvertently enabling its revolution against the former values of that society.

This is all not to say that respect for market forces isn't important, or that we shouldn't be highly cynical about the goodness of power structures and their social engineering programs. Both of these values are good values to possess, to preserve and to defend, but there are other values in America worth preserving and defending. We must not mistake market fundamentalism for “conservatism”. Their relationship is far more tenuous than many normie-cons, neo-cons, and others pretending to represent righties and whities, would have you believe.

In recent years, the supposed free market here in the West (it is not really all that free if we consider government-imposed diversity quotas, widespread regulations, subsidies, bailouts, and cronyism) has revealed itself to be extremely hostile to white people, to traditional Western values and ideals, to free speech, and to essential liberties. It is hard to see how letting the market tread upon Americans is fundamentally different than letting the government do so. Censorship is as wrong when gigantic corporations do it as when governments do it, and ideological/political discrimination is always an indefensible assault on freedom of conscience, and a far graver threat to American democracy than race or sex discrimination, not to mention a sharper deviation from traditional liberal (Western) ethics as well.

Those who fellate markets in times like these are as much the enemy of the American people and American traditions as the Cultural Marxists themselves. Standing on the sidelines while the left destroys the West is to effectively facilitate the left's war on the white race and Western civilization. Refusing to regulate the bigoted leftist oligarchs who run Big Tech while they systematically silence those of us on the right for purely ideological reasons, is itself a form of virtue signaling. It is throwing up one's hands in surrender and refusing to fight back. It is a face of nobility covering a heart of cowardice.

The free market is not conserving much of anything in America. Indeed, in many cases it is clearly helping to rapidly transform America into something deeply undesirable and completely unrecognizable. So then pray tell, how could free market fundamentalism be truly conservative?


-D.F. Mulder


D.F. Mulder2018/11/280 Comments

 

The Pitfalls Of Worshiping Rational Self-Interest


Just because it is in your self-interest to invade my country, doesn't mean it is in my self-interest to let you.


One of the most common excuses given for those hordes of people who arrive at our borders before trying to scale and/or penetrate the barriers that separate America from the rest of the world, is that these folks are “simply doing what is in their own interests, and trying to give their children a better life”. Here's the problem with that argument though: everyone, even drug dealers, and career criminals, is trying to pursue their own self-interest to one degree or another. Self-interest is not a sufficient basis upon which to break laws, do wrong, or invade nations.

Indeed, self-interest is not a moral claim at all. It is exactly not a moral claim. It can't really justify any action. It only justifies actions in certain contexts, so long as that self-interest is being practiced within the confines of particular systems of law and order, and even then self-interest can and often does undermine those systems and their fundamental rules (for example when self-interested mega-banks lobby Congress so that they can privatize gains and socialize losses via bailouts).

In the market context, restrained self-interest is generally understood to be good, but only because reciprocity is built into the rules of the capitalist system. You can not generally force someone to buy your products in the same way you can force your way into a country, in defiance of that country's laws and the will of its people.

Following the proper procedures to enter a nation lawfully is typically a reciprocal act, or at least it is understood to be. Given how unresponsive and indifferent the U.S. Federal Government is to the needs, demands and general will of the American people, there is every reason to doubt that much of our immigration policy, which is to say the legal immigration into the country, is meaningfully reciprocal, but we'll set this aside for the moment.

The harsh truth is that only a fraction of immigration into the United States is even arguably reciprocal therefore (because much of it isn't even legal). In reality, immigrants dig tunnels and climb over walls, then they have children here who can vote and take from Americans the right to decide their own destiny. Mass-scale illegal immigration is a greater threat to democracy in America than Russia could ever be. Others use the asylum process to gain entry into the country, and then they disappear into the shadows. It is often too impractical and too expensive to go looking for tens of thousands of law-breakers. Much, if not most of the immigration into America, is not reciprocal at all and is not even nominally approved by the citizens of this country. Only immigrants benefit in such cases, not Americans, and Americans have very little genuine say in the process, in that they are not consulted, and the laws which are supposed to speak for them, aren't really affecting the process, because they aren't being or can't practically be enforced.

This is all a fancy way of saying what righties and conservatives already know, namely that our immigration system is completely and systemically broken, that our laws don't do what they're supposed to do given practical limitations, treaty obligations, legal snags and loopholes, etc. However, so long as we keep justifying, by lazy reasoning, why the whole world and the most desperate and unproductive people in it can and should keep getting over on us, America will continue to decline. We will continue to import those prone to crime, those who can not feed themselves, and those who have no regard for our values or civilization, in grossly disproportionate numbers, and the social and political effects will continue to be devastating.

A nation can only afford so many imbeciles and parasites (not to mention traitors) who have no regard for anyone but themselves, let alone the Bill of Rights, before it is ordinary Americans fleeing for greener pastures. Assuming they can of course; many Americans (often veterans) are living in sprawling tent-cities in Cultural Marxist coastal utopias and are far from having the means to flee the dystopia our supposed elites have engendered.

Just because something is in someone's self-interest doesn't make it right, or even conscionable for that matter. Murder-for-hire may be in a man's interest; is the Cultural Marxist left ready to defend that? What about selling kilos of crystal meth? Very profitable, but not morally or legally defensible. Self-interest can really only be defended morally in limited contexts, within the confines of certain socio-political or economic systems. And even then, you'd be surprised at how quickly self-interest can begin to undermine not only the ends it seeks, but the general advantage.

There is a thin line between self-interest and parasitism. Whole nations can be and have been ruined by the ardent worship of self-interest. But I guess if you call the wholesale dismantling of a nation “social justice”, and aggressively silence all who disagree, pretty much anything can be justified.


-Amalric de Droevig



D.F. Mulder2018/11/200 Comments

 

What Happened To Civil Discourse In America?

It has become quite clear that American society is spiraling out of control. Our political culture in particular has become markedly toxic and polarized. Nobody seems to have a damned clue why that is, but what it really comes down to is almighty “diversity”, the left's godhead.

Diversity has dissolved the historic American nation. White Americans, whose values and heritage once defined the American nation, are being swallowed up by hordes of Third World peoples, peoples with different values, interests, and politics than white Americans. This all has been made possible by Cultural Marxist Western oligarchs who have weaponized anti-white hatred, and are waging a racial war for their own interests against the founding stock of the Republic.

You might say some of some of this is not inevitable, that this kind of political breakdown doesn't necessarily follow from “diversity” itself, and while you'd be technically correct, much of the breakdown and chaos we are now observing in American politics is nevertheless far more probable in highly diverse societies. Diversity creates the conditions for this kind of social, moral, intellectual, and political breakdown to occur.

You see, societies that are already divided are easy to divide further. Racial divisions are some of the deepest. You can gloss over them with Marxist palliatives and saccharine slogans, but race matters, it divides people, it influences people's thinking, it influences individual identities and even group norms, it also undermines both meritocracy and ethical objectivity. And that is to say nothing of the actual underlying genetic differences between human populations, which are not as small as our Cultural Marxist overlords would let on. Nor does it say anything about the fact that populations are generally less altruistic toward out-ethnics, and more likely to exploit them in illegal and unconscionable ways. People in diverse societies tend to get a palpable sense of the widespread parasitic exploitation (think: pornography) and racial animosity (think: racially driven mass shootings) floating around them like spring pollen, whether they want to get a sense of it or not.

The political left knows how to exploit race and racial grievance to great effect and it does so regularly, because racial divisions are there to exploit. Doing so is an extremely easy and effective electoral strategy. Trump seems to understand this intuitively, despite the fact that he only exploits racial grievance implicitly. The Cultural Marxist left, on the other hand, does so openly, brazenly and continually. Yet as it does, the media continues to pretend that Trump is the great divider, solely responsible for polarizing the nation, and the only one who plays racial politics with bad intentions. The white-haters and racial agitators who comprise the modern political left are all saints keen on correcting the supposed wrongs of history. They don't have any ignoble or racist intentions of their own. They don't want power, privilege, or wealth for themselves and their progeny, they're just impartially interested in social justice! Obviously!

Leftist intellectuals have been claiming “race isn't real” and “race doesn't matter” for decades. Yet when it comes time to stick it to whitey or to redistribute resources, leftists always seem to, deep down, almost instinctively know that race does matter and that it is quite real. At its core, anti-racism was always more of a psy-op than anything else. What our Cultural Marxist overlords were always really saying was: “whitey, race must not and should not matter to you, but it's sure as hell going to continue to matter to us”. Without white-hatred the left has nothing. It is the glue that binds Muslims and feminists together in the same political coalition. Anti-racism as a moral ideal was a way to disarm whites while the left went to work deconstructing white, Western civilization. The diabolical left's work is now mostly complete.

By sowing mistrust, undermining governmental competence and integrity, and by making all of American politics into both a racial head count and a tribal battle for government advantages, goodies, and perquisites, diversity has begun to crowd reason out of American democracy. Diversity breeds tribalism, and a tribal society doesn't have time or space for reason. Instead, factions are focused on their own tribal needs and prejudices. They don't have the ability or the luxury to think clearly or objectively about anything. So, if American politics looks increasingly raw and visceral, that's because it is.

People are hunkered down in their own foxholes. That should be obvious for most to see at this point. People aren't simply ideologically and informationally insulated and isolated however, that insulation is so extreme in some cases that it has begun to give rise to dangerous forms of zealotry. Much of the committedly Marxist left now believes that anything the right argues is inherently illegitimate. They don't merely want to insulate themselves from opposing views, they want to insulate the whole world from them, like good totalitarians. The left is aggressively and illiberally laboring to acquire a monopoly on ideas, because their ideas aren't really competitive in a free market. The problem is, that attitude on the left makes genuine democracy impossible, which is why the UK and Sweden are democracies in name only. In reality, these are medium firmness Cultural Marxist totalitarian states, where real dissent from the state religion / official ideology (diversity) has been criminalized, not just in fact, but in law. It isn't enough for the left to shame people who hold rightist ideas or ideals anymore (not that this was ever OK). Most on the left now earnestly believe that anyone with a dissenting view on race or sex or gender or sexual preference should be persecuted outright. That means they should be fired from their jobs, denied basic market or even governmental services, assaulted in the streets, that they should receive no protection from law enforcement, and they should be denied the ability to exercise their fundamental rights by violent, roving mobs of Neo-Bolsheviks (Antifa).

People who are hunkered down in their own foxholes, in dysfunctional societies where government extracts much from the people but represents them in only the most marginal sense, where resources are increasingly scarce and too many of them go to the wealthy and well-connected, those people don't think rationally, they can't think rationally. In other words, the political left has unleashed a spiritual, cultural, and racial Category 6 hurricane on America under the banner of diversity, the almighty god of the modern political left.

That hurricane is devouring everything in its path. When whites were 90% of the population, they had the luxury to mull over the merits of issues. Now that they are under 60% of the population, and one major political party has devoted itself to their racial destruction and dispossession, they no longer have that luxury. Whites are also beginning to understand that non-whites are simply going to vote as a cohesive unit, for their own racial interests, so what's the point of even debating? Whites are starting to think like a besieged [minority] population, and the non-whites with increasing political power and capital have never been interested in defending, let alone engaging in, open, unfettered, reasoned debate. So, the non-white, anti-white left isn't interested in reasoned debate, and whities and righties can no longer afford it. But where reason is outlawed, impossible, or impracticable, democracy can not really exist. Democracy depends upon reason (and speech), and unfortunately, there is simply very little reason left to be found in our political discourse (or free speech for that matter). And with California Democrats threatening to nuke the heartland, don't expect things to turn around anytime soon. The American Republic's days may be numbered.




D.F. Mulder2018/11/110 Comments

 

If Not For Double Standards

The Left Would Have No Standards At All

Jim Acosta did not assault a White House intern. However, he did, as Sarah Sanders tweeted, “get physical” with her, in the sense that there was physical contact caused by Acosta’s aggressive attempt to retain control of the microphone as she reached for it. Acosta was being rude and insolent, trying to monopolize the microphone after his turn was up, and denying his colleagues an opportunity to speak. Moreover, the intern was not in the wrong to try to wrest it from him. After all, it was the White House’s microphone, not Acosta’s, and the President had repeatedly stated it was time to proceed to the next questioner.

Nonetheless, despite what those on the right and the left would have you believe, the dissension and debate surrounding this little affair are not about battery, or Trump’s imaginary assault on the free press, which is neither free from government influence, ideological bias, or corporate co-option. The dissension and debate are really about the media’s duplicitous coverage of everything that happens in America.

That is also what the NFL kneeling hullabaloo was about. It wasn’t about disrespecting the flag or the police or the military. I mean, it was about that, but not really, not at the most basal level (partially because righties generally have no problem with offensive speech). What it was really about was ordinary Americans being fed up with the double standards. When football owners or players offend the fragile sensibilities of coastal elites and non-whites, the NFL is perfectly willing to crack down on the speech of owners or players via a rather heavy hand, but when owner or players offend the far more durable sensibilities of righties and whities, and degrade the things Middle Americans cherish, suddenly the NFL’s censorship department goes timid and mum.

The NFL punishes and curtails the free speech of “haters” (anyone the left disagrees with), righties and whities regularly (remember when it disallowed the Cowboys’ pro-cop helmet decals?). The NFL is only committed to free speech when that speech is for the “right causes” (i.e. causes based upon mathematical illiteracy and leftist delusions of persecution). However, if you penalize those who speak up for the supposed wrong cause, or restrict the speech of those who stand on the supposed wrong side of an issue or of history, you do not believe in free speech at all (That punishment/penalty can come from the government or from any other entity with the power to punish. Freedom of speech is not merely a legal value, it as a moral principle, which extends well beyond the bounds of the law and government power). Sadly, scant few institutions, sports leagues, or major corporations in America still believe in free speech anymore, which does not bode well for American democracy.

The NFL has routinely shown itself quite willing to restrict speech to grow profits or to burnish its image or to advance leftism or to protect the feelings of the left’s pet minority groups, so long as it was restricting the wrong causes, i.e. those of the “oppressor”. But suddenly it was willing to hemorrhage a third of its viewership on the altar of defending the free speech of radical black communists? It’s absolute madness, but it reveals something important about corporate censorship, namely that here in the West, corporate censorship is primarily about ideology, not profit. Ideology trumps profit almost every time. Sometimes ideology and profit go hand in hand, but when they don’t, Cultural Marxist ideology tends to win out, as it did in the NFL kneeling case.

Indeed, the NFL kneeling debacle reveals the underlying political agenda of corporations that crack down on rightist speech under the pretense of corporate profits. Corporations are generally willing to restrict rightist speech even when the words of players have had zero demonstrable effect on actual profits. They typically do so well before those world could even have had any negative commercial effect. As is likely the case with the Broward County vote counting mischief, the left likes to hide behind arguably legitimate justifications for what is really pure politics. Corporations consistently crack down on the speech of righties and whities because they want to, because it advances Cultural Marxism. Broward County election officials engage in electoral shenanigans because they want their left-wing allies elected. The left simply hides behind neutral or noble principles, like protecting corporate profits or ensuring every vote is counted, to advance its sick agenda. The justification, however, is always a front, never the cause.

The incident involving Acosta is actually quite similar to the Corey Lewandowski - Michelle Fields incident that occurred a few years back. In both cases there was a little bit of physical contact. Neither case was a genuine instance of criminal battery, however. Nevertheless, Acosta’s banishment from the White House was not really about battery. It was about his egregious breach of journalistic decorum, his refusal to behave respectfully, to cede the floor, his insolence, how far he was willing to take this laughable charade of #resistance to Trumpian fascism (a fascism which isn’t real, mind you). Acosta was banished for being a total dirtbag, not because he actually battered a White House intern, and nobody has ever been more deserving of White House excommunication.

However, observe how differently the media has treated these two events. Observe the double standards at work, as they are at work when Big Tech or any other corporate sector is silencing and censoring righties and whities versus the way major corporations and the press deal with the speech of non-whites and leftists. The pseudo-assault involving Acosta is treated as proof that Trump is a fascist. The pseudo-assault involving Lewandowski was also treated as proof that Trump is a fascist. In other words, no matter what actually happens, it is proof that Trump is a fascist according to the lying press. Lewandowski was called a megalomanic and a misogynist for touching Fields' arm, and his conduct supposedly proved that Trump was an incompetent manager, and that his campaign team was a gang of right-wing Brownshirts. As for Acosta? Well, he’s just a poor victim of Trumpian megalomania.

Americans just want a fair shake. They want consistent treatment for similar conduct. The problem is, you never get that under hard-left regimes. The left only cares about advancing its cause. It doesn’t care how much corruption and criminality, or how many double standards it has to employ, to advance that cause. So long as Americans live under the yoke of these insane Cultural Marxists, they will never get a fair shake, and they are rapidly beginning to understand that. Their own wrongs (the wrongs of whites, christians, the wealthy, etc.) will always be aggressively prosecuted, publicized, amplified, and offered up as proof to the masses of their deep moral turpitude, and the wrongs of their ideological adversaries (Acosta, Antifa, BLM, statue-smashers), those allied with the Cultural Marxist power structure, will always be condoned by MSM propaganda outlets, excused by law enforcement, and somehow justified by the powers that be, no matter how extreme or unconscionable those wrongs are. Nothing will really change until we are delivered as a people from this deranged power structure.

D.F. Mulder2018/11/040 Comments

 

What The Constitution Might Look Like

In The White Ethnostate

The solution to the mass-migration problem is not abolishing democracy or instituting a fascist regime, it is simply creating an ethnogenetic definition of citizenship and sticking it directly into the constitution of the country. Basically, jus sanguinis on steroids, or the Israeli approach, or perhaps something like it. Essentially, you want to weave the racial character of the nation into the nation’s highest laws.


If you opt for a fascist regime, you are basically guaranteeing a tremendous human toll (a death toll and a toll on essential human liberties). The extreme measures accompanying fascism are also simply not necessary to achieve our goals. They may solve the problem of achieving ethnogenetic stability, but they are not necessary to solve it. Whereas if you simply install a monarch you have not solved the problem of mass-migration at all. After all, a dictator can open the borders just as completely as your “democratic representatives”. Indeed, he/she can arguably do so more easily, since a monarch is not at all accountable to the citizens (see the oil-rich Gulf States as an example of this). Many who fault democracy for the West’s open-borders policy forget that white, Western peoples had almost no say in this sordid process of their own ethnic cleansing.


Their minds have been under total control by anti-white Cultural Marxist oligarchs for a century now. The gate-keepers in the press and power structure have been hiding the truth from the people, and shaming and conditioning the people into accepting values that guarantee their own demise for so long, that to connect the current existential predicament the Western World faces with “democracy” is simply absurd. Westerners were not truly given a choice regarding their displacement and gradual removal on the idea-level or on the institutional-level. Each time the people tried to assert their desires and interests, the Cultural Marxist power structure used every illiberal tactic imaginable to prevent them from getting their way, from speech restrictions, to schemes to control nominations and other electoral processes, to heavily financed propaganda campaigns, to simply buying representatives to ensure they wouldn’t carry out the will of the voters. Democracy has never really been the problem.


There are many ways to go about incorporating principles which achieve ethnogenetic stability in a population/nation, into the law. A draft constitutional amendment might read something like this:


Amendment X:


I) All children naturally born of two citizen parents shall be granted automatic citizenship upon birth (jus sanguinis).


II) All white individuals the world over (those native to the European continent or who can trace virtually all of their ancestry to the European continent) are eligible for citizenship, subject to approval by the federal courts.


III) The natural offspring of one citizen and one non-citizen, born within the territorial boundaries of the republic, shall be granted automatic citizenship when both parents are white, or when the non-citizen parent is a legal resident and not of an ethnoracial origin or cultural background abhorrent to the fundamental character of the republic.


IV) Children born to an illegal alien parent (or two illegal alien parents) within the territorial boundaries of the republic, shall not receive citizenship, no matter the facts or circumstances of the particular case, if either parent is of a racial origin or constitution abhorrent to the fundamental character of the republic.

However, if this is not so (if neither parent is of a racial constitution or a cultural background abhorrent to the fundamental character of the republic), the offspring may be granted citizenship subject to the approval of federal courts and naturalization laws, so long as the prospective citizen serves honorably in the armed forces, and endures a probationary period of significant duration, totaling no less than five and no more than ten years, whereby his/her suitability for citizenship in the republic is carefully scrutinized.


V) All adjudicated determinations relating to racial or cultural suitability for citizenship shall be final and not subject to appeal. However, those granted citizenship or provisional citizenship may have their citizenship or provisional citizenship revoked or rescinded within twelve years of the original ruling. Nevertheless, there shall be no judicial or formal appeals process. Rescission can only be achieved by executive order or action. Thus, after a ruling adverse to the government’s case, the government must appeal directly to the president to rescind court approval for citizenship. However, only approvals for citizenship may be overridden this way. Rejections on the grounds of cultural or racial unfitness may not be overridden by anyone, not even the president.


VI) No mass-migration of people shall ever be permitted to enter the republic by the border, by air, by water, or by any other means, even with apparent governmental consent. If any sitting president shall allow a large body of people to enter the nation, numbering in excess of .125% of the total population of the nation (in the aggregate, which is to say all refugees, asylum seekers, legal immigrants, visa recipients, etc. combined) in any five year period (even if some of this period began before the president’s term), the president shall be in dereliction of his duties as the people’s chief representative, and shall be immediately removable by law. He may be removed by a vote of a mere 1/4 of Congress or by a vote of a mere 1/4 of the public in a plebiscite. Both votes shall be mandated/ordered by the Supreme Court of the nation, upon legal action taken by any member of Congress to remove the President by vote, and by a showing in open court via a preponderance of the evidence, that the President is in violation of this article (Article VI of Amendment X) of the constitution. This amendment shall be construed to mean that even legal inflow or inflow pending legalization (which is to say any type of human inflow) into the country must by law occur at a pace slower than a number equivalent to .125% of the total population per five year period.


*Melanesians, Arabs (ethnic Arabs, not mere cultural Arabs), Sub-Saharan Africans, and peoples native to the Americas (or those with significant Native American ancestry) shall all be considered racial populations abhorrent to the fundamental character of the republic.*


**The term “cultural background” is broad and is meant to encompass religion, ideology, worldview, customs, values, etc. Muslims of every stripe and Marxists of every stripe (communists, Cultural Marxists, socialists, et al.) shall all be considered cultural backgrounds abhorrent to the fundamental character of the republic.**


***The backgrounds and origins of peoples here listed as cultural backgrounds and racial origins abhorrent to the fundamental character of the republic are fixed in law, and legally binding upon the courts as populations abhorrent to the fundamental character of the republic. However, these short lists shall not be considered in any way complete and exhaustive lists of cultural backgrounds and racial origins abhorrent to the fundamental character of the republic. The federal courts and the national congress can and should add to and augment these lists of excluded peoples and backgrounds in order to preserve the fundamental character of the republic.***


A constitutional amendment that looked like this would solve the mass-migration crisis confronting the Western World. Of course, strong borders and a bit of savagery wouldn’t hurt either, but the point is you don’t need to abolish democracy to achieve the goals of the Alt-Right. The problem we currently face is not the result of a flaw or weakness inherent to democracy itself. Actually, it’s really a matter of inartful legal drafting, to be perfectly honest. However, if whites do someday manage to break free from the anti-white Marxist lunatics who today lord over them, consider this blog post an outline for how to do it right the next time around.