Civility in an uncivil age: Why polite rhetoric cannot reform a corrupt system

The problem with pearl-clutching ...

American Thinker 

In a recent op-ed excerpt from his forthcoming book, former Vice President Mike Pence made a familiar plea: "the next generation of conservative leaders must embrace civility."

Democracy, he argues, depends on “heavy doses” of it, avoiding personal attacks, modeling restraint, and pursuing principled compromise.

Pence’s call echoes a longstanding strain of institutionalist conservatism that values decorum and process above all.

Yet in the current political and cultural climate, this vision feels not just aspirational but dangerously detached from reality. 

I argued during President Trump’s first term in “The Trump Administration’s Disruptive Reform of Political Communication,” that traditional political discourse had become a genteel game that preserved a corrupt status quo. The old rules, polite euphemisms, carefully calibrated rhetoric, and refusal to name enemies plainly, rewarded stasis. They allowed entrenched interests in Washington, the media, academia, and the permanent bureaucracy to maintain power while ordinary Americans watched their borders dissolve, their jobs shipped overseas, their culture eroded, and their children’s futures mortgaged.

Trump’s breakthrough was not just bluster; it was a necessary disruption that reframed communication as a tool for reform rather than ritualistic preservation of elite norms. Conforming once again to those old conventions today would signal surrender, not strength.

Verbal civility and measured debate are luxuries afforded by functional systems operating in good faith. When the stakes involve systemic betrayal on a massive scale, they are meaningless instruments of defeat.

Consider the evidence all around us.

We have witnessed open and organized resistance to law enforcement, the threat of eliminating law enforcement altogether through "defunding police," violent protests that obstruct and risk the lives of ordinary citizens (every street obstructed by protesters risks the life, health, or safety of a person awaiting emergency services), and riots that destroy communities, only for political leaders and media allies to excuse or minimize the destruction while taxpayers foot the bill for rebuilding.

Billions wasted on corrupt boondoggles line the pockets of insiders with no real consequences. Endless ill-conceived policies, whether green energy fantasies, open borders, or regulatory strangulation sacrifice American jobs and futures while their architects face neither political reckoning nor legal accountability.  Prosecutors and judges repeatedly return violent and dangerous criminals to the street and shrug at the predictable carnage.

Nowhere is the righteous indignation more justified and evident than in the battles over our children.

Across school board hearings nationwide, parents have voiced raw outrage at teachers and administrators who betray their trust by facilitating social transitions of minors without parental knowledge or consent. Academia repeatedly surrenders our youth to incompetent, ill-conceived, or indoctrinating programs and practices that leave them vulnerable, broken, and incapable while blaming parents for "teacher's" hurdles. Young girls are forced to compete against biological males in sports, their dreams crushed and their voices silenced by accusations of “hate” for stating biological reality.

This is not policy disagreement; it is a profound moral violation that strikes at the heart of family, community, epistemic cohesion, and fundamental fairness.

The bureaucratic cruelty is on display in places like California. Los Angeles, under Mayor Karen Bass, provides another stark example. After California failed to competently prevent or prepare to fight devastating wildfires, its leaders heap insult and political castration on injury with years of bureaucratic obstruction.  

Citizens who lost everything are prevented from demolishing ruins and rebuilding homes, despite the pleas from a sitting president to slash red tape, and they even tried to prevent them from voting if they had to move away temporarily and didn't file the right paperwork.

Whether directed at the president or the poor citizen, the lesson is one of power politics.  "You don't have the power, and you can't make us."

A whole party deploys the power dynamics of an elementary school playground, with similar results.   A political system riddled with corruption that impairs basic governance demands more than gentle words. Polite petitions have repeatedly failed. Blunt exposure of failure is required.

We are still learning how deep is the rot caused by decades of appeals to identity and "truth to power" politics to corruptly achieve and retain power.  

Only recently we learned that institutions like the Southern Poverty Law Center,  which weaponized “hate” labels to smear dissenters, actually paid to perpetuate the hate it ostensibly opposes. In Minnesota, social services were managed with patterns of willful ignorance or worse, risking harm to vulnerable children and families through wanton misuse of resources.  All accomplished under the watch of those in power. 

These aren't isolated missteps but symptoms of a cesspool too wide and too deep for civility to bridge.  Some wrongs are so fundamental that responding with mere civility minimizes the scope of the damage and risks admitting defeat. Some betrayals cannot be condemned politely. When one side has abandoned reason, civilized norms, and the pursuit of any common good beyond retention of raw power, “heavy doses of civility” function as unilateral disarmament. 

The Democrat party’s trajectory, prioritizing power over governance, identity hierarchies over equality, and institutional capture over reasoned debate, has so betrayed the interests of working and investing Americans that traditional debate is obsolete. They do not seek compromise; they seek conquest of the culture and permanent dominance.

"Hell No!" is the gentlest possible rebuttal. 

The political and cultural war we face requires realism and strength. Conservatives must prioritize the best interests of U.S. citizens through secure borders, secure elections, economic opportunity, parental rights, rule of law, and national sovereignty, over performative decorum that the other side exploits.

Trump’s disruptive style proved that bold, unfiltered communication can break through institutional inertia, and contrived conventional wisdom and reconnect politics with the people. His governance has been real rather than performative, offering actual solutions rather than excuses and blame The next generation of leaders should not retreat to the comfortable rhetoric or timid governance of yesterday. They must confront systemic corruption head-on, with the clarity and urgency the moment demands. In an age this uncivil, only truthful disruption offers a path to genuine reform.

Podcast thread for May 29

 

what a day.

Exposing the Muslim Brotherhood’s Stealth Invasion of America

Townhall 

As the United States gears up to celebrate its 250th anniversary, I have watched with growing alarm as the freedoms we cherish have been systematically exploited by those who despise these very freedoms and use them to destroy America and American values. The chief offender of this systematic invasion is the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood motto declares, “Allah is our objective; the Koran is our constitution; the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” It has been executing a decades-long strategy of infiltration into America and the West. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented fact, revealed through raids, trials, and internal memoranda that the Brotherhood itself produced. But there’s more.

The Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna with the goal of re-establishing Islamic supremacy and ultimately a global caliphate in the wake of the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. While it often presents a public face of moderation, charity, and political engagement, its core ideology remains unchanged: gradual subversion of Western societies from within to impose Sharia. This is what they call “civilizational jihad.”

Emily Winkler, Founder and CEO of VALOP Group, has spent years working to expose the Brotherhood so Americans in specific and the West in general can understand who they are and the threats they pose, and ultimately how to counteract their dangerous influence. She notes clearly, “The Brotherhood’s agenda and ideology are largely not known in America. As an Islamist ideology and political movement, they seek to undermine Western democracy and reinstate an Islamic caliphate.”

One of the most damning exposures came with the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial — the largest terrorism-financing case in U.S. history. FBI agents seized “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” written in 1991 by Mohamed Akram. This document, entered into evidence and authenticated in federal court, lays out the plan clearly: “The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

The memorandum lists dozens of Brotherhood-linked organizations operating as fronts in the U.S., including the Muslim Students Association (MSA), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR and others were listed as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land case. These groups were not random charities; they formed part of a “Palestine Committee” tasked with supporting Hamas, the Brotherhood’s “Palestinian” arm, while building influence across American institutions.

“The Brotherhood is a fraternity of Islamic scholars, well placed, with a clear master plan. That plan, written in 1991, has 12 operational arms and numerous subdepartments, making a total of a 72-department infrastructure to achieve its goals across educational, social, political, and commercial realms to undermine Western democracy and replace it with Islamic rule,” Winkler notes. “Americans must understand the size of the threat – managing billions of dollars, and the depth of the penetration which cannot be underestimated or dismissed.”

Other examples abound. Brotherhood-linked figures gained access to the U.S. military chaplaincy program in the 1990s. They advised on policy, sat at interfaith tables, and positioned themselves as the moderate “voice of American Muslims” to government, media, and academia. CAIR, in particular, has mastered media influence and lawfare, pressuring critics into silence with accusations of “Islamophobia” while advancing narratives that align with Brotherhood goals.

Europe has faced parallel infiltration. In Britain, France, Germany, and beyond, Brotherhood-affiliated networks have established mosques, schools, and advocacy groups that promote parallel societies and Sharia-compliant norms. The 1982 document known as “The Project,” discovered in a raid in Switzerland, outlined a global framework for this long-term systematic cultural and political conquest. It emphasized building institutions, influencing education, and exploiting democratic freedoms to undermine Western democracy itself.

The Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) projects that the Brotherhood is at the halfway point of what appears to be a century-long plan, penetrating Western institutions — government agencies, universities, media, and even civil rights frameworks. They have formed tactical alliances with “progressive” causes, using issues like “Palestine” to mobilize and legitimize their presence while demonizing Israel and Jews.

Exposures have come repeatedly. The Holy Land Foundation convictions linked U.S. Brotherhood networks directly to Hamas funding. Investigations have revealed influence operations targeting Congress, the State Department, DHS, and DOJ. In Europe, intelligence reports and parliamentary inquiries have documented similar patterns. Yet too often, Western leaders have looked the other way, preferring “engagement” with these groups over confrontation, fearing accusations of bigotry or “Islamophobia,” and as the infiltration deepens, courting the Islamic vote and those of “progressives” who have become the chief apologists for Islamic infiltration. This naivete has allowed the wolf to operate in sheep’s clothing.

The danger of not exposing and counteracting the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence is urgent. Its ideology is not merely theological; it is political and supremacist. It views Western civilization, rooted in Judeo-Christian values, as the enemy to be subverted. Its success relies on our tolerance of the intolerant and our reluctance to name the threat. Recent moves in the U.S. and elsewhere to designate the Brotherhood and its affiliates as terrorist organizations are welcome and overdue. But the designation is only a first step.

America must vet immigration more rigorously, scrutinize foreign funding of mosques and institutions, reform “counter-extremism” programs that have sometimes empowered the wrong partners, and protect free speech so that citizens and officials can discuss these issues without fear. Educational curricula must present facts, not sanitized Brotherhood-approved and imposed narratives. Civil society — churches, synagogues, community groups - must reject partnerships that compromise core values.

The Brotherhood has been exposed time and again through its own words and actions. The question is whether the West will finally act with clarity and resolve this existential threat to America and the West. As Israel fights Brotherhood’s ideological spawn like Hamas – backed by Brotherhood-dominated states like Turkey and Qatar – on the frontline, those of us in the West who cherish our freedom must recognize that this is not a distant Middle Eastern problem. It is already in our front yard.

The time for denial is over. The evidence is public record. Civilizational jihad has been laid bare. Now is the moment for courageous leadership to defend the West before the house is sabotaged beyond repair and America’s next 250 years will be threatened from within. Our children’s future and the survival of the freedoms we hold dear depend on it.

You can’t have two winners in sports

You can’t have two winners in sports

It’s amazing what the Left is prepared to do to accommodate their obscene and ridiculous agenda.

Susan Quinn for American Thinker

It’s amazing what the Left is prepared to do to accommodate their obscene and ridiculous agenda. Now they’ve decided that to be “fair” to the devastated women who have been shut out of victories in women’s sports, they will award two “co-champions,” women and “trans” women, instead of dealing with the cold hard facts: men are winning in women’s sports and it’s a travesty.

The latest disaster occurred when the officials allowed a biological man to compete with the young women:

A controversial transgender high school track star has once again blown the competition away in three events at a competition in California on Saturday.

AB Hernandez, who was born male, won the girl's high jump, long jump and triple jump events at Saturday’s California Interscholastic Federation’s (CIF) Southern Section Track and Field Masters meet at Moorpark High School in Ventura County.

And it meant that girls who were comprehensively beaten had to share the top spot on the podium with Hernandez once again.

Principles have been discarded; morality has been ignored. Instead, we are supposed to show compassion for the poor, sexually-confused male, because he doesn’t want to be left out. Does anyone understand that this is an attack on women?

Jennifer Oliver, a parent who was interviewed by Outkick, provided this perspective after her daughter “lost” to Hernandez:

But Oliver says that [her criticism of the policies] doesn’t mean that she also dislikes Hernandez, or the way Hernandez has chosen to do life. It also doesn't mean that she doesn't have compassion and empathy for Hernandez.

‘There’s no hate,’ Oliver said. ‘None of that. My daughter is super inclusive. We get along with everybody. This has nothing to do with any of that. But we also need to do the right thing. My daughter is hoping the adults in charge will do the right thing.’

So what is the right thing?

For advocates of protecting girls’ and women’s sports, like Oliver, it’s easy. Fairness. Safety. Respect. [emphasis added]

Let’s explore the meaning of those terms: fairness, safety, respect. Fairnesssuggests that impartiality is required, a balance of perspectives. Fairness is sadly missing in this situation, because it doesn’t take into account the years that Oliver’s daughter invested to prepare for these competitions against other women. It’s also lacking fairness because as so often is pointed out in these situations, Hernandez has a male body and musculature, as well as some degree of testosterone (however small, it’s still much more than a female). It also isn’t fair because the participation of a “trans” individual actually violates the rules of the competition. How can a participant qualify to compete when he is not biologically a female? And what is fair about his defeating his competition when he is competing as a biological man?

Then there is the term, safety. In track, there are probably few physical risks to women who compete against men. But safety is most certainly a factor in other women’s sports, whether it is volleyball, soccer, or even baseball, where a man can pitch a baseball much harder than a woman and do serious damage if he hits a woman at-bat.

But now let’s look at the role of respect. First, do you think Hernandez has any respect for the rules and the women against whom he is competing? All he cares about is winning at any cost. How can a woman possibly respect a male competitor who is violating the rules for his own gain, at her expense?

And how are we supposed to respect the sports officials who are too busy covering their rear ends to realize what a travesty their decisions are to let this man compete? Do they really think that depriving the man and woman from being the sole winner is fair or respectful? By allowing “two winners” to stand on the podium, the officials have essentially admitted that they are wrong. As Mrs. Oliver said:

‘Biology is biology. We’re just hoping that they get this right next year. It’s time to do the right thing.’

I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Image generated by ChatGPT.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

Context for U.S. Oil Production

Sky News economics and data editor Ed Conway has produced another short and information filled segment looking at how the U.S. become the biggest oil producer in the world.  Well worth the 5-minutes and helps to contextualize many of the geopolitical shifts currently underway.  WATCH:

When you factor in the U.S. control over Venezuela oil production, well, things look even stronger.

Swatting Justice Barrett Was a Threat, Not a Prank

Swatting Justice Barrett Was a Threat, 

Not a Prank

David Manney for PJ Media

Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP, Pool

Police rushed to the Fairfax County, Va., home of Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett Wednesday night after a caller claimed gunshots had been heard. Officers arrived, coordinated with Supreme Court Police personnel assigned to the residence, determined that the report was false, and cleared the scene without additional police resources. Fairfax County Police confirmed the call came through the department's non-emergency line at 9:02 p.m. From Blaze Media:

A recording posted by a self-identified Washington, D.C., photographer purportedly documents a police dispatcher ordering a police response to the home of a "high-priority resident of the county."

The dispatcher informs the officer that personnel have been unable to call the complainant back, indicating that it may be a swatting incident.

"Units responding to suspicious noise. Be advised, we have not been able to get an answer on call back to the complainant's phone number. Unknown if it's going to be a swatting situation," she says.

"Just made contact with security that's on scene," a male officer says. "They should be outside in an Explorer. He said he hasn't heard anything. We're just going to meet up with him first, just to go over anything."

The photographer reported that the victim of the swatting incident was Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Call it what it is.

Swatting isn't some childish prank from a basement coward with too much internet access and too little conscience. It's a deliberate attempt to send armed officers into a tense scene built on lies.

The caller doesn't need to pull a trigger; he only needs to sow enough confusion, fear, and urgency for someone else to do it.

Justice Barrett sits on the highest court in the country. President Donald Trump nominated her in 2020, and she took her seat on Oct. 27, 2020. Her rulings affect constitutional rights, federal power, religious liberty, criminal law, business regulation, and daily American life in ways most people never see until the consequences land at their front door.

People can criticize her opinions, they can legally protest, and they can write, argue, organize, vote, and speak. Free government allows all of that because ordered liberty depends on open disagreement. 

Swatting lives in a darker place; it tries to replace argument with panic and persuasion with fear.

The FBI describes swatting as a malicious tactic in which someone makes a hoax report to emergency services, often claiming an immediate threat to life, to draw law enforcement to an unsuspecting target. 

Swatting is the malicious tactic of making hoax calls or reports to emergency services, typically feigning an immediate threat to life. Swatting is intended to draw a large response from SWAT teams or other law enforcement resources to an unsuspecting victim’s location, causing chaos and the potential for injury or violence.

Targets of swatting often include high-profile public figures, as well as schools, hospitals, places of worship, and centers of mass transportation, but anyone can be a victim. A swatting incident may be an isolated event targeting one victim or part of a larger coordinated effort to target multiple victims.

Swatting may be conducted to harass, intimidate, or retaliate against intended targets. It is a serious crime that can have deadly consequences due to confusion on the part of victims and responding officials, and that also diverts limited public safety resources from valid emergencies.

Threat actors often compile sensitive information from a wide range of publicly available sources, including online accounts, to develop invasive profiles of their targets. They leverage spoofing technology to anonymize their identities, using phone numbers, email addresses, and social media profiles to make it appear the false report is coming from the victim. Threat actors may also use compromised smart home devices to facilitate swatting attacks.

The FBI also warns that swatting can cause injury or violence, endanger victims and responding officers, and divert public safety resources from real emergencies.

Nobody should prevent the Barrett incident from appearing out of nowhere. In 2022, Nicholas John Rosketraveled to Maryland intending to kill Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Roske later pleaded guilty to attempted murder, and then-Attorney General Pam Bondi said the attack targeted the judicial system itself.

The DOJ sought at least 30 years, and Roske received 97 months in prison and lifetime supervised release.

Barrett's own family has faced threats, too. In March 2025, Charleston, S.C., police investigated a bomb threat involving Amanda Coney Williams, Barrett's sister, after an email claimed a pipe bomb had been placed in her mailbox. Police determined the threat was false, but the point of the act was obvious enough: frighten the target and their family. Make public service feel like a sentence.

Law enforcement should treat swatting against judges, elected officials, and public servants as a violent threat, not a nuisance call with better technology. Prosecutors should pursue every caller, helper, and online cheerleader who crossed into criminal conduct. The punishment should fit the created risk, not the luck of a peaceful ending.

America can't keep a constitutional system healthy while judges wonder whether the next false emergency call sends armed officers to their homes. Barrett didn't face a bad joke; she faced a manufactured crisis aimed at her home, her security detail, and the rule of law itself.

A country that allows cowards to outsource violence through a phone call will eventually watch one of those calls end exactly as intended.

U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra Discusses Trade Friction and USMCA Likelihood

Conservative Treehouse 

I never quite understood just how controlled the information flow is inside Canada until about two years ago when we began closely monitoring Canadian positioning for the upcoming USMCA (CUSMA) renegotiation/cancellation.  It quickly became obvious the majority of Canadians have no idea why it is almost a certainty the U.S. would exit the trilateral arrangement and position for a bilateral free trade agreement.

In the two years that have passed, now we see a few Canadians starting to realize the core issues of trade conflict that make any FTA between the U.S. and Canada almost impossible.  The largest issue centers around Canada’s net-zero carbon legislation that now completely disconnects them from aligned North American energy policy between the U.S. and Mexico.

A trilateral agreement requires core alignment on industrial manufacturing, and that requires similar abilities & similar energy policy.  You cannot make steel, iron and aluminum without coal and gas.  You need joules for heavy industrial manufacturing that cannot be achieved without exploiting coal, gas or oil (carbon materials).  Canada’s energy policy no longer aligns with industrial manufacturing. This core issue cannot be resolved at the current level of energy policy in Canada.

There are other issues like Canadian trade deals with China, non-tariff barriers, legislated rules over intellectual property and other points of significant friction that make alignment within North America challenging. However, the energy component makes compatible trade impossible.

In the interview below, U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra appears on a podcast with David Leis, for a blunt conversation about trade, pipelines, critical minerals, China, and why the U.S. is growing frustrated with Canada’s direction.  At the end Hoekstra even explains why he is doing Canadian podcasts; because information within Canada is restricted by the government control of media – and that explains why most Canadians are clueless about the issues.

I’ve prompted the interview to the point that gets into the details. If you are interested to be fully understanding of what is coming, this is a solid reference point. Also, if you have financial investments associated with Canada or any system that is connected to the economic relationship between the U.S. and Canada, you need to watch this interview to proactively defend your financial interests.  VIDEO PROMPTED:

Watch it or listen to this roughly 30 minutes (prompted) as you cook, drive or go about your day. But listen to it and see the disconnect between Canada and the USA as outlined.  Things are going to get much worse in this relationship as the finality of it all suddenly starts to sink in north of the border with the average Canadian.

Additionally, there’s another short segment on U.S-Canadian trade as discussed by U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer recently at a Council on Foreign Relations event.

QUESTION: “How serious is the fissures? Are the fissures with Canada, the rupture with Canada? And can you envisage USMCA being transformed into separate agreement with Mexico, separate agreement with Canada, or no agreement with Canada?”

USTR GREER: “Well, I would say that, you know, the team right now is in Mexico. My team, and they’re negotiating with Mexico on a bilateral basis. I speak with some regularity to my Canadian counterparts.

Our sense is that we have with Canada, you know, some some trade challenges, which, you know, to some people, you know, some people may think, oh, those are just irritants to us. They’re, they’re significant, and the reality is, we’ve spent the past year and a half going to countries, telling them we have to have some level of tariff on the globe to deal with this giant death that we’re dealing with, to try to reshore, etc.

And, and most countries have, you know, I know grudgingly, but they said we understand your policy, we understand so we’re going to negotiate with you, we’re going to remove some of these tariffs and non tariff barriers, etc. Canada’s approach has been different.

They like China retaliated against the United States. Two countries in the world retaliated against us, People’s Republic of China and Canada, so they’re just, they’re just in a different spot, and it’s, it’s hard to see necessarily where that ends.”

VIDEO PROMPTED:

IQ, Crime, Nobel Prizes, And Immigration: The Diversity That Is Destroying Western Civilization

 IQ, Crime, Nobel Prizes, And Immigration: 

The Diversity That Is Destroying Western Civilization

Like water, culture — if it’s not protected — will flow to the lowest point until equilibrium sets in.

Vince Coyner for American Thinker 

Sometimes data or information that seems completely disconnected can tell a story when taken together.  I experienced that recently.  Over the course of a few days I saw a number of posts on X that caught my attention.  First was a post stating that “Whites make up only 8% of the world’s population… so in fact, we are the minority.”  That 8% is down from a peak of approximately 25% in the 19th century.

Next I saw a post that featured a map of the world and showed the average IQ of the citizens. Hong Kong had the highest, with 107.7 while Somalia had the lowest 83.8. Both nations are largely homogeneous while the very diverse United States comes in at 101.  Generally sub-Saharan Africa has the lowest scores while eastern Asia has the highest.

Then I saw a post about Denmark and who commits crimes based on their nation of origin.  The data wasn’t pretty.  In every category from rape to attempted murder and everything in between, foreigners were far more likely to be the perpetrators than Danes.  Rape gives you an idea of exactly how the data played out:  Somalis were 20x more likely to commit rapes than Danes.  Syrians, 16x, Palestinians, 12x, Afghans, 11x, and Iraqis, 9x.  Somalis were 27x more likely to attempt to commit murder as well.

Then finally I saw a post that listed Nobel Prize winners by nationality.  The United States had by far the most, with 425, followed in second place by the U.K. with 114.  Of the 15 nations with the highest number of prizes, only one, Japan at #7 with 33, is the only one not from a largely white western nation. Of the one thousand or so prizes awarded since 1901, approximately 85% went to white males, 10% to women, 5% went to Asians, 2% to Latin Americans, and 1% to blacks. 

At this point I’ve got these disparate bits of information in my head, but nothing is quite clicking, but I’m certain there is something to be discerned. Then I realize I’m reading all of this on the backdrop of Europe and the rest of the West being invaded by people coming from the very nations that are on the bottom of those IQ score charts.  I say invaded, but in reality it’s more like the doors are being flung open by the globalist elites in Brussels and Washington.

Now of course, it has to be said that IQ scores are but one measure of a person.  Indeed, having a high IQ score doesn’t guarantee that someone is going to be a good or successful person. Both Ted Bundy and Ted Kaczynski were said to have IQs of approximately 136 while Mohammed Ali, known for his dazzling verbal agility, scored a 78.

Nonetheless, on a national scale there is a rather strong correlation between IQ and the wealth of a nation.  Which makes one question why the leaders of Western nations have been so adamant, for so long, that they must allow unfettered immigration from so many low IQ nations where the populations do not share the most fundamental of Western values?

The folly of such policies is legion.  Across Europe we read almost daily about women and children being rapedby “migrants,” not to mention churches burning and no-go zones where police fear to enter.  Across the United States, in addition to blatant fraud, a majority of immigrants are recipients of government largesse and basic services like schools and hospitals are overwhelmed.

The reality is, “diversity” for diversity’s sake is never, ever, a positive for Western civilization.

Now, of course the left will cry that not everyone from Somalia or Afghanistan or Nicaragua has an IQ in the eighties, and even if they did, they deserve an opportunity to better their lives.  Both statements may be true individually, but neither suggests why the West should open its doors to them in aggregate. The reality is, there are members of any group who perform — or in this case score on an IQ test — better than the majority of citizens of their countries.  And while it might be nice to identify and offer such people entry, that’s not how it works.  In both Europe and the United States, for far too long the borders have simply been erased and tens of millions of third world “refugees” have entered, bringing with them the very third-world values that kept their nations from succeeding in the first place.

The reality is, over the last 500 years, almost all of the advances that have come about that have improved the lives of mankind have come from white males living in Western civilizations. This is particularly true since the founding of the United States.  That doesn’t mean that others haven’t contributed or that the white males got or get everything right, because they most certainly didn’t.  But it does make one wonder why the leaders of the civilizations built by that group are so determined to destroy everything that they built in the name of diversity.

If the goal were to improve the lives of the less fortunate around the world, Western leaders would be exporting the things that made the West successful in the first place… Law and order, education, capitalism, the scientific method, limited government, individual freedom, Christianity, and equality under the law.  In general, these are the foundational elements that created prosperity and built Western civilization, and the third world immigrants who are streaming into the West share almost none of them, and few assimilate to them once they arrive.

That dichotomy is a grenade waiting to explode.  The crime chart from the formerly safe Denmark makes that perfectly clear, as does the use of welfare programs by immigrants in the United States.

But of course, it’s not just IQ. Indeed, in the United States we have a program whose applicants dovetail with high-IQ programs — H-1B — but that program is terribly problematic as it sacrifices American workers so that big businesses can import Indians and pay them less for the same work.  At the same time, east Asian nations, with the highest IQ scores in the world, are sorely lacking in the kinds of advances reflected in Nobel prizes, which in turn drive advances and prosperity.

The reality is, Western civilization, for all of its many, many faults, has given mankind most of the things that drive the world today: Automobiles, telephones, airplanes, MRI machines, computers, and much more.  And the world envies it.  How can you tell?  Because millions of people from around the world invade the United States, France, the U.K., Italy, Sweden, and more every year. But how many people do you see paying coyotes thousands of dollars to sneak them into Mexico or Cuba or Somalia or India or Lebanon?  Not many.

As the influence of these third world “migrants” grows, particularly Muslims, the West will find its unprecedented standard of living continue to decline.  High-trust societies cannot import those who have no regard for the cultures of their hosts. Like water, culture — if it’s not protected — will flow to the lowest point until equilibrium sets in.  With whites at 8% of the world’s population and the foundational values that built Western civilization under attack from within and without, that equilibrium is going to look far more like Beirut or Mogadishu or Caracas than it will London or New York or Paris at their peaks.  No, thank you….

Image: Public domain.

Will Francesca Hong Deploy the National Guard Against ICE Agents If She's Elected WI Governor?

Townhall 

We can see why Wisconsin Democrats might want to end socialist Francesca Hong's run for governor. In addition to defunding the police, she also has a radical proposal for dealing with ICE operations in the state of Wisconsin: use the National Guard to arrest ICE agents who are protecting Wisconsinites from illegal aliens.

Here's more:

Assembly Rep. Francesca Hong, a leading Democratic gubernatorial candidate, said on a left-wing podcast that if elected governor of Wisconsin, she would deploy the National Guard to arrest ICE agents in order to protect illegal immigrants living in the state, the Heartland Post has learned exclusively.

“I don’t want us to continue to rely on law enforfement,” Hong said during an October 31st appearance on Resistance Radio, “but if the National Guard has to be out here arresting ICE agents, you have to meet state-sanctioned violence with, you know, parts of the state sometimes.”

Hong, a Democratic Socialist who has repeatedly made inflammatory anti-ICE comments, was responding to a question from Resistance Radio host Dane Snudden about the importance of Wisconsin’s next governor adequately resisting President Trump.

"Fighting for Wisconsin people, knowing that you have the responsibility to protect everyone, it's gotta be done through both policy and communications and actions that set the tone," Hong said. "I don't want us to continue to rely on law enforcement, but if the National Guard has to be out here arresting ICE agents, that's ... you have to meet state-sanctioned violence with, you know, parts of the state sometimes."

Understand this, Wisconsin voters: Francesca Hong will make Wisconsin a haven for illegal aliens and criminals. She will abolish police, decriminalize everything, and turn Wisconsin into East Minnesota.

They do not. The chaos and societal collapse is the point.

Very wrong.

Make no mistake: there will still be law enforcement under Hong. But instead of arresting violent criminals, drug dealers, thieves and other criminals, they will arrest citizens who speak out against her regime and offend her socialist principles.

This isn't borderline insurrectionist rhetoric. It is insurrectionist rhetoric.

"Our National Guard members take an oath to defend Wisconsin and the United States — not serve as a Socialist secret police force deployed against federal law enforcement," the user notes.

Yes. Choose carefully. Vote for Tom Tiffany and end this insanity.

The crazy stops when we vote them out of office.

Like her Democrat colleague, Minnesota Lt. Governor Peggy Flanagan, Hong believes others should 'put their bodies on the line' for her political causes.

And no, Hong does not want to protect everyone. By abolishing the police and targeting ICE, she's protecting criminals and illegal aliens. Law-abiding Wisconsin residents will be the victims of their crimes.