Stop Me Before I Vote Again!

The title of this post is an ironic slogan from the 1980s. It was coined to mock the “term limits” movement, which was (and is) a push to restrict senators, congressmen, and other elected politicians to a fixed, small number of terms in office.

The idea of term limits is absurd on the face of it. Just think — its proponents want to pass a law to prevent people from voting for someone they might otherwise prefer to vote for. And expect sitting politicians to pass legislation that would shortly put them out of office — how likely is that? As a strategy for civic improvement it seems at best quixotic, and at worst authoritarian.

Yet I can sympathize with the movement’s advocates. Once they are firmly ensconced in office, congressbeings continue for decade after decade. They accumulate power and perks, become part of the corrupt D.C. apparatus, and cease to represent the interests of their constituents. Name recognition, face time on TV talk shows, and the franking privilege — the perk that allows them to spam their constituents as much as they like via the U.S. Mail without having to pay postage — give them a leg up against any upstarts who might challenge their sinecures.

To attempt to fix this corrupt system with term limits would be analogous to putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. The problem is far deeper and more systemic than can be corrected with yet more freedom-limiting legislation. Something in our social and political systems is obviously badly broken.

A similar process is underway in Western Europe. Even though the situation there is quite different from the bizarre political circus on this side of the Atlantic, the two political cultures have a major commonality: the political elites remain firmly entrenched in power without regard for the interests of the electorate. And yet that same electorate keeps voting for them over and over again in Europe, just as American voters do here.

This phenomenon first drew my attention back in the 1980s, when I read the results of opinion polls on mass immigration. Voters were (and are) overwhelmingly opposed to mass immigration. A substantial proportion of them considered it an extremely important issue. Back then it seemed a wonderful opportunity for some savvy politician to take up the issue as a means to gain elected office. Yet it was another thirty years before Donald Trump beat the odds to get elected president, and even then it was with a minority of the popular vote.

Immigration is the most prominent issue in the populist program, but there are many more — gay marriage, gun control, the push to completely cleanse the public square of religion, and other battlefronts in the culture wars. Voters have strong opinions about those things, but for some reason keep voting for politicians that ignore their concerns.

What’s going on here? Why don’t they ever throw the rascals out?

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Over at Western Rifle Shooters they have a slogan: “There Is No Voting Our Way Out of This”, or TINVOWOOT for short. Empirically speaking, that seems to be the case: the rascals remain in power and continue their rascally ways, election after election.

Strictly speaking, however, voters do have the power to change their leadership. The German people can still mark their ballots for the AfD, and if enough of them did so, the political situation in the country would change dramatically. But that doesn’t happen. Despite their opinion about immigration (as revealed by opinion polls) voters keep voting for the same old establishment parties, all of which support the importation of migrants. In Germany, TINVOWOOT is definitely the rule.

Last September, when I was interviewed by José Atento in Quebec, he asked me what I would advise people to do in order to reverse the Islamization of the West. I said, “The steps [that should be] taken are the same as everywhere: the people should vote for somebody else than the people they are usually voting for. But they don’t…”

For more than I decade I’ve been emphasizing that Islam is not the problem. It is simply a virulent pathogen that is taking advantage of a severely weakened host. Our political and cultural leaders are enabling the destruction of our societies by Muslims.

Yet those treasonous politicians and media snoids are not the problem, either. We, the voters of the West, keep putting those politicians in power. And we, the media consumers of the West, keep turning on the TV and listening to the talking heads who explain to us why all of this is a good and moral thing. In the USA — where media outlets depend on viewership to maintain their advertising revenues — the viewers tune in to the propaganda in sufficient numbers to keep MassMediaCorp awash in cash.

Once again, what’s going on here? Why do we keep doing these foolish things?

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

In the fifteen years since this blog was founded, I’ve grown weary of a constant refrain from commenters that goes something like this: We just need to stop all Muslim immigration, deport the ones who are here, close all the mosques, and ban the practice of Islam.

I say, “Yes, I agree. We need to do those things. But we don’t. Why is that?”

After fifteen years I see no sign that we, the political collective of the West, are any closer to enacting these sorts of changes. In that decade and a half things have actually gotten worse. There are more immigrants in our countries. There are more mosques. And our freedoms have been further curtailed to comply with the demands of sharia.

And all of this is happening despite the fact that a significant chunk of the electorate — a majority in many places — wants to do things differently. And also despite the fact that voters have access to alternative media outlets, which expose them to truths that are being ignored and obfuscated by the legacy media.

I told José Atento that I was mystified by the behavior of Western voters, and attributed it to collective insanity.

Yet that mass lunacy could only have been brought on by decades of mass media. Ordinary people don’t enter a mental Twilight Zone without some sort of inducement. I posit that being relentlessly bombarded by multiculti propaganda is most likely the proximate cause. In the case of younger people, especially those of “Generation Z”, that relentless propaganda is the only thing they’ve ever known, and it is now being further amplified within the hive mind of social media.

Political indoctrination in the “Free World” has achieved a level of effectiveness that Stalin and Goebbels could only have dreamed of. The Powers That Be have all but implemented thought control, to the point where the majority of people affected by it don’t even know they’re being manipulated.

Yet not everyone succumbs to the propaganda. If you’re reading this essay, chances are you haven’t been successfully brainwashed by the television. So what makes you different? Why are most of your colleagues, friends, and relatives in thrall to politically correct groupthink, while you escaped?

I don’t know the answers to these or any of the other questions. I just know they’re the ones we should be asking. Instead of talking about deporting them all, or obsessing on Bernie Sanders.

How are masses of people being so easily manipulated?

And how can enough of them be unplugged from the Matrix to make a difference?

33 thoughts on “Stop Me Before I Vote Again!

  1. Read and think for themselves instead of simply watching mindless drivel and having someone else do the thinking for them, is one suggested course. Sadly, that requires effort on the part of the individual who might run the risk of ostracization were it to become known that the person was thinking for him or her self and no longer running with the rest of the lemmings off of the cliff.
    I would say, “Make the effort mate. Just because everyone else is headed off the deep end doesn’t mean that you are required to.”

  2. I recently spent 14 days in my scandinavian homecountry, with no acces to the internet whatsoever, and consequently no acces to this or other similarly important sites. It turned into less of an inconvenience, more of an eye-opener. For the first time in many years i was stuck with a handfull of tv- and radio-channels, all of which are taxpayer-funded. I can understand how it is so easy to fall for the “approved” views relentlessly regurgitated by the “approved” media. If you have no acces to alternatives. But people do have alternatives, plenty of them, so the only reason i can think of , for not seeking information on alternative media is some sort of mental laziness. Confronting friends and family-members on the issue, their responses mostly begin with: ” Yeah, but…”, followed by some halfheartedly uttered : ” I know i should, but…”, “You’re right, but…”, in essence just excuses, and none of them very convincing. I can’t for the life of me explain this attitude; these are intelligent and well educated people, who more often than not think a lot about what they eat and drink. Yet when it comes to getting and staying informed, they’ll settle for the nicely displayed fastfood, the media take-away meals offering most convenience, the “truths” that are effortlessly swallowed and don’t require too much energy digesting. Voting will be accordingly. Convenience and laziness make manipulating masses a piece of cake. The internet, still a source of information (if you look in the proper places), is rapidly turning into the most formiddable tool ever, in the hands of the elites, not least thanks to social media/big tech. ” TINVOWOOT”, sad but true…

  3. Absolutely incomprehensible but absolutely correct Baron and like you say ac on, read and think for youself, be your own man, as my father used to say. So far I have managed to keep well away from the cliff edge, mainly through something that is rarely taught in school or any other scolastic enterprise and that is continued inquisitiveness-study, ask questions, and keep on asking questions. Have three grandchildren and I keep when possible encourage them to read and not to be afraid of asking questions-so far they all love reading, now it will necessary to encourage them to read beyond the fantasical nonsence so eagerly published. Sadly I do not envy these young people now being chanelled through the teaching in schools not to think too much for themselves, but to follow what is propagated by the establisment.

  4. I follow a lot of figures involved in the manosphere; the sequence of unlikely events that lead to men being red-pilled is similar to that which leads to independent thinking and breaking free from the matrix for those who are here. I believe that the best explanation is that it is almost impossible to tell or convince or convert someone before they are ready. They have to be at that point in their lives and in their thinking before they are receptive to the red pill, and it cannot come from outside them.

    For me, it took a particularly nasty act of infidelity and betrayal on the part of my then-wife before my anger and disgust with all things female eventually led me to a more rational explanation of what had happened, beta behaviors that contributed to my role in it, and then to larger issues of power between the sexes, male and female behaviors, and how to adapt and overcome to the disaster that is modern western male/female relations.

    I see that those who I know who think the same as me regarding the inundation of the West by third world savages and muslims, the destruction of traditional western values, cultural heritage, and history, the destruction of the working class and the offshoring of jobs along with the financialization of everything, are a very rare bird indeed, and have come to these conclusions independently when they were ready for such truths.

    I think the biggest thing that can help to give others the space to not feel shamed or ostracized for similar thoughts is the effort to revoke cancel culture and wokeness, especially through humor and laughing at it and humiliating the practitioners for what they are; namely prudish, humorless, shrill busybodies with an overgrown sense of moral indignation who walk about with a perpetual scowl and a perpetual rod shoved up inside their anal cavities. When such miserable shrews are so numerous that it is no longer unique to be one of them, the rebels among the youth will become those who mock the prevailing orthodoxy and adopt that which such nattering nabobs of wokeness are against as a display of defiance and rebellion. From this will come the movement to overturn the prevailing culture, it’s beliefs, and it’s symbols.

    • That’s probably the most optimistic thing I’ve ever seen you write, Moon.

      I do agree. Eventually the natural urge for rebellion will take over and dismantle SOME of the problems.

      But there remain others.

  5. “the push to completely cleanse the public square of religion, and other battlefronts in the culture wars. ”

    Well no, Islam is front and center in all Western countries.

  6. People know where their bread is buttered and how their social networks are maintained. Your family is also hostage. If you deviate, you are cast out. The press is controlled by people who refuse to countenance any honest discussion about Islam as a source of problems in either the 3rd World or the West. The Wall Street Journal blog is now censored. Comments about Islam, even if just quotations from the Koran, disappear within minutes. My state newspaper and the New York Times similarly.

  7. Another thing that must be tackled to combat group think is a particular notion propelling most educated liberals toward the left, and that is that intelligence requires a cynical attitude toward simple values such as love of country.

    I think that most professional people hesitate to acknowledge their conservatism because they believe it might undermine their intellectual credibility. Somehow we have arrived at the point where intelligence = skepticism toward all things and that idea infuses our understanding of being “educated” with a certain negative sensibility.

  8. It has to start with the schools and the parents. Take away their electronics until they are in their late teens. Teach them something other than the propaganda they currently get. Home schooling is fighting an uphill battle but home-schooled children are increasing in numbers. I don’t know what is being taught in charter schools, but it has to be better than the public schools. Private schools do a good job as far as I know (my sons both attended private schools, a military academy and a parochial school). We don’t pay attention to school boards and they simply rubber-stamp the administrations. When the kids get out they are already part of the hive. The ones that aren’t face horrible ostracism while in school, and a difficult time after school.

    Apparently working for a living opens up some eyes, or President Trump would never have been elected. Maybe we should re-institute the draft so that elites would have to associate with the regular people and find out what the world is really like.

    • My wife is no fan of charter schools. Now they are acting as a magnet for undisciplined kids on grants that allow them to attend almost free. She quoted me the experience of one of her friends who had a smart child with a friend that was also smart. The child’s friend has been withdrawn to another venue due to the chaos.

      Another unintended consequence because the parenting was not taken into account.

  9. Things may have gone far enough down that hive road that TINVOWOOT is the logical observation. Term limits do have their appeal but if things get to the point of having to avail ourselves of the Wilkes-Booth type of limit we will have proved that voting is no longer useful. At that point the guys over at Western Rifle have a couple of other terms: clown world and boogaloo, neither of which have pleasant connotations but may be all too real if we don’t head them off by some extraordinary thus-far unseen solution. Yes, Gramsci and Ayers did grease the slope. And clown world is already a reality. Beware the boogaloo!

    • Ideally we would have a universal male military draft at age 18 or as early as 16- 6 months to a year- consisting of intense infantry training after which all would be released and required to wait 6 months before those that want to enlist could do so. There would be no deferments for any reason other than serious and proven physical or mental disability. Come a real war there would be a pool of trained volunteers and a war draft for duty stations would not be required. The frantic opposition to the Draft as it was is due to fear of military things and fear that those who stayed in school would get a jump on draftees. A true universal draft with no deferments would eliminate almost all of that fear.

  10. Ever since our life in the Olduvai Gorge, our little tribes have been attacked, constantly fighting, fending off hungry angry men swooping in at night. We fixated on our own strong tall rough men to lead us and tell us what to do. There was no debating in the cave. We had to force someone to keep a fire going and mandate that even some of our smaller and weaker tribesmen would have to fight against the nearby tribe that was messing with our good hunting-and -gathering food sources. And occasionally we had to plan clever ways to attack huge mammals that liked to eat us. We did exactly what the big rough leader told us to do, even though trembling with fear. We had to persuade with force and strict ceremonies males to stick by their women and children. Our genes accordingly had to be commensurate with taking lots of orders and not having discussion and rhetoric. If we had all been thinking for ourselves we probably would not be here today. Courage, if present at all, was a reflex seen during the struggles for survival.

    Then we had agriculture. Then we had a little boredom. Then we had time to think a little. Then we had room to have behavior variation. Then we had some displays of independence and courage. But our genes haven’t yet caught up to our present day lives.

  11. Part of the problem is the two-party system. We were warned at the beginning about ‘factions’ and it is so. Voters are given a limited choice of two candidates, neither of whom is usually in the least attractive. But many vote anyway for one or the other, I’m hearing a lot f folks saying things like “I don’t like Bernie Sanders and any of his policies but if he’s the candidate I’ll vote for him to prevent orange man from winning”. It should be noted however that many people don’t bother to vote – nearly fifty percent in 2016. Thirty percent of british voters didn’t even turn out for the Brexit referendum.

    A second part of the problem is that people in general are lazy and apathetic. The idea that you can just turn up once every few years and cast a vote and then go back to sleep without having spent any time and effort to acquaint yourself with any of the issues and facts of political life is widespread.

    Another part of the problem is that people don’t get information, they get disinformation – from social media, TV networks, “newspapers” etc. It takes effort to be informed. How much more effort does it take to actually do something? And, as has been remarked, politics is not a spectator sport.

    Finally, as we see, nothing much changes because the elected aren’t the ones who truly have the power. They merely in most important cases take their instructions from the conglomerate of lobby groups, industry groups, oligarchs and military who really run things in concert with the entrenched bureaucracies that actually carry out, or don’t, the policies which filter through this enormous swamp.

  12. While I agree that laziness, habitual voting, and propaganda are important factors, there is something I like to point out that I consider to be The Big Flaw in democracy.

    People have a wide range of issues they care about. The economy, crime, the environment, education, health, etc. But when it comes to an election, they have only one vote. They cannot express all of these concerns with just one vote, so they have to choose. At the top of most people’s list is job security. So the politician who promises job security gets the vote, and the politician who promises to close the borders doesn’t.

    For any issue that isn’t high enough on the list, representatives can essentially do as they please. They won’t get voted out as long as they deliver (or are believed to be delivering) on more important issues.

    This is the case with mass immigration. People are against it , and consider it important, but don’t consider it important enough to influence their vote. For all those French who were against mass immigration, but still voted for Macron, what Macron was believed to deliver was more important than closing the borders.

    This is changing. Anti-immigration parties are gaining ground as mass immigration trickles up the ladder to become a voting issue.

    What to do? Keep plugging the importance of opposing mass immigration (and islamization). Convince people that it is important enough to become a voting issue, not just something to complain about.

    The real solution, in my opinion, is to enact more direct democracy. People should have more say in the actual laws and policies directly. If this were to happen, I imagine the political landscape would be very different.

    • Mob rule(democracy) always fails in the end, it is human nature to elect themselves to the treasury until it is broke. That is why the US is a Republic, if we can keep it.

      • So they just vote for whoever promises them the most access to the treasury instead. Your Republic doesn’t protect from this, as the massive welfare state and government debt testifies. With a direct say, you can at least stop some of the more insane spending.

    • It’s impossible to have anything resembling a popular opinion when the government gets too large. Direct democracy in a country of 320 million people is a fantasy, even if it did have some merit, which it doesn’t. See my post later on.

      • Smaller, more localised governments are an imporvement, but still do not address the problem of representatives passing whatever laws they like on low priority issues. For example, in my local council, we have many annoying nanny laws that people don’t like, but don’t get opposed because there are too many other, more important, things that people focus on. As to feasiblility, look up the ID2020 project. As creepy as it sounds, universal digital identity (which will not be stopped, for the very reason I described), will pave the way for direct democracy.

        Of course it’s not perfect. Nothing is. Some sort of hybrid representative/direct system, along with decentralization of powers would be needed. But it would still be better that the current system where we elect someone, and then hope they do the right thing.

        • Democracy’s always die from within at about 200 years, it is inevitable our western democracies will fail because of weak men and emotional women. With the invasion of the 3rd world, we will get military coups, strongmen and return of the Kings. The most strong and ruthless will rule and the weak will be ruled. We are living in that transformative era right now, so don’t be shocked when are democracies go under soon.

  13. The question of term limits is really part of a broader problem, which is how to structure the government in such a way as to meet the goals of the Constitution:

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution …”

    The theory of term limits is that an elected official who stays in office too long becomes identified with the power and wealth of the government rather than the people. So, get them out of office and let someone in who is not so beholden to the government power itself.

    The size of government itself is a critical factor. The debates were between those who favored small governments governing small regions (Jeffersonians) versus those who favored a large, powerful central government of unlimited size and power (Hamiltonians). One feature of a large government was that it became impossible to adequately represent the people. It was simply too large. So, control went to permanent, entrenched bureaucracies.

    The larger the government, the more remote from the population, and the more ability the government had to take off in directions that seemed insane to many, or most, actual people. The 1965 Hart Cellar Act opening up the US to immigration from all countries and all peoples is an example. The Roe vs. Wade Abortion decision was another. In both cases, the decision was made by people very remote from the actual population, but it affected all the people in the country.

    Rather than representative government, you want responsive government. And, responsive government requires a small government over a relatively limited region. I actually have no problem if California wishes to import millions of Hispanics, Africans, and Muslims. California itself is far too large; the single California government encompasses the most radical leftist communists, and also very conservative farmers. There is no way a single government could be responsive to both populations.

    The original concept of states was a collection of sovereign, mainly-independent sovereignties who came together in a confederation (federation) to promote their common interests in very limited directions, such as commerce, defense, and foreign relations. The more powerful the government becomes, the less discretion there is for differences in approach. For example, it would be virtually impossible now for a state to simply refuse to extend free education or free medical emergency care, or housing assistance, to non-citizens and their children.

    Anyway, I think focusing on term limits in itself is a red herring, with respect to structuring the government and polity so as to maintain the common welfare and identity.

    • I do have a problem if California wishes to import millions of Hispanics, Africans, and Muslims. The problem is that they don’t stay there, and even if they did it would result in California having even more electoral votes in the presidential election and more representation in the House of Representatives. Plus, it would result in even more Californian refugees fleeing to other states where free of the tyranny they just escaped they start agitating to create it in their new places of exile.

      I agree with you on term limits though.

      In my opinion, the size of the country and competing and conflicting regional interests and morality require that the country be split up into multiple countries, possibly joined in a loose association like the CIS or the british Commonwealth. That way, border controls could be emplaced to protect the rest of the former United States from the stupidity of California voters, and Appalachian citizens could keep their God, guns, and religion without interference from rich Eastern liberals. It will happen eventually, because the differences between regions are just too vast, and intolerance for dictates from one party to members of the other are only growing. Whether division takes place peacefully or violently is the million dollar question. My money says violently, because I am a pessimist. As an observer of human nature, doing the right thing at the right time when it can be kicked down the road for someone else’s generation to deal with is the extremely rare exception rather than the rule.

      • Yeah. I pretty much agree with you on the undesirability of California rejects and overflows, and on the necessity of splitting up with strong borders.

        I’m in the process of studying the Civil War. What comes through strongly to me is the necessity of a peaceful separation, even if it involves some forbearance and strategic retreat. Notice that Orban of Hungary stops just short of openly walking out of the EU. He’s walking the fine line between asserting sovereignty, and triggering sanctions or even invasion by the EU.

        Once war is actually engaged, it is generally the most centralized and totalitarian side that has an advantage, other things being equal.

        • The more centralized a faction is, the more consistantly ruthless it can be since policies can be directed that individual commanders or armies might otherwise be too squeamish to use.

          Using the example of the American Civil War, the Union government was able to use the navy to blockade Confederate ports and shut down commerce with Great Britain, against established law governing neutrals and trade with nations at war. The Confederates were counting on military victories and a successful incursion into Union territory to compel Britain to recognize them as a country and thus utilize their superior navy to break the illegal blockade of non-military goods.

          The Union was also able to direct it’s soldiers to live off the land, and to lay waste to the lands their armies passed through; Shenandoah Valley and Sherman’s March to the Sea being prime examples. Also, they were able to shut off the supply of immigrants to Southern ports which gave them an even greater manpower advantage against the South.

          As far as our present day situation is concerned, I think the advantage in a civil war or more likely, rural vs centers of population conflict tilt heavily at least initially in favor of guerrillas and rural combatants due to the vulnerability of population centers to attacks on unguarded infrastructure, and the difficulty of feeding large population centers once supply routes have been cut.

          I too, hope this does not come to pass, and a peaceful resolution can be found but I am not optimistic.

  14. Re: “There Is No Voting Our Way Out of This”

    The illusion of choice. That’s what this article is about. The people are told – and they believe – that they “have a choice” in how their respective nations are run. And after all, how can it be anything else when we have elections, polling places, public opinion polls, media and reporters breathlessly covering it all, campaign posters, stump speeches and all the rest of it?

    The illusion of choice, that’s how. The ruling class, the powers-that-be, the oligarchs, whatever you wish to call them – have so co-opted the system that no matter who you – the average voter – pull the lever for at election time, they get what they want.

    The game is rigged. Tails they win, heads you lose. In the U.S., we have the Democrats and Republicans, and the GOP establishment has fought against Donald Trump just as hard – maybe harder – than the Democrats. Why? They work for the same bosses – the oligarchs.

    Elections at the national level have been political theater for a long time, that is – until Donald Trump – a genuine “black swan” – came on the scene. That’s why the panic in the ruling class and its apparatchiks has been so severe; a person they don’t “own – whom they haven’t vetted and don’t control – has slipped through the net, and now sits in the president’s chair.

    Whether you love him, hate him, or fall someplace in between, it seems undeniable that one very great service Mr. Trump has done has been to tear the masks off all of the poseurs and imposters running around this country, saying that they work for the people.

  15. > How can enough of them be unplugged from the Matrix to make a difference?

    ORGANISE — EVER MORE “literature drives” and bugging normies online with “Hate”-Facts.

    Sheeple must learn INVASION is bad, and ***HOW BAD***.
    They must MAKE IT THEIR ***PRIORITY*** TO STOP IT.
    They must do MUCH MORE than vote once in 4 years.
    They must STOP BEING ***SPECTATORS***.
    In fact WE are mostly SPECTATORS ourselves, writing mostly to those who are already Awake.

    Unless we #GetTheNormies and those normies get more normies, growth of the Resistance will be horribly slow while the INVASION CONTINUES horribly fast.

    NB. use WORDS
    eg.
    Dissident: hey normie, we’re being replaced.
    Normie: that’s cool, yesterday I replaced my iphonie 12 with iphonie 13

    Dissident: demographic #WhiteGenocide
    Normie: Wait what now? That doesn’t sound good. Maybe I’ll put my iphonie 13 down for a minute.

    —–
    The Forces that are waging (demographic) war against Our World, did not start yesterday, so don’t expect to defeat them tomorrow.

  16. We are trying to turn around some 60 years of equality, anti-racism and democratic brainwashing that has taken hold in several of our generations AND has the support of big business benefiting from the low wage slavery of multiculturalism PLUS the enforcement by our own internal police etc against us.

    But there is the start of some better pro-nation parties now in Europe at least, Please do still vote for them. Look at how North Ireland Sinn Fein (IRA wing) almost became the top party and they didn’t even field candidates in all seats.

    We are in a counter-revolution that needs BOTH a political wing and a street action wing, that actually can show people results in acts for national freedoms.

    • Yes, a street action wing is definitely needed by the nationalist/populist right as an antidote to Antifa goons and to intimidate woke leaders, CEO’s who deplatform or refuse services based upon presumed or actual political affiliation, media mouthpieces who are blatant in their bias, etc. Two can certainly play the same game.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.