Defining Cuckservatism

(NOTE: This is the first of a four-part series in which I intend to dissect the four main ideologies of modern American politics. The title is meant in no way to slander the right-wing broadly, as I am of the right-wing myself, and therefore to do so would be counterproductive.)

In the historical American political arena, many ideologies have risen and fallen over time, and the paradigm has shifted several times depending on the issues of the day. Often in its life, a political ideology or movement goes through a “life cycle” of sorts. Over several decades, it may rise from humble beginnings on the fringes to mainstream notice and success, then fizzle out and decline over time as the concerns of the people shift away from what the ideology offers. In the modern era, Americans are experiencing such a paradigm shift as did the postbellum political landscape. Neoconservatism, handily nicknamed cuckservatism, is one of the two main schools of thought of the dying order. In order to understand cuckservatism, this fact must be realized; more than anything else, it is an ideology on the way out.

The principles of cuckservatism are many, yet they often fall short in practice. The talking heads at the forefront of this archaic ideology write checks themed around the free market and immigration which its politicians and its cannot cash. These principles and ideas include; deregulation of businesses and enterprise, free trade, social conservatism, and open borders. There are flaws with each of these ideas, and examining each one at-length can determine exactly why cuckservatism and the current political establishment are failing.

The deregulation of business and enterprise is one of the main tenets of cuckservative economic policy. The cuckservative has a sort of simplistic, linear logic to justify unbridled belief in the free market: that is, if businessmen and corporations are given tax breaks and lax regulation, that will give them more money which they can then spend on enhancing the quality of life of their workers, or opening up new job opportunities. This, in turn — so says the cuckservative — will stimulate the economy. This logic works in theory, but is easily defeated when a simple question is asked; why would the businessman use the extra money to improve his business, and not himself? This has been tried in the past, and was the basis for President Ronald Reagan’s “Reaganomics” policy in the 1980’s. It, in turn, caused the wealth gap to soar and working-class wages to stagnate, precipitating the obscene modern wealth gap. In summation, this idea simply gives businessmen, a notoriously conniving bunch, too much credit, and relies too much of its integrity on a class of people who are not particularly known for their integrity.

The other main philosophical point of the economic policy of cuckservatism is free trade. Free trade is, in short, the belief that companies should be free to outsource workers and conduct trade with companies based abroad as they would please. This, the cuckservative claims, is best for the economy, as it allows for a diversified market and a steady flow of goods and services between nations. This economic policy is, yet again, inherently defective. Free trade has, in recent decades, posed a threat to the growth of enterprise within the United States, and has led to exponential growth of the same in nations with comparatively lower corporation taxes, such as China, Ireland, and Mexico. This has, of course, been to the detriment of the American worker, and to the benefit of the multinational corporations who have no loyalty to their country.

While the economic policy of cuckservatism is generally flagrant and lax with regard to treatment and government involvement, the social policy of cuckservatism is just the opposite; strict, and rigid. Social conservatism is the belief that people, with regard to sexual activity, drug use, and other morally ambiguous display or behavior, should be conservative with themselves. This is in polar contrast with social liberalism, which generally advocates for more “liberation” and moral relativity. Cuckservatives tend to be religious, which influences the brand or extremity of their individual social conservatism. Nevertheless, this is a statute which is generally universal among cuckservatives, and one that tends to be expressed across the broader right-wing. Personally, I have no problem with this sort of moral rigidity, and agree that openness about sex has gone too far. If there is one idea upheld by cuckservatism that will not die with it, it is this part of its ideology.

The second major social or domestic policy of cuckservatism is the one which sets it apart from other growing ideologies of the right-wing, and one which it is notorious for; open borders, and relaxed immigration policy in general. The cuckservative believes that the current state of immigration is only a problem insofar as illegal immigration remains an issue. Therefore, so long as illegal immigration is curbed, legal immigration should not be limited to any extent. The cuckservative position on this is its most glaring flaw, and ignores the basic realities of the problems concerning both legal and illegal immigration into the United States in modern times, such as the fact that the rate of even legal immigrants on welfare is almost double that of the rate of American citizens.

The reign of Cuckservatism over the political landscape has hitherto been one long, drawn-out experiment with Reaganite policy. Economically, cuckservative policy has resulted in the stagnation of wages and industrial employment, though to its credit it has created an explosion of innovation and information-based economic growth. Its social policy is understandable and even relatable, though many find its oft-religious overtones in poor taste. Its immigration policy is the most severe disappointment, as cuckservatism would willingly submit the values and borders of the country to an ever-rising tide of third-world migrants. All things considered, in a world increasingly informed by nationalism, it is easy to see why Cuckservatism has failed itself and its constituents. It is an archaic ideology that should go the way of other failed political ideologies, and be cast aside to the dustbin of history.

What Are the French Thinking?

On May 7, earlier today (at the time of writing this), the people of France were asked to decide between two starkly different future nations. The two candidates the first round of their presidential election had yielded were Marine Le Pen of the National Front, and Emmanuel Macron of “En Marche!”. The first round results could not have given the at-large French electorate a more deeply contrasting set of candidates. This fact was illustrated in their heated one-on-one debate just one week before the second-round vote, in which Le Pen rapidly descended into ad-hominem attack and frequent interruption of her opponent, while Macron sputtered and repeatedly called Le Pen’s stipulations “stupid,” a common leftist substitute for fact and reason. In summation, it was a French election of American proportions.

The candidates, in their platforms, presented to the people of France two extremely different messages. On one side, Madame Le Pen offered a return to territorial and monetary sovereignty, economic protectionism, nationalism, and a reassertion of French independence. On the other side, Macron presented further strengthening of the powers of the European Union, an increased amount of refugees, unbridled economic materialism, apathy to terrorism, and the further rotting of French culture and identity. These positions are echoed by the endorsements each candidate received in the run-up to the election; while Le Pen garnered the support of fellow nationalists such as President Vladimir Putin and Nigel Farage, Macron earned the affection of globalists such as Chancellor Angela Merkel, ex-President Barack Obama, and ex-President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker.

To the sensible outsider, the choice seems comparable to one between giving yourself a pay raise and shooting yourself in the face. One candidate directly sought to benefit the people of France in their platform, while the other sought primarily to boost the power of a rootless, bloated bureaucracy situated at the throats of its European member states. There was only one candidate who cared about the nation of France and her people; Marine Le Pen, the right-wing populist.

Given the fact that Le Pen’s agenda specifically called for reform of the social system, a temporary moratorium on immigration into France, and the implementation of tariffs to help revitalize French industry — all things yearned for and sorely needed in the Fifth Republic — it was readily assumed by most that Le Pen had some sort of decent shot at winning the presidency. This element of change was much-needed in France, as up to half of all young people and one-fifth of all citizens are unemployed. In addition, many assumed that she would have a “Brexit Effect”, in which polls would be found to have underestimated her support. All facts considered, it seemed like Le Pen would win — or, at the very least, lose a close race and shake France’s political world off its axis.

Yet, it was not to be that Le Pen would pull off another surprise victory for right-wing populism. Indeed, the final projection from France’s state TV outlet on the day of the election found that Macron would win with a deafening 65.5% of the vote, compared to just 34.5% for Le Pen. The actual result was even worse; Le Pen trailed Macron with 10.6 million votes, compared to 20.7 million for Macron, or 66.1% for Macron and 33.9% for Le Pen.

The answer to why Le Pen was defeated so resoundingly comes down to the demographics of the voters on either side. Voter demographics yield interesting results; while 39% of younger voters backed Le Pen, only 18% of elderly voters did. This is out-of-line with other elections of the same sort in recent years; both Brexit and the American presidential election showed that older voters were more likely to choose the populist option. As is often noted by political scientists, young people tend to be less likely to turnout than their older peers. As such, the main blow to Le Pen’s chances came at the hands of the more frequently-voting elderly age group.

Interestingly, however, the young actually tended to know more about Le Pen’s policies than did elderly voters. A segment for Freedomain Radio featured reporters asking voters on their opinions about the second-round candidates. Generally, the younger people asked were able to give more complex analyses on Le Pen’s policies, whether they supported her or not. By contrast, the main reason among the elderly for opposing the Front National’s leading lady was her alleged “racism,” and “xenophobia.”

From these interviews, we are able to garner this conclusion; the old oppose Le Pen because they have bought into the mainstream media’s anti-nationalist, anti-rightist narrative. They, therefore, turned out in droves to beat back the “fascist, racist, Nazi Madame Frexit,” as they did in 2002 when her father — another candidate slandered by state-controlled TV in France — made it to the second round. In doing so, they have thrown France on the sword of Islamism, and cast the fate of the nation to a man who regards terror as “something we must simply learn how to deal with as part of our everyday lives”. More than that, however, these interviews show that young people are not buying into the narrative set in front of them by the mainstream media. The fact that they were generally able to provide more detailed information about Le Pen than their aged cohorts shows that right-wing populism has a rising profile among European youth.

In any event, though May 7 was a battle lost for Le Pen, it was — in a sense — a victory for the long game that is the culture war. As young people turn to us for answers, increasingly disenfranchised by a mainstream left and right which are apathetic to their concerns, we must put ourselves in an ever-greater position of authority in their thoughts. In doing so, we can win the war, even if we have lost this battle.

To the French Youth (Fr/Eng)

Dear young people of France,

Le 7 mai, votre pays ira aux urnes pour déterminer le nouveau président de la nation. Comme votre système l’exige, et comme vous le savez, deux candidats ont été envoyés au vote final: Marine Le Pen de Front National et Emmanuel Macron de En Marche. Et le 7 mai, il n’y a pas d’autre choix logique pour vous, la jeunesse française, que Le Pen.

(On the 7th of May, your country will go to the polls to determine the new president of its nation. As your system dictates, and as you well know, two candidates have been sent to the runoff vote: Marine Le Pen of Front National and Emmanuel Macron of En Marche. And on May 7th, there is no other logical choice for you, French youth, than Le Pen.)

Il est essentiel pour d’établir des vérités fondamentales sur la société française et sur les jeunes français. La jeunesse de la France sont actuellement confrontée à une série de carrefours, sur une pléthore de niveaux. Vous, le jeune Français, etes présentez un carrefour financier et économique, car il existe beaucoup de doutes et d’incertitudes entourant la future stabilité économique de la France. Vous êtes confronté à un carrefour de la place de votre pays dans le monde, pour savoir si la France devrait continuer d’être une nation sans frontières de l’Europe collectiviste, ou prendre la barre et définir son propre destin. Enfin, et peut-être le plus important, votre culture et votre groupe ethnique font face à un carrefour, alors que le déclin des taux de natalité indigènes en France est confronté à une population migrante croissante, dont la plupart proviennent de cultures déficientes du Tiers-Monde.

(It is first paramount to establish basic truths about French society and about French young people. The youth of France currently face a series of crossroads, on a plethora of levels. You, French youth, are being presented with a financial and economic crossroads, as there is much doubt and uncertainty surrounding the future economic stability of France. You face a crossroads of your nation’s place in the world, as to whether France should continue to be a borderless nation of collectivist Europe, or take the helm and set the course of its own destiny. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, your culture and ethnic group face a crossroads, as declining indigenous birthrates in France are being pitted against a growing migrant population, most of whom originate from deficient, third-world cultures.)

D’abord, Marine Le Pen est le seul candidat qui vous offre une bonne réponse aux problèmes économiques qui affligent la France et à la situation économique future ambiguë de la France. Elle est la seule qui veillera à ce que vous, en tant que francophone natif, ne soient pas expulsés de la main-d’œuvre dans votre propre pays. Elle est la seule à promettre la fin des politiques économiques globalistes qui ont damné votre génération, car jusqu’à la moitié des Français âgés de moins de 21 ans sont au chômage. Plus pire que l’instauration d’une ère continue de la stagnation économique, l’adversaire de Le Pen, Macron, semble n’avoir aucun plan économique sain. Sa seule rhétorique sur la situation économique en France est de savoir comment l’internationalisme peut sauver la France, alors qu’elle ne l’a blessée que. Il ne vous donnera tout simplement pas un avenir économique stable.

(Firstly, Marine Le Pen is the only candidate which is offering you a sound answer to the economic troubles plaguing France, and to France’s ambiguous future economic position. She is the only one who will ensure that you, as a native-born Francophone, will not be driven out of the workforce in your own country. She is the only one promising an end to the globalistic economic policies which have damned your generation, as up to half of French people under the age of 21 are unemployed. Worse than ushering in a continued era of economic stagnation, Le Pen’s opponent, Macron, seems to have no sound economic plan at all. His only rhetoric on the economic situation in France has been about how internationalism can save France, when it has only harmed her. He will simply not give you a stable economic future.)

La place de la France dans le monde n’a pas encore été clairement définie par cette campagne. À la suite du fédéralisme politique et économique croissant de l’Union européenne, et en raison du fardeau économique que la France exerce en corrélation directe avec cette bureaucratie désastreuse, il est évident que la France ne peut en aucun cas continuer sa relation actuelle avec l’Union européenne. Si la France doit survivre au vingt-et-unième siècle siècle, elle doit affronter son chemin. Alors que Le Pen vous offre le salut de l’Union maligne de l’Union européenne dont le seul but est de supprimer lentement votre souveraineté nationale et individuelle, Macron promet un renouvellement et un renforcement de cette relation globaliste. Il est sourd aux épreuves que cette Union vous a présentées et au grand public français – et étant donné que des poids lourds à gauche tels que Jean-Claude Juncker, Barack Obama et Angela Merkel ont jeté leur poids derrière lui, ce n’est pas un tel surprisé pourquoi.

(France’s place in the world has also been made unclear by this campaign. As a result of the growing political and economic federalism of the European Union, and as a result of the economic burden which France is shouldering in direct correlation with this disastrous bureaucracy, it is obvious to see that France can in no way continue its current relationship with the European Union. If France is to survive the twenty-first century, it must charter its own path forward. While Le Pen offers you salvation from the malignant European Union whose sole purpose is to slowly do away with your national and individual sovereignty, Macron promises a renewal and strengthening of this globalistic relationship. He is deaf to the hardships which this Union have presented you and the general French public with — and given that leftwing heavyweights such as Jean-Claude Juncker, Barack Obama, and Angela Merkel have thrown their weight behind him, it is not such a surprise as to why.)

Le problème le plus dans cette élection imminente est l’affrontement culturel qui se déroule en France. Comme je suis sûr que vous êtes bien familiarisé, des millions de migrants sont entrés en France depuis le début de ce siècle. Aujourd’hui, la population indigène française s’écoule rapidement dans l’hiver démographique, la croissance de la population nationale française dépendant en grande partie de l’importation de nouveaux lots de tiers monde. Cela n’a créé que des problèmes négatifs pour la France, en particulier pour les jeunes Français. Pour la plupart, ces migrants ne sont pas qualifiés et sans instruction, et leur immigration a provoqué l’expansion de l’Etat-providence français. Cela a conduit de nombreux citoyens français indigènes et nés à être renvoyés pour l’assistance gouvernementale, alors que des dizaines de milliers de migrants du tiers monde collectent de l’argent des impôts français (sans rien donner en retour). Ils sont donc un drain sur l’Etat providence lucratif de la France, que les jeunes français au chômage ont besoin de plus que jamais. Plus que cela, cependant, beaucoup de ces migrants refusent de s’intégrer dans la culture de la France. Reguilerement, les majorités de ces populations de migrants nord-africains et arabes ont soutenu la loi charia en France. (Rappelez-vous, c’est une population qui vit en France). S’ils sont autorisés à dépasser démographiquement le groupe ethnique français, la France entrera dans un nouvel âge sombre dont il n’y aura pas de retour. Les jeunes féministes français connaîtront vraiment ce qu’est un patriarcat quand elles sont regardées face à tous les éléments oppressifs de cette culture envahissante. Ce n’est pas un avenir qu’ils devraient avoir à supporter, et seule une victoire de Le Pen peut garantir qu’ils n’ont jamais à le faire, car elle est le seul candidat des deux autres qui promet une réforme de l’immigration substantielle. Macron, d’autre part, a affirmé que les effets de l’immigration sont “impondérables” et a déclaré que les Français doivent simplement accepter le terrorisme dans leur vie quotidienne maintenant. Si cela ne vous effraie pas, jeune Français, je ne sais pas quoi dire.

(The far-and-away most important issue which this impending election rides on is the cultural clash taking place in France. As I am sure you are well acquainted with, millions of migrants have entered France since the beginning of this century. Today, the indigenous French population is quickly sinking into demographic winter, with the national French population growth largely relying on the importation of new batches of third-worlders. This has created nothing but negative issues for France, especially for young French people. Foremost, most of these migrants are unskilled and uneducated, and their immigration has caused the expansion of the weathered French welfare state. This has led to many indigenous, natural-born French citizens being turned away for government assistance — all while tens of thousands of third-world migrants collect French tax money (without giving anything in return). They are therefore a drain on France’s lucrative welfare state, which the unemployed French youth require now more than ever. More than this, however, many of these migrants refuse to integrate into the culture of France. Consistently, majorities of these populations of North African and Arabian migrants have been shown to support Sharia law in France. (Remember, this is a population that is GROWING in France). If they are allowed to demographically overtake the French ethnic group, France shall enter a new Dark Age from which there will be no return. Young French feminists will truly know what a patriarchy is when they are stared in the face with all the oppressive elements of this growing invader culture. This is not a future they should have to endure, and only a Le Pen victory can ensure that they never have to, as she is the only candidate of the remaining two who promises substantial immigration reform. Macron, on the other hand, has claimed that the effects of immigration are “imponderable” and has said that the French people must simply accept terrorism as a part of their daily lives now. If that does not terrify you, young Frenchman, I know not what will.)

La France se trouve à un point crucial de son histoire, et les jeunes de France sont au centre de cette conjoncture. Le choix du 7 mai est un choix entre deux futures pour vous, les jeunes française. Dans l’avenir de Macron, une Union européenne bureaucratique en pleine croissance continuera à empiéter sur la souveraineté et l’indépendance de la France, en finançant finalement la notion de liberté elle-même; L’économie française continuera à fléchir au milieu d’une marée renforcée d’accords commerciaux globalistes, nuisant encore plus aux perspectives d’emploi déjà ruinées de votre génération; La culture française continuera à se faner dans son propre pays, et vous pourriez vous retrouver dans une minorité dans votre pays à mesure que vous vieillissez. Dans l’avenir de Le Pen, la France réaffirmera son contrôle de ses propres politiques et de l’avenir dans tous les sens du mot, et un poignard sera jeté au coeur de la bureaucratie européenne gonflée; L’économie française verra une revitalisation, à mesure que le protectionnisme dans le commerce sera appliqué et la souveraineté monétaire sera rétablie en France; La réforme de l’immigration commencera, entraînant une résurgence des idéaux, des personnes et de la culture française en France.

(France finds itself at a crucial point in its history, and the young people of France are at the center of this juncture. The choice on May 7th is a choice between two futures for you, the French youth. In Macron’s future, a growing bureaucratic European Union will continue to encroach on the sovereignty and independence of France, ultimately killing the concept of liberty itself; the French economy will continue to spiral amid a reinforced tide of globalistic trade deals, further harming the already-ruined employment prospects of your generation; French culture will continue to wither in its own land, and you may well find yourself in a minority in your own country as you age. In Le Pen’s future, France will reassert its control of its own policies and future in every sense of the word, and a dagger shall be cast into the heart of the bloated European bureaucracy; the French economy will see a revitalization, as protectionism in trade will be enforced and monetary sovereignty will be reinstated to France; immigration reform will begin, prompting a resurgence of French ideals, people, and culture within France.)

Il n’y a qu’un seul choix pour vous, la jeunesse française. Votre avenir dépend vraiment de ce vote, et pour l’intérêt de votre peuple, et pour tous les peuples d’Europe, je vous prie de prendre la bonne décision.

(There is only one choice for you, French youth. Your future truly depends on this vote, and for the sake of not just your people, but for all the peoples of Europe, I pray you make the right decision.)

Sincerely,

John Duff, an American youth
(John Duff, un jeune americain)

President Trump’s Great Blunder

Consistently during the eighteen-month-long campaign trail, candidate Donald Trump built support for his presidential run upon a platform of populism and reasonably nationalist rhetoric. This resonated with a pleasantly-surprising amount of American voters, and Donald Trump was propelled to victory directly as a result of his nationalistic political flavor. His tone of reformation came in stark contrast to the mainstream Republican platform and set the deck for the death of old neoconservatism and the subsequent rise of a new brand of rightwing American politics, known to many as the alt-right.

It was commonplace in most political circles to believe that Trump, as he had skated to victory on the coattails of a grassroots, nationalist-filled movement, would continue to appeal to this ever-growing section of the population in office. For a time, this was the case. President Trump’s campaign promises manifested in the United States’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the institution of a travel ban from seven fundamentalist and war-torn Islamic nations, the unveiling of a plan to deport up to three million illegal aliens by the end of the year, and the attempted repealing and replacing of Obamacare.

However, over the past two weeks, President Trump’s tenure has taken a complete turn for the worse. Instead of staying the course of populism, and instead of remaining true to his isolationist “America First” slogan, President Trump has set the United States on the beaten path of neoconservative interventionism. The basic principle about interventionism is this: It does not work. It does not make anyone — neither the intervening country nor the supposedly oppressed people — safer, more free, or happier. It instead imposes instability and rife fundamentalism on the nation which has its affairs meddled with and a loss of military life and untold millions of taxpayer dollars on the nation which meddles. This pattern has been seen numerous times in recent history, from President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan in 2002 and 2003, to President Obama’s choice to meddle in Libya in 2011.

Despite the failed track record of interventionism, however, President Trump seems determined to continue this dysfunctional cycle, this time with the self-warring mess that is Syria. Following an unconfirmed report that President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for a gas attack which led to the deaths of multiple civilians in one of Assad’s own cities, President Trump ordered the launching of dozens of missiles at an Assad-controlled Syrian air base. This American air strike killed at least nine people. There is no reason why Assad would commit such a self-defeating attack against his own civilians, and it is worth mentioning that the sole existing report which concluded that Assad was responsible for the gas attack came from a Syria-based organization which supports the main rebel group, the Free Syrian Army. Trump’s administration has even moved the situation beyond this sole retaliation, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated in a press conference on Monday that “regime change [for Syria] is back on the table at this point in time.”

In addition to this misguided attack against Assad in Syria, President Trump has made other political moves which signal a break from the rhetoric used on the campaign trail. Trump chose to remove Steve Bannon, prominent alt-right pioneer and senior editor of the rightwing magazine Breitbart, from his post in the National Security Council. This move came following rumors that Bannon and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and another member of the NSC, were frequently arguing during meetings. It was even alleged that Bannon referred to Kushner as a cuck and a globalist in the War Room. Being that these two important members of Trump’s team of advisors were so at-odds, only one could conceivably remain on the NSC. President Trump, following rumors that Ivanka Trump (The President’s daughter and Kushner’s wife) had an emotional outburst in response to Bannon’s treatment of Kushner, chose Kushner. The fall of Bannon and strengthening of Kushner is itself symbolic of the fall of nationalistic populism and the rise of neoconservatism in the Trump administration.

The turnaround made by the Trump administration in its recent actions have left much of the pro-Trump base — us at The Duff Column included — reeling and in shock. Never had it occurred to any of Trump’s most avid supporter that the President would betray his campaign rhetoric in such a fundamental and drastic way. As a result of these large rhetorical changes, the right has become seismically split. Commentators and activists who supported Trump and are of the “New Right” from Ann Coulter to Richard Spencer have expressed disdain at Trump’s most recent moves, while neoconservatives such as Ben Shapiro and Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham have expressed favorable opinions.

To leave off, a simple question must be raised: What the hell is President Trump thinking? Intervention in Syria is an ill-informed and hammer-headed course of action that will, if history is any indicator, make neither Americans nor Syrians safer. The company who President Trump keeps on this issue is another clue that this move was the wrong one, as open border-shilling globalists such as Senators McCain and Graham are nothing short of malificent serpents who have made President Trump’s job more difficult from day one. As history scrawls the name of President Donald Trump in its texts, it must be reconsidered what it will write; “Savior of the American worker,” or “Just another in a long line of presidents hijacked by corporatism and the political class”?

Why Hillary Will Never Be President

test

In a recent interview at Tina Brown’s eighth annual “Women in the World Summit” in New York City — the first of its kind since her humiliating vanquishment in the 2016 presidential election — Hillary Clinton named the factors which, from her perspective, played the largest roles in her electoral defeat at the hands of Donald Trump. In this stiff and awkward excuse of an interview, Mrs. Clinton echoed the mainstream media and leftwing political class in blaming several people for her 306-to-232 electoral vote loss. Among those who had a finger pointed at them were FBI Director James Comey, the Russian government, and large swaths of the American population who Mrs. Clinton accused of holding misogynistic views. Unfortunately, all of these accusations are entirely misguided, and Mrs. Clinton has once again shown an out-of-touch viewpoint in this interview. Additionally, there is one extremely notable person missing from Mrs. Clinton’s list: Mrs. Clinton herself. To understand why this is the case, and to simultaneously remind ourselves of why Hillary Clinton will never win a presidential election as long as she lives, it is best to break down each one of Mrs. Clinton’s accusations and explain why they are simply farcical.

Over the course of the past several months, the entirety of the elite leftist political class has blamed the same alleged culprit for Hillary Clinton’s loss in the 2016 election: the government of the Russian Federation. It is presently alleged by Clinton’s Democratic cohorts in Congress that Russia dispatched up to 1,000 paid operatives to drum up falsified news stories about Mrs. Clinton in an effort to damage her credibility in key swing states. Moreover, the elected leftist partisans claim that Russia played a once-removed role in the hacking of Mrs. Clinton’s private email server, and the subsequent distribution of acquired emails to WikiLeaks. The latter claim is particularly of interest, for the simple fact that since the claim was originally made in late November of 2016, no solid evidence has surfaced which connects the Russian government to the hacking or distribution of Hillary Clinton’s 30,000 deleted emails. In fact, a report published by the Obama administration’s Homeland Security Department in December of 2016 concluded that there was no evidence of Russian transgressions in the United States’s election. Mrs. Clinton, however, appears to still be unfettered by the facts on this months-old claim, and continues to make it. Quite frankly, this shows her own self-delusion.

Another accused party in Mrs. Clinton’s post-election flury was FBI Director James Comey. The context for this assertion comes from the fact that Director Comey chose to reopen the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s usage of her private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State just eight days before the election. Though this indubitably harmed Mrs. Clinton’s performance at the ballot box, Director Comey’s decision was entirely legitimate, and even necessary. The investigation into the email server was closed very abruptly, and large amounts of new information arose following the closure — namely 30,000 deleted emails from the server in question which the FBI had not yet been able to scour through. As such, it was only ethical and justified that Director Comey reopen the investigation so that the FBI to examine these new emails and determine whether or not they contained evidence of a breach of conduct. On top of this, it is important to notethat Comey closed the investigation just six days later, and ruled that no information in the 30,000 new emails showed a breach of conduct on the part of Hillary Clinton. This makes Mrs. Clinton’s blaming of Comey totally moot, as any damage to her credibility done by the reopening of the investigation was reversed in Director Comey’s choice to close the investigation six days afterward.

In her first post-election interview, Mrs. Clinton could have signaled a break from her stale and out-of-date dialogue on gender politics. She did not. Her words laced with the absinthe of second-wave feminism, Mrs. Clinton railed against what she deemed to be a misogynistic electorate, declaring that “Certainly, misogyny played a role [in the loss]. That has to be admitted.” Mrs. Clinton’s apparent belief that her gender played a part in her defeat is completely unsubstantiated and easily disproved. In a November 2007 ABC News poll, 90% of respondents said that the fact that Hillary Clinton was a woman made them more likely to vote for her or left their likelihood to vote for her unchanged. In other words, the vast majority of voters do not care about what their candidate has between their legs. Again, Mrs. Clinton’s point is simply nonsensical when facts are consulted.

When in denial following a particularly devastating event, no greater coping mechanism exists than blaming others for your own faltering. Going so far as to blame the voters for her own demise at the polls, Hillary Clinton has shown that she has adopted this delusional way of thinking. In truth, Mrs. Clinton’s worst enemy is herself. It was Mrs. Clinton who alienated millions of voters with her elitist style and out-of-touch, tired rhetoric. It was Mrs. Clinton who blackened her record with scandal after scandal in her twenty-year-long political career. It was Mrs. Clinton who bowed to globalist elites in exchange for billions in donations, and who indebted herself to the likes of George Soros and Goldman-Sachs. It was Mrs. Clinton who ostracized the white working-class in favor of a social platform of prioritizing the interests and wants of illegal immigrants. Mrs. Clinton’s failures are her own, her political positions are her own, her words are her own, her past is her own. These are the real reasons for Mrs. Clinton’s perennial candidate status, and the culprit is embodied in her mirror. As Mrs. Clinton herself said, “That has to be admitted.”

Why Trumpenomics Works (REUPLOAD)

In the opening months of the presidential tenure of billionaire and former business mogul Donald Trump, there has been turmoil and instability in many areas of the political discourse. With the leftist and Cuckservative establishments alike raging against President Trump’s populist agenda, the President has found it difficult to make any sort of inroads towards positive change for the country. One such area where President Trump has found success, however, is in federal economic policy.

From the first week of his tenure, President Trump has been making consistent ground in repairing the economic structures of America. Indeed, these changes have shown positive results. Stock market values have risen by an average of 10% since President Trump took office. In addition, the federal trade deficit has been cut by 10% since January, and the national debt has been reduced by $12 billion. This positive change is reflected in Americans’ views of the economy. According to a Pew Reaearch survey released just days ago, 58% of Americans have a positive view of the economic prospects in America, whereas only 40% have a negative view. This, compared to the same survey in March 2016 showing that 51% of Americans had a negative view of the American economy’s direction, whereas just 44% had a positive view.

Though many leftists in the mainstream media and political establishment have claimed that Trump’s successes are merely coincidental, and that the true causation of the economic growth is former President Obama’s programs, these leftists are simply peddling yet another lie concocted to dampen President Trump’s popularity. In truth, the recent economic upturn can be attributed to Trump’s well-devised, thorough economic strategy (dubbed Trumpenomics for the purposes of this article). Trumpenomics is a unique economic structure, borne out of the rightwing populist revolt of the 2016 election. It infuses traditionally conservative attitudes towards reducing taxation, cutting expenditure, and relaxing regulation with populist reforms to trade policy, economic globalization, and unfettered corporatism. This infusion is itself the perfect formula for establishing economic stability and prosperity within the United States. To see why in full perspective, it is best to break down each part of Trumpenomics.

As previously stated, Trumpenomics has roots in old, Thatcherite conservatism. It as a structure calls for the reduction of taxes wherever possible, while simultaneously rolling back federal expenses to maintain a balanced budget. Since Trump’s has manifested itself in cuts to waste in the federal budget, such as the Clean Power Plan and international reproductive health aid. At the same time, Trumpenomics is a hands-off economic structure, minimizing governmental presence in an effort to stimulate the growth of the private sector. This economic ambition is itself right in-line with the old, traditional right’s position on federal involvement in the private sector, and has manifested itself in President Trump’s recent decision to do away with restrictions on the coal mining industry and his publicized choice to soon go after the Dodd-Frank banking regulations.

What sets Trumpenomics apart from more traditional rightwing economic systems, such as the Reaganomics of the 1980’s, is its more moderate, populist reforms in certain areas. Trumpenomics combats outsourcing and unfair trading policies which have harmed the American worker and small businessman for decades. It implements protectionism in an effort to revamp trading policy, implements border taxes and tariffs to combat outsourcing and harmful globalization, and puts in place semi-coercive economic measures to pressure companies to return manufacturing jobs to the United States. It also cuts the federal corporation tax to historic lows (according to President Trump’s proposed budget) in order to incentivize domestic growth and manufacturing within the borders of America. These measures are in heavy contrast to what the traditional conservative policy would be, which would be to open up free trade, embrace globalization rather than combat it, and maintain the corporation tax in order to incenvitize well-managed corporate spending.

When the ideals of Trumpenomics are fully implemented, it can be readily speculated that economic growth will be the primary end result. This brings the discussion to why Trumpenomics has resulted in economic benefit, or — to be frank — why it works. Trumpenomics works because of its focus on the wellbeing and prosperity of the American worker, company, and economy. At the expense of foreign workers, such as those of China, Mexico, Ireland and India, Trumpenomics secures renewed growth in the United States by luring manufacturers back to America through a number of aforementioned mediums. This is, in turn, a catalyst for economic growth through increased revenue, increased cash flow, and increased average household income. Consumer confidence rises as a result, as we’ve seen in recent weeks, spurring a cycle of job growth, stock market growth, and increased consumer spending. A similar tariff-based model was used throughout the 1950’s by President Dwight Eisenhower, and the 1950’s went down in history as one of the single most economically prosperous decades. After a decade of failed leftwing establishment and overall globalistic policy, now is as good a time as any for a new approach — especially one as logically sound, sensible, nationalistic and effective as Trumpenomics.

Christianity vs. Islam: A Comparison

During debates concerning the complex issue of the culture war which the west is rapidly finding itself embroiled in, those who defend the traditions and values of the western world are often confronted with a bald-faced lie about the west. This blatant mistruth goes far deeper than just a simple fib. It has far-reaching implications on the western world’s roots, and on every citizen who enjoys the freedoms they are afforded while inhabiting any country considered western. The lie is fundamental, and ignores basic facts about the ideologies which it concerns itself with.

The lie is this: That Islam, created in the early 600’s AD, is basically the same religion as Christianity, created following the death of Jesus Christ.

This dilusion, however untrue it may be, does have a grain of truth to it. It is true that Christianity and Islam are both considered religions within the Abrahamic family. However, this is only true because of the fact that Muhammad — the prophet of Islam — copied much of the text in the early versions of the Quran from the Hebrew Bible in an attempt to win over the Jewish merchants of Medina, a then-important economic center where he planned to get his ideology off the ground. Other than their loose textual ties, Christianity and Islam are in no way alike. Yet, progressives will blare this message all the same, in a futile attempt to convince the western world to befriend the serpent that is fundamentalist Islam, and in an attempt to quell fears of the violent and bigoted economic migrants which are flooding over the borders of Europe. In order to separate fact from fiction on this issue, the distinctions which exist between Islam and Christianity must be clearly highlighted and examined.

There are, essentially, two large differences between the religion of Islam and the religion of Christianity which make them totally incomparable. The first major contrast is the free will aspect of Islam and Christianity. In Christianity, free will is a concept which is intrinsic to the religion itself. It is the driving force for all decisions made by humans in the parables, is present through the Book of Genesis to the Book of Revelations, and it is openly ordained to the people throughout the Bible. In Galatians 5:13, for instance, it is stated: “You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh ; rather, serve one another humbly in love”. In this verse, Christ calls the disciples to follow in the footsteps of God, and to use their free will humbly. Whereas the Bible specifically concerns itself with the free will of man, however, the Quran openly coerces people into joining and staying in the religion, and into following the word of Allah as the doctrine commands. In Islam, for instance, there is no freedom of religion. Apostates are openly maligned and sentenced to death in the hadiths, as Sahih Bukhari 52:260 states: “…The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him'”. Additionally, in Islam, followers are commanded to follow certain laws and styles of dress which Allah dictates that they should. For example, in verse 24:31 of the Quran, it is stated: “And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers…”

Some in the business of Islam apologism will respond to the above facts by saying that Christianity also commands its followers take on certain ways of life. While those who would make this claim are correct, there is yet a distinction which must be made. In Christianity, there are suggestions made to Christian people, but strictly suggestions, with no legal component which can or would enforce such lifestyles. In Islam, however, there are no suggestions, only commands. This brings me to the second major contrast between Islam and Christianity, which is that Islam has a complete and functioning legal system, whereas Christianity has no such equivalent. Sharia Law, Islam’s aforementioned legal system, has codified laws concerning times of war, times of peace, military practices, taxation, foreign relations and diplomacy, domestic issues, economy, worship, education, punishments for most crimes, and every other facet of daily life. It even has a way in which it classifies different groups of people who live under an Islamic nation. In Sharia Law, Muslims are considered the superior group, while Christians and Jews are referred to as “dhimmi,” or second-class citizens, and atheists, apostates, homosexuals, and polytheists are regarded as unacceptable and are to be exterminated and struggled against. There exists no equivalent to this system in Christianity, which ordains its believers with the freedom to change religion, and only regards certain types of people and ways of life as sinful and urges its followers not to partake in those acts.

With regard to religious ideology, the discussion can often become confused and perverted by the mistruths perveyed by those who seek out the destruction of an institution. In the modern world, westerners are faced with such perverts as members of the progressive left, who distort the public image of Islam by comparing it to Christianity, the indisputable bedrock of the west. In truth, little is similar between these two ideologies. As immigration from the Islamic world into the west continues, and as the proportion of people in America and Europe who identify as Muslim continues to rise, restoring the true image of Islam as a religion of politics becomes increasingly important. Rooting out the snake of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism requires this, and the safety of every man, woman and child of the west require it in turn.

How to Fix Healthcare

Over the recent weeks, a hailstorm has erupted on the national political arena. This whirlwind comes not from the anticlimactic brawl over President Trump’s travel ban, nor from the unsubstantiated attacks made against the President concerning his nonexistent ties to the Russian Federation. No, the battle took place in the Capitol Building, over the healthcare policy of the nation. Essentially, the House of Representatives became divided into three factions with differing views on healthcare as an issue. The largest faction, the Democrats of the House, became the crybully vanguards of the Affordable Care Act which has been in effect for seven long years. Meanwhile, the Republican majority became two fragmented minorities. On the one hand, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and his moderate cronies (among them, I am sorry to say, President Trump himself) presented a new alternative to Obamacare, known as the Affordable Health Care Act. On the other hand, a sizable group of the House Republicans — called the Freedom Caucus — fought against implementation of the AHCA due to it not satisfying their concerns enough. In the end, the AHCA buckled under the pressure of a unified Democratic opposition and a rebellious Republican minority and was withdrawn from consideration by Speaker Ryan.

After the dust has settled, this topic has left many Americans with more questions than answers. Questions include; why was the AHCA not good enough for the Freedom Caucus? What is a viable alternative? What’s so wrong with Obamacare anyway? In order to push forward with progress on this issue, and in order to cease deadlock and infighting, these questions must be addressed.

Discussing the complex and oft-confusing topic of healthcare policy requires a crash course in Obamacare and its more intricate machinations. Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) was ratified into law in the year 2010 by a then-Democratic-controlled House, Senate and Oval Office. The bill guaranteed that all Americans would be provided some basic form of healthcare, and instituted an additional tax code system to subsidize insurance for those who did not have it. While this sounds like a fundamentally moral idea to many, this basic plan came with drawbacks and has manifested two major problems since its ratification. First; private health insurance companies have been hemmed into small regional and state boundaries by Obamacare, which has driven down competition in the marketplace and has been a major factor in the recent skyrocket in premium costs. Second; Obamacare has implemented a rigid and unfair system of taxation, which has taken money out of the pockets of hardworking Americans even though they were already covered. To put it as simply as possible, Obamacare’s system has a series of “approved” healthcare plans, and any citizen which is covered but not by an “approved” plan is not considered to be a participant in Obamacare. As such, these citizens — who make up the majority of American taxpayers — are penalized with an increasingly high additional tax, on top of the taxes they already pay. This goes against the milquetoast rhetoric which President Obama addressed the nation with in 2010, stating “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” In reality, Obamacare states, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, so long as you don’t mind being hit in the face once in a while.”

These existential problems within Obamacare are the reason why a majority of Americans have consistently shown an opposition to Obamacare in polls since 2011, and the reason why Republican lawmakers have introduced a plan to repeal and replace it now that Donald Trump is sitting President. However, Speaker Ryan’s Affordable Health Care Act does not address the aforementioned issues which are present in Obamacare. To its credit, it does cut the tax system which has so unjustifiably penalized tens of millions of Americans every year. On the contrary, it makes cuts to several programs which millions of Americans rely on and which have been in place long before Obamacare was ratified into law, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Moreover, it continues the restriction of private and state insurance companies or systems into small, tight-knit boundaries. These factors have led to an estimate by the CBO which states that an estimated 24 million Americans would lose healthcare coverage by 2026 if the AHCA were implemented. The reason why is easy to see; it makes cuts to the social safety net which so many rely on, without presenting something for those people to fall back on such as an unbounded private insurance system. In this sense, the AHCA can be seen as an Obamacare Lite, or a gutted version of the same system.

In short, the Freedom Caucus is in the right in this most recent congressional policy war. Obamacare is a broken system which requires a replacement. However, the AHCA does not fix Obamacare enough to be worthy of implementation. The system which is put in place post-Obamacare must be one which liberates taxpayers from retribution and simultaneously allows for greater private competition. If states and private companies are freed from their regional boundaries, they would all be able to compete with each other on a national scale. Competition has been thoroughly proven to drive down the cost of the product in-question, while also increasing the efficiency of the product. As such, freeing companies to compete wherever they would like would assuredly result in cheaper, better insurance policies for all citizens. Meanwhile, there should still be a social safety net — albeit a relaxed, reduced one — which covers those who cannot afford healthcare on their own.

As the cuckservative civil war over the AHCA bill draws to an end, and as the Freedom Caucus has vowed to push along with their advocacy for the repealing of Obamacare, we here at The Duff Column hope that a system is implemented which will benefit the American people and save the American economy.

The Impending Culture War

Since the inception of the western world, the most well-documented, powerful, and prosperous segment of the world in the history of the human species, there has been unprecedented growth and advancement in every facet of life. Historically, this has never come without its challenges, and the western world has consistently faced a myriad of challenges to its continued overall development and economic expansion. In the Middle Ages, the major obstacle was overcoming the Dark Ages, the Bubonic Plague, and consolidating agricultural technology. In the Renaissance Era, it was exploration and colonization of the New World, and solidifying cultural survival in the face of encroachment by the Ottoman Empire. In the 19th century, it was the advancement of education and scientific discovery in the wake of the Enlightenment period. In the early 20th century, it was the fight for women’s suffrage and inclusion in the workplace. In the late 20th century, it was the attainment of legal equality of the races, especially in America, in the face of Jim Crow laws and legal discrimination in public spaces. However, it is not the challenges of the past which should be the primary concern, but rather the challenges which lie in the near and distant future. In the present day, the unique bastion of liberty, happiness, prosperity, and civilization that is the western world faces its next great challenge.

Over the past few decades, the United States and Europe have been subject to the cumbersome and daunting task of facing their next great tribulation; demographic assault, and cultural clashing. Much of the source of this cultural clash, and by extension demographic clash, can be attributed to the mass, unchecked Islamic migration into western countries, especially into Europe. Though what is left of the established political class of Europe insist that there is nothing to worry about concerning this migration, the simple fact is that a slew of major issues have arisen as a result of the trickle into Europe thus far. The crisis has spiraled into such extremes that it threatens to envelope the entire west into culture war — in some cases, perhaps with its own citizens.

To reiterate, the source of the culture clash which is now manifesting itself is the cultures which are migrating into the west, particularly those influenced by the religion of Islam. The views and customs of the Islamic cultures migrating into Europe are simply incompatible with the fair and democratic values of the native Europeans. For instance, in eleven Islamic nations, it is still legal to execute homosexuals found guilty of sodomy. This is a popular policy with the Muslims living in the west, as 48% of British Muslims surveyed in one poll thought that homosexuality should be criminalized in Britain. In the west, the practice of killing or imprisoning openly gay people was abolished ages ago. In several Islamic countries, female genital mutilation of the clitoris is an accepted and even revered cultural practice, whereas in Europe this horror is seen for what it truly is; the senseless robbery of a sexual component from women’s bodies. Furthermore, women’s suffrage and even a woman’s right to drive are not guaranteed in much of the Islamic world, whereas these concepts are and have been universally implemented in the western world for decades. Many people see these facts and respond by attacking Christianity for its own historical misdeeds. However, it is important to remember that Christianity is not consulted in the law codes of any nation except Uganda, while up to twenty or so countries exist which use Islam to influence policy and codified laws. The Crusades, alas, do not make the systemic enslavement of women in Saudi Arabia permissible.

These polarizing cultural differences have, as one might readily assume, made it extremely difficult to assimilate and integrate Muslim migrants into European cultures. Worse, most European nations are not even trying to assimilate their migrants, such as Sweden, Belgium, and The Netherlands. This lack of assimilation has caused an exponential increase in crime rates in most of Europe, with an emphasis on rape, theft, and murder rates. However, many European nations have been slow to respond to these ugly truths, due to the perceived economic benefits of these migrants. As Europe civilized, incentive to have a large family faded, and the birthrates declined as a result. As such, European politicians and governments have sought to stabilize their populations by importing large third-world underclasses from Arabia and North Africa. In turn, this has caused and will continue to cause increasing amounts of demographic and ethnic clashing in European countries. To the native Europeans, this is a ghastly crime like no other; demographic replacement of them with people from far-flung places with no historical or ancestral ties to the land. To the migrants, this is both a holy and cultural victory; they will be able to secure a future for their posterity and their religion by breeding out the milquetoast, infertile indigenous Europeans. It does not take a genius to see how these opposing viewpoints can lead to violence from both sides very quickly.

In its long, winding history, the western world has thoroughly proven itself to be an ever-progressing land of innovation, rich cultural heritage, acceptance of ethnic and racial minorities, and freedom. Consistently in the history of Europe and America, these values have faced setbacks and outright threats to continuation. However, Europe always has persevered, and America always has thrived in the face of great challenges to their shared values. In its next trial, the impending culture war with Islam, Europe and the west in general will again show itself to be proud, strong, and protective of its people and heritage. It can do no different if it expects to survive as a cultural and economic institution. For, as the above picture clearly states: “You cannot coexist with people who want to kill you.”

Europe: A Continent Under Siege

In the summer months of 410 CE, the ancient, sumptuous Roman Empire was faced with an impending horde of barbarians. This nomadic tribe of marauders, the Visigoths, had pillaged, sacked and destoryed their way through the rest of uncivilized Europe (and some of the refined Roman outskirts) to thus be trodding on the gates of Rome itself. Led by their dreaded warrior-king, Alaric I, the Visigoths made their third attempt at taking the city in three years.

By all accounts, the Roman citizenry had seemingly nothing to worry about in terms of the risk of invasion of the city. The city’s defenses and garrisoned forces were revolutionary for the time period, and had proven effective in the previous two attempts at invasion made by the Visigoths in 408 and 409. However, the then-Emperor of the Roman Empire, Honorius, made a fatal mistake in terms of strategic defense in this particular altercation. Moving the aforementioned garrisoned forces to the eastern end of the city, Honorius had left the northern end of the city — defended only by the Salarian Gate — open to attack. It then only took a little bribary and coercion of the few freedmen guarding the Salarian Gate for the doors to be swung open for the Visigoth horde. They would come to pillage the city for three days, raping, slaughtering, and forcibly stealing much of the Roman population during this time. Important cultural and religious centers, such as the Gardens of Sallust, the Basilica of Julia, and the Basilica of Aemelia, were all burned and ransacked. Much of the city’s material wealth was plundered by the horde.

In much the same way that Emperor Honorius allowed the Salarian Gate to be opened to the vicious, barbarous Visigoths, so too does modern Europe find itself on the brink of doing the same thing. Taking the role of the pillaging Visigoths are the millions of North African, Arabic and Western Asian Islamic so-called “refugees” pouring into Europe by boat, land and air. Replacing the blundering Honorius is the great swindler of European politics, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany. Merkel, at first declaring the refugees to be in dire need of care and promising the people of Europe that the individuals would be well-vetted and only stay temporarily, is now engineering one of the greatest betrayals in the history of the world. It has now been proven that up to half of the refugee population in Germany — which now stands at approximately 1.8 million, according to “Die Welt,” — is undocumented and remain in Germany without having been invited in or checked by any government official. In addition, Merkel has recently gone back on her previous pledge to only accept one million refugees into Germany, proclaiming that there shall be no cap on the amount of refugees Germany will take at all. 

Merkel’s ultimate failure goes much farther than her own nation of Germany, however; for Merkel has also forced many of the European Union member states into accepting an indorinately high amount of Islamic refugees, as well. In all, up to 5 million people from the third-world have forced themselves into Europe since 2011. Most of them hail from countries not considered to be war zones or unstable regions, and so are not in need of asylum. Still, Merkel is happy to impose their subsidization on economically hollow nations such as Greece, France, Spain, Portugal and Italy all the same.

There are numerous reasons why this mass acceptance of large amounts of unchecked Islamic refugees is so problematic. First; the cultures which these refugees come from and bring to Europe are incompatible with western values. These refugees hold prenicious views on women’s rights, homosexuality, the rights of non-Muslims, apostates from Islam, individualism, education, and the like. However, many a rightwing political commentator have written pages upon pages on the ultra-backwards views of the Islamic world, and so to expand on this point any further would simply be vapid. Second; the economic benefit of these refugees borders on the nonexistent, while the economic burden they present is staggering. Take, for example, the 600,000 refugees admitted into Sweden in 2015. Of those 600,000, 72% of whom were military-age men, only 500 of them actually found employment. The rest of these refugees are, quite frankly, leeches on the state. They bask in the lavish social programs of their adopted Nordic country without putting anything into the system in return or respecting the culture of the indigenous Swedes. They are simply dead weight. Third; these refugees are prone — one might even say predisposed — to committing high levels of crime compared to the indigenous European populations. This is especially true of violent crimes. For instance, the rape rate in Sweden has risen by over 50% since 2012. While apologists in the Swedish government have blamed a piece of legislation passed in 2005 by the Swedish government which broadened the defintion of rape to include sexual assault, this does not explain why the surge only occurred after Sweden began importing a large underclass of Arabian and African Muslims in 2011. This trend can also be viewed in other European nations. In The Netherlands, for example, 45% of the prison population is made up of non-western immigrants, compared to only 36% of prisoners being actual Dutch people. Furthermore, 18% of crime suspects were of non-western origin, while only 0.8% of crime suspects were Dutch. In Oslo, Norway, 100% of assault rapes between strangers were committed by immigrant, non-western males in 2015. The list goes on.

In short, Europe is a continent poised on the edge of a precipice. It faces cultural invasion and utter destruction from the inside. In order to avoid this horrific reality, and in order to preserve the free, democratic Europe which the forefathers of our people sought to build, we must cast away the leaders which would give us up to the Visigoth hordes. We must, as Honorius and the Romans failed to do, keep our gates shut and secure.