As of this writing, it has barely been 24 hours since President Trump instructed the DOJ (Department of Justice) to ban “bump stocks,” the modification that enables a semiautomatic rifle to fire rounds at a rate of fire similar to that of a fully-automatic weapon. The Democrats already have hundreds of pages of proposed legislation to ban different types of weapons. This current directive of the President (via Presidential “Memorandum”) is heinous in the fact that it is yet completely undefined.
Nobody knows what “modifications” will be covered in a document banning them. The fact remains that it could be so loosely interpreted as to encompass any part or accessory not made by the manufacturer and included with the original firearm. This attack on firearms has been incremental and not unexpected: nobody thought the Democrats would cease their efforts with the current administration in office.
Then again, who would have thought an American President would cave in so readily at the behest of the liberal gun-grabbers and the “court of public opinion” on this matter?
I have written in numerous articles that the paradigm shift will continue to move to the left. It is taking a “breather” with the current administration…but society is still moving toward socialism in thought and action (termed “community”) as well as groupthink and redistribution of wealth (termed “social justice”). It’s not just the guns. There are other sectors that are rapidly moving in this direction.
In 2011, the Obama regime had one good thing that it put into place. The Department of Labor upheld that wages earned by waitresses, waiters, and other service people who are employed as bellhops, bartenders, and room service attendants…these people were entitled to keep their tips.
And why not? In the United States, is not a worker entitled to what they earn? Well, not anymore.
The Trump administration has approved of a DOL rule change that would make it mandatory for service people to share tips with others who do not directly interact with the customers being served. Sharing the wealth. Yes, this is now to include people who were forbidden to take any tips by law unless the server agreed to it, such as cooks, groundskeepers, and others. In addition, it is being ruled that employers now “own” the tips. Exit free enterprise, and time to crush another group of people and distribute the wealth.
You would have thought that Obama made this rule change and the President made the one in 2011, that’s how diametrically opposed to one another these rules are.
Now “tip pooling” that had previously been only able to be done with the consent of the employees can now be forced. This will also bring more income “into the light” for taxes. There’s another insidious vampire lurking in the wings…another “partner,” so to speak, on the stage to “craft” the demise of the tip: The National Restaurant Association. When this rule goes through, wage theft, overtime theft, and tip theft will run rampant…and the National Restaurant Association will benefit from the thefts (soon to be labeled as “appropriations” …the whole thing is termed a “rescission” under the Color of Law “reforms”) by the added income to restaurant owners that will trickle to them.
Oh, and the new rule would benefit the President: he would be able to keep and profit from his employees’ tips in all the different business that he owns.
And here’s an excerpt from one of the “prominents” of the restaurant industry, showing the new, politically-correct (and Socialist) thought that “must” govern tipped workers:
“Service comes from the entire restaurant,” says Dan Rafalin, managing partner at Avroko Hospitality Group, which owns and runs restaurants like Saxon and Parole and Genuine Roadside in New York City. “We believe that the cooks are part of the service experience and customer experience. We all come to work and we are in it together.”
Thanks, Daniel Rafalin! We’re in it together…so why aren’t you sharing your salary and the profits from your lovely organization with the employees? Why?
It is anent control, dominion, and redistribution of the wealth…to make everyone poor…everyone will wear the same uniform, have the same wage, and suffer under the same burden of taxes and profligate spending of those funds by politicians. It is all about exempting themselves and placing the burden on the citizens.
First, we have “flying monkey” Cruz with his perfectly-timed rampage that so conveniently sets up “changes” in existing firearms laws, and next, they’re doing more to place everyone on the same treadmill at exactly the same rates…the community collective…the group hive. The ones who “craft” the laws are fine with all of it: they are not subject to the laws themselves. They’ll continue to take the money…the worthless fiat currency that supports the phony, artificial system…that collapses eventually in the design of Cloward and Piven.
When they take the firearms, it will be a different matter. The “turtle and the scorpion,” and when that turtle takes the scorpion across the river, the scorpion will sting him. He must: he’s a scorpion. When they remove the firearms, just wait and see what they’ll do next. Want a preview? Read “The Gulag Archipelago” by Solzhenitsyn, and you’ll understand how it will be…if we allow it to happen. The odds are that nothing will be done…by us:
“All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” – Animal Farm by George Orwell
Men embracing their masculinity and biological heritage has not been the easiest path the past few years, at least, for those who care about being labeled a “toxic” curse hanging over the history of the world. For me, frankly, I am indifferent to the gnashing and wailing of feminists and the social justice cult. They are a paper tiger and always have been. Beyond that, it’s almost impossible to live in rural Montana without being a capable man (or living in a family with capable men), so even if I wanted to become some kind of liberal my-little-pony metrosexual, the environment simply would not allow for it. I would get eaten alive, or I would have to leave.
It is this lesson above all else that I would like to impart here — masculinity can only be abandoned when the environment is sterilized and controlled and entirely “safe.” Put any feminist out in an uncontrolled and dangerous environment (like the wilderness) for a few weeks, and it won’t be long before they will beg for someone with all those “toxic” masculine traits to come and help them.
In fact, though scientists rarely undertake any social experiments to explore this reality (due to science in our era being heavily tainted by identity politics and liberal bias), there are many examples of the vast differences between genders on display in survival shows such as the Bear Grylls show ‘The Island’. The British reality series originally featured a group of thirteen men left on an island with nothing but a few tools and the clothes on their backs. Their goal? Work together to survive for one full month.
After accusations of “sexism”, the show started its next season with a group of men and a group of women given the same task. The show had various versions and copycats in other nations, some featuring competitions between the men and the women, but the end result was invariably the same regardless of the country.
While having their own setbacks, the men’s groups do decidedly better in every case, not just because of superior strength, but also superior organizational ability (an evil masculine trait). In the American ‘Survivor’ version of this experiment, which had the groups in proximity to each other, the women inevitably depended on the men for aid.
The reality is, when push comes to shove society cannot function without psychological traits that are decidedly masculine. This is why matriarchal (or feminized) societies generally collapse or are highly dysfunctional and regressive. For an example outside of the jungle, read this article by a female entrepreneur who had a utopian idea to build a company made up only of women – a company which suffered complete gridlock and bankruptcy only two years later from employee discord and laziness.
Because of the inadequacies of a culture without strong male presence, feminism and “social justice” as ideologies instantly lend themselves to socialism and collectivism. In fact, it’s hard to separate one from the other.
Socialism provides the governmental and legal bubble that helps to protect people who cannot or will not protect themselves, and collectivism forces capable people (mostly men) to do all the hard labor necessary to keep a system functioning and safe “for the sake of the group,” whether they want to participate in that group or not. In the beginning this is done through taxation, entitlement programs and the centralizing of wages into metropolitan areas. In the end, it is done through unabashed slavery. If you want to see an example of this simply look up the end result of the Stalinist and Maoist models – a productive minority is always tasked (or forced) to feed, house and clothe the non-producing majority.
And this is how these people hope to live out their entire lives — blissfully sheltered from unpredictable environments that require technical know-how, independent ingenuity or decisive and sometimes violent action.
Feminism in particular seeks the destruction of all masculinity as a prerequisite to a supposedly safer world. To illustrate, take a look at this article published by the ever-establishment, ever-collectivist Bloomberg titled “How To Make Better Men.”
The article is typical propaganda, falsely associating masculinity first with institutions that do not define masculinity as well as attitudes that are not necessarily only attributed to men. The goal here, of course, is the demonization of men in general through association with already-established negative events and symbols. Bloomberg ties men and male behavior to the scandal surrounding the recent string of accusations of sexual aggression in politics and Hollywood.
To be sure, these institutions and industries in particular seem to attract a certain type of deviance, not that all the accusations made so far should be treated as fact. Prosecuting someone in the media and in the court of public opinion is not the same as prosecuting them in a court of law. The #MeToo movement is mostly a farce on par with the witch hunting displayed in The Crucible; relying solely on stirring the frothing fervor of the mob rather than generating facts and evidence.
That said, the cases that do seem to be provable illustrate a pattern of narcissism and sociopathy common in the entertainment industry and in politics, and this is a problem among men AND women within these cultural structures. Just look at Hillary Clinton and her treatment of the women that threatened her husband’s career.
And despite what feminists claim, narcissism and sociopathy are not inherently masculine traits. Many women display these character flaws constantly, but in slightly different ways from men.
Is it wrong for a man to pressure a woman into sexual activity through leverage or force? Of course. But is this a “masculine” behavior, or a sociopathic behavior? Bloomberg and the feminists want to condition you to assume the two are interchangeable.
Now, many other behaviors that have been wrongly attached to rape in order to demonize men are in fact masculine and are not negative. Is it an assault for a man to tell a woman on the street she looks good? No. Is it an assault to be direct with a woman or to pursue her for a relationship? No, as long as she doesn’t tell you to back the hell off then all is fair game. Is it an assault to look at a woman and think thoughts you would not share with your own mother (unless you are a freak)? No, not at all. In fact, you will find that many women PREFER a man that is direct over a man that walks on eggshells and is constantly apologizing for acting on what is biological and natural. It is feminists who are complaining about these behaviors, and feminists do not represent women in the slightest.
How do feminists plan to weed out masculine behavior that has sustained civilization since the beginning of recorded time? They hope to accomplish this through public schools. First by propagandizing children (like Bloomberg propagandizes their readers) into believing that traditionally masculine behaviors are “bad.” Boys should be more calm in class, sit still, be quiet, less high strung, they should cry more and share their feelings, they should be admonished for playing violent games such as war with sticks and their imaginations, they should be taught to be vulnerable and less ambitious, they should be, for all intents and purposes, feminized.
Beyond the circus of sexual issues dominating the media for the past few weeks or the feminist final solution, I will say that the violence of action is indeed a predominantly masculine characteristic, and honestly, we need far more of it.
It seems to me that feminism and social justice, whether knowingly or unknowingly, feed into the establishment power structure and allow it to thrive. Encouraging men to be weak, indecisive, indirect, fearful of group condemnation and fearful of their own aggression makes a society less secure and more malleable. Masculinity is often raw and unpredictable. It makes sense that potential tyrants would seek to diminish it so that they do not have to worry about sudden rebellion. In ancient times, invading armies would target the military age males of a culture and kill them off. They would then assimilate the women and children, and young boys would be raised to defend the banner of the conqueror.
Today, this is being done in a different manner. Men are being castrated symbolically in media and film, or castigated through our educational system as a nuisance. We are being encouraged to abandon all the qualities that make us a threat to the establishment, in the name of social tranquility. But of course, in the end only the establishment benefits, and “tranquility” is certainly not guaranteed once we fall on our own swords.
Believe it or not, though, I am hopeful.
The tides have been turning against the feminists and the social justice cult lately. And contrary to popular belief, this is NOT because of Donald Trump. If anything, Trump’s popularity is merely a reflection of the vast and growing backlash against the extreme left and the cultural Marxism they promote.
When there is a social backlash, it usually results in people immediately educating themselves on everything the offending movement originally condemned. Meaning, if the feminists hate it then it is probably good. Will this encourage men, and the millennial generation in particular, into finally pursuing technical prowess, physical and mental toughness, independence and self sufficiency, personal security and self defense and the ambition to build something better? Will our dwindling Western populations see a resurgence of child births? Will the newest Generation Z, growing up in the midst of an increasingly difficult economic environment, adhere to more masculine traits by necessity?
If there is any indication of such a return to masculine roots, it will probably become visible in 2018 as the influence of the feminist agenda continues to wane. We shall see. If not, then the Western world is in dire trouble. For if we do not make manliness “fashionable” again and soon, it might be bred out of our culture entirely. And with this loss, a cultural death is guaranteed.
***
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
After 8 long years of ultra-loose monetary policy from the Federal Reserve, it’s no secret that inflation is primed to soar. If your IRA or 401(k) is exposed to this threat, it’s critical to act now! That’s why thousands of Americans are moving their retirement into a Gold IRA. Learn how you can too with a free info kit on gold from Birch Gold Group. It reveals the little-known IRS Tax Law to move your IRA or 401(k) into gold. Click here to get your free Info Kit on Gold.
Over the past 18 months, there has been a significant increase in the frequency and severity of riots conducted by the extreme left. Their ranks are comprised of self-described anti-fascists, anarcho-communists, radical 3rd wave feminists, Black Lives Matter (BLM), and other social justice warriors (SJWs). They have attained great notoriety through their willingness to employ violence/intimidation, vandalize/loot private property, and engage in the very same behavior they accuse their ideological opponents of perpetrating. Tragically, innocent and non-interested bystanders often get caught in the cross hairs whilst they throw their violent temper tantrums. To add further cause for concern, these otherwise marginal groups are coalescing under the banner of “intersectionality” thereby effecting a swelling of their ranks, temerity, and menace.
However, as Professor Matthew Feinberg of the University of Toronto recently published a study confirming “extreme protest tactics reduce popular support for social movements.” Violent and destructive protests render peaceful protestors inept and guilty by association. The following summarizes the results of the study in greater detail:
“Social movements are critical agents of change that vary greatly in both tactics and popular support. Prior work shows that extreme protest tactics – actions that are highly counter-normative, disruptive, or harmful to others, including inflammatory rhetoric, blocking traffic, and damaging property – are effective for gaining publicity. However, we find across three experiments that extreme protest tactics decreased popular support for a given cause because they reduced feelings of identification with the movement. Though this effect obtained in tests of popular responses to extreme tactics used by animal rights, Black Lives Matter, and anti-Trump protests (Studies 1-3), we found that self-identified political activists were willing to use extreme tactics because they believed them to be effective for recruiting popular support (Studies 4a & 4b). The activist’s dilemma – wherein tactics that raise awareness also tend to reduce popular support – highlights a key challenge faced by social movements struggling to affect progressive change.”
To further illustrate the nature of such protests/riots a brief outline and analysis of the more notable examples will be provided in the following sections.
Berkeley Students Racist Barricade
In late October of 2016, a number of angry Berkeley SJWs barricaded a key bridge on campus to physically bar any white people from crossing. The objective of the protest was to secure more segregated spaces for people of color a.k.a. “spaces of color”. Any white person who attempted to breach the barricade was violently denied. The group also saw fit to post faux eviction notices on a private bookstore with the threat that “community action will continue to escalate” lest they cede the location to the student protesters for the purpose of transforming it into a “space of color.” Though obvious, it is worth explicitly recognizing the utter hypocrisy of this allegedly “anti-racist” group employing violence and threats against others based merely on the color of their skin for the sake of securing racially segregated spaces.
READ MORE:Video Shows this Cop Shoot at Minivan Full of Children, How is He Still a Cop?
Berkely Anti-Milo Riot
Riots erupted on February 1st, 2017 at the University of California at Berkeley over the arrival of the conservative celebrity and self-described “dangerous faggot” Milo Yiannopoulos. So-called anti-fascists and other SJWs were inciting mass violence, vandalism, and hysteria in order to prevent the gay interracial loving Jewish foreigner from peacefully expressing a political opinion that differs from their own. They firebombed the location where Milo’s event was to take place, pepper sprayed a female while being interviewed (and who was ironically offering words of respect to the non-violent protestors who showed up), burned Milo effigies, beat Milo supporters unconscious, and even violated neutral yet curious bystanders. It has repeatedly been made clear that as soon as a person of color, queer, woman, or Muslim expresses non-leftist/non-egalitarian views, the left will treat him/her with the same or even greater level of disdain and prejudice they accuse “right leaning” bogeymen of.
Yes, Yiannopoulos is a troll and says things to rile up the masses, but meeting free speech with violence only serves to empower your opposition.
Free speech was stomped on by the radical left at the birthplace of the free speech movement. The poorly named “anti-fascists” (a.k.a antifas) were the ones leading the violent charge to silence and censor the gay Jew. If the irony weren’t thick enough, the topic of Milo’s discussion was a critical examination of “cultural appropriation,” yet it seems the antifas took no issue with culturally appropriating the tactics of fascists and Nazis.
Presidential Inauguration Riots
On January 20, 2017, in Washington D.C. several hundred antifas, anarcho-communists, and other radical leftists came together to protest the presidential inauguration of Donald Trump. To the dismay of peaceful protestors and Trump supporters alike, the radical leftist rioters quickly resorted to tactics of violence and vandalism. Many were caught throwing bricks and blocks of concrete, breaking the windows of private businesses, violently clashing with and intimidating Trump supporters, setting cars on fire, and harassing defenseless trash cans. Before the day was done, over 200 rioters would be arrested. One may rest assured that engaging in such public, juvenile, and violent behavior is the surest way to secure a second term for the controversial commander in chief.
READ MORE:After Sending a Carrier Strike Group to Confront China, US Sends 3 Nuclear Bombers to the Pacific
Black Lives Matter (BLM) Riots
While most Black Live Matter protests across the country remain entirely peaceful the majority of the time, some of them, often with the help of outside instigators devolve into utter chaos. Examples of this chaos happened in August and September of 2016, when violent BLM protests devolved and riots broke out in Milwaukee, WI and Charlotte, NC respectively. In Milwaukee, BLM rioters set fires to gas stations, auto parts stores, banks, and several other businesses. There were also reports of rioters firing off guns, hurling bricks, and looting local grocery stores.
In Charlotte, BLM chaos erupted after a black police officer shot a black man. Rioters responded by shutting down an interstate and setting it ablaze, looting several private businesses, throwing rocks at random motorists, and even targeting white people for beat downs simply for being white. It’s fairly safe to say that if your cause is to diminish the ill effects that racism has on society and your community, then it’s probably best not to burn down local productive enterprises, hinder your community’s ability to travel safely, and beat down any white person you can find with extreme prejudice.
Women’s March
On January 21st, 2017 more than 2.5 million protestors participated in the worldwide “Women’s March” whose aim was to promote human, civil, and reproductive rights. Unlike the other examples, this protest was largely absent the more injurious elements of violence and intimidation. However, many of the same themes were promoted and other off-putting tactics used thus a brief examination is warranted.
READ MORE:Video Shows Cop Remove Suspect"s Handcuffs and Beg Him to Fight for His Freedom
Perhaps the most paradoxical feature of the protest was the ubiquitous presence of both vagina attire (ranging from subtle vagina shaped/colored headwear to ostentatious full bodied vagina costumes) and anti-“islamophobia” themes.
It’s amusing to consider how the average Muslim, in his capacity as a Muslim, would be absolutely mortified upon encountering a woman dressed as a giant pubic hair infested vagina. Such a costume must be the antithesis of the hijab.
Beyond this, of course, the majority of the march’s themes were anti-libertarian as they included support for anti-discrimination laws, tax-funded healthcare, and the subsidization of both contraceptives and abortion. It should go without saying that all such measures entail both theft and private property violations. Thus, to say this was a march for liberty would be a gross misnomer. It was instead a march for entitlements funded at liberty’s expense.
Conclusion
If one is sincerely opposed to racism, sexism, and fascism then it may be best for him to refrain from engaging in racist, sexist, and fascist means to support his cause. The fact these radical leftist factions utilize such means indicates a more sinister and subtle objective than the purported one of “social justice.” And unfortunately, any legitimate peaceful protests to stop injustice will be deemed illegitimate and the cause ignored as it will be immediately associated with violence. Aside from the societal damage created by such violence and intolerance, this divisive and obstinate environment plays right into the hands of those who want to keep you under control.
When objectively assessed, these violent protests are revealed as being among the most bigoted, hateful, and dangerous threats to the cause of liberty.
Chase Rachels is a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosopher and Austrian school economist. His studies were conducted through the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Prior to his anarchist inclinations, he was employed as an intelligence analyst with the United State Air Force. He has since authored the book “A Spontaneous Order: The Capitalist Case For A Stateless Society,” and hosts the “An-Cap Radio” YouTube series.
