For years, the political Left and Right have been constrained within the framework of democratic labels. Even within functional constitutional republics, democratic principles determined the political discourse. Ideological labels, such as “left” and “right” were hijacked by parties seeking to achieve success within voting mechanisms.

Identity Dixie –

The Social-Democratic Party of Sweden, Christian Democratic Union of Germany, Republican Party of the United States, or the Labour Party of the United Kingdom are examples of parties that effectively announce their ideological position within the body of their names – even if they do not necessarily act in a manner consistent with that position when they are in power. The only genuine exception to this rule in the Western world are the names of the dominant political parties of Ireland, all of which embrace names that are decidedly nationalistic and do not fall within the general framework of values that point toward a left-right dichotomy: [in parliamentary order at this time] Fianna Fail (“Soldiers of Destiny”), Sinn Fein (‘Ourselves Alone”), and Fine Gael (“Tribe of the Irish”). Ireland seems to provide an inadvertent clue as to the direction of the rest of the world.

The Irish political lurch toward a different political identity may explain where we are in a new global philosophical era, not necessarily a new world order. The symmetry of the political actors regardless as to the country of origin seems extraordinarily in lockstep. They all seem to have embraced a global death cult and it explains many of the confounding policies from Covid-19 protocols to mass migrant invasions to transgender insanity. The political Left now stands for death; the political Right now stands for survival.

Whereas “death cult” may seem hyperbolic, our world is led by a small group of people who seem to have embraced the idea that the world is overpopulated and will continue to exceed available resources. At the same time, given the language related to climate change rhetoric, human beings are intrinsically problematic. After all, it is not merely constrained to vehicle emissions or methane producing domesticated animals that are considered causes for climate change. A variety of factors are determined to contribute to CO2 emissions, from unnatural home placement to so-called systemic racism. As such, global elites effectively want you dead. They want a smaller global population.

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has openly stated that the world population should be halved. Influential Stanford University Professor Paul Ehrlich is often quoted by climate change proponents due to his “Population Bomb” theory. He has repeatedly stated that the world population should be at 1.5 billion to remain stable. We stand at 8.1 billion today. Therefore, in order to reach Ehrlich’s numbers, we would have to lose approximately 6.6 billion people in some manner while stopping fertility for some period of time. Bill Gates, in 2010, famously stated on a Ted Talk that he hoped to reduce the population by 10 – 15% in the next decade through the use of vaccines and other control mechanisms. The mysterious Georgia Guidestones stated as one of its commandments, “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.” But how would this be achieved? The answer is simple: policy initiatives on a country-by-country basis through exploiting the democratic process.

At present, the manipulation of a variety of emotionally driven decision making has led to policy initiatives that are intentionally designed to dismantle virtuous, moral society and nationalist sentiment. This is done under the guise of “equality” and “freedom,” as well as “world peace,” but it is intertwined with depopulation initiatives. It is not an accident that pro-life policies and pro-nationalist sentiment are often characterized as undemocratic and antagonistic toward freedom. By “pro-life,” I do not mean the constrained American definition that largely relates to abortion. Rather, I mean positions that seek to preserve or expand humankind.

Abortion is, by definition, an anti-life procedure. Whether one wishes to debate the point at which life manifests itself is irrelevant. The end result of an abortion is that a life will not be born. Those opposed to abortion are deemed “anti-freedom” by women’s “choice” activists. The actual debate as to the morality of the procedure is not really the point. The fact is, abortion is an important tool as it pertains to population control. Pro-abortion acolytes have said as much – whether it is by means of a desire to fund abortions through overseas women’s reproductive health programming or through “family planning” initiatives in the United States and the West. Abortion is a population limiting tool.

Correspondingly, another population limiting tool is homosexuality and other mechanisms of sexual dysphoria. LGBT activists will take exception to the fact that they cannot have children naturally while engaged exclusively within the parameters of their chosen sexual identity. But it is true. Homosexuals cannot make babies alone, with the exception of bisexuals and possibly transgenders for obvious reasons. Two women simply cannot conceive a child without sperm; two men cannot conceive a child without an egg. Transgenders are a breed unto themselves, but mutated males do not gain wombs by virtue of their self-imposed mutilation. Only transgender men – i.e., women who parade around as males – can conceive of a child with the assistance of an actual male, assuming she/he did not engage in some form of permanent change to their reproductive organs. In other words, the entire LGBT movement is by definition a population control mechanism, even if that is not the stated intent of the movement.

It should not be a surprise, therefore, that the promotion of sexual dysphoria among younger generations has a natural, limiting impact on the reproductive capacity of future generations. At present, nearly 20% of Generation Z identifies on some scale of the non-heterosexual, LGBT+ spectrum. Millennials hold about a 6% identification threshold. Generation X stands at approximately 3% – which remains generally consistent with older populations. When taking a step back, that is an extraordinary explosion in LGBT growth within a fairly short window of time. Within two generations, LGBT identification leapt sevenfold. Whereas some may state that this was a function of greater tolerance, that is unlikely to be the case. Tolerance for LGBT behaviors have stayed fairly consistent for the past three decades, with the exception of the marriage debate. Something else has to explain the sudden jump. Collapsed testosterone levels (which I will discuss in a moment) likely play some role in this increase, but there is no doubt that propaganda has had an enormous impact on sexual degeneracy.

If I concede my political opposition’s position, for arguments sake, that homosexuality of varying forms is merely an outgrowth of biological construct, then there would be no need for homosexual propaganda. No one would need to feel encouraged to be something that they are born to be. Whether I like it or not, the societal parameters already exist to accept LGBTers. Yet, Generation Z was inundated from the moment of their youngest childhood experiences to embrace some element of LGBT identity. From cartoons to young adult books to movies to education activism – LGBT propaganda is everywhere. That is clearly by design, but for what purpose? We are beyond the cultural point of incorporating LGBT propaganda for the sake of acceptance. The broader population accepts LGBT identity. The government effectively endorses LGBT identity by encouraging it through Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reporting. The only natural conclusion would be the need for population restricting behaviors. Is it “possible” for a lesbian couple to find a sperm donor? Sure. Are they likely? No. The net effect of the LGBT movement is depopulation.

In tandem with these depopulation platforms masquerading as decisions of sexual liberation is mass migration. Ironically, Paul Ehrlich was a founding member of a group called the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a group that the SPLC deemed a “hate organization” because it is opposed to open borders. Ehrlich’s position, as well as those of similar groups, like Population Matters in the United Kingdom, was that open borders would effectively encourage poorer migrants to explode in population growth thanks to an abundance of resources they were previously denied. In essence, the easier we have it as a civilization, the easier it is to breed. This is called the “Malthusian Crisis” – and it has been proven wrong repeatedly over time.

Without going into exhaustive detail, Thomas Malthus was an early 19th century social scientist/political economist who theorized that population growth was stimulated by “good times.” These good times created population explosions that resulted in “bad times” – war, hunger, diseases, etc. The cyclical nature of these events created population control mechanisms. He advocated forms of population control as the only way to achieve a utopian society. Neo-Malthusians, like the World Economic Forum’s Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and UN General Secretary António Guterres, also embrace population control means, but unlike Thomas Malthus – a Christian with neoliberal ideals – they openly supported controls through a variety of means, including forced contraception/sterilization and societal changes. But how does this relate to mass migration?

As I previously stated, Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich have been repeatedly proven wrong about population explosions due to “good times.” The fact is, when the good times roll, populations shrink. When people are doing well, they neither feel a need for more children to care for them at a later date nor do they want children to interrupt their good times. This is the childless Millennial couple on steroids. It is also historically rooted in broader population examples. Relatively comfortable Western Europe does not meet its population replacement levels. Meanwhile, Kenya and Palestine, nearly double their populations every decade through natural birth, despite poverty and/or war.

Many on the Dissident Right, myself included, believe that the purpose of population replacement is designed to fundamentally change the countries into which migrants are being compelled to enter through open borders. Our world leaders would like to see an end to White people – a mantra our global elites have openly repeated while simultaneously calling it a conspiracy theory. But there is a corresponding depopulation benefit from mass migration that may have eluded the Dissident Right. Migrant families that enter into Western countries begin to have less children within a generation. The comforts of Europe or the United States depress their repopulation habits found in their natural habitats.

If my goal is depopulation, the combination of more readily available food sources, greater access to global health facilities, and smaller wars in third world countries harms my goal. People in the emerging and frontier market space have more food and less disease than ever before. Wars are far more limited. Consequently, populations are exploding in places like India, Nigeria, and the Middle East. One way to solve the overpopulation challenges is to “spread the wealth.”

The consequence of spreading said wealth will not impact billionaires like George Soros, Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos. It impacts the little guy in the countries being invaded. The “little guy” is silenced by dismissing his natural earnings concerns, genuine misgiving pertaining to personal safety, and a desire to preserve the integrity of his culture as “racist.” Thus, global elites get to change the structural foundation of Western societies, making governments less susceptible to demands of accountability (an exclusively Western tradition) and more chaotic through mass migration and the exploitation of broader, unaccountable democracy. This is how Irish political parties – rooted in nationalist sentiment -betray an entire nation-state in a generation, not unlike their less nationalistic counterparts in other Western countries.

Another benefit is the chaos itself. The fact is, Western societies are among the most productive in the world. Nowhere is this truer than the Netherlands. A recent series of political initiatives related to energy and climate change reforms have had – and will continue to have – a massive impact on one of the most efficient agricultural societies. The Netherlands is currently the sixth largest exporter of food in the world, but at a size that is roughly the same as Maryland. In some years, the Netherlands has placed an astounding second to the US. By sheer land-to-crop yield, the square-kilometer efficiency of Dutch farmers is incredible. Yet, the system imported millions of migrants which led to a political shift. That political shift resulted in a series of new laws that will cut Dutch food production by 70% over the next five years. Former farms will be converted into low-income housing for migrants.

Through mass migration, depopulation advocates are effectively eliminating a top food producing country and fundamentally changing the Netherlands simultaneously. Given its relative size, that was easier to do than Germany or the United States, but that is only a matter of time. Meanwhile, if you want to stymie food production in the bigger countries that are better capable of absorbing migrant inflows, one way you can do that is disrupt their supply chain at the exact time that an inflationary crunch impacts capital access. If you limit fertilizer availability, “accidentally” damage food processing and distribution facilities, restrict repair parts for farm equipment, and increase fuel prices to levels that make ground transportation unfavorable, you kill food production and availability. Starvation has always been a cure for population growth. Whereas Americans can afford to lose some weight, if you are a depopulation advocate, you do not care that Americans may have to pay more for a cheeseburger. You want to stymie American and other national food exports to countries in Africa, Latin America, and East Asia, all of whom rely upon Western agricultural efficiency to eat.

Another area in which the global death cult has reared its ugly head has been global conflict. For a myriad of reasons, I support Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. That said, even if I did not support his invasion, I would have significant reservations regarding the policy prescriptions considered to address alleged Russian aggression. There is no question that the American-led NATO is trying to get us deeper into a war with Russia that would only result in a massive loss of life. The irony is that the once anti-war political Left has vanished almost entirely in the past decade and therefore, has been a non-factor in the escalation of hostilities. Where did the anti-war Left go? I theorize that they are now on board the death cult train.

The least bellicose president in modern American history was Donald Trump. Regardless of any misgivings one may have about Trump, he was  the only president who did not create a conflict while in office. In fact, he ended them. Yet, Barrack Obama, his predecessor, cultivated no less than six regional conflicts, including multiple coups, and extended the war in Afghanistan. Obama became the first president in American history to oversee a military that was engaged in conflict in all eight years of his presidency. Obama somehow won the Nobel Peace Prize – and kept it.

Finally, there is the Covid-19 Agenda. Whether you believe that Covid is real is irrelevant. The fact is that the agenda is very real. No functional society in the history of mankind has ever shut down their country to tackle a flu outbreak. Yet, that is what happened in 2020. We can argue as to the actual specifics of Covid, coronaviruses, their existence, etc. But the fact that the broader world – from China to the United States – regardless of national origin or political orientation, shut down simultaneously (with the exception of a very small group of states) proves that a coordinated assault on independence and human interaction occurred. That was led from the top.

Covid-19 lockdowns had an enormous impact on a variety of very real metrics on quality of life. Depression, suicides, and drug and alcohol abuse all rose due to lockdowns. Household earnings and savings fell. Spousal abuse claims rose. Childhood education fell. Lives were fundamentally devastated by insidious and heartless policies peddled by a political Left that did not care about the very real impact on humanity. This was all over a disease with a less than one percent mortality rate – and that mortality was generally confined to immunocompromised individuals. Then came the “vaccine.”

We still do not know the long-term consequences of the “vax,” but we do know short term impacts. Per the Florida Surgeon General, men between the ages of 18 – 54 have an 85% greater chance of gaining a heart condition after getting the vaccine. This does not include boosters. Otherwise healthy young men are dying daily. Athletes seem to die at a rate of one a day. We do not know the others who are dying, but if we trust the statistics from VAERS, there appears to be a 15% hospitalization rate and a 5% death rate. This is elevated among smokers and drinkers between the ages of 30 – 50 years old. That is not natural.

What is also unnatural is the near universal assault on freedom of information and bodily decisions related to the vaccine. Whereas I was generally not an anti-vaccine person, I had reservations regarding a Covid vaccine because of its relatively mild symptoms. It seemed weird that it was peddled so aggressively. Yet, suddenly, social media uniformly suppressed potentially lifesaving information, the government-imposed vaccination mandates, and every major actor – from big corporations to big sports venues – demanded a vaccine for a largely non-lethal disease. Then young men started dying. Short term, there is no question that the vaccine – at a minimum – harms otherwise healthy men more than Covid. Long term, we do not yet know, but I would not be surprised if the vaccine harms reproductive capacity. Most recently, the National Institute of Health found a correlation between another aggressively peddled vaccine – HPV – and infertility among young women.

Read More

Identity Dixie