W R Collier Jr

Nudge-O-Nomics- The Cass Sunstein Plan for America

W R Collier Jr July 19, 2021

Cass Sunstein- The Nudger Behind The Obama Presidency

Bill Collier- Originally posted on March 30, 2015, this article bears reposting as the same theories animate our current corrupt President- One man above all others is the force behind the new style and methods employed by President Obama: he is a man who quite literally co-wrote the book on how to use regulations to transform human nature itself.

This man’s name is Cass Sunstein. He believes, based on the book he co-wrote with Richard Thaler, that there are two kinds of humans. Homo economicus is reflective and evolved and generally makes wise decisions. Homo sapiens is instinctive and not evolved and generally makes foolish decisions. While the two authors use as much scientific jargon as possible in their book “Nudge”, and studiously avoid explicit ideological or political references, it becomes clear to critics that “homo economicus” is a progressive liberal and “homo sapiens” is a traditionalist conservative. It also becomes clear that the “libertarian paternalism” they advocate for is simply a re-branded version of the traditional progressive belief that the state in its regulatory and taxing power is the prime move of human history and progress.

Cass Sunstein is not simply an academic. He is, for all intents and purposes, President Obama’s “regulatory czar.” His ideas and theories were the very reason the President chose him to be a key player. If Sunstein’s advice is consistent with the theories behind “Nudge”, as we must assume it would be, then it is Sunstein who is the architect of the President’s approach.

Their ideological agenda, based on this notion of two species, one evolved and the other not evolved, would not be pursued legislatively but, rather, by processes that are as far removed from the “homo sapiens” as possible, and which are controlled by “homo economicus”, the more evolved human species. The objective is not to subjugate homo sapiens but, through nudging, to elevate him to the level of homo economicus. Nudging seeks to do so without denying homo sapiens free choice but only by nudging him in the right direction.

For instance, you are still free to not get health care. The only “penalty” is that you are taxed. In actuality, everyone is taxed, but those who have health care are given a tax break. That this was (allegedly) concealed during the passage of the Affordable Care Act is also consistent with the general theory. The key thing here is that free choice is actually preserved, albeit with a “nudge” in the form of a new tax that only those who have health coverage are exempted from.

The idea of using regulations, which fall into a grey area, to nudge the populace and thus bring homo sapiens into the homo economicus club has firmly taken root and the President’s innovation here is that he has gone beyond merely nudging through regulations. He has succeeded, and this without very much resistance, in pushing through many policy changes that affect millions of Americans, even against the express wishes of a supine legislature. For those who embrace progressivism and who believe we need to evolve beyond traditional conservatism, these changes are a breath of fresh air.

Using the Sunstein model of “nudging” by regulatory legerdemain, the President has transformed many aspects of US policy, at home and abroad, and has had little need for Congress. He also faces no substantive resistance from the courts. As a matter of fact, with few exceptions, the courts, thus far, have aided in his efforts, not resisted them,

Immigration reform is a de facto reality. Marriage itself is being redefined to a more progressive vision. Punishing but, progressives argue, necessary climate control regulations are being enacted. The internet itself is now a government controlled “utility.” Abroad, the US, under the current President, is conducting agreements not classified as treaties, but which are de facto treaties, without Congressional oversight: indeed the deal with Iran over its nuclear program is being kept from Congress and will not be submitted for their approval.

The nudge behind the Obama Presidency is a man who is a staunch ideological adherent himself, as is evidenced in his writings and his actions. Discerning the President’s actual belief-system from both his books and his actions, for him the progressive and secularist worldview is not merely a competing worldview with others, it is the only “valid” view.

This is a fact of life many progressives embrace: that anyone who disagrees with their version of morality and justice is not evolved and, it is argued by their opponents, needs “managed” or “nudged” into the “right” choices. What is more, the progressive thesis that the state is the prime mover of human history and progress is particularly pronounced under the current President.

This feature of a President who makes policy without the legislature’s full and hearty consent is not entirely new. Critics of President Bush pointed out, or alleged, that his was an “imperial presidency”, particularly in the realm of foreign affairs and military action. They argue that his “neoconservative” penchant for “nation building” in the name of “national security”, and with faint Congressional oversight, went too far. Indeed, even some conservative critics felt that “nation building” and “preemptive wars” smacked of the thesis that states are the prime movers of human history and progress.

The argument is made that now is the time for humankind to turn a corner, and that a benevolent “libertarian paternalism” that nudges people by regulation without totally taking away their free choice is the right path for a planned human evolution.

For those who believe in both this basic worldview of what “progress” means and that the state is the prime mover in human history, Sunstein’s model is benevolent and, what is more, efficient. In point of fact, supporters might argue that, aside from conservative ideologues, this “nudging” is having a tremendous effect. Every main agenda item and belief of the modern progressive ideology is featured and celebrated in our society while their opposites are ridiculed, shamed, and even punished, albeit socially more than legally.

It remains to be seen whether this nudging will survive as a practice into the next presidency, or even whether a more conservative President might turn the whole thing on its head and use the precedence set by this President as a weapon against the beliefs of the very people who invented it. It would certainly take a President of great moral character to forego the use of such a powerful tool that nobody, not Congress nor the Courts, has demonstrated either the ability or the will to stand up against.

In the end, the republic became a democracy and now the democracy has become something else. It is hard to put a name on it. Basically, it has become a state where a few un-elected and un-accountable bureaucrats, at the direction of the President, control the actual political action of the country, and where politics (instead of faith, culture, family, free association, the market, or community) controls everything else.

This is a condition I call a “politocracy”, a state totally ruled by politics where only a few totally control politics. This, it can be argued, is the ultimate (even if unintended) legacy of Cass Sunstein. On the other hand, if this is the case, it can be argued from the other side, that the advancement in human and societal evolution will be well worth it.

This new American reality also creates even more of a premium on winning the White House, no matter which camp you belong to. The game is now an all-or-nothing battle for the only office in the land that wields any real power, the office that appoints and directs the experts, the regulators, the next generation of Sunsteins.

The questions you must ask are these; Are these ends good ends for human society and do these ends, even if they are good, justify the means by which they are carried out?

Cass Sunstein, unknown to many, is the nudge behind the Obama Presidency. This one man is fundamentally rewriting American society, one regulatory nudge at a time. Welcome to the new America, the America of Nudge-O-nomics.

Read Bill Collier’s Intelligence Analysis on this topic here.

Sustainability, NOT Global Warming

W R Collier Jr October 5, 2020

Bill Collier- In an article on the 8th of February, Christopher Booker of the UK Telegraph lambasted “global warming” and “climate change” science, joining a growing chorus of critics who accuse scientists of skewing data to prove their theory. Indeed, the fault line for the “global warming” debate is ideological and political, not “scientific.”

Critics of the global warming theorists point out that their solutions often lean heavily toward a top-down global “collectivist” approach. Some use the word “Socialist” to describe the global warming theorists. Even efforts by non-collectivists to produce a free market approach to effect reductions in “carbon emissions” have been rejected- evidently, critics point out, global warming can only be dealt with by resorting to some form of global collectivism that is managed by a small group of ‘experts.’

This begs the question as to what is or isn’t collectivism and whether critics are “red baiting”, but the fact the argument has come down to the alleged ideology of the proponents of the global warming theory seems to reveal that the “science” has taken a back seat to ideology, on both sides. Only time will tell if accusations against the “science” behind the global warming theory are true and founded.

For years, efforts to clean our air and produce what is called “sustainability” have been based on “global warming.” We were told that “in order to prevent global warming, we must reduce pollutants and we must focus on sustainability.” Sustainability is a move towards locally renewable or recyclable raw materials and alternative energy all of which have a “light footprint” on the environment.

Partially as a result of this fear compelling people to seek such solutions, these sustainable solutions, including alternative energy, have come down in costs. More and more advances are coming along making wind, solar, and other forms of sustainable energy solutions affordable to average people. Alternative building techniques, which city codes are still catching up to, such as cobb and straw bale construction, can so reduce building costs as to make adding on wind and solar power generation to each home quite within reach of average people.

Sustainability and clean air are tied almost inextricably to “global warming” and if, whether it is fair or not to do so, the whole theory of global warming is rejected by most people, then it may also be that concerns of clean air and efforts to create more self-sustaining communities will suffer the same fate. The picture of large plumes of soot-smoke pouring into the sky from factories and coal fired power plants will no longer concern people who believe that this has not impact on “climate change.”

One city has become the poster child for a move away from fossil fuels and toward sustainability- Peking. Here is a city which has days of such heavy pollution that people are forbidden to go outside, and rare is the day when the “fog” lifts enough for you to actually clearly see the city skyline. Perhaps all that smog will not do one thing to tick the global temperature up, but one can certainly argue that this smog is not good for the people, the plants, or the animals of Peking.

A precipitous rush away from fossil fuels towards sustainable energy is economically harmful, it is argued, and with some serious questions emerging about the science behind global warming, it may be tempting to drop the whole move toward sustainability altogether. The current EPA rules regarding coal-fired power plants are driven almost totally by global warming fears, for instance. While it may be argued that the EPA is moving too far, too fast, and all in the name of something fewer and fewer people believe is a real threat, the truth is that there are other good reasons to consider pushing forward, even if at a more reasonable and far less disruptive pace, with sustainable energy solutions.

Sustainable local energy is energy from locally renewable raw materials which local people, at the household level, are mostly in ownership control over. It means that the community, down to the individual homes and businesses, owns and controls its own energy resources and that the use of those resources has little to no negative impact on their air, water, or natural environment in general. Far from being only about global warming, it is about empowerment and it is about clean air, water, and an overall pristine natural environment being left to future generations.

Such solutions, however, are not proposed by many global warming theorists. Often their solutions focus on “one big system”, or “OBS”. OBS looks like this: a giant solar and/or wind farm owned and controlled by a corporation or government that distributes power through a nationally interconnected “smart grid” that charges consumers, you and I, high costs for energy. This is already happening and anyone who pays electricity bills knows all about this.

Sustainable local energy focuses on empowering individuals to become individually “energy independent”, at least in their household, by freeing them to use better and less expensive building techniques to shift the cost of building a home from the building to its energy and waste removal infrastructure.

Sustainable local energy is empowerment. It puts more wealth, more resources, and more control in the hands of the individual and removes much of the “middle man” fat of governments and corporations which currently control our energy.

As the debate over global warming devolves into politics and ideology, if people genuinely reject this theory, then it is possible they will reject and be suspicious of anything associated with it, including efforts to pursue cleaner air and sustainability in general, which are rewarding and beneficial even if global warming were conclusively proven to be a total myth. The danger here is that we will continue, as individuals and communities, to rely on OBS, whether OBS is sustainable or not sustainable, and we, as individuals, are thus rendered “dependent” on OBS rather than ourselves and our neighbors.

Is a new German consensus emerging?

W R Collier Jr June 24, 2018

It would seem to some that the German consensus is beginning to shift toward a more nationalist stance as the major parties, the CDU/CSU and the SPD continue to lose the confidence of German voters. The leftist parties, including the SPD, Linke (Left), and the Greens poll now together at around 31% of the electorate, down from 40% in June of last year. The more centrist and nationalist influenced parties, including the CDU/CSU, AFD, and FDP poll at around 55%, with the AFD growing from 8.4% to 14.8% from last June until now, but overall the center-right and nationalist parties have gone from around 50% of the electorate to 55% of the Electorate, even as the CDU/CSU, the main center-right party, has lost around 7% of the total vote.

Reference: https://pollytix.eu/pollytix-german-election-trend/

In other words, the sentiment for a center-right and nationalist government has grown, up to 55% of the electorate overall, while the main party of the center-right, the CDU/CSU has lost ground. Not only are the Germans moving away from the progressive camp, but they are drifting toward the more unorthodox and upstart center-right to nationalist Parties. Setting aside the amateurish reporting, or perhaps propaganda, of the German and European press comparing parties like the AFP and the FDP as neo-Nazis, these Parties do not reflect a racist or racialist movement anything like the “national” Parties of, say, the 1930’s.

But the shift away from the progressives has been deep and broad and is now beginning to create a chasm between the Government, whose Chancellor is a progressive heading an increasingly anti-progressive Party, and the people. The government empowers the chief political party of the left, despite the fact the majority consensus of the electorate is 55% toward the center-right. The entire leftist coalition, which is so strongly represented in government, has the confidence of less than a third of the German voters.

This creates an untenable political substation in which the government is led by people whose core beliefs and agenda are fundamentally out of harmony with the people. New efforts to curtail free speech, especially the AFD, in the name of preventing “hate speech”, are not working to change things back in favor of the current Government. The AFD’s numbers are rising and are as high as 24% in Bavaria, which has been governed by the CSU since after the war. As it stands now, if the current polls prove true, the only way for the CSU to remain in power in Bavaria will be to join a coalition with the AFD, which they see as “beyond the pale”, or to mimic the national coalition and join with the SPD.

The European Union is now pushing through a new law that would severely control the Internet, in the name of copyright protection, which many see as a strong-armed attempt to reduce the flow of information to controlled, establishment news sources. The bill would place so many regulations on how to control copyright content, eliminating Fair Use and imposing a “link tax” for linking to other websites, that only major platforms could afford to operate. This comes at a time when Europeans, including Germans, see the Euro-condominium as being antithetical to their sense of national homogeneity and well-being.

Moves like this, in the face of broad and deep public suspicion, are likely to only further inflame the public, which in turn favors the more center-right populist Parties.

A potential sea-change in the German consensus could be in the offing, although it may be too soon to see if this is merely reactionary or indicative of something more permanent. In other words, if the migrant crisis is resolved, will these more upstart Parties might lose support and the left might regain some lost ground. If these numbers hold and signify a sea=change, then the Germany of the next 5-10 years will look a lot different than the Germany of the past 20 years.

We could be looking at a Germany more inclined toward socially conservative values, a greater openness to religion and Christianity in particular, and a Germany more ready to get over its 20^th century past and begin to show pride in its national identity that would have been frowned upon before. There does not appear to be any appetite to either entertain racist/ultra-nationalist militantism or to embrace any form of authoritarianism.

While in some ways, one might see some older traditions and values gain more currency and respect, it is almost impossible that we will see the Germans go back toward the Germany of, say, the Imperial years before 1914, much less to the dark days of the Austrian who became the dictator. It more likely than not that the militarist and jingoist spirit that has at times infected the German nation has been well and thoroughly exercised.

So, in short, we may see the Germans move to a more center-right consensus and become a bit more proud of their national identity, but those who would imagine (whether hopefully or fearfully) the rebirth of German imperialism and militarism will find no fertile soil among the German voters.

Psychopath City

W R Collier Jr June 23, 2018

Who is surprised by this finding by POLITICO? Basically, the District of Columbia, or Washington DC, is, simply put, the most psychopathic of the 48 contiguous states plus DC. While Connecticut receives a “Z-Score” of 1.89, DC by comparison settles in at a whopping 3.48. This is interesting because z-scores are measured in a range from -4 to +4, with most of the population residing in the -1 to +1 range. Simply point, on average, the denizens of DC rank in the top 1% of the population.

“Psychopaths have an awfully grandiose way of thinking about themselves, and D.C. has numerous means of seeking and attaining power,” Ryan Murphy, who conducted the study, wrote in an email to Politico.

“The presence of psychopaths in Columbia is consistent with the conjecture that psychopaths are likely to be effective in the political sphere,” the draft paper reads.

Indeed. Who would have ever imagined?

The Freedomist Mission and Focus

W R Collier Jr June 23, 2018

The Freedomist adheres to a lifestyle and governance discipline called UPDRism, pronounced you-pah-dare-ee-an-ism and spelled “Upadarianism.” It is based on the four core ideals for a free society, Unity in diversity, Popular sovereignty, Democratic equality, and Rule of law.

Our mission is to provide news and empowerment content that enables individuals to acheive a state of freedom, the dominion of the free, through practicing virtue, liberty, and independence.

Our vision is to establish autonomous, citizen-owned local to regional Freedomist publications run by practitioners of our UPDR lifestyle and governance discipline all over the world. Practitioners of our lifestyle and governance discipline will be empowered as individuals and through mutuality with others to find and fulfill God’s best for their lives with excellence. Such fully empowered and connected people will have a transfigurative impact on the world around them and in this manner we will contribute to making the world more free.

Currently, the Freedomist is run by founder and publisher Bill Collier. With a background that includes military intelligence, political consulting, marketing, and ministry, Bill Collier is uniquely qualified to run such a venture.

Premium subscriptions will be set at $5/month for the first 2500 subscribers, thereafter rising to $15/month. For initial subscribers, the cost will remain fixed for as long as they remain active subscribers.

Daily content will move as needed and will include a mixture of news intelligence and analysis, empowerment content, alerts on human rights issues, military technology, news regarding the Christian world, and more. The tone will be intelligent, informative, and objective.

Subscriptions will be used to crowdfund the development of a web platform that will further equip and empower practitioners of the UPDR governance and lifestyle discipline through connections, cooperation, and collaboration. This web 3.0 platform is being called a “cryptonation” because it will be based on the same cryptographic technology as cryptocurrency (the blockchain) and it will be modelled on a form of nationhood or intentional national identity not limited by ancestry, race, or political borders.

Those among the first 2500 subscribers who agree to abide by the broad “Pledge of Common Unity” will be offered a free eResidence membership in the “virtual Commonwealth” which will normally retail at $45/month.

Is The US Headed To Revolution Or Rupture? A Commentary By Bill Collier

W R Collier Jr February 28, 2018

Bill Collier- Crane Brinton in his 1938 book, THE ANATOMY OF REVOLUTION, attempted to lay out the signs and roadmarkers to revolution. While his work has been criticised, it was a useful starting point in discussing the portents of upheaval. It introduced to a broader audience the concept of discerning the signs of change, and in particular violent change or some form of radical alteration of power.

At the root of his and other similar works are the ideas that an existing power structure that has lost public trust and is itself on the verge of bankruptcy is the main catalyst for upheaval. Beyond that there must be a well led movement calling for change and, in the case of civil war, opposing sides along religious, ethnic, or ideological lines whose views are incompatible and who view one another as evil and beyond redemption.

In any society you are bound to have all these factors to some degree at some time. It is the intensity and duration of these factors, coupled with the emergence of strong proponents of and resistors to, upheaval that spells out the increasing likelihood of revolution or rupture within a society.

The laws of causality in human history are not amenable. Keep stirring the “right” ingredients of disenfranchising parts of the populace, a power structure that is both out of touch with all or a substantial portion of society and both morally and financially on the road to bankruptcy, and an intractable divison between the power holders and a substantial portion of the populace, and you get revolution or rupture. Over time, despite many fits and starts which end in failure, you see the emergence of effective champions of the groups of people who feel disenfranchised.

When the disenfranchised include the most productive members of society, the danger of upheaval increases.

If then we consider these factors, we see the ruling elite, the left, and the right in a stand-off. While it may seem the ruling elite are using the left to batter the right, the real left, represented by groups like antifa or rank and file Democrats, would like to make a nice breakfast of the elites who currently pander to them. The right, characterized mostly by strong adherents to the US Bill of Rights but demonized by both the elites and the left as nazis, lacked a strong leader until Trump. Whether he becomes more than a 1 or 2 term president to truly mature into a transcendent force with a well-organized following, remains to be seen. Beyond winning elections, neither he nor his cohorts have even made a good effort to create a well-organized movement.

The left have a movement and leaders, and a strong identity as Democrats that is deeper and more coherent in a cultural sense than the right. Democrats root for their team like football fans do for theirs. Conservatives often recoil at the notion of being Republicans and have a lack of cohesion: they don’t have a single “team” they root for, even when it has a bad coach or its players aren’t up to snuff. As an Eagles fan all my life, I totally get what rooting for a team means, and liberals root for their team far more than conservatives do.

You root for your team always, right or wrong, and keep hoping it gets better.

The left also fund their players better. They invest in their rank and file. While the right wins elections, the left burrow into national instutions and carry on their work, regardless of election outcomes. They know the chidlren belong to academia’s indoctrination, which they control and which Hollywood and the Press all reinforce with slavish devotion.

Wealthy conservatives tend to be parsimonious, egotistical, and, frankly, cheap. If or when they patronage any person or group, they pinch every penny and excert so much tight control that nothing of significance can happen. The left’s donors lavish many groups, let them do their thing, and hire real experts at high wages to keep the balls moving down the court every day.

Perhaps some conservative cause or movement will invent or break through to a crowdfunding model that negates the need for rich patrons, but, so far, that has not happened. Mostly because conservatives as individuals also tend to be parsimonious and want their activists and activism on the cheap. If or when that changes, then conservatives might have a chance.

As it stands, despite election victories, conservatism in the US is doomed. The real battle may be between the left and the elites, after we conservatives are shunted aside and after immigration reform reshapes the electoral map in states like Texas, which is the last major bastion of conservetive power in America. Conservatives have been cheap and stingy, not supporting their activists or activism, not realizing the need and power of paid mobs as it were, and all social proof of emerging victory belongs to the left.

As a conservative activist trying to earn a living, I cannot tell you how often a fellow conservative has attacked me for daring to try to find a way to crowdfund my effort: if I really cared for the cause, I’d work for free. As if we don’t need or want professional activists who wake up every day focused on the cause and not whether or not they csn pay their bills.

Don’t get me wrong, I get paid doing political work, but it’s not activism.

The question is this: are we facing a revolution or upheaval? We are facing the potential for a leftist revolution or an internal upheaval, either of which will lead to the final destruction of conservatism as a political force in these United States. Conservatives are stingy with resources to support a professional cadre of counter-revolutionaries whose activism and leaderhsip could match and defeat the left and the elites. When a populace which espouses an idea or belief system refuses to finance it, then we know that movement is headed for demise.

In truth, not even conservatives truly believe in their movement. So the potential upheaval we face in America will mean the triumph of either the elites or the left, who will likely fight it out after routing the conservative movement.

My Statement On The Latest School Shooting Feb 14, 2018

W R Collier Jr February 14, 2018

A lone gunman shot and killed at least 17 people, injuring 14 others, at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. According to press reports, the gunman, a stone-cold killer with no moral conscience, was well-known to students and staff at the school for his violence and his mental instability.

While we all must pause to pray for the victims and their family as well as their friends who must go through this dark time, the time to act is now. We must address the issue of mental health, we must address the ongoing problem of gun-free zones that make people unsafe, and we must address a culture of violence.

While there is no doubt the left will once again demand a curtailment of the rights of honest Americans, the real problem here is with a system that cannot identify clearly abnormal, mentally unstable, and violent people and compel them in any way to submit to an evaluation. We will all be asking how and why this young man obtained a firearm considering his well-known mental state.

We need to stop the practice of disarming the innocent, we need to stop ignoring our ongoing mental health crisis, and we need to address a culture in which violence of this nature is glorified. It is not enough to pray for the dead or injured, and it is never right to deny innocent people their rights or to strip them of their means of self-defense, all because our politicians refuse to deal with the real problem.

While there is no doubt the left will once again demand a curtailment of the rights of honest Americans, the real problem here is with a system that cannot identify clearly abnormal, mentally unstable, and violent people who make repeated threats to others (as he did) and compel them in any way to submit to an evaluation. We will all be asking how and why this young man obtained a firearm considering his well-known mental state.

We need to stop the practice of disarming the innocent, we need to stop ignoring our ongoing mental health crisis, and we need to address a culture in which violence of this nature is glorified. It is not enough to pray for the dead or injured, and it is never right to deny innocent people their rights or to strip them of their means of self-defense, all because our politicians refuse to deal with the real problem.

The Freedonist Is Back!

W R Collier Jr January 21, 2018

By Bill Collier- My speciality is breaking political and international intelligence and covering major, breaking news live. My vision for Freedomist remains twofold: to promote the creation of a people-powered free press all over thw world and to restore freedom through virtue, liberty and indepdnence based on the UPDR Ideals and the original spirit and intent of the US Bill of Rights.

I am the Publisher and the Editor. My goal here is to obtain enough sponsors, see our Business Directory, to cover overhead and begin paying part-time stringers. Our focus is going to be hard breaking and headline news, global news, what I call freedom news (from politics to tech), and movement news for and about freedom activists all over the world.

I really want to cover news that is not reported or that is under-reported in the US media.

I will be working to feed raw news from other conservative and pro-freedom websites and organizations, so you have a one-stop shop for a variety of news sources.

I will also have news feeds from a variety of sources you and I may disagree with, to both promote dialogue and give unusual perspectives.

First, consider becoming a sponsor. Go to Business Directory and sign up, it’s only $45 per month at the quarterly rate and allows you to reach 25,000 people a month.

Register, see the link in the top menu. It’s free. You get our daily news feed in your email.

Third, email me at [email protected] and send in news tips!

We are back.

We are ready to rumble.

EXCLUSIVE; DC Police Did THIS About A Hate Group Setting Up In Pershing Square

W R Collier Jr November 5, 2017

By Bill Collier- A reader sent us pictures they took of Pershing Square on October 12, almost a month before the purported Antifa/Leftwing “Resist Fascism” demonstration planned on Saturday. The reader was concerned because the sign on the hate group’s tent made it clear: they want to kill white people.

While a story ran recently in which a post alleging to be Antifa and calling for the killing of white people and Trump supporters, which proved to be a hoax meant to troll the alt-right. this is not a mere social media post. This tent was set up in Pershing Square in our nation’s capital. It stretches credulity to the breaking point to imagine this is mere “trolling” or that this is staged by some right-wing group to smear the left.

You wull observe in this picture the sign that forbids setting up camp in the park, as these leftist activists have done. There is no crowd therefore dispersal and removal of this group by the DC police would not be problematic. No doubt the DC police knew such activities were planned, as these groups have broadcasted their intentions to do this. But there are no police present and the person who sent us this did not observe any.

Now we go to what was on the tent that should raise serious concerns.

What you can clearly see here is that it says “kill whitey.” This is an illegal encampment making terrorist threats against a substantial number of people who live in, work in, or just visit DC every day. It is unmistakable hate speech, but, beyond that, it is actually a direct call to take the lives of people merely because they are white.

There is no defense of this.

Here you can see the whole illegal encampment with just a few people. Now imagine you are walking through here alone as a white person, are you going to feel safe?

Evidently the local police were not concerned that a group of people set up an illegal encampment in a public space in order to promote a call to kill white people.

CORRECTION: I originally said this was on Friday, before the big protest was planned, but I was mistaken. The picture was taken October 12th. This dispels the myth that these groups were not making such threats.