The US needs to borrow the Hungarian immigration strategy.

Hungary is probably the most refugee-resistant country in all of Europe, and I think the US could learn something from them. They use walls and fences topped with concertina wire. Lawyers who provide too much assistance in the immigration process could face jail time.

Hungary knows that they don't need immigrants, but rather, immigrants need Hungary.

Well I say: The US does not need immigrants. Immigrants need the US.

Narrowed down Trump's list of potential SCOTUS picks. My personal choices.

Donald Trump has his list of SCOTUS picks posted on the White House website, and I've looked over the list myself and have narrowed it down to the ones I'd be happy to see on the bench.

Raymond Gruender

Thomas Hardiman

Brett Kavanaugh

Raymond Kethledge

Thomas Lee

Kevin Newsom

William Pryor

Don Willett

Patrick Wyrick

All of these are young and conservative (whatever that means these days), the oldest being 56.

Let me know what you think.

Anthony Kennedy is retiring!

Woke up from work this afternoon after working a night shift to find that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has decided to retire immediately after assisting conservatives in gutting some of the power that labor unions have and reminding everyone that yes, POTUS does have considerable authority in the realm of immigration and stopping travel from countries that fund and support terrorist activities.

And now Kennedy stepping down gives the Republicans some time to hopefully fall in line and rubber stamp someone from Trump's pretty decent list of SCOTUS choices.

That'll move the general ideology of the court from slightly right-leaning, to a clear 5-4 right-leaning majority. I'm sure by now you know that Kennedy was pretty moderate, with a slight rightward lean. Trump now has a chance to replace a right-moderate with someone who is just right.

Now what about Justice Ginsburg? Sometimes I'm not even sure that she is still conscious. Being a feminist leftist, I'm sure she fancies herself some kind of revolutionary, as those kind always do, standing tall in the face of opposition for their right to, well, infringe on your rights, get into your business and take your stuff away from you. That's always what it boils down to for commies. She'll likely try to inhabit that seat until she dies, or until the democrats take control of government again.

Can she hold out that long? Hopefully not. A solid 6-3 majority would help the right stave off at least some of the stupidity the left is going to throw at us as punishment for what we've done, or what they perceive we've done.

It's about that time to start drawing lines...

We've moved now into the realm of elected officials publicly and literally directing and inciting their followers and constituents to physically harass ideological opponents in their everyday lives. Conservative politicians, or at least those considered to be conservative, and their constituents, are apparently not supposed to show their faces in restaurants, gas stations, grocery stores, or generally in public, anymore.

I believe it was after the Presidential campaigns, but perhaps right before, that the old socialist Bernie Sanders said that his followers needed to go out into the public sphere and "get into trouble". Of course now we have crazy Maxine Waters calling for her followers to actually physically harass and intimidate Trump administration officials and their supporters in public, at "gasoline stations", restaurants, etc.

I wonder if she wants us to sit at the back of the bus.

People have asked when the leftists are just going to start trying to assassinate officials they don't like, or people who they find to be counter to their efforts. Steve Scalise could probably answer that question. Seth Rich, however, can not.

We are moving closer and closer to a failure of civility, at least varying levels of it in the different regions of the US. At some point we have to realize that there are at least two major factions in the US who no longer wish to live under a governmental system that resembles ANYTHING like the system that the other faction wishes to live under.

The American Civil War was not about slavery. It was about two major sides disagreeing on what type of government to live under. The North sided with the centralized federal system over the state governments, while the South wished to live under a continued confederation of free and independent states who agreed to unite under certain circumstances. It was all about federal power versus states' rights.

I think the Southern philosophy of free and independent states is being proven correct. We can not take 330,000,000 people, force them to accept abstract concepts like diversity, erode their national American identity, intentionally degrade Western style culture, and then expect all of them to live peacefully and happily under ONE single leader, ONE single flag, ONE single system, ONE set of laws.

"But China does it".

China is nearly 100% Chinese and nearly 0% anything else. They have a DISTINCTLY Chinese culture and way of life.

"India does it".

India has a DISTINCTLY Indian culture, language, national identity.

Next most populous country in the world is the US, and here we are barely allowed to acknowledge that there is such a thing as "American culture" or anything resembling a national identity, lest you wear the brand of a racist or bigot, or whatever it is this week.

There must be an amicable divorce in order to preserve the peace. I don't know what lines need to be drawn and where they need to be, but it's about that time...

Is there going to be a battle for the Southern Baptist Convention? Or is it lost already?

So where does the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) fall on the issue of open borders and importing thousands of third world savages to replace white Christians in the US? Because the SBC just elected a new president, JD Greear, who supports open borders and thinks we need to import and coddle a bunch of those savages from Africa, the Middle East and South America. He thinks the church is doing God's work by bringing them here and to Europe, giving them money, giving them housing, giving them food, giving them our daughter's wombs and basically giving them our entire society to destroy as they please. Because that's what happens everywhere they go, to every country foolish enough to make this fatal mistake.

Greear believes that enforcing immigration law is akin to supporting abortion. He also says that Muslims and Christians are worshipping the same God, but that Muslims are just not doing it correctly. This, despite the fact that Christians worship the Trinity, while Muslims worship Allah, a "monad", and teach that worship of the Holy Trinity is blasphemy, and will only cut your head off for it, if you're lucky. Huh. Same God, indeed.

How are your pattern recognition skills? Several minor checks incoming.

He also believes the SBC has a "misogyny problem", whatever the hell that means these days. Could be literally anything, since us white men have been such a major plight on Western Civilization, you know, what with having BUILT IT and all. Gotta stick it to those evil MEN every chance we get, don't we, Mr. Greear? He actually "urges" Christians to "humble themselves and apologize to women who have been hurt by men". Yeah, we Christian men need to apologize as a whole, apparently, for individually committed bad deeds. Currently, there are no other calls for any other demographic to apologize enmasse to another demographic group for individual counts of wrongdoing. Oh wait, yes there is. White people have to apologize for literally everything.

The SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) works and exchanges funding with the National Immigration Forum, which is an open-borders organization managed under the umbrella of George Soros's Open Society Foundation. Russell Moore is the SBC leader of the ERLC, and he is the one who is pushing the suicidal open border stuff. JD Greear has supported Moore from the start and has criticized anyone who disagrees as the "crazy uncles" of the SBC.

The SBC's true conservatives have been too scared to get involved in politics beyond simply voting for whoever the Republican Party throws in front of them. A lot of them would have thrown their support behind Jeb! if Trump hadn't blasted his corpse into oblivion on day three of his campaign. They're unwilling to get up there and say "no more African or Middle Eastern rapists imported into white western society". They're too scared to use strong words without first using a mitigating preface, like "I don't care if you're white, black, green or purple...". First, there are no freaking green or purple people. This is nothing more than a mentally retarded attempt at virtue signaling to appease the progressive virus that they've allowed into their own mind. They can't just stand up and say "Africans, Middle Easterners and South Americans from third world garbage dumps are inherently dangerous to our children in western society, and God is NOT demanding for us to import them all into our homes using our tax money and take care of them so that they breed white people out of existence and kill those of us who are left. Does the SBC have anyone with the guts to say these things, or has the convention gone the way of the Catholic Church (as far as the Pope is concerned) and the Episcopalians?

How do you conquer Western Civilization?

Western Civilization is the paragon of human history as a whole. The white, European descendants are responsible for the vast majority of scientific and technological achievements, philosophical breakthroughs, human rights advancements, humanitarian efforts and overall quality of life improvements for mankind.

Despite that, or maybe because of that, Western Civilization is, and has been, under attack. The problem we have today is that the attacks are coming from within and from without, and these attacks are slow, creeping, pervasive and disguised.

Once upon a time, a people conquered another people through means of arms. Warfare, destruction, genocide. This later progressed to treaties and surrender documents, but it basically the same. Simply a formalization of recognizing a winning side over the losing side.

But Western Civilization is different, bigger, much more advanced. How do you fight that and win?

Replace the men with feminised beta soyboys.

Replace the women with feminists who are empowered to do everything they aren't designed to do, and avoid the things they are.

Replace the need to reproduce with the need to acquire things and money.

Replace the culture with foreign traditions.

Replace the language with mixed dialects.

Replace art with meaningless, shapeless forms.

Replace right with wrong.

Replace normalcy with degeneracy.

Replace excellence with mediocrity.

Replace academics with ideology.

Replace self-reliance with dependence.

Replace the racial majority with many racial minorities hostile to them.


You are being replaced, white men and women, by people who are hostile to you. What will you do about it?

Currently away on government work. Be back soon.

I, The Gray Man, am currently out of town on what I'll call "government work" for basic OPSEC reasons. Don't worry, it's not that cool.

Or is it?

Let your imagination decide. I'll be back soon.

On the importance of the Scout Team.

Absolutely required reading from NCScout at the Brushbeater blog.

Why is this absolutely required reading? Well here's my opinion on it, and keep in mind that I spent some time downrange with a Long Range Surveillance unit (you'll notice that he mentions "LRS" in the linked article).

In the post-SHTF situation, reality is that most of us are not going to have the ability to activate and operate with a company (roughly 90-120 dudes) or platoon-sized (about 30 or so dudes) element. The majority of us are going to be struggling to gather a even a squad (8-10 dudes) that has the proper variation of skills and equipment when needed, while having the uniformity of equipment in other areas, experience, mindset, physical skills... You get my point.

In my opinion, your most important "fighting" teams are two: One is your actual defensive perimeter team, or if you have enough people to form a neighborhood protection team (NPF). Basically, these are your people guarding the home base. It's whoever you can find with the gear they can find and the weapons they have. Most of us aren't going to have rotating guard duties divided up among former Rangers and other operators.

The other important team is the team that NCScout discusses. The scout team. In the military, as he states, it's about 6 dudes. In your case, it probably does need to be about three dudes. He goes into detail about what kind of skills are ideal, such as bow hunting, radio operation, the ability to hit long range targets in less-than-ideal conditions.

I would add a little bit of medical skills in there, though I'm not so sure you want to burden anyone into a full on combat medic role with all of the associated gear seeing as this is not a direct action weapons squad. It's still a scout team, sent out to assess the operating environment surrounding what is your home base.

Required reading. Get on it.

Is gun confiscation impossible in the USA?

Many libertarian, conservative and liberal individuals I know in my personnel life as well as political commentators mock people who are concerned about the possibility of gun confiscation or guns being regulated out of existence in the USA.
They seem to have a cavalier world view pertaining to gun rights in the USA and think that there is no way gun rights can be threatened in the USA.
I used to live in Massachusetts and gun ownership was made into a very difficult venture on a state level and depending on the town you lived in it could be damn near impossible.
There were police chiefs that found ways to deny the general public gun ownership and this is the case in most of NY state and California as well amongst other states.
A dramatic gun confiscation is most likely not a threat but gradual over regulation is.
So many people forget that countries like England had massive rates of gun ownership throughout the 19th century and well into the later part of the 20th century.
It was not until the 1980's that it became a country with nearly no legal gun owners or firearms enthusiasts.
Australia was another country with massive firearm ownership and its only been in the past decade that they have seen their rights stripped away.
Brazil also comes to mind.
Jamaica had a massive gun ban in the 1970s under the marxist sympathizer prime minister Micheal Manley.
Manley demanded that all gun owners turn in every firearm they own within a weeks time or face criminal charges and imprisonment.
Of course every law abiding citizen heeded his demands and a week later criminal gangs terrorized, looted, raped, assaulted and murdered large numbers of Jamaicans and exapts.
This was during a time of great racial tension between the black majority and the white business and planter class.
I know a English descended Jamaican that lived through this event and experienced the violence first hand.
He knew many of the victims of this violent class/ racial/political clash.
Many Jamaicans I know feel the violence was racially focused while others feel it was purely economic/ class focused but it makes you wonder why leftist media correlates its distain for gun ownership with white people.
Just google white gun owners and the first three pages of your google search will be filled with publications like Salon, the Huffington post ect harping on white racist men and how they stockpile guns.
never is there an article expressing their disgust on how Indian American tribes stockpile guns on their reservations or how black nationalists support gun ownership or Asian immigrants and Asian American business owners have high rates of gun ownership.
The focus is white gun owners and when it is convenient they speak generally about Americans and gun ownership when they wish to shift the narrative.
There is a racial focus for this gun confiscation/ regulation agenda but more importantly there is a problem with this " American exceptionalism" you know this thing the left constantly criticizes patriotic Americans over.
They feel there is no threat to gun rights simply because there is a high rate of ownership and a massive number circulating. News flash all the countries I mentioned had a massive level of gun ownership and large numbers of guns circulating and now they are countries where legal  gun ownership is nearly impossible and rare though Jamaica has recently over the years created much more laxed gun laws compared to its 1970s all out ban.
What frustrates me the most is the fact that many pro 2nd amendment gun owners I meet take this cavalier attitude " oh gun bans in America are impossible".
How are they impossible? Its very possible but more than anything a gradual over regulation is more likely.
British citizens can own very restricted class of firearms and police reserve the right to deny you for any reason they want.
As a result there are few gun owners in England and the few that remain often face massive stigmatization from society and they can not use their firearms for any form of defense what so ever.
This is a video from reason tv showing how impossible a gun ban is.

They make good points but it gives the perception that stomping out gun ownership in the USA is impossible. It is a very real threat and is very possible.