How does a West African 3rd world epidemic become a problem in the US? With things starting to look more and more like an episode out of Walking Dead, I can’t help but wonder why.

The best way to avoid infection and the proliferation of that disease is to ban all travel from the infected areas. The government and the left are saying that banning travel to the outbreak zones is panic talk, but they have yet to give one valid reason for why we shouldn’t ban travel to and from those areas.

To be fair, I see no reason for banning voluntary travel from the US to the infected zones, provided that it is a one way trip and the people making that trip are made aware of that before going into it.

Why should we not ban travel from those areas? Any arguments against a quarantine/travel ban must be framed in terms of US interests, not West African interests. So far all the arguments I have seen for keeping travel open have been framed in terms of what West Africa stands to benefit, or clouded in obfuscation.

Arguments based on obfuscation tend to follow this format: “No need to ban travel when we can enact better safety measures, blah blah blah…” The real question is why do we need travel from that part of the world, especially under these conditions? What benefit is there which outweighs the risk of spreading Ebola? The best safety measure is an outright ban, anything else is a trial and error process of experimentation.

I have yet to see any positive arguments for keeping travel from the outbreak zones open which are framed in terms of US interests. This isn’t West Africa, it’s the US, and we don’t live in Africa, we live in the US. We don’t live there, we live here, and we don’t need Ebola here. I know this sounds pedantic and gratuitous, but this issue is really a no brainer. If there is an outbreak of some disease in a 3rd world country it is neither our problem nor our responsibility in the US. The reason there are no arguments made in terms of a US perspective is because there is nothing to be gained from a US perspective by allowing travel from the outbreak zones to continue.

Now they are sending our military to “fight Ebola,” as if Ebola can be killed with bullets. Supposedly they are building hospitals and structures over there, but I fail to see how this is the responsibility of the American tax payer, or why an outbreak there justifies exposing our military personnel to a deadly disease. So what? Is there a shortage of labor in Africa that they can’t build their own buildings? Why don’t we send them some of our illegals who are supposedly so useful in building houses here? This whole thing makes no sense from a rational perspective.

Our government is guilty of treason, and needs to be tried according to our laws.

Published by:


I could be described as a libertarian monarchist with religious leanings and sympathies towards anarchy and nationalism. I have realized that a lot of my views are reactionary. Most of the time it's when I see something I don't like that I feel inspired to write. I'm basically like a badger being poked with a stick. I'm fairly ornery when poked, but I don't wish people harm provided that they don't seek to harm me either directly or indirectly. I don't at all care for the left, and I am not at all happy that they are out to destroy my way of life and undermine my freedom. But one of my goals is to spread awareness as much as I can. My Manifesto in Short.: 1. Dejure rights and positive liberty are invalid concepts. Man in his natural state is free. He is free to create what he wants, occupy and defend a territory he exists in, associate with who he wants, wear what he wants, say what he wants, follow whatever religion he wants, and essentially do whatever he pleases. Government is an artificial imposition which requires force both to come into existence and to exist. Therefore, government is not in a position to grant freedom or rights, as those already exist prior to the institution of government. Government can curtail freedoms, but it can never give them. The only fully legitimate function of government is to protect the natural rights of others from being violated by forces which they are incapable of combating, for example, protecting a farmer from the Mongol invasion. Protecting someone from having their feelings hurt is not a legitimate function, as never having hurt feelings is not a natural right. 2. Freedom of association and speech are more important than anyone's feelings. Feelings are subjective, and there is no reason why one person's feelings are any more valid than anyone else's. A law to protect one person's feelings from being hurt is certain to harm another person's, therefore, feelings cannot be a basis for law. My freedoms do not end where another person's feelings begin. 3. Democracy is a failure, and it is predicated on faulty premises. In order for Democracy to work, two criterion must be fulfilled, 1) those who tally the votes must do so honestly, and 2) those who vote must be moral and intelligent enough to make wise and proper decisions. The first premise is impossible to prove, and the second is not true of most people, therefore, Democracy is a questionable endeavor at best, and ultimately doomed to failure. In fact, under the best of circumstances Democracy is mob rule, but aside from that it also opens the door to demagoguery, tribal politics, and lobbying. 4. Communism and Islam are no less evil than Nazism. Communism has killed more people than Nazism, and in fact Stalin alone killed more people than Hitler. Islam has killed, and continues to kill more people than Communism and Nazism together. The only reason why communism and Islam are given a free pass is because Cultural Marxists are in charge of education, the media, and entertainment. Cultural Marxists have decided to institute communism by attacking the culture, and they have recognized Islam as something which they can use as an ally (for the time being). That is why both of those toxic ideologies get a free pass, but really they should not. Hitler worked with both Communists AND Muslims before the allies entered the war, and during the war he continued to work with Muslims. If some guy were to go around in a Nazi uniform and goose-step and Sieg hiel as he walked down the street he would never be able to get a job. His life would be over, and he might even be met with physical violence. If a white guy did it then things would be even worse. However, Muslims are able to walk down our streets wearing their terrorist clothing, their robes and hijabs, which represent thousands of years of slaughter, antisemitism, and persecution of religious and ethnic minorities (not to mention violence against women), and people just let them go. I want a complete and indefinite hiatus on Muslim immigration, and I want us to start repatriating the Muslims that are already here. 5. I utterly reject the concept of the "social contract." I did not ask to exist, nor did I have any control over what part of the world I was born in, which people group I was born into, or what other groups might happen to exist around me. Since my existence is entirely involuntary, I cannot be held responsible for the fact that I exist, nor is my existence sufficient grounds to argue that I owe something to someone else. I do not owe anyone money, goods, or services simply on the basis that I exist or that they exist. 6. Collective guild is a rubbish concept. No one can help what group they are born into, and no one is born owing anyone else anything. Debt is the result of borrowing resources on some level, and having just entered in the world one does not have the capacity to borrow, or really do anything beyond the most basic biological functions. Therefore, the notion that one baby is born owing something to another baby is absurd at best. 7. I thoroughly support Israel. I fully admit to supporting Israel for religious reasons, but if those were not in place I would still support Israel out of enlightened self-interest. Israel fulfills the real world equivalent of the function Gondor serves in Tolkien's Middle Earth. By that I mean they are close to the evil army, and draw a lot of it's attention and focus, and in doing so they protect the west. The difference is, that in Tolkien's world the west does not actively seek to import orcs and other members of the evil army, behind Gondor's back, whereas our moron leaders in real life do constantly import the evil army. Also, Jews are not a monolithic group, There are both left wing and right wing Jews. Those who are on the left are not motivated by religion to do what they do, but by the perverse Marxist ideology which they have adopted in place of their religion.

Categories UncategorizedLeave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s