EZFKA – or the Economic Zone Formally Known as Australia is a conceptual framework for looking at the post modern economies of Australia and indeed the rest of the West:
“Face facts, we no longer live in a society and nation by the name of Australia – we now live in the ‘Economic Zone Formally Known as Australia’. Once you start looking at social and economic policies through the lens of a MultiCult Mass Migration economic zone, where citizens have been reduced to atomised consumers, and cultural cliques have been inserted into consideration for all aspects of decision making, fracturing what was once previously a relatively homogenous and united society and nation, then EVERYTHING about EZFKA’s Corporatocracy soon starts making sense.”
This is a framework that looks beyond what progressive liberals regularily shoot jizz over as they look around their increasingly atomised, deconstructed nations and full of self importance say to themselves; “We are the inheritors of the enlightenment.”
It is easy to identify other social commentators who celebrate their progressive ideals through the ‘Western Liberal Order’ yet purposefully turn a blind eye to the cancers that are hollowing out our nations, even those who proclaim themselves as heterodox thinkers fall victims to it. Because to think such thoughts and recognise that there are differences in population groups that extend beyond cultural differences is an affront to ‘their’ conditioned values and indoctrinated beliefs.
We know they are indoctrinated, because instead of having fair, good faith discussions over such concepts and issues, which frankly will never be resolved, we are instead told by our elites via their superstructure aka ‘The Cathedral’, that the matter is settled. We are told that not only there are no differences, but if you think or even suspect that some of the differences in life outcomes between population groups may be due to inherent human biodiversity, then you are a bad person.
Basically ‘progressives’ have come to believe that “All men are created equally” is a truism in all respects, legal, cultural and biological, when in fact the enlightened viewpoint was that it was only in the eyes of the law, all men are created equally. This is something that those who were actually responsible for the enlightenment as opposed to calling it down as a justification for their refusal to address unpleasant realities, understood. Outside of that TRUE social construct, law, differences remain – cultural and biodiverse differences that are both real and fundamentally impact that direction and functionality of our societies as these imported differences are added to our social narrative.
The elites resisted the enlightenment because it actually gave power to ordinary people WITHIN THEIR SOCIETY. It was literally a transfer of unfettered power from the elites to the people as “All men were created equally“. This transfer was of course imperfect, in that those of means were still able to wield significant influence, but for a while it worked, because it added the voice of the majority to the social narrative and decision making, not just those who would rule over them. Those who actually passed through the enlightenment also had the luxury of being able to be fairly liberal with their application of these concepts, because they still lived as a majority IN THEIR SOCIETIES due to the lack of mass migration – a reality that only really became available within the past 100 years for most of the West and more importantly accessible for the rest of the world within the past 40 years.
But globalist elites and bankers have been playing this game for a long, loooong time, and no sooner had the West thought that it had won the war over and relaxed its eternal vigilance against ‘a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy’ than that conspiracy set in motion social change that used the very values of the enlightenment to hand them victory over the masses of the West.
Here James Kirkpatrick outlines the process of EZFKA from the US’s point of view, or EZFKA US version:
My revised plan to destroy America would have three parts:
First, make sure ordinary Americans can’t own property and thus build wealth by increasing equity in their homes.
Finally, systematically teach those groups who are already given special privileges, protections and set-asides by government that they are actually oppressed and need to demand more.
Sounds familiar doesn’t it – it is bleedingly obvious to all, yet when have ANY of you ever heard it uttered by anyone in the mainstream media?
The moment commentators anyone cottons onto this truth, the elites, their catspaws and lick-spittles in the media, their AntiFa bully boys not to mention hysterical over emoting cat ladies, start dog piling on them calling them out as being racist or weak minded conspiracy theorists:
Some people get it, others don’t. Conformists are the death of both civilization, advancement and free societies. Democracy and freedom are ultimately only ever defended by disagreeable people.
I won’t bother repeating more other than providing the link and this final comment, because James Kirtpatrick gets it:
Mass immigration means that we are importing another permanent underclass, incentivized and rewarded by academia, media and the government into destroying American institutions. The “country” will emerge at the other end of this process will be barely worthy of the name. It will be a landmass full of shiftless, random consumers desperately trying to flee each other but trapped by permanent financial serfdom. There will be no uniting culture, ethnicity, or even political myth. There will be just permanent, simmering conflict with an increasingly authoritarian government using naked repression against the naïve white Americans who keep the failed experiment stumbling along.
This is the world that progressive liberals so enraptured with their conceited false belief that the values of the ‘enlightenment’ are as transferable culturally as passing a bowl of soup, as opposed to anchored in biological realities, are ushering in as our future and that of our children. Because they are too afraid of being called out for recognising that truth that the societies we have today are a function of the people who built, not the people imported to consume it.