If You’re White, You’re Wrong

I’m hardly dropping a bombshell revelation when I state that leftists and non-white tribal activists do not particularly care for white people. Of course, such hostility has never prevented legions of white useful idiots from embracing liberal ideas and policies designed to assist their colored brethren. However, the noble intentions of white liberals are never enough to placate their supposed allies. The perpetual discontent of non-white SJWs has once again reared its head following the conclusion of the Sydney hostage crisis. In a nutshell, a deranged Iranian guy with a penchant for radical Islam held several people hostage at a cafe in Sydney, Australia. After many hours, the crisis was resolved following the deaths of three people, including the gunman.

I’m not going to turn this post into a discussion about Muslims. Likewise, it’s hardly a shocker that there are ungrateful immigrants and minorities living in Western countries today, whether it’s Man Horan Monis in Australia or Anjem Choudary in Britain. Such lunatics are thankfully the minority of most immigrants and Muslims, but they can nevertheless be quite a thorn in the side. They also wouldn’t be able to act on their extremism so easily without permissive attitudes towards borders and multiculturalism. Needless to say, Western countries need to seriously reassess their current immigration policies.

Hypocritical Muslim Immigrant

I’m more interested in the attitudes exhibited by leftists and non-white tribalists in response to this incident rather than discussions regarding extreme versus moderate Islam. In typical fashion, the reactions of leftists to the crisis have been all too predictable. Since white people are all potentially violent racists who can barely contain their insatiable hatred, many Australian Muslims have been bracing themselves for a potential backlash. They needn’t worry, however. Many do-gooder Australians, fearing for the safety of Muslims, now stand in solidarity with them. Such solidarity even culminated in a hashtag entitled #illridewithyou.

One would think that few people could possibly object to such a noble display of solidarity. After all, I think we all know what would happen if Muslims or other visible minorities, individually or in groups, were to pull off such a terrible deed in most non-Western countries. Unfortunately for some aggrieved colored souls, far from being a positive development, the #illridewithyou hashtag is an exercise in colonialism. I kid you not. At least that’s what one editorial writer for my favorite hypocritical leftist media outlet Al Jazeera argues. This editorial is so fatuous that it merits a thorough deconstruction:

“More subtly, this expectation for Muslims to keep speaking out is nothing short of Islamophobic. It assumes that Islam is, at its core, evil. It also upholds the view that Muslims can be essentialised as a monolithic whole.

The chastisement thus becomes the yardstick from which the wider world is to differentiate between a good Muslim and a bad Muslim.”

I can accept the argument that it’s unfair for Muslims to have to disassociate themselves from the actions of extremists, especially when most of them have nothing to do with extremism. However, as I pointed out in my post regarding the left’s notion of collective responsibility, such a courtesy is not extended to whites. It is leftists who assume that whites are evil at their core, can be treated as a monolithic privileged mass, and can be differentiated between good whites (SJWs and radical leftists who betray their own kind) and bad whites (all other white people). The editorial only gets even more absurd:

“Yes, the hashtag was born out of goodwill as the Twitter universe reacted to the story of a white Australian woman pledging to walk in solidarity with a Muslim woman who took her hijab off following news of the Sydney siege. We will protect the good Muslims, so gestures the campaign.

Unfortunately, it also reproduces an age-old trope that has been highlighted by scholars of postcolonial studies. As Western colonisers encounter non-European natives, they began to think of their “Other” in one of two antithetical ways – either as a barbaric savage or a noble savage.

To the colonisers, the hostile savage is inherently dangerous in a sub-human way and always an enemy to the civilised individual. Meanwhile, the noble savage is romanticised as innately benign. Untouched by modernisation, the noble savage should be admired and protected.

Transposed to modern times, the hostile savage translates as the bad Muslim and the noble savage – the good Muslim. Yet, barbaric or noble, a savage is still a savage. The hashtag #illridewithyou is just as patronising.”

Only someone with a major axe to grind against the West could possibly reach the conclusion that a campaign designed to shield a minority group from backlash and hatred somehow amounts to treating them like “savages.” Also, are we supposed to pretend that “bad Muslims” somehow don’t exist? Similar to Jewish gatekeepers like Max Blumenthal who insist that the crimes of Zionism not be associated with Jewish identity as a whole, Nazry Bahrawi treats acts of Islamic extremism as aberrations. Only bigots would dare critique Islam in relation to acts of Muslim extremism. Bahrawi is likewise angered by perceived double standards regarding Muslim and white mass murderers:

“Yet consider this. During the Sydney siege, a shooting spree incidence unfolded in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania that left 6 dead.

International media agencies described the perpetrator, the now-deceased Bradley William Stone, simply as “a suspect”, “a gunman on the loose” and even “a Montgomery man”. No hashtag campaign was necessary to assure white people that the rest of the world will ride with them to keep them safe.

The same can be observed of the reaction to the mass killings committed by the Norwegian Anders Breivik in 2011. While Breivik had claimed himself a baptised Christian in his 1,500-page manifesto, the world did not expect Christians to condemn terrorism in the same way Muslims had.”

Perhaps “the world” didn’t expect whites or Christians to apologize for the crimes of a few of its members, but leftists and non-white tribalists such as the author certainly do. Every time a trigger happy white cop kills an unarmed black man, we white people are constantly told that the cop’s action cannot be divorced from the general racism and white supremacy that characterize the United States. In the wake of Ferguson and the death of Eric Garner, one can easily find several arguments to the effect that the U.S needs to undergo serious racial soul searching, and that white America needs to take responsibility. Acts of white racism are always treated as an integral part of white identity, whereas SJWs and non-white tribalists pull out the No True Scotsman argument and expect us to cut slack to other groups, whose identities and cultures remain fundamentally pure. I guarantee you that if a high profile white individual were to engage in bigotry against Muslims, Mr. Bahrawi wouldn’t hesitate to place that individual’s action within the context of a “culture of Islamophobia,” rather than treating him as just a deranged individual.

Aside from reiterating that the left is hypocritical with regards to applying their standard of  “collective responsibility,” the purpose of this post is to highlight just how difficult it is to satisfy these non-white SJWs. No matter what white people do, it is never enough in their eyes.

Bad White Man

If white people just go about their daily lives and remain ignorant, then they’re in denial of their privilege and are contributing to oppression through their silence. If whites critique Islam following acts of Muslim terrorism, then they’re Islamophobes. If whites attempt to stand in solidarity with Muslims and insist that most Muslims are good, then they’re patronizing colonists who are treating Muslims like “noble savages.” There is very little that white people can do short of prostrating themselves before non-white activists that won’t result in some kind of criticism.

Nor are white allies of Muslims the only ones who get tarred with such criticism. Take Tim Wise, who has incurred the wrath of many white nationalists and conservatives for his relentless critiques of white people and white identity. However, his treachery is not enough to satisfy certain non-white tribalists such as Suey Park. He’s also earned the ire of non-white activists less radical and abrasive than Park.

Essentially, white people are either wicked or they’re eternally on probation, with the slightest mistake resulting in an avalanche of social justice fury. Small wonder that more white people aren’t eagerly embracing the opportunity to become an “ally.”

Ultimately, it’s necessary to inform my fellow white people that these leftists and tribalists are bottomless pits, and that there’s little point in engaging them. Don’t apologize, don’t make concessions, don’t even give them the time of day. The second we debate these issues on their terms, we’ve already lost, because white will never be right to them.

While I will continue to pathologize and critique leftism, I won’t waste valuable time by directly engaging them, and neither should you. I say we let them eat them eat their own and enjoy the popcorn.

Read More: Victory From the Land of Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys


Posted in Cultural Marxism, Immigration, Islam, Race, Racism, Subversion, Tribalism, Wimpy Whites | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Are Humans Naturally Conservative As a Species?

The two greatest forces that impact any community are economic and political. Economics is primarily concerned with the distribution of resources whereas politics is concerned with the distribution of power. Conventional wisdom states that societies and culture are formed at the intersection of the two. So which came first, politics or economics? The question is debatable but it seems clear to me that economics precedes politics. Our species has evolved to be social because that increases chances of survival and gives us an edge in accessing resources. Once our ancestors grouped up to increase their survival chances, a system was required to constructively distribute power and hence the birth of politics. In the Republic, Plato’s Socrates observed that farmers, carpenters, cobblers ect could dedicate themselves exclusively to their own craft if they had access to the goods and services produced by other artisans and professionals. A farmer, for example, wouldn’t have to worry about building his house if a mason lived nearby thus allowing him to focus exclusively on crop production.

Our ancestors rightly realized that resources were scarce. Contrary to modern perception, the most fundamental axiom of economics is not supply and demand, but rather the scarcity of resources. The Production possibility frontier attempts to prove this graphically by illustrating the principle of opportunity cost. As an economy shifts its resources to producing more of Product A, lesser units of product B will be produced. This makes us want to instinctively conserve these scarce resources which has over time molded the human mindset into a conservative frame. Since the very premise upon which society is founded is primarily economic, it stands to reason that this conservative mindset is so deeply ingrained so as to seem atavistic to our species. This conservative mindset would also in time extend to politics and culture where these civilizational goods would be perceived as worthy of conserving.

As Bay Area Guy has already pointed out, liberals (in the western sense) are an endangered species outside the west. One will rarely encounter Japanese politicians whining about “Japanese privilege” or Chinese politicians waxing eloquent about the injustices of “Han privilege”. Non Western nations mostly possess politicians and intellectuals of two stripes: Fascist nationalists and moderate conservatives. There are no liberals. The largest democracy in the world serves as an instructive illustration of this point. The two dominant parties in India are the BJP (Hawkish Hindu Fascist party) and the Secular Nationalist Congress (Moderate nationalists). I cannot think of a single non western nation that has a group of intellectuals dedicated to undermining the ethnic and cultural hegemony of the majority. The reverse is often the case. India undermines the rights of Adivasis (indigenous tribal people) by artificially grafting Hinduism onto their cultural identity. The Chinese are dedicated to the eradication of Uighur and Tibetan culture.

Why have Marxist Liberals infested the West while remaining largely unsuccessful in non Western societies? The reason, as I’ve written about before, is abundant resources. When a society is blessed with abundant resources people gradually tend to lose their conservative bearing. This will in time also extend to culture and politics. Liberal programs tend to have an upkeep that is maintained by traitorous Western elites. The reason why elite schools in third world countries have a small female presence is because non western countries invest their limited resources in high IQ males. India’s IIT is dominated by high IQ Brahmin males. I’m not advocating for discrimination to become public policy, rather, all I’m saying is that limited resources should not be squandered on individuals who possess little aptitude or inclination towards certain vocations. India and China do not have the abundant resources  to fund worthless feminist programs aimed at flooding technical professions with people that possess neither the IQ nor aptitude to succeed therein. There certainly exist a minority of women that can effortlessly compete with men in technical fields, but these individuals do not require a nanny state to hold their hand.

Non Western countries still take into consideration the opportunity cost of their economic decisions. Western nations on the other hand base their decisions on vapid ideologies like feminism instead of economic common sense. Female “independence” comes at a cost which must be borne by society. Abundant resources (Child support, Alimony ect) make single motherhood a viable lifestyle choice whereas in the third world it is sometimes akin to a death sentence. Abundant resources (Government daycare funding) enable career driven women to pursue their “independence.” Abundant resources allow for the maintenance of a large and militarized police  force that stand ready to assist women whenever they feel inclined to make a false rape accusation. The Indian police in contrast continues to use the archaic .303 rifle to this day.

In conclusion I’d like reiterate that liberals are truly a global minority and we should spare no opportunity in calling them out for their deviancy. I recall a truly hilarious commeter on Robert Lindsay’s blog who once claimed that feminism made the west great. She obviously had it backwards as it was the abundant resources of the West that made Feminism (and Liberal insanity in general) possible to begin with. These resources are the greatest blessing and bane of the West.

Read more: Why feminism fails in the third world

Posted in Caste, China, conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Economics, Feminism, Hinduism, History, India, Western Values, White nationalism | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

My article on Return of Kings


I had to use a new pen name on Return of kings as per their website policy. In case any of you are wondering, ‘woh kavi’ is Hindi for “That poet”. Modest aren’t I? But that’s why you people love me and you know it.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Is it time for a new aristocracy?

Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. (1 Samuel 8:5)

There are few words that conjure a succession of images in the mind, each more grotesque than the previous, than the word aristocracy. Some picture the wanton gluttony of the French monarchy or the terminal incompetence of the Russian Czars. It is interesting to note that while many today (but certainly not all) conflate aristocracy with monarchy, the ancients did not. Aristotle drew a distinction between the two in Politics  and argued that while monarchy was ideally the best form of government, it also ran the risk of becoming the most despotic (Tyranny). He then argued that Aristocracy (rule of the qualified few) was ideal in practice if the ruling aristocrats (by no means hereditary) strove for the good of all. If they instead pursued their own interests at the expense of society, the regime became an oligarchy, not unlike the US and Canada today.

Aristocrats do not solely wield political power, they might also wield cultural power which is far more enduring. The Catholic church is a good example of this sort of “aristocracy”. While the founding fathers of the US were hostile to the idea of any ruling class based on lineage, they could not stamp out the local home grown aristocracy. But there is a vast difference between the aristocracy of the old and new. Today we have uncultured elites like the Gates and buffoons like Donald Trump. Modern elites vividly illustrate the caricature of the scheming oligarchy that Aristotle warned about. The old elites certainly pursued their interests with unwavering zeal but unlike modern elites, they also acted as the stewards of society. The idea of an aristocratic class wielding cultural power for the good of society has been expressed by a diverse set of societies throughout history. The Confucians strongly believed that the ruling class must lead by virtue and not force. Confucius believed that adhering to rituals was one way through which elites could act as the keepers of culture.

The old American elites functioned within this same capacity. Henry Ford believed that men should take pride in what they create. He famously stated that “Work is our sanity, our self respect, and our salvation”. Ford’s old fashioned views regarding work hearken back to the protestant work ethic. He passionately believed that work wasn’t just an economic activity but a moral one as well. He respected labour and paid his workers a wage that was well above the industry average at the time. Ford was anti-communist and I suspect his regard for labour stemmed from his anti-communist impulses. If industrialists like Ford refused to care for their workers the latter would then turn to the bloated nanny state for assistance. Ford also prophetically warned society about Jewish subversion whereas today’s elites are more than happy to throw their fellow whites under the bus by co-operating with Jewry.  Ford was the quintessential American aristocrat: a wealthy industrialist  that took it upon himself to not only contribute to the economy, but to the moral health of society.

Ford was certainly not alone in thinking this way. Andrew Carnegie ardently believed that wealth should be used for the betterment of society and built numerous public libraries to that end. He gave away $350 million (over $3 billion today) to philanthropy and believed that wealthy men who neglected their duty to help the unsuccessful died in disgrace. Interestingly enough, after the death of these great men their empires began to serve a subversive agenda. The Ford foundation began funding women’s studies departments throughout US universities and the Carnegies and Rockerfellers did so likewise. These elites understood that feminism paved the way for an intrusive totalitarian nanny state that would usurp the masculine function and provide women with resources they wouldn’t have access to in a meritocratic society. It would also provide them with cheap labour and a subservient class dependent on socialist handouts. Sam Francis said it best:

What paleoconservatism tries to tell Americans is that the dominant forces in their society are no longer committed to conserving the traditions, institutions, and values that created and formed it, and, therefore, that those who are really conservative in any serious sense and wish to live under those traditions, institutions, and values need to oppose the dominant forces and form new ones.

Francis succinctly diagnosed the malaise that currently afflicts American and Canadian society. Far from defending the traditional values that have made the US and Canada the greatest nations in the world, today’s elites (like Warren Buffett) spend their wealth funding abortions and other deviant leftist causes. If women weren’t half as solipsistic they would ponder the paradox of corporate elites (whom they are trained to despise) funding their joke of a social movement. But I’ll leave that for another post.

It is noteworthy that neither Confucius nor Aristotle were aristocrats yet argued in favour of a responsible aristocratic class. I conclude this post with more questions than solutions. How would we remove the current parasitic aristocracy in order to replace them with a more responsible one? What should this new aristocracy look like? What character traits should this new class of cultural elites possess? Do America and Canada still possess the cultural fuel required to produce men of character and integrity?  I do not pretend to have the answers and I welcome your feedback.

Read more: Exit freedom enter totalitarianism: Lost in a liberal wonderland.


Posted in conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Feminism, Subversion, Western Values, White nationalism | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Arab Subversion and Al Jazeera

Throughout the duration of my blogging, I have frequently relied on Al Jazeera America to inform my various posts. While I use Al Jazeera for news, I make even greater use of their editorial page, as it serves as a treasure trove of leftist thinking for me to deconstruct. However, I’ve always wondered why it is that a news publication funded by the ruling family of a Gulf Arab state such as Qatar espouses such radical and progressive politics. After all, Qatar (along with other Gulf Arab states) is not exactly renowned for its progressive record on political freedom, protections for minorities, or workers’ rights. I don’t think I even need to provide a link to an article to support such a claim, as the blatant chauvinism and shameless greed of Gulf Arabs speak for themselves. Dota certainly has more than a few stories to tell about the value system of Gulf Arabs.

However, perhaps my initial skepticism was unfounded. Maybe Al Jazeera was one of those rare progressive non-Western entities that challenges its own society and culture in the same way that they deconstruct and pathologize the West. Therefore, when I saw an editorial that discussed changes in Qatar’s foreign policy, I had some hope. The time had come for Qatar to receive the same critical treatment so often dished out to the West. Of course, I wasn’t too surprised to discover that the editorial was little more than a paean to the humane, just, and amazing foreign policy of Qatar. At that point, I decided that I had had enough with the hypocritical, selective progressivism of Al Jazeera’s editorial page. Therefore, I left an initial comment poking holes in the absurdity of the usual disclaimer that the views of editorial writers do not reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy:

“Oh really?

I must say, I am shocked that a paean to Qatar would appear in no less than Al Jazeera, which conveniently happens to be owned by the ruling family of Qatar.

I guess Al Jazeera’s leftist editorials that consistently pathologize and critique Western societies are consistent with the progressive values of Qatar, bastion of human and workers’ rights that it is.

What a joke.”

Indeed, I find it highly laughable that the rulers of Qatar who fund Al Jazeera genuinely embrace universalist progressive values. I’m also fairly certain that they wouldn’t tolerate having the Arab Muslim character of Qatar pathologized or deconstructed in anti-Western fashion. One of the commenters even suggested that the U.S. should undermine Qatar from within in a similar manner to Al Jazeera’s ideological critiques of America. Here’s what I had to say in response:

“It would be like if wealthy conservative Christians in the U.S. funded a publication that consistently ran editorials by far-left Arabs and others that critiqued and deconstructed Arab culture, Islam, and unrelentingly criticized various Gulf Arab monarchies.

Something tells me that that the intrepid seekers of truth at Al Jazeera would not be too amused.”

Just like many Jewish activists, the Arabs in charge of Al Jazeera only embrace left-wing thought when it serves their own interests, and primarily deploy progressivism as an ideological tool against the white West. While they embrace editorials from a variety of leftists that offer strong critiques of white Western culture, they exempt their own society and culture from such scathing criticism. Such hypocrisy from Arab Muslim nationalists, moderate or otherwise, is not the sole domain of Al Jazeera. In his excellent book From Plato to Nato, David Gress perfectly describes the duplicity of Islamic revivalists and reformists, which is essentially similar to Al Jazeeras:

“The revivalists emphatically rejected “modernism” as applied to Islam, but for the same reasons they welcomed postmodernism in a particular sense. Islamic revivalists wanted Western postmodernism if it weakened the West, made Westerners feel insecure and guilty, and made it easier to enforce claims for political and economic concessions on the West. They absolutely did not want postmodernism if it meant that they themselves should question their own morality, their own Grand Narratives, and their own forms of knowledge. Postmodernism was fine, in their view, if it helped to undermine a Western culture that was anyway, in their opinion, immoral and heretical; as a general attitude of skepticism and epistemological doubt applied to any system of universal belief and morals, it was not…The Islamic revivalist insisted that the West be relativist but that his own religious knowledge remain exempt from postmodern deconstruction.”

-Pages 533-534

In Dr. Jamal Abdullah’s editorial, there does indeed seem to be a significant dearth of skepticism and epistemological doubt as applied to Qatar. While he acts as a professional cheerleader for his home team, I wouldn’t be surprised if he later wrote an editorial denouncing Western cultural imperialism, Islamophobia, and various other real or imagined Western sins.

As I pointed out in a recent post, I sincerely believe that it is only whites who are foolish enough to embrace leftist beliefs. The Arabs of Qatar, like virtually all non-Western peoples, embrace nationalism and some measure of chauvinism. They would never embrace progressivism if it meant compromising the various comforts and advantages they enjoy within Qatar. Therefore, don’t expect any editorials denouncing “Gulf Arab privilege” to appear in Al Jazeera anytime soon.

Given the platform enjoyed by Al Jazeera and the millions of people that their writing and broadcasts reach, I deem it necessary to expose their hypocrisy and warn my fellow white people not to be fooled by their progressive posturing. The time has at last come to deconstruct these professional deconstructors.

Read more: It’s the Values, Stupid! The Lesson of a Diplomatic Temper Tantrum

Posted in Islam, Middle East, Subversion, Tribalism | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Gay Marriage, Montana, and the Myth of White Christian Power

It’s hardly a secret that in the eyes of most liberals and leftists, white Christians are the embodiment of evil. From the usual tired rhetoric about “privilege” to ominous warnings about the extreme danger posed by the religious right, one could be forgiven for thinking that we’re on the verge of being lorded over by Pat Robertson. Analysts of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the “special relationship” between the United States and Israel often highlight the role of Christian Zionists in strengthening the alliance between the two nations. Regardless of the specific issue at hand, we’re frequently being told that the Christian Right enjoys too much influence and that they’re perpetually up to no good. However, when analyzing the evidence, there is very little to substantiate the assertion that white Christian power is running amok in the United States.

First, I’m going to put to rest the tired assertion by liberals and Jewish lobby apologists that Christian Zionists are the primary force behind the U.S-Israel relationship. In their book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt demonstrate that Christian Zionists are minor actors compared to the much more powerful Jewish lobby:

“Yet the Influence of the Christian Zionists should not be overstated. Their strong commitment to a “greater Israel” and resulting opposition to a two-state solution did not prevent the Clinton administration from pursuing the latter at Camp David in 2000, did not halt the 1998 Wye Agreement mandating an Israeli redeployment from parts of the West Bank, and, perhaps most revealingly, did not stop President George W. Bush, who has close ties to the Christian Right, from declaring his own support for a Palestinian state in 2001…Supporting Israel is only one of the many issues that evangelicals like Robertson, Bauer, and Falwell have been concerned with, and it may not even be the most important.Leaders of the Christian Right often claim to speak on behalf of forty million or more professed evangelical Christians, but the number of followers who care deeply about Israel is undoubtedly smaller. In addition, and in sharp contrast to groups like AIPAC, Christian Zionists lack the organizational capacity to analyze national security topics or to offer specific legislative guidance on concrete foreign policy issues…Christian Zionists also lack the financial power of the major pro-Israel Jewish groups, and they do not have the same media presence when it comes to Middle East issues.

-pages 138-139

However, even without such evidence at my disposal, I have a very hard time conceiving of a powerful Christian Right that can dictate foreign policy to Washington elites. In fact, the Christian Right can’t even win major battles on issues more important than Israel, including gay marriage. Just recently, a federal judge overturned Montana’s ban on gay marriage. Allow me to repeat that just so it can sink in: gay marriage has been legalized in Montana. Montana, the same state that a friend of liberal black pundit Ta-Nehisi Coates once quipped had nothing but “white militias and Phil Jackson.” We’re being told that white Christians wield immense power, but somehow they can’t prevent gay marriage from being legalized in Montana of all places? Cut the crap. Gay marriage bans have likewise been struck down in such pinko commie states like Idaho, Nevada, Kansas, and South Carolina, while more continue to join the ranks. 

Nor has the Christian Right been able to use its immense clout to remedy the sickness of mainstream American culture. A culture where a shamelessly debauched child molester like Lena Dunham is regarded as an important generational voice does not demonstrate significant conservative influence. A culture where 50 Shades of Grey is one of the nation’s most popular books does not scream Christian power. A pop culture where white female celebrities like Miley Cyrus unashamedly “twerk” does not suggest that conservative white Christians dictate social trends in the United States. If the Christian Right exercises such a stranglehold on this nation, then why does popular culture go to great lengths to either ridicule or disregard their religious and cultural sensibilities? To ask the question is to answer it.

While religious white Christians may be able to exercise some influence in matters such as abortion (much to the chagrin of liberals), they by and large do not have any real power or influence on a national level. They can achieve a few minor victories here and there, but they are unable to leave their cultural imprint on the nation.

Those who would argue that legalizing gay marriage, ensuring access to abortion, and separating church and state are fundamental constitutional (and therefore Western) values are missing the point. Just to clarify once again, I care very little about issues such as gay marriage and abortion, nor am I even religious. My point is that the radical transformation of the United States should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that everyday regular white Christians possess little to no power, despite the fact that they share the same complexion as most of our elites. The gradual erosion of traditional American values will not end with Montana, and anyone who thinks that gays will be satisfied with gay marriage is deluding himself.

At the end of the day, the Christian Right is mostly irrelevant, and does little to effectively challenge the gospel of liberal subversion.

Read more: The lunacy of the Christian Right

Posted in Christianity, conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Homosexuals, Israel, Organized Jewry, Subversion, Western Values | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Office Space gets it right

I confess I despise movies and Hollywood in particular. I find it excruciating to sit through a film where a group of overpaid celebrities waste 2 hours of my life pretending to be me. As if pretending wasn’t audacious enough, many will also try to convince us that they are one of us; which in my view is the greater crime. Office Space isn’t one of those films and it does a fantastic job capturing the dreary existence of us worker ants. But I’m not here to review the film, rather, I’m here to discuss how the film deals with the issue of multiculturalism.

The film revolves around the lives of 3 software engineers employed by a soulless software giant in the 90s. This is a snapshot of the company:

office space

Let’s get the obvious out of the way. The company is a reflection of American society at large where the majority are white with a few non white minorities thrown in. The three software engineers comprise of two whites (Peter and Michael) and one immigrant (Sameer). Sameer’s ethnicity remains intentionally ambiguous but if I had to guess, I would assume from his Taviz amulet that he is an Indian Muslim. His ethnicity is never dwelt on except in a few situations where his co-workers have a hard time pronouncing his last name, a running gag throughout the film.

Outside of his accent and last name, Sameer is a honorary white person. He speaks English reasonably well, parties hard with his white friends, and laughs at the same jokes as they do. When stuck in traffic he even attempts to swear in English despite not knowing many swear words. He could of-course just as easily swear in Hindi but that wouldn’t be very American. Sameer is basically attempting to integrate into white America, an endeavour familiar to generations of immigrants to the US. He is never made to feel different on account of his foreign origin and is treated equally by his two close white friends. Office Space presents us with a racial dynamic of a bygone era where immigrants were expected to assimilate. When they made the attempt to assimilate, the majority reciprocated by being inclusive. This movie reminds us that diversity and multiculturalism can be mutually exclusive. This was the wisdom of a bygone era that social justice/leftist dimwits have worked hard to erode away. The leftist media deliberately uses the word “Multiculturalism” synonymously with the word “diversity” so as to convey the idea that there can be no diversity without multiculturalism.

Historically, this assertion is nonsense. The Romans, Arabs, Ottomans, and Persians were all ethnically diverse societies that had one dominant ethnic group. Other ethnic groups were expected to assimilate. Iran for example, is an unapologetically Persian nation despite the presence of other ethnic groups such as the Azeris, Ahwazis, and Jews. The Arab Muslims freely granted their non muslim subjects religious freedom but ensured that the latter knew their subordinate place in the scheme of things. North American society isn’t nearly as oppressive and all society traditionally demands is that immigrants try and assimilate. In reality, multiculturalism isn’t diversity, but a model that accommodates diversity. The other model is integration, a word that is anathema to social justice dimwits and their Cultural Marxist overlords. Integration is a historically tried and tested method that generally works. The Italian labourers of yesterday dominate Toronto’s construction industry today as business owners. Multiculturalism on the other hand has a dismal record of success. I’ve witnessed how Pakistani immigrants self segregate themselves, make a bare minimum effort to improve their English and cling onto their tribal habits with a death grip. During the festival of Eid there would be a flurry of activity on my floor as Pakistani neighbours would exchange greetings as well as food dishes. The white neighbours on that same floor were always excluded. Multiculturalism always leads to the following dead end: Racial harmony through indifference rather than through goodwill. I recall how a Pakistani neighbour once whined about his white colleague who requested him to communicate in English while at work. My neighbour hollered “racism” and the white co-worker went away. Is this truly the North America we want to live in? Would the Japanese or Koreans stand for such behaviour? Are Arabs coddled in the Jewish state of Israel?

Office space gets it right when it portrays a North America that normalizes integration but this is just one part of the equation. While it is reasonable to expect the majority to be tolerant and inclusive, these expectations rest on the premise that the majority will continue to be the majority. It cannot in good conscience be expected of whites to be tolerant and inclusive when the gates of mass immigration are flung open and the threat of the majority becoming the minority looms large over the horizon. Benevolence must only be reciprocated by corresponding obligations and loyalty. This is taking a page out of Confucianism and White North America would be wise to adopt this maxim.

Posted in conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Immigration, Israel, Jewry, Race, Racism, Subversion, Tribalism, Western Values, White nationalism | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Western Civilization in motion

The entire preoccupation of the physicist is with things that contain within themselves a principle of movement and rest. And to seek for this is to seek for the second kind of principle, that from which comes the beginning of the change. (Aristotle)


Study the three images below carefully.

Karnak temple, Egypt

Karnak temple, Egypt

Khajuraho, India

Khajuraho, India

Riace warrior (Greece)

Riace warrior (Greece)

What do these images tell us about the civilizations that built them? The Egyptian statues of Karnak are dull, lifeless, featureless, and rigid. They adequately represent the stifling social hierarchy of ancient Egypt. The Indian statues are sensual, even playful, and appear to gently guide the observers eye with undulating curves and exaggerated anatomy. The Greek statue stands out as being most anatomically precise (albeit with some glaring exaggerations) with an astounding amount of detail. One can clearly make out its Mediterranean facial features and even the knuckles and veins of its hands.

But obvious differences aside, there is something else about the genius of the Greek statue that completely eclipses the endeavors of the Egyptians and Indians. The stance, to begin with, is a completely natural one. The legs looks like they bear the weight of the torso with the right leg bearing more weight than the left. One arm is bent at the elbow while the other is relaxed. The head and chest face different directions while the back is arched. The juxtaposition of tensed and relaxed muscles combined with the natural stance enables this statue to convey something the others do not: motion.

The Egyptian and Indian statues look frozen in space and time. The Greek statue, however, looks like it might spring to life at any second. It was meant to resemble the body of an athlete capable of an explosive burst of motion. Scholars believe that the design of the Riace statues (there are two I believe) were influenced by the guidelines of the Greek sculptor Polykleitos who published a treatise on sculpture somewhere around the 4th century BCE. But why were the Greeks obsessed with motion to the point of capturing it (or attempting to) in their art? What was it about motion that so captivated the Greeks?

Long before Socrates would harass Athenian citizens with his “street philosophy”, the Pre-Socratic Greek philosophers were indistinguishable from Mathematicians/Physicists. They observed the universe around them (astronomy) and began looking for an underlying system that was instrumental in structuring the world around them. The Pre-Socratics were obsessed with cosmology. The Greeks didn’t realize it back then, but they had over the course of time bequeathed the human species with the scientific approach: using observation and reason to decipher the laws of nature which were universal. Perhaps the laws of nature inspired later Western philosophers to likewise model ethical laws as universally binding as well. It is ironic that nature worshipers like the Indian Hindus and Chinese Taoists failed to take this step.

We may now return to our earlier question regarding the Greek obsession with motion. Nature was in motion. The celestial bodies were in motion. The Greeks believed that motion was a characteristic of life itself. Thales, for example, believed that magnets had a ‘soul’ since they were able to move Iron. When viewed from another angle, it appears that Greek culture (and Western culture) was in motion. The Greeks absorbed the knowledge of other cultures and then built upon it. This is ultimately what led Western civilization to progress from this:

to this.

The Egyptians meanwhile depicted the human body like this:


for nearly three thousand years.

Perhaps the Orientalists were at least partially justified in their claim that oriental cultures were static in comparison to Western civilization. Consider the following friezes below, the first one from ancient Persia and the one beneath it Roman (Trajan’s column).


trajan column

The Persian frieze is a masterpiece in terms of technique and execution. But if you google image the phrase “Persian frieze” you will encounter numerous pieces of Persian art that, while impressive, cling to the same static style. The individuals in these pieces are largely expressionless and almost always depicted in profile. The section of Trajan’s column depicted above is far more ambitious and innovative than it’s Persian counterpart because it attempted to do something that no other oriental artist experimented with: offering the viewer a different angle. By depicting the Roman soldiers huddled beneath their shields, the sculptor attempted to create a bird’s eye view for a more dramatic effect. Is it then any surprise that the West invented cinema?

Yet again we see an example of Western culture surpassing the orient with creativity and innovation. The impulse to innovate and experiment is clearly rooted in the old Greek obsession with motion. I’m not saying that oriental cultures lacked creativity or innovative zeal, far from it. All I’m trying to convey is that the paradigm shifts that have led us to the modern world were products of the Western intellect. But why did the West experience paradigm shifts at such frequent intervals throughout history whereas civilizations like India and Egypt clung to the the same belief systems and practices for millennia? I don’t know the answer to this question but if I had to guess, I’d say the answer lay in one word:


Greek society wasn’t encumbered by orthodoxy of any kind and had a thriving culture of free debate. As a matter of fact, much of what we now know about various Greek philosophers come from sources (fragments) preserved by their contemporary critics who had intended to refute their views. The views of the Eleatic philosophers (Parmenides and Xeno) were strikingly similar to those of the Hindus. The Eleatics, like the Hindus, believed that the world (reality) was an illusion and that motion and change could not possibly exist. They argued against the primacy of the senses. The Eleatic school was short lived because other contemporary philosophers (notably Democritus) refuted their ideas and effectively exposed their ideas for the ludicrous twaddle that they were. To their credit, the Eleatics employed well reasoned arguments to make their case and thus left their mark on Western philosophy owing to the quality of their thinking rather than content.

Why were these views not challenged in India? Possibly because Brahmin orthodoxy was sacrosanct and beyond even the remotest criticism. Even if criticism were allowed, the masses had no means to engage in it as literacy was monopolized by the Brahmin caste. Debates occurred mainly between various Brahmin scholars (5% of the population) with the occasional Buddhist scholar weighing in from time to time. The rest of the populace were excluded. In time this resulted in Brahmin stupidity becoming Hindu philosophy and remaining unchallenged until the British arrived. Some readers may argue that Christian orthodoxy stifled creativity and intellectualism in Europe, but that was not historically the case and I’ve decisively refuted that claim here. The reason Christianity is more suited to civilization building is because unlike Judaism and Islam, it focuses on ethical perfection instead of ritual perfection. While Islam’s ethics are also universal it’s core ritual framework, like Judaism’s, is non negotiable.

The European peoples, like the Indians, Egyptians, and Persians, were motivated by a desire to build perfection. Unlike the others however, the Europeans believed that perfection had no final end point but was a journey that must be undertaken for its own sake. This is why the Europeans continued to innovate while the other civilizations stopped progressing once they had attained a certain level of perfection. It seems fashionable to rejoice the decline of the West in some circles nowadays. If the Chinese were to become tomorrow’s hegemonic power, would they be able to construct a new paradigm to replace the current one created by the West? If the answer to that question is negative, the West may never lose it’s relevance in world affairs and hence will never truly decline.




Posted in art, Asia, Caste, China, Christianity, Europe, Hinduism, History, India, Islam, Jewry, Western Values, White nationalism | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

All kinds of privilege must be opposed!

All kings of privilege must be opposed!

All kinds of privilege must be opposed!

Posted in Cultural Marxism, Feminism, Humor, Rape Culture, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The True Global Minority

Our liberal leaning mainstream media never hesitates to inform us that whites are slowly but surely becoming minorities within Western countries. Most of the time such trends are reported in a mildly enthusiastic manner, with naysayers depicted as paranoid and alarmist racists. I guess according to leftist logic, objecting to your group’s eventual extinction renders you a horrible extremist.

However, another refrain that I’ve heard from many online leftists on blogs and elsewhere is that whites are already a global minority. Therefore, recent demographic changes are only natural. When reading through Studs Terkel’s book Race, one black woman that he interviewed emphatically rejected the term “minority” in favor of “people of color,” arguing that non-whites like her are the global majority.

Putting aside the foolish notion of a united “people of color” coalition and the fact that all groups are global minorities (as once pointed out by Jared Taylor), I’ll accept the argument that whites are a global minority at face value. After all, one cannot technically dispute such a claim. However, in the spirit of my post on the left and collective responsibility, I’m going to play the fun game of taking leftist logic and applying it to other groups. In this case, the intended target of my game are leftists themselves.

So how does this play out? While leftists love to gloat about how whites are either the true global minority or increasingly losing numbers in Western nations, the truth of the matter is that it is SJWs and cultural leftists who are the true global minority. In order to substantiate my claim, I’m going to analyze the attitudes and behaviors of the non-white global majority, with much emphasis on the heavily populated Asian nations that comprise much of this colored alliance.

I’ll begin with China, which has over one billion non-white people and is poised to challenge Western power in the years to come. Having taking courses on China during college, I learned that nationalism and intense patriotism are very much mainstream in China, and that regular Chinese have no patience for the agitation of minority groups such as Uighurs and Tibetans. Sure, minority groups receive certain benefits such as being able to have more children and a few affirmative action programs, but there’s no support for the kind of multiculturalism or radical leftism that bashes the Han majority or celebrates the impending demise of ethnic Chinese dominance. If one were to attack and demonize the Han Chinese in the same manner that SJW’s attack whites, he had better brace himself for a fight. China would also run afoul of leftist gender sensibilities, as their very own state feminist agency denounces unmarried “leftover women.” While women in China are able to acquire good careers and rise, they are also held to moral standards and society expects them to conform to some manner of traditional behavior. China, by and large, is very much a conservative society.

China’s fellow Asian giant and brown neighbor India exhibits similar tendencies. India’s Hindu majority certainly would not engage in the kind of self-flagellation endemic to white liberals, nor would they tolerate having their culture pathologized or deconstructed in SJW fashion. Their election of far-right nationalist Narendra Modi, who presided over a brutal pogrom against Muslims in 2002, indicates that they would do more than just employ the “tone argument” against those with the audacity to admonish them to “check their privilege.”

Let's see courageous SJW's challenge their privilege

I don’t think SJW’s would have the temerity to challenge their privilege

It also goes without saying that feminism of the Western variety doesn’t fly in India. India, like China, remains a conservative society with an unapologetic majority and a strong sense of tradition.

Lest one think that such chauvinism is merely confined to poor and dysfunctional third world countries, Japan likewise makes no effort to win any multicultural or feminist awards. Makoto Sakurai, the leader of an anti-foreigner hate group who wrote a blatantly racist anti-Korean book, was rewarded by having his book become a number one bestseller on Japan’s Amazon. While he may be extreme, the Japanese as a whole reject mass immigration and multiculturalism. Most Japanese likewise do not look kindly on liberals who bring up negative episodes of Japan’s history. With the blessing of Shinzo Abe’s popular government, the Japanese right is currently putting the squeeze on liberal media outlets. The Japanese are also not renowned for their embrace of feminism, outrage over certain sexist antics notwithstanding. Despite boasting one of the world’s most advanced economies, Japan nonetheless subscribes to fundamentally conservative values.

The aforementioned nations are just the tip of the iceberg. To be clear, this isn’t to say that these countries are cauldrons of hatred where minorities are pelted with rocks every time they leave the house. However, they are nonetheless unapologetically proud nationalist nations that defend their ethnic and religious majorities. Dota once told me that throughout the world, there are very few liberals. Rather, there are nationalists and moderates, with moderates upholding fundamental nationalist values (with the crude bigotry removed). Some might point to the popularity of socialists in Latin America, but even there socialist movements often take place within the context of racial nationalism, as demonstrated by Evo Morales and indigenous revivalism in Bolivia.

Indeed, it is only in the Anglosphere and Western European nations where suicidal liberalism and radical leftism flourish. The real reason why SJWs relentlessly demonize and attack white people is because they can. They know that they live in societies where their subversive views are not only tolerated, but encouraged. They know that white people as a whole won’t fight back. In fact, if they’re successful self-promoters like Tim Wise, they can even manage to enjoy lucrative speaking gigs at prominent universities and media outlets.

This knowledge ought to provide a measure of confidence to those of us in the alternative right. Far from being fringe extremists, we are the true global majority. In fact, we would be considered open-minded moderates by global standards, as most of the non-white planet regards our views as sensible and pragmatic. Subversive leftist deconstructionists are the real global minorities, and we should strive to remind everyone that our enemies represent true deviancy.

Posted in Asia, China, conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Feminism, India, Race, Racism, Subversion, Tribalism, Western Values, White nationalism, Wimpy Whites | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment