Feminism’s corporate benefactors

There’s something wrong with the world today, I don’t know what it is
There’s something wrong with our eyes
(Aerosmith, Living on the edge)


One of the most pervasive myths ever promulgated is that feminism began as a grass roots social justice movement. While equity feminism is centuries old, going as far back as Mary Wollstonecraft, gender feminism has always been an elite project aimed at controlling society through social engineering. For five decades women were lied to by being forced fed a myth that ran as follows: Betty Friedan was a typical housewife until she had an awakening which would culminate in the Feminine mystique. We know that this account is wholly false as Daniel Horowitz exposed her extensive links to the CPUSA which Friedan expended considerable energy trying to cover up. This isn’t entirely surprising considering that feminism is basically Marxism adjusted for gender, as many have already pointed out. Sadly, many of see the world through blinkered eyes where the political turf is fought over by the diametrically opposed forces of left and right. Indeed when the blinkers fall do we realize that the left and right serve the same elite overlords. Let’s see how.

Feminist’s have long bashed corporations as Patriarchy’s Frankenstein. What many would be surprised to know is that if not for corporate support, Feminism would have faded into obscurity. As BAG pointed out in his brilliant article, Aaron Russo revealed in an interview that one of the Rockefellers admitted to his clan’s involvement in creating feminism. But is this true? Let’s examine some facts. According to this fascinating book, some of feminism’s early benefactors were: The Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller foundation, The Rockefeller brothers fund, The Andrew Mellon fund, and the Carnegie Corporation, among others. All Plutocratic corporatists, all obscenely wealthy. The book also confirms Kimberly Schuld’s findings that the Fords were actively funding feminist causes throughout the 1970s. Ford money financed and established Women’s studies throughout US colleges and universities thereby infecting an entire generation of impressionable women. According to Schuld:

“Women’s Studies professor and feminist author Susan M. Hartmann credits the Ford Foundation with being a substantive force that created the feminist movement…In 1971, a group of feminists approached Ford president McGeorge Bundy with a request to involve itself in the feminist movement the way it had in the Civil Rights movement, essentially, creating it out of whole cloth. The result of those early discussions was a full-fledged women’s project to fund the small number of existing women’s advocacy organizations, and also to create a whole new field within academia known as “women’s studies.” In 1972, Ford announced the first $1 million national fellowship program for “faculty and doctoral dissertation research on the role of women in society and Women’s Studies broadly construed.” A 1996 article by Heather MacDonald reported that women’s studies programs had received $36 million between 1972-1992 from Ford and other foundations.”

Yet data pertaining to Feminism’s corporate benefactors remains lodged in plain sight for the world to see. The University of Michigan’s background information on the Women’s studies program admits to receiving funding from: “The National Science Foundation, Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Russell Sage Foundation, National Institute of Education, National Endowment for the Humanities, National Institute of Mental Health, and other agencies have given both support and visibility to research on women’s studies.” The University of Hawaii similarly admitted that it received a “prestigious three-year Rockefeller grant on Gender and Globalization in Asia and the Pacific ($250,000).” The Susan B. Anthony Institute for Gender and women’s studies has also casually admitted to receiving Rockefeller money.

The information is freely available but yet few of us can see it. There is something very wrong with our eyes.

That was then, what about today? Elite funding for feminism is alive and well even today. “Philanthropist” Warren Buffet’s Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation donated $21 million to the National Abortion Federation Hotline Fund in 2010. According to Heather MacDonald, Sidney Knafel (Chairman of Insight Communications) “recently forked over a juicy $1.5 million to the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, a font of feminist grievance and left-wing posturing.” The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation similarly donated $1 million to the global fund for women in the hope of exporting the virus of feminism to the third world. Elite run charities take our money and then funnel it towards their pet causes that advance elitist goals; a tidy sham.

Why are our plutocratic corporate elites bent on funding feminism? Russo provided part of the answer when he highlighted the broadening tax base and state indoctrination. A third reason might be to collapse wages due to a labour influx. In my view however, there are other reasons involved as well. As I pointed out in a previous article:

  • Women aren’t entirely economically independent, feminists have shifted their dependance away from husbands and family and onto the state (Affirmative action legislature, family laws that favour women/alimony/child support ect).
  • Women aren’t any less subservient today, feminists have shifted their subservience away from husbands and families and onto the Corporate elite (Fashion/lifestyle/consumption trends).
  • Women aren’t any less concerned with security today, feminists have shifted that need away from men and onto the state (rape paranoia).

By empowering women to a degree that secures their independence from the family, the state has usurped the masculine role of providing for women. This is possibly why women overwhelmingly vote liberal. This arrangement also lubricates the transition of the high surveillance nanny state that feminists erroneously believe will serve women’s interests. I seriously doubt that Capitalists funded feminism out of the goodness of their hearts, but rather due to the calm realization that women are far more likely to accommodate state totalitarianism than men. Feminism was ideologically shaped by Communism and bankrolled by Capitalism. Sadly, most people still cannot see beyond the artificial left/right divide that obscures the image of our true oppressors: An elite (Jewish/Saxon) that has no loyalty to Western culture or Civilization.

Posted in conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Feminism, Jewry, Organized Jewry, Subversion, Western Values | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Donors Behind Cultural Crimes: Why the Alternative Right Should Embrace Political Independence

I have written before about the toxic role that corporations have played in polluting our culture and society. However, corporate malfeasance wouldn’t be so deleterious if our elected officials exercised more autonomy and were capable of tempering their influence. Alas, that is not the case, and one can commonly hear Americans bemoaning the role of special interests and major donors. However, very rarely do you hear such “fundraising” described for what it truly is: legalized bribery. Indeed, what would be considered outright bribery in most of the world is perfectly legal and acceptable here in the United States. Such bribery has been aided and abetted by various Supreme Court decisions, which have afforded corporations the rights of individuals and simultaneously removed restrictions on the amount of money that individuals can “donate.” Power no longer resides in elected officials but in those to whom they are financially beholden.

So how is this all relevant, and what does it have to do with the cultural crimes we so often denounce on our blog? One of the recurring arguments of the alternative right is that white majorities continue to be sold out and undermined by hostile elites. The disproportionate power and influence of Jews is often cited as the primary culprit for such elitist aggression, but that’s too simplistic of an analysis.

The real problem is that even if white politicians wanted to make a real difference, their hands would be tied by the process of fundraising. White nationalists attack the Republican party for being feckless and unable to tackle the various issues that their constituents really care about, especially with regards to immigration. However, what makes them think that Republicans would make a genuine effort to close the borders on a national level? After all, since Republicans are beholden to big business interests, they’re not about to deprive their masters of cheap labor. The best they can do is come up with laws such as Arizona’s SB 1070 in certain states. Strangely enough, the evil secret Muslim Kenyan Socialist Barack Obama has done more to deport illegal immigrants than any white Republican in recent memory.

Republicans will also not make any real impact on various social issues, because the wealthy whites who run the party don’t care about their fellow white people or social problems that exist outside of their comfortable bubbles. In a study that demonstrated white peoples’ growing conservatism in response to non-white demographic gains, the only group of white people who didn’t seem too perturbed by the impending minority status of whites were, surprise, the ones with wealth and status. Why worry about multiculturalism and feminism when you can continue to amass wealth and enjoy the good life?

Or take Jewish power and the Zionist lobby, which is another pet peeve of the alternative right. The power of the Jewish lobby is indeed formidable, but it’s not omnipotent. The reason Jews wield so much political power is due to their tremendous fundraising efforts, which accounts for wildly disproportionate percentages of Democratic and Republican funding. Regardless of a politician’s personal views, who is going to risk losing out on money or allowing his opponent to procure more funding than him?

As the Al Jazeera editorial pointed out, there are ways to reduce the influence of money in politics. By having the state provide public funding to politicians, politicians will actually be forced to answer to the people they purportedly represent. Separating politics from private fundraising would go a long way towards addressing the various afflictions we discuss. Politicians could act on the white public’s desire to restrict immigration because they wouldn’t fear the reproach of big business. Jewish power in politics would significantly decline because elected officials would no longer be dependent on Jewish money. Heck, the independence from special interests such as the food industry could even play a role in reducing our nation’s disgraceful obesity rate.

We have penned many articles decrying various toxic trends that are destroying the West. However, it should be recognized that they are but symptoms of a much greater disease. That disease is a group of callous elites who could care less if Rome burns, so long as they can continue living as patricians. Left wing or right wing, rotten elites are rotten elites.

Ending their negative influence is a tall order, but preventing them from buying our elected officials would be a great place to start. And in the meantime, don’t vote Republican.

Posted in conservative values, Economics, Immigration, Organized Jewry, Subversion | Tagged , | 8 Comments

Feminism and anti-patriotism part 2: A few thoughts on internationalism

Some time ago, commenter Acartia and I were debating the totalitarian character of pro gay bill 13 in Ontario. I had pointed out how a gay straight alliance club in the US was promoting homosexual sex in a graphic manner to which he responded:

“I sure hope that you are not trying to claim that the bad behaviour of a small sector of an identifiable group is reflective of all within the group. If so, 911 is proof that all Muslims are terrorists and the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church is proof that all Christians are hate filled homophobes. Obviously, these are absurd conclusions.”

Acartia made this argument in good faith but I think his analogy is flawed. He’s right in his reasoning about Muslims and Christians and while I admit that dragging in a foreign group into this debate did weaken my argument somewhat, I feel that I am still somewhat justified in doing so.

Religions like Christianity and Islam are global in scope but not international. By global I simply mean that a community is not geographically concentrated in one region; nothing more nothing less. Global religions harmonize with local cultures. Malaysian culture is very different from Iranian culture despite both countries sharing a common Islamic faith. Similarly, the culture of Italy is very different from the culture of the Philippines which shares the Catholic faith of the former. Global religions do not transcend regional, national, ethnic, and linguistic boundaries. Their appeal might be global but these religions are absorbed by local cultures and remade in the culture’s image. Internationalist movements like Feminism and Marxism on the other hand transcend national and ethnic identities. As I’d stated some time ago, feminism is anti-nationalism and anti-patriotism. Feminism and Marxism subscribe to a narrative of class struggle which is then imposed on societies with scant regard for culture and historical realities and perspectives. While Islam and Christianity vary from community to community, Liberal pet causes do not. Unlike religion there is very little room for interpretation within the ideological framework of feminism and Marxism as their core beliefs are non negotiable. Feminists in India sound exactly like feminists in the west when they harp about “patriarchy” and “gender subordination.”Likewise, LGBT groups around the world employ the same tactics and rhetoric and share the same underlying agenda. There is no such thing as Mexican feminism or Arab feminism; feminism is feminism. The same goes for the LGBT groups in the west, or at least in the anglosphere.

As many have already pointed out, Feminism is essentially Marxism adjusted for gender. Women’s history is now being reconstructed along the solipsistic lines of class struggle without any heed given to nationality, ethnicity, religion, and culture. Feminists have also long decried any attempt at classifying their toxic ideology as a western creation while insisting that their movement speaks for women globally (one size fits all). Feminism essentially inherits the internationalism of Marxism. A few words on Marxism are in order. Marxism is at its core a very Jewish philosophy condensing within its framework various aspects of the Jewish worldview such as:

1)Rebellion: In this case, workers against “Bourgeois.” Other rebellions that Jewry are invested in are feminism (Women against men/family), Multiculturalism (minorities against the majority), Pornography (rebellion against society/marriage), and Homosexuality/gay rights (gays against society and culture).

2)Materialism: Marxism assumes that material gain is the sole motivator of human agency (defined through class struggle) throughout history. Material bounty has always been perceived as a sign of divine favour within the Jewish worldview.

3)Internationalism: Marxism is international and imposes it’s narrow narrative of class struggle on all human societies regardless of cultural and racial considerations (one size fits all). This is also obvious from Marxism’s rendering of class along economic lines while ignoring cultural and religious variables. This internationalism is a facet of the Jewish identity as Jews could never historically identify with the nationalism of their host nations. The interests of the Jewish collective supersede the interests of their host nations and much ink has already been spilled on North American Jewry’s commitment to Israeli interests at the expense of American and Canadian interests. Organized Jewry remains unconcerned with whether the US and Canada are dragged into a third world war, so long as Israel retains the right to wage perpetual war in the Middle East. Henry Ford was correct in titling his book “The international Jew.” A great American and a great Capitalist, Ford was one of the few men who saw the Jew clearly for what he is.

As Gender feminism was essentially a Jewish creation (Betty Friedan/Gloria Steinem), the movement retains much of the internationalism of Marxism; and hence feminism’s need to ‘transcend’ regional and national loyalties. Feminists seem to identify more with an oppressed woman in Afghanistan than with the hungry homeless man downtown. Feminist groups show no sense of patriotism or loyalty to their nations unless they are allowed to reconstruct culture on their own terms. Like its Jewish Frankenstein, the feminist monster would rather censor debate than participate in it. Most feminist blogs and websites are echo chambers that protect their cowardly members with “trigger warnings” and blanket bans.

The main reason why feminism has won so little ground in the orient is due to the oriental woman’s loyalty to her culture and country. South Asian and Arab women actively defend their cultures despite suffering inhumane abuse from their backward and tribal societies. Disturbingly, some of these South Asian women occasionally participate in honour killings. Western women by contrast have historically enjoyed a higher standing partially due to Christianity’s unwavering commitment to monogamy.

A few final thoughts on internationalism are in order. Internationalism serves Jewry well as their interests are tribal no matter how globally dispersed they may be. Yet when internationalism is adopted by heterogeneous gentile groups the result is cultural suicide on a massive scale. Ethnicity, language, gender, and religion are all facets of identity that are worth fighting for and have been fought for since time immemorial. Internationalist ideologies like Marxism and feminism strip us of our cultural identities and reduce us to faceless human resources to be allocated by a totalitarian nanny state.

Posted in Asia, Christianity, conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Feminism, Homosexuals, India, Islam, Israel, Jewry, Organized Jewry, Subversion, Tribalism, Western Values | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Render Unto Cesar: Lessons From “Cesar Chavez”

A couple of days ago I saw the film Cesar Chavez. As expected, the hagiographic film about the legendary Latino labor activist who organized exploited farm workers and promoted the boycott of grapes depicted Chavez as a borderline saint. Aside from his strained relationship with his son, Chavez’s actions were purely heroic. Despite enduring countless attacks and abuse from racist and greedy growers, Chavez remained committed to non-violence. When his fellow Latino activists began to grow angry and resort to violence on account of the abusive tactics of the growers, Chavez fasted for about a month on behalf of non-violence. Continuing to persevere, the strike and grape boycott eventually brought the growers to their knees and forced them to negotiate with Chavez and the United Farm Workers (UFW) union. The film ended with Chavez delivering a triumphant speech and writing an impassioned letter to his estranged son. Words on the screen then educated the audience about how Chavez’s efforts allowed farm workers to secure bargaining rights.

Sounds like a pretty amazing man. I’ll admit, despite my innate cynicism, I couldn’t help but feel great admiration for Cesar Chavez after leaving the theater. However, knowing the proclivities of Hollywood, I decided to look up the real Cesar Chavez. As it turns out, the man was much more flawed and complex than the simplistic and heroic narrative. This is why everyone should refrain from deifying people just because they endorse their views or activism.

The film also made me ponder the issue of illegal immigration. During the part of the film where the activism of Chavez and the UFW began to achieve greater success and recognition, the growers began to panic. In response, one of the particularly racist and redneck sounding growers ordered his minion to drive to the Mexican border and bring back truckloads of illegal immigrants. The reasoning was that if they could find illegals to work in the fields, not only would they have less need of striking workers, but the sight of new workers in the fields would demoralize Chavez and the UFW.

I’ve written before about how leftists serve as useful idiots on behalf of big business interests through their support for mass immigration. By supporting the abolition of borders and sporting bumper stickers saying “a human being is not illegal,” these SWPL’s are enabling the kinds of amoral growers depicted in Cesar Chavez. As it turns out, the real life Cesar Chavez felt the same way, because he was staunchly opposed to illegal immigration:

“With the help of UFW co-founder Dolores Huerta, Chavez launched the ‘Illegals Campaign,’ which he believed was nearly as important as the boycott. He criticized President Nixon and the Border Patrol for letting in so many ‘wets,’ as he called them. Under the campaign, he turned the UFW into an anti-illegal-immigrant spying organization. Union volunteers became dedicated to finding and identifying undocumented immigrants working on farms — as well as those giving them aid and comfort. The information was turned over to the feds…Chavez believed that the campaign would help his supporters explain to the public why the boycott against grapes and lettuce wasn’t effective: Farmers were hiring illegal workers who didn’t care about the strikes or boycott. A favorite line of Chavez’s was, ‘If we can get the illegals out of California, we will win the strike overnight.’”

Yikes! If Cesar Chavez were alive today and suddenly transformed into a white man, he would be on the $PLC’s “hate watch.” At the end of the article, the biographer of Chavez clarified that he would have deplored the anti-immigrant rhetoric employed by the white right today. That’s probably true, but I nevertheless find it fascinating that one cannot oppose illegal immigration in a much milder manner than Latino legend Cesar Chavez without being branded a hateful racist. The last time I checked, not even most white nationalists refer to illegal Mexicans as “wets.”

(Yes enraged social justice warriors, only members of the oppressed are allowed to use such terms. I know, I know)

This only goes to show how ingrained PC and multiculturalism in our society have become. It is also yet another illustration of how little the left cares about workers and economic justice. They care more about random brown people from the 3rd world more than they care about native born white workers. Heck, they care more about outsiders than they do about helping native born non-white workers. They don’t seem to mind that amoral and avaricious business owners are committed to importing armies of wage slaves and making workers more expendable, so long as they can continue to purchase cheaper strawberries.

So if you happen to know any SWPL hipster types, take them to see Cesar Chavez. Let them see that they have good company when it comes to supporting open borders. Then, once the film is over, tell them that the real life Cesar Chavez opposed illegal immigration. The reactions will be priceless!

Posted in Economics, Hispanics, Immigration, Race, Racism, Subversion, White nationalism | Tagged , , | 6 Comments

Hebrews and Hollow Gestures: The Shallowness of Jewish Support for Minorities

Many white nationalists and those on the alternative right have rightly pointed out the disgusting hypocrisy of many influential Western Jews. The same people who promote multiculturalism and denounce any manifestations of white identity unapologetically assert Israel’s right to exist as a “Jewish state.” I won’t write about that, since Jewish hypocrisy regarding Israel is well documented. However, what isn’t acknowledged too often is the insincerity of Jewish support for non-white minorities within Western countries. Jews love to boast about how they supported the black civil rights movements and were at the forefront of liberal egalitarian movements. But did they really care about black people and other minorities, or were more self-serving motives present? The late Malcolm X had his own answer to that question:

“I gave the Jew credit for being among all other whites the most active, and the most vocal, financier, “leader” and “liberal” in the Negro civil rights movement. But I said at the same time I knew that the Jew played these roles for a very careful strategic reason: the more prejudice in America could be focused upon the Negro, then the more the white Gentiles’ would keep diverted off the Jew. I said that to me, one proof that all the civil rights posturing of so many Jews wasn’t sincere was that so often in the North the quickest segregationists were Jews themselves…And an even clearer proof for me of how Jews truly regard Negroes, I said, was what invariably happened wherever a Negro moved into a neighborhood that was thickly Jewish. Who would lead the whites’ exodus? The Jews!”

-The Autobiography of Malcolm X, page 380

So Jews are not only hypocritical when it comes to differing attitudes on Western countries and Israel, but even their own domestic support for minorities is shallow and hypocritical. Malcolm X quotes aside, what are some examples of such insincerity? For starters, Jews adamantly believe that their victimhood trumps all others. Non-white victimhood is acceptable so long as it’s directed against white gentiles and does not infringe upon Jewry’s monopoly. Norman Finkelstein once referred to such an attitude as “the uniqueness doctrine.” For a great fictional example of the “uniqueness doctrine” in action, watch the following clip from the acclaimed HBO mafia series The Sopranos. (skip to around the 0:30 mark)

Even the most dimwitted person can’t help but notice the Jewish character Hesh’s fundamental shift in demeanor towards the Latino character Reuben during the course of the conversation. When speaking purely of Columbus and the genocide of the Taino Indians, Hesh displays nothing but sympathy and support. After all, Jews “because of their history have common cause with the oppressed.” Never mind that all the claims about widespread usage of infected blankets are nonsense (the only recorded instance of such biological warfare was its use by British general Jeffrey Amherst during the French & Indian War during colonial times). However, Reuben made the fatal mistake of presuming that Jewish and non-Jewish lives are equal, because he foolishly asserted that Columbus was no better than Hitler. Major blunder. All of Hesh’s sympathy and “common cause with the oppressed” instantly evaporated, and his tone and body language demonstrated nothing but hostility. Reuben was accused of “trivializing the Holocaust”  and told that he was revealing his “covert anti-Semitism.” Hesh then proceeded to kick Reuben out of his house.

So how exactly was Reuben engaging in anti-Semitism? Did he claim that Jews were a biological race, and an inferior one at that? Did he express any animus towards the Jewish people? No, merely by claiming that the suffering of American Indians was on equal footing with Jews during the Holocaust, he violated Jewish sensibilities. If the writers of The Sopranos had some more courage, they would have had Reuben question Hesh on why the suffering of Jews was more important than that of American aboriginals. But not even the creative and intrepid creators of America’s favorite crime series dared to challenge the notion that Jewish victimhood towers above other peoples’ suffering. Instead, Reuben was outraged over the charge of anti-Semitism. When accused with anti-Semitism, one can only deny and never challenge. One must always be on the defensive.

For a recent and real life example of this hypocrisy, consider the case of iconic black South African anti-apartheid activist Desmond Tutu and Ohio State University Hillel member Misha Berkovic. Upon seeing a video of Tutu describing the Israeli treatment of Palestinians as apartheid, Berkovic referred to Tutu as a neo-Nazi. When taken to task for his absurd slander, Berkovic proceeded to call Tutu a Jew hater and rant about how much Jews have done for blacks.

Or take the conflict between the Toronto-based “Queers Against Israeli Apartheid” and the Canadian Jewish Congress. Former CJC head and “human rights advocate” Bernie Farber absolutely adores gay people and their struggle. That is, until they run away from the plantation and fight for the human rights of Palestinians, which causes paragons of social justice such as Bernie Farber to bring down the hammer.

So there you have it. Jews love minorities and will gladly fight with them against white goyim oppression. However, the second they step out of line and challenge Jewish racism and exploitative practices, they transform into vile anti-Semites. Far from being a new phenomenon related to Israel, this is business as usual. Norman Finkelstein describes the Jewish abandonment of the black struggle in his book The Holocaust Industry:

“Jews, no longer mindful of past allies among the have-nots, increasingly earmarked their resources for Jewish concerns only. This reorientation of American Jewry was clearly evident in growing tensions between Jews and Blacks. Traditionally aligned with black people against caste discrimination in the United States, many Jews broke with the Civil Rights alliance in the late 1960s, when, as Jonathan Kaufman reports, ‘the goals of the civil rights movement were shifting – from demands for political and legal equality to demands for economic equality. ‘When the civil rights movement moved north, into the neighborhoods of these liberal Jews,’ Cheryl Greenberg similarly recalls, ‘the question of integration took on a different tone. With concerns now couched in class rather than racial terms, Jews fled to the suburbs almost as quickly as white Christians to avoid what they perceived as the deterioration of their schools and neighborhoods.”

-p. 35-36

Finkelstein attributes this to a “rightward shift,” but I know better. In a nutshell, Jews were happy to support blacks so long as they were protesting against the white goyim and knew their place. But the second that blacks began to demand equality with Jews and were no longer content to be junior partners in their alliance, Jews “took on a different tone.”

These are but a few pieces of evidence and observations that highlight the very capricious nature of Jewish support for minority groups. Many believe that Jews are hypocritical about their liberalism. I would argue that Jews are not even liberal on a fundamental level. Through their deeds, Jews (at least those in the organized community) have demonstrated that they’re not genuinely committed to individualist, universal values that transcend tribal identity. Whenever liberalism collides with “is it good for the Jews?” the Abe Foxman’s and Bernie Farber’s of the world will always choose the latter. Jewish liberalism is a tool used to advance their tribal interests.

I’m not saying that all or even most individual Jews are like that. I’m capable of distinguishing between group and individual behavior, as evidenced by my very diverse social group. Some might wonder why I’m even bothering to write this post. After all, what do black-Jewish relations have to do with white preservation? The point I’m trying to make is that white people shouldn’t be so easily cozened by the sophisticated moral arguments and assaults against the West. Jewish liberal talking heads are not simply misguided and clinging to quixotic beliefs. They’re not promoting their liberalism in good faith, and any white person not blinded by the cult of Jewish victimhood should recognize it for the racial self-interest that it is.

From what I’ve observed, it is only white gentile liberals who genuinely embrace liberal values. How else can one explain white liberals applauding or even celebrating growing diversity and the impending minority status of their own people, whereas so-called “liberal Zionists” would have a heart attack at the thought of Palestinians numerically eclipsing Jews within Israel? This is not confined to Jews, as Asian Americans and Latinos likewise employ liberalism as a shield for their tribal interests.

But that will be for another, edifying future post.

Video | Posted on by | Tagged , , , | 8 Comments

Sociopathy and power

From Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky

I maintain in my article that all … well, legislators and leaders of men, such as Lycurgus, Solon, Mahomet, Napoleon, and so on, were all without exception criminals, from the very fact that, making a new law they transgressed the ancient one, handed down from their ancestors and held sacred by the people, and they did not stop short at bloodshed either, if that bloodshed—often of innocent persons fighting bravely in defence of ancient law—were of use to their cause. It’s remarkable, in fact, that the majority, indeed, of these benefactors and leaders of humanity were guilty of terrible carnage. In short, I maintain that all great men or even men a little out of the common, that is to say capable of giving some new word, must from their very nature be criminals—more or less, of course. Otherwise it’s hard for them to get out of the common rut; and to remain in the common rut is what they can’t submit to, from their very nature again, and to my mind they ought not, indeed, to submit to it. You see that there is nothing particularly new in all that. The same thing has been printed and read a thousand times before. As for my division of people into ordinary and extraordinary, I acknowledge that it’s somewhat arbitrary, but I don’t insist upon exact numbers. I only believe in my leading idea that men are in general divided by a law of nature into two categories, inferior (ordinary), that is, so to say, material that serves only to reproduce its kind, and men who have the gift or the talent to utter a new word.

The purpose of this post is to stimulate discussion rather than offer analysis/commentary. This post was partly inspired by Robert Lindsay’s Portrait of the Billionaire as a Monster. The question that I’ve always pondered over was this: Do the powerful abide by a different code of ethics than the rest of us? Are the “alphas” destined to rule over the “betas” and “omegas”? To what degree are sociopathy and power linked? In one of our discussions, an old friend told me that States are amoral because they are forced to juggle the competing interests of heterogeneous groups. But what of individuals? Do the powerful bend the rules by the sheer force of their will? What is the goal of acquiring power? Maximizing personal freedom? A broader question one could ask is if class is simply inherent to our species regardless of society and culture. If class is a function of talent, then the flatness of a communist society is an impossible pipe dream.

What are your thoughts on this?

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

No Queers, No Beers: Thoughts on the St. Patrick’s Day Imbroglio

Hope you all had a stimulating and enriching St. Patrick’s Day! If you’re like many Americans you wore some green, went out to a bar, and decimated your brain cells in the process. However, if you’re a perpetually aggrieved member of the DIC (Diversity Industrial Complex, for those who don’t remember), then St. Patrick’s Day is a source of tremendous controversy and histrionics. What could this fun, alcohol fueled Irish holiday possibly have to do with the DIC?

Well, St. Patrick’s Day parades ran afoul of the gods of diversity by fostering an environment that was “discriminatory” towards LGBT’s (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender). In addition to incurring the wrath of gays, the parades were even boycotted by the mayors of New York and Boston, in addition to prominent brewers such as Guinness and Sam Adams. Gay activist group GLAAD was especially impressed by the decision of Guinness to disassociate itself from the parades. Guinness “sent a strong message to its customers and employees: discrimination should never be celebrated.” Sam Adams withdrew its sponsorship after a gay Boston bar threatened to stop pouring its beer.

So what was this oppressive, discriminatory offense committed by the organizers of the parades? Did they ban gay people from participating in the parades? Did they invite homophobic, conservative Catholic priests to speak during the parades? No and no. Gays were fully welcome to participate and march in the parade. The organizers of the parade simply didn’t want them carrying any pro-gay rights signs.

Really, that’s it. I guess it is a crime against humanity to forbid gays from promoting their propaganda on a day otherwise designed to celebrate Irish heritage and have a good time. This reminds me of a very perceptive comment by Tulio on Robert Lindsay’s blog a while back:

The gay movement is poised to become more annoying than “rape culture” feminists, ADL and Al Sharptonites combined. Homosexuality has become one of those things where you can’t even politely disagree with it or show the slightest distaste of the act. You can’t even be NEUTRAL on gays as in, “I neither oppose them or embrace them”. Being neutral to gays would be like being neutral on Hitler. If you are neutral on Hitler you’re evil. If you are neutral on gays, you’re a homophobe because you have not *fully* embraced them or the act of homosexuality.

Tulio’s prediction is being proven correct. Despite tolerating gays and allowing them to participate, the parades have been smeared as homophobic simply because they didn’t want gays to derail their event with their own separate agenda. This also illustrates the point I made in a previous post about gays and the DIC:

Far from “fighting the power,” those who espouse cultural liberalism are the power.

Gays and gay activists are apparently so oppressed that they can have prominent mayors and companies boycott popular parades because they deem them insufficiently committed to their pet cause. It seems that gays are starting to eclipse even Jews as the establishment’s preferred protected class. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if they open a homophobia museum in D.C. in the near future.

Yet again, I want to reiterate that I don’t care that much about gays. Even though I grow increasingly annoyed with the aggressive and self-righteous antics of the gay lobby, they’re still child’s play compared to the far more pernicious ideologies and movements that plague our societies. Nevertheless, it is a troubling sign that the liberal establishment has elevated gays to such an exalted position. This is part of an overall attempt to promote the subversive and deviant, as well as continually remind regular white people that there can be no dominant and “normal” identity or lifestyle. We must accept anyone and everyone, and all boundaries be damned.

In case anyone gets the wrong idea, I am not saying that people should go around throwing stones at gays or harass them with demeaning insults. Treat them with the basic everyday courtesy and human decency that you would afford other people. Like it or not, they’re here to stay, so you might as well tolerate them. But that doesn’t mean you have to accept or endorse their lifestyles. There is a huge difference between “tolerance” and “acceptance.” Gays more or less enjoy tolerance, so they’re after acceptance now. However, gays by definition are abnormal, and for all that gays love to moan about “heteronormativity,” heterosexuality will always be the norm.

As Dota once pointed out, tolerance without boundaries (which really amounts to unquestioning “acceptance”) leads to cultural suicide. So again, tolerate others and treat them with courtesy, but at the same time be ready to draw the line. And the next time some leftist activist moans about “heteronormativity,” be sure to introduce her to the friendly neighborhood dictionary.

Posted in conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Homosexuals, Subversion | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

The folly of exporting democracy

The chief folly of the western mind lies in its its stubborn predisposition to the foolhardy belief that non whites think and act like westerners; or at least would attempt to do so under the right conditions. It is in this context that I believe that exporting democracy to the third world is as foolish as it is futile. The various cultures of the global south should be free to practice their own cultures without the immoral interference of the global north. The construct that we call democracy has certain western values embedded within its ideological framework that are incompatible with the values of the diverse third world.

For obvious reasons, I’m going to illustrate this point using South Asia as a case study. What are some of the western values embedded within democracy? Broadly speaking, they are equality, universalism, and Individualism. As Kevin MacDonald once pointed out, Western culture’s de-emphasis of extended kinship is the underlying link between individualism and moral universalism; as the individual needn’t concern himself with tribal interests and is hence free to pursue the most moral alternative (Is it good for my tribe versus is it good for mankind).

When individualism gains ground over tribalism, ideological interpretations of reality (as opposed to narrow tribal interests) are necessary in determining the direction and focus of society. It is during such a climate that the Greeks birthed democracy, the most unique social experiment of the ancient world.

Is India an effective democracy? Western democracies are governed by ideology precisely due to the individualist and morally universal cultures they represent. How does Indian democracy work? Indians do not vote for ideology, they vote for the candidate that belongs to their community/caste. Aakar Patel observes this to be the reason why there is no debate in Indian politics. South Asian culture is authoritarian and hierarchical; and this explains the popularity of leaders like General Zia (Pakistan) and Narendra Modi (BJP Party, India).

Salman Taseer. Murdered for defying Pakistani society's religious intolerance.

Salman Taseer. Murdered for defying the religious intolerance of Pakistani society.

Patel has already spilled much ink on Modi’s authoritarian style of leadership which would be considered reckless in the west but is considered effective in India. Critics of democracy like Lord Macaulay believed that democracy would always entail mob rule but I think this notion is false; democracy brings out the best in Western societies but brings out the worst in collectivist authoritarian cultures. This is why Pakistan can’t tackle its backward and unjust blasphemy laws while the Indian state is slow to deliver justice to victims of religious mob violence. Society’s intolerance is reflected in the so called “lack of political will” that the western media decries. Democracies fail miserably in societies dominated by tribal identities, hierarchy, segregation, and generally lacking any notion of a common good. In such societies democracy merely legalizes oppressive majoritarianism.

Indian law insists that the servant and employer (depicted here) are equal.

Equality is the principal value that furnishes democracy with its egalitarian character. It is hard to envision the equality between an Indian servant and his/her employer. Servants do not sit on the same furniture as the masters do and neither are they allowed to eat from the same utensils. Their position is that of a slave. This is primarily why the Indian state has failed miserably in elevating its disenfranchised citizenry. Equality implies flatness whereas hierarchy is entrenched into the Indian’s very language (honourifics). Most Indians can’t fathom the power of the vote and social change is slow given how internalized oppression is within the Indian psyche. Again, democracy does more harm than good as people who do not understand the value of freedom should not be given freedom; for their own good.

Pakistan has made the right decision in doing away with democracy and ushering in totalitarian military rule. Unlike their cousins across the border who suffer from cognitive dissonance, the Pakistanis know who and what they are; and they are not a freedom loving democratic people. Singapore and South Korea both assumed an authoritarian governing style in the 60s predicated on the rationale that authoritarianism fosters economic prosperity. East Asians cling to this belief even today and nobody can deny the success of East Asian countries. The purpose of this article isn’t to dissuade Indians from democracy but to warn Western powers against prescribing a medicine that might kill the patient. Western nations must export goods and services to the rest of the world and not values.

Posted in Asia, conservative values, India, Islam, Tribalism, Western Values | Tagged , , , , | 17 Comments

A small announcement

Due to a change in my shift schedule I’ll now be working 9-5, which means I’ll be active in the evenings. Bay Area Guy will moderate the blog during the day. So don’t think I’m ignoring any of you if I seem to not respond to your comments in a timely manner. Meanwhile, keep on commenting my friends.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

This is Sober Privilege


Such a term is gratuitously employed by virtually everyone on the left, from tumblr social justice warriors to troglodytes like Lindy West. Speaking of which, remember my post about West’s childish, hangover induced behavior on an airplane? I recall mentioning that it wouldn’t be entirely surprising if someone created a “this is sober privilege” tumblr. I don’t know about you, but I cannot wait for someone else to create this tumblr. Due to the harmful ways that privilege and microaggressions conspire to consign oppressed peoples to the margins, I simply cannot stand idle while another insidious form of privilege continues to exist! Therefore, I have decided to create my own platform denouncing the evils of sober privilege and society’s scorn for people of alcoholic inclinations (PAI). You will certainly be checking your privilege once I’m through!

1. Sober privilege is being able to wake up next morning and not have a throbbing head.

2. Sober privilege is having employers see you as more trustworthy than PAI.

3. Sober privilege is being able to see people such as yourself depicted positively in the media, while PAI such as Homer Simpson are objects of ridicule.

4. Sober privilege is being able to drive home without having to worry about hitting a car or person, or getting pulled over by the cops.

5. Sober privilege is not having to worry about vomiting after a fun Friday night.

6. Sober privilege is not having people joke about your habits killing your brain cells.

7. Sober privilege is not having to worry about “Asian glow” (this applies to Asians only, obviously)

8. Sober privilege is having courts imposing lesser penalties for traffic violations than they would for PAI.

9. Sober privilege is not getting kicked out of bars or admonished for being “too rowdy.”

10. Sober privilege is being treated as an individual and not having your identity on trial, like PAI.

I’m not saying that any of you hate alcoholics or cause them any harm. I’m sure many of you also face numerous individual struggles in life. However, as a person with sober privilege you still live an overall blessed life, devoid of the various hardships that PAI have to confront. Therefore, you have a responsibility to check your privilege and fight for a more inclusive, just, and accommodating society.

Start binging on Bud Light this instant!

Posted in Cultural Marxism, Humor, Subversion | 2 Comments