Suicidal Humanism and the White Enemy Within

Poor Bernie Sanders. After provoking the ire of black activists, the beleaguered socialist from Vermont has incurred the wrath of the polemical far-left site Vox. So what was Sanders’ latest “ugly” transgression? He entertains the radical notion that open borders is a bad deal for American workers, and that the US should look after its own people:

So I was disappointed, if not surprised, at the visceral horror with which Bernie Sanders reacted to the idea when interviewed by my colleague Ezra Klein. “Open borders?” he interjected. “No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal.” The idea, he argued, is a right-wing scheme meant to flood the US with cheap labor and depress wages for native-born workers. “I think from a moral responsibility, we’ve got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty,” he conceded, “but you don’t do that by making people in this country even poorer.”

Dylan Matthews, the gadfly who penned the article, seems intent on validating the argument that leftists serve as useful idiots for the 1% that they supposedly oppose. This article is so ridiculously quixotic and replete with bizarre leftist internationalism that a part of me thinks Keith Preston wrote it as a way to parody “totalitarian humanism.” Just check out this passage (emphasis mine):

There are two problems with Sanders’s view on this, one empirical and one moral. He’s wrong about what the effects of an open-border policy would be on American workers, and he’s wrong in treating Americans’ lives as more valuable and worthy of concern than the lives of foreigners.

Yes, you read that right; apparently, caring more about your fellow countrymen than every person on the planet is anathema to leftists like Matthews. I know that I’m starting to sound like a broken record, but yet again I challenge you to find sizable numbers of pundits in non-white countries who espouse such nonsense. But anyway, the reason why nations and societies exist is to look after their own, and even the leftist economist Dean Baker rightly chides Matthews for his absurd logic. As the tweeter at the bottom named Aaron put it, Sanders isn’t “running for president of the world.”

Matthews only further compounds his fatuousness by citing this ridiculous thought experiment:

The philosopher Michael Huemer has a great thought experiment making this point. Imagine a man, Marvin, is starving to death, and goes to a marketplace to buy bread. Another man, Sam, forcibly stops him and prevents him from buying bread. Marvin starves to death.

That’s wrong, right? And it’s still wrong if the harm caused is less severe. Say Marvin isn’t going to the marketplace to buy bread, but instead to sell it. If he sells it at that particular marketplace, he will make 15 times more money than if he sold it at the other marketplace in town. But Sam stops him, by force, from selling at the lucrative marketplace, forcing him to settle for the other market, where he makes 15 times less.

The analogy is not exactly subtle: Marvin is a potential immigrant (in this case from Nigeria; recall that moving from Nigeria to the US raises an average migrant’s earnings 15-fold), and Sam is a US border patrol agent. If you think Sam is hurting Marvin by barring him from selling bread from the good market, you’ve got to think that border agents are hurting immigrants by keeping them from coming to work in the US.

For starters, there’s an obvious difference between citizens living within a nation and outsiders who intend to move in. To curtail the rights of your own citizens is certainly wrong; nations, on the other hand, have no obligation to tend to any and all needs of myriad outsiders. Otherwise, they cease being nations.

There’s a far better and more apt analogy, which Dota gave me during one of our more recent conversations. Let’s imagine that there’s an altruistic, civic-minded young liberal woman living in San Francisco. Understandably, she wants to address the plight of the city’s burgeoning homeless population. What are her options? On the one hand, she could donate money to support food drives for the homeless, lobby the city to construct more shelters, and advocate for laws that protect the homeless from abuse. Or, she could invite as many homeless people as possible to live with her, while encouraging her friends to do the same.

Essentially, Dylan Matthews would have the US exercise the latter option, with little regard for living space or boundaries. Unsurprisingly, the results would be just as disastrous. If one actually gives a crap about remedying the penury of the 3rd world, then there are better ways to do so than opening the floodgates. Just as supporting homeless causes is a more sensible course of action than allowing them to move in, tackling international poverty and violence is a better option than allowing the masses of the (non-white) world to inundate the country. Instead of pressuring our elites to alter their destructive foreign policy and harmful international trade agreements, leftist shills for open borders want to pass the costs of 3rd world destitution onto regular white Americans.

Obviously, open borders is sheer lunacy and highly detrimental to the lives of white Americans. That’s why its proponents can only invoke “humanitarian” arguments or tout its supposed economic benefits by citing libertarians such as Bryan Caplan. If mass immigration were really so wonderful, it wouldn’t require constant cheerleading.

At the same time, I have nothing against immigrants themselves, and I don’t condemn Latinos and Asians for wanting to improve their lives. Instead, I denounce white elites and their lackeys such as Dylan Matthews. They are the reason why whites are poised to become a minority by 2042; they are the ones responsible for the flourishing of cultural leftism. Suicidal white humanism – along with its many adherents – are the true enemies within.

We must continue to thoroughly discredit their ideas, and at the bare minimum ensure that they do not infect other white people with their loony logic.

Posted in Cultural Marxism, Economics, Hispanics, Immigration, Race, Racism, Subversion | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

What to Make of “Cuckservative”

Just recently, the term “cuckservative” – popularized by the alternative right – has incurred the wrath of mainstream white conservatives. Gregory Hood and Matt Forney have both written excellent articles explaining what constitutes cuckservatism, so I don’t really have much to add in this regard.

I’ll just say that I embrace this term, as well as any friction that the word engenders. The term “cuckservative,” provided that it catches on, has the potential to reform an increasingly stagnant and feckless mainstream conservative establishment; as of now, the American right continues to get thoroughly trounced on just about every issue. Gay marriage is the law of the land, transsexuals such as “Caitlyn” Jenner are lionized, secularism reigns supreme, and non-whites continue to demographically eclipse the people who actually vote Republican.

Speaking of non-whites, cuckservative is useful term because it illuminates the ultimate failure of Republicans: their inability or unwillingness to tackle race. How can Republicans expect to enjoy future success when they can’t openly acknowledge that their recent woes are primarily due to demographic changes? Just consider that California used to be the land of Nixon and Reagan just a few decades ago; nowadays, it’s taken for granted that California is an eternal blue state. So what happened? Mexicans – along with Asians – flooded California, rendering whites an increasingly small minority. Sure, some people insist that Prop 187 (pushed by the Republicans under then governor Pete Wilson) permanently alienated Latinos, and that the Republicans could have remained relevant if they weren’t so “racist.” However, I would argue that regardless of Wilson’s actions, California would have transformed into a blue state. Most visible racial minorities are always going to naturally gravitate to the left, as it is in their best interests. 

Therefore, white conservatives who want to remain relevant must either completely remake the Stupid Party in order to pander to non-whites – which isn’t going to happen anytime soon – or go all in as a pro-white movement before it’s too late (ie. the Sailer Strategy). Otherwise, basic math is going to render the Republicans obsolete. 

But I wouldn’t hold my breath. If the myriad reactions from conservative bloggers and pundits are any indication, it seems that the cuckservatives in question are intent on quelling this alt right uprising. They earnestly insist that they aren’t racist and that conservatives must forcefully reject white tribalism. They caution fellow conservatives against embracing the term while remaining unaware of its pernicious “white supremacist” origins. Robert Stacy McCain has even gone so far as to speculate that the cuckservative hashtag is a leftist troll job. 

Yeah, keep it up, Republican tools. Keep denouncing white tribalism. Continue to mention that Bull Connor was a Democrat, and repeatedly extol the virtues of “colorblindness.” All in all, continue to tacitly tolerate or even embrace open borders; after all, being called “racist” is worse than losing your country. Clearly, such enlightened attitudes exhibited by the aforementioned cuckservatives enable Republicans to garner large percentages of the non-white vote. Likewise, I’m certain that the repudiation of alt right principles will somehow prevent a Democrat from inevitably being elected president in 2016. 

Look, I don’t even like the Republican Party. Their elites are little more than greedy bastards whose true god is corporate America. They will only continue to double down on their cuckservatism. However, they are not our intended audience; if the term cuckservative can convince a somewhat sizeable minority of frustrated, non-establishment white conservatives to cast off the Republican party and seek alternatives, then the term will have done its job. These are the people we need to convince. 

At the bare minimum, this provocative slur will force the white right to become more cognizant of racial issues. If and when that happens, things will start to get very interesting. 

Posted in conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Race, Tribalism, White nationalism, Wimpy Whites | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Resisting Our Cultural Marxist Elites – A Few Strategies To Consider

Like so many children, I grew up becoming thoroughly acquainted with Western fairytales that were packaged by Disney and transmitted through my TV set. The charater that facinated me most was seldom the protagonist or antagonist, but rather, the king or monarch figure. He was powerful, and as a child, I struggled to determine the source of his power. I intuitively understood that his power was derived from the control he exerted on the bodies of other individuals but one question remained: Why did people obey the king? What would happen if every subject in the kingdom was siezed with a sudden fit of disobedience? What would be the difference between the king and his other subjects then?

We on the alternative/Paleocon right realize (like Sam Francis did) that our elites are no longer interested in preserving the institutions and traditional European heritage of North America. We realize that the system is our enemy and one that wields the coercive power of a thousand kings of old combined. How are we to resist such a foe? As Bay Area Guy reminds me, military secession is out of the question. It failed for the confederacy and it will most certainly fail today. Reforming the system from within is also out of the question. What are our alternatives? I would suggest that passively resisting the system without enabling it is possibly the only viable means of defense. How can this be done? Let’s examine a few ways.

Boycott the mass media: Throw out your TV

The ubiquitous TV set pumps the sludge of Cultural Marxism and feminist rot right into the livingrooms of families across North America. The values that we encounter in mass entertainment are not our values, they are the degenerate values of our elites. By throwing out our TV sets we deprive our elites of ad revenue and hit them where it hurts, in their wallets.

Many a white nationalist has whined about Hollywood degeneracy yet surprisingly few have called for an all out boycott. We are not yet living in 1984 where telescreens that cannot be turned off are inserted into every home. We have the freedom to economically hurt our elites and it will not cost us a dime. On the contrary, it will end up saving us money and freeing up our time to pursue wholesome activities. Consider this article written by Aaron Clarey for Return of Kings that called for the boycott of the latest Mad Max film. This article was picked up by numerous mainstream media outlets and relentlessly bashed. ROK has published a plethora of offensive articles in the past, but why did this one in particular draw out the ire of the left? Because economic boycotts work. The Catholics waged economic warfare against the Jewish Warner Brothers and forced the latter to drop the vulgarity level in their pictures. They worked in the 1930s and they can certainly work in 2015 and beyond. The mere thought of organized economic resistance today terrifies our elites, and it was this terror that manifested itself in the avalanche of scorn and ridicule heaped on Clarey’s article.

Our elites cannot hold a gun to our collective heads and force us to consume the rot they manufacture for our cultural demise. We are still in a position to walk away and we should.

Stay out of debt

Nothing chains us to the system like debt and everybody should endeavour to steer clear of it. The system is rigged to keep us irrevocably chained, but there are ways to work around it. The surest method to accomplish this is good old fashioned self discipline. Live within your means and minimize the usage of your credit cards. Try and maintain a solvency ratio of 3:1. This means that for every dollar of debt you owe, you have 3 dollars of your own personal wealth to tackle it. I’ve maintained this ratio for years and I see no reason why others can’t either. If the powers that be should decide to come after you, debt will be their primary means of attack. Debt also has a way of destroying your wealth without you even realizing it. Ask yourself this question: Who is wealthier – the middle income executive who has total assets worth $10k but liabilities totaling $50k, or the homeless person with $5 in his pocket and $0 debt?

Boycott universities

I have pointed out before that Western universities are the hotbeds of Cultural Marxism. The Marxist worldview is the default worldview of leftist educators and you can be sure that they will do everything in their power to warp the minds of your children. There are several good reasons to avoid universities.

  1. Most University majors (Humanities/Social Sciences) are worthless and fail to inculcate any marketable skills into their impressionable graduates. Technical skills are what ensure employment and thus accountants, doctors, and programmers are far more likely to be employed right after graduation than the Women’s Studies or History major.
  2. Universities are a debt trap, enough said.
  3. Universities waste your time and money by forcing you to pick pointless electives. If you desire a set of technical skills, then a technical institute/college may serve your needs better while requiring only half the time investment a university would require to attain your qualification.

In summary, we might never be able to beat the system or reform it from within, but we can encumber it and thereby diminish its power over us. The beauty of this approach is that it doesn’t cost us a dime! Staying out of debt, boycotting mass entertainment and Universities will economically hurt our traitorous elites while actually keeping our hard earned cash where it belongs, with us. The king commands us to consume, will we blindly obey?

Posted in conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Feminism, Subversion, White nationalism | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

How Diversity Destroys Economic Justice

While Schadenfreude is frowned upon, I am always delighted whenever the left cannibalizes itself. This latest progressive imbroglio took place during a conference at Netroots Nation, which is one of the largest gatherings of liberal activists around the country. During the event, presidential hopefuls Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders were interrupted and accosted by “Black Lives Matter” activists. After chanting the name of Sandra Bland – who died in jail and whom black activists argue represents the latest of many police attacks against blacks – and demanding that Bernie Sanders respond, Sanders testily replied by saying that it was fine if these belligerent black activists didn’t want him there; without blinking an eye, he then proceeded to discuss wealth inequality.

Big blunder! By refusing to bend over backwards to placate “Black Lives Matter” agitators, Sanders incurred their wrath, as they immediately began to shower him with boos. Sanders’ primary focus on economics is likewise anathema to the SJW wing of the liberal rainbow coalition. Several leftist writers have expressed disappointment with his irritable response, claiming that tackling economic inequality without vigilantly combating racial injustice is insufficient. Sanders’ commitment to economics was even mocked as a “pet cause” by the author.

I’m hardly making an original point by claiming that racial friction accounts for much of the US’s economic dysfunction. Nevertheless, this latest incident should illustrate just how thorny racial diversity is, and how it helps hinder economic progress. In most wealthy countries – which are more homogenous than the United States – the prosperity of the majority group always comes first; minority “pet causes” come last, if they’re even acknowledged at all. The fact that Bernie Sanders is being upbraided for his response is yet another demonstration of just how bizarre the US is by global standards.

However, I don’t think that such lunacy is any coincidence, and I suspect that our elites endorse such radical posturing on the part of “Black Lives Matter” activists. I remember on Robert Lindsay’s blog, one of the former commenters named Lafleur once made a comment to the effect that identity politics is a form of class warfare. Indeed, I’ve always noticed that whenever a white person denounces economic injustice or the plight of white workers, some SJW type always jumps in and asserts that all whites still benefit from white privilege. I even remember reading some random article by Tim Wise years ago (I forget the date and title of the article), where he claimed that focusing primarily on economics is insulting to blacks, including affluent blacks who suffer from racism that exists independently of class.

In so many ways, “anti-racism” and identity politics are weapons brandished by our elites to keep the white middle and working classes in line. Essentially, as a non-elite white person, you have no right to complain about any hardship because blacks have it even worse than you. Upset about the job market? Stop whining, you have white privilege. Anxious about your current financial situation? Don’t be, because you should be grateful that you have it better than “people of color.” If you’re white, just shut up and smile.

At the end of the day, racial diversity and multiculturalism are blessings for our wealthy elites. Not only can they import cheap labor by using “tolerance” as a shield, but they can easily sabotage substantive measures to ensure greater economic health by invoking racism and white privilege – thus putting the white masses in their place. I therefore anticipate more derailments similar to the “Black Lives Matter” interruption; I also don’t expect to see any fundamental changes to our economic system anytime soon, one in which our oligarchs consider all lives equally worthy of exploitation.

Posted in Cultural Marxism, Economics, Immigration, Race, Racism, Subversion | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

National Capitalism – A Third Alternative?

We on the Alternative Right share a peculiar aversion of economics. We seldom discuss it, preferring instead to focus our energies on matters pertaining to culture and politics. Nevertheless, Bay Area Guy and I have long maintained that social and cultural stability are not sustainable without economic prosperity. Neo-Liberalism (global capitalism) and Communism have one thing in common –  they are both essentially internationalist ideologies. Neither Communists nor Neo Liberals possess one iota of loyalty to their nations. Where we see nations, Neo-Libs see markets. Where we see people, they see labour pools.

Plutocrats like the Fords and Rockefellers funded feminism throughout the 70s  in an attempt to flood the market with female workers and kill wages. Plutocratic Capitalists push for mass immigration to saturate the market with cheap labour and literally expand their markets by importing potential customers (immigrants). This strategy is effective in the short term since the economies of the U.S and Canada are largely services (tertiary sectors) dominated.

Socialism and Communism in general are terrible systems and there is nothing I can add to the subject that hasn’t already been said before a countless number of times. While there are some benefits to having a welfare state in a homogenous population, such benefits are lost when the welfare state is applied to a multicultural environment. Multicultural environments are divisive by nature and welfare benefits are useful to induce certain groups (immigrants/women) into a state of dependance on the state, to be deployed against the hated white majority.

Welfare benefits, however, also make an effective tool for totalitarian control. The UAE has one of the most generous welfare systems in the world. Granted, the UAE is technically a diverse society (on account of its expat population) nevertheless the benefits apply exclusively to Emirati nationals. Emirati dissidents that vocalize their discontent with government totalitarianism would find their benefits lifeline abruptly cut off. No more government housing and no more subsidized groceries and gas.

Enter National Capitalism

National Capitalism is a term that I’ve borrowed from Alex Wallenwein, but one which I define somewhat differently. I believe that the purpose of Capitalism is to benefit society and nation. That is certainly the model Adam Smith had in mind when he opposed the unholy alliance between monarchy and powerful merchant interests. Capitalism as Smith saw it was merely an economic extension of classical liberalism. It was the economic equivalent of prioritizing individual autonomy, but within an economic context. Smith never imagined that capitalists would become the new merchant class and once again use the cover of the state to pursue their selfish and destructive interests.

The idea behind National Capitalism is to retain the traditional qualities of Capitalism (concentration of the factors of production in the private sector) but without the obsession with deregulation. The goal of national capitalism is to instill in young entrepreneurs a strong and healthy dose of nationalism so that they create businesses that benefit their nations as well as themselves. When I worked as a marketing executive for a local Saskatoon company a couple of years ago, I was tasked with sourcing a set of promotional items for a summer marketing campaign. I complied a list of certain Vancouver companies that I thought offered competitive pricing. My boss, however, politely discarded the list and asked me to source the goods from China instead. A healthy dose of nationalism ensures that a nation’s wealth multiplies and remains in the nation.

One way of doing this is to pay employees a fair wage. Henry Ford paid his employees a highly competitive wage of $5 per day (for the time). These wages not only kept his employees happy, they also enabled his employees to afford his products. The multiplication and retention of wealth within a nation; National Capitalism at its finest.

Companies could also focus on sourcing their production materials locally. This might undoubtedly increase the cost of goods sold, however, it also potentially limits imports and thus reduces the nation’s balance of trade deficit. North American companies may also take a lesson from the Japanese and build lasting relationships with their suppliers and other companies involved with their products and services. The Japanese call this high trust business convention “Keiretsu” and it a uniquely Japanese way of conducting business.

Let us hypothetically assume that a perfume maker has their fragrance contract manufactured from a local business and purchases bottles from another local business. These 3 businesses would then form a close bond by purchasing stock in each others companies. The perfume maker would purchase stock in the fragrance and the bottle manufacturer’s companies and the other 2 would do so likewise. The idea is that either all of them succeed, or none of them do. This is in stark contrast to the way in which American businesses dominate their suppliers into submission.

The Japanese co-operate domestically and compete internationally. They pay their workers decent wages and genuinely care about their customers. What makes the Japanese business outlook so different from the American one? The answer: Nationalism. The Japanese possess a healthy sense of nationalism and are willing to make genuine sacrifices for their nation. Westerners (North Americans in particular) are slaves to profit and care for nothing else. American conservatives (especially Republican traitors) care only about conserving profits and not values and culture. Capitalism is a fine engine for economic growth, but without a healthy sense of nationalism, it is no better than Communism – a small plutocratic elite that overwhelmingly controls the distribution of resources in society.

National Capitalism should also focus on re-orienting our economies towards a manufacturing base. It’s customary to teach first year students of business administration that economies progress from agriculture to manufacturing, and finally, the most advanced stage – Services. I think this simplistic model is a load of nonsense as I tend to be biased in favour of manufacturing. Manufacturing tends to be more labour intensive (although not always) and thus creates jobs. It also produces tangible articles that can be exported thereby possessing the potential to positively impact balance of trade. Manufacturing by its very nature also helps shield a society from the pernicious effects of Cultural Marxism. An economy that produces welders and fabricators will necessarily produce fewer liberal arts and women’s studies majors. An economy that demands technical skills will have no use for Marxist academics and feminists.

This post leaves many questions unanswered and is by no means a manifesto. The purpose of this post is to stimulate discussion on a subject that many do not know how to address. The working definition of Capitalism has become imperceptibly warped over the decades to refer to a system that prioritizes self interest at the expense of everything else; nation included. The East Asians don’t subscribe to this definition of Capitalism and that is why they are beating us.

 

 

Posted in Asia, conservative values, Economics, Feminism, Immigration | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

The Real Wrong Side of History

A common tactic employed by leftists is to accuse their enemies of being on “the wrong side of history.” When I toured UC Santa Cruz around 9 years ago, I recall seeing a mural juxtaposing old school Jim Crow bigotry with current conservative hostility towards homosexual marriage. The image must have caught on, because I could easily find it online.

Because clearly, blacks and homosexuals are the same.

Because clearly, blacks and homosexuals are the same.

The implication is that history will harshly judge opponents of homosexual rights, just as we passionately denounce Jim Crow racism. Such logic is now being applied to transsexual rights; check out this segment from John Oliver – the newest liberal comedic cult figure – where he asserts (skip to 16:15) that history will not be kind to those of us who oppose this newest civil rights movement. In so many words, if we don’t enthusiastically embrace the left’s agenda, then people like us will be reviled for all eternity.

Will we? The arrogant leftist notion that the arc of the universe bends towards justice (ie. what they want) is predicated on the belief that Western liberalism will remain hegemonic. However, I suspect that this dominant liberal narrative will erode as China and other Asian nations continue to rise. We already know that Asian countries have no use for the kind of bizarre identity politics running amok in the West.

In fact, given how pervasive intense nationalism is in Asia, I suspect that Asia’s ascendancy – combined with the West’s demise – will alter the way we view history. Such a paradigm shift will not be kind to the likes of John Oliver. Future Asian historians will be nonplussed upon learning that Americans placed a higher premium on transsexual rights than nationalism or a strong economy. They will also shake their heads and chuckle when reading about how historical white figureheads such as Joe Biden celebrated the impending minority status of their own people. They’ll wonder why the most dominant group in human history threw it all away in the name of quixotic ideals.

They will, with amusement and contempt, consign the Western left to the wrong side of history.

Posted in Asia, China, Cultural Marxism, Homosexuals, Subversion, Wimpy Whites | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

The Importance of Language

While many in the alt right have mixed views on the manosphere, there are trenchant “red pill” adherents who frequently bless the internet with their edifying insights. One of these individuals is a Roosh V Forum poster who goes by the name Scorpion. In response to the left’s latest triumph – and the corresponding conservative pessimism – Scorpion makes an excellent argument about the need to change the terms of debate (emphasis mine):

This is why it’s so important to refuse to legitimize the language the left uses to sanitize their poisonous social agendas. Don’t use the word “gay”, for example, and don’t speak of “same-sex marriage”. When you do this you are buying into the leftist frame by utilizing their sanitized language. Instead, use language that is either objective or reactionary/right wing in nature, in order to combat their frame.

This is why I always use the word homosexual in place of “gay” or “same-sex”. When I speak of “transgendered” individuals I always use the person’s biological sex pronouns and pair the transgender label with “mentally ill”, “freak” or “sex pervert”.

Controlling language is controlling thought. By using the language of the left, you are unknowingly allowing them to control the debate, since everything is being talked about in their terms, which immediately makes them seem legitimate even if they are completely insane (i.e. referring to a man with female pronouns, or calling shameless homosexual perverts “gay” to soften their image and make them seem harmless).

I’ve previously written about the need to adopt a new conception of group conflict that occludes the left’s attempts to put whites and men on the defensive by branding them “oppressors.” That’s fine and all, but I feel that one of the problems with the right is that their arguments are not quick and catchy. By the time one has pontificated about the corrosive effects of multiculturalism and feminism, most regular people will have already tuned out. Americans by and large are intellectually lazy; they’re more likely to be swayed by pithy and clever bumper stickers than sophisticated articles by Pat Buchanan and Andy Nowicki.

I’ll admit, I have yet to create witty bumper stickers espousing cherished alt right beliefs. However, what we can do for now is become more cognizant of the language we use. Here is my own brief list of words that we should use in place of increasingly widespread leftist terms.

1. Majoritarianism. While leftists use the term “privilege” as a cudgel to attack myriad groups, whites are their favorite target. The idea that whites might enjoy certain perks not afforded to others represents a great crime against humanity. However, in Western nations, there is absolutely nothing wrong with whiteness being the norm; likewise, whites should dictate culture. Unfortunately, “privilege” has a negative connotation, as the word instantly conjures up spoiled people who enjoy easy, painless lives. Therefore, use the term “majoritarianism” in the place of “privilege.” After all, since whites are still the majority in Western nations – and were the architects of the US, Canada, and Australia – then such nations should have a white character. 

Some might wonder how I could promote such a term; after all, I live in a region where whites are the minority. Well, take it from someone on the front lines: whites around  America need to embrace an unapologetically majoritarian attitude before the rest of the country goes the way of California. 

2. Normal. Men and women who prefer to leave their natural organs intact are simply normal, which is how you should describe regular people when comparing them to transsexuals. The word “cisgender” out to inspire a combination of amusement and revulsion.

3. Non-whites. For starters, I hope that none of you ever say “people of color.” If there is any term that reinforces the leftist frame, this is it. Likewise, refrain from using the liberal euphemism “diversity.” Diversity has an exciting, flavorful connotation; by opposing diversity, you might as well refuse to eat out at a cool Thai restaurant. Who wants to convey an uncultured, close-minded attitude?

However, “diversity” – as used by the left – means greater numbers of non-whites. When describing recent demographic changes, our language should always blatantly highlight ongoing white displacement. If more whites clearly understood that “diversity” results in fewer of them and greater numbers of non-whites, then they might look at multiculturalism more askance. 

I’m sure there is much more to add, but the general point is that we must always be mindful of the words we use. If you’re conversing with people who employ pro-liberal language, then politely – but firmly – question and challenge them. Should you find yourself chatting with open-minded moderates, use subtle words that make them more receptive to alt right talking points. If we wish to make a comeback in the culture war, then we must find ways to control the conversation. Otherwise, the legalization of gay marriage will be a minor irritant compared to what lies beyond the horizon. 

Posted in conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Homosexuals, Race, Subversion | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Yuri Bezmenov On Marxist Subversion Of Western Culture

There’s not much for me to add here. I did  find 4:05 interesting as I’ve come to believe that a large welfare state makes resistance against the government very difficult. How can a population that suckles at the breast of the nanny state ever rise up against it? Feminism has made this harder by enabling the state to become women’s protector and provider. The coming police state will have little trouble procuring women’s submission.

6:40 is also worth paying attention to. He mentions how leftist useful idiots will eventually be shocked at what “the beautiful society of equality and social justice means in practice…” Bear in mind that this prophetic interview was conducted in the 1980s, a time when social justice lunacy hadn’t reached the fevered pitch one observes today. His choice of words are interesting because we know how the Marxist Left loves to cloak totalitarianism in slogans such as “change” and “equality.” But as Bezmenov points out, how do these slogans play out in practice? In practice this means bulldozing the rights of white heterosexual men while non white minorities and women are promised generous rewards for betraying their nations.

The case of false rape accusations is instructional in how Marxist social justice plays out in practice. The rape tribunals on North American campuses serve as a prototype for the kangaroo courts in the encroaching police state. These tribunals are intended to condition freedom loving Americans into accepting totalitarianism by setting a precedent in which due process is discarded. Consider the case of Malaysia’s Anwar Ibrahim and observe just how easily something like that could transpire here. Anwar Ibrahim was removed from his government post after charges of sodomy were leveled against him. Is it far fetched to assume that opposition leaders in the West might similarly be discredited by false accusations of rape (as defined by SJWs) and a host of other manufactured offenses? While Social Justice morons agitate over trivial causes, the NSA continues to spread its tentacles. Funny how these Leftists are silent on the issue of mass surveillance.

It is time we acknowledge the truth: That communism is the enemy of the West, and given the overlapping predictions of Orwell and Bezmenov, it is a conspiracy as well. Only once Westerners realize that communism is a conspiracy will they then understand that they are under attack.

Posted in Asia, Christianity, conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Feminism, Rape Culture, Subversion | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

America’s Tainted Democracy

This video says it all. Somehow I’m not surprised to see these South Asians beginning to use their wealth to buy political clout; what’s shocking is their naked tribalism which they make not even a token attempt to conceal. Indians and Pakistanis both fundraising for Hilary Clinton, and somehow I doubt it’s because they support radical feminism. It seems that multiculturalism and democracy are as immiscible as oil and water. Traditional Western democracies were governed by a healthy competition of ideologies, where ideologies are a universal interpretation of reality. As the U.S and Canada become inundated with hordes of third world immigrants, ideologies becomes less relevant as tribal interests begin to exert themselves at the expense of nationhood. Perhaps Jews are despised because they are simply better at this game than the other non-whites.

Notice how that Pakistani real estate tycoon at 1:38 has supported both Republicans and Democrats in the past. I doubt he cares much for ideologies and instead focuses mainly on furthering the tribal interests of Pakistanis. I’ll lay long odds that despite his heavy involvement in American politics, the average first year student of political science knows more political science theory than he does.

What is the difference between Pakistani Americans lobbying for aid packages for Pakistan and organized Jewry lobbying for aid to be directed to Israel?

Nothing.

Accusing these ethnic minorities of harbouring dual loyalties is both unfair and insulting. The accusation of dual loyalties implies that these people are at-least partially sympathetic to the interests of the nations that took them in and granted them citizenship, whereas I argue that their loyalties lie entirely with their countries of origin. As long as third world immigration continues at its current level, immigrants will never assimilate as they will maintain ties to their countries of origin. Whites in North America need to realize with great urgency that they risk becoming economically and politically dispossessed in the very countries that they founded and built through centuries of toil.

 

Posted in conservative values, Cultural Marxism, India, Israel, Jewry, Organized Jewry, Western Values, White nationalism | Tagged , , , , , | 7 Comments

San Francisco and the Bay Area’s Progressive Paradox

In my old post analyzing the racial dynamics of the Bay Area, I briefly touched upon the many contradictions that pervade the region. One of the most blatant contradictions here in the Bay is that progressive ideology coexists with untrammeled capitalism.

No city embodies this contradiction more than San Francisco. San Francisco is frequently heralded for its tolerance and embrace of progressive values; a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants and safe haven for gays, San Francisco has received much approbation for its enlightened attitudes. However, San Francisco – like most of the left – is mainly progressive as it pertains to cultural and lifestyle issues. On the economic front, San Francisco’s divide between the haves and have-nots would give Sheldon Adelson a wet dream. Despite passing a retail workers “bill of rights,” San Francisco remains the second most unequal city in the entire country.

These pernicious trends can be confirmed by simple empiricism. The city’s large homeless population alone is enough to make someone think that perhaps something is amiss in this bastion of liberalism. Indeed, it’s not just the homeless who are struggling to find sufficient shelter. Courtesy of techie settler colonialism – resulting in gentrification and rising evictions – the standard of living for many locals is on the decline. I understand that most of my readers probably shed few tears for the plight of Latinos; however, what’s impacting the Mission today could easily spread to other parts of the city. As much as liberals champion humanity in the abstract, the greed that permeates cities such as S.F. is rendering life increasingly unbearable for actual human beings. Needless to say, I’ve always found this discrepancy fascinating.

That’s why the recent decision by the California Labor Commission, which declared Uber’s workers employees, piqued my interest. I find it completely unsurprising that this avaricious and ethically challenged transportation titan resides in the heart of the Bay Area. I also don’t find it surprising that denizens of the Bay continue to utilize the services of Uber, Lyft, and similar companies. While the Bay Area will remain socially liberal for years to come, business ultimately prevails. The leftist convictions of affluent Bay Area residents are shallow; I suspect they will evaporate the second that endorsing progressivism entails tempering their hedonistic, consumerist lifestyles.

I’m actually going to go out on a limb and argue that people in the Bay will play a role in fostering a backlash against “social justice” and other trends that we bemoan. Something just tells me that growing numbers of regular people will notice that, in spite of the prevailing progressive ethos, their standards of living continue to diminish. Such a disconnect is bound to provoke at least some feelings of frustration with the status quo. 

I hope that the Bay Area serves as a wake-up call for Ayn Rand worshippers and other libertarian types who inhabit our corner of the internet. As the Bay Area clearly demonstrates, the SJW pestilence flourishes alongside plutocracy. Since corporate elites care little for race, nation, or culture, then they have no qualms about financing – or at least tacitly supporting – deleterious social trends.

The Bay Area should also illustrate that economic growth alone is not a boon for the majority of the population. Ever since the techie influx to San Francisco, the city’s economy has boomed and tax revenues have soared. At the same time, their presence has resulted in higher costs of living, greater social friction, and various other ills that have made everyday living increasingly onerous. Keep all of this in mind the next time some open borders enthusiast claims that immigrants are a blessing on account of paying taxes and increasing economic output.

S.F. and the Bay Area as a whole highlight the myriad contradictions and hypocrisies that characterize many leftists. Understanding these contradictions is key to formulating an effective strategy for combating the liberal plague.

Posted in Cultural Marxism, Economics, Hispanics, Homosexuals, Immigration | Tagged , , | Leave a comment