“The Boondocks” Meets Jessica Valenti

When I was younger and had a greater proclivity for race-based humor, I enjoyed watching an animated sitcom called The Boondocks. The show, based on a comic strip of the same name by Aaron McGruder, revolves around the lives and humorous misadventures of a black family living in a predominantly white suburb. I’m not going to turn this into a post about race or blacks, as The Boondocks parodies society in ways that extend well beyond race.

One of the more ridiculous characters in the show that embodies modern societal dysfunction is a cornrowed wigga named Gin Rummy, who’s ironically voiced by black actor Samuel L. Jackson. A parody of both wannabe thugs and slippery elites such as Donald Rumsfeld (after whom he’s named), Rummy’s classic line is that the “absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” You can laugh at him aggressively elaborating on his absurd logic in the clip below:

I always chuckled at his sheer idiocy, but my laughter is starting to recede as I witness just how prevalent Rummy’s mentality is in the wider world. I’m specifically referring to everybody’s favorite professional feminist, Jessica Valenti, who never got the memo that digging yourself into a bigger hole isn’t the wisest course of action. What triggered Valenti’s latest display of verbal diarrhea is the continued unraveling of the story of supposed UVA rape victim “Jackie.” Just to refresh everyone’s memories, there is no evidence of a gang rape actually taking place at a frat party a couple of years ago.

However, Valenti is not deterred. Just because the police were unable to secure evidence of rape does not mean that Jackie wasn’t victimized (emphasis mine. Also removed one of Valenti’s typos):

“No evidence” of a rape does not mean that a rape didn’t happen. But try telling that to any one of a number of media outlets who, when the Charlottesville Police Department released their findings on “Jackie” (the University of Virginia student whose alleged rape was at the center of a widely-disputed Rolling Stone article) essentially indicated to their readers that nothing happened to her.

But at a press conference, even Police Chief Timothy Long refused to go that far. He told reporters that the police found inconsistencies in the story Jackie told a UVA dean and what she told to Rolling Stone reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely and that they could not find any evidence to support the story as reported in the magazine. (Jackie declined to speak to the police for this investigation.)

Long also told reporters that the police findings “[don’t] mean that something terrible didn’t happen to Jackie in 2012.”

“We are just not able to gather sufficient facts as to what that something might have been,” he said.

In so many words, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence! You’d think that this whole “Jackie” episode might have taught feminists to exercise a little more restraint before too eagerly exploiting our current climate of rape hysteria. It doesn’t take a genius to know that too many unfounded accusations can erode one’s credibility, as well as undermine support for a cause. Instead, like a reckless blackjack player, feminists are only doubling down. The next time feminists attempt to mollify men by claiming that they don’t intend to rob them of due process or anything of the sort, be sure to have this editorial in reserve.

In the meantime, I shudder at the thought of a cartoon character’s perverted notion of justice increasingly intruding on mainstream thought.

Posted in Cultural Marxism, Feminism, Rape Culture, Subversion | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

A Few Lessons From 1984

I recently finished reading Orwell’s 1984. This is a project that I’ve put of for years, and in hindsight, it was probably for the best as many of Orwell’s predictions have manifested themselves in recent times. Let’s go over some of Orwell’s warnings. There are spoilers up ahead.

Why did Orwell select the title 1984?

The conventional view states that he merely reversed the last 2 digits of 1948, however, I think there is more to this than meets the eye. Orwell was a member of the socialist Fabian society from whom he later broke away. Contrary to popular belief, 1984 wasn’t aimed solely at the Soviets, but rather at the ideals of the Fabian society. The emblem of the Fabians is the tortoise, which symbolizes the Fabian’s stratagem of wearing down the enemy. They believed that they could bring socialism to a society through gradual imperceptible increments even if it took them a 100 years. The Fabian society was formed in 1884, and giving them the benefit of the doubt, Orwell titled his dystopia 1984.

Women are some of the biggest supporters of The Party.

 “It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.

Women are the shock troops of today’s Inner Party. Feminists owe their success largely to the generous financial contributions made by the very Capitalists that they instruct their unthinking acolytes to despise. The State plays its own role in buttressing feminism via social welfare programs and affirmative action paid for by male taxpayers. The nanny state allows women to make false rape accusations without any fear of legal reprisals, retroactively withdraw consent and move the goal posts on rape, and in general create a consequence free society for women.

Our Inner Party has correctly deduced that women require a bloated nanny state to help them achieve parity with men and thus women are “empowered” by these elites. As I’ve pointed out before, strong willed men desire small government whereas “strong and independent women” desire a large nanny state to hold their hand. Unsurprisingly, most women tend to vote liberal.

Orwell also mentioned that women were the “nosers-out of unorthodoxy.” This is easily observed today as young women routinely initiate social media witch hunts against individuals that hold views contrary to those espoused by the Inner Party (anti Homosexuality/anti-Feminism/anti-immigration). These witch hunts are intended to kill an individual’s livelihood by smearing their reputations and rendering them unemployable. Orwell stated that women were the most fanatical supporters of the Inner Party and we see numerous examples of their mindless zealotry on social media.

Women possess a key characteristic that endears them to the Inner Party, and that is their propensity towards doublethink. Orwell defined doublethink as a form of mental gymnastics where an individual could simultaneously hold  2 contradictory beliefs. We are surrounded by examples too numerous to list here. We’ve noticed how women defiantly state that they don’t need men while simultaneously living on a man’s charity (alimony, child support ect). We’ve noticed how some women have consensual sex and then and then genuinely believe that they were raped. We’ve noticed how ‘strong’ women often rely on boyfriends, cops, bouncers ect to solve their problems. Doublethink is the enzyme that facilitates the digestion and assimilation of Inner Party propaganda. Female solipsism is the catalyst which aides this process naturally.

The destruction of gender

I’m going to get hold of a real woman’s frock from somewhere and wear it instead of these bloody trousers. I’ll wear silk stockings and high-heeled shoes! In this room I’m going to be a woman, not a Party comrade.’

Orwell was obviously not familiar with the cancer that would eventually become feminism. He was, however, intimately acquainted with the nature of communism and rightly surmised that the nature of communist “equality” was essentially a bland sameness. The Party did not tolerate the pillars of identity as they rightly believed that the latter would allow individuals to define reality on their own terms. Thus race, religion, and gender must be neutralized. Our Inner Party today uses Cultural Marxism to assault Western ethnicity (Critical race theory) and gender (Feminism). The classification of transvestites as women is another blow against gender. Ultimately, I believe most women want to be feminine, but feminists (the Outer Party) have other plans for them.

The destruction of language as a means of controlling thought

You don’t grasp the beauty of the destruction of words. Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year? Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we’re not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller.

This is arguably Orwell’s most stunningly brilliant observation. Vocabularies seem to be shrinking at an astonishing rate every year. Bay Area Guy once told me about an acquaintance of his who did not know the meaning of the word ‘amoral.’ How could anybody discuss politics without being familiar with the word ‘amoral’? Popular culture has played a decisive role in the erosion of the average individual’s vocabulary where shows like the Simpsons openly glorify ignorance. There is not much else for me to add.

 Perpetual Warfare

War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society.

The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word ‘war’, therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist.

War is an industry and a large chunk of the US economy. The reason for perpetual war is not so much as to keep this industry going, but to instill a psychological dependence within the minds of the sheeple towards the Inner Party that governs them. The World Wars were old fashioned wars that were brutal and fought to the finish. What Orwell is referring to is continuous war, a war that does not threaten total destruction (and is technically less dangerous) and is perpetual. Oceania and Eurasia (or Eastasia) are evenly matched and are incapable of utterly destroying one and another. Elites on both sides understand that neither side can totally triumph against the other and thus the charade of perpetual war is maintained indefinitely to strip the sheeple of their liberties. The deluded masses fail to understand that the outside war is a prerequisite for the war that is perpetually waged against them.

The Cold War was the first prototype of the continuous war model followed by the newly perfected war on (Islamic)terror. Combating Islamic terrorism is like playing whack a mole: Whack Hamas, and then Islamic Jihad shows up. Whack Al Qaeda, and then ISIS pops out. Whack Harkatul Mujahideen and watch the Deccan Mujahideen spawn out of another hole. The US government does its part in indirectly supporting Islamic terrorism so that the continuous war may go on. By attempting to oust Bashar Al Assad in Syria, the US hopes that ISIS will be strengthened. Bashar has repeatedly warned that his Syrian Arab Army is the only force that stands between ISIS and the genocide of Arab Christians. The US would rather support the Christ hating nation of Israel than prevent the genocide of Christian Arabs at the hands of radical Islamic savages. A US official was quoted as saying:

“This is in perpetuity what we’re dealing with. It’s like the war on drugs. This isn’t going to stop,”

 

2 + 2 = 5

Physical facts could not be ignored. In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four.

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O’Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.

It would be an act of unparalleled stupidity to think that Liberals are the modern inheritors of the Enlightenment’s rational tradition. Today’s Liberals are the inheritors of Marxism and are just as averse to science as their religious counterparts on the Right. If reality contradicts ideology, reality is to be disposed off. The UCLA Women’s studies department had this to say about the works of Kevin MacDonald:

““Women’s Studies rejects any claims to a natural, biological or essential basis for social hierarchies that impute lesser or greater social value to designated populations. As such, the mission of Women’s Studies and the ethical and political impulse of feminism stand in direct contrast to the fields of socio-biology, evolutionary psychology and, by association, the work of Professor Kevin Macdonald.”

and this:

“Professor MacDonald works in fields that are considered to be legitimate by academic standards, and unfortunately, research into the genetic basis for the social value of racial and ethnic groups, women and homosexuals continues under the auspices of many fields of study. As such, we wish to raise some broader questions about any research that promotes bigotry, intolerance and racial superiority.”

The highlighted part is crucial because what it is really saying is this:

Since we can’t challenge Professor MacDonald’s research on empirical grounds(ie 2+2=4), lets shift the matter into the realm of theory by questioning the value of his research as opposed to its findings and methodology.

The reason why Science (Biology and Mathematics in particular) upsets leftists so much is because these disciplines directly challenge the ideology of our Inner Party. Evolutionary Psychology and Biology alone are capable of demolishing the foundational myth of Feminism which states that gender roles are socially constructed. These fields demonstrate that gender and sex are irrevocably linked and cannot be changed as easily as one changes clothes. In order to control people’s minds, it is essential to first control their eyes. It is to this end that college professors (Outer Party)hammer into their students the pernicious message that reality is “socially constructed.”  By internalizing this message the student effectively mistrusts his eyes and allows the Party to construct and re-define his reality for him.

From the Occidental Observer article linked above:

John Horgan, the scientist who wants to ban research on race and intelligence, is not quite fit for the pages of Nineteen Eighty-Four. But he is getting there, because he thinks like O’Brien and puts ideology before science. Unlike O’Brien, he wants to stop science, rather than pervert it, but his predecessor Gould imitated O’Brien and perverted science in the cause of ideology. Gould’s award-winning best-seller The Mismeasure of Man (1981) was a polemic against “racist” brain-science and the concept of g, or a general factor of intelligence that underlies human cognition.

Nobel Prize winner James Watson (Molecular Biologist) was similarly attacked by our Inner Party for violating the sanctity of leftist/Marxist ideology by insinuating the genetic basis for the IQ of racial groups. I am not interested in HBD or Biology and have no vested interests in those fields. The matter that agitates me is that the Cultural Marxist left, in Orwellian fashion, wants to censor science for the preservation of ideology and not academic integrity. Two plus two must equal five. This is ultimately why the Left despises Positivism and preaches Anti-foundationalism in University classrooms across the West.

Orwell’s 1984 is required reading for anybody that wishes to penetrate the structure of the world we live in. It serves as map and compass in a world where language and reality are bent to serve the interests of a Party whose interests can never converge with out own.

Posted in Asia, conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Feminism, Islam, Race, Racism, Subversion | 1 Comment

Transvestites Turn The Tables On Feminists

A recent incident marks an interesting twist in the God awful culture war that plagues the Anglosphere. A former member of Planet Fitness had her membership cancelled for protesting the presence of a transvestite in the women’s locker room. Planet Fitness pursued the safest (politically correct) route by getting rid of the complaining woman instead of ejecting the transvestite. Social Justice Warriors (Cultural Marxism’s shock troops) promptly and predictably rushed to the gym’s defense for defending transgender rights.

Social Justice Warriors may claim this incident as a victory for their demented cause, however, a large number of women and feminists are quite wary of transvestites invading their spaces. Some have protested against the transvestite invasion of The Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival:

The male transgender activists have literally formed an encampment each year outside the perimeter of the Michfest festival grounds, which they patrol with weapons and plan sabotage missions into the camp- to write graffiti, to cut the water lines to the handicapped showers, to slash tires, to wreck tents, to flier the camp with pictures of their penises. Last year many of the male transgenders fled their own encampment out of fear of the growing violence of their own group members. Why are these men so angry? Why do they want to destroy a private women’s music festival? Why do they want to force women to look at their penises?

And another:

Call me old fashioned, but I don’t want to use the bathroom along side of any person with a penis, except my husband, and sometimes I lock him out. In our quest for inclusion and political correctness, let’s not lose site of safety and common sense.

SJWs risk alienating the left’s most pampered pet class by dismissing their concerns as illiberal. Can feminists keep transvestites from invading female spaces?

Feminists are ill-equipped to fight this battle

I personally do not believe that transvestites should be allowed access to women’s washrooms as it is a genuine safety issue. Having said this, I can’t resist the instinct to bathe in a surging tide of schadenfreude whenever women whine about the invasion of their space. The irony is especially delicious considering that transvestites have begun invading female space using exactly the same language of “Equality” and anti-foundationalist logic that feminists have historically used to invade male spaces. It is utterly amusing to listen to women pine for a safe space that allows them to be women. No such courtesy is extended to men who must endure female incursions into their spaces (whether Golf courses or online game servers) that often result in the feminization of those spaces. Female solipsism is often amusing to observe from a distance.

These developments are ultimately the dead end of feminist ideology. Traditionalists have long held that gender and sex are irrevocably linked, yet feminists in their infinite wisdom have decreed otherwise; thereby sacrificing empiricism and science on the alter of ideology. The Inner Party would be pleased, 2 + 2 = 5. Feminists have long argued that Gender (and not genetics/sex) is instrumental in defining an individual’s personality and being. Gender, according to these ‘intellectuals’, is socially constructed and thus inherently flexible. Biological differences between the sexes (with the possible exception of strength) are dismissed (such as IQ) as Patriarchal controls aimed at suppressing the interests of women. If this ideology, grounded neither in reason nor science, is taken to its logical conclusion it must follow that transvestites are just as female as biologically born females. They are simply exercising their autonomy in choosing to identify as females and thus have every right to access female only spaces.

Feminists that oppose the transvestite incursion (not all of them do) are incapable of ideologically repelling this invasion because their adversaries have effectively used their own ideology against them. Planet Fitness acted well within the bounds of feminist ideology and SJWs acknowledged it with their support. When little 6 year old Suzy gasps at the sight of another woman’s penis in the restroom her mother can knowingly tell her that this is the price they must pay for equality.

Blogger Dalrock said it best: “Feminists get sick on their own dog food.

Bon appétit, feminists.”

Posted in conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Feminism | Tagged , , , , | 7 Comments

Todd Lewis And Brent from Traditional Right Talk To Dota And Bay Area Guy

A lively and stimulating discussion.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Does Saskatchewan’s Economy Shield It From Cultural Marxist Insanity?

Saskatchewan is the opposite of Ontario in so many ways. Ontario is over-populated whereas Saskatchewan is sparsely populated. Ontario’s biggest city (Toronto) is racially segregated (ironically) whereas Saskatchewan’s largest city (Saskatoon) is concerned only with segregating cyclists from motorists. Ontario is the liberal toilet of Canada while Saskatchewan is part of Canada’s Bible belt. Ontario is multicultural – meaning it has several cultures and no culture – while Saskatchewan remains predominantly white and Protestant; authentically Canadian.

Perhaps the greatest contrast between the two provinces is in the structure of their economies. Let’s look at some of the data from 2014 and apply some basic Math.

2014 Distribution of employed people, by industry, by province
Sask. Ont.
thousands
All industries 570.9 6877.9
Goods-producing sector 164.4 1382
Agriculture 44.2 81.8
Forestry, fishing, mining, quarrying, oil and gas1 28 33.2
Utilities 6.1 51.1
Construction 57.2 467.3
Manufacturing 28.9 748.6
Service-producing sector 406.5 5495.9
Trade 83.8 1047
Transportation and warehousing 29.2 329
Finance, insurance, real estate and leasing 30 512.1
Professional, scientific and technical services 26.4 559.9
Business, building and other support services2 12.8 334.7
Educational services 43.5 494.6
Health care and social assistance 73.5 798.2
Information, culture and recreation 16.5 316.5
Accommodation and food services 36.1 450.3
Other services 24.8 286.8
Public administration 30.1 366.8

 

The data for the Saskatchewan column was obtained here and the data for the Ontario column was obtained here.

Here are some of my observations (figures rounded down):

  1. The goods producing sector employs 28% of Saskatchewan’s labour force (164.4/570.9) whereas Ontario’s employs 20%. Saskatchewan leads by 8% and that is not insignificant given that Ontario’s population is about 13 times greater than Saskatchewan’s.
  2. Construction employs 10% of Saskatchewan’s workforce (57.2/570.9) compared to 6% of Ontario’s (467.3/6877.9).
  3. Healthcare employs 18% (73.5/406.5) of the Service sector’s workforce compared to Ontario’s 14% (798.2/5495.9)
  4. The ratio between the labour force employed by the Goods producing sector compared to the services sector is more even in Saskatchewan compared to Ontario: 164.4/406.5 = 40 (Sask) versus the overwhelmingly service dominated economy of Ontario which is 1382/5495.9 = 25

What should we make of this data?

First world economies are generally services based with manufacturing being outsourced. The two regional economies outlined above fit this general paradigm but Saskatchewan gravitates more towards goods producing sectors compared to Ontario. The former leads Ontario in Health Care as well. Primary industries (mining/fishing ect), Health Care, and Construction (and all the trades included in this category) are sectors comprised of some highly technical blue and white collar jobs. Technical knowledge is more effectively acquired from technical colleges/institutes and Saskatchewan has plenty of them around.

The point I’m getting at should be fairly obvious by now. Universities are the hotbeds of cultural Marxism and marginalizing these dens of leftist social engineering can go a long way in preserving the health of a functioning society. An economy that demands construction workers, miners, farmers, and nurses will necessarily produce fewer parasitic majors like Women’s Studies. If you remain unconvinced, just look at the 2013-2014 undergrad enrollment data from the University of Saskatchewan:

Accounting                                              370
Agronomy 175

Computer science:  312

Civil Engineering: 237

Nursing: 1077

Physiology and Pharmacology: 414

Pharmacy: 349

Religion and Culture: 14

Womens and Gender studies: 19

(Data sorted by Level, Major, and Academic year)

The data indicates that even in the University technical majors are far more popular than leftist majors.

Defeating Cultural Marxism

The most straightforward method to defeat Cultural Marxism is to simply stop giving elites our hard earned cash; we need to starve the beast. Boycotting universities in favour of technical institutes would strike a decisive blow against our elites. It is difficult to indoctrinate impressionable children with critical race theory and feminism in an institute dedicated to teaching JavaScript and aircraft engine repair. Technical institutes do not waste time on pointless (and subversive) humanities and social science electives. The programs offered at these institutions are short, focused, and provide their graduates with solid marketable skills. Programmers and mechanics do not require the government to create make-work positions for them on the taxpayer’s dime, unlike unemployable feminists, the perennial parasites.

Boycotting Hollywood is another effective method. Commenter Todd Lewis brought to my attention the “Production Code” which was an attempt made by America’s Catholics to police Hollywood immorality:

The most memorable and most effective boycott was organized by Cardinal Dougherty of Philadelphia, who forbade that city’s Catholics from watching movies in the city’s movie houses, which at the time were largely owned by Warner Brothers. His efforts created a situation in which Warner Brothers was losing $175,000 a week at the height of the depression.

Boycotting the mass media is crucial and is easily accomplished by throwing away your TV. I haven’t watched TV in years and I’m much better off without it. I do not even have one in my apartment. Cultural Marxism is a slow killing poison that destroys cultures imperceptibly over time. However, we have the power to resist this poison by refusing to give our elites the means to enslave us. Cultural Marxism is not invincible and even a humble “have not” province like Saskatchewan can halt this behemoth in its tracks.

 

Posted in Christianity, conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Economics, Feminism, Jewry, Subversion | Leave a comment

Leftist “Equality” is Little More Than a Blatant Power Grab

In my opinion, too many people make the mistake of presuming that those on the left argue in good faith. While many conservatives and right leaning white people strongly disagree with liberals, they nevertheless presume that they actually believe in the equality they espouse. They just regard them as fruity or misguided.

However, modern leftism is little more than myriad “oppressed groups” jockeying for positions of power, all under the guise of “social justice.” The main problem is that many anti-leftists continue to allow the far left to frame the terms of debate. Take MRAs (men’s rights activists), for example. On a fundamental level, they accept various feminist tenets such as complete equality between the sexes and the discourse of victimhood. They endorse the marxist conception of oppressed and oppressor classes. The only difference is that they regard men as the true oppressed class, whereas women have now achieved privileged status.

Whether or not that’s true is utterly irrelevant to me. The problem is that MRAs are playing into the hands of feminists by reaffirming their most cherished beliefs. The same problem plagues white people who denounce affirmative action or other anti-white measures as “reverse racism.” Despite their defiant posturing, they are conforming to the anti-racist beliefs of the left, only white is now the new black. Both groups are allowing those on the left to dictate the terms of conversations regarding race, gender, and other controversial topics.

I propose that white conservatives develop a new conception of conflict and group struggle that eschews Manichean, Hollywood-esque portrayals of good guys and bad guys. Ironically, what helped lead me to this new conclusion is a book by a left leaning, black Stanford law professor named Richard Thompson Ford. I’m aware that I’m treading on dangerous terrain here by endorsing a book written by a black man. Given the amount of vitriol directed my way for suggesting that certain alt righters should reassess their disproportionate dislike for black people and focus on more important matters, some may perhaps wonder where my true loyalties lie.

However, despite being a leftist and supporter or affirmative action, Ford nevertheless provides several scathing critiques of multiculturalism (what he calls “difference discourse”). In his book Racial Culture, Ford denounces racial hierarchy and status discrimination based on immutable characteristics such as skin color. That’s not far off from our blog’s own stance, as we likewise hold racism in low esteem.

(Actual racism, not the loose leftist definition of the word)

At the same time, he unwittingly bolsters the alternative right position that multiculturalism is a costly project that requires significant upkeep. He even accepts that cultural discrimination is an inevitable, and at times desirable phenomenon. His description of “joint costs” illustrates the inherently problematic nature of multiculturalism:

“The central insight of this “joint costs” analysis, developed by the economist Ronald Coase, is that a victim and injury focused approach is incoherent because we can’t determine who the “victim” (the party who will bear the costs of a social conflict) in a conflict is until we determine who has the legal entitlement to either continue or enjoin the challenged activity-precisely what is at stake in the dispute…the problem was not well described in terms of causation and harm but rather in terms of incompatibility. And the question to be answered was therefore not an objective, formal one-how shall we prevent harm or force perpetrators to internalize the costs of their activity?-but rather a subjective, policy question-which activity should society privilege?”

Put simply, when you have numerous diverse groups living together, certain groups have to bear burdens and suffer certain injuries (however trivial) in order to maintain a harmonious, pluralistic society. Historically, minorities bore the cost in the form of assimilation, where majorities would then reciprocate by practicing tolerance (not “tolerance” in the modern liberal sense, mind you).

What most leftists and advocates of multiculturalism want to do is shift these costs entirely onto white people. Rather than demand that minorities assimilate, it is whites who must bend over backwards to accommodate and welcome newcomers, which includes affirming their cultural distinctiveness. In the end, neither the majority nor minorities benefit from this arrangement, as both are forced into an uncomfortable double bind (emphasis mine):

“Minorities are pressured to conform to socially pervasive ideas of their intrinsic culture and are admonished that the continuation of these practices is their birthright and their duty by society in general and by their own communities in particular. But they are also required to assimilate to mainstream social norms-understood to exclude the practices ascribed to minority identities-in order to participate in the institutions that provide esteem and resources in society at large. Meanwhile everyone in society is required to recognize the distinctiveness of various social groups, but we are also chastised for stereotyping when we do.

It’s one thing to demand that whites not discriminate against people solely because of immutable characteristics such as race (Michael Jackson notwithstanding). However, it’s downright arrogant and historically unprecedented to demand that a majority group pay the costs for managing diversity. The audacity of minority groups pressuring the majority to adjust to its deviant cultural practices even as they conflict with mainstream norms would not fly in the non-Western world.

In conclusion, rather than viewing conflicts between distinct groups in terms of oppressor and oppressed, we should regard conflicts as clashes between two incompatible interests. If one analyzes most current identity related conflicts, they all follow this model. Latinos and other immigrant groups seek to increase immigration as a means of securing residency for relatives and augmenting their own growing political power. Increasing numbers of whites, recognizing that such immigration will render them an increasingly powerless minority, are beginning to clamor for immigration restriction. Gays, flexing their newfound muscle, are demanding that everyone from video game designers to bakers accommodate their lifestyle, even if it clashes with the strong moral convictions of other groups. Feminists seek to barge into male spaces such as gaming and leave their imprint on the games themselves, even though the majority of gamers (who are male) are rankled by such blatant intrusion upon their space.

You’ll notice that in each of the aforementioned conflicts, there are no clear-cut good guys or bad guys. Rather, there are two opposing groups acting in their own group’s best interests. Therefore, do not be suckered in by lofty rhetoric regarding equity and social justice. Likewise, do not be ashamed to acknowledge that at least some of your opposition to leftist movements stems from rational self-interest.

The world is far more harsh and competitive than our current elites, blessed with abundant resources, care to admit. There’s no moral imperative to embrace extra burdens and costs, especially on behalf of other groups who don’t argue in good faith.

Posted in conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Feminism, Hispanics, Homosexuals, Immigration, Race, Racism, Subversion, Tribalism | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

No Two Feminists Are Alike

Original image Designed by Freepik

Original image Designed by Freepik

Posted in Feminism, Humor | 3 Comments

Capitalism, Consumerism, and Innovation

Is consumerism Capitalism’s dead end? The words are often used interchangeably in day to day use and so I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the common man’s perception. However this was not always the case. Capitalism began as the economic extension of Classical Liberalism where the old liberals believed that a society’s happiness was the sum total of individual happiness. When Classical Liberal thought was applied to economic theory, Capitalism was born. This was to be a system where the prosperity of society would be measured as the sum total of every individual’s prosperity. Consumerism wasn’t birthed by Capitalism, but rather from mass production which originated in the Industrial revolution.

Our consumerist economy is classified as “Monopolistic competition” by economists. This generally means that the economy produces various products (technically services are products also) that are differentiated by branding and advertizing. While these products may not be perfect substitutes for each other, they are very similar. Advertizing generally conveys the false impression that consumers have a great deal of choice when seeking out products to satisfy their needs. This isn’t necessarily so. While products may vary superficially by boutique features, the vast majority of them do not differ significantly in terms of utility. So while consumer A may prefer a certain brand of laundry detergent whereas consumer B prefers another, the two brands probably do not differ significantly from one another. Products are differentiated artificially through advertizing which stimulates brand loyalty amoung consumers.

Consumerism plays upon our atavistic desire for variety, but scratch the surface of consumerist “variety” and one will unearth homogeneity. Ironically enough, in this regard consumerism isn’t very different from communism. If I were to apply Hegelian dialectic to modern consumerism it would run as follows:

  • Freedom to consume, gratify desires without restraint, and define one’s self image via consumption —> Individualism –> Thesis
  • Consuming mass manufactured products that most other individuals have access to –> homogeneity –> Anti-thesis
  • Product differentiation via advertizing and marketing –> Synthesis

Capitalism, despite the abomination it has spawned, is not without merit. It is still the most effective engine of economic growth and aids in not just improving the economy, but molding better individuals in society. It is a system that assists young men in channeling their risk taking behaviour in a manner that is beneficial to themselves as well as society. It teaches young men responsibility, accountability, and most importantly, self reliance.

Yet while Capitalism does indeed reward initiative, it fails to spur innovation. This assertion almost reads like heresy but it is true. Businesses aren’t interested in innovation, their goal is to generate profit. Let us not fall prey to the fallacy of confusing product differentiation with innovation. Innovation costs resources and businesses would rather spend those resources selling products that have mass appeal. This is why the vast majority of pharmaceutical companies aren’t interested in discovering cures for ailments such as HIV, but would rather manufacture and distribute fast selling cough syrups.

Most of the paradigm shifting inventions over the past 100 years have been innovated by private inventors such as Bell, Watt, Edison, and Tesla. Businesses generally buy patents and convert them to mass produced goods for the benefit of society. Inventors and businessmen both have a place in society, but it is unwise to give the latter undue credit for the labours of the former. I was considering adding environmental degradation as a major fault of Capitalism but decided against it as Soviet Russia and Red China (which is a lot less Red today) have far worse records.

 

 

Posted in conservative values, Economics, Western Values | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

What Is The Point Of Hate Crimes Legislation?

I’ve never been a fan of hate crimes legislature and now is just as good a time as any to question their rationale and utility. Three Arabs were shot dead recently, murdered execution style, and the media is all over these Muslim murders. Yet again the Liberal media insists on treating Muslims as a race, and because of this foolhardy insistence, the lines between racial and religious prejudice are deliberately blurred. The leftist BBC interviewed one of the locals in the area who had the following to say: “”I don’t think it made it easier to kill them because they were Muslim, black or whatever.”

It’s interesting (and depressing) how this individual categorizes Muslims as a race to be compared to Blacks. Someday North Americans will realize that religions can be changed while race cannot. As I have discussed this matter at length in a previous article, I shall refrain from repeating myself here. The point of this post is to ask the question presented in the title. Why exactly do we need hate crimes legislation? There is something chillingly Orwellian about criminalizing intent. While deciphering intent is key in establishing the motive that drives criminal behaviour, we must realize that the law ultimately punishes the actions that flow out of the motive, never the intention itself. Even in the case of attempted murder, it is not intent that is put on trial, but rather the plausibility of acting on that intent. A criminal’s feelings of ‘hatred’ toward the target are not as relevant as people think. Hate crimes legislature attempts to put intent on trial with the sole purpose of punishing a criminal for their thoughts rather than the outcome of their actions (although actions are undoubtedly a major factor).

Hicks allegedly (we don’t know all the facts yet) murdered three innocent people in cold blood over so trivial a matter. If he is found guilty of this crime, there are existing laws that can adequately be applied. Whether he committed a hate crime is irrelevant, what is relevant is that he committed brutal murder and should be tried for murder. If a thug spray paints offensive graffiti on the walls and windows of a mosque, that thug should be charged with vandalism and not a hate crime. Perhaps that thug was simply in the mood for causing mischief and the mosque happened to be the most convenient target in his radius. Ultimately, the law generally punishes actions as it is (negative) actions that can potentially harm society, not intentions. Criminalizing intent is counterproductive and violates our God given autonomy. While intent is key in day to day morality and ethical thought in general, the law is not an ethical code. As I am not a lawyer and know very little about law, I shall refrain from touching upon the “What the law is” versus “What the law ought to be” debate.

I don’t have much else to say so I’ll leave the floor open to comments.

Posted in Western Values, White nationalism | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

The Importance Of Business Ethics

It has often been said that a society’s level of civilization can be gauged in three places: it’s prisons, it’s toilets, and it’s roads. If a society possesses a high trust culture which emphasizes justice and consideration, one would visibly notice those values at work in the aforementioned 3 places. I would like to add another domain to that list, the domain of business and commerce. It is within the realm of commerce where Western values of high trust and consideration truly shine. Let us examine how.

In 2013 I did some contract work for a massive Canadian corporation where I acted as a liaison between customers and the accounting department. The job was a logistics position that tracked the number of units that were shipped every month to various giant retailers across Canada. If customers had accidentally been shipped fewer units than ordered, my job was to prepare the paperwork and alert the accounting department so that the customer would receive a credit on their next purchase. Unsurprisingly, customers were quick to point out shortages as it no doubt impacted their operations. Surprisingly, they were just as quick to report additional units that were shipped to them by accident. In such a scenario I would once again prepare the necessary paperwork and forward it to the accounting department which would then bill the customers for the additional units.

I was told that there was no way to track additional units shipped by accident and thus the company was at the mercy of their customers. If the customer was honest, they would report the overage. If they weren’t, that was the company’s loss. It turned out that 90% of the customers were honest and I owed my contract job to their integrity. Just another day in a civilized high trust Western culture.

Contrast this to the manner in which non western people do business. A cousin of mine (now a millionaire several times over) once said this about Dubai’s real estate market: “Everybody’s corrupt, from the bottom to the very top.” Kickbacks are very common in the UAE, and possibly the only means to secure lucrative contracts. Building material suppliers often offer kickbacks to secure contracts for new development projects. This often leads to the use of inferior construction materials which in turn frequently leads to this.

India and China do not fare any better. My mother once mentioned her awful shopping experience at Dubai’s Dragon Mart, the emirate’s only major Chinese mall. Chinese shopkeepers often threaten to raise their prices at a moments notice to force your hand and discourage you from shopping around. The Indian’s atavistic need to price haggle is a symptom of a larger problem: a lack of trust between consumers and sellers. In the West, bargaining is frowned upon and customers generally trust sellers to quote them a fair price. This has historically been the case:

The sound merchant of the old school held the opinion that his duty was satisfactorily discharged, by satisfying the actual purchase-requirements of his customers. He allowed the latter to approach him of their own accord, and waited until they called upon him, believing that he had conformed in all respects to his business obligations, by procuring for the customer, at a suitable price, the goods which the latter required. He regarded it as beneath his dignity to run after customers, or to entice them, by all manner of tricks, to buy from him; in fact, in olden times, conduct of this kind was regarded as unbecoming
and quite unworthy of an honourable trader. Far less did it ever occur to him to talk a customer into buying some article, which the latter would not have bought of his own accord. Thus trade remained a peaceful, and not unduly exciting occupation, and still the customer got what he wanted. (Theodor Fritsch, The Riddle Of The Jew’s success, page 10, 1927)

Tribalism is bad for Capitalism

Traditional Capitalism ensures that Businesses actually satisfy consumer needs in order to remain profitable and hence continue operating. Businesses that do not satisfy consumer needs or implement poor business models are punished with losses and eventually swept off the board. In tribal societies however, even lousy businesses can expect to stay profitable because they can always count on the patronage of their ethnic communities. In the long run this is harmful to the economy as businesses have no need for self improvement.

I’ve seen several examples of this in Toronto where businesses (run by immigrants) that would have shut down (under ordinary circumstances) remain operational due to the support of their ethnic communities. These businesses provide sub-standard customer service and at times their owners outright insult their customers over the counter. This arrangement generally sabotages the free market’s ability to regulate quality. In the long run, an ethnically fragmented society produces an economic system that emphasizes ethnic networking over quality. Capitalism’s innovation inducing qualities are effectively muted in such an economic environment.

How a society does business speaks volumes about it’s values and worldview. Even my ultra religious uncle (a hardcore Muslim) was impressed with the integrity of Western businessmen. He often speaks highly about his British suppliers and how they would often issue full refunds without even verifying if the goods were genuinely defective, preferring instead to take their customer’s word for it. The prevailing ethos of the West is that trade ought to benefit society and that there is a higher purpose to wealth creation. This is why Ford paid his employees very high wages (for the time) and Carnegie built libraries. India’s business class give virtually nothing back to society and the Chinese are not much better.

I think the Alternative Right and Paleoconservatives have overall neglected to analyze and comment on the business culture of the West. I’ve merely presented the tip of the iceberg in this article and it is my view that this is an area that certainly merits further study and discussion.

 

Posted in Asia, China, conservative values, Economics, Europe, India, Race, Tribalism, Western Values | Tagged , , , , , | 8 Comments