In Defense of Maligned Millennials

In the comments section of my old article on Baby Boomers and economic malaise, Beatrix had this to say about my fellow Millennials:

“I deal with a lot of Millennials, they have to be the most pathetic generation yet – Their attitude – why bother with education when you can download the world in an instant? Socially retarded, I guess manners & basic courtesy have become completely outdated also. The unbelievably prolonged adolescence, supercilious narcissism, blatant ageism – ughhhhhhh you can’t tell them anything, they know it all.”

Here’s what I had to say in response:

“Believe me, I’m hardly singing the praises of Millennials. As I pointed out in my last interview with Robert Stark, many if not most really are a bunch of feckless social media addicts and gamers.

However, the Baby Boomers still deserve significantly greater scorn and criticism than Millennials. They were essentially handed the most prosperous civilization in all of human history on a silver platter, and through their greed, hedonism, and negligence have driven it into the ground. Say what you will about Millennials, but we didn’t create the housing bubble, outsource all good blue collar jobs (along with many white collar jobs), crash the global economy, etc.

I also concede that many Millennials have significant problems relating to everyday people. But again, it wasn’t Millennials who created “helicopter parenting” and an obsession with safety and security. When even a tiny scraped knee becomes an emergency, it’s hard to develop a sense of adventure and independence as a kid. Not to mention, as the late and great George Carlin once pointed out, they even have “play dates.” How can kids learn to develop a healthy sense of social skills when neurotic helicopter moms are planning the simple act of hanging out with a friend? When life becomes so aggressively regulated and stultifying, the natural response is to just retreat and do things like play video games.

Millennials are very much dysfunctional, but they are a product of the cultural cesspool and economic quagmire bequeathed to them by the boomers. The boomers pissed on the sacrifices and traditional values of their Greatest Generation parents, and have medicated, aggressively regulated, and sold short their own children. They were given everything, and have given those coming after them very little. They deserve to go down in history as the worst generation.”

Just to clarify, Beatrix’s comment does not anger me, nor is she a Boomer. However, I nevertheless feel compelled to tackle the question of generational blame once and for all.

To add to my comment posted above, I feel that generations ought to be judged based on how they behave when it’s their turn to wield power. The Greatest Generation, while reviled as bunch of mean racists and sexists, were an industrious bunch that made numerous sacrifices and enabled their Baby Boomer children to inherit a better world than the one in which they grew up. When the Boomers were kids, they deemed their parents a bunch of conformist oppressors, which prompted various forms of rebellion. And hey, compared to economic prosperity and family stability, being able to smoke weed and engage in “free love” are indeed vital components of a free and healthy society.

However, now that the Boomers are the ones wielding power, they have proven to be even more tyrannical than the Greatest Generation could have dreamed of being. For starters, a significant number of Boomers practice a kind of invasive parenting that would have shocked and appalled their own parents:

“More than two-thirds of us think there ought to be a law that kids as old as 9 should supervised while playing at a public park, which helps explain (though not justify) the arrest of a South Carolina mother who let her phone-enabled daughter play in a busy park while she worked at a nearby McDonald’s. We think on average that kids should be 10 years old before they “are allowed to play in the front yard unsupervised.” Unless you live on a traffic island or a war zone, that’s just nuts.

It gets worse: We think that our precious bundles of joy should be 12 before they can wait alone in a car for five minutes on a cool day or walk to school without an adult, and that they should be 13 before they can be trusted to stay home alone. You’d think that kids raised on Baby Einstein DVDs should be a little more advanced than that.”

Boomers who are always whining about how today’s kids won’t step up and take responsibility should perhaps consider the possibility that overprotecting and smothering children with safety might have a little something to do with such fecklessness and a lack of independence.

In general, the most aggravating part about Millennial bashing from Boomers is the way they conveniently absolve themselves of any responsibility for creating our current mess. For a great fictional example of such behavior, check out the following clip from the show The Newsroom (Skip to around the 3:00 mark):

When ridiculing that blonde college girl, it’s as if he’s blaming her generation for the various American pathologies that he bemoans. Last time I checked, Millennials aren’t in charge of our schools, prisons, health care system, the military-industrial complex, or any other institution responsible for these various problems. Millennials likewise are not responsible for our completely useless and dysfunctional congress, which is dominated by (you guessed it) Baby Boomers.

Under the watchful eye of the Boomers, income inequality has skyrocketed, the police have grown more militarized, wealth has been increasingly “created” through paper shuffling rather than any genuine production, our liberties continue to be eroded through the likes of NSA surveillance, jobs have been increasingly outsourced, and our nation’s debt is enormous. Need I go on?

If anything, Boomers ought to be grateful that Millennials are not engaging in mass rebellion and protest against their corrupt practices, even though we have far greater cause to resent the Boomers than they had to rebel against their own parents.

In conclusion, while Millennials are indeed screwed up, we are not the architects of our society’s demise. Our worth as a generation will ultimately be determined once it is our turn to act as the stewards of our civilization.


Posted in Economics, Subversion | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Happy independance day Pakistan!

I know I’m a little late on this topic but I’d be remiss if I didn’t impart a few thoughts on this oh so auspicious occasion. India’s evil twin just turned 68 and continues to teeter along a fine line between existence and oblivion. Like a brain dead patient on life support, Pakistan doesn’t stand a chance of recovering; yet disconnecting this nuclear powered failed state from its life support system terrifies the world. Pakistan has skillfully leveraged it’s existence as an elaborate protection racket where failure to comply threatens global destruction with the possibility of its nuclear arsenal ending up in the wrong hands. Thus the world’s foremost beggar state sustains itself on the charity of other states while contributing virtually nothing to human civilization.

It is a source of tremendous amusement coupled with irony that this honour obsessed patriarchal society, where men would be ashamed to live off the wages of their women, has acclimated to their nation’s beggar status on the international level. This harmonization of divergent thought and action is what validates a prior observation I had articulated on Robert Linday’s blog: In South Asia, shame is a function of losing face and not one’s awakening to one’s own hypocrisy resulting from honest introspection.

The question it all boils down to is this: What is Pakistan’s Raison d’être? Is Pakistan a safe haven for South Asian Muslims? This cannot be true given that the vast majority of terror attack victims are Muslims. The same goes for the casualties of ethnic violence. It seems that Pakistanis, like Israelis, are fated to live out the Biblical curse of King David where the sword shall never leave their house. Pakistanis might re-direct this question across the border: Why does India exist? But while India is a unique Hell in its own right, it has existed for 4000 years and endures for no other good reason.

Why does Pakistan exist? Or more precisely, why does it continue to exist? The logic of Pakistan was shattered by the 1971 war which resulted in East Pakistan becoming Bangladesh. Pakistanis should have realized at that historic moment that religion could not possibly unite an ethnically diverse country. A country without a common set of core values bound by the thread of culture cannot possibly endure. The 1971 war was the beginning of Pakistan’s end. Those that had the foresight to see it back then wouldn’t be surprised in the least by current state of affairs.

The phantasmagorical monolithic cultured Muslim lodged in Jinnah’s psyche was the product of a disconnected imagination. A Pakistani is basically a self hating Indian that despises the very DNA housed by the cells of his body. This peculiar mental illness is unique to the Pakistani mind. I have never heard of North Koreans denying their racial heritage and neither have I heard of Taiwanese or Singaporeans denying their Chinese ethnicity. It is with a profound sense of curiosity that I wonder what the Pakistani sees when he looks in the mirror.

This takes me back to an anecdote that was narrated to me by a Pakistani acquaintance here in Saskatoon. He told me that his little niece once rooted for India in a cricket match against Sri Lanka because the Indians “look like us, eat the same food as us, and dress the same way.” As Yoda would put it: “truly wonderful the mind of a child is.” When the artificial Islamic identity is stripped away, all that remains underneath is Indian. As I’ve stated numerous times over the years, culture and race always trump religion. Since the very design of Pakistan necessitated the purging of all cultural elements deemed “Indian”, society was left with no safety mechanism to guard against religious puritanism.  Pakistanis compensate their lack of a cultural/racial identity with religion, hence leaving society vulnerable to Wahabi incursion.

The Pakistan project was doomed to fail from its very inception and Wahabism is it’s logical conclusion. Yet despite all this the average Pakistani still thinks the answer is not less religion, but more. The Pakistani cannot see beyond religion. He cares not for modern healthcare, education, or infrastructure; he wants more Islam. Like the crack addict that is convinced his next hit will be his last, the Pakistani is also convinced that just a little more Islam is needed. And a little more after.

Project Pakistan, unlike Israel, has no identity or unifying purpose and is fated to self destruct. Under these inevitable circumstances the ideal situation would be for every province to gain statehood and go their own way. This has worked for ethnically homogenous Bangladesh as its strong cultural identity is capable of keeping radical Islam at bay. The disintegration of Pakistan would add to the long term stability of the region and would benefit not just India, but the world. Most importantly however, it would benefit the restless and frustrated people that were long ago robbed of purpose by the abomination that is Pakistan.



Posted in Asia, India, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

I don’t understand employment equity

employment equity

I’ve read several websites that “debunk” the claim that employment equity is reverse discrimination against white males. For the benefit of non Canadian readers, the employment equity act designates 4 “protected” (a term used by my former HR Proff) groups:

  • Women
  • People with disabilities
  • Aboriginal people
  • Visible minorities

Perhaps the reason I fail to understand employment equity is because its underlying ideology evades my comprehension. How exactly does a “diverse workforce” provide any discernible benefit to companies? This seems to my mind a classic case of a self serving ideological slogan that has been repeated so many times it has become a truism. The liberal media megaphone drowns out all dissenting voices, especially those that make a humble appeal to empiricism. Liberals have yet to prove how a diversity of skin colours and religions increase profits and improve productivity. I’m all for supporting the interests of disabled people and aboriginals, but I fail to see why non Aboriginal visible minorities and women ought to be coddled.

I am curious about how employment equity plays out in a job hunt scenario. Liberal websites claim that it doesn’t discriminate against white males but I can’t for the life of me see how that isn’t the case.

Consider the following hypothetical scenario: A white male and an Afghan immigrant apply for the same job. Let’s assume that their qualifications and work experience are identical. Let’s also assume for the sake of this hypothetical that all other variables are also equal. Who get’s the job? I would assume the Afghan. If the Afghan doesn’t get the job, then employment equity is redundant.

If one looks carefully at the image that prefaces this post, one will notice that the employment equity section precedes the skills section. This seems like a classic case of pragmatism sacrificed on the alter of ideology.

I don’t mean to be snarky here, but exactly how does employment equity work?



Posted in Feminism, Immigration, Uncategorized, Western Values, White nationalism | Tagged , , , | 9 Comments

When the Feminists Make Mistakes, Don’t Interrupt Them

In his latest post, Dota persuasively argued that only decadent 1st world societies with abundant resources can play host to feminism. One of our blog’s major recurring themes is that without constant upkeep and support from powerful elites, the left’s various cultural pet causes and ideologies would collapse. However, I feel that even without 3rd world conditions, feminism is going to eventually consign itself to irrelevance through their carelessness and overreach.

Since feminism and “girl power” have always been dependent on the largesse of influential men, feminists give lip service to caring about men’s problems. It’s not too uncommon to hear feminists claim that feminism is men’s friend, and that if men would only stop being wicked sexists and help them fight the patriarchy, feminism would make their lives significantly better. In order to maintain some degree of respectability, it makes sense for a movement that purports to embrace “equality” to throw men a bone every now and then.

Of course, we in the alternative right have long known that feminism’s egalitarian posturing is a facade. At its core, feminism has always been by and for women, and one would be very hard-pressed to point to any real benefits accrued by men courtesy of women’s liberation. Whether it’s stagnating wages and PC work environments, rampant divorce, or the feminization of education and pacifying little boys with Ritalin for the heinous crime of being too energetically male, I don’t see how feminists can expect men to enthusiastically embrace their agenda. The problems mentioned above are just the tip of the iceberg.

Occasionally, a feminist here and there will drop the facade and admit that men have little to gain from feminism. One such feminist is Raina Lipsitz, who has had it up to here with the notion that women need male support. What triggered her anger was a poll suggesting that only 48 percent of men support general women’s equality, with only 14 percent strongly supporting women’s equality:

“A recent Ipsos poll found that 48 percent of men in 15 developed countries self-identify as feminists when the term is defined as “someone who advocates and supports equal opportunities for women.” At first glance, this is encouraging. But that figure includes men who only “somewhat” support equal opportunities for women, as well as those who “very much” support such opportunities.

Depending on how flexible you think the word “feminist” is, you could see this as evidence that egalitarian men abound. Or you could note that only 14 percent of men polled were “very much” in favor of equality, while 34 percent were only “somewhat” in favor. This means women who hope to succeed with an egalitarian partner by their side have only a small fraction of that 14 percent to choose from after discounting those who are too young or too old or are uninterested in dating women.”

From this, she concludes that there are only a “few good men,” and that a mere 14 percent have gotten the memo that women are full human beings. First of all, who says that women actually want “egalitarian” partners who embrace feminist practices? Last time I checked, one of the most popular novels among Western women is 50 Shades of Grey, which involves a vulnerable and submissive female protagonist getting spanked and dominated by her alpha male lover. I can’t imagine too many women would be as turned on by Christian Grey’s character if during one of the book’s scenes he held up a sign saying, “I am a feminist because…”

Also, there’s no longer any need for men to strongly support equality for women. In our so-called patriarchy, women can vote, attend college in record numbers, pursue careers, divorce at will, sleep around without getting honor killed or disowned, and live the kinds of lives that would have been unthinkable for women throughout the majority of world history. Our “patriarchy” is as patriarchal as the Southern Poverty Law Center is focused on actual poverty.

After paying the usual lip service to men’s issues, she then has the audacity to compare feminism’s 1st world problems to more serious issues such as wars and lynchings:

“Men face legitimate obstacles of their own, but their oppression, be it economic, political or social, is treated as a universal problem, not as a quibble from a special interest group. How many times have women activists been told that it’s more important to end war than it is to end sexism or more critical to win elections than to defend abortion rights? As the activist and cultural critic Ellen Willis once put it, “It’s hard to convey … how radical, how unpopular and difficult it was just to get up and say, ‘Men oppress women … Men must take responsibility for their actions instead of blaming them on capitalism. And yes, that means you.’”

Women’s rights have never been the central fight for male activists; in many leftist circles, they weren’t on the agenda at all. By contrast, women have been instrumental in every major campaign for social justice, from abolition, anti-lynching crusades and organized labor to anti-war activism, civil rights and gay rights. They have historically devoted their time and lives to causes that didn’t necessarily affect them directly. Contrary to Stokely Carmichael’s infamous remark (“What is the position of women in SNCC [the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee]? The position of women in SNCC is prone”), women of all colors — especially black women — did more for civil rights than sleep with male activists. Black female activists such as Fannie Lou Hamer were regularly jailed and beaten. The Klan murdered Viola Liuzzo, a white activist who, before she was killed, declared that the battle for civil rights was “everybody’s fight.”

How many men think of safeguarding abortion rights or ending female genital mutilation as everybody’s fight? Apparently, only about 14 percent of men have gotten the memo that women are even people at all. This means that women who are waiting for a few good men — or an army of dishwashing husbands — to support them emotionally, financially and logistically as they lean into their magically high-powered careers will be waiting for a long time.”

Talk about “entitlement,” which is a word that feminists always use to chastise men. Whether she wants to admit it or not, issues such as war are indeed universal problems. Various peoples of the world, men and women alike, suffer from wars of imperialistic aggression. However, a bunch of middle and upper middle class 1st world women wanting to become corporate executives is not a “universal” problem. Ditto for women wanting to get abortions. Her attempt to reference 3rd world female genital mutilation in order to bolster the claim that feminism is universal is not fooling anyone. That she could even begin to put feminist causes on the same level as wars, the ending of Jim Crow, and lynchings reeks of major chutzpah.

Finally, after paying yet more shallow lip service to caring about men’s problems, she at last admits that feminism does not ultimately help men:

“But men’s freedom should be a happy byproduct of feminism, not its primary goal. It is disingenuous to pretend that men have as much to gain from feminism as women.

In fact, they have something to lose, which is why we shouldn’t count on them to come to our rescue. Venture into the comments section of any article about feminism published in the last 20 years and you will see how many men are filled with rage, bitterness and terror at the prospect of women’s (largely fictitious) rise to power. Men are reluctant to cede privileges they’ve enjoyed their whole lives, even if or when they recognize that these privileges are unearned.”

Even though she’s already admitted that feminism does nothing for men, she then argues that men should nonetheless support feminism because it’s “inhumane” not to. So basically, even though she admits that men have issues, she insists that feminism should not spend time helping men. Yet according to her, men ought to go out of their way to help women and only women. Again, talk about chutzpah.

Even though I enjoy poking fun at the illogic of this entitled feminist, my real intent behind writing this article lies elsewhere. To paraphrase a quote often attributed to Napoleon, let us not interrupt our feminist enemies while they implode.

Even if the various netizens of the manosphere and elsewhere were to immediately drop the issue of feminism and end all opposition to the movement, feminists would end up digging their own grave. The abrasive and entitled vibe of feminists like Raina Lipsitz, as highlighted above, will do more to alienate the masses from feminism than any article from the manosphere. In today’s stagnant economy and hypercompetitive classrooms where men are increasingly falling behind, fewer and fewer will be inclined to support female “empowerment” just for its own sake. At best, more men will simply tune feminists out and disregard their activism. At worst, the sight of pampered women telling struggling men to “check their privilege” will provoke hostility towards the entire movement.

So while we enjoy writing and reading the occasional edifying article critiquing feminism, let’s not get too hung up in stridently denouncing our favorite gender benders. Feminist arrogance and snarkiness, combined with our society’s declining standard of living, will ultimately doom their enterprise. Feminists will sow the seeds of their own demise.

Sooner or later, feminism will also fail in the 1st world.

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

Why feminism fails in the third world

The brutal rape that occurred in Delhi two years ago was followed by unprecedented national outrage and demands for legislature reform. They were also followed by a spike in sexual assaults including the shocking rape of 2 peasants girls whose corpses were hung on trees. India is but one country in the global tapestry we know as the third world. Why does the third world reject feminism? I will for the sake of clarity attempt to answer the question by using India as a case study.

Variables other than culture.

Those that have followed my articles over the year, (and my comments on Robert Lindsay’s blog over the preceding years) will know that I place an enormous degree of importance on culture when analyzing politics, history, and society. However, after reading the “anonymous conservative” I’ve come to realize that perhaps there are other factors that warrant scrutiny. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, consider the following:


I think the anonymous conservative provides us with a clue as to why feminism can’t succeed in the third world. Feminism has infested the West because western societies are abundant in resources and have strong states to allocate those resources to those that feel entitled to them for taking the trouble of being born with a vagina.

As I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions, feminism has merely shifted women’s need to be provided for away from the family and onto the state. The nanny state provides women with resources that enable them to rise in society without merit. Some of these resources are (but not limited to): affirmative action, preferential treatment in education (Universities), and various non profit initiatives like “Women Entrepreneurs of…(whatever).

Feminism fails in the third world precisely because third world nations are lacking in resources and effective governments.

In India for example, the state lacks the resources to arrest and prosecute rapists, let alone spare any officers to respond to domestic disturbance calls made by women who wish to eject their husbands from their property following a minor domestic spat. For rural women, divorce is an omen of doom as the state has no means of enforcing alimony and child support on non compliant husbands. The infamous Shah Bano case illustrates a scenario where an effete state backed down under societal pressure. Many third world nations lack the resources to protect their women from physical harm, let alone consider and debate the gender bending lunacy of Western gender feminism.

Western feminists tend to gloat female encroachment into men’s space and often bemoan any instance where female entry into male domains is barred. Yet this is precisely the case in India where women are still underrepresented in elite schools like the Indian Institute of technology (IIT). In the absence of abundant resources, women will generally fail to break through the glass ceiling. Naturally, this doesn’t apply to ALL women as some are exceptional but we are discussing general principles here.

Schopenhauer referred to female Independence as an “unnatural state” and perhaps now we may begin to appreciate why. In our species, women were never meant to be the independent sex. Note that by “independent” I am not referring to a woman’s ability to work and earn a living outside the home, but rather, the erroneous feminist belief that women MUST pursue work outside the home to truly self actualize. Female independence comes at a cost which must ultimately be borne by society. When women outsource motherhood to daycares while they chase their corporate fantasies, their offspring develop lower IQs and emotional stability as demonstrated by studies. The cost of lower IQ citizens is borne by society. Similarly, children raised in single mother households are statistically more likely to take to crime than those raised in traditional households. Who bears the cost for bad decisions made by “strong and independent” single moms? Society does.

The feminist enterprise has a massive financial upkeep that third world nations are clearly unable to bear. If feminist “equality” were truly natural to our species there would be no need for an upkeep. Some would blame entrenched patriarchy and culture but lets not forget that these are shaped by environment. When resources grow scarce, women lose their petulant rebelliousness and support patriarchy, not out of selfless love for men, but out of self interest as the mechanism of patriarchy deems them a protected class entitled to sustenance and protection.

During the roaring 1920s, the thriving Flapper subculture of women flouted societal conventions pertaining to modesty and propriety as they pursued a lifestyle of hedonism. There is a great volume of online feminist literature that glorifies these rebellious heroines  as models to be emulated but little is said about their downfall. How did the Flapper subculture fall? It declined with the onset of the Great Depression when resources became scarce and female survival instincts jettisoned “independence” in favour of patriarchy’s protective embrace.

Posted in Asia, Christianity, conservative values, Feminism, India, Western Values | Tagged , , | 18 Comments

Tel Aviv, Ted Cruz, and the Utter Uselessness of Modern Republicans

We make little effort to conceal our disdain for the Republican party and mainstream conservatives. At least for me, my problems with the Republicans are numerous. As a young millennial who embraces progressive taxation, anti-corporatism, and is strongly opposed to outsourcing, I cannot in good conscience support a party that seeks to make life more trying for members of my demographic. Many of my fellow millennials would agree, as a significant percentage repudiate the kind of crony capitalism that got us to where we are today. Fear not, I’m not turning Democrat on you. We millennials have learned the hard way that whether Republicans or Democrats occupy the White House, our rotten and degenerate elites continue to destroy this country. Shit stinks, regardless of the form it takes.

However, I’ll acknowledge that there are certain people who harbor deep passions about various social issues. Perhaps they view the Republican party as the only way to advance the cause of social conservatism, border security, and other issues that motivate most white middle Americans to vote Republican. Unfortunately, in addition to their economic malfeasance, Republicans have proven to be either extremely cynical or borderline retarded when it comes to tackling the culture war. Such idiocy is best demonstrated by the Republican party’s support of Israel and Zionism.

Dota has written before about the lunacy of the Christian Right’s embrace of Israel, but the behavior of Republican elites is even more appalling. The latest example of so-called conservatives sucking up to Israel comes in the form of Texas senator Ted Cruz. Due to the ongoing carnage in Gaza, the FAA imposed a ban on U.S. airlines flying into or out of Ben Gurion International Airport. A sane, rational person might conclude that the FAA is looking out for the safety of American travelers, and that flying planes over a war zone isn’t the wisest idea. However, Ted Cruz knows better. President Obama and the American government, by banning flights into Tel Aviv, are engaging in an “economic boycott” of Israel.

Doesn’t it just warm your heart to know that prominent Republicans like Ted Cruz care more about the economic comfort of Israelis than the safety of their fellow Americans? I guess it’s not enough that the U.S. provides Israel with billions in annual aid or serves as their guardian in the UN. Israel must enjoy its tourism profits, and if a few goyim potentially die, then it’s a small price to pay in order to ensure the continued prosperity of the chosen people. In his article on the Christian Right, Dota rightly argued that it’s folly for conservatives to so vehemently defend the interests of a group committed to liberalism and the undermining of traditional conservative values. Jewish American elites may accept Republican support out of self-interest, but something tells me that they don’t genuinely embrace their useful goyim idiots.

I’ve come to conclude that Republican elites care little for conservative values, and their eyes are always on the economic prize. Even though many Israel lobby denialists and liberals like to highlight the influence of Christian Zionism, their influence on U.S. policy towards Israel is negligible. As Mearsheimer and Walt pointed out in their book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Israel is just one of many issues that the Christian Right cares about, and not even one of the more important ones. Christian Zionists likewise lack the financial and media power of Jewish Zionists.

Therefore, the pandering of Republicans to Israel is ultimately designed to attract wealthy Zionist Jews such as Sheldon Adelson. Speaking of Adelson, Republican elites are especially out of touch with their base on the issue of immigration. Adelson, along with numerous other top donors to the stupid party, are strongly in favor of “immigration reform” (ie. amnesty for illegals). Sadly, this behavior isn’t confined to cynical and greedy donors. Conservative pundit Glenn Beck, in an especially disgraceful display, has implemented his own mini Marshall Plan for the tens of thousands of illegal Central American children. If only he and his fellow mainstream conservatives would “open their hearts” to the millions of working and middle class white Americans who continue to languish in economic stagnation.

Can Republicans really be this stupid? Given that the majority of Latinos vote Democrat and have aligned themselves with the liberal rainbow coalition, why would Republican elites want to bring in yet more Latinos and future Democratic voters? Simply put, as we have emphasized on this blog time and time again, our elites of all stripes do not actually care about the interests of average people. Political elites are utterly contemptuous of the people they purportedly represent. For Sheldon Adelson and those like him, their already obscene levels of wealth aren’t sufficient. Therefore, they have no problem selling white America short just to bring in more cheap labor and future profits for themselves.

If all of the evidence compiled by the alternative right over the years isn’t enough to convince white conservatives that the stupid party isn’t their friend, then I highly doubt that this post will do the trick. So what can we do about this? Should we just accept that most white conservatives are moronic sheeple who can’t see through their corrupt elites? No, because if we want to save our civilization, we will ultimately have to reach out more to everyday white Americans. If we present our views with tact and avoid esoteric buzzwords, I feel that many conservative whites who are growing more disillusioned with the Republican elite will be receptive to our message. Eric Cantor’s sound defeat in the GOP primary, which had much to do with his perceived softness on immigration, indicates that more white conservatives are inclined to show the establishment sellouts the door.

(not that this is an endorsement of the Tea Party in any way, shape, or form)

Conservatism is not dead, and we on the alternative right demonstrate that one can be a conservative without deifying Israel and the big business interests that support mass immigration. It’s time for us to show the white masses that there are alternatives to our binary political system, and that they are not doomed to be shackled by the chains of the greedy and stupid party.

Posted in conservative values, Economics, Hispanics, Immigration, Israel, Jewry, Middle East, Organized Jewry, White nationalism | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Yeshivas are ok, Madrasas are not

My life’s experience has taught me to take the very opposite position of whatever the mainstream media reports. Thus if the media insists that North American women are powerless victims perpetually oppressed and denied opportunities to succeed, I’m inclined to believe the opposite. If the media wails about how homosexuals in North America are stomped on by society, I’m similarly inclined to believe the opposite. Of-course, I do a significant amount of research to back up my views. However, I think that simply following this aforementioned axiom (even without doing any research) would restore clarity to a society that refuses to think critically.

As Israel’s senseless war against the civilians of Gaza climbs to new heights of insanity with each passing day, this axiom continues to rear its ugly head. Prior to Israel’s campaign of slaughter, 3 Jewish Israeli boys with religious settler backgrounds were kidnapped and then killed. Major American media outlets such as CNN were quick to mourn their deaths. I can’t help but wonder what the Western Media’s reaction would be if 3 students from the religious school below were abducted and murdered.



For fun, lets also assume that the head of the above Pakistani school made a statement that ran as follows:

“It is well known that to conquer the Land of the India is a commandment. However, from the Sharia point of view, it is not clear whether this is a Quranic-based or a Sunnah injunction, and where and how it is to be applied. At any rate, it is clear that the Sharia does not consider the conquest a positive commandment binding on every Muslim at every time and place.”

I suspect the above statement would play a large part in diluting sympathy for the murdered students if word of it got out.

I tried in vain to determine from the Western media the names of the Jewish seminaries (Yeshivas) that the 3 murdered boys attended. I then decided to scour the Israeli media and learned that 2 of the boys attended Makor Chaim Yeshiva while the third attended Shavei Hevron near Hebron. According to Rabbi HaRav Steinsaltz of Makor Chaim institute:

“It is well known that to conquer the Land of Israel
is a commandment. However, from the
Halachic point of view, it is not clear whether this is a Torah-based or a Rabbinic injunction, and
where and how it is to be applied. At any rate, it
is clear that the Halachah does not consider the
conquest a positive commandment binding on every Jew at every time and place.”

You may read his entire charming sermon here.

The Shavei Hevron school serves the Jewish settlers around Hebron that routinely make life as miserable as they possibly can for their Arab neighbours. Since one Jewish life is worth about 10 Arab lives (rough approximation), the IDF maintains a heavy presence in the area to protect God’s chosen parasites from their Arab neighbours who, for some reason, insist on defending their property from Jewish settler vandalism. The Rabbi that began the settler project in Hebron, Moshe Levinger, remains unrepentant. His charming daughter (then 15 years old) was quoted as saying:“Now the Arabs know their place and they see that the Jews are in charge…With God’s help, the Arabs won’t dare take revenge.”

Rabbi Dov Lior (of the Shavei Hevron school) made the infamous assertion that: ” “There is no such thing as civilians in wartime… A thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jew’s fingernail!” (Christian and Hindu philosemites should take note).

The purpose of this article isn’t to justify the barbaric murder of 3 Israeli children, but to point out the grotesque hypocrisy of the Jew media in the West. If these were madrasa students that were murdered, the North American media would either choose to ignore the incident, or air the students’ sordid backgrounds if they chose to report the incident. Jewish Israeli Yeshivas incite just as much fascism and hatred as their madrasa counterparts in the Muslim world, but of-course, such discourse is forever barred from the mainstream media.

Far from being the work of fringe extremists, such hatred described above is closer to the norm in Israel. In the Jewish state that supposedly “shares values” with our North American societies, bigotry and hate are incited by prominent mainstream politicians. Following the deaths of the 3 kidnapped boys, a just and tolerant leader would have called for calm and the quelling of hateful passions. However, Benjamin Netanyahu (the prime minister of Israel) went out of his way to rile up anti-Palestinian hatred among Jewish Israelis (including on twitter). If a white blogger were to call for vengeance against blacks or Mexican illegals following members of those groups committing an act of violence against white people, such an individual would be confined to a fringe website and monitored by the ADL and SPLC. If a white politician behaved in such a manner, he would soon find himself confronted by a torrent of outrage and pressure, and in need of tremendous luck to keep his position. In Israel, such bigots occupy the highest offices in the land, and suffer no consequences for such hate. It should also be noted that Netanyahu is just the tip of one very racist (as in, genuinely racist) and bigoted iceberg in the land of the chosen people.

Before I conclude I would like to add upon the principle that prefaced this article. When it comes to  non Western (tribal) societies, one must remember to never assume that the English media in those societies reflect the views of the majority. Indian Journalist Aakar Patel once pointed out that one wouldn’t see a society wide Anti-Muslim consensus in the English media of India. To clearly see this society wide consensus (that cheered the genocide of Muslims in Gujarat 2002) one would have to turn to the Gujarati and Hindi media. Tribal/collectivist societies generally express their group prejudice(s) in their tribal tongues and not in English. Similarly, the liberal views expressed in the Pakistani Tribune and Dawn newspapers do not represent the views of Pakistani society at large; a society with an entrenched prejudice against Hindus and Christians.

If one wishes to glimpse the true face of Israel, one must brush aside Haaretz and turn towards the Hebrew press.


Posted in Asia, Christianity, Feminism, Hinduism, Homosexuals, India, Islam, Israel, Jewry, Middle East, Racism, Tribalism | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Back on the Radio!

See here.

Just a couple of days ago, I made another appearance on Robert Stark’s show. We focused primarily on my latest articles, particularly the one about Chinese colonialism and the left’s double standard on imperialism. We also discussed the Central American child refugee controversy, the victory of French conservatives against gender bending in schools, millennials and economics, the warped state of masculinity today, and more!

The audio is a little clunky in a few spots, which results in me sounding like I’m dragging words out. But otherwise, you can more or less hear everything. So once again, it is with great pleasure that I present to my readers to the voice behind the writer. Enjoy!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Victory From the Land of Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys!

How can one not love the French? When they’re not being hilariously parodied by Peter Sellers in various “Pink Panther” films, they’re impressing snobby white liberals with their sophisticated wine and cheese. Pop culture often derides the French are for their effeminate and wimpy ways.

At times, the French have even been victims of misguided patriotic jingoism. I’m sure people remember “freedom fries” following France’s refusal to go along with dubya’s imperial misadventure in Iraq.

However, I feel that the French deserve a lot of credit for their role in contributing to Western civilization. They held the line at the decisive Battle of Tours, saving France and perhaps Europe as a whole from the yoke of Arab imperialism. Their assistance during the American Revolutionary War likewise helped secure our nation’s fragile independence.

Lately, they have made the news for all the right reasons. Acting on its internationalist impulses, radical gender feminism has been making its way to France. Remember all that nonsense about how the differences between the sexes are just social constructs, and how boys and girls shouldn’t play with “gendered” toys? Well, the French government has been trying to force such filth down the throats of impressionable schoolchildren. Not even “Little Red Riding Hood” would have been spared from such gender bending:

“One class in the curriculum, called l’ABCD de l’Egalité (ABCs of Equality), included re-enacting the Little Red Riding Hood fairy tale, with girls playing the part of wolf and boys playing the heroine. The program warned against “privileging speed, brusque movements of boys and fluidness, softness of girls” when commenting on the performance of the students.”

Would find something very strange about such social engineering

Would find something very strange about such social engineering

However, such efforts have been repulsed due to sustained pressure from conservatives, along with parents pulling their kids from school. What makes this victory even sweeter is the fact that it was spearheaded by a woman of Algerian descent, Farida Belghoul. She was even able to successfully forge an unlikely alliance between Muslims and Catholics in common opposition to the assault on heterosexual norms.

The left has always had a problem with conservative minorities. And I’m not talking about professional Uncle Tom’s or paid sellouts like Larry Elder and Armstrong Williams. I mean minorities who don’t sabotage their own group but who nonetheless harbor strong conservative convictions with regards to the sexes and issues such as gay marriage.

The growing minorities of Europe (various Muslim ethnic groups) and the United States (primarily Latinos) support the left primarily out of group interest. As visible racial minorities comprised heavily of poor immigrants, they’re certainly not going to support parties such as the National Front. However, they’re drawing the line on bizarre pet causes such as loony gender theory, which are anathema to their traditionally conservative cultures. This puts white leftists in a very uncomfortable bind. On the one hand, they regard such displays of “sexism” and “homophobia” repugnant. At the same time, the very thought of criticizing non-white cultural practices terrifies them. After all, avoiding the dreaded R word is more important than standing by one’s convictions.

Too often, I feel that we on the Alternative Right come across as the bearers of bad news and harrowing tales of cultural collapse. I feel that this victory from France provides some very valuable and empowering lessons.

For starters, this ought to demonstrate that the cultural left is not some unstoppable juggernaut that always gets its way. Through dedicated resistance and effective organizing, conservatives can successfully fight back against the assaults on their civilizations. Those on our side of the barricade can and do enjoy victories.

Second, despite the claims by various purveyors of evo psych and manosphere principles, women in the West are not doomed by some genetic happenstance to reject their heritage and gorge on narcissism. As Dota pointed out in his post on women and culture, women from conservative cultures are indeed capable of preserving their heritage and helping maintain the moral fabric of society. Algerian Farida Belghoul is a perfect example of this principle. Liberal white women who have imbibed feminist norms are globally deviant, not the norm.

Finally, as I mentioned in my post on the racial dynamics of the Bay Area, something has to give. There’s already been long documented tension between white feminist elites and non-whites. I can say with the utmost confidence that the attempt by white gender feminists to impose loony gender theory will create further friction between the two camps. There’s no real loyalty within the rainbow coalition, just common resentment of white gentiles and a leap from one outrage to the next. We can exploit this to our advantage.

This was a very gratifying victory. Let us cherish it and hope for more. Maybe then, we can put an end to the kind of Inspector Clouseau type foolishness once and for all!


Posted in conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Europe, Feminism, Race, Subversion | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Saving the Children While Losing Your Nation: Immigrant Children, Imperialism, and Irresponsible Elitism

It’s no secret that the United States is plagued with “child worship,” as noted by both historian Richard Hofstadter (not in those words) and the always acerbic George Carlin. No matter how foolish or shortsighted any policy or program may be, it can always count on enjoying success or at least sympathy by invoking the latest group of future social media addicts. The latest imbroglio over illegal immigration is a perfect illustration of this principle.


Children, of course, are the perfect tool to further facilitate massive demographic changes and the future displacement of white Americans. After all, who can object to alleviating the plight of children? Only a monstrous racist, of course. Those white American protesters who confronted buses of illegal immigrant children might as well whip out the bed sheets and burning crosses. There can be no quarter given or mercy shown to those who would thwart attempts to resolve such a “humanitarian crisis.”

No decent human being wishes any of these Central American kids ill will. However, at some point, human love and sentimental beliefs must take a backseat to group interest. After all, there are hundreds of millions of children all over the world who suffer from some combination of poverty, violence, or instability. Are Western nations such as the United States required to accept all of them as well? Are majority white countries under some moral obligation to turn their countries into giant soup kitchens and amusement parks just so the brown masses of the world can “enjoy a better life?” The great and late Gore Vidal, not exactly an evil white nationalist, had some thoughts on the folly of mass immigration (I highly recommend reading the whole article):

“A characteristic of our present chaos is the dramatic migration of tribes. They are on the move from east to west, from south to north. Liberal tradition requires that borders must always be open to those in search of safety or even the pursuit of happiness. But now with so many millions of people on the move, even the great-hearted are becoming edgy. Norway is large enough and empty enough to take in 40 to 50 million homeless Bengalis. If the Norwegians say that, all in all, they would rather not take them in, is this to be considered racism? I think not. It is simply self-preservation, the first law of species.”

Unrestricted open borders is sheer lunacy, and it appears that growing numbers of white people, both here and internationally, are collectively beginning to say “enough is enough!” All the hackneyed emotional appeals about how humans aren’t illegal, we’re all immigrants, and these people just want to feed their families, are beginning to lose their impact. So when all else fails, it’s time to bring in the children!

Now again, I’m hardly saying that I want these children to be sent back to be killed, raped, or otherwise harmed by psychotic drug gangs and other violent elements. In fact, I feel that there is a better way to mitigate the suffering of these children than allowing them to flood our already overburdened nation. Why don’t our debased elites actually put some good ol’ fashioned American intervention to some genuinely moral use? Why doesn’t the U.S. deploy troops to Central America with the sole moral purpose of squashing gangs like MS-13? Or how about ending the foolish “war on drugs,” which hasn’t quelled America’s appetite for drugs, but instead allowed increasingly powerful and violent drug cartels to fill in the void? Even better, perhaps the U.S. can refrain from supporting coups that further destabilize Latin American nations, only to then reward the new brutal regimes with aid. By reducing the violence and instability that has prompted these kids to move north, Central American nations would be more secure and safe for children. The angry white Americans in Murrieta would likewise have no more cause for frustration.

But of course, our elites will do no such thing. They’re not actually interested in improving the livelihoods of impoverished 3rd world nations or their own citizens who look like them. One only needs to observe how they endorse the debilitating brain drain. In the same way that feminism has merely augmented the power of male elites at the expense of everyday men, the same holds true for mass immigration. Even though it is our amoral elites who have fomented instability and exploitative conditions in Central America, it is everyday white Americans who will have to foot the bill in the form of greater social tension, job competition, and creeping displacement in the form of mass non-white immigration.

It’s time to face some difficult truths. If our elites really wanted to, they could virtually suppress immigration overnight. Hell, they’re always capable of bringing American power to bear when it comes to invading and occupying godforsaken Middle Eastern and Central Asian shitholes that most Americans couldn’t locate on a map. They certainly have no problem with providing Israel aid so that they can defend their own ethnic borders. And yet we’re being told that immigration is simply inevitable? Give us a break.

At the end of the day, they only care about cheap labor, votes, and further leverage over the average man. Democrats and Republicans alike are not interested in helping white Americans. Therefore, I wouldn’t hold my breath during this supposed conflict over “immigration reform.”

Aside | Posted on by | Tagged , , | 6 Comments