When Whites Were Ruled by Non-Whites: A Review of Misha Glenny’s “The Balkans” Part 1

I’m back! Just to clarify, I have not been in a state of hibernation, nor did I disappear from the face of the earth. I’m still alive and kicking. Rather, I’ve been doing a significant amount of reading and research in order to write my next series of posts. Having recently taken an interest in the Balkans, I just finished reading all 706 pages of Misha Glenny’s The Balkans. This project is part of my general interest in non-Western imperialism, as well as the forgotten white victims of imperialism.

In the eyes of critics of Western civilization, white Western history is a mere litany of colonial crimes committed against noble brown and black people. From the Crusades to the war in Iraq, it would seem that relations between the East and West have always been characterized by white depredations.

Of course, those who haven’t been brainwashed by anti-white propaganda know that such a view of history is incredibly simplistic and just plain incorrect. There have been numerous instances in world history that have involved non-whites invading, subjugating, and enslaving various parts of white Europe. Middle Eastern and Central Asian peoples such as the Huns, Arabs, Mongols, Barbary pirates, and Turks have all played their part in disturbing the peace within the white continent. The violence and conquests of the Huns resulted in the displacement of various Germanic tribes, which played a significant role in the collapse of Western Rome. The Arabs ultimately failed to subjugate all of Europe, and it wasn’t for a lack of trying. Had they not been stopped at Tours and Constantinople, they could have overrun the entire continent. The Mongols slaughtered countless people and also spread the black death from Asia to Europe, which decimated a third of the continent’s population. Barbary pirates from North Africa raided for white slaves as far north as Iceland, which significantly disrupted coastal life in Europe. The Tartars likewise took slaves from Russia and Eastern Europe.

However, none of those groups left a legacy as negative as the Turks. Ruling a significant chunk of Europe that extended all the way to Austria’s doorstep, the Turks are in many ways responsible for the various problems, demographic and otherwise, that continue to afflict the Balkans. The history of the Ottoman occupation of the Balkans provides several very instructive lessons.

For starters, Ottoman rule should put to rest the tired notion that Eastern and Islamic societies were “tolerant.” I’ve frequently seen various postcolonial and liberal scholars argue that in comparison to Europe, the Islamic world was tolerant and open towards different groups of people. Of course, that depends on how you define “tolerance.” From a purely technical standpoint, the Ottomans and other Muslim rulers were indeed tolerant, if by “tolerant” you mean a willingness to endure and put up with people you don’t particularly like. For the most part, Muslims did not commit massacres and more or less allowed their subjects to practice their religion and live quietly.

However, the word “tolerance” in today’s Western imagination conjures up images of equality, egalitarianism, mutual respect, integration, and full acceptance. I suspect that various apologists for Middle Eastern/Muslim imperialism are aware of this, and describe Islamic empires as “tolerant” as a means of downplaying the less savory aspects of those societies. It’s also their way of branding Europe as “intolerant.”

Using today’s idea of “tolerance,” the Ottoman Empire’s rule over the white Christian peoples of Balkans was most certainly not tolerant in any sense. For starters, Ottoman rule enforced and encouraged segregation between the various millets. Members of millets were classified solely based on their religion, ethnicity, language, and culture be damned (more on this later). As Misha Glenny illustrates, the attitude of Muslims towards non-Muslims would be regarded as very un-PC in today’s climate:

“There were ‘countless traditions urging the Muslims to distinguish themselves, even in appearance, from the infidels and to avoid imitating their habits in dress as well as all else…The turban is the barrier separating belief and unbelief’. ‘He who imitates a people, becomes one of them.’

(page 72)

Well, at least they wouldn’t have been accused of “cultural appropriation” or “hipster racism.” The indigenous Christians were also subjected to a variety of daily humiliations and injustices that make today’s complaints about “microaggressions” seem very trivial and whiny by comparison. Christians were forced to dismount from their horses in the presence of a Muslim, were forbidden to bear arms, and were not permitted to own land. Christian testimony against Muslims was invalid, and Muslims who murdered Christians were merely required to pay a modest “blood tax” to the murdered Christian’s family. Needless to say, a Christian who murdered a Muslim would face a much stiffer penalty. Christian families were also subjected to the practice known as devsirme, where their children were forcibly taken from them in order to serve the empire in either a military or administrative setting.

In so many words, non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire were “tolerated” so long as they kept their heads low and knew their place. Minorities certainly wouldn’t have been allowed to make waves, agitate against the Muslim majority, or enjoy university departments dedicated to deconstructing “Muslim privilege.” They also lived segregated from the dominant Muslim group, and always had to demonstrate their inferiority in the presence of Muslims. Sounds a lot like another social system that once existed in the Deep South of a certain North American country.

Since so many anti-Western types love to emphasize the tolerance and peacefulness of traditional non-Western Islamic societies compared to the West, perhaps we could learn from the noble Islamic example. Perhaps the West should impose its own version of the millet system to govern relations between whites and non-whites. Sure, non-whites will be legally inferior to whites and forced to endure repeated humiliations, but at least there will be “peace” and “tolerance.” Do you honestly think for a second that today’s leftists who treat every “microaggression” as a crime against humanity would want to live as non-Muslims in a millet type system? Of course not.

However, the daily injustices and humiliations aside, the most disastrous legacy of Ottoman rule in the Balkans was the volatile demographic balance bequeathed to the region by the aforementioned millet system:

“For the Ottomans, nationhood meant religious affiliation, so that Bosnian, Turkish, and Albanian Muslims, for example, would all speak different languages and enjoy widely different cultural traditions but would still be part of the same ‘nation’…As far as the religious hierarchies and the Ottoman state were concerned, religion always took precedence over culture, language and race in defining one’s identity.”

(page 71)

While it’s fashionable to denounce race as a “social construct,” it’s even more foolish and dangerous to treat religion as a group’s primary identity. When the Ottoman Empire was wealthy and strong, the segregation and stagnancy promoted by the millet system was of little concern. However, as various national and ethnic groups in the Balkans began to assert themselves amid the empire’s decay, the empire’s overemphasis on religion proved to be catastrophic for the region. The empire’s late and lame attempt to promote “Ottomanism,” which transcended religion and ethnicity, did nothing to cure the demographic tinderbox left in the region by the Turks. It never had a prayer of winning the loyalty of numerous competing groups. It was only a matter of time before the different peoples of the Balkans turned on one another following the end of Turkish rule.

I intend for this post to permanently refute the idea that Eastern empires such as the Ottomans were “tolerant.” I also intend to challenge the narrative of imperialism that situates whites as the sole aggressors, while ignoring the millions of white Europeans who lived under the yoke of non-white imperialism for five centuries. Finally, I also hope this post illustrates that one does not so easily ignore race and ethnicity. The future tragedies caused by the neglect and ignorance promoted by the millet system should be a warning to us all. One must always look at race, ethnicity, and culture when analyzing a conflict between peoples, and not treat “Muslims” or “Christians” as virtual ethnic groups.

My next post will focus on crimes committed against the Balkans by various European imperial powers, and the forgotten white victims of European imperialism.

Stay tuned.

Posted in Europe, History, Middle East, Race, Racism, Subversion, Western Values | Tagged , , | 6 Comments

Women: Choice vs causality

  1. qwer says:

    Modern industrialized society chronically and pervasively objectifies the female body, and many women have come to view themselves through the lens of an external observer, habitually monitoring their own appearance whether in public or private settings. Given the negative effects associated with self-objectification—such as body shame, appearance anxiety, depression, and disordered eating—an empirically based approach to researching and counteracting self-objectification is critical.

    • Dota says:

      Everything begins with choice. Women are objectified because they choose to be and like it. Men have always been valued for what they do (Hard work, accomplishments) whereas women have always been valued for what they are (young, fertile ect). Nobody holds a gun to a woman’s head and makes her use her body to sell a product; she chooses to do so. Women must learn to take responsibility for their actions before feeling entitled to the nation’s launch codes.

      1. qwer says:

        I conclude you believe in classical free will. Your choice scenario requires an unreasonable dualist notion of the self. You simply ignore the causality I describe. Further discussion is pointless.

        With regard to “Men have always been valued for what they do” and “women have always been valued for what they are”; These two statements are only true for misogynistic assholes.


        Qwer makes some interesting points above, but I’m afraid I disagree with most of them for reasons I’ll outline below.

        Let’s start here: “With regard to “Men have always been valued for what they do” and “women have always been valued for what they are”; These two statements are only true for misogynistic assholes.

        No Qwer, those statements have been true for much of our history. In every epic and fairytale, men have been valued for what they do whereas women were valued for what they are. Hercules offered to slay the lion and was rewarded sex with Thespius’s 50 daughters. In the Ramayan, Ram proved his worth by vanquishing Lanka’s army and rescuing his consort Sita (what he did) who was required to do one thing: prove her chastity (what she is).

        Love poetry over the ages glorified women’s beauty and even today it is not women’s careers that give men a boner. The difference between between liberal thinking and conservative thinking is that liberals try to bend reality to make it fit their ideology whereas conservatives observe reality for what it is and then draw their conclusions from it.

        I conclude you believe in classical free will. Your choice scenario requires an unreasonable dualist notion of the self. You simply ignore the causality I describe.

        I do not ignore causality. I do, however, distinguish between causality and external locus of control. There is a difference between responding to cause and blaming everything on one’s environment. Causality does not diminish agency as individuals are still free to react to causes in any manner they choose. As I pointed out above, society has traditionally objectified women because the female’s function is reproduction, without which our species would go extinct. Every other function is secondary. The only way of attaining the loony feminist paradigm of gender equality is for humanity to discover asexual reproduction.

        But the objectification of the female form has reached an unprecedented level today which wouldn’t be possible without female participation. As I’ve pointed out already, nobody forces women to use their bodies to sell a product at gunpoint. Nobody forces women to star in porn flicks. A few decades ago most women would be married with kids at age 25. Monogamous marriage alleviates female pathologies but feminism has sabotaged marriage. I know several female acquaintances in India who are fat but happily married.

        The fat acceptance movement in North America is a joke precisely because its advocates use objectification to fight objectification; hence the rise of the ‘BBW’. The self absorbed, vain, and narcissist skanks depicted in my meme are not ‘oppressed victims’ to be pitied. Those misguided fools that do pity them are doing them a disservice by robbing them of their agency.




Posted in Asia, conservative values, Feminism, Subversion, Western Values | Tagged , , , | 15 Comments

When immigrants are wiser than natives

This morning I had an interesting conversation with my wife on a subject that continues to confound me. We were discussing the predatory sexual behavior of Pakistanis in the UK and my wife was understandably appalled. She was also appalled when I told her that part of their motive was possibly shaped by a belief in the inherent inferiority of non Muslim women. Jack Straw pointedly observed that Pakistani males preyed on underage white girls while their own women were strictly off limits.

While my wife was appalled by their behavior, she still couldn’t fathom what all the fuss was about. “Why not just remove them from Britain?” she earnestly asked. I informed her that deporting citizens was out of the question in any western country. Her next question was predictable precisely because it is so logical:

“In that case why not just ban Pakistani immigration to the UK?”

My wife is somewhat new to the West and has yet to be plugged into the Matrix of Politically Correct Liberal dementia. Ergo, she sees things with an elusive clarity that remains out of reach for so many whites. She suffers from this outlandish delusion that most countries in the world are ruled by a dominant (ethnic) majority that dictate culture, music, religion, and immigration policy.

In a past conversation we were discussing Jewish power in North America. As an Indian, the reality of a minority wielding disproportionate power wasn’t surprising to her in the least (think Brahmins and Parsis of India).  She was however, perplexed as to why whites feared the dreaded ‘R’ word so much.

“Why should whites care about what others think? It’s their country after all”

“So you’re saying that Canada is a white country?” I asked.

“Isn’t that obvious?” She responded.

To outsiders, Canada is a white country just as China is a Chinese country and Saudi Arabia is an Arab country. Iran might be tolerant of Jews and Azeris, but it remains an unapologetic Persian nation. India has historically tolerated central Asian Muslims, Persian immigrants (Parsis), and Jews. However it has always been (and continues to be) an unapologetic Hindu nation, and there is nothing wrong with that. So why is it that the founding stock of the Anglosphere shy away from exerting their identity and religious heritage? Why are whites so feckless and wimpy? To outsiders like my wife, this sort of ethnic masochism is unhealthy and insane behavior.

If whites were only able to glimpse a reflection of their societies through the eyes of immigrants they would realize that Multiculturalism, Feminism, gay obsession, and Cultural Marxism amount to cultural suicide. My main motive for sharing these conversational snippets with my wife is to illustrate the left’s propensity to invert reality. Healthy is sick, Heritage is ‘socially constructed’ whereas deviant subcultures are normal (‘Born this way’), Diversity is strength ect…

If Westerners are to take back their nations, they need to first recover their eyesight.



Posted in Asia, China, conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Europe, Feminism, Hinduism, Homosexuals, Immigration, India, Islam, Jewry, Middle East, Racism, Subversion, Western Values, White nationalism, Wimpy Whites | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Feminist logic 101

Their logic is undeniable.

Their logic is undeniable.

You just can’t argue with that logic.

Posted in Feminism, Humor | 23 Comments

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 , | 2 Comments

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 , , , | 12 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