Robert Stark Interviews Me On National Capitalism And Other Topics.

Here.

We discussed economics in a bit more detail this time. We also discussed America’s deteriorating democracy. Feel free to post your comments as always.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

More On Moderates And Extremists

Commenter curiosetta makes a few excellent points in this post:

There are moderate racists too. Moderate racists believe (for example) blacks are The Problem and they pose a threat to a civilised society. But being moderate they only think that and voice that. They don’t actually advocate using force to subjugate blacks (segregation, camps, etc). Radical racists do advocate the use of force. One might say the radicals take the claims of the moderates to their logical conclusion. Radicals are just moderates with the balls to “walk the walk” as well as “talk the talk”. What tends to happen is the moderates become a widespread movement, which is not quite offensive enough to motivate people to do anything (freedom of speech etc). And this widespread movement shields the minority of radicals and nurtures them deep inside the movement, and this protection is what allows the radicals to gain power and influence and take over society. By the time anyone realises the radicals have taken over it is usually too late (classic example: Nazi Germany).

Moderate feminists claim men are The Problem and pose a threat to civilised soicety, and radical feminists just take this premise to its most logical conclusion and call for the subjugation of men, or even the extermination of men. Radical feminists are shielded by the moderate ones and nurtured deep within feminist movement, and that is how they are able to infiltrate the media, politics, education system etc.

Moderates (of any destructive and hateful ideology) end up acting rather like human shields, protecting the radical inner core. Criticise or condemn feminist ideology and you are generally told to stop ‘hating’ on all those lovely well meaning moderate feminists who have never spent half an hour researching the movement they support or thinking about what the implications of supporting it are.

Therefore you could argue that moderates (of any destructive and hateful ideology) are actually far more dangerous than the radicals, precisely BECAUSE they are able to maintain a thin veneer of social acceptability. The person advocating the subjugation of men is not a threat because they are openly hateful and dangerous….. but the person advocating He for She is dangerous because they are helping to implement the same basic ideology, but they are viewed as harmless and innocent – and even well meaning.

Radicals = “We want to subjugate men/ jews”
Moderates = “We just want to empower women/ Germany and protect them from outside threats”

> They would be the feminists who believe in equal rights and equal opportunity

Men actually have LESS legal rights than women. So in order to achieve ‘gender equality’ in 2015 we need to either strip women of their extra rights, or afford those rights to men too, so that men can be equal to women.

There are no rights that men have that women do not also have. There are many rights that women have that men have not yet been afforded (in areas such as reproduction, divorce law, child custody, health, genital integrity, criminal justice etc etc).

Now… you give me an example of a feminist campaigning for gender equality. Ready, steady, go…..

 

First, a minor disagreement. Claiming that blacks cause social problems is not racist, it is at worst a xenophobic expression. Claiming that blacks are inherently inferior as a race would actually be racist. Only a tiny minority of Westerners hold genuinely racist beliefs. There are far more racists in Asia and the Middle East than there are in the Western world.

With that out of the way, I think this is an excellent post because it makes one very important point:

Moderates (of any destructive and hateful ideology) end up acting rather like human shields, protecting the radical inner core. Criticise or condemn feminist ideology and you are generally told to stop ‘hating’ on all those lovely well meaning moderate feminists who have never spent half an hour researching the movement they support or thinking about what the implications of supporting it are.

This is quite frankly a brilliant bit of analysis. Consider the case of Malala Yusufzai for example. Malala’s face was quickly hijacked by feminists which in turn made her an international feminist icon. Malala’s position on girl’s education is entirely moderate and acceptable and almost impossible to disagree with. The question is: Can Malala Yusufzai be classified as a feminist? I would think not. To the best of my knowledge, she has never whined about “Patriarchy” or “Institutionalized oppression” or “Male privilege.” I have read parts of her diary in Urdu and she sounds like a typical teenage girl who enjoys school and shopping for bargains at Jinnah market.  I admit that I haven’t been keeping up with any news pertaining to Malala, so if she has turned into a textbook gender feminist subscribing to a dialectical reality, please feel free to correct me.

Anyhow, this is precisely what Curiosetta is talking about. Any attack on the extremist ideology of feminism will be misrepresented as an attack on sweet moderate Malala. This feminist icon is in fact a human shield protecting a hateful and intolerant ideology.

 

Posted in Feminism | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Is Feminism An Extremist Ideology?

Kiran Gandhi’s recent stunt is the latest in a long list of feminist attention whoring shenanigans. My personal theory is that she knew she couldn’t win the marathon and hence resorted to pulling such a cheap stunt. Despite the various shocking behaviours that feminists resort to from time to time, seldom do we hear the word feminism associated with the word extremism. The mainstream media fawns upon the gimmicks of femen and the Emma Sulkowiczs of this world. While we do hear the phrase “radical feminism” bandied about occasionally, we must bear in mind that the term “radical” does not have the same negative connotation as the word “extremist.” Extremists are dangerous in the eyes of society whereas radicals are either misunderstood at best, or fruity at worst. In this post I wish to make the case that feminism is an extremist ideology by comparing its character to that of radical Islam.

False rape accusations and attention seeking stunts will make you a messiah in the eyes of the mainstream media.

False rape accusations and attention seeking stunts will make you a messiah in the eyes of the leftist mainstream media.

What separates an extremist from a moderate? The key word in answering this question is equilibrium. Moderates are able to situate their ideology within a social environment without attempting to dominate it. The moderate’s goal is to harmonize his ideology with the surrounding environment even if it results in diluting the ideology. Moderate Muslims, for example, will argue for the full and equal rights of their non Muslim neighbours even if it means practicing a diluted Islam and making their society technically less Islamic. Islamists, on the other hand, are unable to attain this equilibrium. Where the moderate Muslim will draw a line and say that beyond this point Islam becomes ugly, the Islamist/Wahabi sincerely believes that a society can never get enough Islam.

Many Muslims will admit (loathe as they are to do so) that beyond a certain point, Islam becomes regressive and dangerous. Islamic extremists see no such line because to their eyes, Islam is intrinsically good. How can you get enough of something that is intrinsically good? Of the three Abrahamic faiths, Islam lends itself to extremism more readily than do Christianity and Judaism. Christianity is concerned with the afterlife while Judaism is concerned with tribal self interest. Islam’s shariah is focused on a utopian vision here on Earth. I believe this is why Islamic extremists are so fervent in their fanaticism. How could anybody not want Utopia? Many of us do not see extremists as idealists that have gone off the rails but that is precisely what they are. We in the West see idealists as gentle and naive thinkers but seldom acknowledge that idealism is often the path to extremism.

What does all of this have to do with feminism? Like Islamists, feminists are unable to achieve the equilibrium I’ve described above. I have not met a single feminist (online and offline) that has admitted that beyond a certain point, feminism becomes very ugly. Since feminists are also chasing a utopian delusion like their Islamist counterparts, they believe that a society can never get enough feminism. I’ve often heard many feminists complain that radical feminists are giving feminism a “bad name.” This is merely a defense mechanism to lull society into a state of complacency since women still require the participation of men in undermining the latter’s social and legal rights. This clever damage control maneuver in no way invalidates the observation that there is little ideological incompatibility between feminism and its radical counterpart.

The second hallmark of an extremist ideology is that it is impossible to parody – possibly because the ideology itself is a parody to begin with. Thus if somebody attempts to parody an extremist ideology, it is impossible to tell the parody apart from the real thing. This was beautifully demonstrated by the folks at 4-chan who set the internet on fire with their “End father’s day” twitter hashtag. They flawlessly mimicked feminist rhetoric while making a series of disparaging remarks against fathers. After the hoax was revealed for what it was, feminists went into damage control mode claiming that the hoax barely fooled anybody. They have yet to explain how this hoax went viral if that were truly the case. Feminism is a parody of a social movement and end father’s day was a parody of a parody; this is why so many were fooled.

I must briefly address one other point before I conclude this post. Leftists often say that feminism isn’t a violent ideology where the underlying implication is that feminism isn’t an inherently extremist ideology. I believe this merits a brief comment. Violence, in a political context, is seldom an end in itself – it is often a means to a very specific end: coercion. Feminism doesn’t need to engage in violence because feminists have the coercive power of the state at their disposal. If a woman wishes to remove a man from his house, all she needs is one fabricated domestic assault accusation before the cops show up. If she wishes to coerce her employer, the threat of a bogus sexual harassment accusation may come in handy. A wife may freely use divorce and child support as a threatpoint against her husband. Access to the state’s coercive power enables feminists to skip the violence step altogether.

If we gauge an ideology’s peaceful intent solely by the levels of violence it engages in, we are setting the bar too low. While feminists may not engage in violence, their intent is not peaceful coexistence as they work tirelessly to disadvantage men and boys using state coercion as their lever. It is about time that we in the West realized that feminism is an extremist and intolerant ideology that is at war with culture and human civilization.

Posted in Christianity, conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Feminism, Western Values | Tagged , , , | 26 Comments

White People and Tribalism

In response to Dota’s assertion that whites are mostly incapable of tribalism, commenter Steve/euroglory posted this comment:

Whites have never been tribal Dota? If they have before they aren’t naturally unable to be. You wouldn’t believe the level of anti-immigrant rhetoric in the UK now; even mainstream news reporting is often slanted that way. Somebody posted altered Nazi quotes and got like 400 upvotes on one newspaper website.

I left a rather long comment in response, which I’ll turn into one of those quick posts designed to stimulate debate. Here’s what I had say regarding white tribalism (or lack thereof):

I get where Dota is coming from, and I often harbor similar sentiments.

I think the reason for white apathy is that most white people have never been racially menaced on an individual level. I once read that three quarters of whites live in neighborhoods that are predominantly white. This is only compounded by the fact that most whites subscribe to individualism. Consequently, they don’t consciously regard themselves as a group with group interests, and often recoil at any notion of white solidarity (even if they harbor prejudices against certain groups). Shit, my Midwestern Republican grandfather – a self-described Archie Bunker type – branded me a “white supremacist” when I espoused pro-white and anti-multiculturalist views during one of our conversations.

Therefore, despite the fact that the left is easily winning the culture war and that whites as a group are on the retreat, most whites don’t really feel the ill effects of multiculturalism in their day-to-day lives.

Even in California – the state with the largest number of non-whites – most whites get by just fine; therefore, they can’t really see the writing on the wall. It also doesn’t help that Americans as a whole are distracted by cheap entertainment and a culture that preaches instant gratification. As a result, many people fail to ponder what the future holds.

However, as the economy continues to get worse and growing numbers of white people run out of places to hide, I think that heightened competition and the deteriorating standard of living for the average white person will compel whites to think in more tribal terms.

Just to be clear, I’m hardly saying that unadulterated tribalism is a good thing, and I certainly don’t want whites to revert to more barbaric behaviors such as lynching. Not only are such acts morally wrong, but history tells me that whites who act brutally towards non-whites eventually turn their guns on one another. In fact, Hitler is one of the main reasons why Europe is experiencing immigration and race problems. He’s likewise the main reason why white identity is now taboo.

Nevertheless, I do hope that whites can cultivate a sense of racial identity that promotes their interests and maintains certain boundaries – while treating non-whites in their midst with dignity. Hopefully, both extremes will be eliminated, but only time will tell.

So, what do you guys think? Will whites remain eternally wimpy, or will they begin to wake up? How much white racial consciousness is necessary, and what line separates healthy nationalism from aggressive chauvinism?

 

Posted in Race, Racism, Tribalism, Uncategorized, White nationalism, Wimpy Whites | Tagged , , , | 9 Comments

Shifting the cost

Here’s a comment I left on Robert Lindsay’s blog pertaining to female rule.

I wouldn’t really call this ‘female rule’ as women were never meant to rule. What feminists have done is merely shift women’s dependence away from men/husbands and onto the nanny state. What feminists are trying to do is create a new sort of ‘Eden’ and America is perfectly suited to this project. Resources are abundant (and siphoned through the state) and replace an authoritarian (albeit benevolent) God with the State.

The financial upkeep of feminism is now currently being borne by the male taxpayer and the state. If women were made to bear this expense themselves by taxing working women for the all social welfare programs that they are exclusively entitled to, feminism would be dead by next Friday. If women were taxed at a higher rate and were made to pay for the illegitimate children of other women, the stigma against single motherhood would make a radical comeback.

The reason for Western women running amok nowadays is due to the fact that the State (and society in general) are currently paying the social and financial costs for their shenanigans. If the social/financial costs of female bad behaviour could be shifted back onto women, they would fervently begin to police their own behaviour.

“Equality” is a lucrative business for professional victim groups (women/gays/visible minorities) when somebody else is paying for it.

Posted in Feminism | Tagged , , | 8 Comments

The Pitfalls of American Exceptionalism

Just recently, I had a very edifying conversation with my father about race and the American experiment. While he conceded my point that most of the world looks at American style multiculturalism askance, he nevertheless asserted that my “white supremacist” views are anathema to the majority of Americans – most of whom believe in American exceptionalism to some degree. In other words, while the majority of people around the world believe in immigration restriction, majoritarianism, and a strong sense of ethnos, Americans pride themselves in being a mixed people bound by lofty ideals.

In fact, Americans (especially white ones) are downright proud of their unique and exaggerated pathologies. Compared to most other nations – particularly rich ones – we’re among the fattest, not to mention that our health care system is utter garbage. Many Americans also take perverse pride in ignorance and anti-intellectualism. Likewise, despite their defiant, freedom loving posturing, Americans worship wealthy elites and tolerate inequality to a degree that would be unthinkable in any supposedly effete “eurotrash” country; this is reflected in the insane number of hours that Americans work, which puts those workaholic Japanese to shame. But who cares about all that? We’ve got the best military, and we spend a shit-ton to maintain it. And to top it all off, we’re the undisputed prison capital of the world. USA! USA!

So no, most regular white Americans don’t seem too perturbed by the fact that the US is unique for mostly bad reasons. Therefore, trying to discredit American multiculturalism by highlighting global norms is perhaps the wrong approach. In fact, one of the great ironies of our time is that SJWs are some of the biggest promoters of American exceptionalism; despite branding the founding fathers as a bunch of wicked racists and slave owners, denouncing the American flag, and condemning patriotism, leftists inevitably invoke American exceptionalist beliefs to justify their bizarre views. Here are just a few examples:

  1. Immigration: How could one possibly oppose immigration? After all, America is a nation of immigrants. By opposing immigration, one is not only a horrible racist, but un-American as well.
  2. Race: America is not defined by race and a dominant majority culture, but rather ideas. I remember Cenk Uygur – host of the ultraliberal The Young Turks – once argue many years ago that the US could become 100% Mexican, and it would still be America.
  3. Equality: As much as leftists abhor the founders, they’re always glad to invoke that “all men are created equal” line from the Declaration of Independence in order to push for greater and greater equality. Since we’re supposed to be equal, then any manifestation of inequality can only be the result of pernicious discrimination, which must be duly challenged.

Along with elite support, I think that one of the major reasons why the left is winning the culture war is because they know how to cleverly appropriate quintessential American ideals. By leveraging the language of equality, they successfully push conservatives into a corner; oppose gay marriage, and you might as well piss on the legacy of Jefferson.

So how do we combat this? I confess, I don’t have too many solutions in mind. However, as white Americans continue to decline – both domestically and internationally – maybe, just maybe, they’ll begin to recognize that the constitution (what’s left of it, anyway) and noble ideals are inadequate substitutes for racial consciousness and solidarity. In the meantime, tactfully challenging their cherished American exceptionalist beliefs will be a rather arduous challenge.

Posted in Cultural Marxism, Economics, Homosexuals, Immigration, Race, Subversion, Western Values, White nationalism | Tagged , , | 6 Comments

Suicidal Humanism and the White Enemy Within

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted in Cultural Marxism, Economics, Hispanics, Immigration, Race, Racism, Subversion | Tagged , , , | 13 Comments

What to Make of “Cuckservative”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted in conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Race, Tribalism, White nationalism, Wimpy Whites | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Resisting Our Cultural Marxist Elites – A Few Strategies To Consider

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

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

Boycott the mass media: Throw out your TV

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

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

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

Stay out of debt

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

Boycott universities

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

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

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

Posted in conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Feminism, Subversion, White nationalism | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

How Diversity Destroys Economic Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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