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 in 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 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 , , | Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeshivas are ok, Madrasas are not

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

You may read his entire charming sermon here.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Posted in Asia, Christianity, Feminism, Hinduism, Homosexuals, India, Islam, Israel, Jewry, Middle East, Racism, Tribalism | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Back on the Radio!

See here.

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

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

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Victory From the Land of Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys!

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

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

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

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

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

Would find something very strange about such social engineering

Would find something very strange about such social engineering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aside | Posted on by | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Happy 4th of july

decaying america 1

A sobering thought by Pat Buchanan. But let’s not worry about such thoughts for tis the day to celebrate. The US is on the road to cultural ruin, so lets turn up the AC while we get there.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Too Big and Non-White to Oppose: China and Postcolonial Selective Outrage

I’m going to do something radical and completely out of character; I’m going to cut Zionist Jews and Israel some slack! You heard me right. Is it because I’ve come to embrace organized Jewry and Israel? Is it because I somehow believe that Israel is in fact not guilty of its various crimes against humanity? No and no. I’m doing it because liberal Zionists are actually correct when they insist that the far left and various Social Justice Warriors are hypocrites when they single out Israel for special condemnation. I guess the blind squirrel can find the nut every now and then.

SJW’s and our current liberal elites have always had a funny relationship with colonialism. Whenever any white nation or group of people controls or settles a territory, however small in scale, then they become forever tainted with the original sin of colonialism. Just look at Sweden.

Social Justice Warrior

However, non-white nations are seldom denounced for the crime of colonialism, no matter how severe or grand in scale their oppressive endeavors were. Former non-white imperialists such as the Turks and Japanese (just to name a couple) have been able to, more or less, fade into obscurity. Sure, some Armenians will fume about Turkey, while Japan’s historical amnesia and lack of tact have occasionally provoked the ire of China and South Korea. However, few people insist that nations such as Turkey and Japan must open their borders, embrace multiculturalism, and surrender their identities in order to atone for past crimes.

Or present crimes. As I currently write this post, the non-Western countries of Israel and China are currently engaging in colonial settler enterprises, oppressing and displacing the native populations in the process. However, among leftist talking heads in the West, Israel is the nation that has been the most excoriated. All right! At last, Jews are finally being called out for their questionable moral hypocrisy and held to the same standards as white gentiles! Well, not quite. The reason why Israel-Palestine has become a pet cause among many social justice activists is simply because it fits the narrative of evil whites colonizing and displacing poor brown people. Many within the movement have highlighted the whiteness of Israelis and lumped Zionism in with old fashioned white supremacy. Others such as Ali Abunimah have also gone out of their way to protect Jews as a group from censure and bring down the hammer on anyone who criticizes Jews collectively. He likewise insists that the struggle isn’t against Jews, but European colonial settler movements (ie. evil white people). I guarantee you that if the original Zionist Jews who perpetrated the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians were Middle Eastern Mizrahim as opposed to white Ashkenazim, few people on the left would give a crap.

Meanwhile, while China continues to colonize and exploit the traditional homeland of the Uighurs, there’s a significant dearth of outrage. Of course, there are other possible explanations for this lack of attention aside from the usual leftist hypocrisy. Xinjiang/East Turkestan isn’t located in the birthplace of Christianity, and thus doesn’t command as much attention from everyday white Americans. Another possibility is that in today’s post 9/11 climate, the fact that Uighurs are wicked Mooslims could contribute to the West’s apathy on this issue. Unlike the Tibetans who are regarded as peaceful Buddhists with lovable figureheads such as the Dalai Lama, Uighurs arouse no such sympathy. However, even the Tibetans have fallen on hard times lately, and are increasingly resorting to self-immolations to attract the attention of a world that has more or less turned a blind eye to China’s repression of its minority groups.

Perhaps China has simply become too big and powerful to oppose. Likewise, since the Chinese haven’t imbibed white peoples’ notion of guilt, social justice, and self-flagellation in relation to minority groups, maybe leftists know better than to play that game with China. Despite their radical posturing, social justice activists have always shied away from confronting any possibly challenging adversary, preferring instead to go after low-hanging fruit. Stephen Sniegoski nailed their mindset to a tee when he described the kind of Israel lobby denial exhibited in that counterpunch editorial (bold emphasis mine):

“The antiwar Left would prefer that old-style American imperialism and the quest for oil had caused the Iraq War. They are the preferred enemies of the Left. They are the traditional villains. And they are safe villains. Mentioning Israel as a culprit would cause problems: it would lose support for the Left among activist Jews, and it would lead to hostility from the Israel lobby and mainstream Jewish groups.

By way of contrast, no one ever got in trouble berating oil magnates or Arab sheiks — witness Michael Moore’s blockbuster 2004 documentary, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which focuses on those alleged villains while ignoring the neocon/Israel connection to the war. [1] Also important is the fact that Jews, categorically, are considered to be victims; and it is hard for the Left to criticize an officially recognized victim group. In terms of left-wing psychology the ideal is to strike a radical, nonconformist pose without really alienating the powerful, thus avoiding any negative consequences as well as the cognitive dissonance that results from chiding designated victims.”

Criticizing “white supremacy” is easy. Attacking white racism ceased being courageous after 1968, and no powerful lobbies or special interest groups will threaten someone’s livelihood for critiquing white people. However, to criticize Jews collectively would invite a torrent of pressure and outrage from powerful groups such as the ADL. Similarly, to stridently critique Chinese colonialism and aggressively deconstruct Chinese culture in relation to its crimes would be too risky and dangerous. God forbid that they be tarred as “orientalists” or “racists.”

The lessons for whites and pro-Western activists from this is that our enemies, like all human beings, ultimately respect power and self-assertion. Therefore, I implore white people to stop apologizing and end these obsequious displays of prostration over historical Western crimes. And for God’s sake, stop fearing the dreaded R word as you would a feral pit bull. The way white people react so defensively to being accused of racism, you’d think someone had called them a serial killer or child molester. As we have repeatedly emphasized on this blog, be tactful while also holding your ground. Don’t fall for their game.

Meanwhile, don’t expect China to be held accountable for “Han supremacy” and “Han privilege” anytime soon.

Posted in Asia, China, Cultural Marxism, Israel, Jewry, Racism, Subversion, Wimpy Whites | Tagged , , , | 12 Comments

Portrait of the alpha male

The word alpha is bandied about on every far flung corner of the manosphere and PUA universe. The alpha is emulated as the paragon of manliness where every ‘beta’ and ‘omega’ strives to be an alpha, but for all the wrong reasons as we shall see. Who is an Alpha male? According to many in the PUA community (whom I do not affiliate with), an alpha is the archetypical masculine man who is cool, confident, and is irresistible to women. Men want to be alphas so that they can have access to an inexhaustible supply of poon. But is this all there is to it? I tend to believe that Alphas have certain character traits that are innate or that one acquires with years of disciplined self improvement. For the purpose of this post, I’m going to rely on cultural references (TV/Books) as it makes the portrait easier to sketch.


True alphas are without exception territorial. Nowhere is this trait better exemplified than in the character of Vito Corleone. We catch a first glimpse of it when Vito murders Fanucci for interfering with his affairs by attempting to extort money. Check out the scene below from Breaking bad. Prior to this scene, Walter White decided to exit crime but the territorial Heisenberg wouldn’t allow it.


Alphas are very loyal to those they feel close to and will stand their ground in their defence. My former roommate stood up to a gang of thugs in defence of a friend some years ago in Karachi. They smashed their rifle butts in his face and he remained standing for as long as he could till he lost consciousness. Alphas protect those they are close to and this is pure masculine instinct. Some say that Alphas and Omegas make good friends as omegas look up to alphas and the latter reciprocate that respect with loyalty and protection. The relationship between Artie Bucco and Tony Soprano immediately comes to mind. Artie respects (and secretly envies) his mobster friend for commanding the power to live life on his own terms. Jenifer Melfi feels protected by Tony’s friendship (if one can call it that), especially after her brutal rape.

PUA alpha or real alpha? Would he take a rifle butt in the face for a friend?

PUA alpha or real alpha? Would he take a rifle butt in the face for a friend?

Force of character

True Alphas radiate a force that cows lesser men into submission. Betas and omegas can assume a tough guy persona at the bar, however, they cannot learn this force. In the Godfather, Puzo wrote that Vito Corleone’s smile had an unnerving effect on those around him. This was because his smile unmasked his true self. What does this mean? The Alpha’s force is basically his intent that is grounded upon an iron will. This intent (and the underlying will) is communicated through body language that disarms those around him. The Alpha is quite capable of backing up his intent with action because he’s been doing this all his life, and it shows in his body language. The pretend alphas of the PUA community cannot imitate this force as it is the product of a lifetime’s worth of strength and courage. Like Lao Tzu’s Tao, this isn’t something that can be expressed clearly in discursive format, but must be intuitively grasped. Check out the clip below. It is a battle of wills where Tony Soprano effortlessly dominates the will of the would be tough beta without laying a finger on him.

Leaders of men

Due to the trait elaborated above, Alphas are natural leaders of men. On several occasions my former roommate’s co-workers sought his assistance when dealing with workplace issues that were clearly outside his purview; circumventing supervisors entirely. His friendship is desired whereas his enmity is feared.  True alphas aren’t merely irresistible to women, they are also admired and feared by men. Jack Nicholson’s character in one flew over the cuckoo’s nest was most certainly an alpha.


Real Alpha’s possess a dogged determination that keeps them going after their goal like a bloodhound after prey. PUAs erroneously think that a man’s score is the sole determinant of alpha status –  but if this were true, then by this sole criterion Hugo Schwyzer (the king of Manginas everywhere, until his twitter meltdown) would also be an alpha. Clint Eastwood’s character Blondie (The Good the Bad and the Ugly) does not get laid even once throughout the film, or in any of the spaghetti westerns. Yet ‘Blondie’ (his character remains nameless) exudes powerful masculine vibes that are characteristically alpha. Nobody in their right mind would think he was gay.

Few closing thoughts

Genuine Alpha traits are inimitable and one might argue that Alphas (the intelligent ones with initiative) were the architects of civilization whereas the Betas were the building blocks of civilization. When viewed in this context it becomes clear that feminism is the Alpha’s weapon of choice against the Beta. As I’ve written here, the feminist project was funded by Alpha males (Rockefellers, Fords, Carnegies ect) from the very beginning to further their own interests.  The feminist useful idiots have only undermined betas but have barely dented the power of the Alphas that continue to provide for them.

The more I think about it the more I’m convinced that religion was intended to police the two groups in society that required the most policing: Women and Alphas. Religion aimed to suppress the negative traits of women (amorality, solipsism) while bringing out the better ones (self sacrificing and nurturing behaviour). Similarly, religion aimed to suppress the more sociopathic tendencies of alphas (predatory instincts) while bringing out their positive qualities (loyalty and focus). In a single stroke, feminism has allowed these two groups to run amok with disastrous consequences for society.

Posted in Feminism, Subversion, Western Values | Tagged , , | 14 Comments

No (European) Country For White Men: Sweden and the Relentless Pursuit of Diversity

Ah, Sweden. I’ve written about this humble Scandinavian nation on a couple of occasions. Whether I was discussing the chaos in Stockholm that was fomented by ungrateful immigrants or Sweden’s insane enthusiasm for accepting Israel’s unwanted African immigrants, the once proud land of the Vikings never ceases to amaze me with their suicidal liberalism.

Wimpy Swedes

But apparently, the insatiable desire of Swedes to undermine their traditional homeland and become more “vibrant” isn’t enough for one Sam Piranty of Al Jazeera. Sam Piranty begins his screed by denouncing the unbearable whiteness of Sweden:

“Last month, I went to Stockholm on a reporting trip. The city seemed idyllic: bicycles aplenty standing unlocked outside at night, Volvos with their doors open and engines running, and not a cigarette butt in sight. In trendy Hornstull, bearded bros high-fived each other over Brooklyn craft beers. But everyone, it seemed, was white.”

Good god, what is this oppressively racist and white supremacist world coming to? How dare white people predominate in a Scandinavian country! I wouldn’t be surprised if these multiculturalists began to demand that Thor and other figures in Scandinavian mythology be reinvented as brown in order to cater to growing diversity. Then, after providing us with harrowing tales about Swedish bigotry and hate crimes, Pirandy invokes colonialism like any good leftist would:

“Sweden’s rising inequality plays a role in these social tensions, but racism is not a new phenomenon in this society. Regularly overlooked in Sweden’s history is its role in the slave trade and colonialism. Under King Gustav III, Sweden held colonies such as Saint Barthélemy in the Caribbean and profited directly from the slaves who were “imported onto the island and then sold to French colonies and elsewhere in the Caribbean. Sweden actively participated and embraced the agreements in the dividing up of the African continent in the Berlin conference of 1884–85.”

So because Sweden held a tiny colony or two in the Caribbean, Sweden is “colonial” just like Britain or France, and must endure similar moral reproach. Likewise, even though Sweden didn’t hold any colonies in Africa, merely participating in the Berlin conference is enough to lump them in with the real imperialists. Of course, this argument from leftists is nothing new. Pirandy, in so many words, is arguing that Sweden must now willingly accept multiculturalism and open borders to atone for its past.

For the sake of argument, I’ll grant that part of that leftist argument is correct. In the case of Pakistanis in Britain or Algerians in France, their presence in many ways is directly linked to the respective colonial pasts of those countries. Therefore, if small numbers of people in Sweden’s former Caribbean holdings wanted to move to Sweden, then I can somewhat understand. However, what does that have to do with allowing feckless Somalis and Middle Easterners to live in Sweden today? Did Sweden ever colonize Somalia or Syria?

Also, I cannot help but laugh at his absurd denunciation of Swedish inequality, even as he laments the plight of immigrants:

“Ever since, Sweden’s immigrant population has largely reflected wherever there has been conflict or unrest in the world.”

So in other words, poor, unskilled and racially alien immigrants produce inequality and tension in societies throughout the world. Man, the things you learn when reading up on current events! Of course, rather than reaching the logical conclusion that mass immigration and multiculturalism amount to sheer folly, he blames the Swedes for not being accommodating enough:

“For one, Swedish cities are segregated by design. The well-meaning “Million Program” of the 1960s and ’70s, which set out to build affordable housing developments across the country, was ambitious and well intentioned. However, it concentrated low-income rental properties in faraway and inconvenient suburbs, which began the fragmentation of Swedish society. Those arriving from abroad in the ’70s could afford only to move into these distinctive Million Program rentals, while the white middle and upper classes moved into cooperative housing or bought houses outright in the “Swedish-looking” accommodation mainly situated in the centers. This resulted in what Irene Molina, professor of social and economic geography at Uppsala University, has called “the racialization of the city.”

Yet again, I must express my shock at the idea that poor, radically different immigrants occupy different areas of living compared to the native middle and upper classes.

At times, I believe that it’s unnecessary for those of us on the right to denounce multiculturalism, because leftists unwittingly aid us in that regard. This entire editorial is a tacit admission that multiculturalism is a failed experiment. To create a truly harmonious society devoid of racial tension and inequality sounds like a tremendous amount of exhausting work for little reward. Given that Pirandy in so many words admits that multiculturalism causes such headaches the world over, wouldn’t a wiser course of action involve closing the borders and insisting on assimilation?

Your guess is as good as mine.





Posted in Europe, Immigration, Race, Racism, Subversion, Tribalism, White nationalism, Wimpy Whites | Tagged , | 29 Comments