I had to use a new pen name on Return of kings as per their website policy. In case any of you are wondering, ‘woh kavi’ is Hindi for “That poet”. Modest aren’t I? But that’s why you people love me and you know it.
I had to use a new pen name on Return of kings as per their website policy. In case any of you are wondering, ‘woh kavi’ is Hindi for “That poet”. Modest aren’t I? But that’s why you people love me and you know it.
Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. (1 Samuel 8:5)
There are few words that conjure a succession of images in the mind, each more grotesque than the previous, than the word aristocracy. Some picture the wanton gluttony of the French monarchy or the terminal incompetence of the Russian Czars. It is interesting to note that while many today (but certainly not all) conflate aristocracy with monarchy, the ancients did not. Aristotle drew a distinction between the two in Politics and argued that while monarchy was ideally the best form of government, it also ran the risk of becoming the most despotic (Tyranny). He then argued that Aristocracy (rule of the qualified few) was ideal in practice if the ruling aristocrats (by no means hereditary) strove for the good of all. If they instead pursued their own interests at the expense of society, the regime became an oligarchy, not unlike the US and Canada today.
Aristocrats do not solely wield political power, they might also wield cultural power which is far more enduring. The Catholic church is a good example of this sort of “aristocracy”. While the founding fathers of the US were hostile to the idea of any ruling class based on lineage, they could not stamp out the local home grown aristocracy. But there is a vast difference between the aristocracy of the old and new. Today we have uncultured elites like the Gates and buffoons like Donald Trump. Modern elites vividly illustrate the caricature of the scheming oligarchy that Aristotle warned about. The old elites certainly pursued their interests with unwavering zeal but unlike modern elites, they also acted as the stewards of society. The idea of an aristocratic class wielding cultural power for the good of society has been expressed by a diverse set of societies throughout history. The Confucians strongly believed that the ruling class must lead by virtue and not force. Confucius believed that adhering to rituals was one way through which elites could act as the keepers of culture.
The old American elites functioned within this same capacity. Henry Ford believed that men should take pride in what they create. He famously stated that “Work is our sanity, our self respect, and our salvation”. Ford’s old fashioned views regarding work hearken back to the protestant work ethic. He passionately believed that work wasn’t just an economic activity but a moral one as well. He respected labour and paid his workers a wage that was well above the industry average at the time. Ford was anti-communist and I suspect his regard for labour stemmed from his anti-communist impulses. If industrialists like Ford refused to care for their workers the latter would then turn to the bloated nanny state for assistance. Ford also prophetically warned society about Jewish subversion whereas today’s elites are more than happy to throw their fellow whites under the bus by co-operating with Jewry. Ford was the quintessential American aristocrat: a wealthy industrialist that took it upon himself to not only contribute to the economy, but to the moral health of society.
Ford was certainly not alone in thinking this way. Andrew Carnegie ardently believed that wealth should be used for the betterment of society and built numerous public libraries to that end. He gave away $350 million (over $3 billion today) to philanthropy and believed that wealthy men who neglected their duty to help the unsuccessful died in disgrace. Interestingly enough, after the death of these great men their empires began to serve a subversive agenda. The Ford foundation began funding women’s studies departments throughout US universities and the Carnegies and Rockerfellers did so likewise. These elites understood that feminism paved the way for an intrusive totalitarian nanny state that would usurp the masculine function and provide women with resources they wouldn’t have access to in a meritocratic society. It would also provide them with cheap labour and a subservient class dependent on socialist handouts. Sam Francis said it best:
What paleoconservatism tries to tell Americans is that the dominant forces in their society are no longer committed to conserving the traditions, institutions, and values that created and formed it, and, therefore, that those who are really conservative in any serious sense and wish to live under those traditions, institutions, and values need to oppose the dominant forces and form new ones.
Francis succinctly diagnosed the malaise that currently afflicts American and Canadian society. Far from defending the traditional values that have made the US and Canada the greatest nations in the world, today’s elites (like Warren Buffett) spend their wealth funding abortions and other deviant leftist causes. If women weren’t half as solipsistic they would ponder the paradox of corporate elites (whom they are trained to despise) funding their joke of a social movement. But I’ll leave that for another post.
It is noteworthy that neither Confucius nor Aristotle were aristocrats yet argued in favour of a responsible aristocratic class. I conclude this post with more questions than solutions. How would we remove the current parasitic aristocracy in order to replace them with a more responsible one? What should this new aristocracy look like? What character traits should this new class of cultural elites possess? Do America and Canada still possess the cultural fuel required to produce men of character and integrity? I do not pretend to have the answers and I welcome your feedback.
Throughout the duration of my blogging, I have frequently relied on Al Jazeera America to inform my various posts. While I use Al Jazeera for news, I make even greater use of their editorial page, as it serves as a treasure trove of leftist thinking for me to deconstruct. However, I’ve always wondered why it is that a news publication funded by the ruling family of a Gulf Arab state such as Qatar espouses such radical and progressive politics. After all, Qatar (along with other Gulf Arab states) is not exactly renowned for its progressive record on political freedom, protections for minorities, or workers’ rights. I don’t think I even need to provide a link to an article to support such a claim, as the blatant chauvinism and shameless greed of Gulf Arabs speak for themselves. Dota certainly has more than a few stories to tell about the value system of Gulf Arabs.
However, perhaps my initial skepticism was unfounded. Maybe Al Jazeera was one of those rare progressive non-Western entities that challenges its own society and culture in the same way that they deconstruct and pathologize the West. Therefore, when I saw an editorial that discussed changes in Qatar’s foreign policy, I had some hope. The time had come for Qatar to receive the same critical treatment so often dished out to the West. Of course, I wasn’t too surprised to discover that the editorial was little more than a paean to the humane, just, and amazing foreign policy of Qatar. At that point, I decided that I had had enough with the hypocritical, selective progressivism of Al Jazeera’s editorial page. Therefore, I left an initial comment poking holes in the absurdity of the usual disclaimer that the views of editorial writers do not reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy:
I must say, I am shocked that a paean to Qatar would appear in no less than Al Jazeera, which conveniently happens to be owned by the ruling family of Qatar.
I guess Al Jazeera’s leftist editorials that consistently pathologize and critique Western societies are consistent with the progressive values of Qatar, bastion of human and workers’ rights that it is.
What a joke.”
Indeed, I find it highly laughable that the rulers of Qatar who fund Al Jazeera genuinely embrace universalist progressive values. I’m also fairly certain that they wouldn’t tolerate having the Arab Muslim character of Qatar pathologized or deconstructed in anti-Western fashion. One of the commenters even suggested that the U.S. should undermine Qatar from within in a similar manner to Al Jazeera’s ideological critiques of America. Here’s what I had to say in response:
“It would be like if wealthy conservative Christians in the U.S. funded a publication that consistently ran editorials by far-left Arabs and others that critiqued and deconstructed Arab culture, Islam, and unrelentingly criticized various Gulf Arab monarchies.
Something tells me that that the intrepid seekers of truth at Al Jazeera would not be too amused.”
Just like many Jewish activists, the Arabs in charge of Al Jazeera only embrace left-wing thought when it serves their own interests, and primarily deploy progressivism as an ideological tool against the white West. While they embrace editorials from a variety of leftists that offer strong critiques of white Western culture, they exempt their own society and culture from such scathing criticism. Such hypocrisy from Arab Muslim nationalists, moderate or otherwise, is not the sole domain of Al Jazeera. In his excellent book From Plato to Nato, David Gress perfectly describes the duplicity of Islamic revivalists and reformists, which is essentially similar to Al Jazeera‘s:
“The revivalists emphatically rejected “modernism” as applied to Islam, but for the same reasons they welcomed postmodernism in a particular sense. Islamic revivalists wanted Western postmodernism if it weakened the West, made Westerners feel insecure and guilty, and made it easier to enforce claims for political and economic concessions on the West. They absolutely did not want postmodernism if it meant that they themselves should question their own morality, their own Grand Narratives, and their own forms of knowledge. Postmodernism was fine, in their view, if it helped to undermine a Western culture that was anyway, in their opinion, immoral and heretical; as a general attitude of skepticism and epistemological doubt applied to any system of universal belief and morals, it was not…The Islamic revivalist insisted that the West be relativist but that his own religious knowledge remain exempt from postmodern deconstruction.”
In Dr. Jamal Abdullah’s editorial, there does indeed seem to be a significant dearth of skepticism and epistemological doubt as applied to Qatar. While he acts as a professional cheerleader for his home team, I wouldn’t be surprised if he later wrote an editorial denouncing Western cultural imperialism, Islamophobia, and various other real or imagined Western sins.
As I pointed out in a recent post, I sincerely believe that it is only whites who are foolish enough to embrace leftist beliefs. The Arabs of Qatar, like virtually all non-Western peoples, embrace nationalism and some measure of chauvinism. They would never embrace progressivism if it meant compromising the various comforts and advantages they enjoy within Qatar. Therefore, don’t expect any editorials denouncing “Gulf Arab privilege” to appear in Al Jazeera anytime soon.
Given the platform enjoyed by Al Jazeera and the millions of people that their writing and broadcasts reach, I deem it necessary to expose their hypocrisy and warn my fellow white people not to be fooled by their progressive posturing. The time has at last come to deconstruct these professional deconstructors.
It’s hardly a secret that in the eyes of most liberals and leftists, white Christians are the embodiment of evil. From the usual tired rhetoric about “privilege” to ominous warnings about the extreme danger posed by the religious right, one could be forgiven for thinking that we’re on the verge of being lorded over by Pat Robertson. Analysts of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the “special relationship” between the United States and Israel often highlight the role of Christian Zionists in strengthening the alliance between the two nations. Regardless of the specific issue at hand, we’re frequently being told that the Christian Right enjoys too much influence and that they’re perpetually up to no good. However, when analyzing the evidence, there is very little to substantiate the assertion that white Christian power is running amok in the United States.
First, I’m going to put to rest the tired assertion by liberals and Jewish lobby apologists that Christian Zionists are the primary force behind the U.S-Israel relationship. In their book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt demonstrate that Christian Zionists are minor actors compared to the much more powerful Jewish lobby:
“Yet the Influence of the Christian Zionists should not be overstated. Their strong commitment to a “greater Israel” and resulting opposition to a two-state solution did not prevent the Clinton administration from pursuing the latter at Camp David in 2000, did not halt the 1998 Wye Agreement mandating an Israeli redeployment from parts of the West Bank, and, perhaps most revealingly, did not stop President George W. Bush, who has close ties to the Christian Right, from declaring his own support for a Palestinian state in 2001…Supporting Israel is only one of the many issues that evangelicals like Robertson, Bauer, and Falwell have been concerned with, and it may not even be the most important.Leaders of the Christian Right often claim to speak on behalf of forty million or more professed evangelical Christians, but the number of followers who care deeply about Israel is undoubtedly smaller. In addition, and in sharp contrast to groups like AIPAC, Christian Zionists lack the organizational capacity to analyze national security topics or to offer specific legislative guidance on concrete foreign policy issues…Christian Zionists also lack the financial power of the major pro-Israel Jewish groups, and they do not have the same media presence when it comes to Middle East issues.
However, even without such evidence at my disposal, I have a very hard time conceiving of a powerful Christian Right that can dictate foreign policy to Washington elites. In fact, the Christian Right can’t even win major battles on issues more important than Israel, including gay marriage. Just recently, a federal judge overturned Montana’s ban on gay marriage. Allow me to repeat that just so it can sink in: gay marriage has been legalized in Montana. Montana, the same state that a friend of liberal black pundit Ta-Nehisi Coates once quipped had nothing but “white militias and Phil Jackson.” We’re being told that white Christians wield immense power, but somehow they can’t prevent gay marriage from being legalized in Montana of all places? Cut the crap. Gay marriage bans have likewise been struck down in such pinko commie states like Idaho, Nevada, Kansas, and South Carolina, while more continue to join the ranks.
Nor has the Christian Right been able to use its immense clout to remedy the sickness of mainstream American culture. A culture where a shamelessly debauched child molester like Lena Dunham is regarded as an important generational voice does not demonstrate significant conservative influence. A culture where 50 Shades of Grey is one of the nation’s most popular books does not scream Christian power. A pop culture where white female celebrities like Miley Cyrus unashamedly “twerk” does not suggest that conservative white Christians dictate social trends in the United States. If the Christian Right exercises such a stranglehold on this nation, then why does popular culture go to great lengths to either ridicule or disregard their religious and cultural sensibilities? To ask the question is to answer it.
While religious white Christians may be able to exercise some influence in matters such as abortion (much to the chagrin of liberals), they by and large do not have any real power or influence on a national level. They can achieve a few minor victories here and there, but they are unable to leave their cultural imprint on the nation.
Those who would argue that legalizing gay marriage, ensuring access to abortion, and separating church and state are fundamental constitutional (and therefore Western) values are missing the point. Just to clarify once again, I care very little about issues such as gay marriage and abortion, nor am I even religious. My point is that the radical transformation of the United States should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that everyday regular white Christians possess little to no power, despite the fact that they share the same complexion as most of our elites. The gradual erosion of traditional American values will not end with Montana, and anyone who thinks that gays will be satisfied with gay marriage is deluding himself.
At the end of the day, the Christian Right is mostly irrelevant, and does little to effectively challenge the gospel of liberal subversion.
Read more: The lunacy of the Christian Right
I confess I despise movies and Hollywood in particular. I find it excruciating to sit through a film where a group of overpaid celebrities waste 2 hours of my life pretending to be me. As if pretending wasn’t audacious enough, many will also try to convince us that they are one of us; which in my view is the greater crime. Office Space isn’t one of those films and it does a fantastic job capturing the dreary existence of us worker ants. But I’m not here to review the film, rather, I’m here to discuss how the film deals with the issue of multiculturalism.
The film revolves around the lives of 3 software engineers employed by a soulless software giant in the 90s. This is a snapshot of the company:
Let’s get the obvious out of the way. The company is a reflection of American society at large where the majority are white with a few non white minorities thrown in. The three software engineers comprise of two whites (Peter and Michael) and one immigrant (Sameer). Sameer’s ethnicity remains intentionally ambiguous but if I had to guess, I would assume from his Taviz amulet that he is an Indian Muslim. His ethnicity is never dwelt on except in a few situations where his co-workers have a hard time pronouncing his last name, a running gag throughout the film.
Outside of his accent and last name, Sameer is a honorary white person. He speaks English reasonably well, parties hard with his white friends, and laughs at the same jokes as they do. When stuck in traffic he even attempts to swear in English despite not knowing many swear words. He could of-course just as easily swear in Hindi but that wouldn’t be very American. Sameer is basically attempting to integrate into white America, an endeavour familiar to generations of immigrants to the US. He is never made to feel different on account of his foreign origin and is treated equally by his two close white friends. Office Space presents us with a racial dynamic of a bygone era where immigrants were expected to assimilate. When they made the attempt to assimilate, the majority reciprocated by being inclusive. This movie reminds us that diversity and multiculturalism can be mutually exclusive. This was the wisdom of a bygone era that social justice/leftist dimwits have worked hard to erode away. The leftist media deliberately uses the word “Multiculturalism” synonymously with the word “diversity” so as to convey the idea that there can be no diversity without multiculturalism.
Historically, this assertion is nonsense. The Romans, Arabs, Ottomans, and Persians were all ethnically diverse societies that had one dominant ethnic group. Other ethnic groups were expected to assimilate. Iran for example, is an unapologetically Persian nation despite the presence of other ethnic groups such as the Azeris, Ahwazis, and Jews. The Arab Muslims freely granted their non muslim subjects religious freedom but ensured that the latter knew their subordinate place in the scheme of things. North American society isn’t nearly as oppressive and all society traditionally demands is that immigrants try and assimilate. In reality, multiculturalism isn’t diversity, but a model that accommodates diversity. The other model is integration, a word that is anathema to social justice dimwits and their Cultural Marxist overlords. Integration is a historically tried and tested method that generally works. The Italian labourers of yesterday dominate Toronto’s construction industry today as business owners. Multiculturalism on the other hand has a dismal record of success. I’ve witnessed how Pakistani immigrants self segregate themselves, make a bare minimum effort to improve their English and cling onto their tribal habits with a death grip. During the festival of Eid there would be a flurry of activity on my floor as Pakistani neighbours would exchange greetings as well as food dishes. The white neighbours on that same floor were always excluded. Multiculturalism always leads to the following dead end: Racial harmony through indifference rather than through goodwill. I recall how a Pakistani neighbour once whined about his white colleague who requested him to communicate in English while at work. My neighbour hollered “racism” and the white co-worker went away. Is this truly the North America we want to live in? Would the Japanese or Koreans stand for such behaviour? Are Arabs coddled in the Jewish state of Israel?
Office space gets it right when it portrays a North America that normalizes integration but this is just one part of the equation. While it is reasonable to expect the majority to be tolerant and inclusive, these expectations rest on the premise that the majority will continue to be the majority. It cannot in good conscience be expected of whites to be tolerant and inclusive when the gates of mass immigration are flung open and the threat of the majority becoming the minority looms large over the horizon. Benevolence must only be reciprocated by corresponding obligations and loyalty. This is taking a page out of Confucianism and White North America would be wise to adopt this maxim.
The entire preoccupation of the physicist is with things that contain within themselves a principle of movement and rest. And to seek for this is to seek for the second kind of principle, that from which comes the beginning of the change. (Aristotle)
Study the three images below carefully.
What do these images tell us about the civilizations that built them? The Egyptian statues of Karnak are dull, lifeless, featureless, and rigid. They adequately represent the stifling social hierarchy of ancient Egypt. The Indian statues are sensual, even playful, and appear to gently guide the observers eye with undulating curves and exaggerated anatomy. The Greek statue stands out as being most anatomically precise (albeit with some glaring exaggerations) with an astounding amount of detail. One can clearly make out its Mediterranean facial features and even the knuckles and veins of its hands.
But obvious differences aside, there is something else about the genius of the Greek statue that completely eclipses the endeavors of the Egyptians and Indians. The stance, to begin with, is a completely natural one. The legs looks like they bear the weight of the torso with the right leg bearing more weight than the left. One arm is bent at the elbow while the other is relaxed. The head and chest face different directions while the back is arched. The juxtaposition of tensed and relaxed muscles combined with the natural stance enables this statue to convey something the others do not: motion.
The Egyptian and Indian statues look frozen in space and time. The Greek statue, however, looks like it might spring to life at any second. It was meant to resemble the body of an athlete capable of an explosive burst of motion. Scholars believe that the design of the Riace statues (there are two I believe) were influenced by the guidelines of the Greek sculptor Polykleitos who published a treatise on sculpture somewhere around the 4th century BCE. But why were the Greeks obsessed with motion to the point of capturing it (or attempting to) in their art? What was it about motion that so captivated the Greeks?
Long before Socrates would harass Athenian citizens with his “street philosophy”, the Pre-Socratic Greek philosophers were indistinguishable from Mathematicians/Physicists. They observed the universe around them (astronomy) and began looking for an underlying system that was instrumental in structuring the world around them. The Pre-Socratics were obsessed with cosmology. The Greeks didn’t realize it back then, but they had over the course of time bequeathed the human species with the scientific approach: using observation and reason to decipher the laws of nature which were universal. Perhaps the laws of nature inspired later Western philosophers to likewise model ethical laws as universally binding as well. It is ironic that nature worshipers like the Indian Hindus and Chinese Taoists failed to take this step.
We may now return to our earlier question regarding the Greek obsession with motion. Nature was in motion. The celestial bodies were in motion. The Greeks believed that motion was a characteristic of life itself. Thales, for example, believed that magnets had a ‘soul’ since they were able to move Iron. When viewed from another angle, it appears that Greek culture (and Western culture) was in motion. The Greeks absorbed the knowledge of other cultures and then built upon it. This is ultimately what led Western civilization to progress from this:
The Egyptians meanwhile depicted the human body like this:
for nearly three thousand years.
Perhaps the Orientalists were at least partially justified in their claim that oriental cultures were static in comparison to Western civilization. Consider the following friezes below, the first one from ancient Persia and the one beneath it Roman (Trajan’s column).
The Persian frieze is a masterpiece in terms of technique and execution. But if you google image the phrase “Persian frieze” you will encounter numerous pieces of Persian art that, while impressive, cling to the same static style. The individuals in these pieces are largely expressionless and almost always depicted in profile. The section of Trajan’s column depicted above is far more ambitious and innovative than it’s Persian counterpart because it attempted to do something that no other oriental artist experimented with: offering the viewer a different angle. By depicting the Roman soldiers huddled beneath their shields, the sculptor attempted to create a bird’s eye view for a more dramatic effect. Is it then any surprise that the West invented cinema?
Yet again we see an example of Western culture surpassing the orient with creativity and innovation. The impulse to innovate and experiment is clearly rooted in the old Greek obsession with motion. I’m not saying that oriental cultures lacked creativity or innovative zeal, far from it. All I’m trying to convey is that the paradigm shifts that have led us to the modern world were products of the Western intellect. But why did the West experience paradigm shifts at such frequent intervals throughout history whereas civilizations like India and Egypt clung to the the same belief systems and practices for millennia? I don’t know the answer to this question but if I had to guess, I’d say the answer lay in one word:
Greek society wasn’t encumbered by orthodoxy of any kind and had a thriving culture of free debate. As a matter of fact, much of what we now know about various Greek philosophers come from sources (fragments) preserved by their contemporary critics who had intended to refute their views. The views of the Eleatic philosophers (Parmenides and Xeno) were strikingly similar to those of the Hindus. The Eleatics, like the Hindus, believed that the world (reality) was an illusion and that motion and change could not possibly exist. They argued against the primacy of the senses. The Eleatic school was short lived because other contemporary philosophers (notably Democritus) refuted their ideas and effectively exposed their ideas for the ludicrous twaddle that they were. To their credit, the Eleatics employed well reasoned arguments to make their case and thus left their mark on Western philosophy owing to the quality of their thinking rather than content.
Why were these views not challenged in India? Possibly because Brahmin orthodoxy was sacrosanct and beyond even the remotest criticism. Even if criticism were allowed, the masses had no means to engage in it as literacy was monopolized by the Brahmin caste. Debates occurred mainly between various Brahmin scholars (5% of the population) with the occasional Buddhist scholar weighing in from time to time. The rest of the populace were excluded. In time this resulted in Brahmin stupidity becoming Hindu philosophy and remaining unchallenged until the British arrived. Some readers may argue that Christian orthodoxy stifled creativity and intellectualism in Europe, but that was not historically the case and I’ve decisively refuted that claim here. The reason Christianity is more suited to civilization building is because unlike Judaism and Islam, it focuses on ethical perfection instead of ritual perfection. While Islam’s ethics are also universal it’s core ritual framework, like Judaism’s, is non negotiable.
The European peoples, like the Indians, Egyptians, and Persians, were motivated by a desire to build perfection. Unlike the others however, the Europeans believed that perfection had no final end point but was a journey that must be undertaken for its own sake. This is why the Europeans continued to innovate while the other civilizations stopped progressing once they had attained a certain level of perfection. It seems fashionable to rejoice the decline of the West in some circles nowadays. If the Chinese were to become tomorrow’s hegemonic power, would they be able to construct a new paradigm to replace the current one created by the West? If the answer to that question is negative, the West may never lose it’s relevance in world affairs and hence will never truly decline.
A recent article on Return of Kings by Matt Forney suggested a couple of good reasons why men must avoid universities. To summarize, modern universities are hotbeds of cultural Marxist garbage which make an especially toxic environment for White heterosexual Christian males. The second reason stated was that University degrees are actually worthless. Students fail to learn any marketable skills while becoming debt slaves for decades. While I don’t disagree with any of this I would still nevertheless like to add that University education is worthless by design. Let’s examine how.
Universities churn out mediocrity
University professors regurgitate the tired myth that today’s University is the same institution (in spirit) that Plato conceptualized; an institution dedicated to impartial inquiry. Those who argue the contrary, ie Universities solidify the status quo, generally point to the Humanities and social sciences as evidence. I wish to point out that this is also the case with Business majors. I hold an undergraduate degree in Business Administration with a marketing major. The structure of every Marketing class was the same. There was theory followed by exams and a final course group project. The projects and case studies were generally centered around formulating a marketing plan within a particular context. What was inconspicuously absent from these case studies was any mention of a budget. I recall that some of my professors even discouraged us from dwelling on financial details and to just go wild with our marketing creativity. Why would they do that? The answer is so blatantly obvious that I’m amazed that I didn’t see it back then. They expect their young acolytes to go out there and serve Nike or Nestle, or any large corporation that has an unlimited budget.
Students are neither taught nor given any directive to start their own business. The goal is not to produce the next Richard Branson or Bill Gates, but rather, the employees who would then serve the Bransons and Gates of our world. We’re not taught to be good businessmen but instead are moulded to become good employees. Out of the 120 credits I completed for my degree only 3 credits (1 course) was dedicated to teaching us small business management skills. The rest of the degree didn’t bother teaching us how to pitch our ideas to venture capitalists or what banks look for in a business plan. We were not taught how to manage a website or read key metrics in Google Analytics. We were not taught how to negotiate co-op advertizing with suppliers.
Why I majored in Marketing
After years of soul searching I’ve come to the painful realization that I majored in Marketing because of my mediocrity (at the time). I lacked the mathematical and analytical mind that would enable me to succeed in Finance or Accounting. Technical professions are generally in demand and will always be indispensable. Marketing majors are for those that naively believe that creativity trumps technical expertise. This is untrue in the third world and is certainly untrue in the first, and I’ve lived in both. Marketing, Humanities, and the social sciences are for those individuals (like myself at the time) without the talent nor inclination to muster the effort required to study a technical field. A close friend of mine graduated with a degree in Philosophy and quickly discovered just how unemployable he truly was. Rather than throwing up his hands and exclaiming vey ist mir, he took two years off to study programming and now earns a respectable $25/hour.
In conclusion I’d like to advise young men to avoid University and instead learn a trade. If one still wishes to attend University one must select a major with great consideration in a technical field such as programming. As Universities are the nexus of Cultural Marxist and Feminist rot, I’d say it’s about time we starve this beast.
Not too long ago, I had dinner with an old friend of the family who happens to be a 2nd generation Chinese American woman. While it’s not my intent to turn this blog into a soapbox for me to discuss my life outside of the internet, the insights I gained from my conversation with her can provide many valuable lessons. I left the conversation feeling both hopeful as well as irritated at how far our society has devolved.
For starters, my conversation with her further confirms my contention that our leftist enemies are the true minorities. Most everyday individuals could care less about the radical politics they espouse, and their movements would collapse in a heartbeat should the day ever come when our current overlords decide to throw SJW’s under the bus. While being tactful and not openly promoting alternative right ideology, I took a few shots at SJW stupidity during the course of our conversation.
At one point, she was discussing the differences in teaching style between her male and female teachers for a class she’s currently taking at an adult school. After jokingly asking if it was sexist to point that out, I immediately assuaged her fears of running afoul of the PC police by asserting that there are indeed fundamental differences between the two sexes. Despite being an educated “woman of color” who generally subscribes to liberal values and therefore would presumably embrace fundamental tenets of SJW thought, she approvingly endorsed my claim.
The conversation then ventured into the topic of health and nutrition (she’s a physician). Somewhere along the way, I brought up the humorous abomination of a “movement” known as fat acceptance (using less colorful language, of course). In a calm and descriptive manner, I highlighted the fatuous argument that fatness is not an indicator of poor health and that one can enjoy “health at any size.” Before I could further elaborate on the sheer absurdity of fat acceptance logic, she immediately exclaimed that such an argument is bullshit, and that obesity leads to diabetes and hypertension. Call me crazy, but I think I’ll take the opinion of a doctor with a greater degree of seriousness than neurotic teenage girls on Tumblr.
So there you have it. Despite living in the liberal Bay Area and conversing with a generally liberal non-white woman about somewhat controversial topics, I did not inspire any resentment or offense. Most people in the real world are not SJW’s, and so long as those in the alternative right exercise proper tact, they could easily get by while living in the belly of the liberal beast. Therefore, reaching out to center-right white middle Americans should be a piece of cake.
Unfortunately, not all aspects of the conversation left me feeling hopeful and validated. As a successful Baby Boomer, she was far more optimistic with her appraisal of the current situation in the United States than those of us on the alternative right. She dismissed claims that things have gotten worse as mere “the sky is falling” rhetoric, which has characterized countless eras. In her mind, the only aspect of modern life that is worse than before is global warming. Yeah, tell that to the hordes of overeducated and underemployed Millennials. Given my history of castigating Baby Boomers, I should clarify that I do not think all Boomers are scum, and many such as this woman are very dignified individuals. Nevertheless, their lack of awareness about the “privileges” their generation enjoyed can be very rankling.
(always love using SJW lingo to my advantage!)
The environment continued to be a major topic in our discussion. For those of you not in the know, my native California is currently undergoing one of the worst droughts in its history. Yet everywhere I go, I see individuals and various businesses consuming tremendous amounts of water, and they show no signs of slowing down in spite of various billboards encouraging people to conserve water. According to my old family friend, she witnessed a similar drought plague California during the late 70s. Amazingly, the people where she lived made a concerted and collective effort to combat the problem. Lawns were primarily brown, and anyone with the temerity to keep their lawns green were put into check by concerned neighbors. Toilets were rarely flushed, filters were installed on showers to ensure that no water was unduly wasted, restaurants would not serve water, and the list goes on.
Try telling today’s legions of social media addicts to curtail their consumption and make the sacrifices necessary to tackle a dire environmental predicament. We all know that the very idea of sacrifice is anathema to today’s average young person, and both she and I noted that lawns everywhere are green in spite of our severe water shortage. Perhaps this is simply American individualism and Calvinism taken to its logical conclusion. Or, more likely, the combination of mass immigration, multiculturalism, and legacy of greed bequeathed to the nation by Reaganomics have rendered today’s Americans a bunch of selfish and apathetic individuals who could care less about the world that surrounds them. The response of everyday people to the drought speaks volumes about how low-trust of a society we have become, with the very notion of a common good being increasingly eroded.
While I am very grateful for the recognition I receive within the alternative right, I find day-t0-day interactions with everyday people even more rewarding. In fact, I have a little assignment for our readers. Should you ever find yourself in a discussion with your friends or coworkers about serious issues, cleverly sneak in some anti-leftist logic here and there. Avoid impassioned rhetoric, shun buzzwords, but find some way to undermine multicultural and feminist lunacy.
I have a hunch that most of you will be pleasantly surprised. Ultimately, our movement will have to move beyond the confines of the internet to enjoy genuine success.