Black People: Menace or Nuisance?

There’s no point in trying to deny that many within the alternative right and white nationalist movements aren’t especially fond of black people. The implications of low average black IQ, the incessant grievance mongering of professional black leaders, as well as rowdy and violent black misbehavior are recurring themes when discussing the black question. Aside from the most extreme of white nationalists, you won’t see anyone calling for the extermination or ethnic cleansing of black people. Nevertheless, the general sentiment is that black people are at best an unwelcome presence and thorn in the side, and at worst a hostile population that poses a great danger to white people. Prominent white nationalist Jared Taylor has spent much of his career documenting the annoyances and even violence that blacks inflict on whites, which has culminated in his recent book Face to Face With Race.

(See Matt Forney’s review over at Alternative Right)

Personally, I think that the alternative right is both right and wrong with regards to their criticisms of blacks. I don’t deny that there are significant problems with black culture and the black community, nor is it my intention to come across as some bleeding heart liberal pontificating about the evils of prejudice. I’ll even admit that there was a time when I harbored a strong disdain for black people and black culture. Having had bad experiences with black people in middle school, and to a smaller extent high school, I came away with the impression that blacks are an easily angered, obnoxious group of people who will start confrontations or fights at the drop of a hat. I remember waiting in line for Burger King at the mall during my sophmore year in high school when out of the blue some aggressive sounding black guy yelled at me, “what chu lookin’ at?!” When I responded in a shocked and flustered fashion, he then immediately laughed and said he was just fucking with me. I’ve had similar experiences elsewhere. I likewise heard various stories from my mom and others about their experiences being accosted by black people. Needless to say, I did not emerge from my adolescence holding blacks in high esteem. During my younger and more volatile days commenting on blogs, I even made some harsh and unflattering statements about blacks that I’ve since renounced.

I do not deny that many black people can be irritating. I likewise am not downplaying the violent crimes that certain blacks randomly perpetrate against whites, which are not to be taken lightly. I also fully acknowledge that compared to my younger days when I lived in the East Bay, I currently live in a part of the Bay Area mostly devoid of black people. Perhaps if I lived in Oakland and had to deal with obnoxious ghetto blacks on a consistent basis, I would be singing a tune similar to Matt Forney and the various whites featured in Jared Taylor’s book.

With that being said, where I disagree with the alternative right regards the amount of weight they assign to the black question. Yes, black violence is problematic. Yes, black activists and professional complainers can be quite irritating. Yes, black people can at times be quite a nuisance, as demonstrated by the #blackbrunchnyc disturbances. However, black people are mostly just that: a nuisance. Ultimately, black radicals and critical race theorists are correct when they insist that blacks don’t actually wield any real power. Aside from certain urban enclaves such as Detroit, blacks do not possess the capacity to truly threaten white America.

To the extent that blacks menace or bother white people beyond violent street encounters, they can only do so when they are being aided and abetted by our depraved elites. Upset white brunchgoers and annoyed observers should focus their anger on wealthy oligarchs such as George Soros, whose funding of the Ferguson protests emboldens black activists to engage in irritating behavior such as #blackbrunchnyc.

On a more cultural level, if one is upset by the prevalence of rap music that promotes classless ghetto behavior, then blame white media moguls, Jewish and gentile alike. They are the ones who glamorize the ghetto lifestyle for the white masses through their influence over television and Hollywood. The suburban white and other non-black kids that I’ve observed saying “nigga” did not learn such behavior from their numerous, mostly nonexistent black friends.

Idiot Wigger

Just to be clear, this doesn’t mean that I believe the alternative right should embrace black people and treat them as brothers. As visible racial minorities with a significant amount of historical baggage as it pertains to their relations with whites, the overwhelming majority of blacks will never endorse a movement that promotes white identity and seeks to preserve white demographic superiority. Trying to pander to blacks in any way would be a complete waste of time.

Rather, the alternative right should direct most of its attention and energy towards the white liberal elites who enable black petulance. Scratch any negative national trend and you will find a rotten white elite. As obnoxious and abrasive as DeQuan the foul-mouthed hood rat with sagging pants can be, he is child’s play compared to the likes of George Soros. As long as one avoids violent ghetto blacks or black people with an obvious axe to grind against whites, then black people by and large are harmless.

By no means should we disregard black misbehavior towards whites, but just remember that there are far bigger fish to fry.

Posted in Cultural Marxism, Organized Jewry, Race, Racism, White nationalism | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

The Importance Of Being Tolerable: Thoughts On The Shooting in France and Multicultural Stupidity

Throughout my years in elementary school I felt that certain teachers harboured unwarranted prejudice against me. I’d complain to my parents and my Dad’s response was fairly consistent: “What have you been up to?” My Mother’s response was somewhat more sympathetic:”Why don’t they like you? You’re so likable!” Both of their responses subtly implied that the way people treat you is a function of your own behaviour toward them. I have mentioned numerous times on this website that the West needs to embrace the virtue of reciprocity. The virtue of tolerance that was championed by the old left of John Stuart Mill has been degraded by the modern left. In his essay “On Liberty” Mill championed a diversity of opinions (NOT a diversity of races) while placing one sole limit on free speech: using it to incite a mob.

Today’s Left tolerates just about anything from female impropriety to the deviant (and often harmful) sexual practices of homosexuals. The old left never argued for an indefinite suspension of standards. Rather, they regarded freedom of speech as a prerequisite for a society driven by reason. It is difficult to tolerate the behavior of some blacks because their behaviour isn’t tolerable to begin with. Running around town punching random people in the face is not tolerable behavior. Disrupting people’s brunches and making a nuisance of oneself is not tolerable behaviour either. Storming an office and cold-heartedly gunning down office staff because they supposedly insulted Islam is NOT tolerable behaviour.

Western nations need to get the memo that tolerance is not a cheap resource to be squandered on the undeserving. Tolerance is earned by being tolerable. If Muslims in Europe wish to be tolerated, they need to knock off their intolerable behaviour. If they wish to act like savages they must then be deported back to the zoos from whence they came. I understand that not all Muslims are terrible but you know what they say about rotten apples. I also understand that some of these North Africans and Arabs arrive in Europe as refugees from homelands that are beyond repair. This is rather unfortunate, but these circumstances do not excuse their barbarism. Every action begins with a choice. The Moroccan refugee that vandalizes public property in the Netherlands makes a choice before he picks up his baseball bat. The terrorist scum that execute civilians in cold blood make a choice before they pick up their guns.

The West’s immigration policy is suicidal by design.

Cultural Marxism, immigration, feminism, and modern Liberalism are the numerous heads of the same hydra; in opposing one, you inevitably oppose them all. The enemy is the encroaching police state. Feminists and low quality immigrants like Mexicans and North Africans have one thing in common: They both depend on a large welfare nanny state. The Feminist position on surveillance is also telling. Feminists are loathe to admit it, but they are either comfortable with, or indifferent to surveillance.

Feminist fruitcake Autumn Whitefield Madrano believes that female indifference to surveillance is the result of the “male gaze.” Or at least partially so:

“I’m not saying that just because women might be used to being watched by men means that we’re inherently blasé about being watched by governmental bodies; in fact, I’m guessing some women are more outraged than they would be if they were male, even if they’re not directly connecting that outrage with womanhood. (Also, I don’t believe the male gaze to be wholly responsible for my indifferent reaction here; it’s just the one that’s relevant.)”

I’m sure most sane readers won’t be able to digest the convoluted logic above, so allow me to provide you with a more plausible explanation. As the physically weaker sex, women are naturally willing to forgo freedom for security. This might explain the avalanche of rape hysteria that has gripped the U.S. Feminists talk a good game about freedom of speech while initiating witch hunts that force people who do not conform to their views to resign from their jobs. Feminists, social justice dingbats, and their corporate sponsors are also trying very hard to end online anonymity.

Violent and psychopathic immigrants play their own role alongside feminists in helping to usher in the police state. With every terrorist act, each surpassing the other in barbarism, the case for surveillance grows. It is not an oversight by Western elites that they allow in immigrants and refugees from countries that are currently being bombed by Western armies. These deranged refugees and immigrants are the perfect ingredients for a recipe of social and political chaos, which will then be remedied by a nanny state with an intrusive surveillance apparatus. Our elites will naturally be unaffected by these changes, so they’ll continue waging wars for profit in lands near and far.

It is imperative that freedom loving men take a decisive stand on issues pertaining to immigration with the utmost sense of urgency. A feminized nanny state with every citizen suckling at its breast may appeal to a woman’s definition of freedom, but would be hell for men of character and spine. It is vital for Western men to recognize that the left isn’t here to set us free, but to enslave us.




Posted in Asia, conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Feminism, Rape Culture, Western Values | Tagged , , , , , , , | 18 Comments

Feminists Actually Do Have a Sense of Humor!

It goes without saying that feminists have never been renowned for their sense of humor. To be fair, women as a whole don’t have a proclivity for humor, but when combined with the inflated victimization complex of feminists, you have a recipe for comedic kryptonite. Since feminists resent the notion that men are inherently funnier than women and attribute this perception to “social constructs,” one daring feminist has decided to do more than just whine. She has decided to regale us with her own sense of humor, thereby refuting the pernicious notion that men have a monopoly on jokes.

Aspiring feminist comedian Soraya Chemaly recently released a transcript of her next standup act for The Onion where she playfully waxes indignant about the conspicuous tendency of women to form long lines for the restroom. I mean, hey, it is pretty obvious that women have some unusual tendencies regarding restroom usage, so it makes for a pretty good routine.

Unfortunately, I just learned that this is not a standup routine. Likewise, this grievance did not grace The Onion, but rather Time. While I was looking forward to a good laugh to brighten up my day, I am now crestfallen upon learning that Ms. Chemaly was actually being serious about the injustice of women having to wait in line for the restroom.

(hat tip Roosh V)

Is this for real?

I cross my heart and hope to die when I tell you that I am not making this up. Part of me still wants to believe that this is actually a major hoax and prank designed to outrage a gullible public for cheap laughs.

However, I can’t say that I’m too surprised. Feminists consistently whine about the most trivial offenses and inconveniences, whether it’s phony complaints about “street harassment,” grievances against “manspreading” on public transportation, the indignity of having to wrap Christmas presents, or even the terrible oppression inflicted on women by an “inappropriate” shirt worn by a famous scientist.

I’m not even going to bother dissecting and critiquing Soraya Chemaly’s article, as the absurdity speaks for itself. Likewise, her article does people like us a favor. Even if your average man doesn’t necessarily subscribe to the views espoused by the alternative right, he’ll be more inclined to listen to us than the histrionics of whiny and entitled feminists. He might even start to question why the mainstream media gives a platform to such humorless and deranged individuals, which might lead him to question the media as a whole.

As Dota and I have argued on many occasions, leftist pet causes are houses of sand that require consistent upkeep. Since the media plays a prominent role in maintaining this upkeep, then more people unplugging from the mainstream media and pop culture goes a long way towards weakening liberal insanity. Therefore, I would like to thank Ms. Chemaly from the bottom of my heart for unwittingly bolstering our arguments and alienating more regular people from liberalism.

As this humorously ironic incident demonstrates, feminists can indeed be funny.

Posted in Cultural Marxism, Feminism, Subversion, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

Thoughts on Asian “Tolerance” and Reciprocal Obligations

In his post that analyzes the racial and cultural dynamics of the film Office Space, Dota persuasively argues that minority assimilation reciprocated by majority tolerance is the only successful means of fostering harmony in a racially diverse society. However, this historically proven method for maintaining diverse societies is not what multiculturalists and leftists have in mind when they conceive of a tolerant society. For them, “tolerance” amounts to the white majority surrendering its identity, throwing open its borders, resigning itself to minority status, and unquestioningly accepting any and all non-white behavioral differences.

At the end of his post, Dota prescribes certain elements of Confucianism, with its emphasis on loyalty and reciprocal obligations, as a remedy to multicultural looniness. I can’t imagine that any bashers of the West could object. After all, various liberals and leftists either endorse or accept the notion that Eastern religions and philosophies are gentler and more tolerant than the brutality of Western culture. Buddhism in particular has enjoyed much adulation from ignorant Western liberals. After all, how can one not love such kind and gentle figures such as the Dalai Lama, who pens editorials imploring us to respect and show compassion towards one another?

In one of my college classes, which concerned first contact with indigenous peoples, my professor, an old Japanese American radical, juxtaposed the ignorance and chauvinism of the West with the tolerance and humanity of Asian culture. After shocking us with harrowing tales about white brutality towards American Indians, he then told us that in his “Asian culture, you make your heaven or hell depending on how you treat others.” The implication, of course, is that Asians are much more peaceful and enlightened towards different groups of people than whites.

Of course, such a claim is nonsense. Ask Burma’s Rohingya people, Muslims in Sri Lanka, or Uighurs in China about the humane and tolerant values of Asians and Buddhists in particular. No doubt some leftist somewhere will find a way to blame such violence and repression on Western colonialism.

White Liberal

It should be said that not all Asian nations brutally attack or repress their minorities. Taiwan (if you can even call it a nation) has earned a reputation for tolerance towards its small Muslim minority. However, after reading between the lines, I’ve concluded that Taiwanese tolerance is very conditional and requires the maintenance of the status quo (what liberals would call “privilege” in a white/Western context). To begin with, the chairman of Taipei’s grand mosque, Omar Yang, decries the fading of Islamic practices while simultaneously offering interesting insights on East Asian attitudes towards nationalism:

According to Omar Yang, chairman of the mosque, there is a crisis of faith among the Muslim community here stemming from the new generation’s lack of education about Islam, and the prevalence of Chinese culture and traditions, which have led to the fading away of Islamic practices.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, Yang recalled the story of a family from central Taiwan who discovered their ancestors were Muslims. They respected various Islamic practices, including not eating pork, but never questioned their ways.

One day they unwrapped one of the offerings their ancestors had left on the traditional Chinese family shrine, and discovered a copy of the Quran in Arabic.

“Knowledge about Islam is not being passed on to the next generation,” Yang said. “That’s the real problem.”

Nevertheless, the concerns of the nation trump the desires of any minority group:

“As Taiwanese, we’re less interested in religion and faith, because our priority remains to survive as a nation,” Yang told Al Jazeera.

That sentence right there is key. While Taiwan permits Muslims to worship and does not repress them the way that China does, they likewise aren’t going out of their way to accommodate or coddle their minorities. The interests of the nation and majority group come first; the special interests of minorities come last, if at all. The Taiwanese are only tolerant to the extent that their culture and interests aren’t threatened (bolded emphasis mine):

According to a 2014 report from the PEW Research Center as part of its Religion and Public Life Project, Taiwan ranks second in the world in the Religious Diversity Index, after Singapore.

“Taiwan is a very tolerant place,” said Anas Chao, a 28-year-old Taipei-based designer whose family came to the island with the KMT.

Yet, according to him, it is Muslims’ responsibility to think of ways to teach and preserve Islam “while not destroying or affecting the local Taiwanese traditions”.

Dota has mentioned on many occasions that throughout the non-Western world, there are very few liberals in the Western sense of the world. Instead, there are fascist hawks and moderate conservatives.

The bolded passage above illustrates the truth of Dota’s argument, and tells you all you need to know about Asian notions of tolerance. Tolerance is not unconditional, with Muslims and other minorities being tolerated so long as they respect the majority culture and do not infringe on the space of the dominant group. Minorities must either assimilate or know their place in the shadows. There is also the presumption that Taiwanese culture and the majority ethnic group will remain dominant. We will never witness any rhetoric along the lines of, “Taiwan could become 100% Muslim and it would remain Taiwan.” The Taiwanese and other Asian peoples certainly won’t countenance a scenario where they could be rendered minorities within a few decades.

Not that they need to worry anytime soon, as Taiwan and other Asian nations are much more homogenous than most Western countries. Such relative homogeneity is precisely why much of Asia appears so tolerant. It’s easy to be tolerant when there aren’t large numbers of visible minorities that you’re being told to make room for and accommodate. It’s also easier to practice tolerance when your group isn’t being consistently demonized while minorities are frequently exempted from having to be respectful towards the majority. Likewise, it’s not exceedingly difficult to remain tolerant when members of minority groups aren’t running large sex grooming operations that involve the rape and sexual enslavement of native girls, with the authorities covering it up for fear or appearing “racist.” Ad Nauseum.

Even though this blog espouses Western values, I second Dota’s assertion that the West must import certain Asian values in order to preserve its civilization. Since we all know that Asian peoples such as the Taiwanese wouldn’t remain tolerant if they were demographically eclipsed and culturally usurped, then it is hypocritical to demand higher tolerance from whites. Unless, of course, leftists hold white people to higher moral standards than non-whites, which makes their screeds against white supremacy rather hollow.

One-way tolerance ultimately amounts to unilateral disarmament, and does not bode well for a group’s well being. Therefore, let’s make reciprocation a virtue to cultivate in 2015, on both a national and personal level.

You can be civilized towards other people without tolerating petulant jerks who don’t respect you or your identity.

Posted in conservative values, Immigration, Islam, Race, Racism, Subversion, Tribalism, Western Values, White nationalism | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

Happy New Year!

Happy new  year Occident Invicta readers! We apologize for the lack of activity here but Bay Area Guy was on Holiday while I’m currently visiting India (and it’s no holiday I assure you). A lot of things have changed in India (at least in Bombay) while many things remain the same. One of the new trends that pokes you in the eye wherever you turn is rape hysteria. I thought that I could enjoy a couple of feminist free weeks in Bombay but I was clearly wrong. Sensible journalists like Aakar Patel have challenged this baseless hysteria but if the US media can yield to the impulse of gutter sensationalist journalism, what hope is there for a  less civilized country like India?

I found the following printed behind my train ticket and I think it’s certainly worth discussing.

The caption below woman and child reads: The best society is one that protects mother and child.

The caption below woman and child reads: The best society is where mother and child are safe.

Memes like the above are now ubiquitous but not half as obnoxious as the feminist memes one has the misfortune of gazing upon in the West. Many of these “feminist” memes in India depict mother and child and remind Indians to respect the wives and mothers of society. In other words, society is urged to respect women while the latter are urged to become good wives and mothers. The respect that Indian women demand seems to be reciprocal in nature and that is a radical departure from the petulant rebelliousness and narcissistic entitlement of North American feminism.

This meme takes me back to the origins of the suffragist movement in America nearly a century ago. As feminist Yen Chuan Yu points out, the suffragists demanded welfare benefits for mothers and children.


Now that feminists have amassed considerable political and social clout, children have been conveniently jettisoned as their resource magnet services are no longer required.

It should be interesting to see how a low IQ and limited resource society like India digests the toxicity of feminism.


Posted in Asia, conservative values, Economics, Feminism, India, Rape Culture, Western Values | Tagged , , , , , | 14 Comments

If You’re White, You’re Wrong

I’m hardly dropping a bombshell revelation when I state that leftists and non-white tribal activists do not particularly care for white people. Of course, such hostility has never prevented legions of white useful idiots from embracing liberal ideas and policies designed to assist their colored brethren. However, the noble intentions of white liberals are never enough to placate their supposed allies. The perpetual discontent of non-white SJWs has once again reared its head following the conclusion of the Sydney hostage crisis. In a nutshell, a deranged Iranian guy with a penchant for radical Islam held several people hostage at a cafe in Sydney, Australia. After many hours, the crisis was resolved following the deaths of three people, including the gunman.

I’m not going to turn this post into a discussion about Muslims. Likewise, it’s hardly a shocker that there are ungrateful immigrants and minorities living in Western countries today, whether it’s Man Horan Monis in Australia or Anjem Choudary in Britain. Such lunatics are thankfully the minority of most immigrants and Muslims, but they can nevertheless be quite a thorn in the side. They also wouldn’t be able to act on their extremism so easily without permissive attitudes towards borders and multiculturalism. Needless to say, Western countries need to seriously reassess their current immigration policies.

Hypocritical Muslim Immigrant

I’m more interested in the attitudes exhibited by leftists and non-white tribalists in response to this incident rather than discussions regarding extreme versus moderate Islam. In typical fashion, the reactions of leftists to the crisis have been all too predictable. Since white people are all potentially violent racists who can barely contain their insatiable hatred, many Australian Muslims have been bracing themselves for a potential backlash. They needn’t worry, however. Many do-gooder Australians, fearing for the safety of Muslims, now stand in solidarity with them. Such solidarity even culminated in a hashtag entitled #illridewithyou.

One would think that few people could possibly object to such a noble display of solidarity. After all, I think we all know what would happen if Muslims or other visible minorities, individually or in groups, were to pull off such a terrible deed in most non-Western countries. Unfortunately for some aggrieved colored souls, far from being a positive development, the #illridewithyou hashtag is an exercise in colonialism. I kid you not. At least that’s what one editorial writer for my favorite hypocritical leftist media outlet Al Jazeera argues. This editorial is so fatuous that it merits a thorough deconstruction:

“More subtly, this expectation for Muslims to keep speaking out is nothing short of Islamophobic. It assumes that Islam is, at its core, evil. It also upholds the view that Muslims can be essentialised as a monolithic whole.

The chastisement thus becomes the yardstick from which the wider world is to differentiate between a good Muslim and a bad Muslim.”

I can accept the argument that it’s unfair for Muslims to have to disassociate themselves from the actions of extremists, especially when most of them have nothing to do with extremism. However, as I pointed out in my post regarding the left’s notion of collective responsibility, such a courtesy is not extended to whites. It is leftists who assume that whites are evil at their core, can be treated as a monolithic privileged mass, and can be differentiated between good whites (SJWs and radical leftists who betray their own kind) and bad whites (all other white people). The editorial only gets even more absurd:

“Yes, the hashtag was born out of goodwill as the Twitter universe reacted to the story of a white Australian woman pledging to walk in solidarity with a Muslim woman who took her hijab off following news of the Sydney siege. We will protect the good Muslims, so gestures the campaign.

Unfortunately, it also reproduces an age-old trope that has been highlighted by scholars of postcolonial studies. As Western colonisers encounter non-European natives, they began to think of their “Other” in one of two antithetical ways – either as a barbaric savage or a noble savage.

To the colonisers, the hostile savage is inherently dangerous in a sub-human way and always an enemy to the civilised individual. Meanwhile, the noble savage is romanticised as innately benign. Untouched by modernisation, the noble savage should be admired and protected.

Transposed to modern times, the hostile savage translates as the bad Muslim and the noble savage – the good Muslim. Yet, barbaric or noble, a savage is still a savage. The hashtag #illridewithyou is just as patronising.”

Only someone with a major axe to grind against the West could possibly reach the conclusion that a campaign designed to shield a minority group from backlash and hatred somehow amounts to treating them like “savages.” Also, are we supposed to pretend that “bad Muslims” somehow don’t exist? Similar to Jewish gatekeepers like Max Blumenthal who insist that the crimes of Zionism not be associated with Jewish identity as a whole, Nazry Bahrawi treats acts of Islamic extremism as aberrations. Only bigots would dare critique Islam in relation to acts of Muslim extremism. Bahrawi is likewise angered by perceived double standards regarding Muslim and white mass murderers:

“Yet consider this. During the Sydney siege, a shooting spree incidence unfolded in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania that left 6 dead.

International media agencies described the perpetrator, the now-deceased Bradley William Stone, simply as “a suspect”, “a gunman on the loose” and even “a Montgomery man”. No hashtag campaign was necessary to assure white people that the rest of the world will ride with them to keep them safe.

The same can be observed of the reaction to the mass killings committed by the Norwegian Anders Breivik in 2011. While Breivik had claimed himself a baptised Christian in his 1,500-page manifesto, the world did not expect Christians to condemn terrorism in the same way Muslims had.”

Perhaps “the world” didn’t expect whites or Christians to apologize for the crimes of a few of its members, but leftists and non-white tribalists such as the author certainly do. Every time a trigger happy white cop kills an unarmed black man, we white people are constantly told that the cop’s action cannot be divorced from the general racism and white supremacy that characterize the United States. In the wake of Ferguson and the death of Eric Garner, one can easily find several arguments to the effect that the U.S needs to undergo serious racial soul searching, and that white America needs to take responsibility. Acts of white racism are always treated as an integral part of white identity, whereas SJWs and non-white tribalists pull out the No True Scotsman argument and expect us to cut slack to other groups, whose identities and cultures remain fundamentally pure. I guarantee you that if a high profile white individual were to engage in bigotry against Muslims, Mr. Bahrawi wouldn’t hesitate to place that individual’s action within the context of a “culture of Islamophobia,” rather than treating him as just a deranged individual.

Aside from reiterating that the left is hypocritical with regards to applying their standard of  “collective responsibility,” the purpose of this post is to highlight just how difficult it is to satisfy these non-white SJWs. No matter what white people do, it is never enough in their eyes.

Bad White Man

If white people just go about their daily lives and remain ignorant, then they’re in denial of their privilege and are contributing to oppression through their silence. If whites critique Islam following acts of Muslim terrorism, then they’re Islamophobes. If whites attempt to stand in solidarity with Muslims and insist that most Muslims are good, then they’re patronizing colonists who are treating Muslims like “noble savages.” There is very little that white people can do short of prostrating themselves before non-white activists that won’t result in some kind of criticism.

Nor are white allies of Muslims the only ones who get tarred with such criticism. Take Tim Wise, who has incurred the wrath of many white nationalists and conservatives for his relentless critiques of white people and white identity. However, his treachery is not enough to satisfy certain non-white tribalists such as Suey Park. He’s also earned the ire of non-white activists less radical and abrasive than Park.

Essentially, white people are either wicked or they’re eternally on probation, with the slightest mistake resulting in an avalanche of social justice fury. Small wonder that more white people aren’t eagerly embracing the opportunity to become an “ally.”

Ultimately, it’s necessary to inform my fellow white people that these leftists and tribalists are bottomless pits, and that there’s little point in engaging them. Don’t apologize, don’t make concessions, don’t even give them the time of day. The second we debate these issues on their terms, we’ve already lost, because white will never be right to them.

While I will continue to pathologize and critique leftism, I won’t waste valuable time by directly engaging them, and neither should you. I say we let them eat them eat their own and enjoy the popcorn.

Read More: Victory From the Land of Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys


Posted in Cultural Marxism, Immigration, Islam, Race, Racism, Subversion, Tribalism, Wimpy Whites | Tagged , , , | 17 Comments

Are Humans Naturally Conservative As a Species?

The two greatest forces that impact any community are economic and political. Economics is primarily concerned with the distribution of resources whereas politics is concerned with the distribution of power. Conventional wisdom states that societies and culture are formed at the intersection of the two. So which came first, politics or economics? The question is debatable but it seems clear to me that economics precedes politics. Our species has evolved to be social because that increases chances of survival and gives us an edge in accessing resources. Once our ancestors grouped up to increase their survival chances, a system was required to constructively distribute power and hence the birth of politics. In the Republic, Plato’s Socrates observed that farmers, carpenters, cobblers ect could dedicate themselves exclusively to their own craft if they had access to the goods and services produced by other artisans and professionals. A farmer, for example, wouldn’t have to worry about building his house if a mason lived nearby thus allowing him to focus exclusively on crop production.

Our ancestors rightly realized that resources were scarce. Contrary to modern perception, the most fundamental axiom of economics is not supply and demand, but rather the scarcity of resources. The Production possibility frontier attempts to prove this graphically by illustrating the principle of opportunity cost. As an economy shifts its resources to producing more of Product A, lesser units of product B will be produced. This makes us want to instinctively conserve these scarce resources which has over time molded the human mindset into a conservative frame. Since the very premise upon which society is founded is primarily economic, it stands to reason that this conservative mindset is so deeply ingrained so as to seem atavistic to our species. This conservative mindset would also in time extend to politics and culture where these civilizational goods would be perceived as worthy of conserving.

As Bay Area Guy has already pointed out, liberals (in the western sense) are an endangered species outside the west. One will rarely encounter Japanese politicians whining about “Japanese privilege” or Chinese politicians waxing eloquent about the injustices of “Han privilege”. Non Western nations mostly possess politicians and intellectuals of two stripes: Fascist nationalists and moderate conservatives. There are no liberals. The largest democracy in the world serves as an instructive illustration of this point. The two dominant parties in India are the BJP (Hawkish Hindu Fascist party) and the Secular Nationalist Congress (Moderate nationalists). I cannot think of a single non western nation that has a group of intellectuals dedicated to undermining the ethnic and cultural hegemony of the majority. The reverse is often the case. India undermines the rights of Adivasis (indigenous tribal people) by artificially grafting Hinduism onto their cultural identity. The Chinese are dedicated to the eradication of Uighur and Tibetan culture.

Why have Marxist Liberals infested the West while remaining largely unsuccessful in non Western societies? The reason, as I’ve written about before, is abundant resources. When a society is blessed with abundant resources people gradually tend to lose their conservative bearing. This will in time also extend to culture and politics. Liberal programs tend to have an upkeep that is maintained by traitorous Western elites. The reason why elite schools in third world countries have a small female presence is because non western countries invest their limited resources in high IQ males. India’s IIT is dominated by high IQ Brahmin males. I’m not advocating for discrimination to become public policy, rather, all I’m saying is that limited resources should not be squandered on individuals who possess little aptitude or inclination towards certain vocations. India and China do not have the abundant resources  to fund worthless feminist programs aimed at flooding technical professions with people that possess neither the IQ nor aptitude to succeed therein. There certainly exist a minority of women that can effortlessly compete with men in technical fields, but these individuals do not require a nanny state to hold their hand.

Non Western countries still take into consideration the opportunity cost of their economic decisions. Western nations on the other hand base their decisions on vapid ideologies like feminism instead of economic common sense. Female “independence” comes at a cost which must be borne by society. Abundant resources (Child support, Alimony ect) make single motherhood a viable lifestyle choice whereas in the third world it is sometimes akin to a death sentence. Abundant resources (Government daycare funding) enable career driven women to pursue their “independence.” Abundant resources allow for the maintenance of a large and militarized police  force that stand ready to assist women whenever they feel inclined to make a false rape accusation. The Indian police in contrast continues to use the archaic .303 rifle to this day.

In conclusion I’d like reiterate that liberals are truly a global minority and we should spare no opportunity in calling them out for their deviancy. I recall a truly hilarious commeter on Robert Lindsay’s blog who once claimed that feminism made the west great. She obviously had it backwards as it was the abundant resources of the West that made Feminism (and Liberal insanity in general) possible to begin with. These resources are the greatest blessing and bane of the West.

Read more: Why feminism fails in the third world

Posted in Caste, China, conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Economics, Feminism, Hinduism, History, India, Western Values, White nationalism | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

My article on Return of Kings


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.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Is it time for a new aristocracy?

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.

Read more: Exit freedom enter totalitarianism: Lost in a liberal wonderland.


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

Arab Subversion and Al Jazeera

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:

“Oh really?

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 Jazeeras:

“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.”

-Pages 533-534

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.

Read more: It’s the Values, Stupid! The Lesson of a Diplomatic Temper Tantrum

Posted in Islam, Middle East, Subversion, Tribalism | Tagged , , | 5 Comments