Follow me on Alternative Right

On account of WordPress vexing me, I have not been uploading posts that don’t involve simple book reviews. However, I have certainly not been idle. Recently, I became a contributor to Alternative Right, and have already written a couple of posts for the site. Even if I’m not as active on Occident Invicta as I used to be, I will never stop writing. But for now, check out the articles below!









Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Review: “Saving Capitalism” by Robert Reich

As longtime readers are aware, I have never held untrammeled capitalism – or its most passionate devotees, Libertarians – in particularly high esteem. Whether it’s cultural decay, soaring levels of stress, or even exploding white suicide rates, the sociopathic pursuit of profit can account for much of the US’s decline.

At the same time, I’m not someone who measures a society’s health solely by looking at its system or policies in place; ultimately, a country’s people and culture determine its character. That’s why, in spite of my populist sentiments, I don’t think that there is anything inherently defective about capitalism. While my fellow blogger Robert Lindsay rightly decries the grotesque nature of American capitalism, I sometimes feel like he too often reduces everything to capitalism itself, which ignores crucial cultural context. Reading Saving Capitalism, written by former Clinton labor secretary and Berkeley scholar Robert Reich, reaffirms this belief. Even though Reich’s social commentary is very wanting and neglects many crucial factors (more on this later), his book should make it clear that the US’s resemblance to a banana republic says more about the American way than capitalism itself.

Indeed, one of the most crucial points Reich makes is that the way we discuss capitalism in American society is fundamentally flawed. Too often, we’re presented with a false dichotomy between the so-called “free market” and government intervention; as Reich demonstrates, such a debate is nonsense – the “free market” being a fiction. The infuriating truth of it all is that while our current oligarchs tout the benefits of free enterprise and competition, they furtively tamper with the market in order to ensure that it siphons yet more wealth to them. 

Examples abound of the myriad ways that laws and practices are structured in order to benefit the rich and powerful. For example, to add yet another item to the sordid list of American Exceptionalism, Americans pay more money for internet than most of their 1st world counterparts; in turn, they’re plagued with slower internet service than people in the civilized world – all because of the virtual monopolies that cable companies have. Any time a city builds a fiber-optic network, as Chattanooga, Tennessee, has done, giants like Comcast sue and go on the attack. Another vexing example is how Big Pharma extends patents – enabling them to keep charging exorbitant prices – simply by making minor (and ultimately insignificant) cosmetic alterations to drugs. And for my fellow millennials out there, I’m sure it will warm your hearts to know that while bankruptcy law enables corporations to cheat employees out of wages, declaring bankruptcy will not shield any of you from having to pay back your college debts; and should you remain burdened with debt up until your old age, these educational loan sharks can take your social security money. It also goes without saying that incompetent CEOs frequently get massive bonuses, and corporations can even deduct CEO earnings from their taxes. While they may not support Bernie Sanders, our elites are zealous proponents of big government. They just want it to promote socialism for the rich. 

It may be hard to believe in today’s new Gilded Age, but blatant socialism for the rich wasn’t always the norm. Reich examines the sense of corporate stewardship that prevailed – or was at least publicly endorsed – from the 30s up until the 70s. An influential 1932 study called The Modern Corporation and Private Property exhorted corporate leaders to balance “a variety of claims by various groups in the community and [assign] each a portion of the income stream on the basis of public policy rather than private cupidity.” Reich also quotes an early 50s issue of Fortune, which promoted the “industrial statesman.” The duty of CEOs was to guide the economy and ensure general prosperity; the Al “Chainsaw” Dunlap model of corporate leadership was still decades away. Consequently, Reich believes that we can salvage capitalism and make it work for the many as opposed to the few, and this period of American history substantiates his argument. 

However, I don’t share Reich’s overall optimism. As much as we may pine for the post-WWII economy, that era was an accident of history.  For most of this country’s existence, avaricious – though less crude – plutocrats such as Chainsaw Al have been the norm; just think of the Gilded Age and the massive inequality of the 20s.

My take is that the shock of the Great Depression, combined with the challenge of WWII, kicked the US into shape and fostered a greater sense of solidarity. There was likewise little international competition following the devastation of WWII, which left the US virtually unscathed. The influence of the Soviets also erected some barriers to global capitalism and all its shenanigans (and no, this isn’t an endorsement of Communism). However, following the Reagan Revolution, globalization, and the end of the Soviet threat, American business leaders had no real incentives to treat their fellow Americans right – and acted accordingly. Far from penalizing them, our culture in many ways lauds their predatory methods.

Therefore, while unions and other forms of what Reich calls “countervailing power” are good and all, I think that in order to save capitalism, American society itself is in dire need of saving. That’s why the greatest flaw of the book is Reich’s inability (or unwillingness) to delve into the American way of life. 

For starters, he completely ignores the issue of immigration, which is a rather glaring omission. While correlation doesn’t equal causation, it takes some willful blindness not to notice that stagnating wages for most American workers coincides with post-1965 immigration. After all, there’s a reason why corporate giants favor open borders. Reich’s obliviousness also extends to the racial realm, where he naively hopes that quarreling social groups can come together to combat the influence of the wealthy. This greatly downplays the increasingly rancorous nature of American society, which hinders the kind of trust and cooperation necessary to build “countervailing power.”

Such obtuseness causes progressives like Reich to extol the economic virtues of the 50s while neglecting to mention that the US back then was around 90% white and less open to immigration. Leftists are similarly oblivious when failing to recognize (or acknowledge) that their favorite European socialist utopias are much smaller and more homogenous than the US.

Such countries also don’t subscribe to the bootstrap myth (or at least not to the same degree), which presumes that the rich and poor deserve their lot in life. A major reason wealthy Americans get away with so much shit that would not fly in other advanced countries is because Americans subconsciously worship the rich. They’re also ashamed, and feel like they could have made it to the top themselves if only they worked harder. Reich doesn’t go into this enough, and seems to labor under the delusion that simply tweaking a few market policies can magically transform the US into more functioning 1st world countries. 

But obviously, the US is not Denmark; that’s why it will take more than electing new officials and passing laws to eliminate American kleptocracy. That means ending Ayn Rand worship and individualism gone off the rails; it means tempering the obsession with wealth and status; and most importantly, it means cultivating a greater sense of nationalism. When a businessman feels a sense of belonging to a nation and its people, he just might think twice about screwing over his kin. That’s why, without trying to sound like a tin foil hat type, I don’t think it’s entirely coincidental that the growing obsession with “diversity” and the SJW cult go hand-in-hand with our emerging banana republic.

In conclusion, the most important lesson to draw from Saving Capitalism is that nothing about our current economic system is set in stone. Human beings created this current malaise, and human beings can remedy it. But first and foremost, we must extirpate the US’s bizarre cultural pathologies that have rendered it the 3rd world of the 1st world.

Posted in American Pathologies, Economics, Immigration, Race | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Paris and Selective Sympathy

By now, people of myriad ideological persuasions have weighed in on the latest tragic attack to rock France. Liberals exhort us to not give in to hatred and embrace Islamophobic rhetoric, lest we play into ISIS’s hands. Just about everyone in the alt right – as well as mainstream conservative pundits and politicians – has criticized Islam, Muslim immigration, or even multiculturalism itself. Certain individuals have been less than thoughtful, with one Israeli rabbi asserting that this tragedy was payback for European anti-Semitism. Just thought white American conservatives who slavishly worship Israel should know just whom they’re subsidizing.

I think there’s merit in both liberal and conservative responses. Longtime readers of this blog know that I don’t hold Islamophobia in high esteem and that I regard it as a distraction at best. I also have a dim view of American imperialism, and like the late and great Sam Francis, assign a large amount of blame to the West’s broken foreign policy. Such foreign policy failures are only compounded by Muslim immigration to the West. Needless to say, this whole Invade the World/Invite the World policy needs to be immediately jettisoned.

However, Western countries hardly have a monopoly on deadly terrorist attacks. Around the same time as the Paris attack, Beirut, Lebanon, was the site of deadly suicide bombings – also claimed by ISIS. Unlike the Paris tragedy, most of the world doesn’t give two shits about Lebanon; understandably, the Lebanese are rankled by this. They feel like Arab lives don’t count as much as white Western lives.

Obviously, any terrorist attack is a deplorable tragedy. Nevertheless, I can’t help but laugh whenever I hear an Arab or leftist denounce Westerners as hypocrites for not caring as much about non-Western deaths. It’s as if they’re shocked or appalled that people naturally relate more to those like themselves.

Needless to say, whites are hardly the only people who are selectively outraged or saddened by human tragedy. Take Uighurs, for instance. While most of the world could care less about China’s repression of this Turkic minority, their cousins in Turkey have expressed great anger – even going so far as to label China’s actions “genocidal.” For that matter, as much as #BLM activists are aggrieved over various trespasses – whether it’s police killings of blacks or even offensive Halloween attire – I highly doubt that the black agitators who accosted students in Dartmouth’s library lose any sleep over the suicide epidemic among middle-aged whites. And going back to our rabbi friend, many (if not most) Jews aren’t as concerned about troubles of goyim as they are about the well-being of the tribe.

For that matter, as China and India continue to rise, the people of those nations will likely care more about the lives of their fellow Han and Hindus than humanity as a whole. And frankly, I wouldn’t expect anything different.

To once again quote Dale Carnegie, a person’s “toothache means more to that person than a famine in China which kills a million people.” Applied to groups, I would say that a “microaggression” upsets a people more than the deaths of thousands of out-group members. In our Hobbesian world, individuals and groups (exceptions notwithstanding) are innately self-interested and unconcerned about the plight of people they can’t relate to.

Deal with it.

Posted in Blacks, Europe, Race, Tribalism | Tagged , , , , | 20 Comments

My Latest Interview With Robert Stark

Listen to it here.

I’ve always enjoyed conversing with Robert Stark, and this latest interview was no exception. We covered more ground than usual, and our conversation mainly revolved around ideological flexibility and the potential of a radical center. We also discussed the campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, the white suicide rate, the left’s peculiar notion of “diversity,” 1984, and much more!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Safe Spaces in the New Gilded Age

While I refuse to hop on the anti-Millennial bandwagon, my generation in many ways is very perplexing. On account of the latest campus PC scandals polarizing the nation – including but not limited to Yale – I think it’s safe to say that certain youngsters have misplaced priorities. You would think that with a weak economy and degrees being rendered increasingly expensive and worthless, students have bigger game to hunt than a few offensive costumes. However, it seems that many Millennials are even more obsessed with identity politics than their predecessors. This definitely plays into the hands of wealthy elites who prefer that people focus more on provocative outfits than substantive issues; at least one leftist agrees.

And of course, one cannot ignore the racial angle here. While I don’t bash blacks the way many alt righters do, I have grown increasingly wary of some of their agitation. Protesting police killings of unarmed blacks is one thing; expecting white people like me to give a shit about insensitive costumes when growing numbers of white men are killing themselves is offensive in its own right. I think it’s safe to say that people who are burdened by poverty and genuine oppression don’t have time for histrionics over “microaggressions” and similar offenses. It should be said that blacks hardly have a monopoly on campus cultural agitation; coddled college kids of all backgrounds think that the world should revolve around their pet causes.

Which brings me to my next point. In addition to bequeathing useless degrees and debt to graduates, universities – who fancy themselves diverse institutions with students from all over the world – are setting up young adults for failure in the actual real world. The cold truth is that employers, landlords, people at banks, and other powerful individuals who can impact your progress in life don’t give two shits about your wounded sensibilities. Try demanding a “safe space” at your job and see where that gets you.

We live in a brutal, cutthroat, dog-eat-dog planet. Fostering a campus environment where “trigger warnings” are increasingly the norm amounts to a cruel bait-and-switch. Millennial kids grew up subjected to “zero tolerance” policies (ie. “it doesn’t matter who started the fight”), helicopter parenting, and increasingly wimpy campuses. Then, once they’re thrust into the actual world, they slowly realize that their upbringings left them woefully unprepared for just how plutocratic and competitive society really is.

This is a new Gilded Age, a new era of conflict. The wealthy elites who are siphoning off more and more wealth from the masses don’t spend much time worrying about “cultural appropriation,” and neither should most people. But I get it. Humans are not an especially rational, logical species; we all have feelings. So I’m not going to say that these black kids at Yale or agitators elsewhere should just suck it up and stop being so oversensitive. They’re entitled to feel however they like, and their pain is very much real to them.

But (and you knew there was a “but” coming), don’t expect me or other people to treat such feelings as sacrosanct. We do not have some obligation to drop everything we’re doing just to assuage wounded sentiments. In today’s new Gilded Age, there is no good reason to sacrifice time, “privilege” and resources in order to empower loud members of out-groups who may very well compete with us down the road.

Non-SJW white students and faculty should do what people like Viktor Orban do: tell ’em to fuck off. 

Posted in Blacks, Economics, Race, Racism, Subversion | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Making Sense of White American Misery

Well, it looks like the left is finally beginning to realize what we on the alt right have known all along: life for white people isn’t all peaches and “privilege.” On account of a major spike in suicides among middle-aged whites, many progressives have gotten the memo that the economy hasn’t been too kind to white Americans either. Due to such economic distress, the white male death rate has risen – even as their counterparts in other majority white countries increasingly live longer. American exceptionalism strikes again, it seems.

Even though I agree that economic inequality necessarily engenders a certain sense of despondency, I don’t think it’s an entirely sufficient explanation. After all, various other economically struggling demographics have not experienced similar epidemics. Of course, I’m sure SJWs would insist that privileged white men simply can’t cope with the hardships of life compared to more battle-hardened “POC.”

My take is that a couple of factors are at play. For starters, compared to other whites, white Americans are much more atomized and radically individualistic; there’s a far greater sense of anomie than is normal in other industrialized societies. It also goes without saying that white Americans are less communal than Latinos and Asians, who place a higher premium on group identities. Even blacks, despite high illegitimacy rates, are more collectivist than whites. I suspect that when you’re aging and financially strapped, having to sink or swim completely on your own can seem unbearable.

This sink or swim feeling is only compounded by the whole bootstrap myth, which asserts that any failure in life is entirely your own fault. In many ways, it adds insult to injury; not only are these struggling whites broke and miserable, but our culture in so many ways tells them that they deserve to suffer. Since whites are far more likely to subscribe to bootstrap libertarianism than other groups, growing numbers seem unable to handle the misery and humiliation any longer.

Shit like this is why I have been so critical of American pathologies lately. Not only does American exceptionalism lend credence to open borders, multiculturalism, and other lunacies, but now it’s driving white people to suicide. At some point, we need to acknowledge that extreme individualism and unfettered capitalism deserve much of the blame for white America’s deterioration; it’s not the Joos who are pressuring these besieged men to kill themselves. I sometimes feel like those of us on the alt right get so caught up attacking external threats that we neglect to tend to white peoples’ internal wounds.

Just to be clear, by no means should we ignore enemies of our people. Nevertheless, given that the alt right openly espouses a pro-white ideology, I think we have a responsibility to at least try to find a solution to alleviate white American pain. Given our low birthrates, we can ill afford to lose more whites to self-inflicted death.

Posted in American Pathologies, Economics, White nationalism | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

The Radical Center

During my first interview with Robert Stark, Robert and I concurred that the best ideological platform would be an eclectic mix of Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader’s beliefs. We further discussed this stance when hanging out in SF, and Robert even requested that I dedicate a post to this issue. On account of the presidential campaign heating up, I figure that now is as good a time as any to honor his request and expand on this topic.

The main reason why I find this presidential race exciting is because the beliefs espoused by both Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader are enjoying a widespread hearing. Among the Democrats, an avowed democratic socialist Bernie Sanders is posing a real challenge to Hillary Clinton. A remnant of the old left – which was spearheaded by unions and economic progressives like Nader – an ascendant Sanders seeks to place economics at the forefront of political discourse. His primary focus on regular working people has provoked the ire of both #BlackLivesMatter activists and neoliberal open borders fanatics.

Speaking of neoliberals, while the Clintons cluelessly insist that they struggle just like everyone else – despite collecting millions in speaking fees from big corporations – Sanders possesses a certain verisimilitude; he strikes me as one of the few politicians who actually gives a crap about the plight of average Americans. Even though he won’t likely win, his candidacy is at least causing more people to privilege economic issues over SJW causes.

Among Republicans, such authenticity manifests itself in the form of Donald Trump’s insurgency. Unlike mainstream cuckservatives who refuse to aggressively take the fight to the left, Trump tells it like it is. Whether he’s aggressively denouncing illegal immigration, heaping obloquy on feckless American elites, condemning disastrous trade deals, or questioning this country’s absurd foreign policy, the spirit of Pat Buchanan is galvanizing growing numbers of white Americans.

Without trying to rain on the alt right’s parade, I’m certain that Trump won’t become president. Unless he can win the primary and then siphon off a huge chunk of white Democrats during the general election, a Democratic victory is a foregone conclusion. The venal and moronic Republicans refused to stymie the tide of immigration and preserve a solid white majority while they still had the chance. As they say, demography is destiny, and demographics are not in the Republicans’ favor.

Nevertheless, Trump’s rise is positive in terms of its cultural impact. Thanks to the Donald, nationalistic sentiment is being rendered less taboo. The fact that his popularity  only increased following his inflammatory comments on Mexicans and China is testament to the growth of a certain white consciousness. His success has likewise been a boon for the alternative right; it’s no coincidence that Donald Trump’s assault on Conservatism Inc coincides with the emergence of “cuckservative.

On the topic of the alt right, I would say that it embodies the best of Pat Buchanan while lacking the better qualities of Ralph Nader. One of my critiques of the alt right is that – exceptions such as Hunter Wallace and Matt Forney notwithstanding – they mostly neglect economic matters. I suspect that much of this can be chalked up to a generational divide; after all, it’s no coincidence that Wallace, Forney, and myself hail from a younger, more economically beleaguered generation than older WNs or alt righters such as Jared Taylor. As much as I respect these older intellectuals, it behooves them to address economic malaise if they wish to attract more young people to their movements. Just look at the popularity Bernie Sanders enjoys among white millennials. There’s no reason why the alt right couldn’t tap into this frustration and make inroads with whites who are economically anxious but also don’t think highly of SJWs.

Since I’m part of the alt right blogosphere, my criticism is meant to be purely constructive. On a fundamental level, the alt right is mostly correct. I simply believe that certain elements should scrap their obsession with the Joos, extirpate Ayn Randian sentiment, and branch out into other topics. I likewise feel that one shouldn’t have to rigidly adhere to ideological purity just to remain in the good graces of the movement.

As my friend Robert Lindsay pointed out during one of his interviews with Robert Stark, it is ridiculous to pigeonhole people as purely “liberal” or “conservative.” One could also add “white nationalist” and “paleoconservative” to the mix.

I think it’s fair to say that in some ways I’m a radical centrist. Of course, as Robert Stark told Robert Lindsay, being a centrist does not entail having no convictions and simply accommodating the status quo. For me, being a radical centrist means embracing the best aspects of myriad ideologies, and then using them to speak out against enemies of the West. I don’t have to conform to every alt right talking point in order to advocate for my people; I don’t have to subscribe to HBD to defend the legitimacy of my race. As much as I bash the left, I’ll use certain leftist arguments when need be – immigration being a perfect example.

In conclusion, I think that there’s much to be said for a radical centrism, and I can certainly understand why Robert Lindsay gets frustrated when people are so quick to attach simplistic ideological labels to others. It’s actually kind of sad that today’s left has grown so unhinged that people associate Robert with an “alternative left.” Without trying to reduce someone as complex as Robert to a single description, Robert represents the kind of sane, economic left that once existed throughout the first half of the 20th century. Since leftists like Robert are an endangered species, I get where he’s coming from when he insists that he’s politically homeless.

Even though I can relate to Robert’s angst, I’m very much grateful to be a part of the alt right. Even when certain commenters spew vitriol my way, I’m always happy whenever a certain article of mine provides value to the community.

At the end of the day, ideological purity should be discarded in favor of a radical, yet flexible, center. I’ll accept any and all truths that can be deployed in defense of our dying nations.

Posted in conservative values, Economics, Immigration, Race, Western Values, White nationalism | Tagged , , , , | 13 Comments

Ta-Nehisi Coates and the Left’s Weaponization of American Exceptionalism

On account of my stepfamily forming a book club, I have been reading a wide range of literature. Some of the selections have been entertaining and edifying; others, not so much. Due to the latest selection, Between the World and Me, I had to suffer through Ta-Nehisi Coates’s soporific and criminally repetitive prose. Not wanting my efforts to be in vain, I’m going to turn those three hours of my life that I wasted trekking through this “book” into something productive. More than anything else, I intend to demonstrate that American exceptionalist ideas bear a large amount of responsibility for lending credence to the kinds of views espoused by Coates.

But I would be remiss if I didn’t discuss some of the book’s general context first. Ostensibly a letter to his teenage son, the book is part memoir and part soapbox. Simply reading it from start to finish was an arduous task; if you were to read this book while playing a drinking game with some friends – where one chugs a pint for every time Coates uses the word “bodies” or “body” – you’d be wasted by time you finished a couple of paragraphs. Of course, he’s hardly alone in this regard, as “bodies” has increasingly become a popular term for SJW types. I’m guessing that gratuitous use of the word “bodies” is their way of trying to sound deep and soulful as a means of concealing their utter vapidity. But “bodies” is just the tip of Coates’s rhetorical iceberg.

Similar to leftists who use “diversity” as a euphemism for “less white,” Coates employs several cute euphemisms when bashing white people. In fact, a few exceptions notwithstanding, he seems to have a downright aversion to calling white people white. Instead, whites are “the people who believe themselves to be white.” In so many words, he’s regurgitating the standard critical race theory trope that whiteness is a mere social construct. Funny how it’s only white peoples’ “socially constructed” identities that are deemed illegitimate. But it gets even better. Another term Coates has a penchant for is “Dreamers,” which describes white people who subscribe to patriotic pretty lies and the whole myth of whiteness. What’s ironic is that Coates himself is a major proponent of American exceptionalism (emphasis mine):

“Perhaps there has been, at some point in history, some great power whose elevation was exempt from the violent exploitation of other human bodies. If there has been, I have yet to discover it. But this banality of violence can never excuse America, because America makes no claim to the banal. America believes itself exceptional, the greatest and noblest nation ever to exist, a lone champion standing between the white city of democracy and the terrorists, despots, barbarians, and other enemies of civilization. One cannot, at once, claim to be superhuman and then plead mortal error. I propose to take our countrymen’s claims of American exceptionalism seriously, which is to say I propose subjecting our country to an exceptional moral standard.”

This is exactly what I meant when I previously argued that leftists employ the language of American exceptionalism in order to lend moral legitimacy to their radical ideals. While I am in no way a fan of Coates and strongly disagree with his worldview, I cannot help but concede his point regarding superhuman claims.

For years, I’ve always wondered why white Americans – easily among the most tolerant and accommodating people in the world – are constantly castigated for being wicked racists. After reading Coates’s book, I think I’ve stumbled upon at least one explanation. Whites are criticized because by espousing such high and mighty American exceptionalist ideals, they set themselves up for criticism over peccadilloes; nothing short of perfected egalitarianism will satisfy the likes of Coates.

However, we expect Coates and his ilk to criticize white people. What’s more problematic is that so many white elites and pundits are heaping accolades upon James Baldwin’s heir. While it may be easy to dismiss such adulation as the media simply being comprised of venal prostitutes, I contend that many white elites on some level accept Coates’s scathing vituperation because they too hold white Americans up to ridiculously high moral standards – and like Coates find them wanting. Likewise, a large chunk of regular white people accept certain anti-racist tenets to varying degrees. Sure, very few whites are like Tim Wise, but most nevertheless choose Americanism over white identity and interests.

Some readers may wonder why American exceptionalism has become a recent hobby horse of mine. Put simply, I think that the quixotic ideals spawned by the American experiment account for many – if not most – of white America’s pathologies often bemoaned by alt righters and white nationalists. Whether it’s galvanizing whites into supporting wasteful wars in the Middle East, promoting cannibalistic Libertarian economics, demonizing white identity, or exhorting whites to accept open borders, American exceptionalist beliefs are always employed in order to sabotage the collective interests of whites. Although pusillanimous or treacherous white elites bear much of the blame for America’s current weakness, they would never have been able to inflict so much damage without this ideological ammunition.

And if you think I’m wrong, allow me to propose a hypothesis. Imagine that native elites in Asia have been replaced by white American elites, and that these white outsiders have so far managed to fit in. Let’s also imagine that these white elites suddenly promulgate radical beliefs such as multiculturalism, open borders, and the idea of a “proposition nation.” Do you think for a second that the Asian masses would countenance such bizarre platforms? Of course not, because their cultures are more nationalistic, tribal, and collectivist. Such lofty rhetoric would not have the same impact on them.

Ultimately, until the whites who believe themselves to be American begin to embrace a healthy nationalism and collectivism, they will continue to be weakened in the name of ideals – sensible during a time when whites were the vast majority of the country – pioneered by their ancestors. If current trends continue unabated, then the future America will be anything but exceptional.

Posted in Blacks, Cultural Marxism, Race, Racism, Subversion, White nationalism | Tagged , , | 53 Comments

“Diversity” is Simply Code for “Non-white”

When the left touts the benefits of diversity, they’re really telling white people to get lost. The latest example is this wimpy white woman’s screed about her white neighbors’ reluctance to send their kids to a black school, which tells us all we need to know about the left’s conception of “diversity.” I just find it amusing that while leftists frequently accuse the right of using racist “dog whistles” and other coded language, they do the same thing when they employ the word “diversity.” This passage says it all:

When I am able to move past the anger, the frustration that people are talking about a school they know nothing about, I listen to what they say. Behind all the test score talk, the opportunity mumbo jumbo that people lead with, I feel like what is actually being said, and what is never being said is this: That school is too black. The people who are moving into my neighborhood want their children to have a diverse upbringing, but not too diverse. They still want a white school, just with other non-white children also participating.

What does she mean by “not too diverse?” Is she trying to claim that in order to enjoy a truly diverse education, her white neighbors must subject their kids to an overwhelmingly black classroom? How is a predominantly black environment in a nation where blacks are around 13% of the population “diverse?”

She also asserts that there’s something wrong with whites wanting to experience diversity on their own terms, and that they must become uncomfortable as a minority in order to enjoy diversity’s enriching qualities. Whites in today’s loony multicultural climate are never permitted to be the majority in any circumstance. I’m sure in her book, a school that’s 65% white, 13% black, 15% Latino, and 6% Asian – truly representative of the nation’s demographics – is less diverse than a school that’s 90% black.

However, even when whites have been relegated to minority status, their presence is still considered insufferable. Just check out this old editorial from my alma mater, UC Irvine, where the castrated cracker decries racism and even singles out UCI for its lack of diversity. This one sentence is most telling:

“We ought to note in the first place that, despite our large Asian-American population, we are not a “diverse” campus in the least.”

That’s right, even though Asians are over 50% of UCI’s student body – which makes them grossly overrepresented – and whites are a minority, the campus is still insufficiently diverse. One might logically conclude that, in order to increase diversity, one should increase the number of non-Asians relative to Asians. But no, in the author’s mind, UCI’s population is insufficiently diverse in spite of its enormous Asian population; it’s the presence of white people that’s hindering a multicultural utopia. His solution is for the already embattled white students to bear the costs of diversity and make room for Latinos and blacks.

So there you have it: diversity simply means fewer white people and more colored people. What amazes me is that so many credulous white people continue to be cozened by that word, unable to recognize that “diversity” is a celebration of their displacement. That’s why our task is to educate whites about the true nature of “diversity,” and thus enable them to instantly rebuke this leftist dog whistle.

Posted in Cultural Marxism, Race, Racism, Subversion, Wimpy Whites | Tagged , , , | 9 Comments

The Importance of Historical and Global Awareness: My Brief Thoughts on 1984

Inspired by Dota’s old post on 1984, I recently finished reading George Orwell’s dystopian novel. This won’t be an extensive review, as he already covered the book’s most pertinent points; I will likewise presume that readers are already familiar with the main plot, so I won’t provide much context.

(in other words, Spoiler Alert!)

While Dota highlighted several relevant themes from the book, one particular chapter deeply resonated with me. During the part where Winston Smith was reading a chapter of “the book” written by dissident rebel Emmanuel Goldstein (or O’Brien, depending on your point of view), a brief passage warrants quotation (emphasis mine):

“The alteration of the past is necessary for two reasons, one of which is subsidiary and, so to speak, precautionary. The subsidiary reason is that the Party member, like the proletarian, tolerates present-day conditions partly because he has no standards of comparison. He must be cut off from the past, just as he must be cut off from foreign countries, because it is necessary for him to believe that he is better off than his ancestors and that the average level of material comfort is constantly rising.”

That got me thinking about why modern white Americans tolerate so much rotten behavior from their depraved overlords. After reading 1984, I’ve come to conclude that many whites simply don’t have any standards of comparison; at best, their understanding of the non-American world is very shallow and clouded by blind American exceptionalism. This is what allows them to harbor so many delusions.

One could even make the case that most white Americans have mastered the art of “doublethink.” Despite proclaiming themselves to be “free” and “independent,” the truth belies such chest-thumping. Americans toil at jobs they hate, where they work longer hours and enjoy fewer days of vacation than citizens in every other developed country; and for all their efforts, most live paycheck-to-paycheck. While fancying themselves rugged individualists, countless Americans binge on credit and resign themselves to a quagmire of debt just to purchase the same consumer goods as everyone else. Those who produce said consumer goods – our current corporate oligarchs – frequently extol the virtues of hard work and competition. Never mind the countless government subsidies that they happily accept or even lobby for; never mind the frequent formation of monopolies in order to stifle competition.

I suspect that such contradictions and cognitive dissonance are the real culprits behind white America’s apathy. Many white Americans simply don’t know that there are alternatives to the current malaise of the US. They don’t recognize that countries such as Germany – its current lunacy notwithstanding – can enjoy the fruits of high productivity and competitiveness while not treating their workers like serfs. Deprived of such vital global knowledge, many Americans simply resign themselves to our current Gilded Age – all while putting on a big fake smile.

On a more cultural level, white Americans probably endorse (or at least accept) multiculturalism because they don’t recognize that neo-nazi extremism or bleeding heart humanism aren’t the only options. They aren’t cognizant of the kind of healthy nationalism that’s practiced by nations such as Japan. Whites recoil from nationalistic sentiments because they’re unaware that most groups around the world put self-interest first, and that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I’m certainly not suggesting that our elites conspire to keep Americans ignorant about the world; imperial hubris probably has more to do with America’s collective blindness. However, I also don’t think it’s entirely coincidental that Americans are so globally and historically illiterate. After all, people who are blind to the existence of greener grass are more inclined to put up with their decaying brown lawns.

In conclusion, studying history and global events is vital because it allows us to resist plutocratic, anti-white American propaganda. At least for me personally, my knowledge of world history and current events has strengthened my alt right convictions. I now know that far from being extreme, my views are more sane than those espoused by mainstream Americans. I also know that nothing about the American experiment is natural or inevitable; with time and persistence, it can be challenged.

Therefore, I exhort you to defy our current Inner Party by becoming a true citizen of the world.

Posted in Asia, conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Economics, History, Race, Subversion, Tribalism, White nationalism, Wimpy Whites | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments