Facing dire persecution back home, 110 refugees from China have now made a home for themselves in Canada. The newcomers to Canada have received a warm welcome from Canadians everywhere who have once again demonstrated their warm generosity towards victims of foreign persecution.
Read the story here.
So, I know that I’m rather late on this, but click here to listen to my latest appearance on Robert Stark’s radio program. A large amount of the conversation – which was originally around two hours, and understandably edited/condensed – was out of my purview, but there were some solid insights nonetheless.
Let me know your thoughts in the comments.
Update: So, it turns out that Robert Stark is actually going to upload the rest of the conversation at a later date. Stay tuned.
A recent hate crime incident has been making its rounds on the internet and has provoked an uproar from armchair Samaritans lamenting the end of civilization. An Egyptian born Muslim woman was verbally and physically accosted on the NYC subway by three drunk men. They continued pestering her despite her calls to desist.
Yasmin Seweid, 18, was still shaken by the traumatic train ride as she spoke with CBS2’s Tracee Carrasco…Seweid said no one stopped the men, not even when they tried to tear off her hijab.
She reported the incident to the police and then dutifully took to social media to air her distress. After all, distress lacks legitimacy unless it’s broadcasted to the world via social media. In one of her statements to the press she lamented that while she identifies as a proud American she is dismayed that others don’t recognize her American-ness.
I suppose it is futile to explain to such people that humans are not culturally interchangeable. That no matter how hard she tries, she will never be as American as John Smith; no more than the latter could be Egyptian even if he were born and raised in Egypt. It would be equally futile to point out that the real villains are not the natives who are inundated with a legion of culturally alien immigrants, but the liberals who import them in bulk. For if whites are intrinsically rotten, then why subject hapless immigrants to the innate perfidy of their hosts? Furthermore, if these characteristics are indeed innate (as leftists love to preach) then isn’t it is a fool’s errand to try and reform whites by ridding them of their ‘racist’ ways?
There are, however, two silver linings – one for us and the other for Ms Seaweed. I was relieved when I learned that nobody interfered in her defense. Men that interfere to protect women in public generally take on a massive and unnecessary risk; and it usually doesn’t end well for them. As contemptible as obsequious internet white knights truly are, white knighting in real life will probably get one killed. Also see here and here. Rescuing women is best left for law enforcement.
It is heartening to see men finally put their own interests before those of the opposite sex; especially since the latter have been doing just that for the past 5 decades. Women seem genetically incapable of appreciating men’s sacrifices and so men must refrain from protecting women unless they happen to be a close friend or blood relative. Men must collectively communicate to women in no uncertain terms that male protection and provisioning are a part and parcel of patriarchy. That women shouldn’t expect men to make such sacrifices while living in a feminist paradise.
Having said all of this, recall that earlier this year a group of passengers rescued two Muslim women from being accosted on the subway. The difference between the two incidents is obvious – in the latter the ‘assailant’ was working alone. Perhaps liberal paladins only engage the forces of darkness when they outnumber them 5 to 1. As for the unlucky Ms Seaweed, she can draw solace from knowing that she has been formally added to the ever growing pantheon of victims – to be revered and worshiped alongside other victims in accordance with the doctrines of the Liberal religion.
The Occidental Observer has put together a hilarious set of paranoid quotes emanating from establishment mouthpieces that decry the rise of a fascist populist. Some of the usual suspects are experiencing visions of 1938 again. Many ordinary Americans were so terrified when Trump was leading that the probability of a mass exodus to Canada seemed quite real:
Maybe some Americans were serious when they threatened they would move to Canada if Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump became successful in his often polarizing campaign for the White House.
Canada’s main immigration website appeared to suffer repeated outages on Tuesday night as Trump took the lead in several major states and his prospects for winning the U.S. presidency turned markedly higher.
Is all this dread really justified? If there is one thing that Bay Area Guy and myself have consistently noted on this website it is that Americans are just too cut off from the rest of the world. The rise of nationalist leaders around the world is now a fairly common occurrence – from Netanyahu in Israel to Modi in India and Abe in Japan. The rise of Trump is merely another confirmation of an already well established global trend.
A global perspective can help abate paranoia and yield much needed clarity to a public that is prone to hysteria. Trump seems like a civil rights activist when compared to the lot mentioned above. Let’s examine Netanyahu and Modi.
Netanyahu is best known his hatred for Arabs. A charming quote from an unabashed fascist:
“At the end, in the State of Israel, as I see it, there will be a fence that spans it all,” said Netanyahu. “I’ll be told, ‘this is what you want, to protect the villa?’ The answer is yes. Will we surround all of the State of Israel with fences and barriers? The answer is yes. In the area that we live in, we must defend ourselves against the wild beasts.”
read more:
Netanyahu has always been an unapologetic fascist and has not only directed his vitriol against the Palestinians, but also against Israeli Arabs. As the linked article shows, his deeply racist remarks were quite well received by Israeli jews who, as I recall, were not harangued in the same way as whites are in the US. Netanyahu has made it clear that he won’t dismantle illegal Jewish settlements, will insist on Jerusalem being the Israeli capital, and refuses the Palestinian right of return. Donald Trump, on the other hand, is willing to pursue the path of diplomacy.
India’s most popular fascist who is wildly popular amoung Hindus in particular. Modi is paranoid about tarnishing his public image and thus it is nearly impossible to find the sort of amusing banter that is typical of Netanyahu above. Nevertheless, his actions seldom disappoint his constituents. He is famous for playing the fiddle as Hindutva rioters slaughtered around 2000 muslims in Gujarat (2002) in response to the killing of Hindu activists (and civilians) on a train by a muslim mob earlier on.
Modi, like his Israeli counterpart, despises the muslim population inside his borders and on the other side of them. Far from assisting the victims in their quest for justice, Modi has been punishing those who stand with them – and the Hindu majority loves him for it.
To the best of my knowledge, Trump hasn’t presided over any race riots and/or ethnic pogroms. He hasn’t called blacks ‘wild beasts’ and demanded their segregation from society. His stance on foreign policy borders on isolationism and scaling down US military involvement around the world. He seeks diplomacy instead of armed conflict. His focus is on domestic employment and not tanks. This is in stark contrast to Abe’s intent to beef up Japan’s military. A dispassionate reading of his proposed policies would suggest that Trump barely registers as a fascist when observed from a global standpoint. He’s a nationalist perhaps, but he’s far from being the fascist the media has made him out to be.
Yesterday, I joined Robert Stark, Rabbit, Alex von Goldstein, and Ryan Englund to discuss the ramifications of Donald Trump’s wild and (mostly) unpredictable victory. Listen here. As always, it’s a great honor and privilege to appear on Robert Stark’s program, and the discussion certainly didn’t disappoint. Enjoy!
I figured I would be remiss if I didn’t write about tonight’s election, so here goes. I’ll just say that I was a bit surprised. As longtime readers are aware, I’m on record confidently saying that Donald Trump would not win. Turns out I was badly wrong, and I definitely did not see him winning by a significant margin (when it comes to the electoral vote, that is). This just goes to show that despite inhabiting the more fringe corners of the internet, I – a Bay Area resident – am badly out of touch with the rest of the country. While I have written extensively about the backlash against neoliberal, multicultural globalism, I failed to appreciate the extent of such rage. Definitely something to keep in mind for the future.
Speaking of out of touch, this election should be a huge wake-up call for liberals. At the end of the day, all of their snarky, anti-white male social justice rhetoric, John Oliver takedowns, and arrogant wonkishness didn’t do them any damn good; neither did all of their detailed polls and data. Remind me to never listen to any predictions emanating from the mainstream liberal media. As this clip from The Newsroom puts it (skip to 1:58), if liberals were so clever, they wouldn’t lose like they lost this election.
But of course, being insufferably smug, liberals will probably not heed the lessons of tonight. Like Paul Krugman, they’ll blame Jill Stein, unenlightened rednecks, and God knows what else; everything and everyone except their own crappy candidate and campaign; or the fact that they offer absolutely nothing to pissed off white people in Middle America.
Since we’re talking about white people, white nationalists and alt righters are undoubtedly celebrating (don’t even need to provide a link for that). Unlike them, however, I’m more apprehensive than anything else. I’ve never been a Trump enthusiast, and I expect that as a billionaire real estate tycoon, Trump won’t fundamentally alter our current political economy. I feel like he ultimately cares more about Trump than regular working white people. I’m unsure if he’ll actually restructure trade deals, make American allies pay their fair share, or bring back decent jobs.
Nevertheless, his victory was yet another blow to the neoliberal, globalist paradigm. I only hope that he does a decent job as president. The last thing I want is for him to screw up and discredit populism, which will allow our insufferable liberal elites to go back to business as usual.
Ultimately, we’ll just have to wait and see how this plays out. All I’ll say for now is that 2016 has indeed been a very unpredictable year. One way or another, things are going to get very interesting. Stay sharp.
Even as the plight of Syrians continues to make headlines, Yemenis being decimated by Saudi Arabia arouse no sympathy. Well, I shouldn’t say no sympathy. Just recently, liberal interventionist Samantha Power decried Saudi depredations. How noble!
Unfortunately, there’s one little problem: America is the chief enabler of the onslaught, which is why most of the world thinks Power is full of shit; they recognize that American foreign policy belies her moral rhetoric. Of course, it’s always been blindingly obvious that American elites are lying when they wax eloquent about “human rights” and “democracy.” Instead, imperial interests inform their decisions. Why else would they make such cozy deals with the devil Saudi Arabia (or for that matter, the various other dictatorships they’ve propped up)? Doesn’t take a rocket science to answer that one.
It also doesn’t take great insight to see that the American Empire continues to decline by the day. Whether it’s the Philippines and other Southeast Asian countries pivoting to China (say what you will about the Chinese, but they at least don’t shed crocodile tears over human rights) or the U.S. losing influence to Russia in the Middle East, it’s abundantly clear the Uncle Sam doesn’t command the same fear or respect as before. This amounts to a double whammy for American neocons and other chickenhawks – including the esteemed Hillary Clinton – who are now recklessly promoting anti-Russian hostility. Needless to say, these hawks are nuts. Fortunately, such lunacy hasn’t gone unnoticed.
Similar to immigration, “free” trade, and other globalist sacred cows, growing numbers of people – here or worldwide – are rejecting our elites’ insatiable thirst for wasteful wars of aggression. Consider it yet another blow to the suicidal Invade the World/Invite the World paradigm. That’s why, as I’ve said before, regardless of how the Hillary vs Trump slugfest concludes, I am thrilled with how 2016 has played out. The current globalist, donor class platform increasingly lacks legitimacy, and fewer people will be fooled when the 1% tries to resume business as usual.
Instead, they will recognize that our decadent empire, like virtually every other diseased American institution, has no clothes.
In honor of the second anniversary of my post “The True Global Minority,” I have decided to take a break from political economy and go back to writing about race and immigration. The catalyst for this post was Steve Sailer over at The Unz Review, who linked to an article about a “crisis of white identity.” The author, former Voxplainer and Good White Person Amanda Taub, thinks that today’s white people – feeling threatened by demographic and cultural changes – are suffering from too much aggrieved entitlement. Her solution? Whites must learn to “accept” their place in today’s new, multicultural utopias.
Putting aside the usual nonsense about immigrants being a necessity, the article does make a good insight that white resentment is most acute in places that have experienced rapid demographic changes. Taub writes:
Social scientists, after crunching data from both sides of the Atlantic, have discovered something surprising: It’s not the amount of racial or ethnic diversity in a community that predicts white resentment and support of anti-immigrant policies, but the pace of change.
Denmark, for instance, is 88 percent white Danish today — hardly a majority in jeopardy. But a generation ago, in 1980, it was 97 percent white. The anti-immigrant Danish People’s Party is now the second-largest party in the Danish Parliament. In Germany, where the foreign-born population shot up by approximately 75 percent between 2011 and 2015, the anti-immigrant, populist Alternative for Germany party is now drawing record support.
Britain saw a 66 percent increase in its foreign-born population between 2004 and 2014. Voters who chose “leave” in the recent referendum overwhelmingly cited immigration as their main concern.
Professor Kaufmann and a colleague, Gareth Harris, found that white Britons who lived in areas that are rapidly diversifying became more likely to vote for the right-wing British National Party. Daniel Hopkins, a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, found a similar pattern of ethnic change leading to anti-immigrant politics in the United States.
Immigrant populations in Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee have more than tripled since 1990, noted Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, in an analysis for Vox. Anxiety over those changes may explain why the Republican Party became so much more focused on limiting immigration over that period — and why white voters in those states overwhelmingly support Mr. Trump.
The difference between me and a smug white liberal is that I’m not shocked or appalled in the slightest. If anything, I’m amazed at how tolerant and restrained white people have been throughout all of this – and that the backlash didn’t emerge sooner. After all, we know how every non-white majority group around the world would react if their majority status was imperiled.
Now that the backlash against neoliberal multiculturalism is in full throttle, white elites – who want to preserve the status quo that’s made them so comfortable – are panicking. Unfortunately, since they’re unable or unwilling to give white peons a stake in the current system, their presstitutes such as Amanda Taub can only lecture whites about the need to adjust their attitudes (ie. become deracinated minorities).
But lecture as they may, they cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Like it or not, white identity politics is here to stay. How this “crisis” is resolved will determine whether or not the West survives.
Check out my latest interview on The Stark Truth, where I spoke with Robert Stark, Rabbit, and Alex von Goldstein; basically the first time with the entire crew! We mainly discussed the FIRE economy, especially real estate and the Bay Area’s housing quagmire. As usual, it was a great discussion, and I definitely recommend listening – especially if you’re primarily interested in economics.
Thanks to Politico, I read an interesting article by economist George J. Borjas that states the blindingly obvious truth about immigration: it has adverse effects on many peoples’ economic prospects. Unfortunately, many Americans haven’t gotten the memo, at least if this column is any indication. Many still have a hard time coming to grips with this radical notion that more workers means lower wages. For an anti-intellectual people who pride themselves on simple common sense, Americans jettison this common sense when it comes to immigration.
Putting that aside, what makes this article different from most other critiques of immigration is how Borjas clearly highlights the various winners and losers of lax immigration controls. As he notes, immigrants themselves clearly benefit from moving to more affluent Western countries. More importantly, however, it’s the employers of immigrants who reap the greatest rewards. In fact, Borjas argues that mass immigration amounts to an upward redistribution of wealth from employees to their bosses (emphasis mine):
“Somebody’s lower wage is always somebody else’s higher profit. In this case, immigration redistributes wealth from those who compete with immigrants to those who use immigrants—from the employee to the employer. And the additional profits are so large that the economic pie accruing to all natives actually grows. I estimate the current ‘immigration surplus’—the net increase in the total wealth of the native population—to be about $50 billion annually. But behind that calculation is a much larger shift from one group of Americans to another: The total wealth redistribution from the native losers to the native winners is enormous, roughly a half-trillion dollars a year.”
In many ways, brown immigrants are a godsend for the native winners. Not only can these winners bring in Pedro and Panjeet to drive down labor costs and increase their profits, they can even get a moral stamp of approval from liberals – who see non-Muslim brown people as above reproach – for their efforts. The native losers, by contrast, are not fortunate enough to have economic and cultural elites champion their cause.
This clash between immigration’s winners and losers demonstrates that there are no real “right” or “wrong” stances on the matter. Like so many other contentious issues, the immigration controversy reflects incompatible interests; and we all know whose interests are currently prevailing. If we started thinking about immigration from this perspective, it would cut through a lot of moralistic rhetoric and get to the heart of the matter.
Such a perspective would also help pro-white types refrain from indulging in blatant bigotry and unfairly demonizing immigrants. Based on personal experiences, most immigrants are decent people, and one can’t blame them for wanting to better their lives by moving to rich countries. They’re just doing what’s in their best interests. However, their interests are not compatible with my interest in ensuring that whites remain a majority, or at least a plurality (I’m somewhat resigned to whites becoming a minority at this point). Their aspirations are also not compatible with my desire to limit the labor pool and ensure better wages for American-born workers.
At the end of the day, we live in a ruthless, neoliberal society with increasingly dwindling opportunities; the last thing we need is yet more people putting a strain on scarce resources. But again, we should not despise newcomers. Instead, let’s “punch up” at the native winners who import immigrants for their own personal enrichment. From a practical and moral standpoint, that’s the best way to resolve our immigration quagmire.
 | Christopher on A refugee program I can get… |
 | Beatrix on A Hate Crime With a Silver… |
 | max on Individualism is a strength, n… |
 | Dutchman on A Hate Crime With a Silver… |
| Christopher on A Hate Crime With a Silver… |
 | Mawlana87 on A Hate Crime With a Silver… |
 | Dota on A Hate Crime With a Silver… |
| Mawlana87 on A Hate Crime With a Silver… |
 | Bay Area Guy on Just How Fascist Is Donald… |
| Beatrix on Just How Fascist Is Donald… |
| Bay Area Guy on Just How Fascist Is Donald… |
 | Gay State Girl on Just How Fascist Is Donald… |
| Bay Area Guy on Just How Fascist Is Donald… |
| AltLeft Post-Electio… on Election Musings | |
| Gay State Girl on Just How Fascist Is Donald… |
