Bay Area Guy #racist occidentinvicta.com

For years, I have extensively discussed race, diversity, and immigration. However, this is my first time writing about whites in South Africa (or any part of Africa), who are increasingly beleaguered. On account of government proposals to confiscate white-owned land and redistribute the seized land to black South Africans, various white nationalists have rallied behind their white African brothers. Many even assert that white South Africans face an impending genocide.

To be blunt, while I remain a reasonably tribal white person who’s concerned about my people, I don’t really care too much about white South Africans. For starters, I’m primarily focused on the well-being of white people in North America (where I reside) and Europe (my ancestral homelands). Also, given what I’ve written about immigration, landlordism, and economic rent, it’s hard to feel an abundance of sympathy for Afrikaners. While I can relate to white South Africans under siege, I also empathize with blacks who claim that whites are living off of ill-gotten land rent.

Of course, many would point out that white Americans also settled and conquered their way to prosperity. Afrikaners might even claim that the only difference between them and white Americans is that the former didn’t exterminate or ethnically cleanse the native populations, which is why they remain a minority. So who are we to judge?

Just to clarify, I’m not judging; I’m only being consistent. If we refuse to shed tears over the struggles of non-whites who choose to reside in white countries, then we can’t hypocritically champion white South Africans who carved out territory in black Africa. Likewise, if whites in the US, Canada, and Australia foolishly allow themselves to become politically powerless and hated minorities, then they won’t deserve much sympathy either. The world is a mean and tribal place, and if groups relinquish power in lands they previously settled and conquered, nobody will save them from themselves.

Fortunately, I think there’s a pragmatic and humane solution that could benefit everyone. If white South Africans’ situation is indeed as dire as white nationalists contend, then they might be rendered refugees. In that case, they should flee to their ancestral homelands in Europe, or perhaps other majority white countries These nations would receive a demographic boost, along with relatively educated and skilled workers. In turn, African refugees who’ve flocked to Europe can take the Afrikaners’ place down south. Since conventional wisdom dictates that immigration is an unalloyed good, South Africa would benefit from more workers and cultural enrichment – along with ridding themselves of the white problem. Never mind that there’s already been immigration from Zimbabwe and other African countries, and that this influx has engendered friction and violence. Black South Africans just need to appreciate diversity’s wonders!

Okay, sarcasm aside, I recognize that this is an unrealistic scenario. I also realize that the process would be painful and messy. Nevertheless, should the day come when white South Africans are compelled to flee, this proposal will remain on the table.

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

Bay Area Guy’s last post raised several interesting points on the pernicious effects of globalisation and I thought I’d add a few more. Despite flowery rhetoric about tolerance and global prosperity, globalization’s end game is essentially globalism, the unhindered movement of capital and labour across the world. This dystopic vision necessitates the dissolving of national borders which in turn requires the destruction of nationalism – this would begin logically with the demolition of the family unit.

We’ve already witnessed an unprecedented propensity to outsource and that propensity seems to be intensifying with the continued evolution of technology. Online platforms like Upwork have made it easy to outsource work to the lowest bidders who typically reside in the third world. I’ve pointed out before that our services based economies require an ever expanding market to sustain them. During the days of old school colonialism where economies were still manufacturing based, western powers conquered foreign countries and turned them into dumping grounds for their economic surplus (captive markets).

Since Western nations manufacture virtually nothing today and have instead foolishly reconfigured their economies along a services based model, they’ve run into a quagmire of declining consumption. Since one cannot export a service (barring some exceptions) it stands to reason that the old school colonialism paradigm no longer suffices. The only way to alleviate the problem of declining consumption is to therefore import consumers within a nation’s borders. Third world immigrants are consumers/employees first and citizens last. The only way to naturalize cultural aliens within ones borders is to do away with the host culture altogether. Thus globalism is the very antithesis of nationalism.

‘People of color’

The term ‘people of color’ succinctly encapsulates the globalist mindset – allotting the masses hollow and artificially constructed identities devoid of any meaning grounded in historical context. It cannot be overstated that this term is essentially a Marxist one. Non-whites certainly do not see themselves as belonging to a monolithic class with common goals and overlapping interests. Persians, Indians, and east Asians have traditionally defined their identities on their own cultural terms as opposed to some hollow alliance in opposition to whitey. ‘People of color’ only makes sense when one views this class as inherently opposed to the class of whites. Only in Marxism do we see artificially created classes pitted against other equally artificially created classes.

In reality, most non whites in North America have extremely weak cultural as well as religious identities. Identities grow organically in their indigenous domains. Divorce the former from the latter and the former is forever compromised. Most second and third generation Asian Americans (and Canadians) have little idea of their cultural heritage. They be able to study their civilisations via textbooks but that is not the same as living the culture. A third generation American Chinese is practically a different species from his counterpart in mainland China. Despite this reality, a North American Chinese person intuitively recognises his gap from the mainstream (ie white) and thus joins the people of colour coalition.

This is primarily why I shake my head in amazement when people think that Islam will take over the west. Such an undertaking would require an enormous act of will and cultural power that North Americans Muslims clearly lack. Muslims have not even been able to implement Sharia law in Pakistan where they are 97% of the population. They double down on their religion because their ethnic identities have become diluted. This is the true reason why our elites don’t fear Islam – they realise that Muslims too can be effortlessly herded into the ever burgeoning POC category alongside Asians and South Americans. While leftists fawn over POC, the category exists for the sole purpose of diluting their identities and hence weaponizing them against whites.

Bay Area Guy #fundie occidentinvicta.com

For me personally, I find American Islamophobia to be utterly moronic. I understand xenophobic sentiment, and I also understand and appreciate how prejudice and hostility towards different groups can arise. However, there is usually an actual reason behind such animus. Jews inspire resentment on account of their disproportionate wealth and power, in addition to drawing the ire of white nationalists over the role they’ve played in “diversifying” the West. Latinos arouse anxiety among many white nationalists and conservatives due to their massive influx, coupled with high birthrates. They recognize that this Latino influx will eventually result in their demographic displacement. Finally, the favorite target of white nationalist venom, blacks, incur their wrath on account of their disproportionately high crime rates, as well as the politics of racial grievance espoused by talking heads of the black community.

You can agree or disagree with the white nationalist’s reasons for disliking the above groups, but there is at least a reason. Islamophobia is fatuous precisely because there is no legitimate reason to hate Muslims in the United States. Muslims are small in number and wield no political or economic power. Also, Muslim Americans tend to be highly educated and productive members of society, and thus do not leech off of welfare like their counterparts in Europe. In short, Muslims are not significant enough to pose any dire threat to white America. So why do they provoke so much vitriol?

In his book, The Transparent Cabal, Stephen Sniegoski hints at the answer. Quoting Paul Craig Roberts, he points out that white American rage against Muslims is mostly displaced rage. During the 90s, white Americans harbored much anger and resentment over multiculturalism, affirmative action, immigration, political correctness, culture wars, and a general feeling of displacement. However, due to political correctness, whites could not openly express such antipathy towards the above problems. However, once 9/11 came along and Muslims became an acceptable whipping boy, white Americans could finally vent their rage.

Islamophobia in many ways is a form of cowardice. Rather than confronting the legitimate threats to their heritage and civilization, white conservatives instead expend a tremendous amount of energy attacking a powerless minority. If only they directed a fraction of the venom they reserve for Muslims towards organized Jewry or open borders enthusiasts, then perhaps they might even take a small step towards reversing these trends. Speaking of organized Jewry…Another reason why I oppose Islamophobia is because certain segments of the organized Jewish community, particularly the neocons, employ Islamohpobia as a means of promoting their agenda. Their odious Christian Zionist lackeys have also hopped on the bandwagon.

Just to be clear, I am not singing the praises of Muslims, nor do I think that Western countries are enriched by their presence. I oppose the presence of large numbers of Muslims in the West, just as I would for any other non-white outsider group. However, it’s this obsessive singling out of Muslims that demonstrates problems within the white conservative movement. In fact, a good litmus test for whether or not a white conservative is genuinely fighting for his heritage is to see where he stands on the Muslim issue. If he bashes Muslims, but ignores the various other threats confronting Western civilization, then you’ll know that he’s more concerned with spewing empty rhetoric than preserving his culture.

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

I think the anonymous conservative provides us with a clue as to why feminism can’t succeed in the third world. Feminism has infested the West because western societies are abundant in resources and have strong states to allocate those resources to those that feel entitled to them for taking the trouble of being born with a vagina.

As I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions, feminism has merely shifted women’s need to be provided for away from the family and onto the state. The nanny state provides women with resources that enable them to rise in society without merit. Some of these resources are (but not limited to): affirmative action, preferential treatment in education (Universities), and various non profit initiatives like “Women Entrepreneurs of…(whatever).

Feminism fails in the third world precisely because third world nations are lacking in resources and effective governments.

In India for example, the state lacks the resources to arrest and prosecute rapists, let alone spare any officers to respond to domestic disturbance calls made by women who wish to eject their husbands from their property following a minor domestic spat. For rural women, divorce is an omen of doom as the state has no means of enforcing alimony and child support on non compliant husbands. The infamous Shah Bano case illustrates a scenario where an effete state backed down under societal pressure. Many third world nations lack the resources to protect their women from physical harm, let alone consider and debate the gender bending lunacy of Western gender feminism.

Western feminists tend to gloat female encroachment into men’s space and often bemoan any instance where female entry into male domains is barred. Yet this is precisely the case in India where women are still underrepresented in elite schools like the Indian Institute of technology (IIT). In the absence of abundant resources, women will generally fail to break through the glass ceiling. Naturally, this doesn’t apply to ALL women as some are exceptional but we are discussing general principles here.

Schopenhauer referred to female Independence as an “unnatural state” and perhaps now we may begin to appreciate why. In our species, women were never meant to be the independent sex. Note that by “independent” I am not referring to a woman’s ability to work and earn a living outside the home, but rather, the erroneous feminist belief that women MUST pursue work outside the home to truly self actualize. Female independence comes at a cost which must ultimately be borne by society. When women outsource motherhood to daycares while they chase their corporate fantasies, their offspring develop lower IQs and emotional stability as demonstrated by studies. The cost of lower IQ citizens is borne by society. Similarly, children raised in single mother households are statistically more likely to take to crime than those raised in traditional households. Who bears the cost for bad decisions made by “strong and independent” single moms? Society does.

The feminist enterprise has a massive financial upkeep that third world nations are clearly unable to bear. If feminist “equality” were truly natural to our species there would be no need for an upkeep. Some would blame entrenched patriarchy and culture but lets not forget that these are shaped by environment. When resources grow scarce, women lose their petulant rebelliousness and support patriarchy, not out of selfless love for men, but out of self interest as the mechanism of patriarchy deems them a protected class entitled to sustenance and protection.

During the roaring 1920s, the thriving Flapper subculture of women flouted societal conventions pertaining to modesty and propriety as they pursued a lifestyle of hedonism. There is a great volume of online feminist literature that glorifies these rebellious heroines as models to be emulated but little is said about their downfall. How did the Flapper subculture fall? It declined with the onset of the Great Depression when resources became scarce and female survival instincts jettisoned “independence” in favour of patriarchy’s protective embrace.

Dota #racist occidentinvicta.com

"All groups are capable of both hospitality and savagery if the conditions are right. I think Dota is really overgeneralizing. There are many parts of the third world where one will be treated with the utmost hospitality and some will will give you the shirt off their back."

I never said that non-whites were completely devoid of altruistic instincts. I have seen individual acts of kindness in South and South East Asia, and even the Middle East. The point I was trying to make is that Western society is humane. The compassion one encounters in the West is collectively organized. You won’t see things like homeless shelters and soup kitchens in non western countries. You’ll never see an Indian or Chinese equivalent of the YMCA and other organizations that exist solely to improve quality of life. This is insaniyat on a scale that is unimaginable in the non-western world.

The second point I wish to make is that while while many non-westerners are kind and hospitable to tourists, how hospitable would they be if those tourists remained and became citizens? I’ve read numerous accounts by Black tourists who have spoken glowingly about Korean courtesy. How courteous would these Koreans be if blacks were 20% of their population? How would they react when Blacks made a move on their women?

Bay Area Guy is essentially correct when he says that kindness to tourists comes easily since they are merely passing through. The US and Canada allow non-whites to settle in their nations and even grant them access to their highest institutions. Yet despite these gestures, they get nothing but grievance mongering and endless whining from minorities.

Bay Area Guy #fundie occidentinvicta.com

Inspired by recent conversations with Dota, I have decided to write a post related to the recent diplomatic fallout between the United States and India. I’m not going to bore you with the various details about the crisis (you can read about it here), but the childish behavior of India paints quite a picture of the fundamental chasm between Western and Asian values. Put simply, whites place a large emphasis on ethics and principles, whereas “saving face” and status are the primary concerns of Asians. Well, that and rice. Lame jokes aside, a look at the historical record and current events illustrates the West’s unique commitment to redressing wrongs.

Now, before I get bombarded with criticism, I will be the first to acknowledge that many white people and white imperial powers have committed terrible crimes. I won’t list any of the crimes in question, since certain multiculturalists enthusiastically do that job for me. However, as Dota once pointed out, which group is truly pure? Which group that isn’t reclusive or isolated from civilization can honestly say that they have no skeletons in their closet? Since all peoples have committed crimes, the best way to measure a people’s morality is their varying levels of contrition.

To illustrate these varying levels of contrition, I present to you the tale of two war criminals, Germany and Japan. Both committed horrific crimes during World War II and both have since become thriving and prosperous societies. Japan even flourished as the world’s second largest economy prior to being eclipsed by China a few years ago. I mention Japan’s prosperity to ward off any excuses related to poverty or underdevelopment.

It is no secret that Germany has been remarkably sensitive, almost to the point of obsequiousness, regarding the legacy of the Nazi holocaust. The most notable example of this sensitivity was West German chancellor Willy Brandt kneeling in front of a monument to the Warsaw ghetto uprising. Nor is such sensitivity confined to politicians, with numerous ordinary Germans expressing genuine remorse for their country’s actions. Denying the holocaust is a crime, with punishments ranging from fines to five years imprisonment.

How has similarly prosperous and democratic Japan addressed its own World War II legacy? In a nutshell, terribly. While Japan has at times apologized for its crimes, mainly during the 90s, most Japanese do not even believe that their ancestors did anything wrong. You don’t need to take my word for it. One only has to observe the blatantly disrespectful antics of Shinzo Abe, Toru Hashimoto, and various other Japanese public figures. Can one even imagine prominent German politicians such as Angela Merkel denying the Nazi holocaust or saying that it was simply the result of the tragedy of war? To ask the question is to answer it. But we shouldn’t be too harsh on Japan’s politicians, particularly Hashimoto. After all, he did say that “kind words” should be offered to the suffering comfort women. Let’s see, who else has employed the tactic of shedding crocodile tears while simultaneously excusing terrible crimes? Hey, reminds me of the “shoot and cry” schtick of so-called “liberal” Zionists. Not content to allow Asians to maintain a monopoly on saving face, Middle Easterners such as Turks have also played the thrilling game of blatant history denial.

With all of that in mind, India’s behavior is simply another example of the Eastern obsession with honor and saving face rearing its head. Even though Devyani Khobragade was clearly guilty of violating American law, Indians had to save face by throwing a temper tantrum and getting their diplomat back. Compare this to Italy extraditing its marines who shot an Indian fisherman they mistook for a pirate. Or Britain refusing to come to the defense of its citizens who were tortured by Dubai’s police for violating local drug laws. For such a supposedly oppressive and chauvinistic people, whites seem to expend great efforts to appease the sensibilities of various culturally primitive malcontents.

In conclusion, I want to remind everyone that Western values aren’t a simple matter of wearing suits and ties, utilizing modern technology, or even voting in elections. People such as the Indians, Japanese, Turks, Gulf Arabs, and Israeli Jews may mimic certain aspects of Western culture, throw a lot of money around, and even maintain functioning societies, but the values of such groups couldn’t be any more disparate. Just because it quacks like a duck doesn’t make it a duck. Despite my strong belief in Western values, I can’t help but think that dogmatically doing the right thing will become increasingly impractical. As the global white population continues to decline and as Asia continues to ascend, perhaps the time has come for whites to embrace their inner Hindu, as Dota would put it.

In the meantime, maybe India’s appalling behavior will convince white vegetarians to lose the broccoli and eat a bacon burger instead. One can only hope

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

You would be racist if you said that the West African’s endurance makes his life inherently more valuable than the life of the European. The West African is just as equally made in God’s image as the European is. But this doesn’t mean the two people can live in the same nation when there are so many fundamental differences between them. If the West African chooses to live with the European so that he can enjoy the latter’s way of life, he must remain a minority. That’s all I’m saying.

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

Misconception 1: I have an inferiority complex

I’ve gotten this hurled at me so many times that it’s time to address this once and for all. I do not have an inferiority complex with regards to whites. I am their equal, morally and intellectually. I firmly reject racism because I sincerely believe in the equality of all men. This is a composite belief that is comprised of several fundamental beliefs, chief amoung which is the existence of God (The Abrahamic God, ie the only true God). We are all equal in His eyes. Genuine racists believe that certain groups are inherently superior or inferior depending on the group’s contribution to civilization over time. I do not share this belief. I believe all people are inherently equal in worth regardless of how much or how little their respective groups have contributed to the pool of human knowledge. This is my personal belief .

Having said this, I don’t believe that all cultures are equal. God created man, but not culture. Culture is man-made and synthetic works vary in quality. Just because we are all equal doesn’t mean that racially diverse groups can live together in some sort of leftist utopia. Racially diverse societies will only endure within the cultural hegemony of one dominant group. Certain cultural values are so alien to others such that forcing diverse groups who practice these cultures to reside in close proximity constitutes an act of cruelty. Respecting borders is about respecting culture. The act of erecting a border sends a clear message to one’s neighbours that they are free to practice their way of life in their corner of the world, free from persecution and judgement, just as one is entitled to the same prerogatives within one’s own borders.

Misconception 2: Whites are inherently special

I never said that whites were somehow special on account of their genetics or nature. I’ve always stated that Western culture is unique and ought to be preserved. The only way this can be done is to ensure that they remain a majority in their own nations. If you wish for America and Canada to continue being great, then it is logical to ensure that the people who created these nations continue running them. Why is this view so outlandish? If China is to remain Chinese, then shouldn’t the Chinese be the majority there? So why can’t whites be a majority in the US and Canada?

Misconception 3: Non-whites are incapable of altruism

"All groups are capable of both hospitality and savagery if the conditions are right. I think Dota is really overgeneralizing. There are many parts of the third world where one will be treated with the utmost hospitality and some will will give you the shirt off their back."

I never said that non-whites were completely devoid of altruistic instincts. I have seen individual acts of kindness in South and South East Asia, and even the Middle East. The point I was trying to make is that Western society is humane. The compassion one encounters in the West is collectively organized. You won’t see things like homeless shelters and soup kitchens in non western countries. You’ll never see an Indian or Chinese equivalent of the YMCA and other organizations that exist solely to improve quality of life. This is insaniyat on a scale that is unimaginable in the non-western world.

The second point I wish to make is that while while many non-westerners are kind and hospitable to tourists, how hospitable would they be if those tourists remained and became citizens? I’ve read numerous accounts by Black tourists who have spoken glowingly about Korean courtesy. How courteous would these Koreans be if blacks were 20% of their population? How would they react when Blacks made a move on their women?

Bay Area Guy is essentially correct when he says that kindness to tourists comes easily since they are merely passing through. The US and Canada allow non-whites to settle in their nations and even grant them access to their highest institutions. Yet despite these gestures, they get nothing but grievance mongering and endless whining from minorities.

Misconception 4: White values will survive white extinction

"Also many non-whites born and raised in America have the same sort of outlook on hospitality and civility that whites do."

What Tulio writes is true, but he underestimates the power of tribalism on non-whites and I don’t blame him. Liberalism provides a most effective cover for tribalism as the Jews have demonstrated and as non-whites have themselves discovered. It allows them to cloak their group interests under universalist terms like “egalitarianism” and “tolerance” knowing fully well the effect that moral universalism has on whites. The true test of a group’s liberalism lies in how they behave not when they are a minority, but when they are a majority. So while the Jew and Indian eloquently argue for tolerance and inclusion in North America, they seldom practice those virtues in India and Israel where they are in charge.

Tulio also fails to realize that democracy and and tribalism are incompatible on the most fundamental level. That tribal interests reduce democracy to nothing but vote bank politics. It is completely ludicrous to think that Indians, Chinese, Koreans, Blacks, and Hispanics will somehow see beyond their racial identities and embrace each other as fellow Americans. Hell, every university in North America has a plethora of ethnic and religious associations that that reflect the demographic composition of their student body.

Would Indians, who so fiercely resist affirmative action favouring Dalits back home, somehow show blacks more compassion? Would Hispanics overlook racial identity when fiercely competing with blacks for blue collar jobs? A racially diverse America where groups compete fiercely for scarce resources (thanks to a declining economy) will not produce a very humane society. This has been said before but it needs to be said again: A first world nation cannot be sustained by a third world population.

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

I’ve argued before that in the long run, white nationalism will actually decrease racism. We’re not going back to the pre-civil rights days regardless of what these leftist agitators say. Peddling fear is what they do anyway. What will happen, realistically speaking, is that whites will retain their cultural hegemony, degeneracy will decline, and those non-whites that assimilate into Western/Anglo culture will rise. Society will be moral and just. This is the west that I want to be a part of.

Bay Area Guy #fundie occidentinvicta.com

Our liberal leaning mainstream media never hesitates to inform us that whites are slowly but surely becoming minorities within Western countries. Most of the time such trends are reported in a mildly enthusiastic manner, with naysayers depicted as paranoid and alarmist racists. I guess according to leftist logic, objecting to your group’s eventual extinction renders you a horrible extremist.

However, another refrain that I’ve heard from many online leftists on blogs and elsewhere is that whites are already a global minority. Therefore, recent demographic changes are only natural. When reading through Studs Terkel’s book Race, one black woman that he interviewed emphatically rejected the term “minority” in favor of “people of color,” arguing that non-whites like her are the global majority.

Putting aside the foolish notion of a united “people of color” coalition and the fact that all groups are global minorities (as once pointed out by Jared Taylor), I’ll accept the argument that whites are a global minority at face value. After all, one cannot technically dispute such a claim. However, in the spirit of my post on the left and collective responsibility, I’m going to play the fun game of taking leftist logic and applying it to other groups. In this case, the intended target of my game are leftists themselves.

So how does this play out? While leftists love to gloat about how whites are either the true global minority or increasingly losing numbers in Western nations, the truth of the matter is that it is SJWs and cultural leftists who are the true global minority. In order to substantiate my claim, I’m going to analyze the attitudes and behaviors of the non-white global majority, with much emphasis on the heavily populated Asian nations that comprise much of this colored alliance.

I’ll begin with China, which has over one billion non-white people and is poised to challenge Western power in the years to come. Having taking courses on China during college, I learned that nationalism and intense patriotism are very much mainstream in China, and that regular Chinese have no patience for the agitation of minority groups such as Uighurs and Tibetans. Sure, minority groups receive certain benefits such as being able to have more children and a few affirmative action programs, but there’s no support for the kind of multiculturalism or radical leftism that bashes the Han majority or celebrates the impending demise of ethnic Chinese dominance. If one were to attack and demonize the Han Chinese in the same manner that SJW’s attack whites, he had better brace himself for a fight. China would also run afoul of leftist gender sensibilities, as their very own state feminist agency denounces unmarried “leftover women.” While women in China are able to acquire good careers and rise, they are also held to moral standards and society expects them to conform to some manner of traditional behavior. China, by and large, is very much a conservative society.

China’s fellow Asian giant and brown neighbor India exhibits similar tendencies. India’s Hindu majority certainly would not engage in the kind of self-flagellation endemic to white liberals, nor would they tolerate having their culture pathologized or deconstructed in SJW fashion. Their election of far-right nationalist Narendra Modi, who presided over a brutal pogrom against Muslims in 2002, indicates that they would do more than just employ the “tone argument” against those with the audacity to admonish them to “check their privilege.”

Let's see courageous SJW's challenge their privilege
I don’t think SJW’s would have the temerity to challenge their privilege

It also goes without saying that feminism of the Western variety doesn’t fly in India. India, like China, remains a conservative society with an unapologetic majority and a strong sense of tradition.

Lest one think that such chauvinism is merely confined to poor and dysfunctional third world countries, Japan likewise makes no effort to win any multicultural or feminist awards. Makoto Sakurai, the leader of an anti-foreigner hate group who wrote a blatantly racist anti-Korean book, was rewarded by having his book become a number one bestseller on Japan’s Amazon. While he may be extreme, the Japanese as a whole reject mass immigration and multiculturalism. Most Japanese likewise do not look kindly on liberals who bring up negative episodes of Japan’s history. With the blessing of Shinzo Abe’s popular government, the Japanese right is currently putting the squeeze on liberal media outlets. The Japanese are also not renowned for their embrace of feminism, outrage over certain sexist antics notwithstanding. Despite boasting one of the world’s most advanced economies, Japan nonetheless subscribes to fundamentally conservative values.

The aforementioned nations are just the tip of the iceberg. To be clear, this isn’t to say that these countries are cauldrons of hatred where minorities are pelted with rocks every time they leave the house. However, they are nonetheless unapologetically proud nationalist nations that defend their ethnic and religious majorities. Dota once told me that throughout the world, there are very few liberals. Rather, there are nationalists and moderates, with moderates upholding fundamental nationalist values (with the crude bigotry removed). Some might point to the popularity of socialists in Latin America, but even there socialist movements often take place within the context of racial nationalism, as demonstrated by Evo Morales and indigenous revivalism in Bolivia.

Indeed, it is only in the Anglosphere and Western European nations where suicidal liberalism and radical leftism flourish. The real reason why SJWs relentlessly demonize and attack white people is because they can. They know that they live in societies where their subversive views are not only tolerated, but encouraged. They know that white people as a whole won’t fight back. In fact, if they’re successful self-promoters like Tim Wise, they can even manage to enjoy lucrative speaking gigs at prominent universities and media outlets.

This knowledge ought to provide a measure of confidence to those of us in the alternative right. Far from being fringe extremists, we are the true global majority. In fact, we would be considered open-minded moderates by global standards, as most of the non-white planet regards our views as sensible and pragmatic. Subversive leftist deconstructionists are the real global minorities, and we should strive to remind everyone that our enemies represent true deviancy.

Bay Area Guy #fundie occidentinvicta.com

Of course, as I’m fond of saying, correlation doesn’t equal causation. Regardless of ideology, expensive, hectic, and racially diverse cities are bound to be fractious to some degree. That being said, throwing a bizarre, globally deviant ideology into the mix compounds these problems. Shit, it’s hard enough making rent and finding decent parking; it’s even worse when you have to be politically correct on top of it all.

Liberalism is simply an unnatural ideology, which is why it’s instinctively rejected by most of the world’s people. Therefore, it takes a certain aggressive self-righteousness to earnestly espouse loony liberal beliefs, unless it’s in one’s best interests. That’s why, just to be clear, I do not think that black, Latino, Asian, or other “diverse” liberals are insane – quite the opposite, actually.

But for white people in big cities such as Portland and SF to collectively embrace liberal views suggests a certain affliction. No wonder so many of them are surly and insufferable.

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

Like Jack Phillips before her, Kim Davies chose persecution over capitulation. She was told that her religious beliefs could not supersede the authority of the court. As Bay Area Guy reminded me recently, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was quite right when he said that Americans are slavish in their devotion to the law instead of morality and personal ethics. This should not surprise us in the least as a Marxist society worships the state and considers its law holy scripture. Marxists hate God because the State is a jealous god.

Bay Area Guy #racist occidentinvicta.com

I think the reason for white apathy is that most white people have never been racially menaced on an individual level. I once read that three quarters of whites live in neighborhoods that are predominantly white. This is only compounded by the fact that most whites subscribe to individualism. Consequently, they don’t consciously regard themselves as a group with group interests, and often recoil at any notion of white solidarity (even if they harbor prejudices against certain groups). Shit, my Midwestern Republican grandfather – a self-described Archie Bunker type – branded me a “white supremacist” when I espoused pro-white and anti-multiculturalist views during one of our conversations.

Therefore, despite the fact that the left is easily winning the culture war and that whites as a group are on the retreat, most whites don’t really feel the ill effects of multiculturalism in their day-to-day lives.

Even in California – the state with the largest number of non-whites – most whites get by just fine; therefore, they can’t really see the writing on the wall. It also doesn’t help that Americans as a whole are distracted by cheap entertainment and a culture that preaches instant gratification. As a result, many people fail to ponder what the future holds.

However, as the economy continues to get worse and growing numbers of white people run out of places to hide, I think that heightened competition and the deteriorating standard of living for the average white person will compel whites to think in more tribal terms.

Just to be clear, I’m hardly saying that unadulterated tribalism is a good thing, and I certainly don’t want whites to revert to more barbaric behaviors such as lynching. Not only are such acts morally wrong, but history tells me that whites who act brutally towards non-whites eventually turn their guns on one another. In fact, Hitler is one of the main reasons why Europe is experiencing immigration and race problems. He’s likewise the main reason why white identity is now taboo.

Nevertheless, I do hope that whites can cultivate a sense of racial identity that promotes their interests and maintains certain boundaries – while treating non-whites in their midst with dignity. Hopefully, both extremes will be eliminated, but only time will tell.

So, what do you guys think? Will whites remain eternally wimpy, or will they begin to wake up? How much white racial consciousness is necessary, and what line separates healthy nationalism from aggressive chauvinism?

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

I wouldn’t really call this ‘female rule’ as women were never meant to rule. What feminists have done is merely shift women’s dependence away from men/husbands and onto the nanny state. What feminists are trying to do is create a new sort of ‘Eden’ and America is perfectly suited to this project. Resources are abundant (and siphoned through the state) and replace an authoritarian (albeit benevolent) God with the State.

The financial upkeep of feminism is now currently being borne by the male taxpayer and the state. If women were made to bear this expense themselves by taxing working women for the all social welfare programs that they are exclusively entitled to, feminism would be dead by next Friday. If women were taxed at a higher rate and were made to pay for the illegitimate children of other women, the stigma against single motherhood would make a radical comeback.

The reason for Western women running amok nowadays is due to the fact that the State (and society in general) are currently paying the social and financial costs for their shenanigans. If the social/financial costs of female bad behaviour could be shifted back onto women, they would fervently begin to police their own behaviour.

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

(This guy is an Indian immigrant)

Like so many children, I grew up becoming thoroughly acquainted with Western fairytales that were packaged by Disney and transmitted through my TV set. The charater that facinated me most was seldom the protagonist or antagonist, but rather, the king or monarch figure. He was powerful, and as a child, I struggled to determine the source of his power. I intuitively understood that his power was derived from the control he exerted on the bodies of other individuals but one question remained: Why did people obey the king? What would happen if every subject in the kingdom was siezed with a sudden fit of disobedience? What would be the difference between the king and his other subjects then?

We on the alternative/Paleocon right realize (like Sam Francis did) that our elites are no longer interested in preserving the institutions and traditional European heritage of North America. We realize that the system is our enemy and one that wields the coercive power of a thousand kings of old combined. How are we to resist such a foe? As Bay Area Guy reminds me, military secession is out of the question. It failed for the confederacy and it will most certainly fail today. Reforming the system from within is also out of the question. What are our alternatives? I would suggest that passively resisting the system without enabling it is possibly the only viable means of defense. How can this be done? Let’s examine a few ways.

Boycott the mass media: Throw out your TV

The ubiquitous TV set pumps the sludge of Cultural Marxism and feminist rot right into the livingrooms of families across North America. The values that we encounter in mass entertainment are not our values, they are the degenerate values of our elites. By throwing out our TV sets we deprive our elites of ad revenue and hit them where it hurts, in their wallets.

Many a white nationalist has whined about Hollywood degeneracy yet surprisingly few have called for an all out boycott. We are not yet living in 1984 where telescreens that cannot be turned off are inserted into every home. We have the freedom to economically hurt our elites and it will not cost us a dime. On the contrary, it will end up saving us money and freeing up our time to pursue wholesome activities. Consider this article written by Aaron Clarey for Return of Kings that called for the boycott of the latest Mad Max film. This article was picked up by numerous mainstream media outlets and relentlessly bashed. ROK has published a plethora of offensive articles in the past, but why did this one in particular draw out the ire of the left? Because economic boycotts work. The Catholics waged economic warfare against the Jewish Warner Brothers and forced the latter to drop the vulgarity level in their pictures. They worked in the 1930s and they can certainly work in 2015 and beyond. The mere thought of organized economic resistance today terrifies our elites, and it was this terror that manifested itself in the avalanche of scorn and ridicule heaped on Clarey’s article.

Our elites cannot hold a gun to our collective heads and force us to consume the rot they manufacture for our cultural demise. We are still in a position to walk away and we should.

Stay out of debt

Nothing chains us to the system like debt and everybody should endeavour to steer clear of it. The system is rigged to keep us irrevocably chained, but there are ways to work around it. The surest method to accomplish this is good old fashioned self discipline. Live within your means and minimize the usage of your credit cards. Try and maintain a solvency ratio of 3:1. This means that for every dollar of debt you owe, you have 3 dollars of your own personal wealth to tackle it. I’ve maintained this ratio for years and I see no reason why others can’t either. If the powers that be should decide to come after you, debt will be their primary means of attack. Debt also has a way of destroying your wealth without you even realizing it. Ask yourself this question: Who is wealthier – the middle income executive who has total assets worth $10k but liabilities totaling $50k, or the homeless person with $5 in his pocket and $0 debt?

Boycott universities

I have pointed out before that Western universities are the hotbeds of Cultural Marxism. The Marxist worldview is the default worldview of leftist educators and you can be sure that they will do everything in their power to warp the minds of your children. There are several good reasons to avoid universities.

Most University majors (Humanities/Social Sciences) are worthless and fail to inculcate any marketable skills into their impressionable graduates. Technical skills are what ensure employment and thus accountants, doctors, and programmers are far more likely to be employed right after graduation than the Women’s Studies or History major.
Universities are a debt trap, enough said.
Universities waste your time and money by forcing you to pick pointless electives. If you desire a set of technical skills, then a technical institute/college may serve your needs better while requiring only half the time investment a university would require to attain your qualification.
In summary, we might never be able to beat the system or reform it from within, but we can encumber it and thereby diminish its power over us. The beauty of this approach is that it doesn’t cost us a dime! Staying out of debt, boycotting mass entertainment and Universities will economically hurt our traitorous elites while actually keeping our hard earned cash where it belongs, with us. The king commands us to consume, will we blindly obey?

Bay Area Guy #fundie occidentinvicta.com

Just recently, the term “cuckservative” – coined by the alternative right – has incurred the wrath of mainstream white conservatives. Gregory Hood and Matt Forney have both written excellent articles explaining what constitutes cuckservatism, so I don’t really have much to add in this regard.

I’ll just say that I embrace this term, as well as any friction that the word engenders. The term “cuckservative,” provided that it catches on, has the potential to reform an increasingly stagnant and feckless mainstream conservative establishment; as of now, the American right continues to get thoroughly trounced on just about every issue. Gay marriage is the law of the land, transsexuals such as “Caitlyn” Jenner are lionized, secularism reigns supreme, and non-whites continue to demographically eclipse the people who actually vote Republican.

Speaking of non-whites, cuckservative is useful term because it illuminates the ultimate failure of Republicans: their inability or unwillingness to tackle race. How can Republicans expect to enjoy future success when they can’t openly acknowledge that their recent woes are primarily due to demographic changes? Just consider that California used to be the land of Nixon and Reagan just a few decades ago; nowadays, it’s taken for granted that California is an eternal blue state. So what happened? Mexicans – along with Asians – flooded California, rendering whites an increasingly small minority. Sure, some people insist that Prop 187 (pushed by the Republicans under then governor Pete Wilson) permanently alienated Latinos, and that the Republicans could have remained relevant if they weren’t so “racist.” However, I would argue that regardless of Wilson’s actions, California would have transformed into a blue state. Most visible racial minorities are always going to naturally gravitate to the left, as it is in their best interests.

Therefore, white conservatives who want to remain relevant must either completely remake the Stupid Party in order to pander to non-whites – which isn’t going to happen anytime soon – or go all in as a pro-white movement before it’s too late (ie. the Sailer Strategy). Otherwise, basic math is going to render the Republicans obsolete.

But I wouldn’t hold my breath. If the myriad reactions from conservative bloggers and pundits are any indication, it seems that the cuckservatives in question are intent on quelling this alt right uprising. They earnestly insist that they aren’t racist and that conservatives must forcefully reject white tribalism. They caution fellow conservatives against embracing the term while remaining unaware of its pernicious “white supremacist” origins. Robert Stacy McCain has even gone so far as to speculate that the cuckservative hashtag is a leftist troll job.

Yeah, keep it up, Republican tools. Keep denouncing white tribalism. Continue to mention that Bull Connor was a Democrat, and repeatedly extol the virtues of “colorblindness.” All in all, continue to tacitly tolerate or even embrace open borders; after all, being called “racist” is worse than losing your country. Clearly, such enlightened attitudes exhibited by the aforementioned cuckservatives enable Republicans to garner large percentages of the non-white vote. Likewise, I’m certain that the repudiation of alt right principles will somehow prevent a Democrat from inevitably being elected president in 2016.

Look, I don’t even like the Republican Party. Their elites are little more than greedy bastards whose true god is corporate America. They will only continue to double down on their cuckservatism. However, they are not our intended audience; if the term cuckservative can convince a somewhat sizeable minority of frustrated, non-establishment white conservatives to cast off the Republican party and seek alternatives, then the term will have done its job. These are the people we need to convince.

At the bare minimum, this provocative slur will force the white right to become more cognizant of racial issues. If and when that happens, things will start to get very interesting.

Tamquam #fundie occidentinvicta.com

Absolutely agree about the use of language. Once the issue is framed it hard to reframe. So taking the initiative with language is vital to shaping the thought, if not of the interlocutor, at least of the witnesses to the discussion. So here are a few humble suggestions:
fascist mind meld; social justice borg; collectivist thought police; socialist barbarian; leftist leech; monolithic diversity; elitist tolerance; self styled aristocrat; purveyor of failure; dispenser of poverty; inventor of faux facts; font of lies; hater of culture; cornucopia of misery; enemy of good (love, joy, truth, etc.); champion of the inane; whine privilege; envy elite; lover of slavery; architect of confusion; never saw an opportunity he didn’t rejoice to blame someone else for taking; and so on. In any discussion it would be important to make the accusation FIRST as any riposte comes off as weaker. So for example if you are pretty sure that white privilege will be thrown your way, circle inside their OODA loop and accuse them of white envy, or of hating whites. Hell, if they don’t like the fact that we broke quite a few eggs (mostly our own) to make Western Civ they can give us back our cars, air conditioners and washing machines and see how they get along without these symbols of phoney oppression. “Check your privilege!” I say, “Kiss my privilege.” Slaps his rump.

Bay Area Guy #fundie occidentinvicta.com

A common tactic employed by leftists is to accuse their enemies of being on “the wrong side of history.” When I toured UC Santa Cruz around 9 years ago, I recall seeing a mural juxtaposing old school Jim Crow bigotry with current conservative hostility towards homosexual marriage. The image must have caught on, because I could easily find it online.

Because clearly, blacks and homosexuals are the same.

The implication is that history will harshly judge opponents of homosexual rights, just as we passionately denounce Jim Crow racism. Such logic is now being applied to transsexual rights; check out this segment from John Oliver – the newest liberal comedic cult figure – where he asserts (skip to 16:15) that history will not be kind to those of us who oppose this newest civil rights movement. In so many words, if we don’t enthusiastically embrace the left’s agenda, then people like us will be reviled for all eternity.

Will we? The arrogant leftist notion that the arc of the universe bends towards justice (ie. what they want) is predicated on the belief that Western liberalism will remain hegemonic. However, I suspect that this dominant liberal narrative will erode as China and other Asian nations continue to rise. We already know that Asian countries have no use for the kind of bizarre identity politics running amok in the West.

In fact, given how pervasive intense nationalism is in Asia, I suspect that Asia’s ascendancy – combined with the West’s demise – will alter the way we view history. Such a paradigm shift will not be kind to the likes of John Oliver. Future Asian historians will be nonplussed upon learning that Americans placed a higher premium on transsexual rights than nationalism or a strong economy. They will also shake their heads and chuckle when reading about how historical white figureheads such as Joe Biden celebrated the impending minority status of their own people. They’ll wonder why the most dominant group in human history threw it all away in the name of quixotic ideals.

They will, with amusement and contempt, consign the Western left to the wrong side of history.

Grantstoddard #fundie occidentinvicta.com

There is also a form of liberal imperialism the United States imposes on other nations as regards it toxic and corrosive culture. A case in point is the recent Miss Japan who won her crown and is going to compete in the Miss Universe pageant. She is the first biracial Japanese women to win the crown, her father was black (I suspect an American GI) and her mother Japanese.

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

Commenter Axum/Mixed race had once asked me about my views on mixed raced people. This post will respond to that question and also address the broader issue of immigration for the sake of perspective. Let me begin by saying that I am not opposed to interracial relationships as several of my cousins (who live in the west) are either engaged to, or are married to white spouses. All of them seem quite content and some of them have kids that look very white. Having said that, I still think that interracial relationships should not be encouraged. While banning the practice outright would infringe on people’s personal freedoms, I doubt that encouraging the practice is prudent either. In Canada, interracial couples form about 4% of the total national population of couples. These figures are double in the liberal cities of Toronto and Vancouver and this isn’t entirely surprising given the high concentration of visible minorities present there.

The Multi-Cult celebrates these relationships as trendy and hip where photographs of smiling interracial couples are plastered over dismal statistics of above average divorce rates for this demographic group. I haven’t been able to find statistics for Canada, but in the US it appears that interracial relationships involving non white men married to white women are far more likely to fail by the 10th year of marriage whereas relationships involving white men married to Asian women are the least vulnerable. This isn’t unexpected given how dysfunctional white women are due to 6 decades of feminist programming.

During one of our phone conversations Bay Area Guy mentioned that certain whites weren’t concerned with the browning of America and the rationale behind this view is that so long as non whites absorb western culture they will be able to sustain it. I disagree with this argument because survival has intrinsic value and whites shouldn’t have to justify the preservation of their race. In most cases, national identity is based on racial identity and North America’s racial character is white.

North America’s racial character needs to be preserved. Non white immigrants cannot fully relate to the histories and heritage of North American culture. This will not change even if these non whites marry into white families. I’ve noticed very few South Asians don the familiar red poppy on remembrance day (including myself I confess) and I can’t blame them as that wasn’t their war. A former (South Asian) commenter on Robert Lindsay’s blog (now banned) insisted that one of the greatest things about Western culture was feminism! There is no way she could relate to America’s struggle for independence from the British, or America’s disdain for big government rooted in Jefferson’s interpretation of Locke. Small government translates into individual freedom, which is a far cry from the bloated nanny state that feminists masturbate over. How can these non white immigrants relate to the achievements of the US and Canada when their ancestors contributed nothing to them? No matter how Westernized they may appear to be, these immigrants and their children cannot relate to the philosophical, historical, and religious currents (from Thales to Kant and beyond) that have shaped the modern Western individual.

Individual autonomy is a key western value and hence practices such as interracial marriage shouldn’t be banned but shouldn’t be encouraged either. As long as the individuals who marry outside their ethnic groups remain a minority, there should be no problem. The same goes for Whites converting to Islam and Hinduism. Interracial couples shouldn’t be vilified but their actions should never be accepted as mainstream. In a traditional healthy society people naturally gravitate towards heterosexual endogamy, but sadly, liberal programs and policies have deleterious effects on society’s health. This is why it is imperative that people boycott the mass media to insulate themselves from harmful signals and programming.

Pat Buchanan once said that his grandparents wouldn’t recognize the America he currently lives in. There’s something profound about that statement that can be summarized in one word: Continuity. America and Canada can only be saved by those whose collective memories are rooted in North American history. The immigrant experience can be summed up in another word: displacement. We can’t expect immigrants to make any meaningful cultural contribution or help reverse the prevailing cultural decay; and thus the imperative to preserve white identity and interests takes on a vital urgency. That being said I must point out that I find the term “white identity” to be somewhat problematic as it includes Eastern and Mediterranean Europeans whereas the term traditionally denoted Saxons and Germans (The real architects of Canadian and American heritages). As a Paleoconservative I believe in preserving the Anglo-Saxon character of Canada and America but that is a topic for a future post.

I sincerely hope that sanity prevails and that Canada and the US rethink their suicidal immigration policies. God bless Canada and America.

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

If the value of Liberty is based on the existence of God, what happens when society loses it’s belief in God? What then sustains this value? If He doesn’t exist, why does freedom matter? We might argue that freedom is good, but why? I’ve discussed this matter with Bay Area Guy and while both of us are non religious, we both nevertheless believe that the idea of God is a force for good in society. If we remove God, morality dies along with Him. As Dostoyevsky said: “If God is dead, then everything is permitted.” Atheism leads to one dead end: Social Darwinism.

If God is dead, why bother being moral? Why not let nature take its course and let the big fish dominate all the smaller fish? Furthermore, if liberty is based on the existence of God, and as God is gradually killed off by post-modern society, could this then explain the disturbing erosion of our freedoms? Is this why NSA surveillance is on the rise? Is the State destined to replace God as the omnipresent apparition of observation and judgement?

Bruce #racist occidentinvicta.com

Negroids are an inferior subspecies of Homo Sapiens, whose unevolved craniums lack the capacity for abstract thought and social organization that helped European caucasians create some of the Earth’s greatest civilizations. The idea of integrating with blacks was the most insane and stupid thing ever. For a long time we have had enough scientific knowledge to understand that blacks could never come up to our level collectively. The price that we have payed for being so stupid is almost beyond belief. It is best symbolized in the completely ruined cities blacks have produced all across the country.

Blacks are definitely a menace, and not just a nuisance.

Dota #racist occidentinvicta.com

I have a theory about why blacks have been acting up lately. When an only child gets a new brother or sister that child steps up the tantrums to retain the parent’s attention. As North America becomes more diverse and as additional groups become new contenders in the oppression Olympics (like transsexuals) Blacks feel left out. I guess there isn’t enough Liberal love to go around. What’s also interesting is that if Whites become a minority, Blacks will no longer be able to capitalize on white guilt. Do you think Asians and Latinos will give a crap about Slavery? I doubt they care much about the Holocaust either. Mass immigration also creates additional competition for low skill jobs that many Black people could benefit from. A strong white majority is actually in Black America’s best interests.

IndiaLandofRapes #racist occidentinvicta.com

Its even highly amazing how Brahmins in west preach how US must embrace multiculturalism and hire best and brightest from india and if not American economy will collapse, at the same time they preach their kids how western societies are immoral, uncultured and Hindu civilization is greatest thing that has ever happened on earth and entire humanity must be thankful to Hindus..

Most of these hypocrites live in west, feed like parasites on western society, and are waiting for opportune movement to stab the very society that gave them life and livelihood when they are rotting in filth and poverty…

As i say again and again, All humans whether they are weak or strong aspire for Power and Dominance Not Peace..Nietzsche.Hegel and many other German Philosophers are right in saying–

Altruism and Sympathy are root Human decadence, The master must never bow to the level of slave..—The slave has only one weapon –Guilt..He will always project Guilt upon his victims and let them commit suicide

All great civilizations died from Suicide not from War

Some how i like Jewish belief ….Never forgive, Never forget…That should be motto of Gentile races–No sympathy or tolerance for weak

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

Nothing new here. As some have pointed out, feminism is essentially Marxism adjusted for gender where Patriarchy/Men are substituted for bourgeoisie and women substitute the oppressed worker class. In her paper GOSSIP, SCANDAL, SHAME AND HONOR KILLING: A CASE FOR SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM AND HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE, Muslim feminist Amani Awwad attempts to deconstruct Honour killings (in a middle eastern context) from a socio-historical perspective. Like most feminist literature, 20% of the paper is devoted to analysis while the remainder is devoted to the noble endeavour of male bashing. The paper can be downloaded here.

What solipsistic feminists like Awwad fail to address is the role of female participation in the patriarchal system that they so passionately decry. As I stated in a previous article , it is women that play a disproportionate role in preserving the culture of any society, not men. This goes doubly for the various cultural elements that are frequently subject to feminist criticism. For instance, while Awwad notes that gossiping and rumor-mongering are social mechanisms designed to control female behaviour, she fails to note that these slut shamming mechanisms were (are) largely employed by Middle Eastern women themselves. Arab women would routinely use gossip with the foreknowledge that their handiwork would quite likely get one of their sisters killed. Lets look at a historical example. When the Prophet Muhammad’s honour was threatened by an allegation of adultery leveled against his wife Aisha, it soon became apparent that one of the chief rumor spreaders was the woman Hamna bint Jash (sister of Muhammad’s other wife Zainab bint Jash). But why would women participate and perpetuate a system that worked against their interests? Feminists have long agonized over this paradox but the answer remains lodged in plain sight: It is because these women were never brainwashed into believing that their interests weren’t aligned to those of their husbands and brothers. In middle eastern societies, ‘Face’ was linked to honour, and honour was liked to prestige. Tribes commanding prestige gained access to scarce resources, just as the prestigious and powerful Quresh tribe gained control of the mercantile city of Mecca. Arab women placed the good of their respective tribes over their own and thus participated in actions aimed at enhancing the prestige of their tribes. Nobody felt the sting of the Quresh’s defeat at Badr more than the wives of the defeated warriors. It was Hind who persuaded her husband Abu Sufyan to launch another campaign against Muhammad’s forces at Uhud, where the Quresh were finally victorious. Hind and her female cronies then marched across the battlefield and dutifully mutilated the fallen Muslim warriors by gouging out their eyes and ears and arranging them into necklaces and garlands. The women stood by their men.

Before I continue, I’d like to briefly pause and address the nagging doubt that is undoubtedly building up in your minds. I do not endorse honour killings, and I find the practice to be barbaric and morally reprehensible. I was merely pointing out that in non feminist and functioning patriarchal cultures, women nurture culture rather than undermine it.

Lets turn our focus to South Asia. A striking feature of honour killings in south Asia is the extent of female participation and complicity in this grotesque custom. When Sunita Singh was murdered by her family (as reported by Reuters in 2008), her unrepentant mother had this to say:“My daughter’s action made us aliens in our own land. But we have managed to redeem our honor. She paid for her ill-gotten action.” To the honour obsessed peasant cultures of south Asia, Honour trumps human life; and peasant women stand by their men in protecting this most sacred intangible asset. In another incident, 19 year old Vandana was murdered by her Mother and sister who smashed her skull with an axe. She was also shot by her father. Incidents like these fly beneath the feminist radar for women must never be held up to any standards whatsoever.

In conclusion I’d like to state that the feminist myth of female subjugation falls apart when viewed from a critical and dispassionate historical perspective. Patriarchy was certainly good for women and women have historically acknowledged this by playing their part in preserving this ”oppressive order.” Feminism can only exist as a counter worldview to patriarchy in the same way as atheism would be incomprehensible when not paired against the worldviews of religion. As such, both of these ideologies lack substance and contribute very little to the betterment of mankind. Its about time we turned the tables of deconstruction on these feminist scum.

A Swain #racist occidentinvicta.com

(Another user asking about a solution to the Jewish problem)

I propose they all be repatriated to Israel from every white homeland on the planet. Otherwise, they should be systematically arrested on charges of organised Genocide, Treason, Sedition, Subversion and grand-scale embezzlement AND, if necessary retried again and again on said charges until ALL involved are found guilty.

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

The European peoples, like the Indians, Egyptians, and Persians, were motivated by a desire to build perfection. Unlike the others however, the Europeans believed that perfection had no final end point but was a journey that must be undertaken for its own sake. This is why the Europeans continued to innovate while the other civilizations stopped progressing once they had attained a certain level of perfection. It seems fashionable to rejoice the decline of the West in some circles nowadays. If the Chinese were to become tomorrow’s hegemonic power, would they be able to construct a new paradigm to replace the current one created by the West? If the answer to that question is negative, the West may never lose it’s relevance in world affairs and hence will never truly decline.

India_LandofRapes #racist occidentinvicta.com

I believe that West should Die, i hope to see some society or ideology which is as ruthless against Jewish Influence as NSDAP but it won’t happen in Western civilization..the nations which succumbed to organized Jewry will not survive.

If you can recollect west is not as degenerate as it is 10 years ago,The speed of Collapse of western society is striking for someone who is an outsider like me .

I believe west deserves do die, there is no point in changing the course of events which will unfold in coming decades,you will find same Organized Jewry pulling the strings..An average Joe like me can see things clearly ,i am not sure whats wrong with People in West , is it because of relatively easy life that most whites live? , or it because access to easy sex and comfortable life style?..I dont know..These people have never been through hard times and are accustomed to living in easy,opulent lives…Most of the complaints about gender equality , equal pay,and egalitarian wealth distribution without work,worse collective guilt for the sins which they have never committed, are by products of a society which is rotten to core…

Organized Jewry won against their historic enemy who expelled them every time for past 2000 years, Egyptians use to call these people are Habiru -Means cut throat bandits, who later became hebrews(Jews)…I have noticed the so called “Jewish behavior” in Germany several times,even in respected academic Institutions “Jewish Behavior” is different from Germanic, the lying,backstabbing, inside politics in research institutes,outright cheating,using every means possible to get the name in publications even if their contribution is nothing and are elevated just because they are hired from Israel by Jewish Professor in Germany, Aggressive Nepotism,Favouritism are very common.

I dont know how it will end, perhaps Hitler was right,WW2 is not a war by germany against Allies,Its a war for preserving European heritage, He was right when he said “if Germany Loses.European people dont deserve their fatherland”..-

Organized Jewry won WW2, their economic(Control over money printing machine,Keynesian-ism),cultural(Feminism,Marxism,Neoliberalism,Homosexuality,Lesbianism),political ideologies (Globalization,Multiculturalism,Democracy in its worst form)became the norm in the world we live in.

They are still leeching on Dying Western World, perhaps they will not relax till they suck last drop of blood from western civilization—Then they will move to other nation perhaps china and feed on them, i dont believe the theory that Jews will shift their ghetto from USA to india.

Although i agree that Jewish Solipsistic believes and Hindu believes are very similar ,including the behaviour and ability to commit fraud with complete lack of introspection–

Jews need a nation of producers to leech, Countries like Germany in 19th century ,US in 20th,21st centuries ,Britain in 16th century, France in 15th century Portuguese Empire in 14 Century—Perhaps china in coming decade…

A Parasite needs a Health Productive host to feed on.., Its not surprising to me to find similarities between Jewish behaviour and behaviour of biologic Parasite–

batterytrain #racist occidentinvicta.com

While I think that Asians who are already in North America should be accepted as our fellow citizens (if they are willing to assimilate to North America culture), I also think you’re spot on with this comment, Eren.

Asians, in my experience, are most unwilling, most unable to adapt to Euro-American culture. You’re completely correct when you say that don’t or perhaps can’t have fun, party, get drunk,etc.

For the most part.

There are many who do and can. But they are the minority.

The majority of Asians assimilate quite well into the workforce of America and Canada, but don’t blend well into the fabric of these societies.

And often in my experience, they are repulsed at doing so. Petulant even. They look down on Whites partying, socializing, getting drunk…making merry in other words.

They’re not soulless, but boy are they bland.

I’ve lived around them my entire life and it has been pretty bad for my social life.

You can’t express yourself. Individuality and personality is branded as eccentric and clownish, so you have to keep your head down. And keep working. And working. And then have children. And make them work. And work. And work. And then you die.

Asians come from a culture that doesn’t appreciate life and joy nearly as much as it appreciates order.

But you don’t need a rigid, repressive boring culture to have an orderly society.

This is why the West is the Best.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Muricans are idiots. But Jefferson was a genius.

Eren Jager #racist occidentinvicta.com

I never said that Zheng He was half Persian, but he still had Persian ancestry nontheless. I am only saying that it is interesting how no pureblood Mongoloids ever acheive greatness, and modern Asians do not count, since they are using the help of economic systems and technology which Whites created. The Shang Chinese were the first Chinese Dynasty, and they were pureblood Southern Mongoloids. Despite being technologically advanced, they were conquered by barbarian Zhou, who had about 15% White admixture. The Zhou were conquered by the Qin, 20% White. Qin Emperor Shi Huangdi is described as a tall blue-eyed bearded man in Chinese court records. I could go on and on. Whites are simply more capable than Asians, and Asians do not want to admit it.

Coward #racist occidentinvicta.com

A lot of White Nationalists think that East Asians are an OK race with high acheivements. However, this is not the case. Anyone who has ever lived near Asians know that the majority of them are rude, greedy, crafty, compulsive liars, and how much they complain about “racism” directed towards them. East Asians are not compatible with Anglo-culture, their phenotype is drastically different from ours, except for maybe skin colour. Whites are tall, wavy-or curly-haired, we have large reproductive organs, we are narrow-skulled and lack an epicanthic fold. We are gerantomorphic, robust, and generally pleasant to look at. East Asians are broad-skulled, with a disproportinal head, slanty eyes (epicanthic folds), needle straight hair, small genitals and breasts, and small, frail stature. They also lack a strong sex drive, and Western culture is all about getting laid. We as Westerners have fun, party, get drunk, cuss, fuck, and socialize 24/7. This goes for Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics. Asians are extremely anti-social, they do not cuss, they will not have fun, and they do not like having sex, except for reproduction. I prefer Blacks and Mexicans to Asians. Most White people do as well, for the exact same reasons. We need to regulate the import of Asians, and we can do this without much controversy. After all, Whites do not feel White Guilt towards Asians, and non-Whites see Asians as oppressors. No one will care if Asians scream “racism.”

Bay Area Guy #fundie occidentinvicta.com

"And the last thing we need is to feed the white woman’s narcissism which is already inflated thanks to feminism."

That’s interesting. Atheist Indian once made a remark on Robert’s blog to the effect that white American women who travel to Eastern European countries are humbled on account of not being treated like hot shit, as they are normally accustomed.

However, white women who travel to places like India have their egos skyrocket due to the desi worship of white pussy.

India_LandofRapes #fundie occidentinvicta.com

There is an Austrian Jewish Write Otto weininger who called “Jews are sons of EVE and satan “—His book “sex and character” shows why Jews are solipsistic, they are devoid of any Masculine character—Where ever organized Jewry Exists, it tries to destroy family unit,and attack all institutions which impose restraint over female sexuality

Its not just Jews that are solipsistic but even Indian Hinduism for the most part is a solipsistic faith, from my knowledge most indians are extremely solipsistic, they dont understand the harm they inflict on others,as long as its favourable to their survival they go along with the tide

Is it mere coincidence that Organized Jewry and hindus got a nation around same time?, or is it just an accident when Jewish thought became a norm in Western Civilization today, Hinduism (another Solipsistic culture)is making inroads into west ?, or is it just an accident that both these cultures despise Christianity and Islam –or is it just me who is seeing feminization of Western world where every masculine virtue is degraded and despised.

I think Weininger was right ,When Jewry triumphs they will dissolve every masculine trait in man,They despise masculinity…I believe its a kind of parasitism that Jewry exhibits , when the ecosystem of host nation is completely subdued by Jews,they make sure that all forms of threats are neutralized, First threat to organized Jewry is masculine identity of society,which keeps a constraint on feminine sexuality, once you dissolve masculine identity, All fundamental institutions of society will be destroyed.

I believe behind the mask of innocence, there is some thing evil and despotic about Female Gender.

Ancient Greeks believed that Women are created by God as a punishment for man, Feminine spirit seeks unchecked freedom and Unchecked Female freedom leads to destruction of everything great that men have built

Weininger’s book is eye opening atleast for me, He thinks there is some masculine spirit and Feminine spirit in this world, While masculine spirit strives for aggression ,creative thought,adventure—Feminine spirit seeks revenge,Destruction,unlimited freedom without check..Weininger in his book says,that Feminine spirit in essence is satanic, “The biblical EVE Never liked Adam, she is still in Lust for satan and seeking that forbidden fruit”–He likens “Women as Necessary evil in this world and Jews are seed of Eve and Satan,” . Although i am not religious , I believe the comparison is accurate…

There is another Hungarian Statesmen who despised the Jewry and Reached some what same conclusions as weininger, He wrote a book ” Tragedy of a man” in which biblical Adam,eve and satan are re-incarnated every time in each century as different prominent personalities, the EVE cheats of Adam and begets children from SATAN , God tries to intervene and punishes EVE and gives her next life , but again EVE will stray and will have children with Satan…After each passing century the Humanity on earth becomes decadent …God again intervenes to stop his creation from complete decadence,he gives a final chance to Eve to mate with Adam and establish kingdom of God on earth…The story ends with Eve as Queen and Satan as a minister hatching up a plan after their sexual intercourse to murder the king ( Allegorical ADAM)…and Eve Kills adam and Kingdom of Evil will be established on earth—

The final chapter of ” Tragedy of man” shows Eve Fornicating with satan while their children who inhabit this earth will participate on sodomy ,incest..

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

It seems I grossly overestimated your intelligence. Circular logic is where the premise and conclusion are identical and where the premise is unproven. Allow me to walk you through it.

1) Dota is a misogynist thus
2) Ancient literature and civ are misogynous because
3) Dota invokes it and
4) Dota is a misogynist.

1 = 4. You end up where you started.

"either you misinterpreted the bullshit or the bullshit is mysogynist."

That second option wasn’t part of your first post where you had your liberal knee jerk reaction and wrote of world civilization as misogynist. You added it to your later posts because you clearly figured out that your logic was circular and that someone might call bullshit.

"Claiming you were talking about women in general is bending reality."

No it isn’t. I’ve always talked about women in general on this website. See here, and here.

"No you were talking about liberals and conservatives in the american sense of those words;"

Yes I was; and that is because liberals in North America have the most retarded approach to women. Politicians in the rest of the world (liberals included) see women for what they are and understand their nature. That’s because they come from cultures that are normal and healthy, albeit backward in other aspects. Is this so hard to follow?

"I provided evidence that the people that professionally “observe reality for what it is and then draw their conclusions from it” are overwhelmingly liberal."

And I pointed out that Scientists and researchers in the US and Canada are not unaffected by commie PC tyranny.

"Why not just admit you are a mysogynist asshole?"

I will once you admit you are whiny, entitled, and solipsistic liberal with an external locus of control the radius of Manhattan.

Also, watch the tone, else you will get banned. You have been warned. If this website gets your panties in a bunch, you ought to stick to commenting within the echo chambers of Jezebel. They’ll keep you safe from that nasty thing known as an opposing viewpoint.

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

(Replying to a commenter's questions)

It’s not circular at all. Traditional patriarchal cultures do objectify women to some degree for the reasons I’ve listed above. I don’t mind female vanity all that much but what bothers me is the hypocrisy. Women shamelessly objectify themselves like never before and then place all the blame on men and society. ?

**Also, the suggesting that childbirth is the primary function of women as viewed by society is highly suspect given A) the short time span they can reproduce and B) the massive amount of other things they do.**

I’m not suggesting that women aren’t capable of anything but reproduction. All I’m saying is those other functions are secondary. I guess nature is sexist. What a shame.

**Also, why are men not viewed the same way if that’s the function, as babies don’t come from simply a woman?**

Because men have occupied their time with other activities like constructing monuments, articulating philosophy, nation building etc.?

**Why is it feminism’s fault that traditional marriage has eroded?**

Undermining gender roles, getting women to put career before kids, and punitive divorce laws in women’s favor tend to do that to marriage. Good wives are not born, they are made. ?

**We can’t slow down the national debt one iota, but a small percentage of women have decimated marriage? Highly suspect.**

A small percentage of women with lots of elite backing.

???? #racist occidentinvicta.com

My roommate works in a warehouse on the west side of Saskatoon and frequently shares anecdotes about work. Upper and middle management are white whereas the guys on the floor are mostly Pakistanis. With the setting laid out, lets proceed. My roommate would often complain about how much he despised the high stress environment at the warehouse, not because of an overbearing management, but because the Pakistani employees simply couldn’t get along with one another. They would gossip, backbite, and constantly undermine each other. Those that are familiar with the cultures of south Asia (India/Pakistan/Bangladesh) will observe that these societies are characterized as low morality and low trust cultures. Small wonder the Pakistanis can’t cooperate with one another in a setting that requires a high degree of trust. Part of the problem lies with their peculiar pattern of communication. South Asians don’t communicate openly and directly, rather, they calibrate their speech to not cause outward offense in order to save face.

In the collectivist cultures of South Asia, Saving face is an important social interaction mechanism aimed at preserving group harmony. I have written about it more extensively here. Requests and demands are obliquely phrased while the appropriate honourifics must be used when addressing others that are of a higher social standing than oneself. So while the white man may treat his south Asian acquaintances equally, those acquaintances may not treat each other the same way and their tribal languages have the functions of hierarchy and status built into them. All of this means that if protocol isn’t observed, causing offense is inevitable; which might disrupt productivity in a work setting. I’m not saying that south Asians aren’t hard working people, quite the contrary as these guys effortlessly complete all their objectives, however foreign values can have a disruptive effect if not dealt with firmly.

My recommendations:

Mandate the exclusive use of English at work: I’m surprised that management never considered this option in the first place. English, and other European languages, are built for the precise and efficient exchange of information, not communicating status. It is a flat language devoid of honourifics that reflects the western values of egalitarianism, equality, and high trust. These values are incompatible with the tribal south Asian values of hierarchy, status, face/honour, and low trust. By enforcing the exclusive use of English at work, management may in time eradicate interpersonal conflict issues amoung their south Asian workforce. Furthermore, the daily use of English for 8 hours a day may (in the long term) make these people more receptive to the western values outlined above. This would hopefully ease their assimilation into mainstream white culture.

Fight diversity with diversity: Why are there so many south Asians at this warehouse to begin with? We need more diversity; hire more whites! Maintaining a healthy ratio of whites to non whites (where whites should be a healthy majority) would aid immigrants acclimate to White culture, its protocols, and etiquette. They might in time learn to function in a high trust environment.

Dota #racist occidentinvicta.com

(BONUS: This guy is himself an Indian immigrant)

This morning I had an interesting conversation with my wife on a subject that continues to confound me. We were discussing the predatory sexual behavior of Pakistanis in the UK and my wife was understandably appalled. She was also appalled when I told her that part of their motive was possibly shaped by a belief in the inherent inferiority of non Muslim women. Jack Straw pointedly observed that Pakistani males preyed on underage white girls while their own women were strictly off limits.

While my wife was appalled by their behavior, she still couldn’t fathom what all the fuss was about. “Why not just remove them from Britain?” she earnestly asked. I informed her that deporting citizens was out of the question in any western country. Her next question was predictable precisely because it is so logical:

“In that case why not just ban Pakistani immigration to the UK?”

My wife is somewhat new to the West and has yet to be plugged into the Matrix of Politically Correct Liberal dementia. Ergo, she sees things with an elusive clarity that remains out of reach for so many whites. She suffers from this outlandish delusion that most countries in the world are ruled by a dominant (ethnic) majority that dictate culture, music, religion, and immigration policy.

In a past conversation we were discussing Jewish power in North America. As an Indian, the reality of a minority wielding disproportionate power wasn’t surprising to her in the least (think Brahmins and Parsis of India). She was however, perplexed as to why whites feared the dreaded ‘R’ word so much.

“Why should whites care about what others think? It’s their country after all”

“So you’re saying that Canada is a white country?” I asked.

“Isn’t that obvious?” She responded.

To outsiders, Canada is a white country just as China is a Chinese country and Saudi Arabia is an Arab country. Iran might be tolerant of Jews and Azeris, but it remains an unapologetic Persian nation. India has historically tolerated central Asian Muslims, Persian immigrants (Parsis), and Jews. However it has always been (and continues to be) an unapologetic Hindu nation, and there is nothing wrong with that. So why is it that the founding stock of the Anglosphere shy away from exerting their identity and religious heritage? Why are whites so feckless and wimpy? To outsiders like my wife, this sort of ethnic masochism is unhealthy and insane behavior.

If whites were only able to glimpse a reflection of their societies through the eyes of immigrants they would realize that Multiculturalism, Feminism, gay obsession, and Cultural Marxism amount to cultural suicide. My main motive for sharing these conversational snippets with my wife is to illustrate the left’s propensity to invert reality. Healthy is sick, Heritage is ‘socially constructed’ whereas deviant subcultures are normal (‘Born this way’), Diversity is strength ect…

If Westerners are to take back their nations, they need to first recover their eyesight.

Bay Area Guy #fundie occidentinvicta.com

Kind of funny that during the supposedly wicked days of blatant male dominance and patriarchy, women dressed in a much more modest and dignified manner.

Somehow, even though excessively skimpy outfits coincide with women’s liberation, it’s patriarchy’s fault that women choose to dress like sluts.

I guess the netizens in the manosphere don’t call it the rationalization “hamster” for nothing.

Bruce #fundie occidentinvicta.com

God, nothing reminds me of why I hate leftists more than reading a feminist. No great culture or civilization has ever valued equality, at least not as modern leftists conceive it, especially not equality between men and women. Nature doesn’t do equal.

The ultimate, and irrefutable argument against feminism is simple demographics. When men stop being dominant and authoritarian women lose the instinct to breed – women subconsciously view egalitarian males as unworthy mates. Birth rates collapse and the race goes extinct. All the nations which have embraced feminism are demographically and culturally imploding and will soon join Dar Al-Islam.

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

**If you are comparing Christianity to Hinduism, I’m sure you can make a very good case for the superiority of Christian morality and the affects on civilisation. India is an easy target for this kind of analysis since its such a big, corrupt, impoverished, divided mess right now and is going to be for quite some time.**

You don’t have to point to India at all. When Arthur Danto critiqued Hinduism he did so without leveling a single accusation against Indian society. Deconstructing Hinduism can easily reveal it’s flawed philosophical center.

**Christianity may have had a significant influence on the development of science, capitalism, western morality, human rights and democracy but now we have those things, they have taken on a life of their own and they can be adopted by non-christian countries.**

It’s funny because Danto makes the very same argument in Mysticism and Morality but then contradicts it by rejecting Hume’s Fact/value dichotomy (to the best of my understanding). Moral beliefs are predicated on factual beliefs. The protestant work ethic that transformed a wilderness into 2 first world nations was predicated on the factual beliefs that there is a God and that imitating this God is the supreme end. If God laboured to create the world, and if man is made in the image of God, then man imitates God by creating as well. If God realized his godhood via the act of creation, so too does man realize this humanity via creation and thus leaves his indelible stamp upon nature.

The European settlers certainly believed all this and were able to accomplish in 500 years what the aboriginals could not in 10,000 years (excluding the Mayans who were advanced).

But this Protestant work ethic crumbles if belief in the God that inspired it crumbles. Witness this in the low levels of job satisfaction rampant across the west. Witness how millennials disdain manual labour and measure the worth of work solely on the metric of remuneration. Christianity is still relevant today.

quick edit: In philosophy, “factual beliefs” are different from their counterparts in the domain of science. In the latter, they must be verified empirically whereas in the former they are merely true/false statements about the universe that needn’t be verified empirically.

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

I think that Feminism and Liberal lunacy have an upkeep. You see it in the constant barrage of “girl power” and “strong and independent woman” tropes that society is subjected to everyday. If this upkeep were removed, society would revert back to traditional gender roles in just a matter of decades. The problem here is that feminism doesn’t really give women a fair choice. Feminine instincts are berated and brutally attacked by feminist retards which goes to show you that it’s the feminists that are loathe to give women real choice. Not all women are meant to be mothers but in a traditional society very few would choose perpetual spinsterhood. Those that choose to walk that path should be allowed to do so because they would always be the minority anyway.

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

The second assumption stems from the feminist view that Nationalism and feminism are mutually exclusive; which translates into women’s interests being separate from nation unless feminists are allowed to reconstruct culture on their own terms. The third point listed above, and the most obvious, is the tired old cliche that the traditional female role of protecting and nurturing culture (as opposed to subverting it) is inherently oppressive. It’s impossible to love a nation when you despise half of its population.

As I’ve written previously, traditional cultures produce women that willingly protect and fight for the values of their cultures. Despite their valiant struggles, feminists condemn such women as being brainwashed by patriarchy; which brings to surface certain contradictions in feminist thought. On one hand, feminism aims to restore women’s autonomy by seizing it from the jaws of patriarchy, yet that agency must be exercised solely at the feminist’s discretion. Very few feminists (to my knowledge)stood in support of France’s Muslim women who were barred from wearing the headscarf by law; so much for a woman’s body being her own. When their lesser sisters fail to act in accordance with their dogma, feminists infantalize their motives and actions with a paternalism that they are quick to criticize in men. Some have rightly referred to feminism as ‘paternalism in lipstick.’

The second contradiction lies in their rather peculiar definition of “independence.” When North American men think of independence we generally picture a society free from government intrusion that protects our lives, liberty, and property; as articulated by John Locke. We picture an existence where a man is free to pursue any vocation as he feels inclined. The spirit of freedom that underlies the protestant work ethic forms the very basis of our definition of independence. Free and independent men do not desire charity and observers during the great depression noted extreme shame in the eyes of the men who stood in bread lines. Women on the other hand (feminists especially) are more than content to live on charity; they simply refer to it with euphemisms like “Child support” and “Alimony.” This naturally calls for a more expansive and intrusive state whose function is to legislate this highway robbery and ensure the redistribution of wealth from men to women. It’s unsurprising why astute critics have called feminism a front for communism. Yet this contradiction is made evident when contrasted with the reality that women are still dependant, not on families and men, but on the state. Women aren’t independent, their dependence has merely been shifted onto the nanny state. Independent men want a smaller state whereas independent women desire a large nanny state to hold their hand (Family laws, affirmative action, ect).

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

The wimpy whites are ubiquitous. In our rapidly decaying, anti-Christian, consumerist, and post modernist cultures there is simply no escaping them. It bothers us deeply that most wimpy whites are also males. So where do they come from? But more importantly, are you one of them? Find out by answering either true or false to the questions posted below.

1. I prefer the great spirit, Buddhism, Hinduism and eastern spirituality to the Lord Jesus Christ: (T/F)

Most wimpy whites prefer the solipsistic and amoral spiritual systems of the orient to the supremely ethical teachings of Christ. When asked to produce something from these exotic traditions that even remotely compare to the ethical teachings of Matthew’s sermon on the mount, they go on a screed about slavery, genocide, and evil mighty whitey.

2. Trees are meant to be lived in and not cut down: (T/F)

While we do not like environmental degradation, the vanishing amazon, or Japan’s over-whaling, we do not think that Humans are blight upon the Earth. We are God’s chosen creation, and being a sentient species we occasionally engage Mother Nature in a game of tug o war. This means that we have to compromise with the old girl. Sometimes she cedes some turf to us, and sometimes we to her. We are not stewards of the Earth, we own this damn planet. It’s ours.

3. The world would be a better place if women ruled it:(T/F)

No it wouldn’t actually. While some women make good entrepreneurs and CEOs, even fewer are suited for the highest offices of our nations. Women and power simply don’t mix. Men have always served as the architects of civilization for they have always been adept at articulating the factual beliefs that underpin our moral structures. Superior civilizations postulated factual beliefs that are universal in nature. The only notable contribution that western women have made to our culture in recent decades is feminism; which aims to further women’s interests over men and is not universal in scope.

4. I think diversity is great as diversity of races equals diversity of perspectives and thought:(T/F)

Of all the unfounded myths this one is surely up there with geocentrism and the earth being supported on a column of tortoises. The simple fact is that homogeneity trumps diversity every single time. It is hard to synergize with people who have no access to your values. When John Stuart Mill famously wrote about diversity in his essay on Liberty, he was referring to diversity of thought, not ethnicity. Non white immigrants need to assimilate into western culture before synergy can occur.

If you’re a non assimilated non white person reading this, remember, if I can do it so can you! Meditate on oneness with whitey today!

Dota #fundie occidentinvicta.com

(Talking about the George Zimmerman verdict)

This begs the most obvious question: why wasn’t he charged with manslaughter when this was a textbook case of the offense? I think the key to this puzzle lies with the all female jury. I’ll lay long odds that if a simulation of this trial were presented before a separate host of male and females jurors, that the males would reach a verdict of guilty 90% of the time while the females would reach the opposite verdict 90% of the time. To most sane and rational men, Tulio’s position up there rings true. However, to most women born and bred on rape culture paranoia, Zimmerman’s actions were morally justifiable, or atleast to a point where they did not elicit a guilty verdict. Since the entire setting occurred at night, in isolation, with one party dominating the other, the female jury quite possibly perceived it as a ”rape analogy” (to borrow a phrase from a friend). Those that have spent time at University would be adequately familiar with female paranoia.

Western women are paranoid, schizophrenic, and possess an inflated victim-hood complex. A few months ago Joe Salazar got into trouble for remarking that women on campus should not be allowed to carry concealed firearms as they were likely to act on their paranoia and shoot an innocent passerby. The feminist thought police were all over him, predictably so, and the man had to issue an apology for stating the obvious. Between the bogus rape culture and the inflated victim-hood, it seems unlikely that western women are capable of thinking rationally. Their moral particularism and solipsism casts additional doubt on their capacity to reason with a clear mind. Sadly, the high cost of political correctness must be borne as Zimmerman walks free while American society has yet to bear the burden of another mockery of justice.