“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.”
Albert Einstein



The callous indifference and even delight some “people of color” and white Leftist cucks display when whites, especially women, are attacked, maimed, humiliated, and/or killed speaks volumes about the true nature of the “progressive movement”, and is obviously in direct contradiction with the stated aims of nouveau liberalism. Equality be damned, this is about social engineering and acquiring and wielding power to further a specific ideology. There’s a really rather sinister element to the “progressive” narrative, where these supposedly tolerant and open-minded folks rejoice in the destruction of their ideological opponents, or even just ordinary people who don’t happen to fit into or agree with their utopian vision by having the wrong combination of viewpoint, skin tone, or income. If you believe Texas A&M University professor Tommy Curry, “White people dying has generally worked…for the sake of liberation and equality”.

Since most Leftists don’t believe in an afterlife, everything is material to them, and they must try to manipulate the temporal world and force the conditions that would create their secular heaven-on-earth; their vision is strangely Catholic in its ideas of Original Sin, guilt, and atonement, and Puritanical in its call for absolute, inflexible, unsmiling devotion to the Cause. Though they may try to point to the cavorting queens at Pride as evidence of their sassy playfulness, the gays long ago traded in bathroom blowjobs and pearl necklaces for pearl-clutching. Why are the gays and their “allies” so uptight? I thought the gays were supposed to be wild, subversive and ribald, not prancing ninnies who are about as fun as a colonoscopy (okay, maybe that wasn’t the best analogy…).

What happened is homosexuality became normalized, and society in general has accepted it. There is nothing transgressive about being gay in 2017. In fact, there’s a profound expectation of conformity and uniformity in public discourse that often results in serious consequences for those who deviate even slightly from the “progressive” narrative. In this way, conservatives are the new gays, and many have even adopted the language of gay culture by referring to revealing their political beliefs as a kind of “coming out of the closet”.

Our culture actually emphasizes what was once called “deviance”, condoning certain irresponsible behaviors, glorifying them even, and celebrating any break from tradition and the societal glue of family, church, and community. The Left talks about the “black community”, the “Latinx community”, et cetera, but these are not communities as they’re constructed by the Left in any meaningful way. They’re millions of people comprising an identity group, and what these “communities” represent are racial identity blocks that advocate first for the sharing of power, and then for the consolidation of it. While in some respects the Leftist usage of community is correct in the sense that the members of these groups have common cultural and historical over-lap (to a degree), the portrayal does not hold up past a certain point. The intended effect of the use of the word community is to evoke an image of a localized, harmonious, tightly-knit group that cooperates for the greater good. If that were indeed the case, blacks wouldn’t be murdering each other at such a staggering rate in the inner cities.

University of South Carolina College of Social Work professors Mary Ann Priester and Ronald Pitner assert that “color-blindness” is unethical, and thus we must focus on skin hue and pigmentation as an evaluative measure. The rationale (if you can call it that) is an odd distortion of the equity narrative, and played out to its logical conclusion can only hurt the so-called progressive cause by pointing out statistically quantifiable truths like black and Hispanic criminality and entitlement leeching. It also obliterates the “white privilege” trope by underlining the correlation of IQ and standard earning potential, which if considered in today’s context would force us to confront Yellow and Jewish Privilege. These groups, on average, have higher IQ scores, earn more than whites, and have lower criminality. They are generally dis-privileged in college admissions in order to have that lovely “diversity” pie graph and some smiling brown faces on a brochure, trying to lure you (or your parents) to fork over six figure investments in your future that may or may not pay off. It is a visually obvious diversity, but one devoid of any true depth of perspective. The Senegalese, Vietnamese, and Argentinian students on the cover may all belong to the same math club for all we know, but what’s being communicated here is the appearance of diversity.

All the push for diversity is doing is fracturing our society into sub-groups or communities that lead parallel lives but rarely interact, and because of the estrangement from each other, these interactions often tend to the negative based on stereotypes. Even diversity of thought is becoming ghettoized. The University of Central Florida recently witnessed the appointment of a Student Body Diversity Coordinator (I’m not sure a more useless position exists) who declared that, “Trump supporters are not welcome on our campus”. This is the vocalization of what has become the general consensus in higher education and points beyond.

St. Joseph’s University professor David Parry stated that, “People are going to die because of white Trump voters”; he also believes that Donald Trump’s election exemplified the intentional dehumanization of marginalized populations (which is, by the way, a huge segment of Trump’s voting bloc—the white working class), which is certainly an interesting observation if you consider Trinity College professor Johnny Eric Williams’s assertion that whites are inhuman. Parry stated explicitly about the results of the election: “This is violence”. And we wonder where all of this anti-white animus and conflation of “microaggressions” with literal violence comes from!

Fairfield University professor Kris Sealey spends a lot of time educating her students on the “hegemonic power of whiteness” based on Emory University professor George Yancy’s concept of the White Gaze, a racial permutation, it would seem, of the Male Gaze. Whiteness, it would seem, is the problem. Boston University professor Saida Grundy has unleashed a torrent of anti-white rhetoric on Twitter, ranging from identifying white college males as a “problem population” (you know, because they’re the ones that commit 50% of the murders in the United States) to excusing black criminality as their “best impression of Wall Street”. According to Rutgers University professor Kevin Allred, “there are no good white people”, and former North Carolina State University professor Kamau Kambon went one further, calling for the complete eradication of white people. George Ciccariello-Maher of Drexel University is a “man” of modest desires, only wanting white genocide for Christmas instead of his two front teeth. Shimer College professor Adam Kotsko believes, “We should commit mass suicide” over the legacy of slavery (okay Kotsko, you first!).

Georgetown University (they of the Hezbollah-supporting dean) adjunct law professor Preston Mitchum recently tweeted: “Yes, ALL white people are racist. Yes, ALL men are sexist. Yes, ALL cis people are transphobic. We have to unpack that. That’s the work!” That’s some nuanced thinking there, prof! Maybe you should “unpack” the dildo up your ass. Isn’t it the very definition of racist to make categorical statements about an entire group of people? Ah, but Mitchum avers: “What makes something racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, et cetera is when power and the ability to effectuate said power is added.” Let’s “unpack” that, then, shall we?

Using Mitchum’s logic, as he’s (nominally) a man, why should we listen to this sexist piece of shit? Who would want to associate with such a person? What’s more, if power and the ability to effectuate it is what makes something racist, then his privileged position at an esteemed university and his position of power in the teacher-student relationship (not to mention his reach as a public figure) would in fact make his statement as racist.

The University of California at Davis LGBTQIA Resource Center would be inclined to disagree with my analysis, as their language guide asserts that only white people are capable of racism, once again claiming that only when power and privilege are added to the equation can words and deeds be considered racist. As Michel Foucault (in)famously asserted, “language is oppression”. So by re-defining terms such as “racist” to suit their ideological purposes, what the Alphabet Soup Resource Center at UC Davis is actually doing is exercising power through their manipulation and control of language by relying on their position of authority through their affiliation with academia and its prestige, thereby oppressing whites by inverting what they clearly view as the blanco-centric dominance hierarchy to privilege heretofore “marginalized peoples” above whites.

These kinds of ideas are extremely damaging, and, especially in the case of black-on-white crime, excuses if not justifies destructive behaviors as “reactive”. The mainstream narrative of white privilege and black disenfranchisement fosters hate and resentment, and a disturbing amount of black men have internalized all of this rhetoric and acted out revenge fantasies on white women, typically in the form of rape. Many feminists from Susan Brownmiller to Susan Griffin to Louise Arbour articulate that rape, at its heart, is about power, and they’re not wrong. It is the assertion of physical, psychological, and sexual dominance over another by use of force, coercion, or drugs. If the theoretical black rapist is responding to and acting against white oppression, as is often the excuse with black and brown criminal behavior, does this excuse the male oppression of a woman by violating her in the most awful way possible? Where is the Left on this one? What, too complicated? Blacks commit interracial aggravated assault over two hundred times more often than whites. Black males are fourteen times more likely than white males to commit homicide. Whites have been responsible for exactly zero percent of rapes against blacks over the last decade. Over half of blacks convicted of rape in the same time frame chose white victims.

Radical feminism holds that rape is the consequence of social traditions and historical realities, so in the progressive narrative, these men are responding to oppression and systemic racism, and yet, under the radical feminist rubric, they are also engaging in patriarchal oppression by degrading and diminishing women and reinforcing the inequality between the sexes. Rape is about power, and if racism is about power plus privilege, then black-on-white rape would appear to be the fault line between two tectonic plates of marginalized groups that threatens to become an earthquake; black men targeting white women specifically for their race is rarely addressed by the Left—and never addressed truthfully—because the impact would be seismic, the fallout so catastrophic the entire enterprise and all its inherent contradictions would turn to rubble. When black-on-white violence, including sexual violence, is engaged with, it is always explained away as a response to external factors.

Good White Person Amanda Kijera, the human rights activist and Malcolm X scholar raped in Haiti, somehow managed to blame the incident on black men’s “misdirected anger” at “their position in the global hierarchy” and the white patriarchy. Keep in mind Haiti’s been independent almost as long as the United States; the black nation has been in charge of its destiny ever since, and it is an absolute hell-hole. That is a hell, by the way, of their own making. Kijera is yet another Leftist whose attempt to rationalize their irrational worldview leads them down the path of infantilizing blacks as if they have no agency of their own, as if they can do nothing but react, and that their pets have no other motivations beyond acting within this narrow scope of post-modern word-vomit incongruities.

The feminists Susan Brownmiller and Susan Griffin each went so far as to declare rape an act of terrorism by men perpetrated against women, so while CNN, HuffPo, The Daily Beast, and the like are busy torturing the numbers to sound the alarm about non-existent domestic “far-right extremism”, these very same “progressives” are ignoring actual racially-motivated “terrorism” (to use the radical feminist nomenclature) at home and the brutal, systemic oppression of women in the Muslim world and, increasingly, the Islamized parts of Europe, North America, Australia, and East Asia. There are colossal blind spots in the progressive narrative, and unlike white Trump voters, people are actually dying because of them.

Trans Rights: Part I

Trans Rights: Part I

The Rules of Attraction

The Rules of Attraction