Barack Obama: Dreams From An Absentee Father


This article was originally published at Return of Kings before Trump’s election. 

For most of the last decade after the onset of Obamamania, I was gas-lighted by the man. Don’t get me wrong: I was always skeptical of the limits of soaring elocution and of the capacity of a pastor-in-chief to effect positive transformation in America. But following George W. Bush’s neocon adventure in Iraq—which continues to make all our lives worse—I was not entirely opposed to Obama’s rise.

Gradually, with the deadlock in Washington and the general mediocrity and legislative malaise of the Obama administration, I developed an apathy to him. I watched as he dug deeper into the moral trenches, grandiloquently casting everyone who disagreed with him as “on the wrong side of history.” I saw that he was highly left-brained, unimaginative and predictable. It became clear that he didn’t care what the average American thought about him, so long as the editors of TheNew Yorker or fellow Harvard Law alumni recognized his genius.

On matters of basic liberal policy, he was content with not getting his hands too dirty after the healthcare debacle, so long as historians recognized his unrealized potential. But it was only in the last year that I was jolted awake not just to Obama’s operational failings, but also to his ideological ones. Through his catatonic auto-responses to terrorist attacks in Paris, Brussels, Orlando and Nice, he didn’t leave me any choice but to replace years of apathy with real suspicion. It was impossible not to notice that the script he followed after the attacks was always the same:

  1. Express condolences and solidarity to the victims.
  2. Offer a comforting anecdote (e.g. “France is America’s oldest ally”).
  3. Express a resolve to take the battle against ISIS to another level, with more intelligence-sharing and airstrikes, while downplaying any link to Islamic terror.
  4. Expend great effort defending diversity and saying that if we turn on each other, the terrorists win.

This last step, in which Obama’s passions show most conspicuously, is where he overplays his hand. He insists, “We must keep doing what we’re doing or else the terrorists win” (translation: “Let’s uphold the cycle of Wahhabi–Zionist violence while inviting all peoples and ideologies to America”). But humans, though causelessly searching for new obstacles for themselves, need the veneer of progress and forward momentum. So telling Americans to simply carry on is a psychological dead-end. But that’s the least of Obama’s flaws, for his prescription for us to do nothing (as if more intelligence-sharing and airstrikes constitutes something) betrays his deeper motives at the core of his character.

too extreme

Obama Debates a Shitlord

At this point, if you, a perceptive Westerner, could debate Obama, you might tell him that America should stop trying to be all things to all people.

“A country that strictly controls its borders and alienates major populations will be full of hatred and will be a prime ISIS target,” Obama might retort.

“But what about Japan and Poland?” you ask.

“Those countries are on the wrong side of history!” Obama says.

“Why can’t we be more like them? We’ll stop meddling in the Middle East and we’ll have a stronger identity at home.”

“No way,” says Obama.

“Why?” you say.

“Because reasons™.”

“But I need something more from this country, Obama. I feel no civic engagement. I feel like our identity’s been hollowed out and outsourced. This place is one big strip mall. I can’t even talk to my neighbors because we have nothing in common and they hardly speak English. Something needs to change.”

“What you propose is nothing short of dismantling the American dream.”

“What is the American dream in 2016?” you ask.

“My dream.”

The Distillation Of Obama’s American Dream

In speech after speech, Obama spends the lion’s share of time exhorting the world not to discriminate between peoples and ideologies, insisting that violent extremists are unrepresentative of the mainstream—a mainstream that he and his fellow liberals get to define and massage the parameters of. This Soros-like conniption at a selective society is the germ of Obama’s political impulses. By comparison, he cares little about healthcare, poverty, job creation, inner-city violence, the environment, or Wall Street.

Obama’s American dream, it can hardly be debated, is a society of mixed-race knowledge workers who retweet John Oliver videos and spiral out in virtue-signalling and quota-filling as the national religion—all while partaking of the cult of economic growth and projecting American military power abroad to spread the seeds of globalism. Contra popular wisdom, Obama isn’t the martyr of a liberated, selfless, post-tribal world. Rather, he’s the step-child of a new globalist tribe of bankers, armchair moralists, and hordes of ressentiment whose mandate is to shred history and turn the debris into money.


Flanked by Merkel and Clinton, Barack Obama is the modern face of liberalism, wherein so long as he waves the rainbow flag and self-righteously balkanizes the West through worship of Otherness (“it’s who we are!”) and aggressive equality policing, he has impunity from bankers, media masters and the r-selected electorate to accomplish nothing. Only the age of Obama could afflict us with Justin Trudeau, an airheaded drama teacher who’d rather lead a gay-pride parade or deliver a historic apology than do anything else in the world.

The Rise Of Obama

Obama’s rise is often explained as an inevitability of history, an everyday miracle in America’s march towards fairness and openness to the world. And yet Obama is more of a unicorn than that, is more a one-off event whose mutations are being disseminated in the American (and global) genome. Despite insistences that Everyone Is The Same,™ Obama has little in common, culturally or intellectually, with many of his high-profile minority hires, such as Susan Rice, Jeh Johnson, Loretta Lynch and Katherine Archuleta. These are hardly state-of-the-art thinkers whose contributions would have been tragically denied us if not for Obama. (Witness former Attorney General Eric Holder, whose post-Administration job involves helping Airbnb craft a better “anti-discrimination policy.”)

Obama’s backstory is both completely different from those of his peers, and completely explanatory of his political mores. He was born to a Kenyan father who’d made the intergalactic leap from goat-herder brushing up against British colonial authorities to Harvard student. Obama Sr. must have been absurdly intelligent, which he combined with an unsurprising resentment towards colonialism: a heady combo that might explain his conversion to Islam and his abusive, alcoholic, pilfering behaviour.

The man had at least five wives and had children with most of them, including with a Lithuanian Jew and various Kenyans, one of whom was pregnant with his child when he met Stanley Dunham, the white American woman he married, impregnated, and abandoned. Indeed, the most striking thread of Obama’s origins is his sprawling, globe-trotting, well-educated, and well-connected yet highly broken extended family, for Obama Sr. was not alone in trashing the traditional family unit: Stanley Dunham, ditched by Obama Sr., later married, bred with and divorced an Indonesian man, Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo, who also later married and bred with another woman.

Barack Obama, living fatherless with his mother in Hawaii and Indonesia, had no first-hand experience of the American nuclear family, and probably little concept of the American mainland. In Dreams from My Father, he recollects his first trips to Europe and Africa, giving two paragraphs to Europe and 140 pages to Africa. About Europe, he says:

By the end of the first week or so, I realized that I’d made a mistake. It wasn’t that Europe wasn’t beautiful; everything was just as I’d imagined it. It just wasn’t mine. I felt as if I were living out someone else’s romance; the incompleteness of my own history stood between me and the sites I saw like a hard pane of glass. I began to suspect that my European stop was just one more means of delay, one more attempt to avoid coming to terms with the Old Man. Stripped of language, stripped of work and routine – stripped even of the racial obsessions to which I’d become so accustomed and which I had taken (perversely) as a sign of my own maturation – I had been forced to look inside myself and had found only a great emptiness there.

Contradicting the narrative in which Obama is post-racial, he rejected his 50% European ancestry in favor of the lineage of his father—a father who’d abandoned him to a white mother and grandparents. Under no illusion, however, that he was a full-blooded or cultural Kenyan, Obama settled on his identity as a black American global citizen who loved America insofar as it was a vehicle of racial and socioeconomic levelling. No wonder, then, that he took up Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and got to community organizing in Chicago.

How Did Obama Change The World?

The changes wrought during the presidency of this former community organizer, who no doubt had little prior managerial experience and will never develop a marginally functional relationship with Congress, are drastic and manifold. The full-scale colonization of Europe, previously a steady drip, is now a torrent under this Europhobe, who, despite allegedly clashing with Angela Merkel in the early days, now considers that continent-wrecker his “favorite ally.”

In America itself, Soros-funded Black Lives Matters protesters extort and disrupt taxpaying citizens while trumpeting violence against cops, at whose funerals Obama uses the eulogy to lecture the bereaved about white supremacy, leading to more blue deaths. (Never mind that in many Western cities, these bastions of white supremacy, a stroll downtown often reveals more bi-racial than mono-racial couples—an outcome that Obama surely rubs his hands over.)

What’s clear in 2016 is that we’re not living in the age of facts, but of hysterical and hollow prostrations to a secular god. The liberal media and aspirational middle class, in contrast to much of the electorate, remains in thrall to Obama’s moral imperialism, fawning over his words as the gospel of liberal egalitarianism, the dominant Western religion (and worldreligion, alongside Islam), whose main tenet might as well be, “If someone does a good deed and there’s no one there to see it, then it doesn’t exist,” or, more commonly, “If someone has the right elite-ordained opinion and there’s no one there to retweet it, then it doesn’t exist.”

In the thought dictatorship of the modern West, where the edgiest dissidents hide behind Twitter handles, Obama is free to issue transgender bathroom directives and Section 8 housing orders with no fucks given about the very certain fracturing of society or the metamorphosis of the Democratic Party from the workers’ party to the party of big business and vice versa—no fucks given as he watches this landfill-sized dumpster fire that used to be American cohesion burn, because it was the type of damage he wanted all along: making us out in his image as people vibrantly broken and in no position to judge him.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The results of the election in the United States will change the world. The neo-liberal empire will either further entrench itself under Hillary Clinton, perhaps leading closer to a one-world government, or it will halt its expansion under Trump and try to retreat back to some fragile and palsied form of its republican roots.

The results of the former scenario are easy to envision (because we’re living this reality now): unprecedented cultural strife, with America like a doctor strapping its nation-state patients (France, Germany, etc.) to the operating table and anesthetizing them in hopes that the seizures stop, that everyone just gets with the program of international culture and “The End of History.”

One patient, however, is too big and too cohesive to subdue—China—meaning the result of the Obama-Clinton-Soros doctrine, a generation or two down the line, could very well be a world split between a godless, consumeristic, terror-infested Gay-Muslim-Globalist federation (the West) and a powerful Chinese ethno-state (possibly allied with Russia and Iran). The result of a Trump presidency, on the other hand, might be a mere slowing and protracting of the latter dynamic, or it could be a splitting of the world into more spheres of influence—something Western power brokers absolutely do not want.


Learning From Obama

Whatever the outcome, men of influence would do well to recognize and internalize aspects of what made Obama so capable of universalizing his narrative: his statesmanlike eloquence, his seeming rationality, his seemingly encyclopedic knowledge, his camera-readiness. Influential dissidents like HAarlem Venison, Richard Spencer, Roosh, and Stefan Molyneux show some of these qualities as they go beyond simple statistics, essays and memes.

They know that in the cathedral of taboos and no-go thoughts that is the modern West, there’s an unmet black-market demand for people willing to tell the truth, a truth that is antithetical to Obama’s reason for getting up every morning. But whereas Obama, an offshore American, could fly in from Hawaii and ride the waves of decades of mass immigration, family disintegration, social programming and cat-lady liberationism to preach a feel-good (if naïve and insidious) narrative that even his opponents had to recognize and smile at, men willing to tell the truth in today’s world will be reviled and their livelihoods and safety will be threatened, no matter how well they present themselves. This is the conclusion of Obama’s age of hope: the age of heretics.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Glossary of Globalist Terms

American dream: Escaping beggarly origins and play-acting nobility in a “Consumption-based economy.”

“A past that never existed”: A past that existed 20 years ago.

“Because we’re Americans”: “Because we’re controlled by identity politics.”

“Betray our values”: Invoked when Westerners dissent from globalist plan.

China: A 1.3 billion-person repudiation of “Diversity is our strength.”

Christianity: a) religion of self-abolishment of white people; b) evil culture of Scots-Irish “White working class.”

Colonialism: Western elites’ transfer of population to third world in 18th/19th centuries, as opposed to Western elites’ transfer of third world to West in 20th/21st centuries.

Consumption-based economy: Economic model in which people buy and rapidly discard plastic objects.

Cosmopolitan: Having well-dressed non-Westerners and a high GINI coefficient.

Credit rating agency: Globalist hitman who enforces “Diversity is our strength” and “Economic growth.”

Culture: Food options.

Democracy: Manipulation of lower classes by 1% through “Diversity is our strength.”

“Diversity is our strength”: Marxist mantra to eradicate resistance to multicultural corporatocracy.

Eastern Europe: Fertile land for colonization by “Transgender” and “Muslim” people.

Economic growth: Process of consumers rapidly buying and discarding plastic objects as the state increases in size.

Europe: Continent with Baroque and Gothic architecture and an ever-increasing number of Starbucks and Muslims.

European solidarity: Invoked when Europeans want to declare independence from America.

European values: Demographic displacement; self-hatred.

“Europe’s history of war”: Invoked when Europeans want to declare independence from America.

“Europe won’t survive unless…”: Invoked when Europeans want to declare independence from America.

Expert: Person with PhD who advocates “Diversity is our strength” and “Economic growth.”

Facebook: Virtual reality corporatist methamphetamine; vehicle of alienation and “Economic growth.”

Far-right: Self-respecting, high-testosterone.

Foreign policy: How a nation’s international relations affect Israel.

Freedom: Ability to castrate self, sodomize self, choose new pronouns, and buy American products.

Genocide: Death of ethnic groups in America’s sphere of influence.

Google: NSA directory.

Global stability: Divide and conquer by globalists.

Gross domestic product: Measure of a country’s dildo production, Big Mac consumption, and immigrant intake.

Hate speech: Free speech.

Hipster: Oxycontin addict whose snowflake degeneracy is leveraged to evangelize “Diversity is our strength.”

Human rights: Ability to castrate self, sodomize self, choose new pronouns, and buy American products.

Immigrant: Nouveau noble savage; future liberal voter; vehicle of “Economic growth.”

International consensus: What the globalists want.

International norms: What the globalists want.

Integration: Debt slavery.

International organizations: Globalist organizations run by “Experts.”

Islamophobic: Having respect for human life.

Islamic extremist: Mainstream Muslim.

Israel: “The shining city on a hill” that Americans live to serve.

Journalist: Buzzfeed blogger who agitates for “Freedom.”

“Let’s talk about x”: “Let’s have a Marxist lecture about x.”

Market liberalization: Process of dropping resistance to domination by banking cartels.

Middle East: Pillar of petrodollar system of U.S. gunboat diplomacy.

Muslim: Partner of “Transgender” person in achieving multicultural corporatocracy and cultural subversion.

Nation of immigrants: Rhetorical device for dividing and conquering Westerners.

Neoconservative: Hillary Clinton backer.

Peace in Europe: Invoked when Europeans want to declare independence from America.

Protestor: Low-testosterone globalist-paid agent.

Progressive: Pervert.

Religion: System of societal control vetted by a “Progressive.”

Right-wing protestor: Self-respecting, high-testosterone person.

Savings culture: Germanic and East Asian economic behavior anathema to “Economic growth.”

Self-determination: Opportunity for America to bring “Freedom” to new denizens.

Structural reforms: Methods of dropping resistance to domination by banking cartels.

Transgender: Partner of “Muslim” in achieving multicultural corporatocracy and cultural subversion.

“The Irish/Polish/Italians were once…”: Rhetorical device to divide and conquer white people.

“They just want a better life”: Rhetorical device to divide and conquer white people.

White privilege: Foundational concept in slow-burning pogrom of whites.

White supremacist: A member of the “White working class” who advocates white survival.

White working class: White people who act in their self-interest.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How New York Killed Literature (with UPDATE)

This article was originally published on Return of Kings.

Many men are aware of the backlashes to the depredations of cultural Marxists on video games (i.e. Gamergate) and science fiction (i.e. Sad Puppies). Yet literary fiction has already been so compromised that the prospects for change are about as good as those of a secular-humanist revolution sweeping through Saudi Arabia. One should not simply balk, understandable though the urge may be, that literary fiction is just flowery, solipsistic indulgence—for that would be dismissing some of our greatest thinkers, from Cervantes to Tolstoy to Beckett, due to our modern emasculated writers and the prattle of the social justice class.

To be clear, making it onto the NY Times bestseller list or getting published by Random House is brutally hard for anyone not writing crime, vampire or chick-lit novels. But the obstacles that non-leftist men face in an industry where 80% of executives are women are soul-crushing. This article will examine the current literary world—centered around New York publishing and MFA (Master of Fine Arts) programs—the SJW stranglehold thereof, the literary men of today vs. yesterday, and a prognosis for modern literature.

New York, New York

First things first: New York is publishing. If you haven’t spent a year riding the N-train between Brooklyn and Manhattan attending readings and expos, sucking up to magazine editors and readers (i.e. those who read submissions), and building contacts, then you’re like a goldfish swimming with sharks. If you want to make it in literary publishing, which means signing a deal with a New York agent and publisher, then the only excuse you have for not living there is if you attend a respectable MFA program outside the city.

The recent mushrooming of these programs—where writers workshop their stories and study craft while escaping from the daily grind—has resulted in more perfectly cut gems of sentences, more aesthetic groupthink and conformity, and a literary class system, where an MFA from the Iowa Writers Workshop opens many doors and an MFA from a lesser program opens none.

Landing a book deal or finding an agent is far easier with a publication record, meaning having placed stories and essays in prestigious literary magazines. But a litmag might publish four issues per year, each with 10 poems, 5 stories, and 2 essays. Two of these story slots (of interest to would-be Ernest Hemingways) are reserved for contributing editors, 2 are given to established writers whose names will boost the magazine’s profile, and 1 will be given to a newish writer—maybe. And if the choice comes down to you, an unknown male with a possibly white-sounding name from the Midwest, and the painter girl with 2000 Twitter followers who the editors party with in Bushwick, who do you think they’ll choose?

An internship paradox exists in literary publishing, where in order to get a book deal, you need a reputation, and in order to get a reputation, you need publications, and in order to get publications, you need a reputation. Two factors explain the existence of the literary class system as a substitute for talent. First, it’s hard for a magazine or agent to make value judgments between two solid pieces of work based on reading them for 5 minutes. Whereas listening to two musicians for 5 minutes each could deliver in-your-face impressions, browsing two stories often won’t. With most agents and magazines inundated with submissions, there’s no time to read everything and so they choose the person with the top MFA, the New York connections, and the five-digit Twitter followers.

The second reason for the literary class system relates to the economics of literary fiction. Though agents want to find and sell the next Great American Novel, the reality is that most books, authors, editors, and agents make no money. While the literati gloat that the industry is unique in standing outside the profit motive—as if it purely serves the human imagination—this lack of market orientation can be disorienting.

Most small magazines have no expectation of a large readership and no real business model, surviving instead on local arts council handouts. As such, considering that almost no one reads literary magazines (besides The New Yorker or Harper’s) and that they’re not appealing (or readable) to anyone but a tiny in-group of museum-going, naval-gazing yuppies, a magazine will leverage the literary class system and throw in some high-profile Iowa MFA writers in order to justify itself as not completely disappearing up its own ass. It needs to lend legitimacy to its drivel, which was never designed to appeal to anyone but the Brooklyn literati — or wannabe Brooklyn literati (the border is porous).

Think of the literary class system as a sort of coupon system in a communist state.

The SJW Takeover

So far, my intention has been to disillusion anyone who hopes otherwise as to the patent falsehood that what you write is half as important as your membership in the New York literary class. While an outsider can’t count on agents and editors reading their work for more than two minutes upon submission (unless they’re a card-carrying Park Slope resident with an MFA), there is one other way you can try to jostle your way into the Communist Politburo of Books: leftist virtue signalling.

I am not joking when I say that one of the best possible investments in your writing career, as a straight male who wants to get published, would be to hire a fat transgender “woman” of color and simply ghostwrite for “her,” or else acquire pictures of one and add “agoraphobic” to your Twitter resume of socially appealing forms of oppression—so no one expects to ever meet you.

No occupational field has inhaled diversity quotas this much. Looking at lists of award winners, grant recipients and editorial board members, made up predominantly of women, one would think that men are half-way illiterate. But in truth, far-left badges are ravenously shared and traded by the NY literary establishment, with many magazines and agents expressing a preference for “underrepresented writers,” not to mention all the literary events based around LGBT youth, minorities, inner-city kids, etc.

For example, let’s look at the identities and leftist credentials of the just-announced winners of the Whiting Awards:

Brian Blanchfield: white, LGBT

LaTasha N. Nevada Diggs: African-American, BLM, ebonics

Madeleine George: lesbian, generalized SJW

Mitchell S. Jackson: African-American, BLM, former drug dealer

Alice Sola Kim: Korean-American, lives with editor of Buzzfeed Books

Catherine Lacey: white, pinned tweet: “Fiction is the practice of queering reality.”

Layli Long Soldier: Native-American, SJW

Safiya Sinclair: Jamaican-American, BLM

Ocean Vuong: Vietnamese-American, gay

D. Daniels: white, non-SJW?

In this group, I only see one person with no immediate SJW affiliation (or Twitter account). While I can’t comment on the skill of some of these writers, the selection, like other modern literary selections, reeks of a PR wet dream chosen by a Buzzfeed panel.


You need Roxanne Gay’s approval to write

The identity-politic quota system, of course, hasn’t gone unnoticed by writers. Beyond the Sad Puppies episode in the more libertarian domain of science fiction, a recent incident in the Best American Poetry anthology was highly illustrative of the imposition of identity politics on literary publishing.

A writer, Michael Derrick Hudson, had his poem accepted into the anthology under the Chinese name Yi-Fen Chou, only to later reveal that he was a white man from Indiana who’d been perpetually rejected under his real name. There was a backlash, with Buzzfeed excoriating this talentless white patriarchal monster who should have “taken a hint” and stopped writing when he couldn’t get published. Some writers concede the vexed nature of getting published simply for being “exotic.” Ultimately though, they justify it based on the distinction between equality (equal treatment) and equity (equal access). That is, even if a white man is being discriminated against compared to a “translatina,” the white man faces fewer hurdles to publication (because his life is easier) and is still at an advantage despite the overt discrimination by publishing gatekeepers.

As in American life, identity politics will continue full-steam-ahead, powered by the unflappable nexus between writers of color and white women, whereby the former receive a platform from which to excoriate white people, so long as they trumpet the latter’s “rape culture” agenda. See, for example, one black writer’s response to the rape allegations facing Bill Cosby:

As far as Cosby’s alleged abuses, I was never conflicted. My only question was would this nation care if all, or most, of Cosby’s alleged victims were black women and girls. There wasn’t much intellectual or emotional reconciliation needed for me to understand that white Americans will go to all lengths to justify their terrorizing and pilfering of black folks, and most black men and boys, like most white men and boys, will go to all lengths to deny our active roles in sexual violence, sexual assault, sexual humiliation, and interpersonal violations of women and girls. The reality that white Americans are responsible for some of the most lasting, crazy-making violence on Earth does nothing to negate the reality that black men and boys, like white men and boys, are formally and informally educated by other men, boys, and patriarchal structures, to unrepentantly harm and sexually violate black women and girls.

What Kind Of Books Does This Produce?

The artistic goal of diversity quotas—if there could ever be a half-way acceptable one—might be to infuse lesser known narratives into the artistic zeitgeist through memorable but seldom heard characters and experiences. But we know this isn’t how it works in practice.

In novels from the Brooklyn intelligentsia, almost any African-American character is witty, pragmatic, agreeable, and surrounded by fools. But calling such a 2D cut-out a character is like calling a Pop-Tart baking. How such a character is supposed to elevate black people and nourish black artistic consciousness, let alone satisfy the average reader, is unclear. Rather than creating characters instead of identity-politics pets, establishment writers reach for the evermore rarefied tokenism.

Witness Garth Risk Hallberg, whose novel City on Fire recently received the possibly highest advance ever given to a novel: $2 million. Right from the first page, Hallberg introduces us to an interracial gay couple comprised of a wealthy but negligent white man who walks out on his long-suffering, paragon-of-virtue black boyfriend.

Or consider the “masculine” baseball novel The Art of Fielding, which revolves around a college dean and his affair with a black male student. Or the brand new What Belongs to You, whose author markets his book by saying he’s been cruising public bathrooms since he was 14. While these Ivy-educated authors are skilled at craft, it’s impossible to know where the virtue-signalling impulse ends and the story-telling begins. Possibly, they are trying to avoid the fate of Jonathan Franzen, who, despite being a bespectacled, militantly Democratic bird-watcher who writes an excess of female characters, faces a wrathful literary establishment who can’t quite countenance a straight male writer who has opinions about things.

Stephen King doesn’t want you to vote for Trump

Dead or muted are the mainstream male literary writers of yesteryear—Thomas Pynchon, Don DeLillo, Philip Roth, John Updike—many of whom are now considered arch-misogynists. In their stead, we have a generation of soldiers of Clintonian globalism led by radical feminists who write about “MUH FEELINGZ” and getting abortions, not to mention race agitators who get front-page editorials in The New York Times for their screeds against the never-ending assault against the “black body.”


Artistic communities have often been marked by dilettante behaviour, in-group rituals, and urbanism. But whereas 1920s Paris gave us works of Joyce, Hemingway, and Fitzgerald that still live on (the ultimate test of quality), it’s hard to imagine longevity for any socially conscious work written in a rent-controlled Park Slope flat—or any pitch-perfect but insipidly conformist book cranked out of one of America’s writing factories. Rather than writing bravely about the issues that define our experience and have no easy answer, the modern writer has to kneel before and pay his dues to the shrine of social justice.

Not only must he gain a large flock of SJW Twitter followers and relocate to New York to win over gatekeepers, he must design stories that include grotesquely high representations of women, LGBT people, and minorities, lest his “privilege” be a noose around his neck.

To this generation, it doesn’t matter how anti-art this is. It doesn’t matter that diversity in literature can’t possibly be served by the industry’s domination by four Manhattan publishing houses. It doesn’t matter that Dostoevsky would have mangled Crime And Punishment had his goal been to write a suburban novel with a Tatar Raskolnikov, a lesbian Dunya, and a lower-class non-binary Razumikhin. None of that matters, because New York killed literature long ago.


I was happy to read that some found my article educational, and even happier to see that it gave solace to certain writers who’d been thrown under the bus by the pozzed Michiko Kakutani clique. However, I am going to counter-signal one line of response: that the answer to male writer tears is simply to go to Amazon, hit “Publish,” and rack up the dough.

In fairness, I agree that self-publishing and the Internet are a godsend in many ways for writers, as gatekeepers lose (some) power, freedom of speech is bolstered, and writers can run their own businesses. Indeed, no card-carrying cultural dissident is going to place their work with a traditional publisher. And if the choice boils down to a writer being a) fully unpublished and fully unpaid or b) self-published and paid a (very) modest passive income, then there’s no contest.

But remember that we’re talking about fiction here. While How to Offshore Dildo Manufacturing to Thailand or How to Make Millions on Call Options from Mom’s Basement might catch fire on Amazon, Hate Facts: The Novel will almost certainly not. Ask yourself:

How many self-published novels have actually seeped into the culture and rustled the jimmies of New York gatekeepers? Can you buy self-published novels at the airport? Will a girl sleep with you because you uploaded to Amazon? What percentage of self-published fiction is better than, say, excrement that sold 47 copies? Has anyone ever sold TV or film options for a work of self-published fiction? Has anyone gotten rich off of self-published novels (excluding shit-tier genre works)?

Please, don’t bother scraping together the exceptions. The point isn’t that the situation isn’t evolving, or that self-publishing is bad. The point is that—as anyone will tell you who’s spent years grinding out a novel only to sell 320 copies and not even get reviewed by the local rag after a desperate guerrilla marketing campaign—self-publishing fiction isn’t the same as music or non-fiction. You can’t passively attract an audience. The cultural and economic stranglehold runs deeper.

Self-publishing fiction is a bit like not qualifying for a competition, and then running your own event and declaring yourself the winner. It would be far better for male writers to shift the Overton window, to march a masculine Trojan Horse into the Avenue of the Americas. A red-pilled professional publisher of superior shitlord fiction that exists not merely in a manosphere silo but rather seeps directly into the culture—a literary Breitbart, if you will—now that would rustle the jimmies of the New York smart set.


Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

Mecca in the Rhineland: The Causes, Consequences, and Calls to Action of the European Migrant Crisis

For the last eight months, as the European migrant crisis has reached a permanent boil and the Eurocrats have opened the doors of their welfare states to all the wretched of the earth, I have been unable to sleep.  In fact, I have suffered extreme mental torment. But it’s clear that even in today’s coddled, castrated West, there are no “safe spots” for people like me who appreciate anything that is historically European and Christian. Such is the disdain for Europe as the home of the European people that the Eurocrats, while vaunting the European Union as the distillation of justice and democracy, never even asked Europeans what they thought about allowing millions of decidedly non-European people from failed Middle Eastern and African states — some of whom want, in fact, to kill us — to descend on the continent at the expense of history, ethnic harmony, taxpayers and future generations.

For years, the Western media has lambasted the European Union for its growing unemployment and imposition of austerity measures on economically profligate nations in the south. There’s a near-consensus that having a currency union without a fiscal union is terrible policy. Resentment at a strong Germany — a centuries-old theme — and Berlin’s expectation that Athens pay back its loans once again made Germany the whipping boy of the West, who because of actions taken in the 1930s and 40s bears responsibility for all malaise in Europe.

Suddenly Germany, in what on the surface looks like an effort to expiate its imagined sins, has flipped Europe on its head and sent it into convulsions. In a stunning reversal of the 1930s, where, we’re told, the Germans blindly obeyed authority in the march towards militancy, the German people (at least those the TV shows us) are now marching in unison in the opposite direction — towards cultural and ethnic suicide. Not content to enact policy within its own borders, Germany is now fastening itself like a python around all of European civilization, sending the European man into his death throes. And the farther Germany sticks the knife in, the more the Western media cheers on the decline — cheers, for once, for Germany.

We are witnessing a human invasion of biblical proportions with effects that will play out for centuries. Three key questions arise. Why is Germany undertaking this self-colonization? What effect will it have? And what can be done about it?

Why is Germany doing this?

  1. Because it wants to atone for past sins and change its reputation.

For generations, Germans have been conditioned to accept eternal responsibility for the actions of their grandfathers. Such is the extent of Germany’s “negative exceptionalism” that Angela Merkel can speak of “an awareness of Germany’s constant responsibility for the fracturing of civilization.” Can you imagine any other nation, even one who perpetrated nuclear war, or famines, or mass rapes, living in such perpetual shame? When Merkel rebutted Netanyahu’s attempt in 2015 at historical revisionism — in which, he said, a Palestinian played a key role in convincing the Nazis to exterminate Jews — one sensed that Merkel, in affirming Germany’s full responsibility for the Holocaust and saying that future generations of children would keep learning the same view about Germany’s “break with civilization,” was engaging in Germany’s only accepted form of nationalism — anti-nationalism. Whether or not one likes nationalism, it must be conceded that no other country has this much self-loathing built into its national character or views itself as “fallen.” World War II (especially the Holocaust) is the most common historical flashpoint in Western academia, movies, and media. No period — neither Ancient Rome, nor the British Empire, nor the American Revolution — is such a relentless obsession and basis of comparison for all human behaviour.

With the Eurozone crisis and Germany’s demands that Greece pay back its debt, old stereotypes of tedious, mean-spirited Germans filled the Western media — the same media that now offers a deafening chorus of praise for German’s open-door policy to Middle Eastern migrants.  But while trying to phase out the idea of the ethnic German is repulsive to many people, Germany can count on the support of everyone in the Western media — Starbucks-swigging globalists and chief diversity officers whose careers are based on fighting injustice, which they’re paid to see everywhere, and pumping out clickbait. Such people have no objections to women and children being directed to the front of migrant crowds in order to create the perfect photo op.

Absurdly, even as E.U. borders were in 2015 left open to Muslim migrants in a lunatic show of generosity, The New York Times compared Europeans to Nazis and discussions of transit zones for migrants evoked comparisons by German MPs with concentration camps.

  1. Because it wants to turn Europe into a messy, chaotic place in order to distract from the E.U.’s malaise and to consolidate power

Before the migrant crisis and the near of Brexit, it was common knowledge that the European project is not thriving in the minds of globalists, bankers, elites, and the Western media. The structural weaknesses in the currency union, where strong, export-based countries (mainly Germany) thrive and poor nations can’t devalue their currency, have led to a morass with no easy remedy.  Compounding this is the existing level of ethnic, linguistic and cultural variability in Europe. Juncker and Merkel were treated as near-fascist by the Western media for demanding austerity and loan repayment on a continent where many are unemployed. All the while, European nations have their own priorities and increasingly resent the forward march of Brussels. What better way to try to inoculate against any residual nationalism — at the risk, of course, of doing the opposite — than to flood the market with cheap, foreign labour and new, continent-wide social problems that demand a unified response and newly centralized powers?

Sick of nuance and the hopeless interminability of the cultural nuances of the European peoples, the Eurocratic elites have lobbed a grenade — a massive social engineering project with massive complexity and massive pandemonium. Any bickering over loan repayment, you can be sure, Merkel and Juncker intend to bury under the carnage to the existing order we’re seeing. They want the E.U. quota-distributed migrants as a glue, a common preoccupation to cement the union.

The reality, however, is that Germany and Sweden’s goal to introduce migrant quotas across the E.U. is fraught because most migrants only want to live where they can collect lavish benefits. Eurocrats stupidly think that migrants will stay in low-welfare countries like Poland and Hungary — spending long years learning difficult languages — as opposed to demanding asylum in German or simply disappearing through Schengen Europe to big cities to work illegally or huddle in no-go zones.  Even migrants that receive accommodation in Germany often disappear.

The E.U.’s attempted consolidation of power conforms with globalist agitating for open borders and liberal markets. One of The New York Times’s biggest crusades of the day, besides transgender rights and Black Lives Matter, is to blur the line between illegal and legal immigration. American elites draw equivalency between Hispanic illegal immigrants who “just want a better life” in America and miscellaneous Muslims who want to rush Europe’s borders.

Frans Timmermans, the vice-president of the European Commission, grotesquely said that, “Any society, anywhere in the world, will be diverse in the future,” and that Eastern European nations would just have to “get used to that.” So, Frans: when China’s economy surpasses America’s, will they open their doors to poor whites? Will Africa and India, after their experiences with colonialism? Should we expect the Middle East to open its gates any day now (even as tourists can’t visit Saudi Arabia)? The concept of non-whites illegally entering white countries is a “human right,” while the idea of whites illegally entering non-white countries is and will always be evil colonialism.

  1. Because it wants to arrest population decline and keep its industrial machine running.

Germany’s population before the migrant invasion was forecasted to drop by nine million people by 2040. As such, some argue that mass immigration is necessary to sustain pensions and lubricate the industrial machine. Daimler CEO Dieter Zetsche will be sending recruiters into refugee camps in Germany, saying that, “The ancestors of Sergej Brin, Elon Musk and Jerry Yang didn’t arrive in America on the Mayflower either.” He makes an intergalactic leap of faith in linking the latter to Eritrean, Afghan and Syrian migrants, but that doesn’t matter to 1%’ers, because they’ll never pay the price of importing cheap labour — regular Europeans will.

Curious is how Germany, which consistently avoids taking decisive action on the world stage, is so fixated on maintaining Europe’s largest population. In a world of scarce resources and explosive, unsustainable population growth in Africa and Asia, why should a peaceful, industrious country need more people other than for band-aid economic solutions? The European Union, which Germany obsesses over keeping intact and which threatens, ultimately, to erode individual nations in Europe, already bands over 500 million culturally distinct people together. Clearly, Germany intends to dominate Europe for generations, even as it forces the continent to consolidate, open up, and shed its unique genetic profile.

Predictably, Germany is distorting its labour force through schemes to employ migrants such as “one-euro jobs.” Had Germany wanted to fill a shortfall in jobs, it should have made a more sustained effort to attract unemployed southern European youth. Yet it’s more interested in preserving German dominance, however arbitrary a dominance it is, with the chief economist at Deutsche Bank claiming that, “Only through massive immigration will we succeed in Germany to secure our standard of living and a place among the three or four most important countries in the world in the long term,” he says, adding that the 2% yearly growth needed to sustain the welfare system can only be achieved through immigration.

Many countries accept small numbers of highly skilled migrants with STEM skills and/or multiple languages. But Europe has no need for people with “strong backs,” as these types of jobs don’t exist in sustainable numbers anymore. One-fifth of current Syrian migrants are illiterate; a Syrian PhD isn’t comparable to a Western one. Germany believed it could cherry-pick industrious refugees out of the stream. But it will require decades for migrants to learn German and technical skills, with hoped-for payoffs not apparent for generations, if ever. In Germany, the unemployment rate for foreign-born workers is 74 per cent higher than for everyone else, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. In Sweden, immigrants are two and a half times more likely to be unemployed.

We live under an economic model where central banks create new money out of thin air, and the debt of countries is almost the same as money (unlike the debt of people). The problem (besides that it makes no sense and that “debt” will never end) is that this system depends on the unsatiable growth of economies and countries, which has a destructive effect on culture and economic equality. Merkel wants a massive, cheap workforce to lower wages and prevent any currency appreciation that would hamper German exports.

Rather than cut welfare, incentivize Europeans to breed more, and accept the natural ebb and flow of populations, German leaders are taking advantage of the migrant crisis to expand the public sector while garnering a new voter base. If we accept that European birthrates are doomed, that multiculturalist welfare states are our zeitgeist, and that economic growth is our god, then we must import third-worlders ad infinitum, until Europeans disappear altogether. Is that a reasonable price to pay for economic growth?

  1. Because the West’s Middle East policy has stirred and uprooted populations that can easily travel.

The Western powers, particularly the United States and Britain, have made a monumental mess of the Middle East, especially through the Merkel-championed War in Iraq. America (or its neocon class) struts around the Middle East like a ham-fisted doctor and tries to shove its medicine down the throat of the Muslim patient, who swiftly throws it up and then starts trashing the operating room. The reality is that most in the war-torn Levant are purely cynical of their nations — whose borders often randomly band together disparate tribes — and lack patriotism. Uninterested in joining a Western-backed army or building a society in the desert, those without oil riches are resigned to bitterness, nihilism and hopelessness. Even the Muslim world’s richest, most powerful country is so poorly managed that on September 24, 2015, around 800 people died in Mecca in a stampede.

After the fall of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Europe and the U.S.A. wanted a gas pipeline from Arabia to Europe so as to avoid reliance on Russia. But guess what unfriendly country was in the middle of this theoretical route? Syria. And guess who didn’t want their own competing pipeline to Europe to be undercut? Russia!

Ultimately, the West has taken the path of, firstly, forcing regime change in the Middle East and, secondly, welcoming Islam to its own countries. This “invade the world, invite the world” approach, whereby the West stokes Muslim resentment through forced regime change and Israeli expansionism and then breathes life into Muslim fanaticism through arming and enriching the Wahhabi Saudis, is insanity. The West should leave the Middle East to grow up on its own, while protecting Western values of free speech and secularism in its own borders. Yet even while the West arms “rebels” to fight the dictator Assad, it supports other dictatorships in a dizzying and fragile nexus of power. When General Petraeus advocates arming Al-Qaeda to fight ISIS, then we know that the lunatics are in charge of the asylum.

While many well-off Germans understandably want to help displaced people (of which there are 60 million), they should know this: they did nothing to destabilize the Middle East and there’s a difference between handing out cookies to a poor immigrant child and changing the entire social and ethnic fabric of a continent forever.

The uprooting of Middle Eastern societies is intertwined with the countervailing fact that some of these societies, while destitute, have gained the means through smartphones, shared information and cheap travel to flee their countries. We are witnessing a Great Migration — almost an inverted Viking Age. Whereas the pagan, Valhalla-seeking Vikings operated from a position of strength and actually founded cities and forged trade routes, migrating Muslims with their threat of jihad (we must always fear “moderate Muslims” turning to jihad if we don’t accommodate them enough) operate from the shadows and take advantage of naïvety, political correctness and the r-selected revolution.

  1. Because some kind of insanity has been loosed.

Even before Germany’s immigration minister, responsible for the tweet that suspended the Dublin convention and brought the stampede to Europe, was sacked,  it seemed likely that this migrant invasion had been triggered by the agency of an insane and self-hating German politician. And indeed, Merkel’s apologia for the migrant invasion is harrowingly incoherent: 1) Germany already has four million mostly Turkish Muslims, so therefore Germany is already Muslim, 2) Europeans helped cause the instability in the Middle East because some ISIS fighters grew up in Europe, 3) fear and caution are bad, 4) Christians are not well versed in their religion compared to Muslims and should study it more and look at paintings, and 5) Europe used to have wars and is therefore obligated to take in droves of non-European Muslims.

If Germans want to honor history, they should also remember that in the 1930s and 40s, their leaders imposed a framework of ethnic and cultural purity on themselves and their neighbours, to devastating long-term effect. Now, in 2015–2016, they’re imposing the opposite view on their neighbours — that of European demographic and cultural phasing out. We’re always reminded how too few Germans questioned the Nazis and simply obeyed orders.

Germans’ social cohesion is being exploited again, as the Western media and corporations press an agenda that will probably bring future wars in Europe. Even if most Germans know that this plan is not sane or feasible, they’re being cheered on by the leftist, globalist order. As a people unaccustomed to such praise, they don’t want to spoil their “historic” opportunity to change Germany’s image, and Merkel is a perfect facilitator of this change, as she was responsible in Communist East Germany for “brainwashing in the sense of Marxism…. Agitation and Propaganda … the group that was meant to fill people’s brains with everything you were supposed to believe in the GDR, with all the ideological tricks.”

One latent aspect of E.U. absurdity that has become manifest is the wide-open borders in the Mediterranean. The under-resourced border patrols in Italy and Greece have long waved through migrants. Even if centralizing power in the E.U. looks more nefarious than ever, the first thing such an authority should do is safeguard the borders. But the E.U.’s migration minister, who says that European politicians should stop caring if voters disagree with the open-doors policy, is the former mayor of Athens and Greek Minister of Defence. While I don’t accuse all Greeks, many of whom suffer from this migrant invasion, of using this opportunity for revenge on Europe for austerity, the government might be. Most absurd of all, Europe is being held hostage by the grandstanding and arrogant demands of Turkey, the indirect source of most of the migrants and a country whose E.U. accession hopes — which Merkel has given new life to in exchange for cooperation pledges — would be helped by the continent already being flooded with Muslims. While Merkel has struck a uncontroversial deal with Turkey to stem the migrant tide, this only delays the question of an Islamic shadow over Europe, as Turks get visa-free access to Europe and hopes of an ever-closer union.

What effect will this have?

  1. Malmoization: More violence, poverty, unemployment, distrust

Take a Central European nation that after hundreds of years of war has reached tranquility and prosperity. Then introduce minarets, kebab shops, sectarianism, people in cloaks and niqabs, no-go zones, and honour killings: what effect does this have, aesthetically, culturally, economically?

Excessive diversity results in less trust between citizens and less civic participation, especially when aliens have a different religion and language. Just as when a person enters a romantic relationship they can predict its trajectory by the state of things in the beginning, when a nation imports immigrants, it can predict their assimilation by their state as they cross the border. In 2014 in pre-open borders Germany, 38,000 asylum seekers committed crimes; we can only imagine what the new figure will be for generations to come, when a detritus of non-deported non-refugees roots itself in European capitals.  Expecting angry men who commit violence against each other and strike for greater conditions as they enter the E.U. to miraculously change and submit to a progressive worldview is naïve and delusional, especially when many of them merely want to live in the country with the most generous social benefits and when a minority are real terrorists. Even among real refugees with no terrorist inclinations, the trauma and baggage they import will make problems of the native population seem trivial and will divert healthcare resources.

The most infamous case of disastrous integration from Afro-Islamic migrants is Malmo, Sweden . A generation of mass migration has made it a global rape capital. Swedes, who used to live in a bubble in which murders were non-existent, inhale white guilt like oxygen and play with the fire of the most extreme “supercultural” dogma. It’s no coincidence that Stockholm Syndrome originated in Sweden; the self-professed moral superpower thinks it can import unlimited foreigners and gang up on anyone who dissents from this utopia. Multiculturalists must ignore the fact that random acts of violence will sometimes inexplicably spring from people who have never lived in a country with the rule of law. Even as the West gives a platform to Emma Sulkowicz and argues that docile Western men perpetuate a “rape culture,” it gives a pass to asylum seekers who commit rapes and stays hushed up when women are thrown down and kicked in the ribs by ultra-religious Muslim immigrants in France.

“We’re running the risk that the situation in refugee accommodation will get out of control,” German police union chief Rainer Wendt said in 2015. “Our experience suggests that in many places there are, unfortunately, very targeted and well-prepared violent clashes with ethnic or religious motivations almost every day.” Long before the Paris attacks, this police chief was calling for the construction of a border fence.

Beyond the ghettoization of cities and neighbourhoods, as well as new heights of government spying on citizens, a broad tension and lack of innocence will reign. Well before the Paris attacks, a refugee who ripped pages out of Koran was almost lynched by other migrants, resulting in 15 injured and grave damages, and new sectarian brawls occur frequently. What happens when these people start demanding more “rights,”  religious freedom, and calls to prayer? How many mosques and minarets (often Saudi-funded) will Europe allow (Iceland is getting its first)? Does the European consciousness need to change so that girls cover up in summer and people think twice about eating pork in public or drawing certain cartoons — something no European child should ever have to countenance? Gun sales are soaring and the pristine Europe of lore has begun a slow death, with tourism declining, even as “migrant tourism” rises. Any invasion supporter should answer this: Would you welcome in your society anyone who would commit or condone murder over a cartoon? If so, Charlie Hebdo is coming to a theatre near you. #MuslimsLivesMatter is coming to a theatre near you. New peaks of clownish political correctness and diversity quotas are just around the corner.

Finally, the demographic impact of the migrant crisis will have an unprecedented effect on Germany’s future. If family unification takes place in Europe, then the demographic impact of the migrant invasion of Germany could be tripled, meaning that half of the “half the under-40 population would consist of Middle Eastern and North African immigrants and their children.”

  1. Americanization, neoliberalism and ethnocide: Less cohesion, more complexity

Notwithstanding its revolutionary ideals and freedom of speech, America has looser standards of behaviour and social cohesion than Germany, in part due to the diversity of people. America depends on strong, well-funded educational institutes and pockets of prosperity and innovation like Silicon Valley. While the settlers in its formative years were white Christians, America has now fully embraced the diversity cult, where anything non-white and non-Christian has favored status and everyone is painfully self-conscious of any behaviour that could be construed as offensive to minorities. America’s race wars will probably never end.

Germany is different — or was. One merely needs to visit a small, pristine German village and then visit a shithole in rural Michigan to see the difference. The average German has a superior work ethic and attention span to other Westerners, which has given the nation an edge over rivals for centuries. Germany excels at engineering and building trusted, time-tested products; the land of Kepler, Gauss, Leibniz, Wagner, Bach and Goethe has a purity that America, with its strip malls and ghettos, will never have. We keep hearing about the economic value of low-skilled, back-breaking labourers, even in a time of job automation. Who, however, will put economic value on pride and national cohesion? European nations are the confluence of tribes who banded together through long-forged ethnic and linguistic links. The continent’s aesthetic heights and millennia of history are what the New World lacks.

An immigrant who never learns good German or embraces its history won’t take pride in it. If all nations adopt neo-liberal economics, open borders and multiculturalism, they’ll all be full of the same dull, self-conscious people whose neuroses can only be expressed in English and ameliorated through Starbucks, Amazon, and Facebook. No one will have a competitive advantage, except America, the greatest multicultural consumer society of all. The truth is that many of the greatest accomplishments in Europe’s golden age came from competitive, nationalistic motivations in the age of enlightened despots, rather than promises of social-media fame and life in a gated community.

When China surpasses the United States as the world’s biggest economy (in nominal terms), it will eventually flip on the light switch of nationalism and stoke populist anger. When that point arrives —and it will — how will the bankrupt gay-German-Muslim-American globalists stand up to the soldiers of Han? America’s attempted power-play against China is to control the world, at the cost of white people, by turning white lands into an expanding empire of consumerism and “human rights.” The answer to its diversity problems can only be more diversity.

Ultimately, America was built on revolutionary notions of freedom but has been tainted by greed, sensationalism and ethnic fractures. Europe should not emulate it. But Americans have returned to Europe like a Frankenstein monster to remake it in its own image. This is the wrong path. There will always be the potential to build multi-ethnic consumeristic societies. But recreating an old and storied gem of civilization is impossible. Even if Europe and North America become minority-white in the future, you can be sure that East Asian nations will never follow suit and phase themselves out just so they can take a hit from the economic crack pipe. And the Chinese, while facing their own challenges and flaws, will one day emerge with all the pride, and possibly all the power.

  1. New sources of resentment and blame for generations to come

All societies have nativist, reactionary wings that are commonly portrayed as paranoid and atavistic. Currently in the West, anyone who dissents from the media-presented wisdom on race, multiculturalism and gender identity is smeared as “far right.” But as this happens, the far right suddenly leaps onto the stage with real grievances. As Orban knows, the European people were never given a vote or referendum on the migrants. The Western media and political establishment pray that their cries of hate speech — and threats to block populists from power — will eradicate voices that dissent from the multicultural utopia and that anyone unashamed of being white and Christian will become demoralized and go extinct.

They ignore that our so-called “democracy” can only be served by listening to all voices, holding elections, and addressing concerns as they come — concerns that will increase and mutate as time passes. Otherwise, there’s the risk of a violent uprising against governments not respecting the clear wishes of most of their citizens. Otherwise, if two decades from now there’s a violent war in Europe that has its germ in this very migration, will anyone be surprised? The forced relocation of Muslim migrants to each E.U. nation through quotas will possibly see a concomitant increase in right-wing behaviour, and if Merkel refuses to budge, then getting voted out of office and watching the country try to change course politically is probably the best she can hope for.

  1. Decline in freedom of expression, increase in cultural relativism

After being overhead pestering Mark Zuckerberg at a dinner to crack down on “xenophobic” remarks about the migrant invasion, Merkel got her way, even enlisting an ex-Stasi member whose mandate is to fight European homogeneity. Further, German parents who post “hateful” comments about migrants can lose custody of their children, and European citizens have received police visits for complaining about the migrants on Twitter.

Even little-known corporations and educational institutes in the West present vision statements about diversity, and so one can imagine the commitment to the refugee invasion shown by globalization-driven Silicon Valley. Facebook has pledged to put Internet in refugee camps (even as they offer you the option to use a French-flag profile picture after the Paris attacks, partly committed by migrants), and Google continues to saturate its users with left-wing identitarian propaganda of all colours. The migrant crisis presents an opportunity for American high-tech firms to preach about diversity and openness while cracking new markets and engaging in an even greater collection of data via the Patriot Act. New wars, new causes, new customers!

Over in Europe, the Cologne “rapefugee” attacks on New Years of 2015/2016 — in which the police initially tried to cover up the fact that almost 2000 women were groped, robbed, and/or raped by 1000 men who formed small rape gangs — expose Northern Europeans’ penchant for social cohesion at all costs and the abuse of their high-trust societies. Similar behaviour is seen in Sweden, where the Swedish media and political parties operate as a cartel in controlling dissent and suppressing any identifying information about the ethnic identities of criminals, even as rapes and violent crimes in Sweden reach sky-high levels. Marine Le Pen of France, one of the key voices opposing the migrant invasion, is being charged with hate speech in response to her remarks about Muslims, and Geert Wilders of the Netherlands has faced a ban from Britain due to similar views.

While Europeans do the heavy lifting of absorbing the migrants, the American media provides most of the propaganda, with The New York Times, the most prestigious English-language newspaper, publishing hysterical op-eds and reporting only minimally, if at all, on any problems with the migrants. Comments sections are being culled from articles about migrants in places such as The New York Times and Der Spiegel — not because of virulent “hate speech” or spamming, but because anti-migration comments drastically outweigh pro-migrant comments and the media wearies of writing instantly discredited articles.  The “lying press,” as Germans call it, might struggle with the blowback from their deception, but they still hold the power to brainwash the masses into a phony consensus. Never mind that fewer than 5% of Syrian refugees contacted by the UN want to come to Canada: the whole world wants to come! Any half-concessions that Merkel gives to European nativists are labelled by the Western media as “controversial” and any bluster on her part to maintain the status quo is hailed as genius maneuvering.

The only way this migration would work on the lowest level would be if all migrants were subject to great censure for all misbehaviour. This would at least weed out many opportunists and bad characters. But instead, anything bad about the migrants is de-emphasized and kept quiet, even as European women, and SJWs, and seven-year-old girls in parks, are being raped. The Washington Post can’t help but sympathize with the migrant who randomly stabbed Swedes to death in IKEA. A niqab-wearing woman in the West who gets taunted by teenagers on the street will make the evening news, while a Muslim honour killing in Europe is hushed up. Hell, even Orban is banning speeches!

European and American politicians and pundits keep warning that “European values” of “openness,” “tolerance” and “charity” are under threat. And yet when has the United States ever undertaken a project with “morality” as the main motivation? In reality, there has always been “the problem of Europe” — vis., the pristine land of attractive people with functional economies and a sense of pride. Consider the Germans: an orderly, healthy and relatively attractive people who build world-renowned products and win the World Cup. There is not a single other country like it. Ergo, many non-Europeans (and even some Europeans) favour extreme multiculturalism in Germany simply out of jealousy — because they want to cut the tall poppy down to size.

  1. More failed states in Europe and the Middle East, requiring more globalism

Even if all Syrian, Iraqi, Afghan and Eritrean migrants in Europe flourished, the braindrain would paralyze those states. Many of the most wealthy and able-bodied are leaving, and few will want to return after settling in an infinitely more prosperous region. The idea that they could be a bridge between worlds has little precedent, e.g., wealthy Cuban and Iranian exiles in the United States were hardly able to usher in rapprochement between their countries of origin and the United States. On one level, while Germany is helping some individual Middle Easterners, it could be poaching from and depopulating the Middle East and dooming these states to more rule by wretched militias and dictators.

And the effects of Malmoization in Europe — from harassment of women in nightclubs to more fear of terror attacks — need no reiteration.

What can be done?

  1. Voice opposition through protests, civil disobedience and demands for a referendum

Fear of being politically incorrect and the strangle of group-think is the greatest asset that the globalist left uses against its enemies. Though many of us wait for some kind of event horizon where a “strongman” like Trump saves us and we come out of the woodwork with our worldview newly legitimized, this is delusional. Even if Trump won, and Le Pen won, and the Swedish Democrats won, this would hardly reverse the toxic brainwashing apparatus that has hijacked Western consciousness and purged it of masculinity, aesthetics, freedom and truth in favour of “economic growth.” Anyone who spews pro-invasion rhetoric must be apprised of the truth; no farcical claim, like how Europe could easily integrate four million Muslims, should go unchallenged. The globalist vision, as obnoxious as it is, still depends on most people being too preoccupied with Netflix and Kim Kardashian to care about the truth.

Of course, correcting people’s Facebook or dinner-table propaganda doesn’t relieve Europe of the tens of thousands entering each day. Germany and Sweden have stuck the knife in so hard and done so much damage that the scars might never heal. On the other hand, Hungary and Poland have been the frontline of the resistance. Protests have also occurred in the Czech Republic, Finland, Slovakia and, of course, Germany. None of these have been large enough, especially in Germany, and public demonstrations were banned in France following the Paris attacks. Migrants, actually, have protested as consistently as anyone.

Even if 80% of the Polish population opposes the migrant invasion, Poland’s interior minister still voted in favour of mandatory quotas. Still, Donald Tusk, however much he prostrates to Merkel, might be the only Eurocrat willing to concede any reality, although he’s sidelined by the more pro-migrant Juncker .

The European Union is breaking its laws by suspending the Dublin Accord and enacting earth-roiling changes without debate, while cracking down on dissent. Many migrants don’t care about laws, so why should E.U. citizens comply?  Merkel has stuck her head so far up her lard ass, mistaking it for a holy sanctuary, that no one should expect her to change. She must be forced to.

  1. Create, reinforce and amplify alternative media

The Russian broadcaster RT has been the only outlet consistently airing videos of the grimness in Europe, whereas, in an ironic reversal, the mainstream media’s reporting on this crisis has been worthy of a Soviet propaganda bureau. Consider the boundless reporting in 2015 on a Hungarian camerawoman who tripped an allegedly al-Nusra Front-supporting migrant running from the police, or a Finn wearing a KKK uniform. Then compare: Did they report that Aylan’s father was a human smuggler, that large protests occurred in Europe, that Muslim violence is occurring as we speak against women in Europe, or that large mobs of men are rampaging and rioting? No; videos of violent Islamist rioters don’t make the news, while footage of Hungarian police officers using teargas on rioters is widely distributed. And yet how many videos can we find of migrants disobeying the police — in Greece, Croatia (2), Hungary and Austria?

Two groups share a wrathful contempt for Europeans: the Western media and the hordes of foreign men who demand to land in their welfare state of choice. Eastern Europeans are being portrayed as racist, second-class, backwards Europeans because they don’t want to crack open their nations — most of which were under foreign domination for centuries. The truth is that the Western media, with its diversity cult, will never uphold the idea of a white, Christian country and will fight to the end against it. After Ahmed “Clock-boy” Mohamed, long suspected of being a Muslim religion-baiter in the United States, launched a $15 million lawsuit due to “emotional damages,” the Western media cared more about a critical tweet by Richard Dawkins than the elaborate hoax that Mohamed had committed. The media’s reporting on all matters of “diversity” should be a wake-up call to anyone who doubts its agenda. Sites like Return of Kings and The Right Stuff are increasingly the only place where honest debate occurs. Surprisingly, a few European authors exist, like Knausgard and Houellebecqs, who have not been totally silenced yet.

  1. Funding and support for anti-immigration, anti-E.U., anti-Merkel groups

The E.U., in clamping down on the rights of individual members to control their borders, is acting despotically and force-feeding elite interests to the rank and file of Europe. Parties like the Sweden Democrats, Alternative for Deutschland, UKIP, and Polish Law and Justice must be embraced if Europe is to survive as a land of Europeans and not a globalist nightmare. This will take courage, but also financing and organization.

The Polish right-wing was victorious in the national elections, resulting in a credit-rating downgrade (which Austria perhaps narrowly avoided after the nationalist candidate lost to the Greens in the presidential election), a lawsuit, and the predictable globalist excoriation that portrays the rightward shift in Europe as a reversion to savagery in contrast to the European Union’s lofty multicultural perfection. European nationalists will not only have to win in their countries’ elections, but also fend off the stranglehold of America. The force of money will be used as a deterrent by the United States to stop any countries from leaving the E.U., with the U.S. threatening to hinder trade from Britain if it votes to leave the E.U.

We know where the winds are blowing: Obama and the nefarious Council on Foreign Relations want Europe to admit Turkey to the E.U. and for Europe to admit the Global South and embrace without exception the globalist starter-kit of the English language, Google, Facebook, Netflix, Wal-Mart, UPS, Starbucks, and U.S. media. Allowing the march of Muslims into the core of Europe is an effective way for them to head towards their goals of the complete subjugation of Europe to American consumer culture. No one should be so gullible to think that America wants diversity as a means of “equality” as much as it wants diversity as a means of economic, political and cultural domination, with America astride the world.

  1. Boycott invasion facilitators

Why should people spend money on German tourism and products when Germany threatens Europe with ethnocide and sanctions for opposing quotas? It’s true that not spending my money on German products will have little effect. But in our world of sham democracy — where voters don’t choose their rulers, but rulers choose their voters — #BoycottGermany feels more powerful than a ballot. It gives me pleasure to explicitly not take vacations in Germany, to not buy Germans cars, to not buy German beer, to not defend Germany next time someone slights it. And you can be sure that I’ll be spending that next vacation in Hungary, Poland, Finland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Switzerland, Denmark or even Japan. After all, only the places that offer some modicum of resistance will be the ones to maintain their cultures.

I encourage everyone to test Facebook’s limits by posting critical content about the migrants. Can Facebook enact mass censorship without causing a flight from Facebook? In this world of infinite options and constant price wars, we can, to some degree, avoid spending money on things that corrode Western culture.

  1. Call for political settlements in the Middle East

Supporting any program of regime change in the Middle East at this point is ludicrous. How can we speak of the moral imperative to destroy the Syrian dictatorships while upholding the Egyptian and Saudi dictatorships? We need to support refugee camps in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. Paying the Danegeld upfront (countries that refuse to take their quota of E.U.-imposed migrants reportedly have to pay over €200,000 per migrant) is better than importing them. But absurdly, Merkel’s plan is to allow a constant stream of Africans and Arabs into Europe while paying off Turkey and Africa.

Europeans would be far wiser to take the diplomatic (and financial) lead in reaching negotiated political settlements in Syria, however difficult, that ensure that the nation doesn’t unravel more. For people who genuinely want to help alleviate suffering in the world, by creating safe zones, donating food and medical supplies, and suing for peace, I have nothing but respect. Yet any humanitarian impulse here is being packaged with German neurosis, the dismantling of European nationalism, economic growth, globalism, and the diversity cult. It is toxic: one of the grave deceptions of the globalist establishment is to effectively prevent Westerners from helping refugees in any way that doesn’t involve demographic replacement. A U.S. president that wanted to help the migrants and preserve European order would have intervened long ago, but Barack Obama has shown himself more eager to turn Europe into a multicultural dystopia than to help the migrants return home.


Since I was a child, I’ve loved reading old, dog-eared histories of the world like those of Herodotus, Caesar and Marco Polo — reading about the ancient, nebulous peoples and tracing their connections to modern humans. And yet now we’re faced with a violent drive to destroy European culture and history and make us all into American-style consumers and perfectly diverse data-points. This seeks to blot out the fact that our heritage stems not from forced diversity, radical feminism, and consumerism, but from notions of family, country, freedom and honour. When all you offer people is economic growth and the drive for “aggregate demand and pro-growth reforms” (translation: governments print more money and people buy useless shit), you get a certain result: philosophy, literature and aesthetics plummet. Even science does: Can we really say that Silicon Valley gadget-pushers and Wall Street vampires are on the same level as the thinkers of the last centuries? Isn’t there more to history than squeezing out a few dollars and living a lie?

Merkel will go down as the most controversial leader in modern German history. Although she’s being cheered on with the lies and deception of the Western media, future generations, once the dust settles, will deal with the continent she’s creating. She never asked the European people for their consent in this social engineering; she has no children and no stake in it. Merkel, Clinton, Obama, Juncker, Soros, Peter Sutherland, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., Dieter Zetsche et al. will not face the consequences of the carnage they’re unleashing. Poverty will always exist, and the poor will outnumber and outbreed the rich. Transporting millions of the poor into the heartland of European civilization won’t fix this; Germany is smaller than Montana.

The time to act is now. However, Westerners are too indoctrinated with political correctness and too content with Netflix to question the messages that the elites hand down. And those few who see the truth risk social ostracization for speaking it. Yet this must be overcome, because Angela Merkel will never admit her mistake, but will rather bumble her way to her diverse, secular heaven. Though many seethe with anger at how she sold them out, she is Mother Merkel to rich globalists and poor Muslims. Reforming or breaking up the European Union now is preferable to violent uprisings in the future, especially if Europe’s economic malaise continues. Germans will always be better at engineering than social engineering. Perhaps they could engineer a new form of economic organization that doesn’t force nations into choosing between a demographic cliff or mass immigration. And for those European men who can’t or won’t oppose their governments publicly, you can still do the most important thing of all: have children.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments