Category Archives: race

Socialists choose beturbaned Sikh as their leader

The NDP chose Jagmeet Singh, the young, colourful-turban-sporting Browntown Punjabi as their new leader.

Demonstrating that they care not a whit about the white working class, or even holding on to the bit of Quebec support still remaining, because having the first racial minority leader of a major Canadian political party was more important; identity politics of the new kind is all that matters to them.

Oh well. It may make things somewhat more lively in Canadian politics, as Singh, being just as vacuous and image-obsessed as Trudeau, except browner, may pull away brown Millennial votes away from the Grits.

But they’ll lose support in Quebec, whose more traditional identity politics still holds, meaning they still only support their own, esp. ones who can win.

I doubt the Tories will profit much from any of it, because Scheer is such a lacklustre leader…

Not that it matters, since they only suck slightly less than the other two…


Posted by on October 2, 2017 in Canada, immigration, race, religion


If white Americans are racist, how come Asians do so well?


Asians marry before they have children, so the kids have two parents Asians marry before they have children, so the kids have two parents

This article is written by the far-left radical Nicholas Kristof, writing in the radically-leftist New York Times. (A former newspaper)


THIS is an awkward question, but here goes: Why are Asian-Americans so successful in America?

It’s no secret that Asian-Americans are disproportionately stars in American schools, and even in American society as a whole. Census data show that Americans of Asian heritage earn more than other groups, including whites. Asian-Americans also have higher educational attainment than any other group.

[…]Does the success of Asian-Americans suggest that the age of discrimination is behind us?

A new scholarly book, “The Asian American Achievement Paradox,” by Jennifer Lee and Min Zhou, notes that Asian-American immigrants in recent decades have started with one advantage: They arehighly educated, more so even than the average American. These immigrants are disproportionately doctors, research…

View original post 420 more words


Posted by on September 21, 2017 in America, Brave New World Order, immigration, race


Imagine the reaction if a white man tried this…


Dreher goes off the rails

I’ve long been of two minds about Rod Dreher.

On the one hand, he is a Christian who is solidly traditionalist conservative as regards social issues, and is a keen observer of the scene, and has demonstrated a decent grasp of the big picture, the implications of current events, as regards such matters. His ‘Benedict Option’ seems, from all I’ve read about it, to be a well-thought out analysis of and response to the culture war status quo. His Law of Merited Impossibility predicts and explains the usual prog pattern of pooh-poohing notions of ‘slippery slope’, till they come true: “That will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it!” We’ve seen this time and time again, if anyone has paid any attention to the culture war from the early 1990s onwards…

But on the other hand, he’s also the wannabe hippie who invented the ‘crunchy con’ term, and promoted it heavily a decade and a half or so ago, embracing the notion of granola-eating, organic off-the-grid conservatives who homeschool and embrace homeopathic remedies, etc. In other words, who have much in common with alternative lifestyle (heterosexual, monogamous) progs. And today, he’s known as a bearded, craft-brew-swilling, Eastern Orthodox (but anti-Putin) hipster-wannabe, who feels the need to police the right for the slightest trace of anything that progs might consider ‘racism’, and condemn it fiercely. He desperately wants to be accepted by progs, and this makes him go over the top frequently, esp. with regards to Trump.

Now he’s attacking the founder of his own magazine, Pat Buchanan, accusing him of a ‘shameful’, ‘disgusting’ ‘defence of white supremacism’:

I was stunned just now to read the disgusting, racist, indefensible thing that Pat Buchanan has written in his syndicated column in response to the Confederate statue controversy:

Looking back over the history of a Western Civilization, which we call great, were not the explorers who came out of Spain, Portugal, France, Holland and England all white supremacists?

They conquered in the name of the mother countries all the lands they discovered, imposed their rule upon the indigenous peoples, and vanquished and eradicated the native-born who stood in their way.

Who, during the centuries-long discovery and conquest of the New World, really believed that the lives of the indigenous peoples were of equal worth with those of the colonizers?


“All men are created equal” is an ideological statement. Where is the scientific or historic proof for it? Are we building our utopia on a sandpile of ideology and hope?

I don’t see what’s racist about any of that. Surely nobody thinks that the explorers of yesteryear were racial egalitarians, and ‘all men are created equal’ is indeed an ideological statement. You don’t find that taught in Scripture, for one thing – but that’s precisely where Dreher goes completely off the rails:

With that, Buchanan repudiates not only the founding principle of our Constitutional order, but also a core teaching of the Christian faith, which holds that all men are created in the image of God. It is fine to disbelieve in egalitarianism as an ideology and as a basis for policy. Most conservatives do, and most conservatives rightly reject the idea that all cultures are equally good. And it is reasonable to argue against the puritan iconoclasts who would destroy monuments and historical memory in the name of a mindless, ideological dogmatism.

Ah, no; just because Scripture teaches that all men bear the Imago Dei does not mean that Scripture teaches that all men are equal in anything other than all possessing souls, and all equally needing to repent and be saved. It does NOT mean that all men are equal in intelligence, strength, character, morality, ability. No; all men remain individuals, yet members of groups simultaneously, and so it’s not unfair to judge people as members of groups; in fact, Scripture has Paul repeating and endorsing an ethnic stereotype, about Cretans, thus giving Biblical sanction for making broad generalizations about groups of people; whether it is ‘racist’ in modern eyes or not, the Bible is okay with such, so long as of course one doesn’t treat people unfairly and unjustly.

Dreher continues ranting and raving:

But that’s not what this is. Buchanan is not meditating on the tragic nature of history, as any conservative worth the name must do. No, in this column, Buchanan is defending white supremacy, straight up.

It is abhorrent, and must be rejected in the strongest terms by conservatives. If this is where the Right is going, it can go right off that racist cliff without me.

Oh please, settle down. Have a craft brew and relax. Pat Buchanan is just shrewdly acknowledging history, and correctly noting a paradox at the heart of America’s ideological commitment to classical liberalism; that it holds to an ideological principle which is demonstrably false. We could say that, because all men are equally sinners in God’s eyes but also equally made in God’s image, that all men deserve to be treated the same with no special privileges or partiality shown to some over others; indeed, Scripture especially emphasizes this in many different contexts, both socioeconomic and ethnic. Nothing wrong and everything right with that. But that doesn’t mean that all men are actually equal in anything other than their position relative to our common Creator. The phrase ‘all men are created equal’ is just classical liberal ideological cant. Buchanan is right.

The comments on his post are interesting. You have the usual progs he lets bloviate on his blog (while barring comments from the likes of even me, a mixed-race reactionary), agreeing with him and commending him for his stance, though some castigating him for it having took so long, etc. But there are also several commenters who think he’s gone off the deep end, which he clearly has, IMO.

By the way, how interesting of Dreher to link to a mirror of Buchanan’s column, rather than the one directly hosted at Dreher’s magazine’s own site, here. I can’t imagine why he would do that…


Posted by on August 19, 2017 in America, race, The Kulturkampf, Theology


An unpopular opinion confessed

Amen to that, brother.


Nikki Haley either finds non-Christian religious sites ‘holy’, or feels the need to pretend she does, while denigrating the cultural heritage of the country in which she was born, rather than treasuring it

I know it’s eleven days after this repost, but I want to expand on it.

Something I noticed in the quote below the 2014 YouTube clip linked in the previous post:

Haley was born as Nimrata Nikki Randhawain in Bamberg, South Carolina, US, on January 20, 1972, to an Indian Sikh family. Her parents, Ajit Singh Randhawa and Raj Kaur Randhawa, are immigrants from Amritsar District.


Haley was born and raised as a Sikh. On September 6, 1996, she married Michael Haley in both a Methodist church ceremony and in a Sikh gurdwara. Haley identifies herself today as a Christian. She said, “We converted to Christianity, but it was not political. It was out of the fact that when you change, when you grew up, you need more, and when you don’t understand the language.”

However, she said she was very proud of her upbringing, and very proud that she grew up in that environment. She said, “Christianity spoke to me that I could understand it. But, when you come to a holy place, you feel it.”

So, though ostensibly a Christian and not a Sikh now, she nevertheless feels overcome with a sense of the ‘holiness’ of the Sikh Golden Temple in Amritsar, India.

This shows she either has a poor understanding of her Christian faith (a Christian should truly feel no sense of divinity or holiness in a heathen temple); or her Christian faith isn’t genuine and she’s still a Sikh in her heart; or maybe she just doesn’t give a shit about religion at all but feels compelled to act as though she does when visiting her ancestral homeland, with the cameras rolling.

Not sure which of those three alternatives is the worst; they’re all bad, really.

After this visit, came the Dylann Roof massacre, and Haley felt the need to jump on the bandwagon to remove the Confederate flag at the South Carolina State Legislature grounds.

So, in the video she has real or fake emotion on full display, either embracing or paying lip service to the heathen religion which she supposedly left, but she can’t understand or relate to the heritage of the people where she was actually born and raised, South Carolina.

And so like all the other converged neo-cucks, she embraced taking down the Confederate flag.

And now, she’s among the warmongering chickenhawks trying to pressure Trump into neo-con warmongering.

Not very Christian, that, though it is in line with neo-cuck evanjellyfish Churchianity, I suppose.

It’s also in line with her Punjabi, Sikh heritage, which surely means more to her.


Heineken promotes a world without borders

(Heineken’s previous foray into prog politics…)