Depaul University President on White Men

You have probably heard of the events regarding Milo Yiannopoulos’s trip to America where he gave a speech at Depaul University.  Social justice warriors tried to shut it down, but Milo in turn embarrassed the university for it’s poor handling of the protesters and it’s support of the radical left.  I do find it a bit odd that Depaul University is apparently a Catholic university, and their president is a priest.  Don’t they have an objective moral code and tradition they want to adhere to?  Apparently not because their president wrote this letter in response.  The president is himself an sjw priest and I noticed a particularly juicy bit of irony in his letter.

You see, he is in France right now to commemorate the American, Memorial Day in which troops are remembered specifically for their sacrifices in World War II.  He wrote a bit about white men having white male privilege because they are commonly found in top positions of every major industry, and he feels this must change, contrary to Milo’s statements that white, male privilege is made up.

The ironic bit is that this priest is visiting graveyards full of white men that died, sacrificing their lives to remove evil from the world.  Don’t be misled by his statement that “men and women” gave their lives so others could have freedom.  The military of yesteryear was much less interested in putting females into combat.  The ratio of male to female deaths just on D-Day, in combat, in France in WWII could conservatively be set at 2000:1.

So here we have a social justice warrior talking about white, male privilege in a place which one might think, vigorously disproves the theory of any conspiratorial white, male privilege.  May those men rest in peace.


The Left is Not Motivated by Love but Hate

Again, the Left is About Hate.  I just read about the US President asking the world to morally evolve whilst on his trip to Japan.  The Left presents themselves as on a mission to evolve humanity.  They believe there is an arrow or direction of progress in time.  The future is necessarily more leftist, progressive, and “fair” than at any time before it.  This is at least how they present themselves, but in reality, they are hateful, deceptive, lying, hypocrites.  Don’t believe any of their tripe.

The future for them is one in which their enemies have finally been punished, this is what is implied when people like Obama talk about moving towards justice, the enemies of the Left will have finally been brought down and themselves exalted.  The reality is that some people simply achieve more than others, and thank God.  Without people striving, their wouldn’t be iPhones for the poorest people on the planet.  For those that sought greatness, some were rewarded, many failed.

But the Left is different, they sit and watch and seethe as they see others enjoying their lives.  Obama tries to portray himself as this moral being, and yet the majority of his time is spent calling others evil.  His entire existence and career is defined by attacking people who succeeded and calling them evil.  No great moral problem has been solved by him.

He has attacked the British(for wanting to leave the EU), wealthy people, white people, gun owners, business owners, Catholic nuns, Christians, fraternities, soldiers, and the list goes on but not once has this great and moral man mentioned anything about the slaughters that Muslims commit, or the shootings that drug gangs perpetrate, or the rapes by migrants of women and men in Europe, or the corruption of his friends in South America.  You would think a man who is so moral, who strives for justice would attempt to solve these issues we all see wouldn’t you?  The reason this morally evolved man hasn’t resolved any of these perpetual problems is because that isn’t what he is about, he isn’t moral, he is full of hatred.

The problem of the Left can’t be addressed until they are better understood.  The assumption that the Left are compassionate people but with a mistaken viewpoint is wrong.  They are actively seeking to do damage to people, the evidence is mounting.

Muslims Account for Far More Terrorism than Anyone Else

How often do we hear it said that white Christians are either equally likely, or more likely than Muslims to be terrorists?  Another variation of this is that white men in Europe and America account for most of the terrorist attacks.  Usually these white men are described as being one or more of Christian, conservative, right-leaning, or nationalist.  There is some truth to nationalists being terrorists, but not in the way you would imagine and I shall deal with that issue later.  For the most part, Muslims and leftists account for the majority of terrorist incidents and deaths.

Beginning with the US in the 1990’s, and I don’t claim these numbers are free from human error but you can verify them on Wikipedia as of this date, I counted 57 terrorist attacks on Wikipedia.  I counted 3280 deaths and 8114 injured in total (not counting terrorists among deaths and injured where I could).  Now, I should also point out that Wikipedia is not necessarily a good source of information.  It is open to the masses and the masses have proven themselves to be remarkably biased.  Not to mention the Left has a tendency to work non-jobs or be unemployed so they have more time to make adjustments to Wikipedia.  Here are some possibly inaccurate numbers by my counting but the relative magnitudes are correct.

Muslim: 20 attacks, 3043 deaths, 7268 injured

White, right-leaning, Christian: 19 attacks 225 deaths, 831 injured.

Leftist: 7 attacks, 2 deaths, 2 injured.

Unclear: 10 attacks, white people 5, 10 deaths injured 13 (includes neo-Nazi neo-pagan white supremacist because neither Nazis nor pagans are very conservative.)

Given that right leaning people could be safely assumed to be half the US population, the majority Christian and the majority white, Muslims account for a vast majority of the attacks, deaths, and injuries in terrorist attacks in the US relative to their population size.  Of the attacks that were committed by white, right-leaning, Christians, it is my estimate that they were mostly attacks against abortion clinics.

Now in the UK.  The same rules as above apply.

Muslim: 7 attacks, 57 deaths, 733 injured

British, right-leaning, white, Christian: 6 attacks, 3 deaths, 137 injured ( 5 of which were Miles Cooper letter bombs leaving 8 injured)

Leftist: 28 attacks, 13 deaths, 661 injured

Unclear: 1 attacks, 1 deaths,

Non-British, white: 1 attack, 1 death

I count the IRA as among the leftists because of their association with Sinn Féin, their interest in socialism, their underhanded tactics such as car bombs, and their anti establishment, republican, anti British rhetoric.

Conclusions:  I draw several although they are not tested or proven rigorously.  First of all, Muslim terrorists have killed and injured more than any other group.  In other words, Muslim terrorists have killed more people than Christian terrorists, or white terrorists, or right-leaning terrorists.  The only group that has perpetrated more attacks was the IRA and it was only in the UK and Muslims have killed and injured more than the IRA has (since 1990, this is all since 1990).  Proportional to their population, Muslims punch far above their weight class in terms of terrorist attacks.  Not to mention that many of the largest scale attacks in recent memory have been perpetrated by Muslims.  These attacks include the Lockerbie bombing, the AMIA bombing, the Sept. 11 attacks, the 7 July Bombings, and the November 2015 Paris attack.  Just looking at terror attacks worldwide, the vast majority are committed by Muslims.  At this point, usually Muslims will say: “how dare you try to say all Muslims are terrorists, you racist, you are the real problem”, and then they do not have to respond to the complaints against Islam nor attempt to resolve the issue because the blame has been shifted onto us.

Another conclusion I draw is that Islamic extremism seems to be on the rise.  In the 1990’s the US had a string of anti abortion related terrorist attacks and in the UK, the attacks were mostly done by the IRA.  But the numbers began to change dramatically towards the turn of the millennium, skewing towards Islamic terror.

As we have seen lately, abortion is not nearly as legitimate or as mainstream as its industry tries to make itself out to be.  It is nonsensical for someone pro-life to kill but I also feel that the abortion industry is itself a dark one.  I don’t disagree with calling these pro-life murderers terrorists though.

Finally, I think it worth mentioning that the leftists are very much a violent bunch themselves and in many ways have enabled Islamic terror.


If you think any of this is in error you can add it to the comments, I painstakingly counted things by hand so there could be a mistake.

The Return of the Non-Professional Politician

I would like to see non-professional politicians return to the fold.  These are people who might have some means of independence, or who are guaranteed a role in politics in spite of not being a politician at all.  In America, Donald Trump may well be a good example among others although he still must be popular to be elected.  Another example comes to mind, to take a religious one,  were bishops, who often came from their own constituency but their job was not as a professional politician.  Now you might ask why this would be so important for our nations.

The reason is that professional politicians’ livelihoods are completely dependent on their elections which are by and large done by popularity.  To gain popularity, politicians simply look at what is popular and leftist memes have dominated politics for decades.  The theme of inequality has been particularly predominant in all its forms and under the present lot, it really is no different.  So politicians have largely adapted their messages and agendas around solving the issues of inequality.

Unfortunately, this has been disastrous even though it was popular.  Alas, what is popular may not be what is best.  From extraordinarily high taxes in order to insure that some paid their ‘fair share’, that pushed businesses and people away to minority quotas, to disparate application of the law, to the destruction of institutions that promoted excellence but that lacked diversity, such as the promotion of judges to high courts, the left’s equality virtue has done much harm.  Worse, there is no sign of it letting up.

Even worse still, the politicians’ will to survive and thrive pushed them to try to select their own voters in order to guarantee their successes.  The term gerrymandering comes to mind.  The literature on the term would lead one to conclude that this is mostly a conservative phenomenon, but the corruption and lack of concern for the spirit of an election is highly indicative of a leftist mindset.  Worse still than that was the leftist push to import immigrants who they could count on for votes, displacing the people they ought to be protecting.

In the past, there were people who had power and their power was not dependent on their popularity, they were independent.  This seems to me like an antidote and counter to popular will.  What we have now is a runaway machine.  Politicians rely on popularity to gain power but can use their power to ensure their popularity.  This must be stopped and I propose that we try to include more non-professional politicians into politics because of their independence much like the statesmen of yesteryear who saw it as a duty and not as a job.

Why The Left’s Analysis of Donald Trump is Wrong and What Makes Him So Popular

The Left has basically made the same assessment of Donald Trump across all or most of its outlets.  They believe Donald Trump is some sort of racist Nazi with diabolic plans to harness the white, American, middle class in order to win the election by tapping into ignorant economic fears they have.  I have heard it over and over again but this is seriously just wrong.  I will explain why I believe Donald Trump is popular in a post Barack Obama presidency.

It is very simple why Donald Trump is popular.  They say Trump is trying to manipulate white voters, but Barack Obama, and to a much lesser extent, his predecessors, have actually been trying to manipulate minorities of all sorts.  This isn’t about the white middle classes’ fears, Donald Trump is push-back against prior propaganda.

What has actually happened is Barack Obama has harnessed racial hatred against white middle classes, a prejudice that has been a part of him his entire life.  His father was an anti-British loudmouth of sorts, his white parents and grandparents taught him that white people are essentially problematic.  So here is a list of incidents in which Barack Obama subtly manipulated minorities by stoking flames of hatred, in order to refresh your memories.

  1. In his first year he waded into a silly issue between a white police officer and a black pseudo-intellectual in what became known as beergate.
  2. in 2012, Obama encouraged Latino Americans to vote in order to punish their enemies.
  3. His attorney general refused to prosecute a case of racial voter discrimination on behalf of some Black Panthers, a racist gang.
  4. Barack Obama spoke out against a “white latino” shooting Trayvon Martin in self defense.
  5. Barack Obama has defended Black Lives Matter, a racist group that attempts to injure white America wherever possible.
  6. Barack Obama has attempted to break up good suburbs of predominantly white ethnicity by moving minorities into them.
  7. Barack Obama has invited Jay-Z to the white house on numerous occasions.  Jay-Z has a history of supporting Black Lives Matter, and his wife recently made a song with Black Power motifs.
  8. Barack Obama has halted deportation of illegal, Mexican immigrants.
  9. Barack Obama’s attorney Eric Holder held his own, special, rare, second autopsy of Michael Brown in order to find something to prosecute the police officer that shot him as an act of revenge against that officer for doing his job.
  10. Barack Obama refused to walk with European leaders, or even send a representative, in solidarity against Islamic terrorism after the Charlie Hebdo shootings.  He later despatches professional hippy clown, John Kerry, to issue a most cringe-worthy hug.

So the Left has this ridiculous analysis of Donald Trump that centers around the depravity of American, white, middle class voters when in fact they are simply fed up with being fed a continual drip of faux outrage and aggression by minorities who justify it by calling everyone else racist.

This hatred of Western establishment has carried on much farther than in America.  The hateful politically correct gang has made its way into the UK.

The thing is, people are neither stupid nor blind.  They know that there is an ultra corrupt left that has not only an ax to grind against Europeans but a motive to profit from winning the votes of minorities by pandering to their own hate and fears.

The Left’s analysis is completely backward, the hate is actually moving in the exact opposite direction they say it is.  Donald Trump is simply there to put an end to it.


Why The Left Makes Things So Dull

Have you ever noticed that when the Left takes control, they institute their own positions, use their own language, and change titles to things that are so dull?  For example, how often have you heard the wording used in the following language: “We need to be tolerant and provide equal opportunity for all”, or “We stand for diversity and equality”, or “We are committed to principles of equal opportunity, tolerance, and compassion”, or “We strive to provide an atmosphere of…”, or “We are united in …”.  It gets awfully repetitive.  Not only that but the language is almost devoid of meaning and almost suspiciously bland and lacking in vigor.  I wondered why that was, especially when I read in the BBC that at Harvard, the administration decided to change the title of the house masters from House Master to Faculty Dean.  Unfortunately, “faculty dean” to me is likewise empty of meaning and just as dull as the rest of the language they use.  I think the shame is in how dull the Left makes the world when they get into power.  So the question is, why do they make things so dull, I thought about it and here is why.

The Left makes things dull because they necessarily must remove information content when they institute their positions and titles and use their language.  What does removing information content mean?  Let me explain.

For them, there should not be any sort of ranking or power structure or dare I say privilege.  The idea that one person may have anything which is superior is offensive to the Left.  But superiority is a natural consequence of life and very useful too.  Among the military ranks, must there not be those who are superior, whose experience and leadership is used to command the others?  How does a large military exist and coordinate and even function if all members are of equal rank?  It can’t, this has been tested and it is well established that a ranking is needed.  And those at the top are typically those with the most experience, the best connections(which are useful), or the most talented.

The same goes for a corporate setting, or anything really.  Now, if we accept that superiority is a consequence of efficient management, does superiority also exist at a lower level, such as one person having a superior running speed, or a superior height, or superior intellect?  Of course, this is just life.

But these things must be eliminated by the Left.  Rather than commending and using superiority, they condemn it.  In order to do away with the notion of superiority, but still keep its efficiency, they must use code language to nullify any attributes that imply superiority.  House Master, a straightforward term, is now Faculty Dean, a non offensive title which conspicuously lacks any meaning or conveys any information.  In fact, this is generally what they do.  Any term fraught with superiority, conveying leadership or success or talent or authority, must be nullified into something which conveys nothing so that it doesn’t offend.

So back to our story about the house master.  In the article, it actually specifically says the administration could find no connection between the title of House Master and slavery.  So one was invented, and since the owner of a slave might have been called a master of some sort, the title House Master, is now evil and connotes slavery.  So it must be destroyed.  Soon enough, the trend will spread, and the “anachronistic and outdated” title of master, used in many schools still, will be outlawed and replaced with titles such as “committee member for student excellence”, or “student body administrator”, or some other such bland term.  And so, information is destroyed about the superior and authoritative nature of any sort of master.  The intimate and well known term of “master” coming from “magisterum” will be gone from our language and the evil ones win again.

Of course, the Left knows perfectly well what it is doing.  The goal is to destroy those that are superior in something and to wreck a tradition they feel they aren’t a part of.  Superior usually doesn’t mean generally superior by the way.  A superior isn’t necessarily superior in all things, we all know this.  But the goal is to destroy it nonetheless because the Left are sadists who get a sick joy from ruining others.  The proof is as simple as noticing that it is very clear that House Master has no connection to slavery, yet they actively chose to interpret it that way anyway as if that made any sense.  Perhaps all farm owners should be banned, or homeowners, or hiring servants of any sort because these vaguely resemble something a slave owner once did.  This isn’t done to create an atmosphere of diversity, it is done to destroy something that is good.  Don’t let the language fool you, the goal is to change the colourful, the authoritative, and the superior, into the boring, bland and dull.

Will the United Kingdom Change Policies in Response to Trump?

The Tories won the last election, thank God, and with radical leftist Jeremy Corbyn elected Leader of the Labour Party, I think it is quite likely that Tories will win the next election too, given how fringe the Left has become.

The two most likely candidates for the next Prime Minister are Boris Johnson and George Osborne.  The Right Honourable George Osborne is the more likely candidate of the two.  Which means that in all likelihood, he will be the next prime minister.

George angered Tories when he strongly supported gay marriage.  He is socially liberal.  I admire his fiscal acumen, but his leftist leanings are distasteful.  I recall him saying that the reason Mitt Romney and the Republicans in America lost the last election was because of their socially conservative policies and ideas.

There is some truth to that, I recall the rhetoric of the War on Women, and I recall its importation to the UK during the last election.  However, I don’t believe his notion that conservatives must adopt socially liberal stances in order to survive and compete now.

If anything, I would say that most people have shifted towards socially conservative stances after witnessing what happens when socially liberal people gain power.  People have had enough of the pink and blue haired lunatics, the violent immigrants, the removal of centuries-old Christian traditions from public life, the stifling political correctness, and the taxpayer funded handouts for everyone and anyone.

I wonder if George Osborne will take notice of what is going on in America right now.  He claims people shifted away from traditional stances, yet right now it seems that Trump is winning with a traditional-conservative platform.  He wants to end open borders, which is the issue of our time, and at least personally seems to be opposed to gay marriage which was a much larger issue a few years back.

Last time around, George Osborne said conservatives must shift to the left socially, and now that things are shifting to the right, will he say that Conservatives must shift to the right, or is it his own personal leftist bias and not a political reality that conservatives must ‘adapt’ and ‘modernise’ by shifting leftward?

I very much doubt he will renounce any socially liberal positions.  But politicians would do well to note that the future isn’t necessarily a leftist one.