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.

American Style Social Justice Spreads to Oxford

Ntokozo Qwabe is the black, South African that unfortunately won an Rhodes Scholarship to read law or some other thing.  It is a crying shame he was let in.  But more to the point, he unsuccessfully led a campaign whilst there to remove the Cecil Rhodes statue from Oriel College.  There isn’t really a good reason to remove the statue, it is all based on shaky reasoning.  Qwabe is more of a psychopath looking for fame and trying to destroy the good things others have done that he can not do than he is a wise, civil rights activist.  These antics, to me, seem to have originated in American academic institutions and they seem to be spreading around the world in an ironic twist on imperialism.

As I said, Qwabe wants to remove a statue of the man who, a century ago, set up the scholarship he arrived on. The reason is that Cecil Rhodes was a figure who stood out in the British Empire for having gained his wealth as an industrialist in South Africa.  He was also a politician there and may have held racist views although it is not completely clear what his thoughts were on race.  It is clear however that he thought British imperialism was a good thing.  The idea of taking the good from one one country and spreading it to other countries, is apparently offensive if it was done in the past by white men.

The thing is that it makes no sense to cry about racism and being oppressed by a dead man, when that man’s scholarship has enabled you to travel to a new country to get an education and presumably climb up without restriction to wherever one pleases to go in life.  How exactly is a man, with a very prestigious scholarship, in a most fortunate position, being oppressed?

He is not of course.  Qwabe is just a vile hater.  I like that word; hater.  The left are simply just haters.  It turns out he is a racist which we all could have seen.  Have a look at this tweet here of his.  What Qwabe wants to do is to destroy the successes other people have had.  He will probably make a career of doing this, his tweet makes me think of him as possibly being a sadist.

Of course, the irony of the whole thing is how imperialistic it all is.  American academic institutions develop a destructive, hateful, anti-historical type of social justice that demands the removal of arbitrary things to appease crowds of haters, this idea and technique spreads to South Africa, where it is adopted by Qwabe, who then proceeds to go to a foreign country (England) and demand that the people there do as he says or else.  Going to another country to impose a moral code and plunder for self gain, that sounds kind of… stereo-typically imperialistic… wouldn’t you say?

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.

 

So Called Smart People Are Generally Stupid

We know that the educated, urban, middle class tends toward progressive thought.  They hold as virtues rationality, democracy, equality, the scientific method, and the defeat of our abhorrent past (perhaps in the year 1968) as self-evident truths.  They are enlightened, intelligent, intellectual, and they have shed their gender and replaced it with purely rational smart-think.  They have an “us versus them” mentality, wrongly and ironically believing themselves to be unique, special snowflakes in a violent blizzard of stupidity which is the other.  Unaware of their group-think, and unwilling to accept they are neither original, nor very clever, they have become a dangerously stupid group.

The belief they share is simple.  They are smart, and everyone else is dumb.  For them, masculinity is like a peacock’s colours; useless and lacking in substance yet pompous enough to be dangerous.  Only the stupid and emotional, those easily misled by sophistry and show, can believe it to be a good thing.  They have moved beyond the unscientific thought of the rest of humanity.  They are an elite minority that can solely know right from wrong.

They believe violence is the result of overzealous masculinity, forcing itself upon others.  Nationalism is an evil that can only lead to war, and in the past, people were stupider and more easily tricked by a group-of-men-up-to-no-good known as the patriarchy.

These people believe the smart set should be in charge and given all the power and it just so happens, in an incredible coincidence, that they are the smart set.  They will remove the concept of masculinity so that no one can ever enforce sexual norms again, and they will distribute wealth evenly by taking it from wealthy people who didn’t earn their money and giving it to the unemployed who did earn their money, and they will end war by granting brave terrorists each of their demands so that terrorists will hopefully, eventually run out of things to demand, and they will end the reign of archaic authorities by making sure that no one says anything offensive and if they do, they are put under arrest.

So committed they are to this belief in themselves, that they simply refuse to accept they could be wrong when the failures started piling up.  The smart set was more committed to being a rising member of the club for smart people than it was in doing things that it listed as its virtues; things like making observations, testing hypotheses, and gathering evidence.

As a result, the smart set became quite dumb, unaware that it displayed all the traits it abhorred in others such as jealousy, and pettiness and commitment to emotional beliefs that validated their own egos.

The smart set won’t pay attention to anyone’s advice but their own.  Apart from that they seem to be too busy provoking riots, and smashing things, and angrily shouting obscenities at people they disagree with to spend their time thinking anyways.  The reality is that they show all the worst traits of humanity and maybe this is precisely where arguments against progressive thought should be made rather than assuming progressives are just mistaken people.

Hypocrisy From the Racial Grievance Industry

I came across this Time article about a white man, named Michael Derrick Hudson who submitted poetry under the pen name Yi-Fen Chou after being rejected many times after submitting it under his own name.  There is a lot that can be said about this, but the most important issue, I think, is the hypocrisy around naming coming from the racial grievance industry.  East Asians constantly use European names which is no less important than the name you submit poetry with.

According to one aggrieved member of the industry, Phil Yu of the Angry Asian Man blog, using the name is like “employing yellow face in poetry”.  Is that so Phil Yu?  Phil, as in Philip, as in Greek “Philippos”?  One wonders if it is possible to employ white face.

According to another aggrieved member, Eddie Huang, whose video is featured in the Time article, he doesn’t want the dominant culture to tell him what to be offended about.  Alright Eddie, as in Edwyn Charles Huang, as in Anglo-Saxon Christian names.

This is a common tendency for east Asians; to borrow Anglo-Saxon names.  Some other examples are famous leftist and anti-GamerGate enthusiast Arthur Chu of Salon and mathematician Terence Tao.  They might call it assimilation but even if they wanted to paint themselves as victims, they are still appropriating Anglo culture to use for their own benefit.  Except white people are expected not to complain about this, and perhaps they have no reason to.  In fact, white people are expected to not even really have their own things.

This is the hypocrisy.  It is perfectly fine and reasonable for east Asians to appropriate Anglo things but when this happens in the reverse, they become outraged.  It is hard to see how simply borrowing a name can be racist, or that it is employing yellow face.  I think what is actually happening is that the aggrieved are aware that there is a special status assigned to them for their race.  They dislike it when that special status is “appropriated” by others.  However, I would point out that if we were to get into a tit for tat about appropriations, things appear far less one sided than what happened in some obscure poetry journal.

University Women’s Center on Policing Masculinity

Universities are creating “healthy masculinity” events to teach men that everything they know about masculinity is false and if you disagree then you are “policing masculinity”.  This story has come to my attention about the phenomenon.  It is a new trick the ever-creative academics are using which has been discussed before.  Policing masculinity is disagreeing with feminists about what masculinity is, and we certainly wouldn’t want to be policing anything(policing being a terrible thing to do), so ideally we should just go along with whatever the academic feminists are saying, right?

Academic feminists have done this before.  They will argue that a real man is a man that stays at home with the children whilst his wife, the corporate executive, goes out as the breadwinner.  When someone objects to this, perhaps mentioning rightly that such a man is not very attractive, the academic types will argue you are “policing masculinity”.   This, they claim, is the last resort of the misogynist male, to assert that masculinity is not a fluid definition, but that it means something, and that meaning is rooted in the historic patterns we have observed of the sexes.  They smear this attempt as an irrational attempt to save toxic masculinity.

So what is toxic masculinity according to them?  Things like playing sports, studying business, desiring sex, and not crying.  (A side note: these seem to be the same things women are being encouraged to do.)  So by objecting to this rather stupid list, you are policing masculinity and you need to stop.

But I ask, why did men do these things in the first place?  If they had been brain-washed into following toxic masculinity, why was it decided that they would be brain-washed into playing sports and studying business and not anything else?  Who came up with these things to brain-wash men with? Was it the Pope? Was it Biggie and Tupac?  Who?

Apart from the delusional idea that a widespread conspiracy is how men wound up liking business and desiring sex, there is another problem with feminists telling men to stop policing masculinity.  They themselves are policing masculinity.  You see, to them, masculinity is not found in competitive, active activities, or in the pursuit of wealth via business, or in the desiring of sex with women so don’t you dare say that it is.  How dare anyone claim that men might actually want to climb a corporate ladder.  This is to be discouraged.  To them, men should not do that.  They are enforcing morality among men by restricting so called “toxic masculinity” which is precisely what policing is.

So these university feminists have once again shown that they are hypocrites.  I don’t think we have reached the point that no one takes them seriously anymore, there is still a large segment of the population that would like the things they are saying here.  But it should be obvious that these people are the ones policing masculinity, not the ordinary people doing what comes naturally to them.