The Answers You Seek

I stumbled across this article a few days ago. It’s been making the social media rounds, and I couldn’t help but notice how emphatically many black women agreed with the sentiments expressed in the article. In a nutshell, the article paints a stark picture of a woman shell-shocked and profoundly traumatized by the on-the-ground realities of the postmodern era, casting about desperately for answers that prove themselves elusive.

I sympathize with the writer and agree with her assertions, though not for reasons that she would think valid or even comprehend. I wonder how the writer would respond if I told her that her observations are absolutely correct & that her feelings of confusion, anger, and internal conflict are perfectly natural? What if I told her that the psychological turmoil that she experiences on a daily basis is evidence that she has subconsciously grasped the problems inherent with the current order, even though she is incapable of rationally articulating it? I wonder if she would understand that she is not alone in the isolation and fear that she experiences as a black woman, but that we have all been reduced to serfdom. We have all become collateral damage in a war between elites fighting for the exclusive right to pursue their own imperatives; we have all been robbed of the ability to fully actualize.


The Western world is more inclusive than it has ever been, yet she finds herself excluded and does not understand why. What she fails to grasp is that everything we have collectively been told to love, every value that we have been told to champion only leads to psychosis and alienation rather than to the satisfaction and social cohesion that was promised. She has identified various symptoms of the disease but she cannot pinpoint the cause because she does not recognize the causes as such. She fundamentally and unquestioningly accepts the premise that multiculturalism and diversity are goods in and of themselves and attributes failure to conform behavior to these ersatz and unnatural standards not to a byproduct of the bankruptcy of these creeds, but as “racism” and “intolerance.” I doubt that she could ever accept that to become fully whole, we must all collectively abandon the false idols of multiculturalism and diversity. I doubt that she could ever understand that her anger and disquiet are actually sane responses to a world that advances dysfunction and mental illness as natural and good.

Make no mistake about it: this woman is profoundly mentally ill. Nevertheless, her affliction is caused by the yawning chasm between what she has been taught to believe about the benefits of diversity/deracination and the reality of her own day-to-day experiences. Multiply these experiences by a lifetime and you end up with a specimen like this: a woman who feels preyed upon, scared, and perpetually aggrieved. Certainly, this woman believes that her experiences are unique and that she has been subjected to the various cited indignities as a result of her blackness. However, she lacks the benefit of both a global view and insight into the experiences of others. She is solipsistic, as is a woman’s wont. She cannot see the ways in which the current dispensations have made slaves of us all, teaching us to abandon the ideals of race, nation, and community, convincing us of the invalidity of these ideals under the guise of progress. She is unable to understand that forcing together different peoples with different understandings of the world is unnatural and wrong, and forces us to sublimate our primal instincts while conditioning us to seek the meaning and belonging that we have been deprived of in crass consumerism and other vacuous pursuits. We have all been rendered featureless economic units in a cultural amalgam  that values the ability to secure the latest iPhone over the togetherness and fullness that results from existing in the midst of one’s kith and kin.

This woman is honest. She is demented, but so are we all. My only wish is for her to understand that she will never ease her pain by blaming others who have also been victimized by diversity and are equally confused, alienated, and conflicted. My hope for her is that she one day realizes that this entire experiment has been a fantastical failure, consider it skeptically, and take steps to undo the mental conditioning causing her to look past the most obvious cause of her unhappiness.

Signaling Gone Stupid: A Case Study

The longer I observe leftists, the more convinced I become that leftism is a form of severe brain damage that prevents the sufferer from accurately processing information and coming to sensible conclusions based upon this information. The leftist is a severely deluded individual, incapable of seeing the world and other people as they truly are.

The Huffington Post remains the gold standard, consistently sourcing case studies in disordered SWPL thinking masquerading as progressive confessions of faith. Today’s study is an article endeavoring to explain non-SWPL psychology to HuffPo’s righteous readership as it relates to the topic of “good schools” and “diversity.” In “Why White Parents Won’t Choose Black Schools,” a delighted Abby Norman informs us that she sends her young daughter to a majority non-white public school:

Though my daughter is not the only white kindergartener in my neighborhood, she is the only white kindergartener in her class. 

She then promptly uses seizes upon the opportunity to snidely pass judgment upon her unenlightened white neighbors:

My new neighbors, ones who come into the neighborhood raving about how much they love it, do not send their kids to the school. While they love my neighborhood, they do not love my school

This is precisely what I mean when I say that leftism is a mental illness. When the impulse to virtue signal one’s prog bona fides is stronger than the parental drive to ensure that one’s offspring has the best possible life chances, there can be no question that such prioritization is the effluvia of a profoundly disordered brain. Yet, rather than recognizing her illness and convinced that she is doing The Right Thing, Ms. Norman casts aspersions upon her perfectly rational white neighbors for coming to the perfectly sensible decision of not sending their kids to dysfunctional, ghetto schools.

For starters, there are perfectly valid reasons for parents to avoid majority-minority (read: black) schools if they possess the means to do so. The short answer to Norman’s question-cum-statement: because these schools suck. Objectively. In myriad ways. Firstly, integrated schools are terrible for everyone involved, psychologically and academically. Secondly, schools with a majority black populations are invariably the most dismal performers across all markers of academic achievement. Thus, white parents who truly care about their children want to ensure that their children are not psychologically scarred by being the only whites in an “integrated” school and additionally want to ensure that their kids will actually learn things of value rather than being trapped in some shithole where student IQ ranges from mildly retarded to below average. This would be the responsible course of action for any parent who appreciates the value of a solid foundational education.

Naturally, none of these considerations went into her choice of school. Rather than considering the eminently reasonable position of her fellow parents she comes to the conclusion that:

Behind all the test score talk, the opportunity mumbo jumbo that people lead with, I feel like what is actually being said, and what is never being said is this: That school is too black.

Translation: “Dey wacis.” Does she really mean to imply that test performance isn’t a decent proxy for school quality? Or that opportunities at underfunded, underperforming schools are not limited? This is advanced, end-stage leftism. There really is no helping people like these.


Finding it rather odd that the article never mentioned where exactly her daughter attends school, I decided to do some research. According to her bio, Ms. Norman and her family live in Atlanta.

Atlanta.  

Fucking Atlanta.

The same Atlanta where public school officials were recently convicted of doctoring student exams to avoid the scrutiny that poor performance would bring the district under the terms of No Child Left Behind. Above all, Ms. Norman finds herself in a state that ranks 36/50 in terms of public school quality, a state that has one of the highest dropout rates, a state that has one of the weakest school districts in the nation and has some of the lowest per student spending in the nation. And somehow, none of this is relevant to Ms. Norman. So powerful is her compulsion to signal that she opts to send her child to one of the worst public schools in one of the worst school districts in the entire country. She considers it a “gift” that her children are able to “learn in an environment where their experiences are not the experiences of the majority of the kids in the room.” The gift of a shitty education. I’m certain her children will thank her later for such a munificent bestowal.

She is the Enlightened One, who can see past the poor test scores, past the behavioral issues, past the low school quality and the semi-retarded student body to see the hearts of gold beating within every little vibrant chest. That her white neighbors cannot do the same is simply a mark of their lack of refinement:

They want to go to the Christmas pageant and not have their white sensibilities violated because the other parents are too loud and boisterous and it makes them uncomfortable for no good reason. They don’t want their child to ask them why Quintavious’s (sic) [ed.:I am not shitting] sister says she doesn’t like white people.

How dare they resist diversity?! How dare they shield their middle class children from the undeserved hatred of the underclass? How dare they demand to enjoy their children’s Christmas pageant in polite silence rather than in a loud, zoolike atmosphere?

We must all heed the siren song of diversity and destroy our lives upon its jagged shores. 

I’d be fine with her stupidity, if hers weren’t the only life that stood to be destroyed as a result.

Self-hatred is a helluva drug.

Asians v. Diversity, Inc.

Diversity is a fascinating concept. Superficially, its aim is to topple racism by creating pathways to power for historically underrepresented peoples, particularly in the context of an ethnically diverse society. Nevertheless, once one delves a bit deeper into the claims and protestations of diversity’s various adherents, it becomes apparent that diversity can only function through the implicit acceptance of a racialist & essentialist hierarchy. Were equality and diversity naturally occurring phenomena, diversity & equality shills would not exist. Should perfect equality and diversity be achieved tomorrow, there would be no further use for them. Therefore, their very existence is predicated upon the perpetual existence of a natural hierarchy that can never be changed, but can only ever be contorted and manipulated to achieve their desired outcomes. Simply put, they necessarily believe in the supremacy of whiteness and in the inferiority of non-whiteness. They believe that this is the natural state of things, and would continue to be so, but for their interventions & ministrations.

Diversity’s raison d’etre is directly challenged in the following three ways:

  • When whites refuse to play along (diversity minus whites is just vibrancy, about which no one cares)
  • When certain non-white groups succeed without diversity
  • When successful non-white groups are forced to duke it out with less successful non-white groups over an ever diminishing portion of the pie.

Asian-Americans are becoming hip to the fact that diversity is fundamentally a loser’s creed: the successful have no place at the table. They are becoming painfully aware that Diversity, Inc. has no use for them, as it can neither use them to destabilize the system by ginning up envy and hatred amongst their numbers against the more successful (i.e., Black Lives Matter), nor can it use them for purposes of rent-seeking (e.g., extort gimmedats from living whiteys to atone for historical sins committed by dead whiteys). They are realizing that they are being penalized for their success, and that to have a fighting chance: diversity must be dismantled. An Economist article gives us the lay of the land:

MICHAEL WANG, a young Californian, came second in his class of 1,002 students; his ACT score was 36, the maximum possible; he sang at Barack Obama’s inauguration; he got third place in a national piano contest; he was in the top 150 of a national maths competition; he was in several national debating-competition finals. But when it came to his university application he faced a serious disappointment for the first time in his glittering career. He was rejected by six of the seven Ivy League colleges to which he applied.

Diversity cannot countenance minority merit. It can only accommodate minority under achievement.

“I saw people less qualified than me get better offers,” says Mr Wang. “At first I was just angry. Then I decided to turn that anger to productive use.” He wrote to the universities concerned. “I asked: what more could I have done to get into your college? Was it based on race, or what was it based on?” He got vague responses—or none. So he complained to the Department of Education. Nothing came of it. “The department said they needed a smoking gun.”

Looks like Diversity, Inc. just created another shitlord malcontent. This shitlord and other Asian shitlords like him will be a problem for the system. Unlike their white shitlord analogues, they can still plead historical oppression AND are unencumbered by white guilt.

It is their educational outperformance that is most remarkable: 49% of Asian-Americans have a bachelor’s degree, compared with 28% of the general population. Whereas Asian-Americans make up 5.6% of the population of the United States, according to the complaint to the Department of Education they make up more than 30% of the recent American maths and physics Olympiad teams and Presidential Scholars, and 25-30% of National Merit Scholarships. Among those offered admission in 2013 to New York’s most selective public high schools, Stuyvesant High School and Bronx High School of Science, 75% and 60% respectively were Asian. The Asian population of New York City is 13%.

That Asians outearn and educationally outperform almost all other groups in America (except Jews, methinks) is a well-known fact that directly challenges the diversity narrative. If they’re non-white that must mean that they’re oppressed too, right? Except they’re doing better than whites by a long shot. How does Diversity, Inc. explain this little wrinkle?

By the way: open borders will only exacerbate the diversity industry’s problems over the next few years by bringing in waves and waves of people who have the capacity to become ridiculously successful by merit alone. . .and who won’t give a single fuck about the other minorities lagging behind:

Surging immigration is likely to increase the disparity between Asians and other groups, because recent immigrants are even more highly qualified than earlier cohorts: 61% of recent immigrants from Asia have a bachelor’s degree, compared with 30% of recent non-Asian migrants.

It should be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few years. My popcorn is at the ready and is extra salty. . .quite like the rueful tears of the diversity pimps will be as they watch their hustle collapse under the weight of Asian excellence.

Online Education & The USG-Higher Ed Complex

I sat in on a pitch for a new and improved Executive MBA program that my employer is currently in the process of launching. Every aspect of the program will be streamlined and electronic, designed to deliver the product cost effectively and conveniently to busy executive level students and anyone else with an interest in obtaining the e-degree. In order to remain competitive on price and to attract talent from across the developing world, the program also adopts a Khan Academy-esque model, where American universities contribute copyrighted course material to a database that universities located across various Third World backwaters may access for a fee, then use for instructional purposes.   The presentation was delivered by an Indian fellow who extolled the virtues of the program, as it would increase access to higher education for folks in developing nations. There was especial emphasis on the value of this program to. . .India (naturally). The genius of the model is that it allows the universities to reduce costs while increasing enrollment (and thus income) through volume sales while also generating income through the bifurcation of content generation and content delivery, allowing a sell-off to the Third World.

There was much oohing and aahing, and audible self-congratulatory back patting. We are quite a clever institution! This will be remarkable!

Indubitably, online education is the future of education as it is more nimble, cost-effective, and adaptable and will only become more attractive, as traditional higher ed models become obsolete. Nevertheless, the inexorable corollary to this is the complete devaluation of the degree at every level. Once credentials become ubiquitous, they become worthless. But, in the absence of alternative approaches to gauging workplace fitness, there will necessarily be a constant upping of the credential ante to maintain the competitive edge: more education must be obtained, more bunk credentials/courses must be created for consumption.  Americans will spend more time getting an education only to have fewer options open upon graduation, as they find themselves competing against Third Worlders eagerly snapping up discount education made possible by material largely purchased from American universities.

This is the future. 

Realistically, that’s all this is about. Of course these programs are looking to hawk their wares in various global asscracks. This is all a part of the plan. It creates the perfect pretext to hire more of these folks who will be willing to work for less who are “just as qualified as Americans,” and have “comparable credentials,” and are ready and willing to “do the work that Americans won’t do.” This will only accelerate a process already underway. Educational disparity will no longer be a valid concern and American workers will find themselves vastly outcompeted. Ultimately, online education will benefit no one but the institutions pushing these courses, the open borders/free trade crowd, and the 3rd Worlders they import to replace (displace) Americans.

My gripe isn’t with online education per se. It’s with how it is likely to be weaponized and used against the average citizen. It is certainly valuable, but there are elements determined to use innovation in this regard to the detriment of Americans as a whole. They are determined to use it to create ersatz, temporary value for the global 1% at the expense of creating genuine, long-term value that would benefit the global 99%. Far from heralding the enlightened democratization of education, this push will only serve to diminish opportunity for Americans while concentrating power in the hands of a plutocratic elite.

Cultural Incompatibility

I spent the last weekend in Miami Beach. Miami Beach is like the Land of the Ubers: open the app and there are always at least 25 drivers swarming the area & ready to arrive in under 3 minutes. One of my drivers was a young Syrian kid who’d just finished his MBA and was in the process of searching for full-time work. He was a conversational fellow, and we soon began a conversation that inevitably turned to the topic of the current events taking place in his country. I expressed my sympathies for the Syrians’ plight and asked him what measures he thought would be necessary for the country to move forward and reestablish some semblance of normalcy there. His answer left me slack-jawed:

“There is no hope. Syria is already gone. We may as well just finish it, if that means that we would be able to gather ISIS there, bomb them, and destroy them completely.” 

Now, I empathize with his anguish. I’m certain that sentiment came from a deep place of grief and frustration. It can’t be easy to watch as your country crumbles, besieged from within and from without. But this is precisely the attitude that makes the Standard Third World Immigrant completely incompatible with the First World. 

They would rather defect than fight for the preservation of their birthrights, their heritages, their ancestries.

They contemplate the utter destruction of their patrimony rather than mobilizing to expel the savages that have brought it to its knees and preparing for the future. 

These are bargains they’d be willing to strike. 


Such an outlook is so alien to the First World mind as to be completely incomprehensible. There is no question that if the U.S. were to come under attack in some WWIII/doomsday scenario, millions of Americans would take up arms and unleash guerrilla warfare upon the invaders, even if they believed that they had only a slim chance of victory. They would do this in spite of the reservations they may have about the country because they are fighters and patriots and because fundamentally, they believe in this country and in its principles.

By contrast, consider the Syrian kid’s position. It is one of defeat and resignation. If this is the attitude one has towards one’s own nation, how loyal will one be if and when one’s adoptive nation falls upon hard times or when there are no more gimmedats to be got? It is highly unlikely that such people will ever develop the sense that their new countries are worth preserving for perpetuity or that they are worth fighting for. These immigrants will never develop a sense of common history, common purpose, or common destiny. The new nation is simply a convenient host to be abandoned when a better host emerges or when the current host expires.

Could one imagine such a sentiment being expressed by anyone in the West or in the First World more generally? What if the Japanese adopted this defeatist attitude after the A-bomb? What if the U.S. adopted this attitude after the Revolution, or the Civil War, or during the Depression? What if Europe adopted this attitude after WWII or after any of the myriad wars waged across the continent throughout its lengthy history? These people didn’t flee. They didn’t abandon hope. They didn’t pray for the absolution of destruction. They rebuilt. They created cultures from the ashes. This is why they managed to achieve First World status while other countries, even ones substantially wealthier in terms of natural resources, have floundered.

A nation’s people are what make a nation either great or shitty. 

Replace the people, destroy the nation. 

This notion is completely lost upon the hoardes of cheering Western do-gooders.


There is a certain intrepidity, a certain nobility of spirit necessary to generate bounty and to create complex & durable civilizations that realistically speaking, few people in this world possess. The Syrian kid is a good kid, and I wish him well. Nonetheless, his comment demonstrated a poverty of spirit that instantly crystallized everything for me. The “European Migrant Crisis” will end in the end of Europe as we know it. It has broader implications for the First World as a whole. We are told that we are obligated to be arch humanitarians, to take in immigrant after immigrant as they face unimaginable hardship. But their hardship is totally imaginable and completely surmountable with time and with collective will. Have many peoples not endured hardship throughout history?

Were the U.S.’ formative years not ones of trials and hardships? Is European history not littered with examples of hardships and abject squalor? How did these civilizations become great? The difference lies in the manner in which the people responded to adversity. To import peoples by the millions to the West who do not share this general orientation is to destroy it by undermining and gradually eroding the cultural attitudes that made it the First World in the first place.

Critical Fash

Q: What’s a young shitlord to do when he’s trapped in the foul heart of the Cathedral and can’t get out?

A: Remain a crypto-shitlord, dropping the occasional HBD bomb when the occasion presents itself during class lectures?

B: Go full shitlord, counter signal like mad in the student newspaper, and ready the popcorn?


My ultra dildo alma mater is currently embroiled in a brouhaha over a pair of articles written by a Mussolini in the making who apparently failed to realize that the wages of badthink at such an institution is social death.  He now finds himself excommunicated and excoriated; even the Huffington Post has come to sup at the table of his disgrace. Quite the escalation, considering that this is a relatively minor campus level escapade.

It’s important to note that one of his columns was completely expunged from the website. From what I could gather, it was an article suggesting that indigenous peoples should appreciate the benefits of colonialism. To my chagrin, I could find nary a cache nor an archive.Thus, my commentary will be limited to the one article still available on the interwebz.

First, a threshold question: what is a kid like this doing at a university like Brown? Brown prides itself on attracting a “diverse” student body of “free thinkers” who will eventually graduate and “challenge the status quo.” Methinks however, that it has begun to believe its own mythology. Brown, and its thoroughly pozzed Ivy League compatriots have long ceased to be places of intellectual inquiry, diverse thought, and freely exchanged ideas. They are now no more than leftist finishing schools for lucky sperm and the occasional bitter diversity tokens, propounding naught but equalist dogma, demanding complete and utter adherence to the orthodoxy of the current year. Divergent thought is dealt with quickly and harshly. This was the case even while I was there and it has become even more problematic (heh) in the intervening years. It would seem that our fashy goy has made a terrible error in this regard and as a result, has committed himself to four years of leftist purgatory. I’d feel sorry for the kid, if I didn’t suspect that he knows what he’s doing.

Now on to the article. In “The White Privilege of Cows,” our (semi) pseudonymous M. Dzhali Maier grapples with the interplay between evolution, race, and social outcomes. His thesis is a simple one, clear and unobjectionable in every way to the non retarded: evolution endowed certain peoples with certain abilities. This fact, and this fact alone is the root cause of the unequal outcomes that are especially pronounced in an ethnically diverse society such as ours. The nature of his heresy is apparent on its face: daring to dispute the validity of the common wisdom dictating that everyone is basically the same and that social inequality is due only to the bogeyman of white privilege while simultaneously being impudent enough to assert that race is a biological reality that heavily influences ability, which in turn influences group outcomes.

The cringing editor’s note goes out of its way to fall on its sword for publishing an opinion piece that “relied on the repeatedly disproven premise that race is a biological category,” going so far as to include a link to a book denying the existence of a biological basis for race written by a fellow whose name is echoey enough to suggest that he is likely a member of a tribe that would stand to directly benefit from the left’s depredations against the study of racial & biological differences as a legitimate field of socio-scientific inquiry.


People like these can’t bear to consider that inequality is, and will ever be, a feature of the human condition. We are not all the same. They can’t bring themselves to analyze the facts, lest the facts present them with several unbearable truths: that human inequality is intractable and deep-rooted, that human differences cannot be erased with dem programs, and that genetics is (in many ways) destiny. These differences go beyond the merely phenotypical. The mere notion that readily observable traits that are distributed unequally and at random across different human populations could lead to disparate outcomes between these groups could be linked to race is so anathema to bonehead leftists that they decry a completely innocuous opinion piece exploring these themes as racist, even though nothing negative was said about peoples of any race. To even make a racially tinged but indisputably factual observation as it relates to the historical record and the evolution of groups of people is to be, in some way, supremacist.

The suggestion that some groups were better able to develop and sustain civilizations while others remain to this day incapable of developing rudimentary agriculture due to genetic differences that are often positively correlated with race is crimethink, a fash-out that will be neither forgiven nor forgotten at Brown.


Edit: 10/08/2015 3:34 PM: It appears our shitlord is actually a female autiste. I’ve also obtained a copy of her deleted article, which is attached below.

Columbian Exchange Day