Wednesday, 24 December 2014


by Dota

The two greatest forces that impact any community are economics and politics. Economics is primarily concerned with the distribution of resources, whereas politics is concerned with the distribution of power. Conventional wisdom states that societies and culture are formed at the intersection of the two. So, which came first, politics or economics?

The question is debatable but it seems clear to me that economics precedes politics. Our species has evolved to be social because that increases chances of survival and gives us an edge in accessing resources. Once our ancestors grouped up to increase their survival chances, a system was required to constructively distribute power and hence the birth of politics.

In Plato’s Republic, Socrates observed that farmers, carpenters, cobblers, etc., could dedicate themselves exclusively to their own crafts if they had access to the goods and services produced by other artisans and professionals. A farmer, for example, wouldn’t have to worry about building his house if a mason lived nearby, thus allowing him to focus exclusively on crop production.

Increasing butter production from A to carries
little opportunity cost, but for 
to D the cost is great.
Our ancestors rightly realized that resources were scarce. Contrary to modern perceptions, the most fundamental axiom of economics is not supply and demand, but rather the scarcity of resources. The Production-possibility frontier attempts to prove this graphically by illustrating the principle of opportunity cost. As an economy shifts its resources to producing more of Product A, lesser units of product B will be produced.

This makes us want to instinctively conserve these scarce resources. Over time this has molded the human mindset into a conservative frame. Since the very premise upon which society is founded is primarily economic, it stands to reason that this conservative mindset is so deeply ingrained so as to seem atavistic to our species. This conservative mindset would also in time extend to politics and culture where these civilizational goods would be perceived as worthy of conserving.

As Bay Area Guy has already pointed out, liberals (in the western sense) are an endangered species outside the West. One will rarely encounter Japanese politicians whining about “Japanese privilege” or Chinese politicians waxing eloquent about the injustices of “Han privilege.” Non-Western nations mostly possess politicians and intellectuals of two stripes: Fascist nationalists and moderate conservatives. There are no liberals.

The largest democracy in the world serves as an instructive illustration of this point. The two dominant parties in India are the BJP (hawkish Hindu Fascist party) and the Secular Nationalist Congress (moderate nationalists). I cannot think of a single non-western nation that has a group of intellectuals dedicated to undermining the ethnic and cultural hegemony of the majority. The reverse is often the case. India undermines the rights of Adivasis (indigenous tribal people) by artificially grafting Hinduism onto their cultural identity. The Chinese are dedicated to the eradication of Uighur and Tibetan culture.

How feminism starts.
Why have Marxist Liberals infested the West while remaining largely unsuccessful in non Western societies? The reason, as I’ve written about before, is abundant resources. When a society is blessed with abundant resources people gradually tend to lose their conservative bearing. This will in time also extend to culture and politics.

Liberal programs tend to have an upkeep that is maintained by traitorous Western elites. The reason why elite schools in third world countries have a small female presence is because non-Western countries invest their limited resources in high IQ males. India’s IIT is dominated by high IQ Brahmin males.

I’m not advocating for discrimination to become public policy, rather, all I’m saying is that limited resources should not be squandered on individuals who possess little aptitude or inclination towards certain vocations. India and China do not have the abundant resources to fund worthless feminist programs aimed at flooding technical professions with people that possess neither the IQ nor aptitude to succeed therein. There certainly exist a minority of women that can effortlessly compete with men in technical fields, but these individuals do not require a nanny state to hold their hand.

Non-Western countries still take into consideration the opportunity cost of their economic decisions. Western nations on the other hand base their decisions on vapid ideologies, like feminism, instead of economic common sense. Female “independence” comes at a cost which must be borne by society. Abundant resources (child support, alimony, etc.) make single motherhood a viable lifestyle choice, whereas in the third world it is sometimes akin to a death sentence. Abundant resources (government daycare funding) enable career driven women to pursue their “independence.” Abundant resources allow for the maintenance of a large and militarized police force that stands ready to assist women whenever they feel inclined to make a false rape accusation. The Indian police in contrast continues to use the archaic .303 rifle to this day.

In conclusion, I’d like reiterate that liberals are truly a global minority and we should spare no opportunity in calling them out for their deviancy. I recall a truly hilarious commenter on Robert Lindsay’s blog who once claimed that feminism made the West great. She obviously had it backwards as it was the abundant resources of the West that made Feminism (and Liberal insanity in general) possible to begin with. These resources are the greatest blessing and bane of the West.

Originally published at Occident Invicta.

No comments:

Post a Comment