Who Were the Carib Indians?

Who Were the Carib Indians?

The Caribbean is named after the Carib Indians. They were the dominant tribe when the Europeans arrived in the Western Hemisphere (circa 1500 AD). The media, as well as Western academics, will rarely talk about the Caribs. So who were they really? And what were the like?

To find out the answer, I’ve been reading a book entitled A History of St. Kitts: The Sweet Trade by Vincent Hubbard. The book shines a light on the Caribs. Essentially, we learn about a psychotic group of individuals.

Here’s a brief rundown:

1.) Genocide and Bridal Theft

“…the Caribs had attacked and killed all the Arawak males and taken their women as slaves,” (p. 10).

2.) Cannibalism

“During wars there is good evidence that parts of the enemies’ bodies were eaten, the theory being that consuming these parts would impart the courage of the vanquished to the victors,” (p. 11).

3.) Animal Cruelty

“Giant iguanas five feet long and one feet thick were common. Unfortunately for themselves, they were not afraid of humans and were thus easily killed by running a sharp stick through the nostril into the brain as the Indians [Carib] did, or capturing their necks in a rope noose hung from the end of the pole,” (p. 2-3).

In short, the Caribs came to terrorize. We can barely fathom the devastation they brought to the people of the area: the Arawak, the Taino, etc. Can you imagine being an Arawak woman in the year 1450? One day, your village is attacked by the Caribs. Your husband and son are killed and then cannibalized. And then you become a sex slave to the men that murdered your family.

Sounds lovely.

I cry for the White Man’s pollution, but not for Arawak women that are turned into sex slaves by other Indian tribes.


Growing up in the 1970s, I learned that Indians were a peaceful race that lived in harmony with the land. They were magical tribes that shared a kinship of brotherhood. They gathered in a land that overflowed with gentility and grace.

What a sham that was! In reality, many tribes were guilty of atrocities: they were warlike, brutal, and savage. The strong tortured the weak, the greedy plundered the innocent. There was murder, rape and bloodshed.

As we review these facts, we can see that modern Americans were fed a lie; we were told an alternative view of history. The reason for this should be obvious. We were told lies so that we could cultivate a hatred for our national history: i.e. animus toward white, Christian Americans. By cultivating this hatred, we could then be dangled from the puppet strings of Max Horkheimer.

See Related Article: What Was the Frankfurt School and Who Was Max Horkheimer?

What is the Purpose of Music?

What is the Purpose of Music?

To elevate…to affirm the highest passion of life. To place man atop his rightful place on the mountain of greatness. To expand on the glorious universe that hides within. Music is the general, riding a horse that gallops through the woods. Music is a child, running though a field of daffodils. Music is the raising of a victory cup, a celebration of the human spirit.

Music is not the debased; it’s not the “social protest” of a revolutionary. It’s not the whining of a half-man, unable to claim the ring of victory. It’s not a jealous lashing out. Music is not androgyny. It’s not about confusion, misdirection, or perpetual agony. Music is not a glorification of suicide.

Music is the victory celebration; it’s an affirmation of God in His glory. And to hear it, you have to slay demons. You have to strike down the forces of mediocrity. You have to lash out at the army of lies.

Once you embrace the passion, then the glory of music is yours!


Why Have We Not Heard About Stanley Jordan Becoming a Woman?

Why Have We Not Heard About Stanley Jordan Becoming a Woman?

Stanley Jordan is a virtuoso guitar player. He rose to fame in the 1980’s for his unique style, playing two guitars at the same time.

While he’s not the household name of somebody like Paul McCartney, he’s been VERY successful. Jordan was signed to BMI, put out 14 albums, and has played with some of the top musicians in the world: Quincy Jones, Kenny Rogers, Dizzy Gillespie, etc. In addition, he has appeared on a host of television shows, from Johnny Carson to Dick Cavett. He’s also been nominated for 4 Grammy awards. So needless to say, his musical resume is impressive.

stnaley jordan
Stanley Jordan in the 1980s, when he rose to fame

Fast forward to today…

Somewhere along the way, Jordan started dressing in women’s clothing. I don’t know the proper term here: transsexual, cross dresser, etc. Nowadays, a litany of names are applied to “gender.” Let’s just say that Jordan went crazy.

stanley jordan
Stanley Jordan today, dressed like a woman

The media has remained silent on Jordan’s transformation. Granted, Jordan didn’t have the same kind of celebrity as Bruce Jenner. That being said, he’s a mid-level star and one would expect a little press on the matter (especially considering the media’s obsession with breaking gender rules). But a random google search reveals nothing. By the media ignoring the topic, it shows that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

A random Google search provides no information about Jordan’s sex change. Coincidence? You silly child…

Why have we not heard of Jordan’s sex change? The answer is complex, yet terribly simple.

Jordan’s transformation does not serve the goals of Cultural Marxism: i.e. destroying the lives of white Christian males.

The important point here is that Jordan is black. If his story was publicized, many American blacks would become alienated with the liberal cause. They would see that Jordan’s degradation was encouraged by the larger, white society; in particular, by liberal democrats.

In short, Jordan’s sex change is a black eye on the face of white liberals – it shows how their values have denigrated the lives of black Americans. Subsequently, the story has been erased from social media for the benefit of the left-wing agenda.

See Related Article: What is the Frankfurt School and Who is Max Horkheimer?

Adam Smith on Bourgeois Ladies

Adam Smith on Bourgeois Ladies


In 1776, Adam Smith commented on the tendency of rich women (bourgeois ladies) to have less children than poor ones. (The Wealth of Nations):

“Poverty though it no doubt discourages, does not always prevent marriage,  It seems even to be favorable to generation. A half-starved Highland woman frequently bears more than twenty children, while a pampered fine lady is often incapable of bearing any, and is generally exhausted by two or three.” (p. 75)

250 years ago, rich women had less children than poor ones. But things have changed. England, and vis-a-vis America, no longer has a bourgeois class. However, we do have a replacement for the bourgeoisie. Today’s the rich girl, or “pampered fine lady” as Smith calls it, is equivalent to the modern woman.

The bourgeois lady and the modern one are different in several ways. Whereas the bourgeois lady was concerned with dinner parties, the modern one is obsessed with PHD papers. While the bourgeois lady is concerned with powdering her nose, the modern one is fretting over a job interview. And while the bourgeois lady stared out the window of an estate, the modern one gazes into a cubicle.

Yet for all these differences, the bourgeois lady and the modern one are similar in one way…

They’re both less likely to have children.

I imagine that the bourgeois lady was happier. For one, she had servants to clean the house, get her dressed, etc. And her life was spent between dinner parties and social events. How bad could it be?

But most importantly, the bourgeois lady was not exposed to 24/7 feminism (like today’s modern woman is). That fact, in and of itself, was worth a million pounds.

See Related Article: Adam Smith: On Sending Your Adolescent Abroad

What the Hell Does “Anyone Lived in a Pretty How Town” Mean?

What the Hell Does “Anyone Lived in a Pretty How Town” Mean?

(((Literary critics))) have applauded the poem “Anybody Lived in a Pretty How Town” by E.E. Cummings. The poem is included in most literary anthologies, spreading confusion from Los Angeles to New York. But what does it mean? And what is a “how” town anyway? For years, I tried to make sense of the poem but was unable to; like so many students (as well as teachers), I was clueless about the meaning.

So today, let’s see if we can make up an E.E. Cumming’s poem. I have three to get the ball rolling…

  • Anybody Lived in a Pretty What Village
  • Anybody Lived in a Pretty Where City
  • Anybody Lived in a Pretty When Ghetto

You get the picture…my titles make no sense. And neither does the Cumming’s one. So why is it applauded then?

To understand the Cumming’s poem (and its modern approach) we need to review the history of 19th-century Europe; i.e. to understand an event, you need the study history that proceeded it. So when we review 19th-century European history, we find the ongoing struggle between a Christian majority and a Jewish minority. No book highlights the struggle better than Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together. The cultural battles of the 19th-century bled into the 20th, and that’s when modernism begins.

What is modernism? Simply put, it’s a Jewish attempt to subvert European culture. The point is obvious when you review the originators of modern art. The Jewish goal was to replace the art of European history (pieces that depicted real-life heroes) with ambiguous structures: i.e. a German soldier on a horse was replaced with a shapeless blob. By doing so, Jews could erase the physical reminders of Christian heroes from Europe. Once these images were scrubbed clean, the Christian majority would become more accepting of a Jewish minority; and in turn, more accepting of its transgressions.

So what does “Anyone Lived in a Pretty How Town” mean? Nothing…and that’s the point.

You’re supposed to be confused. You’re supposed to be lost. You’re supposed to be misdirected. It’s an educational red herring, designed to distract you from the history of Christian civilization.

Note that Cummings himself was not Jewish, That being said, he imbibed the cultural sentiments of his time. And in order to become popular, he had to embrace modernism. We can see a similar correlation in America today. If you want to be popular, you have to take a shit on Christian values: i.e. Madonna, Lady Gaga, etc.

What is the purpose of poetry? It should lift you to lofty heights. It’s a wave of pleasure, rolling over your body. It’s the magical power of emotion, brought to life. Poetry is the flower unfolding, the blossom blooming: the beauty of life made available to the world.

Poetry is not E.E. Cummings.

See Related Article: Poetry Review: A Critique on “August 1968” by W.H. Auden


Her Justice is Poetic

Her Justice is Poetic

If you have no honor, then you don’t deserve any. If you have no respect, then don’t request it. If you’re a liar, then don’t ask for honesty.

If you can’t pay attention to people, then you don’t deserve attention.

These are the basic rules of life—the beautiful paradox. And the sword of justice is cruel. She strikes down the weak when he searches for a friend. She cuts the enemy when he calls out for mercy.

Life…the ultimate karma, ruthless in her payback. She severs the lying man in half. She drops the demonic woman to her feet. She’s a Queen of the Supreme Court. And her law arrives in the dead of night, sealed with an exclamation point. The walls of the profane are shaken. Everyone screams in horror…the lightning bolt of justice has arrived!

Do you fear God? Do you tremble in the wake of her judgement? You should, my friend. She plays a puppet master, looking on us with amusement.

Her justice is poetic.

Article Review: Richard Wagner’s “Judaism in Music”

Article Review: Richard Wagner’s “Judaism in Music”

Richard Wagner is one the greatest classical composers of all time. In terms of music, he was a giant; his compositions have captivated audiences for two hundred years. Of all the great musicians to come out of Europe, perhaps nobody stands taller than Wagner. To listen to Tristan and Isolde is to hear to the greatest height of human emotion.

But Wagner is controversial. First, Hitler was a fan of his. And secondly, Wagner hated Judaism. So I decided to give his most famous essay a read: “Judaism in Music.” How valid were his claims? What point was he trying to make?

These are the major points of the article:

Jews are Ugly People; Therefore, their Art is Ugly

Wagner believes that Jews are unable to make great music because they’re an ugly people.

The Jew — we wish to have nothing in common with a man who looks like that…a man whose appearance we must hold unfitted for artistic treatment — not merely in this or that personality, but according to his kind in general — neither can we hold him capable of any sort of artistic utterance of his [inner] essence.


Are Jewish musicians ugly? Well, two Jewish musicians came to mind immediately:

Hot or not? I say not.


A lot of women love Adam Levine, who is Jewish.

I’m 50/50 on this one. Some Jews do have unpleasant physical characteristics (like big noses, for example). But I’m not sure it’s universal enough to give 100%. Bob Dylan looks like a coyote, but Adam Levine could be a model. So I’m not sold on this point by Wagner.

Jewish Language is Garbled; Therefore, their Music is Garbled

Wagner argues that the Jewish language is aesthetically distasteful; therefore, it can never produce a high form of music.

In particular does the purely physical aspect of the Jewish mode of speech repel us… The first thing that strikes our ear as quite outlandish and unpleasant, in the Jew’s production of the voice-sounds, is a creaking, squeaking, buzzing snuffle (4)

He goes on to say that the Jewish foundation of music is in the synagogue, and that this music is unappealing on a visceral level:

Who has not been seized with a feeling of the greatest revulsion, of horror mingled with the absurd, at hearing that sense-and-sound-confounding gurgle, yodel and cackle, which no intentional caricature can make more repugnant than as offered here in full, in naive seriousness? (p. 7).

I agree with Wagner’s statement here. I grew up around Jewish people, and Yiddish is an aesthetically distasteful language. Many times, it sounds like somebody is clearing phlegm from their throat: “eck,” “dreck,” and bleck,” etc.

Most Americans have never heard Jews speaking in their native tongue. So they are unaware of how unpleasant Yiddish, in particular, actually sounds. For a listen, click the following link and be the judge: Sounds of Yiddish

Jewish Musicians Must Rearrange the Work of Non-Jews in Order to Receive Fame

Wagner believed that the Jewish composer/musician was not capable of creating original works of high greatness. So instead, they rearrange the work of great Christian composers. He points to Mendelssohn as an example:

Mendelssohn…was obliged quite openly to snatch at every formal detail that had served as characteristic token of the individuality of this or that forerunner whom he chose out for his model…he gave the preference to our old master BACH, as special pattern for his inexpressive modern tongue to copy (p. 8)

I am no expert on classical music. However, I tend to believe in what Wagner was saying here. Jews were always the minority in a European majority. So it only makes sense that they would copy the popular culture in order to gain success.

For a modern example, I thought of Bob Dylan again (Jewish, born Robert Zimmerman). Now I like Dylan’s music, but let’s be real – Dylan is widely known to have stolen his style from Woody Guthrie. So Wagner’s point is true in this regard. The Jewish artist will often reappropriate the style of the native Christians.

d and g
Robert Zimmerman (AKA Bob Dylan) copied the style of Woody Guthrie


Judaism in Music” is a solid read.  Overall, I found most of his points to be true; in particular, that the Jewish languages are not euphonious. And secondly, that Jews tend to copy the works of Christian artists. Wagner deals with these topics in a way that’s heated, direct, and honest. In short, I have a feeling that his words will remain relevant for many years to come.

See Related Article: Article Review: “The Metaphysics of Love” by Arnold Schopenhauer