Book Review: A History of St. Kitts: The Sweet Trade by Vincent K. Hubbard

Book Review: A History of St. Kitts: The Sweet Trade by Vincent K. Hubbard

The Caribbean has a fascinating history. The glorious events are discussed in A History of St. Kitts: The Sweet Trade by Vincent K. Hubbard. The book is wonderfully comprehensive, starting in the Pre-Colombian era (i.e. before the Spanish arrival) and finishing in the 1990s. Hubbard takes the reader to Indian Wars, sugar plantations, and WW2 battlefronts. It’s a real page turner.

Here’s the rundown from Major Styles…

The Indians of the Caribbean Were a Warlike People

I wrote about Pre-Colombian violence in a recent post. Despite what history teachers have taught us, the Native Americans were not all peaceful. The Caribs were a prime example. They were the dominant tribe when the Spanish arrived (thus the term “Caribbean”). They rose to the top with the Ultra-Violence (to quote Alex the Droog). For them, New Years in Cologne was the work of amateurs.

“…the Caribs had attacked and killed all the Arawak males and taken their women as slaves…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).

So the Caribs committed genocide against the Arawak, ate their bodies, and turned their wives and daughters into sex slaves. Nice…what a group of guys.

The Caribs engaged in genocide, cannibalism, bridal theft, and rape. Keep moving people…nothing to see here.

I guarantee that you won’t hear that story in your American History class.

As I’ve told you before, America is controlled by Cultural Marxism – the theory of oppressor/oppressed. Historically speaking, this means that every event must have the same conclusion: evil Europeans destroyed the noble, indigenous tribes.  Subsequently, because of Cultural Marxism, your children will never be taught an accurate history in a public school.

St. Kitts Was the Most Valuable Spot on Earth…and it Was All Because of Sugar

We forget the power of sugar; there was a time it was the most valuable product on earth. And little St. Kitts – with a unique soil and climate – was able to produce a high-quantity of sugar. So the battle was on…the country that had St. Kitts would rule the world. And that country was England.

sugar pla
A sugar plantation in St. Kitts from the 1700s. The tiny island was making more money than all of England.

A West Indian sugar planter was rich. No, scratch that…filthy rich:

“At a time when a person in England with an income of 100 a year was considered well off, some of the richest West Indian planters had incomes of thousands of pounds per annum…There was a saying in seventeenth-century England that a wealthy person was ‘As rich as a West Indian Planer’.”

At one point, tiny St. Kitts was generating more cash than all of England. Needless to say, the profits were boosted by slave labor. That’s a story in and of itself (and a brutal one, no doubt).

The Modern World Was Shaped by Geopolitical Treaties

Many of the nations that we currently know were formed via precarious treaties. An example of this was The Treaty of Breda, signed between the warring factions in the Leeward Islands: England, France, the Netherlands and Denmark. What caught my attention was a detail in the treaty, where the future territories were divided:

“In order to regain their half of St. Kitts, the English gave the French all of Nova Scotia in Canada. The Dutch had the choice of keeping either Surinam or New York. They selected Suriname,” (p.50).

What if New York City became a Dutch colony? Would there be a Manhattan? It’s a question worth asking. Clearly, Suriname was never able to achieve economic greatness. And the same can be said for the Dutch nations of Aruba and St. Martin.

The Dutch chose Suriname over Manhattan (The Treaty of Bereda). What would have happened if they chose Manhattan instead? Would this have ever existed?

History often hinges in a single event. And millions of people can be affected by the signing of a pen or the casting of a vote.


I highly recommend A History of St. Kitts: The Sweet Trade. Moreover, I encourage people to read more on the history of the Caribbean. It’s a unique place with a history that’s intriguing and, most importantly, rarely told.

The Reason that “Right Back Atcha Babe” Was Not a Hit Song

The Reason that “Right Back Atcha Babe” Was Not a Hit Song

Right Back Atcha Babe” is a song by Tim Mcgraw from the album Emotional Traffic . It has a fantastic beat, wonderful vocals, and a beautiful sentiment in the chorus.

“Right back atcha babe/ Just like a boomerang, everything good you threw my way/ Right back atcha babe/ Best that you get ready/ There’s a whole lot of loving that’s gonna be coming/ Right back atcha babe”

tim mcgraw

I heard the song on a Delta flight from Atlanta to Vegas, and I replayed it fifty times. So I got to wondering…why was it not a hit song? To answer the question, I reflected on the number one rule of songwriting:

The lyrics to a hit song will always make a woman feel good about herself.

As Harlan Howard (author of “Tiger by the Tail”) used to say, “Women buy 90% of music and they make men buy the other 10%.” Very true. So I put the lyrics of “Right Back Atcha Babe” under inspection. Do they make a woman feel good about herself?”

That night in Phoenix when you stole my jeep
Then you brought it home with a new stereo, baby, that was sweet…Oh and how can I forget the day you gave me my red guitar?

We’re off to a bad start. Women want to receive gifts…not give them. So the song has already failed. It’s ignoring the structure of courtship, where men are the pursuer and women are the pursued. The writer probably thought he was being a good-little-feminist. But gender equality only works in the protected hallways of academia: not in the real world.

First things first
I want you to close your eyes
This may not even come close to that first kiss you gave me
But I’m gonna try
Oh and here’s that ring you’ve been waitin for all these years
As for the tears, that you’ve cried
When we made love the first time

I highlighted the problematic part. Women don’t want to cry after sex…no matter how many romance novels we read. They want to feel exhilarated in the arms of an Alpha king. The only women that cry after sex are addicted to Cymbalta.

We don’t need to go any further with our analysis, the song has already failed. Again, remember the important rules:  For a song to be a hit, the lyrics will always make a woman feel good about herself.

The customer is always right…and the customer for music is a woman.



The Far-Left is Forever Married to the “Muh Russia” Conspiracy

The Far-Left is Forever Married to the “Muh Russia” Conspiracy

The Comey decision will finally end the “muh Russia” controversy. Remember when the wage gap was bedunked? Or what about the campus rape myth? The liberals gave up on the lies!

Oh wait…never mind.

The liberals ALWAYS double down. When you catch them in a lie, they don’t apologize; instead, they go for the bigger lie. The whopper gets larger. They accuse you of doing of what they just did. They gaslight.

Remember the recount? We found out that Democrats were tampering the ballots, and not the Republicans. But the Libs never apologized. Instead, they invented the “muh Russia” conspiracy.

Fifty years from now, the libs will still be crying about Russia – it’s now part of their identity.


The Difference Between a Great Work of Art and a Bad One

The Difference Between a Great Work of Art and a Bad One

Below we have a great work of art:

What the battle is all about

The painting is great for three reasons:

1.) Anybody can understand the meaning

2.) It exalts a noble cause(s): i.e. the family, military sacrifice, etc.

3.) It blends nature and humanity together in a creative way

By contrast, here we have a bad piece of art:

modern art

The painting is bad for the opposite reasons:

1.) Nobody can understand the meaning

2.) It lacks a noble cause

3.) It fails to blend nature and humanity together in a creative way

Mark Twain once said, “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter. ’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.” In short, the two things have nothing in common. They’re diametrically opposite.

The same is true for great and bad art – the fundamental difference is profound. And learning to spot the difference is crucial. If you can spot a great work of art, your spirit will be sanctified. You’ll have a road map to the noble life. You’ll find a kinship with the heights of human emotion.

But if you put your faith in bad art, you’ll become lost. You’ll be lacking in a Weltanschauung. You’ll be alienated by the trickster. Your soul an empty cup…waiting to receive the poison.

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

Why Liberals are Unable to Acknowledge Islamic Terrorism

Why Liberals are Unable to Acknowledge Islamic Terrorism

I’ve been to several Islamic countries: Morocco, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Palestine and Malaysia. In addition, I’ve traveled to many areas that have been hit by Islamic terrorism: i.e. Southern Thailand, the Philippines (Palawan), most of Europe, etc. Also, I’ve actually read the Koran. So while I’m not an expert, I know more about Islam than the average liberal Westerner.

My experience has taught me this; Most Middle Easterners are decent people and their food is very good: kabobs, hummus, etc. However, there is a very real problem with terrorism. Moreover, the Middle East is, by and large, a depressing shit hole. The famed Arab “hospitality” is virtually non-existent; if anything, the Westerner has to worry about continually being scammed or even attacked. Overall, it’s a place of poverty, genital mutilation, and despair.

You won’t find many left-wing hipsters in Cairo…

My perspective is very different from the Western liberal (the majority of which have never visited the Middle East or read the Koran). So that begs the question…why are liberals unable to acknowledge Islamic terrorism?

Let me give you the top three reasons:

Liberals Hate White People

Liberals have been trained since birth to hate white people. Kathy Griffin, for example, is a perfect example of how the “down-with-whitey” disease has metastasized. At the recent press conference, she offered the following reason for her decapitated head “joke.”

“I’ve been bullied by older, white men my whole life.”

What she really means is, “I’ve been ignored by older, white men my whole life.” But let’s hold off on the psychoanalysis for the moment (and we are analyzing a psycho, make  no mistake about it).

With her back against the wall, Griffin played the “old white man” card. She did this for one reason – she knows the Weltanschauung of the far left. Everything they believe is centered on a hatred of white men. So the left will overlook what is, essentially, an act of treason against the President. And they’ll repeat the well-worn excuse – the white man did it.

Liberals Believe in Rousseau’s Concept of the Noble Savage

Rousseau coined the term “noble savage.” It’s the idea that the brown peoples of the earth are an idyllic race – they live in harmony with the land, peacefully interacting with butterflies and baby deer. They hold hands and sing in unison. War, slavery, torture…all foreign concepts to them. Sadly, their utopia was overturned when the white Europeans arrived.

Rousseau was…well, misguided.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Pre-Colombian America, as well as tribal Africa, were home to innumerable atrocities. For example, roughly 1/3 of Oregonian Indians were slaves prior to the arrival of the Spanish. Another example can be found in The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano (1789), which provides an account of the Islamic slave trade in Western Africa: i.e. Equiano was stolen from his home by black slave traders, brought to the West African coast, and sold to Europeans.

There was nothing “noble” about Indians enslaving one another, or stealing African children from their beds in the middle of the night. Believing otherwise makes you intellectually inferior…not to mention a liar.

Liberals Don’t Travel to Islamic Countries

Most liberals are single/ugly women; the rest are young people (idealistic) or beta-male simps. These women present themselves as loving and accepting. In reality, they don’t want to visit – much less live in –  the Islamic countries of the world.

When was the last time you heard a liberal woman say, “I’m moving to Qatar!” Or how about, “I can’t wait to spend next summer in Algeria!” That’s a rhetorical question, of course. The answer is never. If they were so concerned about Muslims, then they would visit the Middle East. But they don’t have the courage to go there. So instead, they base their impressions on the small percentage of Muslims that have the money/education to live in the West – a minuscule sampling, at best.

lib meme
The meme that captures is well…

Remember: Liberal women only want to visit affluent areas. For example, look at how many movie stars talked about moving to Canada when Donald Trump won the presidency. Canada…not Bolivia, Senegal, or Mexico. So very brave! Taking a stand against injustice from an air-conditioned coffee house in Vancouver. Or contemplating the horrors of racism from a five-star restaurant in Montreal.


The Middle East has been going downhill since the 7th century (when Islam supplanted the local religions).  It’s now a region that’s dominated by stone-age thinking and brutal ideologies. And most urgently, the pestilence of terrorism.

Only a delusional person could ignore this fact…in other words, a Western liberal.

Relationship Experts are Scamming People by Telling Them to “Just Communicate”

Relationship Experts are Scamming People by Telling Them to “Just Communicate”

Relationships “experts” will often tell couples to “just communicate.” This is the go-to response, the one-size-fits all advice. I’ve heard it thrown around so much that it’s a cliche. I’m thinking of opening a Marriage and Family Counseling practice to cash in on the “just communicate” Gold Rush.

But what does “just communicate” mean? Communication is a general term, signifying many things: verbal, nonverbal, media, etc. So when a person tells you to “just communicate,” it’s a meaningless term. It’s akin to saying “just talk.” Ok, yes…but about what?

Relationship experts have assaulted the internet with ambiguous advice on the subject: a google search is like falling into a relationship rabbit hole:

The University of Florida: Leading the Young People Astray

“Couples must talk about many health-related issues, including nutrition, exercise, illness, disease, accidents, health care, mortality, and death.” – From “9 Important Communication Skills for Every Relationship” by Victor William Harris via the University of Florida

Harris tells us to talk about everything. Ok Vic, but what do you say? Something like mortality, for example, reflects a person’s Weltanschauung. It shows a unique perspective. The person can be a nihilist, a nationalist, a globalist, etc. Which one is correct? Harris never tells us. Instead, we’re instructed to move our lips and let the words fly out. Pointless advice, really.

Harris also implies that men and women communicate the same – a complete falsehood. But what can we expect from the University of Florida? Gender “equality” is the defacto religion at college: you either agree with Der Steinem or it’s off the gallows (AKA, a Women’s Studies class). I assume that Harris did a mandatory sentence, nodding like a simp from the front row in order to carry the cheerleader’s books back to the dorm.

But anybody with descended testes (i.e. not Harris) will tell you that men and women are different. And communication is the hallmark of the difference.  Men talk about sports; women talk about other women. Men talk about politics; women talk about people. And so and on and so forth. It’s common knowledge. But the fact that gender difference is denied by academics is a sign that Cultural Marxism has infected the host body.

Cal State Long Beach: Making Sure You Stay Confused

“The way couples communicate with one another can be a reflection of their personalities, age, backgrounds, and lifestyles. In order to maintain a relationship, couples must be willing to exchange information about themselves and capable of feeling confident, honest, direct, and clear when discussing realities about their past, present, and future.” – “Love & Communication in Relationships” from California State Long Beach’s Health Resource Center

CSULB tells us to be honest about the past. Ok…how about no. Previous relationships (for the most part) should be unspoken about. Don’t they know about the connection between mystery and romance? Apparently not. Too much information will destroy the flower of a love that’s budding. Men don’t want to know about the three-way she had in college. Or how the ex-boyfriend filmed her giving oral and then uploaded it to YouPorn. Some things that are better left unsaid. Communicating about the past is not beneficial to a relationship – it’s only detrimental.

Note: There are some men that like hearing explicit details about the sexual indescretions of their wife. These men are known as cucks. You can find them on YouPorn, filming their wives having sex with the offensive line of the Miami Dolphins. The woman goes along with it, but she (deep down) has a contempt for the beta-male cuckoldry of her husband.


The popular maxim today is “You can’t believe everything you read on the internet.” That’s very true. But they fail to tell you the follow up to that statement – most of the lies are coming from the establishment.


How Walt Disney Taught Us What it Means to Be a Great Man

How Walt Disney Taught Us What it Means to Be a Great Man

As the story goes, Walt Disney was flying over Orlando, Florida in the 1960s. He looked out the window, pointed to an empty piece of land, and said to the person next to him: “Right there. I’ll put DisneyWorld right there!”

A beautiful story…

At the same time, another man was sleeping on the same plane. Still another man was pondering the common details of a day: sending bills, etc. And yet another man was contemplating a boring past, trying to find inspiration. And therein lies the difference between the great man (Walt Disney) and the common man.

Walt Disney was thinking of a future; the common man is thinking of a past. Walt Disney saw that a paradise that was waiting to be built; the common man sees a boring landscape of the ordinary. Walt Disney was driven by a desire to create; the common man is repeating what’s already been done.

Or, to put it plainly…

Some men look out an airplane and see DisneyWorld in an empty field. Other men see an empty field.

Walt Disney taught us how to be great man.