Roger Cohen is one of many Jews supplying guidance to the goyim at the New York Times. He was dripping with contempt after Nigel Farage supported Donald Trump at a rally in Missouri earlier this year. And understandably so. Like Trump, the former UKIP leader is infamous for his vile public statements. For example, he said something “outrageous,” “disgraceful” and “completely unacceptable” in the run-up to the Brexit vote. He was following up his despicable behaviour in January 2015, when he said something “irresponsible,” “sickening” and “utterly wrong.”
So what did he say? Did he suggest the Queen be put to work as a shoe-shine girl on Oxford Street? Did he demand a revival of the worship of Moloch, with live child-sacrifice broadcast twice daily from Westminster Abbey?
The First Law of Western Politics
No, it was far worse than that. Farage spoke the truth about a minority. In doing so, he broke the First Law of Western Politics: “Minorities are always in the right, the majority always in the wrong.” While campaigning for Brexit, Farage said that staying in the European Union increased the chance of women in Britain experiencing sex attacks like those in Cologne at the New Year. In January 2015, he said that the Charlie Hebdo massacre proved there was a Muslim “fifth column living within [Europe], holding our passports, who hate us.”
He was plainly right on both counts. That’s precisely why his opponents didn’t respond with reasoned argument. They couldn’t question his facts or his logic, so they resorted immediately to the tried-and-trusted liberal tactic of “Point and Shriek.” To liberals, reality does not matter. They think politics should be run purely on emotions. If they don’t like an idea, they shout it down rather than attempt to refute it.
This dishonest behaviour isn’t confined to the self-proclaimed left. Farage’s critics represented the entire spectrum of “mainstream opinion,” from Conservative to Labour by way of the Liberal Democrats. Those parties have Orwellian names, because they seek to destroy what they were founded to defend: for example, the Conservatives hate tradition and the Labour party hates the working-class.
The Church of Open Borders
Farage’s comments on Brexit were also condemned by the egregious Justin Welby, the current Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Church of England:
The archbishop of Canterbury has accused Ukip leader Nigel Farage of racism and agreed with the pope’s suggestion that Donald Trump is not a Christian. Justin Welby told MPs in the home affairs select committee that he “utterly condemned” comments made by Farage at the weekend that sexual assaults by migrants were the “nuclear bomb” of the EU referendum.
The archbishop said Farage was guilty of “inexcusable pandering to people’s worries and prejudices, that is giving legitimisation to racism”. The Ukip leader was “accentuating [people’s] fear for political gain and that is absolutely unacceptable”, he added.
In response to questions by committee chair [the notorious]Keith Vaz, Welby said he agreed that Farage’s remarks were racist, adding “absolutely, without hesitation, I utterly condemn [them]”. Later in the 90-minute session on immigration on Tuesday, Welby said he agreed with Pope Francis’s suggestion that “a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not of building bridges, is not a Christian” – an unmistakable reference to Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for the US presidential election.
Labour MP [Britain’s Barack Obama] Chuka Umunna pressed Welby further, asking if he also agreed that treating a whole faith group as suspect and banning them from entering a country was a Christian thing to do. “It’s certainly not a Christian thing to do, nor is it a rational thing to do,” Welby replied. …
The archbishop said Britain had a “shameful record” on antisemitism. “As a nation, we have to recognise that antisemitism has been the root and origin of most racist behaviour going back for the last thousand years in this country,” he said. … Welby also said that hate crime against Muslims had increased, fuelled by irrational fear that resulted in a high level of prejudice.
Integration of Britain’s diverse population was a huge challenge, he said. “It’s been the biggest failure of the Church of England over the last 40 or 50 years, in terms of how we’ve dealt with integration.” It was a “great cause of shame”, he added. (Nigel Farage helping to legitimise racism, Justin Welby says, The Guardian, 7th June 2016)
Beneath the posturing and virtue-signalling, Welby was saying something very simple: “I want the West to die.” By traditional Christian standards, he is not merely a heretic but a traitor to Christianity. He heads what should be called the Church of Open Borders, not the Church of England. At the centre of his anti-Christian ideology is his obsession with “racism,” which is condemned nowhere in the Bible. Judaism still firmly divides the world into an in-group of Jews and an out-group of goyim, and Jews owned slaves and traded slaves into the modern era. Devout Christians kept slaves and practised “racial discrimination” for many centuries.
But racism is condemned long and often in the staunchly secularist and anti-Christian Guardian and New York Times, which are the new sacred texts of so-called Christians like Justin Welby and the repulsive Giles Fraser. In effect, liberalism is a new religion, with all the vices and none of the virtues of the older religions it has replaced. Both the Guardian and New York Times provide daily examples of the superstitious, irrational and dishonest nature of liberalism. Here are some examples of how the liberal media portray the demographics of the “refugee crisis” in Europe:
In reality, physically fit men of military age are heavily over-represented among the “refugees.” The liberal media are usually eager to highlight and condemn the over-representation of men, but admitting the truth about the “refugee crisis” does not suit their purposes. Accordingly, they bombard their audience with images of harmless women and helpless, traumatized children.
“Success is Failure!”
For liberals, emotions constitute a higher and nobler reality that transcends mere facts. Take this piece by Danny Levin in the New York Times:
Until not too long ago, the mention of Regent Park here in central Toronto brought to mind cockroaches and drug-fueled gang violence. It was an embarrassing stain on a progressive city that for decades had welcomed immigrants fleeing war, famine and poverty only to leave them trapped in an isolated collection of decrepit brick apartment blocks where crime and despair took root.
Hard lessons have been learned, and today, an ambitious rejuvenation plan for the 69-acre neighborhood, with the aquatic center as its centerpiece and a ring of condos that are helping to pay for new subsidized and affordable rental housing, is disrupting entrenched notions of class, race and religion at a time when concerns about income inequality and immigration are growing in the West.
As Canada accepts 25,000 Syrian refugees, the new Regent Park, thick with immigrants from Africa, Asia and the Caribbean, provides a blueprint for successful economic and cultural integration. […]
Still, ghosts of the old Regent Park haunt the neighborhood, particularly in the public housing blocks that have yet to be demolished. Sally Beebee, 58, a Muslim immigrant from Sri Lanka, worries about using the stairwells in her building, where she says young men use and sell drugs.
The risks are especially high for young Somali men and boys in Regent Park. Aside from the perils of drugs, which have led to the sometimes violent deaths of dozens of Somali-Canadians over the past decade, the authorities worry about the lure of Islamic extremism, particularly from terrorist groups like the Islamic State and the Shabab, the Somali branch of Al Qaeda. (See Sincerity or Satire?, Steve Sailer blog, 5th June 2016)
Note how Levin uses the word “ghosts” to describe blatant physical realities: drug-dealing and violent death. Note how he makes two contradictory claims: on the one hand, Regent Park is “a blueprint for successful economic and cultural integration,” but on the other hand the successfully integrated “Somali-Canadians” of Regent Park are dealing drugs, dying violently by the dozen, and being seduced by “Islamic extremism.”
What kind of mind fails to notice the contradiction? A liberal mind, of course. Facts don’t matter: if it makes us feel good to think that Regent Park is a “model of inclusion,” then that’s exactly what it is. But there’s another question: What kind of journalist writes an article like that? Is it significant that a hugely disproportionate number of liberal journalists are Jewish like Roger Cohen and Danny Levin at the New York Times and Jonathan Freedland at the Guardian?
The origins of victim culture
Yes, it is indeed significant. The emotional, superstitious nature of modern liberalism reflects Jewish involvement in shaping culture to suit their interests. In 2007 Britain’s then Chief Rabbi openly admitted that the political tactic of emotional blackmail “began with Jews”:
Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain’s top Jewish official warned in extracts from his book published Saturday. Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s [former] chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain’s diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society, he said the movement had run its course. …
Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.”
“A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. (Britain’s top rabbi warns against multiculturalism, Steve Sailer blog, 20th October 2007)
The culture of victimhood is about “Keeping It Feel”: trying to confine political discourse to the realm of emotion, not of objective fact and logic. Such a culture is, of course, very good for minority hysterics, narcissists, egomaniacs and fraudsters. At the same time, it’s very bad for the White and historically Christian majority whose relatively individualist psychology (i.e., relatively less prone to ingroup/outgroup thinking and xenophobia) it exploits.
The ultimate guarantor of Jewish safety
The harm done by victim culture to the majority is a central reason for Jews to promote it. As the late Larry Auster said in an American context: “it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.”
To hasten the waning of the majority, Jews also promote oligolatry — minority worship: the belief that minorities are sacred groups who must never be criticized and who bless the sinful, oppressive majority by their mere presence. Remember Danny Levin’s comments about drug-dealing “Somali-Canadians.” To nasty, uncaring realists, Somalis form a tax-eating criminal underclass in every Western nation that hosts them. To liberal feelists — those who recognize a higher, nobler reality than mere facts — Somalis and other non-Whites “enrich” the West with their “vibrancy.”
The magic of mendacity
Minority worship also teaches that Western institutions have no legitimacy until minorities rise to the highest ranks within them, absolving them of their White sinfulness. For example, the post of American president was cleansed of its hereditary stain only when it was occupied by Barack Obama. Yes, Whites created Western civilization, but only participation by minorities can sanctify and legitimize the existence of that civilization. No aspect of Western culture is to be left untouched:
[Steven] Moffat said Doctor Who [a children’s science-fiction series] had “no excuse” not to feature a diverse cast of black, Asian and minority ethnic actors. “Sometimes the nature of a particular show – historical dramas, for instance – makes diversity more of a challenge, but Doctor Who has absolutely nowhere to hide on this,” he said. “Young people watching have to know that they have a place in the future. That really matters. You have to care profoundly what children’s shows in particular say about where you’re going to be.
“And we’ve kind of got to tell a lie: we’ll go back into history and there will be black people where, historically, there wouldn’t have been, and we won’t dwell on that. We’ll say, ‘To hell with it, this is the imaginary, better version of the world. By believing in it, we’ll summon it forth.’” (We nearly appointed a black Doctor, says Doctor Who showrunner, The Guardian, 2nd June 2016)
Has liberal psychology ever been revealed with more unblushing candour? Steven Moffat plainly believes that liberal lies are not merely noble but magical too, able to create a new and better world by the sheer force of their transcendent goodness and decency. This is one reason that liberals ignored the horrors being committed in Rotherham and Oxford: they believed that if they closed their eyes and wished hard enough, low-IQ, violent misogynists from the Third World would turn into gentle, caring feminists and join the liberal battle against evil White males and their abominable patriarchy.
Rotherham’s horrors were exposed in 2014, but the attempted cover-up after the Cologne vibrancy in 2016 proves that liberals have not repented their errors. In fact, they don’t accept that they are in error. A mass outbreak of sexual assault is merely reality, and only realists have to take account of it. To liberals, feelism trumps realism every time. In the words of the former Tory prime minister John Major, the views of Nigel Farage and his fellow xenophobes are “depressing and awful.” In fact, they are so awful, they can’t possibly be true. Feelism teaches us that the world will surely conform to our emotions, if we feel strongly enough for long enough.
The ultimate vindication of multiculturalism…
Soccer, a bastion of male identity, has become a potent tool of the hostile elite. Here’s a good example of its use as liberal propaganda:
It seems a long time since “Dutch” was synonymous with tolerance. A founding member of the European Union, the Netherlands developed from the 1970s onwards into a laboratory for social and cultural change, boldly pioneering the legalisation of prostitution, soft drugs, euthanasia and gay marriage.
Those were the days when Dutch politicians and opinion-makers would refer to the Netherlands, without any apparent irony, as a “gidsland”, or “guide country”: a small nation leading by example. Its proudest moment probably came in June 1988 when an ethnically mixed team of Dutch footballers won the European Championships, beating the all-white teams of arch-rival Germany and then Russia. It felt like the ultimate vindication of multiculturalism. (In a traumatised Netherlands, faith in the EU is plummeting, The Guardian, 6th June 2016)
That was feelism, alright: Holland’s victory “felt” like the ultimate vindication of multiculturalism, so how could reality fail to conform? Holland was surely destined for a golden multi-cultural future. Alas, the golden future has turned to dross. And Joris Luyendijk, the Dutch liberal who wrote that article, is honest enough to accept the failure of liberalism. Indeed, he goes further. He laments the rise of Geert Wilders’ “Islamophobic” Freedom Party in Holland, but then says this:
Yet it would be a grave mistake to think that once Wilders leaves the scene, so will the questions that, beneath all the offensive and incendiary rhetoric, he has put centre stage. What if the European project is an edifice with fatally flawed foundations? How does an open society based on equality survive, when every year it takes in tens if not hundreds of thousands of immigrants from countries with no tradition of openness, equality or democratic debate? Especially when those immigrants consistently have more children than the native Dutch? (In a traumatised Netherlands, faith in the EU is plummeting)
That’s realism, not feelism. And if liberals are admitting reality at the Guardian, I think the hostile elite are in big trouble. Liberals have tried to wage an emotional war on reality, but reality doesn’t go away just because it makes liberals feel bad. The idea of human equality is a fantasy peddled by malevolent tricksters to naïve fools. When Muslims, Blacks and other non-Whites flee their own failed states, they bring with them the cause of that failure: their co-evolved genetics and culture.
It’s outrageous, disgraceful and sickening to say such a thing, of course, but even liberals like Joris Luyendijk are starting to accept that it’s also true.