I’ve always been fascinated by the concept of infallibility and the promise of certain knowledge. Singer Neil Young keeps on searching for a heart of gold. I keep on searching for certainty. Or rather: I search for more of it, because there is an infallible system of certain knowledge. It’s called mathematics and I think it’s mankind’s greatest intellectual achievement. Among much else, mathematicians can say with absolute certainty that prime numbers never run out and that we can never square a circle with straight-edge and compass.
The Infallible Tyrant
But here’s a curious thing: mathematicians don’t claim infallibility. Except that it’s not curious. Mathematicians don’t need to claim it: they have an objective way to prove their ideas. “Infallibility” is an ideological claim, an assertion of power and dominance (actual or desired), not something that a true system of knowledge ever needs to wield. As Bertrand Russell pointed out: “Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion.”
What’s true of theology is also true of politics. Here is Leszek Kołakowski, the great Polish philosopher and intellectual historian, in Main Currents of Marxism (1978):
A particularly blatant example of aggressive Stalinism was the ideological invasion of the natural sciences. … [I]f we take a panoramic view of the history of those years we may perceive a certain gradation of ideological pressure, corresponding roughly to the hierarchy of the sciences established by Comte and Engels. Pressure was almost zero in mathematics, fairly strong in cosmology and physics, stronger still in the biological sciences, and all-powerful in the social and human sciences. (Op. cit., Vol. III, “The Breakdown,” ch. 4, “The Crystallization of Marxism-Leninism after the Second World War,” pp. 131 and 139)
Stalinism was aggressive because it claimed infallibility, as Kołokowski notes: “When the party is identified with the state and the apparatus of power, and when it achieves perfect unity in the shape of a one-man tyranny, doctrine becomes a matter of state and the tyrant is proclaimed infallible. … Lenin had always been right [and] the Bolshevik party was and had always been infallible” (Op. cit., pp. 4 and 93). Marxism is, in effect, the marriage of politics and religion, mixing the psychology of the latter with the secular concerns of the former. Where Christianity has an infallible Magisterium or an infallible pope, Marxism has an infallible dialectic and a succession of infallible leaders.
Odium and aggression
And where Christianity has apostates and heretics, Marxism has wreckers and ideological deviants. As I pointed out in “Comrades and Cannibals,” the concept of odium theologicum, or “hatred among theologians,” also applies to feuding Marxists. When there is no objective means of establishing truth, psychological intensity and will-to-power become essential parts of ideological combat. This helps explain why Marxism has been dominated by aggressive and assertive minorities with grudges against the majority: Marx, Trotsky, Zinoviev and many others were Jewish, Lenin had Mongol and Jewish ancestry, Stalin was Georgian, Dzerzhinsky was Polish, and so on.
To win power, these minority Marxists have to direct their aggression outward and avoid internal feuds as much as possible. Steve Sailer points out that the “coalition of the fringes” in American politics is held together by the “KKKrazy Glue” of hatred for straight White males. Back in 2012, the glue was used in a dispute at Bard College, in upstate New York. An anonymous cultural Marxist argued that Noah Steadman, a “self-proclaimed White Supremacist,” had to be silenced because his opinions were “in direct confrontation with the very existence” of vulnerable minorities. On behalf of those minorities, the Marxist was claiming infallibility and the right to crush all dissent:
We refuse to passively accept the continuation of a violent history of systemic inequality which attempts to control our interpretations of freedom, inequality, and being. Moreover, we assert our agency to create a society that allows us to participate in speech that is genuinely free. The attitude I described above, the attitude of conciliatory apologetics, free speech, tolerance, and civility, is precisely what myself and my classmates are fighting against. It assumes that words and feelings are expressed in a historical void of objective universalism, that all speakers enter conversations on equal footing, and that words have no substance other than the ideas and concrete objects they signify. What students like myself have been arguing for the last two months is that when a person coming from a place of innumerable privileges publicly questions diversity on our campus, they are bringing the full weight of systemic oppression and violence hundreds of years old to bear on each and every other student. We have been arguing that Noah’s ability and “right” to express his opinions is in direct confrontation with the very existence of every Black, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, Indigenous, Gay, Lesbian, Female, Transgendered, Disabled, Queer, Jewish, Muslim, non-White, non-Christian, non-Male, non-Heterosexual, non-Cisgendered, person in our community. (Here, November 2012)
School for Slavery
These words may well have been written by a Jewish student, given that there’s a reference to “Rosh Hashanah,” for example, and the tone reminds me of a Jewish troll called Joshua Goldberg, who passed himself off variously as an Islamist, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and a zero-tolerance SJW. Perhaps Goldberg himself wrote the attack on Steadman as a parody, but there’s no doubt that it reflects the ideas of very many people right across the West. There’s been a recent example at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), a university affiliated with the University of London (which officially claims to be “synonymous with intellectual inquiry and achievement”), where cultural Marxists in the Student Union have issued an infallible report about “racism” and the under-achievement of “BME undergraduates.” Here’s a small sample of its verbiage:
The BME Attainment Gap project was conducted as studies show that there has been a gap between the degree attainment of white and BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) undergraduates at SOAS [the School of Oriental and African Studies], with a greater proportion of white students attaining either a 2:1 or first class degree. These gaps cannot be attributed to differences between students at entry at SOAS, thus suggesting factors within SOAS contributing to this finding. The gap is not attributable to a deficit in BME students: any intervention must target institutional factors and not BME students themselves. …
There is a clear need to raise awareness of the forms that racism by both staff and students take on campus and in the classroom, and to give all staff and students the skills to intervene in problematic behaviour, and to react constructively to being ‘called out’.
Recommendation: Design a campaign and deliver to raise awareness of racism by both staff and students on campus and in the classroom. It should include:
How to recognise racism in speech and behaviour (with examples of the forms it may take);
A clear message that behaviours and comments are racist because of their impact, not their intention;
How to react constructively to being ‘called out’ for racism, by listening, being non-defensive, and being committed to learning and changing. (Degrees of Racism: Attainment Gap Report Summary, December 2016)
The report is as fascinating in its psychopathology as it is disturbing in its totalitarianism. It proclaims ex cathedra that there can be no explanation for non-White “under-achievement” but White racism and that Whites must atone for their wicked behaviour. Note these phrases:
behaviours and comments are racist because of their impact, not their intention … react constructively to being ‘called out’ … by being non-defensive, and being committed to learning and changing (Degrees of Racism)
An infallible authority does not find it “constructive” when its claims are challenged or denied. The report demands that Whites react to a charge of “racism” by accepting it without question and “committing” themselves to “learning and changing.” Whites must be “non-defensive,” i.e. completely submissive, because there is no defence against a charge of racism.
Emotions are infallible
And what infallible system of knowledge allows oppressed minorities to identify racism? Simple: they identify racism by its “impact,” i.e. by its effect on their subjective emotions. If non-Whites feel that they have been treated or spoken to in a racist way, no further evidence is needed. Emotions are an infallible guide to truth. When an ethnic oracle speaks, White offenders must submit without question.
The message of the report is simple: “Obey your Ethnic Masters, stale pale males and females!” The people who wrote it clearly want to impose a form of ideological slavery in which minorities have complete mastery over Whites. Indeed, it’s more than ideological slavery, because the minorities also want money and resources. The outcome of this political extortion can be seen in South Africa and Zimbabwe, where oppressed Blacks demanded equality, took over well-run White institutions, and began to destroy them.
But where does the ideology of minority supremacism come from? Many bigots and anti-Semites in the Alt Right would claim that it is fundamentally a Jewish invention. But it’s not just the Alt Right that make this claim:
Britain’s top rabbi warns against multiculturalism …
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.
“Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation,” Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London. “Liberal democracy is in danger,” Sacks said, adding later: “The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.”
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, iSteve, 20th October, 2007)
Jonathan Sacks also thinks that minority supremacism is a Jewish invention. If so, it has begun to behave like a Jewish legend known as the Golem, a monster created to serve Jewish ends that turns on its creators. Here’s something else from the School of Oriental and African Studies in London:
Appalling treatment of Jewish students at SOAS Students Union
On Tuesday night, Jewish students at SOAS were treated differently from other minorities. They were told that unlike every other minority group, they are not allowed to define what constitutes their own antisemitism. They were also told that Zionists were not welcome on their campus.
A motion called ‘Jewish Equality Act’ was debated at SOAS Students’ Union’s Union General Meeting on Tuesday. The motion aimed to create processes to make campus life more accessible for Jewish students. This included ensuring that there were prayer spaces for all students of faith, provision of kosher food, and not scheduling events on Jewish holidays or the Sabbath.
As part of the debate of the motion, the following line was removed after debate:
“Jewish students should be given the right to self-determination and be able to define what constitutes hatred against their group like all other minority groups”
This was, once again, a room full of students who do not identify as Jewish, explaining to Jewish students how to define their own oppression. This is in contrast to the way that other forms of oppression are defined, as per the Macpherson principle [discussed below], allowing the victim to define their own oppression.
The proposer of the motion and J-Soc President, Avrahum Sanger, whose experiences were recently covered in the [London] Evening Standard was told that he was wrong and that his experiences of discrimination were not true. This is reflective of many Jewish students in the past year not being able to define their own experiences or oppression, unlike other minority groups.
… In light of Tuesday night’s events, proposer of the motion and SOAS Jewish Society President Avrahum Sanger wrote a blog that you can read here. Josh Nagli, UJS [Union of Jewish Students] Campaigns Director added:
“The comments made during the SOAS Union General Meeting were outrageous. Not only were Jewish students told that they did not have the right to define their own oppression, but they also heard that Zionists are not welcome in their Students’ Union. These disgraceful comments are a stark reminder of the discrimination and intolerance many Jewish students at SOAS have faced in recent years.
“Time and again, Jewish students are being told what constitutes antisemitism. Whereas Students’ Unions have regularly applied the Macpherson principle to other minority groups, allowing them to define their own oppression, it seems that once again we are seeing one rule for Jewish students and another for everyone else.” … (Appalling treatment of Jewish students at SOAS Students Union, Union of Jewish Students, 26th January 2017)
The Golem runs rogue
You can see there that minority supremacism, as manufactured by Jews for their own advantage, has been turned on its creators. The “Macpherson principle,” named from Lord Macpherson’s report into the martyrdom of the Black teenager Stephen Lawrence, states that racism is in the eye of the beholder. That’s why minority groups are able to “define their own oppression”: if they think they are oppressed, that is exactly what they are.
The White majority is not, of course, allowed to “define” anything in response. Whites cannot claim innocence, plead mitigation or appeal to any objective facts or reasoning: they are guilty as charged and must simply submit. I’d suggest that the “Macpherson principle” is a dangerous one, liable to be abused by fallible and selfish human beings. But I’m a stale pale male and of course I would say that. Cultural Marxism, by contrast, teaches that oppressed groups slough off human imperfection and become both infallible in judgment and saintly in intention.
The trouble comes when the infallible judgments of the oppressed contradict each other. Jews like Avrahum Sanger and Josh Nagli at SOAS are perfectly happy for Muslims and other non-Whites to use minority supremacism and the “Macpherson principle” as weapons against the White majority in Britain. Alas, they have discovered that non-Whites want to use those same weapons against Jews: the Golem has turned on its creators. As a Jewish woman said after being pelted by Bangladeshi Muslims with eggs and vegetables at a memorial service in London: “This is so wrong. We should be on the same side.”
Another interesting year
The “same side” is, of course, the side opposing the White and historically Christian majority in Britain. But Muslims don’t want to be on the same side as Jews. The coalition of the fringes is unravelling even as formerly individualist Whites begin to recognize that they must unite against their self-declared enemies. The hatred, arrogance and self-righteousness of cultural Marxists and minority supremacists are on open display everywhere from the Berkeley campus in California to anti-Trump protests in Europe.
Emotions and lies are potent political forces, but Marxists can only claim infallibility, not achieve it. Reality is not controlled by words or reversed by censorship. The White Tribe is rising, not submitting, and 2017 looks set to be an even more interesting year than 2016.