Ideologies are like engines: what matters is that they reach their destination, not what they run on or what they’re made of. But one vital difference is that an ideology can reach its destination without being internally consistent or conforming to reality. That isn’t true of real engines. Take the Mariner I space-probe in 1962. Its destination was Venus, but its mission failed completely because one small mathematical symbol was omitted from its on-board program.
The cost of failure
When the program ran, it “treated normal minor variations of velocity as if they were serious, causing spurious corrections that sent the rocket off course.” In other words, Mariner I didn’t conform to reality and didn’t get anywhere near its destination. The cost of failure amounted to hundreds of millions in 2018 dollars. But the mistake won’t happen again because the problem has been identified.
On the contrary, neo-conservatism still flourishes. That’s because it reached its destination long ago: it got into power, seizing strategic points of American politics, media and academia. For an ideology, conforming to reality can actually be a disadvantage. The palaeo-conservative Pat Buchanan has been right again and again about the errors of American domestic and foreign policy. To neo-conservatives and others who have been wrong again and again, this has merely confirmed Buchanan’s wickedness and cemented his exclusion from power. As I’ve pointed out before: in the Land of Lies, the wilfully blind are king. An ideology can run on lies and still reach its destination.
The destination is power
Indeed, lies and fantasies can be a much more powerful fuel than truth and realism. The modern West has become a Pseudotopia, or Land of Lies, because false ideologies have defeated truthful ones. For example, governments across the West are no longer realistic about human differences. Instead, they deny these differences and insist that all human groups have equal potential. Why, then, do some groups fail to realize their potential? It can only be because they are prevented from realizing it. Racism, sexism and Islamophobia are at work, stifling potential, preventing equality. These hateful prejudices must be hunted down and stamped out.
Such is the ideology of the modern left, intended, so we are told, to reach the destination of equality and justice. In reality, of course, the destination for the left is power. George Orwell’s Animal Farm (1945) described the process as a satire on communism and the Soviet Union. The pigs promise equality and procure tyranny. Orwell very cleverly summed up their contradictions in “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” We can see the same contradictions in modern leftism. Anti-racists, feminists and LGBTQIA-rights activists claim that they only want equality and justice. But what they’re really after is power and privilege. They want to be “more equal than others.”
The metaphysics of leftism
In other words, they want to be superior and to rule the rest of us. If we examine the metaphysics of leftism, we can see that its overt claims do not match its underlying axioms. Leftists claim to believe that human beings are absolutely equal. In fact, they believe that some groups are innately virtuous and some are innately wicked. You could say a spectre is haunting leftism — the spectre of free will. Philosophically speaking, free will is a fascinating and complicated topic that has challenged and tantalized thinkers for millennia. For the purposes of this article, it’s important because it is the ground for moral judgment. If an action is not freely chosen, we have no basis for condemning it. Those who lack free will also lack culpability. There’s a connection with an interesting observation made by H.G. Wells in his novel The Food of the Gods (1904): “[I]t is easier to hate animate than inanimate things, animals more than plants, and one’s fellow-men more completely than any animals.”
In other words, there’s a hierarchy of moral opprobrium tied partly to competition and partly to the amount of free will we see in another entity. On the modern understanding, inanimate objects have no free will and it’s irrational to treat them as though they do. But that wasn’t the ancient understanding. The Greek historian Herodotus describes a storm that destroyed a bridge being built across the Hellespont for the Persian king Xerxes. Herodotus continues: “Then when Xerxes heard it he was exceedingly enraged, and bade them scourge the Hellespont with three hundred strokes of the lash and let down into the sea a pair of fetters.”
Xerxes didn’t regard the sea as inanimate: he thought it contained a spirit that had wilfully thwarted his project. The Hellespont was θολερος καὶ ἁλμυρος ποταμος — “a treacherous and briny stream.” Today we find Xerxes’ action misguided but explicable. We don’t simply laugh as we do when Basil Fawlty becomes angry with his car and lashes it with a branch in the television comedy Fawlty Towers (1975–9). Why do we laugh? Because it’s inappropriate and irrational to become angry at the behaviour of an inanimate object. Indeed, some would say that getting angry at misbehaviour and misfortune is always wrong: the American progressive Robert G. Ingersoll (1833–99) called anger a “wind that blows out the lamp of the mind.”
But anger and self-righteousness are essential parts of leftism. They’re particularly apparent in anti-racism. Here, for example, is Dr Zubaida Haque, “a Research Associate at the Runnymede Trust,” looking forward to the annual scourging that the White British will receive when Stephen Lawrence Day is up-and-running:
At the memorial, the Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin [the Black female chaplain of the House of Commons] spoke about how it is possible to make “medicine out of poison”. The Stephen Lawrence Day could be about celebrating Stephen’s life, his legacy as a person of colour growing up in this country, but also the obstacles and the negativity that BME [Black and Minority Ethnic] people experience on a daily basis in different aspects of their life. It should be about celebrating achievements of young and old people in different ethnic communities, the importance of identity, and our shared multicultural and Commonwealth history. It should teach school pupils the history of racism and anti-racism but also offer hope to those in challenging circumstances that their lives will get better and that they can succeed. Racism took away Stephen Lawrence’s life, but we can prevent it from blighting another or taking it away altogether. (What should happen on Stephen Lawrence Day?, The New Statesman, 24th April 2018)
Like many anti-racists, Dr Zubaida Haque is not remarkable for intelligence or insight. But she’s an expert in the anti-racist algorithm that divides vice and virtue with scrupulous fairness between Whites and non-Whites. It’s a 50/50 split: all vice is assigned to Whites and all virtue to non-Whites. And we should note the Jewish background to her article. Her employer, the deceptively named Runnymede Trust, was founded by two Jewish anti-racists, Jim Rose and Tony Lester in 1968. The martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence has been overseen by the Jewish anti-racist Dr Richard Stone. And the Rev. Rose Hudson-Wilkin, the Black female chaplain of the House of Commons, was appointed to “battle against racism and sexism” by John Bercow, the Jewish “Speaker,” or moderator, of the House of Commons (note that Bercow has recently been accused of bullying and other bad behaviour).
The fundamental axiom of anti-racism
However, the self-righteousness of anti-racism contradicts the fundamental axiom of anti-racism: that all human groups are equal in potential. “There Is Only One Race — the Human Race.” This claim doesn’t, of course, apply merely to intelligence and creativity. If all human groups are equal, they have the precisely same capacity for good and evil. It is merely an accident of history that Whites (and Arabs) enslaved and oppressed Blacks, rather than vice versa. For example, under different circumstances, Blacks with advanced technology might have colonized America from Africa and shipped Whites from backward Europe across the Atlantic as slaves. In this alternate history, there would now be a White Lives Matter movement in America struggling against “racist murders” by a mostly Black police-force corrupted by centuries of “Black supremacism” and “Black privilege.”
This scenario, which follows directly from the fundamental axiom of anti-racism (see above), immediately deflates the self-righteousness of anti-racists. There is nothing unique or inevitable about oppression by Whites and the unjust suffering of non-Whites (as anti-racists see it). Things could just as easily have gone the other way — and in fact sometimes did, because large numbers of European Whites were enslaved by Muslims, who were often supplied by Jewish slave-traders. Blaming Whites so self-righteously and aggressively for slavery is rather like blaming a pair of dice for rolling 7 with 2 and 5 rather than with 1 and 6 or 3 and 4. Anti-racists claim that Whites have behaved with shocking injustice and cruelty down the centuries. But any other group of human beings would have done the same in the same circumstances. This must be the case by the fundamental axiom of anti-racism. All human groups are equal, therefore all human groups will use their free will to commit evil.
The toxic legacy of Whiteness
However, although that is the logical inference from the fundamental axiom, in practice anti-racists effectively deny that non-Whites possess free will. Any apparent vice in non-Whites is actually the result of Whites exercising their free will to malevolent ends. Violent crime and failure by Blacks in America are “the legacy of slavery.” Violent crime and failure in South Africa are “the legacy of apartheid.” A recent article in the Guardian discussing knife-murders has said that London is like Chicago because in both cities a “working-class black population … has arguably been left to fend for itself and descended into violence.” Who has left the Blacks of Chicago and London to fend for themselves? Who is to blame for the ensuing violence? Whites, of course.
But while the concept of free will is central to the blame-game of anti-racism, free will is never discussed in such articles, because that discussion would expose the contradictions of anti-racism. The ideology attributes free will, and therefore blame, to Whites, while denying free will, and therefore responsibility, to non-Whites. In other words, it implicitly asserts that Whites are weak and fallible humans while implying that non-Whites are somehow superhuman, with innate and impeccable virtue. If this implicit assertion is true, there can be only one solution to the problem of racism. Innately virtuous non-Whites must take control of innately corrupt Whites, who will never be able to stop using their free will to malevolent ends.
Jews and their allies
Of course, this implicit anti-White reasoning is not meant to apply to Jews and their White allies in the leftist elite, who do not share in the original sin of ordinary Whites. Lord Glasman, a Jewish dissident in Tony Blair’s New Labour government, said in 2011 that the modern Labour party “viewed working-class voters as an obstacle to progress. [Labour’s] commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters … were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary.” That is why the Labour government “was hostile to the English working class” and why it massively increased immigration. For the Labour party and other anti-racists, “progress” entails the subjugation, or even the extinction, of ordinary Whites.
All of this is apparent in anti-racist behaviour and explains why anti-racists do not explicitly discuss metaphysical concepts like free will. An implicit belief in free will supplies the fuel for their self-righteous hostility to ordinary Whites, but explicit discussion of free will would expose their true aims. The ideology of anti-racism is not aimed at describing reality or creating equality, but at achieving power. Without their self-righteousness and aggression, anti-racists would not be so effective at instilling guilt in ordinary Whites, manipulating them to act against their own interests, and silencing them when they protest against their dispossession.
“The stink of racism”
We can see the true aims of anti-racism even in the work of Jewish biologist Jared Diamond, who is probably the leading modern exponent of the “Omnia Ex Alea” (or “All by Accident”) school of history. His best-seller Guns, Germs and Steel (1997) took the fundamental axiom of anti-racism — “Race Does Not Exist” — and explained the success of Europe, for example, as a matter of biogeographical luck. Europeans benefited from factors completely outside their control, such as the presence of easily domesticable plants and animals. In a talk based on his book, Diamond asked “Why Did Human History Unfold Differently on Different Continents for the Past 13,000 Years?” Note the self-righteous and moralistic language:
Historians tend to avoid this subject [of differential progress] like the plague, because of its apparently racist overtones. Many people, or even most people, assume that the answer involves biological differences in IQ, despite the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of such IQ differences [this claim by Diamond is completely untrue]. Even to ask the question why different peoples had different histories strikes some of us as evil, because it appears to be justifying what happened in history. In fact, we study the injustices of history for the same reason that psychologists study the minds of murderers and rapists: not in order to justify history, genocide, murder and rape, but instead to understand how those evil things came about, and then to use that understanding so as to prevent their happening again. In case the stink of racism still makes you feel uncomfortable about exploring this subject, just reflect on the underlying reason why many people accept racist explanations of history’s broad pattern: we don’t have a convincing alternative explanation. Until we do, people will continue to gravitate by default towards racist theories. This leaves us with a huge moral gap, which constitutes the strongest reason for tackling this uncomfortable subject. (Jared Diamond, Why Did Human History Unfold Differently on Different Continents for the Past 13,000 Years?)
There you have it: Jared Diamond thinks that the strongest reason to “tackle” this subject is not to understand reality, but to fill a “huge moral gap.” In fact, I think that his primary motive is goyophobia, or hatred of White Europeans. When he describes why Africa failed to conquer Europe, he seems to derive great satisfaction from the hypothesis of militarily superior Africans making “mincemeat of European cavalry”:
All of Africa’s mammalian domesticates — cattle, sheep, goats, horses, even dogs — entered sub-Saharan Africa from the north, from Eurasia or North Africa. At first that seems astonishing, since we now think of Africa as the continent of big wild animals. In fact, none of those famous big wild mammal species of Africa proved domesticable. They were all unqualified by one or another problem such as: unsuitable social organization; intractable behaviour; slow growth-rate, and so on. Just think what the course of world history would have been like if Africa’s rhinos and hippos had lent themselves to domestication! If it had been possible, African cavalry mounted on rhinos or hippos would have made mincemeat of European cavalry mounted on horses. But it couldn’t happen. (Why Did Human History Unfold Differently on Different Continents for the Past 13,000 Years?)
You can see the same goyophobia in Guns, Germs and Steel when Diamond presents the hypothesis of “bedraggled” Spaniards being “driven into the sea” by Aztec cavalry:
That’s an enormous set of differences between Eurasian and Native American societies — due largely to the Late Pleistocene extinction (extermination?) of most of North and South America’s former big wild mammal species. If it had not been for those extinctions, modern history might have taken a different course. When Cortes and his bedraggled adventurers landed on the Mexican coast in 1519, they might have been driven into the sea by thousands of Aztec cavalry mounted on domesticated native American horses. Instead of the Aztecs dying of smallpox, the Spaniards might have been wiped out by American germs transmitted by disease-resistant Aztecs. American civilizations resting on animal power might have been sending their own conquistadores to ravage Europe. But those hypothetical outcomes were foreclosed by mammal extinctions thousands of years earlier. (Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (1997), ch. 18)
But Diamond’s goyophobia is illogical by his own principles. There is no room for moralism or the unique culpability of Whites in the “All by Accident” school of history. If all human groups are equal in moral and intellectual potential, then no group can be superior or inferior, more virtuous or less evil. Consequently, human history must be explained by the chance factors of biogeography. And indeed, Diamond’s thesis or something like it follows with inexorable logic from the fundamental axiom of anti-racism. If race does not exist and we are all the same under the skin, differences between human groups must arise from external factors beyond human control and not susceptible to moral judgment. If the historical dice had rolled another way, then Blacks would have enslaved Whites and Jews would have committed genocide against Germans. Villains in our time-stream are victims in an alternate time-stream, and vice versa. There is no other logical conclusion.
But anti-racists don’t reach that conclusion, because the ideology of anti-racism does not obey logic. Anti-racists follow their fundamental axiom only so far as it suits them. Although they claim that all human groups have equal potential, they blame the failure of non-Whites on Whites without any mention of chance or historical contingency. Rational anti-racism would be a much more sober and much less ambitious ideology than anti-racism as it presently exists. Rational anti-racism would not be strident or self-righteous, and it would not seek to bully, brow-beat or instil guilt in Whites. In short, it wouldn’t deliver what anti-racists really want: power, privilege and revenge.
 Editor’s note: I went to a talk by Diamond at a large packed lecture hall at Cal Tech in the early 2000s. When he gleefully fantasized about Africa conquering Europe, the crowd burst into applause. Being a reasonably respectable academic at the time, it was a good introduction to the anti-White hatred that boils just below the surface of the moralistic rhetoric of anti-racism.