Human Diversity:
The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class
by Charles Murray
New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2020

“We are in the midst of a uniquely exciting period of discoveries in genetics and neuroscience (6),” notes Charles Murray near the beginning of his latest book Human Diversity, yet it remains something of a secret. Knowledgeable specialists avoid publicizing the discoveries, frequently claiming to be afraid the information will be misinterpreted and misused (i.e., by “white supremacists” and such). What they are really afraid of is retaliation by an aggressive minority of their colleagues who enforce a scientifically unsupported orthodoxy that Murray sums up in three assertions:

1) Gender is a social construct. Physiological sex differences associated with childbearing have been used to create artificial gender roles that are unjustified by inborn characteristics of personality, abilities, or social behavior.

2) Race is a social construct. The concept of race has arisen from cosmetic differences in appearance that are not accompanied by inborn differences in personality, abilities, or social behavior

3) Class is a function of privilege. People have historically been sorted into classes by political, economic, and cultural institutions that privilege heterosexual white males and oppress everyone else, with genes and human nature playing a trivial role if any. People can be resorted in a socially just way by changing these institutions. (3)

This orthodoxy has been on the defensive for many years now, and Murray is optimistic it will collapse within the coming decade. Plenty of individual believers will remain, but collectively they will lose their ability to enforce their beliefs through intimidation.

Human Diversity is a report on the revolution in our understanding of race, sex and class differences over the last thirty years. The author draws on genetic advances made possible by the sequencing of the human genome and also on neuroscience, but avoids extensive appeals to evolutionary psychology: “I decided that incorporating its insights would make it too easy for critics to attack the explanation and ignore the empirical reality.” (7)

This is part of a strategy “to stick to the low-hanging fruit” of findings “that have broad acceptance within their disciplines,” even if it leaves expert readers “yawning with boredom.” (6) Though soft-spoken by nature, Murray clearly hopes to strike an unanswerable blow against the Lysenkoist mafia whose power he has experienced personally. He conveniently summarizes his basic message in ten propositions for which “the clamor of genuine scientific dispute has abated,” (7) and there is little room left for empirically informed dispute. The first four propositions deal with sex differences, the next three with race, and the last three with class. Each proposition is given a chapter of its own.

The first proposition states that sex differences in personality are consistent worldwide and tend to widen in more gender-egalitarian cultures. Few will be surprised to find the latest studies confirming that women tend toward the warm, sympathetic, accommodating, altruistic and sociable end of the personality scale, with men more inclined to be reserved, utilitarian, unsentimental, dispassionate and solitary. Such differences emerge early in life are found around the world in radically different cultural environments.

A more counterintuitive finding is that such sex differences in personality widen rather than diminish in more egalitarian countries: this was the consistent result of five extensive international studies published between 2001 and 2018. As Murray notes, social constructivists are not the only ones surprised by this: “I know of no ideological perspective that would have predicted greater sex differences in personality in Scandinavia than in Africa or Asia.” He offers the conjecture that stronger enforcement of social norms in more traditional societies may suppress the expression of inborn personality traits, while in the modern West the sexes are “freer to do what comes naturally.” (43)

The second proposition states that “on average, females worldwide have advantages in verbal ability and social cognition while males have advantages in visuospatial abilities and the extremes of mathematical ability.” Social cognition refers to the ability to infer mental states from external clues and predict other people’s intentions and reactions. Women’s superior verbal skills are a consistent finding of international student assessment tests. Women also have better sensory perception and fine motor skills, and are better than men at remembering the minutiae (peripheral detail) of events.

Men are better at remembering the gist, and have markedly superior visuospatial skills. There has also long existed a widespread perception that men are better at math than women. Recent evidence makes some qualification necessary. Within the normal ability range, the male advantage is not statistically significant. It is clearer at the high end, but even here diminished greatly during the 1980s. Among the top one percent of one percent of human mathematical ability, there were 13 boys for every girl in the 1970s; by the early 1990s, the ratio had sunk to 3 to 1, where it has remained stable ever since.

Even where men and women solve problems equally well, they may do so in different ways. For example, women tend to navigate by identifying and remembering landmarks, while men are more likely to construct mental maps. Women more often use verbal forms of logic to solve math problems, whereas men tend to use symbolic or spatial reasoning.

Among the most cherished of feminist beliefs is that female under-representation in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and math) reflects differences in socialization—differences that would disappear in a gender-neutral society. To test this hypothesis, Murray examines the preferences and choices of a cohort chosen for a Johns Hopkins Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY). Focusing on such a sample allows him to ignore sex differences in abilities: all these people were qualified to pursue any undergraduate major they liked.

In the upper-middle-class schools and neighborhoods where most of the SMPY girls grew up, courses were filled with inspirational stories about women scientists, political leaders, artists, and authors. High schools were putting boys and girls in the same gym classes, and high school counselors were urging female students to go into male-dominated careers. When they reached college age in 1982–5, they all knew that the most famous universities in the nation were eager to add them to their student bodies and even more eager for them to populate their majors in science, technology, engineering, and math. On campuses, young women were hearing faculty and their fellow students urging them to forgo marriage and childbearing in favor of a career. (72)

It would not be easy to find a hypothesis which has been given a fairer or larger-scale trial than the explanation of female underrepresentation in STEM fields by sex-specific socialization.

The SMPY women were, indeed, about twice as likely as women in the general population to major in STEM subjects—but so were the men compared to men in the general population, so that the sex ratio was about the same. Twice as many of the women got degrees in the social sciences, business, and the humanities as did the men. Those of the women who did major in STEM subjects inclined more to the life sciences rather than math or the physical sciences.

An important reason for the persistent underrepresentation of women in STEM fields even among the mathematically gifted elite may be that many of these women also enjoyed their sex’s natural advantage in verbal intelligence, giving them “an attractive array of alternatives to STEM” (78)—whereas the men’s intelligence was more likely to skew heavily toward mathematics.

In 2012–13 a team of Vanderbilt psychologists interviewed these SMPY men and women, by then in their late forties, about their work preferences. The women indicated a much greater willingness to consider part-time careers and a greater unwillingness to work more than forty hours a week. They sought flexibility in their work schedule and placed a high value on such things as “having strong friendships.” Murray notes that since these women were in their late forties, their preference for shorter hours and a flexible schedule was not likely to be due to the presence of small children at home.

The men expressed a strong preference for a full-time career with a high salary, and agreed with such statements as “The prospect of receiving criticism from others does not inhibit me from expressing my thoughts’ and “I believe society should invest in my ideas because they are more important than those of other people in my discipline.” They viewed “being able to take risks on my job” as a positive good, and reported that they enjoyed working with computers, tools and machines.

In short, the stated preferences of these highly talented men and women who had come of age at the height of the feminist educational and career revolution were utterly sex-typical. Yet their widely differing preferences “were not accompanied by corresponding sex differences in how they viewed their career accomplishments and close relationships, or in their positive outlook on life,” according to the Vanderbilt researchers. (76) Forcing statistically equal life outcomes on the women in this sample might have been possible under totalitarian conditions, but would almost certainly have left them less happy.

The patterns observed in this cohort of unusually talented men and women holds for people general. Consider, for example, the RIASEC psychological assessment battery widely used for career guidance: of the six dimensions of preferences and abilities it measures, two reveal large and consistent sex differences. Those who score highest on the trait labelled “Realistic” enjoy working with tools, instruments, and mechanical or electrical equipment, as well as activities such as building, repairing machinery, and raising crops or animals. Men are higher on this measure by 84 percent of a standard deviation, indicating a robust average difference. Those who score highest on the trait labeled “Social” enjoy helping, enlightening or serving others through activities such as teaching, counseling, working in service-oriented organizations and engaging in social and political studies. Women are higher on this measure by 68 percent of a standard deviation, also quite robust. And these differences do not just show up in career assessment tests, but are closely mirrored by the actual jobs men and women go on to hold.

All of this evidence goes to confirm an observation made in 1911 by Edward Thorndike, a founder of the discipline of educational psychology, that the greatest cognitive difference between men and women lies “in the relative strength of their interest in things and their mechanisms (stronger in men) and the interest in persons and their feelings (stronger in women).” (19–20) This provided the inspiration for Murray’s third proposition: “on average, women worldwide are more attracted to vocations centered on people and men to vocations centered on things.” He notes that in the late 1980s, observers could have been forgiven for predicting that the career preferences of men and women

would converge within a few decades. From 1970 through the mid-1980s, the percentage of women in Things jobs had risen and the male-female ratio had plunged. If those [trends] had been sustained, the percentages of men and women in Things jobs would have intersected around 2001. But convergence was already slowing by the late 1980s and had effectively stalled by 1990. (87)

For example, between 1971 and 1986, the percentage of women’s bachelor of science degrees in the most things-oriented STEM fields—physics, chemistry, earth sciences, computer sciences, mathematics and engineering—more than doubled, but from a base of only 4 percent to a high of 10 percent. By 1992 it had declined again to 6 percent, where it has remained ever since, give or take a percentage point. The author concludes:

It looks as if women were indeed artificially constrained from moving into a variety of Things occupations as of 1970, that those constraints were largely removed, and that equilibrium was reached around 30 years ago. (88)

The fourth proposition states that “many sex differences in the brain are coordinate with sex differences in personality, abilities and behavior.” As neurobiological researcher Larry Cahill wrote in 2017: “The past 15 to 20 years witnesses an explosion of research documenting sex influences at all levels of brain function. So overpowering is the wave of research that the standard ways of dismissing sex influences have all been swept away.” Some of the most obvious sex differences in temperament are due to sex hormones, of which testosterone and estrogen are the best known (there are many others). Both men and women produce both of these hormones, but men produce much more testosterone and women much more estrogen.

Studies have demonstrated that a single dose of testosterone administered to women

significantly altered connectivity of the network in the brain that underlies the integration and selection of sensory information during empathic behavior. This finding suggests a neural mechanism by which testosterone can impair the recognition of emotions. (100)

The administration of testosterone has also been found to diminish women’s accuracy in inferring mental states, and women with higher natural levels of testosterone have been observed to be less risk-averse than other women. Supplemental testosterone administered to men diminishes their performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test, which measures capacity to override intuitive judgments with deliberated answers. Estrogen administered to men increases their emotional response to watching a distressed person.

Among the most important but less widely known functions of testosterone is to masculinize the fetal brain. Testosterone surges in human males occur twice before birth, during weeks 12-18 and again during weeks 34-41; a third occurs in the first three months after birth. In the absence of these testosterone surges, the brain develops according to the female pattern, which is thus in some sense the “default” type of human brain.

Since this discovery was made in 1959, many experiments have been conducted on nonhuman mammals in which hormones are manipulated during critical periods of prenatal and neonatal development. It has been established that certain regions of the brain have receptors which accept chemical signals from hormones. These signals affect a cell’s anatomical connectivity and neurochemicals, and even whether it survives or not.

Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) is a rare but instructive disorder that affects genetically male humans, i.e., persons with a Y chromosome. Such persons produce normal amounts of testosterone at the proper time—but to no effect, because their androgen receptors do not work. Persons with CAIS are born with externally normal female genitalia, are reared as girls, and are in most respects indistinguishable from girls behaviorally.

A 2017 Swedish study identified many specific ways in which fetuses with a Y chromosome but affected by CAIS develop brains that are a mix of characteristically “male” and “female” patterns. To give just one example: they are characteristically female with regard to hippocampus volume and male with regard to caudate volume. The study concluded that similarities in brain structure between the CAIS women and female controls are due to the CAIS condition, while similarities with male controls were due to the effects of their Y chromosome.

A few defenders of feminist orthodoxy have written books critical of hormone research, and been rewarded with “uniformly and sometimes gushingly enthusiastic… reviews in the mainstream press,” according to Murray. (106) But the best that can be said for their critiques is that they have succeeded in pointing out how some research has fallen short of perfection due to “small samples, inconsistent results, and scarce replications.” (105) But neuroscientists have not put much effort into refuting these books, apart from a few of them “having had scathing things to say in blogs.” One researcher told Murray that “one reason you don’t find many critiques… is that people in the field really don’t care. It’s so evidently nonsense.” (106) In short, empirically oriented scientists live in a largely separate mental world from the armchair theorists of social constructivism.

Among the best attested neurological sex differences is the greater “laterality” of the male brain, meaning that it is “structurally optimized for communicating within hemispheres” (112) as a result of fetal masculinization. The female brain is optimized for communication across hemispheres: the corpus callosum, which connects the two hemispheres is thicker in women, even after controlling for brain size and age. Men primarily use their right hemisphere for spatial tasks and their left hemisphere for verbal tasks, while women use both hemispheres for both.

When women suffer brain damage to the left hemisphere, they are less likely than men to develop language difficulties. Women’s language test scores after brain damage suffer the same effect whether the damage occurred to the left or right hemisphere, whereas men are more affected by damage to the left hemisphere. (110)

A recent study found that males have greater connectivity between the motor and sensory systems, and in systems associated with complex reasoning and control. Females have higher connectivity with the subcortical regions associated with emotion processing. Researchers say these results “suggest a better perception-action coordination in males, and better anticipation and subsequent processing of socially and emotionally relevant cues in females.” (115)

Go to Part 2.

You’d be forgiven for thinking that the Corona virus was the deadliest thing to hit the world since Spanish Flu. It was announced on February 12th that the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona has been cancelled due to the supposed epidemic, from which was nobody of European ancestry has died [MWC 2020 Canceled Due To Corona Virus Concerns, RTT News, February 12, 2020]. The World Health Organization has gone so far as to brand Corona “Public Enemy Number One” [WHO brands corona virus ‘public enemy number one’, Voice of the People, February 12, 2020]. This being so, you’d think that the Chinese doctors who discovered and drew attention to this apparently deadly disease would be in line for the Chinese equivalent of the Congressional Medal.

But they’re not. In fact, when Wuhan medic Dr Li Wenliang tried to raise the raise the alarm about the virus he was arrested and severely reprimanded by the police. Tragically, Dr Li has since died of Corona himself. Revelations of what happened have unleashed public fury even in the surveillance dictatorship that is modern China. Beijing has sent officials to Wuhan to find scapegoats in order assuage public anger. But even prominent Chinese academics are publically criticizing government censorship, due to the Corona scandal. The China Human Rights Lawyers Group have demanded, in an open letter, a lifting of censorship and that the day of Dr Li’s death — February 6th — be declared “The People’s Day of Truth.” Prominent Chinese academics have signed this letter [The fallout from the death of a Chinese doctor is turning into a major challenge for Xi Jinping, By James Griffiths, CNN, February 13, 2020].

One might assume that China is a paranoid dictatorship obsessed with control and frightened that any lack of control could result in a challenge to the regime. Dr Li’s behavior highlighted government incompetence — a serious disease outbreak of which they were not aware — so he had to be dealt with. But, of course, there’s another possibility, increasingly discussed online, that would more neatly explain the regime’s overreaction to this conscientious doctor: that the regime manufactured Corona in the first place.

There has been all kinds of speculation over this possibility, with even a Wikipedia page having been created about “Misinformation” regarding Corona, and how each conspiracy theory has been successfully refuted. The problem is that the conspiracy theorists implicitly mentioned by Wikipedia speculate wildly, without providing hard evidence. But it appears that there is evidence for one of the more outlandish theories: that Corona was created as a bioweapon.

It was announced on January 28th that two Chinese nationals, both of them scientists researching HIV, had been charged with serious offences, one of them for stealing 21 vials of biomaterial from Harvard’s Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department and trying to smuggle it out of the US, into China, in a sock. Both were charged that they were acting as agents of a foreign government — the People’s Republic of China — and aiding that foreign government. One of this duo, the sock smuggler Zaosong Zheng, had been arrested in December, but the other, Yanqing Ye, had already managed to flee back to China. Ye, who was allowed to return to China after being interviewed at Boston Airport in December, falsely told officials that she was not working for China’s National University of Defense Technology. She would, obviously, never have been allowed access to such sensitive chemical research if she had told the truth; the truth being that she does research for the Chinese military.

Further charged was Dr Charles Lieber, the head of Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department. It is alleged that Dr Lieber, despite working on a grant which specifically rules out having foreign interests, had, since 2011, been working as a “Strategic Scientist” at Wuhan University of Technology (WUT), in the city where the Corona virus began. According to our government, Lieber was running a “talent program” that “seek(s) to lure Chinese overseas talent and foreign experts to bring their knowledge and experience to China and reward individuals for stealing proprietary information.” It is alleged that, in 2018, Lieber lied to investigators about his involvement in this program [Harvard University Professor and Two Chinese Nationals Charged in Three Separate China Related Cases, Department of Justice, January 28^th 2020].

So, we have the head of department working clandestinely for a university in Wuhan — one only a few miles from the epicentre of the outbreak, by the way — as part of program which aims to steal for the Chinese government. And we have two Chinese students, under this head’s ultimate supervision, stealing biochemical material and/or secretly working for the Chinese military. But the plot thickens further. A group of Indian scientists have sequenced the virus (in its animal form) and come to the conclusion that it was deliberately engineered [Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag, By Prashan Pradhan et al., bioRxiv, 2020].

Now, let’s be a little cautious. This is a pre-publication study and it has not, therefore, been subject to review by other scientists. But assuming it is a competent piece of research, then, taken with the other evidence, it does not look good for the Chinese authorities.

For the conspiratorially-minded, which is a reasonable default state of mind when dealing with a secretive and highly organized dictatorship, it might seem like something is awry. It might seem like the Chinese government has a program of biological warfare and, somehow, one of the weapons it has been working on has escaped, from Wuhan University of Technology, leading to the Corona virus that is causing so much panic. Or from the Wuhan Center for Disease Control (located 300 yards from the fish market where the infections supposedly began). Or from the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory.

It might seem like the Chinese authorities realised what had happened and wanted to suppress it, leading them to arrest the dutiful doctor who raised concerns about the outbreak.

It might even seem like the paranoid, tyrannical Chinese government have manufactured a virus for specific use against their own people, as a means of quelling any future rebellion against the regime’s authority.

It might even seem like the fact that the Chinese government are possibly capable of this might foment distrust, beyond China, in the governing elites more generally. This might explain why the British tabloid The Express has reported the “conspiracy theory” in its special “Weird Section,” as if to make light of it and why the leftists of Wikipedia, whose aim to prop up the current anti-White political dispensation, felt the need to create a page on “Misinformation” surrounding Corona.

The Express article quotes various twitter “Conspiracy Theorists” but does not discuss any of the hard evidence for the supposedly wacky theory. And it’s all okay because the article tells us:

Dr David Jacobs, the co-founder of the Coalition of Ontario Doctors in Canada, tweeted: ‘Please stop with the conspiracy theories!’ Furthermore, ‘We’re also battling the trolls and conspiracy theories’ tweeted Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director General. ‘The #coronavirus was NOT made in a lab. It is NOT a biological weapon’ [Coronavirus theories: Is coronavirus an experiment gone wrong? Is it a Chinese bioweapon? By Sebastian Kettley, Express, February 12, 2020].

So, it’s all okay then. It’s not as if, as has been noted by communication analyst Francisco Yus, the use of capitalization is associated with expressing strong emotion [Cyberpragmatics: Internet-mediated communication in context, By Francisco Yus, 2011, p.234]. And it’s not as if we would expect people to not feel strong emotions in response to a theory that was ludicrous and which they knew must be without a shred of truth. It’s not as if conflicted feelings over what you want to be true and what you know might be true creates “cognitive dissonance” and, thus, an emotional reaction.

The bioweapon theory, at the very least, deserves to be taken seriously, until it is successfully refuted.

Go to Part 1.

We must examine our present state of affairs before we can contemplate organized resistance. The reality is that we no longer live in a free country. We are only free in the sense that we may buy whichever variety of condom that we would like. The truth is available, but only for those who have the time and the motivation to seek it out from underneath the mountain of lies that it is hidden under; as a consequence, and in the absence of funding, essentially only the already converted are exposed to the truth. The general population is bombarded every day with racial propaganda, while nauseatingly horrific anti-White crime goes unreported. The drug-feud murder of Matthew Shepard is turned into a homosexual “hate crime.” George Zimmerman was airbrushed White by CNN, which also took the liberty of doctoring away the head wounds he sustained in Trayvon Martin’s brutal assault. The Martin family’s race hustler legal team recruited an imposter to pose as Trayvon’s girlfriend and fabricate testimony. Prosecutors eagerly went along with the hoaxed evidence so that they could arrest Zimmerman. Black Lives Matter exists mainly to continue producing race hoaxes and demonizing law enforcement; their rallying cry, “hands up, don’t shoot,” is itself a fraud. We have entered a brave new world of media manipulation; the rise of deep fake technology presents us with both a terrifying challenge to overcome and a thrilling opportunity to further discredit Big Journalism.

We have only nominal freedom of speech, as heretics are ostracized as social pariahs, cast into outer darkness. Our enemies at the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, allied with legions of ‘constitutional’ law professors and legal scholars, are campaigning to eliminate even our nominal freedom of speech by creating out of whole cloth the concept of “hate speech.” Many have lost their jobs. Big Tech monopolies like Google and PayPal close accounts without notice. The ruling class is rapidly building a panoptic social credit regime modeled on the Chinese system, with dissidents functionally deprived of all of their rights as public citizens. Growing calls from the largest banks for a cashless society should frighten us all. Goldman Sachs will no longer underwrite Initial Public Offerings if a business is too White.

Even the slightest hint of White identity is hunted down and extinguished before it actualizes into a threat against the egalitarian regime. The US Army and Navy rapidly investigated when cadets were filmed making the ‘OK’ sign. This White Scare, to borrow Jared Taylor’s parlance, is intensifying into a very real danger for all White advocates; indeed, for all Whites. Taylor was banned from traveling to Europe and Greg Johnson was arrested and deported from Norway, solely for their heterodox views. White advocates are hounded from and prevented from participating in public life. The city of Madison, Wisconsin, declared that racism is a “public health crisis,” blaming White racism for the poor health and proclivity for violence of Blacks. That case study in mediocrity, David French, has announced in National Review that “it’s time to declare war on White-nationalist terrorism.”

Broad bipartisan support is growing for “red flag” laws to disarm Whites, who may be reported anonymously for any reason and then stripped of their constitutional rights without recourse. New York’s “criminal justice reform” includes the elimination of bail (replete with paying criminals to return for their court dates), the examination of crime scenes by criminal defendants, and the outing of witnesses to the criminals they are to testify against. Illegal alien criminals routinely get away with murder. The House of Representatives has introduced what might be the most radical piece of legislation in American history, the “New Way Forward Act”, to accelerate and codify this anarcho-tyranny.

Democrat presidential candidates have gone whole hog on all of this. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders advocate government regulation of all media platforms “to stop the spread of hate,” with Warren going so far as to propose criminalizing the spread of “disinformation.” Former Vice President Joe Biden launched his campaign with a video focused on the Charlottesville hoax and recently announced plans to make Big Tech censor even more, finding the current tyranny woefully inadequate. Senator Cory Booker proposed a separate law enforcement agency for “hate crimes and White supremacist violence.” Mayor (and Episcopal Saint) Pete Buttigieg has said that he supports applying the same strategies used to combat “foreign radicalism,” meaning Islamic jihad, to suppress White nationalism. One must wonder if this includes the Obama Doctrine of murdering American citizens. In a speech last year at the Brookings Institution, Kevin McAleenan of the Department of Homeland Security announced that the agency is prioritizing “racially based violent extremism, particularly White supremacist terrorism.”

An ominous sign of the acceleration of our suppression is the growing push to medicalize “racism,” ably recounted by the eminent Jared Taylor. Much like the Soviet Union institutionalized dissidents by diagnosing them with “sluggish schizophrenia,” those of us who are even accused of straying from the regnant dogma are seen as mentally diseased. There simply must be something wrong with the heterodox; after all, everyone knows that diversity is our greatest strength. Psychiatrists study “intolerant personality disorder” and “pathological bias.” Oxford researchers claim that the blood pressure drug propranolol, which blocks neurons that have to do with threat perception, may pharmacologically “treat” racism and “cure” our intolerance. Neuroscientists have also experimented with magnetically disabling parts of the brain such as the pMFC, which helps to respond to threats, in order to change attitudes regarding faith and immigration.

The first episode of HBO’s Watchmen may provide a look ahead into what lies in store as the White Scare is increasingly militarized. Set in the present day in an alternate America (one whose flag has almost twice as many stars as ours), the Leftist regime of President Robert Redford has instituted sweeping racial “reparations,” authorizing a vast transfer of wealth from White to Black. The events of the episode take place in Tulsa, Oklahoma; the signs of Black power are manifest, from an all-Black production of the musical Oklahoma to a plethora of Black monuments. All of the Blacks we see are upper or middle-class figures of authority. The majority-Black police force (though of course led by enlightened Whites) is forced to wear masks to protect their identities from the violent White resistance organization known as the Seventh Kavalry, or 7K. The group is named for the Seventh Cavalry Regiment slaughtered at Custer’s Last Stand, now memorialized at Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, renamed in honor of our soldiers’ butchers by President George H.W. Bush in 1991.

The episode begins with a highly fictionalized account of the 1921 Tulsa race riot, glorying in its depiction of sneering Klansmen as they indiscriminately massacre good, hardworking Blacks. This ham-handed scene is followed up by the present-day murder of a Black police officer by a member of 7K. Upon learning of the killing, “Sister Night,” the empowered Black hero (and our police officer protagonist) speeds down to “Nixonville,” a sad trailer park community that HBO’s writers clearly reveled in portraying. These poor Whites, relegated to heavily-surveilled slums, are caricatured trailer trash. Sister Night gets out of her car, calmly catwalks up to one of the trailers, kicks in the door, and brutally beats the occupant, tossing him in the trunk of her car. At police headquarters, the man is “interrogated.” In order to divine his racist thoughts, the police place the man in a device called “the pod.” In this “pod,” a circular metal room walled with a continuous video screen, a White officer called “Looking Glass” announces that he will be asking the “suspect” some questions.

The man asks for a lawyer, and Looking Glass responds, “Yeah, we don’t really have to do that with terrorists.” He then clicks a remote and the video screens turn on. While Looking Glass asks the man questions (such as, “If I defecated on the American flag, how would that make you feel?,” “Should all Americans pay taxes?,” and whether he believes in false flag conspiracy theories), harsh music blares and images of Americana are shown one after another in rapid succession: cornfields, barns, classic advertisements featuring Whites, the moon landing, cowboys, a merged Gadsden and Confederate flag, Mount Rushmore, American Gothic, George Custer, Rosie the Riveter, a woman with an apple pie, the World Trade Center, White children, and the Statue of Liberty. Interspersed in the Americana are images of a self-immolating monk, Harriet Tubman, a Klan rally, the Negro Baseball League, Blacks graduating from college, Black soldiers, the atomic bomb, and finally the flag of the Third Reich followed by the now-old American flag. Looking Glass was monitoring the man’s eye dilations in response to his “bias questions.” Sister Night then viciously tortures the “terrorist,” his blood and urine commingling in a heavy stream from underneath the door. We need not continue in our examination. The message is clear; White identity is an evil that must be eradicated, and there are no moral compunctions in how that is accomplished. In so doing, however, Watchmen proves our point: American history, along the Americana that materially represents our culture, is White. American identity is necessarily White identity.

Randy Weaver and the Siege at Ruby Ridge: The Past as Future?

The Siege at Ruby Ridge[i] is an instructive example of what we face, all the more so for the fact that it occurred almost thirty years before the fervid witch-trials of the present regime began in earnest. Randy Weaver and his family were Christian fundamentalist White separatists, targeted for destruction because of their beliefs. Randy and his wife, Vicki, moved from their native Iowa to remote Ruby Ridge, Idaho, to live independently off of the land. They simply sought escape from our fallen and degraded society. Randy dabbled in local politics, unsuccessfully running for sheriff in 1988. He was put on the federal radar in 1985 after a vindictive former neighbor wrote letters to multiple federal agencies spuriously alleging that Weaver had made threats against government officials, including President Reagan. The Weavers were interviewed and determined not to pose any threat; no charges were filed. At the 1986 World Congress of Aryan Nations, Weaver was approached by Kenneth Fadeley, a paid-per-conviction ATF informant; in 1989, Fadeley persuaded Weaver to sell him two shotguns. In a brazen case of entrapment, the ATF informant asked Weaver to saw them off and showed him where to shorten the guns. After Fadeley’s cover was blown in 1990, the ATF threatened to charge Weaver for selling the illegal sawed-off shotguns (even though the guns were shortened after the fact at the behest of an informant). Government agents told Weaver to act as their informant in order to make the charges disappear; principled, he refused.

He was loosely acquainted with members of the Aryan Nations, which was the target of prosecutorial obsession (akin to the current White Scare) due to the involvement of a handful of fringe members with The Order, a small, violent White supremacist group.  The leader of The Order, Robert Mathews, was burned alive in his own home by the FBI’s Orwellian Hostage Rescue Team in 1984. Federal agents mistakenly believed that Weaver was much more deeply involved than he actually was, which partially explains their zeal. Ironically, however, the Aryan Nations was already almost entirely compromised, with federal operatives from several different agencies (none of whom communicated with each other) occupying many of the key positions within the organization. To further coerce Weaver into acting as an informant, agents posed as a couple with a broken-down car; when he and Vicki stopped to help them, as kind rural White Americans do, ATF agents swarmed from the car, guns drawn, and violently threw Randy to the ground to place him under arrest. Vicki was pushed face first into the snow. Nearly destitute, the Weavers posted their beloved cabin as bond. Weaver still refused to be an informant.

In 1991, Weaver was officially charged. His court date was set for February 20, but he was notified, not coincidentally, that it was set for March 20. After he failed to appear in court on February 20, the US Attorney’s Office, despite knowing of the erroneously communicated date, sought a grand jury indictment and obtained an arrest warrant. For the next eighteen months, the US Marshals Service spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a vast surveillance campaign that included psychological profiles, military aerial reconnaissance, a network of spy cameras placed throughout the surrounding woods, and mail interception. The agents even kept a record of the menstrual cycle of Sara Weaver, Randy and Vicki’s sixteen-year-old daughter. A voluntary surrender was negotiated and then rejected by the US Attorney.

On August 21, 1992, the federal hammer fell. Six Marshals, equipped with military camouflage, night-vision goggles, and M16 automatic rifles approached the cabin. The family dog, Striker, was alerted to their presence and started barking. The Weavers’ fourteen-year-old son, Sammy, followed the dog, along with Kevin Harris, a family friend. The firing was initiated when a Marshal killed the Striker to silence him, shooting him in the back with a machinegun. Sammy fired in the direction the shot had come from, and Randy called for Sammy to run back to the house. Sammy yelled, “I’m coming, Dad,” and was shot several times in the back as he ran away into the safety of his father’s arms. Sammy was killed instantly, his back torn to shreds by an agent’s machinegun. A Marshal was killed during the frenzy, and agents blamed Harris. Though Harris had fired back in self-defense, the federal agent was most likely not killed by him, but rather by friendly fire. The FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team was called in.

The cabin, presented in the media as an “armed compound,” was surrounded by hundreds of government agents. Rules of engagement were quickly drafted to authorize deadly force against the Weavers; agents present characterized their orders as “if you see ‘em, shoot ‘em.” On August 22, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot Randy from behind, attempting to sever his spinal cord as he walked to retrieve his son’s dead body; as he staggered back into the cabin, Horiuchi shot Vicki Weaver in the head as she held their ten-month-old baby in her arms. Just like her young son Sammy had been the day before, she was killed instantly, the side of her face blown away. Randy pried their infant, crying “Mama,” out of its mother’s dead arms, and he and his daughter Sara dragged the bloody body of the mother-of-three through the kitchen. Kevin had been hit in his shoulder by the bullet that felled Vicki.

For the following eight days of the siege, as Sara prayed for deliverance and tended to her baby sister, her wounded father, their dying friend, and her ten-year-old sister Rachel, covered in her mother’s blood, the FBI used loudspeakers to taunt the family, saying inhuman things like, “Good morning, Mrs. Weaver! We had pancakes for breakfast. What did you have?,” “Did you sleep well last night, Vicki?,” and, “Behind every strong man there is a good woman. … Can we get some milk for [the baby]?” They named their base “Camp Vicki.” At one point during the siege, a local news crew observed gasoline being loaded onto an FBI helicopter which was then seen circling the Weavers’ cabin; after noticing that it was being videotaped, the helicopter left the area.

Our government engaged in further psychological warfare. The telephone was kept constantly ringing, the loudspeakers always in use, the drone of tanks and helicopters in harsh cacophony. Brilliant spotlights were kept trained in the windows to make night indistinguishable from day. Similar tactics were used during the Siege at Waco[ii], where agents destroyed the water supply, defiled a grave, and employed loudspeakers to blare the sounds of rabbits being slaughtered along with Tibetan chanting and roaring jet planes.

In the aftermath of the siege, Randy was convicted only for his failure to appear in court. Kevin Harris was acquitted of all charges. Weaver received a three-million-dollar settlement, Harris a four-hundred-thousand-dollar settlement. The federal government attempted to destroy all copies of the FBI internal report. Evidence was “misplaced,” withheld, and fabricated. Horiuchi claimed that he could not see through the cabin door, but a sketch he made the day after the murder clearly shows Vicki in the window. This evidence was suppressed by the FBI, purposely mailed to prosecutors two weeks late and fourth class to boot. He pled the Fifth and had his manslaughter charge dismissed due in large part to behind-the-scenes lobbying for blanket immunity by none other than our current Attorney General, William Barr. Horiuchi received no punishment whatsoever and went on to slaughter more innocent civilians at Waco the very next year. The Ruby Ridge Task Force released a heavily-redacted report. The six Marshals who initiated the siege, murdered the Weaver’s dog, and murdered Sammy Weaver received the highest commendations. The Department of Justice declined to prosecute the FBI officials who covered up the tragedy, but one agent was sentenced to eighteen months in prison and a handful of others suspended for a few days. Deputy Director Larry Potts was censured (the same punishment given for misplacing FBI property) and eventually demoted following the massacre at Waco. In 1997, the cabin that the Weavers had poured their hearts and souls into collapsed under the weight of winter snow.

A more recent example of this violent suppression is the 2016 murder of the rancher Robert LaVoy Finicum. Finicum was a spokesman for the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom militia, which occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon for forty-one days at the beginning of 2016. The context for the standoff is labyrinthine; the core issue is the decades-long struggle over Western lands between the federal government and environmentalists on one side, and local governments and cattle ranchers on the other. The Bureau of Land Management owns over one-eighth of the landmass of the United States, including a massive majority of the Western states.

The events that led to Finicum’s death can trace their birth to two events. The first was the 2014 Bundy standoff in Nevada, which began when Cliven Bundy’s cattle were determined to threaten the habitat of the desert tortoise. Bundy was then ordered to reduce his cattle population and the extent of their grazing; when he refused and discontinued payment of BLM grazing fees, he quickly became in arrears for over one million dollars. Federal agents began removing hundreds of Bundy’s cattle, killing several. Armed militiamen came to Bundy’s defense, culminating in a tense standoff.

The second event, which most directly precipitated the events of January 2016, was the federal harassment of father and son Dwight and Steven Hammond. The Fish and Wildlife Service had attempted to buy out the Hammonds for years, to no avail, to add their land to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. In conjunction with the BLM, the ranchers adjacent to the Hammonds had all been forced out. Grazing permits were revoked, and fees significantly hiked for those remaining. The irrigation system that the ranchers had so painstakingly built was intentionally diverted, destroying once-thriving ranch land. Finally, ostensibly at the behest of environmentalists (despite the fact that the privately-managed land was in fact more biodiverse than the federally-managed land), the Hammonds also had their grazing permits revoked. Their land was fenced, and the process of removing their cattle began. When they set controlled burns, as they always did, they were arrested for the charge of arson on federal land. After one served one year in prison and the other three months, capricious federal prosecutors appealed their sentences to the Leftist Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Unsurprisingly, the harsher sentences sought were granted: five years for father and son. Two years later, President Trump pardoned the pair.

Ammon Bundy, son of Cliven, rallied hundreds of patriots (federal informants peppered among them) to the Hammonds’ defense, and they arrived in droves to occupy Malheur. LaVoy Finicum was among them; in his words, “It’s about freedom for all of us, and so I crossed the Rubicon and I came here.” On January 26, Finicum and several militia leaders had been granted a pass to attend a town hall meeting led by the sympathetic sheriff of Grant County. Traveling through Harney County on a remote stretch of Route 395, selected by federal agents for its unreliable cell phone service, Finicum’s convoy was ensnared in a trap set by the FBI. In unlit and unmarked vehicles, government operatives followed Finicum and suddenly turned on their lights, ordering his truck to pull over. He refused, stating his permission to visit the sheriff, and sped away to try to escape. Unbeknownst to him, however, the FBI had set another roadblock ahead, known as a “deadman” block because it presented no opportunity for escape.

Finicum attempted to go around the block, but was stopped by agents and the presence of heavy snowdrifts. A member of the by now all too familiar FBI Hostage Rescue Team fired shots before Finicum had even stopped his truck; one shot pierced the ceiling of the truck, while the trajectory of the other is disputed. Reports vary on whether Finicum was out of the truck or not when the second shot was fired, and whether or not this second shot was fired almost immediately upon exiting. Agents claim that the shot went wild while he had not yet exited the vehicle, while some witnesses report that the shot hit Finicum in his side after he had stepped out. Finicum undisputedly exited the truck with his hands in the air and challenged the agents, “You back down or you kill me now. Go ahead. Put the bullet through me. I don’t care. I’m going to go meet the sheriff. You do as you damned well please.” Agents reportedly saw Finicum reach for his pocket, and he was shot three times in the back. One day short of his fifty-fifth birthday, the father of eleven was killed.

Agents did not attempt to provide Finicum with medical assistance for ten to fifteen minutes. A loaded 9mm handgun was found in his pocket. Those who report that Finicum was hit in the side by the aforementioned second shot claim that it is that which made him twitch to the side, supplying the excuse whereby he was killed; other witnesses report that Finicum was struggling through the snow, and that that is why he appeared to reach for his side. His own statements in the weeks leading up to his killing have led some to postulate that his death was a suicide-by-cop, including, “I have no intention of spending any of my days in a concrete box” and, “I’m not going to end up in prison. I would rather die than be caged. And I’ve lived a good life.”

What is not disputed is that Finicum was a sitting duck, surrounded on all sides by federal agents and Oregon State Troopers. The illustrious FBI Hostage Rescue Team failed to disclose the first two shots fired, saying that they had not fired at all, and agents collected their casings before they could be logged in as evidence. Before the commencement of the operation, the FBI ordered the Oregon State Police to remove their body cameras. Apparently, dashboard cameras were also disabled. After the killing, the FBI refused to submit to a recorded interview, and demanded that the off-the-record interview be conducted with the entire team, rather than one-on-one. Consequently, there is a lack of audio and video evidence; the government did release a heavily edited aerial surveillance video, but it only provoked more questions. The FBI agent who fired the first shot after Finicum left his truck, W. Joseph Astarita, was indicted for obstruction of justice and making false statements, but was acquitted. Astarita and the four other agents who attempted to conceal evidence were not placed on leave during the investigation into their actions. Some reports indicate that authorization for the operation came from executive “national command authority.”

The Finicum affair provides us with yet another example of the disparity between the responses of “our” government to those on the Right and the Left. Leftist violence from Occupy Wall Street to Black Lives Matter and Antifa is met with permissive silence, while patriots merely exercising their constitutional rights are deemed “White supremacists” and “domestic terrorists.” In December 2019, the House of Representatives of the Washington State Legislature labeled State Representative Matthew Shea a terrorist for his support of militiamen like Finicum. Leftist Weather Underground terrorists now rest on laurels in academia. In fact, the son of two of these cop-killers, Chesa Boudin, part of a long line of Leftist legal elite, is now the District Attorney of San Francisco. He is a graduate of Yale Law School; the next time someone refers to that institution’s prestige, just remember the gap-toothed face of Georgia Governor-in-exile Stacey Abrams. Ted Kaczynski’s manifesto, Technological Slavery, is readily available and critically acclaimed, while Anders Breivik’s is available only on dark corners of the Internet. Those who even viewed Brenton Tarrant’s video of the Christchurch shooting have been criminally prosecuted and imprisoned.

Go to Part 3.

3 Walter, Jess. Ruby Ridge (New York: Harper Perennial, 2002).

4 Reavis, Dick J. The Ashes of Waco (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1998).