Editor’s note: This is a 2-part article. The link to the second part is at the bottom of this one.

Understandably, at this point in time after the 2020 elections, many observers are laser focused on the struggle for the Presidency between the incumbent and the cadaver. Accounts of voter fraud are mildly interesting, but observers are, in my view, missing the larger and far more important story: The race war against Whites has reached a new level, yet many people who shouldn’t be are distracted by the details of day-to-day politics, much to our collective peril. Today I will try to remedy this by using a method falling between essay writing and a video: I will use a photo essay to represent what is being done to the White race in real time. This will be ugly.

In essence, I will use my academic background to show why images are important in a struggle for existence and power, and how those images are used by a certain group to weaken the White race.
Over a decade ago, I began on this site an examination of the changing representations of who we Americans are. As part of that, I introduced academic texts that — to be honest — accurately showed “the deep-rooted stereotypes which have fueled anti-black prejudice” and buttressed White dominance, which is not really surprising given that Whites comprised roughly 90% of America’s population (and all of the elite) for the entirety of European settlement in the lands that were to become The United States. Breathlessly, we read in grad school books such as Ceramic Uncles & Celluloid Mammies: Black Images and Their Influence on Culture and White on Black: Images of Africa and Blacks in Western Popular Culture that dutifully convicted the American majority of racism. In short, all such accounts concluded: “White Man Bad.”

Not surprisingly, during this period of shift from written to visual culture, professors poured out non-written texts such as oral histories and film, giving us budding academics more ways to cement that overweening verdict: “White Man Bad.” Thus, in more than one graduate class, we were treated to multiple showings of documentaries such as Ethnic Notions, which promised:
Through these images we can begin to understand the evolution of racial consciousness in America. Loyal Toms, carefree Sambos, faithful Mammies, grinning Coons, savage Brutes, and wide-eyed Pickaninnies roll across the screen in cartoons, feature films, popular songs, minstrel shows, advertisements, folklore, household artifacts, even children’s rhymes. These dehumanizing caricatures permeated popular culture from the 1820s to the Civil Rights period and implanted themselves deep in the American psyche.

This focus on African Americans soon gave way to a growing range of “lament” groups who clamored to give their own version of “White Man Bad,” resulting in, for instance, studies of Asian Americans. In 1988, for example came Slaying the Dragon, which offered a “comprehensive look at Hollywood’s treatment of Asian and Asian American women since the silent era.” Or consider Picturing Oriental Girls: A [Re]Educational Videotape, an excursion through film, television and more providing a “text from ‘mail-order bride’ catalogs and men’s magazines, clips from over 25 films and television programs [that] explicate the orientalism and exoticism prevalent in mass media images of Asian American women.” Here the White Man is Bad for creating the sexual objectification of Asian women in Hollywood films and film’s successor, television. Of course, we savvy TOO comrades know, the location of film production in America should be written as (((Hollywood))), a point to which we shall steadfastly turn below.

Very quickly during those propaganda sessions, I tried a two-pronged approach upon experiencing this onslaught against a Nice White Guy like myself. First, I appropriated those analytical tools to show how the tide had been turning against Whites in visual realms since at least the 1970s, and second, I pointed out that those creating this growing stable of less-than-positive portrayals of White men were not exactly White themselves. Rather, they came from that “Culture of Critique” crowd that had been assaulting White civilization for centuries.

Swiftly, however, I was informed that these new academic tools were not to be used by White men, for we had already an abundant basket of privileges that would never expire. Further, I was informed in ways ranging from implicit to explicit that no longer would straight White men like me work again in the academy, the prophetic results of which you can see in almost any American university today.
Mine was a mighty battle just to slink out of grad school with an actual Ph.D. in hand, and sadly, I watched this Cultural Marxism seep out like an unappetizing poison throughout the wider culture, year after year … after year. Off in some forgotten corner of the globe, I was able to craft university lessons about this ominous development and have shared the fruits of my efforts here on TOO and in TOQ, so I have continuously been attuned to how imagery has been used in the Great Racial Battle Against Whites. Reader, the situation is extremely dire, as I will unenthusiastically show below.

It is not surprising that my approach has well matched the overall intent and direction of our editor Kevin MacDonald’s vision, for I was taking the written evidence from The Culture of Critique and extending it to film and other popular culture. The package may differ, but the weaponized content is the same. By the way, the term “critique” is far too polite; in actual fact it is unbridled warfare.
MacDonald has been tireless in addressing this topic on TOO, also encouraging many of us contributors to share our own expertise on the subject, much of which can be found on the site under Jews as a Hostile Elite, one of the most numerous categories available on TOO. MacDonald has consistently argued that Jewish activism has been in opposition to White civilization, with the awful year of 2020 and its events right up to the currently contested election. This development, MacDonald tells us, is about “removing the traditional culture of America, and … removing Whites from the center of the American story. It is about replacement — first the monuments and the culture, then the people.”
In perhaps more boisterous form than Prof. MacDonald’s dispassionate writing, I’ve contributed countless TOO articles with this theme, practically from the beginning. For instance, as far back as mid-2008, I wrote, “Hollywood, it seems, has not favored us [Whites] over the last half century or so. Either they supplant favorable White images with favorable images of African Americans and more recent Americans such as Jews. Or they create images of Whites that are far more negative than typical of the first half of Hollywood’s existence. Why the change?”

Of course the vast majority of TOO readers understand the reasons for this change, but here my point is that I’ve consistently been warning our Tribe that we face a clear and present danger, literally one over our very existence. Though toning it down a bit, I concluded, “Speaking only for myself, I fear that such fictional images of the dispossession of white males signal a real desire on the part of some segments of society to dispossess White males in real life. What then will future films look like when in fact the majority has been eclipsed?”

Ominously, we are now seeing far more of that dismal future.

Since 2008, I’ve continued my emphasis on leading visual trends in America more generally regarding the proper race of “Americans.” In short, it’s been very bad for White males. Should we graph the number of affirmative portrayals of White men, the graph would point ever downward, while negative portrayals would steadily trend upward.

Take, for example, the direction ads have gone. In the first decade of this century, Microsoft, which didn’t need to advertise to make more money, began a series of ads in The Atlantic and elsewhere that airbrushed White males out of the picture entirely. The caption below reads “We see a rocket scientist,” and in the center of the two-page spread is a black youth as the future rocket scientist. Around him are an Asian boy, a presumably Hispanic boy, a mulatto girl, and two White girls. Real White male rocket scientists and astronauts need not apply.

Microsoft ad: “We see a rocket scientist” (I don’t)

I

Microsoft was not the only large tech company featuring ads sans White males. In The Atlantic again we see Lockheed Martin spurning the overwhelming majority of its past and present engineers with this absurd dream for its future:

Lockheed Martin ad featuring non-White female aerospace designers

In what alternate universe would this financially benefit Lockheed Martin or provide technically superior products? None, I tell you. This is being done for completely other reasons, which I intend to explore more fully in this essay.

Similar impact no doubt comes from a constant theme Hollywood has been pushing for decades now: that of “The Numinous Negro,” initially enlisting Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington as such negroes. The word “numinous” is a Roman term for “the presiding divinity . . . of a place.” It also means “spiritually elevated.” Accordingly, “the Numinous Negro presides over America …” If there’s any consistent theme I’ve emphasized in my Hollywood writing, it is this, and readers can find explicit unpacking of the many films of both Freeman and Washington, here and here, respectively. (For later parsing of Washington films, see here and here I & II.)

What Hollywood accomplishes by blatantly using these two Black actors is a race reversal through visual sleight of hand. In short, the characters played by Freeman and Washington are full of agency and morality (most of the time), while the White males are either evil or mentored by the older Blacks. The meme: Blacks in America are naturally more powerful and moral, quite in contrast to reality. (For a fully academic treatment of these topics, see my TOQ article “Understanding Hollywood: Racial Role Reversals.”)

Why this propagandistic trend? Essentially, the facts show, it has to do with the “Culture of Critique” ethnic group that has amassed unrivaled power in the modern West. One arm of that power, of course, is Hollywood, which writer Neal Gabler correctly described as Jews’ “Empire of Their Own.” With respect to blacks and Hollywood, Kevin MacDonald demonstrated in his 2007 collection Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilization, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism, that for Jews, “making alliances with other minority groups has been a critically important part” of their effort to unseat Majority Whites as primary power holders in America. (See in particular Chapter 6, “Jews, Blacks, and Race.”)

Blacks, in reality, have been used as foot soldiers in a war on Whites. Again, the TOO audiences knows this, but much to my amazement and concern, as the George Floyd and other riots (“mostly peaceful,” of course) raged across America in the spring and summer of 2020, some Dissident Right sites inexplicably described these developments as a result of Black agency when there was overwhelming evidence that these were top-down events promoted and enabled by our hostile elite standing aside as arrests weren’t made, or if they were, the arrestees were immediately released without bail.

Returning to the contention that media is creating a picture of America that in no way reflects reality, I again offer a 2009 skit from The Daily Show With John Stewart [Leibowitz], coming right after Obama assumed office. Called White in America—the Children, it flaunted the dismal truth that Whites’ days as majority Americans were numbered. Stewart opened the skit by announcing that “President Obama was elected on a message of change. But is that change good for everyone?” Light-skinned Black Larry Wilmore adopted the role of reporter, introducing one set of Americans at risk: “There is one group of Americans who are now facing the biggest challenge in their history: White people.”

This “once proud race” faces dispossession at the hands of Blacks, Asians “and most rapidly, Latinos” (the transition being represented in the skit by White minivans being replaced by Black cars, Asian motorcycles and low-rider Mexican American cars). In a faux-serious interview, Wilmore faces a group of eight White children and tries to make them understand that their future is bleak. The children — brainwashed already by a steady diet of multiculturalism — are not only in denial about their prospects, they positively welcome the coming change. Talk about rubbing our noses in deliberate extirpation.
Again, some Whites do see and acknowledge this war on Whites. For example, American Renaissance ran a good article about a woman who experienced this through raising her son. In Motherhood Changed the Way I See Race she wrote:

Over the past 20 years I have raised the most reviled creature on the planet — a healthy white male, my son.
It was only after he was born that I began to fully notice the relentless propaganda of the mainstream media, and how it promotes miscegenation and presents men like my son as bumbling weak fools. I saw how our people’s history is appropriated and manipulated in arts and entertainment, and how our nation’s heroes are twisted and discredited — their monuments torn down and replaced. I’ve shopped for children’s books and been unable to find one with a protagonist who was a positive example of a white male. I’ve filled out countless college and scholarship applications only to find that opportunities for white males are reduced or blocked entirely — regardless of his good grades and impressive test scores. Each one of these things, combined with my experiences at work, pushed me toward the truth about which race is truly disenfranchised and oppressed in our country. It was a realization that fully awoke the protective mothering instincts inside me.

And with that, the ground is set for a visual exploration of what America has come to digitally like during the reign of Donald Trump since 2017.

“Condition Red: Your Visual Displacement is Complete”

Three years ago, one of the best commenters on TOO articles, Franklin Ryckaert, provided a heart-stopping account of what was visually being done to the White race. Introduced by former TOO contributor Lasha Darkmoon, it came with the blunt title of “White Genocide by Design: The Role of the Mass Media in the Destruction of the European People” and featured this incredibly unsettling picture:

IS THIS THE FUTURE?

Darkmoon begin her introduction with a quote from the essay:

Miscegenation cannot be commanded, but it can be promoted. Depriving Whites of the possibility to be among themselves in terms of residence, study, work and recreation is one thing. Suggesting miscegenation in films, TV series and commercials is another thing. There is nowadays hardly any form of media that is not full of this race-mixing propaganda, mostly in subliminal form, and it is the Jews who control the media.

There, in the second half of the above quote (emphasis added), can be found a large portion of the message in the present photo essay. None of it can be denied.

Reasons for Reluctance
In contrast to my productivity with TOO articles in years past, I sat on this photo essay for nearly a year, weighed down by two things. First, other worthy writers have aptly addressed this obvious trend — and being so obvious, it seemed unnecessary to repeat. Second, this is an unusually depressing reality with which we are facing, and Lord knows we on the Dissident Right have been producing copious amounts of depressing written and spoken words for decades, further demoralizing ourselves and giving succor to our racial enemies. Because I’m as guilty of that as any other writer, I was reluctant to continue in the same vein. In the end, however, I felt the mendacious narrative must be shown.

Thus far, I’ve assumed TOO readers have been in agreement with me about the larger interpretation of Jewish power, but I’m not sure how widespread is the conclusion that an important change in Jewish-Gentile relations came about after WWII. On the whole, I concur with Ryckaert’s assertions here:
Because it was mostly European countries that expelled them, the Jews came to consider Europeans as their greatest enemies.

After WWII and the intense Holocaust propaganda it brought in its wake … the organized Jewish community became convinced that Europeans were a threat to them as a race and that they should therefore be neutralized as a race; in other words, that GENOCIDE of the European people, now better known as “White genocide”, would be the “final solution” to the European problem.

But how could a small ethnic group of only 15 million people like the Jews exterminate ONE BILLION people of European descent spread out all over the world ? The Jews came to the conclusion that it would be possible to neutralize Europeans racially, not by physically exterminating them, but by causing them to mix with other races, thus losing their racial characteristics for good….

The real purpose of these productions is not to sell goods or to entertain, but to promote the inglorious end of the white race through miscegenation, dispossession and race war.

Two More Images from Ryckaert’s Essay:

In addition to Ryckaert’s essay, there are many other sources addressing this trend. Years ago, I remember a flurry of articles about how the advertising industry worked so hard to picture mixed couples — and the articles went on to show that advertising in North America and Europe was overwhelmingly a Jewish preserve. That knowledge is so common that I won’t even bother to cite it here.

More recently, we still find accounts of how miscegenation is portrayed in advertising. Take this truly despicable image for example:

How old is this girl? Fifteen? She can’t be his daughter. One is left to think that he is preying on her shamelessly. One can only imagine what kind of father she has (if any).

Another example comes with Thomas Goodrich, writing on the National Vanguard site, who correctly puts this image into context, explaining that “Jewish enablers have been pushing White genocide via replacement with hordes of darks flooding the Euro nations of earth. Now, while this program has been in place since the end of WWII, Jews are currently ramping up their attacks against Whites in advertising. Just as with population replacement, the end game of Jewish advertising is also nothing less than our extermination.”

The same photo is also used by a liberal source, “Inside the Biracial Advertising Boom” to celebrate the direction White nations are taking. While the writer is too stupid to understand the long-term implications of this practice, we White Nationalists can still learn what these advertising images are really peddling.

For a more in-depth treatment of this unwelcome trend, see Richard Houck’s 4,000-word article, “The War Against Whites in Advertising.” He begins by writing:

The mass-marketing of interracial relationships, particularly white women with black men, has become so ubiquitous and so militant, even the least observant members of our culture have begun to notice. Walking through a mall recently I noticed three large marketing images of couples in three different stores. Two of the three were interracial couples, depicting a white woman and black man; the third couple was white. Perhaps what struck me as most peculiar was the fact that the city where I was shopping, whites make up about 97% of the population, blacks are less than 2%.

Methodically, Houck lays out the case against White women breeding with Blacks.

Currently, 70% of black children are born out of wedlock, however when the mother is white and the father black, the rate jumps to 97%. 98% of white mothers studied reported the father does not support their children financially, 97% report the father is not in the child’s life, and 97% of the women have used welfare to help support themselves and their children. Only 10% of women that have children with black men out of wedlock end up marrying. … White women are displayed with non-white men not to sell items, but as a tactic of psychological warfare against our civilization.

And Houck shows that he sees the Jews behind this genocidal campaign and what their aim is. Here, contemplate this “ad,” then realize it was created out of pure hate for Whites:

(Since only about nine people under the age of forty are ever going to read more than a few paragraphs of anything, direct them to this more visual video format of Houck’s work. This will surely shake things up around the clan dinner table at Thanksgiving and Christmas.)

This expose was so good that readers of the article offered further examples and clamored for more documentation of the literal war on the White race. You can find the results in Houck’s follow-up article (with video) here. This “War on Whites in Advertising: A Follow-Up” is also extremely well done, though highly disturbing — and infuriating, opening as it does with this vile image from an advertising video:

This turned out to be one of the rare cases where a completed ad was rejected for public consumption, but the point is, someone thought it important enough to do. In his research into the ad, Houck found that the ad “depicts a white, blonde woman on her knees in front of a black man, and we hear her thinking, ‘I could really go for a Sprite right now’ as she performs oral sex on him, and at the end she has Sprite foam sprayed all over her face while she thinks, ‘I love Sprite!’”

Not at all to my surprise, I found a Usual Suspect behind this ad. As Houck writes, this ad “goes much deeper into the woods. The Huffington Post article that discussed the ad mentioned that the name of the producer and director was Max Isaacson . . . Isaacson? Interesting last name.”

Even though no network picked up this race-mixing video, it still had a considerable impact, as Houck shows. “This particular spec ad hit over a million views within days after first being published online, and has since been viewed millions more times as it has been re-uploaded and shared on social media and Websites.”

From Race Mixing to Race Nixing
Images of racial mixing are one thing, but my true emphasis here is on the next stage: full-on replacement of White males (and I need only point out briefly that once actual White males have been eliminated in the real world, White women will surely follow them into oblivion in a generation).

White males, as noted, are symbolically eliminated when statues of White men are removed or destroyed, as they have been since the 2017 protests over such statues in Charlottesville, Virginia. Long before that, however, we had to deal with universities routinely downgrading creations of White males and replacing them with the concoctions of women and non-Whites, you know, “The Eternally Oppressed,” resulting in removal of “Dead White Males” from university canons. Even before that, we had the tremendous power of the American government itself hobbling millions of White males in their honest quest to compete fairly for careers and employment, despite the fact they had personally committed no crimes or infractions themselves other than being White. Out with the old, in with the new, I guess is the general shallow thinking.

I’ve grown up with this over the decades, and, as mentioned, have studied the trends in depth. Still, beginning late last year (2019), I was stunned at the audacity of our advertising image creators to take the blatant step of doing away with White males altogether. Poof! Gone. And this was well before the anti-White riots ramped up in late May upon the death of George Floyd, immediately anointed a SAINT by the liberal media.

There is no way — ever — that I am going to believe that this was a coincidence. No, it was far too meticulously coordinated to be that. For advertisements without White males to be scripted and created takes time, meaning this was done in early 2019 at the latest. Then came the spring and summer riots enabled by You-Know-Who.

Part of this coordinated visual assault was superbly chronicled right here on TOO this summer, with Jack Antonio’s article “Fade to Black,” the subtitle of which reads, “The darkening of our screens and stages and its part in the theft of our past and future.” Written by a White male with a front-row seat to the systemic displacement of White males, it is an absolute must-read for the TOO audience, our relatives, friends and neighbors. While mostly writing about the British stage, this actor could just as easily be describing the scene in America.

Not Wakanda but Merrie Olde England

 

Based on his long experience, Antonio can confidently write that “I know the world of advertising and show business. And I know how, why, and (((by whom))) our screens are being darkened, I am being denied work, and our past and future are being stolen from us” [lovely parentheses added].
Antonio ends his article on the replacement of White males with this: “If you don’t believe me, just go to a movie or play. Turn on your radio or TV. Or, just open your eyes. It’s happening. It isn’t a sitcom or movie. It’s real. It’s deliberate.” But of course it is.

Trust Your Eyes
Now that I’ve set the stage, so to speak, I’ll commence with images from ads over the last year. I didn’t have to look for them; instead, they all came up on my screen through the normal use of my computer. You know, check your bank balance, your car insurance premiums, your healthcare provider — across the board the following are pictures I’ve seen every single time I fire up the computer, tablet or iPhone. An e-mail message arrives from the airline I use, and the pampered passenger is a black man. Or all the promotions offered this week from my supermarket feature non-Whites and women. It is pervasive. Go check ads from any big corporation. Like clockwork, all their ads show blacks, women, browns — but no White men. You know this is true because you’ve experienced this month after month — after month. Admit it.

Like Mr. Antonio, I know what is happening, why and how. This could come straight from the pages of Jacques Ellul’s classic “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes.” One of Ellul’s greatest insights concerns the need for repetition of the propaganda message. At first, it takes great effort to sway men from their set thinking, but, in Ellul’s words,

once the individual has been filled with and reshaped by propaganda, the smallest dose now suffices. It is enough to ‘refresh,’ to give a ‘booster shot,’ to repaint, and the individual behaves in striking fashion — like certain drunks who become intoxicated on one glass of wine. The individual no longer offers any resistance to propaganda; moreover, he has ceased to believe in it consciously. He no longer attaches importance to what it says, to its proclaimed objectives, but he acts according to the proper stimuli. The individual is arrested and crystallized with regard to his thinking.

Perhaps, on second thought, this quote is not exactly what I wanted, for I am no longer talking about “booster shots”; instead I am talking about non-stop salvos from hundreds of siege guns. The fact remains, however, men’s — and importantly now, women’s — minds have been formed by this media onslaught. And with that, I offer an endless display of the world an American now sees on the computer or other screen.

Let’s start with the most common character I’ve seen for twelve months running: The media-created “Peppy Mulatto.” Here she is:

Or here:

Or here, a bit older:

She’s everywhere, really. Younger versions frolicking on a suburban lawn, late teens at an Ivy League university, any of the above women greeting you from Exxon-Mobil. The bigger point is, however, Blacks of all hues have replaced Whites, unless we’re dealing with a mixed-race situation. Let’s say you want to log on to Yahoo Mail. Here’s what Yahoo forces you to see these Africans:

Next, let’s say you have a health plan at, for example, Kaiser Permanente. What are you bombarded with? This:

And who receives and provides the healthcare? People like this:

Don’t like Kaiser? Then try, say, Banner Health:

Or another health-related website:

You know it’s true. Whatever healthcare provider you use, whatever hospital lobby you walk into, all the screens and posters will show blacks, browns, and women even if you live in the Whitest Whitopia in America. Let’s move on.

Tax time? Go to H&R Block:

Shopping online? This:

Or these two examples:

(Asians pop up from time to time, too)

Continuing, we all have credit cards — Visa, MasterCard, whatever. Should you use an American Express card, you will be a visual slave to this:

Editor’s note: The rest of Edmund Connelly’s very ambitious and thorough article may be accessed here. A pdf of the entire article is here.

Entertainment only exists for the purpose of a leisurely distraction.  The health of a society determines the aura of the distraction. If the society sucks, the distraction will follow suit. Leisurely distractions are typically going to be primitive in nature. Meaning, the distraction becomes a degenerative microcosm of the very society that the distractions are used as a catalyst to escape.

One of the primary forms of entertainment for the better part of the last 50 years has been sports. Sports have largely been apolitical and secular. Which is ultimately what makes them a distraction, and therefore “entertaining.”

The distraction should ideally be somewhat entertaining if it hopes to be a legitimate escape from the social pressures within the status quo. The more depressing the existence, the more depressing the distraction needs to be. One doesn’t need to be a big brain rationalist to conclude how bad reality sucks in a society where the preeminent distractions are the choice between drinking fermented grains while watching Black men run with a ball, or depleting your endorphins with a mind-numbing cocktail of pharmaceuticals and porn.

One would assume that if your society sucked to the point that your primary source of escapism was to get inebriated and either watch Black men run with a ball, or watch women get gangbanged, that the social engineers would be content to let you fester in your misery. But, that’s where you’d be wrong.

Recently, the architects of entertainment have decided that you shouldn’t be allowed to be distracted from divisive “social justice” issues. If the millionaires running with the ball are disproportionately Black (NFL is 70% Black) that’s fine. But if the coaches are disproportionately White (75% of NFL coaches are White), that’s just not acceptable.

So, how do they correct this miscarriage of social justice? Well, by incentivizing NFL teams to hire non-White coaches, of course:

A new plan to incentivize NFL teams to develop and hire minority candidates for head-coaching and general manager positions has not been met with the enthusiasm by the people it is supposed to help.

Multiple sources who are people of color told ESPN in recent days that there are, at best, mixed feelings about a plan approved this past week that will award two third-round compensatory draft picks to teams that have minority head coaches or general managers hired away from their organizations.

Aside from the obvious—the NFL partaking in explicit anti-White discrimination, let’s rationalize the NFL’s “plan” from a layman’s perspective: The goal of all NFL teams is winning. These teams have no problem drafting Black players and paying them millions of dollars to run really fast with a ball. I mean, do you think that anyone who has any clout within an NFL organization has ever said: “Nope, we can’t draft that guy. He’s really fast and would probably help us win, but his skin is just too dark. Let’s draft the slower White guy instead.” That would just be absurd, considering the demographics of the NFL. If you have a strong dislike for Black skin, then you probably wouldn’t be interested in professional football to begin with.

Therefore, if there’s no issue with paying Black players millions of dollars to help the team win, why wouldn’t the same be said of coaches and managers? If a team were to conclude that a coach with Black skin was the coach they thought would help the team win a championship, why wouldn’t they hire him? Or even her for that matter? The rationalization that there are all of these brilliant non-White coaches who don’t get hired cause their skin isn’t White is beyond the pale. In fact, even the people this is supposed to benefit are skeptical:

For starters, these sources were not pleased that many were not consulted about the plan and that it was passed swiftly, without any advance notice. These sources also did not approve of other people speaking for them when they were unable to provide input as to how the program would work.

“This will affect all of us, and we wanted to be involved in the process,” one source said over the weekend. “We don’t know whether it’s lip service or real, and we just want to be judged on our own merits.”

One would think that discrimination would be futile in a meritocracy. From the standpoint of, how does one moralize merit? Nobody seems to have an issue with the disproportionate percentage of Black players in the NFL. Normal people just conclude, “Ok, Blacks are just better cornerbacks and wide receivers. It is what it is.” So, why not the same attitude when it comes to coaches and management? Or, even ownership? Nobody seems to have an issue with roughly 30% of NFL teams (10) having a Jewish owner, even though there are only seven Jewish players in the NFL. Why is that? Maybe I’m missing something, but it appears that it’s only an issue if there are too many White people. Because, as far as I can tell, if there are too many Blacks, that’s a strength! Too many Jews, well, only an anti-Semite would even think such a thing. But, for some hypocritical reason, if there are too many Whites, that’s like the worst thing ever. And there immediately has to be regulations imposed to eradicate any statistical anomaly that could be misconstrued as advantageous to Whiteness.

It’s almost as if the social engineers of society are these anti-White sadists who are subliminally chanting: “We want the essence of White existence to be so nihilistic that even the distractions from their demographic demise are humiliating.”

If that all sounds like White fragility, that’s because that’s what it is. Except, White people aren’t allowed to be emotionally fragile when their feelings get hurt. Or when they are systemically discriminated against because of their lack of skin color. Only non-Whites are afforded those privileges. White people just have to suck it up accept and the fact that life isn’t fair. And that equality is anti-White.

 

“Many intellectuals and their followers have been unduly impressed by the fact that highly educated elites like themselves have far more knowledge per capita—in the sense of special knowledge—than does the population at large. From this it is a short step to considering the educated elites to be superior guides to what should and should not be done in a society. They have often overlooked the crucial fact that the population at large may have vastly more total knowledge—in the mundane sense—than the elites, even if that knowledge is scattered in individually unimpressive fragments among vast numbers of people. The ignorance, prejudices, and groupthink of an educated elite are still ignorance, prejudice, and groupthink—and for those with one percent of the knowledge in a society to be guiding or controlling those with the other 99 percent is as perilous as it is absurd.

The power of the intelligentsia is demonstrated not only by their ability to create a general climate of opinion that strikes fear into those who oppose their agenda but also by their ability to create a climate of opinion which richly rewards those political leaders whose decisions are consonant with the vision of the intelligentsia.”
― Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society

If you had to put your finger on one organizing principle, or grievance among all of the riots that continue to plague America (and will be increasing), it is class, not race.[1]  Putting aside election-year grandstanding and opportunism, and as a strawman, looking at BLM, antifa, and other groups strictly as anthropological distortions—they are symbolically rebelling against (or being incited to rebel against) what they believe (or were told) is racially based privilege, elitism, preferred access to opportunity, knowledge and social capital.  But race really isn’t the direct issue of contention; it is a proxy for class economic disparity. In this way, it does indeed resemble a kind of modern Bolshevism, but with an ironic twist: the Left has actually become the party of the rich and privileged billionaire donors, indoctrinated, guilt-ridden White college graduates, and a dependent client base among poor non-Whites. But more, race has become not a source of liberation for minorities, but turned around to become a weapon of hatred and revenge that is increasingly, and dangerously, attacking Whites with a vehemence and bigotry that is turning the Civil Rights Act on its head.

Those special privileges assumed to be shared by the modern Bolshevists are today not an automatic product of birth, or inherited wealth even.  Apart from the client base of poor non-Whites, these advantages come generally from ingenuity, work and discipline, but a particularly insidious and entrenched component comes from membership in a club.  A club of information, contacts, and favors.  A club of special language, intellectual abstraction, social expectations and most of all, a detachment from laboring classes.  It is membership in the elite university club, and by extension, a private society of preferred access to capital, resources and markets.   BLM wants to be part of the club, and in some ways it is indoctrinated by it, and owned by it, but it is merely the club’s foot soldiers, their ‘front line’ who are sacrificed for the elite intellectual leaders in the rear.  BLM will never actually be allowed into the club, but it will serve the club’s interests in gaining advantages through its “creative destruction” which creates pretext for deeper government and special interest intrusion into the economy and larger society.

This special sub-society of the truly elite carefully stores and guards its secrets and access, whether scientific, legal, medical or financial.  It protects and manages its network and rations its influences.  It is an inter-locking society as well, with members drawn from business and government who reinforce the society and its privilege.

Across America’s centers of power and influence, a highly concentrated group of “insiders” tend to the society’s well-being, its growth and power, and even, or especially, its ability to produce competitive advantages among key sectors, especially technology and finance, and with a strong inter-weaving of laws and policy that reinforce and sustain these advantages.  Universities produce the intellectual “code” and social capital that together create sharp and nearly impenetrable class differences.  These differences are vital to maintaining the political currency of elitism, social abstraction (over-population, global warming, terrorism and biological safety) and top-down public policy (abortion, eugenics, distancing, isolation).[2]

The tech oligarchs seek to dominate the world financially and technologically. The clerisy in turn aim to undermine traditional bourgeois values with progressive ideas about globalism, environmental sustainability, redefined gender roles, and the authority of experts. They inculcate these values through their “dominance over the institutions of higher learning and media, aided by the oligarchy’s control of information technology and the channels of culture.” Both groups perceive a powerful central government as essential to carrying out their political, social, and economic objectives, and thus the need for an unassailable, credentialed “expert class.”  Increasing social stratification across the globe—with a small technocracy and clerisy at the top and a large…dependent serf class at the bottom—represents a new, modern feudalism. What binds these two groups together (oligarchs being the feudal lords; thought leaders, the clerics) are shared views on globalism, cosmopolitanism, credentialism, and technocratic expertise. Academia is not only exclusivist, it is the least politically tolerant group in America. Ivy League schools enroll more students from households in the top 1 percent than the bottom 60 percent. The proportion of liberals to conservatives at top-rated colleges is at least 8 to 1 and sometimes 70 to 1. Less than 10 percent of faculty at leading law schools describe themselves as conservative. The university is now an “ideological reeducation camp.” It seems to be working: 40 percent of millennials favor suppressing speech deemed offensive to minorities. To get a glimpse of the future neo-feudalist America, one need look no further than California, where a small class of fabulously wealthy and interconnected people act as a new nobility, while a massive underclass of underemployed and unemployed are reliant on the state for survival. California’s level of inequality is greater than that of Mexico, and on par with Guatemala and Honduras. When adjusted for cost of living, California’s overall poverty rate is highest in the country. Eight million Californians live in poverty, including two million children. Almost half the children in the state are living close to the poverty line. The Bay Area is perhaps the worst offender: 76,000 millionaires and billionaires live in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, while 30 percent of Silicon Valley residents rely on public or private financial assistance. And lest one think this is only an American problem, [in] China, the top 1 percent of the population hold about one-third of the nation’s wealth, and about 300 people hold about 20 percent. There will soon be more Chinese billionaires than American ones. Meanwhile China employs artificial intelligence with sophisticated algorithms to regulate society and public opinion—you know, the same systems currently used to brainwash hundreds of thousands of “problematic” Uighurs in Xinjiang Province. China has created a massive surveillance state that monitors individual citizens’ social capital, and, as an extension, access to various goods and services. Beijing is selling these surveillance tools to other nations.[3]

This is hardly a new phenomenon, as intellectual and related social distinctions have been an inherent part of society hierarchies for centuries, in nearly all societies.  What is new is the immense growth of America’s government and corporate institutions, and their capture by an elite educated governing class.  America is governed in reality by a new elite, with a massive “slave” class spread out in the vast open spaces of the rest of the country.  A handful of cities, university affiliations and intellectual and technical networks seek to control the country and have largely succeeded.  America’s elitism is intellectual, conceptual, linguistic and behavioral, much more than it is strictly financial, or even propertied, or especially, racial.  Some of it is merely symbolic; an image; a story; a carefully marketed illusion.  But it is an illusion that still divides the country into a very sharp differences of class and privilege.

Indeed, where would Barack Obama be without the one thing that made him stand apart and gave him cachet: his Columbia and Harvard degrees, and his University of Chicago Law school teaching bona fides; his claim to being a “constitutional scholar.”  The elite university is the essence of his identity.  And as Nietzsche points to, it is still an identity that thrives on its own consensus, its own insistence on a monotheism in belief, values and objectives.  It seeks to break down all others into a classless society, until there is no longer a rich garden of variety, of healthy competition and independence, but instead one group only—the obedient Hive.

Indeed, the current BLM riots have their effective intellectual base camp in several elite universities, especially Chicago.  But ironically it is a base camp that wants to maintain its borders and walls of protected privilege.  America’s working-class towns and small business may be burned and ransacked, its public spaces and even homes and churches threatened: but the elite university campuses like Harvard, Yale, Stanford and even Berkeley, are quiet, safe, tranquil and undisturbed.  How could that be?

For sure, the country’s colleges are hurting financially from reduced enrollment and the costs of altering their campuses into “ant farms” to control and direct student movement and behavior in the new biosecurity construct.  The massive student loan market—nearly $2 trillion dollars—is also a bubble threatening to burst any moment, while tuition of $80,000 a year at Chicago—the highest in the nation—is likely never going to return.  But the one thing keeping the haves from the have nots—information, knowledge and specific skills—is still being kept behind locked doors—doors that don’t open for everyone, and keep the US a sharply splintered society.  And elite intellectuals like it that way.

Tuition alone is the modern slave collar—decades of indebtedness that can’t be extinguished.  Paying money to build and grow your mind may be the ultimate insult to freedom—like charging for oxygen, sunlight and natural water.  These are all natural rights, natural resources and man’s natural privilege to procure as a free human being.  The modern elite university (and Silicon Valley Big Tech) wants instead to profit off of your own mental sovereignty, and take what is naturally yours, and keep you from it by way of their “admissions” game (as if you needed to be admitted to your own intellect), or as dribbled out in careful doses of “degrees” and diplomas.[4]  Police may imprison our body, but the modern university seeks to imprison your mind, by putting you in “education isolation” so you do not contaminate the ruling class and their privileged domain of specialized culture.  The university claims to offer its educational liberation to the under-privileged, the suppressed or disadvantaged.  What they really do is merely open the gate to a handful of the throng at its walls, in order to keep up the hope of salvation.  The rest are sent back to the educational plantations for the masses, and intellectually “quarantined” from the elite.  And now, before you enter either domain, you will be subject to new virus protocols and electronic “geofencing.” This alone turns the higher education calculus on its head: everyone inside the walls of academia may soon be stampeding to try and get out; or will they?  A new “Lord of the Flies” psychology is taking over many of our young adults, creating the welcome and the unwelcome, the safe and the unsafe, the right and the wrong, and of course the good and the bad.

Burning down small businesses, smashing windows of cars and clothing stores, threatening police officers, and looting consumer electronics and luxury goods aren’t going to create or deliver opportunity, or confer access to America’s power centers (and more is on the way).  Education—real, tangible education can.  But the access to information, laboratories, libraries, computers, tools, and the coaching and instruction that can activate their utility and extend them into social and economic networks, is controlled, metered, rationed, and restricted by an elite guard of university special interests safely retreated inside the walls of academic institutionalism—walls that seek to protect their privilege, contacts, intellectual property, and maintain the illusion that only some can qualify for the bestowing of elite higher education.  Community college for everyone?  Sure.  Yale for everyone?  That will take a new civil war (and yet the “community” college is the actual transformed, progressive manifestation of higher education; indeed, it is what “Yale” will eventually become).  The “borders” around this knowledge, information and privilege will eventually be torn down—and that terrifies the elite.  What to do?  Make the borders stronger, more pervasive: put them around an entire society and installed in the one place where they can be powerfully controlled: in the mind itself. 

Modern universities are selling the same product in the same ways for the last 200 years—a long, expensive medieval apprenticeship that is out of touch with the modern world, but its walls fortified and reinforced for self-preservation, self-dealing and self-worth. Robert Hanna, a philosophy Ph.D. from Yale, author and former university professor, escaped from the walled compound of institutionalism, and started “Philosophy Without Borders,” which challenges the elite notion that philosophical knowledge is somehow contained within and under the stewardship of academic faculty, when in fact it is within you, waiting to be cultivated in your own life as a “real” living philosopher, dealing with today’s tangible challenges.  If “BLM” wants to shake and disrupt the foundations of elitist control and enslavement, and seek “reparations” and justice, then its target is the walled compound of Harvard Square, not Times Square, nor the shopping village or town square.  It is the elite controlling campuses of the country’s intellectual complex at Yale, Chicago, Columbia, Stanford, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Brown, Berkeley, MIT, Caltech, Harvard, Northwestern, and others (like Oxford, Cambridge and the London School of Economics in the UK). These institutions create, guard and propagate the illusions of privilege and class and intellectual ownership—and charge for it, putting you in debtor’s prison.

The nation’s elite research universities are also hosting, indeed eagerly encouraging the transformation of the university campus into an effective “ant farm” of student social and behavioral engineering under the pretext of “biosecurity.”  No other universities are so intimately involved in this agenda as the “Ivy” and elite schools.  No campus culture embraces, propagates, and indeed creates the policies for a radical fundamentalist “Covidianism” more than the elite colleges.  These university administrations are obviously serving as program foot soldiers, and have abdicated their authority to a larger institutional network (e.g., the C.D.C., the Rockefeller and Gates foundations, and W.H.O.) that is “leading from behind,” with political pressure to act in lockstep. At the University of Chicago, for example, this political co-option has been especially formalized, and stems from mutual promises and favor among the Obama-Lightfoot-Sanders “triumvirate.” The University is also acting in lockstep with the Rockefeller Foundation, and certain agencies in law and intelligence.  This leaves students with an increasingly difficult but urgent choice: either submit to and comply with the university biosecurity “protocol” including the troubling “Health Pact” contract, along with personal tracing, tracking and “geofencing” or instead, reject the institutional abuse, and disregard for your own sovereignty and privacy, and walk away. At some point you have to learn how to say “No” and not merely line up at the campus sorting platform and be corralled, herded, traced and tracked (and eventually de-loused by “vaccination”).

This is where the basis of real inequality, corruption and division is hiding, and prospering, installed in its ivory tower.  It shackles all others with something far more dehumanizing than an entrapped body: an enslaved mind.

---

[1] Or rather, race and class are somewhat fungible, as “BLM” for example, is a claim of class victimization, through a racial narrative, as “White supremacy” is really more centered psychologically and linguistically, as “White privilege” vis-à-vis access to resources; preference for their distribution and title; and even putative utility and enjoyment of broad assets (suburban homes, transportation, luxury goods and education), labor markets and wages (higher minimum wages; broader re-distribution through tax) or membership in social groups, especially intellectual ones usually defined by elite education.  Meanwhile, it is a central cultural routine of higher education to sustain and propagate the racial-class dynamic, in part because it sustains a wide spectrum of economic objectives which include university enrollment velocity, funding, and the perpetuation of the Ph.D system.  See

https://cstms.berkeley.edu/current-events/no-one-wants-to-believe-it-manifestations-of-white-privilege-in-a-stem-focused-college/

[2] From a review of Joel Kotkin’s The Coming of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Global Middle Class, by Casey Chalk.  https://kirkcenter.org/reviews/feudalism-without-a-soul/

[3] Ibid

[4] See “The Social Dilemma,”  https://www.netflix.com/title/81254224