When I move into a new home, two things go up immediately on the wall. The first is my gold-framed portrait of Richard Wagner. The second is my map of the Universe. One way or another, everything’s there, from the left thumb of the Pope to the whole of the Andromeda Galaxy, from the follicle mites in Obama’s eyebrows to the hydrocarbon ice on Titan.
A map of the universe: the periodic table
But you wouldn’t guess to look at it, because the map is surprisingly small and suspiciously regular. In fact, most of it consists of a set of coloured blocks filled with cryptic symbols and numbers: “Xe” and “2,8,18,18,8,” for example. But that will be a giveaway for anyone who knows a bit of chemistry. My map of the Universe is the periodic table, that astonishing encapsulation of the hundred-odd elements that comprise everything in the material universe.
A cookbook for matter
The periodic table is astonishing partly because it manages to capture so much with so little. If I look around me at the moment, I see a huge variety of things, from sea-shells to books, from memory-sticks to egret feathers. But everything I see is made from just three things: protons, neutrons and electrons. At the conscious level, there’s endless variety. At the sub-atomic level, there’s endless repetition. If the protons in the egret feathers were swapped with the same number of protons in the books, it would be impossible to detect any change. Ditto for the neutrons and electrons, and ditto for any other pair of material objects, no matter how superficially different. The periodic table is a kind of cookbook for matter, listing the recipes used by Mother Nature to rustle up a lustrous weighty solid like silver or a poisonous swirling gas like chlorine from exactly the same ingredients.
But it wasn’t easy to uncover the unifying simplicity of the periodic table. It’s not just a cookbook: it’s a monument to human intelligence, ingenuity, obsession and effort. Or rather, it’s a monument to those things as displayed by White males. Take a survey of the periodic table like Jack Challoner’s excellent The Elements: The Ultimate Guide to the Building Blocks of Our Universe (2012). Reading about the blocks, you won’t come across any Blacks. Instead, the names of stale pale males occur on almost every page, beginning with the Frenchman Antoine Lavoisier (1743–94), the Englishman John Dalton (1766–1844) and the Russian Dmitri Mendeleev (1834–1907).
First found in sunlight
The first two helped lay the foundations of modern chemistry and the last devised its recipe-book: the periodic table. Then stale pale males like the New Zealander Ernest Rutherford (1871–1937) helped explain the patterns of the periodic table. Hundreds of other stale pale males, and a few stale pale females like the great Pole Marie Curie (1867–1934), helped to fill in the table by extracting and refining elements from substances as diverse as slag, seaweed and fresh air. And by detecting one in sunlight before it was found on earth. If the elements are the building-blocks of the universe, then you could say that the scientists who explained and uncovered them were leading block-lives. And block-lives matter in a way that mainstream politics and culture presently refuse to admit.
For example, here’s a curious thing: four of those elements – the obscure but sometimes important ytterbium, yttrium, terbium and erbium – were named from the small Swedish village of Ytterby. It wasn’t just that they were found in a quarry there: Swedes and other Scandinavians worked to extract them from reluctant minerals. And vanadium is named from a Norse goddess and holmium from the Swedish capital Stockholm. Scandinavian men have contributed more to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) than all Blacks who ever lived, despite being vastly outnumbered by Blacks. In other words, even as chemistry was unifying heaven and earth, it was disuniting humanity, because scientific talent and success haven’t been evenly distributed among the diverse groups of humanity.
White European males were necessary for the creation of modern science and might have been entirely sufficient. I suggested in “The Pale Male Paradox” that one factor in their success was their lack of self-obsession: they’re interested in the external universe, not in themselves and their own interests. But, as I also suggested in the article, that renders them vulnerable to parasitic ideologies run by groups, like Jews and Blacks, who are obsessed with themselves and their own interests. The pale male paradox is that pale males have achieved most and are now vilified worst, being held responsible for horrendous contemporary evils like racism, sexism and Islamophobia.
The epicycles of leftism
While chemistry and physics have revealed a true unity beneath the myriad substances and phenomena of the material universe, leftism insists on a false unity beneath the myriad differences of humanity. “We are all the same under the skin,” leftism insists. Therefore we should achieve the same. But we don’t. And so, like Ptolemaic astronomy compensating for its faulty premise of geocentrism with epicycles, leftism compensates for its faulty premise of human equality with nonsense like “systemic racism” and “White supremacy.” After all, what else could explain how the innate genius of Blacks has failed to flower in White societies for so long?
“Nothing else!” say the liars of leftism. “Genetics!” say heretical truth-tellers like the Nobel laureate James Watson (born 1928), a stale pale male who helped reveal how chemistry encodes life. Watson and his late colleague Francis Crick (1916–2004) were the co-discoverers of the double-helix structure of DNA. If Mendeleev revealed the building-blocks of matter in the periodic table, then Crick and Watson revealed the building-blocks of life. So they also led block-lives and their block-lives matter in a way that, once again, contradicts the lies of mainstream politics and culture. Their discovery unified biology rather as the periodic table unified chemistry. The amazing variety of life on Earth, from daisies to dachshunds, from bacteria to blue whales, arises from the same genetic code. And just as you could swap protons between material objects and detect no difference, you could swap genes between living organisms and detect no difference.
Genetics unifies biology, but also helps us see the huge importance of small differences. All mammals share most of their genomes, but they don’t share most of their behaviour, diet and external anatomy. There are vast differences between a tiny insect-eating bat flying hundreds of metres up and a giant squid-eating whale swimming hundreds of metres down. But those vast physiological and behavioural differences arise from small genetic differences. It didn’t take long, evolutionarily speaking, to convert the four-legged land-living common ancestor of bats and whales into its winged and finned modern descendants.
Tiny but titanic
And into all its other modern descendants, from armadillos to zebras. However, one of those descendants, Homo sapiens, is distinguished by perhaps the most important genetic difference of all time. The difference is tiny, compared to everything that unites mammals, but titanic in its significance. What is it? It’s what enables you to read these little symbols on a computer screen. Human beings evolved language and language depends on certain sequences of DNA. We don’t know exactly what they are yet and how they work, but without them humans wouldn’t be human. Without language, we couldn’t organize our societies, inform ourselves so effectively about resources and threats, and cooperate on communally beneficial projects. But that’s precisely why leftism insists on censorship and wants to silence the voices of heretics like James Watson. Leftism wants to prevent Whites from informing themselves about racial difference and the vast threats of mass immigration and racially mixed societies. It wants to prevent Whites cooperating on the communally beneficial projects of self-defence and self-assertion.
And so, when Watson suggested that there were genetic reasons for the intellectual under-performance of Blacks, he was punished with loss of income and prestige. Voltaire said that the English execute an admiral from time to time pour encourager les autres – “to encourage the others.” Leftists burn heretics (metaphorically speaking, at the moment) for the same reason: by punishing a scientific giant like Watson, they were frightening thousands of lesser scientists and writers who might share Watson’s ideas about genetic difference or at least believe that those ideas should be freely debated. In suppressing the quintessential human faculty of speech, leftist censorship is a way of preserving and extending the power of an ideology that cannot survive open discussion and debate.
Censorship is also a way of exercising power, something that can be highly enjoyable for the envious and inferior. None of Watson’s critics could match his scientific achievements, but they could assert power over him and humiliate him in public. Even the highly woke British biologist Adam Rutherford, a half-Guyanese Indian and propagandist for wokeism on race, admitted that Watson had been “shooed from public life by the people who walk in his scientific shadow.” But Rutherford doesn’t disapprove of that: he thinks that Watson is a racist and deserves everything he gets. Rutherford also thinks that the great Victorian scientist Francis Galton (1822–1911) was a racist and that it’s right to remove Galton’s name from institutions built on his very clever and creative ideas.
This spectacle of giants like Watson and Galton being toppled by pygmies like Rutherford deserves a name. I’d call it Archimedes Syndrome—Rutherford and company are Archimedes’ midgets. The Greek mathematician and scientist Archimedes (287–212 BC) was one of history’s supreme geniuses, but according to Plutarch he was cut down in his prime by a nobody. Archimedes had defended the city of Syracuse against a Roman siege, but when the city fell, he was engrossed in a mathematical problem. And he ignored an order from a Roman soldier. So the Roman soldier killed him. The story may be apocryphal, but it illustrates a perennial theme of life: how the superior can fall victim to the inferior, the high to the low. The more we’ve learned about biology, the more we’ve seen Archimedes Syndrome in action. As I’ve described in articles like “Verbal Venom” and “How to Cure a White Zombie,” very simple parasites can subvert the brains of much more complex hosts.
A veneer of philanthropy
There’s an obvious parallel to what’s happening in Western politics. For example, stupid people like the Black anti-racist Ibram X. Kendi are subverting culture and politics in the hugely sophisticated White nation of America. White Americans have achieved things utterly beyond the power of any Black collective, like landing men on the moon and probing the universe across vast stretches of space and time. The paradox is that White America achieved so much because it was a high-trust society, but those achievements made America a juicy target for those who could exploit the trust, concealing hostility and self-service beneath a veneer of universalism and philanthropy. By themselves Blacks lacked the intellectual sophistication to fashion what Kevin MacDonald has named the “culture of critique,” wherein White societies are indicted for their sins against racial equality and justice.
Instead, the culture of critique was fashioned and refined by much more intelligent Ashkenazi Jews like Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin, who prepared the way for Black Lives Matter by insisting that Block-Lives Don’t Matter—namely, that genes, the building blocks of biology, don’t exercise decisive influence on the success of Whites and failure of Blacks in advanced industrial societies. Gould’s message was that “human equality is a contingent fact of history,” and that message has been bawled into the ears of American Whites for decades, thanks to Jewish dominance in the media. As Ron Unz has put it:
Throughout the second half of the twentieth century, [Americans’] understanding of the world was overwhelmingly shaped by our centralized electronic media, which was almost entirely in Jewish hands during this period, with all three television networks and eight of nine major Hollywood studios being owned or controlled by such individuals, along with most of our leading newspapers and publishing houses. (American Pravda: Mossad Assassinations, The Unz Review, January 27, 2020)
Language is essential for any human society to exist, but when the media of a society are controlled by a hostile alien minority, language becomes a curse rather than a blessing. It no longer fulfils its function of conveying accurate information that enables effective collective responses and endeavours. Instead, it propagates falsehood and facilitates attacks on the society by its enemies. Blacks, with their low average IQ, could not be so successfully undermining and exploiting White Americans without control of the media by Jews, with their high average IQs.
Salmon’s stern sentences
But Blacks are also undermining and exploiting the White British in a society that had no good historic reason to contain large numbers of Blacks. So why are they here? According to James Thompson at the Unz Review, “The United Kingdom seems to have begun its largest and most transformative policy in a typical fit of absent-mindedness.” That is a disappointingly ignorant and irrational claim by Thompson. In fact, the policy wasn’t “absent-minded” at all, because the same group behind the nation-wrecking 1965 Immigration Law in America wanted mass immigration by non-Whites into Britain too. In other words, Jews opened the borders in Britain just as they did in America, France, Australia, and Sweden.
Exemplary sentences for uppity goyim: Jewish Judge Cyril Salmon (1903–1991)
And even if mass immigration into Britain had indeed begun “in a typical fit of absent-mindedness,” that raises an obvious question: Why wasn’t the British government shaken out of its “absent-mindedness” by the very loud opposition of ordinary British Whites? Blacks who emigrated to Britain from the Caribbean brought a vibrant culture of murder, rape and public nuisance with them. In 1958, ordinary Whites fought back against the Black incursion in the so-called “Notting Hill race riot,” which saw vicious fighting between Whites and Blacks in a working-class district of London. But the British authorities were not on the side of ordinary Whites. As the Guardian approvingly reported: “At the Old Bailey [Britain’s most famous court] Judge [Cyril] Salmon later handed down exemplary sentences of four years each on nine White youths who had gone ‘nigger hunting’.” Judge Salmon certainly wasn’t absent-minded and certainly wasn’t sympathetic to Whites resisting the forced imposition of criminal Blacks on their homeland.
“Entering politics to combat anti-semitism”
But Judge Salmon’s attitudes and “exemplary sentences” are entirely unsurprising, because he was of course Jewish. It’s very interesting that he was appointed to oversee what was clearly designed as a show-trial, just as it’s very interesting that, decades later, the ethnocentric Jew Barbara Roche was appointed as immigration minister under the treacherous Tony Blair. Roche oversaw a massive increase in already very high levels of non-White immigration. She wasn’t “absent-minded” either. In 2001, a Guardian interview said that her “parents were part Spanish, Portuguese, Polish and Russian, and she had entered politics—she still emphasises this today—to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.” In another interview with the Guardian, she said that “I love the diversity of London. … I just feel comfortable.”
Roche feels “comfortable” in an atomized society where she doesn’t stand out as alien and doesn’t fear that White gentiles will turn on Jews, as they have so often in the past. And Roche was also clearly motivated by a desire for revenge on the White British. In one speech in 2000 she gloated about her ability to direct immigration policy, proclaiming herself as the proud descendant of Jews who had been insulted by a xenophobic White Briton. Note how she begins this section of her speech with some lying propaganda borrowed from Jews in America:
Britain has always been a nation of migrants. There were in practice almost no immigration controls prior to the beginning of the 20th century. The 1905 Aliens Act was a direct response to Jewish immigration and it is difficult to deny that it was motivated in part by anti-Semitism. Major [William] Evans-Gordon, an MP, speaking in support of the legislation, said: “It is the poorest and least fit of these people who move, and it is the residuum of these again who come to and are let in this country. … Hon[ourable] Members [of Parliament] opposite do not live in daily terror of being turned into the street to make room for an unsavoury Pole [i.e. Polish Jew].”
I expect Major Evans Gordon would be spinning in his grave if he knew that their descendant would not only be Immigration Minister but would be standing before you today making this speech. (UK migration in a global economy, Draft Speech by Barbara Roche MP, Immigration Minister, London, 11th September 2000)
Britain has not “always been a nation of migrants.” There were “almost no immigration controls” at that time because there was no need for them. Britain was a demographically stable White Christian nation without a societal death-wish. But even at “the beginning of the 20th century” it was apparent to some clear-sighted observers that Jews had achieved disproportionate power and influence here. The satirist Hector Hugh Munro (1876–1916), who wrote under the pen-name of Saki, created a hero in 1904 who claimed that the British Empire was “rapidly becoming a suburb of Jerusalem.” Like working-class Whites in Notting Hill in the 1950s, Saki thought that outsiders were harming Britain, but his opposition was literary rather than physical. He didn’t go to prison for mocking Jews in stories like “The Unrest-Cure” and “A Touch of Realism.”
Calculus versus chaos
Nor did Saki lose his successful literary career. But writers do lose their careers today for transgressing against minority worship and sometimes, like the great historian David Irving (born 1938), also go to prison. In a Land of Lies, free speech and free enquiry are crimes. But the double-think and deceit of Black Lives Matter and the vast official apparatus of “anti-racism” don’t and can’t alter reality. In response to that deceit, we have to insist that Block-Lives Matter—that genes, the building-blocks of life, explain why Blacks underachieve at civilization and overachieve at crime. The genetic similarities between bats and whales are far greater than the differences. But you can’t find a shared environment where bats and whales both flourish.
The same applies to Blacks and Whites. The genetic similarities between us are far greater than the differences. But the differences explain why Whites create calculus and Blacks create chaos. You can’t build a shared society where Blacks and Whites both flourish. More and more Whites can see this simple truth, so the hostile elite will have to put more and more effort into repressing dissent. And that repression will further demonstrate the evil of racially mixed societies, thereby waking more Whites. The vicious circle for the hostile elite will prove a virtuous circle for Whites.