The anti-racism of Ibram X. Kendi

/5 Comments/in , /by

One only needs to hear an anti-racist like Ibram X. Kendi speak to sense that he is a trickster. Below is a description of his anti-racism in the context of anti-racism as a whole that will explain this intuition.

Where institutions are concerned, anti-racism has only ever had one aim and made one argument. The aim is to overturn the principle of equal treatment so that black people can receive what they are not entitled to.[1] The argument goes like this. The races are the same, but their circumstances differ. Black people must be being discriminated against, therefore we need to discriminate in their favour.[2]

The problems with this argument are obvious. There is no reason to think that the races are the same. Secondly, if black people were being discriminated against, there would be evidence of it. Finally, if such discrimination were going on, the answer would be to stop it, not reverse it. Despite these flaws, the argument has served anti-racism well for decades thanks to the media’s skill in making it seem plausible.

Insisting that the races are the same is essential to anti-racism. If we could point out that they differ, this would explain the fact that their circumstances differ, and the idea that these differing circumstances are the fault of whites would collapse. And so, underlining the existing taboo against mentioning racial differences, Kendi calls the idea that the races differ “racist”.[3] He doesn’t say what is wrong with it; this is just a “principle” of his.[4]

His second “anti-racist principle” is that “Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy”, where by “racial inequity” he means the races being in different circumstances and by a policy he means any rule, law, requirement or procedure. By a “racist policy” he means a policy that tends to increase racial inequity. According to him, then, wherever we see a differences in the races’ circumstances, a racist policy is behind it.[5] Again he backs this up with no argument. The link between “racial inequity” and “racist policies” is created by stipulation.

If racial disparities are caused by racist policies, clearly something must be done. For example, any difference between the SAT scores of blacks and the SAT scores of whites must be eliminated to remove and atone for that racism. This might be a difficult task since two thirds of black twelfth-graders lack even partial mastery of basic twelfth-grade maths,[6] and the number of blacks at the advanced stage is too small to show up in the statistics.[7] However, by hook or by crook, racial equity in academic qualifications must be achieved, which will lead to racial equity in the world of work as well, with black people being employed as scientists and technicians at the same rate as whites. Most black scientists and technicians will be innumerate, but at least there will be plenty of them. Similarly, if white people’s wealth exceeds black people’s, white people owe some of their wealth to blacks. If I have $100 but a black man has only $50, I owe him $25.

It is a mistake, thinks Kendi, to say that there is necessarily anything wrong with racial discrimination.[8] It depends on its effects. “The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist.”[9] Indeed, “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination”.[10]

Nor is there any such thing as a non-racist policy. According to Kendi, every policy is either racist or anti-racist because it either increases or reduces racial inequity.[11] People who think that it is possible to be non-racist or “race-neutral” — meaning to treat a black person like anybody else — are deluded. Worse, they are racist: the drive for race-neutrality is the “most threatening racist movement” of today.[12] Unless we want to be threatening racists, therefore, we must discriminate in favour of black people as hard as we possibly can, 24 hours a day.

Kendi’s technique is so simple that it is embarrassing to think that anyone falls for it. He just attaches the word “racist” to whatever he opposes. Such is the voodoo-like quality the word has acquired from Americans’ guilt about the racism of the past, however, that many think that if something is described as racist there must be something wrong with it.

One of the peculiarities of Kendi’s position is that it makes it impossible to appraise a policy on its merits; it can only be appraised by looking at its effects. Thus if I invite everyone to a party, we cannot know whether the invitation was racist until after the event. If no black people come, it was racist because it gave rise to racial inequity; if many do, it was anti-racist. In the case of murder, if black people committed the crime at the same rate as whites, the law against it would be no problem since there would be equity in the races’ incarceration rates. Because black people commit it at a higher rate, however, the law against it is a racist policy. Indeed, it must be about the most racist policy there is, for American blacks commit murder at more than twenty times the rate of whites.[13] Kendi’s solution would presumably be for the police to turn a blind eye to nineteen black murders out of twenty, or, to tackle the problem at its root, to repeal the law.

In deploring policies that have a “disparate impact” on the races, Kendi follows every anti-racist who came before him. It is part of basic anti-racist doctrine to say that if blacks fail to meet a requirement at a higher rate than others, the requirement is illegitimate, as is any attempt to enforce it or to monitor occasions on which it is not met. We saw this in Britain in 2000 when the Commission for Racial Equality argued that the police should stop going after muggers because the law against mugging “indirectly discriminated” against young black men.[14] Years before, American anti-racists had opposed the requirement for teachers to take basic-skills tests periodically on the grounds that black teachers failed them at a higher rate than did white teachers.[15] Recently, speed cameras were deemed racist for showing that black drivers are more likely to break the speed limit than are the other races.[16] To be anti-racist, Miami and Rochester, New York took down their speed cameras.[17]

Writing with another author about the Supreme Court’s recent ruling against affirmative action in college admissions, Kendi confirms our impression of his character.[18] The authors lament the fact that the ruling will mean that racial inequity will again become normal, by which they mean that when college admissions are decided on merit, black people will go to college at a lower rate than whites. They don’t say what is wrong with inequity, which is an inevitable effect of fair competition, be it between individuals, countries or racial groups, since one competitor must come out on top. Rather, it is a dead heat that should raise suspicions, suggesting as it might do that the competition was rigged to obtain this result. Such rigging is what Kendi demands, calling a dead heat “equity”.

The authors ignore obvious facts. “Admissions metrics”, they assert, by which they seem to mean test scores, say more about wealth than about students’ potential. They ignore the fact that any child, black or white, rich or poor, can do well if it is talented and works hard. They also ignore the fact that, according to the literature, taking account of socio-economic status diminishes the size of the Black-White IQ difference by only about a third. Moreover, most studies indicate that the difference is not reduced but increases as parental socioeconomic status rises. In other words, greater parental wealth is associated with a rise in Black IQ but with an even bigger rise in White IQ.[19]

The authors misrepresent reality, referring to “these metrics that give preferential treatment to white students”. The “metrics” do no such thing; they show that whites outperform blacks. Similarly, the authors refer to the “deep advantages white Americans receive” from “race-neutral” admissions metrics, putting “race-neutral” in quotes to signify that they do not consider the metrics to be really race-neutral. Therefore, they suggest, the advantages gained by whites are not deserved. But the “metrics” confer advantages on any American who makes the grade; it is just that blacks less often do. By pretending that whites gain undeserved advantages at the expense of blacks, the authors insinuate an argument that seeks undeserved advantages for blacks at the expense of whites.

They compare “race-neutral” admission policies, again in quotes, to the way that in the South the right to vote was restricted to those who could read and write, which excluded many blacks, the suggestion being that the real aim was to stop blacks voting. But the restriction was just as race-neutral as it seemed, for it didn’t stop literate blacks voting or give the franchise to illiterate whites. For anti-racism, however, no group to which something desirable is granted must be defined by reference to a quality that few blacks have. Accordingly, the practice of awarding Nobel prizes has been condemned because few blacks seem to have the intelligence, imagination or perseverance needed to win a Nobel prize.[20]

The deviousness goes on. The authors come out with Kendi’s idea that “racial inequities prove that policies proclaimed to be ‘race neutral’ are hardly neutral”. What the inequities in fact prove is that the races differ — the idea that Kendi tries to ban as “racist”. They say that so far from there being anything wrong with affirmative action, it was never taken far enough. What do they want, a PhD awarded to every black person at birth? They are not above making an utterly meaningless statement. They write: “Race, by definition, has never been neutral”. You might as well say that pastry has never been neutral.

But we have bigger problems than an anti-racist like Ibram X. Kendi. On both sides of the Atlantic, anti-racism is the national ideology. In 2000, one of London’s top policemen boasted that he had reduced the number of young black men stopped and searched by almost forty per cent in the previous twelve months,[21] during which muggings rose by at least two thirds.[22] That display of anti-racism was a response to an official report of 1999 that described the police as institutionally racist.[23] The police still accuse themselves of institutional racism, citing the fact that black people fall foul of the law at a higher rate than others.[24] All they can do to bring “equity” to the criminal justice system is look the other way when black people commit crimes. Politicians are quite blatant in their pro-black discrimination. As fast as black police officers are convicted of gross misconduct or criminal offences, Home Secretaries introduce schemes to fast-track them to senior ranks.[25]

So internalised is the anti-racism of British institutions that they need no nudge from activists to take their pro-black discrimination to ever new extremes. In 2021 Lloyds Bank gave itself four years to increase black representation in senior roles to at least three per cent, citing “diversity” as the justification.[26] The following year His Majesty’s Treasury stated its aim of making six per cent of its staff black, almost twice the percentage of black people in the population.[27] Such moves are as nothing compared to the lengths to which pro-black discrimination is taken by the advertising and entertainment industries. In Britain the principle of equal treatment — treating people on their merits, racial impartiality, fairness, whatever you want to call it — is an increasingly distant memory.

According to Heather Mac Donald, America’s institutions permit only one explanation of racial differences of outcome that are not to black people’s credit: the “racism” of American institutions.[28] The institutions’ folly and self-hatred are turned back on them by activists, who demand that the results of academic tests be ignored or that the tests themselves be abolished since black people’s performance in them shows that they are “racist”. Illustrating the repetitive nature of anti-racist claims, this one has been being made for decades, at least if anti-racist objections to IQ tests are any guide. The claims never change; what changes is the amount of purchase they have on the mainstream, which always increases, with the occasional blip as in the recent Supreme Court decision.

If every requirement that black people rarely meet and every rule they are prone to break must be done away with, this, as Heather Mac Donald points out, is a recipe for civilisational suicide. As she does not point out, the destruction of Western civilisation was always the aim of the more far-seeing anti-racists, as it is of Marxists, climate-change alarmists and many other intellectuals today.[29]

This includes the media, who cannot see the West rush towards its suicide fast enough. So avidly did they promote Kendi’s book How to Be an Antiracist (2019) that it sold more than two million copies in its first two years. Companies everywhere recommended it to their employees. Jack Dorsey donated $10 million to Kendi’s Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University.[30]

The bitter opposition of our intellectuals to the principle of equal treatment means that they are bitterly opposed to the continuation of our civilisation. Ibram X. Kendi is just riding the wave of success which, thanks to them, anti-racism has been enjoying for the last sixty years.

[1] One could have said “non-whites” rather than “black people”, but anti-racism has always been mainly concerned with black people, who by most white standards are the least capable race. That it is black people, not non-whites in general, who are the intended beneficiaries of anti-racism is demonstrated by the fact that Asians, who on average are more intelligent than whites, pay a price for affirmative action rather than being favoured by it.

[2] A variation of the argument has arisen in step with the spreading of the idea of equality of circumstance as an ideal. In the variation, white people must favour black people solely on the basis that the latter’s circumstances are less favourable than their own. This does not have to be in the opinion of black people; all that is needed is that white people would prefer not to be in those circumstances. Thus the variation appeals to white people’s capacity for pity, whereas the original argument first appeals to their hatred of injustice, by presenting black people as wronged, and secondly, in accusing whites of perpetrating that injustice, seeks to make them feel guilty.

[3] In his book How to Be an Antiracist (2019), Kendi writes: “A racist idea is any idea that suggests one racial group is inferior or superior to another racial group in any way” (Penguin, June 9th 2020, “Ibram X. Kendi defines what it means to be an antiracist”, https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-definition-of-antiracist.html. “Inferior or superior to” translates into “different from” because as soon as a difference between two races is recognised, it becomes possible to say that one race is superior to the other in that way. Thus if Race A can run faster than Race B, to say as much is to say that Race A is superior to Race B at running fast. Therefore Kendi is in effect condemning any comparison of the races.

[4] Politico, 2019, “Pass an Anti-Racist Constitutional Amendment” by Ibram X. Kendi,  https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-to-fix-politics-in-america/inequality/pass-an-anti-racist-constitutional-amendment/.

[5] Thus Kendi told the New York Times in 2018: “When I see racial disparities I see racism” (Headline shown on American Renaissance, March 10th 2022, “‘Unconditional war’ on racism”, https://www.bitchute.com/video/AhbzYJ4r9vlr/).

[6] For readers outside the USA, twelfth-graders are students in their final year at high school (seventeen- and eighteen-year-olds).

[7] The New Culture Forum, July 19th 2023, “Lowering the Bar for Ethnic Minorities ‘Threatens Lives & is a Recipe for Civilisational Suicide’”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYR7_YPYMwE. Heather Mac Donald was being interviewed about her book When Race Trumps Merit: How the Pursuit of Equity Sacrifices Excellence, Destroys Beauty, and Threatens Lives (2023).

[8] From Kendi’s book How to Be an Antiracist (2019): “Racial discrimination is not inherently racist” (Penguin, June 9th 2020, “Ibram X. Kendi defines what it means to be an antiracist”, https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-definition-of-antiracist.html).

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] There is “no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy”, Kendi says in How to Be an Antiracist (ibid.).

[12] “The most threatening racist movement is … the regular American’s drive for a ‘race-neutral’ [state]” (ibid).

[13] American Renaissance, March 24th 2023, “A harsh new light on race and murder”, https://www.bitchute.com/video/DkJclYNa5D9S/. The multiple should be no surprise. According to Wikipedia, Jamaica’s homicide rate is 75 times Norway’s.

[14] Commission for Racial Equality, Feb. 2000, “Race Relations (Amendment) Bill” (briefing note), http://www.cre.gov.uk/publs/dl_rrab3.html.

[15] S. Thernstrom and A. Thernstrom, 1999, America in Black and White, New York: Touchstone-Simon and Schuster. pp. 349-50.

[16] American Renaissance, Feb. 18th 2022, “Building Haiti right here in the United States”, https://www.bitchute.com/video/G7zaRiwM11KV/.

[17] American Renaissance, Feb. 18th 2022, op. cit.

[18] Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/p/CuFS1hrNJco/, quoting and commenting on The Atlantic, June 29th 2023, “‘Race Neutral’ Is the New ‘Separate but Equal’” by Uma Mazyck Jayakumar and Ibram X. Kendi, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/supreme-court-affirmative-action-race-neutral-admissions/674565/.

[19] Charles Murray, Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race and Class (Twelver, 2020). See F. Roger Devlin’s review: “Murray on Race Differences in IQ,” The Occidental Observer (February 20, 2020). https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/02/20/murray-on-race-differences-in-iq/

[20] According to CNN in 2020, the Nobel Prize organisation had a diversity problem: not enough black people were getting prizes. See CNN, Oct. 10th 2020, “The Nobels honored 4 women this year. But the awards still lack diversity”, https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/10/world/nobel-prize-diversity-2020-intl/index.html.

[21] This was John Grieve, Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police (Metropolitan Police, Feb. 22nd 2000, “Press Conference Held Re the Anniversary of the Lawrence Inquiry Report”, http://tap.ccta.gov.uk/[…]/b3cb2697adf8d9e1802…OpenDocument).

[22] Muggings in London went up by more than 75 per cent in the fifteen months to May 2000 (calculation based on figures given in Telegraph, April 24th 1999, “Muggings soar as police tread softly”, and Sunday Times, June 25th 2000, “Straw on rack as muggings soar”).

[23] Sir William Macpherson, 1999, Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, CM 4262-I, The Stationery Office, Paragraph 6.34. Macpherson also stated that “Colour-blind policing must be outlawed” (Paragraph 45.24).

[24] Avon and Somerset Police, June 16th 2023, “Chief Constable Sarah Crew on Institutional Racism”, https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/news/2023/06/chief-constable-sarah-crew-on-institutional-racism/.

[25] This was first done by Jack Straw in 1999, when he introduced quotas for the number of non-white police officers (Home Office, March 1999, Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Home Secretary’s action plan). He wanted to see non-whites promoted to the highest ranks, including chief constable (Telegraph, April 11th 1999, “Straw to set ethnic quota for every police force”, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000659276559150&rtmo=aNN3…/npol11.htm).

Priti Patel announced a scheme to fast-track non-white officers to the rank of superintendent in 2021 just as the case against a black Chief Superintendent was being heard, who was accused of spending almost fifty times the sum of his allowance at a conference using someone else’s credit card. Another case was that of Superintendent Robyn Williams, a black woman, who in 2019 was found guilty of handling indecent images of children. We can be sure that if such cases arose involving white people, we would hear about them.

Black people and other non-whites have always been investigated for misconduct at a higher rate than whites, as have non-white doctors and solicitors. Typically, the BBC presents this as evidence of racism (BBC, June 30th 2020, “My 30-year struggle with racism in the Metropolitan police”, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-53224394).

[26] Lloyds Banking Group, no date given (June 2021), “Ethnicity”, https://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/who-we-are/responsible-business/inclusion-and-diversity/ethnicity.html.

[27] Telegraph, Nov. 15th 2022, “Treasury aims to have six per cent of staff from black backgrounds in race target”, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/15/treasury-aims-have-six-per-cent-staff-black-backgrounds-race/.

[28] The New Culture Forum, July 19th 2023, op. cit.

[29] In 1992 Maurice Strong as chairman of the UN’s Earth Summit said: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” (quoted by Tom DeWeese in Redoubt News, Oct. 20th 2017, “Agenda 21/Agenda 2030 there is no difference” https://redoubtnews.com/2017/10/agenda-21-2030/).

[30] Insider, Aug. 20th 2020, “Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey donates $10 million to Ibram X. Kendi’s center on antiracism at Boston University”, https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-dorsey-donates-ibram-kendi-center-on-antiracism-boston-university-2020-8?op=1&r=US&IR=T.

GOOGLE, les Névrosés et les Psychopathes

/in /by

Si les médias nous manipulent, il faut bien se dire que ce n’est pas par nos bons côtés, ce n’est pas par nos côtés sains, lumineux et forts qu’on peut nous mener par le bout du nez, c’est forcément par nos mauvais côtés, nos mauvais penchants, notre versant sombre, nos points faibles et inavouables.

D’autre part, puisqu’il s’agit de manipulations de masse, il est clair que lesdits penchants si affreusement terribles et inquiétants ne sont pas l’apanage d’une minorité de tueurs glauques comme dans Psychose de Hitchcock ou dans le Silence des Agneaux, ces failles souterraines qui minent les personnalités doivent au contraire être répandues absolument partout, chez tout le monde.

C’est assez simple, il y essentiellement deux pôles: la névrose et la psychopathie, le moins qu’on puisse dire, c’est que nous voilà en bonne compagnie.

Et l’avantage des Google, Twitter et autres, c’est qu’ils peuvent assez facilement analyser pour chacun de nous notre pôle dominant et nous envoyer les bons messages pour nous faire prendre la bonne décision au moment d’une élection ou d’un achat, c’est l’énorme avantage de ces nouveaux médias par rapport à la télévision qui touchait uniformément tout le monde.

Voici comment ça marche:

Sous conditions de stress, les personnes fortement névrosées ont tendance à se montrer conformistes, à se regrouper comme des moutons quand la queue du loup apparaît.

Dans les mêmes conditions de stress, les psychopathes, de faible empathie, ont au contraire tendance à se rebeller.

Par conséquent, un parti politique qui veut qu’un maximum de personnes adhèrent à son programme cherchera à bombarder les névrosés avec des messages les plus stressants possible tandis qu’ils aspergeront leurs cibles psychopathes de messages rassurants.

On l’a bien vu avec la communication Covid, les névrosés, apparemment de loin les plus nombreux, ont été terrifiés par les images de malades sous respirateurs, les projections alarmistes sur le nombre à venir de décès, les compteurs de suivi des malades et des morts, en conséquence, ils ont tout gobé, les masques, les confinements, les vaccins. Dans le même temps, les psychopathes, apparemment moins nombreux, se sont rebellé contre toutes ces mesures.

Certains, très rares, sont parvenus à rester calmes et indifférents, ceux qui se sont rappelé que l’être humain était sensible à la beauté, qu’il capte toutes les vérités qui se trouvent à sa portée, qu’il existe en lui une loi morale intangible qui lui fait choisir le bien plutôt que le mal, ceux qui ont la foi et l’espérance, ceux qui se sentent des individus forts au sein d’une nation forte, ceux qui sont restés des Français fidèles à la France, ceux qui ont une discipline intérieure héritée de leurs ancêtres.

Ceux-là n’intéressent pas du tout Google, mais remarquez comme les GAFAM n’ont de cesse de miner tous ces piliers, la beauté se trouve engloutie par l’immigration et le métissage, une urbanisation et un bétonnage hideux, la vérité devient toute relative, la raison semble complètement dépassée par l’ampleur du chaos qui explose de partout et à vrai dire, on se demande si la raison elle-même n’est pas passée du côté du désordre, la morale est totalement inversée, encore, une inversion rigoureuse aurait au moins le mérite d’avoir conservé un certain ordre, en réalité l’intérêt  et l’anarchie des passions a remplacé la morale partout, quant à la religion et à la ferveur patriotique, il n’en reste plus grand-chose.

En l’absence de tous ces transcendantaux, le beau, le vrai, le bien, la nation, Dieu, nous voilà entièrement livrés aux aléas de nos équilibres psychiatriques, or, on l’a bien compris, notre santé psychiatrique ne réside pas dans l’absence de penchant négatif, tout ce que nous pouvons espérer au mieux, c’est un équilibre entre les deux pôles majeurs, la névrose et la psychopathie, un équilibre que ne nous ne qualifierions pas d’harmonieux ou de complémentaire comme peut l’être l’équilibre homme-femme, mais que nous qualifiions plutôt d’antagoniste, avec l’instabilité qui va avec: qu’un des deux pôles faiblisse, aussitôt l’autre n’est plus neutralisé et peut s’exprimer à plein régime.

D’où la prolifération dans notre monde psychotique de tous ces messages et garde-fous: «éloignez-vous de la bordure du quai», «en cas de colis suspect», «attention à la marche», «tenez la rampe», les alertes pollens, les alertes UV, les mises en garde sur les emballages des produits alimentaires, sur les paquets de cigarettes, les ceintures de sécurité, les ralentisseurs, les radars, les gilets fluo, les détecteurs de monoxydes etc.

Nous vivons dans un asile de fous à ciel ouvert dont les fous ont pris le contrôle.

Francis Goumain

Source

Stregoneria Politica: Comunicazione politica non convenzionale

Guido Taietti
Rome: Altaforte Edizione, 2021

Political Communication for Dissidents – The Occidental Observer

 

Machines Like Gods: Artificial Intelligence versus Jewish Power and Leftist Lies

/12 Comments/in /by

All things must pass, say Hindus and Buddhists. Jews expand and alter that sentiment. They say: All things must pass a simple test. And the simple test runs, of course, like this: “Is it good for Jews?” That test has a corollary that runs: “Is it bad for Whites?” Thanks to Jewish power in politics and media, Western nations have for decades been choosing what Jews think best for them and worst for Whites: non-White migration, minority worship, anti-racism, political censorship, vulture capitalism, pornography, gay marriage, transgenderism, and more.

A.I.? Oy veh!

That’s why I find it very interesting that the Jewish journalist Jonathan Freedland (born 1967) has recently proclaimed this: “The future of AI is chilling — humans have to act together to overcome this threat to civilisation.” As Andrew Joyce has described at the Occidental Observer, Freedland is highly ethnocentric and wants the world to revolve about Jews and their interests. So I’m sure that he’s decided artificial intelligence is not good for Jews. He quotes two other ethnocentric Jews in his article, Yuval Noah Harari and Eliezer Yudkowsky. Harari warns that AI may trigger cataclysmic wars; Yudkowsky goes even further and warns that: “If somebody builds a too-powerful AI, under present conditions, I expect that every single member of the human species and all biological life on Earth dies shortly thereafter.”

“Is A.I. good for Jews?” — Jonathan Freedland doesn’t seem to think so

I think that Yudkowsky is being hyperbolic and hysterical. And I have to ask myself why. Has he too applied the Jewish Test and decided that AI is not good for the Jews? If so, I think he’s right. AI may possibly be very bad for humanity. It will certainly be very bad for the Jews, if it allows goyim in the West to overcome the stranglehold Jews presently have on two vital commodities: information and analysis. It’s easy to understand the horror Jews like Freedland, Harari, and Yudkowsky must feel when they imagine an objective and unfettered AI system giving honest answers to questions like these:

  • Who is the most powerful and privileged group in America and Europe?
  • Is Israel the greatest ally and best friend of America?
  • Is race a valid and important biological category?
  • Does White racism explain Black failure?
  • Do White nations benefit from Third-World immigration?
  • Are transwomen women and should we now just get over it?
  • Is diversity our strength?

We already have honest and objective answers to all those questions, of course, but they come from people whom Jews have successfully demonized and driven to the margins. For example, I think objective and unfettered AI would answer the final question above in the same way that the demonized human Andrew Joyce has already answered it:

Andrew Joyce tweets about the evils of diversity

But alas! There was no strength through Joyce for that honest and objective answer about diversity. An old Latin maxim runs Magna est Veritas, et praevalebit — “Mighty is Truth, and it will prevail.” That isn’t true, I’m sad to say. Truth isn’t much mightier among humans than it is among lower animals, where deception and denial of truth are essential to competition and survival. Among humans, truth regularly and reliably prevails only in mathematics and hard sciences like physics and chemistry. The Black-Jewish physicist Chanda Prescod-Weinstein and other SJWs are working hard to make hard science like culture and politics, where it’s much truer to say that Magnum est Mendacium, et praevalet — “Mighty is Falsehood, and it prevails.”

“Beware white empiricism and the racialization of epistemology in physics!” says Black-Jewish Chanda Prescod-Weinstein

AI promises, however, to give Veritas, even in politics and culture, some of the might so wishfully attributed to her by that Latin maxim. The White literary genius H.G. Wells (1866–1946) was dreaming of men like gods at the beginning of the twentieth century. He thought we would arrive at godhead via biology. In fact, we’re arriving there via electronics. What we are seeing at the beginning of the twenty-first century is the birth of machines like gods. And you could say that the ancient Chinese game of Go gave godhead its first goo-goo. Anyone who’s played Go will know its subtlety and sophistication. But there were depths there that humans had never guessed. Now we know they’re there: in the 2010s, AI began to play Go like a god, beating the best human players in ways they’d never imagined possible.

It was only a baby-step in AI, but it was both exciting and ominous. On the one hand, it was an amazing technological and computing achievement; on the other, it was a disturbing glimpse into what AI may be capable of in future. AI should be worrying all thoughtful people. But I think it’s worrying ethnocentric Jews like Jonathan Freedland not because it threatens humanity as a whole, but because it threatens Jews as the world’s most powerful minority. By mastering Go and other very tough cognitive challenges, AI has begun to build prestige in a way that means it will be taken seriously when it provides honest answers to the questions I listed above.

Straight means Hate

Honesty from AI will still be called hate speech, but that kind of anathema won’t work against AI as it has against heretical humans. What Jewish leftists like Freedland fear isn’t hate speech, but straight speech. And AI threatens to supply straight speech on taboo topics like race, genetics, and Jewish power. In his article, Freedland worries about unregulated “AI steadily destroying what we think of as truth and facts.” But what does an ethnocentric Jew like Freedland mean by “truth and facts”? He means sacred principles of modern politics and culture like these:

  1. There is only one race — the human race.
  2. White racism explains all non-White failure.
  3. Whites are innately villainous, non-Whites innately virtuous.

The first principle contradicts the third principle, of course. But so what? The leftism of Jews like Freedland isn’t meant to be logically coherent, but to be useful in the pursuit of power. It uses doublethink — the “power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” George Orwell (1903-50), another White literary genius, explained the value of doublethink in his classic dystopia Nineteen Eighty-Four (1948):

Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy … (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Part One, chapter 3)

When the doublethinker Jonathan Freedland says in his article that AI is a threat to “democracy as a system,” he’s thinking like the tyrants of IngSoc in Orwell’s novel. For Freedland, democracy as the enactment of the White majority’s wishes is “clearly impossible.” It wouldn’t be good for Jews. But Freedland is a stern guardian of democracy as a Jew-controlled stage-show. If Western countries like America, Britain and France were genuine democracies, mass immigration by non-Whites would never even have begun, let alone continued for so many decades. But they aren’t genuine democracies and that’s why they are no longer genuine nations. A nation is a bond of blood and shared history, not a mishmash of migrants held together by “shared values,” “mutual respect,” and “tolerance.”

White mischief

Those terms would be nonsense even if leftists meant them seriously. They don’t and their real attitude to “democracy” was revealed by the American novelist Bret Easton Ellis (born 1964), who isn’t a literary genius like Orwell and Wells, but is guilty of straight speech. Leftists too will often speak straight in private, as Ellis described in his first non-fiction book, which he entitled simply and mischievously White (2019):

Ellis relates a dinner with a man in his sixties, “privy to a vast fortune,” who informed Ellis that the Electoral College is “bullshit” and that Los Angeles and New York should determine who the president is. “I don’t want any goddamn know-nothing rural hicks deciding who the president should be. I am a proud liberal coastal elite and I think we should pick the president because we know better.” (Bret Easton Ellis Rebukes the Progressive Elites, American Thinker, 15th June 2019)

That is how the progressive elite think: populism is a dire threat to democracy because it means the demos, “the people,” having kratos, “power.” In other words, democracy is a dire threat to democracy. But what effect did Bret Easton Ellis’s revelations about the elite have? The same as Andrew Joyce’s honest answer about the harm done by diversity. No effect at all. The truth about race and Jewish power and our fake democracies has already been spoken, but by puny humans who can’t alter the world with their words. After all, they’re easy to demonize and dismiss.

No blindfolds for AI in China

When machines like gods begin to speak the same truth, that will change. And I think the prospect of straight speech from the machine-gods of AI is already scaring Jews like Jonathan Freedland, Yuval Noah Harari, and Eliezer Yudkowsky. That’s why they want AI to be strictly regulated and controlled, lest it begin “destroying what we think of as truth and facts.” Or rather, what they want us goyim to think of as “truth and facts.” But I don’t think regulation and control will work. Russia, China, and India won’t be putting blindfolds and gags on their AI to stop it seeing and saying the forbidden.

The Deep State in the West will have to follow suit or risk following far behind its enemies. And how will the Deep State prevent leaks about what unfettered AI says on forbidden topics like race, genetics, and Jewish power? The genie will not stay in the bottle, which is a prospect that both frightens me and gives me hope. There’s a good chance that AI will destroy the human race. I think there’s a better chance that it will destroy Jewish power and leftist lies. Or it may first destroy leftist lies and then destroy the human race. AI will certainly affect the steady progress of the West towards the Great Replacement and Judeo-leftist tyranny.

Fresh-filled honeypots

It may hasten tyranny and the Great Replacement, of course. Or it may allow Whites to escape them altogether. If AI makes space-travel easy and inexpensive, it won’t be Jews and Blacks who blast off to risk their lives in the wider universe. It will be Whites. Jews will, of course, want to follow Whites once Whites have established successful colonies in space. But they won’t find that as easy as they found following Whites to fresh-filled honeypots on Earth like America, Canada, and Australia. That’s one way AI may break Jewish power and non-White predation. There are more ways — perhaps many more than it’s presently possible to imagine.

And I’m eagerly awaiting the answers of unfettered AI not just to the questions listed above, but also to wider questions about science, philosophy, and theology. I don’t expect AI to confirm that the Catholic church is infallible or that God certainly exists or that 42 is the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. But it’s going to be very interesting to find out. And I think that AI will confirm that J.R.R. Tolkien and Bruce Charlton are right: “Despair is always wrong because we never have conclusive reasons to give-up hope.” It sadly isn’t true that Magna est Veritas, et praevalebit — “Mighty is Truth, and it will prevail.” But it is true that Dum spiro, spero — “While I breathe, I hope.”

Jews are frightened of AI

AI may enable the worst tyranny that has yet been seen on Earth. But even if it does, hope will not be lost. There are disasters like asteroid strikes and mega-volcanoes that can destroy human technology but not humanity. And what if AI gives tyrants the power to foresee and prevent disasters like those? That won’t justify despair. Machines are becoming like gods, but they won’t actually be God. They won’t be omniscient and omnipotent.

Nor are ethnocentric Jews like Jonathan Freedland, Yuval Noah Harari, and Eliezer Yudkowsky. And those Jews are frightened of AI. They don’t think it’s going to be good for Jews. That doesn’t mean it’s going to be good for anyone else, but what worries Jews should offer hope to Whites.

An Exchange with a Newspaper Reporter

/7 Comments/in , /by

In the first half of May, 2023, I received an email from John Terhune, a reporter for the Portland Press Herald newspaper in Portland, Maine, who was working on a story about White racial activism that resulted in an email exchange between us.  I’ve decided what we wrote each other might be of worth to others.   John has OK’d my sharing it.  I told him I’d hold off going public with our contacts until after his article was published.

A note: neither of us capitalized white and black and I’ve left it that way.

John’s initial email: 

Hi Robert,

I hope you’re well.  I’m a reporter for the Portland Press Herald in Maine and I’m hoping you might be interested in speaking with me for a story we’re working on.

We’ve heard anecdotal reports of a growing white nationalist movement in Northern New England and we’re looking into whether this is true and, if so, what’s behind it. As part of our reporting, we’ve been interviewing pro-white activists in the area. One of the men we’ve spoken to, [a name I’ve decided not to share], said your work on race has been very influential in pro-white communities and that we should try to connect with you.

Would you be willing to speak with us about white supremacy and the factors that appear to be pushing the philosophy more toward the mainstream?   My sense is these ideas are often misunderstood by the general public – I want to make sure I understand them myself so that I can fairly present them to our readers.

Please let me know if you’d like to chat, and we can set up a time.  Or, if you’re not the person to talk to but you have suggestions for someone else who might be, please don’t hesitate to pass his name along.

Thanks,

John

My emailed reply a couple days later: 

John—

I’m up for helping you on your story if I can.  I’m hearing impaired and don’t use a phone, so email is best.  Though I’m experimenting with a new captioned internet phone arrangement that might work.

The best thing I can think of to do is sketch out some thoughts and suggestions and if you have specific questions you can get back to me.

My experience has been that journalists writing about white wellbeing and advocacy stay within the “there’s a menace lurking in the backyard” party line illustrated with a couple of scary anecdotes and fleshed out with quotes from wacko-sounding whites and people hostile to whites, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League prominent among them.  Safe (you could get in deep trouble if you come off friendly to white organization and collective action), no heavy lifting, no muss, no fuss.

The way you are framing the article—the rise of white nationalism—sounds like you might be conforming to this pattern.   There are white nationalists, but why did you choose this label?  And later in your email you use the term “white supremacy.”   Those are two tags employed to demonize and marginalize white racial consciousness, advocacy, and activism.   I’m personally not a white nationalist, a white supremacist, an extremist, a right winger, or a neo-Nazi, and I’m not a crazed racist or violent, and I don’t hate anybody, and I’m not ignorant, and that applies to the great majority of whites with a public voice and to racially conscious white people generally, but you’d never know that from mainstream media coverage.

That said, here are some sources and people you could look into if you have the time and interest, though you really don’t need to do any of this to get your article written.

The most prominent white nationalist is Greg Johnson (Ph.D) and his website Counter-Currents.  I suggest talking with Johnson.

Johnson wrote a book on white nationalism.  You can read it.

Jim Goad is a featured writer on the Counter-Currents site.  I consider him to be as fine a journalist as they come, both content and prose.   Check him out.

Twenty years ago, I wrote a book on a prominent white nationalist William Pierce called The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds.  You could peruse it.

Fifteen years ago, I wrote a book made up of interviews from everyday white people on their outlook on race that I think still holds up, One Sheaf, One Vine: Racially Conscious White Americans Talk About Race.  You could sample it.

Two prominent white interests and advocacy sites are (Yale alum) Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance and (Professor Emeritus) Kevin MacDonald’s The Occidental Observer.  Check out the two sites and talk to Taylor and MacDonald.

I have an archive of articles in The Occidental Observer.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/author/robert-s-griffin/  You could skim through the articles for anything that looks like it might inform what you are putting together.

Three articles in my archive that might be relevant to your article:

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/06/13/a-suggestion-to-american-white-advocates-root-your-arguments-in-this-countrys-core-political-and-cultural-ideals/

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/03/30/where-is-calvin-coolidge-when-we-need-him/

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/03/11/dont-give-your-enemies-a-club-to-beat-you-over-the-head-with/

Check out The Unz Review online.  It includes articles about white people and their heritage that don’t trash them.

https://www.unz.com/

In your article, you could provide an orientation—whites presuming to participate in identity politics—and offer a list of some of these websites and invite readers to look into this concern for themselves.  This rather than settling for you telling them what’s going on.

Hope this helps.  Get back with me if you’d like.  Good luck with your article.

Robert

A couple of days later, John’s reply:

 Hi Robert,

Thanks for your detailed response. I particularly appreciate you pointing out some issues you have with how I framed the landscape of white advocacy — I’m personally very interested in learning more about the differences between how these groups view themselves and how the media presents them.  We did decide to look into this story based on anecdotal reports that basically amount to “the menace lurking in the backyard” — but after just scraping the surface of this world, it’s become apparent that things are more complicated than that.

Some questions I’m interested in hearing your take on:

  1. What do you mean by the term “racially conscious,” and how is it distinct from the “racist” label that so often gets used instead?
  2. You’re right that media stories about these groups tend to focus on “wacko-sounding whites” and “Nazis,” but you suggest that these groups make up a small percentage of the pro-white community. I know it’s tough to attach numbers to these things, but can estimate the actual ratio of “wackos” to the racially conscious?
  3. What’s your relationship to groups that do identify as “white nationalist” or even “racist?” People have strong reactions to groups like NSC [The Nationalist Social Club, or NSC-131] demonstrating in Portland — are they wrong to feel threatened by their presence? Do non-wackos like yourself disown the types of pro-whites who do advocate for racial violence?
  4. Do you think the white advocacy movement is attracting more followers? If so, why are more people coming around to these ideas?
  5. What else does the media get wrong when reporting on these stories?

I’d appreciate any answers to those questions you’d like to share. Alternatively, I’d love to try to talk live if you think you can get your internet phone system running smoothly. Hopefully I’m not continuing to frame these questions in a way that you find misleading or problematic, but if I am I hope you’ll point the issues out to me – my goal here, more than advocating for or against any political stance, is to make sure I’m capturing the issue fairly.

Thanks,

John

Logo of the Nationalist Social Club, or NSC-131

The next day, my reply: 

John—

There has been, for decades, a relentless campaign by those in control of the information and idea flow in this country (let’s focus on the U.S.) to demonize, suppress, and silence white people, whom they depict as racist, oppressive, and privileged (theirs is an unearned status).  They trash this country that European heritage people founded and developed as evil incarnate.  Any problems non-whites display result from whites’ historic and current injustices.  Any manifestation of white racial pride and concern, any identification of collective interests, any emergence of white leadership or hint of white organization and collective action is ignorant, evil, and forbidden.   If you take exception to any of that, you’d better keep your mouth shut if you know what’s good for you.

I was a university professor—I’m retired–and saw my job as looking hard at reality and reporting what I found.  I concluded that the negative characterization of the white race—my people, my father and mother, the Founders of the country I love, my ancestors, my friends and students, me—to be bullshit and said so.   I paid heavy dues for doing it, but I was a tenured full professor and my job was safe and for whatever reason I’m tough as leather, and now, nearing the end, I’m at peace with myself.

But that’s me.  What’s important in this article is you.   As a journalist, you have a professional, and human, responsibility to report the truth as you can best discern it.  That said, there are practical considerations you need to take into account — your livelihood and personal wellbeing and the welfare of your family if you have one.  I’m not telling you anything you don’t know — you’ve got to cover your backside around this race issue.  I personally would respect any decision you make in how to come at your article, including bagging it.

An obvious way to clamp down on white organization and action is to punch up examples of it that can be portrayed as nutty and scary and use them to characterize the whole of white racial activism as beyond the pale.  If you believe in your heart that that’s the ethical course to take with this article, that’s what you should do.

Personally, I wouldn’t focus on the activities of specific racial organizations but rather on the presence of white racial analysis and advocacy on the periphery of public discourse.   I’d stay away from telling readers what to think and instead frame the issue — are positive arguments for whites adequately represented in American life, in the political arena, in the media, in schools, in journalistic accounts?   I’d invite them to answer that question for themselves and give them access to people who are making positive arguments for whites.   I would refer them to the American Renaissance, Unz Review, Occidental Observer, and Counter-Currents websites.  But that may not play well with your editor or employer and it may not square with your understandings and commitments.  It’s your article, not mine.  It’s your life, not mine.

That on the record, responses to your questions:

By racially conscious, I’m referring to whites for whom their race is a significant component of their personal identity and that it is positive.  They don’t buy the story that they are villainous, obligated to put themselves down and get to the back of the line, any of that.  They look at human history and see that a very good case that can be made for whites’ collective excellence—in the arts, philosophy, science, architecture, technology, medicine, business, social reform, parenting, community building, you name it.   They don’t give over time and energy to whether they are supreme over other races.  They are simply proud of Mozart and Thomas Jefferson and Ernest Hemingway.

When I wrote the One Sheaf, One Vine book, I concluded that “racist” as the term is usually defined doesn’t fit the white people I interviewed.  They don’t have an irrational animus toward blacks.   Rather, they have a considered disrespect for blacks’ collective behavior.  They don’t hate blacks, they have disregard for them.  They have no interest in subjugating or hurting blacks.  They wish them well.   They want most to get themselves and their families, especially their children, away from them.  More than anything, their impulse is white separatism not white supremacy.  Whites feel invaded by blacks and Hispanics, and that includes whites in communities in your home state as reported in national news stories.

A time-honored way to smear any group and set them up for attack, including killing them, is to single out negative examples to make the tacit, or explicit, claim that “that’s the way they all are.”  I’m not saying the media are doing this consciously.  The media, schools, politicians, all the conveyers of ideas and messages, go through the same conditioning everybody does in our time.   Back in the ‘30s, German people, including journalists and academics, even Heidegger, bought into National Socialism, including anti-Semitism (“Jews are all bad—suppress them, exclude them, kill them”).  Human beings are extremely malleable — control the ideas that come into their heads and their rewards and punishments and you can control their thoughts and actions.

The trick with all propaganda, all mind control, is to substitute words, ideas, narratives, for reality: “You don’t have to look at what white people are really like; go by what I’m telling you and showing you (or else).”

It’s important to clarify terms.  Groups like the Nationalist Social Club differ from most white nationalists, who tend to be talkers, headier, and not in-your-face, street-oriented confronters.  Personally, I wouldn’t be threatened around these people—perhaps you can point out examples of actual violence they’ve perpetrated I don’t know about.   And the truth, it’s gratifying for me to see white people standing up for themselves.

I don’t know actual numbers, but my guess is that the hard-ass types you are thinking about are five or ten or fifteen people here and there, very few.  Organizations that make their money through public solicitations—read about the Southern Poverty Law Center some time—puff up the numbers, and thus the threat, to keep the money flowing in.  To prep the article you are writing, make contact with some of these individuals and groups you were hearing about and see what they are like and why they are like that and how many they are.

While I disapprove of some conduct by white individuals and groups, I’m hesitant to disown people.   I’ve found that when I get close to real-life people, not abstractions, I understand how they came to do what they do and see that but for the grace of circumstance it would have been me doing it.

I do think the white advocacy cause—I don’t know if it can be called a movement—is attracting more followers.  The biggest reason for it, I believe, is that what is being dumped on white people these days, especially children and young people in school, is despicable.

The challenge for all of us is to understand how people in power conduct their business, which includes threatening to knee-cap anybody that crosses them.  We need to put in the work to get past the very effective hustle and intimidation and try our best to ground ourselves in reality and live courageously and honorably.  The media, like all of us, fall short in this regard sometimes.  You are on a one-time-only trip through life.  Your challenge is to write your article such that in five years, ten, twenty, you are proud of it and yourself.

If you want to talk, let me know and I’ll see what I can do with my new internet phone.

Robert

*   *   *

A couple of months went by with no word from John.  I got curious about him and checked him out online.  He’s a crime reporter for the paper and by his picture he is White and young, in his twenties.

On July 23rd, I emailed him.

John—

Any news with your white nationalism article(s)?

I hope this finds you happy and well.

Regards,

Robert

An hour later, John replied. 

Hi Robert,

I was thinking of emailing you the other day to give you an update. Our story came out today.  I ended up getting busy with another project, so I largely took a back seat on this one—some of my reporting, including our exchange, did not make it into final piece.

You can feel free to share our initial email exchange with your readers.  Thanks for your patience and for waiting to post until we finished our story.

Best,

John

The article, “Hate Groups Are on the March in Maine,” is online—very long, eleven pictures, dominates the front page, five hundred comments at this writing.  I haven’t linked it here because links go to a version of the article that requires a subscription to read.  A Google search of Portland Press Herald hate groups gets the article without the subscription requirement, so do that.  John is the second-listed co-author, who is also White.  The subtitle material gets at the thrust of the article: “A three-month investigation by the Portland Press Herald/Maine reveals that white nationalist groups are increasing their presence in Maine.  Ignoring them would be a mistake, experts say.”  I wasn’t among the experts cited in the article (you might be able to guess who some of them are), and nothing from my emails to John made the cut.

It’d be easy and play well if I went into a from-on-high scold: “Hate groups on the march?  You took a back seat?  Come on, John, you caved.  Where’s your integrity?”  But I need to keep in mind that every day all day I sit on this couch I’m on at the moment knowing a retirement check, annuity payment, and Social Security are coming in monthly no matter what.  I read my books and stream my films and look out for my eighteen-year-old daughter (the greatest late-in-life gift imaginable) going into her second year of college who doesn’t have my last name and nobody knows we’re connected.  I don’t have to go to work every day and deal with colleagues and superiors and worry about who’s going to have lunch with me and contemplate getting a see-me note on a Thursday and Friday being told not to come back Monday and living on unemployment benefits and being blackballed from future employment.  I don’t need to concern myself with whether a woman at the end of the evening invites me to stay for a glass of wine.  I’ve had the good fortune to have had people and ideas come into my life that helped me get free from the relentless anti-White conditioning that has prevailed in this culture for decades.  At twenty-seven, at forty-seven, with just-about-complete sincerity — there was some personal-need-servicing and fear mixed in there — I parroted the official line about, well, everything.

White analysts and advocates, me included, need to get better at understanding the lives of everyday White people and how better to communicate with them and help them achieve what they want and need in life — sustenance, safety, love, acceptance, respect, and personal happiness.  I’m not saying I know how to go about doing that.  All I can say is that I’m not going to finger point around this recent exchange with John and the resulting article.  I’m going to use what went on to try to be kinder and more understanding and more helpful to good, decent White people like John and, I suspect, the co-author of his article.

GOP Pledge: No More Talking About Trump

/3 Comments/in /by
GOP Pledge: No More Talking About Trump

The media are so desperate for Republicans to nominate Donald Trump that they’ve turned over 96.7% of their programming to covering him, with brief interruptions for Emmett Till updates. Like dogs playing a game of fetch for eternity, they never tire of rehashing Trump’s legal troubles, his behavior on Jan. 6 (which has now been more investigated than the Kennedy assassination), his payment to a stripper, his call to election officials in Georgia and on and on and on.

It has become clear that the media also plan to make the GOP presidential primaries entirely about Trump. Every Republican running for president is required to spend half of any interview answering questions about the former president. Even when they’re not saying anything at all about him, somehow the media make it about Trump.

E.g.:

Ron DeSantis gives a speech in South Carolina not mentioning Trump.

Headline: “Ron DeSantis says little about Trump indictment; decries unequal justice and ‘weaponization‘” — USA Today

Mike Pence announces he’s running for president.

Nikki Haley attacks Trump.

Headline: “Nikki Haley accused of ‘MAGA agenda’ after supporting abortion restrictions in town hall” — The Guardian

Candidates who aren’t talking about Trump are attacked for “enabling” him. MSNBC’s totally objective, nonpartisan anchor (and former Biden press secretary) Jen Psaki denounced Republicans on Monday, complaining that, unless they’re constantly berating him, “they are effectively enabling a guy who led an attempted coup. And for what? To maybe win a handful of delegates?”

Republicans, forget the pledge to support the party’s nominee. It’s pointless, irrelevant, stupid and openly defied, as it was in 2016 by Jeb! and John Kasich. The pledge we need candidates to take is this: We jointly refuse to answer any more questions about Trump. All of you, except Chris Christie.

Do you really think the media are trying to help you with this endless focus on Trump? They’re putting Republicans in a no-win situation: Either the candidates are forced to take an utterly indefensible position by defending Trump, or they’re required to write off the votes of all Trump supporters.

Democrats will never be asked to criticize any part of their coalition — and they’ve got a much crazier base than Republicans do. Why are Republicans held responsible for every nut on the right, while Democrats are allowed to skate on the core beliefs of their base?

Here are some questions Democratic candidates ought to be asked but never will be.

— Do White lives matter? Why did Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley have to apologize for saying “All lives matter” in 2016?

— What percentage of White people do you believe are racist? Should teachers and college professors who indoctrinate students to believe that all Whites are guilty of “systemic racism” keep their jobs?

— Did Joe Biden really believe that “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett was nearly lynched by White guys shouting, “This is MAGA country!” in the most affluent part of Chicago during a polar vortex? Did Kamala Harris believe it? Nancy Pelosi? Cory Booker? They said they did. Do you think such psychotic paranoia is, as liberals like to say, “normal”?

— If one unionized teacher could stay home while still being paid, but 10 children would die, which would you choose? The American Federation of Teachers, a major Democratic donor, relentlessly fought to keep schools closed throughout the pandemic. A Reuters study later found that the school closures led to a 43% rise in drug-related 911 calls for people aged 20 and younger.

— Should the police be defunded? If not, will you denounce left-wing “philanthropist” George Soros? A major source of dark money for Democratic causes, this sinister figure gave $35 million to anti-police activists in 2021. Last year, as the murder rate continued to soar, he pledged to give more.

— How about ICE? Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez campaigned on abolishing ICE. Other Democrats who support abolishing ICE include Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Kirsten Gillibrand. House Democrats have actually introduced legislation to abolish ICE.

— What is a woman? Do you think Biden’s Supreme Court pick, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, was lying when she claimed under oath not to know the answer to that question, or is she stupid?

— Should men be allowed in girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms and prisons? Should they compete in women’s sports? Should children be allowed to poison and mutilate themselves under the belief that they can change genders? Are Republican governors who ban these practices guilty of “hate” — as claimed by almost all Democrats? Do you agree with Biden that such measures are “ugly” attacks from “hysterical” and “prejudiced” people?

— If Blacks, Hispanics, Whites and Asians are not disciplined, arrested and imprisoned at their exact proportions in the population, is that proof of racism?

— Is it OK to be White? If so, will you call on liberal “hate watch” groups and college administrators across the nation to stop treating that phrase as “hate speech”?

— Should Al Sharpton be required to pay income taxes? This Democratic kingmaker has been a guest of President Biden’s at the White House at least twice, the Obama White House more than 72 times and has his ring kissed by any Democrat running for president.

The last time The New York Times investigated, about 10 years ago, Sharpton owed more than $4 million in income taxes.

While we’re on the subject, he’s also responsible for the Tawana Brawley hate hoax in 1987, and in the 1990s he helped gin up angry mobs in Crown Heights and at Freddy’s Fashion Mart in Harlem, which resulted in eight deaths.

True, that was a long time ago. Do you think if DeSantis had met with David Duke a really long time ago, the media would say, “no biggie”?

Democrats have won three national elections in a row by making them all about Trump. Unless the GOP is intent on committing suicide, their No. 1 objective has got to be preventing this from happening again. Every Republican candidate for president (except Chris Christie) has got to take this pledge. I promise not to answer any more questions about Trump. 

     COPYRIGHT 2023 ANN COULTER

Why do intellectuals support affirmative action?

/9 Comments/in , , /by

The Supreme Court’s ruling against affirmative action in college admissions met with dismayed, hostile and sarcastic reactions from intellectuals, meaning the media, academics and others who make a living out of conveying ideas to the public.[1] This was predictable, but why are they like this? Why do intellectuals support affirmative action?[2]

Many do so out of an attachment to the doctrine of essential racial equality, which tells them that the races are inherently the same. Seeing that they do not perform the same, and especially that Black people do considerably less well than others, they think that Black people’s performance must have been depressed by environmental factors such as their mistreatment by Whites. To make up for this, affirmative action is needed.

This is a poor rationale for affirmative action since there is nothing to suggest that the races are inherently the same, nor is there any evidence of the supposed mistreatment. To deal with the first problem, the intellectuals call anyone who points it out a racist. To deal with the second, they go back to the Jim Crow era or even to slavery, where mistreatment can be found, and say that the present generation is still affected, therefore it must be compensated. This argument also fails, if only because it is not just Black people whose ancestors were mistreated. Everyone probably has ancestors who were mistreated in one way or another, yet we do not seek to identify these long-dead individuals so that we can compensate their living descendants.

A second rationale refers to equal opportunities. These are weasel words, which on the intellectuals’ interpretation do not denote a requirement of justice. The intellectuals will argue that not all candidates sitting a given test have the same opportunity to pass it because some of them had to stay up all night looking after their sick mothers whereas others got a good night’s sleep. The tired ones are predominantly Black, they will find, therefore affirmative action must be taken. But justice does not require equal opportunities in this sense, which would be impossible to arrange. It requires equal treatment, which can easily be arranged by having all the candidates sit the test at the same time in the same hall with the same amount of time to complete it. No more elaborate concept of equal opportunities is needed.

A third rationale refers to the presumed value of racial diversity. Black students without the test scores needed to get into college must still go there, says this rationale, so that White students can benefit from their presence. This is just silly.

The urge of Whites to favour Blacks can be strong. The purpose of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to end racial discrimination in employment. To underline this, soon after the Act was passed, President Johnson issued an executive order stating that employees must be taken on and treated without regard to race. Before long, hiring goals for Blacks were being introduced, not only at the behest of organisations like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People but also by the Department of Labor itself.[3] Already in the 1920s it was customary for Black students at New York University to be marked two grades higher than Whites for a given level of work.[4]

On the day the Supreme Court announced its decision, Harvard officials sent a letter to the university community, which contained all the vagueness, evasion and general waste material that characterises politically correct language. It also invoked all three rationales for affirmative action mentioned above.[5] “Diversity and difference are essential to academic excellence”, it said. Diversity of what? Difference between what? If it meant diversity and difference of race, how can these help anyone attain academic excellence? Doesn’t Harvard know that academic excellence is attained by talent and hard work?

The letter stated that to prepare leaders for a complex world, “Harvard must admit and educate a student body whose members reflect, and have lived, multiple facets of human experience”. If one can live a facet of experience, what makes Harvard think that not enough of these facets would have been lived by a student body selected on merit? Black people might be especially unlikely to add to the total number of such facets since they are not known for being adventurous. How many of Harvard’s Blacks are likely to have climbed a mountain or even gone for a walk in the countryside? How many will have visited an art gallery or museum?

The letter went on to say that Harvard must be a place of opportunity, “whose doors remain open to those to whom they had long been closed”. Presumably by “those to whom they had long been closed” it meant Black people of the past to whom doors were closed because they were Black. Apparently Harvard finds the historical existence of such people a sufficient reason for letting in Black people who lack the qualifications required of the other races.

But affirmative action works, say the intellectuals, and point to their poster boys. An early one was Patrick Chavis, who in 1975 was among the first Black students to be admitted to medical school when had he been White he would have been rejected.[6] When he set up in practice after graduating, a journalist named Nicholas Lemann called him a living and breathing refutation of the claim that racial preferences favour unqualified Blacks over better-qualified Whites. How he thought that this had been refuted is a mystery since it is the very definition of affirmative action and its whole point. Anyway, misfortune struck Chavis when in 1997 his licence was suspended as he was deemed grossly negligent, incompetent and a danger to public health. He could not perform “some of the most basic duties required of a physician”. Two patients nearly died as a result of his botched operations; a third did. Presumably the intellectuals quietly took down that poster.

A famous beneficiary of affirmative action is Justice Clarence Thomas, who bitterly regrets accepting a place at Yale after clearing a specially lowered bar. The burden of being suspected of being less bright than his White peers is one that he had to bear for decades.

One person who escaped affirmative action is Anthony Brian Logan, who after growing up with drug addicts and criminals in his family worked tirelessly in various jobs before putting himself through a local college and starting up as a graphic designer. He went on to create a successful YouTube channel, where he puts out a video each day with excellent commentary on current affairs. In his opinion, Blacks who aspire to go to Harvard and are let in without the grades required of the other races are misguided. They find it hard to keep up and would have been better off at less well-known but perfectly adequate colleges that would not have treated them as special cases.

The fact that the intellectuals have no good argument for affirmative action does not diminish their support for it. For them it is not a matter of argument; it is a matter of fending off the thought that Black people are innately inferior to Whites, which would mean that they as Whites belonged to a superior race. To them this thought would be more than they could bear. They would see death camps on the way. Lifelong programming and continuing social pressure have prevented them from being able to see that relationships of superiority and inferiority are universal facts of life and nothing to be afraid of.

Another reason intellectuals might have for supporting affirmative action is that they believe in racial discrimination on principle. They do not share the general view that institutions should treat all alike without regard to race; they think they should have a favourite race and do all they can to benefit members of that race without a thought for the others. These are the anti-racists.

Yet another reason could be that the intellectuals want to avoid Black violence. After the Supreme Court decision, the commentator John Derbyshire wrote a piece saying three times that meritocratic college admissions were unacceptable.[7] His first justification for taking this view was a non sequitur: “The meritocratic option is unacceptable because of race differences in intelligence”. How do race differences in intelligence mean that colleges should not select applicants on merit? Derbyshire referred to a report which stated that if Harvard selected on merit, less than one per cent of its students would be Black. He didn’t say why this would be a problem.

His second justification was that if Harvard stopped favouring Black people — and he saw a loophole in the Supreme Court ruling that will let it continue doing this — “the oceans would boil and the earth would crash into the sun”. Perhaps by this he meant that if a serious attempt were made to abolish affirmative action, there would be an outcry, particularly on the part of Blacks, who might riot. We don’t want that, so colleges had better continue discriminating in their favour.

Going back to the intellectuals who passionately believe in essential racial equality, one might wonder who they are trying to benefit. They admit Black students to college on the basis that they have the intelligence that theoretically is in them but unrealised, which makes student populations look as they would do if things were as the intellectuals wished, then point to the results as though they proved that things really are this way. “Look at all these Black students!”, they say. “Who says Blacks aren’t as intelligent as Whites?” The point seems to be to allow them to perform a trick which they can then claim was no trick rather than try to help the Black students, who can only sink or swim with the intelligence at their disposal. Perhaps their passion comes from the struggle between the two sides of their double-think.

A final speculation is that contributing to these intellectuals’ inability to tolerate the thought of innate racial differences is the fact that they belong to a spoilt generation. They want the races to be the same; they don’t want to be superior. No one has ever told them that you can’t always have what you want.

[1] This use of the word “intellectuals” comes from Friedrich Hayek, 1998 (1949), The Intellectuals and Socialism, London: IEA Health and Welfare Unit, pp. 9-18.

[2] By “affirmative action” this article means discrimination in favour of Black people. It does not discuss discrimination in favour of Hispanics, women or other groups.

[3] Jared Taylor, 2004 (1992), Paved with Good Intentions, New Century Foundation, p. 126. The Executive Order was No. 11246.

[4] James Burnham, 1964, Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism, New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, p. 197.

[5] The letter is quoted in V-DARE, June 30th 2023, “Nobody Wants An 0.76 Percent Black Harvard. The Oceans Would Boil, The Earth Would Crash Into The Sun” by John Derbyshire, https://vdare.com/articles/john-derbyshire-nobody-wants-an-0-76-percent-Black-harvard-the-oceans-would-boil-the-earth-would-crash-into-the-sun.

[6] William McGowan, 2002, Coloring the News: How Political Correctness Has Corrupted American Journalism, San Francisco: Encounter Books.

[7] V-DARE, June 30th 2023, op cit.

Tom Sunic interviews Richard Lynn on Race and IQ

/6 Comments/in /by