Why Are the Left Pro-Crime?
I didn’t really understand what the Left’s lax attitude towards crime meant until I was in Berkeley in California last summer. In a branch of Target, anything which cost more than about 20 dollars could not simply be taken off the rack. It was locked onto it in order to prevent theft. You had to ask the shop assistant to remove it for you. This is because petty theft is effectively legal in California. The police are unlikely to investigate any theft of less than about 950 dollars.
I’d never been to California before, and once I realised this, it became clear why prices, such as in restaurants, were sky high compared to other parts of the US: the prices were an insurance policy against theft. Berkeley is a wealthy town, yet the moment I stepped outside my hotel, the stench of human urine and excrement was obvious. Vagrants lined the streets and played loud music in the public library, with nobody attempting to stop them. A fair few lived in tents on the campus of the University of California. Obviously high or drunk and almost certainly schizophrenic, they shouted at or otherwise intimidated passing students. In the Finnish town where I live, theft is practically unheard of and will be prosecuted, vagrancy in non-existent and people who are high in public will be arrested.
Why do the Woke permit criminality to flourish? Do they, somehow, enjoy intimidation on campus, the stench of human excreta and ludicrous prices in restaurants?
As I have discussed before, as pack animals, we have five Moral Foundations. Conservatives are more group-oriented than liberals. They are more concerned with the moral foundations of in-group loyalty, obedience to authority and sanctity, in contrast to disgust. The latter causes people to react with disgust to that which impacts the group or themselves in a negative manner, including an invasion of outsiders, but also to disease.
People who are left-wing are concerned with the individually-oriented moral foundations of harm avoidance and equality. These allow you, as an individual, to ascend the hierarchy of the group, which was once necessary in order to pass on your genes. By being concerned about harm, you can avoid harm to yourself. By being concerned about equality, you ensure that you get proportionately more of the resources in a species that is highly cooperative.
It is useful to be particularly concerned about these issues if you are at the bottom of the hierarchy and, also, if you are physically weak. They are a means of covertly playing for status. Signalling your concern with them allows you to seem kind and morally good and is, thus, a means, in a pro-social species, of covertly ascending the hierarchy. Overall, conservatives are also concerned with these individually-oriented foundations but liberals are not concerned with the group-oriented foundations. Unsurprisingly, virtue-signalling and signalling your victimhood are associated with being a selfish individualist, with being high in Narcissism and Machiavellianism, for example.
Once you are in a context where individualist foundations are the key Moral Foundations, then power-hungry types—leftists—will competitively signal their interest in these foundations. Runaway concern with harm avoidance means that we have to be concerned about the feelings of the criminal. His criminality is not his fault; it is surely the fault of harm done to him by an unfair and uncaring society (or the fault of his genes), so why should he be punished? In the case of property crime, this is, surely, at least partly the fault of “systemic inequality” against which the looter’s “crime” is a noble form of protest.
According to transwoman American author Vicky, formerly Willie, Osterweil “rioting and looting are our most powerful tools for dismantling white supremacy.” He argues in his book In Defense of Looting: A Riotous History of Uncivil Action that the actions of looters are morally right, presumably until they threaten Osterweil’s property or safety, as it is mostly those of low socioeconomic status who are the victims of such crimes. Thus, for the power hungry leftist, the problems I discussed earlier are a small price to pay for the high social status which such competitive Woke signalling may achieve.
And, for most of them, it is only a small price. Being pro-crime is what Rob Henderson has called a “luxury belief.” It is a belief via which you can signal your Woke credentials while not having to deal with the consequences of your belief. It is also a means of signalling your confidence and wealth: you will experience no difficulties as there is no crime in your area. As Henderson wrote in the New York Post: “In other words, upper-class whites gain status by talking about their high status. When laws are enacted to combat white privilege, it won’t be the privileged whites who are harmed. Poor whites will bear the brunt.”
Even littering and vandalising public property, such as with graffiti—made respectable in among elites by Leftist writer Norman Mailer in the 1970s—are means via which a criminal has been able to express his legitimate grievances. Accordingly, society should not be protected from “traditional criminals” and they should receive only the lightest of sentences, if they must be prosecuted at all. By contrast, people stating that “you cannot become a woman” are challenging “equality” and harming people’s feelings. These people are attacking the dogmas that hold society together and, thus, they must be severely punished.
It is possible that there is a vicarious dimension to why leftists support such criminality. The pleasure of breaking the law is, for some people, a matter of feeling “empowered,” of experiencing a “power rush.” However, the bourgeoisie leftists aren’t really interested in a new television or in daubing graffiti. They are, however, interested in power rushes and fantasies of revolution, specifically “anti-hierarchical aggression,” as research on them has demonstrated. They will identify with criminals and enjoy their criminality vicariously, despite not being criminal in nature themselves, because they want power, they want to overthrow the current power. However, being high in anxiety, as Leftists tend to be, few of them can bring themselves to actually personally break the law.
As I have explored in depth in my book Breeding the Human Herd: Eugenics, Dysgenics and the Future of the Species, anxiety is part of a broader personality trait known as Neuroticism. Being high on this trait means you have strong negative feelings. This means they are resentful, jealous and power-hungry, because they wish to control a world which induces anxiety in them. They hate that which has power; the current “unequal” hierarchy. They deal with their negative feelings via Narcissism; by telling themselves that they are morally superior due to their leftism. But being high in anxiety, they fear a fair fight, so they play for status covertly — in the way that females do — by virtue-signalling about equality and harm avoidance.
The eventual result takes you beyond anything you might experience in Berkeley. It takes you down the road, to Hyde Street in San Francisco, where drugged-up zombies rock back and forth and dance, where people openly take and deal drugs in broad daylight, where people live in the street in tents, and where the street must be hosed down every morning. This runaway individualism will continue until it actually seriously impacts wealthy Woke people and so ceases to be a “luxury belief.”
Samefacting Franz Boas – A Review of Charles King’s “Gods of the Upper Air”
Gods of the Upper Air: How a Circle of Renegade Anthropologists Reinvented Race, Sex, and Gender in the Twentieth Century
Charles King
Doubleday, 2019
The description of Charles King at Amazon:
CHARLES KING is the author of seven books, including Midnight at the Pera Palace and Odessa, winner of a National Jewish Book Award. His essays and articles have appeared in the The New York Times, The Washington Post, Foreign Affairs, and The New Republic. He is a professor of international affairs and government at Georgetown University.
We all know the scenario. We see a great cultural shift occurring before our eyes and seek to ascribe a reason. It’s only natural; man is a pattern seeking creature after all. Suppose we see this shift as a net negative and can’t help but notice how a disproportionate number of Jews are behind it. Well, then the Jews and their defenders will most likely respond in two ways: they will downplay the negative (or the Jewish role in it), and they will label their accuser an anti-Semite. On the other hand, if you describe the exact same cultural shift, but as a positive thing—and can’t help but notice all the Jews behind it—well, then you’re all right. The takeaway here is that telling the truth (or not) is less important than whether or not one offends Jews.
I call this phenomenon “samefacting,” and it occurred to me while reading Charles King’s 2019 book Gods of the Upper Air. While the dust jacket summary describes it as a “history of the birth of cultural anthropology,” and while it does emphasize the lives of many of its early gentile adherents (for example, Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, Ella Deloria, and Zora Neale Hurston), the book focuses most closely on Franz Boas, the German Jew who founded cultural anthropology as an academic discipline at Columbia University in the 1890s—and who planted the insidious seed of cultural relativism in the Western mind.
Because Kevin MacDonald dedicated a chapter in The Culture of Critique to Franz Boas and Boasian anthropology, readers of The Occidental Observer will want to know how much samefacting is going on between MacDonald and King. Answer: quite a bit.
For example, in chapter two of The Culture of Critique, MacDonald writes:
An important technique of the Boasian school was to cast doubt on general theories of human evolution, such as those implying developmental sequences, by emphasizing the vast diversity and chaotic minutiae of human behavior, as well as the relativism of standards of cultural evaluation. The Boasians argued that general theories of cultural evolution must await a detailed cataloguing of cultural diversity . . .
Just so, claims King:
Without homogenous, easily identifiable “races,” the entire edifice of racial hierarchy crumbled. “The difference between different types of man are, on the whole, small as compared to the range of variation in each type,” Boas concluded. Not only was there no bright line dividing one race from another, but the immense variation within racial categories called into question the utility of the concept itself.
These are same facts, after all. MacDonald and King agree on quite a bit about Franz Boas and his immense contributions to the field of Anthropology. They both recount Boas’ dissent from the prevailing belief that cultures evolve from savagery to barbarism to civilization—with, of course, Nordic Caucasians representing the apotheosis of this process. They both touch on Boas’ abrasive character, his authoritarian control over his students, his irrepressible vigor, and his overtly political and ideological objectives. King states that Boas “wore his political views on his sleeve,” while MacDonald states that Boas and his students were “intensely concerned with pushing an ideological agenda within the American anthropological profession.” They also agree on the cultish nature of the Boasian circle, with MacDonald noting its “high level of ingroup identification, exclusionary policies, and cohesiveness in pursuit of common interests.” For his part, King describes how Boas recruited new anthropologists “with a zeal approaching that of a nascent religion,” and how he excluded certain individuals from his circles, for example Ralph Linton, if they displeased him.
When Ralph Linton, a recently demobilized war veteran, showed up for his doctoral studies dressed in his military uniform, Boas berated him so strongly that Linton soon transferred to a rival program at Harvard. He would later complain that the “Jewish Ring” at Columbia had conspired to keep him down.
In Culture of Critique MacDonald essentially adopts Linton’s perspective in that it is no coincidence that so many of the Boasians were Jews. MacDonald also explicitly states what Linton in the quote above kept implicit—that Boasian behavior accorded with well-known stereotypes of Jews being clannish, stubborn, pushy, and subversive. Oddly, King never disagrees with this. He makes no secret that many of Boas’ students were Jews—in particular, Edward Sapir, Alexander Goldenweiser, Paul Radin, and Melville Herskovits. He portrays Boas at least as being pushy and stubborn. Of Boas’ time at the American Museum of Natural History in the 1890s, King writes
[Boas] had a habit of making himself more respected than liked. His time at the museum had produced new research and exhibitions but also disappointments, professional disagreements, and hurt feelings among his colleagues, who found him confident to a fault, officious, and given to pique.
Further, King describes on many pages how existentially subversive Boas was to the humanities throughout his career. He offers extensive and impeccable evidence of how Boas and his ideological progeny ultimately usurped the race-realists, the Darwinians and the eugenicists who dominated the social sciences at the time. This should come as no surprise, given the subtitle of the book: “How a Circle of Renegade Anthropologists Reinvented Race, Sex, and Gender in the Twentieth Century.”
As with other examples of samefacting, the primary difference is a qualitative one. King praises Boas and trumpets Boasian cultural relativism as a “user’s manual for life” meant to “enliven our moral sensibility.” Meanwhile, MacDonald criticizes Boas and condemns Boasian cultural relativism as scientifically unsound, ethically hypocritical, and ultimately destructive to white majorities since it is the lynchpin for arguments supporting mass immigration.
The question should be whether MacDonald or King is objectively correct—not whether either man likes or dislikes Jews. And a closer analysis of Gods of the Upper Air reveals that Charles King has a lot of work to do to catch up to Kevin MacDonald when it comes to the truth.
As would be expected, King’s book offers much biographical data on Boas. King is a first-rate writer, so if the reader can get past his left-wing biases (which, to be fair, he doesn’t beat anyone over the head with) then Gods of the Upper Air is an engrossing read. King dutifully covers Boas’ upbringing in Germany, his time as a young researcher in the Arctic among the Eskimos, his time as a family man and itinerant scholar in the United States, as well as his triumph at the Chicago World’s Columbian Exposition in 1893. King presents the intellectual zeitgeist of the day with a tolerably low level of slant, accurately recapitulating the arguments of race-realists like Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard and of eugenicists such as Henry Goddard and Charles Davenport. It’s as if he’s confident that such reactionary takes on the human condition will refute themselves. He’s evenhanded enough to humanize his villains. For example, he reminds the reader that Grant was a passionate conservationist who singlehandedly prevented the American bison from going extinct. King also does a splendid job in depicting America at the turn of the last century, a time now gone from living memory.
When setting the stage for the 1893 Chicago Exposition, King offers up this delightful little passage:
The Midway Plaisance featured exhibits on the peculiar ways of the world’s peoples, from a Bedouin encampment to a Viennese café, most of them thin disguises for hawkers of merchandize and cheap entertainment. An entire building was devoted solely to the lives and progress of women, while others highlighted advances in agriculture, electrification, and the plastic arts. A new fastener called a zipper made its debut over the six months of the fair’s operation, as did a chewable gum labeled Juicy Fruit, a tall circular ride presented by a Mr. Ferris, a prize-winning beer offered by the Pabst family, and a breakfast dish with the rather confusing name Cream of Wheat.
The flaws of Gods of the Upper Air become manifest as much for what King doesn’t write as for what he does. Boasian cheerleading aside, King basically commits the same sin Stephen Jay Gould committed in his infamous 1981 work The Mismeasure of Man: he’s content to refute race realism as it was a century ago but not how it is today, or even as it was fifty years ago. Further, he cherry picks some of the more egregious mistakes made by race-realist pioneers with their calipers and head measurements and outlandish classification schemes (for example, “Dolichocephalic Nordics” and “Brachycephalic Alpines”). With the confidence of momentum, King then feels he can safely claim that “[h]ow we define intelligence is the result of a social process, not a biological one.” Never once does he mention the research of Arthur Jensen or J. Phillipe Rushton or the mountain of data proving race-realism to be correct—just as he keeps mum about Kevin MacDonald. To mention any of this would require more refutation than Charles King is prepared (or could ever be prepared) to do. So, he chooses to ignore counter-argument and pretend that he and Franz Boas are comfortably on the right side of history—which they are not, because they are wrong.
King is also blind to the central Boasian contradiction (some would say double standard) which requires unreasonably vigorous standards when proving human differences and almost no standards at all when attesting to human sameness. Numerous times, King describes how Boas demanded that his students never jump to conclusions before assessing evidence. At the same time, however, King happily repeats such glib and unproven egalitarian mantras from Boas such as “Cultures are many; man is one.”
It’s about as cowardly as it is dishonest.
Another dishonorable aspect of Gods of the Upper Air is King’s kid-glove treatment of Boas’ star pupil Margaret Mead. King is not so ham-fisted as to portray her as some genius-level forward-thinking visionary, but his sympathetic take on her does come close at times. On page one of the book he describes this interesting and mysterious young woman as having “left behind a husband in New York, a boyfriend in Chicago, and had spent the transcontinental train ride in the arms of a woman.” These are good things, apparently. Mead, who never seemed to take to sexual discipline, learned the term “polygamy” in anthropology class one day, and then dedicated her life to making the Western world less sexually repressive, possibly so she could engage in the practice herself. And she did this by holding up sexually permissive Third World societies as examples. This amounted to solving the “sex problem,” as she called it—even if the societies she fetishized were in reality not as sexually permissive as she claimed. If this sounds sordid, that’s because it was. King doesn’t help matters by delving into the petty social sniping that Mead and her circle constantly engaged in. Sapir, for example, had been Mead’s lover for a time, and never seemed to overcome being spurned by her. He would constantly dismiss her work to their colleagues, and at one point suggested she be fully institutionalized. In 1933, Mead even formed a triangle between her husband Reo Fortune and her lover Gregory Bateson (both anthropologists) while all three were on site in Melanesia. She and Fortune would argue bitterly, even violently. Alcohol, for Fortune at least, was a major component.
Say what you want about Franz Boas, but according to King he was the paragon of class compared to this.
Mead was disciplined enough to work in the field and write about it. She was smart, serious, and prolific. She deserves credit for that. But, given the historical record, King simply cannot get around the woman’s perverse fixation on sex:
Mead, too, wanted to know about people’s lives: how they thought about childhood and aging, what it meant to be an adult, what they thought of as sexual pleasure, whom they loved, when they felt the sting of public humiliation or the gnawing sickness of private shame.
What he does get around to—somewhat—is Mead’s shoddy scholarship. When doing research for her first book Coming of Age in Samoa in 1925, Mead decided to leave the village of Pago Pago on the island of Tutuila because it had been “corrupted” by the influence of Christian missionaries and the American military. She traveled to the more remote island of Ta’u to continue her research. There she occupied a room in the home of an American family. This is how King describes the experience:
She had worried that this might not constitute real fieldwork. As she wrote to Boas, she was torn between the desire to live like a native and the need to have enough quiet time to write notes and reflect on her experiences, something that would have been difficult in an open-sided, communal Samoan house.
She might have been doing anthropology from the veranda—her room consisted of half of the Holts’ back porch, screened off by a thin bamboo barrier—but she was never short of informants. Children and teenagers flocked to her for conversation and impromptu dance parties, arriving as early as five in the morning and staying until midnight.
Later, after a flash of insight which suggested that primitive societies are not as ritualistic as previously believed, she began to question children and teens about sexual practices, including their own. She then claimed to have learned that sex in Samoa was no big deal compared to how it was in the United States. Samoan kids did not seem to suffer the same growing pains as adolescents did where Mead was from. Thus, Mead came to her grand conclusion about the struggles of youth: “The stress is in the civilization, not in the physical changes through which our children pass.” Thusly, nurture surpasses nature.
Now, I am by no means an expert in the history of anthropology, but having read this I knew something was amiss. Yes, King admits that Coming of Age in Samoa “was full of bravado and overstatement, loose argument, and occasionally purple writing—very much like every other work of anthropology written at the time.” He quibbles about Mead’s small sample size and mentions how many Samoans themselves were displeased with Mead’s portrayal of them. But wasn’t there more? I remembered reading that Mead had done some shady things while in Samoa. Sure enough, three volumes in my library (including The Culture of Critique) recounted some of Mead’s less than scholarly practices.
Steven Goldberg in his 1993 work Why Men Rule (the original edition of which, in the 1970s, Margaret Mead herself reviewed), provides an example of how Mead’s conclusions do not follow from her data. Further, Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson recall in their 1996 work Demonic Males how Mead left Pago Pago not because it “had little left to offer,” as King puts it, but because of (as Mead herself describes in a letter to Boas) the “nervewracking conditions of living with half a dozen people in a house without walls, always sitting on the floor and sleeping in the constant expectation of having a pig or chicken thrust itself upon one’s notice.” Mead had spent ten days in a Samoan household in Pago Pago and decided that that was enough.
King is dishonest for not mentioning this. He is dishonest for not mentioning how police reports from Samoa from the time of Mead’s visit contradict many of her rosy conclusions on sexual violence. He is dishonest also for not mentioning how Mead rarely included primitive war-making or violence (sexual or otherwise) in her analyses. (MacDonald bangs this point home nicely in Culture of Critique.) Finally, King is quite sneaky when he downplays Derek Freeman’s withering criticisms of Mead in a footnote on page 368 rather than in the body of his text.
As for samefacting Franz Boas along the MacDonald-King divide, I found one exception. In Culture of Critique, MacDonald writes that Boas “was deeply alienated from and hostile towards gentile culture, particularly the cultural ideal of the Prussian aristocracy.” As usual, he lists his sources right there on the page (George W. Stocking’s Race, Evolution, and Culture from 1968 and Carl Deglers’ In Search of Human Nature from 1991). Yet, in the early 1880s, when a young Boas had just left Germany on a ship bound for the Arctic where he would do his first anthropological research, he wrote in his diary, “Farewell, my dear homeland! Dear homeland, adieu!” This may not mean much, but I did find it surprising. Perhaps Boas became more alienated as he grew older. King certainly doesn’t report any general animosity from Boas towards gentile culture—but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t any. In Gods of the Upper Air, Boas reserved most of his ire for anyone supporting biological determinism, or who annoyed him personally.
Either way, however, this does lead us to the only episode in Gods of the Upper Air in which Franz Boas is portrayed sympathetically. During the years before America’s entry into the First World War, he was vocally in favor of Germany and against American intervention. Although I don’t challenge Boas’ Jewish identity making up a big part of his character, I wonder if his Jewishness had anything to do with his ardent pro-German stance in 1916. King seems to believe this came as result of Boas’ natural affinity towards his country of birth—which does somewhat challenge MacDonald’s interpretation above. Further, Boas did walk it like he talked it, and suffered major career setbacks after the war for his unpopular, and some would say treasonous, opinions.
Still, it can be argued that Boas’ support for Germany hinged much more on the relatively high degree of emancipation German Jews enjoyed at the time than for anything inherent about Germans or Germany. This would explain why the Germanistic Society of America (for which Boas was secretary at one point) contained so many influential and ethnocentric Jews as members—Jews such as the future Soviet financier Jacob Schiff. Boas’ support for Germany could also be explained by German antagonism toward Czarist Russia during the war. As MacDonald writes in an ongoing revision of Culture of Critique:
It is sometimes argued that a letter from 1916 decrying criticism of Germany during World War I shows the predominance of Boas’s German identity. However, it should be pointed out that by far the most prominent attitude of Diaspora Jewish communities was to oppose Czarist Russia because of its perceived anti-Semitism and thus support the German war effort. For example, immigrant Jews in the U.K. overwhelmingly refused to be drafted into military service because Germany was fighting Russia.
Regardless, this may be the exception that proves the rule. In many ways Kevin MacDonald’s chapter on Franz Boas in The Culture of Critique reads like a condensed version of the Boas chapters in Gods of the Upper Air. The facts are the same—but as it often is with the Jews, it is how you say them that makes all the difference.
Michael Moore: Jews should fight White Christians, not Hamas
It’s paradigmatic of White European self-hate—much more empathy for people who are unrelated and with totally non-Western values and traditions than with their own people, and completely duped by the Jewish propaganda about the history of anti-Semitism where the main story is legitimate conflicts of interest on the part of the Christians.
The clueless Michael Moore doesn’t seem to realize that Jews are fighting a two-front war in the Middle East and against Christianity. They have regarded White Christians as the enemy for well over a millennia. Now that they are in power in all Western countries, they are well on their way to completely destroying their enemy—as they are doing to the Palestinians. And if they get absolute power, as they did during the 1920s and ’30s in Russia when 20–30 million White Christians were murdered , the results will be catastrophic.
Michael Moore tells Israel to stop fighting Hamas, demands Jews focus on fighting white Christians instead because of the Spanish Inquisition. pic.twitter.com/m2MJXBz7G0
— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) March 4, 2024
The Tucker Carlson Encounter: Xi Van Fleet
The main point of this interview with a Chinese woman who immigrated to the U.S. in the 1980s is important because of the obvious parallels between the Chinese cultural revolution and the revolution we are now experiencing. After describing her experiences during the Chinese Maoist cultural revolution, she begins to describe these parallels at around 00:16:00. Besides the incessant crude propaganda and encouraging people to denounce their neighbors, there were “struggle sessions” where dissenters from doctrinal orthodoxy faced severe penalties, including death. So far the penalties for being a dissenter do not include death, but Tucker compares the phenomenon to his “Racist White Ladies” video in which White women are pressured into abject apologies for being White. Obviously, there are quite a few similarities with our current cultural revolution.
Xi van Fleet and Tucker are quite aware of how such cultural revolutions begin. It’s almost always a top-down process. True here and true in Maoist China.
Tucker Maybe another similarity is that the people who are screaming about privilege, themselves have the most privilege. Right. I mean, so the people leading the struggle sessions were obviously more privileged in the people being interrogated. Correct?
Xi Van Fleet In most revolutions, you can see who started it. It’s usually the elite. Mao was from a rich family. All his comrades are from rich families. Only people from rich families had the time to entertain how to start a revolution? Exactly the same. And then they turned the people against the other elite. [In the case of the U.S., this new elite is entirely in sync with Jewish interests and it turned the people against former elite centered in East Coast WASPdom.] And that is always the case. Because they want people to fight against each other and that’s how they control them. [Or, in the case of the U.S., to render the formerly dominant White population powerless.]
Paywalled video of the interview.
The Cultural Revolution is here. Just ask Xi Van Fleet. She’s lived it twice.
Tucker Shortly after George Floyd died, Memorial Day weekend 2020, people began to say what was happening in the United States bore some resemblance to what happened in China 50 years ago the Cultural Revolution with Red guards and struggle sessions, public humiliations, public atonement, a kind of secular frenzy that looked very much like a hate centered religious right. The Cultural Revolution. But what’s that overstatement? Well, Xi Van Fleet has seen both. She’s Chinese. She was seven years old in 1966, when the Cultural Revolution started, and 17 when it ended with Mao’s death in 1976. And along the way, she became one of its victims. She moved to this country, to Kentucky in 1986, and she’s been here ever since. So she has seen both revolutions firsthand, and she’s written a new book comparing them with the warning. It’s called Mao’s America, and we’re grateful to have her XI Van Fleet in the studio with us now. Xi thanks so much for coming on.
Xi Van Fleet Thank you. This is some unbelievable that I’m here with you.
Tucker Oh, I’m so grateful. You are so you were seven years old when the Cultural Revolution started. The equivalent first grade. What was the moment you realized something strange and important was happening in China?
Xi Van Fleet Yes. To me my memory is it happened overnight and overnight. I just noticed there’s a lot of what’s called big character posters everywhere. It’s just big pieces of paper and with, words written in very large letters so everyone can read it from distance. Kind of like today’s social media.
Tucker Crude propaganda.
Xi Van Fleet Yes. It’s really, the, posters, really of people, denouncing others. In my school, I remember it’s, the papers were denouncing, administrators or teachers, and it’s overnight and it’s just everywhere and in the cafeteria, because that’s the only place that I walk that’s indoor. And it just from my ceiling, from the, floor to the ceiling. And it’s, class, stopped. And so one day I went to the classroom and I saw, note on the blackboard, no class for three days. And that three days lasted for two years.
Tucker Two years, two years.
Xi Van Fleet No school. Because this school was, like all the other institutions, was shut down by the Red guards and the Red guards. And I think nowadays more and more Americans are familiar with that. And Red Guards with the kids from elementary school, two universities. So they took over the country. So there’s no school for two years. So what I, what did we do as a kid? We went to the street, so every day we went to the street. We watched the Cultural Revolution unfolding. And that is struggle stations. Parade of those people who were denounced. And eventually become violence.
Tucker So it was young people aiming their rage at the behest, in the direction of the central government of Mao, against not foreigners who threaten China, but it against against Chinese, against your own people?
Xi Van Fleet Yes. And it is difficult even for me to understand. And it took me a long time to understand what that cultural revolution was about. It is a revolution that Mao launched against CCP, against his own party, against his own government. Why? Because he thought he was losing influence. He thought he was no longer had absolute power. So it’s really a power struggle. And this time, he did not use the armies. He did not have to. He had tens of millions of young people that they have indoctrinated in the government school for the past 17 years. They’re ready to go. Just give them a call. Say you are now mobilized to defend the, to defend Mao and to defend communism. And that’s what, the, how they got the, kids all involved. And, they’re familiar to Americans now. They dismantled the, criminal justice system. No police.
Tucker Really?
Xi Van Fleet Just like a defund police. So the Red guards could do anything through no consequences. And eventually they start to kill. Kill their teachers, kill their principals, and they kill millions of people.
Tucker Did, I mean, the normal people who are watching this, your family I assume. Did anybody say anything about it?
Xi Van Fleet Nobody can say anything. Just like here. Because Mao openly supported them, and Mao had, eight, rallies to meet the Red Guards in Tiananmen square eight times to declare that the. He was their red commander in chief. And those are his little Red Guards.
Tucker So there’s no dissent at all, at all. And things just get progressively crazier and crazier and crazier. Do people think that this was going to stop?
Xi Van Fleet No one knows. And I remember that in the first. And it started it was somewhat peaceful because all they did was destroy the, the past. And in most words, it’s the four olds: Old ideas, old culture, old custom and old habits. Get rid of them all that include, destroy all the statues. The statues. Mostly in Buddhist statues, Christian statues. Everything has to come down. And everything that is old has to be destroyed. So when they finish with the public, spaces, they went to people’s homes. And I witness the Red Guards went to people’s homes, took everything they thought was old. All this bad. Old is something that need to be. Get rid of including furniture, people’s old photos, everything. Because the goal is to get rid of the past, we can replace it with the pure Maoism.
Tucker I remember reading about the culture revolution years ago, reading a biography of Mao, and was so struck by how much Mao hated the Chinese, hated the country, hated the history, hated the culture, and yet he was in charge of the country and thought, that’s very strange.
Xi Van Fleet So we were taught that the Mao was our savior. Yes. And we’ll have songs saying that he was our savior. He made it possible for us to have a better life. Why? Because he removed this three bit mountains that had been suppressed. And Chinese people that they imperialism, the old feudalism and the, well, capitalism. He removed them all. That’s why we could have such happy life. So, no, no, no, we never thought that. That he hate us. No. He did. But we were told we should be so grateful. And he was our not only savior during the Cultural Revolution, he really became our God.
Tucker Was there a, do you remember the moment that the Red Guard went from carrying slogans and yelling at people, humiliating them to the point where they went to killing people? Did that seem were you shocked by that?
Xi Van Fleet Were people shocked when actually it started about the same time, because the only, in the very beginning, it only started on campuses and and Canning started as early as August of 1966, a few months after the Cultural Revolution. The first killing took place in the very prestigious middle school for girls. They bunch of girls, young girls as young as 12 and old as 16. They beat, tortured and killed their principal. That was in August 1966, and I was, elementary school, student. So in my school I do not see killing, but I did see attacks by the kids. And one of the things I remember so vividly is a teacher. She is, she is, a pretty good teacher, and she usually will dress kind of nicely. And that’s considered a persona. So the, the kids. Followed her call her names. Eventually this surrounded her and spit on her. So after a while she was covered with spit from head to toe, and that was considered mild because she was not hurt, physically. The same time we heard caning happened in middle school, especially universities. But the police were told to stay away from campuses, and if the Red guards hit them, they are not allowed to hit back, just like here.
Tucker So what happened to you as you got older during this period?
Xi Van Fleet So the violence of the red guard movement. Lasted until 1969. By then all the power was taken down by the Red Guards for Mao so basically, the all the institutions, all paralyzed, there’s no one in charge. So they thought, okay, now it’s time for us to get some power. And then they start to fight each other for power. And that’s when it’s getting really, really violent. It become almost like a civil war. They raided the military, institute. They raided the ministry places and got a real weapon before it was just sticks and stones and rocks, and now it’s a real weapon. And they started to kill each other.
Tucker The different Red Guard factions.
Xi Van Fleet Factions, because they thought, now it’s time for now for us to get power. And then you. Exactly the faction. It got so bad that tanks were deployed in cities where there’s a lot of defense factory, and that’s not that far from where I live. And. And it was not safe by then for us to go to the street. One day, a stray bullet landed under our window when we were have dinner. So it was. And it was so bad that one day I described in my book that we were outside and we heard this really awful Chinese funeral music. And then the words came back that they have a cop parade. So it’s one faction of the Red guards try to gain public, sympathy. So they had the people that were killed by the other faction on the parade. That was the time that Mao got rid of them.
Tucker So they basically they were his creation. He gave them all this power. Yes, to consolidate his own. But once they became a threat to him, he did what he suppressed.
Xi Van Fleet Yeah. So the military to suppress them. So they, we don’t know the number, the real number. But he killed tens of thousands of Red Guards, and then eventually he got them together, the leaders, and said, you disappointed me. And then, just like that, the whole movement was dismantled, and they all sent to the countryside, many of them sent to the virgin land like a gulags. To be reeducated through physical labor. And that’s how you become real communists. You can’t just do the, what you did in the city. You have to be, really go through hard labor to become real communist and off the go. And a from 1969 from that time on, all city kids from high school were sent to the countryside. And when I graduated from high school, in 1975, I was to send to the countryside and doing the physical, labor that was very primitive. And I stayed there for three years after Mao died and after ten shopping re-opened universities. That’s how I could go to college to study.
Tucker What did you do in the countryside?
Xi Van Fleet Yeah. That is not a farm. So a lot of people think about the countryside. To think about farm? No.
Tucker Yeah. Countryside here is a good thing.
Xi Van Fleet Yeah. No, no it’s, a commune. Every. A rural area was arranged or organized as coming on campus collective forming. So in the commune there are a lot of production teams and so it’s all run by the CCP. So what I did is every day we would gather in the a meeting place of the production team, and the leader would tell us what to do. So we do the work and we get a point. And then in the harvest time, you use the point to get some, produce grain or potato or whatever.
Tucker To get food?
Xi Van Fleet To get food. Yeah. So I not only experienced and witnessed the whole Cultural Revolution, I also get three years work in the field and get to know how peasant did. Those peasants put Mao in power. He mobilized the whole peasantry and promised them free land. They put them in power after the revolution succeeded in 1949, the peasants, the same people that put him into power, found them in the very bottom of the society, and they were the ones that could not leave their land because…it’s called a hokou. It’s like a household registration system. So they become serfs. They just really live the life of the poorest. Kind of, in a way, I’m glad I get a chance to be with them and to know that this is communism. This is socialism, supposedly to liberate them from the oppression of the oppressors. And they they end up way more worse off than before. And during the famine in 1959 to 1962, up to 50 million of them starve to death. The peasants.
Tucker 50 million.
Xi Van Fleet 50 million.
Tucker Unbelievable. So you’re there three years, so you’re there from ’75 to ’78, and then eight years later, you’re in the United States. How did you get here and why did you come here?
Xi Van Fleet So I was so lucky that I was able to go to college at the age of 19, which is still not because I was sent to the countryside when I was only 16. So after I got my degree, I was given a job. You don’t just get a job. You were given a job. So I was given the job to teach in the teacher’s college. And, in the early 80s, more and more Americans, come to China to volunteer to teach during the summer. So there I met a wonderful lady. Her name is Pat. We became friends. And she wanted to help me to come to America. And so, true to her words, she did help me. She got assistantship for me and she sponsored me in 1986. I never dreamed that would happen to me. And I got my visa and I was on my way to America.
Tucker Amazing. And you went to Kentucky.
Xi Van Fleet Kentucky. Western Kentucky University.
Tucker So you lived here. You married an American. You lived in this country, it sounds happily from, let’s just say ’86 to 2020. George Floyd gets killed and all of a sudden, in a day, the country changes. What did you notice about those early days, late May, early June 2020, and what did it make you think as you watched it?
Xi Van Fleet It’s a long time coming because I start to notice things earlier, even as early as 1990s. And I remember in a class that I took and it’s about special education when the the act of American Disability…
Tucker The ADA. Disabilities, 1990-91.
Xi Van Fleet Yeah. Something like that. Yeah. And the teacher was telling us, you know, now, you know, that they are protected and, as, teachers, that we should… I just took the class, but there are others that are special ed teachers that we should be very, very respectful. And we should never say blind. We should say people with vision…Impaired vision, something like that. I don’t even remember. And I was so impressed. I said Americans are the nicest people, they tried, you know, to be nice and not, you know, not hurt people’s feelings. And now we know right during the process and we were taught, you can’t say vision impaired. Now it’s something different. And now you know what? What’s the correct way to call those people? Blind? Blind? Yeah, according to Stanford. Now, that is the correct way. So that just remind me of the Cultural Revolution, that there was only one correct way of thinking, of talking. And if you don’t do it, you’ll get into trouble. So I just noticed.
Tucker So when the language started changing and people announced that, you know, from here on out, we’re calling x, y we’re calling, I don’t know, Peking, Beijing or the Orient, Asia or whatever, the blind visually impaired that reminded you of the Cultural Revolution
Xi Van Fleet A little bit. I’m just saying, if you ask me what I noticed. Yeah, that was something I noticed because I noticed later. You can’t say that. You can’t. There are so many things you can’t say or you have to say differently. And who will tell you? The authority will tell you that’s the correct way of saying things. And that’s correct way of thinking. Okay, but still, I did not lose my sleep over those things. And until later. And in my book, I did say Trent Lott probably is the person that came to my mind that can really pin down the moment I really say this is kind of really like cultural revolution. I don’t even know the story. Whatever. He was called a racist because he said something. I said, that really sounds like Cultural Revolution. You say something and your life is over.
Tucker Trent Lott was a Republican Senator from Mississippi who went to the funeral of the longest serving Republican senator from South Carolina, Strom Thurmond, and praised him at his funeral. And for that, he was –
Xi Van Fleet Forced to resign. Right? Yeah. And that really made an impression on me. I think that’s just like cultural revolution. And things go from bad to worse. And it was way before 2020 that I know that things really, really going wrong. Because in the workplace, I was invited to be a member of DEI. Back then it was DEI: Diversity and Inclusion Council, and I notice every member has an identity there. And I just realize this is not really about making people work together or how people work together. It’s more like political identity. But things, you know, got so much bad in the, 2020 when I saw the Antifa and BLM burning our cities, I said, this is no longer some kind of troubling sign here. This is a full blown Marxist revolution. This is exactly what I noticed, or what I witnessed during a cultural revolution. So I said I got to do something. I have to get involved one way or the other. And that’s the end of 2020. I got involved with the Loudon County Republican Committee. And after that, and now we get emails and, you know, ask us to go to school board. And, I was never, never involved politically to go and give a public speech. It was just intimidating to me. But I got so much support from the members. I said, I don’t even have children in school at that time. They said it doesn’t matter. We’re all taxpayers. And you should go there and voice your opinion. So I said, okay, okay.
Xi at school board meeting I’ve been very alarmed about what’s going on in our school. You’re now teaching, training our children to be social justice warriors and to loathe our country and our history. Growing up in Mao’s China, all this seems very familiar. The communist regime used the same critical theories to divide people. The only difference is they use class instead of race.
Xi Van Fleet And back then, you know, you had to wear a mask. I said, thank God I have to wear a mask and I can cover, you know, hide myself. So I went there and I did that, and I have no clue. I have no clue. What happened after that?
Tucker Well, I have to say, one of the features, just as a foreigner reading about it of the Cultural Revolution that’s always struck with me is the mass hysteria. Rational people becoming irrational, people going crazy, getting caught up in this frenzy and really believing things that are absurd. I want to show you a piece of tape from the United States. This is after George Floyd’s drug overdose death. And this is a table of affluent white ladies who have paid money to be told they’re racist. And I just want to get your view of this. Watch this.
Women (soundbite) Actually, Margaret, you didn’t say yours. What? Your racist thing. The thing that you’ve done, thought about or done. You have something inside of you that’s not quite — like that’s racist. So you must have you examples in your own life. Well, I also work in environmental engineering. I have absolutely no people of color or minimal people of color, possibly with the exclusion of being slightly Hispanic.
Narrator (soundbite) Saira doesn’t like her attitude.
Women (soundbite) I can say a racist thing you’ve done because it just happened when you just talked to me the way you just did. This is how white women talk to us all the time. These are microaggressions. When I say the exact same thing to my white girlfriend who says the same exact thing. I don’t care if you talk to everybody like that. The way you just spoke to me was straight up white supremacy. You actually just answered with racism.
Narrator (soundbite) White supremacy is said to be hidden in innocuous phrases and banal behavior. The smallest things could be considered racist. It’s enough that a person from a minority group feels insulted.
Woman (soundbite) Sounding terribly white. I don’t know that I was all that racist to start with, but I also will be more aware or hyper aware of my thoughts or reactions to circumstances that would be racist.
Tucker So here we have privileged white ladies being barked at by even more privileged nonwhite ladies about their sins, and the white ladies are loving it. What is that?
Xi Van Fleet That’s a struggle session. Yeah, and that’s something that everyone have to go through. During the Cultural Revolution, in the very beginning, that was those in power that was taken down by the Red Guards that were struggled against in the so-called struggle session. That was brutal. Some of them were killed right there in the public trial, but everyone have to go through the gentler form of struggle session, and that’s called criticism and self criticism. So as kids, we all have that kind of a struggle session every week. And we all sit together and after, you know, referring some of Mao’s quotes and we will, criticize self. You really start with yourself. And you would say, and I did this and that, not quite up to the requirement by Mao’s instruction. And and I still have this bourgeois influence in me. And then everyone will join and say, yes, you’re right. You did this and this that day. You said, this is this, that day. And then we go around. So we struggle against others and we against ourselves. So to get rid of every little incorrect thought from our mind. That’s what it is.
Tucker So China is, I mean, overwhelmingly Han Chinese. So you’re not going to have racial lines in a country that’s got one race. But if you take the race stuff out, white supremacy, it’s identical.
Xi Van Fleet Identity politics. That’s exactly what it is. In China, it started with class. Yes. And they divide the whole population into two classes: red class and the black class. And you can figure out pretty much what it means. Red, the correct class. And the black is the incorrect class. Those are the property owners, landlords or people with bourgeois worldview. They’re all black class, so they are the enemy of the state. We all look alike, right? But that’s how China was divided, by Mao. And I’m talking about identity. It’s not something, you know, just say, okay, I’m black class. No, you are black class and that is your identity. And that is required in every government document. Just like here, race, you have to figure out. You have to figure out what your race, what your race is there. You have to fill out what your class is, and then you passed it on to your children and your children’s children, and you will forever be the enemy of the state. And here we still have class. You know, Bernie Sanders still talk about 1% versus 99%. But race is the most potent way to divide America. And that’s just exactly the same thing that happened in China.
Tucker Maybe another similarity is that the people who are screaming about privilege, themselves have the most privilege. Right. I mean, so the people leading the struggle sessions were obviously more privileged in the people being interrogated. Correct?
Xi Van Fleet It’s in the revolution. Most of the revolution, you can see who started. It’s usually the elite. Mao was from a rich family. All his comrades are from rich families. Only people from rich families had the time to entertain how to start a revolution? Exactly the same. And then they turned the people against the other elite. And that is always the case. Because they want people to fight against each other and that’s how they control them.
Tucker So as you’re starting to notice these things, do you tell your husband who’s American, your children are born here, your friends who are American — do you say, wow, this looks like what I grew up with? Do you tell anybody that?
Xi Van Fleet That is a mistake I’ve made that for a long, long time I never really talk much about my past. Yes, because I want to forget it myself. It’s unpleasant, it’s awful. And no, I haven’t share a lot of the stories with my family and with my colleagues. A lot of them say oh, she had such an interesting story because it’s awful things that you want to forget. And that is the mistake that I made. And that is the mistake the conservatives made. They never really fight for the schools to teach the horror of communism. People don’t know. People have no idea. And, when I went to that school board and given that speech. I think a lot of them have probably the first time heard such a thing as culture revolution. Yes, that’s why that’s, I say, when we people like me who live through communism, we sort through it right away. The Americans have no clue. That’s why they don’t realize what was happening here in 2020. And what’s happening now is communists take over. I mean, there’s no doubt about it. It is communist takeover.
Tucker When you say that to Americans, how do they respond?
Xi Van Fleet I think more and more started to see it. But many told me they never. They don’t know anything about Cultural Revolution. They know very little about communism. They thought communism was defeated. Berlin Wall was torn down. It’s over. And. I think that’s the mistake the conservatives made.
Tucker Tell us about your speech at the Loudoun event.
Xi Van Fleet It’s only one minute. And. So the only thing I can say is that what’s happening in our schools and how you push the CRT, just to me, is just a repeat of the Cultural Revolution. During the Cultural Revolution, I witnessed students and teachers turned against each other. We changed school names to be politically correct. We were taught to denounce our heritage. The Red Guards destroy anything that is not communist. Statues, books and anything else. And we were also encouraged you to report on each other, just like the, student equity ambassador program and the bias reporting system. This is indeed the American version of the Chinese communist, the Chinese cultural revolution. The critical race theory has its roots in cultural Marxism. It should have no place in our schools.
Tucker What kind of response did you get?
Xi Van Fleet Well people applaud. And then my minute was over and I was just, you know, I really I just left the meeting and, because I took time off my work, I have to go back and make up the time. So I thought everyone knew it. Cultural revolution. Who doesn’t? Well, then I got calls later and the people want to interview. And I realized, my God, people just don’t know. Americans do not know.
Tucker And why don’t you think? Why don’t they know?
Xi Van Fleet I think it’s on purpose. That is absolutely to me. I’m convinced it’s on purpose. They do not want to teach communism, and they do not teach the horror or the history of communism, because those they can control. They are Marxists. They want to use the same tactics. To gain power. That’s why it’s not taught. It’s not taught at all. And as later from my Twitter followers and I see comments like in school we learned slavery and everyone knows slavery. Everyone knows, Nazi Germany. We’re never taught communism. And that’s why people don’t know what’s going on today.
Tucker Yeah, because they know that history has been withheld from them.
Xi Van Fleet Yes.
Tucker Do you notice similarities in, between, Mao’s attempt to destroy Chinese culture, history, language and our government’s attempt to hide our history and change our historys, lie about our history to the populace.
Xi Van Fleet That’s exactly the same thing. History is so important. And as we know that whoever controls the present, controls the past. And whoever controls the past, controls the future. That’s what our CCP did when they took over China in 1949. They totally took over the educational system. They remade the curriculum. But what they really put their energy and focus on is to rewrite history. So the history that I learned, and even today I have to get rid of all this misinformation that I’ve received as a, as a schoolgirl and later on in college. All fictional. Absolutely fictional. And that. But that that’s how they control you. And you believe, just as I said earlier, you believe that Communist, the CCP is our savior. Mao is our savior to, to save us, to liberate us. Now, we heard that word, too. To liberate us from the oppression of those, you know, imperialism, feudalism and capitalism. And you believe it. And people ask me, did you question? I said, how could I question? I was taught one thing. I have no access to other information. I could not think. Thinking. I think, requires, you know something. You have information, you have different sources of information. And hopefully you can, you know, go through them and come up with your own conclusion. That’s critical thinking, right? When you have only one information you can’t think. I can only think one way. That’s Mao’s way. That’s the correct way. And I have been like that for a long time. Some people were saying that they see though things in the cultural revolution, not me. I’m totally into it. I’m totally accept everything I was told, no matter how absurd it is, was I accepted because party can’t be wrong. Mao can’t be wrong.
Tucker You’ve seen the whole cycle. You’re born ten years after the Communist revolution. And you, you know, you watch the whole cycle of it. So given that, where do you think things are going in this country right now? Where are we in that progression?
Xi Van Fleet People ask me that a lot. You know, it is really, really decades in the making in America. After the. The 60s, when the Marxists took over our universities. They have been creating generations, not just one generation, generations of Marxists or people who absolutely, follow that those ideologies. Now they are in our institutions, in every institution, including educational system, corporations, government and even our military. It is everywhere. So I always say that the infiltration of communism is complete in this country. And, so it is it is really, really we’re in a dire situation. So what do we do? Well, we’ll have to start from educating people and to wake people up by telling them history, by telling them that what’s going on here is nothing new. It happened before. Not that long ago. It happened to me 50 years ago. The witness, the survivors are still here trying to tell American people this is a communist revolution. And the goal is to destroy this country. And the goal is for the globalists, globalists to take power.
Tucker Can it be stopped?
Xi Van Fleet It has to be stopped. So we have to wake people up, get involved. And, sometimes I feel so, just feel like there’s no hope. But many times I do feel like there’s a great hope. I have been invited to talk to so many people around the country, and I met people who got parents who never involved politically, just like me. But they are involved now. They’re fighting. They’re fighting in the trenches. And so I say there is a hope. There is a great hope. And, we can’t just fight because we kind of figure we might win. To me, we have to fight because we believe in it. And what I believe in is America. And so there’s no choice but to fight.
Tucker People who grew up in this country. Most, I know, assume that it can never get to out of control here. Yes, there’s revolution going on. We’re living through it right now. But because it’s America, that revolution will never entail the killing of a lot of people. All revolutions end up killing a lot of people, but ours won’t somehow. What do you think?
Xi Van Fleet Just looking out on the streets and the campus today. Look, those people who have no empathy because their empathy is, guided by the, the ideology, that ideology is Marxist ideology about oppressors and oppressed. The world view is looking at everything in terms of who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed. And that that is absolutely the communist worldview. And for those who are oppressed, anything they do to the oppressed, or the oppressor is justified. That includes murder, kidnap, raping, that’s all justified, just like the Cultural Revolution. And that’s what’s happening in today’s America. Those are the absolute result of decades of indoctrination.
Tucker So people with no empathy will kill.
Xi Van Fleet Will kill. And today they’re just out there accepting, justifying and celebrating violence. It’s only a short step away from committing violence. Those kids in China that kill their principals, their teachers. They’re not monsters. They’re not. They were, most of them were from very prestigious universities and, and high schools.
Tucker You know, I mean, the parallels are unbelievable.
Xi Van Fleet Unbelievable.
Tucker So the Chinese Harvard was more radical than the Chinese HVAC repair school?
Xi Van Fleet Absolutely. The cultural revolution started in Tsinghua and Beijing University. The top of the top. And those the red guards that committed murders were the best of the best, supposedly. And then they kill. And there was one, one short step that would see this happen if we don’t stop it.
Tucker When you say that, do people take you seriously? Do you think in this country, they believe you?
Xi Van Fleet I think the people who listen to me, yes, they believe me. And that’s why I think it’s, I play a very, very important role because I’m telling people not something I just learned from books or just I did some research. It is from my lived experience using the left’s terminology. I lived through it. I saw it, and. Absolutely. This can happen here. And this will if we don’t stop it.
Tucker So. But our system was supposed to. We were taught growing up that our system would never allow something like this to happen, because it’s a democracy and the people are in charge. And you can vote them out if you don’t like them.
Xi Van Fleet I know, I know.
Tucker What do you think of that?
Xi Van Fleet I love what John Adams said. Our system, our constitution, is made for moral and religious people, and it won’t work for any other. And that the Constitution is still there. The rule of law is still there. But the people have changed, and that is what’s happening today. We are dealing with Marxists and Communists who control our institutions, and so they can use this democratic process and carry out their agenda and destroy everything on the path.
Tucker So the process itself is irrelevant. It depends on the intent of the people.
Xi Van Fleet Yeah. And people have changed. The people have really changed.
Tucker Why do you think that? What do you think they have changed?
Xi Van Fleet Indoctrination. Decades. And just. Just think about it. From the 60s. It’s several decades. That’s the power of indoctrination. That’s why I always tell people the only way for us to win the war is, to, get our schools back, get our university back, and of course, media, because those are the institutions that shaping people’s mind. And they’re all in the hands of Marxists.
Tucker What motivates Marxists?
Xi Van Fleet Power. Power. When you think that way, everything’s easier to see. I do not know why Mao would just launch this revolution that destroy everything and destroy people’s lives. My life. Power. Power. He wants to launch the Cultural Revolution because he want to have absolute power. And he did. In the process, he become not just the supreme leader. He’d become our God.
Tucker In China today, are average people aware that the Cultural Revolution happened, are they upset about it, do they talk about it?
Xi Van Fleet That is a great question. I think it’s so important for people to understand. People in power. They want to control history and they want to erase inconvenient history. And that’s exactly what happened in China. Young people were not taught Cultural Revolution. And, when they, talk about it, they were told that was an anti-corruption campaign. That’s it. And the young people, many of them never heard about the Tiananmen massacre because it was not in the history book. Not taught, forgotten, all the history of the atrocities by the CCP were not taught to the new generation.
Tucker Is it, I mean, it’s not, very reassuring that the political party that killed tens of millions of people is still in power.
Xi Van Fleet Absolutely. Because they control the history. Yeah. You don’t know. And young people don’t know. And old people dare not to talk about it. And that’s happening here. We don’t know history. People who know. A lot of them don’t want to talk about it.
Tucker My last question to you. You survived all of this. This first revolution. What advice would you give to Americans for how to respond to our revolution right now happening in this country?
Xi Van Fleet I would say you understand what’s going on. Only when you understand what’s going, you can fight back. Otherwise, you can’t fight something you don’t understand. And it’s not some kind of crazy kind of Democrats that they just do some crazy things. No, this is absolutely a full blown communist revolution. And the goal is very simple. It’s just one: destroy this country so some people can have total control of power.
Tucker So it has nothing to do with improving anybody’s life?
Xi Van Fleet No. And if you want to, if you want to save this country and save it for your children and your children’s children, you have to get involved. You have to fight back as your life depend on it.
Tucker With that, Xi Van Fleet. Thank you very much. Thank you. And congratulations on this book.
Xi Van Fleet Thank you.
Tucker Horrifying as it is.
Xi Van Fleet It is.
Tucker Thank you.
Xi Van Fleet Thank you.
Meet Blobamacron: Three Gentile Narcissists with One Jewish Agenda
Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur. That’s a Latin saying that applies to a trio of once-great Western nations: Britain, America, France. The saying means “With a change of name, the tale is told of thee.” So let’s tell the tale. It goes like this:
A young and charismatic politician dazzles the electorate with promises of change and national renewal. He rides a tide of popular acclaim into the highest office in the land. Now he has the power he sought, but national renewal is slow to arrive. Critics begin to charge him with narcissism and deceit. Rumors circulate about his sexuality. He seems to be happily married, but his wife is peculiar and there are persistent whispers that he’s secretly gay or bisexual. Whatever the truth of that, one thing is certain: he’s deeply in love with the sound of his own voice. Luckily for him, he still has the media with him and he wins big again when he stands for re-election. Alas, his second term proves no more effective than his first. His promises have definitely lost their shine. When he leaves office, the voters he once dazzled are now deeply disillusioned.
Meet Blobamacron: the three narcissistic shabbos goyim Blair, Obama and Macron (images from Wikipedia)
That is, of course, the tale of Tony Blair in Britain. But it’s also the tale of Barack Obama in America. And the tale of Emmanuel Macron in France. These three politicians are so similar that you could give them a single name: Blobamacron. It’s as though Clown World has applied the same script three times in three different countries and found three almost identical actors to play the leading role. A deceitful narcissist rumored to be secretly gay first dazzles, then disillusions. After that, he leaves office and becomes very rich. The script isn’t quite finished in France, because Macron hasn’t left office, but he’s already deep into the stage of disillusion. The voters he once dazzled now understood that they were deceived.
Tony Blair performs the goy-grovel overseen by Jewish supremacist and alleged child-rapist Greville Janner (image © PA Wire/Press Association Images)
That’s why Whites in France may react to Clown World’s script in the same way as Whites in America did: by next electing someone that Clown World hates. In America Barack Obama promised racial healing and an end to national division. He delivered the opposite. So Whites elected Donald Trump. In France, Macron promised the same as Obama and, like Obama, has delivered the opposite. Like Blacks in America, Muslims and other non-Whites in France are preying on Whites worse than ever. So disillusioned French Whites may next elect the “far right” Marine Le Pen (born 1968) as president. I hope they do, but I fear that Marine could prove as disappointing in office as Meloni has in Italy. That’s Giorgia Meloni, the “far right” leader who entered power loudly promising to reverse the tide of non-White migration and has instead allowed it to rise even higher. She was called a fascist tiger; she’s proving to be Clown World’s lapdog.
The world’s most important question
Will Marine Le Pen prove the same? We shall see. One thing is certain: she’s done her best to distance herself from her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen (born 1928). He was a tough ex-paratrooper who spoke his mind when he was leader of the Front National. That’s what destroyed his chances of becoming president, because one of the things he spoke his mind about was the Holocaust. He said that it was a “detail of history.” Demonized as an antisemite, Jean-Marie was destroyed as a politician. His daughter got the message loud and clear. She knows that she has to appease Jews to have any chance of power. That’s why she’s been so determined to prove that her presidency will answer the world’s most important question in the affirmative.
And what is the world’s most important question? Simple. It runs like this: “Is it good for Jews?” Marine Le Pen wants Jews in France to look at her renamed party and say “Oui!” In other words, she’s been performing the goy-grovel:
When more than 100,000 people marched in Paris against antisemitism on 12 November [2023], one participant attracted particular notice: Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-Right Rasssemblement National (“National Rally”). As many recall, the party’s founder, and her father Jean-Marie, was himself a notorious antisemite, and counted veterans of the Waffen SS among his early cadres. Was it possible that Marine’s party had showed up for the wrong march?
In fact, the RN leader has been denouncing a “new antisemitism” for many years, and trying to build Jewish support for the party. She instigated the party’s greatest rupture with its own past in 2015 when she expelled Jean-Marie from it, and has increasingly sold herself as French Jews’ “shield against Islamist ideology”, in the words of her co-leader, Jordan Bardella. But for much of France, the far-Right is still built upon and tainted by antisemitism. Le Pen’s change of position is certainly strategic; whether it is a genuine change of heart is a different question. (“Will Marine Le Pen defend French Jews?,” Unherd, 23rd November, 2023)
There has been a “march against antisemitism” in Paris for the same reason as there has been a “march against antisemitism” in London. As I pointed out in “Israel über Alles,” Jews imported Muslims and other non-Whites as “natural allies” in the Jewish war against the White Christian West. Since October 7 and the Hamas attacks on Israel, Jews have realized with dismay that their “natural allies” are in fact their natural enemies. Antisemitism has risen to horrifying levels all over the West and the political elite in Britain, America, and France have been denouncing it more loudly than ever. Because Marine Le Pen wants to join the political elite, she’s been denouncing it too.
“The first Jewish president”
She learnt the necessity of appeasing Jews from what happened to her father. But she could also have learnt it from Blobamacron. Tony Blair, Barack Obama, and Emmanuel Macron all won high office by serving Jewish interests and performing the goy-grovel eagerly and often. Blair’s thuggish and Machiavellian press-secretary Alastair Campbell once told the Jewish Chronicle that Blair “was conscious of the need to have very, very good relations” with “the Jewish community.” Blair was surrounded with Jews both before and after he won high office, just like Obama in America:
Writer Toni Morrison famously dubbed [the eminently blackmailable — because of his close association with Jeffrey Epstein] Bill Clinton “the first black president” — a title he fervently embraced. [A theme here is that Blobamacron are eminently blackmailable by the Mossad; the same goes for Clinton because of his close association with Jeffrey Epstein and Joe Biden because of his financial corruption with the Chinese.] Abner Mikva, the Chicago Democratic Party stalwart and former Clinton White House counsel, offers a variation on that theme. “If Clinton was our first black president, then Barack Obama is our first Jewish president,” says Mikva, who was among the first to spot the potential of the skinny young law school graduate with the odd name.
“I use a Yiddish expression, yiddishe neshuma, to describe him,” explains Mikva. “It means a Jewish soul. It’s an expression my mother used. It means a sensitive, sympathetic personality, someone who understands where you are coming from.” … “As Jews got to know him, they recognized a kindred spirit, not someone who came down from Mars,” Mikva said. Rabbi Arnold Wolf, of KAM Isaiah Israel synagogue across the street from Obama’s Chicago home, was another early backer. Like Mikva, he sees what he called Obama’s “Jewish side.”
“Obama is from nowhere and everywhere — just like the Jews. He’s black, he’s white, he’s American, he’s Asian, he’s African — and so are we,” Wolf said.
Certainly, Obama is comfortable with Jews, especially Jews from Chicago. Axelrod will remain at his side as senior adviser, and Rep. Rahm Emanuel will be White House chief of staff. Billionaire Penny Pritzker, who has known Obama since the mid-1990s and served as his campaign finance chairwoman, was said to be under consideration for commerce secretary until she took herself out of the running. (Barack Obama: The first Jewish president? Chicago circle nurtured him all the way to the top, The Chicago Tribune, 12th December 2008)
And as Obama schmoozed Jews in America, Macron was doing the same in France: in 2008, he became an investment banker at Rothschild & Cie Banque. He performed the goy-grovel and was rewarded with the presidency. He’s never stopped grovelling. Indeed, he grovelled so hard in December 2023 that even some Jews were embarrassed by it. In blatant disregard of the long French tradition of secularism, Macron stood beside the chief rabbi of France as the rabbi lit a Hanukkah candle in a ceremony at the Elysée Palace, home of the French president and supposed heart of French democracy. Yonathan Arfi, the president of the Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions (CRIF), joined the storm of protest that followed. Arfi said that Macron had committed an “error” and that “It’s not the place, within the Elysée, to light a Hanukkah candle, because the republican DNA is to stay away from anything religious.”
Mossad and Macron
In other words, Arfi was worried that Macron was making his subservience to Jews too obvious. Yiddish has a phrase for it: shande far di goyim, “shame in front of the gentiles.” It means that something harmful or embarrassing for Jews has been revealed to gentiles. But Jewish control of Macron may reside precisely in their ability to shame him before the world. As I pointed out above, one of the similarities between Blair, Obama, and Macron is that all three are rumored to be secretly gay or bisexual. That similarity may be essential, not incidental, because being secretly gay would make the three goyim highly susceptible to blackmail. Macron’s wife Brigitte is 24 years older than him and a documentary on BFM, “France’s most popular TV news channel,” has said that she once “received an anonymous telephone call alleging that her president husband Emmanuel Macron was with a gay lover.” Whether or not the allegation was true, Israeli intelligence has almost certainly done the same in France as it has done using Jeffrey Epstein in America. Epstein gathered blackmail material on the American elite for Israel. That’s part of why Jewish control of American politics and media is so complete.
Secularism shmecularism: Emmanuel Macron looks shifty as France’s chief rabbi lights a Hanukkah candle at the Elysée Palace (image from BBC and Mendel Samama)
Does Mossad have videos and recordings of Macron travelling on the Hershey Highway? If it does, that would certainly explain his slavish dedication to serving Jewish interests. Mutato nomine, “with a change of name,” the same would be true of the rumored-to-be-secretly-gay Blair and Obama. Spying and blackmail are Jewish specialities. That’s part of why so many people are suspicious about the “surprise attack” by Hamas on Israel. Before the attack, the Gaza Strip was one of the most closely surveilled and monitored territories on earth. Israeli spying agencies like Unit 8200 have routinely spied on homosexual Palestinians and blackmailed them into working against their own people. Has Israel applied the same blackmail techniques to Blobamacron? I suspect so. I also suspect that Israel applied those techniques to one of Tony Blair’s predecessors as British prime minister and leader of the Labour party. During the Jewish hysteria about Jeremy Corbyn’s “antisemitism,” a Jewish historian called Robert Philpot published an article in the Times of Israel that looked back to a happier era:
Harold Wilson may be less well-known internationally than Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair, but he dominated British politics for much of the 1960s and 1970s — and remains the only modern-day prime minister to win four general elections. … Famously pragmatic — critics claimed unprincipled — the former prime minister’s name became for a time synonymous with the wheeler-dealing and political game-playing in which he undoubtedly reveled. As one contemporary newspaper columnist suggested, Wilson’s image was “a dark serpentine crawling trimmer, shifty and shuffling, devious, untrustworthy, constant only in the pursuit of self-preservation and narrow party advantage.” For the historian Dominic Sandbrook, Wilson was “a brilliant opportunist.”
There was, however, a limit to Wilson’s alleged opportunism. As the left wing and veteran Zionist Labour MP, Ian Mikardo, once argued: “I don’t think Harold … [had] any doctrinal beliefs at all. Except for one, which I find utterly incomprehensible, which is his devotion to the cause of Israel.” Wilson’s leadership arguably marked the high point of the relationship between Labour and British Jews, a bond which has today been strained by Jeremy Corbyn’s strident anti-Zionism and the allegations of anti-Semitism which continue to rock the party. (“When the UK’s left-wing prime minister was one of Israel’s closest friends,” The Times of Israel, 30th March 2019)
Harold Wilson, “devious,” “untrustworthy,” and a staunch Friend of Israel (image from Labour Friends of Israel)
Why did the “veteran Zionist” Ian Mikardo think that Wilson’s “devotion” to Israel was “utterly incomprehensible”? Mikardo was himself Jewish and presumably realized that Wilson wasn’t a natural philosemite. But perhaps that unshakeable Zionism was only “incomprehensible” to those without the full facts. But if Israel was blackmailing the “devious” and “untrustworthy” Wilson, his devotion becomes perfectly comprehensible. Tony Blair is also “devious,” “untrustworthy,” and a staunch Friend of Israel. And like Blair, Wilson had a close Jewish associate who became involved in a financial scandal. Blair’s associate Lord Levy was investigated, but not prosecuted and jailed, for allegedly selling honors to rich Jews who made secret donations to the Labour party. Wilson’s associate Lord Kagan actually was jailed for fraud when he was “forced to return to England” after seeking refuge (can you guess where?) in Israel.
The parallels between Blair and Wilson don’t end there. Both of them became leader of the Labour party only after the unexpected and premature death of the previous leader. As Wikipedia puts it: “The shock of [Hugh] Gaitskell’s death [in 1963] was comparable to that of the sudden death of the later Labour Party leader John Smith, in May 1994, when he too seemed to be on the threshold of [becoming prime minister].” Fancy that! Those staunch Friends of Israel Wilson and Blair both reached the highest office in the land thanks to a lucky accident. Of course, it wasn’t lucky for Hugh Gaitskell or John Smith. But it was lucky for Wilson and Blair. And even luckier for Israel, which had warm friends in power instead of the more distant Gaitskell and Smith.
Labour’s toxic transformation
So did Israel assassinate Gaitskell and Smith to clear the path to power for its shabbos goyim Wilson and Blair? Well, I started this article with some Latin, so I’ll end it and answer the question with some Italian: se no è vero, è ben trovato. That roughly means: “If it’s not true, it should be.” History clearly proves that Wilson and Blair displayed slavish “devotion to the cause of Israel.” But it also proves that neither displayed any devotion at all to the cause of the White working-class. Under Harold Wilson, the Labour party, founded to champion the White working-class, began to turn into a dedicated enemy of the White working-class.
By the time Tony Blair entered Downing Street, that transformation from champion to enemy was complete. The transformation was overseen by Jews and carried out by shabbos goyim. That’s why it would make a perfect story if Israel did indeed assassinate Gaitskell and Smith to put Wilson and Blair into office. Jews hate Whites and their shabbos goyim know that they have to harm Whites once they get into power. Harming Whites is precisely what Harold Wilson and Blobamacron have done.
CUOMO: FROM NURSING HOME KILLER TO BIMBO ENABLER
According to media reports, Andrew Cuomo, the former governor of New York, is eyeing a run for mayor of New York City. Unfortunately for him, his top aide, Melissa DeRosa, has written a book, “What’s Left Unsaid,” revealing that his most trusted adviser is a complete nitwit.
As you may recall, I wrote about DeRosa’s book a few months ago. Here are a few more things you should know before allowing Cuomo to foist this birdbrain on us again.
1. Anyone who disagrees with DeRosa is a terrible person. Probably a liar.
— In a phone call with Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., after she criticized Cuomo for ordering hospitals in her district to send all their ventilators to New York City — a disastrous idea — DeRosa blew up. (As we now know, ventilators were not merely useless for treating COVID, but often killed the patients.)
DeRosa: “’Who have you become?’ I asked in disgust. ‘I am embarrassed to be associated with you.’
“’What?’ Now she sounded genuinely hurt.
“’Yes, you heard me,’ I wasn’t backing down. ‘Do you know what it’s like when people ask me how I could possibly be friends with you? The things you say. The way you defend Trump. … It’s embarrassing.’”
— About Democratic state senator Alessandra Biaggi posting a tweet attacking Cuomo for not acting on COVID sooner — i.e. run-of-the-mill politicking — DeRosa writes:
“Fuming, I sent a text, ‘You are both full of shit and a pretty terrible person.’”
— Then there’s this gem from DeRosa, apparently after maintaining a lifelong vow to never notice the Democrats’ behavior, from their accusations of affairs against George H.W. Bush and John McCain, through the front-page stories about Mitt Romney’s hair-cutting incident in high school, to their Russian collusion hysteria:
“While Democrats, for the most part, believe there is honor in playing by the rules, Republicans have a tendency to flip the table over and play dirty.”
— DeRosa says the Trump White House was probably “happy that the [BLM] protests had turned violent” and that Republican governors loved when COVID spiked in their states, seeing it as “badass.”
Those are just a few examples of the generosity of spirit DeRosa extends to those she disagrees with — bad motives, liars and terrible people. She proudly cites her fiery responses even after it has been firmly established that she was wrong and they were right.
And yet, in another vignette, she describes a dinner with The New York Times’ Nick Confessore, saying, “we found out quickly that we both enjoyed the art of a good argument, ending the night debating politics over vanilla creme brulee.”
Based on her responses to others with an opinion different from hers, “debating politics” presumably consisted of her talking and Confessore nodding his head in agreement.
2. She’s the bee’s knees!
— “At age thirty-eight, I was the most senior member of Andrew Cuomo’s team leading the nation through a once-in-a-century pandemic, making life-or-death decisions, projecting our administration’s competence to an admiring world.”
— “Matt (DeRosa’s husband) told me I reminded him of his mother, a smart, driven workaholic.”
— “Next to my father, I was my grandmother’s favorite, her nickname my own middle name. I inherited her cheekbones and work ethic.”
— “While I may have been one of the most powerful women in New York …”
— “Our office had a reputation for being hard-charging. We didn’t run from that characterization; we prided ourselves on it.” (This is in contrast with other offices that pride themselves on a reputation for lethargy.)
— “I ran faster, jumped higher, and tried to never let them see me sweat …”
3. DeRosa is always crying.
— Reading a Times story about her that highlighted her “powerful lobbyist” father: “Reading the headline filled me with a wave of emotion, blood rushing to my face, tears welling up in my eyes, my hands beginning to shake …”
— Three weeks into the Cuomo lockdown: “Little things like a video message from my eight-year-old niece, Ashley, would send tears streaming down my face.”
— After finally allowing her husband to tell her he wanted a divorce: “’Matt, I can’t handle this. With everything else that’s going on right now … please … it’s too much,’ I pleaded, tears streaming down my face.”
— In bed, the morning Cuomo was to announce the end of his daily COVID briefings: “(O)vertaken by the enormity of it, by depression, pride, and sheer exhaustion, I started to cry.”
— Later that day, at a staff meeting after Cuomo announced the end of his daily COVID briefings: “I didn’t typically show emotion at work; I grew up being taught that if I did, especially as a young woman, I would be viewed as weak or hysterical. … I started to tear up for the second time that day, this time not curled up in bed, but standing in front of all of our staff.”
— Meeting a friend for a drink after DeRosa had heard a rumor about a possible sexual harassment charge against the governor:
“[Friend:] ‘What happened?’
“’The last four months happened.’ As the words crossed my lips, tears started to well in my eyes …”
— When Biden was announced the winner of the 2020 election: “Overcome with raw, genuine emotion, I could feel my eyes start to well up with tears.”
— Upon reading Cuomo’s draft resignation speech: “I read it and started to cry.”
— After some nut called her cellphone, threatening to kill her: “I burst into tears.”
We definitely could use this kind of steady hand in the Big Apple.
4. She calls everyone she works with “smart.”
— “Annabel Walsh was our director of scheduling. At twenty-six, she was whip-smart, hardworking, and sassy.”
— “Steve and Bill … had Cuomo’s full confidence. Smart, steady, and wise to their core …”
— “Dina DeRosa [Melissa’s grandmother] was smart, hardworking, warm, and classically beautiful.”
— “I often used the girls [Cuomo’s children], who were smart, curious, and [so on].”
— “Sarah, a former administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration under President Obama, was tough as nails and as smart as they come.”
— “Jack Davies, a whip-smart up-and-comer in our press shop …”
— “As press secretary in the Clinton White House, [Dee Dee Myers] had been smart, savvy …”
And on and on.
5. Maureen Dowd should have written about DeRosa much, much sooner.
Despite DeRosa’s claims of never being “weak or hysterical,” it only took one snarky Dowd column to trigger the waterworks.
Upon reading the column, which criticized DeRosa — “one of the most powerful women in New York,” I remind you! — she dropped the phone and ran to the governor:
“I took a deep breath. My whole body was shaking now.
“Cuomo pulled me in close, ‘Okay, okay,’ he said in a paternal whisper. ‘It’s going to be okay. Shush. It’s going to be okay, I promise you. Take a deep breath. It’s all going to be okay.’”
Then, she drove to her brother’s house:
“Joey pulled me in close and told me it was going to be okay.”
After a little more bawling, she resigned.
Maureen, if only you’d acted sooner.
COPYRIGHT 2024 ANN COULTER
Also available at Barnes & Noble
Also available at Barnes & Noble
