Very informative. Lots of information on the role of Israel and the Israel Lobby, but also the role of Turkey. Israel’s land grab in Syria. Calls the HTS petty criminals who are capable of nothing but destruction. U.S, organized the invasion with Israel and Turkey. Also, massacre after massacre in Gaza.
Ca
Edmund Connelly has posted here on the horrific advertising environment that pervades the West. I have thought there must be a law somewhere that mandates Blacks in every commercial. Here are two of his previous articles addressing this issue: “Condition Red Revisited: White Male Erasure in Advertising” (pdf) (2021); “Condition Red: Your Visual Displacement is Now Complete” (2020).
Right now he is traveling around the country and provides this new report:
study of billboards throughout the nearly all-white northern Rockies region — Wyoming, Montana, and part of Utah. It’s as though white males simply don’t exist in those states — if you’re judging by images on billboards. The social engineering is just so obvious. And if it’s a college ad, there is ALWAYS a black male, sometimes with the usual pretty white female. These billboards are prominent at the borders of these states as you drive on the Interstates.
There’s a series of billboards purporting to help veterans, but I’ve yet to see even ONE white male veteran. Blacks, women of all sorts, white mothers and daughters, Asians, Native Americans and Hispanics, but I guess white men never fought and got injured in America’s wars.
The most bizarre billboard, however, which I see in many places, shows five black women with the caption “Know Your Breasts Like You Know Your Girls.” What does that even mean? There are no black women in the states I mentioned, so what in the world is going on? And one of these billboards is posted on the property of the most stereotypic white trash farm household — rusted out cars and appliances, dead tractors, etc. It boggles the mind.
But of course that’s the direction all white nations have been pushed, pushed by some Higher Power that clearly wants the white race subjugated … or worse.
Well, are Jewish students by and large wealthy and privileged? And are Jews powerful? Rhetorical questions. They never go there.
And: “Isn the wake of October 7, college students across the country responded by praising the resistance against settler colonialism. These elites accused Jewish people of being Zionist oppressors.” College students, many of them Palestinians, are elite? And what exactly is the role of the American Jewish community in oppressing the Palestinians? (Hint: Huge.) ,
I assume Blackman is Jewish.
DEI Still Has An Anti-Semitism Problem
University of Michigan DEI Official alleged to have said “wealthy and privileged” Jewish students do not need DEI services.
By Josh Blackman
In the wake of October 7, college students across the country responded by praising the resistance against settler colonialism. These elites accused Jewish people of being Zionist oppressors. And leading thinkers justified acts of violence against Jewish students as a proportional response to “genocide” in Gaza.
Should any of these reactions have been surprising? No. These principles have been espoused in CRT and DEI ideologies for decades. Students were merely implementing what they were taught.
When Judge Kyle Duncan was shouted down in the most vile terms at Stanford, Tirien Steinbach, the DEI apparatchik, asked whether his juice was worth the squeeze. But Steinbach was not acting out of turn. She was following DEI teachings. Indeed, two years earlier, DEI programs at Stanford espoused overt anti-semitism.
Through its DEI committee, weekly seminars and racially segregated affinity groups, the CAPS DEI program has maligned and marginalized Jews on the basis of religion, race and ethnic identity by castigating Jews as white, powerful and privileged members of society who contribute to systemic racism and denying and attempting to erase Jewish ancestral identity. In addition, the DEI program has denigrated the concept of Jewish victimhood and deliberately excluded anti-Semitism from the program’s agenda.
Again, this sort of dogma is at the center of DEI intersectionality. As I wrote in 2023, such teaching are not outliers; they are the rotten core of college campuses. I have no doubt there are well-meaning DEI officials who are not anti-semitic. But the entire enterprise is irreparably tainted by these teachings.
Perhaps now DEI officials are laying low and staying quiet. Across the country, DEI programs are being rebranded to eliminate references to diversity, equity, and inclusion. But when no one is listening, they can speak their minds.
The New York Times offers this report from the University of Michigan:
The University of Michigan is considering firing an administrator who works on diversity initiatives over accusations that she made antisemitic comments, according to her lawyer.
The administrator, Rachel Dawson, is director of the university’s office of academic multicultural initiatives. She was accused of saying in a conversation at a conference in March that the university was “controlled by wealthy Jews,” according to documents obtained by The New York Times through a freedom of information request.
She was also accused of saying that Jewish students were “wealthy and privileged” and not in need of her office’s diversity services, and that “Jewish people have no genetic DNA that would connect them to the land of Israel,” according to the documents, which were part of a complaint from the Anti-Defamation League of Michigan.
Dawson has a different recollection:
According to the Covington & Burling memo, Ms. Dawson confirmed that she spoke to the two professors, but she gave a different version of the conversation. Rather than claiming Jews had no ancestral claim to Israel, for example, she said she had pointed out that Jews and Palestinians shared an ancestral connection to the region.
If Dawson made the alleged comments, it would be utterly unsurprising. This is exactly the sort of pablum that has been taught at DEI programs for decades.
Dawson has a JD. (I am not sure if she is an active member of the bar). Had these comments been made at a legal conference, would they trigger liability under ABA Model Rule 8.4(g)? Would a DEI official “reasonably know” that these comments could constitute “harassment” in “conduct related to the practice of law”? Here is more reporting from the Times:
The allegations arose in March at a diversity conference in Philadelphia, sponsored by the American Association of Colleges and Universities. Two professors who attended the event, Naomi Yavneh Klos, who teaches at Loyola University New Orleans, and another Jewish professor said they had heard about the “negative experience” of a University of Michigan Jewish student, Dr. Yavneh Klos said in an interview.
When they learned that a Michigan D.E.I. administrator was at the conference, they decided to approach her, Dr. Yavneh Klos said.
“I think my colleague wanted to know, ‘Does the D.E.I. office work with these students?'” Dr. Yavneh Klos said. “‘Should the student go to the D.E.I. office?’ She said no. Jewish students are all rich. They don’t need us. That was the gist of what she said. It was really horrifying.”
She said she was so upset after the conversation that she called a friend who works for the Anti-Defamation League, who encouraged her to file a report, which Dr. Yavneh Klos did that same day.
Conservatives have long worried that Rule 8.4(g) could be weaponized against conservative speech. Progressives should have similar worries. Good thing the Second Circuit allowed a challenge to Connecticut’s rule go forward.
Dr. Klos worries that DEI does not protect Jewish students:
Dr. Yavneh Klos said she was a “tremendous advocate for D.E.I.” But one of her frustrations with colleges, she added, was that “the current D.E.I. narrative very often excludes Jews” even as “antisemitism is still very much present.”
“D.E.I. offices very frequently fail to serve the needs of Jewish students, and don’t really recognize Jewish students as under their purview,” she said.
We don’t need their help. Jewish students should recognize that DEI offices at places like Michigan and Stanford are not their allies. And the Department of Education should respond accordingly.
The post DEI Still Has An Anti-Semitism Problem appeared first on Reason.com.4
And guess what? You’ll be shocked to learn that Dawson was indeed fired on the word of two professors because of the activism of people who have no power. The New York Times:
Emails obtained by The Times suggested that the move to oust Ms. Dawson might have been influenced by a member of the Michigan Board of Regents, the university’s governing board.
Jon Kinsey, a university vice president, wrote to the regents in October on behalf of the president’s office to inform them that Ms. Dawson had been issued a written warning that additional incidents could result in termination, and that she would have to undergo training in antisemitism and leadership, according to the emails.
The next day, Mark Bernstein, a regent, wrote to campus officials, including the president, Santa Ono, saying that he was “disgusted” with the university’s response, according to the emails.
“It does not appear that Ms. Dawson has been held accountable in any meaningful way,” Mr. Bernstein wrote. “Of course, this makes a mockery of your/our commitment to address antisemitism and broaden our D.E.I. efforts to include antisemitism and/or Jewish students.”
Mr. Bernstein wrote that the only acceptable outcome would be for Ms. Dawson to be “terminated immediately.”
Ms. Dawson was notified on Oct. 28 that the earlier lesser disciplinary action was being revised, according to her lawyer, and was told this week that she was fired.
A new metaphor is stalking the internet. It is promoted by the writer James Lindsay and by Konstantin Kissin of the popular anti-Woke podcast “Triggernometry.” It is called the “Woke Right.”
By implication, those who are to the right of these people – those who are intellectually consistent and are consequently prepared to explore such issues as the ethnic and genetic foundations of culture, genetic racial differences in key psychological traits, dysgenics, and other crucial issues that attempt to understand the causes of our current situation – are the “Woke Right.” If you go beyond merely stating that Wokeness is bad for civilization and you attempt to examine how a civilization is maintained (because this might offend current mores, and your sources of income, slightly too much) then you are “like the Woke, but right wing.”
There’s a very clear sign that a person is losing an intellectual battle: the fallacies of “appeal to insult,” appeal ad hominem and “connotation fallacy.”
If you cannot successfully logically argue with the less intelligent or more emotional, you may yet win them to your cause by emotively insulting your opponents or attempting to connect them to something viscerally wicked. If you – the one subject to this tactic – point this out, your opponent may accuse you being “hyper-sensitive” or “pearl clutching,” but this is just further appeal to insult and further emotional manipulation. They are employing these methods to manipulate the feelings of others and, hopefully, to shut you down, because you fear being ostracised.
Why are they so emotional? Very possibly because they are experiencing “cognitive dissonance.” The “Woke Right” confronts them with the fact that they are mere “Bravery Signallers.” They present themselves as fearless fighters, against Woke ideology, for the truth . . . but they’ll only take this battle so far, because they also desire a certain degree of comfort and respectability. Thus certain areas of discourse – those that the Woke Right explore – are forbidden. The Woke Right, therefore, confronts them with their own intellectual cowardice: a highly emotional reaction is the result.
Konstantin Kissin deploys not only the term “Woke Right” for these people but also, just as emotively, the “Barbarian Right,” though, more sensibly, also the “Dissident Right.” In effect, his argument is that “Woke Right” is an appropriate term because there are a number of superficial points which the “Woke” and the “Dissident Right” share. These are, he avers, as follows:
(1) Thinking the West is bad and siding with its enemies; by implication Russia.
(2) Playing identity politics on the basis that their group is oppressed by a secret invisible force controlled by another group/groups; by implication the Jews.
(3) Having an obsession with group-based victimhood and grievance; in other words two-tier policing and other examples of discrimination in favour of minorities.
(4) Seeking to revise and pervert history to fit its ideological narrative. I assume this is a reference to Holocaust Revisionism.
(5) Reacting to disagreement with name-calling, ostracism and bullying.
(6) “Creating a culture of fear among more centre-leaning people on their side to prevent criticism (you should see how many people message me privately to say they agree about the Woke Right but don’t want to say anything).”
Kissin is correct that, very broadly, there are some superficial points of commonality between the Woke and the Dissident Right. For example, as I have discussed in my book Woke Eugenics: How Social Justice is a Mask for Social Darwinism, being Alt Right is associated with psychopathy whereas being Woke is predicted by Narcissism and Machiavellianism. These three personality disorders have much in common – they intercorrelate at about 0.5 – so we can conceive of the “Dark Triad.” Most of Kissin’s criticisms of the Woke Right – name-calling, intimidation and so on – reflect the behaviour of people like this; not of those who are simply “red pilled” on assorted important social and scientific issues.
Overall, these people – the “red-pilled” – are completely different from the Woke. They are high in mental and physical health, low in mutational load, high in pro-social traits and strongly desirous to have children and to pass on their genes. They are, in evolutionary terms, adaptive, where the Woke are the opposite. We have, then, a completely hollow metaphor at a crucial level; like comparing a hover-fly to a wasp.
Indeed, as a metaphor, it quickly falls apart on many other levels as well. Firstly, Kissin seems to characterise here the absolute extreme of the Dissident Right; the kind of people who, whenever I publish anything on any subject, respond, “Why don’t you name the Jew, Ed?! Why don’t you name the Jew?!” Clearly, this is a straw man argument; a completely unfair characterisation of those whom he opposes.
Secondly, the Dissident Right think the West is bad because it is dysgenic, maladaptive and decadent. The Woke think it is bad because it isn’t dysgenic, maladaptive and decadent enough. They have in common the fact that are both critiquing the kind of traditional liberal conservatism for which Kissin stands, but their critique is completely different. You might as well argue that Kissin is “Woke” because, like the Woke, he criticises the Dissident Right.
Thirdly, the grievance of the Dissident Right is adaptive in an evolutionary sense; it is looking out for the interests of their group. The grievance of the Woke is maladaptive; it is looking out for the interests of other groups, though it is adaptive in the selfish, individualistic sense that so-doing is a way of virtue signalling your way to power.
James Lindsay has effectively argued that “Woke Right” is a synonym for Fascist, which makes even less sense than Kissin’s idea. As I noted in Woke Eugenics, the left are concerned with the moral foundations of harm avoidance and equality whereas the extreme right are highly group-oriented: concerned with obedience to authority, traditional sanctity and in-group loyalty. They are fundamentally different.
Also, “Fascist” tends to have a fairly clear meaning, beyond being a political insult. In his essay “On Defining the ‘Fascist Minimum,’” political scientist Roger Eatwell maintains that Fascism is “‘an ideology that strives to forge social rebirth based on a holistic‐national radical Third Way, though in practice fascism has tended to stress style, especially action and the charismatic leader, more than detailed programme, and to engage in a Manichaean demonization of its enemies.” Is this what all those to the right of Lindsay are doing? Clearly it is not.
People like Lindsay have eked out a specific niche as the edgy critics of Wokeness; but not so edgy that they are ostracised from many of the good things in life. Those who are prepared to go beyond bravery-signalling and to seriously logically critique current taboos, taking their analysis to its logical conclusion, threaten those in this semi-comfortable niche and confront them with what they are. This explains their attempt to shut them down with the very emotional and very unpersuasive metaphor of “Woke Right.”
Patrick Cleburne on Gab: Patrick Cleburne on Gab: ‘What @herandrews essentially says is that Jews fi…’ “What @herandrews essentially says is that Jews financed BLM riots in 2020 but have been alienated from the Left by Gaza. Pretty brave.”
Andrews’ article, “Daniel Penny’s acquittal is a win for civilization,” is a very good report on the Daniel Penny verdict, but gets far more interesting with what she says toward the end.
Is the era of Black Lives Matter over? It is too soon to say for sure. Activists gathered for a press conference after the verdict to threaten retribution. Neely’s father, who has filed a civil suit against Penny, said, “What are we gonna do, people? . . . The system is rigged. Come on, people. Let’s do something about this.”
Despite their loud talk, I expect few riots—but the reason has more to do with internal dynamics on the left. The October 7 attacks by Hamas opened up a rift between the Democratic party’s donors and its activist class. Protests like those of 2020 cost money, and the people who bankrolled that summer are less willing to write checks now that the recipients of their largesse have, in many cases, cheered on the massacre of Israeli civilians. But that intra-party rift could be repaired, in which case the flow of money to rioters could start up again. The fact that a silent majority of Americans oppose their cause would not matter any more than it did the first time around.
That there is a huge overlap between the Democrat donors and those who are most furious about what happened on Oct. 7 is common knowledge among people who pay at least a little attention to how American politics works. And that clearly points to Jews, although it would have been nice to see her use the J-word. But it’s rare to see it in print in a mainstream conservative journal.
The rift with the pro-Palestinian activists may indeed be repaired, but in any case, it’s very doubtful that Jews will stop being the financial backbone of the Democrat party any time soon. Their priority is the obliteration of White, Christian dominance of the U.S., and it’s difficult to see how that can happen in the Republican party for the foreseeable future.
Ahmad Al Khaled sends this information about himself:
I’m a freelance journalist mainly focused on the Middle-East and North Africa. I’ve been covering various conflicts in the region and notable political events for the past 7 years.
I’ve had my articles published by leading regional and global media (Youm7, Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Ahval, etc.). Here are examples of my previous work:
https://www.jpost.com/
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/
https://globalsecurityreview.
After a four-year freeze in the conflict established as a result of negotiations between Turkey and Russia, the situation in Syria has changed dramatically. Within ten days of a rapid offensive, the fighters of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham group established control over most of the country, forcing the government troops to retreat.
On the morning of December 8, armed opposition forces led by the HTS captured the capital of Damascus, thereby formalizing the fall of the Assad clan, which had been ruling Syria for more than 50 years. According to the latest information, former President Bashar Assad left the country and requested asylum in Russia.
The day before three guarantor countries — Turkey, Iran, and Russia — met in Qatar’s capital of Doha and stressed the need for political dialogue between the parties of the conflict to peacefully transfer power in the country and prevent bloodshed. In turn, the HTS command guaranteed the security of state institutions, diplomatic missions, and military facilities, including Assad’s allies — Russia and Iran.
Currently, due to the rapid changes taking place in Syria, it is difficult to predict how the situation in the Arab country will develop. However, the factors and circumstances that ensured jihadists’ success on the battlefield and their quick rise to power can already be studied in detail.
The new tactics of using small mobile groups on light automotive equipment, the use of reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles and strike first-per-view drones, as well as the timing suggest that the HTS could not organize an operation of such range alone. In this case, the question arises: who helped the HTS or at least played into its hands?
The role of Turkey
Answering this question, it is fair to say that Damascus and its allies, Russia and Iran, have closely watched the threats posed by the HTS. For the past three months, local media have been full of circulating reports of an impending attack by militants.
After establishing the ‘Idlib de-escalation zone’ as part of an agreement between Russia and Turkey in 2020, the HTS was able to get the most out of the calm at the front. This faction, formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra, was previously part of Syria’s al-Qaeda terrorist organization but then distanced from it and emerged as one of the dominant forces in the northwest of Syria.
Since the observation points of the Turkish Armed Forces were deployed along the front line, they served as a kind of shield, behind which the HTS was able to hide and calmly build up forces without fear of a possible attack from Damascus and its foreign backers. Therefore, it is safe to say that Ankara’s diplomatic and military patronage directly contributed to the strengthening of the HTS stance, not to mention economic assistance and the supply of electricity and fuel to Idlib through Turkish umbrella companies.
Taking advantage of the fragmentation of other opposition groups, the HTS, led by its leader Abu Muhammad Al-Julani, managed to consolidate power in the rebellious province of Idlib. It completely captured the economic sector and has been ruling the so-called last bastion of the Syrian opposition through the puppet Syria Salvation government. Militarily, the HTS has also greatly strengthened, uniting under its banners many independent groups and foreign fighters from among Caucasians, Turks, and Uyghurs.
All these factors allowed the HTS to accumulate a sufficient margin of safety to make constant raids against government forces and even claim to expand the zone of influence in northern Syria. At the same time, its status as an independent group also provided it with additional opportunities, without limiting freedom of action to agreements with third countries.
Thus, Ankara de facto helped to nurture the HTS military machine, but de jure can avoid responsibility for its actions, as the HTS does not obey it entirely like the Turkish-affiliated Syrian National Army.
The role of Ukraine
It is not an exaggeration that any HTS activity was constantly the focus of attention of the main actors in Syria, especially Russia. Recently, Moscow has repeatedly stated that there is close cooperation between the HTS and its geopolitical adversary — Ukraine.
The Turkish newspaper Aydynlyk reported that Ukrainian instructors were training Syrian militants in the production and use of FPV drones to strike at military facilities of the Russian Armed Forces in Syria. It also said that in exchange for drones, Kyiv asked the HTS to allow its foreign militants, mainly immigrants from Caucasian and Central Asian countries, to reach Ukraine and fight against Russia.
Ukrainian media have also repeatedly published videos in which Syrian rebels in cooperation with Ukrainian intelligence hit Russian targets in Syria with strike drones. In one of these videos, the opposition fighters struck the facilities of the Russian Armed Forces at the Quwayres air base, east of Aleppo.
Notably, until the last HTS offensive, Ukrainian officials preferred to ignore the media claims about cooperation with Syrian rebels. However, after the capture of Aleppo, Kyiv finally made a sincere confession and said that the “Khymyk” group of Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence was preparing the HTS militants to use attack drones against Russia.
The role of the US
But if cooperation with the Ukrainian special services can explain the increased combat capabilities of the HTS in terms of the use of unmanned technologies, then the start time of the jihadists’ offensive indicates possible coordination with the United States. While the US has officially denied any involvement in current developments in Syria, there is direct and indirect evidence that suggests otherwise.
Firstly, the launch of the HTS offensive on Aleppo suspiciously coincided with the entry into force of the US-initiated peace treaty between Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah on November 27. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that the Syrian opposition waited for Israel to defeat Hezbollah to begin a campaign against the regime forces without fear that Lebanese fighters would come to help Assad.
Thus, it is clear that the United States played a major role in weakening Assad’s allies, which directly led to the HTS decision to attack.
Secondly, it should be noted that although the United States recognized the HTS as a terrorist organization, it did not interfere in any way with its trade ties with Turkey, also contributing to the economic strengthening of the HTS. This approach to the terrorist organization was in stark contrast to Washington’s unprecedented sanctions pressure on Damascus.
In addition, the United States and its allies in the International Coalition maintained close ties with the HTS. In particular, they exchange information in order to launch air strikes against field commanders of some independent armed groups active in Idlib province. Syrian opposition fighters on social networks repeatedly accused the HTS of providing the United States with accurate data on the whereabouts of the fighters hiding in the rebel-held areas. According to them, the US UAVs hit them almost immediately after meetings with the leaders of the HTS.
In addition, the United States and the EU over the past years have unofficially worked to “whitewash” the reputation of HTS to exclude it from the list of terrorist organizations. To present him as a leader of moderate opposition, several American publications conducted interviews with Abu Muhammad Al-Julani, in which the jihadist leader appeared in a business suit, and also abandoned his characteristic fanatical slogans in favor of more secular and pragmatic rhetoric. During the last offensive, Al-Julani also made some demonstrative statements in which he warned his fighters against illegal actions against civilians and their property, and also called for “respect for the cultural diversity of Aleppo”.
Given the covert interaction between the United States and the Al-Julani group, there is reason to believe that after the end of hostilities in Lebanon, the Biden administration could initiate another escalation in Syria, using the HTS militants as a proxy. Thus, the White House probably planned to weaken the position of its geopolitical rivals, Russia and Iran, before the imminent transfer of power to the newly elected president Donald Trump. Judging by his pre-election statements, the latter would hardly agree to such an adventure and would prefer to deal with domestic problems, rather than create the next hotbed of tension in the world or a particular region.
But Joe Biden’s foreign policy staff, finalizing the last two months of his term, could decide differently, especially when all the necessary conditions were ripe for the Syrian militants to attack. Russia withdrew the main troops from Syria and is fully focused on the war with Ukraine; another main ally of Damascus — Tehran is weakened as a result of constant attacks by Israel and threw its main forces to support affiliated formations in Palestine and Lebanon; and Hezbollah, which also played an important role in establishing the former status-quo in Syria, suffered significant losses during the IDF operations and can no longer help the Assad government.
Given the acute contradictions between the two political camps that emerged during the last elections in the US, it is not difficult to assume that the Democrats wanted to make it as difficult as possible for Trump upon entering office. They sought to shackle opportunities to later accuse him of failing to fulfill the promises he gave to American voters. Therefore, the new round of escalation in Syria can be seen as a desperate attempt by the current US administration to influence Trump’s future policies, to force him to wallow in endless conflicts and rivalries with other countries instead of solving more important problems related to domestic policy.
The large-scale HTS offensive has already dealt a heavy blow to civilians throughout Syria, significantly exacerbating the migration crisis and increasing the suffering of ordinary Syrians from renewed clashes and shelling. At the same time, regardless of the further development of events in the Arab country, the United States, as the main international actor, has done nothing to prevent the strengthening of the HTS. Moreover, Washington purposefully encouraged the HTS to use it as a counterweight to Damascus and its rivals in the region — Russia and Iran. And while the winners in this geopolitical game are unclear, the loser is already obvious: this is the Syrian people, who once again became a “bargaining chip” and are paying with blood for other states’ ambitions.
What follows is an interview conducted by James Edwards with TPC co-host Keith Alexander. It was originally published by The Barnes Review.
James Edwards: You grew up in the 1950s and ’60s, which was a different world than those born into today’s multicultural hellscape have experienced. For the benefit of readers who weren’t around to experience it, what did they most miss out on?
Keith Alexander: The existence of a vast blue-collar middle class, for starters. A guy with a high school education could get an industrial job that paid enough for him to get married, buy a modest home, have kids, and give his family a middle-class life on one income. This was standard across the United States in the 1950s and ‘60s. It lasted into the ‘70s in Southern cities like Memphis because the South was about 10 years behind liberal bastions like California. But even rural towns usually had at least one local factory that could provide such employment. Culturally speaking, marriage was the norm and divorce was rare and usually considered scandalous when it occurred. I grew up in a working-class neighborhood and each Sunday morning all the fathers, dressed in coats and ties, loaded up their wives and children and headed to church. Wives might have a seasonal or even a part-time job, but their primary job was raising the children and keeping house. Families had dinner together most evenings. It was wonderful.
Edwards: What is radical egalitarianism and what have been some of the stops along its destructive path?
Alexander: Radical egalitarianism differs from mere egalitarianism when it refuses to be tempered by common sense and obvious empirical evidence of human differences. For instance, when Leftist ideologues refuse to acknowledge the scientifically quantified studies confirming differences in average IQs between the different races, they have crossed over the frontier from egalitarianism into the realm of radical egalitarianism, which degrades and destroys order and proper societal functioning. Radical egalitarianism must be resisted if we are to maintain a fair and efficiently functioning society. Surrendering to radical egalitarianism will transform America into a third-world nation. Some of the stops along the road to radical egalitarian decline and degradation were feminism, no-fault divorce, the sexual revolution, the so-called Civil Rights movement, drug culture, the homosexual/LGBTQ movement, and the “transgender” movement, among others. The woke agenda and all of its manifestations are intended to marginalize, ostracize, and eventually destroy the founding stock of Europe and America.
Edwards: The left has been engaged in a tireless “long march through the institutions,” as mentioned by paleoconservative thinkers like William S. Lind. What does he mean, and which institutions have been targeted?
Alexander: This is a term derived from Cultural Marxism. It is one of three key concepts defining the methodology of Cultural Marxism, the other two being “Critical Theory” and “Cultural Pessimism”. In the Civil Rights movement, for example, Critical Theory analysis was applied to public primary and secondary education, higher education, state governments, and voting procedures. The “theory” was to subject the institutions to a barrage of relentless, destructive criticism in a completely negative manner while never admitting any goodness or benefits in them. The “Long March” went through the media, academia, the government, the courts, the prosecutorial system, the arts, the private sector, and even the churches. The desired result of this drumbeat of criticism was the inducing of “Cultural Pessimism” in whites who were thereby convinced of their inferiority and evil by their authority figures. Cultural Marxism is important because it is the template for all the destructive societal change we have experienced in America since the early 1930s and in Western Europe since the end of WWII. These changes are celebrated by the left as the triumph of liberalism, which has greatly diminished our quality of life in the West. All the societal institutions that contributed to setting Western cultural, moral, and ethical standards have been targeted, and have been taken over.
Cultural Marxism is a variant form of Marxism developed in 1920s Germany by Marxists disappointed by the failure of Communism to take over all of Europe as predicted after WWI. How did Marx and Engels get it wrong? A think tank called “The Frankfurt School” located within the University of Frankfurt concluded that Marx and Engels were wrong in assuming that the major fault line in human society was economics. Instead, they concluded that race was much more significant, and revolutions should be targeted at aggravating racial animus. This was the blueprint for the Civil Rights movement in America and the current immigration crisis in America and Europe.
Edwards: You have often pointed out that America’s hard turn to the left noticeably began on May 17, 1954. Why was the Brown v Board of Education decision such an ominous event in American history?
Alexander: The Brown decision was a milestone for radical Leftist change in America. The Civil Rights movement created the blueprint for change followed by successive waves of radical egalitarian movements that followed. Brown established the use of “lawfare” as the most effective way to make sweeping societal change that circumvented the will of the people. In practical terms, it undermined the existence of the blue-collar middle class in America and the reliable path it provided for upward social mobility. This was done by ruining the quality of public education through racial integration. The key to sustaining a blue-collar middle class with realistic prospects for upward social mobility was easy access to high-quality, free public education. This prospect was destroyed by the racial integration decreed by Brown, which was undemocratically forced on Americans by an oligarchy of unelected judges.
When Brown really began to gain traction with court-ordered bussing, the newly integrated public schools were a disaster. Conscientious parents realized that consigning their children to such schools was the equivalent of casting them into a danger zone. The alternative was to send your children to private schools, a massive unbudgeted expense. The days of having large families were over and many blue-collar white families began only having the number of children they could afford to send to private schools. This led to the phenomenon of “white flight,” or whites moving to newly created suburbs with schools far away from the dangerous social experiments. This led in turn to orderly neighborhoods in the city being turned into ghettos. Those who moved to the suburbs often sold their homes at a loss, and bought their new homes at a premium, thereby depleting their resources and wrecking their retirement plans. The blue-collar middle class was under assault and quickly evaporated. While the prospects for working and middle-class whites were diminishing, black prospects were on the rise due to affirmative action policies which gave them unmerited access to selective colleges, universities, and professional schools. All of this was a radical change from the bucolic days of 1950s America when the streets were safe, and crime was rare. Life was good – much better than now for everyone – even blacks. When I was a child, everyone from the children of millionaires on down attended public schools. If you went to a private school that meant you were either a Roman Catholic or a problem child. This interaction lessened class divisions among whites and promoted upward social mobility. That’s all gone now.
Edwards: In what ways were the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 harmful to the interests of founding stock Americans?
Alexander: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has led to a massive Leftist transformation of our laws and government that, if not stopped, will result in irreparable changes that will permanently cast whites into the role of a persecuted minority in a nation founded by their ancestors. The legislation was advertised by the Left as safeguarding the so-called sacred principle of “One Man, One Vote”, but what if the man can’t be bothered to vote? This was the problem the Left encountered. It was assumed that black interests in the South would transform the politics of the South if only they were allowed to vote. The problem liberals failed to acknowledge was that blacks were already voting freely in most of the South at that time. Blacks in places like Memphis had been voting since the early 1900s but often had to be bribed with concessions to do so. The problem of blacks not voting required a new system that at least tacitly allowed “proxy voting” on behalf of reluctant black voters. The 1965 Voting Rights Act, wrapped sanctimoniously in “One Man, One Vote” rhetoric, eventually allowed for expansive early voting periods, unfettered absentee voting, mail-in voting, and other remedies that virtually invited voting fraud. Republican politicians know that if they scrutinize these votes too closely, they’ll be accused of “racism” and the charge of racism is kryptonite to Republican politicians.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 will soon make such shenanigans obsolete – not only in the South but nationwide. As Berchtold Brecht, a communist Jewish/German playwright said in the late 1940s, “If you don’t like the election results, change the electorate” and that’s exactly what the Left is doing by third-world immigration legitimized under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. These immigrants are almost always non-white and their numbers assure that states like California stay permanently in the blue column while other states wait to be flipped. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 are simply more weapons in the vast Leftist arsenal to punish and dispossess the founding stock of America.
Edwards: How have so-called “affirmative action” and today’s “diverse workplace” impacted society?
Alexander: Affirmative Action and the goal of achieving a “diverse workplace” describes government policies that weaken America and make us less competitive in world markets. Affirmative Action and diversity are meant to replace merit as the guiding principle for determining who is chosen for positions of authority, responsibility, and power, as well as who is selected for admission to select colleges, universities, and professional schools. Affirmative Action was a policy enacted in 1969 by Alfred Blumrosen and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC was and still is a bureaucratic agency tasked with enforcing the 1964 Civil Rights Act – a monstrosity of a law reputedly as thick as the phonebook. The supposed purpose of this law is to ensure that race has no role in determining who is selected for key desirable jobs and positions but instead requires employers, admissions committees, and HR departments to not only consider race but give preference to black applicants over whites in determining who is hired or admitted.
Instead, following the regulations authored by Blumrosen, this so-called interpretive regulation actually contradicts the intent and plain meaning of the actual language of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Blumrosen’s editorializing was an early example of the so-called “Chevron Doctrine” in action, which directs the Courts to give federal governmental agencies wide latitude in writing regs to implement practical enforcement of the statutes they are supposed to enforce. Tasked with enforcing the 1964 Civil Rights bill, Blumrosen and his compatriots apparently felt that the only way they could get blacks into high positions and selective schools was to discriminate against whites in favor of blacks. Once again, the true purpose of the Civil Rights Act was not to protect blacks from white racial discrimination but was to visit racial discrimination upon whites. Again, the law’s purpose was not so much pro-black as it was anti-white. he supposed high-mindedness of the Civil Rights Act was just a red herring intending to hide the true intentions of the liberals in charge. This not only deprives us generally of having the best and brightest in charge, but it also unconstitutionally deprives whites of equal protection under the law. It has resulted in a new regime of mediocrity that governs every major institution of our nation and is another key element in turning America into a third-world nation.
Edwards: The nuclear family is the building block of any healthy society. How have radical feminism and no-fault divorce further assaulted this institution?
Alexander: Just as the Civil Rights movement was not pro-black but anti-white, so also the feminist movement was not pro-woman but anti-male. To destroy America, the Cultural Marxists needed to destroy the American family. A closer look at feminism shows that it was primarily populated in its leadership by Jewish lesbians. Normal women know that they need men because not only are men essential to propagating humanity, but they are also a natural complement to women for successfully raising children to adulthood. Feminists are just another example of mankind presuming that they know better than God.
The no-fault divorce movement was just as essential to the destructive ends of the Cultural Marxist scheme to destroy God’s order and reduce white birth rates by making men and women competitors rather than partners. By loading the dice against men by making women’s interests paramount over those of men, no-fault divorce makes men wary of marriage, and sometimes understandably so. Any man ensnared in a court proceeding against a feminist woman and her feminist lawyer before a feminist judge will learn quickly that Mr. Lincoln didn’t free all the slaves. Men understand that no-fault divorce can destroy their lives if they marry the wrong woman. He can lose his fortune, his business, his peace of mind, his livelihood, his children, and even his freedom. Another problem with all of this is that we need our young adults to get married posthaste and have plenty of children. Be sure to pray for God’s guidance when choosing a wife.
Edwards: Give us a parting shot in summation.
Alexander: The great 19th-century Southern theologian R.L. Dabney once commented that “American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition.” Victories for the good guys have been few and far between since Dabney’s day.
Many people retain a false impression about the true nature of many liberal initiatives like, for example, the Civil Rights movement. It is commonplace for many so-called liberals and even conservatives to imagine that the Civil Rights movement was and still is righteous and holy. In the Gospel of Matthew, the verses read, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” Apply this test to the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education Supreme Court decision, or the Civil Rights movement generally. Did public school racial integration in America produce good fruit or corrupt fruit? The answer is obvious. It ruined one of the best public education systems in the world and reduced it to one of the worst but like the emperor’s new clothes, this is a truth few in public life want to acknowledge publicly. It may seem to be paved with good intentions, but according to the old saying, so is the pathway to hell. How many of the sanctimonious politicians who celebrate the Brown decision each year send their children to the Washington D.C. public schools? Actions speak louder than words. Call out this hypocrisy every time you can. Elites can casually ruin your life while sparing themselves of the consequences.
Many Americans have concluded that it is easier to go along with the leftist flow of America. They are reluctant to be identified as opposing those supposedly on “the right side of history” and wish they could get on with their lives – making money, watching their favorite sports team, and drinking a beer. But the Left, running out of causes to promote, has decided to make “transgenderism” a civil right and force it down the throats of not just Americans but also the rest of the world. Liberalism is truly the modern face of evil. We must resist it and every part of their program with every fiber of our being. There is no good fruit falling from the evil tree of liberalism.
This article was originally published by The Barnes Review.
