Africans and African Americans

Feminists for Femicide: How Leftist Lies Lead Inexorably to Dead White Women

Are you a vile hate-thinker? The answer to that surely came if you heard about a recent horrific murder on the New York subway. Someone set fire to the clothing of a sleeping 76-year-old woman and she burned to death as her killer stood and watched. If you heard about the murder, did you immediately think: “The killer is melanin-enriched, not melanin-deficient”? If you did, then you’re a vile hate-thinker.

Diversity Is Death: Guatemalan enricher Sebastian Zapeta at work on the New York subway (image from Twitter)

And you were right to be one, because a dark-skinned Guatemalan called Sebastian Zapeta was clearly identified on CCTV as the culprit and is now in police custody. In Western societies, non-Whites commit a vastly disproportionate share of crime, particularly violent and sexual crime. But it’s precisely when people are right about racial patterns of crime that the left call them haters and try to silence them. As I’ve pointed out before, the supreme commandment of leftism is “Thou shalt not recognize patterns — except when they’re not there.” Leftism demands that we ignore real patterns of non-Whites harming Whites and accept non-existent patterns of Whites harming non-Whites. That’s why Britain has a martyr-cult for a Black youth called Stephen Lawrence, but no martyr-cult for a White woman called Tracey Mertens.

The martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence

Who was Tracey Mertens? Well, in the eyes of feminists and other leftists, she was a nobody who deserved oblivion, not attention. Stephen Lawrence was entirely different. He was one of thousands of Blacks murdered in Britain, but he had the rare distinction of being murdered by Whites, not by other Blacks. That’s why he now has an extensive and lavishly funded martyr-cult devoted to promoting a gigantic leftist lie: that cruel and vicious Whites are a permanent threat to saintly and suffering non-Whites. Features of the martyr-cult include the following:

Stephen Lawrence Day, an annual memorial for the martyr created by the so-called Conservative prime minister Theresa May and strategically placed on 22nd April, the day before commemoration of England’s national saint St George and Shakespeare’s traditional birthday.

The Stephen Lawrence Research Centre, which works to demonize Whites and sanctify non-Whites at De Montfort University in the ethnically enriched city of Leicester, where Muslims and Hindus are now re-enacting the tribal feuds of their highly corrupt, violent and rape-friendly homelands.

The Stephen Lawrence Memorial Centre, which works to demonize Whites and sanctify non-Whites in ethnically enriched south-east London, where Blacks murder, rape and rob all other races at vast disproportionate rates.

A Damehood for the martyr’s mother Doreen Lawrence, who now sits in the House of Lords lecturing the White British on ethics and policing. Dame Doreen comes from the highly corrupt, violent and rape-friendly island of Jamaica, which has more murders each year than Britain, despite having a much smaller population. If murders committed in Britain by Jamaicans and extra-judicial murders by the Jamaican police were added to the stats for Jamaica, the discrepancy would be even greater.

The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry in 1999, initiated by the half-Jewish Home Secretary Jack Straw and starring the fully Jewish anti-racism activist Dr Richard Stone. The Inquiry condemned the British police as “institutionally racist” and, like the George Floyd hysteria in America, led to reduced policing of Blacks and other non-Whites, followed by an entirely predictable increase in murder and rape by non-Whites.

Mary-Ann Leneghan and Kris Donald, horrifically murdered by non-Whites and therefore entirely unsuitable for martyr-cults

The full direct and indirect costs of the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence must be in the billions of pounds by now. But the far more numerous White victims of non-White killers have not been deemed worthy of a fraction of that funding or attention. There are no martyr-cults for the White children Kris Donald and Mary-Ann Leneghan, who were murdered by non-Whites under far worse circumstances than Stephen Lawrence. 15-year-old Kris Donald was kidnapped by Pakistani Muslims, driven for hundreds of miles as he pleaded for his life, then doused in gasoline and burned alive. 16-year-old Mary-Ann Leneghan was raped and tortured for hours by Blacks, told again and again that she was going to die, then stabbed repeatedly before having her throat slit.

Forgotten by feminists

But there’s no martyr-cult for them. And there’s no martyr-cult for the White woman Tracey Mertens, also murdered under far worse circumstances than Stephen Lawrence. But who was Tracey Mertens? A week ago, I would have had no idea myself. However, by coincidence, her horrific murder-by-incineration has been back in the news at the same time as the horrific murder-by-incineration on the New York subway. But the stories have more in common than their simultaneous appearance in the media. As you read about Tracey Mertens’ murder, please note how it was perfect for a feminist martyr-cult. Except for one thing:

Tracey Mertens, burned alive by Blacks, forgotten by feminists (image from BBC)

The daughter of a woman brutally murdered 30 years ago when she was set on fire in a churchyard has said she will never truly rest until the killers are found. Kelly Hill was 11 when her mum Tracey Mertens walked out the door on 23 December 1994 to pick up some documents from their former home in Birmingham. She never saw her again. Tracey was bundled into a car by two men and driven to Eaton, near Congleton in Cheshire, where she was doused in petrol. [The report does not add “and set on fire” — the BBC was reluctant to state the full horror, for reasons that will become obvious.] She died the following day.

“I can’t let go until I know why and what’s happened – and someone gets in court for it,” Mrs Hill said. “It’s just like she’s forgotten about, but I can’t forget.”

Ms Hill, now 41, said she remembered hearing the door of their new house in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, close as her mum left. “I woke up and I ran over to the window and she was just getting in the car,” she said. “I knocked on the window and I waved to her and she waved back. That was the last time I saw her.”

The family, including her brother Daniel, who was 10 at the time, and father Joey, had moved up north that winter. Tracey had gone to pick up the benefits book she had left at her former home in Nechells, Birmingham, when two men turned up at the door. The following details are known because despite the extensive injuries Tracey had suffered, she was able to tell police what happened in the last hours of her life. The men asked “where’s Joey?” before bundling her into a yellow Ford Escort.

She was driven 60 miles to isolated Christ Church, where she was set on fire in the grounds. Tracey described her attackers as two black men with Birmingham accents, but who also spoke Jamaican Patois. Tracey died the following day, on Christmas Eve. (“‘I can’t let go until I know who killed my mum’,” BBC News, 23rd December 2024)

The one thing that prevented Tracey Mertens’ becoming a feminist martyr is the race of her killers. They were Black and their horrific crime revealed the truth about the bestiality of Blackness. That’s why feminists have ignored Tracey Mertens. Her daughter used too many words when she said: “It’s just like she’s forgotten about.” In fact, the White female Tracey Mertens is definitely forgotten, quite unlike the Black male Stephen Lawrence. Yet by every objective criterion her murder in 1994 was far worse than the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993. He was stabbed twice after a chance encounter and might easily have survived. She was incinerated with vicious sadism and given no chance of escape or survival. He died quickly and with relatively little suffering. She died slowly and with horrific suffering. She was a mother with young children. He was a teenager with no children. His killers proved themselves a threat only to young men from racial minorities. Her killers proved themselves a threat to both sexes and all races.

Excluding Blacks is good for Whites

And her killers may have burned her alive simply to strike at her husband Joey Mertens. Reading between the lines of that story at the BBC, I conclude that her husband had offended Black gangsters in Birmingham in some way and that the Black gangsters punished him by incinerating his wife. He must have known how vicious and dangerous they were, but he didn’t ensure that his wife was safe from them. That would be another example of how men cause harm to women, but feminists have never given the murder of Tracey Mertens even a fraction of the attention it deserves.

If they had, they would have found another stark contrast with the murder of Stephen Lawrence. On utilitarian grounds, the killers of Stephen Lawrence can be said to have been protecting women rather than harming them. They were seeking to keep Blacks out of a White working-class area of London. Excluding Blacks is good for Whites and particularly for White women. After all, Blacks commit rape at much higher rates and in worse ways. Gang-rape is a Black speciality in Britain. And just look at Britain’s most prolific gerontophile rapist, a Black called Delroy Easton Grant who raped scores or even hundreds of elderly White women in London, destroying the peace of their final years and in some cases undoubtedly bringing about their premature death.

Inverting the truth

Like the unidentified killers of Tracey Mertens, Delroy Easton Grant was from Jamaica, the Caribbean island that has supplied thousands of murderers, rapists, thieves and tax-eaters to Britain since treacherous politicians imposed non-White immigration against the clearly expressed opposition of the White majority. As I’ve often noted before: “Blacks Blight Britain.” But it’s precisely because non-Whites blight Britain that there are no martyr-cults for the White victims Tracey Mertens, Kris Donald and Mary-Ann Leneghan. Their horrific murders revealed the truth about the harm done by non-Whites to Whites and leftists are determined to suppress that truth. Indeed, they are determined to go further: not merely to suppress the truth but to invert it. That’s why they created the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence, which is devoted to promoting the gigantic leftist lie that cruel and vicious Whites are an ominous and omnipresent threat to the lives and welfare of gentle, enriching non-Whites.

The murder of Tracey Mertens shatters that gigantic leftist lie, which is why she has no martyr-cult. Like the rape-gangs of Rotherham, her murder proves that feminists have no real concern for the lives and welfare of ordinary women and girls. Instead, like all other mainstream leftists, they are concerned with only one thing: advancing the cause of leftism. They want power and privilege for themselves, and have no qualms about sacrificing ordinary women to gain those all-important things. Non-white immigration causes enormous and growing harm to White women across the West, but non-Whites are footsoldiers in the leftist war on the West, so feminists are fully in support of open borders. In other words, feminism promotes femicide, or the murder of women. At the same time, feminists pretend to oppose femicide. For example, the Black male feminist Keith Fraser has recently issued a stirring “call to action for men and boys”:

Black male feminist Keith Fraser, who postures about ending male violence against women while working to increase it (image from Gov.uk)

Today is White Ribbon Day, an international campaign observed on 25 November each year, calling for the elimination of violence against women and girls.

As the Chair of the Youth Justice Board (YJB) and a former police officer, I’ve had the privilege of working across organisations that help to shape the lives of children and young adults, particularly those caught up in the youth justice system. My personal and professional journey has been driven by a commitment to safety and positive societal change. My time as a police officer meant I have witnessed first-hand the devastating impact of violence against women and girls. This issue is not just something we read about in headlines; it’s a daily reality for countless women. It tears apart individuals, families and communities.

White Ribbon Day offers a powerful opportunity for men and boys to be allies for women and girls. I myself take an active role in promoting gender equality and challenging behaviours and attitudes that perpetuate violence against women and girls, and today I am calling on the youth justice sector to do the same. It is so important to have positive male role models within these spaces and beyond. White Ribbon Day also marks the start of the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence, which runs until Human Rights Day on 10 December. (“White Ribbon Day 2024 — a call to action for men and boys,” The official British government website, November 2024)

In fact, Keith Fraser was issuing a call for posturing about violence against women and girls, not a call to action about the problem. Leftists like him take action only to increase violence against women and girls. Those “16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence” took place at the same time as some horrific stories about male violence were in the British media. Men were on trial for committing bestial crimes against these women and girls:

Natalie Shotter, a 37-year-old White woman who was orally raped to death while lying unconscious on a bench in a London park

Sara Sharif, a 10-year-old Polish-Pakistani girl who had been viciously beaten and tortured for years before being murdered — her autopsy revealed “10 spinal fractures and further fractures to her right collar bone, both shoulder blades, both arms, both hands, three separate fingers, bones near the wrist in each hand, two ribs and her hyoid bone in the neck”

Elianne Andam, a 15-year-old Black schoolgirl stabbed to death in London after trying to help a female friend retrieve belongings from an ex-boyfriend

Amie Gray, a 34-year-old White woman stabbed to death on a tourist beach as she picnicked with a White female friend, who was also savagely attacked

The racially diverse female victims of bestial male violence and their non-White killers

Every one of those female victims is worthy of a feminist  martyr-cult but will never receive one. Why not? It’s very simple: because the male killers are all UUSFLL rather than useful for leftism. That is, the killers are Utterly Un-Suitable For Leftist Lies, because all of them are non-White. Even worse, three of them are Muslims. Natalie Shotter was raped to death by a Black Muslim called Mohamed Iidow (sic). Sara Sharif was beaten and tortured to death by her own father, a Pakistani Muslim called Urfan Sharif. Elianne Andam was stabbed to death by a Black teenager called Hassan Sentamu. Amie Gray was stabbed to death by an “Iraqi-Thai Muslim” called Nasen Saadi, a criminology student who appears to have been motivated by a sexual fetish about the random murder of women. The Guardian reported that “he may have taken sexual pleasure in the killing,” because while “he was being held in the high-security Belmarsh prison in south-east London, awaiting trial, he asked a female officer if the killing was making headlines and then masturbated in front of her.”

An attractive White and two ugly Blacks: Tracey Mertens compared with Stephen Lawrence and George Floyd

But you can be sure that the Guardian and rest of the mainstream British media will soon end any discussion of Nasen Saadi and the other killers. Like many thousands of other violent and depraved criminals across the West, Saadi and Company are UUSFLL — Utterly Un-Suitable For Leftist Lies. That is, they’re non-White and reveal the truth about non-White pathologies, so feminists and other leftists cannot use their depraved crimes to advance the cause of leftism. That’s why their female victims will soon be forgotten, just as Tracey Mertens was before them. And there’s one more key contrast to note between Tracey Mertens and Stephen Lawrence — and between Tracey Mertens and George Floyd, the thuggish Black criminal who inspired a world-wide martyr-cult after his self-inflicted death in 2020. Tracey Mertens was attractive; Lawrence and Floyd were ugly. By basing mendacious martyr-cults on two ugly Blacks, leftists prove that they hate the middle term of Belloc’s Godly triad just as much as they hate the terms that flank it on left and right. This is what the great Catholic writer Hilaire Belloc said in 1936:

[T]here is (as the greatest of the ancient Greeks discovered) a certain indissoluble Trinity of Truth, Beauty and Goodness. You cannot deny or attack one of these three without at the same time denying or attacking both the others. Therefore with the advance of this new and terrible enemy against the Faith and all that civilization which the Faith produces, there is coming not only a contempt for beauty but a hatred of it; and immediately upon the heels of this there appears a contempt and hatred for virtue. (The Great Heresies, chapter 6, “The Modern Phase”)

Belloc was a highly insightful and honest man, so it should come as no surprise that he has long been condemned for “anti-Semitism.” As Andrew Joyce has described in his review of Belloc’s The Jews (1922), Belloc identified and condemned clear patterns of Jewish predation and subversion within White societies. If he were alive today, Belloc would readily understand and explain why the modern West is consumed by a cult of minority-worship that insists Whites can do no right and non-Whites can do no wrong.

Yes, Belloc would have seen and said that minority-worship is yet another example of Jewish subversion. The cult centers on Blacks, who are the most harmful, obnoxious, unintelligent, unattractive and unproductive of all minorities. In other words, they are the group that least resembles Whites. And that’s precisely why the hostile Jewish elite selected Blacks for transformation into the archetypal saintly victims of White oppression. The martyr-cults of Stephen Lawrence and George Floyd don’t merely deny racial reality: they turn the reality on its head and proclaim that sinful Whites harm saintly non-Whites. Like the sadistic murder on the New York subway, the sadistic murder of Tracey Mertens in an English churchyard demolishes those leftist lies. That’s why feminists will ignore the murder in New York just as they’ve ignored the murder in England. Like leftism as a whole, feminism is an ethically and intellectually bankrupt ideology that works to increase femicide and female suffering, not to end them. And like leftism as a whole, femicidal feminism expresses the will of Jews, not of Whites.

Carter Godwin Woodson’s “The Mis-education of the Negro

CARTER GODWIN WOODSON’S THE MIS-EDUCATION OF THE NEGRO

I am fascinated by chance finds in second-hand bookshops. Favorite books that have shaped my life have often been objets trouvés, washed up by the tide, the same way Nietzsche found Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Idea in a second-hand bookshop in Leipzig in 1865, when the Lutheran pastor’s son was 21. “Something about the book”, he wrote, “told me to take it home…” Two of my three all-time favorite novels were bought from exactly the same charity shop in the London suburbs within three months of one another for an outlay of a couple of pounds. I consider myself well-read, but I had heard of neither book nor their authors – Mark Z. Danielewski’s House of Leaves and Roberto Bolaño’s 2666 – but they soon became favorites. How’s your luck?

There is little chance of this happening in exile in Costa Rica because there is no such thing as a charity shop or thrift store here. People here are too poor to give things to charity, which is a first-world luxury. They keep things until they break and then they repair them or they have them repaired. Nevertheless, the local town has a sort of pop-up store which features an ongoing rummage sale. I always find something useful for the apartment and dirt-cheap there, and recently I noticed a crate of English-language books which I went through in hope of finding a gem. No such Nietzschean luck, no amor fati for me. All the books were management tomes or computing manuals. Oh, well. But a month later I saw that there were a few new books in the crate, and the one perched on top was practically begging me to buy it. A slim, 70-page hardback volume in perfect condition, the book featured a dapper Black man in suit and tie on its cover, and was entitled The Mis-Education of the Negro (MN), by Carter Godwin Woodson. I paid 500 colones for it, a fraction under a dollar at the time of writing.

I had never heard of Mr. Woodson, but I elected to read the book first before investigating its author online. Rarely have I spent a dollar so fortuitously. Mr. Woodson was a teacher and educator, and was indeed the Black man on the cover. His introductory preface was written in 1933, and concerns Black education in American after the Emancipation and Reconstruction periods which followed the Civil War. It exemplifies two major points about Black education. Firstly, it’s the White man’s job. Secondly, the White man always gets it wrong. It is White mis-education that is the fault, never the negro.

The book’s preface sets out its program:

“Only by careful study of the Negro himself and the life which he has been forced to lead can we arrive at the proper procedure in this crisis”.

Woodson’s grounding premise is that White education given to Negroes simply proliferates a system which led to slavery, lynching, and the demotion of the negro to a position of second-class citizen. And yet there is a curious formula applied by which the negro is to be educated to remain precisely in the position natural to his race. The word “negro”, incidentally, is capitalized throughout the book, in much the same way as ‘Black’ now takes a capital in the Western Anglophone media and ‘white’ does not. Outside of textual quotation, I will give it a lower-case because I am not Black and I do not work for Associated Press, whose diktat led to this curious typographical apartheid. (TOO capitalizes both.)

 As an example of the paradox Woodson exemplifies, consider his appraisal of Blacks in the field of business:

“In the schools of business administration Negroes are trained exclusively in the psychology and economics of Wall Street and are, therefore, made to despise the opportunities to run ice wagons, push banana carts, and sell peanuts among their people. Foreigners, who have not studied economics but have studied Negroes, take up this business and grow rich”.

By this token, it is better to teach Blacks how to sell peanuts and bananas to other Blacks rather than attain the skills perfected by those who have attained what is surely an economic gold standard, an ultimate measure of success, by trading on Wall Street. A bespoke education for negroes, which is what Godwin would prefer to simply aping the education given to Whites, contains within itself the low expectations Godwin finds in White educational practices, which teach a Black that “his Black face is a curse and that his struggle to change his condition is the worst sort of lynching”.

This smacks of the hysteria prevalent in Black rhetoric today. “Lynching” is the Black version of the Holocaust, despite the fact that, according to the Tuskegee Institute Archives,  between 1882 and 1968, of the 4,743 men who were lynched, 1,297 of them were White. It’s hardly a Holocaust.

The text occasionally foreshadows the current vogue for cultural relativism:

“There can be no reasonable objection to the Negro’s doing what the White man tells him to do, if the White man tells him to what is right; but right is purely relative”. [Italics added].

It should be noted that, while the Left insist on cultural moral relativism, this does not extend retrospectively but only synchronically between cultures. There is no statute of limitations on what university courses in the UK are now calling “the problem of Whiteness”.

Throughout MN, Woodson does not have anywhere near as much ire for the White man as he does for the “educated Negro”;

“The ‘educated Negroes’ have the attitude of contempt toward their own people because in their own as well as in their mixed schools Negroes are taught to admire the Hebrew, the Greek, the Latin and the Teuton and to despise the African”.

What is curious about this is the virulence Woodson displays towards the “educated Negro”, his bête noire throughout MN. Also, it discounts any notion of the cultural attainment of quality, the meritocracy of the intellectual advantage attendant on studying “the Hebrew, the Greek, the Latin and the Teuton”.  Whites are not taught to admire this tradition and despise the African. They are taught how to discover for themselves to admire the White tradition and discount the African. Why read the output of failed races when they hadn’t produced any literary works until they encountered White civilization? Stick with your own color, just like Black kids do in every high school and prison canteen in America.

In the end, the one question which will be ever-present in this book remains the same; What if the “inferiority” that Blacks are taught to feel is not the product of oppression, but an expression of a natural order? This is the question Woodson sets out to answer, although I don’t believe he knew that.

There is an inbuilt flaw in Woodson’s general argument. Industrial apprenticeships, for example, do not benefit Black men because they do not have the experience their White counterparts built up before Emancipation. But the author fails to consider the fact that those White apprentices still had to learn the job before they could gain that experience. Why cannot the Black man do the same? There exists in MN a constant undercurrent of cognitive dissonance, a now-familiar distaste Black academics have for Blacks adopting White educational practice while knowing in themselves that Whites are the only serious educators. We see it today in the dismissal of Blacks who push back against the racial politics of the Black caucus, like Thomas Sowell and Candace Owens, who are regularly described as “Oreos”, “Uncle Toms”, “house niggers”, and other childish epithets. And it is still prevalent today in schools at which Black students discourage other Blacks from learning, and thus “acting White”. A good friend of mine in England got out of the teaching profession, and one of the reasons he gave me was the dispiriting sight of Blacks using their college as a cross between a fashion-show catwalk and a gang den, while making sure none of their fellow Black students strayed off the path and tried some larnin’, that White man’s juju.

Towards the end of MN, Woodson contradicts statements made at its beginning, in which he points out what he sees as the pointlessness of a classical education for negroes:

“While such guidance as the Negro needs will concern itself first with material things, however, it must not stop with these as ends in themselves. In the acquisition of these we lay the foundation for the greater things of the spirit. A poor man properly directed can write a more beautiful poem than one who is surfeited”.

No doubt, and Woodson’s sister was a noted poet. But whereas Woodson dismissed a classical education earlier in MN, he now recognizes that such an academic grounding is not simply required to be a classicist, but that the classics themselves instruct the student about life by the extension of their influence on that student’s life. If you read and understand Plato and Suetonius, you will be better equipped mentally for just about anything else.

So, with the book read, it was time for the great reveal; Who was Carter Godwin Woodson? I imagine some readers will be surprised at (and hopefully forgive) my ignorance, because Carter G. Woodson was none other than “the father of Black history”. Born in 1875 in New Canton, Virginia, Woodson’s parents were freed slaves. This was the end of Reconstruction, and the hope was that the Black man and woman could now go it alone after Emancipation, on an equal footing with Whites as citizens, and in receipt of the financial help required to establish themselves in that citizenry. This new environment was one in which young Woodson flourished.

Although his early education was minimal due to the necessity for him to help with his parents’ farm, Woodson was an autodidact from an early age, and his self-education took him into a teaching career. He became principal of Douglass High School, from which he had gained his diploma in 1897. His later education was as cosmopolitan as any found today, and his path to his doctorate took him to Kentucky, the University of Chicago, and the Philippines before attending Harvard and becoming only the second African-American after W. E. B. DuBois to gain a PhD. His later career took him to Africa and Asia before studying at the famed Sorbonne in Paris. He was affiliated with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and his inauguration of “Black History Week” in February of 1926 is seen as the precursor to Black History Month (BHM). February is the month the USA “celebrates” BHM, although the UK (along with Ireland and The Netherlands) marks this month in October, in the first week of which I chanced across Woodson’s book.

Blacks as a mainstay of the teaching profession is now a (rare) substantive part of the Harris/Walz official policy as they pledge to: “Support education training, and mentorship programs that lead to good-paying jobs for Black men, including Pathways [sic] to becoming teachers”.

Incidentally, Harris also wishes to legalize marijuana, a clear sop to Blacks who feel it necessary to avoid school “because I got high”.

Black men, of course, already have the same pathways to becoming teachers that every other person in the US has, but Blacks always seem to need additional help from the White man.

This is a fascinating book, and available on Amazon for a pittance. Carter G. Woodson benefited from the very system he himself criticized from the inside. Championed by both the Transatlantic Black caucus and their Leftist friends, he could not have criticized White educational practice without himself having been fortunate enough to benefit from that same practice. In the end, although this is a worthwhile book and a fascinating glimpse at history, it’s the same story of the eternal and paradoxically dependent Black attitude towards Whitey; Can’t live with him, can’t live without him.

Mo with the Flow: How Third-World Migration is a War-Crime against the White West

I’ve never knowingly heard a moment of his music. And I’ll do my best to ensure that I never will. But the Chicago rapper Chief Keef (born 1995) has still supplied me with an excellent symbol of the noxious nature of Blackness. What is that symbol? The cover of his first album:

Chief Keef’s Finally Rich (2012)

It’s a good cover in a bad way, entirely appropriate for the cretinous and corrupting genre of rap. Keef looks both dirty and dangerous, both menacing and malevolent. But I think there’s something in the photo that’s working at a subconscious level to maximize the menace and the malevolence. What is it? It’s the smoke spilling from Keef’s mouth. And why is the smoke important? Because it’s chaotic. I mean that mathematically, not just metaphorically. Smoke is an example of the mathematical phenomenon of chaos. The movements of smoke are notoriously difficult for scientists to model and predict. Smoke is a kind of miniature meteorological phenomenon and, like the weather as a whole, it’s very sensitive to tiny changes in the variables that govern its behavior. As the story goes: a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas. Smoke displays the butterfly effect in miniature. That’s why tendrils of smoke are so fascinating to watch. They’re sinuous and strange, swirling and shifting and serpentining, impossible to predict from moment to moment.

The criminal chaos of Blackness

Like smoke, Black behavior is chaotic. And I think that’s why the smoke on the cover of Chief Keef’s Finally Rich is so powerful, subconsciously reinforcing the message of menace and malevolence. And of mindlessness. The smoke is an active, exterior symbol of the evolved Black psychology inside Keef’s dreadlock-draped head. Keef is captured in a moment of stillness, but you can ask the same question of him as you can of the smoke spilling from his mouth. What is going to happen next? You can’t predict what the smoke is going to do and you can’t predict what Keef is going to do. In an instant, he could be active and on his feet, dishing out violence, dealing death or committing rape. Like smoke, Blacks are volatile and chaotic, shifting suddenly and sharply from one pattern of behavior to another.

But smoke isn’t always chaotic. In apparently still air, it swirls and shifts, but it will respond instantly to a sufficiently strong air-current and move in one distinct direction. That’s another way smoke is like Black behavior. Black crimes are often very easy to solve because Blacks react suddenly and impulsively to opportunity. They evolved in the rich but unpredictable environment of Africa, needing to react fast to sudden changes. So they go with the flow in the new environment of a Western city, drifting like smoke and then acting with distinct purpose as an opportunity for personal advantage arises. If a valuable item is momentarily unguarded, a Black will steal it without thought of the future consequences.

Natalie Shotter, the innocent White victim of our Semitic and Semito-sycophantic elite (photo from the Daily Mail)

That also applies to Black sex-crimes. I thought of Chief Keef’s smoke when I read about a fatal rape committed in London in 2021. The alleged rapist is called Mohamed Iidow (sic). I haven’t found a definite photo of him, but he has a Somali surname and is therefore presumably Black. He certainly behaved like a Black, drifting like smoke as he waited for an opportunity to rape a vulnerable woman. Here’s how he is alleged to have been a Mo going with the flow:

Woman died of heart attack after being repeatedly raped by stranger on park bench, court hears

A woman died from a heart attack after she was raped by a stranger while unconscious on a park bench, a court has been told.

Warning: This article contains details readers may find distressing

Natalie Shotter, 37, had been on a night out before she was sexually assaulted and killed on a park bench in Southall Park, west London, jurors heard. Mohamed Iidow, 35, is on trial accused of rape and manslaughter. He has denied both charges. Ms Shotter died of a heart attack caused by Iidow raping her “again and again”, prosecutor Alison Morgan KC told jurors. The court was shown CCTV footage of Ms Shotter sitting on a bench with a different man when, the prosecution says, Iidow walked past and looked at them.

He then left the park and drove away, before returning later, jurors heard. The prosecutor said Ms Shotter was lying down and showing “no clear movement” for around 30 minutes before the defendant approached her “nonchalantly”. During the alleged attack, the victim was “deeply unconscious”, she said. Ms Morgan continued: “What was the defendant doing there, what was he seeking to do, walking up and down the paths in the middle of the night and thinking about what his objectives must have been — seeking out a vulnerable woman to rape.”

Jurors were shown CCTV which, the prosecution said, showed the defendant moving Ms Shotter’s body into different positions as he raped her. Ms Morgan told jurors: “She was not dead at the time when the defendant was orally raping her, it will be a matter for you to consider — that this defendant went to the park for a reason.

“He would not have sought to have sex with a dead body for over 15 minutes, he was having sex with someone he knew was alive but was deeply unconscious and therefore he was raping her.” Ms Shotter’s body was found in Southall Park by a passer-by in the early morning of July 17 2021, the court previously heard. Swabs taken from Ms Shotter’s mouth area matched DNA samples taken from the defendant, the court heard. (“Woman died of heart attack after being repeatedly raped by stranger on park bench, court hears,” Yahoo News, 4th October 2024)

There’s a very important adverb in that story: “nonchalantly.” The rapist captured on CCTV was not feeling stress or apprehension as he prepared to commit a bestial crime. That’s characteristic of a psychopath and psychopathy is more common among Blacks. But committing rape in public and being captured on CCTV is characteristic of a stupid psychopath. Low intelligence is also more common among Blacks. The average IQ in Somalia is estimated to be about 68. Even when they aren’t committing rape, murder and other crimes, Somalis are very bad for Western nations like Britain.

“Exceptional leave to remain”

So why are there so many Somalis in Britain? We can thank a Jewish immigration minister called Barbara Roche, who told the Guardian in 2001 that she “entered politics — she still emphasises this today — to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.” As part of her combat, Roche opened Britain’s borders to the Third World during the Blair government. As the Daily Mail noted in 2016, among the Third-World newcomers were “more than 200,000” Somalis: “Since most were untrained and would be dependent on welfare, the Home Office could have refused them entry.” But Roche struck a blow against xenophobia and “granted [them] ‘exceptional leave to remain’.”

In other words, Barbara Roche committed an enormous crime against the White natives of Britain. I hope that she and other ministers in Tony Blair’s government will go on trial one day. But the crime of allowing non-White immigration from the Third World wasn’t just committed by Tony Blair’s government. Every government since the Second World War has been culpable. Yes, the floodgates opened under Blair, but the Conservative governments that followed did not try to close them. Quite the contrary: the already disastrously high levels of Third-World immigration increased under the Tories.

Semito-sycophancy in action: Kemi Badenoch performs the goy-grovel at Holocaust Central, Yad Vashem in Israel (image from Jewish News)

Are you surprised to hear that the Black female politician Kemi Badenoch (born 1980) supported that increase when she served in the pseudo-Conservative government? Indeed, she wanted it to get even bigger. Badenoch has married a White and has a Scottish surname (pronounced BADE-noch, with “ch” as in Bach), but she is in fact a Nigerian who was born in London. She now seems poised to become the next leader of the Conservative party, because she’s very popular among the ordinary Conservative members who will choose between her and Robert Jenrick. Ordinary Tories stupidly see Badenoch as a Black version of Margaret Thatcher. But she has got this far only by proving herself to the most important and powerful group in British politics. Like all ambitious politicians in all Western nations, Badenoch knows that Semito-sycophancy — sucking up to to Jews — will guarantee lavish funding and friendly media coverage. But it won’t guarantee that Badenoch becomes Tory leader, because Robert Jenrick, her last remaining challenger in the leadership election, has also been a dedicated Semito-sycophant.

Indeed, Jenrick is married to a Jew, just like the current Labour prime minister, Keir Starmer (and Kamala Harris, Democrat candidate for U.S. president). Jenrick is claiming that the Conservatives need to get tough on immigration if they want to win elections again. But even if the Tories do get tough, they won’t get tough enough. Immigration doesn’t need to be reduced: it needs to be reversed. Jenrick won’t do that and Badenoch certainly won’t. But sooner or later remigration will happen. Then the trial of criminals and traitors like Tony Blair, Barbara Roche, David Cameron and Boris Johnson can begin.

Waging war on the White West

Natalie Shotter, the White woman raped to death in 2021, isn’t famous like Blair, Johnson and Cameron. But I think that she should be central to the trial all the same. Her death-by-rape was both bestial and bustable. That is, it was a horrible crime that seems to have been very easy to solve. The criminal was captured on CCTV and left his DNA in the victim’s mouth. If Mohamed Iidow is found guilty and is indeed a Somali, then the crime will prove yet another example of a very simple equation: Bestial + Bustable = Black. That is, the worse the crime and the easier it is to solve, the likelier it is that the criminal is Black.

It isn’t difficult to understand that equation. Even a slippery lawyer like Blair isn’t going to be able to blow smoke about it. He and Roche knew what they were doing when they exposed the ordinary Whites of Britain to the criminal chaos of Blackness. That’s why they deserve an intra-judicial version of what was extra-judicially inflicted on Natalie Shotter. In other words, they deserve death. Roche got to the top because she was Semitic. Blair, Johnson and Cameron got to the top because they were Semito-sycophantic (and also part-Semitic in the case of Johnson and Cameron). All of them waged war on the White West. And all of them need to answer for their crimes.

Survey of Anti-White Attitudes

Aporia Magazine commissioned two Penn State professors, Eric Silver and Prof John Iceland, to survey anti-White and anti-Black attitudes.

The way we talk about racism has changed. Over the past decade or so, words like “bigot” and “extremist” have been overshadowed by words like “white privilege,” “white supremacy,” and “white fragility.” The new words portray a new kind of racist. Instead of wearing a hood and spewing hate speech, the “new racist” is an ordinary white person whose socialization into “whiteness” causes them to undermine people of color, whether they know it or not.

It’s not hard to see why well-meaning people might be drawn to this image of the new racist. Racial disparities persist. More than a century after Emancipation and 50 years after Civil Rights, blacks continue to lag behind whites in virtually all areas of success. To attribute these disparities to anything other than racism might seem like blaming the victim. Condemning the “new racist” avoids this problem. [It avoids the problem of persistent disparities that have not disappeared despite massive expenses over at least 5 decades by creating “causes” that are unmeasurable and therefore immune from rational criticism. White racism as a cause has become an axiom, a statement that is accepted without controversy or question, like a tautology. Such a statement is supposed to be so obvious that there is no need to try to prove it.]

Not everyone, however, agrees. Parents protest at school board meetings. State universities quietly soften their antiracism agendas. Individuals take defiant stands, sometimes at great cost to themselves, to combat what they perceive as the spread of anti-whiteness. And then, of course, there’s Florida, where “woke goes to die.”

These actions are motivated in part by concern over the antiracism movement’s use of morally charged language that depicts contemporary whites as racists and blames them for past and present racial injustices. They are also motivated by a fear that if left unchecked, the movement will succeed in normalizing a culture of anti-whiteness, with devastating effects not just for whites but for the country as a whole.

Are such worries warranted? How much of a problem is anti-whiteness, really?

To investigate this, in 2021, we hired YouGov, one of the world’s leading survey research firms, to ask a nationally representative sample of 1,125 US adults whether they agreed or disagreed with five statements designed to measure their “anti-whiteness.”

The statements were:

●     Most white people in this country believe that whites are better than other groups.

●     Most white people in this country just don’t get it when it comes to understanding the hardships of other race groups.

●     Most white people in this country would rather keep society as it is rather than make changes that would benefit other groups.

●     Most white people in this country don’t care about the hardships experienced by other race groups.

●     Most white people in this country are reluctant to give up their white privilege even though doing so would make society more equal.

We found there’s a lot of anti-whiteness out there, including among whites! Blacks were the most anti-white (69-79 percent), followed by Latinos (47- 62 percent), whites (40-53 percent), and other race groups (33-39 percent). Anti-whiteness, it seems, is far from rare, making concerns about its effects on society far from unreasonable.

These results may come as a surprise to those who view the US as a hopelessly white supremacist society where whites are universally admired and put on a pedestal. The data suggest this is far from the truth.

What’s most depressing is that between 30 and 40 percent of White people agree with these statements. These are the people prone to voting for leftist policies along with their non-White coalition partners, an increasingly unbeatable coalition given current demographics and the continuing deluge of non-White immigration, legal and illegal.

The results for Blacks are the opposite. In general, they don’t blame themselves for their problems, trying harder is not the answer, they are not responsible for racial tension, and they don’t think they have too much influence on politics.

The authors propose that diversity training should focus on common values, “shared values that transcend race”— like “liberty, and progress, values that have been a source of unity in the American context for centuries.” However, the problem with that is that it’s not going to change the disparities, and Blacks and Latinos can’t get stuff like affirmative action in education, job preference, and a lenient criminal justice system. by endorsing them. So we’re back where we started.

Black people and morality

Images of Black people are pressed on us so insistently these days, usually as models of some kind, that it is natural to ask just how admirable Black people are. For example, are they especially moral? Are they especially industrious, especially respectful of other people’s property, especially reliable, especially good to children, especially merciful, especially honest?

In the nineteenth century, White people were not impressed by Black people’s industriousness. A British explorer estimated that an average English labourer would accomplish more per day than twelve Africans. [1] In an experiment in Virginia, two White men brought in more crops in a certain period than did thirteen negroes.[2] A German professor found Africans indolent as well as careless, inattentive and unpunctual.[3] John Speke, the first White man to reach Lake Victoria, was amazed by their “inherent laziness”.[4]

Some people find Black people indolent today. Commenting on a video in 2022, a British carer wrote that the Africans he had worked with were invariably late for work and didn’t do much when they arrived.[5] They were always on their cell phones, which he found “rather frustrating”. What had struck another man about the Black workers at his mother’s care home was their complete lack of haste under any circumstance, even when their assistance was needed for a resident. An American stated that almost every Black person he had ever worked with had done his best to get paid for doing nothing. No one said that they found Black people hard-working.

It has been suggested that the reason Black people have a tendency to indolence is that they evolved in conditions where little effort was needed to survive.

The old explorers found that Africans stole compulsively. One described theft as their predominant passion.[6] Similar testimonies are quoted in another article. More recently, African leaders such as Jacob Zuma, Robert Mugabe and Laurent Kabila are notorious for having appropriated extremely large amounts of other people’s money. Today, theft in the form of looting is a more or less exclusively Black pastime.[7]

It could be that Black people lack the other races’ concept of private property. They certainly seem to be without some of their other mental constructs. Noting that African languages are missing certain basic moral terms, the philosopher Gedaliah Braun concludes that Africans lack the corresponding concepts.[8] Zulu has no word for obligation, a concept without which there can be no concept of a promise.[9] Zulus rarely keep their promises and never apologise when they break them, which suggests that they do indeed lack the notion of obligation.[10] Apparently Nigerians and Kenyans are the same. We see the lacking sense of obligation in African countries’ failure to repay their debts, which leads Western countries to “forgive” them.

Black people have difficulties with the concept of time, which is presumably connected with the fact that many African languages have no words for the past or future. Gedaliah Braun thinks this could be why gratitude, which is felt for something done in the past, is rarely seen in Africa.[11] Lacking a concept of the future could explain the African failure to plan ahead or maintain things, such as the South African power supply system. The historian Simon Webb comments on Black people’s apparent inability to arrive anywhere at an agreed time.[12] Africans use the term “African time” for their alternative to what the rest of us call time. If you are invited to an African party starting at eight o’clock, in Western time this means eight o’clock; in African time it means any time you like. West Indians have an equivalent expression. Americans speak of “CP time”—Colored people’s time.

So perhaps the Black concept of property is equally limited. For you or me, a person’s property is theirs by right. For a Black person it is perhaps only theirs as long as they can physically stop someone walking off with it.

In the nineteenth century, the explorer Richard Lander wrote that Africans did not appear to have the least affection for their children: “A parent will sell his child for the merest trifle”.[13] Sir William Harris wrote that Africans would sell their children for the sordid love of gain.[14] “So little do they care for their offspring”, wrote John Duncan, “that many offered to sell me any of their sons or daughters as slaves”.[15] All over Africa, according to Mungo Park, parents might sell their children.[16] Strangely enough, Herbert Ward found that the cannibals of the Congo showed more affection for their children than did the non-cannibals.[17] Only among the cannibals did he ever see a father kiss his child.

Black people still show less love for their children than they might do, as seen in the fact that social services departments are always short of suitable Black foster-parents for Black youngsters. The race produces more neglected or mistreated children than it will take. We sometimes hear of cases like that of Victoria Climbié, whose great-aunt took her in to increase the welfare payments she would receive. She ended up torturing the six-year-old to death.

If John Duncan saw little affection between Black parents and their children, he saw no more between Black adults, nor did Herbert Ward ever witness “any display of tenderness betwixt man and wife”.[18] The naturalist Samuel Baker concluded that there was no such thing as love in Africa: “the feeling is not understood”.[19] One rarely sees Black couples holding hands today.

John Duncan found that Africans cared little for animals.[20] A horse might be left tied up for days without food or water. Coming back from the fields after the experiment in Virginia, the Black labourers’ mules looked emaciated and forlorn whereas the White labourers’ ones were fat and sleek. Black people rarely keep pets today. Looking after animals does not appeal to them.

Black people kill people at an extraordinary rate: in America, more than twenty times the rate of Whites.[21] They can do it in gruesome ways and for no good reason. In 2022 a 73-year-old American woman died after her arm was separated from her body when she was dragged almost a block with it caught in the seat belt of her car, driven by a young Black man who with three others had surprised her by jumping into it.[22] All with pending murder charges, they were aged fifteen to seventeen. In Britain a young Black man stabbed a young White man to death on a bus for trying to stop him throwing potato chips at his girlfriend. Another killed a White man by bringing an iron horseshoe down on his head at a railway station after his victim’s brother had asked a member of his group to turn his music down on the train.[23]

Black people can take pleasure in gratuitous cruelty. The details of “necklacing”, said to have been Winnie Mandela’s favourite means of murder, are too grim to go into here; suffice it to say that spectators count it as a good thing that death takes quite a long time to come.[24] Braun quotes a press report on the trial of four young Black men who in 1993 killed an American woman, Amy Biehl, apparently because she was White, who was in South Africa trying to help Black people. When a witness told the court how the battered woman groaned in pain, the killers’ friends in the public gallery burst out laughing.[25]

No one who had read Sir Richard Burton’s accounts of his travels in Africa would have been surprised. He noted that for the African, cruelty seemed a necessary part of life: “all his highest enjoyments are connected with causing pain and inflicting death”.[26] Burton could not believe that this was only because Africans knew nothing of civilisation; he saw them as a case of arrested development, which had left them with “all the ferocity of the carnivore [and] the unreflecting cruelty of the child”. He compared the way they tortured and killed their prisoners to the way English boys tormented and killed cats.

One morning in the 1800s, a Westerner named Thomas Freeman saw lying in an African street “the mangled corpse of a poor female slave, who had been beheaded during the night”.[27] Later he saw natives dancing round the body “in the very zenith of their happiness”. Thomas Hutchinson, an Anglo-Irish explorer, wrote in 1857 that Africans appeared to take pleasure in cruelty. “The sight of suffering seems to bring them an enjoyment without which the world is tame.”[28]

Worth remembering, especially in view of the dogma of essential racial equality, is the statement made by Geoffrey Gorer in 1935 that a White man can no more think like a Black man than he can think like a bee.[29] Gorer did not see Africans as childlike, incidentally; he thought they were raving mad, “far madder than most of the inhabitants of our asylums”. Yes, at times they could act in a fairly normal fashion, but, he pointed out, so could many maniacs.

Another theory is that Africans cannot internalise imperatives. A study carried out in Senegal found that no matter how many times the Senegalese are told not to do something, it does not get into their heads that they mustn’t do it. Moral constraints must therefore be imposed from outside. In these terms Braun explains the fact that Black behaviour was kept within tolerable limits, as he puts it, in White-ruled South Africa, colonial Africa and the segregated American South, but descended into crime, drug use and unbridled violence when external constraints were removed. This is consistent with the way that the more the anti-racist British police refrain from checking anti-social Black behaviour, the worse it gets. The other races are better able to regulate themselves.

Many of the old explorers were struck by Africans’ dishonesty. Dixon Denham and Hugh Clapperton referred to “the inborn cunning and deceit of the native African. The truth is not in them.”[30] According to William Reade, Africans told a lie more readily than they told the truth; falsehood was not recognised among them as a fault.[31] Roualeyn Gordon-Cumming wrote that Africans were “remarkable for their disregard for truth”.[32] Paul Du Chaillu reported that lying was thought an enviable accomplishment among all the tribes; nowhere could a more thorough and unhesitating liar be found than in Africa.[33] John Speke observed: “Lying being more familiar to their constitution than truth-saying, they are forever concocting dodges with the view, which they glory in, of successfully cheating people”.[34]

We see the same today. Most people have come across a Nigerian fraudster of one kind or another. According to Peter Brimelow, in 1993 a senior fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies reported that in the view of law enforcement officials, fully 75 per cent of the Nigerians in America were involved in some sort of fraud.[35] Commenters on the video mentioned above acknowledged Nigerians’ skill at tricking people. “Given half a chance they will screw you over”, wrote one.[36] Another reported that three of his employees all said that Yorubas could not be trusted. “They told me many stories about the absolute craftiness of the people they worked with. My friend even used this phrase: ‘Don’t beat yourself up over getting conned. They are absolute masters of the craft’.”

Black people tell lies when others tell the truth. In 1976 an educational psychologist described a habitual wrongdoer from the West Indies who when caught red-handed would attempt to persuade his teacher that he had done nothing wrong, irrespective of the evidence.[37] She had met other Black boys like him and got the impression that this was the accepted philosophy of those with whom he lived. Backing this up, the Trinidadian race activist Darcus Howe stated that in Trinidad a guilty person was expected to lie.[38] He had done it himself after getting a girl pregnant as a teenager, protesting that he had never met her. “I never admitted the charge. I stuck to my guns”, he wrote, as if proud of his refusal to own up. While lying himself, a guilty West Indian accuses his accusers of lying. Darcus Howe played this game when defending himself in court in 1970 against charges of riot and affray. The police had fabricated their evidence, he asserted, although he went on to write: “Bricks, stones, bottles, any ammunition at hand we threw at the police”.[39]

In 2023 a chief constable wrote that young Black men rarely admit that they have committed crimes.[40] It is because Black criminals generally plead not guilty that they receive longer sentences than more honest people who have committed similar offences.

A Black woman who told one ridiculous lie after another was the former reality-television star Ariel Robinson. After being voted America’s worst cook, she came back into the news in 2021 having adopted a White child and then, when the girl was three, beaten her to death.[41] At first she blamed the fatality on her seven-year-old son, then said that the girl had drowned from drinking too much water.[42] As she must have realised, it was known that the death was caused by physical violence. Equally surprising, one might think, are the résumés Black people submit that cannot possibly be true,[43] and the telephone interviews they give in the names of other people, who will be seen to be incompetent as soon as they start their new jobs.[44]

Black people are never readier to lie than when blaming something they have done on Whites. In 2000, a young Black man in Birmingham claimed to have been set on fire by racists in what the police described as a sickening racial attack.[45]  It turned out that he had been trying to set fire to a car.[46] In Leicester, a young Black man who had a broken ankle told the police that he had been assaulted by five White youths with an iron bar. He had been felled by the walking stick of an old lady whose handbag he had been trying to snatch.[47] When pedestrians in Notting Hill noticed that the finger of a young Black man was bleeding, he told them he had been racially assaulted by a White man in the man’s house. They called an ambulance for him. He had cut his finger while stabbing the man to death, presumably having broken into his house and been surprised to find him there.[48] These three incidents occurred within a few weeks of each other, which suggests that this kind of thing happens all the time.

It is not surprising that Blacks blame Whites for their misdeeds since Whites are the first to blame themselves. They do not blame Black people for failing to work but blame themselves for not employing them.[49] They do not blame Black people for not saving money but describe them as deprived, meaning by them, by White people. They do not blame Black people for being constantly at war with other Black people in Africa but blame themselves for drawing the borders between African countries in the wrong places. When Victoria Climbié died in 2000, her great-aunt was not blamed for killing her so much as social services were blamed for not stopping her. By contrast, when a White woman, Lucy Letby, was convicted of killing seven babies in 2023, she was described as evil incarnate.

Other White theories include the idea that the reason Blacks do not do well in school is that the schools are underfunded, that the reason they do poorly in aptitude tests is that the tests are biased, and that the reason they are stopped and searched by the police is that the police are out to get them. If Whites can think of no better explanation of an unwanted racial difference than slavery, they blame that, thereby making sure that they are never without a way of assuming responsibility for Black behaviour. Black people only copy them by giving them that responsibility.

Accusing Whites of being anti-Black has been a standard Black strategy since at least the Second World War. Referring to Black airmen, a Jamaican activist told V. S. Naipaul: “Whenever they was in any real trouble, I used to tell them: ‘Boy, your only hope is to start bawling colour prejudice’.”[50] Later, a Black doctor who was found guilty of gross negligence and incompetence and had his license suspended because of his “inability to perform some of the most basic duties required of a physician”, called himself the victim of a racist medical system. [51] According to an American cop, every Black person who is arrested by a White officer describes the police as racist.[52]

A Black speciality is the race hoax. To mention three well-known ones, in 1987 Tawana Brawley, aged sixteen, appeared with excrement smeared over her claiming to have been abducted by a group of White policemen and abused in a wood for four days and nights. She had been at home all the time, where she had smeared the excrement over herself. In 2006 Crystal Mangum, a stripper, accused three members of the Duke University men’s lacrosse team of gang-raping her. She made it up. In 2019 Jussie Smollett paid two brothers to help him appear to have been racially attacked outside his apartment building.

In the twelve months to December 2017, more than a hundred race hoaxes were counted in America, including those of the Black student who scrawled anti-Black graffiti at an Air Force Academy school in Colorado Springs, the one who did the same at Eastern Michigan State University, the one at Kansas State University who wrote the word “Nigger” on his car, and the one at St Olaf’s College in Minnesota who wrote it on her car.[53]

Showing how attached White people are to the idea of White transgression, harsh treatment of those at first assumed to be responsible does not necessarily stop when an event is found to be a hoax. At Colorado Springs, the Commandant assembled the student body in a hall to give it a severe talking to. When it turned out that no White cadet was guilty, he did not turn on the cadet who was guilty but defended his original remarks. “Regardless of the circumstances under which those words were written, they were written”, he observed, “and that deserved to be addressed”.[54] Anyone who failed to get his drift was not welcome at the school, he said. In other words, woe betide any White student who did what no White student had thought of doing.

Hoaxers are encouraged by the media, who have an insatiable appetite for stories, true or false, of White racial misbehaviour. With their outraged editorials and demands for an end to presumed bigotry they draw pity to these vicious people. The public respond by holding candlelit vigils to show how sorry they are about the dreadfulness of Whites, until it becomes apparent that the incident was a hoax, at which point they have to go back to their lives of dreary innocence.

So-called Black history consists largely of lies. In 1989 the authors of the “Portland Baseline Essays” told us that Black people invented gliders in ancient times and perhaps electrochemical storage batteries too.[55] Now we hear that they invented the electric light bulb, the spark plug, the cell phone and the internet.[56] The only reason we didn’t know this before, say the historians, is that White people try to cover up evidence of Black originality. They also tell us that Black people have been in Britain since at least Roman times rather than just since 1948[57] and that they reached North America hundreds of years before Whites did.[58]

In fact the absence of inventions and heroic journeys by Black people is complete. Black people have invented nothing since the bone-tipped harpoon 35,000 years ago. Not the wheel, not written language, not even a lamp with an oil-soaked wick to help them find their way in the dark did Black people invent in all those dozens of millennia. Peanut butter itself, supposedly a crowning Black achievement, was not invented by a Black person.[59] Nor is there any reason why it should have been. Black people are not the inventive type. As for great expeditions, it was others who left Africa and went on, after interbreeding with Neanderthals and in some cases Denisovans, to create civilisations elsewhere; today’s Blacks are the descendants of those who stayed where they were and have only the original human DNA. Africans were not even the first to reach Madagascar, 220 miles off the African coast; people of another race got there first after sailing almost 5,000 miles. But again Black people should not be mocked for failing to discover Madagascar. It is not in them to explore.

It might seem obvious that the tall tales of “Black history” come out of an inferiority complex, but against this is the fact that Black people rarely seem perturbed by their lack of inventiveness or adventurousness. Perhaps, then, the stories simply illustrate the Black love of theft. Seeing inventions and discoveries of value, Black people appropriate them as they might appropriate anything of value.

Just as baseless as “Black history” is the idea that Black people endure “institutional racism”. If by this is meant that institutions discriminate against them, the opposite is true. The whole “diversity” drive is devoted to discriminating in their favour. But usually “institutional racism” just means that the races’ circumstances differ, as in Black people tending to pass fewer exams than Whites, have less money and be more likely to go to prison. But this only shows that the races themselves differ, nor is it necessarily Whites who are at the top of the tree in such regards. In Britain it is more likely to be Gujaratis or the Chinese. In America too, people from South and East Asia are notably successful and law-abiding. But Blacks like to make their circumstances into a sob story, or a guilt story, to lay at the door of Whites.

In the case of truth-telling, Black people do not lack the concept. They can grasp this; what they cannot do is see why they should apply it if they think that an advantage might be gained by lying. What is missing is again the sense of obligation, in this case the obligation to be honest. It is perhaps in lacking this basic aspect of the most basic requirement of morality that Black people differ most from the other races.[60]

So we have an answer to our question. No, Black people are not especially moral.[61] From this point of view it seems that we are being shown the wrong models.


[1] This note and others below refer to Hinton Rowan Helper (“HH”), compiler of The Negroes in Negroland, 1868, New York: G W Carleton. Helper’s notes give abbreviated references, such as, here, on p. 122, to “Duncan’s Africa, Vol. I., page 40”. Where possible these have been expanded to give the author’s full name and the title and date of the book presumably referred to. In this case, HH quotes John Duncan, 1847, Travels in Western Africa, p. 40.

[2] On p. 124 HH quotes the Raleigh Register, Jan. 17th 1868. This could be a typo since his book was published in 1866.

[3] On p. 122 HH quotes Hermann Burmeister, 1853, The Black Man: The Comparative Anatomy and Psychology of the African Negro, p. 15.

[4] On p. 123 HH quotes John Hanning Speke, 1863, Discovery of the Source of the Nile, p. 27.

[5] Viewers’ comments on History Debunked, March 25th 2022, “The thing with Nigerians”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4elhOK34tk4.

[6] On p. 96 HH quotes Duncan, 1847, op cit, p. 141.

[7] Not only do we see Black people breaking into shops and looting them whenever there is a riot; in several English cities looting high-street stores looks set to become a weekly routine for young Black people (History Debunked, Aug. 4th 2023, “Disorder on the streets of England is on the increase, although we don’t like to talk about it”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b53l2k8TuI0).

[8] American Renaissance, Oct. 15th 2017 (first published Feb. 2009), “Racial Differences in Morality and Abstract Thinking” by Gedaliah Braun, https://www.amren.com/news/2017/10/morality-racial-differences/.

[9] Gedaliah Braun writes that the Zulu dictionary does contain a word for obligation, defining it as “as if to bind one’s feet”. However, he says that the compilers did not take it from the language but added it themselves (American Renaissance, Oct. 15th 2017, op. cit.).

[10] A Zulu informed Braun that when a Zulu promises, he means “Maybe I will, maybe I won’t” or perhaps “I’ll try” (American Renaissance, Oct. 15th 2017, op. cit.).

[11] The rarity of gratitude in Africans was noted in the 19th century, when Samuel Baker found them “utterly obtuse to all feelings of gratitude”, even upon being freed from slavery (on p. 134 HH quotes Samuel Baker, 1870, The Great Basin of the Nile, pp. 53 and 197).

[12] History Debunked, April 5th 2022, “The psychopathology of lateness as a minority behavioural trait”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XptapQIv9OE.

[13] On p. 153 HH quotes “Lander’s Africa”, p. 348. This could be Robert Huish, 1836, The Travels of Richard Lander into the Interior of Africa, or Richard Lander could have written a book.

[14] On p. 39 HH quotes Sir William Cornwallis Harris, 1843, Major Harris’s Sports and Adventures in Africa, p. 314.

[15] On p. 39 HH quotes John Duncan, 1847, Travels in Western Africa, p. 79.

[16] On p. 87 HH quotes Mungo Park, 1815, The Journal of a Mission to the Interior of Africa, in the Year 1805, p. 216.

[17] Ward 2019, op cit, p. 95.

[18] Ibid., p. 95.

[19] On p. 115 HH quotes Baker 1870, op cit, p. 148.

[20] On p. 145 HH quotes Duncan op cit, Vol. I, p. 90.

[21] American Renaissance, March 24th 2023, “A harsh new light on race and murder”, https://www.bitchute.com/video/DkJclYNa5D9S/. The multiple of twenty-plus should not be too surprising. According to Wikipedia, Jamaica’s homicide rate is 75 times Norway’s.

[22] The Red Elephants, March 24th 2022, “WHITE GRANDMOTHER HAS ARM LITERALLY RIPPED OFF BY BLACK TEENS, MEDIA IS SILENT”, https://www.bitchute.com/video/WEUMJkPp4ZfT/.

[23] The New Culture Forum, July 15th 2023, “Anti-Social Behaviour: Would YOU Challenge Someone in Modern Britain? BBC Becomes its Own Soap Opera”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc9_q8m9dNo. Sources for the crimes: (1) Evening Standard, March 9th 2007, “Boyfriend murdered for stopping thug throwing chips at his girlfriend”, https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/boyfriend-murdered-for-stopping-thug-throwing-chips-at-his-girlfriend-6581291.html and other sources; (2) BBC, March 27th 2023, “Reading Station death: Horseshoe murder-accused feared attack, jury hears”, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-65091271.

[24] For those who want to know about necklacing in detail, Gedaliah Braun quotes a description (American Renaissance, Oct. 15th 2017, op. cit.).

[25] Occidental Observer, Aug. 23rd 2023, “Amy Biehl, Forgiveness, And the Nature of ‘Hate’” by RockaBoatus, https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2023/08/23/amy-biehl-forgiveness-and-the-nature-of-hate/.

[26] Occidental Observer, March 24th 2021, “Sir Richard Francis Burton: Explorer, Linguist, Race Realist” by Christopher Donovan, https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2021/03/24/sir-richard-francis-burton-explorer-linguist-race-realist/.

[27] On pp. 22-23 HH quotes “Freeman’s Africa”, presumably a book by Thomas Freeman, pp. 53-54.

[28] On p. 29 HH quotes Thomas Henry Hutchinson, 1858, Impressions of Western Africa , p. 283.

[29] Geoffrey Gorer, 1945 (1935), Africa Dances, London: Penguin, p. 142. Gorer attributes the observation to Richard Hughes. He was referring to adult negroes “in a community which has not been destroyed by outside influence”.

[30] On p. 97 HH quotes Dixon Denham and Hugh Clapperton, 1826, Narrative of Travels and Discoveries in Northern and Central Africa, Vol. IV, p. 184.

[31] On p. 95 HH quotes Reade, 1864, op cit, p. 447.

[32] On p. 84 HH quotes Roualeyn Gordon-Cumming, 1850, Five Years of a Hunter’s Life in the Far Interior of South Africa, Vol. I, p. 128.

[33] On pp. 97-98 HH quotes Du Chaillu, 1867, A Journey to Ashango-Land, p. 437.

[34] On p. 98 HH quotes Speke, 1863, op. cit., p. 28.

[35] Peter Brimelow, 1996 (1995), Alien Nation, New York: HarperCollins, p.186.

[36] History Debunked, March 25th 2022, op cit.

[37] Irene Caspari, 1976, Troublesome Children in Class, London: Routledge, pp. 50-52.

[38] New Statesman, Aug. 21st 1998, “My friend the PM sent his secretaries up a ladder and waited below” by Darcus Howe.

[39] Darcus Howe, 1988, From Bobby to Babylon: Blacks and the British Police, London: Race Today, p. 44.

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

[41] Image of news story posted to Telegram by Mark Collett on Feb. 1st 2021.

[42] The Sun, Feb. 15th 2021, “SICKENING EXCUSE Food Network star who ‘beat adopted daughter, 3, to death’ claims girl died from drinking too much water”. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14057410/food-network-star-beat-adopted-daughter/.

[43] See the case of Chanelle Poku, History Debunked, Dec. 8th 2021, “The awful consequences of positive discrimination”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT_D0NW4NL4. See also https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/nhs-job-cheat-chanelle-poku-croydon-crown-court-b970225.html.

[44] See History Debunked, March 25th 2022, op cit.

[45] Telegraph, May 2nd 2000, “News in Brief: Man Set Alight in Race Attack”.

[46] Telegraph, May 18th 2000, “Race hate victim ‘made up attack’”.

[47] Telegraph, June 1st 2000, “Four Years for Mugger Bagged by Pensioners”.

[48] Telegraph, April 8th 2000, “Addict Who Killed Banker Gets Life”. The young Black men were, in the order mentioned, Chris Barton, Matthew Frape and Jacob Rhoden.

[49] Many unemployed Black people do not work because they prefer living on welfare, namely money earned by others. But White people blame Black unemployment on the “racism” of employers.

[50] V S. Naipaul, 1995 (1962), The Middle Passage, London: Picador-Macmillan, p. 283.

[51] This was Patrick Chavis in 1997. See William McGowan, 2002, Coloring the News: How Political Correctness Has Corrupted American Journalism, San Francisco: Encounter Books.

[52] Arthur Sido, Sept. 3rd 2022, “American Renaissance — What It’s Like to Be a White Cop”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78exIQu3GZM.

[53] altCensored, June 25th 2020 (first published by American Renaissance, Dec. 12th 2017), “The psychology of hate crime hoaxes”, https://altcensored.com/watch?v=K4jVWChVk4Y.

[54] Washington Post, Nov. 8th 2017, “A Black student wrote those racist messages that shook the Air Force Academy, school says”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/11/08/a-Black-student-wrote-those-racist-messages-that-shook-the-air-force-academy/.

[55] Education Week, Nov. 28th 1990, “Excerpts From Portland’s ‘African-American Baseline Essays’”, https://www.edweek.org/education/excerpts-from-portlands-african-american-baseline-essays/1990/11. The glider claim was based on fanciful speculations about the achievements of the Ancient Egyptians, whom the essayists counted as Black because Egypt is in Africa and Blacks are African. The battery claim had something to do with electric eels in the Nile.

[56] See many videos by Simon Webb, such as History Debunked, Oct. 30th 2021, “A review of the book Why we Kneel, How we rise, by Michael Holding (Simon & Schuster, 2021)”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiRd4z9awKc.

[57] There were always a handful of Black people in Britain, such as sailors waiting for their next voyage in ports like Liverpool and Cardiff, one who qualified as a lawyer in London in the 19th century, and Dr. Johnson’s servant Francis Barber. Only after the passage of the Commonwealth Act in 1948, however, did they start coming in any numbers. An extension of the idea that Black people came to Britain with the Ancient Romans that is popular with Black historians is that Britain was inhabited by Black people, such as “Cheddar Man”, 10,000 years ago.

[58] For example, according to Professor Brittney Cooper of Rutgers University, Black people were in America, creating libraries and coming up with inventions, “long before White people showed up being raggedy and violent and terrible”. See American Renaissance, Nov. 5th 2021, “‘WE GOTTA TAKE THOSE MOTHERF***ERS OUT’”, https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZuQX8mLypsSc/?list=subscriptions.

[59] Counter-Currents, Feb. 5th, 2011, “Who Invented Peanut Butter?”, https://www.counter-currents.com/2011/02/the-invention-of-peanut-butter/.

[60] American Renaissance Oct. 15th 2017, op. cit. On top of the Senegal study, an anthropologist could find nothing in the Manyika of Zimbabwe that corresponded to the Western concept of morality.

[61] Needless to say, not every Black person is less moral than every White person.

Psychodrama: The Psychosis of Whiteness

The Psychosis of Whiteness: Surviving the Insanity of a Racist World
Kehinde Andrews
Penguin, 2023

Britain has an unfortunate tendency to import the more questionable aspects of American culture, and so it is proving with Critical Race Theory (CRT). Both the literature and the practice have been in the UK for some time and will doubtless further their incursion into schools once transgenderism has finished its turn.

Now that the US armed forces are advised to read Ibram X. Kendi, Britain has some catching up to do, and a new, home-grown addition to the CRT pantheon is vying for position in a boom industry, The Psychosis of Whiteness (PW), by Professor Kehinde Andrews. Professor Andrews is attached to the Birmingham City University School of Social Sciences and is described as “an activist” on his university’s webpage. “Kehinde led leading the development of the Black Studies degree and is director of the Centre for Critical Social Research; founder of the Harambee Organisation of Black Unity; and co-chair of the Black Studies Association.” Yes indeed, he is an activist.

His university provides a good working definition of CRT, along with a word of warning to its critics;

From its origin in US legal studies, CRT has grown to become one of the most important perspectives on racism in education internationally. Frequently attacked by detractors who over-simplify and caricature the approach, CRT offers an insightful and nuanced approach to understanding the processes that shape and sustain race inequality in society.

It is not easy to over-simplify CRT, as its initial problem is that it is a one-trick pony. There are only so many ways in which you can say that the White man is evil and oppressive, the Black man sainted and oppressed. And after a while, as the books plod by, they begin to read like a series of women’s romance novels, where each plot differs slightly but is basically the same formulaic stroll through familiar territory.

Dogma aside, another central problem with CRT is that the model of rationality it uses is not one the post-Enlightenment West is used to. The CRT professional’s riposte to this charge would be that the Enlightenment was a White man’s enterprise, and therefore part of the problem (even though slavery appeared in the West before the Enlightenment and was eradicated in the century after it appeared). Unfortunately, White men didn’t invent rationality, they discovered it, and it is not quite as malleable as CRT suggests.

The reasoning used in CRT is not tethered to the objective world, and the result is that the practitioner can switch from objectivity to subjectivity as easily as a roulette player moves his chips from red to black. And so race is a social construct unless it pertains to one of the White races, in which case it is an immovable part of the objective world. The guiding idea in CRT (and “woke” thinking in general) is that epistemology offers a range of choices, like a supermarket. This has been called “standpoint epistemology”, giving rise to expressions like “my truth” and allied to and supported by a co-axial language in which ordinary words are co-opted and invested with meaning by diktat rather than traditional meanings. But while we are wearily used to reading about “micro-aggressions”, “unconscious bias”, “White fragility”, “systemic racism”, and all the other jingles, PW has an addition to the lexicon; psychosis.

As an aside before Professor Andrews presents his working concept of psychosis, the book’s preface reminisces about childhood television, and how Black programs were “oases in a desert of Whiteness” (Blacks do seem to require race-based television). He does not mention the current wilding of British televisual drama featuring, among many metamorphoses, a Black Anne Boleyn. There is a host of other actors on British TV today whose characters have transitioned not in terms of gender but rather genetics. I wrote about this at Occidental Observer here. But on to psychosis.

With the word in the book’s title, a working definition of “psychosis” is obviously required, and Professor Andrews consults DSM V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual). Despite the book being criticized by some as a sales catalogue for the pharmaceutical industry, it is the Bible of psychiatry, and as such a perfectly valid starting-point.

Professor Andrews finds psychosis to be a sub-set of schizophrenia, of which the author has experience through family diagnoses. The following seems like an incidental observation, but it is key to understanding Professor Andrews’ epistemology;

Brain scans of schizophrenics show observable changes to the structure of the brain over time. By any measure, schizophrenia is as ‘real’ a condition as there is. [Italics added].

While brain-scans, writes the professor, confirm schizophrenia, psychosis is purely subjective. We have moved swiftly from the bio-medical, objective plane in which brain-scans are valid diagnostic tools, to one in which they are not. So, although we appeared to have access to a working medical definition of psychosis, we change direction, learning that “[P]sychosis is a political construct rather than an objective medical diagnosis”. Despite the apparent scientific validity of familial brain-scans, scientific definition is invalid because “One of the delusions of Whiteness is that ‘science’ is an objective pursuit, free from the constraints of politics and emotion”. Emotion is the default position for CRT, and politics crucial to the very essence of the Black experience;

“Blackness is defined by politics and not by skin tone”.

So, Professor Andrews has defined psychosis as a sub-set of a condition which can be objectively proved by scientific method, but claims that it is purely subjective. The medical world would not necessarily agree. Dr. Graham Blackman, for example, psychiatrist and clinical lecturer at Oxford University, has noted this year that;

“Patients presenting with psychosis may have another physical illness or condition causing their symptoms that can be identified using MRI scanning”.

So, after a fleeting visit to objective science, we have moved to the familiar postmodern idea of objective givens as subjective constructs. Indeed, for Professor Andrews, the whole psychotic state is subjective and, instead of trying to further clarify what it might be, he states that “We must problematize the term psychosis, a condition that does not exist outside the imagination of the diagnoser”. In another twist, it is now the person supplying the diagnosis who is the one hosting the condition in her imagination. Professor Andrews alludes to Alice in Wonderland with reference to the television, and his definition of “psychosis” is certainly getting curiouser and curiouser.

Psychosis, then, relies on the bedrock of the medical but is also a political and emotional construct. And there is more;

“Given the racist history of psychiatry and its inheritance of a deeply racialized idea of what mental health is, I use the term ‘psychosis of Whiteness’ as a provocation”.

And we are not done yet.

“I use psychosis here as a metaphor”.

Objective medical condition, subjective state of hallucination, provocation, metaphor. “Psychosis” is proving to be an elusive quarry.

Professor Andrews is on firmer ground when it comes to the relationship between psychosis and Blacks. The consideration of Black mental illness is among the first of many puzzles Professor Andrews solves by applying the principle of limited degrees of racial separation. Whatever the problem for Blacks, the ultimate cause can be traced unfailingly back to the White man, and his complex psychosis, that provocative metaphor which is now objective, now subjective, now pragmatic, now hallucinatory. And so the increased likelihood of Blacks being diagnosed with mental illness is easily explained;

“Sadly, it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy that Black people are more likely to suffer serious mental illness because living with racism is in itself a source of trauma”.

Whites even dominate mental illness. “Black people,” we are told, “do not have a happy history with the word psychosis. The term has historically been used as a stick to beat us with”.

Curiously, and if this is the case, it is reminiscent of another era and a famous and now vanished state which at one time used mental illness as a stick with which to beat their opponents, and Professor Andrews rather lets us in on what he would like to see in terms of the White electorate.

Professor Andrews correctly observes that delusions of grandeur can be symptomatic of psychosis — they have been linked in the clinical literature — and naturally ascribes this trait to the White ruling class. But he goes further;

“[W]hy were bumbling charlatans and closet fascists being elected all over the world? But the answer is simple: delusions of grandeur aren’t just reserved for the men themselves but are shared by much of the voting public”.

When Whitey votes for Whitey, then they must be mentally ill. This is reminiscent of Soviet Russia, in which the KGB often incarcerated political dissidents in mental hospitals with a diagnosis of “sluggish schizophrenia”.

The psychosis of Whiteness is at least an equal opportunities psychosis;

It cannot be reiterated strongly enough that the psychosis of Whiteness is not reserved just for those with White skin. There are countless historic and present-day examples of racialized shucking and jiving to the tune of White supremacy to pocket some pieces of silver.

Judas Iscariot did not dance for his silver (at least the Bible makes no mention of it), but his payment was for betrayal, and Professor Andrews devotes a chapter to those often described by their brethren as “Uncle Tom” and “house nigger”. This is a particularly hated species for the professional Black academic. Tony Sewell, the Black British education expert who has done so much to improve outcomes for Black schoolchildren, is repeatedly mocked. Professor Andrews writes of “the Sewage Sewell report”, this strike-through being a device he uses several times for the purposes of unsophisticated humor. Channeling a 14-year-old blogger doesn’t enhance the professor’s academic style, and Mr. Sewell has obviously riled him by going off the plantation to work in the house for the master. One of CRT’s many fortune-cookie mottoes is “White fragility”, but the Black version is a good deal more delicate.

Despite the fact that we have rather a rickety working definition of psychosis, Professor Andrews is in no doubt about the other half of his title; Whiteness. One of the central formulae of the CRT grift is as follows: Black achievement is due to Blackness, Black failure is due to Whiteness. This is empirically unverifiable, but we must not forget that objective science is a White enterprise and as such invalid, unless temporarily required by a Black academic for a diagnostic brain-scan or some such. Science aside, part of the CRT stratagem is to rig the argument in order to make it unwinnable for Whitey, and part of this gaming of the system is to concentrate not on the present, in which the racism required of Whites is hard work in the proving, but on the past.

Black race writers have a cognitively dissonant view of history. They need it as a grand narrative of oppression dominated by Whites in order to fund their grievance — and protect their revenue stream — but they also require a revisionism which shows that Blacks invented everything from the printing press to the Large Hadron Collider.

Historically, the grievance list is a long one for a short book, but it all proceeds down very well-trodden pathways, and Professor Andrews’ working maxim paraphrases Stalin’s deputy Beria’s famous instruction; Show me the White man, and I’ll show you the crime. And so there is plenty of standard Empire-bashing in PW, the Empire having been a slaughterhouse of rapine and looting with no evidence of having civilized the colonialized countries in any way. Segregation, Civil Rights, Jim Crow — the gang’s all here. Also present and correct is the obligatory attempted rebuttal of the moral relativity argument. With anything remotely woke, such as CRT, relativity is perfectly serviceable as a methodological tool unless Whitey is using it to excuse the past.

The argument over the applicability of contemporary standards of morality (such as they are) to events from the past prompts a bizarre comparison in PW in which the Professor utilizes a very English cultural reference in proposing the invalidity of pardoning the past because it was another country and they do things differently now;

By that logic we can’t condemn slavery, genocide, the denial of women to vote or any other atrocities committed in the past, as they were simply a product of their time. This is what I call the ‘Jimmy Savile defence’.

This is an extraordinary comparison. British DJ Jimmy Savile was found posthumously to have sexually abused many young children via his charity. Professor Andrews’ analogy implies that people now are excusing Savile because that’s just the way it was then (only the BBC covered for Savile), which they most certainly are not. There is always the feeling that CRT operators such as Professor Andrews get suckered into absurd notions because they give them the conventional reinforcement they crave. Certain wrong ideas stick because they are useful. A small but telling example:

Professor Andrews misquotes Enoch Powell’s famous Birmingham speech of 1968 concerning immigration. All Left-wing commentators do this with the Powell speech because the falsehood is always more appealing than the facts if it satisfies the narrative under construction, and so Professor Andrews writes of “Powell’s warning that blood would run in the streets as a result of multiculturalism”. Powell, of course, said no such thing, but made a classical allusion to the river Tiber “foaming with much blood” as a portent for trouble ahead.

Professor Andrews also seems unclear on other political events. Democracy appears to be a White playground in which the biggest boy wins. “In 2019”, writes the professor, “Boris Johnson had forced his way into the leadership of this country”. Johnson was leader of the Conservative Party which won a General Election. He therefore became Prime Minister, and that is how British democracy has worked for centuries. But if Whitey wins anything, illegitimate force must be lurking somewhere. No White Briton in a position of power is legitimate, he is a plantation owner manqué. There is, unsurprisingly, plenty in PW on slavery, the center of gravity of CRT.

Professor Andrews also makes much of the fears of Whites that they will be over-run by “Darkies” (the Professor’s term). But Whites needn’t worry;

For all the existential crises about minorities becoming the majority, or even the optimism that this might lead to powerful coalitions, the data tells us that the future is white. [Italics added]

The inventory of imagined grievances of a Black academic, which is all he provides, is not “data”, but we already know he has no idea what real data would look like. Maybe he means that civilization will remain predominantly White simply because the space Whites increasingly choose not to inhabit will almost certainly not qualify as civilized.

Which leads us to the familiar trope of “White flight”. In terms of relocation, Whites are damned if they do, damned if they don’t. Whites moving into a Black area – which I saw happen in Brixton, south London, in the 1990s – is sneered at as “gentrification”, while Whites leaving Black areas is cursed as “White flight”. But Professor Andrews seems rather indignant that Whites should want to move away from vibrant and diverse ‘hoods’:

Most White people do not live near or socialize with racialized minorities, and this segregation is both a cause and effect of the psychosis of Whiteness.

Yes, that must be it. This is followed by another misdiagnosis;

“White middle-class people are the most self-segregating group. They move as far away from minorities as possible and are proud of it”.

A social scientist should be able to tell pride from relief. Obviously, fear of Blackness and its range of social problems from crime to dysfunctional schools is the reason people want to move out of Black areas, but “Through the distorting lens of the psychosis of Whiteness, all Black people are a threat, aliens to be feared”.

This is absurd. Some Black people actually are a physical threat — not least to each other. But fortunately they have been marked out — or their culture has marked them out — like venomous creatures in the wild with bright markings, and one can note the way Blacks dress, walk, speak, act, and look at White people, and act accordingly. Gold chains and teeth, walking with a pimp roll, trousers at half-mast? These are all reliable indicators of dangerous Blacks. The rest of them are not a threat except in cultural terms.

Professor Andrews is less than charitable to some of those one would expect to be his allies, and he distrusts the anti-racism complex. The reader gets the sense that the writer wants to forge ahead in the race to build a world without Whitey (even though the future is said to be White), and so needs a few new ideas to attract readers who, as noted, might be in need of a fresh angle in a field rapidly becoming stale. There isn’t really much more you can build in the house of CRT once you’ve got the central supporting wall of White guilt for Black dysfunction in place.  CRT is like ideological Cat’s Cradle; the strands look separate, but they are joined in one long, continuous thread.

Professor Andrews has no time for White conversion therapy;

“There is no evidence that engaging White people in discussions of Whiteness makes any difference to how they see the world”.

This is a blessing for White people, as Blacks quizzing Whites about their racism is like the Voight-Kampff test in Blade Runner, carefully crafted and cross-referenced questions designed to see if a White — or an “Oreo” Black — is a real anti-racist or a replicant.

Professor Andrews also shares a central concern with other CRT scribes: himself. The hero is never far from the narrative and it is he. Black people very often have a heightened sense of dramatic self-importance, and their academics do not differ in this. Walking into the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Professor Andrews “felt physically sick. The design is no different to that of any European art museum, sporting the fake columns and calicos of the Renaissance”. In the academic workplace, “I can attest to a daily assault of microaggressions [and] the fact that my wounds are not larger is a privilege”. Then there is the traumatic legacy of Blackface, minstrel shows, “the disgusting golliwog toy”. It is often apparent that the problem with Black CRT academics is not the color of their skin but its thickness, or lack thereof.

Although Professor Andrews is not a keen-eyed observer of Britain’s current public sector hiring policies, he still wishes to remind us that he is a victim:

Affirmative action will probably never happen in Britain, but I have heard derisive ‘affirmative action hire’ remarks upon my elevation to professor thrown at me more times than I care to remember.

I doubt very much that he has heard such remarks, given today’s Stasi-like academic environment. And affirmative action has been happening in the UK for at least twenty years, when it began to be commonplace in England to see job ads with the tagline “People from ethnic minority backgrounds are particularly encouraged to apply for this position”. I know. I saw them when I was looking for a job. Most recently, and as one example from many available, Britain’s Royal Air Force (RAF) announced that their hiring policy would be to “stop hiring useless White males”.

Sweeping and dramatic statements punctuate the text to boost the tragic historical role of the Black man. The Jewish quarter are not going to like the Professor’s wish that ex-slave plantations in the Caribbean now used as wedding destinations and restaurants, “should be treated with the same dignity with which we treat former Nazi concentration camps”.

And students of the history of industry might be surprised at this curt summation of the English century that changed the world, produced by White men and benefiting people of all colors:

Three hundred years of murdering and treating Black people as animals provided the fuel for the industrial revolution that has shaped the world we live in today.

The Psychosis of Whiteness is pure Nietzschean ressentiment, written not from the standpoint of the oppressed or enslaved, or even in alliance with them, but by someone who simply sees the White man and hates what he sees: phenomena such as invention, civilization, order (at one time), and successful nation-states rather than chaotic failures. What methodology there is here suffers from an emotive approach and a resultant and pathological need to tear down imaginary prison walls. Professor Andrews makes obligatory mention of “deconstructing Whiteness”. Academics love the phrase “deconstruction” because it makes them feel as though they are turned into the currently fashionable academic jargon. .

Professor Andrews shares common cause with organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League in America, and HOPE not Hate and Stop Funding Hate in the UK. They all operate a self-fulfilling prophecy by which their all-consuming need to see racism everywhere makes them see racism everywhere, like the possessed nuns of Loudon in 1634, shrieking as they saw devils in every corner.

“The aim of this book,” writes Professor Andrews, “is to demonstrate that Whiteness is deluded, irrational, and based on a set of collective hallucinations”. But, as we have seen, to make an accusation of irrationality from an irrational position presents a fine philosophical conundrum. If you want to base your book around what Plato called “illegitimate reasoning”, be my guest. It didn’t seem to bother the French post-structuralists. But a sociology professor ought to be able to do better than this dime-store psychology (or Poundland psychology in Britain). Stay in your lane, would be my advice.

From our perspective, books such as these are useful indicators, like litmus paper or barometers, or other White inventions that measure the nature of the world. This is an important book for three reasons.

Firstly, it exemplifies the epistemological confusion at the heart of CRT. Truth becomes an iPad in an Apple store, available to whoever grabs it first. Secondly, it shows the seething, simmering hatred the Black CRT caucus has for the White man. It makes them feel good about themselves, though — raises their self-esteem. So they keep on doing it. Much of CRT’s race-baiting voodoo is actually therapy for academics such as Professor Andrews, like letting out your rage in primal scream therapy or psychodrama.

Thirdly, it shows a deep-seated fear of the White man. Not a physical fear, and not a “phobia” like Islamophobia or transphobia, which are more concerned with perceived hate speech and hate crimes. No, this is a fear of what the White man can achieve in adversity, which is where he is now.

But the real fear is not the presence of the White man but his absence, although this is gruffly denied by Professor Andrews: “One of the most dangerous delusions of the psychosis is believing that we are lost without the White man”. Like in Africa.

Professor Andrews seems to be suggesting Black separatism, a plan many, many Whites would heartily endorse, and Godspeed you on your way to the new Wakanda. But should Blacks ever get what they wish for, and for Professor Andrews that is to “collectively work to build a reality free from White supremacy”, they must be careful what it is they wish for, and heed Kipling’s warning in the poem The White Man’s Burden;

“And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch Sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought”

The anti-racism of Ibram X. Kendi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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