Anti-White Attitudes

Bright Future for Whites? A Young Sun Is Rising to Shine on the West

May 19, 2024/27 Comments/in Anti-White Attitudes, Featured Articles/by Tobias Langdon

“The West is doomed!” “France is finished!” “Britain is over!” I’ve never understood expressions of despair and defeat like those. They’re obviously self-indulgent and harmful things to say, so how could people with any common sense and self-control utter them? Unless those people aren’t what they pretend to be, of course. No genuine friend of the West should announce that “The West is doomed!” Or announce the same of any part of the West, whether they happen to live there or not. But it’s exactly what enemies of the West will like to say, while pretending to be friends.

Fortuna favors the brave

Defeatism has been a capital offence in times of war with very good reason. Saying what your enemy wants you to say is very obviously stupid and self-defeating. I have never felt despair about the future of the West myself, but I would never have expressed such despair even if I’d felt it. Feelings are not infallible guides to the future. But expressing one’s feelings to others can certainly alter their behavior, whether for the better or the worse. What one says or does now alters the future. And so a subjective feeling of despair can lead to the objective reality of defeat. But if negativity can breed defeat, then positivity can breed victory. As Vox Day says: “[R]elentless positivity of mind, the determined avoidance of negativity, and the refusal to live in fear are vital for the Christian. … Remember, the ancients’ idea that Fortuna personally favored some individuals and disfavored others wasn’t an invention ex nihilo, it was an observation.”

The Gates of Dawn (1900), Herbert James Draper

Genetics must play some role in the positivity of individuals like Vox Day, but genetics is not destiny. Whatever our genes predispose us to be, they don’t dictate our thoughts or control our choices. We can choose to be more positive and we can choose not to surrender to despair. And we can certainly choose not to express our subjective feelings of despair to others. But positivity is helped by good news. And I think that there is more and more good news offering hope to true friends of the West. I didn’t expect to see some of it expressed by the professional curmudgeon and pessimist John Derbyshire, so this section of his “April Diary” at VDare was a pleasant surprise:

Chatting the other day with Jared Taylor, [I found that] he reinforced an impression I’ve been getting — a happy impression.

Thirty years ago, said Jared, when he had started up American Renaissance and invited people to come together to discuss race realism and white advocacy, the people who’d responded to his call were mostly an older crowd, with a good mix of pop-eyed weirdos and cranks. His followers nowadays, he said, were much younger and more normal.

Just so. I see the same thing. Last month, March, I was invited to attend a gathering in New York City to hear Chris Rufo talk about his recent book. The gathering was of a regular dissident-right club that I’d never been aware of.

It was a big crowd; friendly, cheerful, lively, smart, and… young. Sitting there among the happy noise in the socializing period before Rufo spoke, I tried to estimate the median age of attendees. If it was over thirty, it wasn’t by much.

P.J. O’Rourke’s Babe Rule came to mind, too. P.J. wrote in regard to a demonstration against homelessness he’d attended that no social or political movement in the U.S.A. is going anywhere much unless it has a good component of attractive young women, which the homelessness demo didn’t [Among The Compassion Fascists, by P.J. O’Rourke, American Spectator, December 1989].

If P.J. got that right, my hosts there on the Lower East Side in March definitely have a bright future.

I hear similar things from like-thinking friends all over. There’s a new, fresh, normie National Conservatism coming up — even, I have it on good authority, among card-carrying Young Republicans! All strength to them; and a belated thanks to my March hosts at the Rufo event. (“DERB’S APRIL DIARY: [11 ITEMS!] Eclipse In Cleveland, Eclipse On Mars?; Middle East Disavowal; VDARE Conference; The Young Ones; ETC!!!!,” VDare, 1st April 2024)

Like a flourishing rose-bush on top of a trash-heap, positivity from John Derbyshire has a special power. He isn’t an optimistic or positive person, so I’m very glad to see him succumbing to the bright side. I’m also very glad to see the truth about race relations beginning to dawn in the mainstream right. This is from American Renaissance and F. Roger Devlin’s excellent review of Jeremy Carl’s The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism is Tearing America Apart (2024):

Jeremy Carl is a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, served as deputy assistant secretary of the interior under President Trump, and has been associated with the Hoover Institution. His other books have dealt with energy policy. In a chapter on religion, he describes himself as “an actively engaged Christian of Jewish descent.” That a writer with solid connections to “respectable conservatism” is publishing a book with “anti-white racism” in the subtitle is a sign of changing times. Moreover, the author does not try to tell us that the problem with hostility towards whites is merely “divisive” or supposedly incompatible with Martin Luther King’s “dream.” He states forthrightly that it leads to injustices against whites, and that whites must fight back.

As Mr. Carl writes, white Americans today “suffer from downward economic mobility, declining fertility, rising drug addiction and depression, and narrowing opportunities, all piled onto a false presumption of privilege.” Any vestigial advantages they may still derive from belonging to America’s historical majority are “informal and evanescent cultural legacies,” whereas “the discrimination they experience is . . . increasingly legal and formal.” […]

The endgame of the current system is “the expropriation of land, property, and other wealth from whites” and the institution of “a permanent regime of anti-white employment and legal discrimination.” As of now, he writes, “appeals to expropriation are usually indirect,” but over time they “will become more direct and in need of less justification as the political power of white Americans continues to decline.”

It is whites’ failure to organize in defense of our own interests that had made the anti-white regime possible. As Mr. Carl writes, “non-whites have organized and made powerful demands, while whites have focused on broad, gauzy appeals to . . . universal rights” that have proven “almost completely ineffective.” It is time for us to make strong demands.

As noted, we have looked here at only a few of the twelve realms of anti-white discrimination Mr. Carl discusses. The reader should get the book itself for the full story. I am unaware of any mainstream book on race published since American Renaissance was founded 34 years ago that pulls so few punches. (“The Respectable Right Discovers Anti-White Hostility,” F. Roger Devlin, American Renaissance, 10th May, 2024)

The publication of The Unprotected Class is a very positive sign. As Jeremy Clark himself says: “The environment is vastly freer than it was just a few years ago. To speak of anti-white racism is no longer universally taboo.” The left have been waging war on Whites and Western civilization for decades, but the “respectable right,” as Devlin calls them, have refused to even recognize the war, let alone take up arms to fight back. Now the respectable right are recognizing the war and the fight-back has started. As I described in “High Hope and Damnable Despair,” there are never any good reasons to despair. But there are always good reasons to feel hope. John Derbyshire and F. Roger Devlin have just supplied more of them.

Britain’s “Hate Speech” Trap

January 31, 2024/7 Comments/in Anti-White Attitudes, Featured Articles, Jewish Influence, Jewish Opposition to Free Speech/by Marshall Yeats

In one of the more famous Zen Buddhist riddles, or koans, an army officer meets with a monk and attempts to frustrate the contemplative monastic. “A man has been raising a goose in a bottle since it was a tiny gosling,” the officer explains. “Now it is fully grown and has no space left in the bottle. Without hurting the goose, and without breaking the bottle, how can the man get it out?” The monk doesn’t answer the question and instead moves the conversation to the weather. A little while later, the meeting coming to an end, the officer stands up to leave and approaches the door. As he reaches for the handle, the monk cries out “Oh officer!” As the officer turns, the monk smiles and continues, “There. It’s out!”

This particular koan is a good example of koans in general, in that the reader or student is presented with an impossible riddle, an intellectual trap that is totally unsolvable by logic. The goal is to sublimate the thinking mind to the instinctual mind that takes precedent in living “in the moment,” or “being present.” The koan came to mind recently while I read the horrifying news from Britain that a man has been found guilty of incitement to hatred merely for producing stickers bearing such non-aggressive slogans as “Reject White Guilt”, “Nationalism is Nurture”, and “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066.”

How has British speech legislation been used to secure this criminal conviction and, to return to the idea of the koan, how can pro-White advocates advocate for anything when even the more passive elements of their argument have been criminalized? The riddle is straightforward: What can be said when saying anything runs the risk of imprisonment?

The Public Order Act 1986: A Jewish Contrivance

Samuel Melia, a long-serving activist and a figure apparently well-known and liked in British nationalist circles, has been convicted under section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, which makes it a criminal offence to publish or distribute “written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting.” In the wording of the legislation, someone is guilty of an offence if “(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.” Melia was also convicted of “encouraging or assisting the commission of the offence of racially aggravated criminal damage,” presumably because, in an act of race terrorism, the stickers may have left tiny residues of glue upon removal.

As far as legal texts go, there is much left to interpretation in the Public Order Act 1986. It’s a highly subjective piece of work. Consider, for example, the necessary but inevitably tendentious speculation on a defendant’s intentions. This is to say nothing about “regard to all the circumstances” or how exactly the likelihood of “stirring up hatred” is to be measured. The document has always been vague, and because it has remained unaltered for almost 40 years, we might assume that this was by design.

Britain’s speech law is demonstrably Jewish in origin and design. The impetus behind the Public Order Act 1986 can be traced back to the 1910s with early murmurings among Britain’s Jewish elite about the potential criminalization of anti-Semitism. Following the Jewish bombing of the King David Hotel, then British administrative headquarters for Mandatory Palestine, in 1946, Jewish delegates attempted to pass a resolution “outlawing anti-Semitism” at that year’s annual Labour Party Conference.^[1] However, the bombing cost the Zionists a great many non-Jewish friends within the Labour movement, and the proposal was crushed. Following the notorious Sergeant’s Affair, in which Jewish terrorists murdered British soldiers in barbaric fashion, another explicit proposal to outlaw anti-Semitism was introduced in the House of Commons, but was rejected at its first reading in 1948. Direct and explicit efforts such as these continued to fail. In Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policy Making Since the 1960s, Erik Bleich notes that “during the late 1950s and early 1960s Jewish groups sought laws against anti-Semitic public speeches made during this era, but there is little evidence that this pressure achieved substantial results.”^[2]

Further attempts to achieve speech laws were attempted through stealth, in that they concerned race more generally rather than Jews explicitly. These measures were also introduced, though unsuccessfully, with the assistance of willing White M.P.s with a track record of assisting Jews. Bleich notes that “a small number of individual Labour Party Members of Parliament repeatedly proposed anti-discrimination laws. In the early 1950s, Reginald Sorensen and Fenner Brockway each introduced ‘color bar bills’ designed to prevent discrimination against blacks on British soil.”^[3] Brockway attempted no less than nine times over nine years to achieve laws against ‘discrimination’ and free speech. Although the full extent of the involvement of these politicians with Jews is unknown, a record of Parliamentary debates shows that Sorensen had been involved in assisting Jews since at least the 1930s, even participating in a 1945 symposium titled “The Future of the Jews,” where he gave a lecture to his mostly Jewish audience on “Our Common Humanity.” We have evidence that around the same time, Brockway was breaking the law by assisting Jews with forged passports and documents enabling them to enter Palestine.^[4]

Since 1945, the Board of Deputies of British Jews had also been working on drafting a “group libel law” that it eventually hoped to get passed in Parliament.^[5] Efforts to further tighten libel laws were made in 1952, when Jewish M.P. Harold Lever introduced a Private Members’ Bill modifying Britain’s libel laws for the first time in over fifty years. However, Lever’s efforts were later mauled by a hostile Parliament to such an extent that by the time his Bill became an Act of Parliament, his provisions were not extended, as he and his co-ethnics had hoped, to cover groups.^[6] Britain’s first legislation containing any such provision as prohibiting ‘group libel’ was introduced in Parliament by Frank Soskice, the son of David Soskice — a Russian-Jewish revolutionary exile. Scholars Mark Donnelly and Ray Honeyford state that it was Soskice who “drew up the legislation” and “piloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.”^[7] The Act “aimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places,” though it was soon felt, in Jewish circles, that it hadn’t gone far enough. Crucially, the 1965 Act created the Jewish-led ‘Race Relations Board’ and equipped it with the power to sponsor research for the purposes of monitoring race relations in Britain and, if necessary, extending legislation on the basis of the ‘findings’ of such research.

In 1985, another Jew moved to criminalize expressions of White racial solidarity when M.P. Harry Cohen introduced a “Racial Harassment Bill” to Parliament. Sociologist Rob Witte reports that Cohen’s attempt only failed because of “lack of parliamentary time.”^[8] The following year, Cohen made a second attempt, which failed, only for Jews to return to more stealthy methods when racial elements were included with the much broader Public Order Act (1986).

The Public Order Act had been introduced to Parliament by Leon Brittanisky (renamed Leon Brittan) and supported primarily by Malcolm Rifkind, a descendant of Lithuanian Jewish immigrants. It was another clever piece of work. Brittan’s team had been tasked with drafting a White Paper on Public Order to deal with a series of miners’ strikes and demonstrations. Although issues of race were not remotely related to the events provoking the White Paper, Brittan saw that the government was eager to pass legislation restricting the miners as soon as possible and, sensing that the wide-ranging bill would endure little opposition, he ensured that additional elements were included, such as the criminalization of “incitement to racial hatred.”^[9] It is Brittan’s clever little addition which has posed problems for more vocal racial nationalists in Britain today, and has led to the criminal conviction of Samuel Melia for “stickering.”

Legislative Evolution

In the early years of the Act, sentencing on conviction was a maximum of two years in prison and this was normally reserved for blunt expressions of animosity towards non-White groups. John Tyndall for example, founder of the British National Party, was one of the earliest victims of the Public Order Act and was sentenced in 1986 to 12 months in prison, serving four. In 1998, Tyndall’s successor Nick Griffin was given a nine-month suspended sentence for publishing his Who Are The Mindbenders? pamphlet in the course of which he pointed out Jewish influence in the British mass media and how this had flooded the nation with “anti-British trash.”

The Act was problematic, and had a gagging effect on British nationalism, but its reach was sufficiently blunt, and sentences relatively short, for Jonathan Bowden to remark during one of his speeches in the late 2000s that one could still discuss many controversial topics in public so long as this was done in an abstract or slightly indirect way. This seemed partially proven in 2004 when Nick Griffin was arrested and charged again, this time for remarks he made in a pub about Muslims and Islam. Although subjected to a trial, both Griffin and his co-accused Tyndall were found not guilty. Today, however, we can have no doubt that Bowden’s analysis no longer applies.

The vague wording of the Act has allowed the transformations in British culture to carry it to greater extremes without the need for an entirely new law. And there can be little doubt that culture has shifted radically further to the Left in the last 20 years. An amendment led to the extension of the maximum sentence from 2 to 7 years, with the result that sentences are now averaging 3–4 years rather than 10–12 months.

More important, the law has been gradually reinterpreted in light of new cultural ‘understandings’ of hate. ‘Hate’ used to mean that you had extreme and quasi-violent feelings of animosity towards a particular individual or group, but we now live in an age where hatred can be something as simple as insisting on the biological basis of gender, or conducting a survey of intelligence or crime alongside racial taxonomies. Hate has moved from being understood as an active and aggressive position against a given entity, to being something as banal as adopting a neutral or non-radical position on a sensitive cultural question treasured by the Left. Crucially for Mr. Melia, ‘hate’ now also encompasses the position that Whites as an ethnic group have interests and should defend them. Stickers with slogans like “No White Guilt” are seen as hateful, and part of an extreme and dangerous ideology. In such a context, we can assert that Britain has criminalized White self-defense.

Hate Crime Entrepeneurs

The increasingly extreme reach of British hate speech law has led Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society, to call for the government to “hold an inquiry to determine, review and potentially repeal all elements of the law that conflict with freedom of speech, for example: Section 127 of the Communications Act, offences of stirring up hatred under the Public Order Act 1986, and the offence of ‘indecent or racialist chanting’ under the Football (Offences) Act 1991.” Of particular concern to Civitas are what it calls “hate crime entrepreneurs,” or “groups with a vested interest in presenting their members as victims of hate crime” and are thus able to “influence hate crime legislation.”

Civitas point out that the very concept of hate speech has led to a loss of freedom orchestrated by an unelected elite of lawyers and intellectuals.

Each new Act of Parliament and clarification of police guidance introduces a more subjective element into the law. The state, either through the Crown Prosecution Service or the police, comes to define what is offensive, threatening or abusive. Such understandings are grounded in a perception of the ‘lived experiences’ of ‘victims’ as members of historically oppressed groups and a belief that words can have an impact as harmful as an act of physical violence. … Every aspect of people’s lives will come under legal scrutiny in order to promote a set of state sanctioned values that have been determined by lawyers rather than voted on by the electorate.

Civitas explain that “identity groups are represented by ‘hate crime entrepreneurs’ who are incentivized to report ever increasing harms experienced by members of their community. The law comes to play a role in affirming the identity of victim groups, recognising suffering, re-educating offenders about the ‘correct’ way to think and sending a message to the rest of society about the values deemed ‘appropriate’.” In other words, society is undergoing an incentivised brainwashing and the reduction of freedom across the board. All minority identity groups have a vested interest in expanding definitions of hate crime to encompass the groups they represent, and obviously they have a vested interest in seeing increased reporting of hate crimes committed as a basis for their own future fundraising.

The groups insinuate themselves, in undemocratic fashion, into the police and legal structure, with one group noted by Civitas as boasting “we have also established joint training between the police and Crown Prosecution staff to improve the way the police identify and investigate hate crime.” So the very manner in which the police see crime and speech is being determined by non-elected minority agents. Civitas also make some comments which match up well with the historical and contemporary record of Jews ensuring their place as a privileged and protected elite within Western societies.

Such organizations lobby for better protections for their members. In order to secure these protections, they are incentivized to increase the reporting of hate crimes committed against members of their particular identity group. This lends itself to ever looser definitions of hate crime and ever more expansive cohorts of victims. Furthermore, many groups that lobby on behalf of particular communities receive government funding for their work. For example, Challenge It, Report It, Stop It reports on plans to support a range of groups such as the Jewish Museum, Show Racism the Red Card, Searchlight Educational Trust [founded by a Jewish communist] and Faith Matters’ Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks (MAMA) project.

Jewish, Muslim, and other groups hold almost constant “meetings with legal and academic experts, police and the Crown Prosecution Service (‘CPS’), charities and civil society groups, and numerous individuals with an interest in hate crime laws.” The hate crime entrepreneurs thus “play a significant role in determining the assumptions and theoretical underpinnings for the Law Commission’s analysis.”

In other words, it is the activities of these groups, as well as the problematic Jewish-led Public Order Act 1986 itself, that have led to the current predicament of Samuel Melia for mere stickering. Mr Melia is the victim of a vast and corrupt “hate crime” industry that is fuelled both by material greed and by a seething and entirely genuine hatred of the native peoples of the British Isles. To that extent we can say that the nation is in fact host to a hate crime of gargantuan nature and scope, but that it is totally forbidden, and now illegal, to speak its name.

^[1] P. Medding, Studies in Contemporary Jewry: XI: Values, Interests and Identity, 108.

^[2] E. Bleich, Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policy Making Since the 1960s, 42.

^[3] Ibid, 41.

^[4] C. Knowles, Race, Discourse and Labourism, 172.

^[5] D.S. Wyman, The World Reacts to the Holocaust, 617.

^[6] C. Adler (ed), The American Jewish Year Book, 1953, 234.

^[7] M. Donnelly, Sixties Britain: Culture, Society and Politics, p. 115, & R. Honeyford, The Commission for Racial Equality: British Bureaucracy Confronts the Multicultural Society p.95.

^[8] R. Witte, Racist Violence and the State: A Comparative Analysis of Britain, France, and the Netherlands, p.71.

^[9] T. Brain, A History of Policing in England and Wales Since 1974, p.104.

The Problematic History of the European Union: Review of ‘Eurowhiteness’

January 24, 2024/3 Comments/in Anti-White Attitudes, Featured Articles/by Jason Cannon

Eurowhiteness: Culture, Empire and Race in the European Project
Hans Kundnani
Hurst Publishers, 2023

Eurowhiteness is one of those books that immediately catches the attention of a “racist”. With a bright orange cover and a title like Eurowhiteness displayed in large block letters, how could it not? Curiosity compelled me to take it down from the bookshop shelf and browse the introductory remarks. After a brief Google search to confirm my suspicions of the mixed-race origins of the author, I was ready to groan and roll my eyes at what I presumed to be a vapid book that deconstructed European identity by arguing that “blackness” or “brownness” somehow has just as much place within Europe as “whiteness.” What emerged from its pages instead was a novel left-wing polemic against the European Union (EU) *because* of its perceived Whiteness.

Author Hans Kundnani was born to an Indian father and a Dutch mother and grew up in the United Kingdom. As with most mixed-race people who struggle to place their identity, he believes this background gives him a unique perspective on European history and identity. His first post-university job was for the Commission for Racial Equality, the enforcement body established by the UK Race Relations Act 1976, and by 2009 he was working for the European Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank dedicated to Pan-European ideas. As Kundnani describes it, Eurowhiteness is the culmination of his shift in thinking from a pro-European convinced of the moral good of the EU, to a critic who has abandoned the myths that once informed his worldview.[1]

Kundnani does not present a bibliography, but his ideological debt to leading thinkers in critical race and post-colonial theory is apparent. His endnotes draw from well-known figures in this sphere such as Charles W. Mills, Gurminder K. Bhambra, Paul Gilroy, and historical forebears Frantz Fanon and W.E.B Du Bois. The acknowledgements section reveals Kundnani’s “particular debt” to Swedish post-colonial scholar Peo Hansen. Hansens’ book Eurafrica, which explores the African strategic fantasies of early Pan-European thinkers — notably Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi — are what seemingly began Kundnani’s path towards euroscepticism.

Eurowhiteness is well-paced and I can offer no criticism of Kundnani’s cogent writing style. Other reviewers have affixed the word “challenging” to the book, but to those of us not inflicted with colour-blind thinking and who already see the intrinsic link between Western civilisation and the White race, the themes parsed out in Kundnani’s book are hardly cause for discomfort. His claim that the EU has recently taken a “civilisational turn” towards the protection of European identity and that as a result the institution could just as easily be used as a vehicle for racist purposes is also familiar. Way back in 2017 Richard Spencer was pouring cold water on the euphoria over the Brexit vote, arguing that the European Union could instead become a potential racial empire, a counter to NATO and Atlanticism.

The value of this book for readers of The Occidental Observer lies principally in understanding the intellectual journey of the author and discerning the potential for the emergence of a popular left-wing critique of the EU in the Anglosphere and beyond. Kundnani’s transition from EU booster to EU sceptic is instructive, as well as revealing the anti-White perspectives and motivations that can lie behind soft-spoken academics. Despite the myriad of anti-racist measures, tolerance initiatives, and hate speech laws that encompass the modern EU, Kundnani has turned on the European Union because it is just still too White, too Western. After all, the EU’s history is rooted in Europe and much of its historical and present-day motivations are the defence of European people and Western values. That alone is enough to condemn it in Kundnani’s eyes.

Regionalist Racism

Kundnani’s critique of the European Union begins with the dismantling of what he sees is the common misunderstanding of its structural nature. Rather than conceptualising it as an inclusive cosmopolitan project that has renounced nationalism — a position held by both supporters on the left and critics on the right — Kundnani attacks the EU as a project analogous to nationalism. According to Kundnani, it is better understood as a form of “regionalism.” That is, nationalism on a more continental scale, and imbued with all the same chauvinistic impulses, power dynamics and histories of colonial dispossession that nation-states are saddled with.[2] The same impulse towards nation-building is found in the ‘region-building’ of the EU.

Building on this concept of regionalism as nationalism on a larger scale, Kundnani draws upon Jewish academic Hans Kohn’s theory of nationalism. Kohn invented the concept of civic nationalism as distinct from ethnic nationalism ideally suited for facilitating non-White migration. Just as a nation can have strands of civic and ethnic nationalism, so too does the regionalist EU. It possesses both a civic and an ethnic component that waxes and wanes in strength across time; secularism, civil institutions and liberal rights weighed against Christian, illiberal, civilisational and racial ideas. For Kundnani, it is “disturbing” that the EU continues to draw upon such ethnic/cultural elements from Europe’s history.[3]

Chapter 2 briefly traces the history of European identity from its ethnic and cultural origins at the time of the Battle of Tours, where the word was first used by the victorious Franks in order to “other” the external enemy, the Muslims. From the seventeenth century onwards, ideas of Europe began to shift from being strictly synonymous with Christianity. At this point, a rationalist, enlightenment notion of Europe with a civilising mission to the rest of the world emerged, and finally the notion of whiteness or the racial identification of the European peoples as Whites.

Kundnani’s critique of the Enlightenment values that form the basis of the EU follows the now standard deconstruction of its universalism, positing that it is instead of being based in Whiteness and in the particular systems of White supremacy:

… while Enlightenment ideas like the “rights of man” — the antecedent of what we would today call “human rights” — were potentially universal, they emerged from a particular European context, and moreover, were put into practice in a racialized way. … [C]olonialism and slavery were carried out in the name of enlightenment ideas.[4]

The Enlightenment is presented (or problematised, to use the lingo) in the most debased terms possible, as the output of White supremacists. Immanuel Kant, whom Kundnani points out wrote an early appeal for European unity that is now celebrated by the EU, is lambasted for his racial theories. Rousseau is condemned because his writings did not speak directly to the plight of Black slaves in French colonies.

Next, the alleged colonial origins of the EU are fleshed out — the “original sin” of the EU as Kundnani likes to call it. Rather than being anti-colonial, the early movements towards Pan-European unity developed the concept of Eurafrica, which envisioned the African continent as a yet undeveloped source of raw material for a future European power-bloc. Many of the founding states of the EU also held onto their colonial possessions after the formation of the European Economic Community (EEC), the formal precursor to the EU. France and Belgium in particular factored these colonies into their economic considerations for a post-war redevelopment enmeshed into wider Europe. Predatory relations further continued after the formal independence of these colonies, in the form of exploitative labour schemes and guest worker programs.

Kundnani argues that from 1945 onwards, civic regionalism came to dominate as a reaction to the ethnic conflicts of World War II. This was not the clean break from Europe’s past that many claimed it to be, with the older ethnic/cultural regionalist tendencies still pushing through into Pan-European rhetoric. The civilising mission remained, as did the belief in the superiority of European values and the claim of their universality. Even the holocaust is not spared from critique. The EU, Kundnani contends, has used holocaust remembrance as a cover for forgetting colonial injustices, patting themselves on the back for upholding “Never Again” whilst continuing to refuse to engage in decolonisation or recognise Europe’s true original sin. The foundational memory of the holocaust has obscured Europe’s foundational history of colonialism, and thus the EU is a project of political amnesia that has forgotten, or choses to ignore, its origins as a quasi-colonial institution.[5]

The end of the Cold War reignited the civilising mission towards incorporating the EU’s more “backward” eastern Europeans neighbours, those who were European but not quite yet *in* Europe in cultural or political terms. More than halfway through the book, we finally encounter the meaning behind its title, derived from Hungarian sociologist József Böröcz, who proposed a spectrum of Whiteness within Europe. “Eurowhitness” is associated with the centre of Europe in the West and “dirty whiteness”, the less immaculate and somewhat less West European version to the East. Kundnani repurposes the term to refer to the ethnic/cultural version of European regionalist identity. Eurowhiteness, used as a pejorative or a negative by Kundnani, simply means to identify as European in a non-civic (that is, “racist”) way.

With the arrival of the Eurozone crisis in 2010 and the chaos of the refugee influx of 2015, Kundnani argues that the European Union has swung towards a defensive position, focused on countering the external threats to the stability of Europe:

By the beginning of the 2020s, the civic element of European regionalism seemed to have become less influential and the ethnic/cultural element more influential in “pro-European” thinking. In other words, whiteness seemed to be becoming more central to the European project.[6]

Kundnani sees little distinction between pro-European politicians who posit a defence of the “European Way of Life” or who worry about the future of Western civilisation and far right “extremists” who invoke the supposed trope of the great replacement. In the face of these threats to EU stability, those who fear the decline of EU power and sovereignty are the international political equivalents of the those who fear White replacement.[7] After all, both positions are “pro-European.” For Kundnani, the EU’s dramatic response to the war in Ukraine, opening its arms wide for Ukrainian refugees compared to what he sees is the closed-door policy to non-White refugees at its southern borders, is just further proof of the return to Eurowhiteness.

By far the weakest point of the argument is the evidence (or general lack thereof) provided to attribute Eurowhiteness motivations to current EU leaders or bureaucrats. As an outsider, the civic European component still seems predominant and the appeals to European civilisation are mere scraps thrown to a public increasingly disillusioned by the failure of the EU to respond to issues of mass immigration. It feels like a stretch to widely attribute chauvinistic views to the EU leadership, but the impulse to defend Europe as Europe, as some kind of distinct entity of a distinct group of people, does certainly exist enough for the label of Eurowhiteness to stick.

Kundnani believes that a different Europe is needed than the one we currently have.[8] Nearing the conclusion, he briefly hints at the EU itself being a barrier to overcoming Eurowhiteness. He claims that engaging with its colonial past could in fact be a danger to the EU because Eastern European member states with no colonial history or collective guilt over colonialism would resist such initiatives, which could in turn have a disintegrative effect on European identify and the structure of the EU. However, the narrative abruptly ends there and is not further expounded upon, and we are left wondering what his true feelings about the future of the EU are. Kundnani at least admits in the introduction that he is only offering critiques, not solutions — at least not for the EU.

Reconsidering Brexit

The final chapter, Brexit and Imperial Amnesia, changes gears and presents us with a revisionist account of the Brexit Referendum, aimed at the British left still reeling from the 2016 vote. Kundnani challenges the dominant narrative of the Leave vote as a racist vote yearning for a White fortress that shuts the door to migrants. The true nature of the Brexit vote is presented as more complex and less binary, highlighting that one in three members of Britian’s ethnic minority population also voted to leave. Kundnani expands upon the angst of many non-White Britons regarding the EU and their perception that continental Europe is still more racist than the UK. Given the persistence of Eurowhiteness, it remained hard for Britain’s Black and Asian populations to truly feel part of the European project and they have struggled to identify with its history. Kundnani is also captive of these feeling towards the EU, mentioning in the introduction that he could never bring himself to feel “100% European” due to his mixed-race background.[9]

Another area of hostility outlined towards the EU is the discrimination many felt from the changes that entrance into the project brought to immigration. Following the admission of the UK into the EEC, Commonwealth citizens from Britain’s former colonies suddenly found it was harder to enter the UK than continental Europeans. The story is familiar to Australians, who too felt abandoned by the mother country when the border control lines at the airport no longer privileged the peoples of New Brittania.

With the Brexit vote reconceptualised, the Leave decision is transformed into an opportunity, offering the chance for Britain to rebalance its identity. Eurowhiteness and ties to the EU have allowed the UK to escape from its colonial history by focusing on the national identity narratives of Europe and World War II. Through engagement with former colonies, Britain can shift its national story away from Europe. Here, in the final two paragraphs of the book, we finally come to the vehicle of this reimagining of Britain and what perhaps Kundnani sees as the best way to combat Eurowhiteness: immigration policy.

The corrective is a policy which amends the turn away from Commonwealth-based immigration — a form of reparations issued on the path to becoming a less Eurocentric country:

It would be possible to go further in the rebalancing of British immigration policy that has taken place since Brexit — in particular, by making it easier for citizens of Britain’s former colonies to come to the UK. … such a policy — what might be called “post-imperial preference” — could even be thought of as a form of reparations.[10]

Once again, the great replacement trope is an evil conspiracy theory when observed by a critic and an obvious political good when advocated for by a supporter.

Yes. And?

Kundnani’s thesis can be pulled apart on a number of technical levels. The appropriateness of the notion of regionalism as applied to the EU and its analogy to nationalism can be questioned, and in turn there is often a conflation of concepts, with “Europe”, “the European Union” and “EU Member states” used interchangeably as suits his argument. A rather weak critique of neoliberalism also flows underneath the main critique of Eurowhiteness and the linkage between the EU and colonialism feels forced. By the time the EEC came along in the 1950s, European colonialism was in its death throes, far from the height of its power. However, lacking a detailed understanding of the history and functioning of the EU and of the political conceptions of its leadership class, my review of the narrative of Eurowhiteness turns elsewhere.

Much of the book is perplexing if you don’t have a pathological sense of White guilt or an inferiority complex about the success of European civilization. This is without a doubt a book produced from decades spent ensconced in an academic world brimming with anti-White narratives, plundering the rancid depths of post-colonial theory for a vector to attack an institution that even most die-hard progressives support — until they read Kundnani’s book perhaps. The extent of White guilt that a reader must have to agree with his conclusions is altogether frightening when considering that the book has received a generally positive response in the British left-wing press.

To me, the arguments presented in the book elicited a kind of “Yes. And?” reaction, a sense of confusion or bemusement as to why a historical fact or a political reality has been presented as a negative. Kundnani considers it damning evidence of Eurowhiteness that the EU draws upon figures such as Charlemagne and continues to award the Charlemagne Prize in his name. Why is this damning? Because he is European? At its heart, Kundnani’s critique is that the European Union only brings together European nations and peoples, European ideas and values, and strives for European interests and goals. Yes. And? Is this a bad thing? Are Europeans not allowed to do this? The EU was certainly never constituted in any way other than as a continental union, no different than similar unions that now exist in the other regions of the world. The fact that some of the original member states still possessed leftover colonial territories is beside the point.

It is hard to shake the feeling that Kundnani feels there is something inherently dangerous with the European Union setting its geographic limits as Europe and bringing Europeans together. The flat refusal issued to Morocco’s request to join the EEC in 1987 is transformed by Kundnani from an obvious rejection issued to a country trying to simply cash in on proximity to Europe into proof of a malign identity embedded within the EU. Does Kundnani think it was wrong to reject Morrocco’s application? As a country with a long historical link to the African continent, would Spain being rejected from joining the African Union also be couched in such negative framing?

A Union, if you can keep it

Eurowhiteness raises questions regarding the long-term durability of the EU project. If the demographic trends away from a White majority in European nations continue, will we start to see more Euroscepticism from the left, more anti-White reactions against the EU like that which has captivated Kundnani? Whilst it would be comforting to believe that Eurowhiteness is an isolated product of the distinctly British detachment from the EU that has no currency elsewhere, Kundnani draws upon a global range of anti-EU perspectives, both historical and current-day. It’s not hard to see conclusions such as his, presented in an accessible form, from developing in popularity.

Non-whites living in the West have stepped up their rhetoric in recent years, rallying against the presence of White faces and White ideas within their living spaces. Statues have been removed, the Western canon expunged, and names of places and institutions changed for the sake of diversity and anti-racism. Their actions have shown that they believe that all Eurocentric ideas must be challenged, and above all that diverse faces must be predominant in public life. To a degree it is surprising that critiques of the EU along these lines have not emerged before to a significant degree. Perhaps that is simply due to the political left adopting a reflexive pro-EU stance in the face of the right-wing anti-EU stance —a reflexive response that Kundnani is now seeking to correct.

Ultimately, the impulse behind Eurowhiteness is a sense of exclusion by Europe and a feeling of discomfort in Western civilisation, one certainly shared by others of non-European background. Kundnani admits as much himself when he states that: “European identity is externally exclusive — that is, it excludes those who are not European or who cannot think of themselves as being European.[11]” To those of us comfortable with European identity, Charles Martel or Charlemagne are inspirational warriors of our history, men who shaped and fought for the Europe we have and cherish today and without whom we may not even exist.

The Battle of Tours in October 732 — by Charles de Steuben (1788–1856)

All that people like Kundnani seem to see are exclusionary figures who upheld Christendom or who waged wars to defend Europe from dark-skinned Muslims — detestable characters they cannot feel an affinity with and whom they believe only a racist would celebrate. They survey the history of Europe and all the cultural touchpoints behind the EU and find that it just doesn’t represent them. From a racialist perspective, they cannot really be faulted for this. It is a natural impulse to seek out the familiar and to desire to live in an environment that accords with your being and your own racial identity. The problem was always in letting them into the West in the first place.

In all, Kundnani’s polemic against the EU reads as a fear of White unity writ large. Whiteness (or Eurowhiteness) is the threat to overcome. That much is clear when he advocates for non-White immigration as the solution to Britain extracting itself from Eurocentrism and frets about the possibility of the far-right moderating its Euroscepticism and accepting the EU[12].

The center right, it turns out, doesn’t have a problem with the far right. It just has a problem with those who defy E.U. institutions and positions. …

The blurring of boundaries between the center right and the far right is not always as easy to spot as it is in the United States. …

[T]oday’s far right speaks not only on behalf of the nation but also on behalf of Europe. It has a civilizational vision of a white, Christian Europe that is menaced by outsiders, especially Muslims. …

But as the union unites around defending a threatened European civilization and rejecting nonwhite immigration, we need to think again about whether it truly is a force for good.

Any form of White identity, and any association of Whites together as Whites, even if only implicit, must necessarily be a dangerous thing. As Eurowhiteness proves, even Western institutions that we may have once considered safe by virtue of being perceived as progressive are now suspect.

[1] By his own admission this did not however cause him to vote Leave in the Brexit referendum of 2016, presumably because it still felt racist to do so
[2] At this point, Kundnani posits the Marxist theory of nationalism (Hobsbawm, etc.), which claims that national identities only emerged during the Enlightenment era, but it doesn’t impact the argument much.
[3] Kundnani, H 2023, Eurowhiteness: Culture, Empire and Race in the European Project, Hurst & Company, London, 42.
[4] Ibid., p.53—55
[5] For all the complaints about European universality or that “Europe is not the world”, Kundnani conveniently fails to mention the empires and colonial histories of the non-European world, which were every bit as exploitative and arguably more barbaric.
[6] Kundnani, Op. Cit., p.126
[7] Ibid., p.146
[8] Ibid., p.3
[9] Ibid., p.1
[10] Ibid., p.178
[11] Ibid., p.20
[12] Kundnani, H 2023, ‘Europe may be headed for something unthinkable’, New York Times, December 13, retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/13/opinion/european-union-far-right.html

Miracles of Migration: From Mechanical Marvels to Malevolents with Machetes

January 22, 2024/20 Comments/in Anti-White Attitudes, Featured Articles/by Tobias Langdon

The Welshman Aled Jones (born 1970) did something remarkable as a boy. He enchanted and astonished millions with the purity of his voice and depth of his musical talent. After that, he grew up and deservedly became a rich media star. Then he himself met a remarkable boy. Back in the 1980s, Jones had been remarkable in a White way. The boy he met in London in 2023 was remarkable in a non-White way:

A machete-wielding teenager who threatened to cut off singer Aled Jones’s head as he robbed him of his £17,000 Rolex watch has been detained. The Welsh baritone was attacked by the 16-year-old boy on Chiswick High Road, west London, on 7 July [2023].

The teenager pointed a machete in his face and told him to remove the watch, Ealing Magistrates’ Court heard. He was given a 24-month detention and training order after admitting robbery and possession of an offensive weapon. Vijay Khuttan, prosecuting, told the court Mr Jones and his son were out for a walk when they were “spotted” by the youth who had seen the high-value watch on his arm. “He crossed the road and followed them down the high street,” Mr Khuttan continued. “He pulled out a machete and ran towards Jones and his son with the machete brandished.”

The youth told Mr Jones: “Give me your Rolex or I will cut your arm off,” the prosecutor said, adding that the defendant then pointed the machete in the singer’s face. When the teenager noticed Mr Jones was still following him from a distance, he told him to “walk the other way or I will cut your head off”. … The court heard the teenager had previously stolen a gold Rolex watch worth £20,000 from a man in his 70s at Paddington railway station.

Chairman of the bench Rex Da Rocha told the teenager his record was “appalling”, adding: “Pointing that machete at an innocent person is totally unacceptable.” (“Aled Jones: Boy who threatened singer with machete detained,” BBC News, 3rd October 2023)

Mechanical marvel: an 18th-century timepiece by the Yorkshire genius John Harrison (image from Wikipedia)

That vibrant vignette from 21st-century Britain was reported by the BBC, but the BBC didn’t, of course, point out its deep racial significance. However, it wasn’t just a case of a talented White musician being robbed by a predatory non-White psychopath. It was an encounter between White civilization and non-White savagery, between a race capable of ascending the greatest heights and a race capable of plumbing the worst depths. Aled Jones had ascended to the greatest heights of culture in his singing and love of classical music. The watch he was wearing represented the greatest heights of technology and ingenuity. That’s why it was so valuable and prestigious. And that’s why the non-White robber — almost certainly a Black — was ready to plumb the depths of savagery for possession of it.

Malevolents with machetes: the Rolex-rippers who contribute Black savagery to White civilization

What Blacks don’t have the brains to build, they certainly have the savagery to steal. The London Metropolitan Police have recently conducted an undercover operation against the theft of expensive watches by so-called “Rolex-rippers.” They have now issued photos of all the criminals old enough to be publicly identified. It’s a miracle of migration that almost all are Black and that most have obviously Muslim names. On their own, Blacks in Africa never even invented the wheel, let alone any true kind of machinery. The Jewish scientist Jared Diamond (born 1937) attributes this Black failure to purely bio-geographical factors in his Pulitzer-prize-winning best-seller Guns, Germs and Steel (1997). After all, according to leftists like Diamond, race does not exist and Blacks are just as capable of high intellectual achievement as anyone else. Therefore we must explain Africa’s failure by something external to Blacks — their natural environment. It couldn’t possibly be anything to do with Black evolution or genetics.

Black genius stymied by Mother Nature

That’s what Diamond claims. He says he’s interested in revealing the truth and removing unfounded prejudices. I don’t believe him. As I explained in my article “Destroy the Goy: The Metaphysics of Anti-White Hatred,” I think he’s really interested in concealing the truth and denigrating Whites. I think Diamond’s primary motive is goyophobia, or hatred of White Europeans. When he tries to explain why Europe conquered Africa rather vice versa, he obviously derives great satisfaction from the alternate history of militarily superior Africans conquering Europe:

All of Africa’s mammalian domesticates — cattle, sheep, goats, horses, even dogs — entered sub-Saharan Africa from the north, from Eurasia or North Africa. At first that seems astonishing, since we now think of Africa as the continent of big wild animals. In fact, none of those famous big wild mammal species of Africa proved domesticable [this isn’t true]. They were all unqualified by one or another problem such as: unsuitable social organization; intractable behaviour; slow growth-rate, and so on. Just think what the course of world history would have been like if Africa’s rhinos and hippos had lent themselves to domestication! If it had been possible, African cavalry mounted on rhinos or hippos would have made mincemeat of European cavalry mounted on horses. But it couldn’t happen. (Why Did Human History Unfold Differently on Different Continents for the Past 13,000 Years?)

You can see the same goyophobia in Guns, Germs and Steel when Diamond presents the alternate history of “bedraggled” Spaniards being “driven into the sea” by Aztec cavalry:

That’s an enormous set of differences between Eurasian and Native American societies — due largely to the Late Pleistocene extinction (extermination?) of most of North and South America’s former big wild mammal species. If it had not been for those extinctions, modern history might have taken a different course. When Cortes and his bedraggled adventurers landed on the Mexican coast in 1519, they might have been driven into the sea by thousands of Aztec cavalry mounted on domesticated native American horses. Instead of the Aztecs dying of smallpox, the Spaniards might have been wiped out by American germs transmitted by disease-resistant Aztecs. American civilizations resting on animal power might have been sending their own conquistadores to ravage Europe. But those hypothetical outcomes were foreclosed by mammal extinctions thousands of years earlier. (Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies [1997], ch. 18)

Kevin MacDonald has described seeing Diamond in full anti-White flow: “I went to a talk by Diamond at a large packed lecture hall at Cal Tech in the early 2000s. When he gleefully fantasized about Africa conquering Europe, the crowd burst into applause. Being a reasonably respectable academic at the time, it was a good introduction to the anti-White hatred that boils just below the surface of the moralistic rhetoric of anti-racism.” But Diamond’s goyophobia is illogical by his own principles. There is no room for moralism or the unique malevolence of Whites in the “All by Accident” school of history. If all human groups are equal in moral and intellectual potential, then no group can be superior or inferior, more virtuous or less evil. Consequently, human history must be explained by the chance factors of biogeography.

The hidden aims of anti-racism

Indeed, Diamond’s thesis or something like it follows with inexorable logic from the fundamental axiom of anti-racism. If race does not exist and we are all the same under the skin, differences between human groups must arise from external factors beyond human control and not susceptible to moral judgment. If the historical dice had rolled another way, then Blacks would have enslaved Whites and Jews would have committed genocide against Germans. Victims in our time-stream are villains in an alternate time-stream, and villains are victims. Who oppresses whom is entirely a matter of chance and historical contingency. There is no other logical conclusion.

But anti-racists don’t reach that conclusion, because the ideology of anti-racism does not obey logic. Anti-racists follow their fundamental axiom only so far as it suits them. Although they claim that all human groups have equal potential, they blame the failure of non-Whites on Whites without any mention of chance or historical contingency. Rational anti-racism would be a much more sober and much less ambitious ideology than anti-racism as it presently exists. Rational anti-racism would not be strident or self-righteous, and it would not seek to bully, brow-beat or instil guilt in Whites. In short, it wouldn’t deliver what anti-racists really want: power, privilege and revenge.

Roche’s revenge

And self-proclaimed anti-racists take revenge precisely by importing non-Whites into the West. Some of the Black faces and names in the police photos above are obviously Somali or from closely related groups. But why does Britain have so many predatory Somalis living on its soil? Step forward the migration-maven Barbara Roche, the intensely ethnocentric Jewish minister who opened Britain’s borders to the Third World during the New Labour government:

One of Roche’s legacies was hundreds more migrants camped in squalor in Sangatte, outside Calais, where they tried to smuggle themselves onto lorries. News about the new liberalism — and in particular the welfare benefits — now began attracting Somalis who’d previously settled in other EU countries. Although there was no historic or cultural link between Somalia and Britain, more than 200,000 came. Since most were untrained and would be dependent on welfare, the Home Office could have refused them entry. But they were granted ‘exceptional leave to remain’. (Conman Blair’s cynical conspiracy to deceive the British people and let in 2million migrants against the rules, The Daily Mail, 26th February 2016)

It’s no coincidence that Jared Diamond and Barbara Roche are both Jewish. Jews like Diamond supply the anti-White propaganda and Jews like Roche supply the anti-White practice. The great White writer Horace (65–8 BC), by contrast, supplied the truth. Two millennia ago he expressed the folly of importing savages into civilization with eight words of crystal-clear Latin: Caelum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt — “They change their skies, not their souls, who rush across the sea.”

A humbly born White genius

Horace’s poetry is still something to marvel at, a miracle of White genius that has proved far more lasting than bronze. Aptly enough, the word “miracle” comes to us from Latin. It was originally miraculum, meaning “thing of wonder, marvel.” That’s why I called those police-photos of Black savages a miracle of migration. They were something to marvel at, a vibrant vision from the capital city of a nation that once imposed civilization on Blacks and would never have dreamed of importing Blacks to impose their savagery on us. Then Jews like Jared Diamond began to pump out anti-White propaganda and Jews like Emmanuel Celler (1888-1981) began to destroy pro-White immigration law. The results are plain to see across the West.

Humbly born Yorkshire genius John Harrison and one of his mechanical marvels (image from Wikipedia)

But there’s another kind of miracle in the story of Aled Jones and the machete-wielding savage who threatened to cut his head off. That savage was after the miraculum mechanicum, the mechanical marvel, that Jones was wearing on his wrist. There are many centuries of White ingenuity and effort behind even the cheapest watch, but how many of the rich White men who wear the most expensive watches stop to think about that? How many of them think about the humbly born Yorkshire genius John Harrison (1693–1776), who contributed more to watchmaking, technology, and navigation than all the Blacks who have ever lived? Alas, too many White men wear expensive watches only as a celebration of themselves and their success. They never stop to think what those watches represent. Or what the robbery of a watch by a Black represents. The marvellous watch represents civilization and the Black robber represents savagery. How many of the White victims of Black Rolex-rippers have recognized that? Very few, I’m afraid. And while rich Whites are happy to spend huge sums aggrandizing themselves with the shiniest products of White civilization, from Rolex watches to sports-cars to private jets, how much are they prepared to spend defending the civilization — and the race — that gave them those things?

Blacks and Muslims not needed

But the non-White savage that Aled Jones encountered in London was a threat to much more than the marvel that Jones carried on his wrist. He was also a threat to the marvels that Jones carried inside his head. Jones has great musical talent and a profound knowledge and appreciation of the glories of the Western classical tradition. He can read music and commune with the genius of White giants like Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. And his mother-tongue is Welsh, part of the true and organic diversity of the British Isles that is threatened by the artificial and imposed diversity of Third-World migration. We don’t need any Blacks or Muslims in Britain at all. They are a curse on us, not a blessing as the left so loudly and mendaciously proclaim.

All of that is obvious in the story of the Welsh musician and the non-White savage who threatened to cut his head off with a machete. It was one small encounter between civilization and savagery that symbolized a much bigger migration disaster. But the BBC and rest of the leftist media won’t tell you that. Even as they report clear proof of the evil insanity of Third-World migration, they go on supporting it and blaming all problems on White racism. They’re not sane or rational and they’re certainly not well-intentioned. That’s why we have to fight them, defeat them, and ensure that civilization survives.

Aboriginal Worship and the Flight from Whiteness in Australia

October 31, 2022/64 Comments/in Anti-White Attitudes, Featured Articles, Jewish Influence/by Brenton Sanderson

Anti-White activism in Australia is becoming increasingly strident

Results from the 2021 Australian Census revealed an astonishing 25 per cent jump in the nation’s Aboriginal population over the preceding five years. This confirmed the trend of the 2016 census showing a 19 per cent surge in the Aboriginal population. Over the last decade the self-identifying “Aboriginal” percentage of the population of Australia has increased from 2.5 to 3.2 per cent. This massive increase in Aboriginal self-identification is not the result of a sudden surge in Aboriginal fertility, but is the culmination of the establishment of an intellectual, political and economic climate that encourages White Australians to shed their racial identity. Like other Western societies buffeted by waves of non-White immigration and anti-White intellectual and political activism, Australia is now a nation where White people are actively discriminated against, and where significant social and financial advantages accrue to non-White people.

Commentators in the leftist media lauded the leap in Aboriginal self-identification, claiming the statistics show Australians finally feel safe to identify as Aboriginal. In truth, the growing embrace of Aboriginal identity and flight from Whiteness is symptomatic of the anti-White trajectory of Australian society as a whole. Commentator Andrew Bolt sees the dramatic increase in the number of White Australians calling themselves Black as evidence of Australia’s “toxic anti-white racism.”

It’s now so embarrassing to be white that another 90,000 Australians have decided to call themselves black instead. … Or let’s put it more kindly: it’s now so chic to be black that these 90,000 Australians have called themselves Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander for the first time in the last census. The 2021 Census is dramatic evidence of the new anti-White racism — and of the growing fraud that comes from lavishing privileges on people claiming to be Aboriginal, with few questions asked. … The 2016 Census found at least 40,000 people who claimed to be Aboriginal or Islander but had likewise chosen not to in the previous survey.

Still, who can blame them from seizing any excuse — however remote or imagined — to stop being white? Check woke bookshops that stock white-hostile titles such as White Fragility, or Back to Black. Or consult the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, which last year published an insanely racist paper calling “whiteness… a malignant, parasitic like condition” that “renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable.” So it’s no surprise that the biggest rises in people now claiming to be Aboriginal are in our wokest states. In Victoria, the rise was a spectacular 37 per cent in five years. NSW was second with 29 per cent. In contrast, the Northern Territory – with the biggest proportion of Aborigines – the rise was just 5 per cent.

Back in 2009 Bolt wrote two columns pointing out that individuals with tiny amounts of Aboriginal ancestry (or none) were taking advantage of a raft of government scholarships and affirmative action job vacancies by choosing to identify exclusively as Aborigines. Bolt claimed these people were choosing to identify as Black to leverage their career and social advancement.

For pointing out this this rather obvious fact, and that this increasing Aboriginal self-identification had been encouraged by the multitude of financial and professional incentives available to those identifying as Aboriginal, Bolt was hauled into court and found guilty of violating Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act (the enactment of which was a direct result of Jewish activism). In September 2010 nine of the “Aboriginal” people Bolt identified in his articles commenced legal proceedings against him and his employer the Herald-Sun. The complainants, represented gratis in the Federal Court by the Jewish barristers Ron Merkel and Herman Borenstein, sought an apology, legal costs and a gag on republishing the articles and blogs and “other relief as the court deems fit.” In the trial Merkel argued in reference to Bolt’s articles that “this kind of thinking led to the Nuremberg race laws and that Bolt had adopted a eugenic approach to Aboriginality.”

In his ruling for the complainants in 2011 the presiding judge Mordy Bromberg (also Jewish) declared that: “I am satisfied that fair-skinned Aboriginal people (or some of them) were reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to have been offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the imputations conveyed by the newspaper articles. … Even if I had been satisfied that Section 18C conduct was capable of being fair comment, I would not have been satisfied that it was said or done by Mr Bolt reasonably and in good faith.” Thus “good faith” as interpreted by a judge is now the criteria for acceptable speech about race in Australia — with this to be determined by the likes of Justice Bromberg who is a prominent member of the Australian Jewish community. This point was not lost on Bolt at the time, who noted that “And which judge becomes relevant, doesn’t it? Or are we not allowed to suggest that, either?”

Today, the increasingly anti-White tenor of Australian society, and proliferating government programs designed to redress Aboriginal social dysfunction (currently costing taxpayers around $33 billion annually, or some $55,000 per “Aborigine”) are fueling a population boom, with those with negligible amounts of Aboriginal ancestry (or none) self-identifying as indigenous to access ever-expanding indigenous welfare programs, scholarships and career opportunities. The practice of White Australians self-identifying as Aboriginal has become so widespread that Sydney’s Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council recently made a complaint to a government anti-corruption body about the number of Sydney University students identifying as Aboriginal by using just statutory declarations rather than producing “a confirmation of identity letter from a Local Aboriginal Land Council or other Indigenous community-controlled organisation, showing they meet the Commonwealth three-part identity test: that they are of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent, identify as such, and their identity is accepted by a community in which they live or previously lived.”

Bruce Pascoe: Poster Child for the Benefits of Fleeing Whiteness

The remarkable professional and financial benefits that can accrue to White Australians willing to discard their racial identity to become Aboriginal is illustrated by the spectacular rise of “historian” Bruce Pascoe. Before his rise to fame, Pascoe was the obscure author of works such as the 1988 novel Fox, about a “fugitive searching for his Aboriginality.” Critics at the time suggested it would have been a better book had Pascoe not been White: “Pascoe is, after all, imagining the psyche of an Aboriginal person. … He writes as a humane, informed liberal, but as a white man as well.” Around this time Pascoe started identifying as Aboriginal, even though two Aboriginal groups call him a fraud and his genealogy shows all his ancestors are of English descent. But now as an Aborigine, Pascoe has enjoyed wild career and financial success: hailed as an “elder,” promoted as an “Aboriginal historian” by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, given grants for Aboriginal enterprises and made a professor of “Indigenous Agriculture” by the University of Melbourne. “Indigenous Agriculture” is a fake discipline invented by Pascoe using so-called evidence to claim Aborigines were farmers in his widely acclaimed and promoted 2014 book Dark Emu.

Fake Aborigine, bad historian, and all-round grifter Bruce Pascoe

In Dark Emu Pascoe contends that, rather than being Stone Age nomadic hunter-gatherers as long assumed, Australia’s Aborigines had settled towns and practiced agriculture. Pascoe based his ahistorical thesis on dubious sources and legitimate sources taken out of context. In their critical analysis of Dark Emu, the academics Peter Sutton and Keryn Walshe demolish Dark Emu noting the book is poorly researched, not fully sourced, and, when it is sourced, Pascoe does “not cite the relevant extract from a source in its correct context, thus skewing the interpretation.”[1] They also note Pascoe’s tendency to generalize from local examples to incorrectly claim that particular technologies were used across the whole Australian continent. They and anthropologist Ian Keen conclude that Pascoe’s thesis is a vast exaggeration: that Aborigines were fundamentally Stone Age hunter-gatherers who practiced some rudimentary forms of agriculture on an insignificant scale.[2] Sutton and Walshe also chastised Pascoe for his implicit acceptance of the (now verboten) anthropological notion that settled agricultural societies are superior to those of nomadic hunter-gatherers. Even some Aboriginal activists like Hannah McGlade criticized Dark Emu, insisting the book is “misleading and offensive to Aboriginal people and culture” and “is not very truthful or accurate.”[3]

Lying to schoolchildren

These criticisms have not prevented Pascoe’s work from being showered with awards, aggressively promoted by the leftist media (prompting sales of over 250,000 copies) and cited as a valid historical source in textbooks used in Australian schools. One such textbook, citing Pascoe, falsely claims, for example, that Aborigines “actively managed the land in complex ways and so were not nomadic hunters-gatherers.”[4] Another textbook tells students:

Over 30,000 years ago, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were baking bread in Australia. They developed this skill alongside their ability to harvest seeds and grains. Historian Bruce Pascoe says this makes them the world’s oldest bakers – they were baking 15,000 years before the next known bakers, the ancient Egyptians. How do we know this? One way is through the research of historians like Pascoe. Pascoe has written a lot about how they developed farm practices around Australia. These practices enabled them to settle in specific regions, and rely less on hunting and foraging. They were able to manage the land to create food for their communities.[5]

Such dishonesty is symptomatic of how Aboriginal history is taught in Australian schools. Students are fed a romanticized view devoid of any criticisms. Because the culture of Australia’s Aborigines was the most primitive in the world – they remained Stone Age hunter-gatherers right up until contact with Europeans – the focus, in recent years, has been to stress the opposite: how “sophisticated” and “complex” Aboriginal societies and culture were (and supposedly remain) today.

A sampling of school history textbooks reveals that, while offering abundant criticisms of Europeans and European culture, authors flatly refuse to offer any criticisms whatever of Aboriginal culture and society. Instead, Aborigines are lavished with unwarranted praise for the supposed complexity and sophistication of their culture. “First Nations Peoples of Australia” (always capitalized) were, it is insisted, “highly skilled in dealing with environmental challenges,” were “advanced cultures with considerable populations,” had “complex political, social and legal structures,” were “well fed, fitter and probably healthier than their European counterparts,” and developed “sophisticated farming and food-production methods.” They were also the world’s first astronomers: “They used the stars to create complex seasonal calendars, which included details on the position of the stars and constellations.”[6] Unfortunately for those students interested in learning about the exact nature of these “complex” structures, such concepts are declared “sacred” and, consequently, “They can only be shared with the initiated, and cannot be described in a textbook.”[7]

While the early British leaders of the Australian colonies receive scant praise and abundant moral censure, the same textbooks laud the “great Genghis Khan” as “a brilliant, merciless leader who built a vast empire, slaughtering millions in his quest to rule the world.” The Mongol leader’s “determination to succeed combined with a charismatic personality, intelligence, courage and ruthlessness” saw him “lead his ferocious Mongol army on the largest military expansion in history.” The Mongols are commended for having “fostered cultural development in the arts, ensured peace among their peoples, respected different cultures and religions, and improved trade.”

Genghis Khan is granted the epithet of “great” despite the fact his “troops killed many and used the most brutal tortures imaginable,” and the “more resistance they encountered from an opponent, the more horrible the treatment the opponent received from the Mongol army.” In fact, we are told:

Genghis Khan’s cruelty was unprecedented. At the battle of Kalka River in 1223, the Mongol army defeated the Russian forces, wiping out 90 per cent of the soldiers. Mstislav of Kiev and his army retreated and surrendered in return for their safe treatment. Once they surrendered, however, the Mongol army slaughtered the Russian force. They executed Mstislav of Kiev and buried the remaining noble prisoners alive under a victory platform, enjoying a victory feast on top of them as the nobles suffocated beneath them.[8]

None of this prevents Genghis Khan and the Mongols (as a non-White group) from receiving vastly more acclaim (and less moral censure) than the European explorers, founders and leaders of the Australian nation. When the British arrived in Australia in the late eighteenth century these benighted fools purportedly “failed to recognise that the First Nations Peoples of Australia were advanced cultures who actively managed the land.” Aborigines are also (laughably) said to have been more socially progressive than the British. One textbook informs students that “British Women in the colonial period were treated as second-class citizens. … Women were expected to obey their husbands and to bear children. In contrast, the women of the First Nations of Australia held equal status and power in their communities from the distant past until today.”[9]

In reality, Aboriginal societies were, prior to and after contact with Europeans, extremely abusive to women and children and generally violent. In 1995, paleopathologist Stephen Webb published his analysis of 4,500 individuals’ bones from mainland Australia going back 50,000 years. These bone collections were at the time being handed over to Aboriginal communities for re-burial, which stopped any follow-up studies.

He found highly disproportionate rates of injuries and fractures to women’s skulls, with the injuries suggesting deliberate attack and often attacks from behind, perhaps from domestic squabbles. In the tropics, for example, female head injury frequency was about 20–33%, versus 6.5–26% for males. The most extreme results were on the south coast, from Swanport and Adelaide, with female cranial trauma rates as high as 40–44%—two to four times the rate of male cranial trauma. In desert and south coast areas, 5–6% of female skulls had three separate head injuries, and 11–12% had two injuries.[10]

The high rate of injuries to female heads was very different from the results from studies of other peoples. These findings, according to anthropologist Peter Sutton, confirm that serious armed assaults were common in Australia over thousands of years prior to the arrival of Europeans.[11]

From 1788, Europeans arriving in Australia were shocked at the extreme physical violence Aboriginal men inflicted on their women. Watkin Tench, a British marine officer who arrived on the First Fleet, noticed a young woman’s head “covered by contusions, and mangled by scars.” She had a spear wound above her left knee caused by a man who dragged her home to rape her. Tench wrote: “They are in all respects treated with savage barbarity; condemned not only to carry the children, but all other burthens. They meet in return for submission only with blows, kicks and every other mark of brutality.”[12] Tench observed that when an Aboriginal man “is provoked by a woman, he either spears her, or knocks her down on the spot; on this occasion he always strikes on the head, using indiscriminately a hatchet, a club, or any other weapon, which may chance to be in his hand.” British soldier William Collins recounted how “We have seen some of these unfortunate beings with more scars upon their shorn heads, cut in every direction, than could be well distinguished or counted.”[13]

In 1802 an explorer in the Blue Mountains in New South Wales wrote how, for a trivial reason, an Aboriginal “took his club and struck his wife’s head such a blow that she fell to the ground unconscious. After dinner … he got infuriated and again struck his wife on the head with his club, and left her on the ground nearly dying.”[14] In 1825, the French explorer Louis-Antoine de Bougainville observed that “that young girls are brutally kidnapped from their families, violently dragged to isolated spots and are ravished after being subjected to a good deal of cruelty.”[15]

George Robinson observed in the 1830s that Aboriginal men in Tasmania “courted” their women by stabbing them with sharp sticks and cutting them with knives prior to rape.[16] A contemporaneous account by an ex-convict named Lingard noted that: “I scarcely ever saw a married woman, but she had got six or seven cuts in her head, given by her husband with a tomahawk, several inches in length and very deep.”[17] Explorer Edward John Eyre similarly observed that “women are often sadly ill-treated by their husbands and friends. … They are frequently beaten about the head, with waddies [clubs], in the most dreadful manner, or speared in the limbs for the most trivial offences. … Few women will be found, upon examination, to be free from frightful scars upon their head, or the marks of spear wounds about the body. I have seen a young woman, who, from the number of these marks, appeared to have been riddled with spear wounds.”[18]

None of these accounts are included in any of the history textbooks currently used in Australian schools. Also conspicuously absent is one of the best primary sources we have for understanding Aboriginal social and cultural practices around the time of European colonization: the account of William Buckley, who lived for over three decades with an Aboriginal tribe around Port Phillip Bay in present-day Victoria in the early nineteenth century. Buckley witnessed constant raids, ambushes and massacres and noted how, in night raids, the Aboriginal tribes he encountered “destroyed without mercy men, women and children.” Buckley also described the practice of cannibalism between the warring tribes of the area, including the practice of eating flesh from the legs of slain warriors which “was greedily devoured by these savages.” Buckley says in one tribal battle he lost his brother-in-law and the man’s wife, along with their blind son, who was then roasted and eaten. He mentions their practice of mortuary cannibalism for love, relating that “they eat also the flesh of their own children to whom they have been much attached should they die a natural death.”

They have a brutal aversion to children who happen to be deformed at their birth. I saw the brains of one dashed out at a blow, and a boy belonging to the same woman made to eat the mangled remains. The act of cannibalism was accounted for in this way. The woman at particular seasons of the moon, was out of her senses; the moon—as they thought—having affected the child also; and certainly it had a very singular appearance. This caused the husband to deny his being the father, and the reason given for making the boy eat the child was, that some evil would befall him of he had not done so.[19]

Such accounts are assiduously hidden from Australian schoolchildren, and Jewish anti-White activists like the late Colin Tatz flared up indignantly when anyone dared to publicly reference Buckley’s detailed eyewitness description of Aboriginal cannibalism. Tatz falsely insisted that “we do not have a single eyewitness account of Aboriginal cannibalism” and when the Australian politician Pauline Hanson referred to the Aboriginal practice of cannibalism, he equated it with “the blood libel against the Jews,” angrily claiming “the Hanson vilification about cannibalism is not of the same magnitude or consequence, but it is very much in the same genre.”[20]

Noting that extreme violence against women and children in Aboriginal communities has a venerable history, and is currently at “catastrophic levels,” Stephanie Jarrett notes that: “It is important to acknowledge [the] link between today’s Aboriginal violence and violent, pre-contact tradition, because until policymakers are honest in their assessment of the causes, Aboriginal people can never be liberated from violence. … Deep cultural change is necessary, away from traditional norms and practices of violence.”[21] Aboriginal woman Bess Price, in her forward to Jarrett’s book pointed out that “my own body is scarred by domestic violence” and noted that “Aboriginal people have to acknowledge the truth. We can’t blame all of our problems on the white man.”[22]

The “Genocide” Charge

Unlike Price, the authors of all the textbooks currently used in Australian schools are content to blame all Aboriginal problems on Europeans whom they charge with “genocide.” Students are informed in one text book that while previous generations of historians (i.e., the rational ones who weren’t slaves to today’s regnant anti-White ideology) used words like “settled, settlement and settler” to describe the arrival of Europeans in Australia, modern (woke) historians much prefer “words such as colonist and invader.” These modern historians, we are informed, also “use the word genocide to describe the experience of First Nations Peoples of Australia.”[23]

Today’s anti-White historians (and the activist authors of school textbooks) straddle a muddy line between contradictory narratives: on the one hand we are told that British settlers sneakily (and immorally) “stole” the land of the indigenous peoples, while, at the same time, the British arrival in Australia is characterized as an “invasion.” Yet if we accept the “invasion” thesis, then it follows that Australian territory was conquered in a war (and not stolen) by the British — just as warring Aboriginal tribes conquered each other’s territory.

Brainwashed self-hating Whites enthusiastically pushing Jewish activist narratives

There has even been a proposal by the current Labor government to include an exhibit for Aboriginal victims of the “Frontier Wars” at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. By thereby formalizing the notion of a war between Aborigines and Europeans, Aboriginal activists are inadvertently undermining the long-cherished notion of “stolen land” and its propagandistic utility. The Australian War Memorial Act 1980, under which the memorial operates, is clear that the memorial is dedicated only to those who “died in active service in war or in warlike operations by members of the defence force,” which “includes any naval or military force of the crown.” It is certainly not to remember victims of crimes, reprisals and acts of self-defense by Whites, who were primarily pastoralists. Andrew Bolt makes the point that if the memorial is “so keen to honour Aborigines who died fighting for their tribes, then why include only those who died fighting whites? Why not include the many more who died in wars with other Aboriginal tribes?” He notes how:

Tribal warfare was relentless. William Buckley recalled a corroboree with another tribe ended in a fight that killed 20 people. Shortly afterwards, two boys of his tribe were killed. Then three women and an unspecified number of “boys” died in a war with five other tribes. Much later Buckley’s tribe lost at least two women and a man in another battle, but that night ambushed the enemy camp and killed three of theirs. The other tribe then fled, leaving its wounded “to be beaten to death by boomerangs”, with the bodies then “mutilated in a shocking manner” and cooked. And on it went. Multiply the experience of this one tribe by the 500 others. As historian Geoffrey Blainey has noted, the death rates in tribal wars were in some areas clearly worse than what Europeans suffered in their world wars.

All currently-used history textbooks in Australian schools charge Europeans with “genocide” against the Aborigines. As I have previously discussed, the origins of this “genocide” charge can be traced to a coterie of Jewish academics and intellectuals including, most prominently, Latrobe University historian Tony Barta and the late Sydney University genocide studies professor and “anti-racism” crusader Colin Tatz. In collaboration with Winton Higgins, Anna Haebich, and A. Dirk Moses, these Jewish intellectual activists succeeded in ensuring that “genocide is now in the vocabulary of Australian politics.” The word “genocide” was first used regarding Australia’s Aborigines by Barta at an academic conference in 1984 in a presentation entitled “After the Holocaust: Consciousness of Genocide in Australia” where he proclaimed that “genocide had indeed occurred here.”[24] For Barta, a laudable focus on “the Holocaust” had “inhibited consciousness of the violent past that had enabled us to meet on ground named after the colonial secretary, Lord Sydney. The question was equally suppressed where I had settled with my family, the city named after Lord Melbourne.”[25]

The policies of the British administrators of the Australian colonies of the late-eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and those of Australian state and federal governments in the twentieth century, cannot, by any objective standard, be regarded as “genocidal” as the term was defined by Raphael Lemkin, the Polish-Jewish jurist who coined it in 1944. The problem for anti-White activists has been that Lemkin’s definition, subsequently adopted by the UN, relies heavily on “intent to destroy,” which has proved problematic in an Australian context where, “without being able to prove intent on behalf of the colonial administration, the case for genocide is weak.”[26] Barta, therefore, simply redefined “genocide” to make it encompass the totality of European colonial societies like Australia. His redefinition was “a way of obviating the centrality of state policy and premeditation” embedded in Lemkin’s ‘hegemonic intentionalist’ definition of genocide.”[27]

Barta’s redefinition of genocide enabled him to conclude that “Australia — not alone among the nations of the colonized world — is a nation founded on genocide.” He advocates this message “be the credo taught to every generation of schoolchildren—the key recognition of Australia as a nation founded on genocide.”[28] And, as mentioned, the intellectual activism of Barta and others has succeeded in embedding this ahistorical notion in school curricula and textbooks where White Australian children are encouraged to loathe their race, their ancestors and to disregard their incredible achievements. The Sydney Jewish Museum is proudly playing its part in training Australian teachers “not only about the Holocaust” but also about “the Australian genocide.”[29]

Recalling how he was inspired by Barta’s genocide thesis, the late Jewish academic and activist Colin Tatz claimed it “set my wheels going about seeing not parallels or analogies but echoes of the Holocaust here — at the very least making me realize that genocide doesn’t have to be a sharp annihilatory episode confined to 1939 to 1945.”[30] For Tatz, Barta’s presentation was an “inspirational moment and one that became central to my life thereafter.”[31] Embracing and weaponizing the utterly bogus notion of the “Stolen Generations,” Tatz claimed that as a result of “the public’s first knowledge of the wholesale removal of Aboriginal children, the dreaded ‘g’ word is firmly with us,” affirming that the “purpose of my university and public courses” is “to keep it here.”[32] According to Tatz, White people who rejected his “genocide” label exhibited psychological disturbances manifested in “paroxysms, ranging from upset to extreme angst to even more extreme anger, when the (literal) spectres of genocide appear as facets of their proudly democratic histories.”[33]

Inevitably, Barta and Tatz likened rejection of, or even ambivalence toward, their assertion that “Australia is a nation built on genocide” to “Holocaust denial.” Here they were joined by fellow Jewish academic and leading proponent of the “Stolen Generations” myth, Professor Robert Manne. Former editor in chief of The Australian, Chris Mitchell, noted Manne’s penchant for “manipulation of the idea of the Holocaust for political advantage, particularly in the Stolen Generations debate,” observing “this Holocaust tactic, like the related use of the word ‘denier,’ is a simple trick to undermine an opponent’s moral position when a polemicist has little intellectual case.”[34] In levelling the “genocide” charge against White Australians, these Jewish activists seek to exert the kind of psychological leverage used so effectively against Germans, who, as Tatz noted, are “weighed down by the Schuldfrage (guilt question)” to such an extent that “guilt, remorse, shame permeate today’s Germany.”[35]

In addition to this genocide charge, other important parts of the psychological leverage exerted against White Australians are the (now ubiquitous) ceremonial practices known as “Welcome to Country” and “Acknowledgement of Country.” Replacing Christian prayer, these solemn genuflections to the sanctity of Aboriginal people and their culture now feature at the commencement of all public events. Welcome to Country was invented out of whole cloth by the Aboriginal actors Richard Walley and Ernie Dingo in 1976. Despite the lack of any real evidence, some Aboriginal activists allege (relying on Aboriginal oral tradition) that the practice can be traced back thousands of years. We are supposed to take such claims seriously despite the fact that such hearsay evidence is considered unreliable and is therefore inadmissible as evidence in all Australian courts.

Regardless of origin, “Welcome to Country” and “Acknowledgement of Country” have exploded in observance and become a potent symbol of the new secular religion of Aboriginal worship and enforced White penitence. Some jurisdictions, such as New South Wales, have made Welcome to Country (or, failing that, Acknowledgement of Country) mandatory at all government-run events. It was first introduced into the Federal Parliament in 2008 and now forms a regular element of Australian political process. The Acknowledgement of Country is touted by activists as a way “any person can show awareness and respect for Aboriginal culture and heritage and the ongoing relationship the traditional custodians have with the land. … It is a demonstration of respect dedicated to the traditional custodians of the land (or sea) where the event, meeting, school function or conference takes place.” In reality, the practice is about political correctness, virtue-signaling and fostering a culture of White abasement.

The new civic religion of Aboriginal worship has infiltrated corporate Australia via compulsory diversity training — pushed under the threat of people’s livelihoods. It is manifested in scrupulous and ubiquitous observance of Welcome to Country and Acknowledgment of Country (all QANTAS passengers are now subjected to it when landing at any Australian airport), and in the fetish for featuring Blacks of all kinds in advertising (in a nation with a still negligible Black population). It is also expressed in the prominent use of Aboriginal art in corporate headquarters and websites.

It is hardly surprising that, in response to such practices, the diffusion of bogus anti-White historical narratives in Australian schools, and the raft of financial and professional incentives available to Aboriginal people today, we are seeing a sharp increase in the number of White Australians identifying as Black. The spectacular professional rise of individuals like Bruce Pascoe only demonstrates the rich rewards that can flow from shedding one’s White identity in contemporary Australia.

Brenton Sanderson is the author of Battle Lines: Essays on Western Culture, Jewish Influence and Anti-Semitism, banned by Amazon, but available here.

[1] Sutton, Peter; Walshe, Keryn (2021). Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate. Melbourne: Melbourne University Publishing.

[2] Keen, Ian (2021). “Foragers or Farmers: Dark Emu and the Controversy over Aboriginal Agriculture”. Anthropological Forum. 31: 106–128.

[3] Taylor, Paige (23 June 2021). “Darker issues at play over Bruce Pascoe’s Dark Emu”. The Australian.

[4] Adcock, M., DeFanti, A. Eggleston, T., Osbourne, D. Polatidis, D., Keith Pratt, A., Ritchie, L., Cambridge Humanities for Victoria 9 (Cambridge University Press: Port Melbourne, 2020), 20.

[5] Adcock, M., DeFanti, A., Casey, J., Driscoll, B., Eggleston, Frigo, N., Middlebrook, Y., Polatidis, D., Keith T., Keith Pratt, A., Cambridge Humanities for Victoria 7 (Cambridge University Press: Port Melbourne, 2020), 7, 6.

[6] Ibid., 20.

[7] Lawless, B., Green, D., O’Brien, P., Shephard, N., Van Weringh, I., Fricker, A., Good Humanities 9 (Matilda Education: Fitzroy, Victoria, 2021), 9, 62.

[8] Lawless, B., O’Leary, D., Van Noorden, P. Good Humanities (Matilda Education: Fitzroy Victoria, 2021), 106.

[9] Lawless et al., Good Humanities 9, Op cit., 9, 90.

[10] Tony Thomas, “The long history of Aboriginal violence – Part II,” Quadrant Online, May 7, 2013. https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2013/05/the-long-bloody-history-of-aboriginal-violence/

[11] Ibid.

[12] Nowra, Bad Dreaming: Aboriginal Men’s Violence Against Women & Children (Melbourne: Pluto Press, 2007), 10.

[13] Peter Sutton, The Politics of Suffering: Indigenous Australia and the End of the Liberal Consensus (Melbourne: University of Melbourne Press, 2009), 100.

[14] Nowra, Bad Dreaming, 13.

[15] Joan Kimm, A Fatal Conjunction: Two Laws Two Cultures (Sydney: Federation Press, 2004), 76.

[16] Nowra, Bad Dreaming, 12.

[17] Ibid., 12.

[18] Stephanie Jarrett, Liberating Aboriginal People from Violence (Victoria: Ballan, 2013), 123.

[19] William Buckley, The Life and Adventures of William Buckley: Thirty-Two Years a Wanderer Amongst the Aborigines of the Then Unexplored Country Round Port Phillip, Now the Province of Victoria (Hobart: Archibald MacDougall, 1852), 66-7.

[20] Raphael Israeli, The Blood Libel and Its Derivatives: The Scourge of Anti-Semitism (London: Routledge, 2017), 4.

[21] Jarrett, Liberating Aboriginal People from Violence, 1.

[22] Ibid., 291.

[23] Lawless et al., Good Humanities 9, op cit., 61.

[24] Colin Tatz, Human Rights and Human Wrongs: A Life Confronting Racism (Clayton, Victoria; Monash University Publishing, 2015), 251.

[25] Tony Barta, “Realities, Surrealities and the Membrane of Innocence,” In: Genocide Perspectives: A Global Crime, Australian Voices, Ed. Nikki Marczak & Kirril Shields (Sydney: UTS ePress, 2017), 161.

[26] A. Francis Johnson, Australian Fiction as Archival Salvage: Making and Unmaking the Postcolonial Novel (Boston: Brill Rodopi, 2016), 198.

[27] A. Dirk Moses, “Genocide and Settler Society in Australian History” In: Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier Violence and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History, Ed. A. Dirk Moses (Sydney: Berghahn Books, 2004), 26.

[28] Ibid., 238; 174.

[29] George Newhouse, “Standing up for the Aboriginal community,” The Australian Jewish News, October 26, 2017. https://www.jewishnews.net.au/standing-up-for-the-aboriginal-community/70424

[30] Tatz, Human Rights and Human Wrongs, 251-52.

[31] Colin Tatz, Australia’s Unthinkable Genocide (Xlibris; 2017), 499.

[32] Colin Tatz, With Intent to Destroy: Reflecting on Genocide (London; Verso, 2003), xvi.

[33] Tatz, With Intent to Destroy, xiii; xvi.

[34] Chris Mitchell, “A critic untroubled by facts who seeks to silence dissent,” The Australian, September 17, 2011.

[35] Colin Tatz, Australia’s Unthinkable Genocide (Xlibris; 2017), 3009.

Sorry I Murdered You With My ‘Hate Speech’

July 28, 2022/35 Comments/in Anti-White Attitudes/by Ann Coulter

It’s not every day that I praise a book by the former head of the American Civil Liberties Union, let alone the longest-serving president of that organization.

But I was delighted to have Nadine Strossen on my Substack recently to talk about her book, “HATE: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship” — and not just because I am one of America’s leading “hate speakers.” (Oh, settle down, girls. That’s according to woke college liberals, the only humans more infantile and narcissistic than Donald Trump.)

Her book is a thoroughgoing, no-holds-barred defense of free speech. This makes her the rarest of creatures: a principled liberal. We should get her DNA in a lab and study it.

Being a liberal herself, Strossen pitches her argument to the left. That’s fortunate, I’d say: These days, the most enthusiastic advocates for censorship are liberals.

Thus, she repeatedly notes that censorship has historically been used by the powerful to crush the “marginalized.”

I couldn’t agree more! On the other hand, the two of us have very different ideas about who’s “marginalized.” Strossen means feminists, gays, Muslims, blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, transgenders, nonbinaries and so on, whereas I mean everybody else, to wit: “cisgendered” White Americans.

Not a certified victim? Don’t even think of applying to Harvard, Princeton or Yale — unless you’ve made a spectacle of yourself carrying on about gun control. Don’t be funny, use hyperbole or engage in any conversation at all with bratty East Coast private-school kids on a college resume-building trip to Peru. (See Pulitzer Prize-winning science reporter Donald McNeil, fired by The New York Times for this reckless error.)

Every time I’d read a description of this or that “hate speech” ban in Strossen’s book, what leapt to mind wasn’t someone saying only women have two X chromosomes, but the nonstop venom that is directed at White people.

“Hate speech” has been defined as expression that is:

— “persecutorial, hateful and degrading”;

— “insulting [or] holding up to ridicule … specific groups”;

— “likely to expose” people to “hatred or contempt”: “unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification” …

Throughout the country, White schoolchildren are being browbeaten about their “White privilege” and instructed to “unpack” their “White privilege knapsack.” Does that count?

How do you think it would go over if I wrote books with titles like: “Black Fragility,” “Dear Black People” and “The White Friend: On Being a Better Black Person.”

My guess is, not very well. And yet the Priests of High Culture at the Times have effusively — and repeatedly — praised books titled “White Fragility,” “Dear White People” and “The Black Friend: On Being a Better White Person.”

These, and dozens more with similar titles — “My Beautiful Black Hair,” “Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race,” “Black Girl Magic” and on and on and on — do not bring their authors into disrepute. To the contrary, they are rewarded with instant fame, unbridled praise and immense wealth. (Naturally, their books are assigned reading in college courses throughout the nation.)

Is all this loathing for white people simply the cry of the powerless against the powerful?

Here’s some power for you: Since at least 1973, when Allan Bakke was rejected from the University of California Medical School at Davis with grades and scores that would have won him a fast-track admission had he been Black, White Americans have been openly and aggressively discriminated against by the government — and with even greater zeal by corporate America.

White people, if I may call you that, you suck at oppression.

Making both my point and hers, Strossen says that wherever hate speech laws have been tried, it’s the “marginalized” — not the “oppressors” — who get nailed.

Duh. People who think it’s cool to publish books with titles like “Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race” don’t exactly exude sweetness and light when talking to actual White people.

Thanks to the University of Michigan being forced to release documents in response to an ACLU lawsuit challenging its “hate speech” code in the late 1980s, Strossen reveals that, during the brief time it was in effect, more than 20 cases were brought against Black people for racist speech.

The “irony” of hate speech laws being applied to the people who engage in most of the hate speech has led law professor Charles Lawrence to argue for “hate speech” codes that would apply only to those “in dominant majority groups,” i.e., White people.

See? To me, that sounds like the rule of an “oppressor.”

But like Strossen, I believe in free speech. It’s not the “hate speech” that bothers me; it’s the physical violence and intentional race discrimination against White Americans that’s beginning to get on my nerves.

DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION

1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106; 816-581-7500

Jewface and the Under-Race: Inferior Whites Cannot Play Roles Belonging to their Racial Superiors

January 24, 2022/27 Comments/in Anti-White Attitudes, Featured Articles/by Tobias Langdon

If you want to understand the leftists of the twenty-first century, you won’t find a better guide than a writer who died more than seventy years ago. George Orwell (1903–50) exposed the psychology and tactics of leftism in his two greatest books. In Nineteen Eighty-Four (1948), he satirized the way leftists practise the opposite of what they preach: “The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation.”

Preaching equality, practising hierarchy

And in Animal Farm (1945), he satirized the dishonesty and deceit of leftist rhetoric: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” In other words, Orwell saw that leftists are not serious about the sacred leftist principle of equality. It is merely a slogan, a rhetorical smoke-screen beneath which they advance towards their real aims: privilege for their favoured groups, enslavement for their enemies. In 2022 a leftist children’s writer called Jacqueline Wilson has adapted Orwell’s joke from Animal Farm. But Wilson is perfectly serious when she makes one of her female characters say: “In the modern world girls are just as clever as boys, and sometimes cleverer.”

In other words, men and women are equal, but women are more equal than men. The same applies to Whites and non-Whites. In leftism, all races are equal, but some races are more equal than others. That is, some races are superior to others. Or rather, all races are superior except one. Whites are now cast in the role of under-race and portrayed as the greatest villains, thieves and exploiters in history, sickeningly and supremely responsible for the horrors of racism, slavery and genocide. That’s why White actors are now banned from taking any non-White role, while non-Whites are free to take any White role they please. It’s a question of racial privilege, something that leftists claim to oppose but in fact wish to re-create and reinforce. This time, however, Whites are on the bottom of the racial hierarchy.

Transgenderism is good, transracialism is bad

That’s why it’s very interesting that some Jews are now calling for an end to “Jewface,” or the casting of White actors in Jewish roles. The term “Jewface” is an adaptation of “blackface,” which referred to the way White actors blackened their faces to play Black characters. For example, the British actor Laurence Olivier (1907-89) used blackface in his acclaimed performance as the traditionally Black protagonist of Shakespeare’s play Othello (c. 1603). Olivier triumphed in many Shakespearean roles and is still widely regarded as the greatest actor of modern times. But none of that—his prodigious talent, his praeternatural charisma, his passionate devotion to Shakespeare—matters any more. Olivier’s blackface Othello is now regarded as an abomination that must never be repeated.

But leftists don’t explain exactly why White actors are now banned from Black roles, just as they don’t explain why transgenderism is good, while transracialism is bad. For leftists, men can literally become women by proclaiming that they are so, but Whites cannot become Blacks by proclaiming that they are so. Why the difference? I think I’ve explained it in articles like “Power to the Perverts!” and “The Tyranny of Translunacy.” It’s a question of higher and lower status within leftism. Those belonging to a group with higher status can invade the territory of a group with lower status, but not vice versa. Transwomen—the variously disturbed and perverted men who claim to be women—have cleverly marketed themselves as a persecuted and vulnerable minority akin to homosexuals. They therefore have higher status in leftism than the ordinary women whose territory they want to invade.

Disassociating Jews from the “white under-race”

But “transblacks”—those Whites who claim to be Black—cannot market themselves as of higher status than Blacks. They’re White and therefore belong to an under-race with the lowest status of all. That’s why leftists anathematize White-to-Black transracialism. Whites cannot invade Black territory, because Whites are inferior to Blacks. However, Blacks can invade White territory whenever they please, therefore Black actors can take any White role. A Black actress has played the White queen Anne Boleyn; Black actors have played White heroes like Achilles and Galahad; and the heavily promoted Netflix series Bridgerton has filled early nineteenth-century England with elegant and intelligent Black aristocrats. What’s forbidden for Whites is celebrated for Blacks. Leftists don’t openly explain why this double-standard exists, because they don’t want to admit that they’re creating a racial hierarchy with Whites at the bottom. If they admitted that, they would alert ordinary Whites to the worse things that lie ahead. Leftists want to enslave ordinary Whites and leave them completely at the mercy of increasingly vicious and resentful non-White criminals.

Maureen Lipman plays an oppressed minority

I think that’s why some Jews are now campaigning against “Jewface.” They want to disassociate Jews from the White under-race and establish Jews openly as a privileged non-White minority, allied with the other minorities whom, in Jewish-leftist propaganda, Whites have oppressed so cruelly for so long. In the UK, the Jewish actress Maureen Lipman has complained that the gentile actress Helen Mirren should not have played the role of the Jewish prime minister Golda Meir (1898–1978) in the forthcoming film Golda. Lipman says that Jewishness is “integral” to the role of Meir, therefore a gentile actress cannot authentically perform as Meir. What Lipman really means is that Jewishness is superior to goyishness, therefore an inferior goy should not take on the role of a superior Jew. The unfunny and physically repulsive Jewish comedian David Baddiel has supported Lipman in the Guardian, but he too has not admitted the real reason for his opposition to “Jewface”:

The deep truth of any marginalised identity is only available to those who live that identity. Casting a non-minority actor to mimic that identity feels, to the progressive eye, like impersonation, and impersonation may carry with it an element of mockery—or at least seem reductive, reducing the complexity of that experience by channelling it through an actor who hasn’t lived it.…

Jewish is the minority that you can cast with actors not of that minority, and hardly, until very recently, hear a whisper of concern. … [This issue is] about the idea that minority experience should be expressed by those who truly know it, rather than caricatured by those who don’t. It would be an interesting conclusion, given 2,000 years of persecution, that the representation of Jewish identity doesn’t deserve this complexity. …

In all the aggressive tweeting about Lipman, I saw many photos posted triumphantly of when she once played a vicar in a TV show. Social media loves of course an Aha! meme, and those who hated Lipman for saying her Golda Meir thing posted it luxuriously, as if it proved her bang-to-rights wrong. But minority casting is not a two-way street. Dev Patel can play, obviously, all the south Asian parts he gets offered, and he can also now play [the white role of] David Copperfield. (‘Why don’t Jews play Jews?’—David Baddiel on the row over Helen Mirren as Golda Meir, The Guardian, 12th January 2022)

Note that Baddiel thinks Jews have suffered “2,000 years of persecution.” His anti-Christian bigotry is showing, because “persecution” of Jews—that is, justified gentile responses to Jewish misbehavior—is far older than Christianity, as Andrew Joyce has described in articles like “Exodus Redux: Jewish Identity and the Shaping of History.” Now look at Baddiel’s argument for banning Whites from non-White roles: “The deep truth of any marginalised identity is only available to those who live that identity.” He claims that when a profane White plays a sacred non-White, the performance is “reductive, reducing the complexity of [non-white] experience by channelling it through an actor who hasn’t lived it.” There is no “deep truth” or “complexity” to White identity and experience, you see. Whites are one-dimensional, banal and boring compared to complex, highly intelligent and endlessly creative Blacks and other non-Whites.

“Color-blind” means “anti-white”

But we Whites have pretended otherwise in our literature and theatre, creating some very flattering and interesting characters and roles for ourselves. Now it’s time for those juicy roles to go where they really belong: to non-Whites. That’s why, as Baddiel described, the South Asian actor Dev Patel can play the Dickens character David Copperfield, but no White actor can play a South Asian role. Patel himself has said that “Dickens is a truly universal story” and that no-one should object to his “color-blind” casting in the role, because “It’s just people playing people, like actors are meant to do.”

But Patel would not say that a White actor could be chosen to play a brown Indian character like Buddha or the Emperor Ashoka. Color-blind casting works only one way: actors from superior races can take the roles of characters from the inferior White under-race, but not vice versa. And David Baddiel, Maureen Lipman, Sarah Silverman and some other Jews want Jews to be added to the list of roles forbidden to Whites. They can see where cultural trends are heading and want to disassociate Jews from the White under-race. Interestingly, Golda Meir’s own grandson, Shaul Rahabi, doesn’t agree with them. He has said that “I have no issue with Helen Mirren being Jewish or not Jewish playing my grandmother. It doesn’t matter at all. I’m sure Helen Mirren is great.”

Meir’s grandson is an Israeli and lives in Israel, where “whiteness” is prized among Ashkenazi Jews because it separates them not just from Arabs but also from dark-skinned Mizrahi Jews, whom the Israeli prime minister David Ben Gurion (1886-1973) “didn’t want” in the country. As I described in my article “Efface the Facts,” Jewish advertisements sometimes represent Ashkenazim with pale skin, blue eyes and goyish features.

Anti-White hate will worsen

As ever, it comes down to that simple question of “What’s best for Jews?” In Israel, it’s good for Jews to claim “whiteness,” because there’s no competition from genuine Whites. In the West, it’s good for Jews to denigrate Whites, deny White achievements and cast Whites as history’s greatest and most incorrigible villains. This anti-White campaign has incited non-Whites to attack Whites even as those non-Whites are given special privileges in employment and law. Acting is one small but culturally significant part of this White dispossession. All White roles are now open to non-Whites, but Whites are banned from non-White roles.

It’s a blatant double-standard based on an implicit racial hierarchy that contradicts the explicit leftist principle of racial equality. Leftist Jews like Maureen Lipman and David Baddiel now want Jews to get the advantage of the double-standard too. They can see that the campaign of anti-White hate will only get worse. But as anti-White hate worsens, more and more White eyes will open. And among the things those eyes will see is the leading role of Jews in the ongoing war on Whites and Western civilization.